d 
 
 T 
 
 SEPTEMBE 
 
 ST 
 
 11!) & 12 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 SCHOOL OF LAW 
 
 1910. 
 
 DNS, 
 
 DON, W.C. 
 
 ieing Appen- 
 
 Notes. au Analj^tical 
 NY KING, a Master 
 
 of Costs, as 
 
 BENEST, Solicitor. 
 
 the Eleventh 
 
 ARSON, K.C., and 
 /. 18«. cloth. 
 
 ns at Sea. — 
 
 Edilioit. By E. S. 
 CSON, Barrister-at- 
 
 ints. — Seventh 
 
 -at-Law. Demy 8i'o. 
 
 King's Co 
 
 aix .\. to 
 
 Imlox aiu 
 of the Su] 
 
 Benest's . 
 
 lojiuiutoa 
 
 lie lit y Sco 
 
 Carson's '. 
 
 Eilitioti c 
 H. B. BO 
 
 Marsden's 
 
 Bv keg: 
 
 ROSCOE 
 Law. lie 
 
 Goddard's 
 
 K'Uilon. 
 
 \'A0. Fr 
 
 Beverley's Digest of Cases under the 'Workmen's Com- 
 
 peusatiou Acts.— By FRANK BEVERLEY, LL.B., Barrister-at-Law. Hoi/al 8vo. 
 1910. Fricc lOs. cloth. 
 
 'Watts' Assurance Companies Act, 1909. — Annotated, 
 
 with ,111 Iiitio,luction and Index. By JOIIX HENRY WATTS, Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 /iV,-//,s,.,. 1!M0. rr(Ci(Js. c/ot/i. 
 
 "Wigram's Justice'sNote-Book. — Containing a short account 
 
 of the Juiisdictiou and Duties of Justices, and an Epitome of Criminal Law. Ninth 
 Edition. By C. M. ATKINSON, Stipendiary Magistrate for Leeds. Bo>/al l2mo. 
 1910. Prirr 7s. hr/. cloth. 
 
 Napier's New Land Taxes and their Practical Applica- 
 tion.— Beiu" an Examination and Explanation, from a Legal Point of View, of the 
 Laud Clauses of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910. By T. B. NAPIER, LL.D., 
 B;.rristf-r-at-Law. Jtoi/')! 8vo. 1910. Price Vis. Gd. doth. 
 
 Aggs' Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910.— With P'ull Notes, 
 
 an iLtroiluctiou and Index. Sucoii I Ed'Uuin. By W. H. AGGS, Barrister-at-Law. 
 Put, II I ^n,. 1910. I',-lcv 'i^. net. 
 
 Palmer's Company Law. — A Practical Handbook for 
 
 Lawj-ers and Business Men. With an Appendix containing the Companies (Consoli- 
 dation Act. 190S, and Rules. Eighth Edition. By Sir FRANCIS BEAUFORT 
 I'AL.MER, BciK.lier of the Inner Temple. Royal 8i'o. 1910. Price Vis. M. cloth. 
 
 Palmer's Company Precedents. — For use in relation to 
 
 Companies subject to the Companies Acts. 
 
 Paet I. : GENERAL FORMS. Tenth Edition. By Sir FRANCIS BEAUFORT 
 
 PALMER. Bencher of the Inner Temjjle, assisted by the Hon. C. MACNAGHTEN, 
 
 K.C.,and KIJWARD MANSON, BaiTi8ter-at-Law. Poy.Svo. 1910. Price 3Ss. cloth. 
 
 Paet II. : •WIKDiyGTJP FORMS AIO) PRACTICE, Tenth Edition. By Sir- FRANCIS 
 
 BEAUFOIlT PALMhR, Bencher of the Inner Temple. Poy. 8vo. 1910. Trice32s.cl. 
 
 Paet III. : DEBENT'DRFS AND DEBENTURE STOCK . Tenth Edition. By Sir FRANCIS 
 
 f BEAUFORT I'ALMEi;, Bencher of the Inner Temple. PoyalSvo. 1907. Price25s.cl.* 
 
 *,* A Cat((logue of Modern Latv Works', Reports, S;c. pof* f^-"" f<«' 
 
 u
 
 SIEVFA'S AND SONS, LIMITED, 119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON. ' 
 
 Bowen-Rowlands on Criminal Proceedings on Indict- 
 ment and Infomiatiou (in England and Wales.). —S,-coi/d Editia,/. By E. BOWEN- 
 EOWLAXDS, Barrister-at-Law. Ikmij^vo. 1910. rrice 'Ids. doth. 
 
 Russell's Treatise on Crimes and Misdemeanors. — Seventh 
 
 Edition. By WILLIAM F. CRAIES and L. W. KERSHAW, Barristers-at-Law. 
 
 Three Toh. Jioi/ril Hi-o. 1909. Price i/. lOf.: cloth. 
 
 Carver's Treatise on the Law relating to the Carriage of 
 
 Goods by iea.— Fifth Edition. Bv R. A. WRIGHT, Barrister-at-Law. Roycd 8ro. 
 1909. PriceXl. IS.v. chth. 
 
 Lush on the Law of Husband and Wife within the 
 
 Jurisdiction of the King's Bench and Chancery Divisions. By C. MONTAGUE 
 LUSH, K.C., Barrister-at-Law. Third Edition. By W. HUSSEY GRIFFITH, 
 
 Barrister-at-Law. Ilemij 8i'o. 1010. Price 2-3.S. cloth. 
 
 Blackburn on Contract of Sale. — A Treatise on the Effect 
 
 of the Contract of Sale on the Legal Rights of Property and Possession in Goods, 
 Wares, and Merchandise. By LORD BLACKBUR:^. Third Edi'. By WILLIAM 
 NORMAN RAEBURX and LENNARD CHARLES THOMAS, Barristers-at-Law. 
 Royal ^vo. li.'lO. Price T-jS. cloth. 
 
 Farleigh's Manual of Commercial Law. — By E. Austin 
 
 FARLEIGH, Barrister-at-Law. Dcmij 8ro. 1910. Price 9«. cloth. 
 
 Thatcher & Hartley's Law of the Road. — Being a Selec- 
 tion of Leading and other Cases. By J. W^ELLS THATCHER and D. H. J. 
 HARTLEY, Barristers-at-Law. Ilcmy Svo. 1909. Price Is. Qd. cloth. 
 
 Farrer's Precedei^ts of Conditions of Sale of Real Estate, 
 
 Reversions, Policies, .tc. ; with exliaustive Footnotes, Introductory Chapters, and 
 Appendices.— .SVw*/r/ Edition. By FREDERICK EDWARD FARRER and 
 THOMAS PAKENHAM LAW, " Barristers-at-Law. Roi/al 8ro. 1909. Pric- 
 16.V. cloth. 
 
 Hood and Challis' Conveyancing, Settled Land and 
 
 Trustee Acts, and some other recent Acts affecting Conveyancing. With Conimcu- 
 taries. Seventh Edition. By PERCY F. WHEELER, assisted by J. I. STIRLING, 
 Barristers-at-Law. Po>/al Svo. 1909. Price -lO--: cloth. 
 
 Magistrate's General Practice, 1910 (The).— l^y C'harles 
 
 MILNER ATKIN'SON, Stipcniliary Magistrate for Leeds. T>cmi/ Svo. 1910. 
 Price 20.S. cloth. 
 
 Annual Practice (The), 1910.— Edited by B. Fossett Lock, 
 
 BaiTi.ster-at-Law; CHARLES BUJiNEY, a Master of the Supreme Court; and 
 F. A. STRINGKR, of the Central Ollice. Two Vols. Svo. Price, net, 2').«. cloth. 
 *»* A Thin Paper Edition in One Vol., price, net, 2.5.-(., or on India Paper, 'is. Gd. extra. 
 
 A, B, C (The) Guide to the Practice of the Supreme 
 
 Court, 1910. -By F. \{. V. STRINGER, of the Central Onico. Roi/al V2mo. Price, 
 
 net, Tj.v. cloth. 
 
 Annual County Courts Practice, 1910.— By His Honour 
 
 JUDGE SMYLY, K.C., and W. .L BROOKS, Barrister-at-Law. Two Vols. 
 Demy 8«'o. Trice \l. hs. cloth. 
 *,* A' Thin Paper Edition in One Vol., price 'Ins., or on India Paper, 3.v. 6^/. extra. 
 
 Annual Digest (The) for 1909.— liy John Mews, Barrister- 
 
 ut-Law. lioi/al >ito. Prcc Mis. cloth. o / ■» 
 
 *,* This iJifjcHt is also issued qiiarterly, each part lieint/ cumulatire. Price to ftuliscribers, 
 for the four parts, payable in advance, net, \'s. 
 
 Leake's Elementary Digest of the Law of Property in 
 
 Land.— .SV,v,/,-/ Edition. Bv A. E. K.W DA I-L, l!.iniNt.T-a( -L;i w, E.ht.,r of 
 " L.,'ak.; on r,,Mtra.-ls," \-c. " l!o,p,l H/-. V.m. I'm; •j(l,v. rlnl h . 
 
 Leake's Principles of the Law of Contracts. — Fifth Edit. 
 
 By A. E. RAND.VLL, Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8co. 1900. Pncr M. Vis. cloth. 
 
 Fuller's Law relating to Friendly Societies and Indus- 
 trial and Providrnt S.,ri.ti,H.- 77^;;v/ Edition. By ['RIXK BADEN FULLER, 
 ' Barrister-at-Law. Dnmj'Aro. 1910. Price \r)s. rt„th . " 
 
 »,* WHERE to LOOK for YOUK LAW. as set out in the Latest Legal Text-books. Is. net. 
 
 ( 2 )
 
 H IDigest 
 
 OP CASES REI/ATING TO 
 
 SHIPPING, ADMIRALTY, 
 
 INSURANCE LAW.
 
 H digest 
 
 OF CASES RELATING TO 
 
 SHIPPING, ADMIEALTY, 
 
 AND 
 
 INSUEANCE LAW 
 
 FROM THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH TO THE END OF 1897. 
 
 K. G. MARSDEN, 
 
 BARRISTER-AT-LAW. 
 
 liONDON : 
 
 SWEET AND MAXWELL, Limiti.p; B, CHANCERY LANE. 
 STEVENS AND SONS, Limited; 111>, 120, CHANCERY LANE. 
 
 1899.
 
 BBADBUBY, AGNEW, & CO. LD., PRINTEItS, 
 LONDON AND TONBBIDGE 
 
 T
 
 
 u. 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 The foundation of the present compilation is "Fisher's Digest,"" 
 supplemented by Mr. Mew's "Annual Digests" to the end of 
 the year 1897. To the cases collected in those volumes many 
 hundreds of others, from the Admiralty Reports, and from the 
 earlier Chancery and Common Law Reports, have been added; 
 as well as some of the later decisions of the Scotch and 
 Irish Courts. The body of the book constitutes the title of 
 "Shipping" in Mr. Mew's recently published " Digest of 
 English Case Law." 
 
 The arrangement is, in the main, that of "Fisher"; but 
 the introduction of so many new cases has necessitated a large 
 addition to the headings. To facilitate reference, an Alpha- 
 betical Index to the headings has been added at the end of 
 the volume. 
 
 Great care has been taken in the preparation of the Table 
 of Cases ; and the mistakes and omissions which have l)een 
 discovered, too late for correction in the body of the book, are 
 there set right. The attention of the reader is called to the 
 more important of these in the list of Addenda et Corrigenda. 
 
 R. G. MARSDEN. 
 
 C, Nkw Court, Carf.y Strket, 
 Lincoln's Inn, 
 
 20th Dec, 1898. 
 
 B7i44G
 
 LIST OF AI5B11EVIATI0NS. 
 
 [1891] App. Cas. . 
 
 
 
 Law Reports, Appeal Cases (1891 and omvai 
 
 ds^ 
 
 A. & E. . . . ■ Adolpluis and Ellis. 
 
 
 Aleyn . 
 
 
 
 Aleyn. 
 
 
 Ainb. . 
 
 
 
 Ambler. 
 
 
 Anderson 
 
 
 
 Anderson. 
 
 
 Andrews 
 
 
 
 Andrews. 
 
 
 Anst. 
 
 
 
 Anstruther. 
 
 
 App. Cas. 
 
 
 
 Law lieports, Api.eal Cases (1876—1890). 
 
 
 Arn. 
 
 
 
 Arnold. 
 
 
 Asp. M. C. . 
 
 
 
 AspinaU's Maritime Cases, New Series. 
 
 
 Atk. . 
 
 
 
 Atkyns. 
 
 
 Ayliffe . 
 
 
 
 Ayliffe. 
 
 
 Ball & B. . . 
 
 
 
 Ball and P.eatty. 
 
 
 B. A: Ad. 
 
 
 
 Barnewall and Adolphus. 
 
 
 B. & Aid, . 
 
 
 
 Barncwall and Alderson. 
 
 
 B. & C. 
 
 
 
 Barnewall and Cresswell. 
 
 
 B. & S, 
 
 
 
 Best and Smith's Reports. 
 
 
 B. C. C. 
 
 
 
 Lowndes and Maxwell's Bail Court Cases. 
 
 
 B. C. l!ep. . 
 Barnard. Ch. 
 
 
 
 Saunders and Cole's Bail Court Reports. 
 
 
 
 
 Barnardiston Chancery Cases. 
 
 
 Barnard. Q. B. . 
 
 
 
 Barnardiston Q. B. Ca.ses. 
 
 
 Beav. . 
 
 
 
 Beavan. 
 
 
 Bell, C. C. . 
 
 
 
 Bell's Crown Cases. 
 
 
 Benloe 
 
 
 
 Benloe. 
 
 
 Bin<,'. . 
 
 
 
 Bingham. 
 
 
 Bing. (N. c.) 
 
 
 
 Bingham's New Cases. 
 
 
 Bligh . 
 
 
 
 Bligh. 
 
 
 Bligh (N. s.) . 
 
 
 
 Bligh's New Series. 
 
 
 Bos. & P. 
 
 
 
 Bosanijuet and Puller. 
 
 
 Bcs. & P. (.V. 11.) 
 
 
 
 Bo.san(inet and Puller's New Reports. 
 
 
 Bro. C. C. . 
 
 
 
 lirown's Chancery Cases. 
 
 
 Bro. P. C. . 
 
 
 
 . Brown's Cases in Parliament. 
 
 
 Bi-. & B. 
 
 
 
 P)rodcrii> iind liingham. 
 
 
 Jir. & Lush. . 
 
 
 
 Bniwniiig and Lushington. 
 
 
 Brownl. & G. 
 
 
 
 . Brownlow and Gouldsborough. 
 
 
 Buck . 
 
 
 
 Buck's B;!nkrui)tcv Cases. 
 
 
 Bull. N. P. . 
 
 
 
 . BuHer's Nisi Prius. 
 
 
 Bulst. . 
 
 
 
 . Bul.strode's Reitorts. 
 
 
 P>unl). . 
 
 
 
 . Bunbiiry's Reports. 
 
 
 y.mv. . 
 
 
 
 Burrow's Reports. 
 
 
 0. B. . 
 
 
 
 . Common Bcmdi lieports. 
 
 
 C. B. (X. s.). 
 
 
 
 Common l'>inili litports, New Series. 
 
 
 C. L. R. 
 
 
 
 . Common Law Ri ports. 
 
 
 C. P. \). 
 
 
 
 Law Reports, Common Pleas Division. 
 
 
 [1891] Ch. . 
 
 
 
 Law Pejiorts, Chaiicery (1891 and onward 
 
 ^). 
 
 C. Rob. 
 
 
 
 . ('hristoplier lloliinson. 
 
 
 Cab. & E. . 
 
 
 
 . Cabalie and Kllis. 
 
 
 Camp. . 
 
 
 
 . ('ampbi'll's Nisi i'rius. 
 
 
 Car. & K. 
 
 
 
 Carrington and Kirwan. 
 
 
 Car. & P. 
 
 
 
 . Carrington and Payne. 
 
 
 Garth. . 
 
 
 
 . Carthcw. 
 
 
 Gary 
 Ch. D. 
 
 
 
 • ^^^^"y- , TA- • • 
 
 
 
 
 Law Reports, Clnuicery Division. 
 
 
 Cas. in Ch. . 
 
 
 
 Cases in Chancery. 
 
 
 Cas. t. Hardw. 
 
 
 
 . Lee's Cases tempore llardwicke. 
 
 
 Chit. . 
 
 
 
 . Chitty. 
 
 
 CI. & F. 
 
 
 
 . Clark and FinncUy. 

 
 VIU 
 
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. 
 
 C. L. R. 
 
 
 
 
 . Common Law Reports. 1853 — 1855. 
 
 Co. Rep. 
 
 
 
 
 . Coke's Reports. 
 
 Colt. . 
 
 
 
 
 Coltmaii. 
 
 Coll. C. C. 
 
 
 
 
 CoUyer's Chancery Cases. 
 
 C(^Hos' P. C. 
 
 
 
 
 Colles' Privy Council. 
 
 Coiiiyiis 
 
 
 
 
 Comyns. 
 
 Couib. . 
 
 
 
 
 Comberbach. 
 
 Coil. & L. 
 
 
 
 
 Connor and Lawson, Ch. (Ireland). 
 
 Cowp. . 
 
 
 
 
 Cowper's K.B. Reports. 
 
 Cox, C. C. 
 
 
 
 
 Cox"s Crown Cases. 
 
 Cr. & Ph. 
 
 
 
 
 Craig and Phillips. 
 
 C. & J. 
 
 
 
 
 Crompton and Jervis. 
 
 C. .t M. 
 
 
 
 
 Crompton and Meeson. 
 
 C. M. & R. 
 
 
 
 
 Crompton, Meeson and Roscoe. 
 
 Cowp. . 
 
 
 
 
 Cowper. 
 
 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rcl ser.) 
 
 Court of Sessions Cases (Scotland), Third Series 
 
 Ct. of Sess. Cas. {4th ser. ) 
 
 Court of Sessions Cases (Scotland), Fourth Series 
 
 Cunn 
 
 Cunningham. 
 
 Curt. . 
 
 
 
 
 Curteis. 
 
 Dal. . 
 
 
 
 
 Dalison. 
 
 Daniell 
 
 
 
 
 Daniell. 
 
 Dans, ct LI. 
 
 
 
 
 Danson and Lloyd. 
 
 Daiivers 
 
 
 
 
 Danvers. 
 
 D. & R. 
 
 
 
 
 Dowling and Ryland. 
 
 D. & 11., N. 
 
 P. C. 
 
 
 
 Dowling and Ryling, Nisi Prius Cases. 
 
 D. P. C. 
 
 
 
 
 Dowling's Practice Cases. 
 
 D. (X. s.) 
 
 
 
 
 Dowling's Practice Cases, New Series. 
 
 D. &L. 
 
 
 
 
 Dowling and Lowndes' Practice Cases. 
 
 Dear. C. C. 
 
 
 
 
 Deai'sley's Crown Cases. 
 
 Dear. & B. 
 
 
 
 
 Dearsley and Bell. 
 
 DeG. . 
 
 
 
 
 De Gex. 
 
 De G. F. & J 
 
 
 
 
 De Gex, Fisher, and Jones. 
 
 De G. & J. 
 
 
 
 
 De Gex and Jones. 
 
 De G. J. & S 
 
 
 
 
 De Gex, Jones and Smith. 
 
 De G. M. & G. 
 
 
 
 De Gex, Macnaghten and Gordon. 
 
 De G. & Sm. 
 
 
 
 De Gex and Smale. 
 
 Dick. . 
 
 
 
 Dickens. 
 
 Dod. . 
 
 
 
 
 Dodson. 
 
 Doiigl. . 
 
 
 
 
 Douglas. 
 
 Dow 
 
 
 
 
 Dow's House of Lords. 
 
 Dow & CI. 
 
 
 
 
 Dow and Clark. 
 
 Drew. . 
 
 
 
 
 Drewrj'. 
 
 Dr. & Sm. 
 
 
 
 
 Drewry and Smale. 
 
 Dr. 
 
 
 
 
 Drury. 
 
 Dyer . 
 
 
 
 
 Dyer. 
 
 East . 
 
 
 
 
 East. 
 
 Eden . 
 
 
 
 
 Eden. 
 
 Edw. . 
 
 
 
 
 Edwards. 
 
 El. & B!. 
 
 
 
 
 Ellis and Blackburn. 
 
 El. Bl. & El. 
 
 
 
 
 Ellis, Blackburn and Ellis. 
 
 El. & El. 
 
 
 
 
 Ellis and Ellis. 
 
 Eq. Ca. Abr. 
 
 
 
 
 Equity Cases Abridged. 
 
 Eq. R. . 
 
 
 
 
 Equity Reports, 1853—1855. 
 
 Esp. . 
 
 
 
 
 Espina.sse. 
 
 Ex. 
 
 
 
 
 Exchequer Reports (1848—1856). 
 
 Ex. D. . 
 
 
 
 
 Law Rei'orts, Exchequer Division. 
 
 F. &F. 
 
 
 
 
 Foster and Finlason. 
 
 Fitzc.. . 
 
 
 
 
 Fitzgibbon. 
 
 Fonb. . 
 
 
 
 
 Fonblanque. 
 
 Forrest 
 
 
 
 
 Forrest's Exchequer Reports. 
 
 Fort. . 
 
 
 
 
 Fortescue. 
 
 Foster . 
 
 
 
 
 Foster's Crown Cases. 
 
 G. &D. 
 
 
 
 
 Gale and Davison. 
 
 Gale . 
 
 
 
 
 Gale. 
 
 Giff. . 
 
 
 
 
 Gitiard. 
 
 Gilb. K. B. 
 
 
 
 
 Gilbert, King's Bench. 
 
 Gilb. Eu. 
 
 
 
 
 Gilbert, Equity Reports. 
 
 Godb. . 
 
 
 
 
 Godbolt. 
 
 H. Bl. . ' 
 
 
 
 
 Henry Blackstone. 
 
 Hag. Adm. 
 
 
 
 
 Haggard's Admiralty Reports.
 
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. 
 
 IX 
 
 Hall & Tw. 
 Hardr. . 
 Hare 
 
 H. L. Ca.s. 
 H. &C. 
 H. k'N. 
 H. & W. 
 H. &R. 
 H. & M. 
 Hob. . 
 Holt . 
 Holt N. P. 
 Holt Eq. 
 Hopw. & C. 
 Hopw. & P. 
 
 Ir. C.L. R. 
 Ir. Ch. R. 
 Ir. Eq. R. 
 Ir. R. . 
 Ir. R. L. 
 Ir. R. Eq. 
 
 J. &H. 
 J. & W. 
 J. P. . 
 
 J. Kelyng 
 Jacob . 
 Jeuk. . 
 Johns. . 
 J. & H. 
 Jo. & Lat. 
 Jones & C. 
 Jones, W. 
 Jones, T. 
 Jur. . 
 Jur. (n. s.) 
 
 K. & J. 
 
 Kay 
 Keb. . 
 Keen 
 Keihv. . 
 Ken. . 
 Knaj)p . 
 
 L. & C. 
 
 L. J. (o.fs.) Ch. K. 
 
 L. J. Ch. 
 
 L. J. Bk. 
 
 L. J. C. P 
 
 L. J. Ex. 
 
 B. et 
 
 L. J. 
 L. J. 
 
 M. C. 
 Q. B. 
 L. J. I'. C. 
 L. J. P. & M 
 L. J. ]'. 
 L. J. Adin 
 L. J. Eec. 
 L. & M. 
 L. iM. & P. 
 
 Law Repor 
 L. R. A. & E 
 L. R. C. C. 
 L. R. Ch. 
 L. R. C. P. 
 L. R. E<i. 
 L. R. Ex. 
 L. R. H. L. 
 
 R. Sc. 
 
 R. P. C. 
 
 R. P. k M 
 
 R. (,). ]'.. 
 
 R. Ir. 
 
 T. . 
 
 ts : — 
 
 Hall and Twells. 
 
 Hardres. 
 
 Hare. 
 
 House of Lords Cases. 
 
 Hurlstone and Coltnian's Reports. 
 
 Hurlstoue and Norniau's Keports. 
 
 Hurlstone and Walnisley's Reports. 
 
 Harrison and Rutherlbrd. 
 
 Hemming and Miller. 
 
 Hobart. 
 
 Holt's King's Bench. 
 
 Holt's Nisi Prius Reports. 
 
 Holt's Equity. 
 
 Hopwood and Coltman. 
 
 Ho[)wood and Philbrick. 
 
 Irish Com. Law (IS.oO— 1866). 
 Irish Chancery (1850—1866). 
 Irish E([uity Reports. 
 Irish Reports (1894 onwards). 
 Irish Com. Law (1866—1878). 
 Irish E(piity (1866—1878). 
 
 Johnson and Hemming. 
 
 Jacob and Walker's Reports. 
 
 The Justice of the Peace. 
 
 Sir John Kelyng. 
 
 Jacob's Reports. 
 
 Jenkins's Reports. 
 
 Johnson. 
 
 Johnson and Heniming's Reports. 
 
 Jones aTid Latouche. 
 
 Jones and Cary, Irish Exche(iuer. 
 
 Sir W. Jones. 
 
 Sir T. Jones. 
 
 The Jurist. 
 
 The Jurist, New Series. 
 
 Kay and Johnson. 
 
 Kay. 
 
 Keble. 
 
 Keen. 
 
 Keilway. 
 
 Kenyon. 
 
 Knapji, Privy Council. 
 
 Leigh and Cav(;. 
 
 Law Journal Reports 1822 to 1831. 
 
 Chancery. 
 
 lUnkruptcy. 
 
 Common I'leas. 
 
 Exclic(]ner. 
 
 jVIagistrati's' Cases. 
 
 <^U(;en's Bench. )• S 
 
 Privy Council. 
 
 Piobate and .Matrimonial. 
 
 Piol)ate, Divorce, and Admiralty 
 
 A<ltniralty. 
 
 Ecc-lesiastical. J 
 
 Lowndes and Maxwell. 
 
 Lowndes, Jlaxwell, and l'(dlock. 
 
 , 186(i to IST'j inclusive. 
 
 Irisli Law Reports ^879-1892). 
 Law Times, New ."^erie^^.
 
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. 
 
 Latch . 
 Leach, C. C. . 
 Ld. Kay 111. . 
 Lev. 
 
 Lit. Rep. 
 Lofft . 
 Lucas . 
 Lusli. . 
 Lutw. . 
 
 M. C. C. 
 
 M. & M. 
 
 M. & P. 
 
 M. & Rob. . 
 
 M. & Sc. 
 
 M. & S. 
 
 M. & \\. . 
 
 Macl. & K. . 
 
 Mac. & G. . 
 
 Macq. H. L. 
 
 Ma.Ul. . 
 
 Man. & G. . 
 
 JLin. & Ry. 
 
 ilansou 
 
 March . 
 
 Marshall 
 
 Marsh. Lis. 
 
 Mev. . 
 
 ]\Lod. . 
 
 Mont. . 
 
 ilont. & Ayr. 
 
 Mont. & B. 
 
 Mont. & JI'Ar. . 
 
 IMoiit. & C. . 
 
 Mont. D. & D. . 
 
 Moore, P. C. 
 
 Moore, P. C. (x. s.) 
 
 Moore 
 
 Alorrell 
 
 M. & H. . 
 
 Myl. & Cr. . 
 
 Myl. & K. . 
 
 N. & M. . 
 N. & P. . 
 N. R. 
 Nelson 
 Not. of Gas. 
 Nov Park, Lis. . 
 
 [1891] P. . 
 
 P. D. . . 
 
 P. & D. . 
 P. & K. . 
 
 Peake, or Pcake Add. 
 
 Peake, or Peake (x. i 
 
 P. Wms. . 
 
 Pol. . 
 
 Pop. . 
 
 Ph. . 
 
 Price . 
 
 Q. B. 
 
 (,). B. D. . 
 
 [1891] Q. B. 
 
 R. . 
 
 R. kR. . 
 
 R. K. . . 
 
 Ridgw. 
 
 Rep. Ch. . 
 
 Rob. . 
 
 Rol. Abr. . 
 
 RoUe . 
 
 Latcli. 
 
 Leach's Crown Cases. 
 
 Lord Raymond. 
 
 Levinz. 
 . Littleton's Reports. 
 . Lofft. 
 
 Lucas. 
 
 Lushingtou. 
 . Lutwyche. 
 
 . Moody's Crown Cases. 
 . Moody and Malkin. 
 Moore and Payne. 
 Moody and Robinson. 
 Moore and Scott. 
 IMaiile and Selwyn. 
 Meeson and Welsby. 
 Maclean and Robinson. 
 . Macnaghteii and Gordon. 
 
 Macqueen's House of Lords. 
 
 Maddock. 
 
 Manning and Granger. 
 
 Manning and Ryland. 
 
 JIanson's Bk. and Winding-up. 
 
 March. 
 
 Marshall. 
 
 Marshall, Marine Lisurance, 4th edition. 
 
 JMerivalc. 
 
 Modern Reiiorts. 
 
 Montagu. 
 
 JMontagu and Ayrton. 
 
 Montagu and Bligh. 
 
 Montagu and IM 'Arthur. 
 
 Montagu and Chitty. 
 
 Montagu, Deacon, and De Gex. 
 
 Moore's Privy Council Cases. 
 
 ]\loore's Privy Council Cases, New Series. 
 
 John Bavley Moore. 
 
 P.ankruptcy Reports, 1884—1893. 
 
 JIuriihy and Hurlstoue. 
 
 Mylne and Craig. 
 
 Mylne and Keen. 
 
 Neville and Manning. 
 
 Neville and Perry. 
 
 New Reports (1862—1865). 
 
 Nelson. 
 
 Notes of Cases. 
 
 Noy Park, Marine Lisurance, 8th edition. 
 
 Law Reports, Probate and Admiralty (1891 and 
 
 onwards). 
 Law Reports, Probate Division (1876—1890). 
 Periy aud Davison. 
 Perry and Knapp. 
 Peake's Additional Cases. 
 Peake's Nisi Prius Cases. 
 Peere Williams. 
 Pollexfen. 
 Popham. 
 Phillips. 
 Price. 
 
 Queen's Bench Reports (1841—1852). 
 
 Law Reports, Queen's Bench Division (1876 — 1890)> 
 
 Law Reports, Queen's Bench (1891 and onwards) 
 
 The Reports, 1893—1895. 
 Russell and Ryan. 
 Revised Reports. 
 Ritlgway. 
 
 Reports in Chancery. 
 Robinson's Admiralty. 
 Rolle's Al)ridgnient. 
 Rolle's Reports.
 
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. 
 
 XI 
 
 Eose . 
 
 . Rose. 
 
 
 Russ. 
 
 . Russell's Reports. 
 
 
 Russ. & M. 
 
 Russell and Mylne. 
 
 
 Ry. & JI. . 
 
 . Kyan and Jloody. 
 
 
 Salk . 
 
 . Salkeld. 
 
 
 Sauiul. 
 
 . Saunders. 
 
 
 Sayer 
 
 . Saver. 
 
 
 Scott 
 
 . Scott. 
 
 
 Scott (x. n. ) 
 
 . Scott's New Reports. 
 
 
 Sch. & Lef. 
 
 . Schoales and Lefroy. 
 
 
 Select Ca. Ch. . 
 
 Select Cases in Chancery. 
 
 
 Shower 
 
 . Shower's King's Bencli Reports, ?.r. 
 
 I edition 
 
 Sid. . 
 
 Sidertin. 
 
 
 Sim. . 
 
 . Simons. 
 
 
 Sim. (y. s.) 
 
 Simons, New Series. 
 
 
 Sim. & S. . 
 
 . Simons and Stuart. 
 
 
 Sir T. Raym. . 
 
 . Sir Thomas Raymond. 
 
 
 Skinner 
 
 . Skinner. 
 
 
 Sm. & G. . 
 
 . Smale and Giffard. 
 
 
 Smith 
 
 . Smith. 
 
 
 Spinks 
 
 Spinks, Admiralty. 
 
 
 Spinks P. C. . 
 
 . Spink's Prize Cases. 
 
 
 St. Tri. . 
 
 . State Trials. 
 
 
 Str. . 
 
 . Strange. 
 
 
 Styles 
 
 . Styles. 
 
 
 Stark. 
 
 . Starkie. 
 
 
 Swabey 
 
 . Swabey. 
 
 
 Swanst. 
 
 . Swanston. 
 
 
 T. Jone.s . 
 
 . Sir T. Jones. 
 
 
 T. Ravm. . 
 
 Sir T. Raymond. 
 
 
 Taunt. 
 
 Taunton. 
 
 
 Tenii Rei.. 
 
 . Durnford and East. 
 
 
 Tothiil . 
 
 . Tothiil. 
 
 
 Turn. 
 
 . Turner. 
 
 
 Turn. .^ R. 
 
 . Turner and Russell. 
 
 
 Tvrw. 
 
 . Tyrwhitt. 
 
 
 Tyrw. .^ G. 
 
 . Tyrwhitt and Granger. 
 
 
 Vent. 
 
 . Ventris. 
 
 
 Vern. 
 
 . Vernon. 
 
 
 Ves. .len. . 
 
 A'esey, sen. 
 
 
 Yes. . 
 
 . Vesey, jun. 
 
 
 V. .<c 1!. . 
 
 Vesey and Beames. 
 
 
 \V. 151. . 
 
 . Sir William Blackstono. 
 
 
 W. Kclvn;< 
 
 . Sir W. K.dyng. 
 
 
 W. I!. ■ . 
 
 . Weekly Reporter. 
 
 
 W. Rol.. . 
 
 . AVilliam Robinson. 
 
 
 "West 
 
 . West. 
 
 
 WirrhtW. . 
 
 . Wiglitwick. 
 
 
 Willes . 
 
 . Wiil.'s. 
 
 
 W. W. kU. . 
 
 . Wilmore, Wol]a-<ton and Hodges. 
 
 
 Wilmot . 
 
 AVilniot's Notes. 
 
 
 Wils. K. ]',. 
 
 Wilson's King's IJeucli. 
 
 
 Wils. Ch. 
 
 Wilson's Cliancery. 
 
 
 Wils. Ex. 
 
 . Wilson's Kxche(|uer. 
 
 
 Wins. Saun.l. . 
 
 Williams' Saun(ler.s. 
 
 
 Y. & G. . 
 
 . Younge and Coliyer's Equity Excliei 
 
 uer. 
 
 Y. & C. G. G. . 
 
 "S'ounge and Coliyer's Chancery Case 
 
 s. 
 
 Y. & J. . 
 
 . Younge and Jervi.s. 
 
 
 Yelv. 
 
 . Yelvcrton. 
 
 
 Vounf,'e . 
 
 Younge. 

 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 A. 
 
 Aalje Willemina, L. R. 1 A. & E. 107 . 
 
 Abel V. Potts, 3 Esp. 242 ; 6 R. R. 82t) , 
 
 Abernetliy i\ L.iiulale, 2 Doiigl. 539 
 
 Abithol V. Eiistow, 2 .Marsh. 157 ; G Taunt. 464 
 
 Abraham, 28 L. T. 775 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 34 
 
 Acacia, Hamilton v. Harland, 42 L. T. 264 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 254- 
 
 1109 
 
 C. A 
 
 Acator v. Burns, 47 L. J. Ex. 566 ; 3 Ex. D. 282 ; 26 W. R. 621 
 
 63 L. T 
 
 28 L. J 
 ; 9 Jur. 
 
 Accomac (Charterpartv), 59 L. J. Adm. 91 ; 15 P. D. 208 
 39 W. R. 1 33 ; 6 Asp. M. 0. 579— C. A. 
 (Salvage), [1891] P. 349 ; 66 L. T. 335 ; 7 Asp. U. C. 153- 
 Achard v. Ring, 31 L. T. 647 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 422 . 
 Achilles, 25 L. T. 605 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 165 
 Acramau v. Bates, 2 El. & Bl. 456 ; 29 L. J. Q. B. 78 ; 6 Jur. (K.s 
 
 1 L. T. 322 
 
 Actiuon, 1 Spinks, 176 ........ 
 
 Actif, Swabey. 237 ; 3 Jur. (n.s.) 893 ; 5 AV. R. 547 . . ' 
 
 Active, 5 L. T. 773 
 
 Acton V. Castle .Mail Packets Co., 73 L. T. 158 : 8 A.sp. M. C. 73 
 Ada, The, and The SKi)plio, 28 L. T. 825 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 4 
 
 Adah, 2 Hag. Adm. 326 
 
 Adair v. Young, 12 Ch. D. 136 ; 40 L. T. 598— C. A. 
 Adalia, The Elizabeth and The, 22 L. T. 74 . 
 Adam v. Wallace, 18 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4tli ser.) 153 
 Adams r. Hall, 37 L. T. 70 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 496 
 
 ,, V. Royal Mail Steam Packet Co., 5 C. B. (x.s.) 492 ; 
 
 33 ; 7 W. R. 9 
 
 „ V. Mackenzie, 13 C. B. (n.s.) 442 ; 32 L. J. C. P. 92 
 
 849 ; 7 L. T. 711 ; 11 W. R. 342 .... 
 „ V. Saunders, 4 Car. & P. 25 ; M. & M. 373 . 
 Adamson v. Gill, 16 W. R. 639 ; 18 L. T. 278 . . . 
 
 ,, t'. Newcastle Steamship Freight Insurance Association, 4 
 Q. B. 670 ; 4 Q. B. D. 462 ; 41 L. T. 160 ; 27 W. R. 818 ; 
 
 M. C. 150 
 
 Adderley v. Cook.son, 2 Camp. 15 
 
 Adilis V. Baker, 1 Anst. 222 ; see 6 R. R. 28, n. . 
 
 Addison v. Overend, 6 Term Ri-j). 766 ..... 
 
 Admiral lioxer, Swahey, 193 .... ... 
 
 Admiral Court, 15r. & (!old. pt. 2, 16 
 
 Admiralty, Case of the, 12 Co. Rep. 79 
 
 Adonis, 5 C. Rob. 256 ....•••• 
 
 Adriatic, 33 L. T. 102; 3 Asj). M. (;. 16 
 
 yKolus (or (Eolus), 42 L. J. Adm. 11 : L. R. 4 A & i']. 29 ; 2S L. 
 
 21 W. R. 704 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 516 
 
 Africa, 1 Spinks, 299 
 
 Atina Van Singe, Swabey, 514 ; 1 L. T. 340^ .... 
 African Coni[)any c. i>uli, 1 Show. K. P). 135 .... 
 African Merchants Co. v. British and Koreigu Marine Insurance 
 L. J. Ex. 60 ; L. R. 8 Ex. 154 ; 28 L. T. 233 ; 21 AV. R. 184 ; 
 
 M. C. 558— Ex. Ch • . • 
 
 African Steamship Co., In re, 1 K. k J. 326; 3 W. 1'. 316 
 
 ,, ,, ,, V. Swanzy (Collision : Limitation), 2 K. & 
 
 25 L. J. f'h. 870; 4 AV. R. 210 . 
 ,, ,, ,, r. Swaiizy (Limitation ; Interest ; Costs), 2 
 
 660 ; 2.> L. J. Ch. 870 ; 4 "\V. R. 692 .... 
 
 S. 
 
 coJ. 96-3 
 
 1255, 1319 
 
 108 
 
 . 1.325 
 
 . 1003 
 
 23, 982, 986 
 
 A. . 373, 
 
 501, 522, 1301 
 
 737; 
 
 . 33& 
 
 C. A. 647 
 
 588, 1244 
 
 585, 1019' 
 
 294; 
 
 542, 
 
 852, 
 
 C. 
 
 (K.S.) 
 
 549 
 848 
 677 
 856 
 
 . 872. 
 
 811, 827 
 
 142. 
 
 81 
 
 693 
 
 521 
 
 232, 238 
 P. 
 
 510' 
 
 1237 
 
 1263 
 
 292 
 
 L. J. 
 
 41 
 
 248 
 
 425 
 
 36, 157 
 
 .52, 840' 
 
 763, 857 
 
 927 
 
 928 
 
 564 
 
 712, 793 
 
 I ; 
 
 603, 615 
 6.^)8 
 96<l 
 . 1.309 
 o.. 42 
 . Asp. 
 
 . 1217 
 
 . 740 
 
 660; 
 
 739, 740, 753 
 
 &J. 
 
 740, 753 
 
 h
 
 xiv TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Africano, 63 L. J. Adm. 125 ; [1894J P. 141 ; 6 R. 767 ; 70 L. T. 250 ; 42 
 
 "W. R. 413 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 427 967 
 
 Afrika, 49 L. J. Ailni. 63 ; 5 P. I). 192 : 42 L. T. 403 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 
 •266 651 
 
 Afton (Owners) v. Northern Marine Insurance Co., 14 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 
 (4th scr.) 54 1063 
 
 Agamemnon, 48 L. T. 880 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 92 612, 637 
 
 Agincourt (Admiralty), 1 Hag. Adm. 271 925 
 
 (Appearance), 47 L. J. Adm. 37 ; 2 P. D. 239 . . . 925, 974 
 Aglaia, 57 L. J. Adm. 106 ; 13 P. D. 160 ; 59 L. T. 528 ; 37 AY. R. 255 ; 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 337 617 
 
 Agnes Otto, 56 L. J. Adm. 45 ; 12 P. D. 56 ; 56 L. T. 746 ; 35 W. R. 550 ; 
 
 6 Asp. Jl. C. 119 767 
 
 Agra, The, and The Elizabeth Jenkins, Tlie Agra (Owners) v. The Elizabeth 
 
 Jenkins ^Owners), 4 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 435 ; 36 L. J. Adm. 16 ; L. R. 
 
 1 P. C. 501 ; 16 L. T. 755 ; 16 W. R. 735 . 815, 816, 825, 859, 860 
 
 Agricola (Pilot), 2 W. Rob. 10 ; 7 Jur. 157 . . 766, 772 (2), 777, 780, 781 
 Aguadillana, 60 L. T. 897 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 390 . . 693, 699, 700, 804, 833 
 
 Aguilar v. Rodgers, 7 Term Rep. 421 ; 4 R. R. 478 1306 
 
 Aid, 50 L. J. Adm. 40 ; 6 P. D. 84 ; 44 L. T. 843 ; 29 W. R. 614 ; 4 Asp. 
 
 M C 432 ...... ... 999 
 
 Aimo, The, and The Amelia, 29 L. T. 118 ; 21 W. R. 707 : 2 Asp. M. C. 
 
 96— P. 688, 705, 707, 808, 815 
 
 Aitchison v. Lohre, 49 L. J. Q. B. 123 ; 4 App. Cas. 755 ; 41 L. T. 323 ; 
 
 28 W. R. 1 ; 4 Asj). M. C. 168— H. L. {E'.) . . . 580, 631, 1268 
 Aitken v. Bedwell. 14 M. & W. 68 ; 31 R. R. 712 136 
 
 „ r. Ernsthausen, 63 L. J. Q. B. 559 ; [1894] 1 Q. B. 773 ; 9 R. 
 
 758 ; 70 L. T. 822 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 462— C. A 500 
 
 Alton u. Stephen, 1 App. Cas. 456— H. L. (Sc.) 900 
 
 Akerblom v. Price, 50 L. J. Q. B. 629 ; 7 Q. B. D. 129 ; 44 L. T. 837 ; 
 
 29 W. R. 797 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 441— C. A 615 
 
 Akerman v. Humphrey, 1 Car. & P. 53 576 
 
 Aktieselkab Helios v. Ekinan, 66 L. J. Q. B. 538 ; [1897] 2 Q. B. 83 ; 76 
 
 L. T. 537 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 244— C. A 239 
 
 Albano, The Schwann and The, [1892] 419 ; 69 L. T. 34 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 
 347— C. A 698, 706, 741, 764 
 
 Albert, The Freir, The, 44 L. J. Adm. 49 ; 32 L. T. 572 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 
 5S9 763, 978 
 
 Albert Average Association, In re, Blyth's Case, L. R. 13 Eq. 529 ; 20 
 
 W. R. 504 1029, 1363 
 
 Albert Crosby (Wages ; Apprentice), Lush. 44 .... 113, 1005 
 
 :, ,, (Money in Registry ; Attachment), Lush. 101 . . . 986 
 
 ,, ,, (Master : Necessaries), L. R. 2 A. & E. 37 : 18 W. R. 410 963 
 
 Albert Edward, 44 L. J. Adm. 49 ; 24 \V. K. 179 . . . . 70, 688 
 
 Albion (Co-ownership), 6 L. T. 164 . . . . . . . . 47 
 
 ,, (Necessaries), 27 L. T. 723 ; 1 Asp M. C. 481 . . . 92, 98, 946 
 
 ,, (Salvage; Towage), Lush. 282 614 
 
 ,, (Salvage ; Award), 3 Hag. Adm. 254 (540 
 
 Albis, 73 L. T. 664 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 92 785 
 
 Alcock V. Cook, 2 M. & P. 625 ; 5 Bing. 340 ; 7 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 126 ; 30 
 
 R. R. 625 949 
 
 ,, V. Leeuw, 1 Cab. & E. 98 273 
 
 ,, V. Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation, 13 Q. B. 292 ; 18 L. J. 
 
 0. B. 121 ; 13 Jur. 445 1321 
 
 V. Taylor, 2 H. & W. 58 ; 6 N & M. 296 469 
 
 Aldridge v. Bell, 1 Stark. 498 ; 18 R. R. 814 1280 
 
 ,, V. Simmons, 1 Stark. 214 80 
 
 Aldworth v Stewart, 4 F. & F. 957 : 14 L. T. 862 . . . . 81, 869 
 
 Aleppo, 35 L. J. Adm. 9 ; 14 L. T. 228 848, 849 
 
 Alert, United Steam Tug Co. v. The Alert, 11 R. 702; 72 L. T. 124 ; 
 
 7 Asp. M. C. 544 1016 
 
 Aletheia, 13 AV. R. 279 648 
 
 Alexander (Bail), 48 L. T. 797 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 89 . . . 84], 983, 1009 
 
 ,, (or Alexander Larsen) (Necessaries), 1 W. Rob. 288, 346 . 962 
 
 ,, (Breach of Blockade), 4 C. Rob. 93 564 
 
 ,, V. Campbell, 27 L. T. 462 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 447— C. A. Reversing 
 
 41 L. J. Ch. 478 ; 27 L. T. 25 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 373 . 1357, 1362 
 ,, V. Dowie, 1 H. & N. 152 ; 25 L. J. Ex, 281 .... 85 
 
 ,, V. Malcolmson, Jr. Rep. 2 Ch. 621 337 
 
 ,, V. Simms (Co-ownei-s ; Mortgagees' Suit), 20 Beav. 123 ; 24 
 
 L. J. Ch. 618 46, 97 
 
 V. Simms (Co-owners ; Mortgage of Part), 5 De G. M. & G. 57 ; 
 •2 Eq. Rep. 861 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 721 ; 2 W. R. 329— L.JJ. . . 45, 181
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xv 
 
 Alexander Larseu. See Alexander, sujira. 
 
 Alexandra, 14 L. T. 742; 14 W. K, 466 518 
 
 Alexandria, Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Jones, 41 L. J. Adm. 94 ; 
 
 L. R. 3 A. & E. r)74 ; 27 L. T. 5t55 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 464 . 144, 839, 945 
 
 Alexiadi v. Kobinson, 2 F. & F. 679 540 
 
 Alien, Swabey, 189 621 (2) 
 
 Alfred (Assessors), 7 Xot. of Ca.s. 352 ; 3 W. Rob. 232 ... 999 (2) 
 
 „ (Collision ; Repairs), 3 W. Rob. 232 726 
 
 ,, Wellfield (Owners) r. Adanison, 50 L. T. 511 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 214 657, 681 
 
 Alhambra, Br. & Lnsli. 286 846 (2) 
 
 ,, (Chaiterparty), 50 L. J. Adm. 36 ; 6 P. D. 68 ; 44 L. T. 636 ; 
 
 29 W. R. 655 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 410— C. A 243, 253 (2) 
 
 Alice, The, and The Prince.ss Alice, 38 L. J. Adm. 5 ; L. R. 2 P. C. 245 ; 
 
 19 1.. T. 678 ; 17 AV. R. 209 1014 
 
 ,, ,, and The Rosita. The Alice (Owners) v. The Rosita (Owners) 
 (Collision; Pleadings),'5 Jloore, P. C. (N..S.) 300; 38 L J. Adm. 20 ; 
 
 L. R. 2 P. C. 214 ; 19 L. T. 753 993 
 
 Alina (Salvage), Lush. 378 618 
 
 ,, (Admirultv : County Court), 49 L. J. Adm. 40 ; 5 Ex. D. 227 ; 42 
 
 L. T. 517 ; "29 AV. R. 94 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 257— C. A. . . 493, 938, 939 (2) 
 
 Aline (Bottomry), 1 AA\ Rob. Ill 222, 225, 719, 738 
 
 Aliwal, 18 Jur. 296 707 
 
 Allan, The, and The Flora. 14 L. T. 860 . . . . 692, 697, 825, 826 
 ,, (or Allen) i: Gripper, 2 Cr. & J. 218 ; 2 Tyr. 217 ; 1 L. J. Ex. 71 . 576 
 ,, V. Johnstone, 29 Ct. cf Sess. Cas. (4tliser.) 364 . . . .317 
 
 „ v. Sundius, 1 H. & C. 123 917 
 
 Allen V. C(dtart, 52 L. J. Q B. 686 : 11 Q. B. D. 782 ; 48 L. T. 944 ; 31 
 
 AV. R. 481 : 5 Asp. M. C. 104 243, 357, 452 
 
 ,, t: Garbntt, 50 L. J. Q. B. 141 ; 6 Q. B. D. 165 ; 29 W. R. 287 ; 
 
 4 Asp. il. C. 520, n . . 939 
 
 ,, (or Allan) v. Gripper, 2 C. & J. 218 ; 2 Tyr. 217 ; 1 L. J. Ex. 71 . 576 
 c. (*uebec AVarehouse Co.. I'l A]i]t. Cas. 101 ; 56 L. J. P. C. 6 ; 56 
 
 L. T. 30 . . 695 
 
 ,, (or Allan) v. Sugrue, 3 Alan. & Ry. 9 ; 8 B. & C. 561 ; 7 L. J. (o.s.) 
 
 K. B. 53 1225 
 
 Allerton, Sailing Shiii Co. r. Falk, 6 Asp. Al. 0. 287 . . . 278, 478 
 
 Alleson v. Alarsh, 2 A'ent. 181 122, 933, 953 
 
 Allison V. Bristol Alarine Insurance Co., 1 App. Cas. 209 ; 34 L. T. 8<)9 ; 
 
 24 AV. R. 1039 : 3 Asp. AI. C. 178— H. L. (E.) . . 412, 1114, 1232 
 
 Allkins V. Ju])e, 46 L. J. C. P. 824 ; 2 C. P. D. 375 ; 36 L. T. 851 ; 3 
 
 Asp. AI. C. 449 1137 
 
 Allnutt V. Inglis, 12 East, 527 ; 11 R. R. 482 879 
 
 Allport V. Thomas, Gilb. Va[. 2-27 61, 965 
 
 Allwood V. Henckell, 1 Park. Ins. (8tii ed.) 399 .. . 1279 (Addenda) 
 
 Alma, Lush. 378 618 
 
 Alnc H.dnie (Demurrage), 62 L. .1. .\dni. 51 ; [1893] P. 173 : 1 R. 607 ; 68 
 
 L. T. 862 ; 41 AV. R. 572 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 341 . . 480, 1017 
 ,, (Damage to Cargo ; Collision ; Stay). 47 L. T. 309 : 4 Asp. 
 
 Al. C. 593 . . . . ' . . . . 749, 991 
 
 (Bail), 47 L. T. 307 ; 4 Asp. Al. C. 591 . . . 983, 1009 
 
 Alpha, Lusli. 89 ; 2 L. T. 521 677, 679 
 
 Alps, 62 L. J. Adm. .V.): [1893] P. 109 ; 1 K. 587; ti>i L. T. 621 ; 41 
 
 W. R. 527 ; 7 As].. AI. C. 337 1079 
 
 Alsace Lorraine (or Alsace and Lorraine), (■)2 L. J. Atlm. 107 ; [l.'^93] !'. 
 
 209; 1 R. 632 ; 69 L. T. 261 ; 42 \V. K. 112 ; 7 Asp. Al. ('. 362. 1079, 
 
 1251 
 Alsager v. St. Katherine's Dock Co., 14 M. & AV. 794 ; 15 L. J. Ex. 34 . 436 
 Alsey n Albfrtus/.eii, Tlie Jonge Andrie.s, 11 Moore, P. C. 313; Swabey, 
 
 303 ; 6 W. R. 198 <>15 
 
 Alston i'. ('am].b<'ll, 4 I'.ro. P. C. 476 H-JO 
 
 „ V. Herring, 11 Ex. 822 ... .... 502 
 
 Aitair, 66 L. J. Adm. 42 ; [1897] P. 105 ; 76 L. T. 263 ; 45 \V. K. 622 ; 
 
 8 As).. M. C. 224 ^ • 683 
 
 Amalia, Cail r. Pajiayanni (Limitation), 1 Aloore, P. C. (N.s.) 471 ; l'>r. 
 & Lasli. 151 : 2 N. R. 533 : 32 L. J. Adm. 191 ; 9 Jur. 
 (N.s.) 1111 ; 8 L. T. 805 ; 12 AV. R. 24 . . 740, 747, 753, 760 
 (Damages ; Interest), 34 L. J. Adm. 21 ; 13 AV. K. Ill ; 5 N. K. 
 
 164, /( '=^9 
 
 ,, (Plea.lings), Br. & Lush. 311 ; 10 L. T. 826 . . 844 (Addenda) 
 
 Amazon, The, and The Osprey, 36 L. .1. Adm. 4 1010 
 
 Amelia, The Aimo and 'Hn; 29 L. T. 118 ; 21 AV. R. 707 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 
 ()(j_p c ^^'i> 705, 707 
 
 (Costs of Reference), 23 L. T. 544 ; 19 AV. K. 216 . . 863, 1022 
 
 /;— 2
 
 Kvi TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 American, The, autlTlie Syria, ITnion Steamship Co. r. Tlu- Aracaii, 43 L. J. 
 Adm. .30 ; L. K. 6 P. C. 127 ; 31 L. T. 42 ; 22 W. 11. 927 ; 2 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 350— P. C 754 (3), 792, 814, 826 
 
 Amorique, (;oinpa<,'iiie Geuerale Traiisatlaiitii[ue r. The Barry (Owners). 
 
 L. K. 6 P. C. 468 : 31 L. T. Sr)4 ; 23 W. K. 488 ; 2 Asp. U. C. 460 631, 644 
 
 Amery r. Rogers, 1 Esp. 208 1139 
 
 Amies v. Stepliens, 1 Str. 127 . . . . . . . . . 76 
 
 Aniosr. Temperlev. 3 M. .<: W. 798 ; 11 L. .r. Ex. 183 .... 401 
 
 Amphitrite, 2 Hag. Adm. 403 128 
 
 AmpDhill. 5 P. D. 224 ; 29 W. R. 523 958 
 
 Amstel, 47 L. .J. Adm. 11 ; 2 P. D. 186 ; 37 L. T. 138 ; 26 W. R. 69 ; 3 
 
 Asp. M. V. 488— C. A 1010, 1016 
 
 An Arranging Creditor, In re, Ir. Rep. 1 Eq. 216 68 
 
 Andalina,' 12 P. D. 1 ; 56 L. T. 171 ; 35 W. R. 336 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 62 . 120 
 Andalusia, The, and The Northumberland, 12 L. T. 584 . . . . 631 
 
 Andalusian (Collision ; Launch), 46 L. J. Adm. 77 ; 2 P. D. 231 . . 697 
 (Limitation), 47 L. J. Adm. 65 ; 3 P. I). 182 ; 39 L. T. 204 : 
 
 27 W. R. 172 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 22 741, 746 
 
 Anderida, 20 L T. ISO 1003 
 
 Anders Knape, 48 L. J. Adm. 53 ; 4 P. D. 213 ; 40 L. T. G84 ; 4 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 142 615 
 
 Ander.son v. Clarke, 2 Bing. 20 ....... . 551 
 
 V. Hillies, 12 C. B. 499 ; 21 L. .T. C. P. 150 ; 16 Jur. 819 . 414, 918 
 ,, V. Hoen, The Flying Fish, Br. & Lush. 436 ; 3 Moore, P. C. 
 
 (N.s.) 77 ; 34" L. .J. Adm. 113 ; 12 L. T. 619 . 730, 853, 1006 
 ,, V. Morice, 46 L. J. C. P. 11 ; 1 App. Cas. 715 ; 35 L. T. 566; 
 
 25 W. R. 14 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 290— H.L. (E.) . 1087, 1121, 1124 
 „ V. Ocean Steamship Co., 54 L. J. Q. B. 192 ; 10 App. Cas. 107 ; 
 52 L. T. 441 ; 33 W. R. 433 ; 5 Asp. M. C;. 401— H. L. (E.); 
 and see S. C. in C. A. nom. Ocean Steamship Co. v. Ander- 
 son . _ . . _ 583, 992 
 
 ,, V. Pacific Fire and JLarine Insurance Co., L. E. 7 C. P. 65 ; 26 
 
 L. T. 130 ; 20 W. R. 280 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 220 . . .1183 
 V. Pitcher, 2 Bos. & P. 164 ; 3 Esp. 124 ; 1 Stark. 262 ; 5 R. R. 
 
 565 1167 
 
 t: Royal Exchange Assurance, 7 East, 38; 3Smith, 48; 8 R. R. 589 1281 
 ,, V. San Roman (Owners), 42 L. J. Adm. 46 ; L. R. 5 P. C. 
 
 301 ; 28 L. T. 381 ; 21 W. R. 393 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 603 240, 277, 
 
 290, 530 
 V. SiUars, 22 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 105 . . . . 38, 49 
 
 ,, V. Thornton, 8 Ex. 425 1303 
 
 V. Wallis, 2 M. & S. 240 ; 3 Camp. 440 ; 14 R. R. 642 . , 1289 
 Anderson, Tritton & Co. v. Ocean Steamship Co., 10 App. Cas. 107 ; 
 
 52 L. T. 441 ; 38 W. R. 481 ; 5 A.sp. M. C. 401— H. L. (E.) 583, 
 
 992 
 Anderston Foundry Co. r. Law, 7 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 836 . . 210 
 Andree v. Fletcher, 2 Term Rep. 161 ; 3 Term Rep. 266 ; 1 R. R. 701 . 1036 
 Andrew v. .Moorhouse, 5 Taunt. 435 ; 1 Marsh. 122 ; 15 R. R. 544 . 367, 369 
 
 ,, V. Robinson, 3 Camp. 199 ; 13 R:-R. ^8 1344 
 
 Andrew Wilson, Br. & Lush. 56; 32 L. J. Adm. 104 ; 9 Jur. (n.s.) 474; 
 
 8 L. T. 177 663 
 
 Andrews v. Mellish, 5 Taunt. 4 96 ; 2 I\L & S. 27 ; 16 East, 312 . . 1222 
 Andrews and Alexanders Case, London Marine Assurance Association, 
 
 //(. re, L. R. 8 Eq. 176 ; 20 L. T. 943 ; 17 W. R. 784 ... 1364 
 
 Andrina, L. R. 3 A. & E. 286 ; 22 L. T. 488 643 
 
 Aneroid, 47 L. .J. Adm. 15 ; 2 P. D. 189 ; 36 L. T. 448 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 418 965 
 
 Angerona, 1 Dods. 382 212 
 
 Angerstein, Ex parte, 1 Bro. C. C. 399 1334 
 
 Angier v. Stewart, 1 Cab. & E. 357 425 
 
 Anglican, The Georgiana v. The, 21 AV. R. 280 727 
 
 Anglo-African Co. ;. Lamzed, 1 H. & R. 216 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 145 ; L. R. 
 
 1 C. P. 226 ; 12 .lur. (x.s.) 294 ; 13 L. T. 796 ; 14 W. R. 477 . . 516 
 Anglo-Egyptian Navigation Co. r. Rennie, 44 L. J. C P. 130 ; L. R. 10 
 C. P. 271 ; 32 L. T. 467 ; 23 W. R. 626 ; .see S. C. in Exch. Ch. (no 
 
 judgment) L. R. 10 C. P. 571, i; 19 
 
 Anglo-Indian, 33 L. T. 233 ; 23 W. R. 882 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 1— P. C. . 796 
 
 Ann .Malcolmson u Clayton (Pleading), Lush. 55 ; 13 Moore, P. C. 198 ; 
 
 3 L. T. 128 ; 8 W. R. 567 843, 861, 995 
 
 Ann and Mary, 2 W. Rob. 189 ; 7 Jur. 999 805, 999 
 
 Anna, 46 L. J. Adm. 15 ; 1 P. D. 253 ; 34 L. T. 895 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 
 237— C. A 962, 965 
 
 Anna and Bertha, 64 L. T. 332 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 31 , . . (Addenda) 975 
 Anna Helena (Order for Sale), 48 L. T. 681 ; 5 Asj). M. C. 61 . 671, 986
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xvii 
 
 Anna Helena (Salvagel, 49 L. T. 204 ; :> Asp. JI. C. 142 . . . 643 
 
 AiinanJale, 47 L. J. Adm. 3 ; 2 P. D. 218 ; 37 L. T. 139 ; 26 W. K. 38 ; 
 
 3 Asp. M. C. 489— C. A. ; and see S. C. 37 L. T. 364 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 504 27 
 Annapolis v. The Johanna Stoll (Collision ; Practice), Lush. 295 : 30 
 
 L. J. Adm. 201 ; 4 L. T. 417 593, 766, 767, 779, 842, 857 
 (Collision ; Burden of Proof), 5 L. T. 326 .... 703 
 
 Golden Light, and H.M.S. Hayes (Collision; Burden of Proof), 
 
 Lush. 355 ; 5 L. T. 37- P. C 593, 613, 626, 775 
 
 Anne, 2 Hag. Adm. 279, n 955 
 
 Annen v. Woodman, 3 Taunt. 299 ; 12 R. R. 663 . . . 1151, 1157, 1305 
 
 Annett v. Carstairs, 3 Camp. 354 122, 191 
 
 Annette, 42 L. J. Adm. 13 ; L. R. 4 A. & E. 9 ; 28 L. T. 372 ; 21 W. R. 
 
 552 ; 1 Asp. ]M. C. 577 669 
 
 Annie, 56 L. J. Adm. 70 ; 12 P. D. 50 ; 56 L. T. 500 ; 35 W. R. 366 ; 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 117 610 
 
 Annie Childs, Lush. 509 1004 
 
 Annie Sherwood, 12 L. T. 582 ; 13 W. R. 641, 965 115 
 
 Annot Lvle 55 L. J. Adm. 62 ; 11 P. D. 114 ; 55 L. T. 576 ; 34 "W. R. 
 
 647 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 50— C. A 692, 703, 1011 
 
 Anonymous (Prohibition), 1 Barnard. K. B. 410 929 
 
 ., (Fishery ; Navigation), 1 Camp. 516, /( 881 
 
 (Wages), 2 Camp. 320, ;; 108 
 
 ,, (Owners), Cas. in Ch. pt. 2, 36 55 
 
 (Bottonny), Cas. in Ch. pt. 2, 130 222 
 
 (Owner's Liability), Cas. in Ch. pt. 2, 238 . . . 106, 207 
 „ (Prohibition), 2 Chit. Pep. 359 ... . 930, 953, 956 
 
 „ (Pirate Goods), 12 Co. Rep. 73 O.^-l 
 
 „ (Prohibition), Cro. Eliz. 685 930 
 
 (Master), Fortesc. 230 96, 953 
 
 (Bottomry), Holt, 650 --^07 
 
 ,, (Owner), 1 Ir. Rep. Eq. 216 68 
 
 ,, (Pirate Goods), Jenkins, 325 936 
 
 (Arrest; Bail), 1 Keb. 44 983 
 
 (Prohibition), 1 Keli. 393 936 
 
 ,, (Bottomry), 1 Keb. 520 '-^01 
 
 {Insurance; Fraud), Lofit, 212 1181 
 
 „ (Seamen ; Wages), 1 L<1. Raym. 639, 739 _ . . . . 128 
 
 ,, (Insurance ; Condemnation), 1 Ld. Raym. 724 . . . 1234 
 
 ,, (Seamen ; AVages), 1 Ld. Raym. 650 131 
 
 (Prohibition), March. 110 930,931,9.52 
 
 (Mortgagor), cited 3 P. V\'ms. 360 189 
 
 ,, (Wages), 2 Sliow. 283 107,108 
 
 (Seamen ; Wages). Siderfin, pt. 1, 179 107 
 
 (Wages), Siderfin, pt. 1, 326 107 
 
 ,, (Necessaries ; Master), Siderfin, pt. 1, 453 . . . 87, 162 
 
 ,, (Owners), Skinner, 230 ^5 (2) 
 
 (Insurance), Skinner, 243 1060, 1067 
 
 ,, (Insurance; Fraud), Skinner, 327 1181 
 
 ,, (Insurance ; Warranty), Skinner. 404 11J5 
 
 ,, (Admiralty jurisdiction). Style, 207 935 
 
 „ (Admiralty ; not Court of Record), Style, 183 . . .948 
 
 ,, or Delanoy i;. Rol)son (Insurance), 5 Taunt. 605 . . 1082,1136 
 
 ,, (Prohibition ; Possession), 1 Vent. 308 931 
 
 (Piohibition ; Wages), 1 Vent. 343 932 
 
 v. Noell, 1 Keb. 100 383, 500 
 
 c. Westmore, 6 Esp. 109 1067 
 
 Antelope (Salvage), 42 L. J. Adm. 42; L. R. 4 A. c^ E. 33 ; 28 L. T. / I : 
 
 21 W. R. 464 ; 1 Asj.. M. C. 513 'i'-i. 8-'3 
 
 (Salvage ; Kvidence), 27 L. T. 663 ; 1 Asp. .Al. C. 477 . ')3;>, 6/3 
 
 Anthon I'. F'isher, 3 Dougl. 166 69 
 
 Anthony v. Moline, 5 Taunt. 711 ^1] 
 
 Apollo (Restraint), 1 Hag. Adm. 306 ', -,'. 
 
 ,, Tiic Apollo (Owners) c. Port Talbot Co., 61 L. J. Adm. 2.> ; [1S91J 
 
 App. Ca.s. 499 : 65 L. T. 590; 7 Asj). M. C. 115 ; 55 J. P. 820— H. L (E.) 911 
 
 Appleby I'. Dods, 8 East, 3(i0 ; 9 R. R. 450 10( 
 
 Appleton ?-•. Brian, 1 Keb. 711 '^^J^ 
 
 Apprentices' Case, 1 Leach, C. C. 2u3 13^ 
 
 Acjuila, 1 C. Rob. 37 i" , , '-, ,- 
 Arab, 5 Jur. fx.s.) 417 1 -n-, 
 
 Araminta, Swabey, 81 ; 2 Jnr. (n.s.) 310 ; 4 W. R. 396 . . • 12/, J/2 
 Ara.xes, The, andTlic lilack Prince,General Iron Screw Co. v. Moss, 15 Moore, 
 
 P. C. 122 ; 5 L. T. 39-P. C '86, 810, 826 
 
 Arbutus, 11 L. T. 208 /6i>, 7/7
 
 xviii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Aveauirelo r. Thompson, 2 Camp. 620 : 12 R, R. 758 . .1107, 1109, 1170' 
 Anlaiulliu, The, or Th« Krouprinz, otJ L. J. Adm. 49; 12 App. Gas. 256 ; 
 
 56 L. T. 345 ; 35 W. R. 783 ; 6 Asp. .M. 0. 124— H. L. (E.) . . 731 
 
 Anlincaph', 3 Hag. Adm. 151 608, 635 
 
 Argentina, L. K. 1 A. & E. 370 ; 16 L. T. 743 349 
 
 Argentino, The Grauie (Owners) v. Tiie Argentino (Owners), 69 L. J. Adm. 
 
 17 : 14 App. Gas. 519 ; 61 L. T. 706 ; 6 Asp. M. G. 433— H. L. (E.) . 734 
 Avgo (Salvage ; Costs; Jurisdiction), Swabey, 112 .... 676,922 
 „ (Salvage ; Value), 64 L. J. Adin. 12 ; [1895] P. 33 ; 71 L. T. 640 ; 11 
 
 R. 675 ; 43 W. R. 415 ; 7 Asp. M. G. 534 944 
 
 „ (Compulsory Pilot), Swabey, 462 768, 772, 775 (2) 
 
 Argos, Cargo ex, The Hcwsons, Gandet r. Brown (County Courtj, 42 L. J. 
 
 Adm. 1 ; L. R. 5 P. C. 134 : 28 L. T. 
 77 ; 21 AV. R. 420 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 
 360 492 (2), 938 (3> 
 
 ,, ,, ,, Gandet r. Brown, (Carriage of Goods;, 42 
 
 L. J. Adm. 49 ; L. R. 5 P. C. 134 ; 28 L. T. 745 ; 21 W. R. 707 ; 1 
 Asp. M. C. 519 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 6 . . . 369, 379, 484, 528, 538. 
 
 Ariadne, 1 W. Rob. 411 200 
 
 ., The Owl and The Ariadne, Little r. Burns, 9 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 
 (4thser.)118 787, 803, 810 (2}> 
 
 Ariel, Sorensen v. The Queen in Her Office of Admiralty, 11 Moore, P. C. 
 
 119 150 
 
 Arina, 56 L. J. Adm. 57 ; 12 P. D. 118 ; 57 L. T. 121 ; 35 W. R. 654 ; 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 141 95. 
 
 Arizona, 49 L. J. Adm. 54 ; 5 P. D. 123 ; 42 L. T. 405 ; 28 ^V. R. 704 ; 
 
 4 Asp. iM. C. 269— C. A 874 (2), 875 
 
 Arkle (or Harkle) v. Henzell, 8 El. & Bl. 828 ; 27 L. J. M. C. 110 : 
 
 4 Jnr. (x.s.) 306 31, 51 
 
 Arklow, Emery v. Cichero, 9 App. Cas. 136 ; 53 L. J. P. C. 9 ; 50 L. T. 
 
 305 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 219— P. C 710 
 
 Armadillo, 1 AV. Rob. 251 ; 1 Not. of Cas. 75 222 
 
 Armet v. Innes, 4 Moore, 150 : 21 R. R. 737 1217 
 
 Armstrong t'. Allan, 4 R. 107; 67 L. T. 417 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 293— 
 
 C. A 50S 
 
 ,, V. Armstrong, 3 E(i. Rep. 973 ; 21 Beav. 71 ; 24 L. J. Cli. 659 ; 
 
 1 Jur. (N.s.) 859 ; 3 W. R. 563 ; S. C. on motion for 
 
 injunction, 2 W. R. 678 33, 34 
 
 ,, V. Gaselee, 58 L. J. Q. B. 149 ; 22 Q. 15. D. 250 ; 59 L. T. 
 
 891 ; 37 AV. R. 462 : 6 Asp. M. C. 353 . . . 843, 993 
 ,, V. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, L. R. 10 Ex. 47 ; 44 
 
 L. J. Ex. 89 ; 33 L, T. 228 ; 23 W. R. 295 . . 726, 866 
 
 ,, ^^. McGregor, 2 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser. ) 339 . . . . 150 
 
 r. Smith, 1 Bos. & P. (n.r.) 299 .. . . . 123 
 
 Arno, 72 L. T. 621 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 5— C. A 385 
 
 Arnold v. Cowie, The Glenduror, 1-. R. 3 P. C. 589 ; 24 L. T. 499 ; 1 
 
 Asp. M. C. 31 . . 634, 645 
 
 Aruot V. Stewart, 5 Dow, 274 ; 16 R. R. 123 1166 
 
 Arratoon Apcar, Ocean Steamship Co. i: Apcar. 59 L. J. P. C. 49 ; 15 
 App. Cas. 37 ; 62 L. T, 331 ; 38 W. R. 481 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 
 491— P. C 711, 786, 820, 861 
 
 Arrospe V. Barr, 8 Ct. of Sess. Gas. (4thser.) 602 317 
 
 Arrow Steamship Co. v. Tyne Commissioners, The Crystal, 63 L. J. Adm. 
 146 ; [1894] App. Cas. 508 ; 6 R. 258 ; 71 L. T. 346 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 
 513-H L. (E.) . 893 
 
 Artaza v. Smalljiiece, 1 p]sp. 23 ... ^^^ 
 
 Arthur, 6 L. T. 536. ...'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 654 
 Arthur Average Association, In re, 45 L. .1. Ch. 346 ; 3 Ch. D. 522 ; 34 
 
 L. T. 388 : 24 W. R. 514 . . 1364 
 " " >> ,, Cory and Hawkesley, £x parte (or 
 
 Hargrove, Ex 2}artc), 44 L. J. Ch. 
 509 ; L. R. 10 Ch. 542 ; 32 L. T. 
 713 ; 23 W. R. 939 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 
 570— L.JJ 1035, 1351 
 
 ,'' , " ,, De Wintons Case, 34 L. T. 942; 3 
 
 Asp. M. C. 245 X361 
 
 Arthur Gordon and The Lidependence, Jladdox v. Fisher, Lush. 270 ; 14 
 
 Moore, P. C. 103 ; 4 L. T. 563 ; 9 AV. R. 582 . . 690, 698, 736, 755, 
 A ^1 r, , 810, 811, 814, 826 
 Arthur v. Barton, 6 M. k W. 138 ; 9 L. J. Ex. 187 62 
 
 Asfar y Blundell, 65 L. J. Q. B. 138 ; [1896] 1 Q. B. 123 ; 73 L. T. Gis] 
 44 W. R. 130 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 106— C. A. Affirming, 15 R. 481 383, 
 
 1125, 
 
 1142. 1185
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xix 
 
 Ashcroft r. Crow Orchard Colliery Co., 43 L. J. Q. B. 194 ; L. R. 9 Q. B. 
 
 510 ; 31 L. T. 266 ; 22 W. R. 825 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 397 . . . 471 
 
 Ashley v. Pratt, 1 E.\. 257— Ex. Ch. Affirming 16 M. k W. 471 ; 17 
 
 L. J. Ex. 135 1218 
 
 Ashmall t: Wood, 3 Jnr. (x.s.) 232 ; 5 AV. R. 397 ; and see 2 Jur. (x.s.) 
 
 827 ; 4 W. R. 694 68, 86, 563 
 
 Ashton's Case, Lit. Rep. 166 ......... 929 
 
 Asia, 60 L. J. Adni. 38 ; [1891] P. 121 ; 64 L. T. 327 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 
 •2.5 861 
 
 Assicurazioni Generali and Schenker v. Bessie Morris Steamship Co., 61 
 L. J. Q. B. 754 ; [1892] 2 Q. B. 652 ; 4 R. 33 ; 67 L. T. 218 ; 41 
 
 W. R. 83 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 217— C. A 274 
 
 Assievedo v. Cambridge, 10 Mod. 77 1138, 1240 
 
 Assyrian, 63 L. T. 91 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 525 999 (2) 
 
 Aste r. Sturaore, 1 Cab. & E. 319. Reversed, see lb. 321, n. . . 311, 541 
 
 Athol, 1 W. Rob. 374 723 
 
 Atkinson v. Abbott, 11 East, 135 ; 1 Camp. 535 1209 
 
 ,, V. Cotesworth, 5 D. &; R. 552 ; 3 B. & C. 647 ; 1 Car. & P. 339 ; 
 
 3 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 104 ; 27 R. R. 450 .. . 98, 389 
 
 ,, V. Great Western Insurance Co., 27 L. T. 103 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 
 382 105 
 
 V. Maling, 2 Term Rep. 462 ; 1 R. R. 524 172 
 
 ,, v. Ritchie, 10 East, 530 ; 10 K. R. 372 .... 306,507 
 
 ,, V. Stephens, 7 Ex. 567 ; 21 L. J. Ex. 329 527 
 
 „ V. Woodall, 1 H. & C. 170; 31 L. J. Ex. 352; 8 Jur. (x.s.) 
 
 720 ; 6 L. T. 361 ; 10 W. R. 671 629 
 
 Atlantic, 9 Jur. (x.s.) 183 ; 7 L. T. 647; 11 "W. R. 188 . . . 103 (2) 
 
 Atlantic Mutual JMarine Insurance Co. v. Huth, 16 Ch. D. 474 ; 44 L. T. 
 
 67 ; 29 W. R. 387 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 369 88, 522: 
 
 Atlas, Hewett i'. Aylan, 15 l\Ioore, P. C. 329 ; 31 L. J. Adm. 210 ; 8 Jur. 
 
 (N.s.) 753 ; 6 L. T. 737 ; 10 W. R. 850 . . 599, 600, 624, 643 
 
 ,, (Compulsory Pilot), 2 W. Rob. 502 ... . 763, 771, 774 (2) 
 
 Attorney-General v. Case, 3 Price, 302 ; 17 R. R. 566 . . . 776, 780 
 
 ,, V. Norstedt, 3 Price, 97 ; 17 R. R. 554 . . .164 
 
 V. Terry, L. R. 9 Ch. 423 ; 29 L. T. 716 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 
 217— C. A 881 
 
 Attwood V. Ca.se, 45 L. J. M. C. 20 ; 1 Q. B. D. 134 ; 33 L. T. 507 ; 24 
 
 W. R. 94 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 84 138 
 
 (or Atwood) V. Sellar, 49 L. J. Q. B. 515 ; 5 Q. B. D. 286 ; 42 
 L. T. 644 ; 28 W. R. 604 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 283— C. A. . . 584, 1247 
 
 Atty V. Parish, 1 Bos. & P. (n.k.) 104 49:3 
 
 „ V. Lindo, 1 Bos. & P. (\.u.) 236 ; 8 R. R. 788 1071 
 
 Aubert v. Gray, 3 B & S. 169 ; 32 L. J. Q. B. 50 ; 9 Jur (x.s.) 714 ; 7 
 
 L. T. 469; II W. R. 27— Ex. Ch 1091, 1293 
 
 ,, V. Jacobs, Wightw. 118 1139 
 
 Audlev V. Dutr, 2 Bos. & P. Ill ; 5 R. P. 549 1168 
 
 August, 60 L. J. Adm. 57 ; [1891] P. 328 ; 66 L. T. 32 ; 7 Asj). M. C. 
 
 110 525 
 
 Augusta (Compulsorv Pilot), 57 L. T. 326 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 161— C. A. . 768 
 
 ,, (Bottomry),' 1 Dods. 283 205,215 
 
 Aurora, The, and The Robert Ingram, Lush. 327 787 
 
 „ (Pleading), 1 W. Rot). 322 995 
 
 Austen Friars, 6 R. 739 ; 71 L. T. 27 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 503 ... 265 
 
 Austin V. Ol.sen, 9 B. & 8. 46 ; 37 L. J. M. C. 34 ; L. R. 3 Q. B. 208 ; 17 
 
 L. T. 537 ; 16 \V. R. 426 132 
 
 Australia. Lapraik v. Burrows, Swabey, 480 ; 13 Moore, P. C. 132 ; 7 
 
 W. R. 718 37, 155, 1.58, 161 (2), 164, 946 
 
 Australian Agricultural Co. v. Saunders, 44 L. J. C. P. 391 : L. R. 10 C. P. 
 
 668 ; 33 L. T. 447 ; 3 Asj.. M. C. 63— Ex. Cii IIOS 
 
 Australian Diiect Steam Navigation Co., lure, Baker, £x parte, 44 L. J. 
 
 ( li. 676 ; L. P. 20 Eq. 325 924, 978, 1005 
 
 Australian Insurance Co. r. Jackson, 33 L. T. 286 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 26-P. C. 105,. 
 
 1097 
 Australian Steam Navigation Co. v. Morse, 8 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 482 ; 
 
 L. R. 4 P. C. 222 ; 27 L. T. 357 ; 20 
 W. R. 728 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 407 88, 523, 
 
 1301 
 ., ,, ,, ,, V. Smith, Tiie Birk.sgate anil The Barra- 
 
 bool, 58 L. J. P. C. 101 : 14 Aj.p. Cas. 321 : 61 L. T. 135 . . 823 
 
 Ava, The Ron a and The, 29 L. T. 781 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 182. 780, 788, 791, 810 
 
 Avenir (Salvage), Ir. Rep. 2 E(i. Ill .'')97, 679 
 
 „ (Default .Judgment), 53 L. J. Adm. 63 ; 9 P. D. 84 ; 50 L. T. 512 : 
 32 "\V. R. 755 ; 5 A.sp. M. C. 218 988
 
 XX 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Avery v. Bowden, 6 El. & Bl. 953 ; 26 L. J. Q. B. 3 ; 3 Jiir. (s.a.) 238; 
 
 5 W. R. 4o— Ex. Ch 283 
 
 Avon Steamshii. Co. i\ Leask, 18 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 280 . 460, 533 
 
 Aztecs, 21 L. T. Tit? i^9t> 
 
 B. 
 
 Bacon'.s Casi:, Sir Tliomas, Leon. ]>t. 2, 103 ; \>t. 3, 192. . . .934 
 Baclchouse v. Ripley, 1 Park. Ins. (8th e<l.) 24 .... 1050, 1101 
 
 Baerselinan r. Bailey, 64 L. J. Q. B. 707 ; [1895] 2 Q. B. 301 ; 14 R. 481 ; 
 
 72 L. T. 677 ; 43 W. R. 593 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 4— C. A. . . . 337 
 Bahia (Admiralty ; Freight), Br. & Lush. 61, 292; 11 Jur. (x.s.)90; 12 
 
 L. T. 145 372, 521, 535, 970 
 
 „ (Witnesses; Costs), L. R. 1 A. & E. 15; 11 Jur. (x.s.) 1008; 14 
 
 W. R. 411 1021 
 
 Baillie v. Moudigliaui, 1 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 116 . . . 374, 376, 1125 
 Baily v. Grant, 1 Ld. Raym. 632 ; Salk. 33 ; Holt, 48 ; 12 Mod. 440 . 933 
 Bain v. Case, M. & M. 262 ; 3 Car. & P. 496 . . . . 1212, 1319, 1334 
 Baiubridge i'. Nielson, 10 East, 329 ; 1 Camp. 327 ; 10 R. R. 316 . 1290 (2) 
 Bainei-. McCowan (or Johnston), TheNiobe, [1891] App. Ca,s. 401; 65 L. T. 
 
 502 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 89 ; 18 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 57— H. L. (So.) 682, 
 
 754, 758 
 Baines v. Ewing, 4 H. & C. 511 ; 35 L. J. Ex. 194 ; L. R. 1 Ex. 320 ; 14 
 
 L. T. 733 : 14 W. R. 732 1336 
 
 ,, V. Holland, 10 Ex. 802 ; 3 C. L. R. 593 ; 24 L. J. Ex. 204 . . 1061 
 ,, v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., 6 W. R. 247 .... 1110 
 „ V. Woodfall. 6 C.^B. (x.s.) 657 : 28 L. J. C. P. 338 ; 6 Jur. (n.s.) 19 1336 
 
 Baker, ^.c^Jarte (Sale and Transfer), IS L. T. 313 150 
 
 ,, ,, See Australian Direct Steam Navigation Co., In re, supra 
 
 ,, V. Buckle, 7 Moore, 349. . 191 
 
 ,, r. Graj', 17 C. B. 462 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 161 ; 2 Jur. (x.s.) 400 ; 4 
 
 W. R. 297 22 
 
 ,, V. Langhorn, 4 Camp. 396 ; 2 :\Iarsh. 215 ; 6 Taunt. 519 ; 16 
 
 R. R. 662 1310 
 
 ., V. The Theodore H. Rand (Owners). The Theodore H. Rand, 56 
 L. J. Adm. 65 ; 12 App. Cas. 247 ; 56 L. T. 343 ; 35 W. R. 
 781 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 122— H. L. (E.) .... 709,807 
 
 ,, V. Towry, 1 Stark. 436 ; 18 R. R. 803 1096 
 
 Baldney r. Ritchie, 1 Stark. 338 .' . 67 
 
 Baldwin v. Rochfort, 1 Wils. 229 138 
 
 Ball I'. Blackniorc, 1 Keb. 14 934 
 
 ,, V. Trelawny, Cro. Car. 603 927 
 
 Ballantyne v. Mackinnon, 65 L. J. Q. B. 616 ; [1896] 2 Q. B. 455 ; 75 L. T. 
 
 95 ; 45 W. R. 70 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 173— C. A. . . . 1009, 1078, 1321 
 Bailey v. De Arroyave, 7 A. & E. 919 ; 3 K & P. 114 ; 7 L. J. Q. B. 91 302, 537 
 Baltazzi v. Ryder, The Panaghia Rhomba, 12 jVIoore, P. C. 168 . . 285 
 
 Baltic, The C. S. Butler and The, 43 L. J. Adm. 17 ; L. R. 4 A. & E. 178 ; 
 
 30 L. T. 475 : 22 W. R. 759 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 237 . . . 601, 688 
 
 Baltic Merchant, Edw. 86 128 
 
 Baltica, 1 Spinks's Prize Cases, 264 .153 
 
 Baltimore, 2 Dods. 132 624 
 
 Bamberger v. Commercial Credit Mutual As.surance Co., 15 C. B. 676 ; 
 
 3 C. L. R. 568 ; 24 L. J. C. P. 115 : 1 Jur. (x.s.) 500 . . . 1327 
 Banda and Kirwee Booty, 44 L. J. Adm. 41 ; L. R. 4 A. & E. 436 ; 33 
 
 L. T. 332 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 66 . . 951 
 
 Bangor Castle, 74 L. T. 768 ; 8 A.sp. M. C. 156 120 
 
 Banner r. Benidge, 50 L. J. Ch. f^30 ; 18 Ch. D. 254 ; 44 L. T. 680 ; 29 
 
 \V. R. 844 ; 4 A.sp. il. C. 420 . 189 
 
 Banni.ster v. Breslauer, 36 L. J. C. P. 195 ; L. R. 2 C. P. 497 ; 16 L. T. 
 
 418 ; 15 W. P. 840 448(2) 
 
 Banshee (Assessors ; Appeal). 56 L. T, 725 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 130— C. A. 999, 1011 
 (Risk of Collision), 57 L. T. 841 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 221— C. A. . 785, 
 
 786, 814 
 
 Barbara, 4 C. Rob. 1 205 
 
 Barber v. Fleming, 10 B. & S. 879 : 39 L. J. Q. B. 25 ; L. R. 5 Q. B. 
 
 59 ; 18 W. R. 254 . .' 1089, 1111 
 
 ,, V. Fletcher, 1 Dongl. 305 1149, 1165 
 
 ,, V. French, 1 Dou;rl. 294 1259 
 
 ,, V. Meyerstein, 39' L. J. C. P. 187 ; L. R. 4 H. L. 317 ; 22 L. T. 
 
 808 ; 18 W. R. 1041— H. L. (E.) . . .77, 305, 350, 535, 879 
 
 ,, V. Taylor, 5 M. & W. 527 ; 9 L. J. Ex. 21 313 
 
 ,, (or Barker) v. AVharton, 1 Barnard. K. B. 2 ; 2 Ld. Raym. 10"2 928, 933
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xxi 
 
 Barclay v. Collier, 5 Bro. P. C. 445, n 1240 
 
 „ V. Cousins, 2 East, 544 ; 6 R. R. 505 1128 
 
 ,, V. Cuculla y Gama, 3 Dougl. 319 ; cited 1 Term Reii. 33 : no,n. 
 
 Barclay r. Heygena ........ 75 
 
 , V Heygena. See Barclay r. Cuculla y Gama, supra. 
 ,. V. Stirling. 5 M. & S. 6 ; 17 R. R. 245 .... 1072, 1117 
 
 Barcore, Evre v. XN'atsous, 65 L. J. Adm. 97; [1896] P. 294 ; 75 L. T. 168; 
 
 8 AsiK M. C. 189 342 
 
 Barefoot, 14 Jur. 841 ^'^9= «^'-^ 
 
 Bariu'T v. Christie, 5 East, 398 ; 1 Smith, 462 ; 2 Smith, 142 ; 7 R. 1!. 719 1172 
 ° (Addenda) 
 
 V Cla<^«-ett, 3 Bos. & P. 201 ; 5 East, 398 ; 6 R. R. 759 . . 1150 
 „ V. Day, 8 East, 57 __ ■ • 'Z^ 
 
 V Royal Exchange Assurance Co., 5 East, 09 ; 7 R. R. 657 . . 1171 
 ,',' V. Stauton, 3 Ch. D. 502 ; 35 L. T. 652 ; 25 W. R. 237 ; 3 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 294— C. A 1345 
 
 „ V. Vaux, 2 Camp. 541 ; 11 R. R. 791 1176 
 
 Barker v. Blakes, 9 East, 283 ; 9 R. R. 558 . . . . 1210, 12S1, 1293 
 
 ,, V. Chapman, cited 1 Mad. 399 29 
 
 V. Hicrhlev, 15 C. B. (n.s.) 27; 32 L. J. C. P. 270 ; 10 Jur. (x.s.) 
 
 391 ; 9 L. T. 228 ; 11 W. R. 968 56, 982 
 
 V. Hodgson, 3 M. &:■ S. 267 ; 15 R. R. 485 507 
 
 V. JansuR, Potter c. Campbell, 37 L. J. C. P. 105 ; L. R. 3 C. P.. 
 
 303 ; 17 L. T. 473; 16 W. R. 399 1139, 1237 
 
 „ r. McAndrew, 18 C. B. (n.s.) 759; 34 L. J. C. P. 191; 11 
 
 Jur. (N.s.) 637 ; 12 L. T. 459 ; 13 W. R. 779 . . . . 274 
 (or Barber) v. Wharton, 1 Barnard. K. B. 2 ; 2 Ld. Raym. 1052 . 928 
 ,, c. Windle, 6 E. & B. 675 ; 25 L. J. Q. B. 349 ; 2 Jur. (X-.s.) 1069 ; 
 
 4 \V. R. 603— Ex. Ch 2/0 
 
 Barlow v. Leckie, 4 Moore, 8 l'^4/ 
 
 Barn.uliston r. Chapman, 4 East, 121, n. ; Bull. X. P. 34. . . . 54 
 Baron Abenlare. The Gertrude, 13 P. D. 105 ; 59 L. T. 251 ; 36 W. R. 
 
 616; 6 Asp.' M. C. 315— C. A. Affirming 56 L. J. Adm. 106 . . 1008 
 
 Baron Holberg, 3 Hag. Adm. 244 763 
 
 Barough v. Catlin, 1 Keb. 88 92° 
 
 Ban"!;. Cooper, 2 Ct. of Sess. Ca. (4th ser.) 14 2* 
 
 „ V. Gibson, 3 M. & W. Si-O ; 7 L. J. Kx. 124 149 
 
 Barraclough v. Brown, 66 L. J. Q. B. 672 ; [1897] App. Cas. 61.o ; /6 L. 1. 
 
 797; 8 Asp M. C. 290— H.L. (E.) 89o 
 
 Barrasi'. London Assurance Co., 1 Esp. 411 106a 
 
 Banet v. Duttou, 4 Camp. 333 ; 16 R. R. 798 476, 477 
 
 Barrick v. Baba, 2 C. B. (n.s.) 563 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 280 . . . . 200 
 Barron v. Stewart, The Panama, 6 Moore, P. C. (x.s.) 484 ; 39 L. J. Adm. 
 
 37 ; L. R. 3 P. C. 199 ; 23 L. T. 12 ; 18 W. R. 1011— P. C . . -'08 
 Barrow, Bx parte, Worsilell, //i re, 6 Cli. D. 783 ; 46 L. J. Bk. 71 ; 36 
 
 L. T. 325 ; 25 W. R. 466 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 387 . . 576 (Addenda) 
 V. Bell, 7 I), k II. 244 ; 4 P.. & C. 736 ; 4 L. J. (o.s.) K. P.. 47 ; 
 
 2y R. R. 468 ^'^••6 
 
 V. Coh'S, 3 Cami>. 92 ; 13 R. P. 763 364 
 
 Barrow's Case, 14 Eiist, 346 ■ • ^'^ 
 
 Barrow-in-Furness JIutual Ship Insurance Co. v. Ashburmr, .-4 L. J. 
 
 Q. ]i. •ill : 54 L. T. 58 ; 5 Asp. .M. C. 527-C. A. . . • • 1U30 
 Barry v. Arnaud, 10 A. & E. 646 ; 2 P. k D. 633 ; 9 L. J. Q. B. 226 . 949 
 liarth-tt r. P.nlland, 10 B. k C. 760 ; 8 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 264. . . 1206 
 
 Bartl.-V, Swabev, 198 *'"S' ^^\' 
 
 Baiton V. WoUilord, Comb. 56 _ • » • „ , V, 
 
 Burwick v. Bmnyeat, 36 L. T. 250; 25 W. R. 395; 3 Asp. JI. C. 3/6 23/. 309, 147 
 
 Barzillai V. Lewis, 3 Dougl. 126 • • 1150,11/2 
 
 Bas.set Hound, 6 R. 764 ; 71 L. T. 12 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 467— C A. . . /••/ 
 Bastifcl V. Llov.l, 1 H. & C. 388 ; 31 L. J. Ex. 413 ; 10 W. R. /2l . 463, 87 
 
 Batavia, 2 Do.ls. 500 Vd 
 
 BatHvier(vSalvage), 1 Si)inks, 169 ; o°^ 
 
 „ (Ship at Anchor ; Pilot), 2 W. l!"b. W ; lo Ji.r. 19 . 692, 69;., /bo 
 
 „ (Cost.s), 59 L. J. Adm. 54 ; 15 P. D. 37 ; 02 L. T. 406 ; 38 ^\ . H. 
 
 522 : 6 Asp. M. C. 500— C. A 859, 1024 
 
 „ Netherlands Steamboat Co. r. Styles, 9 ^loorc, P. C. 286. Athrni- __ 
 
 ing, 1 Spinks. 378 691, /Ol, //2, //4 
 
 Bateman t'. Green, Ir. Rep. 2 C. L. 166 . . • • • • • -'^^ 
 Bates r. Don Pablo Sora, The Mobile, Swabey, 127 ; 10 Moore, !>. C. 46/_ 6.(8 
 
 / /.I, MUti 
 
 „ V. Grabham, Holt, 469 •. ,•,,..; ,V-o^ 
 
 ;; f. Hewitt. 36 L. J. Q. 15. 282 ; L. K. 2 ... B. 595 ; 15 W . K. 11,2. 1U9,
 
 879' 
 
 xxii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Bates r. Todd, 1 ]\r. & Rob. 106 324 
 
 Bates & Co., E.v jHirtc, I'logress Assurance Co., In re, 39 L. J. Cli.' 496 '; 
 
 18 W. R. 7'2'2 ........ ' 1308 
 
 Batson, Kr purtr, 3 Bro. C. C. 362 ...".' .' .' .' '38 172 
 
 ., (or Matson) v. Soobel, 4 Jkirr. 2258 ..'..* ' 884 
 
 Battenbury r. Fciitoii. 3 Jly. & K. ,50;") ; 3 L. J. Ch. 203 . ' ' 63 
 
 Battersl.y r. Smyth, 3 Madd. 110 ' * ' 30 33 
 
 Battliyany v. Bouch, 50 L. J. Q. B. 421 ; 44 L. T. 177 ;' 29 W r' 665'- ' 
 
 4 Asp. iM. C. 380 • • . ^^^ 
 
 Batuit (or Batutir. Hartley, L. R. 7 Q. B. 594 ; 26 L. T. 968"; 20 W R 
 
 899 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 337 . 
 Baumvoll iMaimthctur von Curl Selieilder v. Furness (or Gilchrist and 
 
 Furness), 62 L. J. (.,). B. 201 ; [1S93] App. Cas. 8 ; 1 K. 59- 68 
 
 L. T. 1; 7 Asp. ]\1. C. 263— H. L. (E.) 238 297 
 
 Ba.\ter i\ Blanchard, P.lanchard, In re, 3 D. & R. 177 ; 2 B. & C. 244 ; ' 
 
 26 R. R. 329 9.>2 Q29 955 
 
 ,, V. Chapman, 29 L. T. 642 ; 2 Asp. M C. 170 . ' '"'-'' gg^ 
 
 Bayley r. Chadwiek 39 L. T. 429 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 59-H. L. (E.) 168 (Addenda) 
 
 „ r. Grant, 1 Ld. Ruym. 632 ; Holt, 48 ; Salk. 33 . 93.3 
 
 Bazett V. Meyer, .5 Taunt. 824 ' " 121O 
 
 Beacon Life and Fire Assurance Co. r. Gibb, 1 Moore P C ' (n s) 73 "• 
 
 1 N R 110 : 9 Jnr. (x.s.) 185 ; 7 L. T. 574 ; 11 W. R. 194 ' .1045, 1103 
 Beadnell r. Beeson, 9 B. & S. 315 ; 37 L. J. Q. B. 171 ; L. R 3 O B 439 • 
 
 18 L. T. 401 ; 16 W. R. 1008 . . . . . ' 064- 
 
 Beal 1-. Marchais, The Bougain^-ille and The James C. Stevenson, L R 5 
 
 P. C. 316 : 28 L. T. 822 ; 21 AV. R. 653 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 21. 785, 786, 787, 
 
 T, 1 n^i , T. ''Sf'' ''90 (2), 805, 812, 815 
 
 Bealer.Thompson,4East,546 ; 1 Smith,U4 ; 3 Bos. &P.405 ;7R.R.636 108 111 
 Bean j;. Stupart, 1 Dougl. 11 . . \lf,R 
 
 Beard v. Rhodes, 28 L. T. 168 ; 1 Asp. U. C. 557 .' .'.''' 460 
 Beatrice, otherwise The Rappahannock (Possession), 36 L. J. Adm. 9 ] 956 
 
 " ..\ o^t"t ., " (Security tor Costs; Foreign Govern- 
 ment), 36 L. ,J. Adm. 10 1010 
 
 Beatson ■;;. Haworth, 6 Term Rep. 531 ; 3 R. R. 258 • • • • ^^^^ 
 
 ,, V. Schank, 3 East, 233 ; 7 R. R. 436 . . . " ' * 077 
 
 Beaumaris Castle, 40 L. J. Adm. 41 ; 24 L. T. 448 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 19 ' 678 
 Bcavan (or Bevan), In the goods of, L. R. 1 P. & M. 15 ; 35 L J P 25 • 
 
 T? Q n^Vf'- [f-""-^ ^^" ' 1-^ ^- '^^- ^^^ ■' 14 W. R. 147 . 138 (Addenda) 
 Beaver, 3 C. Rob. 292 130^ g^y 34^ 
 
 Beckett 1;. West of England Marine Insurance Co., 25 L. 't. 739 • 1 Asp ' 
 
 M- C. 185 ' i ^Q^Q 
 
 Beckford v. Clerke, 1 Keb. 830 ... ... ^^^ 
 
 Beckwaite r. Nalgrove, cited 3 Taunt. 4L 1182 
 
 Beckwith V. Bullen, 8 El. & Bl. 683 ; 27 L. J. Q. B. 162 ; 4 Jur.Vx s ) 558 '• 
 
 « ^V. R. 286 ' ^ '. j.,gy 
 
 „ ^■- Sydebotham, 1 Camp. 116; 10 R. R. 652 . . 1159 1192 
 
 Bedouin 63 L. J. Adm. 30 ; [1894J P. 1 ; 6 R. 693 ; 69 L. T. 782 ; 42 ' 
 
 W. K. 299 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 391-C. A. . . . . 1080 
 
 lieclouin Steam Navigation Co. i'. Smith, 65 L. J. P. C. 8 ; [18961 Adp 
 Cas. 70— H. L. (Sc.) ... 'L j u- 
 
 Bee, 2 Dods, 498 .. . JJo 
 
 Bee.swing, 53 L. T. 554 ; 5 Asj)'. M. C. 484— c' A 99 
 
 Behn i^ Burness, 3 B. & S. 751 ; 32 L. J. Q. B. 204 ; 9 Jur. (x.s.)' 620 ; 
 
 8 L. r. 20/ ; 11 W. R. 496-Ex. Ch. . . . . 261, 1148 
 
 Beilby V. Raper, 3 B. & Ad. 284 . 146 773 
 
 " I ITV }W^'- ^'^ ' ^^ ^- J- ^-^- 14^ • • ■ 142, 143; 777 
 „ >. Shepherd, 3 E.x. 40 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 73 . I49 
 
 Belcher v. Capper, 4 Man. & G. 502 ; 5 Scott (x.r.) 257 ; 11 L. J. C. P. 274 297 
 „ V. Oldheld, 8 .Scott, 221 ; 6 Bing. (n.c.) 102 ; 9 L. J. C. P. 34 ; 
 
 3 Jur. 1194. • . . . ' ^ta 
 
 Belchier v. Parsons, 1 Kenvon, 88, 48 ' ' ' ' ' 176 
 
 S1r°" u <^f"^P^J<-"l'' 6 Ex.' 886 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 342 .' " ' * ' 86 
 
 «e ast Harbour Commissioners r. Lawtlier, 17 Ir. Ch. Rei>. 54 . '. 180 
 Belfoit, 53 L. J. Adm. 88 ; 9 P. D. 215 ; 51 L. T. 271 ; 33 W. R. 171 ; 5 
 
 Asp. M. C. 291 . . ' ^oQ 
 
 Belgic, ;35 L T. 929 ; 2 P. D. 57,h."; 3 Asp. M. C. '348 ." .' .' .' 723 
 
 Bell V. Ansley, 16 East, 141 ; 14 R. R. 322 1146 I393 
 
 ,, V. Auldjo, 4 Dougl. 48 . . . • • • . _^^-^ 
 " ""■ l^n*" ^"f London, 3 H. & K 730 ; 28 L.",T. Ex. 116 * .' 34. 170 
 
 „ ^. Bell 2 Camp. 475 ; 11 R. P. 769 . . . 1057 1072 1190 
 „ V. Blyth, 38 L. .J. Ch. 178 ; L. R. 4 Ch. 136 ; 19 L. T. 662 ; 17 W. R. ' 
 
 194 — L. C. &; L. J. . . . igc> 
 
 ,, V. Broinfield, 15 East, 304. ....... 1206
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xxiii 
 
 Bell V. Buller, Bell v. Reid, 1 'SL k S. 720 : 14 R. R. of.? . . . 1204: 
 
 ,, V. Carstairs, 2 Cami.. o43 : 11 R. R. 7i»3 1149 
 
 ,, V. Carstairs, 14 East, 374 ; 12 I!. R. 557 .... 1172 (Addenda) 
 
 „ v. GilsoD, 1 Bos. &, P. 345 ; 4 R. R. 823 1036, 1142 
 
 ,, r. Gow, 1 Ct. otSess. Cas. (3rdser.) 183 '29 
 
 ,, V. Hobson, 16 East, 240 ; 3 Camp. 272 ; 14 R. R. 337 . . . 1056 
 
 ,, i'. Humphries, 2 Stark, 345 1047 
 
 ,, V. .Janson, 1 M. & S. 201 1146, 1328 
 
 ,, V. .hitting, 1 iloore, 155 ; 19 R. R. 533 1341 
 
 ,, V. Kymer, 1 Marsh. 146 ; 5 Taunt. 477 ; 3 Camp. 545 : see 15 1!. R. 
 
 261 4oa 
 
 „ r. Nixon, Holt, N. P. 423 1285 
 
 ,, V. Puller, 2 Taunt. 285; 12 East. 496, ,/. : 11 R. R. 574 . . .378 
 ., V. Queliec Corporation, 49 L. J. P. C. 1 ; 5 Api>. Cas. 84— P. C. . 8S0 
 
 ,, r. Reid, Bell v. Buller, 1 M. k S. 726 ; 14 R. R. 557 ... 1204 
 
 Bellamy v. Lunn, 77 L. T. 396 : 8 Asp. .M. C. 348 126 
 
 Bellcairn, 55 L. J. Adm. 3 ; lo P. U. 161 ; 53 L. T. 686 ; 34 W. B. 55 ; 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 503— C. A 751, 854 
 
 Belle, Edw. ^6 . . . 619 
 
 ,Be31e of Lagos, 20 L. T. 1019 ; 17 W. R. 899 676 
 
 Bellerophon, H.M.S. (Collision), 44 L. J. Adm. 7 ; 33 L. T. 412 ; 3 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 58 7C0, 701 
 
 ,, (Inspection ; Privilege), 44 L. .J. Adm. 5 ; 31 L. T. 756 ; 23 
 
 W. R. 248 ; 2 Asp. JI. C. 449 . . . . . . . .847 
 
 Benares (Damage ; Lien), 7 Xot. of Cas. Su])pl. ra. .... 719 
 
 ,, (Collision ; Infringement of Regulations), 53 L. J. Adm. 2 ; 9 
 P. L>. 16 ; 49 L. T. 702 ; 32 W. R. 268; 5 Asp. M. C. 171— C. A. 711, 
 
 819, 824, 826 
 
 Benayo, ]\Iarsden on Collisions (4th ed.) 355 847 
 
 Bene c. Wilcocks, Dyer. fo. 159 b, n. 38 927 
 
 Bengal (County Court), L. R. 3 A. & E. 14 ; 21 L. T. 727 . . 937, 975 
 
 Bengal and The John and. Mary (Action in rem), Swabey, 471 ; 5 Jur. 
 
 (N-..S.) 1085 851 
 
 Benlarig, 58 L. J. Adm. 24 ; 14 P. D. 3 ; 60 L. T. 238 : 6 Asp. M. C. 360 597 
 Benmore, 43 L. .1. Adm. 5 ; L. R. 4 A. & E. 132 ; 22 W. R. 190 . . 1003 
 
 Bennet v. Buggin, 3 Burr. 2035 932 
 
 ,, V. iloita, 7 Taunt. 258 771 
 
 Bennett v. :\IcLellan, 17 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 800 ; and see S. C. 18 
 
 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 955 . 51 
 
 ,, V. Peninsula and Oriental Steamship Co., 6 C. B. 755 . . . 75, 7S 
 
 Bens V. Parre, 2 Ld. Raym. 1206 932(2) 
 
 Bensaude v. Thames and Jlersey Marine Insurance Co., 66 L. J. Q. B. 666 ; 
 [1897] App. Cas. 609 ; 77 L. T. 282 ; 46 W. R. 78 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 315 
 
 — H. L. (K.) 1118 
 
 Benson v. Blunt, 1 O. k D. 449 ; 1 g. B. 870 ; 10 L. J. g. B. 333 . . 484 
 V. Chapman, 2 H. L. Cas. 696 ; 8 C. B. 950 ; 13 Jur. 969 . 389, 1135, 
 
 122.5, 12-33, 1286, 1325 
 ,, V. Duncan, 3 Kx. 644 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 169 ; 14 Jur. 218— Ex. Ch. 207, 
 
 209, 210, 332, 555 
 
 ,, V. Heathorn, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 326 29, 60 
 
 ,, V. Hippins, 4 P»ing. 455 ; 1 M. & P. 246 ; 3 Car. & P. 186 ; 6 L. .1. 
 
 (o.K.)C. P. 64 453 
 
 ,, V. Maitland, Gow, 205 1254 
 
 ,, V. Schneider, 1 Moore. 21. 76 ; 7 Taunt. 272 : Holt, N. P. 416 . 508 
 Bcntinck Steanisliij) Co. v. Potter, The Georue Rojier, 52 L. .1. Adm. 69 ; 
 
 8 P. D. 119 ; 49 L. T. 185 ; 31 W. ].'. 953 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 134 . 696, 830 
 Bentseu c. Taylor, 63 L. J. Q. B. 15 ; [1893] 2 (). Ji. 274 ; 4 R. 510 : 69 
 
 L. T. 487 ; 42 W. H. 8 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 385— C. A 265 
 
 Benwell Tower, 72 L. T. 664 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 13 . . . 177,180,191 
 
 Benyon v. Cresswell, 12 Q. B. 899 ; 18 L. .1. Q. B. 1 ; 12 Jur. 1086 . . 38 
 
 ,, u Kenneth, 8 Ct. of Se.ss.Ca.s. (4th. '<er.) .594 .... 384 
 
 Benzen r. JeflVies, 1 Ld. Ravm. 152 929,964 
 
 Berbice, 6 L. T. 106 . " 8»>3 
 
 Berens c. Ru'ker. 1 W. lil. 313 • 1272 
 
 Bergstrom --. Mills, 3 Ksp. 36; 6 R. R. 810 108 
 
 Berkeley an.i .Morri.c's Case (or .Morri.s v. Berclcy), Hard. 502: 2 Kel.. 4 11 931, 995 
 Berkley r. Watling, 7 A. k E. 29 ; 2 X. &P. 178 ; 6 L. J. K. It. 1!'5 . 542 
 
 Bernion r. Woudl.ridge, 2 Dongl. 781 1306 
 
 Bernnl v. Pini, 1 Gale, 17 442 
 
 Bei-nard >: Aaron, 9 Jnr. (n.s.) 470 ; 31 L. .F. C. P. 334 .... 49 
 
 Bernadi c. Motteux, 2 Dougl. 575 1171 
 
 Bern.ltson r. Strang, 37 L. .1. Ch. 665 : 1,. K. :J Ch. 588 ; 19 L. T. 40 ; 16 
 
 W. R. 1025 566, 572
 
 xxiv TABLE OF CASKS. 
 
 JxMiiiiia (lUll of Ladiiii;- ; IMvisioii of Lossl'iti L. ,1. Adiii. 38 ; 12 P. D. oH ■ 
 
 .')() L. T. 4-.0 ; ;!.-, W. K. 214 ; C. Asp. .M. C. 112 . . .' 561 
 ,, :Mills r. Aniistroiig (Collision ; Coiitiilnitoiy Xegligence), 57 
 L. J. Adm. 65 ; 13 A|ip. Cas. 1 ; 58 L. T. 423 ; 36 W.'R. 870 ; 6 
 Asp. M. C. 2r.7 ; f.2 J. P. 212— H. L. (E.) . 687, 726, 737, 866 
 ., (Kefereiu-e ; Evidence), 55 L. T. 781 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 65 . 727, 849 
 EeiTeslbrd (or Pjeresford) v. ]\IongonuTie. 17 C. B. (n.s. ) 379; 34 L J 
 
 (-•. P. 41 ; 10 Jur. (x.s.) 823 ; 10 L. T. 814 ; 12 W. R. 1060 . . 539 
 
 Hen-idge v. Wan On Insurance Co., 56 L. J. (,>. B. 223 ; 18 Q. B. D. 346 • 
 
 56 L. T. 375 ; 35 "\V. K. 343 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 104 .. . .' 1132 
 
 liertlion r. Longlinian, 2 Stark. 258. 1'200 
 
 liertie, 55 L. T.' 520 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 26 [ .618 
 
 Jjcrwick Harbour ConiniissiouL'rsv. Tweediaouth (Cluuchwardens), 54 L. T. 
 
 159 ; 5 Asp. M, C. 532 . 91.3 
 
 Beryl, 53 L. J. Adm. 75 ; 9 P. D. 137 : 51 L. T. 554 : 33 "W." E. 191 ; 5 
 
 Asp. i[. C. 321— C. A 785(2), 814, 819(2), 999 
 
 15essey v. Evans, 4 Camp. 131 484 
 
 liessie Morris, Assicurazioni (ienerali v. 13essie IMorris Steamshiii Co., 61 
 L. J. Q. B. 754 ; [1892] 2 Q. B. 652 ; 4 R. 33 ; 67 L. T. 218 : 41 
 
 W. R. 83 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 217— C. A 274 
 
 Bessy, 4 AV. R. 92 934^ 989 
 
 Best 7;. Saunders, M. k M. 208 ; 3 Man. & Rv. 4 ; 7 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 50 89 
 Beta (Costs), 3 Moore, P. C. (n..s. 23 ; Va: k Lusli. 328 ; 34 L. J. Adiu. 76 ; 
 
 l"-^ L. T. 1 145^ 857 
 
 ,, (Admiralty Jurisdiction), 38 L. J. Adin. 50 ; 20 L. T. 988 ; 17 W. R 
 
 933— P. C 9-25 
 
 Beta and The Peter Graham (Fog; Speed), 9 P. D. 134 ; 51 L. T. 154 • 33 
 
 A\'. R. 190 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 276— C. A 803 
 
 Bethell v. Clark, 57 L. J. (,). B. 302; 20 (}. B. D. 615 ; 59 L. T. 808 ; 36 
 
 W. P. 611 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 346— C. A .573 
 
 Betsey (Salvage), 2 W. Roh. 167 ; 2 Not. of Cas. 409 . . 659 
 
 ,, (Bottomry), 1 Dods. 289 219 
 
 ,, (Collision; Port Helm), 1 S[iinks, 34, «. ..!.'.' 805 
 
 Betsey Caines, 2 Hag. Adm. ?8 . . 733 
 
 Betts V. Gibbons, 4 N. & M. 64 ; 2 A. & E. 57 ; 4 L. J. K. B.'l .' ." 575 
 
 Beulah, 1 W. Rob. 477 650 
 
 Beyuon i-. Godden, 48 L. J. Ex. SO ; 3 Ex. D. 263 ; 39 L.T. 82 ; 26 W. R 
 
 672 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 10-C. A 57,179,396 
 
 Bhugwandass r. Netherlands India Sea Insurance Co., 14 App. Cas. 83— 
 
 P. C. ••••....... 1033 
 
 Bianca, 52 L. J. Adm. 56 ; 8 P. D. 91 ; 48 L. T. 440 ; 31 W." R. 954 • 5 
 
 Asp. M C 60 '668,758 
 
 Jjiccard v. Shepherd, 14 Jloore, P. C. 471. S. C., 7u>m. Commercial iAIarine 
 
 Insurance Co. v. Namaqua Mining Co., 5 L. T. 504 ; 10 AV. R. 136 . 1152 
 Bibby V. Boissevain,_^The Egyi)tian, 1 Moore, P. C. (x.8.) 373 ; 9 Jur. (x.s.) 
 
 1159 ; 8 L. T. 776 ......... 692 695 
 
 Biddell r. Leader, 1 B. & C. 327 .... ' '"'38 
 
 Biddick, 38 L. J, Adm. 24 ; 19 L. T. 705* " . '. . . [ 1021 
 P.iddulph r. Bingham, 30 L. T. 30 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 225 . . " 319 5.55 
 
 P>ilb:io, Lush. 149 ; 3 L. T. 338 716. 766, 974 
 
 Bilbie v. Lumley, 2 East, 469 ; 6 R. R. 479 ' . 1268 
 
 Bingham v. Garnault, liuUei', N. P. 17 . ' * lay 
 
 Biola, 34 L. T. 185 ; 24 W. R. 524; 3 As].. M. C. 125 '. '. '. 846, 997 
 
 Bird ;;. Appleton, 8 Term Rep. 562 ; 5 P. R. 468 . . . . 1172, 1201 
 
 ,, <-. Brown, 4 Ex. 786 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 154 : 14 Jur. 132 .. . 579 
 
 ,, V. Gibb, The De Bay, 52 L. J. P. C. 57 ; 8 App. Ca.s. 559 ; 49 L. T. 
 
 414 ; 5 A.sp. M. C. 156— P. C 636, 637, 644, 646 
 
 ., V. Pigou, 2 Sehv. N. P. 966, a 1201 
 
 Birkenhead, 3 AV. Roli. 75 72.3 
 
 Birkett r. Engholm, 10 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th .ser.) 170 '. '. ". " 546 
 Birkleyr. Presgrave, 1 East, 220 ; 6 R. R. 256 .... 581, 1241 
 Birksgate, The, and The Barrabool, Australian Steam Xaviijation Co. v. 
 
 Smith, 58 L. J. P. C. 101 ; 14 App. Cas. 321 ; 61 L. T.135 . . 823 
 Lirley v. Gladstone, 3 AI. & S. 205 ; and see Gladstone v. Birley, 2 Mer. 
 
 401 ; 15 R. R. 465 437 492 
 
 Birrell v. Dryer, 9 App. Cas. 345 ; 51 L. T. 130 ; 5 Asii. AI. C. 267 : 11 
 
 Ct. of Se.ss. Cas. (4th.ser.) 41— H. L. (E.) .... 1162 
 
 Bishop V. Pentland, 7 B. & C. 219 ; 1 Al. & Py. 49 ; 6 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 
 
 6;31K. R. 177 1073,1093,1094 
 
 ,, '•• AVare, 3 Camp. 300 ; 14 R. P. 755 435 
 
 Bize V. Dickenson, 1 Term Rep. 285 . . . 1343 
 
 ,, t;. Fletcher, 1 Dougl. 12, /(. (4^ ]149 
 
 Bjorn, 9 P. D. 36, /(. ; 5 Asp. Al. C. 212, ■(. y9->
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xxv 
 
 Bkauwport c. Da Costa, 1 Eden, 130 1314 
 
 Black V. Rose, 2 ]\loore, P. C. (n.s.) 277 ; 10 Jur. (x.s.) 1009 ; 11 L. T. 
 
 •31 ; 12 AV. R. 1123 43r>- 
 
 ,, V. Williams, 64 L. J. Ch. 137 ; [1895] 1 Cli. 408 ; 13 II. 224 ; 43 
 
 AV. E. 346 : 2 Maiison, 86 . . 171 
 
 Black Boy, 3 Hao;. Adm. 386, n 602, 669 
 
 Black Diamoinl. 9 L. T. 396; 12W. R. 219 809' 
 
 Black Prince, The Araxes and The. General Iron Screw Collier Co. r. Moss, 
 
 15 Moore, P. C. 122 ; ') L. T. 39 . . . . 786. 810 
 (Collision ; Damages ; Costs), Lush. 568 . 732 (2), 863, 1024 
 Blacklnn-n, Ex iJarte (or Gibbes. Ex jyart?-), Whitworth, In re, 45 L. J. Bk. 
 
 10 : 1 Ch. D. 101 ; 33 L. T. 479 ; 24 W. R. 298 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 74 577 
 V. Haslani, 57 L. J. (,). B. 479 ; 21 Q. B. D. 144 ; 59 L. T. 407 ; 
 
 36 W. R. 855 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 326 1188- 
 
 V. Kymer, 1 Marsh. 223, 278 ; 5 Taunt. 584, 672 . . . 399 
 
 I'. Thompson, 15 East, 81 ; 3 Camp. 61 ; 13 R. 1!. 382 . . 1204 
 
 v. Vigors, 57 L. J. (,). B. 114 ; 12 App. Cas. 531 ; 57 L. T. 730 ; 
 
 36 W. R. 949 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 216— H. L. (E.) . . . . 1188(2) 
 
 Blackenhagen v. London Assurance Co., 1 Camp. 454; 10 R. P. 729 1060, 1215 
 
 Blacket v. Aiistey, 1 Ld. Raym. 235 953. 
 
 Blackett c. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., 2 C. & J. 244 ; 2 Tyr. 266 ; 
 
 1 L. J. Ex. 101 124S, 1318 
 
 „ v. Smith, 12 East, 518 69, 896, 906 
 
 Blackhurst v. Cockell, 3 Term Rep. 360 ; 1 R. R. 717 . . . . 1161 
 
 Blackwell v. Clerk, 1 Keb. 684 932 
 
 Blad's Case, Blad v. Bamtield, 3 Swanst. 603, 604 . . . . 936, 937 
 
 Blagdcn, jE'.-'yyM/Vc, 19 Ves. 466; 2 Rose, 249 1316 
 
 Blaikie (or Blakie) v. Stembridge, 6 C. V>. (n..s.) 911 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 212 ; 
 
 6 Jur. (N.s.) 825 ; 8 W. R. 239 ; 2 L. T. 570— Ex. Ch. . . . 516 
 Blairmore Co. r. Macredie, 24 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th. ser.) 893 . . . 1290 
 Blake, 1 AV. Rob. 73 130, 133- 
 
 ,, T. Belfast Discount Co., 5 L. E. Ir. 410 366 
 
 Blakeney, Swabey, 428 ; 5 Jur. (x.s.) 418 .... 99,126,974 
 
 Blakey v. Dixon, 2 Bos. & P. 321 406 
 
 Blanche, 58 L. T. 592 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 272 . • . . . ^. 183- 
 
 Blanchet v. Powell's Llantivit Collieries Co., 43 L. J. K\. 50 ; L. R. 
 
 9 Ex. 74 ; 30 L. T. 28 ; 22 AV. R. 490 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 224 . . 320, 380, 
 
 381, 422: 
 Blanck v. Solly, 8 Taunt. 89 ; 1 lAIoo. 531 ; Holt, X. P. 554; 19 R. R. 
 
 469 368 
 
 Bland, Ex parte, 2 Rose, 91 24, 61 
 
 „ »;. Lynani, 5 L. J. (o..s.)C. P. 87 188 
 
 ,, V. Ross, The Julia, Lush. 224 ; 14 Moore, P. C. 210 . . 613(2), 755- 
 Pdanshard, //t re, Basetu r. Blaiishard, 2 B. & C. 244 ; 2 D. & R. 177 ; 26 
 
 P. P. 329 ^21. 9-9. 9r'.> 
 
 Blascot?. Fl.rtcher, 14 C. B. (n.s.) 147 ; 32 L. J. C. P. 284 ; 9 Jur. (n-.s.) 
 
 1105; 9 L. T. 169; 11 AV. R. 997 r.2(>' 
 
 Blech V. Balh-ras, 3 El. & I'd. 203 ; 29 L. .1. Q- !''• 261 ; 6 Jur. (x.s.) 1243 ; 
 
 2 L. T. 599 455 
 
 Blenden Hall, 1 Dods. 414 598,602,631 
 
 Blenheim (Collision ; Damages), 1 Spinks, 2S5 .... 728, 806 
 
 (Collision ; Launch), 2 W. Rob. 421 ; 4 Not. of Cas. 393 . 696 
 
 (Freight ; Collision), 54 L. J. Adm. 81 ; lo P. D. 167; 5:'. L. T. 
 
 916 ; 34 W. P. 154 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 522 131, i'-'rl 
 
 Blessing, 3 P. D. 35 ; 38 L. T. 259 ; 26 W. 1!. 404 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 561 . ^ .^2, 
 
 Blight?-. Page, 3 ]5oh. .S: P. 295, u. ; 6 P. P. 795, ,i. ... 37.^, 484 
 
 Pdoom.'r, 11 L. T. 46 9". 
 
 Bloxani r. ilubbai-d, 5 East, 407 '^'^ 
 
 Pdue Hell, 64 L. J. Adm. 71 ; [1895] P. 242 ; 11 R. 790 ; 72 I-. '1. 510 ; 
 
 7 As)i. AI. C. 601 ^-^'l 
 
 Blunt V. Cuniyns, 2 \es. Sen. 331 • • "^^ 
 
 P.lythr. Sheidierd, 1 D. (N..s.)880; 9 Al. k W. 763 ; 1 1 1-. .1. Ex. 29:,; 
 
 6 Jm-. 489 • l-^'-.'V 
 
 ,, V. Simpson, The Fusilier, 3 Moore, !'. C. (x.s.) 51 ; 34 L. J. Adm. 
 
 25 ; 11 Jur. (x.s.) 289 ; 12 L. T. 186 ; 13 W. P. 592 . . 608, 645 
 
 „ V. Smith, 4 Scott (N. 11.) 360 ; 5 Man. & G. 405 ; 12 L. J. C. P. 203 : 
 
 7 Jur. 948 , ' r V^o ' * 
 
 P.lyth & Co.'s Case, Albert Average Association, In re, L. 11. 13 l'.(i. ..29 ; 
 
 2(1 W. R. 504 ^^29, 1363 
 
 P.oard .d'Tra.le v. Brown, 13 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 58 . . . 83 
 V. Leith Local Marine ]5oard, 24 Ct. of Sess.Cas. (4lh. .ser.) 
 177 .. ^"
 
 xxvi TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Boai<l of Trade (Scciftarv) v. Siin.lholiu, 41 L. T. 469 ; 4 As].. iM. C. 19(3 111 
 iHuUlin^toii i: Ciistelli, 1 Kl. & Bl. 879 ; 1 Vh. II. 281 ; 23 L. J. (,). H. :n ; 
 17 Jur. 781 ; 1 W. R. 359— Ex. Ch. Aftiniiiii-; 1 El. k V>\. 
 tiii • '2-1 L. J. Q. I^. 5 ; 17 Jur. 4.^.7 ; 1 W. U. 20 . 1309, 1310, 
 
 1313, 1316, 1328 
 
 ('. AVottou, 2 K.'b. 768 223, 226 
 
 Eoaainctons, 2 Hag. Adin. 422 21.5 
 
 r.oehnrr. Hell, STennKoi). l.f;4; 4 R. R. 620 .... 1143,1305 
 
 ,, v. Coombc, 2 M. & S. 172 ; 14 R. K. 611 1110 
 
 Boetliugk v. .SclnuMtUT. See Bothliiigk r. Inglis, i>ifm. 
 
 Boggin, i:^T;wr/<', 13 Ea.st, 549 139 
 
 Bogle r. Atty, Gow, 50 63 
 
 Boiler r.r Elephant. In re, 64 L. T. 543 642 
 
 Bolckow, Vaughan & Co. v. Fisher, 52 L. J. Q. B. 12 ; 10 Q. B. D. 161 ; 
 
 47 L. T. 724 ; 31 W. R. 325 ; 5 Asp. 
 
 M. 0. 20— C. A 998 
 
 V. Young, 42 L. T. 690 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 301 . 998 
 Bold r. Rotherani, s'q. B. 781 ; 1 Car. & K. 360 ; 15 L. J. Q. B. 274; 
 
 10 Jur. 878 1216 
 
 Bold Buccleugh, Harnier v. Bell, 7 Moore, P. C. 267 . 717 (2), 718, 923, 924 
 
 Bolina, 3 Not. of Cas. 208 702 
 
 Bolton r. Dobson, 1 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 239 1097 
 
 V. Gladstone, 2 Taunt. 85 ; 11 R. R. 532 -Ex. Ch. AHirnang 5 East, 
 
 " 155 ; 7 R. R. t^74 .^-^-^^r 
 
 Bomarsund, Lush. 77 602, bOo 
 
 Bona English and American Ship].ing Co. v. Indemnity Mutual Marine 
 Insurance Co., 64 L. J. Adm. 62 ; [1895] P. 125 ; 43 W. R. 290 ; 11 
 
 R. 707 ; 71 L.T. 870 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 557— C. A 1243 
 
 Bonaparte, Wilkinson v. Wilson, 8 Moore, P. C. 459. In Court Vk-Iow, 
 
 3 W. Rob. 298 211, 212 
 
 Bond V. (ionsales. 2 Salk. 445 ; Holt, 469 122-3 
 
 r. Xutt, Cowp. 601 ; 1 Dougl. 367, n 1165 
 
 Bo'udrett v. Hentigg, Holt, 149 ; 17 R. R. 625. . . . • 1087 
 
 Boiiita The, and The Charlotte, Lush. 252 ; 30 L. J. Adm. 145 ; 5 L. 1. 
 
 141 161 (2), 162, 164 
 
 Bonne Amelie,"35 L. J. Adm. 115 ; L. R. 1 A. & E. 19 ; 14 L. T. 191 ; 
 
 6Asp. M. C. 149 962(2) 
 
 Bonnie Kate, 57 L. T. 203 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 149 .... 43, 48, 9o7 
 
 Booker i;. Milne, 9 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 314 5/3 
 
 Booth t;. Gair, 15 C. B. (x.s.) 291 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 99 ; 9 Jur. (n.s.) 1-326 ; 
 
 9 L. T. 386; 12 AV. R. 106 12/4 
 
 ,, V. Hodgson, 6 Term Rep. 405 1350 
 
 Bornnian v. Tooke, 1 Camp. 377 ; 10 R. R. 747 266 
 
 Borodino, 5 L. T. 291 ,,• ^"2.^,838 
 
 Borrowman v. Drayton, 46 L. J. Ex. 273 ; 2 Ex. D. 15 ; 35 L. 1. rZt ; 
 
 25 W. R. 194 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 303— C. A 494 
 
 Borussia, Swabey, 94 ; 4 W. R. 503 756, / (.9, 7/1 
 
 Bosanquet, £"« prtr«e, 1 De G. 432 134/ 
 
 Bo3on V. Sandford, Carth. 63 ; Lev. pt. 3, 258 . . . . . --^92 
 
 Bothlingk v. Inglis (or Boetlingk v. Schneider), 3 East, 38 ; 3 Esp. o8 ; 
 
 7 R. R. 490 ^'-^ 
 
 Bothnia, Lush. 52 ; 29 L. J. Adm. 65 /03, 846 (2) 
 
 Bottle Imp, 42 L. J. Adm. 48; 28 L. T. 286 ; 21 W. P. 6U0 ; 1 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 571 • , •, ^f' 110-^ 
 
 Bottomley v. Forbes, 5 Bing. (n.c.) 121 ; 6 Seott^ 866; 8 L. J. t. 1 . 
 
 Bottomly v. BoviU, 7 D. & R. 702 ; 5 B. & C. 210 ; 4 L. J. (o.s.) K, t- 
 
 237 ; 29 R. R. 221 1-1.° 
 
 Boucher 1!. Lawson, Ca. t- Hardw. 85 ; Cun. 241 . . . \ ' '^ 
 Bougainville, The, and The James C. Stevenson, Beal v. Marchais, L. K. ^ 
 
 5 P. C. 316 ; 28 L. T. 822 ; 21 AV. R. 653 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 1 . /85 
 
 786, 787, 789, 790 (2), 80.5, 812, 815 
 Bouillon V. Lupton, 15 C. B. (n.s.) 113 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 37 ; 10 Jur. (x.s.) ^ 
 
 422 ; 8 L. T. 575 ; 11 AV. R. 966 H-*'^ 
 
 Boultonv. Dobree, 2Carap. 162 120| 
 
 Bourn phrey v. Houghton, 55 J. P. 729 • ^°4 
 
 Bourn's Case, Cro. Jac. 543 ; Palm. 96 949, 9j1 
 
 Bourne v. Dodson, 1 Atk. 154 1-1' 1^6 
 
 ,, V. Gatlitfe, 11 CI. & F. 45 ; 8 Scott (n.k.) 604 ; 7 Man. & G. 8o0 
 
 Tj L (E ^ ....••• ^34 
 
 Bousfield V. Barnes, 4 Camp. 228: 16 R. R. 780 . . - • 1039 
 
 ,, u Cresswell, 2Camp. 545; 11 R. R- 794 . . . • 1254,1342 
 Boutflower v. AVilmer, cited 2 Selw. N. P. (11th ed.) 969 .. . HOI
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xxvii 
 
 Bovill r. Hammond, 9 D. & R. 186 ; 6 B. & C. 149 ; o L. J. ^o.y.) K. B. 
 
 1-15 915 
 
 Bowcher v. Noidstrom, 1 Taunt. 568 ; 10 E.. R. 608 .... 714 
 
 Bowden v. Vaughan, 10 East, 415 ; 10 R. R. 340 . . . . . uqq 
 Boweu V. Fox, 10 B. & C. 41 ; 5 M. & Ry. 5 ; 4 Car. & P. 45-2 : S L J 
 
 (o.s.) M. C. 68 ■ . . 31 
 
 Bowesfield, 51 L. T. 128 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 265 976 
 
 Bowman r. Manzelman. 2 Camji. 315 ; 11 R. R. 716 .... 127 
 
 Bowiiiifr )•. Elmslie, cited 7 T. R. 216, n.; 4 Term Rep. 7S3 . . . lu93 
 Boj-ce V. I>aylitf', 1 Camp. 58 ......... 81 
 
 ,, v. Douglass, 1 Camp. 60 . . . . . . . . gl 
 
 „ V. Jones, [1841] 4 Ir. L. R. 231 .902 
 
 Boyd V. Dubois, 3 Camp. 133 ......... 1102 
 
 ,, V. ilangles, 3 Ex. 387 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 273 .... 390, 393 
 
 Boyfield v. Brown, 2 Str. 1065 ........ 1234 
 
 Boyne, The Cadiz and The Boyne, 35 L. T. 602 ; 3 Asp. :M. C. 332 651, 
 
 677, 678 
 Boyson v. Gibson, 4 C. B. 121 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 147 . . . . 36, 148 
 
 ,, r. AVilson, 1 Stark. 236 '553 
 
 Bradiord v. Levy, 4 Car. & P. 137 ; Ry. & M. 331 ■ 31 R. K. 657 . 1092, 1100 
 ,, r. Svmondson, 50 L. J. Q. B. 582 ; 7 Q. B. D. 456 ; 45 
 
 L. T. 364 ; 30 W. R. 27 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 455— C. A. . 1039, 
 
 1308 
 ,, r. "Williams, 41 L. J. Ex. 164 ; L. R. 7 Ex. 259 ; 26 L. T. 641 ■ 
 
 20 W. R. 782 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 313 511 
 
 Bradley v. Benney, Noy. 114 . . . . . . . . . 75 
 
 ,, V. Dunipaee, l' H. & C. 521 ; 32 L. J. Ex. 22— Kx. Cli. . . 320 
 
 „ V. Goddard, 3 F. & F. 638 457, 487 
 
 ,, V. Newcastle-upon-Tvne (Master, Pilots, and Seamen n|). 2 
 El. & Bl. 427; 23 L. J. Q. B. 35; 18 Jur. 2tii ; 1 W. 1!. ;]94 
 
 — Ex. Ch 885 
 
 Bragg V. Anderson, 4 Taunt. 229 ; 18 R. R. 584 1060 
 
 Bragington v. Chapman, The Midas. 7 Asp. il. C. 77, /' 39 
 
 Braik c. Douglas, 4 My. & Cr. 320 ' 1048 
 
 Branokelow Steamship Co. v. Lamport, 66 L. .1. Q. B. 382 ; [1897] 1 (.>. 1>. 
 
 570 458 
 
 Brancker (or Branker) r. ^Molyneux, 3 Seott (\.i!.) 332 ; 3 JI. k Gr. 84 ; 
 
 10 L. J. C P. 310 551 
 
 Brandon r. Curling, 4 East, 410 ; 1 Smith, 85 ; 7 R. K. 592 . .1142 
 
 ,, I?. Nesbitt, 6 Term Rep. 23 1204 LVddenda) 
 
 Brandt v. Bowlby, 2 15. k Ad. 932 ; 1 L. .J. K. B. 14 . . . ' . 363 
 
 Branford r. Howard, 35 Beav. 613 1359 
 
 Bi-aiiken l\ Moor, 3 Hag. Adm. 373 ....... 616 
 
 liranston, 2 Hag. Adni. 3, /< 623 
 
 Branton v. Taddy, 1 Taunt. 6 1350 
 
 Bras.s V. Maitland, 6 El. & Bl. 470 ; 26 L. J. (,». B. 49 ; 2 Jur. (n.^.) 710 ; 
 
 4 W. R. 647 . 502 
 
 BreadaJbane, 7 P. D. 186 ; 46 L. T. 204 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 505 . 796, 807, 810 
 Bremner v. liurrell, 4 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th scr.) 934 .... 475 
 Bn-nan (or Brennan) v. Preston, 2 De (!. M. k G. SI 3- L.JJ. On motion 
 for injunction, 1 W. R. 69, 86, 172— L.JJ. In Court b.low, 10 Ha. 
 
 331 ; 2 W. R. 138 ; and see 1 W. R. 122 61 
 
 Brereton v. Cliapman, 5 :\1. k P. 526 ; 7 Bing. 559 463 
 
 Breslauer v. Barwick, 36 L. T. 52 ; 3 Asj). M. C 355 .... 230 
 Brett, E-nimrtc, Howe, la ,■<■, 40 L. J. 15k. 54 ; L. R. 6 Ch. 838 ; 25 L. T. 
 
 2.52; 19 W. R. 110] 363 
 
 ,, V. Beckwith, 26 L J. Ch. 130; 3 Jur. (x.s.) 31 ; 5 W. K. 112 1035, 
 
 ]:n0, 1351 
 Brewer w. Duncan, 20 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th scr.) 230 .... 153 
 
 Brewster v. Clarke, 2 Mer. 75 35 
 
 Brian u Browne, Dyer fo. 159 Z;., /(. 38 927 
 
 Bridgeman's Case, Hol». 11 207,928 
 
 Bridges v. Hunter, 1 M. .^ (;. 15; 14 R. R. 380 1196 
 
 Bridgwater, 37 L. T. 366 ; 3 Asj). M. C. 506 120 
 
 I5rig (name unknown), I5r. & Lush. 370 971 
 
 J5rigeila, 62 L. J. A.lm. 81 ; [18!»3J P. ]89 ; 1 R. (i]6 : 6'.t L. T. 834 ; 7 
 
 A.sp. .M. C. 403 1241 
 
 Brigg.s V. Merchant Tra(hrs' Ship Loan and .Assurance Association (or 
 
 Society), 13 (.). B. 167 ; 18 L. J. g. 15. 178 ; 13 Jur. 787 627, 665, 1131 
 ,, V. Wilkin.son, 7 B. & C. 30 ; 9 D. & R. 871 ; 5 L. .1. (o s.) K. P.. 
 
 349 67. 397 
 
 Bright v. Cowper, Brownl. & G. pt. 1, 21 381 
 
 Brine v. Featherstone, 4 Taunt. 869 ; 14 R. 1.'. <i89 . . 1149, 1162. 1166
 
 xxviii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Brinhikln, Vo L. T. 389 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 461— P. C. . . 947, 1012 (2), 1013. 
 
 IJiiiiio, 90 L. T. Jour. 249 747 
 
 ])ristol Bank v. mdhud Railway Co., CI L. J. Q. B. 115 ; [1891] 2 (}. B. 
 
 1)53 ; Of) L. T. 234 ; 40 W. R. 148 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 69— C. A. . . 358- 
 Bristol Steam Navigation Co. v. Iiulenniity IMiitual Marine Insurance Co., 
 
 57 L. T. 101 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 173 1271 
 
 Bristow ^•. Towers, 6 Term Rep. 35 ; 3 R. R. 113, H 1142 
 
 „ V. AVliitmore, 9 H. L. Cas. 391 ; 31 L. J. CIi. 467 : 8 Jur. (n.8.) 
 291 ; 4 L. T. 622; 9 AV. R. 621— H. L. (K.) .... 98, 102 
 
 Britain, 1 W. Rob. 40 «58 
 
 Britannia, 3 Hag. Adin. 153 (542 
 
 Riritish and Foreign Marine Insnrance Co. r. Stnrge, 77 L. T. 208 ; 8 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 303 ^ • 1194 
 
 British Columbia and Vanoouver's Island Spar, Lumber and Saw IMills 
 Co. V. Xettlesbip, 37 L. J. C. P. 235 ; L. R. 3 C. P. 499 ; 18 
 L T -^91 ; 16 W. R. 1046 ; S. C. 18 L. T. 604 (as to Damages) 305, 321, 
 
 552, 555 
 British Commerce, 53 L. J. Adm. 72 ; 9 P. D. 128 ; 51 L. T. 604 ; 33 W. R. 
 
 200 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 335 731 
 
 British Empire, 6 Jur. 608 • 658 
 
 British Shipowners Co. v. Grimond, 3 Ct. of Sess Cas. (4th ser.) 968 . 535 
 
 Broad v. Thomas, 7 Biug. 99 ; 4 M. & P. 732 ; 4 Car. & P. 338 ; 9 L. J. 
 
 (o.H.) C. P. 32 916. 
 
 Broadhead v. Yule, 9 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 921 .... 402 
 
 Brocklebank v. Sugrue, 1 B. & Ad. 81 ; 1 JW. & Rob. 1 02 ; 5 Car. & P. 21 ; 
 
 8 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 371 1031 
 
 Brodie v. Howard, 17 C. B. 109 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 57 ; 1 Jiir. (N.s.) 1209 . 67 
 Bromley V. Hesseltine, 1 Camp. 75 : 10 R. R. 635 .... 1210' 
 
 V. AVilliams, 32 Beav. 177 ; 1 N. R. 413 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 716 ; 9 
 Jur. (x.s.) 240 ; 8 L. T. 78 ; 11 W. R. 392 .... 1316, 1351 
 Brooking v. Maudslav, 57 L. J. Ch. 1001 ; 38 Ch. D. 636 ; 58 L. T. 
 
 852 ; 36 W. R. 664 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 296 1201, 1334 
 
 Brooks 1-. MacDonnell, 1 Y. & C. 500 1264 
 
 Broomfield v. vSouthern Insurance Co., 39 L. J. Ex. 186 ; L. R. 5 Ex. 192 ; 
 
 22 L. T. 371 ; 18 W. R. 810 222, 1134, 1237 
 
 Brotherton v. Barber, 5 M. & S. 418 ; 17 R. R. 378 ... . 1290 
 
 Brouard i-. Dumaresque, 3 Moore, P. C. 457 178, 18S 
 
 Brough i;. AVhitmore, 4 Term Rep. 206 ; 2 R. R. 361 .... 1129' 
 Broughton v. Jackson, 18 Q. B. 378 ; 21 L. J. Q. B. 265 ; 16 Jur. 886 . 136 
 
 Brouncker v. Scott, 4 Taunt. 1 493 
 
 Brown v. Benn, 2 Ld. Raym, 1247 932' 
 
 ,, V. Board of Trade, 18 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 291 . . . 875 
 (or Browne) v. Byrne, 3 El. & Bl. 703 ; 2 C. L. R. 1599 ; 23 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 313 ; 18 Jur. 700 ; 2 W. R. 471 . . . . 307, 406 
 
 r. Carstairs, 3 Camp. 161 1054 
 
 r. Franklyn, Carth. 474 931 
 
 ,, r. Gaudet, Argos, Cmyo ex, The Hewsons (Admiralty ; County 
 Court), 42 L. J. Adm. 1 ; L. R. 5 P. C. 134 ; 28 L. T. 77 ; 
 21 W. R. 420 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 360 . . . . 492 (2), 938 (3) 
 ,, ?•. Gaudet, Argos, Cargo cr, The Hewsons (Carriage of Goods), 42 
 L. J. Adm. 49 ; L. R. 5 P. C. 134 ; 28 L. T. 745 ; 21 W. R. 
 707 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 519 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 6 . 369, 379, 484, 528, 538 
 
 ,, v. Heathcote. 1 Atk 160 172, 351, 647 
 
 „ V. .Johnson, Car. & M. 440 ; 10 M. & W. 331 ; 11 L. J. Ex. 373 281, 
 
 457, 465. 
 
 ., r. Mallett, 5 C. B. 599 71,722' 
 
 '„ V. Millner, 1 Moore, 65; 7 Taunt. 319 ; 18 R. R. 493 . . . 91 
 
 „ V. Nairne, 9 Car. & P. 204 915 
 
 ,, V. North. 8 Ex. 1 : 22 L. J. Ex. 49 405 
 
 ,, V. Powell Duffryn Steam Coal Co., 44 L. J. C. P. 289 ; L. R. 10 
 
 C. P. 562 ; 32 L. T 621 ; 23 W.R. 549 : 2 Asp. M. C. 57S 320, 422 
 
 „ V. Smith, 1 Dow, 349 ; 14 R. R. 78 1287 
 
 ., r. Stapvleton, 4 Bing. 119 ; 12 Moore, 334 ; 5 L. J. (o..s.) C. P. 121 : 
 
 29 R. R. 524 589, 12^1 
 
 ,. V. Tanner (Freight ; Assignment), L. R. 2 Eq. 806 ; 12 Jur. (n..s.) 
 
 791 ; 14 L. T. 825; 14 W. R. 911 444 
 
 ,, '('. Tanner (Freight ; Mortgagee), 37 L. J. Ch. 923 ; L. R. 3 Ch. 597 ; 
 
 18 L. T. 624 : 16 W. R. 882 368, 396- 
 
 „ V. Tapscott, 6 M. & W. 119 ; 9 L. J. Ex. 139 .... 46 
 „ V. Tayleur, 5 N. & ]\I. 472 ; 1 H. & AValmsl. 578 ; 4 A. & E. 241 ; 
 
 5 L. J. K. B. 57 1060, 1221 
 
 ,, V. Thornton, 1 N. & P. 339 ; 6 A. & E. 185 301 
 
 ,. V. Tierney, 1 Taunt. 517 ; 10 R. R. 599 1176
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xxix 
 
 ■Jirown r. Vi<,nie, 12 East. 2S:J : 11 If. K. :J7.") 1001 
 
 /•. Wilkinson, 15 .M. & AV. 391 ; ij L. J. Ex. 34 . . . . 738 
 
 Jiiown and Litton's Case, 2 Eij. Ca. Abr. 722 ; Lucas' Jicp. -JO . . S3 
 
 l',io\vnc A'./' parfc, 6 Vcs. 136 1334 
 
 ,, (or Brown) v. Byrne, 3 E. & B. 703 ; 3 C. L. R. 1599 ; 23 L. .1. 
 
 (). B. 313 ; 18 Jur. 700 ; 2 W. R. 471 . . . . . . 307 
 
 Jjrowne's Case (Perquisites ; Fish), Dyer, 159 b, />. 3d . . . . 934 
 
 .Browning r. Elmslie, cited 4 T. R. 783 ; 7 T. R. 21() . . . . 1093 
 
 ,, r. Provincial Insurance Company of Canada, L. K. .') P. C. 
 263 ; 28 L. T. 853 ; 21 W. R. 587 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 35 1232, 1281, 1314. 
 
 1317 
 .Brownlow r. Metiopolitan Board of W(u-lcs, 16 C. B. (n.s.) 540 ; 33 L. ,1. 
 
 C. P. 233 ; 12 AV. R. 871— Ex. Ch 880 
 
 Bruce r. Jones, 1 II. & C. 709 ; 32 L. .1. Ex. 132 ; 9 Jur. (n.s.) 028 ; 7 
 L. T. 748: 11 W. R. 371 ; S. C. on motion for new trial. Id 
 
 W. R. 719 1258 
 
 ,, r. Nicolopulo, 11 Ex. 129 ; 3 C. L. R. 775 ; 24 L. J. Ex. ."/il : :> 
 
 W. R. 483 277, 302 
 
 Brulm ('. Grunwaldt, 2 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 335 . . . .124 
 Brun V. PoiTet, 6 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 577 ..... 66 
 Brune r. -Thomiison, 4 (,). B. 543 : 2 G. & D. 110: 12 L. J. g. I). 251 . 885 
 Bruno. Silva & Son, //( w, Francis, Ej: jxirtc, 50 L. T. 577 ; 6 Asji. iM. C. 
 
 138 ; 4 Morrell, 140 576 (Addenda) 
 
 Bryden n Niebhur, 1 Cab. & E. 241 252, 460 
 
 Jirymer c. Atkins, 1 W. Bl. 165 92>!, 910, 1012. 1013 
 
 Buchanan c. Barr, 5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3ril ser.) 973 .... 060 
 
 ,, r. Clv<le Lighthouses Trustees, 11 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 
 
 531 893 
 
 „ v. London and Provincial .Marine Insurance Co., (i5 L. .1. (). B. 
 
 92 1240 
 
 :]juck r. Attwood, 2 Strange, ; 01 !tj3 
 
 ,, c. Rawlinson, 1 Bro'. P. C. 137 US, 122 
 
 Buckhurst, 51 L. J. Adm. 10 ; P. D. 152 : 40 L. T. 108 : 30 W. R. 232 ; 
 
 4 Asp. M. C. 484 793 (2), 858 
 
 Buckle V. Knoop. 36 L. J. Ex. 223 ; L. K. 2 Ex. 333 ; 10 J>. T. 571 ; 15 
 
 W. IL 999— Kx. Ch 120 
 
 Budgett /•. Binuiugton, 00 L. J. (>. P.. 1 : |1S91] 1 (,). B. 35 : 03 L. T. 742 ; 
 
 39 VV. R. 131 ; Asp. .M. C. 592— C. A 481 
 
 Buenos Ayres, 17 W. R. 027 1008 
 
 Hufe v. Turner, 2 Marsli. 40 ; Taunt. 338 ; 10 R. R. 020 . . . 1102 
 liuller r. Christie, cited 2 M. k S. 374 ; 15 R. R. 277 . . . . 1235 
 
 ,, V. Fisher, 3 Esp. 67; 1 Peake, 183 : 3 Taunt. 4 ; 4 R. R. 902 . 273, 
 
 32'.t, 1082 
 ., '•. Harrison, 2 Cowp. 505 ........ 1341 
 
 Bulman /•. Feuwi<,-k, 03 L. J. il V,. 123 ; [1894J 1 g. W. 179 ; 9 \\. -l-l! ; O!' 
 
 L. T. 651 ; 42 W. R. 320 ; 7 Asp. .M. C. 388— C. A. . . . 182 
 
 Pnilnier, 1 Hag. Adm. 103 128 
 
 Bulteel, Kr 'parte, 2 Cox, C. C. 243 ; 2 R. R. 39 •■.5, .•'.7 
 
 Burchanl (•. Macfarlane, Tyndall and Dryhurst, Ex parte, [1891 | 2 i). B. 
 241 ; 00 L. .1. C>. 15. .5^7; 05 L. T. 2S2 ; 39 W. R. 094 ; 7 Asp. .M. C. 
 
 93 39 
 
 Bnrdick r. Scw.l], 10 App. Cas. 74 : 54 L. .]. C>. 15. L'>6 ; 52 L. T. 445 ; 
 
 33 \V. R. 401 ; 5 Asp. .\1. C. 370-11. L. (E.) .... 351, 357 
 
 Bure, 14 Jur. 1123 981 
 
 Burge.ss v. Wickham, 3 V,. k S. 009 ; 33 L. .1. g. P.. 17 : s L. T. 47 : 11 
 
 W. R. 992 1152 
 
 Burgon v. .Sliarpe, 2 ('amp. 529 ; 1 1 R. R,. 7HS S3 
 
 Burke r. Rogerson, 12 Jur. (N..s.) 0.35 ; 14 L. T. 78()-L.JJ. . . . 152 
 
 ,, V. S. E. Railway, 49 L. J. C. P. 107 >^71 
 
 Burlington, 72 L. T. H90 : 8 Asji. iM. (]. 38 C. A. .... '.01 
 
 Burmestci' ?\ Hodgson, 2 Camp. 488 ; 11 li. li. 770 .... Hil 
 
 Burn, K.r parte, 1 Jac .t Walk. 378 ; 21 R. R. 186 3(t 
 
 ,, r. I'.rown, 2 Stark. 272; 19 R. P. 719 31 
 
 „ V. Herlor.s..ii, The Fav.st, 50 L. T. 722 ; 6 Asj). M. C. 126 . 1^-.^ 
 
 ]iuniand r. Rodo.ana.lii, 51 L. J. (,•. !!. 54. s : 7 Ai)|i. Cas. 333; 47 1-. T. 
 
 277 ; 31 W. 1,'. 05 ; 4 .\sp. iM. ('. 570— H. L. (E.) . . . 1142, 1231, 
 
 1204, 12'."i;, 1331 
 
 P.urnar.l r. Aaron, 31 L. J. C. P. 334 72 
 
 Burne.ss y. Persian (Julf Steairiship <'o., 'I'Ih' P.iishin', 52 L. T. 740; 5 
 
 Asp. M. C. 416 ''iW). 730 
 
 Burnett r. Bouch, 9 Car. it P. 620 910 
 
 ,, r. Kensington, 7 Term Rep. 210; 1 Es]). 410; 2 Peal<.'. 71 ; 1 
 R. R. 424 1<".'2. 1090 
 
 S. C
 
 XXX TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 r.urns r. ChainiiMii, .'. C. I'., (x-s.) 481 : 28 L. ,1. ('. 1'. 6 ; :>,]m: (n.s.) 19 ; 
 
 7 AV. 11. 8!t 12* 
 
 r.urus r. Paulson (or I'oulsoni) 42 L. ,1. ('. P. ;'.02 ; L. 11. S V. 1'. r.6:j ; 29 
 
 I.. T. 32!t : 22 W. R. 20 .'SI 6 
 
 lluvrrll c. Maclmiviio, The Stratlis[(cv and The Islav, 18 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 
 (Ithser.) 1048 . .' . . ". . . . 144, 772 
 
 ,, r. Siniiisou, 4 Ct. of Sess. Cass. (4th ser.) 177 .... 748^ 
 
 Burt y. Livingstone, Tlie Solway, 54 L. J. Adm. 83; 10 1'. D. 137; 
 
 .-.3 L. T. «80 ; 34 W. K. 232 ; r, Asp. M. C. 482 . . . 848, 1000 
 
 l>uit'in r. Burton, ] L. T. ')52 . ........ 64 
 
 „ V. English, 53 L J. q. B. 133 : 12 (,). I!. D. 218 ; 49 L. T. 768 ; 
 
 32 W. II. 6.^)5 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 187— C. A 502,587 
 
 ,, r. Finkerton, 36 L. J. Ex. 137 : E. R. 2 Ex. 340 ; 16 E. T. 419 ; 
 
 15 W. R. 1139 : and see 17 L. T. 15 135 
 
 IJushel r. Jay, 1 Keb. 153 927 
 
 lUishire, James Buruess & Sons r. Persian Gulf .Steamship Co., 52 L. T. 740; 
 
 5 As)). M C. 410 560, 736 
 
 Busk '•. Fearon, 4 East, 319 ; 1 Smith, 103 196 
 
 ,, V. Eoval Exehange Assuranre Co., 2 B. .^ Aid. 73 ; 20 1!. R. 850 
 
 1102, 1157 
 Ikisy Bee, L. 1!. 3 A. .fc E. 527 : 26 E. T. 590 ; 20 W. R. 803 ; 1 Asj). 
 
 'M. C. 293 1016 
 
 Butler r. Allnutt, 1 Stark. 222 1203 
 
 „ V. Wildman, 3 B. & Aid. 398 ; 22 R. R. 435 . . . . 1101, 1110 
 Button I'. Thompson, 38 L. .1. C. F. 225 ; L. R. 4 C. P. 330 ; 20 L. T. 568 ; 
 
 17 W. R. 1069 110 
 
 Buxton l: Snee, 1 Ves. Sen. 154 ....... 24, 45, 964 
 
 Byfoged Christensen, The, and The William Frederick, 4 App. Cas. 669 ; 
 
 41 L. T. 535 ; 28 AV. R. 233 ; 4 Asp. !\E C. 201— H. L. (E.) . . 815, 
 
 824, 825- 
 
 Byrne v. Mercantile Insurance Co., 4 H. & C. 506 1270 
 
 ,, v. Pattinson, Abbott on Shipping (13tli ed.) 619 .... 370 
 „ c. Schiller. 40 L. 7. Ex. 177 ; L. R. 6 Ex. 319 ; 25 L. T. 211 ; 
 
 19 W. R. 1114: 1 Asp. M. C. Ill— Ex. Ch 408 
 
 Bywell Castle, 4 F. I). 219 : 41 L. T. 747 : 28 W. R. 293 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 
 207--C. A 688, 098. 
 
 C. 
 
 C. .M. Palmkk, The, and The Larnax, Tvne Steam Shi[iping Co. r. Smith, 
 
 29 L. T. 120 ; 21 W. II. 702 : 2 As\,. M. C. 94— P. C' . . 093, 094, 
 
 787. 1011 
 C. S. Butler (Colli.sion ; Lights ; Appeal ; Evidence). L. 1!. 4 A. & E. 238 ; 31 
 
 L. T. 549 ; 23 W. R. 113 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 408 . 789, 791, 827, 832, 
 
 1015 
 ,, ., The, and The Baltic (Collision; Salvage), 43 L. J. Adm. 17 ; 
 L. R. 4 A. & E. 178 ; 30 L. T. 475 ; 22 W. R. 759 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 
 237 601, 688 
 
 Cachapool, 7 P. D. 217 ; 46 L. T. 171 : 4 Asp. M. C. 502. . 697, 772, 779 
 (\adiz. The, and The J'.oyne, 35 L. T. 602 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 332 . 651, 677, 678 
 
 Ca-sar'.s Case, Sir .lulius, Leon.pt. 1, 106. ...... 93 t 
 
 Catfarimi r. Walker, 10 h-. Rep. C. L. 250— Ex. Ch 462 
 
 Caffin V. Aldridge, 65 L. J. Q. B. 85 ; [1895] 2 Q. B. 648 ; 15 R. 548 ; 
 
 73 L. T. 426 ; 44 W. R. 129 ; 8 Asp. M. 0. 233— C. A. . . . 290 
 Cahill r. Dawson, 3 C. P.. (n'.s.) 106 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 253 ; 3 Jur. (n.8.) 
 
 1128 1338 
 
 Cail '/;. Papayanni, The Amalia, 1 Moore, P. C (x.s. ) 471 : P>r. & Lush. 
 151 ; 2 N. R. 533 ; 32 L. J. Adm. 191 ; 9 Jur. (x.s.) 1111 : 8 L. T. 
 
 805 ; 12 W. R. 24 740, 747, 753, 760 
 
 Cairo, 43 L. J. Adm. 33 ; L. R. 4 A. & E. 184 ; 30 L. T. 535 ; 22 AV. R. 
 
 742 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 257 609 
 
 Calabar, Moss v. African Steamship Co., L. R. 2 P. C. 238 ; 19 L. T. 768 692 
 
 770, 772 
 Calcutta (Collision ; Lievitable Accident), 21 L. T. 768— P. ('. . . 7o4 
 
 (Cross Action ; Ship Sunk), 17 W. R. 744 842 
 
 Caldwell 1-. Ball, 1 Term Rep. 205 ; 1 R. R. 187 . . . • 351, 352 
 Caledonia (Salvage; Cinque Forts; Appeal i, L. R. 4 A. it E. 11, /;. : 17 
 
 AV. R. 626 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 578, v 646 
 
 (Master), Swabey, 17 ; 2 Jur. (x.s.) 48 ; 4 W. R. 183 . 90, 187, 
 
 Calla, Swabev, 465 787, 793 
 
 <'allandcr v. Oclricks, 5 Bing. Is.v.) 58 : 6 Scott, 761 ; 8 L. J. C. P. . 
 
 25 .... " 1337
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xxxi 
 
 Callio|)e, 60 L. J. AJm. 28 ; [1891] App. Cas. 11 ; 03 L. T. 7S1 ; -39 
 
 W. R. 641 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 58") ; o:, J. P. Sf.?— H. L. (E.). . . 880 
 
 Callow c. Kelson, 10 AV. R. 193 1348 
 
 Calvert c. Bovill, 7 Term Rep. 523 ; 4 R. R. .".17 1172 
 
 Calypso (Bounty ; Salvage), 2 Hag. Ailni. 209 f,93, 971 
 
 ,, (Practice), Swabey, 28 : 4 W. R. :J03 842 
 
 ,, (Bottomry), 3 Hag. Adm. 162 -Jlf, 
 
 Cambrian, 76 L. T. 504 ; S As]i. Z\l. C. 260 595 
 
 Cambridge, 2 Hag. Adm. 243 112, 128, 12;» 
 
 „ V. Anderton, 4 I). & R. 203 ; 2 B. & C. 691 : 1 Car. v*c P. 213 ; 
 
 Ry. & }>[. 60 ; 2 L. .J. (o.s.) K. B. 141 ; 26 R. R. ."17. . 1284, 
 
 130O 
 
 ,, (Earl) c. Penrose, cited Dyer 159 927 
 
 Camden c. Anderson, 5 Term Rep. 709 ; and see S. C. fi reriii Rcii. 723 ; 
 
 1 Bos. & P. 272 . 3U, 1111 
 
 ,, c. Cowley, 1 W. lil. 417 106.'> 
 
 Came r. M03', Sid. pt. 2, 121 1335 
 
 Camellia, 53 L. J. Adm. 12 ; 9 P. U. 27 ; 50 L. T. 126 ; 32 W. R. 495 : 
 
 5 Asp.-M. C. 197 612, 679 
 
 Camelo c. Britten, 4 P.. & Aid. 184 1203 
 
 Cameo, Lush. 408; 5 L. T. 773 S41. 983 
 
 Cameron c. Xy.stroui, 62 L. J. P. C. 85; [1893 App. (as. 3uS : 1 R. 
 
 362; 68 L. T. 772 : 57 .J. P. .550 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 320— P. C. . . 7a 
 
 Camilla, Swabey, 312 : 6 "W. R. 840 82, 95, 103 
 
 Cammell v. Sewell, 5 H. >^ X. 72S ; 29 L. ,T. Ex. 350 : 6 .Jur. (x.s.) 918 ; 
 
 2 L. T. 799 ; 8 W. R. 639— Ex. Cli. . . 160, 526, 1284, 1296, 1303 
 
 Campbell c. liordieu, 2 Str. 1265 1168 
 
 '•. Christie, 2 Stark. 64 1042 
 
 ,, c. riornsbv, Ir. Rep. 6 Cli. 37 ; see S. C. in Ex. Cli. Ii-. Rep. 7 
 
 C. L. 540 . 892 
 
 -r. Junes, 4 B. & Aid. 423 ; 23 R. R. 238 . . . .1198 
 
 c. Rickards, 5 B. & Ad. 840 : 2 X. & .M. 542: 2 !,. .1. K. I!. 
 
 204 1200 
 
 V. Stein, 6 Duw, IKJ 38, 5S 
 
 V. Thompson (Ma.ster ; Sale of Cargo), 1 Stark. 490 . . . 1302 
 r. Thompson (Register), 2 Ha. 140 : 7 .Tur. 59 . . . . 36 
 Campion v. Colvin, 3 Bing. (x.c) 17 ; 3 Scott. 338 : 2 Hodges, 116 ; 5 
 
 L. J. C. P. 317 432. 436 
 
 ,, i-. Xicolas, 1 Str. 405 107 
 
 Cana(la, Lu.sh. 586 732 
 
 Canada Shijiping Co. r. British Shipowners' Mutual Protection Association, 
 58 L. .J. Q. B. 462 : 23 Q. B. D. 342 ; 61 L. T. 312 ; 38 W. R. 87 ; 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 422— C. A 107G 
 
 Canadian, 1 W. Rol). 343 . . . . . . . . .771 
 
 Cannau v. Meaburii (Master; Sale of Carifo), 1 Bing. 243; S Moore, 127 : 
 
 1 L. J. (....^.) C. P. 84 89, 525 
 
 ,, r. Meabuni (Liabilitv ; Limitation. 1 liing. 165: 2 L. J. (o.s.) 
 
 60 . . . . ' 556, 735, 1302 
 
 ('antillon r. London Assurance Co., cited 3 Burr. 155:; . . 109;> 
 
 Cape Packet, 3 W. Rob. 122 602 
 
 Capella, [1892J P. 70 ; 66 L. T. 3SS ; 7 Asji. M. C. 15s .... 603^ 
 Carifo f.r, L. R. 1 A. & E. 356 ; 16 L. 'J'. 800 .... 604 
 Capper c. Eor.ster, 3 Uiug. (N.c.) 938; 5 Scott, 129: :! Ib.dgcs, 177; 6 
 
 L. .1. C. P. 332 416 
 
 „ ,-. Walla.e, 49 L. .T. Q. B. 3.'.0 ; 5 i). 15. It. H;:; ; |j |,. T. 130; 
 
 28 W. R. 424 : 4 Asp. M. C. 223 244 
 
 Carali r. Xenos. 2 E. .t V. 740 5:!2 
 
 Card V. Hutm-, 2 P.. \- C. 661 ; 4 I), k K. 161 ; 2 1-. .1. .>.>,. K. 1'.. 96 ; 
 
 26 R. R. 503 l"'! 
 
 Cardiff Steam.shii) Co. v. Barwick, The Itaisby, 54 L. .1. Adm. 65 : 10 
 
 P. I). 114 ; 53 L. T. 56 ; 33 W. R. 938 ; 5 A.sp. .\I. C. 473 656, 657, 1020 
 Carfrae c. Salmon, 3 Hag. .\ilni. :i3S ....... 837 
 
 C'fir'fo ry, i(-c. Srr. N'llilC <if Slii/i. 
 
 Cai-isbronk. 59 L. .1. .\dn..' 37 : 15 P. 1). 98; 62 L. T. M.". : 38 \V. IJ. 
 
 543 : 6 Asp. M. C. 507 "!^, •"•'^ 
 
 (JsulJohan, cited 1 Hag. Adm. ]]:•.; 3 Hag. Adm. 1.S6 ... 761 
 
 Carl XV., [1892J P. 324 ; 61 L. .1. Adm. 41 ; 68 L. T. 1 19 : K' W. b'. 
 
 576 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 242— C. A 5"M 
 
 Carlton Steamship Co. r. Ca.stlc Mail Packets Co., 66 L. .1. <i. II. M9 ; 
 11897' 2 Q. B. 485; 77 L. T. -332; 46 W. R. 68; 8 Asp. M. C. 
 
 325 242 
 
 Carlylc (Cross Action , 6 W. R. 197 '*^41 
 
 ,, r. Macalpin. 2 Ct. of Sess. Ca.s. (3rd ser.; 882 .... 29 
 
 r^2
 
 xxxii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Cannicliael v. Liverjiool Sailing Shipowners" Association, 56 L. J. Q. B. 
 428 ; 19 Q. B. J). 242 ; '>7 L. T. 550 ; 35 W. K. 79:5 ; d As}.. M. C. 
 
 184-C. A 1076 (2) 
 
 Carnarvon Castlo, 158 L. T. TM ; 2(5 W. K. 876 ; ;5 As]). :\I. C. 607— 
 
 0. A 1009 
 
 €arnc"-io v. Conner, 5!) L. .). (,>. B. 122 ; 24 <,>. B. D. 45 ; 61 L. T. 691 ; 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 447 271 
 
 Carolina, ;i4 L. T. ;!99; .'3 Asp. M. C. 141 123 
 
 Caroline (Derelict ; Salvage), 2 W. Rob. 124 643 
 
 Carolus, 8 Hag. Adni. 343, ii 806 
 
 Carr v. Monteliore, 5 B. k S. 408 ; 33 L. .T. Q. B. 256 ; 10 .)ur. (x.s.) 1069 ; 
 
 11 L. T. 157 ; 12 AV. R. 870— Ex. Ch. . . . 1044, lu.52. 1055 
 ,, y. Royal Excliange Assurance Corporation (i'ayi'K'nt into Court). 
 5 B. & S. 941 : 34 L. J. Q. B. 21 ; 11 Jnr (x.s.) 265 ; 11 L. T. 
 
 595 ; 13 AV. R. 204 1323 
 
 ,, V. Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation (Average ; Loss), 5 B. & S. 
 433 ; 33 L. J. Q. B. 63 : 10 Jnr. (n.s.) 316 ; 10 L. T. 265 ; 12 
 AV R. 127— Ex. Ch. S. C. pleading, 1 B. & S. 956 ; 31 L. .T. 
 O. B. 93; 8 Jnr. (X.s.) 384; 6 L. T. 105; 10 AV. R. 352 . 1250. 
 
 1330 
 ,, V. AVallachian Petroleum Co., 36 L. J. C. P. 236 ; L. R. 2 C. P. 468 ; 
 
 16 L. T. 460 : 15 AV. R. 874— Ex. Ch 386, 427 
 
 Carrier Dove, Tiask v. Dowie (Collision), Br. & Lush. 113 ; 2 iAloore. P. C. 
 
 (N.s.) 260 696,770,771 
 
 Trask i\ Aliuldoc (Salvage), 2 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 243 594, 
 
 647 
 
 Carron, 1 Spinks, 91 799 
 
 Carron Park, 59 L. .1. Adm. 74 ; 15 P. D. 203 ; 63 L. T. 356 ; 39 AV. R. 
 
 191 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 543 278, 589 
 
 •Carruthers v. Gray, 15 East, 35 ; 3 Camp. 142 . . . . 1092, 1194, 1206 
 
 w, Shedden, 1 Marsh. 416; 6 Taunt. 14 1145 
 
 V. Sydebotham, 4 M. & S. 77 ; 16 R. R. 392 . 765, 777, 780, 1094, 
 
 1097 
 
 ■Carstairs r. Alhiutt, 3 Camp. 497 1205 
 
 Carse v. North British Steam Packet Co., 22 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4tli ser.) 
 
 475 688, 795 
 
 •Carswell v. Finlay, 14 Ct. oC Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 903 ... . 167 
 •Carters. Boehm," 1 AV. Bl. 593 ; 3 Burr. 1905 .... 1188, 1199 
 
 ,, V. Hall, 3 Stark. 361 . . . . _ 122 
 
 ,, 'V. Royal Exchange Assurance C(mipany, cited 2 Str. 1249 . . 1214 
 •I'artsburn, 49 L. J. Adm. 14 ; 5 P. D. 59 ; 41 L. T. 710 ; 28 AV. R. 368 ; 
 
 4 Asp. M. C. 202— C. A 758 
 
 Cartwright?\ Philpott, Tlie Jetl" Davis, 5 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 25 ; L. R. 2 
 
 P. C. 19 986 
 
 ■Caruthers v. Graham, 14 East, 578 ........ 1345 
 
 •Gary v. King, Cas. t. Hardw. 304 1328 
 
 ,, V. AVhite, 5 Bro. P. C. 323 ; 1 Ecj. Cas. Abr. 722 .... 61 
 ■Casanova v. Reg. See Cassanova v. Reg., infra. 
 
 ■Caseof Pressing Mariners, 18 State Trials, 1326 139 
 
 Caseofthe Admiraltv, 12 Co. Rep. 79 928 
 
 Case V. Davidson. 2 Br. & P.. 379 ; 8 Price, 542 ; 5 Moore, 116 ; 17 R. R. 
 
 280— Ex. Ch. Athrming 5 M. & S. 79 1295, 1313 
 
 Casher r. Holmes, 2 B. & A.l. 592 ; 9 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 280 . . .898 
 Cashmere, 59 L. J. Adm. 57 ; 15 P. D. 121 ; 62 L. T. 814 ; 38 AV. R. 
 
 623 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 515 1016 
 
 Cassanova v. Reg., The Ricardo Schmidt (Sla\e Trade), 4 ^loore, P. G. 
 
 (N.s.) 121 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 268 ; 12 Jnr. (n.s.) 895 . . 971 
 V. Reg., Tlie Ricardo Schmidt (Apjieal ; Time), L. R. 1 P. C. 
 
 115; 12 Jur. (N.s.) 127 ; 14 AV. R. 617 1012 
 
 Cassiopeia, 48 L. J. Adm. 39 ; 4 P. D. 188 ; 40 L. T. 869 ; 27 AV. R. 703 ; 
 
 4 Asp. M. C. 148 976, 987 
 
 'Caste! v. Trechman, 1 Cab. & E. 276 284, 375 
 
 'Castellain v. Thompson, 13 G. V>. (n.s.) 105 ; 32 L. J. C. P. 79 ; 7 L. T. 
 
 424 ; 11 W. R. 147 '^^^ 
 
 'Castelli v. Boddington, 1 El. & Bl. 879 : 1 C. L. R. 281 : 23 L. J. Q. B. 31 ; 
 17 Jur. 781 ; 1 AV. R. 359— Ex. Gh. Affirming (on some 
 points), 1 El. & J51. 66 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 5 ; 17 Jur. 457 ; 1 
 AV. R. 20 . . . . . 1309, 1310, 1313, 1316, 1328 
 „ V. Cook, 7 Hare, 89 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 148 ; 13 Jur. 675 . . . 53 
 
 'Castiglione and Cargo, 20 L. T. 180 995 
 
 vCastle V. Duke, 5 Car. & P. 359 192 
 
 ,, V. Playford, 41 L. J. Ex. 44 ; L. R. 7 Ex. 98; 26 L. T. 315 ; 20 
 
 W. R. 440; 1 Asp. M. C. 25.^.— Ex. Ch 544
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xxxiii 
 
 t'astle"ate, Jlorgau v. Castlegate Steamship Co. (Master's DisburseinentsJ, 
 
 62 L. J. P. C. 17 ; [1893] App. Cas. yS ; 1 R. 97 ; 68 L. T. 99 ; 41 
 
 W. R. 349 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 284— H. L. (Ir.) ... 98, 100, 2.50 
 
 Castlegate Steamship Co. r. Deinpsey, 61 L. J. Q. B. 620 ; [1892] 1 g. B. 
 
 854 ; 66 L. T. 742 ; 40 \V. R. 533 ; 7 Asp. x\I. C. 186— C. A. . . 481 
 Castlewood, 42 L. T. 702 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 278— P. C. . . . 648, 678 
 
 Castling v. Aubert, 2 East, 325 134» 
 
 Castor, 6 L. T. 106 857 
 
 Castriuue v. Behiens, 30 L. J. (>. B. 163 ; 7 Jur. (n'.s.) 1028 ; 4 L. T. 52 191 
 
 , ' c. Imrie, 39 L. J. C. P. 350 ; L. R. 4 H. L. 414 ; 23 L. T. 48 : 
 
 19 W. R. 1— H. L. (E.). Aitinniug, 8 C B. (k..s.) 405 ; 30 L. J. 
 
 C. P. 177; 7 Jur. (x..s.) 1076; 4 L. T. 143; 9 W. E. 455 — 
 
 Ex. Ch 162, 16.> 
 
 Catalina, 2 Spir.ks, 22:; 855 
 
 Catalonia. Tlie Heleuslea, 51 L. J. Ailm. 16 : 7 P. D. 57 ; 47 L. T. 446 ; 
 
 30 W. R. 616 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 594 lOul 
 
 Cater (or Cator) r. Great Western Insurance Co. (or G. N. Insurance Co. of 
 
 New York), 42 L. ,1. C. P. 266 ; L. R. 8 C. P. 552 ; 29 L. T. 136 ; 21 
 
 W. R. 850 : 2 Asp. M. C. 90 1049, 1228, 1261 
 
 Catlicart, L. R. 1 A. & K. 314; 16 L. T. 211 193 
 
 Catherina Maria. L. R. 1 A. & E. 53 ; 12 Jur. (x.s.) 380 " . . . 850 
 Catherine (Bottomry ; Cost of Insurance), Swabey, 263 ; 5 "\V. R. 829 213, 214 
 
 ,, (Salvage)", 12 Jur. 682 ; 6 Not. of Cas. Suppl. xliii. . . . 662 
 
 (Costs of Reference ; Bottomry), 3 W. Rob. 1 .... 229 
 
 formerly The Crossdale (Bottomry), 15 Jur. 231 . . 165,218 
 
 Catherine Chalmers, 82 L. T. 847 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 59S .... 518 
 
 Catherine of Dover (Collision), 2 Hag. Adni. 145 701 
 
 Catley v. Wintringham, 1 Peake, 202 ; 3 K. li. 670 510 
 
 Cato, 35 L. J. Adm. 116 S59 
 
 ,, V. Irving, 2 De G. k Sni. 210 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 675 ; 16 Jur. 161 . 28 
 Catterina (or Caltarina) Chiazzare, 45 L. J. Adm. 105 ; 1 P. 1). 368 ; 34 
 
 L. T. 588 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 170 991 
 
 Cattlin r. Hills, 8 C. B. 115 686 
 
 Catts 1-. Herbert, 3 Stark. 12 ; 23 R. i;. 7.V2 /63 
 
 Caugliley v. Gordon, 3 C. P. D. 419 ; 27 W. It. 50 .... 89, 308 
 
 Caule /•. Cooke, 2 Keb. 498 ■'"■^l. •^-'' 
 
 Cawtliron c. Trickett, 15 C. P.. (n.s.) 754 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 182 ; 9 L. T. 
 
 609; 12 W. U. 311 56, 453, 472 
 
 Cayzor v. Carron Steamshi]i Co., The Margaret, 54 L. J. Adm. 18 ; 9 App. 
 
 Cas. 873 ; 52 L. T. 361 ; 33 W. R. 281 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 371 — H. L. (E.) 831 
 Cazalet v. St. Barbe, 1 Term Rep. 187 ; 1 R. R. 178 .. • 1044, 1288 
 Cazenove v. Clayton, 2 M. & Hob. 552 . . . . • • . 1<4 
 Cecilie, 4 P. D. 210 : 40 L. T. 200 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 78 . . . • 224 
 Cella, 57 ]>. J. Adm. 55 : 13 P. D. 82 : 59 L. T. 125; 36 W. R. 540 ; 6 
 
 Asp. M. C. 293-C. A. . 964,968,970 
 
 Cellier r. Hindc, 17 L. T. 341 ; 16 \V. R. 1S4 367 
 
 Celt, 3 Hag. Adm. .",21 736, 855 
 
 Celtic King, 63 L. J. Adm. 37 ; [1894] P. 175 ; 6 R. 754 ; 70 L. T. 562 ; 
 
 7 Asp. M. C. 440 =^2. 182 
 
 Centurion, 1 Hag. Adm. 161 ^25 
 
 Ceres, Swiibev, 250 • 692 
 
 Ceto, n Aim. Cas. 670; 62 L. T. 1; 6 Asp. M. C. 179-11. L. (Iv) 799, 
 ^' 816,817 
 
 CevloM, 18 L. T. 417 49,164,958 
 
 Chadwick v. Citv ol' Dublin Steam Packet (»., f, El. .v 111. 771 ; 3.lur. 
 
 (N.s.) 207 
 
 805 
 
 (Jhalacombe, E.r juirtr, 13 East, 550, v. ; 12 \i. R. 131, ;/. •••„'* 
 
 Chalmers v. Bell, 3 15os. k P. 604 , • 1202 
 
 V. Scopenich, 61 L. J. M. C. 117 ; [1892] 1 <.•. i:. 73,-. ; 66 I,. 1. 
 
 348 ; 40 W. R. 477 ; 7 Asp. M. ('. 171 ; 56 J. 1'. .'21 . • 8/8 
 
 Chamberlain r. Conway, 53 J. P. 214 . . . • • • | '^^'^ 
 
 Chambers' Ca.se, 1 Keb. 10, 66 'I'-J* 
 
 Champion, P,r. k Eusli. 69 '^'-•;' 
 
 Chance, Swabev, 294,; 6 W. R. 221 j ^^;^ 
 
 Chancellor, Williams v. (iutcli, 14 Moore, P. C. 202 ; 4 B. T. 62/ . _ .61, S0.> 
 Chandler v. Grieves, 2 H. I'.l. 606, n. ; 6 Term l!<p. 325, -/. ; 3 W. W. ■<•■!■■> U^ 
 
 r. Meade, cited 2 Ld. Raym. 1211 08 
 
 Chaney r. Payne, 1 G. & D. 348; 1 (.». P.. 712 1^- 
 
 Change, Swabey, 240 : 5 W. R. 547 ,-•,,■ 
 
 Chanonry, The, and The Eevcrington, 42 L.J. Adm. 58 ; 2s I,. 1. 284 ; \ 
 
 Asi. .M C 569 ' ^' 
 
 Chai.Tnan k Benson, 2 H.*L. Cas. 696 ; 8 C. 11. 950 ; 13 Jur. 969 . 389^ 1135 
 ' 1225, 1233, 1287, 1325
 
 xxxiv TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Cliapman v. Callis, !) C. H. (x.s.) 7ti!i ; :iO L. .1. C ]'. '241 ; 7 -lur. (x.s.) 
 
 995 ; 3 L. T. 890 ; 9 W. II. .'J?;') 166 
 
 ,, V. Fraser, 2 Marsli. Ins. (4th ed.1 661 ; 1 Pnik. Ins. (Stli ud.) 
 
 AM . . . . ' 1303 
 
 ,, r. Royal Xethcrlauds Steam Navi<;ation Co., 48 L. J. Ch. 449 ; 
 4 P. I). l.^>7 ; 40 L. T. 433 ; 27 W. R. 554 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 
 107— C. A 736,743(2) 
 
 r. Walton, 3 M. & Scott, 389 ; 10 r.incr. 57 : 2 L. .1. C. P. '210 1199, 
 
 1338 
 rliai>ivll r. P.iav, 6 H. .t X. 145 ; 30 L. .1. Ex. 24 ; 3 L. T. 278 ; 9 W. R. 17 56, 66 
 r. Comfort, 10 r. B. (x.s.) 802 ; 31 L. ,J. C. P. 5S ; 8 Jur. (x.s.) 
 
 177 ; 4 L. T. 448 ; 9 W. R. 694 452 
 
 Cliavkieh, In re, (Prohibition), 42 L. J. Q. P. 75 ; L. R. 8 (). B. 197 ; 28 
 
 L. T. 190 ; 21 AV. R. 437 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 533 . . .724 
 „ (Jmisdiction), 42 L. J. Adm. 17 ; L. R. 4 A. & E. 59 ; 28 L. T. 
 
 513 ; 1 Asp. ]\[. C. 581 724, 762, 979 
 
 (Stay; Security), 42 L. J. Adm. 70 ; L. R. 4 A. .^ E. 120 ; 29 
 
 L. T. 404 ; 22 W. K. 63 ; 2 Asp. i\l. C. 121 991 
 
 Charles, L. R. 3 A. & E. 536 ; 26 L. T; 594 : 21 W. R. 13 ; 1 Asp. U. C. 
 
 296 605, 648, 655 
 
 Charle-s Adolphe, Swabey, 153 600,612 
 
 Charles Amelia, 38 L. J. Adm. 17 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 330 ; 19 L. T. 
 
 429 ; 17 W. R. 624 718 
 
 Charles Jackson, 52 L. T. 631 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 399 959 
 
 Charleton c. Cotesworth, 1 Ry. & M. 175 89 
 
 Charlotta, 2 Hag. Adm. 361 599 
 
 Charlotte, The Bonita and The, Lush. 252 ; 30 L. .]. Adm. 145: 5 L. T. 
 
 141 161 (2), 162, 164 
 
 (Salvage), 3 AV. Rob. 68 ; 6 Not. of Cas. 279 . . . . 622 
 
 Charlotte Wylie, 1 W. Rob. 495 ; 5 Not. of Cas. 6 618 
 
 Charlton, 11 R. 825 ; 73 L. T. 49 ; 8 Asp. ]V[. C. 29— C. A. . . . 768 
 Chartered l>ank of India, Australia and China v. Henderson. L. P. 5 P. C. 
 
 501 : 30 L. T. 578 . .346 
 
 Chartered Mercantile Bank of India v. NeLlierlands-Indiu Steam Naviga- 
 tion Co., 52 L. .1. Q. B. 220; 10 (,). B. I). 521 ; 48 L. T. 546 : 31 
 W. R. 445 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 65 ; 47 J. P. 260— C. A. . 333, 736. 737 (2), 760 
 Chasca, 44 L. J. A<lm. 17 ; L. R. 4 A. & E. 446 ; 32 L. T. 838 ; 2 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 600 330 
 
 < 'hasteauneuf 1-. Capeyion, 51 L. ,1. P. C. 37 ; 7 App. Cas. 127 ; 46 L. T. 
 
 iiTi ; 4 Asp. M. C. 489— P. C 29, 158, 170 
 
 Chauraud v. Angerstein, 1 Peake, 61 1045. 1167, 1199 
 
 Cheerful, 55 L. J. Adm. 5 ; 11 P. D. 3 ; 54 L. T. 56 ; 34 W. P. 307 ; 5 
 
 Asp. M. C. 525 .......... 597 
 
 Cheeseman, E.r parte, 2 Eden, 181 433 
 
 Cherubim. Jr. Rep. 2 E(|. 172 600, 617, 679 
 
 Cheshire Witch, Br. & Lush. 362; 11 L. T. 350 980 
 
 Chester, 3 Hag. Adm. 316 805 
 
 Chesterfield (Earl of) r. Jan.son, 2 Ves. Sen. 124 ; 1 Atk. 301 . . . 206 
 Chetah, The Dublin (Owners) c. The Clietah (Owners), 5 Jloore, P. C. 
 (x.s.) 278 ; 38 L. .J. Adm. 1 : L. R. 2 P. C. 205 ; 19 L. T. 621 : 17 
 
 \V. R. 233 596, 634, 645 
 
 Chieftain (Salvage), 4 Not. of Cas. 459 667 
 
 (Master's Wages ; Lien ; Delay), Br. k Lush. 212 . . . 101 
 ,, (Master's Wages ; Damage ; Lien ; Mortgagee), Br. & Lush. 104 ; 
 32 L. J. Adm. 106 ; 9 .Jur. (x.s.) 388 ; 8 L. T. 120; 11 W. R. 537 89, 
 
 178, 982 
 Child V. Sands, Carth. 294 ; Lev. pt. 3, 351 ; Comb. 215 : 4 Mod. 176 ; 
 
 1 Salk. 31 ; 1 Danv. 6, pi. 9 ; Sir T. Raym. 488 ; 2 Shower, 302 ; 
 Skinner, 91 (see Sands' Case, infra) 926 
 
 Chilian, 45 L. T. 623 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 473 799 
 
 Chimaira (Damage ; Lien), cited 8 P. D. 46, 131 ; 4 Jur. (x.s.) 172. 120, 719 
 China Merchants' Steam Navigation Co. v. Bignold, The Hoehung and The 
 Lapwing, 51 L. J. P. C. 92 ; 7 App. Cas. 512 ; 47 L. T. 485 : 31 
 
 W. R. 303 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 39 709, 738. 792, 844 
 
 China Transpacific Steamship Co. r. Commercial Union Assurance Co., 51 
 L. J. Q. B. 132 ; 8 Q. B. D. 142 ; 45 L. T. 647 ; 30 W. R. 224— 
 
 C. A 1318 
 
 <'hinnery r. Blacknian (or Blackbourne), 3 Dougl. 391 ; 1 H. Bl. 117, «.; 
 
 2 R. R. 731 397 
 
 Chioggia, 60 L. J. Adm. 174 ; [1898] P. 1 ; 77 L. T. 472 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 
 
 352 220 
 
 Chipijendale v. Holt, 65 L. J. (». B. 104 ; 73 L. T. 472 ; 1 1 W. R. 128 : 
 
 8 Asp. M. C. 78 1039
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xxxv 
 
 €hitty f. Selwyu, 2 Atk. 3.09 lOaS, 1320 
 
 Chope V. Reynolds, 5 C. B. (n.s.) 642 ; 28 L. J. C. P. 194 ; r> Jiir. (x.s.) 
 
 822 : 7 W. R. 208 1128 
 
 Chiistian i'. Coombe, 2 Esp. 439 850,1172,1262 
 
 Christiana (Foreign Slii)) ; Detention), 2 Hag Adin. 183 . . 759, 760, 776 
 ,, Hammond t'. Rogers, 7 Moore, P. 0. 160 695, 764 (2), 772, 774,775 (2) 
 Christiansborg, 45 L. J. Adm. 84 ; 10 P. D. 144 ; 53 L. T. 612 ; 5 Asj^. 
 
 M. C. 491— C. A 990 (2) 
 
 •C'hristie, E.v parte, 10 Yes. 105 51 
 
 V. Craig, 2 Mer. 137 53 
 
 ,, V. Lewis, 5 Moore, 211 : 2 IJr. & V,. 410 : 23 R. R. 483 . . 296 
 
 ,, r. Secretan, 8 Term Rep. 192 1171 (Addenda) 
 
 „ V. Trott, 2 W. R. 15 559 
 
 Christin r. Ditchell, 2 Peake, 141 : 4 R. R. 898 1168 
 
 Christina, Petty i'. Catto, 6 Moore, P. C. 371. Affirming 3 W. Rob. 27 . 756 
 ChristoHerson v. Hansen, 41 L. J. g. B. 217 ; L. R. 7 Q. B. 509 ; 26 L. T. 
 
 547 ; 20 W. R. 626 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 305 416 
 
 Christy c Row, 1 Tannt. 300 : 9 R. R. 776 . . . 252, 368, 377, 399 
 Churchward r. Palmer, The Vivid, 10 Moore, P. C. 472; 4 AV. R. 755. 
 
 Affirming Swabe^-, 88 691, 804 
 
 Chusan, 53 L. T. 60 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 476 .... 710, 789, 794 
 
 Cinque Ports( A.'arden) V. Rex, 2Hag. Adm. 438 . . . 595.660,945 
 Cito. 51 L. .1. Adm. 1 ; 7 P. D. 5 ; 45 L. T. 663 ; 30 W. R. 836 ; 4 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 468— C. A 385 
 
 €ity of Antwerp, The, and The Friedrich, Iiimau i: Beck, 37 L. J. Ailm. 
 
 25 ; L. R. 2 P. C. 25 812, 826 
 
 City of Berlin, 47 L. J. Adm. 2 ; 2 P. D. 187 ; 37 L. T. 307 ; 25 W. R. 
 
 793 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 491-C. A 644, 677, 860, 1024 
 
 City of Brooklyn, 1 P. D. 276 ; 34 L. T. 932 ; 24 W. R. 1056 : 3 Asp. 
 
 ■ :\I. C. 230— ( '.A 690, 692, 796, 803 
 
 €ity of Brussels, 42 L. J. Adm. 72 ; L. R. 4 A. k E. 194 : 29 L. T. 312 ; 
 
 22 W. R. 71 : 2 Asj.. M. C. 102 678, 1019 
 
 €ity of Buenos Ayres, 25 L. T. 672 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 169 . . 731, 753, 1006 
 City of Cambridge (Costs), 35 I,. T. 781 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 307 . . . 860 
 Wood V. Smith (Pilot), 43 L. -T. Ad.n. 11 ; L. R. 5 
 P. C. 451 ; 30 L. T. 439 ; 22 "W. R. 578 : 2 Asp. M. C. 239 764, 774, 779 
 City of Carlisle, Br. & Lush. 363 ; 11 L. T. 33 . . 708, 772, 773, 806 
 €ity of Chester, 53 L. -L Adm. 90 : 9 P. D. 182 ; 51 L. T. 485 ; 33 W. R. 
 
 104 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 311— C. A 636,637 
 
 €ity of Corinth, Tasmania (Owners) r. City of Corinth (Ownei-.s), 15 App. 
 " Cas. 223 ; 63 L. T. 1 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 517 — H. L. (H.). R<'vcrsing 37 
 
 \V. R. 552 826 
 
 City of Delhi, 58 L. T. 531 ; 6 Asp. .M. C. 269 ... . 833 (2) 
 
 City of Dublin Steam Packet Co. v. Thompson, 1 H. & R. 369 : 35 L. .1. 
 C. 1*. 198 ; L. R. 1 C. P. 355 ; 12 .lur. (n.s.) 726 ; 15 L. T. IIJ : 
 14 W. R. 376— Kx. Cli. Affirming 19 C. H. (x.s.) 553 . . . ti5 
 
 City of Kdinburgh, 2 Hag. Adm. 333 616 
 
 €ity of Lincoln, 59 L. .). Ailm. 1 ; 15 P. J). 1.") ; 62 L. T. 49 ; 38 W. R. 
 
 345 : 6 Asp. M. C. 475— C. A 730 
 
 ■City of Lr)iiilon (or The London). Morgan c. Sim (Evidence), Swabey, 245. 
 
 .300 ; 11 .Moore, P. C. 307 ; 5 W. R. 678 . 788, 789, 847 
 
 (Wages), ] \V. Rob. 88 i»32 
 
 City of Lucknow, 51 L. T. 907 ; 5 Asp. .^L C. 340 lOi'O 
 
 City of Man.;hester, 49 L. .1. A<lm. si : 5 1'. D. 221 ; 42 L. T. 521 ; 4 
 
 Anp. M. C. 261-C. A 725,859,860 
 
 City of Meca (Bail : Lienj, 50 L. A. Adm. 53 ; 6 P. D. 106; 44 L. T. 
 
 7.00 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 412-C. A. . . 717,762,923,981 
 „ ,, Ju re, Smith. In rr (Service of AVrit), 4.") L. .1. Adm. 92 : 1 
 
 P. 1). 300 ; 35 L. T. 380 ; 24 W. R. 903 ; 3 Asp. .M. C. 259 . . 975 
 
 City of .Mobile, 43 L. .1. A<lm. 41 ; L. R. 4 A. & K. 191 ; 29 L. T. lo6 : 
 
 22 W. R. 191 ; 2 As],. M. C. 123 •'=* 
 
 City of Newcastle. 71 L. T. 848 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 546 . . . ''-tO 
 
 City of I'eking (Couipagnie des .Messagcries Maritimes r. The City ol 
 i'.king (Collision ; Kddy Ti<le), 58 L. .1. P. C. 64 ; 
 14 Anil. ('as. 40; 61 L. T. 136 ; 6 ^^K .M. C. 396 — 
 
 !>.('.; 692, 694. 700, 703 
 
 appeal ; ]!.-ference), 59 L. .1. Adm. 88 ; 15 App. Cas. 
 438 ; 63 L. T. 722 ; 39 W. R. 177 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 572— P. C. . 732, 1013 
 Clacevich -•. Hut.hinso7i, 15 Ct. of Se.ss. Cas. (4th ser.) 11 . • .476 
 Clan (^ndon, 7 i'. D. 190 : 46 L. T. 490 ; 30 W. R. 691 ; 4 Asp. .M. c. 
 
 513 . . /6S 
 
 Clan Grant. 56 L. •». .\dm. 62: 12 P. 1). i:'.9; ."-7 I.. T. 121 ; :!5 W. W. 
 
 670 ; 6 Asp. .M. c. ] |4 ■> '"'
 
 XXX vi TABT.K OF CASES. 
 
 t'kn MacdunaW, 52 L. ,1. Adm. Si) ; 8 1'. D. 178 ; 4'.t L. 'I'. 408 ; :i2 W. 
 
 K. m-i ; 5 Asp. M. C. 148 (il, 539- 
 
 rlapham i: Cologaii, :] Cani]). :382— lix. Qh. . . . 1042, IM!", 1170 
 
 V. LaiiLctoii, :!4 L. .1. Q. 15. 4(i ; 10 L. T. 875 ; 12 W. 1!. 1011 — 
 
 Ex. Oh. .' 1152 
 
 Clara. Swabev, 1 ; 32 I,. .). Adm. It; ; 4 W. J!. 180 . . . 7]!», 854, 979 
 
 (.'lara Killani, :?9 !.. .1. Adia. 50 ; L. ].'. 3 A. .S: K. IHI ; 23 L. T. 27 ; 
 
 19 W. K. 25 70 
 
 rlar.'iice (CoUi.sioU ; i)aiiia<;es), 3 W. Hoh. 28:1 731 
 
 ,, (Port Tack Sliij.),! Spinks, 20(5 805, 853 
 
 Clarisse, Gaiin i: Bnm, Swabey, 129 ; 12 JMoorc, 1'. ('. 340 . tiOO, (i45, 647 
 rlark V. Chamberlain, 2 M. & W. 78 ; 2 (!ale, 217 . . . . 630, 665 
 
 Clarke v. Hatters. 1 K. k A. 242 31 
 
 ,, r. De Druifsiiia, cited 1 Maisb. 123 368 
 
 ,, r. Jlilhvall Duck Co., 55 L. .1. (,). B. 378 ; 17 (,». 1!. I). 494 ; 54 
 
 L. T. 814 ; 34 W. R. 698 ; 51 J. P. 1— C. A. . . . 20 
 
 ,, c. Spencc, 4 A. \; K. 448 ; 6 N. & I\I. 399 ; 1 H. & W. 760 ; 5 L. 
 
 J. K. B. 161 21 
 
 ,, r. "Westmore, cited Selvv. Xisi Prius (13tli ed.) 940 . . . 1163 
 
 Clarksoii r. Young, 22 F.. T. 41 1193,1208 
 
 L'la.sou r. Sinimonds, cited 6 Term Rep. 533 ; 3 R. R. 260 . . . 1214 
 
 Clans Tlioniesen, 32 L. J. Adm. 106 ; 9 .lur. (n.s.) 388 ; 8 L. T. 121 ; 11 
 
 W. R. 538 993 
 
 Clavering r. Agnire, 5 L. R. Ir. 97 . . . . . . . 54, 194 
 
 Clay c. Harrison, 5 M. & Ry. 17 ; 10 B. cS: C. !»9 ; 8 L. .1. (o.s.) K. P.. 90 1121 
 ,, r. Snelgrove, 12 Mod. 405 ; Holt, 595; Carth. 518 . . . 90, 933 
 
 Cleadon, Stevens r. Gourley, 14 Moore, P. C. 92 ; Lush. 158 ; 4 L. T. 157 754, 761 
 Cleary f. ilcAudrew, Galam, Carqn ^v, P>r. & Tai.sIi. 167 ; 2 Moore, P. C. 
 (N.s.) 216 ; 3 N. R. 254 ; 33 L. .1. Adm. 97 : 10 Jur. (x.s.) 477; 9 L. T. 
 
 550; 12 W. R. 495 97, 219, 368, 432 
 
 Clement r. Guuhouse, 5 Esp. 83 . . . . . . . .127 
 
 Clements v. Russell, 4 Ir. C. L. R. 318 .383 
 
 Cleopatra (Risk of Collision), Swal)ey, 135 786,810 
 
 (Salvage Award), 47 L. .l.'Adm. 72 ; 3 P. U. 145 . . 641, 647 
 
 ,, I Salvage ; Dispossession), 37 L. J. Adm. 31 ... . 605 
 Clievcden, The Diana and The, Sbutegar. Attwood, 64 L. -L P. C. 22 ; [1894] 
 
 App. Cas. 625 ; 6 R. 575 ; 71 L. T. 101 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 489— P. C. 828, 837 
 
 Clitibrd i: Hunter, M. & JL 103 ; 3 Car. & P. 16 1157 
 
 Clifton. 3 Ha^. Adm. 117 593 
 
 (link r. Ra.lford, 60 L. .1. (}. B. 388 ; [1891] 1 (,). B. 625 : 64 L. T. 491 ; 
 
 39 W. R. 355 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 10— C. A 402, 44 S- 
 
 Clipshani v. Vertue, D. & M. 343; 5 (). P.. 265; 13 L. .1. *). B. 2; 8 
 
 Jur. 32 287 
 
 Closmadeuc v. Carrel, 18 V. B. 36 ; 25 L. ,1. C. P. 216 ; 2 .lur. (n.s. j 474 ; 
 
 4 W. R. 547 230 
 
 Clover r. Hoyden, Ij. R. 17 E([. 190 ; 43 E. J. Ch. ()65 ; 29 L. T. 639 ; 22 
 
 W. R. 254 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 167 39 
 
 ('lutha, 45 L. J. Adm. 108 ; 35 L. T. 36 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 225 . 752 (2), 994 
 
 Clutterbuck v. Cottin, 4 Scott (N.i:.)509 ; 1 D. (x.s.) 479 ; Car. .'<: M. 273 ; 
 
 3 Man. & C. 842 ; 11 L. ,1. C. P. 65 ; 6 ,Iur. 131 . . . . IHi 
 
 Clydach, 51 E. T. 668 ; 5 Asp. iM. C. 336 823 
 
 Clytle, Swabey, 23 1007 
 
 Clvde Xavigation Co. r. Barclay, 1 App. Cas. 790 ; 36 L. T. 379 ; 3 Asp. 
 
 M. C. .390— H. L. (Se.) . 689, 692, 703, 770, 771 
 
 /•. 15iantyre (Eord), [1893] App. Cas. 703— H.L. (So.) 905 
 
 r. Eaird, 8 App. Cas. 658— H. E. (Se.) . . . 899 
 
 Clymene, 66 L. J. Adm. 152; [1897] P. 295 ; 76 E. T. 811 ; 46 
 
 109 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 287 
 
 Coatesworth v. Walsh, 3 Ir. C. L. R. 93 
 
 Cobban v. Downe, 5 Esp. 41 ; 8 R. R. 825 .... 
 Cobefiuiil Marine Insurance Co. r. Barteaux, E. H. 6 1'. C. 319 ; 3 
 
 510 ; 23 AV. R. 892 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 536 .... 
 Cochran c. Retljerg, 3 Esp. 121 
 
 Cochrane v. Fisher, nam. Fisher v. Cochrane, 5 Tyr. 496 ; 1 C. iM. 
 809 ; 4 E. .1. E.v. 328— E.x. Ch. Attirming 4 Tyr. 424 ; 3 L. .E Ex. i 
 Cock V. Tavlor, 13 East, 399 ; 2 Camp. 587 ; 12 R. R. 378 
 
 Cockburn v. Alexander, 6 C. B. 791 ; 18 L. J. C. P. 74 . . 416, 498, 519 
 
 v. Wriglit, 6 Biug. (x.c.) 223 ; 8 Scott, 489 ; 9 E. ,1. ('. P. 166 513 
 
 Cockey -y. Atkinson, 2 B. & Aid. 460 ; 21 R. R. 357 . . . . 1055 
 
 Cocking v. Fraser, 4 Dougl. 295 1248 
 
 Coey V. Smith, 22 Milne, Ct. of Sess. Cas. 955 1084 
 
 Cognac, 2 Hag. Adm. 377 215, 224 
 
 Cohen r. Hannam, 5 Taunt. 101 ; U P. 1.'. 702 1145 
 
 \V. R. 
 
 
 . 78'i 
 
 !, 784 
 
 
 595 
 
 
 542 
 
 > E. T. 
 
 
 87, 160, 
 
 1297 
 
 
 459 
 
 1. & R. 
 
 
 :.536 . 
 
 1164 
 
 
 403
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xxxvii 
 
 {.lohen (01- Colni^ v. Davidson, 46 L. J. (,). I'.. ••!0.'. : 2 (j. 15. D. 4;'-.'. ; 36 L. T. 
 
 244 ; '25 W. K. 369 : ^ Asp. M. C. 374 257 
 
 ,, r. Hhikley, 2 Camp, .'.l ; 1 Taunt. 24'.» : 11 K. R. 660 . . Iu86. 1168 
 
 ,, r. Paget, 4 ("amp. 96 915 • 
 
 ,, V. South Eastern Railway Co., 46 L. .1. Kx. 417 ; 2 Ex. D. 253 ; 
 
 36 L. T. 130 ; 25 AV. R. 475 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 248— C. A. . . 77 
 
 Coke V. Cretchet, Lev. pt. 3, 60 932 ' 
 
 „ r. Harden, 4 East, 211, 217 ; 1 Smith, 20 ; 7 R. R. 570 . . . 578 
 
 Colby V. Hunter, ^L k M. SI ; 3 Car. & P. 7 1161, 1303: 
 
 ,.' r. "Watson, The Endeavour, 6 Moore, P. C. 334 ; 6 Xot. of Cas. 57 624, 634 
 Cole c. Great Yarmouth Steam Tug Co., The I'nited Serviee, 53 L. J. 
 
 Adm. 1 ; 9 P. D. 3 : 49 L. T. 701 : 3 Asp. M. C. 17o— C. A. . 715 
 ,, V. Meek, 15 C. B. (s'.s.) 795 ; 33 L. -I. C. P. 183 : 9 L. T. 653 : 12 
 
 W. R. 349 497 
 
 ,, v. Parkin, 12 East. 471 38 
 
 Coleman c. Lamliert, 5 M. & AV. 502 ; 9 L. J. Ex. 43 ... . 39i> 
 CoUedge v. Hartey, 6 Ex. 205 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 146 . . . . 367, 1166 
 Collier, L. R. 1 A. & E. 83 ; 12 Jur. (n'.s.) 789 ; 16 L T. 155 . 621, 673 
 
 Colliugrove, The Nuinide, The, 54 L. J. Adm. 78 ; m P. D. 158 ; 53 L. T. 
 
 681 ; 34 W. R. 156 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 483 856, 1020 
 
 Collins V. Lamport, 4 l)e G. J. & S. 500 ; 34 L. J. Ch 196 : 1 1 .lur. [s.s.) 1 ; 
 
 11 L. T. 497; 13 W. R. 283 176 
 
 CoUiuson V. Larkins, 3 Taunt. 1 686 
 
 V. Lister, 25 !-. J. Ch. 38: 2 .Fur. (N.s.) 75; 4 W. 1!. 133— 
 
 L.JJ 1'^ 
 
 Cologan V. London Assurance Co., 5 M. & S. 447 ; 17 R. P. 390 . . 1291 
 
 Colo'Mie, The Hanger and The, Maleolmson v. General Steam Navigation 
 Co., 9 Moore, P. C. (x.s.) 352 : L. R. 4 P. C. 519 ; 27 L. T. 769 ; 
 21 W. R. 273 : 1 Asp. M. C. 484 . . . . 786, 811, 830, 845 
 
 Colonia, 3 Not. of Cas. 13, ,/ 805' 
 
 Colo7iial Insurance Co. of New Zealand c. Adelaide .Marine Assuranre Co., 
 56 L. J. P. C. 19 ; 12 App. Cas. 128 ; i>ij L. T. 173 ; 35 AV. R. 636 : 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 94-P. C 1052,1057,1124 
 
 Colonsay, 55 L. J. Adm. 31 : 11 P. D. 17 ; 54 L. T. 338 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 
 545 985 
 
 Coltman r. Chamberlain, 59 L. .1. (,». P.. 563 : 25 Q. P.. D. 328 ; 39 W. R. 12 173 
 
 Columbia, 3 Hag. Adm. 42S 642 
 
 Columbine, 2 AV. Woli. 186 621 
 
 Columbus (Salvage), 2 Hag. 178, H 616 
 
 (Collision ; Damages), 3 \V. Rob. 158 727 
 
 Colvin V. Newberry, 1 CI. k V. 283; 6 Hligh (x.s.) 167— H. L. (E.). 
 Affirming 4 M. & P. 876 ; 7 Ring. 190 : 1 C & .1. 192 : 1 Tyr. 55 : 
 
 9 L. J. (U.S.) Ex. 13-E.x. Ch. ~-''^' 7^.^ 
 
 Comber v. Anderson, 1 Camp. 523 ....... l-''-'7 
 
 Coinmeree, 3 W. Rob. 287 • 806, 824 
 
 Commercial .Marine Insurance Co. r. Naniaipia IMining (Jo. (or Piceard r. 
 
 Shepherd!, 14 Moore, P. C. 471 ; 5 L. T. 504 : Ki W. l!. 136 . . 1152 
 
 Commercial Steamship Co. r. Boulion, 4 1 E. .1. < >. 1'.. 219 ; E. ll. 10 «,». 1'.. 
 
 346 ; 33 L. T. 707 ; 23 W. ll. 854 : 3 Asp. M. ('. Ill . . . 4.58 
 (Jommodore, 1 Spinks, 175, //. . . . . . • ;. • ^*''^' 
 
 Coin|iagnieGenenile'l'ransatlanti(|ne c Tlic Harry (Owners), Tiie .Vni. mine, 
 
 L. R. 6 P. C. 46,s : 31 L. T. S54 ; 2:i W . \l. 488 ; 2 .\sp. M. C. WK 614 
 CiiMipagnie des iMessageries Maritimes r. Tiie Citv I'T I'eking, The City of 
 i'eking, 58 L. .1. P. C. 64 : 1 1 App. Cas. 40 ; 61 L. T. 136 ; 6 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 396-P. (J 692,69 1,7110,703 
 
 Comte Nes.selrood, Lush. 154 ; 31 L. .1. Adm. 77 ; •', E. T. 57 . . ■ 675 
 
 ComtessedeTr.''geville, Eusii. :!29 ; M,. T. 713 !;<)1 
 
 Conception, 2 Hag. Adm. 175 _• _ 643 
 
 Concordia, L. i:. 1 A. k E. 93 ; 12 .hir. (n.s.) 771 ; 14 E. T. MhI . ,s,, 826 
 Condor, Tlie Swansea and The, (or I'erkins v. The Condor), bS li. .1. Adm. 
 33 : 4 P. D. 115 : In 1;. T. 442 ; 27 W. R. 748 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 11.5- 
 
 (• 1^ 7(12, 792, 860, 1024 
 
 Cnlidene'r, The. and" 'I'lie Susan Eliz.'d.eth, 40 L. T. 201 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 79 . 101« 
 
 Connor ,: Smythe, 5 Taunt. 654 • .460 
 
 Consett (('osts of Reference), 5 P. D. 77 : 42 L. T. 33; 2S W . P. ''-''^ : ^.^, ,_,^ 
 
 4 Asp. .M. (;. 230 8()2 (2) 
 
 (Damages: Eossof Charter-j.arty : Costsof Kdcrener : •> 1'. D. 229; 
 
 ' 5 Asp. .M. C. 34, n ;. . .'^jJJ 
 
 Constable r. ('lol)urv or Clovery, Noy. 75 ; Latch. 12 . . . -''•'• -^j: 
 
 r. Noble,' 2 Taunt. 403; 11 R. R. 617 '"•'•' 
 
 Constable's Case (Sir Henry), 5 Coke, 106 a ; 1 Anders. 8(J • ' ,■ J*^ 
 Constancia (Adndraltv ; Average\ 4 Not. of Cas. 512, 677 ; 10 .Uir. 84.. ..82
 
 xxxviii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Cimstuiicia (or La Coustancia) (IJottomry ; Viaticniii), Ifi W. R. is;i 111), -218 
 ,, (Bottomry ; Priorities), 2 W. Rol). 104. 460 ; 
 
 4 Xot. oiCas. 28."., r.12, 677 ; 10 Jur. 845 221 
 
 •Ooustaiitia (.Stoi)iiage in transitu), ti C. Hob. 821 ..... 566 
 (Fog-horn), 62 L. T. 236 ; 38 W. K. 272 : 6 Asp. .M. C. 478 . 798 
 
 •Constautine (Costs), 4 V. D. 156 ; 27 W. K. 747— C. A 864 
 
 Constitution, ])ean v. Mark (Collision), 2 Moore, V. C. (n.s.) 453 ; 10 Jur. 
 
 (N.s.) 831 ; 10 L. T. 894. . . . 808, 810. S50, 1014 
 ,, (Foreign Sliip : Salvage). 48 L. .1. Adni. 13 ; 4 P. I). 39 : 40 
 
 L. T. 219 ; 27 W. R. 739 ; 4 Asp. ^\. V. 79 ... . 724, 762 
 
 •Conway v. Forbes, 10 East, 539 1293 
 
 ,, V. Cray, 10 East. 536 1293 
 
 •Cook r. Jennings, 7 Term Rep. 381 ; 4 1!. R. 468 373 
 
 •Cooker. Wilson, 1 C. 15. (n.s.) 153; 26 L. J. C. P. 15; 2 Jur. (n.s.) 
 
 1094 : 5 W. R. 24 231 
 
 Oooker v. Child, 2 Lev. 74 235 
 
 •Coombes v. Mansfield, 3 Drew. 193 ; 3 Ecj. liep. 560 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 513 : 
 
 1 Jur. (X..S.) 270 ; 3 W. R. 345 33,173 
 
 Cooper, E.r 2>((rtc, hi ,r. McLaren, 48 L. J. P.k. 49; 11 Ch. D. 68: 40 
 
 L. T. 105 ; 27 W. R. 518 : 4 Asp. .M. C. 63— C. A. . . 574 
 
 r. South, 4 Taunt. 802 40 
 
 Cope i: Doherty, 2 I)e G. & J. 614 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 60(i ; 4 Jur. (n.s ) 699 : 
 
 6 W. R. 695. Affirming S. C, 4 K. c^t J. 367 . . . 740, 747, 761 
 
 ■Coiu'nhagen, 1 C. Rob. 289 276 (2), 580 
 
 Copernieus, 65 L. J. Adm. 108 : [ISUti; P. 237 ; 74 L. T. 757 ; 8 Asp. 
 
 :\I. ('. 166— C. A 1069 
 
 <'oppinr. Braitlnvaite, S Jur. 875 869 
 
 Sorbin v. Leader, 10 Ling. 275 : 3 U. k Scott, 751 ; 6 Car. k P. 32 . 868 
 
 Corcoran v. Gurney. 1 eI. & P>1. 456 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 113 ; 17 Jur. 1152 ; 
 
 1 W. R. 129 '. 1096 
 
 Cordelia, Proceeds <>f, 28 L. T. 776 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 35 .... 996 
 Corenuie, [1894] P. 338, n. . . . .... 823, 849 
 
 Corinna. 35 L. T. 781 : 3 A.sp. :\l. C. 307 859, 860 
 
 -Coriokmis, 59 L. J. Adm. 59 ; 15 P. D. 103 ; 62 L. T. 844 ; 6 A.sji. .M. C. 
 
 .514 625 
 
 •Corkling v. Masse v, 42 L. J. C. P. 153 ; L. R. 8 C. P. 395 ; 28 L. T. 636 ; 
 
 21 W. R. 680 : 2 Asp. ]\1. C. 18 260 
 
 'Corlett r. Gordon, 3 Camp. 472 ; 14 R. R. 813 344 
 
 Cormack I). Gladstone, 11 Ea.st, 347 ; 10 R. K. 518 .... 1214 
 
 Cornelia Henrietta, L. R. 1 A. & E. 51 ; 12 Jin-, (n.s.) 396 : 14 W. R. 502 . 217 
 Corner, Br. & Lush. 161 ; 33 L. J. Adm. 16 ; 12 L. T. 62 . 977, 982, 983 
 ■Cornforth v. Danube and lilack Sea Railway Co., 2 F. it F. 197 . .113 
 •Cornu V. Blackburne, 2 ]3ougl. 641 . . . . . . 69, 595 
 
 Coromandel, Swabey. 205 609 
 
 •Corrie (or Corry~) r. Coulthard, cited 2 C. P. D. 583. Reported 3 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 546, '/( 581 
 
 ■Corset V. Huseley, Comb. 135 ; Holt, 48 201, 929 
 
 •Cory (•. Burr, 52 L. J. Q. B. 657 : S Ap]). Cas. 393 : 49 L. 'i'. 78 ; 31 AV. R. 
 
 894 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 109— H. L. (E.) . . lo99, 1100, 1107, 1175 
 
 ,, /•. Patton (or Paton), 43 L. J. (,). B. 181 : ]>. R. 9 q. V>. 577 : 30 
 
 L..T. 758 ; 23, W. R. 46 : 2 A.sp. M. C. 302. S. C, on demurrer, 41 
 
 L. J. Q. 15. 195, n. ; L. W. 7 (,>. B. 304 ; 26 L. T. 161 ; 20 W. R. 
 
 364 ; 1 Asp. .M. C. 225 1034.1180 
 
 ■Cory and Hawkslev, Ej' 'parte (or Hargrove & Co., Ex jiarle), vVrthur 
 
 Average Association, Li re, 44 L. J. Ch. 569 ; L. \l. 10 Ch. 542 ; 32 
 
 L. T. 713 ; 23 W. R. 939 ; 2 Asp. iM. C. 570— J>.JJ. . . 1035, 1351 
 
 •Cosmopolitan (Salvage), 6 Xot. of Vem. Suppl. xvii 642 
 
 (Transfer), 9 P. D. 35, n. ; 5 A.sp. M. C. 212, //. . . 992 
 Cossman c. West, Cossman r. British America Assurance Co., 57 L. .1. P. C. 
 
 17 ; 13 App. Cas. 160 ; 58 L. T. 122 ; 6 A.sp. M. C. 233— P. C. . 1234 
 
 Cofesworth v. Stephens, 4 Hare 185 563 
 
 'Cotton V. Yogan. 65 L. J. g. B. 486 ; [1896] Ap].. Cas. 457 ; 74 L. T. 
 
 598 ; 61 J. P. 36— H. L. (E.). Affirming 14 R. 763 ; 44 W. R. 55 . 884 
 C«iuch V. Steel, 3 El. k P.l. 402 ; 2 C. L. R. 940 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. 121 : 18 
 
 Jur. 515 : 2 AV. R. 170 134 
 
 €oulthurst V. Sweet, L. R. 1 C. P. 649 324 
 
 Countess of Harcourt, 1 Hag. Adm. 248 112 
 
 ■Countess of Lauderdale, 4 C. Bob. 283 44 
 
 'Countess of Levin and :Melville. 5 L. T. 290 670 
 
 (ountyof Durhaju, 60 L. J. Adm. 5; [18911 P. 1 ; 64 L. T. 146; 39 
 
 W. R. 303 ; 6 Asp. IM. C. 606 943 
 
 •<;ounty of Lanca.ster Steamship r. Sharpe, 59 I>. J. (). P. 22 : 24 <). !'.. D. 
 
 158 ; 61 L. T. 692 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 448 453
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xxxix 
 
 <Joiu-ier (Admiralty ; Jmisdictiou), Lush. 541 759 
 
 (Fees), [1891] P. 355 ; 61 L. J. Adni. 11 : tjtj L. T. 386 ; 40 \V. K. 
 
 33C ; 7 Asp. M. C. 157 1020 (Addeiula) 
 
 ■Court c. Maitinean, 3 Dougl. 161 1190, 1195 
 
 Comteeri i: Toiise, 1 Camp. 43 ; 10 R. K. 627 1320 
 
 •Conrtney, Edw. 239 106, 125 
 
 V. Cole, 56 L. J. M. C. 141 ; l<t Q. li. D. 447 ; 57 L. T. 409 ; 36 
 
 W. R. 8 ; 6 Asp. M. <'. 169 ; 52 J. P. 207 782 
 
 Cousins f. Nantes, 3 Taunt. 513 ; 12 R. R. 696 .... 1139,1145 
 .Couturier c. Hastie, 5 H. L. Cas. 678 ; 25 L. J. Ex. 253 ; 2 Jur. (k.s.) 
 
 1241— H. L. (E.) 542 
 
 Covas V. Bingham. 2 El. & Bl. S36 ; 2 C. L. R. 212 ; 28 L. J. ( ). B. 26 ; 
 
 18 Jur. 596 • • . . 547 
 
 •Coventry v. Gladstone (Stoppage i/i transitu), 37 L. J. CIi. 492 ; L. R. 6 Eij. 
 
 44 ; 16 W. R. 837 j'''^ 
 
 i: Gladstone (Bill of Lading), 37 L. J. Ch. 30 ; L. R. 4 E.i. 493 : 
 
 16 W. R. 304 546 
 
 •Covington v. Roberts, 2 Bos. c<c P. (x.u.) 378 ; 9 R. R. 669 . . . 1243 
 Cowan V. Imperial Ottoman Bank, 31 L. T. 336 ; 2 Asp. JL C. 418— 
 
 Ex. Ch. 361,545 
 
 ■Cowasjee I'. Thompson. 5 Moore, P. C. 165 ; 3 iloore, Ind. App. 422 . ;j/9 
 
 Cowdenbeath Coal Co. c. Clvdesdale Bank, 22 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 
 
 682. ... " 317 
 
 4Jowiet7. Barber, 4 M. & .S. 16 ; 16 R. R. 368 1305 
 
 ,, V. Witt, 23 W. R. 76 '-^35 
 
 Cox V. Bruce. 56 L. .J. Q. B. 121 ; 18 Q. B. D. 147 ; 57 L. T. 128; 35 
 
 W. R. 207 ; 6 Asp. .M. C. 152— C. A 314, 323 
 
 ,, V. Slav, 4 il. & 8. 152 ; 16 R. R. 422 628 
 
 ,. y. PaiTV, 1 Term Rep. 464 1036 
 
 .; ,;. Reid', 1 Car. .<c P. 602; Ry. & M. 199 41, 43 
 
 •Coxe V. Harden, 4 East, 211 ; 1 Smith, 20 ; 7 R. R. 570 . . .356 
 
 Cradock's Case. Br. & Goldes. pt. 2, 37 929 
 
 Craig 0. Delargy, 6 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th .ser.) 1269 . . . • 343 
 
 •Craigs, 5 P. D. 186 ; 29 W. R. 446 643 
 
 Cranston r. Marshall, 5 Ex. 395 ; 19 L. J. E.x. 340 .... 866 
 
 •Crathie, m L. .1. Adm. 93; [1897] P. 178 ; 76 L. T. 534 ; 45 W. R. 631 : 
 
 8 Asp. M. C. 256 /42, 74y 
 
 •Crauford c. Hunter, 8 Term Rep. 13 ; 4 R. K. 576 1143 
 
 •Craven r. Ryder, 2 .Marsh. 127 ; 6 Taunt. 433 ; Holt, X. P. 15i) : 16 W. W. 
 
 644 .. . 31."., 596 
 
 <"rawford c. Spooner, 6 .Moore, P. <'. 1 30 
 
 ■Ciawshay c. Kadcs, 2 D. k R. 288 ; 1 B. & C. 181 ; 1 L. -I. (".s.) k. V,. 
 
 90 ■ 25 R. R. 348 ......•••• '''^ 
 
 •<'rcadon', 54 L. T. 880 ; 5 Asji. M. C. 585 7 11, 753 
 
 <:reed i-. iMallet, Eortesf. 231 ^33 
 
 •<;reen v. Wright, 1 C. P. D. 591 ; 35 L. T. 339 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 254 . . 82 
 
 Cromer and Tookley's Case, Godb. 385 "-^ 
 
 ■Crescent, Great Northern Steam Fishing Co. r. The Cre.siient (Owners), 62 
 L. J. A<lm. 63 ; 1 R. 613 ; 6S L. T. 556 : 41 W. R. 533 ; 7 Asp. M. C 
 
 "97- C \ '"!'* 1 Addenda) 
 
 Cress"ington,' 60 L. .1. .\dm. 25; ,1891) !'. 152; 64 L. T. 329; 7 Asp. 
 
 .NL C. 27 i^"^ 
 
 Cri.krt, Tlie, and Tli.- Kndeavour, 48 L. T. 535 ; 5 Asji. .M. C. 53 . . /44 
 Crocker r. Sturge, 66 L. .1. ».>. B. 142 ; |1S97] 1 <.>. 1'.. 33o ; 75 L. T. 519 : _ 
 
 45 W. R. 271 ; 8 .\sp. M. C. 208 ■ lOb-j 
 
 Oofts /•. Marsliall, 7 Car. & J'. 597 '^^''l'' 
 
 Cromwell, L. R. 3 A. & K. 316 , • ■ .rr 
 
 (Jrooekowit v. Fletclier, 1 11. A: N. 893 ; 26 L. .1. Ia. 153 : 5 W . 1.. olH . 2.m, 
 
 26 1) 
 
 •Crookes r. Allnn, 49 L. .1. •>. I!. 201 ; 5 (>. I'.. D. 3S ; 41 L. T. 800; 28 
 
 W. R. 304 ; 4 Asp. .M. (.216 313, 328. .590, 125;, 
 
 Croi.ton I'. I'ickerneil, 16 M. .^ W. 829 • 493 
 
 •Cross V. Allan, Reid .-. Allan. 4 V.s. 326: 19 L. .1. Kx. 39; lo .lur. 
 
 1082 ^^- 
 
 „ V. Hick.s, 16 W. 11. 9.;7 , -V ,on 1Q 
 
 „ ..Pagliano. 40 L. .L Kx. IS; L. R. 6 hx. 9 : 23 L. i. 420; 19 
 
 W. R. 159 ^ '^ .';' 
 
 Crosse y. Bigs (or Digges), 1 Keb. 575 : 1 Si.l. 158 .... 935, 9.J1 
 
 •Croufh V. Martin, 2 Vern. 595 ■ ■ 
 
 Crow c. Falk, 8 »,>. P.. 467 : 15 L. .1. K. I!. !« : 10. lur. 3/4 . . • -' ' 
 Crowley c. Cohen, 3 B. & Ai. 478 : 1 L. J. K. P.. 158 _ . . 10 .S 11 9 
 
 Croxdale, The Catherine, formerly Th.-, 3 W. Hob. 1 : L- .lur. 2.1 . 16... ^l« 
 Crozierr. Smith, 1 Scott (N.K.) 338; 1 Man. & G. 4«i7 . . • ■ •»•''"
 
 xl 
 
 TABLE 0¥ CASES. 
 
 Cniiksliaiik r. ,I;iiij-oii, -i 'laiiiit. 001 ; 11 R. R. fpSl 1060' 
 
 Cms v., Lush. JiSo cr>!> 
 
 Crystal, Aridw Sti'aiiisliip'Co. v. Tyne Commissioners, 63 L. J. xVtliu, 146 ; 
 [1894] A])i.. Cas. f.uS ; 6 R. 258 ; 71 L. T. M6 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 513— 
 
 H. L. (E.) 893, 895 
 
 Cuba (Salvage), Lush. 14 ; 6 .lur. (n. 8.) 152 647,663 
 
 ,, Tlie Thomas Powell and The, (Inevitable Accident), 14 L. T. 
 
 tJ03 704 (Addenda^ 
 
 Cullen i\ r.utlcr. ." M. & S. 461 ; 4 Camp. liSl" ; 1 Stark. 138 ; 17 R. R. 
 
 4U0 . 1087 
 
 r. JIcAIpiue, 2 Stark. 552 554 
 
 ,, V. Mico, 1 Keb. 831 108, 368 
 
 Cumberland, 5 L. T. 496 725, 726, 735 
 
 Cumbrian, 57 L. T. 205 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 151 657 
 
 Cumins i: Brown, 9 Hast, 506 ; 1 Camp. 104 ; 9 R. R. 603 . . . 346. 
 Cunard v. IJyde (Insurance ; Pleading), El. Bl. & El. 670 ; 27 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 408 ; 5.1ur. (N..S.) 40 1207 
 
 ,, v. Hyde (Insurance ; Illegal Voyage), 2 El. &EL 1 ; 29L. J. Q. 1!. 
 
 6; 6 Jur. (n.s.) 14 1207 
 
 ,, V. Van Oppen, 1 F. & F. 716 91.f>. 
 
 Cunningham r. Collier, 4 Dougl. 233 234 
 
 c. Colvillc, 16Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4tli ser.) 295 . . . 276- 
 
 r. Dunn, 48 L. J. C. P. 62 ; 3 C. P. 1). 443 ; 38 L. T. 631 ; 
 
 3 Asp. M. C. 595— C. A 285, 507, 527 
 
 ,, i'. FonbkuKpie, 6 Car. & P. 44 253 
 
 Curfew, 60 L. J. Adm. 53 ; [1891] P. 131 ; 64 L. T. 330 : 39 W. 1,'. 
 
 367 : 7 Asp. M. C. 29 . . 269 
 
 Curling v. Long, 1 Bos. & I'. 634 ; 4 R. R. 747 377 
 
 ,, r. Robertson, 8 Scott (n.I!.) 12; 7 Man. & G. 336 : 13 L. J. C. P. 
 
 137 . 41, 166- 
 
 Curran v. Wood, 15 L. T. 592 62 
 
 Currie v. Bombay Native Insurance Co., 6 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 302 • 39 
 L. J. P. C. 1 ; L. R. 3 P. C. 72 ; 22 L. T. 317 ; 18 W. R. 
 
 296 1081, 1113, 1130, 1226, 1277, 127& 
 
 „ V. McKnight, Tht^ Dunlossit, 66 L. .1. P. C. 19 ; [1897] App. 
 Cas. 97 ; 75 L. T. 457 ; 8 Asp. M. V. 193— If. L. (Sc) . . 718, 924 
 
 Curtis r. Auber, 1 , lac. & Walk. 526 181,543 
 
 ,, i: Perry, 6 Ves. 739 ; 6 R. R. 28 30 
 
 Cuthbert v. Cumming, 11 Ex. 405 ; 24 L. .F. Ex. 310 : 1 .hir. (n.s.) 686 ; 
 
 3 W. R. 553— Ex. Ch. . . . . . . . . . 508 
 
 Cuthbertson v. Parsons, 12 C. B. 304 ; 21 L. J. C. P. 165 . . . 714 
 
 Cutter c. Powell, 6 Term Rep. 320 ; 3 R. R. 185 Ill 
 
 Cybele, 47 L. ,1. Adm. 86 ; 3 P. D. 8 ; 37 L. T. 773 ; 26 W. R. 345; 3 
 
 Asp. M. C. 532— C. A 619, 636 
 
 Cynthia, 46 L. .1. Adm. 58 ; 2 P. D. 52 ; 36 L. T. 184 ; 3 Asj). M. C. 378 723, 
 
 776 
 Czech V. General Steam Navigation Co., 37 li. -T. C. P. 3 ; L. R 3 C P 
 
 14; 17 L. T. 246; 16 W. R. 130 340 
 
 I). 
 
 D. .Tex, 13 L. T. 22 
 
 1). H. Bills, 4 P. D. 32 u. ; 38 L. T. 786 : 4 Asp. M. C. 20 . 
 
 Ua Costa v. Edmunds, 2 Chit. 227 ; 4 Camp. 142 ; 16 R. R. 763 . 1189, 
 
 ,, V. Firth, 4 Burr. 1966 
 
 ,, r. Newnham, 2 Teiiu Rep. 407 .... 584, 1134, 1241, 
 Dafter v. Cresswell. 7 D. & R. 650 ; 2 Car. k P. 161 ; 29 R. R. 469 . llfl 
 D'Aguilar v. Tolan. Holt, X. P. 185 ; 2 Marsh. 265 .... 
 
 Dahl V. Donkin (or Nelson), 50 L. J. Ch. 411 : 6 Ap}.. Cas. 38 ; 44 L. T. 
 
 381 ; 29 W. R. 543 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 392— H. L. (E.) . 243, 289, 447 
 Daioz, 47 L. J. Adm. 1 ; 37 L. T. 137 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 477— C. A. . 770 
 
 9 L. 
 
 76 
 
 . 1174, 
 
 )C. 1 
 
 Dakmv. Oxley, 15 C. B. (\.s.) 646 ; 33 L. .1. C. P. 115 ; 10 Jur. (n.s.) 
 655 ; 10 L. T. 268 ; 12 W. R. 557 
 
 Dale V. Hall, 1 Wils. 281 ..... 
 
 Dalgleish r. Brooke, 15 East, 295 ; 13 R. R. 476 . 
 V. Hodgson, 5 M. k P. 407 ; 7 Bing. 495 : 
 138 
 
 Dalglish V. Davidson, 5 D. ^t R. 6 ; 27 R. R. 519 . 
 
 Dalliousie, 1 P. D. 271, /( 
 
 DairOrso v. Mason, 3 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 41 H 
 
 Dalmady v. Motteux, 1 I'erm Rep. 89, «. ; 1 R. R. 1 
 
 Dalton r. Denton, 1 C. B. (n.s.) 672 
 
 91 
 
 223. 
 1246- 
 1137 
 1269 
 , 117 
 122:j 
 
 , 461 
 
 , 857 
 
 381 
 , 257 
 1307 
 
 1209 
 590 
 619' 
 464 
 
 1202 
 696
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xli 
 
 !):ilton r. liviu, 4 Car. & P. 289 i>15 
 
 1 );ilyell r. Tyrer, El. BI. Js: El. 899 714. SH7 
 
 Diilzcll r. Mair, 1 Camn. 532 1308 
 
 Daii.lv V. Turner, 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 372 204, 224 
 
 DauiJl r. Bond, 9 G. B. (x.s.) 716 ; 3 L. T. 700 : 9 W. It. 313 . . 996 
 
 ,, jj. Ru.ss(41, 14 Ves. 393 174 
 
 Daniel Saunders, In the < foods of , L. i;. 1 V. k y\. Itj : 3.'. L. .1. 1'. 26 : 
 
 11 .Tur. (x.s.) 1027 ; 14 AV. It. 148 138 
 
 Daniells (or Daniels) c. Harris, 44 L. J. C. P. 1 ; L. It. 10 C. P. 1 : 31 
 
 L. T. 408 ; 23 W. R. 86 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 413 1156 
 
 Dannebrog, 44 L. J. Adni. 21 ; L. R. 4 A. <t Y.. 386 ; 31 E. T. 759 : 23 
 
 W. U. 419 : 2 Asp. M. C. 452 968 
 
 Dante, 2 AV. Rol>. 427 "^22 
 
 Dantzic Paeket, 3 Hag, Adm. 383 599, 600 
 
 Danzic, 32 L. .1. Adm. 164 ; P>r. & Lush. 102 ; 9 L. T. 236 . . 969, 970 
 
 Dapper, The, and The Lady Xornianby, 14 L. T. 895 .... 825 
 Daiiueto c. Wyllie. The Pieve Superiore, 43 L. .1. Adm. 20 ; L. R. 5 P. ('. 
 
 482 ; 30 L. T. 887 ; 22 W. R. 777 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 319 968, 969, 970, 974 
 
 Darby i: Raines, 9 Hare, 369 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 801 46, 59 
 
 „ V. Xewtou, 2 Marsli. 252 ; 6 Taunt. 544 1203 
 
 Daring. 37 L. J. Adm. 29 ; L. R. 2 A. h E. 260 . . . .101, 216 
 Dart (County Court), 62 L. J. Adm. 32 ; [1893] P. 33; 1 R. 572; 69 
 
 L. t. 251 : 41 W. R. 133 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 353— C. A. . . . 1017 
 
 „ (Salvage), 21 L. T. 765 . . . 661 
 
 Davenport r. Wliitmore, 2 M. c<: Cr. 177 ; 6 L. J. Ch. 58 . . . 35, 400 
 
 Davidson r. Bisset, 5 Ct. ofSess. Cas. (4th ser.) 706 ... . 239 
 
 c. Bnrnand, 38 L. J. C. P. 73 ; L. R. 4 C. P. 117 : 19 L. T. 
 
 782 ; 17 AV. R. 121 1075 
 
 c. Case, 5 Moore, 116 ; 8 Price, 542 ; 2 Br. & P.. 379 ; 5 M. &S. 
 
 79 ; 17 R. K. 280— Ex. Ch. Affirming 5 .M. & S. 79 . 1295, 1313 
 v. Gwynne, 12 Ea.st, 381 ; 11 U. R. 420 . . . 287, 306, 380 
 r. Willasey, 1 J\l. & S. 313 ; 14 R. R. 438 .... 1115 
 
 Davies r. Hawkins, 3 M. & S. 488 255 
 
 i: McVeagh, 48 L. .L Ex. 686 : 4 Ex. D. 265 ; 11 L. T. 308 ; 28 
 
 AV. R. 143 : 4 A.sp. .M. C. 149 . . ._ . . _ . 468 
 V. London and Provincial JIarine Insurance Co., 47 L. .1. Ch. 511 ; 
 
 8 Ch. 1). 469 : 38 L. T. 478 ; 26 W. R. 794 . . . . 1 178 
 
 i: National Eire and Alarine Insurance Co. of New Zealand, 60 
 
 L. .1. P. C. 73 ; [1891] App. Cas. 485 ; 65 L. T. 560 . 1050, 1184 
 ., r. AVilkinson,- 4 Ring. 573 ; 1 >M. & P. 502 ; 6 L. .1. (<..s.) C. P. 
 
 121; 29 H. R. 634 l-'^^^^ 
 
 Davis v. Garrett, 4 M. & P. 540 ; 6 Ring. 716 ; 8 L. J. (<..s.) C. P. 253 : 
 
 31 R. P.. .'■)24 ••^■^t', l'-^13 
 
 ,, r. .lohnston, 4 Sim. 539 •''•■' 
 
 Davison r. Donaldson, 9 (,». B. D. 623 ; 47 L. T. 561 ; 31 W. 1!. 277 ; 4 
 
 Asp. M. C. 601— C. A 52 
 
 c. Alekibben, 6 Moore, 387 ; 3 Br. & B. 112 . ... 781 
 
 V. Mure, 3 D(mgl. 28 -i>0. =503 
 
 Davy r. Millord, 15 East, 559 P-88 
 
 Dawson, //t /r, 1 Eonb. 229 H*^ 
 
 c. Atty, 7 East, 367 1171 
 
 r. Wrench, 3 Ex. 359 ; 6 D. .^ L. 474 ; 18 L. .1. Ex. 229 . . 1329 
 J)ay V. Searl, Cunn. 53 ; 2 Str. 968 ; Cas. t. Hardw. 53 .... 932 
 J)e Ikv, Bird v. Cibb, 52 L. .1. P. C. 57 ; 8 App. Cas. 559 ; 49 L. T. 414 ; 
 
 5Asp. M. C. 156— P. C 636, 637, 644. 616 
 
 De Brus, Ir. Hep. 1 E<|. 72 ''" 
 
 De P.ussdier. Alt. 47 L. .1. Ch. 3S1 ; 8 Ch. I). 286 ; 38 L. T. 370 ; 3 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 584— C. A. 
 
 168 
 
 Di-Costar. S.andret, 2 I'. AVms. 170 1182,1200 
 
 De Cnadra r. Swaiin, ItJC. B. (.v.s.) 772 1287 
 
 i)'?:guino V. B(vvi<k.s 2 IE i!l. .151 ; 3 R. 1!. 503 . . . . . 1167 
 J)e Erise V. Stephens, cite.l 2 Marsh. Ins. f4th ed.) 413, /(. . 1097 (Addenda) 
 
 De Claniinde «. Pigou, 4 Taunt. 246 \''fl^ 
 
 I)e(;arey r. Clagget, 2 I'ark Ins. (8thed.)708 ' ' ' "J 
 
 De Oarteig r. Merstiy Docks and Harbour Board, 37 !.. 'I. HI : 3 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 500 ^^^ 
 
 De (Jlictolfr. London Assurance Co., 4 Bro. P. C. 436 .... i"-5l 
 
 De ILirn v. Hartb-v, 1 Term Rej.. 343 ; 2 Term Rei-. 186 ; 1 b'. H. 221 . I14M 
 
 De ILirt V. Stevenson, 45 L. .1. n. B. 575 : 1 (.>. B. D. 313 ; 24 W . R. _^^^ 
 
 367 . . . • • • • • ' , ' ' I ' I ' '" 
 De Mattos v. Gibson, 4 De C ii. J. 276 ; 28 L. .1. Cli. 498 : .. Jur. (s.s ; 
 555 ; 7 AV. JL 514 L..M. & L.-C. S C. 5 .lur. (N.s. ) 347 ; 28 L. .L 
 
 (b. lOf; J M'. Ji. 100. 403 -L,.I.J.& A'.-C. AV 176, 29 J
 
 xlii TABLE OF CA8ES. 
 
 De Mattos v. North, 37 L. J. Ex. lit! : I,. 1!. 3 Ex. 185 ; 18 L. T. 797 . 1137 
 r. SiUindors, L. R. 7 V. P. .^70 : -27 L. T. 1-20 ; 20 AV. R. 801 ; 
 
 1 Asp. :\r. C. 377 1094, 1231 
 
 ])i' Potlioiiier r. De JMattos, El. IJI. .V Kl. 4t)l : 27 L. .1. (,». 15. 260; 4 Jur. 
 
 (N..s.n034 ; (> W. R. 628 304,395,1312' 
 
 De Rothscliilil r. Royal Mail SteaTu I'ackit Co., 7 Kx. 734; 21 L. .1. Ex. 
 
 273 ..." .341 
 
 De Silvale r. Kendall, 4 M. & S. 37 ; 16 R. 1,'. 373 376^ 
 
 De Svnuiiuls r. Sheddeii, 2 Bo.s. & P. 153 1050 
 
 De Tasti't r. Tayloi, 4 Taunt. 233 1204 (Addenda) 
 
 Dr \'aiix c. .lanson, 5 P.iiii,^ (N.c.) 519 ; 7 Soott. ;"07 ; 2 Am. 82 : 8 L. J. 
 
 C. P. 284 ; 3 ,Inr. 678 . 1112 
 
 r. Salvador, 4 A. & E. 420 ; 6 X. & M. 713 : 1 H. & W. 751 ; 
 
 5 L. J. K. B. 134 735, 124» 
 
 ,, 1-. Steele, 8 Scott, 637 ; 6 Bing. (x.s.) 358 1127 
 
 De A'io-uier v. Swaiison, 1 Pjos. & P. (n.r.) 346, n. ; 4 R. R. 825, n. . 1035 
 
 De "Wolf r. Ai'clianf^el JMavitime Bank and Insurance Co., 43 L. .1. Q. P.. 
 147 Tl. R. 9 Q. B. 451 ; 30 L. T. 605 : 22 AV. R. 801 ; 2 
 
 Asp. I\I. C. 273 1059' 
 
 r. Pitcairn, 17 W. R. 914 175 
 
 Dean r. Dicker, 2 Str. 1250 1138 
 
 ,, r. Hocrg, 4 M. & Scott, 188 ; 10 Biug. 345 ; 3 L. .1. C. P. 113. . 296-- 
 
 ,, r. Hornby, 3 El. & 151. 180 : 2 C. L. R. 1519 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. 129 ; 18 
 
 Jur. 623 ; 2 A7. R. 156 1104,1106: 
 
 ,, r. Mark, The Constitution, 2 Moore, P. C. (n-..s.)453 ; 10 Jur. (n.s.) 
 
 831 : 10 L. T. 894 808, 810, 850, 1014 
 
 ,. r. McGhee (or McGhioi, 4 Bing. 45 ; 2 Car. & P. 387 : 12 Moore, 
 
 815; 5 L. .1. ((..s.) C. P. 44 395, 396- 
 
 ,, V. Richards, The Europa, 2 Moore, P. C. (x..s.) 1 ; Br. & Lush. 89; 
 
 32 L. .1. Adni. 188 ; 9 Jur. (n..s.) 699 ; 8 L. T. 368 . . . 718 (2) 
 
 Debrecsia, 3 AV. Kob. 33 932 
 
 Deffel V. Broeklebank, 4 Price, 36 ; 3 Bligh, 561 ... . 268, 287 
 De Grave (or Grave) r. Hedges, 2 Ld. Rayni. 1285 ; Holt, 470 . 928, 929, 953 
 
 Deguilder c. Depeister, 1 A^ern. 263 222 
 
 D'Eguino V. Bewicke, 2 H. Bl. 551 ; 3 R. K. 503 1167 
 
 Delamainer 1'. AViiitheringhani, 4 Camp. 186 ...... 108 
 
 Delano. Xeptune Steam Navigation Co. v. Sclater, 64 L. J. Ailni. 8 ; [1895] 
 
 P. 40 ; 6 R. 810 ; 71 L. T. 544 ; 43 AV. R. 65 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 523— C. A. . 1017 
 Delanoy )•. Robson (or Anon.), 5 Taunt. 605 ...... 1136 
 
 Delany v. Stoddart, 1 Ter:n Rep. 22 ; 1 R. R. 139 1215 
 
 Delaroche and Barnej^'s Case, 1 Leon. pt. 3, 232 ..... 927 
 Delarotiue i: Oxenholme Steamship C!o. , 1 Cab. & E. 122. . . . 127 
 Delaurier r. AA^dlie, 17 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 167 . . . . 237 
 
 Delbye r. Prouilfoot, 1 Show. 396 1335 
 
 Delniada (or Delmady) r. Matteux, 1 Term Rep. 89. n. : 1 Park. List. 
 
 (8th ed.) 505 1142, 1209 
 
 Delta, The, and The Ermia Foscolo, 45 L. .1. Adm. Ill ; 1 P. 1). 393 ; 35 
 
 L. T. 376 ; 25 AV. R. 46 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 256 .... 762, 853 
 
 Delver?', Barnes, 1 Taunt. 48 ; 9 R. R. 707 1035- 
 
 Demetrius, 41 L. .1. Adm. 69 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 523 ; 2(i L. T. 324 ; 20 
 
 AV. R. 761 ; 1 As].. M. C. 250 737, 849, 1000 (2) 
 
 Dencnv c. Stock (or Stock r. Denew), 3 Swanst. 662 ; Cas. in Ch. 305 937, 945 
 Denison v. Modigliani, 5 Term Rep. 580 ....... 1201 
 
 Dennis r. To veil, 42 L. J. M. C. 33 ; L. R. 8 (). B. 10 ; 27 L. T. 482 ; 21 
 
 AV. R. 170 ; 2 Asp. ]M. C. 402 715, 889' 
 
 Dennistoun r. Lillie, 3 Bligh, 202 ; 22 R. R. 13 ... . 1166, 1196- 
 Denny Brothers r. Board of Trade, 7 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 1019 . 865 
 Denoon (or Dinoon) v. Home and Colonial Insurance Co., 41 L. J. C. P. 
 162 ; L. R. 7 C. P. 341 ; 26 L. T. 628 ; 20 \V. 11. 790 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 
 309 1124 
 
 Dent V. Smith, 38 L. .1. (,». B. 144 ; L. R. 4 (,). B. 414 ; 20 L. T. 868 ; 17 
 
 AV. R. 646 1150, 125r 
 
 Depaba r. Ludlow. 1 Com vns, 360 1138 
 
 Depperman r. Hubbeisty,'l7 (.». B. 767 360 
 
 Desdemona, Swabey, 158. . . . . . . . . . 96T 
 
 Deslandes i: Gregorv, 3 El. & BI. 602 ; 30 L. J. Q. B. 36 ; 6 Jur. (n.s.) 
 
 651 ; 2 L. T. 634 ; 8 AV. R. 585 233 
 
 Despatch, Tyrert;. Henry (Collision ; Damages), Lush. 98 ; 14 Moore, P. C. 
 
 83 ; 3 L. T. 219 . . . ' . . . . 693, 695 (2), 844 
 
 (Collision; Speed), Swabey, 138 691 
 
 Detliick's Case, Style, 233 . ". 93ti 
 
 Deutschland, 25 AV. R. 755 662 
 
 Devaux r. Astell, 4 Jur. 1135 1325-
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xliii: 
 
 Deviiux v. J'Au.s.iu. T. Hiii^-. (n.c.) ".19 ; 7 Scott. ;"07 : 2 Aiii. S2 : S 
 
 L. .1. ('. I'. 284; :3 Jur. 678 1112 
 
 „ v. Salvadcr, 4 A. & E. 420 ; 6 X. & M. 710 : 1 11. k W. 751 : :'. 
 
 L. J. K. B. 134 73'., 124!t 
 
 ,, r. Steele. 8 Scott, 037 : 6 Biriii;. (n-.c.) 358 1127 
 
 Deveron, 1 W. Rob. ISO . . . ' 6f,(). 
 
 Diana (Salvage), 31 L. T. 203 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 366 .... 667, 670 
 „ (Collision Al.road). Lnsh. .'.39 ; 32 L. J. Adni. ."-7 : 9 Jar. (■n-.s.)26 ; 
 
 7 L. T. 397 ; 11 W. R. 189 837; 
 
 ,, Stuart r. Iseuionger (Collision ; Pilot ; Look Out), 4 JIooic 1'. C. 
 
 11 ; 6 .Tur. 157. Affirming 1 W. Rob. 131 . . . 691, 763 
 
 ,, The, and TIu- Clieveden, 64 L. .1. P. V. 22 : [1894] Ai.p. Gas. 625 ; 6 
 
 R. 515 : 71 L. T. 101 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 489— P. C 828 
 
 Dick r. Allen, 1 Park. Ins. (Sth ed.) 226 1262: 
 
 „ i: Badart, 10 (,>. B. D. 387 : 48 L. T. 391 ; 5 Asp. .M. C. 49 : 47 
 
 J. P. 422 905 
 
 ,, V. Barren, 2 Str. 1248 1061 
 
 ,, V. Lunisden, 1 Peake, 189 ..... . . . 356- 
 
 Dickenson r. .Jardine, 37 L. J. C. P. 321 ; L. R. 3 C. P. 639 ; 18 L. T. 
 
 717 ; 16 W. R. 1169 1264 
 
 ,, '•. Lano, 2 F. c*c F. 188 402- 
 
 Dickinson r. Kitcluni, 8 Kl. & Bl. 789 169, 184 
 
 ,, r. Martini, 1 Ct. of Scss. Cas. (4tliser.) 1185 .... 467 
 
 Dicknian r. Benson, 3 Camp. 290 ........ 127 
 
 Dickson r. Lodge, 1 Stark. 226; 18 R. R. 764 .... 1146, 1.335- 
 
 r. Zizinia, 10 C. B. 602 548 
 
 Dictator (Amendment of Writ). 61 L. J. Adni. 72 ; [1892J P. 64 ; 66 
 
 L. T. 863 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 175 976- 
 
 (Salvage : Bail), 61 L. J. Adm. 73 ; [1892] P. 304 ; 67 L. T. 563 ; 
 
 7 Asp. M. C. 251 671, 851 
 
 ,, (County Court; Ma.ster's Disbursements), 38 L. T. 9 17: 4 
 
 A.sp. M. C. 19 940 (2) 
 
 Ditiori r. Adams, 53 L. .1. <,). B. 437 : 1 Cab. .<: K. 22.s .... 1064 
 
 Dimech c. Corlett. 12 .Moore, P. ('. 199 236,267 
 
 Dimes r. Petley, 15 (,t. P.. 276 722,881 
 
 Dimmock c. Chandler, 2 Str. 890 ; FitzCibbuii, 197 92»- 
 
 Ding r. Merryweatlier, 2 Keb. 30.5, 312 . . . . . . 935 
 
 Dinoon (or Denooni r. Home a!i<l Colonial Assurance Co., 41 L. .1. ('. P. 
 162 ; L. R. 7 C. P. 341 ; 26 L. T. 628 ; 20 W. R. 970 : 1 Asp. .M. C. 
 
 .309 1124 
 
 Dione, 52 L. T. 61 ; 5 Asp. .M. C. 347 649, 652 
 
 ]ii(.nissis -•. Reg., The Laura, 3 .Moore, P. C. C. (x.s.) 181 ; 12 L. T. 685 : 
 
 13 W. i;. 369 27, 1013 
 
 Diplock r. Blackburn, 3 Cam].. 43 : 13 P. K. 711 89 
 
 D'Israeli r. Jowett, 1 Esp. 427 1318 
 
 Ditchburn /•. Sprackiin, 5 Es[.. 31 ....... . 40- 
 
 Dixon r. Calcraft, 61 L. .L C>. I}. 529 ; [1892] 1 (,•. B. 45,s ; f>6 L. T. 554 ; 
 
 40 \V. i:. 598 ; 7 Asp. iM. C. 161 ; 56 .1. P. 388— C. A. . . 87ii 
 
 /■. Kwart, Buck. 94 ; 3 .Mer. 327 36,160 
 
 /■. Farrcr, 56 L. J. (). P.. 53; 18 (,). P.. I). 43; 55 L. T. 578 ; 35 
 
 W. R. 95 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 52— C. A 878 
 
 „ r. Hamond, 2 B. k Aid. 310 50, 1344 
 
 ,, '•. Heriot, 2 F. k F. 760 249 
 
 ,. '•- llovill, 1 M. & I'. 656 ; 4 liing. 665 ; 6 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 1.-.5 : 
 
 29 R. P. 680 1346 
 
 ., -•. Ki'ld, 1 I), it 1!. 2U7 : 5 i;. >t Aid. 597 : 24 It. R. 481 . llOd, 1291 
 
 ,, r. Sadler, 5 M. & W. 105 ; 9 P. .J. Ex. 48. Allirme.l, /("/;(. Sadler /•. 
 
 Di.\on, 8 .M. & W. 895 ; 1 1 L. J. K.\. 435 . . . 73, llol 
 ,, r. Sea Insurance Co., Di.xon /■. AVhitworth. 48 L. J. C. P. 538; 4 
 C. P. J). 371 ; 40 L. T. 718 ; 28 W. P. isi ; 4 Asp. iM. C. 
 138. Reversed as to .salvage, 49 L. .1. < '. p. |()8 ; 43 L. T. 
 
 365 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 327— C. A 1123, 1132, 1271 
 
 ,, ^^ Stansfeld, 10 C. B. 39S 13r.O- 
 
 ,, /•. Widtwortli. See Dix'i.ii r. Sea InsiMimce Co., .\ii/)i-f/. 
 
 Dobbin r. Thornton, 6 Esp. If, 453 
 
 Dobbyn r. Comern.nl, 10 Ir. ell. Rep. 327 181 
 
 Dobeil r. S.S. Rossmore ('..., 61 L. .L (.>. IS. 777 ; [1895| 2 (,>. B. lOS ; 14 
 
 R. 558 ; 73 L. T. 74 : 4 1 W. H. 37 ; s Asj). M. C. 33— C. A. . . 337 
 
 Dobroc r. East India Co., 13 Ku.st, 29(t 252' 
 
 ,, V. Napi.r, 2 P.ing. (n.c.) 781 ; 3 S.'.,tt, 201 ; 5 L. .1. C. P. 
 
 •27:5 . r i'51 (Addenda) 
 
 ,, r. Schroeder, 2 Mvi. & Cr. 489. AMirming 6 Sim. 291 . 73S 
 
 Dobson r. Bolton, 1 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 239 1097
 
 xliv TAl^LE OF CASES. 
 
 Dolisoii r. Droop. 4 Car. & P. 112 : .M. .*t M. 4 11 48(5 
 
 ,, r. Hiulsoii, 1 C. B. (N.s.) r,y2 ; 26 L. J. C. 1'. U>:', ; 3 Jiiv. (iV.s.) 
 
 •216 ; :> W. R. 308 873 
 
 ,, r. Lviill. 2 I'h. 3-23, n. ; 8 .lur. !tt)9 ; sec 3 .Myl. <t Cr. 4o3. n. ; ti 
 
 "L. X Cli. 115 ; 11 Jur. 179, n -20.% 207 (2), '218 
 
 r. AVilsoi), 3 Canii). 480 ; 14 R. If. S17 .... r.S2, 589 
 
 Dock Company of Hull c. Browne, 2 15. & Ad. 43 . . . • _ •_ ''^ 
 
 Dockwray r. Dickenson. Coinl). 366 27, 52, 931 
 
 Doctor Van Tliannen Tcllow, 20 L. T. 960 ; 17 W. R. 899 . . . 1015 
 
 Dodd r. Atkinson, Ca. t. Haixlw. 342 300 
 
 Do.ldinn'toii c. llallett, 1 A^es. Sen. 497. Overruled, seel Ves. Sen. Supjil. 
 
 84': 2 Y. & B. 242 24,45,67 
 
 Dodds r. Kmbleton. 9 I). & I!. 27 ; 5 L. .1. (u.s.) K. 15. 65 . . 777, 784 
 Doick t: Phelps. 30 L. .1. M. C. 2 ; 6 .lur. (n.s.) 1371 ; 3 I.. T. 290 : it 
 
 AV. R. 70 141 
 
 Domett r. Beekford, 5 15. .'c Ad. 521 ; 2 N..& AI. 374 ; 3 L. J. K. B. 10 371, 398 
 
 r. Young, Car. & M. 465 1225 
 
 Don Alouso (•. Cornero, Hob. 79, 212 9.33 
 
 Don Degoe Servient Deacuno l: Pnintisli and Points, 2 15ulstr. 322 . . 933 
 Don Diego Serviento De Acuna r. .lolliti'e and Tucker (or Bingley), Hob. 
 
 78, 113, 212 9.30 
 
 Don Francisco (Set-off; Damage to Cargo), Lush. 468; 31 L. J. Adni. 
 
 14 : 5 L. T. 460 948, 970 
 
 (Discovery), Lush. 468 ; 31 L. J. Adni. 205 ; 6 L. T. 133 . 996 
 
 Don Pedro de Sunega, cited Hob. 212 934 
 
 Don Ricardo, 49 L. .1. Adm. 28 ; 5 P. D. 121 ; 42 L. T. 32 ; 28 AV. K. 
 
 431 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 225 982, 1010 
 
 Donaldson r. Little, 10 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 413 . . . . 275 
 
 /•. Thompson, 1 Camp. 429; 10 R. R. 717 .... 1173 
 
 Donkin r. Ha.stie, 61 .]. P. 568 Ill 
 
 Doolan r. Midland liailway Co.. 37 L. T. 317 ; 2 Apji. Cas. 792 ; 25 
 
 AV. R. 882 ; 3 A.sp. M. C. 485 77 
 
 Dora Tully. 54 L. T. 467 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 550 95 
 
 Dordogne, 54 L. J. Adm. 29 ; 10 P. D. 6 ; 51 L. T. 650 ; 33 W. R. 360 ; 
 
 5 A.sp. M. C. 328— C. A 799, 801, 802(2), 817, 819 (2) 
 
 Dorm.mt i: Furucss Railway Co., 52 L. .1. <,>. B. 331 ; 11 Q. B. D. 496; 
 
 49 L. T. 134 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 127 : 47 .1. P. 711 . . . • 722, 892 
 Dorrington's Case, Sir F. j\loore, 916 .. . .... 837 
 
 Dosseitei, 10 -Tur. 865 600 
 
 Dottin V. Dowrich, 1 Lutw. 268 222 
 
 Dougal r. Kemble, 11 Jloore, 251 : 3 15iiig. 383 ; 4 L. .1. (o.s.) C. P. 103 ; 
 
 28 AV. R. 648 ' 402 
 
 Dougla.s, 51 L. .1. Adm. 89 ; 7 P. D. 151 ; 47 L. T. 502 ; 5 A.sp. M. C. 
 
 15— C. A. Reversing 30 AV. R. 692 . . . 689,721,891 
 „ •(;. Russell, 1 My. & K. 488. Athrming 4 Sim. 524 . 166, 393, 443 
 
 „ V. Scougall, 4 Dow, 269; 16 R. R. 69 1160 
 
 Doward r. Lindsay, The AVilliani Lind.say, L. R. 5 P. C. 338 ; 29 L. T. 
 
 355 ; 22 \V. R. 6 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 118— P. C. . . 688, 694, 705, 706 
 
 Dowdall V. Allan. See Dowdall r. Hallett, infra. 
 ., V. Clark. See Dowdall v. Hallett, infra. 
 
 V. Hallett, Dowdall r. Clark, Dowdall v. Allan, 18 Q. B. 2 ; 21 
 ' L. J. Q. B. 98 ; 16 Jur. 462— Ex. Ch. Li Court below, 19 L. J. 
 <i. B. 37, 41 ; 14 Jur. 309, 311 ... 103.-), 1036, 1328, 1351 
 
 Dowell r. General Steam Navigation Co., 5 El. & P>1. 195 ; 26 L. J. (}. 15. 
 
 59 ; 1 Jur. (x.s.) 800; 3 AV. R. 492 687 
 
 ,, r. Moon, 4 Canqi. 166 1352 
 
 Dowse, 39 L. J. Adm. 46 ; L. R. 3 A. .t E. 135 ; 22 L. T. 627 : 18 AV. R. 
 
 1008 939 (2), 945 
 
 Dowson V. Leake, 1 D. & R. N. P. C. 52 ; nom. Dowson v. Longster, Holt 
 
 on Shipping, 198 41 
 
 ,, r. Longster. See Dowson /•. Leake, siqrra. 
 
 Dowthorpe, 2 W. Rob. 73 184. 204, 220 
 
 Dovlc r. Anderson, 1 A. & E. 635 ; 4 X. & AL 873 1322 
 
 ~, r. Dallas, 1 lAI. & Rob. 48 1298 
 
 ., r. Douglass, 4 B. & Ad. 544 1322 
 
 „ r. Powell, 4 V,. k Ad. 267 ; 1 N. & M. 678 1058 
 
 Dracachi r. Anglo-Egyplian Navigation Co., 37 1>. -i. C. P. il; L. P. 3 
 
 C. P. 190 ; 17 L. T. 472 ; 18 AV. R. 277 348 
 
 Draddy c. Deacon, 2 A''ern. 242 426 
 
 Draiur. Henderson, 11 Ir. C. L. R. 497 342 
 
 ., V. Scott, 3 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 114 86 
 
 Drake r. Alarryatt, 1 B. k C. 473 : 2 D. & It. 696 ; 1 L. J. (o..s.) K. 15. 
 
 161 ; 25 R. R. 464 1258, 1321
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xlv 
 
 Dresser %: Bosanrjuet, 4 15. & S. 460 ; 32 L. J. Q. B. 374 ; 9 Jur. (n.s.) 
 
 458 : 11 W. R. 840— Ex. Ch 908 
 
 Drew r. Bird, M. & il. ir,(j 398 
 
 Drevfus i: Peruviiui Guano Co., 61 L. J. Ch. 749 ; [1S92] App. Cas. 160 ; 
 
 '66 L. T. 536 : 7 Asp. M. C. •225— H. L. (E.) 557 
 
 Driscol V. Bovil, 1 Bos. & P. 313 1212 
 
 ,, r. Passmore, 1 Bos. .^- P. 20() : 4 K. K. 782 1167 
 
 Druid, 1 AV. Eob. 391 714 
 
 Dry r. Boswell, 1 Camp. 329 67 
 
 Drydeu r. Allix, The ilodeniticii, 1 Moore, P. C. (n..s.) 528 ; 9 L. T. 586. 825 
 Dublin (Owners) r. Chetah (Owners), The Chetah, 5 iloore, P. C. 's.s.) 
 278 ; 38 L. J. Adni. 1 ; L. R. 2 P. C. 205 ; 19 L. T. 621 ; 17 W. R. 
 
 233 696, 634, 645 
 
 Dublin Port and Docks Board v. Shannon, Ir. Rep. 7 C. L. 116 . 776, 777 
 
 Duchesse de Brabant, Swal^ev, 264 ; 6 ^V. R. 329 982 
 
 Duchessof Kent, 1 W. Rob. '283 130 
 
 Duckett V. Satterheld, 37 L. J. C. P. 144 : L. R. 3 C. P. 227 . . . 497 
 Dudgeon v. Pembroke, 46 Is. J. Q. B. 409 ; 2 App. Cas. 284 ; 36 L. T. 
 382 ; 25 \V. R. 499 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 393— H. L. (E.). Affirming 43 
 L. J. Q. B. 220 ; L. R. 9 Q. B. 581 ; 31 L. T. 31 ; 22 "W. R. 914 . 864. 
 
 1044, 1088, 1151, 115r> 
 Dudman r. Brown and Duliliu Ports and Harliour Board, Ir. Rep. 7 C. L. 
 
 518 722, 763 
 
 Due Checchi, L. R. 4 A. & E. 35. ,i. : 26 L. T. 593 ; 20 "\V. R. 686 ; 1 
 
 Asp. M. C. 294 671 
 
 Duero, 38 L. J. Adm. 69 ; L. R. 2 A. k E. 393 ; 22 L. T. 37 . . . 333 
 Dutf ;•. Mackenzie, 3 C. B. (x.s.) 16 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 313 ; 3 Jur. (N.s.) 
 
 1025 1229, 1249 
 
 Dufonrcet r. Bishop, 56 L. J. (,>. B. 497 ; 18 Q. B. D. 373 ; 56 L. T. 633 ; 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 109 559 
 
 Duke of Bedford, 2 Hag. Adni. 294 203 
 
 Duke of Buccleugh (Collision ; Regulations), [1891] App. Cas. 310 ; 65 
 
 L. T. 422; 7"Asp. M. C. 68— H L. (E.). 709, 711, 791 
 (Substituting Plaintilf), 61 L. J. Adm. 57 ; [1S92] 
 P. 201 ; 40 W. R. 455 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 294— C. A . . 840, 851, 974, 
 
 975 (Addenda) 
 
 Duke of Clarence, 1 W. Rob. 346 635 
 
 Duke of Cornwall, 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. 20] 693 
 
 Duke of ilanchester, Shersby c. Hibbert, 6 Moore, P. C. 90. Alllnning 4 
 
 Xot. of Cas. 582 ; 10 Jur. 863 ; 2 W. Rob. 470. . . . "602, 775 
 Duke of Sussex (Pilot ; Tug), 1 AV. Rob. 270 ; 1 Xot. of Cas. 161 . . 756 
 ,, (Collision; Navigation), 1 W. Rob. 274; 1 Not. of Cas. 
 
 165 • . . 785, 786, 822 
 
 Duke of Sutherland, L. R. 4 A. & E. 419 ; 32 L. T. 129 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 478 709 
 Duke of York (or Le Seigneur Admiral) r. Linsted, 1 Keb. 657 ; 1 Sid. 
 
 pt. 1, 178 035 
 
 Dumfries, Thompson r. From, 10 Moore, P. C. 461 ; Swabev, 125 ; 4 
 
 AV. R. 708 759, "761, 786, 805 (2) 
 
 Duna, 5 L. T. 217 120, 719 
 
 Dunbar r. Smuthwaite, 3 W. R. 68 260 
 
 Dunbcth, 66 L. J. Adm. 66 ; [1897] P. 133 ; 76 L. T. 658 ; S Asj.. iM. C. 
 
 284 '^S'l 
 
 Duncan r. Benson, 3 Ex. 644 ; IS L. J. Ex. 169 ; 12 Jur. 218~Ex. Ch. . 524 
 ,, r. Dundee, Perth, ami London Shipping Co., 5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 
 (4th.ser.) 742 667,668 
 
 ,, V. Ki.ster, Tin; Teutonia, 8 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 411 ; 41 L. J. Adm. 
 57; L. R. 4 P. C. 171 ; 26 L. T. 48; 20 W. R. 421 ; 1 
 
 Asp. M. C. 214— P. C 377,529 
 
 r. McCalmont, 3 Bcav. 409 ; 10 L. J. Cli. 335 ; 5 .hir. 262 . . 225 
 
 „ r. Tindall, 13 C. B. 258 ; 22 L. J. C. P. 137 ; 17 Jur. 347 . . 148 
 
 Dundee (Limitation ; Ship's (iear), 1 Hag. Adm. 109 .. . 720, 738 
 
 ,, (Limitation ; Interest and Co.sts), 2 Hag. Adm. 137 . . • 738 
 
 Dunnlm, 53 L. J. A<lm. 81 ; 9 P. D. 164 ; 51 L. T. 214 ; 32 ^V. I!. 970 ; 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 304 785, 793, 794 
 
 Dunkley r. I5ulwer, 6 Es]). S6 107,108 
 
 Dunlop i: Balfour, 61 L. J. n. P.. 354 ; [1892] 1 (,). 15. 5u7 ; 66 L. T. 455 ; 
 
 40 W. R, 371 ; 7 Asp. iM. C. 181— C. A 448 
 
 ,, r. Gill. 1 B. fi Aid. 334 l'-^02 
 
 i: Lambert, 6 CI. A: F. 600 -^'S'-i 
 
 Dunlossit. Cnrrie r. McKuight. 6(5 L. J. P. C. 19 ; [1897] App. Gas. 97 ; 
 75 L. T. 457; 8 Asp. M. C. 199; 24 Ct. of Se.s.s. Cas. (4th .ser.) 
 
 H. L. Cas. 1— H. L. (Sc.) 718, 924 
 
 Dunmore, 32 L. T. 340 ; 2 Asp. M. C 599 103 
 
 8. <i
 
 xlvi TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 iniuraveii (Eavl) r. (Mark, The SatiUiitii, (i6 L. J. Aclm. 1 ; [1897] 
 
 Ai)p. Cas. f)9 : 7a L. T. 337 ; 8 A.sp. M. C. 190— H. L. (E.) . . 746 
 
 Duiistauborouoh, [1892] P. 3(53, u (590 (Addenda) 
 
 ])unvoi,'an Ca-stle, 3 Hag. Adm. 331 .202 
 
 Dunwieh (Bailitts of) r. Steny, 2 B. & Ad. 831 : 9 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 167 . 949 
 Diirhaui Citv, 58 L. J. Adm. 46 ; 14 P. D. 85 ; 61 L. T. 339 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 
 411 64, 249 
 
 Duirell r. Bederley, Holt, N. P. 283 ; 17 R. R. 639 . . . 11S2, 1199 
 
 Dutliie r. Aiken, 20 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4thser.) 241 33 
 
 ,, r. Hilton, 38 L. J. C, P. 93 ; L. R. 4 C. P. 138 : 19 L. T. 285 ; 
 
 17 AV. R. 55 382 
 
 Button V. Powles, 2 B. & S. 174 ; 31 L. J. Q. B. 191 ; 8 Jur. (x.s.) 970 ; 
 
 6 L. T. 224 ; 10 W. R. 408— Ex. Ch 279 
 
 Dwina, 61 L. J. Adm. 71 ; [1892] P. 58 ; 66 L. T. 862 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 173 601 
 
 Dv£;deii, 1 Not. of Cas. 115 616 
 
 Dyke (or Reg.) r. Elliott, The Gauntlet, 41 L. J. Adm. 65 ; L. R. 4 P. C. 
 
 184 ; 26 L. T. 45 ; 40 W. R. 497 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 211 . . 951 (Addenda) 
 
 Dyniond r. Scott, 5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 196 210 
 
 Dysart v. Jlontgomery, Iv. Rep. 8 C. L. 245 868 
 
 Dyson v. Rowcroft, 3 Bos. & P. 474 ; 7 R. R. 809 . . . 1082, 1226, 12S2 
 
 E. IT., The, 1 Spinks, 63 597, 623 
 
 E. Z., The. 33 L. J. Adm. 200 ; 10 L. T. 290 846, 994 
 
 Eaken v. Thorn, 5 Esp. 6 ; 8 R. \i. 824 107 
 
 Ealing Grove. 2 Hag. Adm. 15 130,131 
 
 Earl Grey (SalvMge), 3 Hag. Adm. 363 635 
 
 ,, ■ (Bail), 1 Sjiinks. 180 671 
 
 Earl of Aukland, Lush. 387 ; 15 Moore, P. C. 304 ; 5 L. T. 558 ; 10 W. R. 
 
 124— P. C • . . 146, 783 
 
 Earl of Cambridge r. Penrose, cited Dyer, fo. 159 ?> 927 
 
 Earl of Dumfries and The Boskenna Bay (Collision), 5 Asp. M. C. 329, /(. 799 
 
 (Addenda') 
 (Evidence), 54 L. .7. .\dm. 7 ; 10 P. D. 31 ; 51 L. T. 
 
 906 ; 33 W. R. 568 ; 5 Asp M. C. 342 850, 1000 
 
 Earl of Eglington, Swabey, 7 . . . . . . . . .617 
 
 Earl of Elgin, The, and The Jesmoud, The Josmoud (Owners) r. The Earl 
 of Elgin (Owners), 8 Moore, P. C. (x.s.) 179; L. R. 4 P. C. 1 ; 25 
 
 L. T. 514 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 150 715, 810 (2), 819 
 
 Earl of Leicester, Br. & Lush. 188 852 
 
 Earl Spencer, 33 L T. 235 : 3 Asp. M. C. 4— P. C. Affirming L. R. 4 
 
 A. & E. 431 ; 32 L. T. 370 ; 23 W. R. 661 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 523 692, 795, 999 
 Earl Wemyss, 61 L. T. 289 ; 6 Asp M. C. 407— C. A. . . . 807, 816 
 
 Earle i'. Harris, 1 Dougl. 357 1165 
 
 ,, r. Rowcroft, 8 Ea.st, 126 ; 9 R. R. 385 1098 
 
 East India Company c. Atkvns, 1 Coniyns, 348 118 
 
 r. Todd, 1 Bro. P. C. 405 249 
 
 East Lothian, Lush. 241 ; 14 Moore, P. C. 177 ; 4 L. T. 487 . . . 843 
 Eastern Belle, 33 L. T. 214 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 19 . . . . 158, 171, 183 
 
 Ea.stern Monarch, Lush. 81 608, 650 
 
 Ea.stern Steamshi]) Co. v. Smith, The Duke of Bucclengli, [1801] App. Cas. 
 
 310 ; 65 L. T. 422 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 68— H. L. (E.) . . 709, 711, 791 
 Eastman v. Harrv, 33 L. T. 800 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 117— C. A. . . . 515 
 
 Ebenezer, 2 W. Rob. 206 803, 846 
 
 Ebor, 11 P. D. 25 ; 54 L. T. 200 ; 34 W. R. 448 : 5 Asp. M. C. 560— C. A. 800, 
 
 801, 803, 816 (2) 
 Ebsworth v. Alliance Marine Insurance Co., 42 L. .J. C. P. 305 : L. R. 8 
 
 C. P. 596 ; 29 L. T. 479 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 125 . . . . . 1120 
 Eclipse, The Saxonia and The, Hamburgh- American Steam Navigation Co. 
 r. North of Scotland Banking Co.. 15 Moore, P. C. 262 ; Lush. 
 410 ; 31 L. J. Adm. 201 ; 8 Jur. (x.s.) 315 ; 6 L. T. 6 ; 10 
 
 W. R. 431 . . 761, 787 (2), 804 
 
 ,, (Appeal ; Evidence), 14 P. D. 71; 60 L. T. 899; 6 Asp. M. C. 409 1011, 1016 
 Eddystone JIarine Insurance Co., /;i ?-c, Western Marine Insurance Co., 
 'Kc parte, 61 L. J. Ch. 362 ; [1892] 2 Ch. 423 ; 66 L. T. 370 ; 40 
 
 W. R. 441 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 167 1038 
 
 Eden (Pilot), 2 W. Rol). 442 ; 10 .Jur. 296 776, 777 
 
 „ (County Court), 61 L. J. Adm. 68 ; [1892] P. 67 ; 66 L. T. 387 ; 40 
 
 W. H. 415 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 174 . . . . • . .1017 
 
 ,, V. Parkinson, 2 Dougl. 732 1170 
 
 „ V. Poole, 1 Term Rep. 132, h. . 1129
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xlvii 
 
 Edenmore, [1893] P. 79 ; 1 R. 574 : 69 L. T. 230 ; 41 W. R. 654 : 7 Asi. 
 
 il. C. 334 . 639 
 
 EJgar i: Bumsteail, 1 Camp. 411 ; 10 R. R. 713 1340 
 
 „ c. Fowler, 3 East, -li-A ; 7 R. R. 433 1311 
 
 Edina, 4 "\V. R. 91 632 
 
 Editli (Removing Wreck), 11 L. R. Ir. 270— C. A 69.891 
 
 ,, (Collision; Lights), 10 Ir. Rop. Eq. 345 793J 794 
 
 Ednioiid (Master ; Freight), Lush. 57 ; 29 L. J. Adm. 76; 2 L. T. 192 85,' 394 
 ,, (Bottomry ; Registrar's Report), Lush. 211 ; 30 L. J. Adm. 128 ; 
 
 2 L. T. 394 206, 214, 223, 1007 
 
 Edmonds c. Watermeirs Company, 24 L. J. M. C. 124 ; 3 C. L. R. 902 ; 1 
 
 Jur. (x.s.) 727 .141 
 
 Edmomlton r. Franklin, Fortesc. 231 ....... 932 
 
 Edmundson r. Walker, Cartli. 166 ........ 93-5 
 
 Ednian v. Smith, 3 Keb. 744 930, 931 
 
 Edward, 4 C. Rob. 68 999, 1206 
 
 Edward Cardwell, 16 Ir. Ch. Rej). 34 ; 12 L. T. 677 . . . . 433 
 
 Edward Hawkins, General Steam Navigation Co. v. De Jersey, 15 Moore, 
 
 P. C. 4S6 ; Lusli. 515 : 31 L. J. Adm. 46 596 
 
 Edward Oliver. 36 L. .1. Adm. 13 ; L. R. 1 A. & E. 379 ; 16 L. T. 575 216, 220 
 Edward v. Trevellick, 4 El. & Bl. 59 ; 2 C. L. R. 1605 ; 24 L. J. < ». 15. 9 • 
 
 1 Jur. (x.s.) 110 ; 2 W. R. 586 .130 
 
 Edwards v. Aberavon ilutual Ship Insurance Society, 1 (}. H. D. 563 ; 
 
 34 L. T. 457 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 154— C. A. Reversing S. C, 
 54 L. J. Q. B. 67 ; 28 W. H. .304 . . 1324, 1351, 1354 
 
 r. Brewer, 2 M. & W. 375 ; 6 L. J. Ex. 135 .... 576 
 
 ,, V. Child, 2 Vern. 727 118 
 
 ,, V. Falmouth Harbour Commissioners, The Rliosina, 54 L J. 
 
 Adm. 72 ; 10 P. D. 131 ; 53 L. T. 30 ; 5 Asp. .M. C. 460 772, 910 
 „ v. Fcotner, 1 Camp. 530 ........ 1149 
 
 V. Havill, 14 C. B. 107 ; 2 C. L. R. 1343 : 23 L. .1. C. P. 8 ; 
 
 17 Jur. 1103; 2 W. R. 12 63 
 
 V. Southciate, 10 W. R. 528 366 
 
 1-. Steel, Young & Co., 66 L. J. Q. B. 690 ; ,1897] 2 Q. B. 327 ; 
 77 L. T. 297 ; 45 W. R. 689 ; 8 A.sp. M. C. 281 . . . .110 
 Edwin, Br. & Lu.sh. 381 ; 33 L. J. Adm. 197 ; 10 L. T. 658 ; 12 W. ]l. 
 
 992 98 
 
 „ v. East India Co. 2 Vern. 210 369, 385 
 
 Eflbrt, 3 Hag. Adm. 165 642 
 
 Egerateia, 38 L. J. Adm. 40 ; 20 L. T. 961 195 
 
 Eglington (Earl; c. Norman, 46 L. J. Ex. 557 ; 36 L. T. 888 ; 25 AV. R. 
 
 656 ; 3 A.sp. .M. C. 471— C. A 890 
 
 Eg}'ptian, Bibby v. Boi.ssevain (Collision), 1 Moore, P. C. (x.s.) 373 ; '.» Jnr. 
 
 fN..s.) 1159; 8 L. T. 776 692,695(2) 
 
 ,, (Collision ; Damage.s), 10 L.T. 910 727 
 
 Egvptienne, 1 Hag. Adm. 346. n 955 
 
 Eider (Co-owners), 40 L. T. 463; 4 Asp. M. C. 104 959 
 
 ,, (Salvage ; Service of Writ), Neptune Salvage Co. r. Norddeutseher 
 Lloyd, 62 L. J. Adm. 65 ; fl893] P. 119 ; 1 R. 593 ; 69 L. T. 622 ; 
 
 7 Asp. JI C. 354— C. A. . ■ 662, 975 (Adilenda) 
 
 Eilean Dul.h, 49 L. T. 444 ; 5 A.s]). M. C. 154 .... 863, 1023 
 
 Eintracht, 29 L. T. 851 ; 2 Asji. M. C. 198 596, 609 
 
 Ekins r. East India Co., 1 P. Wnis. 395; 2 I'.ro. P. ('. 3s2. Allirming 
 
 2 E(i. Cas. Abr. 722 163 
 
 Eleanor (Salvage), 6 C. Rob. 39 66(t 
 
 „ The, and The Alma (Colli.sion). 2 Mar. Law. Cas. (0.8.) 240 . . 806 
 
 Eleonora Charlotta, 1 Hag. Adm. 156 599, t;62 
 
 Eleonore, Br. k Lush. 18.". ; 33 L. J. Adm. 19 ; 9 L.T. 397 ; 12 W. R. 21 S 676, 
 
 '.17 (, 9S(i, 1005 
 
 Elejihanl, Boiler o', /« vc, til L. T. 513 642 
 
 Elcphanta, 15 Jur. 1185 2(i4 
 
 Elgoo.l r. Harris, 66 L. J. i). B. .53 ; [1896] 2 *). B. 491 ; 75 L. T. 419 ; 15 
 
 \V. R. 158 ; 3 Manson, 322 ; 8A.sp. M. C. 206 .... i:;}3 
 
 Elin, 52 L. J. Adm. 55 ; 8 P. D. 129 ; 49 L. T. 87 ; 31 W. R. 736 ; 5 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 120-C. A 120, 719 
 
 Elina, 5 P. D. 237, »< 863 
 
 Elise, Swabcy, 436 664, 990 
 
 Eliza, (Bottomry), He.ilhoen r. Darling, 1 >Moore, P. C. 5 203, 207 
 
 ,, (Bottomry), 3 Hag. Adm. 87. -li' 
 
 ,, (Salvage)i Lush. 536 603 
 
 ,, (Wages), 1 Hag. Adm. 1S2 112.129 
 
 Eliza< Ornish, otherwis.' The S.-greda, 1 Spinks, 36 ; 17 Jui. 7-> . 162 
 
 Eliza .lane, 3 Hag. Adm. 335 837,922 
 
 ,1—2
 
 xlviii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Elixal.eth (ApjKal), 30 L. J. Adm. i,'.] ■ L. IJ. 3 A. <fe K. 33 : -21 L. T. 729 1014 
 
 (Collision ; Foreign Ship), 3 L. T. lf.9— P. C 761 
 
 (Salvage), 8 Jur. 365 616 
 
 ,, (Seamen), 6 Jur. 156 110 
 
 ,, (Seamen ; Discharge), 2 Dods. 403 109 
 
 Elizabeth, The, and The Adalia, 22 L. T. 74 693 
 
 Klizabeth and Jane, 1 W. Rob. 27S 955 
 
 Elkiu V. Janson, 13 M. & W. 655 ; 14 L. J. Ex. i20l ; 9 Jm'. 353 . 1200 
 Ella A. Clarke, Br. & Lush. 32 ; 32 L. J. Adm. 211 : 9 .lur. (x..s.) 312 ; 
 
 8 L. T. 119 ; 11 W. R. 524 96.S 
 
 Ella Constance, 33 L. J. Adm. 191 635 
 
 EUershaw v. ilagniac, 6 Ex. 570 ........ 354 
 
 Elliott r. Lord, 52 L. J. P. C. 33 ; 48 L. T. 542 ; 5 As]). M. C. 63 . 485, 506. 
 ,, r. The Orienta (Owners), Tlie Orienta, 64 L. J. Adm. 32 ; [1895] 
 
 P. 49 ; 11 K. 687 ; 71 L. T. 711 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 529— C. A. . 96, 
 
 99, 100' 
 
 ,, V. A^on Glehn, 13 (,). P. 632 ; IS L. J. Q. B. 221 .... 270 
 
 ,, V. Wilson, 4 Bro. P. C. 470 1214 
 
 Elliotta, 2 Dods. 75 632 
 
 Ellis V. General Steam Navigation ('..., 38 L. T. 570 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 581 . 97& 
 ,. r. Lafone, 8 Ex. 546 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 124 ; 17 Jnr. 213 ; 1 W. R. 200 ; 
 
 —Ex. Ch 1113, 1198 
 
 ,, r. Pearce, EL BL & El. 431 ; 27 L. J. M. C. 257 ; 4 Jur. (x.s.) 1275 : 
 
 6 W. R. 683 864 
 
 „ r. Thompson, 3 M. & W. 456 ; 7 L. J. Ex. 185 .... 78 
 
 ., V. Turner, 8 Term Reji. 531 ; 5 11. K. 441 ..... 531 
 
 Ellora, Lush. 550 639 
 
 Ehnore r. Hunter, 47 L. J. M. C. 8 ; 3 C. P. D. 116 ; 38 L. T. 179; 3 
 
 Asp. M. C. 555 . . . .... 141, 835 
 
 V. Trim, The Glannibanta, 46 L. .1. Adm. 75 ; 2 P. D. 45 ; 36 L. T. 
 
 27 ; 25 W. P. 513 664, 940 
 
 Elpis, 42 L. J. Adm. 43 ; L. P. 4 A. .'t K. 1 ; 27 L. T. 664 ; 21 W. P. 
 
 576 ; 1 Asp. M. 0. 472 218 
 
 Elsebe, 5 C. Rob. 173 44 
 
 ELsworth V. Wolmore, 5 Esp. 84 . . . . . . . .117 
 
 Elton, 60 L. J. Adm. 69 ; [1891] P. 265 ; 65 L. T. 232; 39 W. R. 703 : 
 
 7 Asp. M. C. 66 . . 667, 668 
 
 ,, V. Brogden, 2 Str. 1264 ; ami see De Frise v. Stephens, Marshall, 
 
 Lis". (4th ed.) 413, oi 1214 
 
 ,, V. Larkins, 5 Car. k P. 86, 385 ; 8 Bing. 198 ; 1 M. & Scott, 323 1180, 
 
 1190, 1195, 1199 
 
 Elvsia, 46 L. T. 840 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 540— C. A 803 (2) 
 
 Emancipation, 1 W.Rob. 124 197,200 
 
 Emerald, The, The Greta Holme, 65 L. J. Adm. 69 ; [1896] P. 192 ; 74 
 
 L. T. 645 ; 8 Asp. .AL C. 138— C. A 894 
 
 The Yildosala, The Satellite, The Toiler, 42 L. T. 96 ; 4 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 228 1001 
 
 Emery v. Cichero, The Arklow, 53 L. J. P. C. 9 ; 9 Aj.p. Cas. 136 ; 50 
 
 L. T 305 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 219— P. C 710 
 
 Emilien JMarie, 44 L. J. Adm. 9; 32 L. T. 435 ; 2 Asp. U. C. 514 . 347, 349, 
 
 555, 968 
 
 Emma (Salvage ; Lightshipmen\ 3 W. Rob. 151 ... . 622, 629 
 
 ,. (Discovery), 34 L. T. 742 ; 24 W. R. 587 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 218 . 996 
 
 „ (Salvage ; Evidence), 3 Not. of Cas. 114 ; 2 W, Rob. 315 674, 848, 850 
 
 Emmv Haase, 53 L. J Adm. 43 ; 9 P. D. 81 ; 50 L. T. 372 ; 32 W. R. 
 
 880 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 216 713, 786, 818J2) 
 
 Emperor, The, and The Lady of the Lake, Holt, Rule of the Road, 37 . 789 
 
 Emperorand The Zephyr, 12 W. R. 890 847 (2), 848 
 
 Empireof Peace, 39L. J. Adm. 12 ; 21 L. T. 763 .... 202,215 
 Empire Queen, 19 L. T. 576 ; 5 Ir. Eq. Rep. 71 .... . 974 
 Em2)re.ss (Salvage), 41 L. J. Adm. 32; L. R. 3 A. A: E. 502 ; 25 L. T. 885 ; 
 
 20 W. R. 553 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 183 661, 941 
 
 (Sale), Swabey, 160 ; 3 Jur. (x.s.) 119 ; 5 W. R. 165 . __. ^ 162 
 Empress Eugenie (Collision ; Damages), Lush. 138 . . . 727, 86'1 
 
 Empringham's Case, 12 Co. Rep. 84 948 
 
 Empusa, 48 L. J. Adm. 36 ; 5 P. D. 6 ; 41 L. T. 383 : 28 W. R, 263 ; 4 
 
 Asp. M. C. 185 226, 734, 753 
 
 Emu, 1 W. Rob. 15 . . • 675 
 
 Enchantress (Jurisdiction ; Assault), 1 Hag. Adm. 395 .... 925 
 
 (Salvage), Lush. 93 ; 3U L. J. Adm. 15 ; 2 L. T. 574 . 651, 654 
 
 Endeavour, The CricketandThe (Limitation), 48 L, T. 535 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 53 744 
 
 (Damages ; Shiijwright), 62 L. T. 840 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 511 41, 729, 
 
 8.54, 1004
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xlix 
 
 Eudeavoiir, Colley r. Watson (Salvage), 6 JLooie. 334 ; 6 Not. of Cas. 56 &2i. 634 
 Emlora (or Eiidora), 48 L. J. A-lm. 32 ; 4 I*. D. -203 ; 40 L. T. 166 ; 4 
 
 Asp. -M. C. 78 '228 
 
 Enercie. Miedliroat r. Fitzsiinou, 44 L. .1. Adiii. 25 ; L. K. '5 1\ C. 306 ; 
 
 32 L. T. 579 : 28 W. K. 932 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 555 . . 434, 538, 562 
 
 Energy, 39 L. J. Adiu. 25 : L. K. 3 A. & E. 48 ; 23 L. T. 601 ; 18 W. R. 
 
 1009 682, 755, 763, 769, 772 
 
 Eut'laiul, Prendiville v. National Steam Navigation Co. (Salvage), 5 .Moore, 
 " P. C. (x.s.) 344 ; 38 L. .1. Adm. 9 : L. R. 2 1'. C. 253 ; 20 
 
 L. T. 46 646, 774 
 
 (Bail), 56 L. J. .\dm. 11.^) ; 12 P. D. 32; 56 L. T. 896; 35 
 
 W. R. 367 ; 6 Asp. .M. C. 140 954 
 
 English and American Shipping Co. v. Indemnity Mutual .Marine Insurance 
 Co., The IJona, 64 L. .1. Adm. 62 ; 11 R. 707 ; 71 L. T. 870 ; 43 W. R. 
 
 290 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 557— C. A 211, 212 
 
 Englishman (Collision ; Lights), 47 L. J. Adm. 9 ; 3 P. D. IS ; 37 L. T. 
 
 412 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 506 709, 793, 794 
 
 (Costs ; Report), 38 L. T. 756 . . .863,1006,1018,1022 
 
 Englishman. The, and The Australia, (Collision; Assignment of Judgment), 
 
 64 L. .1. Adm. 74 ; [1895] P. 212; 11 R. 757 ; 72 L. T. 
 
 203 : 43 W. P. 670 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 605 . . . .757 
 
 ,, The and The Australia, (Collision ; Tug and Tow), 62 L. .1. 
 
 Adm. 133 ; [1S94] P. 239 ; 6 1!. 743 ; 70 L. T. 846 ; 43 W. R. 62 ; 
 
 7 Asp. M. C. 603 737 
 
 Enterprise, 2 Hag. Adm. 178, w 145,616(2) 
 
 Entwistle v. Ellis, 2 H. & X. 549 ; 27 L. J. Ex. 105 ; 6 W. R. 76 . . 1229 
 
 Eolide.s, 3 Hag. Adm. 367 /"SO 
 
 Eppos, 49 L. T. 604 ; 32 W. R. 154 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 180 . . . . 987 
 
 Erasmus r. Pankrj, cited 3 ]3ougl. 86 1139 (2) 
 
 Erato, 57 L. J. Adm. 1U7 ; 13 P. D. 163 ; 59 L. T. 840 ; 6 Asjk .M. C. 334 639, 
 
 650 
 Erichsen v. Barkworth, 3 H. & N. 601 ; 27 L. .1. E.\-. 472. S. C. on 
 ap].eal, 3 H. & X. 894 ; 28 L. .1. E.x. 95 ; 5 Jur. (x.s ) 517 ; 7 W. R. 
 
 97— Ex. Ch 480 (2) 
 
 Erics.son, Swabey, 38 ......... • *391 
 
 Esk. The, and The Gitana, L. R. 2 A. i K. 350 ; 38 L. .1. Adm. 33 ; 20 
 
 L. T. 587 ; 17 \V. P. 1064 789 
 
 Esk, The, and The Nionl, The Esk (Owners) v. The Niord (Owners). 7 
 .Moore, P C. (x.s) 276 ; L. R. 3 P. C. 436 ; 24 L. T. 16,- ; 1 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 1 811, 830 
 
 Esposito f. P.owdcn, 7 Kl. & Kl. 763; 27 L. .J. i,). V>. 17; 3 Jur. (n..s.) 
 
 1209; 5 W. R. 732-E.\. Ch 1142 
 
 E.Sbciuiho, 57 L. .1. Adm. 29 ; 13 P. D. 5] ; 58 L. T. 596 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 
 276 797(2) 
 
 Esserv r. Cobb, 5 Car. k P. 358 92 
 
 Etches V. Aldan, 1 M. & R. 165 ; 6 L. J. (<. s.) K. P.. 65 ; 31 R. P. 309 . 1277 
 Ettrick. Prebn r. Bailey, 6 P. I). 127 ; 45 L. T. 399 ; 4 Asp. .M. C. 465— 
 
 C. A. Allirming 50 L. J. Adm. 65 (527, 644 
 
 Eugene, 3 Hag. Adnu 156 f)99 
 
 Eugenie, The, and The Magn.-t, The Duke of Sutherlaml, The Maggie 
 Trimble, and The Panny .M. (Jarvill, 44 L. .1. -\.lm. 1 ; L. K. 
 4 A. & E. 417 ; 32 L. T. 129 ; 2 Asp. .M. ('. 478 . 712, 847 
 
 (Salvage), 3 Xot. of Cas. 430 (Jltj 
 
 (Bottomry), L. R. 4 A. & K. 123 : 29 L. T. 3M ; 21 W. K. 957; 
 
 2 A.sp. M. C. 104 216 
 
 Euroi.u (Kvidence), 13 .iur. 856 848,850 
 
 Dean r. Richards (Damage; Lien), Br. & Lush. S9 ; 2 Moore, 
 P. C. (N.s.) 1 ; 32 L. J. Adm. 188 ; 9 Jur. (N.s.; 699 ; 8 L. T. 
 
 368 718(2) 
 
 ,, (Damages; Posse.ssion Pee). Br. k Lush. 210 ; 9 L. T. 781 . . 739 
 
 „ (Collisum; Fog), 14.lur. 627 690, 802 (2), 803 
 
 European, 54 L. J. Adm. 61 ; 10 P. D. 99 ; 52 L. T. SOS ; :',:', W. R. 937 ; 
 
 5 A.sp. M. C. 417 .• •., • '^' 
 
 European and Australian Poval Mail <.'o. r. I'eninsula and Oriental Steam 
 
 Xavigation Co.. 12 Jur. 
 (N.s. ) 909; 14 L. T. 704 ; 
 14 W. R. 843 . . 154, 155 
 ,, ,, ,, ,, r. lioyal Mail Steam Packet 
 
 Co., 4 K. .v'j. 696 ; 5 Jur. (N,.s.)310 l^S 
 
 Euxin.-, PLarvcv r. Tiie Knxine (Owners). 8 Moore, P. C. x.s.) 189 ; 41 
 L. J. AduK 17 ; L. R. 4 !'. C. 8 ; 25 L. T. 516; -JJ W. H. 561 ; 1 A.sp. 
 
 M. C. 1.55 ■ ••'■^ 
 
 Evangeli-smos, X<-nos f. Ad.lerslc.y, 12 .Moor.',]'. C. 352 ; Swabcy,378 852, ><.<Q, 9S0
 
 \y. K. 
 
 2o5 : 
 
 3 Asp. 
 
 
 
 92;"., 
 
 , 957, 974, 
 
 981 
 115 
 536 
 
 5. 348 
 
 
 
 451 
 
 1 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Evangelist via. 4t) L .1. Adm. 1 ; 3.". L. T. 410; 
 
 U. C. 264 
 
 Evans v. Bennett, 1 Gamp. 300 
 ,, V. Bullock, 38 L. T. 34 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 552 
 „ V. Forster, 1 B. & Ad. 118 ; 6 !.. J. (o.s.) K. B. 348 
 „ V. Hooper, 45 L. J. Q. B. 206 ; 1 (,). B. D. 45 ; 33 L. T. 374 ; 24 
 
 W. R. 226— C. A 1352 
 
 ,, r. Hutton, 2 Man. & Gr. 954 ; 5 Scott (nm;.) 670 ; 2 D. V. C. 600 ; 
 
 12 L. J. C. P. 17 276 
 
 „ V. Marlett, 1 Ld. Rayni. 271 351 
 
 ,, V. Nichol, 4 Scott (n.jj.~i 43 ; 3 iMaii. & (Jr. 014 : 11 L. J. C. I'. 6 . 318 
 
 ,, r. Soiile, 2 M. & S. 1 74 
 
 Evevaid r. Kendall, 39 L. J. C. P. 234 ; L. R. 5 V. 1'. 42S ; 22 L. T. 408 : 
 
 IS W. R. 892 72(1, 839, 941 
 
 Everth r. Blackbunie. tl .M. & S. 1.".2 : 2 St;nk. 06 .... 1134, 1350 
 
 ,, r. Hannan, 6 Taunt. 375 ; 2 Marsli. 72 1092, 1099 
 
 „ V. Smith, 2 iM. & S. 278 ; 15 R. 1!. 246 1073 
 
 „ i;. Tunno, 1 B. & Aid. 142 ; 1 Stark. 508 .... 1171,1203 
 
 Ewell Grove, 3 Hag. Adm. 209 617 
 
 Ewevv. Board of Trade, 7 Ot. of Sess. Cas. (4ih ser.) 8?5 . . .876 
 
 ,, V. Yaughan, Winch, 8 932 
 
 Ewlank r. Nutting, 7 C. B. 797 526 
 
 Excelsior, 37 L. J. Adm. 54 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 268 : 19 L. T. 87 . 689, 695, 
 
 913, 914 
 
 Excelsior Co. r. Smith, 2 L. T. 90 1084 
 
 Exeter (Bottomry), 1 C. Rob. 173 224 
 
 ,, (Seamen), 2 C. Rob. 261 131, 138, 846 
 
 Exeter (Corporation i r. Devon (Earl), L. R. 10 Eq. 232 ; 23 L. T. 382 ; 
 
 18 W. R. 879 887 
 
 V. AVarren, 5 Q. B. 773 ; D, .;; M. 524 ; 8 Jar. 441 . 882 
 
 Exmouth, 2 Hag. Adm. 88, n 194, 925 
 
 Experimento, 2 Dods. 38 ....... 956 (Addenda) 
 
 Expert, 36 L. T. 258 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 381 751 
 
 Exijlorer, 40 L. J. Adm. 41 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 289 ; 23 L. T. 6C4 ; 19 \V. R. 
 
 166 838 
 
 Express (Charterpartv), 41 L. J. Adm. 79 ; L. K. 3 A. & E. 597 ; 26 
 
 L. T. 956 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 355 .... 240, 282, 350, 372, 522 
 
 Eyre r. Glover, 16 East, 218 ; 3 Camp. 276 ; 13 K. R. 801 . . .1126 
 
 ,, V. Norsworthy, 4 Car. & P. 502 81 
 
 F. 
 
 Fabius, 2 C. Rob. 245 946 
 
 Faedrelandet, 64 L. J. Adm. 122 ; [1895] P. 205 ; 72 L. T. 650 ; 8 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 1— C. A 793 
 
 Fairbridge v. Paice, 1 Car. & K. 317 . . . . . . . 504 
 
 Fair Haven, L. R. 1 A. & E. 67 ; 14 W. R 821 219 
 
 Fairlie, 37 L. J. Adm. 66 189, 194 
 
 ,, V. Christie, 7 Taunt. 416 ; 1 iAIoore, 114 ; Holt, N. P. 331 ; 18 
 
 515 1042 
 
 Fairlina, 14 W. R. 869 677 
 
 Fairport (Master ; Dismissal), 54 L. J. Adm. 3 : 10 P. D. 13 ; 52 L. T. 
 
 62 ; 33 W. R. 448 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 348 . . . . . 94 
 (blaster ; Disbursements), 52 L. J. Adm. 21 ; 8 P. D. 48 ; 48 
 
 L. T. 536 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 62 . 94, 98 
 
 Fairy, 1 Spinks, 298 787 
 
 Faith r. East India Co., 4 B. & Aid. 430 ; 23 R. R. 423 . . . 435, 441 
 ,, e. Pearson. Holt, N. P. 113 ; 6 Taunt. 439 : 2 Marsh. 133 ; 4 Camp. 
 
 357 ; 16 R. R. 649 27, 83, 931 
 
 Faithful, 31 L. J. Adm. 81 209, 226 
 
 Falcon, 47 L. J. Adm. 56 ; 3 P. D. 100 ; 38 L. T. 294 ; 26 W. R 696 ; 
 
 3 Asp. M. C. 566 1015 
 
 Falk, 47 L. T. 308 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 592 986 
 
 „ ExiKirtc, Kiell, In re, 14 Ch. D. 446 ; 42 L. T. 780 ; 28 \V. P. 785 ; 
 
 4 As].. M. C. 280— C. A. And see Kemp r. Falk, ivfm . . 566 
 „ V. Fletcher, 18 C. B. (n.h.) 403 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 146 ; il Jur. (n'.,s.) 
 
 176 ; 13 W. R. 346 318,822 
 
 Falkland v. Cheney, 5 Bro. P. C. 476 50 
 
 Falkland, The, antl The Navigator, Grindley v. Stevens, 1 iloore, P. C. 
 
 (x.s.) 379 ; Br. & Lush. 204 ; 9,Jur. (n.s.) 1113 . . 698, 807, 815 
 Falknev v. Earle, 3 B. & S. 360 : 32 L. J. Q. B. 124 : 9 .Tur (n.s.) 847 ; 
 
 7 L. T. 672 ; 11 W. R. 307 307 
 
 r. Pitcliie, 2 JI. &S. 290; 15 R. R 253 .... 1290,1291
 
 TABLE OF CASES. li 
 
 Falmouth (Earl) v. George, f. Bing. 2J<t3 ; 2 JI. & P. 457 ; 7 L. J. (o..s.) 
 
 C. P. 40 ; 30 R. R. 597 885 
 
 Fama, 2 W. Rob. 184 777 
 
 Famenoth, 7 P. D. 207 ; 4S L. T. 28 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 35 . . 874, 875 (2) 
 
 Fanchon, 50 L. J. Adni. 4 ; 5 P. D. 173 ; 42 L. T. 483 ; 29 W. R. 339 ; 
 
 4 Asp. M. C. 272 H.^ 
 
 Fane v. Penuoir, 1 Keb. 479 ......... 927 
 
 Fanny, 1 Dods. 443 1173 
 
 Fanny, The, and The Elniina. Edwaids. 117 87, 947 
 
 Fanny M. Carvill, 44 L. J. Adm. 34 ; 13 App. Cas. 455, n. ; 32 L. T. 646; 
 
 24 W. R 62 ; 2 Asp. M. V. 565— P. C 709 (2), 791, 792 
 
 Fanny, and The Mathilda, 48 L. T. 771 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 75 . . 84, 236 
 
 Farmer v. Davies, 1 Term Kep 108 ; 1 P. R. 159 .... 92, 964 
 
 ,, r. Legg, 7 Term Kep. 186 1203 
 
 Farnley Hall, 46 L. T. 216 ; 4 Asp. il. C. 499— C. A. . . . 645, 649 
 Farnworth v. Hvde, 36 L. J. C. P. 33 ; L. R. 2 C. P. 204 ; 12 Jnr. (x.s.) 
 997 ; 15 L.T. 395 ; 15 W. P. 340— Ex. Ch. Reversing (excejit as to 
 notice of abandonment) S. C.,18 C. B. (x.s.) 835 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 207 ; 
 11 Jur. (x.s.) 349 ; 12 L. T. 231 : 13 W. R. 613 . . 1227, 1275, 1284 
 
 Farquharson i: Hunter, 1 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 105 1223 
 
 r. JIoHat, 2 Bro. C. C. 33S 49 
 
 Fan-and r. Cooper, 12 C. B. (x.s.) 283 886 
 
 Favorite (Salvage by agent), 2 W. Rob. 255 ... . 622 (Addenda) 
 Favourite (Salvage ; Costs) 5 L. T. 773 . . . . . • • 6/.> 
 
 (Prohibition), 2 C. Rob. 223 933 (2) 
 
 Faust, Burn v. Herlotson, 56 L. T. 722 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 126— C. A. . 61, 182 
 
 Fawcus r. Sarstield, 6 El. & Bl. 192 ; 25 L. J. Q. B. 249 ; 2 .lur. (v.s.) 665 1158 
 
 Fearon v. Bowers. 1 H. Bl. 364 351, 352 
 
 Featherstone v. Wilkinso]i, 42 L. J. Ex. 78 ; L. R. 8 Ex. 122 ; 28 L. T. 448 ; 
 
 21 W. R. 442 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 31 558 
 
 Feise r. Aguilar, 3 Taunt. 506 : 12 R. R. 695 1145 
 
 „ r. Parkinson, 4 Taunt. 640: 13 R. R. 710 1303 
 
 ,, r. "Wrav, 3 East, 93 ; 6 R. R. 551 565 
 
 Felix (Bill ot Lading ; Admiraltv). 37 L. .1. Adm. 48 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 273 ; 
 
 18 L. T. 587 ; 17 W. P." 102 280, 345, 535 
 
 „ (Salvage), 1 Sjunks. 23, /( 616 
 
 Fell r. Lutwidge, Barmird. Ch. 319 1048 
 
 Fellows r. Lonl Stanley (Owners). The Lord Stanlev, [1893] 1 (}. B. 98 ; 
 
 5 K. 115 ; 67 L. T. 857 : 41 \V. P. 253 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 298 . . 945 
 
 Feltham v. Clark, 1 Dc (J. & Sm. 307 547 
 
 Fenhiim, Fenham (Owners) r. AVakf, 6 Moore, P. C. (x.s.) 5(il : L. R. 
 
 3 P. C. 212 ; 23 L. T. 329 687, 791 
 
 Fenix, Swabey, 13 ; 4 W. R. 183 629 
 
 Feiiton r. Dublin Steam Packet Co., 1 P. .'c D. 103 ; S A. & E. 835 ; 8 L. .1. 
 
 (J. B. 28 '16 
 
 7-. Pearson, 15 East, 419 565 
 
 Fenwick /•. Bell, 1 Car. & K. 312 849 
 
 c. Bovd, 15 M. k W. 632 407, 418 
 
 r. Pobinson, 3 Car. <V; P. 323 1269 
 
 r. Schmaltz, 37 L. .1. C. P. 78; L. R. 3 C. P. 313 ; 18 L. T. 27 ; 
 
 16 W. R. 481 246, 479 
 
 Ferguson an<l Hutchinson, £.>: /nn-k, 40 L. .1. (,). B. 105 : L. R. 6 C'. P.. 2S0 ; 
 
 24 L. T. 96: 19 W. R. 746 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 8 713 
 
 Feronia, 37 L. .1. Adm. 60 ; L. R. 2 A. k E. 65 ; 17 L. T. 619 ; 16 W. R. 585 90, 
 
 93, 99 
 Ferret, Phillips >: Highland Railway Co., .',2 L. .1. 1'. C. 51 ; 8 App. Cas. 329 ; 
 
 48 L. T. 915 ; 31 W. R. 869 ; 5 Asj.. M. C. 94 94() 
 
 Ferro. 62 L. J. Adm. 48 ; [1893] P. 38 ; 1 P. 562 ; 68 L. T. 418 ; 7 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 309 334 
 
 Fielden, 11 W. R. 156 6/3 
 
 Figlia Maggiore, 37 L. .(. .\dm. 52 : I,. P. 2 .\. k E. 100 ; 18 L. T. 532 . 314, 
 ^^ 345, 555 
 
 Fillisi-. Brutter, 1 Park. Ins. (Sth (•d.)411 11^*6 
 
 FingMl, The Fruiter and The, 13 J-. T. 611 810,813 
 
 Finlay c. Liverpool and (Jreat Western Steamship Co., 23 L. T. 251 338, 3.>*y 
 
 Fiietlv, Swabev, 240 654 
 
 Fire (^ueen, 56 L. .1. Adm. 90 : 12 P. D. 147 ; 57 L.T. 312 ; 36 \N . K. 15 ; 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. l'(6 '10' »-^ 
 
 Fi-sher r. Cochrane (or Cockrnne v. Fisher), 1 C. M. & R. 8(»9 ; 5 Tyr. 496 ; 
 
 4 L. J. Kx. 328— Ex. Ch ,,■ 1^64 
 
 ,, ?•. Liverpool Marine Insurance Co., 43 L. .I.Q. B. 114 ; L. K. 9 (j. i<. 
 
 418 ; 30 L. T. 501 ; 22 W. R. 951 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 254— Ex. Ch. 1032 
 ,, V. Ogle, 1 Camp. 418 ^I'l
 
 Hi TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Fisher r. Smitli. 48 L. .1. Kx. 411 : 4 Ap[). Cas. 1 ; :59 L. T. 430 ; 27 W. K. 
 
 113 ; 4 Asp. .M. ('. 60— H. L. (K.) . .... 134(5 
 
 Fisk V. MnsteiiiKiii, S M. & W. 165 ; 10 L. J. E.K. 30t) .... 130? 
 Fitzgerald r. Pole (or Pole r. Fitzt,'eraUl), Wille.s. (!41 ; Ainbl. 214; 
 
 4 Pro. P. C. 439 . ' 1182, 1240 
 
 ,, r. Wainhani, 4 Pro. P. C. 447, « 1240 
 
 Fitzherbert r. iMatlier, 1 Term Rep. 12; 1 R. R. 134 .. . llSf., 1188 
 
 Five Steel Barges, .'■)9 L. J. Adiii. 77 ; lo P. D. 142 : 63 L. T. 499 ; 39 W. R. 
 
 127 ; 6 Asp. 'SI. (_'. 580 G26, 667 
 
 Flecba, 1 Spinks, 438 9(i2 
 
 Fleece, 3 W. Hob. 278 598, 602 
 
 Fleming r. Smith, 1 H. L. Cas. 513 69, 1236, 1285 
 
 Flemmiiig r. Yates, 3 Biilstr. 205 926 
 
 Fleiisburg Steam ShippingCo. v. Seligmaim, 9Ct. ofSess Cas. (3rd ser.)1011 754 
 Fletcher^-. Alexander, 37 L. J. C. F^WS ; L. R. 3 C. P. 375 ; 18 L. T. 432 ; 
 
 16 W. R. 803 1261 
 
 r. Braddick, 2 Hos. & P. (n.r) 182 : 9 R. R. 633 . . .716 
 
 „ r. (Jillespie, 3 Biug. 635 ; 11 Moore. 547 ; 4 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 202 510 
 ,, i". Inglis, 2 P,. & Aid. 315 ; 20 R. R. 448 . . . . . 1085 
 
 r. Poole, 1 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 115 1130 
 
 Fleur de Us, L. K. 1 A. & E. 49 ; 12 Jur. (n.s.) 379 .... 89 
 
 Flindt r. Scott, Flint c. Crokatt, 5 Taunt. 674 ; 15 East, 522, 525 ; 15 
 
 R. E. 615 1203 
 
 ,, r. Waters, 15 East, 260 : 13 R. R. 457 1205 
 
 Flinn r. Headlam (or Tobin), 9 B. & C. 693 : and see S. C, M. & M. 367 ; 
 
 31 R. K. 739 1177, 1193 
 
 Flint. 6 Xot. of Cas. 271 786 
 
 ,, r. Flemyng, 1 ]]. & Ad. 45 ; 8 L. J. (o-.s.) K. B. 350 . . . 1068 
 
 Fiovd {Firri, facias), I Bag. Adm. 29S 987 
 
 ,, (Arrest of Cargo), 35 L. J. Adni. 15 ; L. P. 1 A. & E. 45 ; 14 L. T. 
 
 192 721, 977 
 
 „ (Re-arrest), 35 L. J. Adni. 14 ; L. R. 1 A. & E. 45 ; 14 L. T. 191 . 978 
 Flora, The Allan and The (Collision), 14 L. T. 860 . . 692, 697, 685, 826 
 Flor de Funchal, 35 L. J. Adni. 119 ; 13 W. R. 1000 . . . 218, 967 
 
 Florence, 16 Jur. 572 623 
 
 Florence Nightingale, The, and The ^heander (Apjieal ; Costs : Amount 
 
 Claimed), Br. & Lush. 29 ; 6 L. T. 400 . . 1002 
 
 ,, ,, and The iheander, Garvin r. VAhhy (Collision), 
 
 1 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 63; 9 Jur. (x.s.) 475; 
 
 S L. T. 34 ; 1] W. R. 542 .... 822. 823 
 
 ,, ,, The, and The Mieander (Appeal ; Time), 1 Moore, 
 
 P. C. (X..S.) 42 ; 32 L. J. Adm. 1 ; 8 Jur. (x.s.) 1067 ; 6 L. T. 765 ; 
 
 10 W. R. 794 1012 
 
 Flower r. Bradley, 44 L. J. Ex. 1 ; 31 L. T. 702 ; 23 W. R. 74 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 
 489 144, 942 
 
 ,. c. Young, 3 Camp. 240 ........ 40 
 
 Flying Fish, H.M.S., Anderson r Hoen, Br. & Lush. 436 ; 3 jVLoore, P. C. 
 
 (x.s.) 77 ; 34 L. J. Adm. 113 : 12 L. T. 619 . . . 730, 853, 1006 
 Foley V. Moline, 1 Mar.sh. 117 ; 5 Taunt. 430 ; 15 R. R. 541 . . .1194 
 
 ,, r. Tabor, 2 F. & F. 663 1179,1192 
 
 ., V. United Fire and ILarine Insurance (.'o., 39 L. J. C. P. 206 ; L. R. 
 
 5 C. P. 155 ; 22 L. T. 108 ; 18 W. R. 437— Ex. Ch. . . . 1071 
 
 Follett V. Delanv, 2 De G. & Sm. 235 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 254 ; 12 Jur. 549 . 32 
 
 Fomiu I'. Oswell, 3 Camp. 357 1206 
 
 Foot 1'. Sahvay, Cas. in (Jh. i)t. 2. 142 425 
 
 Forbes r. Aspinall, 13 East, 323 ; 12 R. E. 352 .... 1114, 1115 
 
 ,, v.. ('owie, 1 Camp. 520 ......... 1114 
 
 ,, V. Lee Conservancy Board, 48 L. J. Ex. 402 ; 4 Ex. D. 116 ; 28 
 
 W. R. 688 ... , 893 
 
 ,, r. Wilson, 1 Park. Ins (8tli ed.) 472 1151 
 
 Fordu Coteswoith, 10 P.. & S. 991 ; 39 L. J. (,). B. 188 ; L. R. 5 Q. B. 
 
 544 ; 23 L. T. 165; 18 AV. R. 1169— Ex. Ch. . . . 282, 461, 527 
 
 Forftman v. Whitstable (Free Fishers), 38 L. J. C. P. 345 ; L. R. 4 H. L. 
 
 266 : 21 L. T. 804 ; 18 AV. R. 1046 882 
 
 Forest (,)ueen, 40 L. J. Adm. 17 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 299 : 23 L. T. 544 ; 19 
 
 W. R. 167 . 1"1-"' 
 
 Forrester i-. Pigou, 1 Al. & S. 9 ; 3 Cam]). 3S0 1149 
 
 Forsboom v. Kruger, 3 Camp. 197 . . . . . . . .122 
 
 Forshaw v. Chebert, 6 Moore, 369 ; 3 Br. c^ K 158 : 23 P. R. 596 . 1042, 1157, 
 
 12l'1 
 
 Forster r. Christie, 11 East, 205 ; 10 R. R. 470 1217 
 
 Fort V. Lee, 3 Taunt. 381 ; 12 R. U. 670 . . . . . .1194 
 
 Fortitude, 2 W. Rob. 217 193, 925
 
 TABLE OF CASES. liii 
 
 Foititudo, 2 Dods. 58 228, 1004 
 
 Fortuna, Edw. 56 369 
 
 Fortune, Mackay v. Rohi-rts. 9 ilooie, P. (1 357 ..... 804 
 Foiwnod V. North "Wales Mutual i\Iariiie Iiisurauce Co., 49 L. .1. i^». P.. 
 593 ; 9 Q. B. D. 732 ; 42 L. T. S37 : 28 W. R. 938 ; 4 Asp. M. ('. 
 
 293— C. A 1137 
 
 Fo.scoliuo, 52 L. T. S^6 ; 5 A.s|(. il. C. 420 745 
 
 Foster r. Alvez, 3 IJing. (x.c.) 896 ; 4 Scott, 535 .... 1161, 1321 
 „ V. Colbv, 3 H. & N. 705 ; 28 L. .J. Ex. 81 . . . . 436, 442 
 „ c. Steele. 3 Bing. (n.c.) 892 ; 5 Soott, 25 ; 6 L. J. C. P. 265 . . 1161 
 
 „ V. Stewart, 3 iM. k S. 191 ; 15 R. K. 459 113 
 
 Fothergill v. Walton, 2 Jloorc, 630 ; 8 Taunt. 576 ; 20 R. R. 567 . . 298 
 Fowler v. English and Scottish ilarino Insurance Co., 18 C. B. (x.s.) !»l'.t : 
 34 L. J. C. P. 253 ; 11 Jur. (X..s.) 411 ; 12 L. T. :^.S1 ; 13 
 
 W. R. 658 1105, 1109 
 
 „ V. Knoop, 48 L. J. Q. B. 333 ; 4 g. B. D. 299 ; 40 L. T. ISO ; 27 
 
 W. R. 299 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 68-0. A. . . . 350, 428, 472 
 ,, v. McTaggart (or Kynier), cited 1 East, 522 ; 7 Term Rep. 442, n.; 
 
 4 R. R. 485 ; and see 3 East, 396 567, 577 
 
 Fo.x, £/-;3f'/-^e, 5 Term Rep. 276 ; 2 R. R. 596 138 
 
 „ f. Black, 2 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 620 1213 
 
 „ V. Nott, 6 H. & X. 630 ; 30 L. .1. Ex. 259 ; 7 Jur. (x.s.) 663 . 344, 391 
 
 Foy r. Bell, 3 Taunt. 493 1309 
 
 Foyle, Lush. 10 848 
 
 Fragano r. L-mg, 4 B. & C. 219 ; 6 D. & R. 283 ; 3 L. J. (o.s.) (,). B. 177 550 
 Francesco r. Massev. 42 L. .1. Kx. 75 : L. R. 8 Ex. 101 ; 21 AV. li. 41U : 
 
 2 Asp. JM. C. 594, n 448, 492 
 
 Frances Mary, 2 Hag. Adm. 89 632 
 
 Frances of Leith, 2 Dods. 420 32, 955 
 
 Francis, Ej: parte, Bruno, Silva k Son, /;; /'■, 56 L. T. 577 ; 4 ^Lnrell, 146 ; 
 
 6 A.sp. M. C. 138 576 (Addenda) 
 
 „ V. Boulton. 65 L. .1. <,». P.. 153 ; 73 L. T. 578 ; 44 W. R. 222 : 
 
 8 Asp. M. C. 79 1235 
 
 Francis and Eliza, 2 Dods. 115. . . . . . . . . 605 
 
 Franco r. Xatusch, 1 Tyr. .t G. 401 1140 
 
 Franconia (Liability of Sliipowncr ; Collision ; Overtaking Ship). 2 P. D. 8 : 
 
 35 L. "T. 721 ; 25 W. R. 197 : 3 A.sp. M. C. 295— L". A. 714, 785, 
 
 786, 810, 814, 815, 820, 821 
 ,, Hamburgh Amcricanisclie Paketfahrt Actien Gesellschaft r. 
 Burrell (Limitation of Liability), 3 P. D. 164; 39 L. T. 57 : 
 27 W. R. 21S ; 4 Asp. M. C. 1 . . . . . 747, 74S 
 ,, Harris r. Franconia (Owners) (Detention of Foreign Ship), 
 
 46 L. .1. C. P. 363 ; 2 0. P. D. 173 . . . 72, 759, 975 
 
 ,, .Jeffrey r. Franconia (Owners) (.hirisdiction ; Loss of Life), 
 46 L. J. Adm. 33 ; 2 P. D. 163 : 36 L. T. 640 ; 25 W. R. 796 ; 
 3 A.sp. M. C. 435-0. A. . . . 714, 785, 786, 838 (2) 
 ,, (or Reg.) r. Kcvn (Criminal Jurisdictiun), 2 Ex. D. 63: 
 
 46L. J. M. C. 17 . ' 922 (Addenda) 
 
 Frankland (Amemlment), 41 L. .1. Adm. 3: L. R. 3 A. & E. 511; 
 
 25 L. T. 8S9 : 20 \V. W. 592 : 1 Asp. AI. C. 207 . . . 843, 992 
 
 Frankland, The, and The Kestrel, .Morton r. Hutchinson, 9 .Moore, P. C. 
 
 (N.s.) 365 ; L. R. 4 P. C. 529 ; 27 L. T. 633 ; 1 .\h\k M. C. 489 . 800, 817 
 
 Franklin, 4 0. Rob. 147 594,624 
 
 /•. Ho.sier, 4 15. & Aid. 341 ; 23 R. R. 305 23 
 
 Franz et Elize, Lusji. 377 : 5 L. T. 290 10o9 
 
 Eraser *•. Unrrows, 46 L. .1. (.). 15. 50] ; 2 «,». B. W 624 . . 1317 
 
 ,, r. Hatt'in. See Krazcr '■. llattmi, infra. 
 
 ,, '•. Hopkins, 2 Taunt. 5 . . ." l'^;"' 
 
 ,, r. I'clegraj)!! Construction and Maintenance Co., 41 L. •\. (). \>. 249 ; 
 L. J{. 7 (}. 15. 566 : 27 L. T. 373 ; 20 W. R. 724 ; 1 As].. M. C. 
 
 -1-jl 25(i, 306 
 
 ,, /•. Witt, L. i;. 7 K'|. 6 1 ; 111 I,. T. 4 10 : 17 W. II. 92 . . . 573 
 Frazrr /•. Ciithlxitson, 5o L. .J. (,». 15. 277 ; 6 (^ 15. D. 93 ; 29 W. K. :;96 55 
 ,, (or Eraser; -•. liatton. 2 0. 15. (n..s.) 512; 26 L. .1. C. P. 22i; : 
 
 3.1ur. (N.s.j 6!i4 ; 5 W. R. 632 114.116 
 
 „ /•. Marsh, 13 East, 2,8 : IJ Camp. 85 65, 2!'7 
 
 Frcard r. Dawson, ] Marsh. Ins. (4th ed.) 136 P205 
 
 Fred, 72 L. T. 523 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 550 . . .... 10( 
 
 Frederick (Wages), 1 Dod.s. 266 1-'' 
 
 (Salvage), 1 W. Rol). 16 ''17 
 
 (Seamen;, 1 Hag. Adm. 211 110, l-.i9 
 
 Freedom (Damage to Cargo). I.. P. 3 P. C. 594; 24 L. T. 452; 1 A^p. 
 
 M. 0. 136— P. c -y-^f), =^'1
 
 
 
 . 1047 
 
 36 L. 
 
 T. 
 
 Sf.O ; 
 
 447 
 
 38 L. 
 
 T. 
 
 164 ; 
 
 . 2.56 
 
 571 
 
 
 . 1031 
 
 33 W. 
 
 E. 
 
 687 ; 
 
 863, 102S 
 
 37 L. 
 
 J. 
 
 Adni. 
 
 812, 826 
 
 liv TABLE OF CABE8. 
 
 Fiveaoiii (rieadiim), 38 L. .T. AJiii. 2.5 ; I.. 1!. 2 A. k K. 340 ; 20 L. T. 
 
 229. 1018 ; IS W. K. 48 095 
 
 (Re-arrest), 41 L. .1. Adni. 1 ; I.. 1!. 3 A. & E. 49.5 ; 25 L. T. 392 ; 
 
 1 Asp. M. C. 13(5 851, 978 
 
 Freclaiid r. Glover, 7 Kast, 457 ; 3 Smith, 424 ; 6 Esp. 14 ; 9 R. R. 803 . 1188 
 Freenuui r. Baker, 5 Car. & P. 475 ; 3 Sniitli, 426 ; 6 Esj). 14 . . . 1319 
 
 r. East India Co.. 1 D. &Rv. 2-34; 5 B. & Aid. 617; 24 R. R. 497 525, 1302 
 r. Taylor, 1 Moo. & Sc. 182 ; 8 Bing. 124 ; 1 L. J. C. P. 26 . 286 
 Freir, The. The Albert, 44 L. J. Adrn. 49 ; 32 L. T. 572 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 
 r,89 763, 978 
 
 Freiuh r. Ikckhouse, French r. Foulton, 5 Burr. 2727 
 ,, r. Fonlton, French r. Backhouse, 5 Burr. 2727 . 
 ,, r. Gerber, 46 L. J. C. P. 320 ; 2 C. P. D. 247 ; 
 
 25 W. R. 355 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 403— C. A. 
 ,, r. Newjrrass, 47 L. J. C. P. 361 ; 3 C. P. D. 163 ; 
 
 26 W. R. 430 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 574— C. A. 
 ,, r. Patten, 9 E.ast, 351 ; 1 Camp. 72, 180 & ; 9 R. R. 
 
 Friedeberf,', 54 L. J. Adm. 75 ; 10 P. D. 112 ; 52 L. T. 837 ; 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 426— C. A. . . . 
 
 Friedrich, The City of Antwerp and The, Innian r. Beck, 37 L. 
 
 25 ; L. R. 2 P. C. 25 
 
 Friends (Freight), Edw. 246 377 
 
 ,, (Wages), 4 C. Rob. 143 108 
 
 ,, General Steam Navigation Co. r. Tomkin (Collision). 4 Moore, 
 
 P. C. 314. Affirming 1 W. Rob. 478 . 687 (2), 785, 809, 822, 824, 850 
 Friere r. Woodhonse, Hott, N. P. 572 ; 17 R. R. 679 . . . . 1189 
 Frith v. Forbes, 4 De G. F. & J. 409 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 10 ; 8 Jur. (x.s.) 1115 ; 
 
 7 L. T. 261 ; 11 W. R. 4-L.JJ 543, 564 
 
 Froutine >: Frost, 3 Bos. & P. 302 129 
 
 Frost V. Oliver, 1 El. & Bl. 301 ; 1 C. L. R. 1003 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 353 ; 
 
 18 Jur. 166 62 
 
 Fruiter, The, and The Fingal. 13 L. T. 611 810,813 
 
 Fruit Preserver, 2 Hag. Adm. 181 ....... . 955 
 
 F^ry r. Chartered JMercantile Bank of India, London, and China, 35 L. J. C. P. 
 
 306 ; L. R. 1 C. P. 689 ; 14 L. T. 709 ; 14 W. R. 920 . . .440 
 
 Fullagseu r. Walford, 1 Cab. & E. 198 423 
 
 FuUmore r. Wait, Gunnestead v. Price, 44 L. J. Ex. 44 ; L. R. 10 Ex. 65 ; 
 
 32 L. T. 499 ; 23 W. R. 470 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 543 . . 492, 493, 938 (2) 
 
 Funclial, 3 Hag. Adm. 386. n 639, 669 
 
 Furneaux r. Bradlev, 1 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 365 1237 
 
 Furnell (or Palmer) v. Tiiomas, 5 Bing. 188 ; 2 M. & P. 296 ; 7 L. J. 
 
 (0..S.) C. P. 73 ; 30 R. R. 568 485 
 
 Furness r. Forwood, 77 L. T. 95 ; 8 Asj). M. C. 298 .... 251 
 
 r. Tennant, 66 L. T. 635 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 179— C. A. . . . 423 
 r. White, The Inchulva, 64 L. J. Q. B. 161 ; [1895] App. Cas. 40 ; 
 ■ 11 R. 53 ; 72 L. T. 157 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 574— H. L. (K.) . . . 400 
 
 Furness Railway r. Smith, 1 De G. & Sm. 299 888 
 
 Furtado r. Rogers, 3 Bos. & P. 191 ; 6 R. R. 752 1107 
 
 Fusilier. Blyth v. Simpson, 3 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 51 ; H4 L. .T. Adm. 25 ; 
 
 11 .Tur. (n.s.) ; 289 ; 12 L. T. 186 : 13 W. R. .592 . . . 608, 645 
 
 Fvenoord (Costs), Swal)ey, 374 827,1024 
 
 (Appeal), 34 L. T. 918 : 3 Asp. M. C. 218 1014 
 
 G. 
 
 Gabakkow (or Gabarron) r. Kreeft, Kreeft r. Thompson, 44 L. J. E.x. 238 ; 
 
 L. R. 10 Ex. 274 ; 33 L. T. 365 ; 24 W. R. 146 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 36 . 365 
 Gabay r. Llovd, 3 B. & C. 793 ; 5 D. & R. 641 ; 3 L. .T. (o..s.) K. B. 116 : 27 
 
 H. 1!. 486 1044, 1074 
 
 Gabriel, 4 W. R. 91 702 
 
 Gadney v. Rough, 40 L. T. 258 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 73 832 
 
 Gadsden r. McLean, 9 0. B. 283 325 
 
 Gaetano and Maria, 51 L. .J. Adm. 67 ; 7 P. D. 137 ; 46 L. T. 835; 30 
 
 W. R. 766 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 535 -C. A 213 
 
 Gairdner r. Senhouse, 3 Taunt. 16 ; 12 R. R. 573 ..... 1222 
 Galam, Cargo ex, Cleary r. McAndrew, 3 N. R. 254 ; Br. it Lush. 167 ; 
 
 2 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 216 ; 33 L. .1. Adm. 97 : 10 ,Tur. (n..s.) 477 ; 9 
 
 L. T. 550 ; 12 W. R. 495 . . .97, 219, 368, 432, 522, 562, 592 
 
 Galatea, Swabey, 349 ; 4 Jur. (x.s.) 1064 ; 7 W. R. 21 . . . . 612 
 Gale V. Laurie, 5 B. & C. 156 ; 7 D. & R. 711 ; 4 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 149 738 (2) 
 Galloway r. Jackson, 3 Man. & G. 960; 3 Scott (n.ii.) 753; 12 
 
 L. .J. Ex. 502 299
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Iv 
 
 Gaiiilw r. Le Mesurier, 4 East, 407 ; 1 Smitli. 81 ; 7 R. R. r,90 . . 1143 
 
 Gaiiil)le (or Gamliles) r. Ocean Marine Insurance Company of lioniliay, 4") 
 L. J. Ex. a6t) : 1 Ex. ]). 141 ; 34 L. T. 189 : 24 W.'lt. 3S4 : SAsp. 
 
 M. C. 1-iO-C. A ior,S, l06-> 
 
 Gammon c. Beverley, 1 Moore, 563 ........ l-2().5 
 
 GanaiiO([ue, Lush. 448 .......... 81 
 
 Gandv r. Adelaide Marine Insurance Co., 40. L. J. Q. 15. 23!) ; L. 1!. G 
 
 Q. B. 746 ; 25 L. T. 742 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 188 1183 
 
 Ganges (Appeal), 5 P. D. 247 ; 43 L. T. 12 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 317— C. A. . 94.'» 
 ,, (Salvage ; Agreement), 38 L. J. Adm. 61 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 370 ; 
 
 22 L. T. 72 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 317 651 
 
 Gann r. Brun. See Gann r. Whitstable (Free Fishers), iiifivf. 
 
 ,, r. Wliitstable (Free Fishers) (or Gann r. Brnn\ 11 H. L. Cas. 192 ; 
 20 C. B. (x.s.) 1 : 35 L. J. C. P. 29 ; 12 L. T. 150 ; 13 W. R. 
 
 .589— H. L. (E.) 886 
 
 ,, r. Whitstable (Free Fishers), The Clarisse, Swabey, 129, 133 : 12 
 
 Moore, P. C. 340 600, 645, 647 
 
 Gapp r. Bond, 56 L. J. (). B. 438 : 19 Q. 15. D. 200 ; 57 L. T. 437 ; 35 
 
 W. R. 683— C. A 156 
 
 Gaidinerr. Crossdale, 1 W. Bl. 198; 2 Burr. 904 1325 
 
 ,, r. Macfarlane, The Lismore (Demurrage ; Cesser Clause), 16 (_'t. of 
 
 Sess. Cas. (4t]i ser.) 658 . . ' 482 
 
 ,, ('. Macfarlane (Den)urrage ; Exception), 20 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th 
 
 ser.) 414 451 
 
 Gardner v. Cazenove, 1 H. k N. 423: 26 L. J. Ex. 17; 5 W. R. 195 157, 180, 393 
 ,, r. Lachhin, 4 My. & Cr. 129 ; 8 L. J. Ch. 82 : 2 Jur. 412, 1056 : 
 
 see S. C, 6 Sim. 407 444 
 
 ,, r. McCutcheon, 4 Beav. 534 80 
 
 r. Salvador. 1 M. & Rob. 116 1299 
 
 i: Trechmann, 54 L. J. Q. B. 515 ; 15 t). B. D. 154 ; 53 L. T. 518 ; 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 558— C. A 431 
 
 c. Whitford, 4 C. B. (N.s.) 665 903 
 
 Garnham r. Bennett, 2 Str. 816 62 
 
 Garrels /•. Kensington, 8 Term Rep. 230 ; 4 1!. IJ. 635 . . . 1170, 1171 
 Garrett r. Melhuish, 4 Jur. (x.8.) 943 ; 6 W. R. 491 ... 48, 380 
 
 Garriock c. Walker, 1 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 10(1 .... 521 
 (iarston Sailing Ship Co. v. Hickie (Charter-party ; Collision), 56 
 
 L. J. (l B. 38 ; U Q. B. 1). 17 ; 55 
 L. T. 879 ; 35 W. R. 33 ; 6 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 71— C. A 275 
 
 ,, r. Hickie (Fi-eiglit), 15 (,>. 15. 1). 580 ; 5:i 
 
 L. T. 795 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 499— C. A 408,1061 
 
 Garvin v. Bibby, The Aheander and The Florence Nightingale, 1 Moore, 
 
 P. C. (N.s.) 63 ; 9 Jur. (N.s.) 475 ; 8 L. T. 34 : 11 W. R. 542 . 8'22, 823 
 Gas Float Whitton, No. 2, 66 L. J. Adm. 99 ; [1897 1 App. Cas. 337 ; 76 
 L. T. 663 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 272 — H. L. (E.). Altirming 65 L. J. Adm. 
 17 ; [18961 P. 42 ; 73 L. T. 698 ; 44 W. R. 263 : 8 Asp. M. C. 110 
 
 — C. A 595, 941 
 
 GatlKfe v. Bourne, 1 Bing. (n.c.) 314 ; 5 Scott, 667 ; 7 L. J. C. 1'. 172 . 540 
 Gandet r. Brown. Ai-gos, C'nrqo c.r. The Hewsons, 42 L. J. Adm. 1 ; 
 L. R. 5 P. C. 134 ; 28 L. T. 77 ; 21 W. R. 420 ; 1 Asj). M. C. 
 
 360 492 (2), 938 (3) 
 
 ,, V. 15rown (or lirowii r. (iiiudcti, Argos, <Ji(r<i<) *■/ , 'i'lic Ilcwsons, 
 
 42 L. J. Adm. 49 ; L. 1.'. 5 I'. C 134 ; 2S L. T.' 745 : 21 W. R. 707 : 
 
 1 Asp. .M. C. 519 ; 2 Asp. M. ('. 6 . . . 369, 379, 4.S4, 528, 538 
 
 Gauntlet (li'eg., or Dyke, or II jM. PifX'Urator-Cencral) v. Elliott (Foreign 
 
 Enlistment Act), 41 L. J. Adm. 65; L. R. 4 P. C 184 : 26 
 
 E. T. 45; 20 W. li. 4!t7 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 211 . . 95 (Addenda) 
 
 (Foreign Enlistment Act ; I'.ail), L, W. 3 A. .^ E. 319 ; 24 L. T. 
 
 597 ; 1 Asp. .M. ('. 45 951 (Adden.la) 
 
 (P.ottomry;, :i W. Iti.l). 82 206 
 
 (P.ottomry), 13 Jur. 413 2(i4 
 
 Gayner w. Sunderland Joint Stock Premium Ashociation, 1 Cab. & Iv 293 . 1115 
 
 Gazelle (Collision ; Damages), 2 W. Rob. 279 491,72(5 
 
 ,, (Colli.sion ; Customary Track), 1 \\. Pob. 471 .... 824 
 ,, (Collision ; Trinity House Rule), 5 Not. of Cas. ](il . . . si»4 
 
 CJeere /■. P.urkenshaw, 3 Lev. 85 ; 2 Danv. 429 591 
 
 (ieipcl V. ("ornforth, Caudet c. l5iown, Ari;os, ('nrii'i r.r, Tiic Ucwsons 
 
 (A.lmiraltv; County Court I. 42L. .1. Adm'. 1 ; L. R. 5 ]'. C. 134 ; 
 
 28 L. T. 77 ; 21 W. 1!. 420 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 360 ^ . 492 (2), 938 (3) 
 
 ,, r. Cornforth, Gaudet r. lirown, Argos, Cargo a; Tiie llew.son.s 
 
 (Carriage of (ioods), 42 L. J. Adm. 49; L. R. 5 P. C. 134: 28 E. T. 745; 
 
 21 \y. R. 707; 1 Asp. M. C. 519; 2 As).. iM. C. 6 369, 379, 484, .528, .538
 
 Ivi TABLE 01^' CASES. 
 
 Geipel r. Siuitli, 41 L. .1. (>. 15. ir>:5 ; L. IL 7 <,». I'.. 404 ; 2G L. T. 361 ; 
 
 ■20 W. II. 332 ; 1 Asp. ,M. C. 2t;.s 276 
 
 Gem utthe Nitli, lir. & Lush. 72 213,226 
 
 (it'iicnil r.in'li, 33 L. T. 7H2 ; 24 W. R. 24 ; 3 Asp. U. V. 99 . . . 974 
 <k'iii'ra! lie I'aeii, Swaliev, 9 ......•• • 776 
 
 General (iordoii (Collision), (33 L. T. 117 : <! Asp. .M. C. 533 . . .860 
 
 (Collision; Civw), 6.S L. T. 469: 7 Asp. M. C. 317— 
 
 H. L. (E.) . 690 
 
 General Insurance Co. of Tiieste r. Corv, m L. .1. (). V>. 313 ; [1897] 1 
 
 g. B. 335 " . 1142. 1178 
 
 General Iron Serew Co. r. ;\Ioss, The Araxes and The IJlack Prinee, 15 
 
 .Moore, P. C. 122 7S6, 810, 826, 1013, 1024 
 
 (ieneral Iron Serew Collier Co. v. Scliurmanns, 1 J. & H. 180; 29 L. J. Cli. 
 
 877; 6 Jur. (N.s.) 883; 4 L. T. 138; 8 W. K. 732 . . 740,747,761 
 
 (ieneral Lee, 19 L. T. 750 815 
 
 General Palmer (Salvage ; Steamship), 5 Not. of Cas. 159, H. . . . 635 
 
 (Salvage ; Pilot), 2 Hag. Adni. 176 . . . . 145,616 
 
 ,, ,, (Salvage; Ap[ieal), 2 Hag. Adm. 323 .... 647 
 
 (Ieneral Steam Navigation Co. r. Pritish Colonial Steam Navigation Co., 
 
 38 L. J. Ex. 97 : L. R. 4 Ex. 238 ; 20 
 L. T. 5S1 ; 17 W. R. 741— Ex. Ch . 766, 
 
 768 (2), 780 
 „ „ /•. Gillou, 11 ^]. k W. 877 ; 13 L. J. Ex. 
 
 16S 760 
 
 r. Hedley, The Veloeity, 6 Moore, P. C. 
 
 (x.s.) 263 ; 39 L. J. Adm. 20 ; L. R. 
 
 3 P. C. 44 ; 21 L. T. 686 : 18 W. R. 
 
 264 . . . 786, 787, 811, 815, 830 
 
 ,, ., V. London and Edinhurgh Shipi>ing Co., 47 
 
 L. J. Ex. 77 ; 2 Ex. D. 467 ; '36 L. T. 
 743 ; 25 W. R. 694 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 454 858 
 r. Man)i. 14 C. B. 127 . . . • 708 
 /•. .Morrison. 13 C. B. 581 ; 22 L. J. C. P. 
 178 ; 17 Jur. 673; 1 W. R. 330. 
 AlKrmed 8 Ex. 733 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 233 ; 
 17 Jur. 507 ; 1 W. R. 311— Ex. Ch. 687, 707 
 r. Slipper, 11 C. B. (N.s.) 493; 31 L. .1. 
 C. P. 185 ; 8 Jur. (n.s.) 821 ; 5 L. T. 
 641 ; 10 \V. R. 316 . . . 245, 488 
 /■. Tond<in, The Friends, 4 Moore, P. C. 
 314. Aliirniing 1 W. Rob. 478 . . . 687 (2), 785, 809, 822, 824, 850 
 
 Generous, 37 L. J. Adm. 37 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 57 ; 17 L. T. 552 ; 16 
 
 W. R. 519 663, 664 
 
 Genessee. 12 Jur. 401 642 
 
 (4eorg, [1894] P. 330 ; 71 L. T. 22 ; 7 Asfi. M. C. 476 .... 633 
 
 George (Collision ; Burden of Proof), 9 ,lur. 670 : 2 W. Roh. 386 . . 703 
 
 ,, (Pilot), 2 W. Rob. 386 ; 9 Jur. 670 ; 4 Not. of Cas. 161 . 772, 804 
 
 ., (P.irt Tack), 5 Not. of Cas. 368 805 
 
 ,, (Wages), 1 Hag. Adm. 168. )i 129 
 
 ,, r. Reg., 4 Moore, P. C. (s.h.) 287 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 389 . . .947 
 
 ., r. Watts, 30 L. T. 60 ; 2 Asp. ]\1. C. 243 995 
 
 George and Richard, L. R. 3 A. & E. 466 ; 24 L. T. 717 ; 20 W. R. 246 ; 
 
 1 As],. M. C. 50 725, 730, 840 
 
 (leorge Arkle (Collision : Under Way), Lush. 382 789 
 
 „ (Pleading; Proof; Salvage), Lush. 222 ; 5 L. T. 290 . 703, 839, 
 
 845, 846 
 
 (ieorge Dean, Swabey, 290 632 
 
 George (iordon, 53 L. J. Adm. 28 ; 9 P. I). 46 ; 50 L. T. 371 ; 32 W. R. 
 
 596 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 216 1022 
 
 George Holme, 1 Hag. Adm. 370 112 
 
 (4eorge Roper, Bentinck Steamship Co. v. Potter, 52 L. J. Adm. 69 ; 8 
 
 P. D. 119 ; 49 L. T. 185 ; 31 W. R. 953 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 134 . 696, 880 
 
 Georgiana, The, and The Anglican, 21 W. R. 280 727 
 
 Geraldes v. Donison, Holt, N. P. 346 ; 17 R. R. 645 .. . 421, 426 
 
 Germ, 15 W. R. 937 t'75 
 
 (iermania (Inspection ; Lights), 21 L. T. 44— P. C. ... . 99/ 
 
 ,, (Inspection ; Attendance of Parties), 21 L. T. 44 — P. C. 
 Aftirming S. C, 37 L. J. Adm. 59 ; 19 L. T. 20 . 691, 692, 712, 790, 
 
 847, 997 
 (Jermanic, 65 L. J. Adm. 53 ; [1896] P. 84 : 73 L. T. 730 ; 44 W. R. 
 
 394 ; 8 Asp. AL C. 116— C. A .^ ■ • 839 
 
 Gernonr. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., 2 jMarsh. 88 ; 6 Taunt. 383; 
 
 Holt, N P. 49 ; 16 R. R. 630 1280
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Ivii 
 
 Gertor, 70 L. T. 703 ; 7 Asp. U. C. 472 688 
 
 Gertrude (Salvage), 30 L. .1. Adin. 130 (iOO, 642, 660 
 
 Gertrude, The, and Tlie Baron Aberdare, 13 V. D. lO.J ; f.9 L. T. 251 ; 36 
 
 "\V. i;. 616 ; 6 Asp. i^I. V. 31.5— C. A. Affirming 56 L. J. Adm. 106 1008 
 Gather r. Capper, IS C. 15. 866 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 260 ^2 .Tur. (x.s.) 789 ; 4 
 
 W. R. 644— Ex. Oh 419 
 
 Gettj'sburg, 52 L. T. 60 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 347 . . . .721, 854, 985 
 
 Gayer v. Aguilar, 7 Term Rep."681 ; 4 K. R. 543 1172 
 
 Giacomo, 3 Hag. Adm. 344 ......... 603 
 
 Gibbens v. Buisson, 1 Bing. (x.c.) 283 ; 1 Scott, 133 ; 4 L. J. C. P. 11 . 417 
 Gibbes, Ex 'parte, Whitworth, In re, 45 L. J. Oh. 10 ; 1 Cli. I). 101 ; 33 
 
 L. T. 479 ; 24 W. R. 298 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 74 577 
 
 Gibbon v. iMendez. 2 B. & Aid. 17 ; 20 R. R. 337 384 
 
 ,, V. Yonng, 8 Taunt. 254 ; 2 jMoore, 224 ; 19 R. R. 510 . . . 370 
 Gibbons v. Rule. 4 Ring. 301 ; 5 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 176 : 29 R. R. 570 . 918 
 
 Gibbs r. Cliarleton, 26 L. J. E.x. 321 411, 425 
 
 ,, r. Grey, 2 H. & X. 22: 26 L. J. Ex. 2S6 ; 3 Jnr. (x.s.) 543 ; 5 
 
 W. R. 608 . 271, 420 
 
 „ (orHuth) c. Lamport, 55 L. J. (,). B. 239 ; 16 Q. B. I). 735; 54 
 
 L. T. 663 ; 34 W. R. 386 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 593— C. A. . . 591 
 ,, r. Potter, 10 l\. k W. 70 ; 6 L. J. Ex. 376 ; 6 Jur. 586 . . . 323 
 
 Gibs r. Osbaston, 2 Keb. 114 903. 951 
 
 (Ubson r. Bradford, 4 El. & Bl. 586 : 24 L. J. >,). B. 159 ; 1 .iur. (n.s.) 
 
 520 ; 3 W. R. 18:^ 871, 1126- 
 
 „ r. Carruthers, 8 M. & W. 321 MIL. J. Ex. 138 .... 566 
 „ V. Crick, 1 H. & C. 142 ; 31 L. ,1. Ex. 304 ; 6 L. T. 392 ; 10 W. R. 
 
 525 ; nisi prius, 2 F. & F. 766 916, 917 
 
 ,, V. Liglis, 4 Camp. 72; 15 R. R. 727 90S 
 
 ,, r. Ingo, 6 Hare, 112 30,97,180,918 
 
 ,, V. Mair, 1 Marsh. 39 ; 15 R. R. 668 1172, 1209 
 
 „ V. Service, 1 JIarsli, 119 ; 5 Taunt. 433 ; 15 R. R. 541. . . 1209 
 ., %: Small, 4 H. L. Cas. 353: 1 C. L. R. 363; 17 Jnr. 1131 — 
 H. L. (E.). Affirming S. C, 16 (,). B. 128 ; 20 L. J. (,». B. 
 
 152 ; 15 Jur. 325— Ex. Ch 1154 
 
 ,, r. Sturge, 10 Ex. 622 ; 3 C. L. R. 421 ; 24 L. J. Ex. 121 : 1 Jur. 
 
 (x.s.) 259 ; 3 W. R. 165 421 
 
 ,, r. Winter, 5 B. & Ad. 96; 2 N. & M. 737 .... 1253, 1341 
 
 Gicner /•. Meyer, 2 H. Bl. 603 ; 3 R. R. 520 123 
 
 Gitiord c. Dishington, 9 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 1045 .... 501 
 Gilbert v. (Juignon, L. R. 8 Ch. 16 ; 27 L. T. 733 ; 21 W . R. 281 ; 1 
 
 Asp. M. C. 498 352, 363 
 
 ,, V. Trinity House (Corporation), 56 L. J. Q. B. 85 ; 17 (,». B. D. 
 
 795 ; 35 W. R. 30 890 
 
 Gilbert's (Sir John) Case, cited Dver, fo. 159, ?y 930 
 
 Gilkison r. Middlcton, 2 C. B. (n\s.) 134; 26 L. J. C. P. 209 . . 438, 442 
 
 (;illan r. Siiiipkiii, 4 Cam]). 241 ; 16 R. R. 784 869 
 
 Gillesiiic c. .sillier, 1 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 423 1313 
 
 Gillespy V. Coutts, Anibl. 652 171 
 
 r. Tliompson, 6 El. & Bl. 477. /(. ; 2 Jur. (n.s.) 712, /^ . . 516 
 Gilroy l: Price, [1893] App. Ca.s. 56 ; 1 R. 76 ; 68 L. T. 3(i2 ; 7 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 314— H. L. (Sc.) 334 
 
 Gipsy (or Uniao Yencedora), 33 L. J. A.lm. 195 ; 11 L. T. 351 . .161 
 
 Gipsv King, 2 W. Rob. 537 6S9, 695, 772 
 
 Gipsy (^icen, 64 L. J. Adm. 86; [1895] P. 176; 11 R. 766; 72 L. T. 
 
 454 ; 43 W. R. 359 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 586— C. A 650, 677 
 
 Girolamo, 3 Hag. Adm. 169 766,771,800 
 
 Gist c. Mason, 1 Term Hep. 88: 1 R. R. 154 1201 
 
 Gitana, Tlie Esk and The;, 38 L. J. Adm. 33 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. ;!50 : 20 
 
 1>. T. 587; 17 W. R. 1064 789 
 
 (Gladstone r. Birley, 2 Mer. 401 ; and see ]>irlcy /•. (Jladstonc, 3 M. k S. 
 
 205 ; 15 ]{. R. 465 . . . " . . . . 434, 492 
 
 v. Clav, 1 -M. its. 418; 14 R. R. 479 1056 
 
 r. Ki.Ig, 1 M. & S. 35 ; 14 R. R. 392 .... 1186, 1188 
 Glaholm r. Barker (July 25, 1866), 35 L. J. Cii. 657 ; L. R. 2 E.p 598 ; 
 
 12 Jur. (i,'..s.) 764 ; 14 L. T. 880 ; 14 W. R. 1006 739, 743, 745 
 ,, -•. Biirker {\)co. 7, 1865), 35 L. .1. Cli. 259 ; L. R. 1 Ch. 223 ; 12 
 
 Jnr. (N.s.) 82 ; 13 L. T. 653 : 14 W. R. 296— L.JJ. . . 739 
 ■V. Heyes, 2 Scott (.v.u.) 471 ; 10 L. J. C. 1'. 93; 2 Man. & G. 
 
 257 263 
 
 Glamorgan.shire, Tlie Glamorganshire (Owner.s) v. The Clarissa (Owners), 
 
 13 App. Cas. 454 ; 59 L. T. 572 ; 6 Asp. U: C. 344— P. C. . 710, 970 
 Glannibanta (or The Transit) (Collision ; Look Out\ 1 P. D. 283 ; 34 L. T. 
 
 934 ; 24 W. R. 1033 : 3 Asp. IW. C. 233— C. A. . . .691, 85!>
 
 Iviii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Glaiiiiiliantn, Elcinoie v. Tiiiii (Salvngc), ItJ L. .1. Adiii. 75 ; "2 P. 1). 4'> ; 
 
 36 L. T. 27 ; -2:, W. \i. r.13 ; ;5 Asp. M. C. 33!) . . 664, 040 
 
 Glasoott r. Lang (liottoiiny : Chaiiecrv), 3 Myl. & Cr. 451 ; 8 Sim. SfiS ; 
 
 2 Jill'. !t09 . . . " 225 
 
 V. Lang (Ik)ttoimy; Fiaiul), 2 I'll. 310; 16 L. J. Ch. 429: 11 
 
 Jur. 642— L. 209, 225 
 
 Glaser v. Cowie, 1 JI. & S. 52 1::36 
 
 Glasgow (otherwise Ya ]\Iaciaw), Swabev, 145 ; 12 ]\loorc, P. C. 355, //. : 2 
 
 Jur. >N.s.) 1147 ; 5 \V. R. 10 . ' 161 
 
 Glasgow Paeket, 2 W. Rob. 306 600 
 
 (Jleadoa r. Tiiiekler, Holt, N. P. 586 52, 68 
 
 (Jleaner, 38 L. T. 650 ; 3 Asp. i\I. C. 582 863 (2) 
 
 Gledstaiies v. Allen, 12 0. B. 202 438 
 
 r. Royal Exchange Insurance Corporation, 5 B. & S. 797 ; 34 
 
 L. .1. (}. B. 30 ; 11 Jur. (x.s.) 108; 11 L. T. 305 ; 13 W. I!. 71 . 1039, 
 
 1184 
 
 <ilealnini, Br. & Lush. 62 ; 11 W. R. 685 216, 1008 
 
 Gleiidarroch, 63 L. J. Adni. 89 ; [1894] P. 226 ; 6 R. 686 ; 70 L. T. 344 ; 
 
 7 Asp. M. G. 420— C. A 553 
 
 Glendevon, 62 L. J. Adni. 123 ; [1893] P. 269 ; 1 R. 662 ; 70 L. T. 416 : 
 
 7 Asp. M. C. 439 ^50. 459 
 
 Glenduror, Arnold v. Cowie, L. R. 3 P. C. 589 ; 24 L. T. 499 ; 1 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 31 634, 645 
 
 Glenfruin, 54 L. J. Adni. 49; 10 P. 1). 103 ; 52 L. T. 769 ; :3 W. R. 
 
 826 ; 5 Asp. JNL. C. 413 326, 620 
 
 Glengaber, 41 L. J. Adni. 84 ; L. P. 3 A. & E. 534 ; 27 L. T. 386 ; 21 
 
 W. R. 168; 1 Asp. M. C. 401 604, 638, 713 
 
 Glengariiock h'on and Steel Co. v. Coopei', 22 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4!li ser. ) 
 
 672 547 
 
 Glengarry, 43 L. J. Adin. 37 ; 2 P. D. 235, n. ■ 30 L. T. 341 : 23 W. R. 
 
 110 • 2 Asp. M. C. 230 697. 1251 
 
 <ilenlivot, 63 L. J. Adin. 45 ; [1894] P. 48 ; 6 R. 665 ; 69 L. T. 706 ; 42 
 
 W. R. 97 •■ 7 Asp. M. C. 395—0. A 1251 
 
 Glenmanna, Lush. 115 214, 1007 
 
 Glennie v. London Assurance Co., 3 M. k S. 371 ; 15 R. R. 275 . . 1250 
 Glenochil, 65 L. J. Adni. 1 ; [1896] P. 10 : 73 L. T. 416 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 218 338 
 
 Glentanner, Swabey, 415 96, 99 
 
 Globe, 6 Not. of Cas. 275 700 
 
 Glory, 14 Jur. 676 598, 600 
 
 Glover r. Black, 3 Burr. 1394 1123 
 
 Glyn, Mills & Co. v. East and West Lidia Docks Co., 52 L. J. Q. B. 146 ; 
 
 7 App. Cas. 591 ; 47 L. T. 309 ; 31 W. R. 206 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 580— 
 
 H. L. (E.) 351 
 
 Glynn v. Maigetson, 62 L. J. Q. B. 466 ; [1893] App. Cas. 351 ; 1 P. 
 
 193 ; 69 L. T. 1 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 366— H. L. (E.) . . . . 310 
 
 Goddard r. Garrett, 2 Vera. 269 1133 
 
 Godfrey's Case, Latch, 11 927, 929 
 
 Godin v. London Assurance Co., 1 Burr. 489 ; 1 Ld. Ken. 254 ; 1 AV. Bl. 
 
 103 1350 
 
 Godiva, 55 L. J. Adm. 13 ; 11 P. D. 20 ; 54 L. T. 55 ; 34 W. R. 551 ; 5 
 
 Asp. M. C. 524 843 
 
 Goft' V. Clinkard, cited 1 Wils. 282, n 76 
 
 Gold V. Goodwin, 2 Keb. 678 - . .935 
 
 Golden Light, The Annapoli.s, H.M.S. Hayes, Lu.sh. 355: 5 L. T. 37— 
 
 P. C " . . . 593, 613, 626, 775 
 
 Golden Sea, 51 L. J. Adm. 64 ; 7 P. I). 194 ; 47 L. T. 579 ; 30 W. R. 
 
 482 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 23 875 
 
 Golding, Davis & Co., Bx parte, Knight, In re, 13 Ch. D. 628 ; 42 L. T. 
 
 270 ; 48 W. R. 481— C. A 566 
 
 Goldschmidt v. Lyon, 4 Taunt. 534 ; 13 R. R. 670 1343 
 
 ., t: Whitmore, 3 Taunt. 508 1101 
 
 Goldsniid v. Gillie.s, 4 Taunt, 803 ; 14 R. R. 671 12:i0 
 
 Goldsmith 1^. Slattery, 63 L. T. 273 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 561 . . . .140 
 
 Goldswain's Case, 2 \V. Bl. 1207 139 
 
 <Jolondrina, L. R. 1 A. & E. 334 638 
 
 Golubchiek, 1 W. Rob. 143 125 
 
 Gondolier, 3 Hag. Adm. 190 953 
 
 Good, Ex parte, Atkinson, In re, 3 Mont. & A. 246 ; 2 Deac. 389 ; 7 L. J. 
 
 Bk. 7 : 1 Jur. 456 564 
 
 „ V. Isaacs, 61 L. J. Q. B. 649 ; [1892] 2 Q. B. 555 ; 67 L. T. 450 ; 
 
 40 W. R. 6-i9 : 7 Asp. M. C. 212— C. A. . ... .473 
 
 ,, V. London Steamship Owners' Mutual Protection Association, L. R. 
 
 6 C. P. 563 ; 20 W. R. 33 1076
 
 TABLE OF CASES lix 
 
 Good's (Richard) Case, ] W. Bl. 251 139 
 
 Goodhart i: Lowe, 2 Jac. k Walk. 349 ; 22 R. R. 1 64 . . . . 53 
 
 Goodson v. Brooke, 4 Camp. 163 . . . . . . . . 1253 
 
 Goodwin i\ Tomkiiis, Noy. 14S . . . . . . . . 934 
 
 Gorain r. Fouke, 2 Keb. 722 ......... 1335 
 
 ,, r. Sweeting. 2 Wm. Saund. 200 1326 
 
 Gordon v. Hare, 1 L. J. (o..s.) K. B. 70 64 
 
 ,, V. Marwood, Wright r. Marwood, 50 L. J. Q. B. 643 ; 7 Q. B. D. 62 : 
 
 45 L. T. 297 ; 29 W. R. 673 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 451— C. A. 586 (2), 
 
 1245, 1246 
 
 ,, r. Morley, 2 Str. 1265 1168, 1223 
 
 ,, V. Rimniington, 1 Camp. 123 ....... 1102 
 
 ,, V. Vauglian, 12 East, 302, n 1203 
 
 ,, V. Walmsley, Tlie Katv, 64 L. J. Adm. 49 ; [1895] P. 56 ; 11 R. 
 683 ; 71 L. T.'709 ; 43 AV. R. 290 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 527— C. A. . . 459 
 Gore V. Bethell, The Inca, 12 Moore, P. C. 189 ; Swabey, 370 . . 632, 641 
 ,, V. Gardnei", Tlie Hersey, 3 Moore, P. C. 79. Affirming S. C, 3 Hag. 
 
 Adm. 404 201, 207 
 
 ,, V. Wynne, il. & M. 393 1350 
 
 Gosling, £x parte, Reg. v. Lucey (or Reg. t'. Watermen's Co.), 66 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 308 ; [1897] 1 Q. B. 659 ; 61 J. P. 388 . . .141 
 V. Birnie, 7 Bing. 339 ; 5 M. & P. 160 ; 9 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 105 879 
 ,, V. Green, 62 L. J. M. C. 45 ; [1893] 1 Q. B. 109 ; 5 R. 91 ; 67 
 L. T. 853 : 21 W. R. 141 ; 57 J. P. 87 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 248 ; 
 
 57 J. P. 87 140 
 
 ., V. Higgins, 1 Camp. 451 ; 10 R. R. 726 507 
 
 „ V. Newton, 64 L. J. M. C. 160 ; [1895] 1 Q. B. 793 ; 15 R. 395 ; 
 72 L. T. 500 ; 43 W. R. 559 ; 59 J. P. 406 ; 18 Cox, C. C. 135 ; 
 
 7 Asp. M. C. 587 ] 40 
 
 Goss V. Quintin, 2 Man. & G. 825 ; 4 Scott (N.it.) 471 ; 12 L. ,1. C. P. 173 : 
 
 7 Jur. 901 148 
 
 ,, V. Withers, 2 Burr. 683; 2 Ld. Ken. 325 12S9 
 
 Gould, E.r 2Mrtc, .Salmon, In re, 2 Morrell, 137 . . . . .173 
 
 ,, V. Oliver (Deck Cargo ; Jettison), 2 Scott (x.i:.) 241 : 2 ilan. k (J. 
 208— E.\-. Ch. S. C. {venire de noro) ; 4 Bing. (x.c.) 134 ; 5 Scott, 
 445 ; 3 Hodges, 307 ; 7 L. J. C. P. 68. S. C. (Costs) 5 Bing. (x.s.) 
 
 115 5S7 
 
 Gourock Rope Walk Co. c. Fleming, 5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser. ) 510 . 1214 
 
 Governor Mjiclean, 13 W. R. 728 666 
 
 Governor Raffles, 2 Dods. 14 (i05 
 
 Gowan v. S]irott, 51 L. T. 266 ; 5 Asp. iM. C. 288 . . . 959, l(J(i7 (2) 
 
 Graces, 2 W. Rob. 294 635 
 
 Gracic (Owners) v. The Argentino (Owners), 59 L. J. Adm. 17 ; 1 I Ai^p. 
 
 Cas. 519 ; 61 L. T. 706; 6 Asp. M. C. 432 -H. L. (K.) . . . 734 
 
 Grair Arthur Hernstorli; 2 Spinks, 30 954 
 
 Graham r. liarras, 3 N. & .M. 125 ; 5 B. & Ad. 1011 . . . .1163 
 
 (Jrainger v. Martin, 4 V,. & S. 9 ; 8 L. T. 796; 11 \V. R. 75S -K\-. Cli. 
 
 AHirming 32 L. J. (2. B. 136 ; 8 Jur. (x.s.) 995 .... 1238 
 
 Granfelt r. Lord Advocate, 1 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4tli ser.) 782 . . . 878 
 
 Granger r. Dent, .^[. & M. 475 ; 31 R. R 752 268 
 
 Granite City Stcamslii]) Co. r. Ireland, 19 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (llli sci'. ) 121 . 190 
 Grant v. .Ktmi Insurance Co. 15 Moore, P. C. 516 ; 8 Jur. (N.s.) 7(i5 : 6 
 
 L. T. 735 ; 10 W. R. 772 lOtM, llol 
 
 ,, I'. Covenlalc, 53 L. J. Q. )}. 462; 9 App. Cas. 170 ; 51 L. '!". 472; 
 
 32 W. R. 831 ; 5 Asj). M. C. 353— H. L. (E.) . 245, 278, 4 78 
 
 „ V. Delacour, 1 Taunt. 463 1046 
 
 ,, V. Gould, 2 H. Bl. 69, 100; 3 !,'. I!. 342 !t27 
 
 ,, V. Hill, 4 Taunt. 380 1125 
 
 ,, V. King, 4 Ksp. 175 ; 6 |{. R. 849 1211 
 
 ,, V. Norway, 10 C. ii. 665 ; 20 L. J. C. I'. 93 : 15 .lur. 296 . 311, ;',2:i 
 ,, V. Parkinson, 6 T(Min I'ep. 483 ; 3 Dougl. Ki ; and sec ;; l!(is. .'s; 1*. 
 
 85,71 1126 
 
 ,, ■!;. Paxton, 1 Taunt. 463, 467 ; 10 R. R. 583 105(i 
 
 ,, V. Sligo Hariiour Coniniissioncrs, Ir. Ri'j). 11 C. L. 190 . . . 892 
 
 Gratitudine, 3 C. Rob. 240 85, 88, 203, 525, 582, 587 
 
 Grave (or Dfgrave) ?;. Hedges, Holt, 470 ; 2 Ld. Ravni. 1285 . 928,929, 
 
 953 
 C4ravcs v. Legg, 2 H. & N. 210 ; 26 L. .1. Ex. 316 ; 3 Jur. (N.s.) 519; 5 
 
 W. R. 597— Ex. Oh i»18 
 
 ,, V. Sawcer (or Saucer), 1 Lev. 29 ; 1 Keb. 38 ; Sir '!'. RiiyuKuul, 15 54 
 Gnivesend Barge Case, 1 Rollc, 79 ..... . • 75 
 
 Gray v. Carr, 40 L. J. g. 1'.. 257 ; L. R. 6 (.). ]',. 522 ; 25 L. T. 215 ; 19 
 
 W. R. 1173 ; 1 Asp. M. C 115-Ex. Ch. . . 308, 429, 435, 492
 
 Ix TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Gray r. Gibson, :3tj L. ,1. C. P. 99 ; L. K. 2 C. 1". 120 ; If) W. R. 70 . 13r,9 
 
 ,, 1-. Llovd, 4 Taunt. 1:56 1202 
 
 „ r. Pearson, L. 1!. 5 C. P. 508 ; 23 L. T. 41« l:!r)2 
 
 Great Britain 100 A-1 Steaniship Assurance Association r. Wvllie, 58 L. J. 
 Q. B. 614 ; 22 (>. 15. 1). 710 ; (it) L. T. 916 ; ;J7 W. R.' 4()7 ; 6 Asp. 
 
 M. V. 398— C. A 1357 
 
 Great Britain Steamship I'reniiuni Association v. Whyte, 19 Ct. of Sess. 
 
 Gas. (4th ser.) 109 1030 
 
 Great Easba-n (Seamen), 36 L. J. Adm. 15 ; L. R. 1 A. & E. 384 ; 17 h. T. 
 
 228 127 
 
 „ „ (Supplifis), L. R. 2 A. & E. 88 ; 17 L. T. 667 . . . 62 
 
 ,, ,, Great Ship Co. v. Sliarples fUoUision), 3 i\loore, P. C. (n.s.) 
 
 31 ; 11 L. T. 5 " . . 786,805,813,815,816 
 
 Great Eastern Steamship Co., In re, Williams' Claim, 53 L. T. 594 ; 5 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 511 119 
 
 tireat Imlian Peninsular Railway Co. r. Saunders. 2 B. & S. 266 ; 31 L. 
 
 J. Q. B. 206; 9 Jur. (n.s.> 
 198 ; 6 L. T. 297 ; 10 W. R. 
 520— Ex. Ch. . . . 1274 
 
 ., ., ,, V. Turnbull, 1 Cab. & E. 595; 53 
 
 L. T. 325 ; 33 W. R. 874 ; 5 Asp. jM. C. 465 410 
 
 Great Northern, 2 W. Rob. 509 90 
 
 Great Northern, The, and The Midland, 26 L. T. 201 : 1 Asp. :\I. C. 246 1004 
 Great Northern Railway Co. r. Wyles, 2 C. B. (n.s.) 344 . . . 454 
 
 Great Northern Steamship Fishing Co. r. Edgehill, 11 Q. B. D. 225 . 131, 
 
 133 
 ,. ,, ,, ,, i;. Crescent (Owners"), The Crescent, 
 
 ■ 62 L. J. Adm. 63 ; 1 E. 613 ; 68 L. T. 556 i 41 W. R. 533 ; 7 Asp. 
 
 M.C. 297— C. A 1016 (Addenda) 
 
 Great Pacific, 6 Moore, P. C. (x.s.) 151 ; 38 L. J. Adm. 45 ; L. R. 2 P. C. 
 
 516 ; 21 L. T. 38 ; 17 W. R. 933 221 
 
 Great Ship Co. v. Sharpies. See Great Eastern, supn/. 
 
 Great "Western Insurance Co. of New York v. Cunliffe, 43 L. .1. < 'li. 741 ; 
 
 L. R. 9 Ch. 525; 30 L. T. 661 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 298 1345 
 
 Grecia, 7 Not. of Cas. 410 198 
 
 Green v. Bailey, The Neptune, 12 Moore, P. C. 346. .... 645 
 ,, r. Briggs, 6 Hare, 395 : 17 L. J. Ch. 323 ; 12 Jur. 326 . . 44, 45, 67 
 
 ,, V. Brown, 2 Str. 1199 1086 
 
 ,, r. Colduck, 1 Keb. 786 927 
 
 ,, V. Elmslic, 1 Peake, 278 ; 3 R. R. 693 1104 
 
 „ V. Goodyer, 6 Asp. M. C. 281, ii 856 
 
 ,, V. Gosling, 62 L. J. M. C. 45 ; [1893] 1 (,>. B. 109 ; 5 R. 91 ; 67 
 
 L. t. 853 ; 41 W. R. 141 ; 7 Asp. IM. C. 248 ; 57 J. P. 87 140, 141 
 ,, V. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., 1 Marsh. 447 ; 6 Taunt. 68; 16 
 
 R. R. 571 .' . . . . 1298 
 
 ,, t'. St. Katherine Dock Co., 19 L. J. Q. B. 53 ; 13 Jur. 1116 . . 908 
 „ V. Sichel, 7 C. B. (n.s.) 747 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 213 ; 6 Jur. (x.s.) 827 ; 
 
 2 L. T. 745 ; 8 W. R. 663 313 
 
 ,, -y. Young, 2 Salk. 444 1214 
 
 Greener. Ex imHc (or Lambton, Kr parte), Lindsay. In re, 44 L. J. Bk. 81 : 
 
 32 L. T. 380 ; 23 W. R. 602 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 525 . . . . 22 
 
 Greenland v. Chaplin, 5 Ex. 243 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 293 687 
 
 Greenway and Baker's (or Barker's)-Case, Godb. 193, 260 . 928, 930, 948 
 
 Greenwell v. Nicholson, 1 Jur. 285 . . . . . . .1179 
 
 Greer v. Poole, 49 L. J. Q. B. 463 ; 5 Q. I]. D. 272 ; 42 L. T. 687 ; 28 
 
 W. R. 582 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 300 1133, 1258 
 
 Greeves V. West India and Pacific Steamship Co., 22 L. T. 615 — Ex. Ch. 387, 
 
 426 
 
 Gregory /•. Christie, 3 Dougl. 419 1022 
 
 Gregson v. Gilbert, 1 Park. Insurance (8th ed.) 138 1107 
 
 Greta Holme, No. 7 Steam Sand Pump Dredger (Owners), and Tlie Greta 
 Holme (Owners), 66 L. J. Adm. 166 ; [1897] App. Cas. 596 ; 77 L. T. 
 
 231 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 317— H. L. (E.) 735 
 
 Gribble, Ex parte, 3 Deac. & C. 339 59 
 
 Griefswald, Swabey, 430 714, 759, 837, 853 
 
 Grieve r. Konig, 7 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser. ) 521 ..... 314 
 Griffiths r. Bramley-Moore, 48 L. J. Q. B. 201 ; 4 (). P>. D. 70 ; 40 L. T. 
 
 149 ; 27 W. R. 480 • 4 Asp. M. C. 66— C. A 1276 
 
 Grill V. General Iron Screw Collier Co., 37 L. J. C. P. 205 ; L. R. 3 C. P. 
 
 476 ; 18 L. T. 485 ; 16 W. R. 796— Ex. Cii. . . . 329, 714, 1C98 
 GriniUev c. Stevens, The P^alkland andTlie Navigator, 1 ;\loore, P. C. (n.s.) 
 
 379 ; l!r. & Lnsh. 204 ; 9 Jur. (x.s.) 1113 . . . 698, 807, 815 
 
 Grote r. .Milne, 4 Taunt. 133 ......... 365
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Ixi 
 
 (iiovc v. Dubois, 1 Term Kep 11-2 : K! K. 1{. 664, n 1312 
 
 Groves v. Valkart, I Cal). &: E. 30'^ 25f), '264 
 
 Grunibreiht c. Parry, 32 W. K. 558. AHirining 49 L. T. 570 : f. Asp. M. C. 
 
 176 . .553 
 
 Guardian, 3 C. Hob. 93 955 
 
 Guibeit c. ReaJshaw, 2 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 637 1214 
 
 Guion V. Tra.sk, 1 De G. F. & J. 373 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 337 ; 6 Jur. (x.s.) 185 ; 
 
 8 W. R. 266 ; 1 L. T. 469 ; 8 W. R. 266 57, 445 
 
 Guldfaxe, 38 L. J. Adm. 12 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 325 : 19 L. T. 748 ; 17 
 
 W. R. 578 838, 926 
 
 Gulliseben r. Stewart, 53 L. J. Q. B. 173 ; 13 Q. B. D. 317 ; 50 L. T, 47; 
 
 32 W. R. 763 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 200— C. A 309 
 
 Gumm V. Tyrie, 6 B. & S. 299; 34 L. J. i). B. 124 ; 13 W. R. 436— 
 
 Ex. Ch 397 
 
 Gunu L\ Roberts, 43 L. J. C. P. 233 ; L. R. 9 C. P. 331 ; 30 L. T. 424 : 
 
 22 W. R. 652 ; 2 A.sp. M. C. 250 66 
 
 Gunnestad (or Guiistead) r. Price, Fuliuore r. Wait, 44 L. J. Ex. 44 ; 
 
 L. !;. 10 Ex. 65 ; 32 L. T. 499 ; 23 W. R. 470 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 543 492, 493, 
 
 938 (2) 
 Curiiey, In re, Hughes, Ex jxirtc, 67 L. T. 598 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 249 ; 9 
 
 Morrell, 294 • . 578 
 
 c. Behreiid, 3 El. k Bl. 622 ; 23 L. J. Q. 15. 265 ; 18 Jur. 856 ; 2 
 
 W. R. 425 364 
 
 Gustat; Lush. 506 ; 31 L. J. Adm. 207 : 6 L. T. 660 23, 102, 120, 135, 
 
 964 
 Gustav. The New Ed (Collision ; Lights), 9 L. T. 547 ... . 790 
 Guthrie r. Armstrong. 1 D. &: R. 248 ; 5 B. & Aid. 628 . . . . 133& 
 Guy Mauiieriug, 51 L. J. Adm. 57 ; 7 P. D. 132 ; 46 L. T. 905 ; 30 W. R. 
 
 835 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 553— C. A 767 
 
 (iwyiine and Con.stantine's Case, cited Godb. 386 . . . 927 (Addenda) 
 
 H. 
 
 Haasi:, 1 C. Rob. 286 950 
 
 Hackwood V. Lyall. 17 C. B. 124 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 44, «.; 2 Jur. (n,.s.) 
 
 44, /(. ■ ■ 41 
 
 Haddow c. Parrv, 3 Taunt. 303 ; 12 R. R. 666. . . , 322, 356, 1146 
 
 Hadgralt 0. Hewitt, 44 L. J. M. C. 140 ; L. R. 10 Q. B. 350; 32 L. T. 
 
 720 ; 23 W. R. 911 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 573 778 
 
 Hadkinson 0. Robinson, 3 Bos. k P. 388 ; 7 R. R. 786 . . . . 1293 
 
 Hadh-y c. Clarke, 8 Term Rej). 259 ; 4 R. R. 641 528 
 
 Hagedorn r. Bazi^tt, 2 M. & S. 100 1203 
 
 r. Oliverson, 2 M. k. S. 485 ; 15 R. R. 317 .... 1146 
 
 r. VVhitmore, 1 Stark. 157 1077, 1107, 1253 
 
 Hagland c. Russ.;lU, 9 Ct. ot'Ses.s. Cas. (4th ser.) 958 . . . .839 
 Hahn r. Corbett, 2 P.ing. 205 ; 9 Moore, 390 ; 3 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 253 ; 27 
 
 R. R. 590 1082, 1175 
 
 Haigh r. De laCour, 3 Camp. 319 ; 13 R. R. 813 1139 
 
 ,, v. Koyal .Mail Steam Paeket Co., 52 L. J. (,). 15. 640 ; 49 L. T. 802 ; 
 
 5 Asp. -M. (A 1H9 ; 4.S J. P. 230— C. A 867 
 
 Haille /•. Smitii, 1 P.o.-^. k P. 563 343 
 
 Haines i: P,wsk, 5 Taunt. 521 ; 1 Marsh. 191 285, 915 
 
 Hakan Aldesteeii, 43 L. J. Adm. 9 994 
 
 Halcyon, Lush. 100 805 
 
 Hale -•. Goodson, 2 .Mer. 77 953 
 
 Halhead 0. Young, 6 El. & 151. 312 : 25 L. .1. C P. 290 ; 2 .lur. (N..s.)970; 
 
 4 W. R. 530 1053, 1128 
 
 Halkett, Kr park, 19 Yes. 474 ; 3 Yes. k 15. 135 ; 2 Rose, 194, 229 . 24, 964 
 
 Hall c. l5enson, 7 Car. & P. 711 !>!•'"> 
 
 ,, r. Billingham, 54 L. T. 387 ; 31 W . U. 122 : 5 Asp. M. C. 538 . 15 
 
 ,, r. P,rown, 2 Dow, 367 254, 1072 
 
 ,, I-. Ca/.enove, 4 East, 477 ; 1 Smith, 272 ; 7 K. R. 611 . . 263 
 
 „ r. Cooper, 14 Ea.st, 479 ; 13 R. K. 287 1197 
 
 ,, c. Gurnev, 3 Dongl. 3.'')6 151 
 
 „ r. Jansoii, 4 EI. & P.l. 500; 3 C. L. R. 737 ; 21 L. .1. Q. 15. 97 ; 1 
 
 Jur. (N-.s.)571 ; 3 W. R. 213 1113, 12.00, 1251^ 
 
 ,, V. Jupe, 49 L. .1. C. P. 721 ; 43 L. T. Ill ; 4 Asp. M. C. 328. 1088, 
 
 1298 
 
 ,. c. Molineaux, 6 East, 385, /(. ; 8 R. R. 503 1149 
 
 Halhiran ('. Doiial, 9 Ir. El]. Pep. 217 54 
 
 Hallett f. Bou.stield, 18 Yes. 187; 11 U. R. 1*^4 580
 
 Ixii TABLE OF CASP^S. 
 
 Halk'tt r. Dow.kll, Ilallett r. Alien, IS i). 15. 2: -21 L. .1. Q. B. 98; 
 16 .hir. 4t)'2— Ex. Cli. In (-'ourt lidow, 19 L. ,1. Q. B. o7, 
 
 41 ; 14 .hir. ;309 1035,1036,1328,1:351 
 
 ,, V. Wi.i,'nini, 9 ('. H. 580 ; 19 L. J. C. P. 281 ... r.82, 1245 
 
 Halley, Liverpool, I3i;izil ami Hiver Plate Steam Navigntion Co. r. Benham, 
 5 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 262 ; 37 L. J. Adm. 33 ; L. R. 2 P. V. 193; 18 
 
 L. T. 879 : 16 AV. K. 998 720, 759, 760, 767, 921 
 
 Halliday v. Harris, The Alliioii, 43 L. J. C. P. 350 ; L. R. 9 C. P. 668 ; 
 
 num. Harris r. Halliday, 30 L. T. 680 : 22 W. R. 756 . . 943, 961 
 
 Haly V. Goodsou, 2 I^[er. 77 ; 16 R. R. 145 53, 936 
 
 Hanibro' v. Hull and London Fire A.s.suranee Co., 3 H. & N. 789 ; 28 L. J. 
 
 K.X. 52 1352 
 
 Hamburgh (or Ci'n/o /,-■ Hamburg), 2 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 289 ; 13r. &Lusli. 
 253; 33 L. f. Adm. 116: 10 Jnr. (xV.s.) 600; 10 L. T. 206; 12 
 
 W. R. 628-P.C 207.211,521 
 
 Handmrgh-Americaniselie Packetfahrt Actien Gesellschaft v. Hurrell, The 
 Franconia, 3 P. U. 164; 39 I,. T. 57; 27 W. R. 218; 4 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 1 747, 748 
 
 Hamburgh -American Steam Navigation Co. v. North of Scotland P)anking 
 Co.,' The Saxonia and Tiie Eclipse, Lu.sh. 410 ; 15 Moore, P. C. 262 ; 
 31 L. -I. Adm. 201 ; S Jur. (N.s.) 315 ; 6 L. T. 6 ; 10 ^V. R. 431 . 761, 
 
 787 (2), 804 
 Hamilton r. Baker, The Sara, 58 L. J. P. C. 57 ; 14 App. Cas. 209 ; 61 
 
 L. T. 26 ; 38 W. R. 129 ; 6 A.sp. M. C. 413— H. L. (E.) . 99 
 
 V. Davis, 5 Burr. 2732 949 
 
 V. Healand, The Acacia, 42 L. T. 264; 4 Asp. M. C 254 23, 
 
 982, 986 
 r. :Mendez (or Mende.s), 1 W. Bl. 276 ; 2 Burr. 1198 . 1139, 1261, 
 
 1283, 1288 
 V. Pandorf, 57 L. J. (^ B. 24 ; 12 App. Cas. 518 ; 57 L. T. 726 ; 
 
 36 W. R. 369 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 212 ; 52 J. P. 196— H. L. (K.) 275 
 V. Sheddon, 3 M. & W. 49 ; M. k H. 334 ; 7 L. J. Ex. 1 . . 1222 
 
 r. Stow, 1 1). &R. 274; 5 B. & Aid. 649 897 
 
 Hammond /•. Blake, 10 B. & C. 424 ; 5 M. & Ry. 361 ; 8 L. .1. (o.s.) K. B. 
 
 140 1-12 
 
 y. JlcCrie, 3 C. L. R. 1198 429 
 
 V. Reid, 4 B. & Aid. 72 ; 22 R. R. 629 . . . . ' . 1219 
 v. Rogers, The Christiana, 7 Moore, P. C. 160. .695, 764 (2), 772, 
 
 774, 775 (2) 
 
 Hanbury n. King, 4 Bro. P. C. 445, n . 1240 
 
 Hancock v. York, Newcastle and Berwick Railway Co., 10 «!. B. 348 . 71 
 
 Hand of Providence, Swabey, 107 786, 822, 836 
 
 Handaysyde v. Wilson, 3 Car. & P. 528 804 
 
 Hankow, 48 L. .1. Adm. 29 ; 4 P. D. 197 ; 40 L. T. 335 ; 4 Asp. M. C. '.t7 783, 
 
 858 
 Hanna (Salvage ; Evidence), 37 L. T. 364 ; 3 Asp. ]\1. C. 503 . . . 673 
 ,, (Compulsorv Pilot), 36 L. .1. Adm. 1 ; L. R. 1 A. & E. 283 ; 15 
 
 L. T. 334; 15"W. R. 263 780,784 
 
 Hannah Park, The, and The Lena, 14 L. T. 675 . . . . 702, 796 
 Hannilial, The, and The Queen, 37 I-. .1. Adm. 12 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 53 , 604 
 
 Hansa. 58 L. T. 530 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 268 728 
 
 Hansen ■y. Uonaldsion, 1 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 1066 .... 489 
 „ V. Harrold, 63 L. J. Q. B. 744 ; [1894] 1 q. B. 612 : 9 R. 315 ; 
 
 70 L. T. 475 : 7 Asp. M. C. 464— C. A 251, 402 
 
 Hanson v. Royden, 37 L. J. C. P. 6« ; L. R. 3 C. P. 47 ; 17 L. '!'. 214 ; 16 
 
 W. R. 205 87, 117 
 
 Happy Iteturn, 2 Hag. Adm. 198 622 
 
 Harbinger, 10 Jur. 729 611 
 
 Harden y. Smith, 8 East, 16 .906 
 
 Harder v. Brotherstone, 4 Camp. 254 ...... 65, 68, 93 
 
 Harding y. Carter, 1 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 5 1046 
 
 Ilardwick (Evidence), 9 P. D. 32 ; 53 L. .1. Adm. 23; 50 L. T. 128 : 32 
 
 W. R. 598 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 199 1000 
 
 Hardy 1!. Innes, 6 Moore, 574 ; 23 R. R. 630 1265 
 
 Hare v. Travis, 7 B. & C. 14 ; 9 D. & R. 748 ; 5 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 348 ; 
 
 31 R. R. 139 1221 
 
 Harford D.Maynard, 1 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 36 1110 
 
 Hargrove & Co., Bx parte (or Corv and Hawkesley, Kv imric), Arthur 
 Average Association. 44 L. J. Ch. 509 ; L. R. 10 Ch. 542 ; 32 L. T. 
 
 713; 23 W. R. 939 ;'2 Asp. M. C. 570 1035, 1351 
 
 Harkle (or Arkle) c. Henzell, 8 El. & Bl. 828; 27 L. J. M. C. 110; 4 
 
 .Tur. (N.s.) 306 'iX^hl 
 
 Harley y. Hariey, 11 Ir. Ch. Rep. 451 It30
 
 TABLE OF CASES. kiii 
 
 Hariiiaii c. Aiider-ion, 2 Camp. 243 : 11 li. R. 706 ..... .')76 
 
 l: Clarke, i Cami). l.')9 ; 16 R. R. 768 456 
 
 V. Oandolph, Holt, X. P. 3.5 ; 17 R. R. 598 . . . . 487 
 
 ,, V. Kiiifistoii, 3 Camp. 150 : 13 R. R. 775 1140 
 
 ,, r. Maiit, 1. Camp. 161 ; 16 R. R. 770 456 
 
 ,, V. Vaiihatton, 2 Veni. 716 ; Eq. Ca. Abr. 371 .... 1133 
 
 ,, r. A^aux, 3 Camp. 429; 14 R. R. 773 1096 
 
 Hariner v. Bell, The Bold Bucclengli, 7 Moore, P. C. 267. . 717 \2\ 718. 923 
 Harmoiul v. Pearson, 1 Cam]). 515 ........ 71 
 
 Harmonie (Lien : Arrest), 1 W. Rob. 178 979 
 
 ,, (Attachment), 1 W. Rob. 179 979, 981 
 
 Harper r. McCarthy, 2 Bos. & P. (s.ii.) 258 457 
 
 Havratt v. AVise. 4 M. k. Ry. 521 ; 9 li. &. C. 712 : 7 L. .J. (o..>.) K. B. 
 
 309 1209 
 
 Harries c. Edmonds, 1 Car. & K. 686 ....... 514 
 
 Harriet (Mortgagee), 18 L. T. 804 190 
 
 (Wages), Lush. 285 ; 5 L. T. 210 126 
 
 Harriett (Salvage ; Award), Swabey, 218 647, 663 
 
 Harrington, 57 L. .1. Adm. 45 ; 13 P. D. 48 ; 5!) L. T. 72 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 
 282 894 (2) 
 
 V. Frv, 9 Moore, 344 ; 2 liing. 179 ; 1 Car. k P. 289 ; R. & M. 
 
 " 90 : 3 L. -1. (o.s.) C. P. 244 41 
 
 I- H.ilkeld, 2 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 639 1170 
 
 Harriot, 1 W. Rob 439 - ... 593 
 
 Harris r. Anderson, 14 C. B. (x.s.) 499 701,756 
 
 ,. V. Best, 4 K. 222 ; 68 L. T. 76 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 272— C. A. . . 485 
 ,, /■. Birch, 1 D. (x.s.) 899 : 9 M. & W. 591 ; 11 L. .1. Ex. 219 . . -304 
 ,, l: Carter, 3 El. & Bl. 559 ; 2 C. L. R. 1582 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. 295 ; 
 
 18-Iur. 1014 : 2 W. R. 409 ....... 116 
 
 ■■•„ ?;. Dreesman, 23 L. J. Ex. 210 510 
 
 ■ ,, r. Franconia (Owners^, 46 L. .L C. P. 363; 2 C. P. D. 173 . 72, 
 
 759, 975 
 • ,, r. Halliday (or Hallidav v. Harris), 43 L. J. C. P. 350 ; L. R. 9 
 
 ( ". P. 668 ; 30 L. T. 680 ; 22 W. R. 756 . . . 943, 961 
 
 ,, r. Ive, 1 Har. & Wol. 238 107 
 
 ., r. .Jacobs (or .Marcus .lacobs^. :.4 L. .J. C- '''■ -192 ; 15 Q. B. 1). 247; 
 
 54 L. T. 61 ; 5 .As].. M. C 530— C. A 464 
 
 „ c. Reynolds, 4 W. R. 278 58, 392 
 
 „ t: Scaramanga, 41 L. J. C. P. 170 ; L. R. 7 C. P. 481 : 26 L. T. 
 
 797 ; 20 W. R. 777 : 1 Asp. M. C. 339 1156 
 
 ,, c. Watson, 1 IVake, 102 ; 3 R. 1!. 654 115 
 
 ,, r. Willis, 15 C. !!. 71"; 4 C. L. R. 609 ; 24 L. .1. C P. 93; 3 
 
 W. R. 238 . . 853, 989 
 
 Harrison, £.i- parte, 2 Ro.sc, 76 44, 45 
 
 V. Bank of Australasia. 41 I.. .1. Ex. 36; L. K. 7 K\. 39; 25 
 
 L. T. 944 : 20 W. R. 385 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 198 . . . 1242 
 „ V. Doughus, 6 X. & M. 180 ; 3 A. & E. 396 ; 1 Har. .S: Wol. 3S0 . 1159, 
 
 1323 
 ,, c. Ellis, 7 El. .'ic Bl. 465 ; 26 L. J. Q. B. 239 ; 3 .lur. (.v.s.) 908 ; 
 
 5 W. R. 494 1053 
 
 V. Carthorne, 26 L. T. 508; 20 W. R. 722; 1 .\si>. y\. C. 
 
 303 .274 
 
 V. Millar, 2 Es].. 513 ; 7 Term Rep. 340, // 1352 
 
 ,, c. Universal Marine Insurance Co., 3 F. &F. 190 . . . 1081 
 
 r. Wilson, 2 Esj.. 707 -^-'-J 
 
 ,, r. Wright, 13 East, 343; 12 R. 1.'. 369 302 
 
 Harrod r. Worship, 1 B. k S. 381 ; 3(i L. J. M. C. 165 : - .lui. iN.>.) 
 
 153: 9 W. P. .S65 892 
 
 narrower r. Hut-hinson, 10 B. .S: .>^. 469 ; L. R. 5 ^^ B. 584; 39 L. .1. 
 
 q. B. 229 ; 22 L. T. 084. Reversing 17 W. R. 731 . . . . 1198 
 Hart V. Herwig, 42 L. J. Cli. 457 ; L. R. 8 Ch. 860 ; 29 L. T. 47 ; 21 
 
 W. R. 663 : 2 As].. .M. C. 63— L..IJ. . . • •'i4, 149, 987 
 
 „ V. Standard .Marine Insurance Co., 58 L. J. Q. B. 284 ; 22 I.). B. D. 
 
 499 ; 60 L. T. 649 ; 37 W. R. 366 ; 6 Asp. ]\L C. 368— C. A. . . 1156 
 
 Hartfort v. .loncs, 1 I,<1. Ravni. 393 -''^^ 
 
 Hartley n Buggin, 3 Dough 39 1214 
 
 „ r. Ponsonbv, 7 El. & Bl. 872 ; 26 I.. .1. (,». B. 322 ; 3 .lur. (s.s.) 
 
 746:5W. R. 659 112,116 
 
 Harton. 53 L. .1. Adm. 25 ; 9 P. D. 44 : 50 L. T. 370 ; 32 W. R. 597 ; 
 
 5Asp. M.C. 213 817,8.32 
 
 Harvest, 11 P. D. 90 : 55 L. T. 202 : G Asp. M. C. 5— C. A. . . 836, 837 
 Harvey c. Bcckwith, 2 H. & M. 429 ; 4 N. R. 255 ; 10 lur. (N.s.) 577 ; 
 
 lOL. T. 632 ; 12W. i:. S96— C. A 1062,1357
 
 Ixiv TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Havvpv '•. The luixiiic (Owners), The Enxine, 8 Moore, V. ('. (n'.s.) 189; 
 41 L. .1. Adiu. 17 : L. ir 4 P. C. 8 ; 2f. I.. T. T.IG ; 2U W. K. 
 
 ut)l ; 1 Asp. M. ('. 155 972 
 
 „ V. Lyme Regis (Corporation), 38 L. J. Kx. 141 ; L. 1!. 4 Kx. 2(50 ; 
 
 17 W. K. 892 .... .... 899 
 
 y. Seliiiiiianu, 10 Ct. of Sess. Ciis. (4tliser.)080 .... 1182 
 
 Hasscll r. Watson, 2 Our. & K. 141 301 
 
 Hastier. Couturier, 5 II. L. Cas. 078; 25 L. J. Kx. 253; 2 Jur. (n.s.) 
 
 1241—11. L. (bl.) ^'42 
 
 Haswell, P.r. & Lush. 247— P. C 844 
 
 Hathesin- /•. Lain- 43 L. J. Ch. 233 ; L. I!. 17 K^. 92 ; 29 L. T. 734 ; 
 
 2 Asp. yi. C. '170 315, 319 
 
 Hatsall r. Griffith, 2 C. & M. 679 ; 4 Tyr. 487 : 3 L. J. Ex. 191 . . 159 
 Hau^htoii '•. Knipire Marine Insurance Co., 4 H. it C. 41 ; 35 L. J. Ex. 
 117 : L. R. 1 Ex. 206 : 12Jur. (x.s.) 376 ; 15 L. T. 80 ; 14 
 
 W. R. 645 1057, 1059 
 
 V. Ewbank, 4 Camp. 88 1320 
 
 Haveloek v. Geddes, 10 East, 555 ; 12 East, 622; 10 H. R. 380 . 384, 388 
 „ );. HanciU, 3 Term Rep. 277; 1 R. R. 703 . . . 1099, 1100 
 
 HaviUand v. Thompson, 3 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 313 .. . 193 
 
 Hawkins i: Twizell, 5 Kl. & Bi. 883: 25 L. J. (,). 1!. 160; 2 Jur. (n.s.) 
 
 302 ; 4 W. P. 242 90 
 
 Hay r. PairHeld, 2 P. & AM. 193 37 
 
 „ V. Le Neve, 2 Sliaw, Scotch App. Cas. 395 .... 735 (2) 
 
 „ r. Monkhonse, Holt, 603 172 
 
 ., ,-. Trinity House Corporation, 65 L. J. (,>. P>. 90 ; 73 L. T. 471 ; 44 
 
 W. R. 188; 8 Asp. M. C. 77 903 
 
 Haves, H.M..S., The Annapolis, Tiie Golden Light, Lush. 355 ; 5 L. T. 
 
 37_p. 593, 613, 626, 775 
 
 V. South Wales Railway Co., 9 li: C. L. R. 474 . . . . 77 
 
 Haynuin i'. Molton, 5 Esp. 65 ; 8 R. R. 837 1297 
 
 Havn V. Culliford, 48 L. J. C. P. 372 ; 4 C, P. D. 182 ; 40 L. T. 536 ; 27 
 
 " W. R. 541 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 128— C. A 336, 517 
 
 Hayton i'. Irwin, 41 L. T. 666 ; 5 C. P. D. 130 ; 2S W. P. 665 ; 4 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 212— C. A 253 
 
 Haywood (or Heyward) r. Rodgers, 4 East, 590 ; 1 Smith. 289 ; 7 P. R. 
 
 638 1151, 1181, 1191, 1199 
 
 Hazard v. Hodges, 7 W. R. 204 14 
 
 Heard v. Holmau, 19 C. P>. (n.s.) 1 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 239 ; 11 Jur. (n.s.) 
 
 544 ; 12 L. T. 455 ; 13 W. P. 745 729, 1272 
 
 Hearne o. Edmunds, 1 Br. & B. 388 ; 4 Moore, 15 ; 21 R. R. 660 . . 1096 
 
 Heart of Oak (Bottonn-y), 1 W. Poll. 204 204(2) 
 
 ,, (Cross Actions), 29 L. J. Adm. 78 973- 
 
 Heath v. Durrant, 1 D. k L. 571 ; 12 M. & W. 438 ; 13 L. J. Ex. 95 ; 8 
 
 Jur. 131 1320 
 
 ,, V. Hubbard, 4 East, 110 ; 4 Esp. 205 15 4 
 
 Heathcote v. Fleete, 2 Veru. 442 42 
 
 Heathoen i'. Darlimr, The Eliza, 1 ]\Ioore, P. C. C. 5 . . . 203, 207 
 
 Hebe (Salvage), 2 W. Rob. 246 616- 
 
 ., (Collision), 2 W. Rob. 530 ; 5 Not. of Cas. 176 .... 729 
 
 '., (Bottomry), 2 W. Rob. 146 ; 7 Jur. 564 201 
 
 '„ „ 2 W. Rob. 412; 4 Not. of Cas. 361; 10 Jur. 227 . 201, 
 
 204 (2) 
 
 „ (Salvage), 4 P. I). 217 643 
 
 ,, (Salvage; Award), 7 Not. of Cas. Suppl. i 640 
 
 Hebe, The Singapore and The, The Singapore (Owners) v. The Hebe 
 
 (Owners), 4 Moore, P. C. (N..s.) 271 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 378 806, 815, 
 
 861 
 Hector (Both to blame ; Co.sts), 52 L. J. Adm. 51 : 8 P. D. 218 : 48 L. T. 
 
 890 ; 31 W. R. 881 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 101— C. A. 737, 742. 763, 766, 768, 
 
 860, 861 
 
 (Salvage), 3 Hag. Adm. 90 631 
 
 Hedburg y. Pearson, 7 Taunt. 154 1235 
 
 Hedges v. Hooker, 60 L. T. 822 ; 37 W. R. 491 : 6 Asp. M. C. 386 ; 53 
 
 •L P. 613 865 
 
 ,, (•. London and St Katheriiie's Docks Co., 55 L. J. M. C. 46 ; 16 
 Q. B. D. 597 ; 54 L. T. 427 ; 34 W. R. 503 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 539 ; 50 
 
 J. P. 580 905 
 
 Hedley v. Lapage, Holt, N. P. 392 ; 17 P. R. 649 410 
 
 V. Pinekey & Sons' Steamship Co., 68 L. J. Q. B. 419 ; [1894] App. 
 Cas. 222 : 70 L. T. 630 ; 42 W. R. 497 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 483 ; R. 
 
 106— H. L. (E.) 73(2), 83, (Addenda) 135 
 
 Hedwig, 1 Spinks, 19 617, 850'
 
 (N.s.)*i7o ; 14 L. T. 873 ; lo W. R. -lO-l 
 „ (Security for Costs ; Bond), Br. & Lush. 425 : 3 JMoore, P. 
 240 ; 35 L. J. Adtn. 1 ; 13 \V. K. 031 . 
 eiislea, The, The Catalonia, 51 L. J. Adni. 16 ; 7 P. IX 57 ; 
 446 ; 30 W. K. 616 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 594 
 Heligoland, Swabe}-, 491 ; 5 Jur. (n.s.) 1179 
 Helly ('. Grant, cited 1 Term Kcii. 76 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Ixv 
 
 Heinekey i: Earle, S El. .<^ Bl. 410 ; 28 E. J. <>. B. 79 ; 4 Jur. (n.s.) 848 ; 
 
 6 W. K. 687 577 
 
 Heinrich (Charter-])arty), L. R. 3 A. & E. 424 ; 24 L. T. 914 : 1 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 79 283, 531 
 
 ^Solicitor's Lieu), 40 L. J. A<bu. 68 ; L. R. 3 A. & K. 505; 26 
 
 L. T. 372 ; 20 W. R. 759 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 260 . . . . 972 
 
 Heinrich (or The Heurieli) Bjoru. Northcote v. The Heinrich Bjoru 
 
 (Owners), 55 L. J. Adni. 80 ; 11 App. Cas. 270; 55 L. T. '66; 
 
 33 AV. R. 719; 6 Asp. M. C. 1— H. L. (E.). Affirming 54 L. J. 
 
 Adm. 33 ; 10 P. I). 44 ; 52 L. T. 560 ; 33 W. R. 719 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 
 391 56, 197, 961, 966 
 
 Helen (Master's Wages : Arrest), 14 W. R. 502 .... 100,979 
 „ (Charter-party), 35 L. J. Adui. 2 ; L. R. 1 A. & E. 1 ; 11 Jur. (x.s.) 
 
 1025 ; 13 L. T. 305 ; 14 W. R. 136 284 
 
 (Pirate Goods), 1 Hag. Adm. 142 951 
 
 Helen and George, Swabey, 368 ........ 654 
 
 Helen R. Cooper, L. R. 3 A. & E. 339 ; 40 L. J. Adm. 46 . . . 1001 
 
 Helena Sophia, 3 W. Rob. 265 966 
 
 HcK'^ne, Ohrloti" i\ Briscall (Damage to Cargo), Br. & Lush. 429 ; 4 Moore, 
 P. C. (N-.s.) 70 ; 35 L. J. P. C. H3 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 231 ; 12 Jur. 
 (N.s.)»i75 ; 14 L. T. 873 ; 15 W. R. 202 . . 339, 345, 993 
 
 P. C.(N..S.) 
 
 982, 983, 1010 
 Helenslea. The, The Catalonia, 51 L. J. Adm. 16 ; 7 P. D. 57 ; 47 L. T. 
 
 976, 1001 
 198, 199, 221, 225 
 . 79, 85 
 Helme r. Smith, 7 Bing. 709;' 5 M. & P. 744; 9 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 
 
 206 46, 56 
 
 Helvetia (Collision), 3 Asp. M. C. 43, // 787 
 
 ,, (Salvage), 8 Asp. M. C. 264, n 595 (Addenda) 
 
 Henchman v. Offley, 2 PL Bl. 345, n. ; 3 Dougl. 135 ; 3 R. R. 408 . 1040, 1049 
 Henckell Du Boissou & Co. r. Swan & Co., 17 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th .ser.) 
 
 •252 . . , M 
 
 Hemlerson v. Comptoir D'EsconijJte dc Paris, 42 L. J. C. P. 60; L. R. 5 
 
 P. C. 253 ; 29 L. T. 192; 21 W. R. 873 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 9S 304 
 ., r. Lloyds' Hcgister of British and Foreign Sliippiug, 6 Ct. of 
 
 Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 835 39 
 
 r. Mersey Docks aud Harbour Board, 58 L. J. <^ B. 152 ; 13 
 App. Cas. 595 ; 59 L. T. 697 ; 37 W. R. 449 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 
 338— H. L. (K.) litil 
 
 v. Shanklaud, 65 L. J. «,>. B. 340 ; [1896] 1 (,). B. 525; 74 
 
 L. T. 238 ; 44 W. 1!. 401 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 136— C. A. • 589 
 i\ Stevenson, L. R. 2 H. L. (Sc.) 470 ; 32 L. T. 709 . . 871 
 ,, i\ Underwriting and /Vgency As.sociation, 60 L. .1. i}. I'.. lOti ; 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 557 ; 64 L. T. 774 ; 39 W. R. 538 . .1318 
 
 Hendricks r. Australian Insurance Co., 43 L. J. C. P. 188 ; L. l.'. 9 ('. P. 
 
 460 ; 30 L. T. 419 : 22 W. R. 947 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 44 . . . . 1256 
 Henkle r. lioval E.xchauge Assurance Co., 1 Yes. Sen. 317 . . 104:;, 1204 
 
 Hcnri.'k and .Miuia, 4 (J. l!ob. 43 Ut'y 
 
 Henrickscu r. Margtdson, 2 East, 549, n. ; 6 1!. R. 509, n. . . . 1126 
 
 Henrietta, 3 Hag. Adm. 345, /( tJOS 
 
 Henry, (.Salvage), 15 Jur. 183 "'54 
 
 (Ransom), Edw. 192 '507 
 
 Henry. The, and TlicSt. Cyran. 12 W. R. li»M .... .S(i8, 810 
 Henrv v. Newcastle Tiinity Board, 8 Kl. .V P.I. 723 ; 27 L. J. M. < '. 57 ; 
 
 4 Jur. (.v.s.) 685 ; 6 \V. 1!. 232 1 '•'' 
 
 Henrv Co.xon, 47 L. J. Adm. 83 ; 3 P. I>. 15'i ; 3S L. T. sl9 ; 27 W. R. 
 
 263 ; 4 Asp. M. ('. 18 847,^50 
 
 Henry Morton, 31 L. T. H.Mt ; 2 Asp. .M. C. 466 P. C . . 821, .S27, 836 
 
 Henrv of PhiliMlelpliia, 1 ILig. Adm. 264 <>77 
 
 Henry Brad, 7 W. R. ],S(j '••'>3 
 
 i^■lltig^.rll.•n^Vl '•. Stanifortli, 5 M. A: S. 122; 4 Camp. 27u ; 1 7 R. H. 293 1304 
 
 Herald, 6;; L. T'. 324 ; 6 .\sp. .M. C. 542 «'i'-^ 
 
 Herbert c. ('liami)ioii, 1 Camp. 134 ; 10 i;. R. 657 12'''' 
 
 Hercules (Foreign Ship ; Sale), 11 P. D. 10 : 54 L. T. 273 ; 34 W. !!. 
 
 400 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 515 !'«5 
 
 ,, (Jurisdiction : Salvage), Ba.xter r. Recder, 6 < '. |{<jb. 39, //. . 660 
 Hereward, 64 L. J. Adm. 87 ; 11895] P. 284 , 11 R. 798 ; 72 L. T. 903 ; 
 
 8 A.sp. M. C. 22 ^'>' 
 
 Hcriot *•. Nicholas, 12 W. R. 844 "•^'•''■^ 
 
 Herman c. Royal K.xchange Shipping Co., 1 Cab. & E. 413 . . 5o2 
 
 Herman Wedel. 39 L. J. A<lm. 30 ; 23 L. T. 876 .... 662, 669
 
 kvi TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Horniauo v. Mildird {ov .Mildnd r. Maspoiis), r,;i L. ,1. (,». H. 3;i ; 8 
 Ai.i.. Cas. 874: :i2 \V. l!. 12r> : !!» L. T. 685; f, Asp. M. fJ. 182 
 
 Jh L (E.) , • 1032, 1047, 111* 
 
 Henuwl, (32 L. T. 670 ; 6 As].. M. C. f>09 .... 711, 791, 830 
 
 Heniamaii " Bawden, 3 Burr. 1844 108 
 
 Heriiod r. Wilkin, 11 Q. B. 1 297 
 
 Hero iAineudinent), Br, & Lusli. 447 : 13 W. K. 927 . • 851, 1002 
 
 „ (Admiralty; County Court). 60 L. J. Adni. 99; [1891] V. 294; -6.5 
 
 L. T. 499 ;"40 W. K". 143 : 7 Asp. M. C. 86 . . . . 942, 1212 
 
 Herrin;,' (•. AVard, 8 L. .1. Q. B. 218 476 
 
 Hersey' Gore /•. Gardiner, 3 Moore, P. C. 79. Altinninjr S. C, 3 Hag. Adm. 
 
 404 '-^01, 720 
 
 Hertzogin, Marie, Lusli. 292 : f. L. T. 88 10& 
 
 Heselton r. AUnutt, 1 M. & S. 46 1212 
 
 Hesketlj, Hunter/-. The Hesketh (Owners), 61 L. J. P. C. 84; [1891] 
 
 All]). Cus. 628 ; iHJ L. T. 30.5; 7 Asp. M. C. 160— P. C. . . . lOia 
 Heslop r. Cadenliead, 14 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) Just. Cas. 35 . 79, 106 
 
 t: Jones, 2 Chitt. 550 379 
 
 He'stia, 64 L. J. Adm. 82; [1895] P. 193 ; 11 R. 808 ; 72 L. T. 364 : 43 
 
 W. ]l. 6m ; 7 Asp. M. C. 599 655 
 
 Heugh r. Escomlie, 4 L. T. 517 269 
 
 Hewett ('. Aylan, The Atlas, 15 Moore, P. C. 329 ; 31 L. J. Adm. 210 : 8 
 
 Jur. (x.s.) 753 ; 6 L. T. 737 ; 10 W. K. 8.50 . . 599, 600. 624, 643 
 Hewison r. Guthrie, 2 Bing. (x.s.) 755 : 3 Scott, 298 ; 5 L. J. C. P. 283. 1349 
 Hewit r. Fle.xney, Beawes, Lex Mercatoria (5th ed.) 333 .... 1265 
 Hewitt V. Corrv (or Cory), 39 L. J. Q. B. 279 : L. R. 5 Q. B. 418 ; 22 L. T. 
 
 666 ; 18 W. K. 954 944 
 
 Hewsons, The Argos, Carqo ex, Gaudet r. Brown (Carriage of Goods), 42 
 
 L. J. Adm. 1 ; L. R.'5 P. C. 134 ; 28 L. T. 745 ; 21 W. R. 707 ; 1 
 
 Asp. M. C. 519 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 6 . . . 369, 379, 484, 528, 538 
 
 Hewsons, Argos, Carqo c,-% Gaudet r.- Brown (County Court), 42 L. J. 
 
 Adm. 49 ; L. R. 5 P. C. 134 : 28 L. T. 77 ; 21 W. R. 420 ; 1 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 36U 492 (2), 938 (3) 
 
 Heyman c. Parish, 2 Camp. 149 : 11 R. R. 688 1082 
 
 Hevward (or Haywood) >: Rodgers, 4 East, 490 ; 1 Smith. 289 : 7 R. R. 638 1151, 
 ■^ ■ 1181, 1191 
 
 Hevwood, E.r parte, 2 Rose, 355 543 
 
 Hibbert r. Carter, 1 Term Rep. 745 ; 1 R. R. 388 .... 351,1120 
 
 r. Halliday, 2 Taunt. 428 ; 11 R. R. 633 1224 
 
 /•. Martin, 1 Camp. .538 1036, 1151 
 
 r. Owen, 2 F. & F. 502 248 
 
 /•. Pigou, 3 Dougl. 224 116» 
 
 /•. Rolleston, 3 Bro. V. C. 571 . • . • • • • ^" 
 Hil.bs r. R.jss, 7 B. .'c S. 655 ; 35 L. J. Q. B. 193 ; L. R. 1 Q. B. 534 ; 12 
 
 Jur. 'x.s.) 812 ; 15 L. T. 67 ; 14 W. R. 914 42 
 
 Hibernia ( Pilot ; Inevitable Accident), 4 Jur. (n.s.) 1244. . . 705, 775 
 (Pilot ; Costs ; Presumption of Fault). 31 L. T. 805 ; 24 AV. R. 
 60; 2 Asp. M. C. 454-P. C. ..... • 709, 789, 860 
 
 Hibernian, Reilpath r. Allan, 9 Moore, P. C. (x.s.) 340: 42 L. J. Adm. 
 
 8 ; I,. R. 4 P. C. 511 : 27 L. T. 725 : 21 W. R. 276 : 1 Asp. M. C. 491 765 (2) 
 Hick r. Raymond and Keid. 62 L. J. Q. B. 98 ; [1893] App. Cas. 22 ; 1 R. 
 125 ; 68 L. T. 175 ; 41 W. R. 384 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 233— H. L. 
 (E.). Affirming S. C, /(o-i/i. Hick r. Rodocanachi . . .481 
 ,, r. Rodocanachi. See Hick r. Raymond, si/pra. 
 
 „ r. Tweedy, 63 L. T. 765; 6 Asp.'M. C. 599 264 
 
 Hickie v. Rodocanachi, 4 H. & N. 455 : 28 L. J. Ex. 273 ; 5 Jur. (x.s.) 
 
 .5.50 ; 7 AV. R. 545 . . 386, 1295 
 
 Hickman, 39 L. J. Adm. 7 : L. R. 3 A. & K. 15 : 21 L. T. 472 : 18 AV. R. 
 
 151 669, 674 
 
 Hickox r. 'Adams, 34 L. T. 404 ; 3 Asp. N. C. 142 r.48 
 
 Hicks ,\ Pallington, Sir F. Moore, 297 1242 
 
 ,, V. Shield, 7 Ei. & Bl. 633 : 26 L. J. Q. B. 205 : 3 Jur (s'.s.) 715 : 
 
 5 W. R. 536 409 
 
 ,, r. Walker, 4 W. R. 511 82,110,117 
 
 Hide c. Bruce. 3 Dougl. 213 H-''^* 
 
 Highgate, 62 L. T. 841 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 512 .... 812, 814, 824 
 Highland Chief, 61 L. J. Adm. 51 ; [1892] P. 76 : 66 L. T. 468 ; 40 W. R. 
 
 416; 7 Asp. M. C. 176 131 
 
 Highlander, 2 W. Rob. 109 178 
 
 Hilda, The, and The Australia (Costs), 12 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 574 . 856 
 (Collision), 12 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 
 
 76 . 787, 821 
 
 Hill, Exportr, 1 Mad. 61 153, 964
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Ixvii 
 
 Hill •. Auilus, 1 K. & J. 263 : 3 E.i. Rep. 4'2-2 ; 24 L. J. Cli. 229 ; 3 W. R. 
 
 230 740, 753 
 
 „ /•. Idle, 4 Oanip. 327 : 16 R. R. 797 485 
 
 „ r. Kitcbing, 3 C. 11 299 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 251 914 
 
 ,, ,-. Patten, S Kast, 373 ; 1 Camp. 72 ; 9 R. R. 469 . . . 1031, 1041 
 
 „ r. Scott, 65 L. J. C). B. 87 : [1895] 2 Q. B. 713 ; 73 L. T. 458 ; 8 
 
 Asp. M. C. 46-C. A 74 
 
 „ r. Secretau, 1 Bos. k P. 315 : 4 R. R. 806 1125 
 
 „ ,-. Snow, 1 Keb. 358 206 
 
 „ ,-. Thompson, 19 Ct. of Sess.Cas. (4th ser.) 377 .... 136 
 
 „ -■. Wilson, 48 L. J. C. P. 764 ; 4 C. P. D. 329 : 41 L. T. 412 ; 4 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 198 584 
 
 Hills '■. London Assurance Corporation, 5 ^l. k W. 569 ; 9 L. .T. Ex. 25 . 1250 
 
 ,. r. Sughrne. 15 M. & AV. 253 496 
 
 Hillstvom c. Gibson, 8 Ct. of Se.s.s. Cas. (3r(lser.) 463 ... . 476 
 
 Hillvard i: .Mount. 3 Car. & P. 93 132 
 
 Himahiya, H. M. S., Swabey, 515; 1 L. T. 307 . . . .____. 605 
 Hine '■. .Steamship Assurance Corporation, The Netlier Hohiie, 11 R. 777 ; 
 
 72 L. T. 79 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 558— C. A 1341 
 
 Hine Brotliers r. Clvde Trustees, 15 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 498 . . 688 
 Kingston c. Wendt.; 45 L. J. Q. B. 440 ; 1 Q. B. D. 367 ; 34 L. T. 181 ; 
 
 24 W. R. 664 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 126 561, 580 
 
 Hinklev 0. Walton, 3 Taunt. 131 1168 
 
 Hiram,^3 C Rob. 180 . 377 
 
 Hiscox 0. Barrett, cited 16 East, 145 1146 
 
 Hiemmett, 49 L. J. Adm. 66 ; 5 P. D. 227 ; 42 L. T. 514 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 
 274 614, 680, 940 
 
 Hoare '■. Clement, 2 Show. (3rd ed.) 559 929 
 
 ,, ,: Dresser, 7 H. L. Cas. 290 : 28 L. J. Ch. 611 ; 5 Jur. (x.s.) 371 ; 
 
 7 W. R. 374 362 
 
 Hobbs 0. Hannam, 3 Camp. 93 ; 13 R. R. 764 1099, 1129 
 
 „ t'. Henuing, 17 C. B. (s.s.) 791 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 117 : 11 Jur. (x.s.) 
 
 223; 12 L. t. 205; 13 W. R. 431 1210 
 
 Hoehung and The Lapwing, China Merchants' Steam Navigation Co. v. Big- 
 nold, 51 L. J. P. C. 92 ; 7 App. Cas. 512 ; 47 L. T. 485 ; 31 W. R. 
 
 303 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 39 709, 738, 792, 843 
 
 Hod"es '-. Sims, The Xeptiine, 3 Knapp, 94. Reversing 3 Hag. Adm. 129 177, 
 
 948, 960 
 Hod"kin, Ex parte, Winter, £■'■ jmrte, Softlev, In re, 44 L. J. Bk. 107 ; 
 
 L. K. 20 Eq. 746 : 33 L. T. 62 ; 24 "SV. R. 68 174 
 
 Hodgkiiisoii c. Fernie, 2 C. B. (N.s.) 415 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 217 ; 3 Jur. (x.s.) 
 
 818 "1", ''23 
 
 Hodgson c. Blaekiston, ] Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 400, n 1288 
 
 „ ('. Brown, 2 15. & Aid. 427 35 
 
 „ c. Glover, 6 Hast, 316 : 8 R. R. 495 1127 
 
 r. Maleolm, 2 P.os. & P. (N.ii ) 336 ; 9 R. R. 656 . . . 1086 
 
 ,-. Richardson. 1 W. Bl. 463 -.1197 
 
 Hoffman (or Hofman) r. .Marshall. 2 lUiig. (n.s ) 483 ; 2 Scott, 559 ; 1 
 
 Hodges, 330; 5 L. J. C. P. 70 1048,1054 
 
 Hogarth c. .Mill-i, Tiie Wcstplialia, 60 L.J. P. C. 1 ; [1891] App. Cas. 48 ; 
 64 L. T. 205 ; 18 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4lh ser.) 10 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 1— 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) 2.56,388,425 
 
 Hogg c. (Joidney, Beawes, Lex .Mercatoria (5tli ed.) 310: 1 Park. Ins. 
 
 (8th .-d.) 266 1266 
 
 Hoggett .-. Exley, 6 Bing. (N.c.)207 : SScott. 480 297 
 
 Iloghton, 3 Hag. .\dm. 100 113 
 
 Hold-'Hiess c. Lamport, 29 Beav. 129 ; 30 L. J. Cii. 489; 7 Jur. (\..s.) 
 
 561 ; 9 W. R. 327 32, 171 
 
 r. Bankin, 2 I)c G. V. k J. 2.58 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 753 ; 6 Jur. 
 
 rN.s.)903; 8 W. R. 713— L.JJ "^'•i 
 
 Holdsworth r. Wise, ] M. & Rv. 673 ; 7 P.. & C. 794 ; 6 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 
 
 134; 31 n. R. 299 . '. 1109, 1151 
 
 H<dl '•. Pin.ent, 6 Moore. 228 '-^!^3, 916 
 
 Holland '■. liussell. 4 B. & S. 14 : 32 L. J. i^ B. 297 ; 8 L. T. 468 ; 11 
 
 W. U. 757-Ex. Ch. Allirining 7 Jur. (s.h.) 842 .... 1263 
 H«llin"Swortli --. Brodrick (Consolidation), 4 A. & E. 646 : 6 N. .V .M. 240 ; 
 
 1 H. & W. 691 1322 
 
 .-. Pahner, 4 K\. 267 : 18 L. J. Ex. 409 . . . • 126 
 Hollingworth (or Hollingswortli r. Bn-drick (Pilot), 7 A. & E. 40 ; 2 
 
 N?& P. 608; S L. J. (,). 15. 80 : 1 Jur. 430 . . 257. 1151 (2), 1158 (2) 
 
 Holmau o. Irvine Harbour Trustees, 4 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4tli ser.) 406 . 722 
 
 «. Peruvian Nitrate Co., 5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 657 . 254,479 
 
 Holroy.l *;. (Jritliths, 3 Drew. 428 "'43
 
 Ixviii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Hoist c. Powiial, 1 Esp. 240 ; see 5 R. I!. tJoS, ,i f)?:] 
 
 Homborj,', Kr parte, « Jur. 808 : 2 .Mont. D. k D. t>42 ; 11 L. .1. I'.k. 24 110 
 Honor, Cargo rr, 35 L. J. Ailin. 11:5 ; L. R. 1 .\. .t E. 87 ; 12 Jur. (n.s.) 
 
 773 ; I'fi W. R. 10 622 
 
 Hook c. iMoretoii, 1 L.l. liayin. 397 &32, 933 
 
 Hoop. 4 C. Rob. 145, cited 6 C. Rob. 157 980 
 
 Hooper i\ Guinin, McLellan c. Guiiun, 3t5 L. .]. Ch. 605 ; L. R. 2 Cli. 282 ; " 
 
 16 L. T. 107 ; 15 W. R. 464— L.C. k L.J 170 
 
 r. Lusbv, 4 ( 'aiiip. 66 49,1047 
 
 Hope (Costs ; Lien), 52 L. J. Adm. 63 ; 8 P. D. 144 ; 49 L. T. 158 ; 82 
 
 W. R. 269 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 126— ('. A 855 
 
 (Collision), 1 W. Rob. 154 785 
 
 (Salvage; Action in personam), 3 C. Rob. 215 . . . . 667 
 
 (Collision ; Warpinj,'), 2 W. Rob. 8 699, 700 
 
 (Master's Wages ; Priorities), 28 L. T. 287; 1 Asp. M. C.563 101 (2), 216 
 
 (Salvage ; Value), 14 W. R. 467 632, 664 
 
 Hopper i: Burness. 45 L. J. C. P. 377 ; 1 C. P. D. 137 ; 34 L. T. 528 ; 24 
 
 W. R. 612; 3 Asp. M. C. 149 373 
 
 ,, V. Wear Marine Insurance Co , 46 L. T. 107 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 482 1051, 
 
 1069 
 Horace, 53 L. J. Adni. 64 ; 9 P. D. 86 ; 50 L. T. 595 ; 32 W. R. 755 ; 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 218 1021 
 
 Hoi'e v. AVhitniore, Cowji. 784 ........ 1165 
 
 Horlock, 47 L. J. Adm. 5 ; 2 P. D. 243 ; 36 L. T. 622 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 
 421 43, 157 
 
 Horn V. Bensusan, 9 Car. & P. 709 ; 2 M. & Rob. 326 .... 493 
 
 ,, V. Gilpin, Anibl. 255 55 (2) 
 
 Horncastle v. Farran, 3 B. & Aid. 497 ; 2 Stark. 590 ; 22 R. R. 461 433, 439 
 
 ,, V. Suart, 7 East, 400 ; 8 1.'. R. 649 1072 
 
 Hornet, [1892] P. 361 ; 1 R. 549 ; 68 L. T. 236 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 262 685, 690 
 
 Horiie3'er r. Lushiiigton, 15 East, 46 ; 3 Camp. 85 ; 13 R. R. 759 . 1066, 1205 
 
 Horsley r. Baxter Brothers, 20 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 333 . . 337 
 
 ,, y. Grimond, 21 Ct. of Se.ss. Cas. (4th ser.) 410 .... 556 
 
 V. Price, 52 L. J. Q. B. 603 ; 11 Q. B. D. 244 ; 49 L. T. 101 ; 31 
 
 W. R. 786 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 106 . . . . . . 243 
 
 ,, ('. Rush, cited 7 Term Rep. 209 231 
 
 Hoskins v. Holland, 44 L. J. Ch. 273 ; 28 W. R. 477 . . . . 1308 
 
 y. Pickersgill, 3 Dongl. 222 1129 
 
 ,, V. Slayton, Cas. t. Havdw. 376 62 
 
 Hossack i: Gray, 6 B. & S. 598 ; 34 L. J. M. C. 209 ; 11 Jur. (x..s.) 996 ; 
 
 12 L. T. 701 ; 13 W. R. 859 145, 778 
 
 ,, r. Masson, 4 Moore, 361 ........ 32 
 
 Hotliam c. East India Co., 1 Dougl. 272 337 
 
 ,, /'. East India Co., 1 Term Rep. 638 ; 1 R. R. 333 . . .495 
 
 Hough ;•. Athya, 6 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 961 459 
 
 ,, c. Escombe, 4 L. T. 517 . . . . . . . . 269 
 
 „ V. Head, 55 L. J. Q. B. 43 ; 53 L. T. 809; 34 W. R. 160 ; 5 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 505— C. A 1068 
 
 ,, V. Manzanos, 48 L. J. Ex. 398 ; 4 Ex. 1). 104 ; 27 W. R. 536 . 494 
 Houghton, Ex 2Mrte. Gribble, In re, 17 Ves. 251 ; 1 Rose, 177 : 11 R. R. 
 
 73 28, 155, 1145 
 
 Houlder v. General Steam Navigation Co., 3 F. & F. 170 . . . . 457 
 ,, V. Merchants' Marine Insurance Co., 55 L. J. Q. B. 420; 17 
 Q. B. D. 354 ; 55 L. T. 244 ; 34 W. R. 673 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 12— C. A. 1055 
 Houstman v. Thornton, Holt, 242; 17 R. R. 632 . . . 1086, 1087, 1234 
 Houston v. Sansinena, 1 R. 203 ; 68 L. T. 567 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 311 — 
 
 H. L. (E.) 309 
 
 Houstoun y. Bordenavc, 2 Marsh. 141 ; 6 Taunt. 451 ; 16 R. R. 657 . 1311 
 I'. Robertson, 2 Marsh. 138 ; 6 Taunt. 448; 4 Camp. 342 ; Holt, 
 
 88 ; 16 R. R. 655 1311 
 
 Houthandel, 1 Spinks, 25 . . . . . . . . . 295 
 
 Hovill V. Stephenson, 4 Car. & P. 469 508 
 
 How (or Walker) v. Kirchner, 11 Moore, P. C. 21 ; 6 W. R. 198 . . 443 
 
 Howard, 3 Hag. Adm. 256, /( 648 
 
 y. Shepherd, 9 C. B. 297 ; 19 L. J. C. P. 249 . . . 314,344 
 
 w. Tucker, 1 B. it Ad. 712 400,403 
 
 Howard Smith & Sons (or Smith) v. Wilson,, 65 L. J. P. C. 66 ; [18961 
 
 App. Cas. 579 ; 75 L. T. 81 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 197— P. C. . . ^ 895 
 Howden, Ex parte, Litherland, In re, 2 Mont. D. k D. 574 ; 11 L. J. Bk. 
 
 19 ;30, 159, 183 
 
 Howe V. Nappier, 4 Burr. 1944 932, 952 
 
 Howitt ?;. Paul, 5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 321 400 
 
 Hubbard v. Glover, 3 Camp. 313 1166
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Ixix 
 
 Hubbard 17. Jackson, 4 Tauut. 169 ; 13 K. 1!. 574 1031 
 
 ,, V. Johnstone, 3 Taunt. 177 ....... 155 
 
 Hubbersty r. Ward, 8 Ex. 330: 22 L. J. Ex. 113 314 
 
 Hubrison's Case, Style, 310 948 
 
 Hucks V. Thornton, Holt, N. P. 30 ; 17 R. P.. 594 1100 
 
 Hudson I. Bilton, 6 El. .t Bl. 565 ; 26 L. J. <,). B. 27 ; 2 Jur. (n..-.) 7S4 264, 409 
 V. Clementson, 18 C. B. 213 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 234 . . .508 
 
 v. Ede, 8 B. k S. 640 ; 37 L. J. Q. B. 166 ; L. R. 3 Q. P.. 412 : 
 
 18 L. T. 764 : 16 W. R. 940— Ex. Ch. . 246, 265. 477, 485 
 
 „ v. Harrison, 6 Moore, 288 ; 2 Br. & B. 97 ; 23 R. R. 575 . 1282, 1289 
 
 V. Hill, 43 L. J. ('. P. 273 ; 30 L. T. 555 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 27S 273, 505 
 
 ,, I'. iMaioribanks, 7 Moore, 463 1262 
 
 ,, r. Stewart, Stewart i: Eddowes, 43 L. J. C. P. 204 : L. R. 9 C. P. 
 
 311; 30 L. T. 333; 22 W. R. 534 148 
 
 Huggett r. Montgomery, 2 Bos. & P. (n. 11.) 446 .... 723,840 
 Hughes, £'■ parfc, Gurncy. //( re, 67 L. T. 598 ; 9 Morrell, 294 : 7 As]<. 
 
 M. C. 249 578 
 
 ,, V. Cornelius. Sir T. Rayni. 473 . . . . . . .165 
 
 ,, V. Morris, 2 De C. M. & (i. 349 ; 21 L. .1. Ch. 761 ; 16 .lur. 603 
 
 — L..IJ. Atiirniingg Hare, 636 . . . 35,148,150 
 
 V. Sutherland, 50 L. J. Q. B. 567 ; 7 <,». B. D. 160 ; 45 L. T. 287 : 
 
 29 W. R. 867 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 459 ; 46 J. P. 6 . . 43. 134 
 
 V. Tindall, 18 C. B. 98 1353 
 
 Hulda, 58 L. T. 29 ; 6 As)). M. C. 244 988 
 
 Hull f. Cooper, 14 Kast, 479 : 13 R. R. 287 1197 
 
 Hull Dock Co. r. Browne, 2 15. & Ad. 43 778 
 
 r. Priestley, 1 X. & M. S5 ; 4 B. & Ad. 178 . . 906 
 
 Hull Rope Works Co. v. Adams, 65 E. J. Q. B. 114 ; 73 L. T. 446 ; 44 
 
 W. R. 108 188 
 
 Hulle r. Heightman, 2 East, 145; 4 Esj.. 75 123 
 
 Humlier, 53 L. J. Adni. 7 ; 9 P. 1). 12 ; 49 L. T. 604 ; 32 W. R. 664 : 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 181 1015 
 
 Humberston. //( /v, De Gex, 262 ; S Jur. 675 567 
 
 Humble r. Hunter, 12 (,).!'.. 310 ; 17 L. J. <,). P.. 350 .... 231 
 Hunt V. lioyal Exchange Assurance Co., 5 M. & S. 47 ; 17 R. R. 261 1278, 1280, 
 
 1289 
 
 Huntclilf, 2 Hag. Adm. 281 1^9 
 
 Hunti'r c. Beale, cited 3 Term Rejt. 466 ....... 577 
 
 ., r. Fry, 2 B. k Aid. 421 : 21 P. H. 34o 495 
 
 ,, I'. Hesketh Steamship Co., The Hesketh, 61 L. -I. P. C. 84 ; [1891] 
 
 App. Cas. 628; 66 L. T. 305 ; 7 Asj.. M. C. 160— P. C. . 1013 
 ,, V. Leathley (or Leathlev *-. Hunter), 5 .M. & P. 457 ; 7 Bing. 517 : 
 1 C. & J. 423 ; 1 tvr. 355 : 9 L. J. (o.s.) Ex. 118- Ex. Ch. 
 Altirniing S.C, 10 B. & C. 858 ; 8 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 274 . 122() 
 ,, V. McGown, 1 J51igh, 573 ; 20 R. R. 198 . . _ _. _ • ^ 79, 328 
 ,, V. Northern Marine Insurance Co., 13 App. Cas. 717: 15 Cl. of 
 
 Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) H. L. 72 l"*n 
 
 ,, V. Parker, 7 M. & W. 322 ; 10 L. J. Ex. 281 .... 16.! 
 
 ,, V. Potts, 4 Camii. 203; 16 P. R. 776 T>7s 
 
 V. Princep, 10 East, 378 ; 10 h*. P. 328 .... :!7I. 13ol 
 r. The Hesketh (Owners), The Hesketh, 61 L. .1. P. C. 81 : | l^91 j 
 
 Ai)p. Cas. 628 ; 66 L. T. 305 : 7 Asp. M. C. 160— P. ('. . 1013 
 
 ,, r. Wright, 10 15. & C. 714 ; 8 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 2.^,9 . . . 13(i6 
 
 Huntley, Eu.sh. 24 '^24 
 
 V. Sand.isoii, 1 Croinj)t. & Mees. 467 ; 2 E. .1. Ex. •J04 . 93 
 
 HuntMnan, |ls94] P. 214 ; 6 R. 698 ; 70 L. T. 3.S6 : 7 A>]>. M. C. 4:;i . .'.6 
 
 Hurley <•. .Millward, 1 .Iones& Car. 224 l-^<> 
 
 Hurrell /•. i'.ulh.nl, 3 E. k E. 445 b-^9 
 
 Hiiirv /•. Roval Exchange Assurance Co. (Partial Loss; Calculation), :: 
 
 Bo.s. & P. 308 ; 6 R. P. 804 l"-i'i" 
 
 ,, V. Royal Exchange A.ssurancc Co. (Risk "f T-ighters), 2 Pos. & P. 
 
 430 ; 3 Es).. 289 ; 5 R. R. 639 . . • • • .10.54 
 
 Hnrst V. Ushoin, 18 C. P.. 144 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 209 ; 4 W. R. 4.''.S . 256, 3(»1 
 Hus.sey r. Christie, 13 Ves. 594 ; 9 East, 426 ; 9 P. P. 585 . . 97. 209 
 
 Hutchings r. Xune.s, 1 Moore. P. C. (x..s.) 243 ; lO.Iur. (n.s.) 109 ; 9 E. T. 
 
 125 •"••''' 
 
 Hutchinson <*. .\l)erdeen Sea Insurance Co., 3 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th .scr.) 
 
 682 ll^^l 
 
 r. Glover, 33 L. T. 834 ; .3 As].. M. C. 120-C. A. Allirniing 
 
 45 L. J. (}. ]',. 120: 1 <,i. P.. D. 138; 24 W. H. 185 . 996 
 r. Guion, f, C. 15. (N.s.) 1 19 ; 28 E. J. < '. P. Ho ; 4 Jur. (\.s.) 
 
 149 ; 6 W. R. 757 "'"'-^ 
 
 „ V. Read, 4 Ex. 761 : 19 !,. .1. Ex. 222 1063
 
 Ixx TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 llutrliinson r. T;itli:iin, 42 L. ,1. C. V. 2G0 ; L. R. 8 (.'. P. 482 ; 2!) L. T. 
 
 103 ; 22 W. R. IS 232 
 
 r. Wvight, 25 Beav. 444 ; 27 L. .1. ( li. 8:S4 ; 4 Jiir. (n^s.) 749 ; 
 
 ti W. R. 475 ' 1129, 1358 
 
 Hutli (or Gibbs) r. Lampoit, 55 L. J. Q. B. 239 ; 16 Q. B. D. 735 ; 54 
 
 L. T. 663 ; 34 W. R. 386 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 593— C. A. . . . 591 
 
 Huttoii r. Biai,% 7 Taunt. 14 ; 2 Maish. 339 ; 17 R. R. 431 . . . 296 
 
 }| Vilanies Stcaiiislii|. Co. r. Inilemnity Mutual Assurance Co., 64 L. J. Q. B. 
 353 ; [1895] 1 (). W. 500 : 14 R. 216 ; 72 L. T. 103 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 
 553—0. A 1053, 1069 
 
 Hyde r. Bruce, 3 Doui^l. 213; 1 JMarsli. Ins. 354 1148 
 
 ,, t: Partridge, 2 Ld. Kavni. 1204 123 
 
 ,, f. Willis, \3 Camp. 202 423 
 
 I. 
 
 I. C. PoTTEK, 40 L. J. Adiu. 9 : L. R. 3 A. & E. 292 ; 23 L. T. 603 ; 19 
 
 W. R. 335 613, 614 
 
 Ida (Liability of Shipowner; Aj;pearance), Lusli. 6 ; 1 L. T. 417 837, 941, 974, 975 
 ,, (Bill of Lading), 32 L. T. 541 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 551— P. C. . . 323, 553 
 
 ,, (Co-ownership), 55 L. T. 59 ; 6 Asj). M. C. 21 60 
 
 ,, (Bottomry), 41 L. J. Adm. 85 ; L. R. 3 A. & K. 542 ; 27 L. T. 457 ; 
 
 21 W.R. 39; 1 Asp. M. C. 443 200 
 
 ,, (Wreck Lnjuiry), 55 L. J. Adm. 15 : 11 P. D. 37 ; 54 L. T. 497 ; 34 
 
 AV. R. 628 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 59 876 
 
 Ida, The, and The Wasa (or Nicolaistadt\ 15 L. T. 103 . . . 806, 826 
 
 Idas, Br. c^ Lush. 65 958 
 
 Idle v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., 3 JMoore, 115 ; 8 Taunt. 755 : 
 
 21 R. R. 538 1283, 1299 
 
 Illeanon Pirates, 6 Moore, P. C. 471 971 
 
 Ilos, Swabey, 100 725, 854 
 
 Imbro, 58 L. J. Adm. 49 : 14 P. D. 73 ; 60 L. T. 936 ; 37 W. R. 559 ; 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 392 797 
 
 Imniniolata Concezzione (County Court), 8 P. D. 34 ; 47 L. T. 388 ; 31 
 
 W. R. 642 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 593 . . .943 
 (Liens ; Priority), 53 L. J. Adm. 19 ; 9 P. D. 37 ; 
 50 L. T. 539 ; 32 W. R. 705 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 208 . . . 120, 985 
 
 Immaganila Sara Clasina, Yau.x r. Schetfer, 8 JMoore, P. C. 75 ; 7 
 
 Not. of Ca.s. 582 736,785,815 
 
 Immanuel, 2 C. Rob. 186 1173 
 
 (Owners) i: Dunholm, 15 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 152 . 425 
 
 Imperial (or Maritime) Marine Lisuranoe Co. r. Fire Insurance Corporation, 
 48 L. J. C. P. 424 ; 4 C. P. D. 166 ; 40 L. T. 166 ; 27 W. R. 680 ; 
 
 4 Asp, JI. C. 71 1038, 1046 
 
 Imperial Ottoman Bank r. Cowan, 31 L. T. 33'i ; 2 Asp. M. C. 418 ; 
 
 Ex. Ch. Affirming 21 W. R. 770 361, 545 
 
 Imperial Royal Priyileged Danubian Steam Navigation Co. r. Greek and 
 Oriental Steam Navigation Co., The Smyrna, 2 Moore. P. C. (N.s.) 435 ; 
 lO.Iur. (N..S.) 977 ; 11 L. T. 74. ." . . '. . . 699,803 
 Inca, Gore r. Bethell, 12 Moore, P. C. 189 ; Swabev, 370 . . 632, 641 
 
 Inehulva, White r. Furness, Withy & Co., 64 L. J. Q. B. 161 : [1895] App. 
 
 Cas. 40 ; 11 R. 53 ; 72 L. T. 157 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 574— H. L. (E.) . 400 
 Independence, The Arthur Gordon and The, Maddox r. Fisher, 14 Moore, 
 
 P. C. 103 ; Lush. 270 ; 4 L. T. 563 ; 9 W. R. 582 690, 698, 736, 755, 811, 
 
 814, 819 
 
 India (Salvage), 1 W. Rob. 406 597 (2) 
 
 ,, (Bottomry; Necessaries), 32 L. J. Adm. 185; 9 Jur. (n.s.) 417; 
 
 9 L. T. 234 ; 11 W. R. 536 226, 965,966 
 
 ,, (Bottomry), Br. & Lush. 221 ; 33 L. J. Adm. 193 : 12 L. T. 316 214, 1134 
 
 Indian, The, and The Jessie, 12 L. T. 586 695 
 
 Indian Chief, 58 L. .T. Adm. 25 ; 14 P. D. 24 ; 60 L. T. 240 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 
 362 699, 789, 797, 831 
 
 Indomitable, Swabey, 446 ; 5 Jur. (N.s.) 632 196 
 
 Indus, 56 L. J. Adm. 88 ; 12 P. D. 46 ; 56 L. T. 376 ; 35 W. R. 490 ; 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 105— C. A 703, 707, 771 
 
 Industrie (Charter-party) 63 L. J. Adm. 84 ; [1894] P. 58 ; 6 R. 681 ; 70 
 
 L. T. 791 ; 42 W. R. 280 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 457. . . .241 
 (Collision ; Ship Ashore), 40 L. J. Adm. 26; L. R. 3 A. k. E. 
 303 ; 24 L. T. 446 ; 19 W. R. 728 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 17 700, 719, 797, 921 
 
 Industry, 3 Hag. Adm. 203 631 
 
 Inflexible (Risk of Collision), Sw.abey, 32 .... 786 (Addenda) 
 ,, (Damages), Swabey, 200 ;' 5 W. R. 517 731
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Ixxi 
 
 In"liam i: Aguew. If) East, 517 : 13 R. R. 516 .... 1169, 1204 
 
 Iii"lis r. Buttery, 3 App. Cns. 552— H. L. (Sc.) l.> 
 
 r. Stock, 54 L. .1. Q. B. 582 : 10 App. Cas. 263 ; 52 L. T. 821 ; 33 
 W. E. 877 ; 5 A.sj.. HI. C. 422— H. L. (K.) AffiniiiiicrS. C. 53 
 L. J. <>. B. 356 ; 12 (,». B. D. 564 : 51 L. T. 449 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 
 294— C. A 123. 1147 
 
 I-. Ushenvooil, 1 East, 515 5G7 
 
 ,, '<■. Vaux, 3 Caiiii). 437 1219 
 
 Innian r. Boi;k, The City of Antwerp amlTlic Fiiediich, 37 L. •!. Adiii. 25 ; 
 
 L. R. 2 P. C. 25 ^ 812, 826 
 
 Inniai Steainship Co. r. Bisclioff. 52 L. -1. (}. B. 169; 7 Ap]i. Cas. 670; 
 
 47 L. t. 581 ; 31 AV. II. 141 : 5 Asp. M. C. 6— H. L. (E.) . 1080, 1112 
 
 luiiislail. The. and The Seciet. 35 L. T. 819 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 337 695, 857, 859 
 Innisfall'en, 35 L. J. Adni. 110; L. K. 1 A. & E. 72 ; 12 Jur. (n.s.) 653 193, 954 
 Internationa]. 40 L. .T. Adni. 1 : L. R. 3 A. & E. 3-n ; 23 L. T. 787 951 (Addenda) 
 
 Intrepide, The WheataheafandThe. 13 L. T. 612 719 
 
 Iiiverkeithiiict Marine and Freight Assnrance i^ssoeiation r. jMaekenzie, 
 
 9 Ct. ol'Sess. Cas. (4tl» ser.)'lu43 1036 
 
 Iodine, 3 Not. of Cas. 14(1 . . .• 617 
 
 lona London and Edinbnrgh Shipping Co, r. The lona (Owners), 4 
 
 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 336 : L. R. 1 P. C. 426 ; 16 L. T. 158. . 770, 774 
 loiiides '■. Harford. 29 L. .T. Ex. 36 . . . . . . . 1049 
 
 (■ Paintic File and Marine Insurance Co., 41 L. J. (,». B. 190 ; L. 1!. 
 7 O. B. 517 : 26 L. T. 738 : 21 W. R. 22 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 330 
 
 _Ex. Ch 1032, 1034, 1191, 1192 
 
 (; Pender (Over-valuation), 43 L. J. Q. B. 227 ; L. R. 9 (,). B. 531 : 
 
 30 L. T. 547 ; 22 W. R. 884 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 266 . 105, 1179, 1194 
 r. Pender Mnsnrance of Profits), 27 L. T. 244 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 
 " 4a2 1097, 1127 
 
 r. Universal Marine Insurance Co., 14 C. B. (N.s.) 259 ; 32 
 L. J. C. P. 170 ; 10 Jur. (x.s.) 18 ; 8 L. T. 705 ; 11 AV. R. 85S . 1105 
 Ireland '■. Thompson, 4 C. B. 149 : 17 L. J. C. P. 241 .... 161 
 Iron Duke. Williams r. Chapman, 4 Not. of Cas. 585— P. C. Aflirming 
 
 2 W. Poll. 377 "'*'' 
 
 Ironmaster (Damages ; Valueot Ship), Swabey, 441 ; 6 Jur. (N.s.) 782 726, 1006 
 (Collision : Port Holm), 6 Jur. (N.s.) 782 .... 846 
 
 Ironsides. Lush. 458 ; 31 L. J. Adm. 129 ; 6 L. T. 59 .... 969 
 Irrawaddy Fhjtilla Co. -•. Bugwan.lass. 65 L. T. 595 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 129— 
 
 I, Q 74 (Addenda) 
 
 Irvin"'- i'U-""' 1 P.in". (n.c.) .'>3 ; 4 M. & Scott, 572 ; 3 L. J. C. P. 265 497, 505 
 " / Mannin.', 1 H. L. Cas. 287 : 6 C. B. 391— H. L. (E.) . 1139, 1221 
 ," ,-. Ri.diar.lson, 1 >L k Hob. 15:!; 2 ii. .^ Ad. 193; 2 L. J. (cs.) 
 
 K. B. 225 ll-«^ 
 
 Isabella (Wages), 2 C. Ho!.. 211 ll^' 
 
 (Salvage), 3 Hag. Adm. 427 t'l- 
 
 Isabella Jacobina, 4 C. Rob. 77 '-^'^ 
 
 Isca, 56 L. J. Adm. 47 : 12 P. D. 34; 55 L. T. 779 ; 35 W. K. 382: 
 
 6 .\sp. M. C. 63 751.940 
 
 Isis, 53 L. J. Adm. 14 ; 8 P. I). 227 : 49 L. T. 444 ; 32 W. H. 171 : 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 155 •''=5< •'^■^ 
 
 Lslay, .McBravne '■. Patience. 20 Cr. of Srss. Cas. (-Ith .ser.) 221 . . 144 
 
 Islay, The Stratlispev and Tlii', I'.iirrcU r. .Maibrayne, IS CI. of Scss. Cas. 
 
 \4tli ser.) 104S .■ 1". ''- 
 
 Isle of Cypru.s, 59 L. J. .\<lm. 9n : 1 .', P. 1). KU : 6:! L. T. 352 ; 38 W . I.'. 
 
 719'; 6 Asp. M. C. 534 ''*'' 
 
 Ismav r. Blake, 66 L. T. 5:j0 : 7 .\^|.. .M. < ■- 189 : 56 J. l\ 4S.; . ;.64 
 
 Itinerant, 2 W. Rob. 2.36 7t)l . So:!, 8;.9 
 
 J. 
 
 J. H. Ili'.NKKs, 56 L. .1. .\dm. 69 : 12 P. 1». 106 : :<i; !,. T. 581 ; 35 W. P. 
 
 112: 6 .\sp. M. C. 121 
 
 858 
 1023 
 
 J. J. Hathurn, 4 Jur. (N.s.) 790 • 
 
 J. i:. Hinde, 61 L. J. Adm. 91 ; |1S92| P. 231 : 67 L. T. 8:{2 : 7 Asp. 
 
 .M.C. 2.57 ^•^•; 
 
 J.icks.iii --. Charnoek. 8 Term Pep. 5^9 : 5 K. R. 425 . • . • • -'^L' 
 
 ., ,-. C.llowav, 5 Bing. (N.c.) 71 : 6 Scott. 7.S6 ; 8 L. .1. C. P. 29 . 463 
 
 „ ,-. Isaa.son, .'i H. k N. 405 : 27 L. J. Ex. .392 . .412, 42.^ 
 
 /•. Nich.il, 5 P.iiig. ^N.«.) .508 ; 7 S<'ott, 577 ; 8 L. .1. C. P. 294 . 5/1 
 
 ',', -•. Vernou. 1 H.'p.l. 114 • l'*- 
 
 r. Union .Marine Insurance Co.. 44 L. J. C. P. 27 : I-. 1.'. 10 ( . I ._ 
 
 1"'. ■ 31 L T 7S9 • 23 \V. P. 169 : 2 Asp. M. C. 435 ^Kn. Cli. 38/, 10/:»
 
 Ixxii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 ,I:u'ob, 4 0. l!ob. •24r> ; soo L. R. I P. ('. -210 '200 
 
 Jacob Chnstenseii, tj4 L. .1. Adiii. !>2 ; 1189;')] P. -28] ; ]] R. 795 ; 72 L. T. 
 
 902 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 21 840 
 
 Jacob Lamlstroin, 4 P. J). 101 ; 40 L. T. 38 ; 4 Asp. iM. C. ',8 . . 668 (2), 669 
 .laedereu, 61 L. J. A.lui. 89 ; [1892] P. 351 ; 1 1!. 'Ai> ; 68 L. T. 266 ; 
 
 7 Asp. M. C. 260 473 
 
 James, liawson i: Can- ((.'ollision), 10 Mooie, P. ('. 162; Swabev, 60; 
 
 4 W. R. 303— P. C 699. 708, 789, 793, 806 
 
 ,, t: (Jriffiii, 2 M. k W. 622 ; 6 L. J. Ex. 241 575 
 
 ,, r. Jones, 3 Esp. 27 ......... 84 
 
 ,, (Lady) r. East India Co., cited Abbott on Sliipjiin^' (13th ed. ) 553 . 423 
 ,, r. London & S. W. Ry., 41 L. J. Ex. 186 ; L. R. 7 Ex. 287 ; 
 
 27 L. T. 352 ; 21 W. R. 25 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 226— Ex. Cb. 750, 926 
 
 ,, r. Price, Lott't, 219 148 
 
 James Avnistron^, L. R. 4 A. & E. 380 ; 33 L. T. 390 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 46 633, 
 
 651 
 James Burness & Sons r. Persian Gulf Steamsliip Co., The Bushire, 52 
 
 L. T. 740 ; 5 Asp. ]\I. C. 416 560, 736 
 
 James C. Stevenson, The Pougainville and Tlie, Beal v. Marchais, L. R. 5 
 
 P. C. 316 ; 28 L. T. 822 ; 21 W. R. 653 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 1 . 785, 786, 
 
 787, 789, 791 (2), 805, 812, 815 
 
 James Dixon, 2 L. T. 696 631, 666 
 
 James Seddon, 35 L. J. Adm. 117 ; L. R. 1 A. & E. 62 ; 12 Jur. (n.s.) 609 ; 
 
 14 W. R. 973 93 
 
 James AVatt, 2 W. Rob. 270 787, 999 
 
 Jameson r. Drinkahl, 5 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 30 805, 852 
 
 ,, r. Swaiiistone, 2 Camp. 546, /'. ; 11 R. R. 794, n. . . . 1340 
 Jamieson r. Laurie, 6 IJro. P. C. 474 ; 3 R. R. 725 ..... 459 
 Jamie.son and Newcastle Steamship Freight Insurance Association, In re, 
 64 L. J. (). B. 560 ; [1895] 2 (,). B. 90 ; 14 R. 444 ; 72 L. T. 648 ; 43 
 
 W. R. 530 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 593— C. A 1117 
 
 Jaa Ilendrick, 1 Spinks, 181 639 
 
 Jane (Sale), 23 L. T. 791 156, 958 
 
 ,, (Salvage), 2 Hag. Adm. 338 641 
 
 Jane and Matilda, 1 Hag. Adm. 187 033 
 
 Jane Bacon, 27 W. R. 35 687, 692, 698, 755, 826 
 
 Jane, Tlie Pleiades and The, The Pleiades (Owners) v. The Jane (Owners), 
 60 L. J. P. C. 59 ; [1891] App. Cas. 259 ; 65 L. T. 169 ; 7 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 41 855 
 
 Janet Comt, 66 L. J. Adm. 34; [1897] P. 59; 76 L. T. 172: 8 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 223 643 
 
 Janet Jlitchell, Swabey, 111 640 
 
 Janet Wilson, 6 W. R. 329 217 
 
 Janson (or Jamson) v. Ralli, 6 El. & Bl. 422; 25 L. J. (,). B. 3o0 ; 2 Jur. 
 
 (x.s.) 566 ; 4 W. R. 568— Ex. Ch 1228 
 
 Japp V. Campbell, 57 L. J. Q. B. 79 181 
 
 ,, V. Durante, The Nuova Ratiaelina, 41 L. J. Adm. 37 ; L. R. 3 A. .*^ E. 
 
 483 ; 24 L. T. 321 ; 20 W. R. 216 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 16 ... 232 
 
 Jardine v. Leathlev, 3 B. & S. 700 ; 32 L. J. (?. B. 132 ; Jur. (n.s.) 1035 ; 
 
 7 L. T. 783 ; 'll W. R. 432 ; Nisi Prius, 3 E. & F. 80 . . 1077, 1278 
 Jarnian v. Coape, 13 East, 394 ; 2 Cam]). 613 ; 12 R. R. 374 . . . 1175 
 
 Jarratt c. Ward, 1 Camp. 263 ; 10 R. R. 677 1223 
 
 Jeb.sen v. East and West India Docks Co., 44 L. J. C. P. ISl ; L. R. lU 
 
 ('. P. 300 ; 32 L. T. 321 ; 23 W. R. 624 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 505 . . 16 
 
 Jeff Davis (Lien), L. R. 2 A. i^ E. 1 : 17 L. T. 151 .... 072, 1004 
 ,, Cartwright r. Philpott (Unlivery), 5 Moore, P. C. (x.s.) 25 ; L. R. 
 
 2 P. C. 19 986 
 
 Jefferycs v. Legendra, 1 Show. 320 ; 3 Lev. 320 : 2 Salk. 443 ; 4 Mod. 
 
 48 . 1169 
 
 Jeffrey v. Franconia (Owners), The Franconia, 46 L. J. Adm. 33 ; 2 P. D. 
 
 163 ; 36 L. T. 640 ; 25 W. R. 796 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 435— C. A. . 714, 785, 
 
 786, 838 
 
 Jell V. Pratt, 2 Stark. 67 1263 
 
 Jenkins c. Harvey, 1 Gale, 23 ; 5 Tyr. 326 ; 1 C. M. & R. 877 : 5 L. J. Kx. 
 
 17 882, 883 
 
 ,, /•. Heycock, 8 Moore, P. C. 351 ; 1 C. L. R. 406 ; 5 .Moore. Ind. 
 
 App. 361 .......... 1155 
 
 ,, r. Hutchinson, 13 (,). B. 744 ; 18 L. J. Q. P>. 274 . . . 232 
 
 ,, '•. iMackenz.'c, 4 Bro. P. C. 447, n 1240 
 
 r. Power, 6 M. & S. 282 ; 18 R. R. 375 1211 
 
 Jeidivns r. Brown, 14 Q. B. 496 ; 19 L. J. (,). B. 286 ; 14 Jur. 505 . . 359 
 ,, V. Usborne, 8 Scott (x.i:.) 505 ; 7 Man. & C. 678 ; 13 L. J. C. P. 
 196 355
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Ixxiii 
 
 Jennett r. Meek, 3 L. T. 817 T-U 
 
 Jjsnnie S. Barker, The, and The Spindrift, 44 L. .1. Adni. 20; I.. H. 4 
 
 A. & E. 45(3 ; •■i-l L. T. :!1S : 3 Asi.. M. ('. 42 . ... 787, 78S> 
 
 Jennin;<s v. Aiidley, Bmwnl. & G. \,t. 2, 30 935. 
 
 l: Griffiths, Ku.ss. .t M. 42 ; 27 R. R. 730 16(> 
 
 Jenuv, 2 W. Rob. 5 •20r> 
 
 Jenny Lind, 41 L. J. Adni. 63 : L. R. 3 A. & E. 529 ; 26 L. T. 591 : 20 
 
 W. R. S95 ; 1 Asp. M. C 294 102 
 
 Jesmond, The, and Tlie Earl of Elgin, Tlie Jesmond (Owners) v. The Earl 
 of Elgin (Owners), 8 Moore, P. C. (x:.s.) 179 ; L. R. 4 P. C. 1 : 25 L. T. 
 
 514; 1 Asp. M. C. 150 785, 810 (2), 819' 
 
 Jesse r. Roy, 1 C. M. & R. 316 : 4 Tyr. 626 ; 3 L. J. Ex. 268 . . . Ill 
 Jes.sel V. Bath, 36 L. J. E.x. 149 ; L. R. 2 Ex. 267 ; 15 W. R. 1041 . 319, 322: 
 Je-ssie, The Indian and The, 12 L. T. 586 . .... 69:.. 
 
 Jesson V. Solly, 4 Taunt. 52 ; 13 R. R. 557 451 
 
 Jeune Louise, 37 L. J. Adm. 32 664 
 
 Jenne Nanette, 4 W. R 92 227 
 
 Jeune Paul, 36 L. J. Adia. 11 : L. \l. 1 A. & E. 336; 16 L. T. 125 ; 15 
 
 W. R. 776 661 
 
 Job r. Langton, 6 Kl. .<: HI. 779 ; 26 L. .1. (,•. 15. 97 ; 3 .lur. (x.s.) 109 : 4 
 
 W. R. 641 r.83, 124:3. 
 
 Jol)Son's Case, Xoy. 24 ......... • 948. 
 
 Johan and Siegnuuid, Edwards, 242 . 956- 
 
 Johann Eriedrich. 1 W. Rob. 35 125, 759, 864 
 
 Johann SverdruiJ, 56 L. J. Adm. 63: 12 P. J). 43; 56 L. T. 256; 35 
 
 W. R. 300 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 73— C. A 784 
 
 Johanna Emilia, 1 S[iinks, 317 ........ 44 
 
 Johanna Stoll, The Annapolis and The (Compulsory Pilot), Lush. 295 ; 30 
 
 L. J. Adm. 201 ; 4 L. T. 417 593,766,76? 
 
 Johanne.s (Salvage), 6 Not. of Cas. 288, « 617 
 
 ,, (Life Salvage). Lu.sh. 182 ; 30 L. J. Adm. 91 ; 3 L. T. 757 . 610 
 (Writ; Practic.-), L. R. 3 A. & E. 127 ; 23 L. T. 26 . . . 100± 
 
 Johannes Christoph, 2 Spinks, 93 671 
 
 Jolin (Possession), 2 Hag. Adm. 305 95C>. 
 
 ,, (Salvage ; Costs). Lu.sh. 11 ; 1 L. T. 495 .... 674. 679- 
 
 ,, r. P,acon, 39 L. .1. C. P. 365 ; L. R. 5 C. P. 437 ; 22 L. T. 477 ; 18 
 
 W. R. 894 8^2 
 
 John and .lane, 4 C. Rob. 216 631 
 
 Jolm ami Thomas, 1 Hag. A.lm. 157, n 675. 
 
 John Bellamy, 39 L. .1. Adm. 28 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 129 ; 22 L. T. 244 . 848 
 John Bovne, 36 L. T. 29 ; 25 W. R. 756 ; 3 Asp. .^L C. 341 . . 843, 993. 
 
 John Brotheri.ik, 8.lur. 276 786, 805, 80t> 
 
 John Bud.Ue, 5 Not. ofCas. 387 806,824 
 
 John Dunn, 1 W. Rob. 159 85(> 
 
 .fohn Evans, 43 L. .1. Adm. 9 ; 30 L. T. 308 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 234 . 665, 943 
 .lohn Eenwiek, 41 1.. .1. Adm. 38 : L. 1!. 3 A. k E. 500 ; 26 L. T. 322 : 1 
 
 Asp. -M. C. 24'." 696, 788, 796, 798, 830' 
 
 John Harley, Th.-, and The William Tell, 13 L. T. 413 .... 702 
 
 John Knox, 16 .Jur. 1161 127 
 
 John Landsdown, A'.'- /y«/7';, 5 East, 38 l-'"^ 
 
 John .Meiiityn-, 53 L. J. Adm. 115 : 9 P. 1). 135 ; 51 L. T. 185 ; 33 W. K. 
 
 190; 5 Asj.. M C. 278— C. A ■^ItJ- 
 
 John Ormston or Th.' .lohn Mclntyre), 50 L. .). Adni. 76 ; 6 P. 1). 2o0 : 
 
 30 W. P. 276 ^i^ 
 
 John of London (Attachment), 1 Hag. Adm. 342 95t) 
 
 JohnO'Seott, 66 L. -L Adm. 47; (18971 1'. 64 ; 76 L. T. 222; M Asp. 
 
 M. C. 235 -C. A 837 
 
 Johns r. Simons, 2 i,». P.. 425 6;i 
 
 Johnson /■. H.'iisoii, I .Moore, 90 ; 1 P.r. .t P.. 154 =^32 
 
 ,. I'.la.k, I he Two Ellens, 8 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 39H ; 41 
 L. .1. Ailm. 33 ; L. it. 4 P. C. 161 ; 26 L. T. 1 ; 20 W. R. 
 5!)2; 1 Asp. M. C. 20K .... 184, 190, .396, 964 
 
 ,, /•. Proderiek, 4 Ea.st, 566 ; 1 Smith, 1 1 1 : 7 R. I!. 636 . . 108- 
 
 -•. Chapman, 19 C. P.. (n.s.j 563 ; 35 L. J. C. 1". 23 ; 15 L. T. 
 
 70:]4W. R. 264 5M7, 1 101, 1245, 12 16 
 
 V. Drake, 1 K.-b. 176 •''-'_ 
 
 ,, r. fJreaves, 2 Tainit. 344 ....•••• 2.S;> 
 (or.lohnston^.v. Hogg. 52 L. .1. i}. P. 343 ; 10 (». P.. D. 432 ; is 
 
 L. T. 4.35 ; 31 \f. P. 768 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 51 . . 1 106 
 
 „ y. Machieisne, 3Cunii.. 44 ; 13 R. R. 475 P-'' 
 
 r. Royal Mail Steam Packet Co., 37 I-. J. C. 1'. 33 ; L. P. :: C P. 
 
 38; 17 L. T. 445 15'6, \H, 
 
 V. Sheddon, 2 East, 581 ; 6 R. R. 516 1261
 
 Ixxiv TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Jolinsou c. Slii])pin (Slieimev or Sliijiway), Holt, 48 ; 1 Snlk. 3;' : ('> Mod. 
 
 7!t ; 11 Mod. 30 ; Ld. Kayin. 982 .... 1^7, 929 
 
 r. Ward. « Ksp. 47 1147 
 
 Johnslou r. llillHMTV, 3 H. & C. 328 126 
 
 (or JohiisJu) V. Hog- 52 L. .1. Q. B. 343; 10 Q. B. 1). 432: 
 
 48 L. T. 435 ; 31 W. 1{. 768 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 51 . . 1091 
 
 v. Salvage Association. 19 (^ B. D. 458 ; 57 L. T. 218 : 36 W. R. 
 
 56 : 6 Asp. M. C. 167 — C. A 1316 
 
 V. Sutton, 1 Dongl. 254 1202 
 
 Jollille V. AVallasey Loc-al Board. 43 L. J. V. V. 41 ; L. K. 9 C. 1". 62 ; 29 
 
 W. II. 582 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 146 889 
 
 Jolly V. AVall^er, 2 Bark. Ins. (Sthed.) 630 1224 
 
 „ V. Young, 1 Esp. 186 407 
 
 Jonathan Goodliuc n'.ottoniry ; Cargo), Swabey, 355 . . . 199, 212 
 
 ,, ,, (i;ottonny ; Master's Wages), Swabey, 524 . . 105,216 
 
 Jones, Ex parte, Kichardson, In re, 2 Tyr. 671 ; 2 ('. & J. 513 ; 1 L. J. 
 
 Ex. 218 37, 169 
 
 (Register ; Bartners), 4 M. & S. 450 . . . . 38, 45 
 ,, /■. Adamson, 45 L. J. Ex. 64 ; 1 Ex. D. 60 ; 35 L. T. 287 ; 3 Asp. 
 
 Vi. V. 253 471 
 
 ,, c. Bangor Ahitual Shipping Insurance Society, 61 L. T. 727 ; 6 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 450 1359 
 
 ,, V. Bennett, 63 L. T. 705 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 596 143 
 
 ,, 1-. Holme, 36 L. J. Ex. 192 ; L. R. 2 Ex. 335 ; 16 L T. 794 ; 16 
 
 W. K. r>2 495 
 
 ,, y. Hough, 49 L. .1. Ex. 211 ; 5 Ex. D. 115 : 42 L. T. 108 ; 4 Asp. 
 
 M. V. 248— C. .\ 251, 278, 288, 316, 537 
 
 ,, V. Jones 8 M. & W. 431 ; 10 L. J. Ex. 481 575 
 
 ,, r. Nej)tune Marine Insurance Co., 41 L. J. Q. B. 370 ; L. R. 7 
 
 Q B. 702 ; 27 L. T. 3u8 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 416 . . . . 1070 
 ,, V. Nicholson. 2 C. L. R. 1236 ; 10 Ex. 28 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 330 . . 1099 
 
 ,, V. Phillips, 7 Ex. 85 ; 21 L. J. Ex. 7 898 
 
 ,, i: Sch.Tioll, 1 Term Rep. 130, n.: 1 R. R. 196, « 1110 
 
 ..Tones Brothers, 46 L. J. Adni. 75 ; 37 L. T. 164 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 478 . 677 
 
 Jones' Case, AVitich, 8 932 
 
 Jonge Aniiries, Swabey. 303 ; noin . Alsev '". Albertuszen, 11 jMuore, 1'. C. 
 
 313 : 6 W. R. 198 . . . " 615, 655 
 
 Jonge Bastiaan, 5 C. Rob. 322 629, 631, 641 
 
 .Jonge Mnrgaretha, 1 C. Rob. 189 1173 
 
 Jonge Tobias, 1 C. Rob. 329 1173 
 
 , Jordaiiie r. Cornwall, 1 Stark. 6 ....... . 1092 
 
 Joseph (or The Marie Joseph), Feast; v. Cloahec, Br. & Lush. 449 : 3 Moore, 
 r. C. (n.s.) 556 ; 35 L. J. P. C. 66 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 219 ; 12 Jur. 
 
 /N.s.)677 ; 15 L. T. 6; 15 W. R. 201 569 
 
 ,, V. Kno.x, 3 Camp. 332 1302 
 
 Joseph Dexter, 20 L. T. 820 91, 104 
 
 Joseph Harvey, 1 C. Rob. 306 615 
 
 Josephine, Swabey, 152 ; 2 Jur. (N.s.) 1148 117 
 
 Jouruu ?\ Bourdieu, 1 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 245 1253 
 
 Joy r. Kent, Hard. 418 20(5 
 
 -Joyce V. Capel, 8 Car. & P. 370 849 
 
 ,, V. Keunard, 41 L. J. Q. B. 17 ; L. R. 7 (,). B. 78 ; 25 L. T. 932 ; 20 
 
 W. R. 233 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 194 1119 
 
 ,, V. Realm Marine Insurance Co., 41 L. J. Q. B. 356 ; L. R. 7 <,>. B. 
 
 580 ; 27 L. T. 144 : 1 Asp. M. C. 396 1051 
 
 ., V. Swann, 17 C. B. (x.s.) 84 348,1122 
 
 ,, y. William.son, 3 Dongl. 164 222, 629, 1134 
 
 Jubilee (Salvage), 3 Hag. Adm. 43, n 639 
 
 (Salvage or Towage), 42 L. T. 594 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 275 . . .611 
 Judith Randolph, cited 2 Shaw's Scotch App. Cas. 403 ; Jlarsdcn on 
 
 Collisions (4th ed.) 165 735 
 
 Juffrow Maria Schroeder, 3 C. Rob. 147 1173 
 
 Julia, Bland v. Ro.ss (Towage), Lush. 224 ; 14 .Moore, P. C. 210 ';i3 (2), 755, 
 
 772 (2\ 774, 1014 
 
 Julia David, 46 L. J. Adm. 54 820 
 
 Julia Eisher, 2 P. D. 115 ; 36 L. T. 257 ; 25 W. R. 756 ; 3 A.sp. M. C. 
 
 :j,SO— C. A. 864, 1010 
 
 Juliana, 2 Dods. 504 108, 118 
 
 .Fulina, 35 L. T. 410 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 264 124, 988 
 
 Juliet Erskine, 6 Not. of Cas. 633 803 (2) 
 
 JuHndur, 1 Spinks, 71 . • • . 100, 187 
 
 •luuo (Pilot), 45 L. J. A<lni.,105 ; 1 P. D. 135 ; 34 L. T. 741 ; 24 W. R. 
 
 902 ; 3 Asp. iM. C. 217 146,781,857
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Ixxv 
 
 Juno (Look Out Astern), 11 R. 679 ; 71 L. T. 341 ; 7 Asp. M. ('. 506 692, 833 
 
 Jupiter (W.iges), 2 Hag. Adni. 'i-il 128 
 
 ., (Collision), 3 Hag. A.lm. 320 805 (2) 
 
 Jurado v. Gregory, Sid. j.t. 1, 418 ; 2 K.'b. '>U : 1 Vent. 32 ; Lev. pt. 1, 
 
 267 .. " 934 
 
 Justice r. P.rowii, Hard. 473 928 
 
 Justin i\ Bailam, 1 Salk. 34; 2 Ld. Rayni. 805; 1 Kel.. 511 ; 3 Mod. 
 
 244 ; 6 Mod. 79 ; 1 Sid. 453 ; Lev. pt. 1, 267 ; 1 Vent. 32 ; C'ro. 
 
 Car. 296 929 
 
 Justitia, 56 L. J. Adin. Ill ; 12 P. D. 145 ; 57 L. T. 816 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 
 198 109 
 
 Justyn (Aniendnitnt), 11 W. R. 44 994 
 
 ,, (Setting aside Decree ; Fraud), 6 L. T. 553 1008 
 
 K. 
 
 Kain c. Old, 2 B. & C. 627 ; 2 L. J. (u.s.) K. P,. 102 ; 4 ]). & K. 52 . 
 
 38 (Addenda) 
 Kaines i: Kniglitley, Skinner, 54 ....... . 1042 
 
 Kalamazoo, 15 Jur. 885 . . 762, 851 
 
 Kalteidjaeh i: .Mackenzie, 48 L. J. C. P. 9 ; 3 C. P. D. 467 ; 39 L T. 215 ; 
 
 26 W. R. 844 ; 4 A.sp. M. ('. 39— C. A 1279,1284 
 
 Kamnierlievie Rosenkrants, 1 Hag. Adni. 62 ..... . 217 
 
 Karla, Br. & Lush. 367 ; 13 W. K. 295 729, 856, 1021 
 
 Karnak, 6 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 136 ; 38 L. .1. Adni. 57 : L. R. 2 P. C. 
 
 505 ; 21 L. T. 1.59 ; 17 W. R. 1028 . . 207, 208, 209 (2), 214 (2), 215 
 Karo, 57 L. J. Adm. 8 ; 13 P. D. 24 ; 58 L. T. 18S ; 6 Asp. i\I. C. 245 . 737, 
 
 752 
 Kasan, Br. & Lush. 1 ; 32 L. J. Adni. 97 ; 9 ,Tur. (N.s.) 234 . . . 970 
 Kate (Salvage), Br. .^ Lusli. 218 ; 33 L. .1. A<lin. 122 ; 10 .hir. (\.s.) 444 : 
 
 9 L. T. 782 661, 662 
 
 ,, (Collision), Robson i: Tlie Kate (Owners), 57 L. J. <^>. B. 546 ; 21 
 
 Q. B. D. 13 : 59 L T. 557 ; 36 W. R. 910 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 330 . . 941 
 Kate 15 .Tones, [1892] P. 366 ; 69 L. T. 197 ; 7 Asp, M. 0. 332 . . <!22 
 Katherine nt Dover, 2 Hag. Adiu. 145 ...... 714 
 
 Kathleen, 43 L. J. Adm. 39 ; L. R. 4 A. .t E. 269 ; 31 L. T. 204 ; 23 
 
 W. R 350 ; 2 As].. M. (.'. 367 565, 602, 671 
 
 Katy, Gordon i: AValmsley, 64 L. J. Adm. 49 ; [1895] P. 56 ; U K. 683 : 
 
 71 L. T. 709 ; 43 \V. K. 290 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 527— C. A. . .459 
 
 Kay r. Field, .52 L. J. «,). B. 17; 10 (,). B. D. 241 ; 47 L. T. 423 ; 31 
 
 W. li. 332 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 588— C. A 246, 479 
 
 ., /•. Wiieeler, 36 !>. J. ( '. P. 180 ; L. R. 2 ('. P. 302; 16 L. T. 66 ; 15 
 
 W. R. 495— Ex. Cli 340 
 
 Keach's Case, Holt. 335 936 
 
 Kearon c. Pearson, 7 H. .V N. 386 ; 31 L. -1. K.\. 1 ; 10 W. R. 12 . 246, 477. 
 
 506 
 
 Keay l\ Fenwick, 1 C 1'. D. 745— C. A 159 
 
 Kecch V. Potts, 1 Kel). 3 928' 
 
 Keir ?J. Andraade, 2 .Marsli. 196; 6 'I'aunt. 49S . . . 1202 (.Addenda) 
 
 Keith '•. Burrows, 46 L. .1. < '. P. 801 ; 2 App. Cas. 63') ; 37 L. T. 291 ; 25 
 
 \V. R. 831 : 3 .\sp. .M. C. 481— H. L. E.) . 178, 368, 395, 549 
 
 ,, /,-. Protection .Marine lnsurane(! Conijiany of" Paris, 10 L. K. li-. 5,1 . 1138 
 
 Kell V. Anderson. 10 M. .V W. 498 : 12 L. .1. E.x. 101 ... . 475 
 
 Kelhier r. Lc .Mesnricr, 4 East, 396 : 1 Smith, 72 ; 7 K. R. 581 . 1107, 1142, 
 
 1176, 1307 
 Kellock r. Home and Colonial Insurance Co., 12. lur. (N.s) 653 . . 1318 
 
 Kellsall, A> //"/■/', De C. 352 549 
 
 Kellv '•. Isle of .Man St.'iim Packet Co., Tlic 'j'vnwald, 64 L. ,1. Adm. 1 ; 
 [1895] P. 142; 11 R. 690; 71 L. T. 731 ; 43 W. 11. 509 ; 7 
 
 Asp. M. C. 539 "H 
 
 ,, )'. AValton, 2 Camp. 155 12M 
 
 Kemler r. P.lanidianl. 2 \V. Bl. 690 M- 
 
 Kemp (or Kempe) r. Andrews, 3 Lev. 290 ; 12 Mod. 3 ; (,'arth. 170. . 4 4 
 
 „ (>. Canavan, 15 Ir. C. L. R. 216 ;"'•'!» 
 
 „ n. Clark, 12 C>. B. 647 ; 17 L. .1. Q. B. 305 ; 12 .Inr. 676 . 404 
 
 „ r. Falk, 52 L. J. Ch. 167 : 7 Aj.p. Cas. 573; 47 L. T. 454 ; 31 
 W. K. 125; 5 Asp. M. C. 1— H. L. (K.). And see Kalk, 
 Ex jxi/rl'', sujira . . . . . • • ■ .570 
 „ i: Hallidav, 6 B. & S. 723 ; 35 L. J. *}. B. 156 ; L. R. 1 Q. B. 520 ; 
 
 12 .Jur. (N.s.) .582 ; 14 L. T. 762 ; 14 W. R. 697— P^x. Ch. . 1244 
 „ t!. Vigne, 1 Term Rep. .301 . . ' 11'58
 
 Ixxvi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 K('iii]i(> ' 
 Keiuiuiii 
 
 Aii.ln 
 
 Sec Keiiip r. Andrews, siiprn. 
 '. I). -17 : 47 L. T. (561 : 30 W. K. 7(iS ; 5 Asp. M. C. 27 
 
 Kfiiiiatli r. Mooiv. 10 at. of Scss. Cits. (4th ser.) :A~i 
 Kt'iiuedy r. (.iouvcin, :'. J), ^i K. 503 : 211 I!. W. CTl! . 
 Kenneislcy Castle, 3 llii,i,^ Adiii. 1 . 
 Kcusiugtoii r. IiiLdis, S Kast, 27.3 ; it K. \i. 138 
 
 c. AVhitf, :; Vxxc.v, 164 
 
 Kent, Lush. 49.'> 
 
 ,, r. Bird, 2 Cowp. r)83 
 
 Kenyou c IJerthoii, 1 Doii<;l. 12, //. 
 
 Kepler (Bottomry), Lusli. 201 ....... 
 
 ,, (Collisioii), 2 P. I). 40. w 
 
 Ker V. Osboine. 9 Kast, 37.S 1316 
 
 Kern v. Deskiides, IOC. 15. (n.s.) 205 ; 30 L. .r. C. P. 297 ; 8 Jiir. (x.s.) 
 
 640, 
 648 
 . 1155 
 402 
 197, 204 
 . 1030 
 . 1200 
 956 
 . 1137 
 . 1167 
 228 
 690 
 
 194 ; 5 L. T. 349 
 
 Kernahan v. National Assurance Co., [1847] 10 Ir. L. R 
 Keroula, 55 L. J. Adni. 45 : 11 1». D. 92 : 55 L. T. 61 : 
 
 Asp. .M. C. 23 
 
 Kerrison r. Cole, 8 Kast, 231 
 Kerswell c. Bisliop (Freight : 
 
 L. J. Kx. 227 . 
 Kestrel (Mortgage), L. \\. 1 A. 
 ,, (Wree'k Inquiry), 6 1 
 
 Asp. il. C. 433. 
 
 319 . 
 35 W 
 
 436, 441 
 1163 
 
 R. 60 
 
 Mortg:ige), 2 C. & J. 529 ; 2 Tyr. 602 ; 1 
 
 & K. 78 ; 12 Jur. (n.s.) 
 . 1>. 182 ; 45 L. T. Ill 
 
 715 
 
 954 
 
 395 
 
 194 
 
 30 VV. 1!. 182 ; 4 
 
 Kestrel, Tlie Frankland and The, Morton r. Hutchinson, 9 Moore. P. C. 
 
 874, 875 
 
 (N-.s.) 365 ; L. P. 4 P. C. 529 ; 27 L. T. 633 
 Kewley v. Ryan, 2 H. Bl. 343 ; 3 R. P. 408 . 
 Key V. Cotesu'orth, 7 Ex. 595 ; 22 L. .1. Ex. 4 . 
 Keyser v. Scott, 4 Taunt. 660 ; 13 R. R. 721 . 
 Khedive, Stoomvaart^Maatsehappy Nederland r. 
 
 1 Asp. M. C. 489 
 
 800, 817 
 
 1212 
 
 361 
 
 1176 
 
 5 P. I). 1 ; 41 L. T. 392 
 
 (Stay of Kxeeution 
 
 M. (J. 182 
 
 Kiddle r. Kidson, 14 L. R. Ir. 1 ; 15 Cox. C. C. 379 
 Kidson r. McArthur, 5 Ct. ofSess. Cas. (4th ser.) 936 
 Kidston c. Empire Marine Insurance Co.,L. R. 2 C. P, 
 
 156 ; 12 Jur. (n..s.) 665 ; 16 L. T. 119 ; 15 \\ . R 
 
 Peninsular and Oriental 
 Steam Navigation Co. 
 (Division of Loss), 52 
 L. J. Adni. 1 ; 7 App. 
 Cas. 795 ; 47 L. T. 198 ; 
 31 W. R. 249 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 567— H. L. (E.) 735, 
 736, 737, 738, 743 
 
 Peninsular and Oriental 
 Steam Navigation Co. 
 (Infringement of Regu- 
 lations), 52 L. ,1. A(lm. 
 1 ; 5 App. Cas. 876 ; 43 
 L. T. 610 ; 29 W. R. 
 173 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 360— H.L. (E.) 690,711(2), 
 760, 785, 818, 824, 827 
 The Khedive (Owners) 
 28 W. R. 364 ; 4 Asp. 
 
 1008, 1010 (Addenda) 
 . 865 
 
 797 
 
 ■■ibi 
 769 
 
 36 L. J. C. P 
 -Ex. Ch. 
 
 Kill r. Hollister, Wils. K. B. pt. 1, 129 .... 
 Killarney (Pilot; Certificate), Lush. 202; 30 L. J. Adm. 41 
 
 (Pilot ; Goole), Lush. 427 t 6 L. T. 908 . 
 Killeeiia, 51 L. J. Adm. 11 ; 6 P. D. 193 ; 45 L. T. 621 
 
 4 Asp. M. C. 472 
 
 King, The, v., &c. See Rex w, iVc. 
 ,,' r. Franklin, IF. & F. 360 
 ,, V. Glover, 2 Bos. .'t P. (x.i;.) 206 ; 9 R. R. 638 
 ,, V. Hinde, 12 L. R. Ir. 113 ... . 
 
 „ V. King, 3 P. Wm.s. 358 
 
 ,, %\ Perry, 3 Salk. 23 
 
 1273, 
 
 1274 
 
 . 1325 
 
 5 L. T. 21 . 146, 
 
 768 
 
 776, 778 
 
 30 W. R. 339 ; 
 
 630, 639, 644 
 
 869 
 . 1036 
 471, 509 
 
 189 
 202, 954 
 
 . Victoria Insurance Co., 65 L. J. P. C. 38 ; [1896] App. Cas. 250 
 
 74 L. T. 206 ; 44 W. P. 592— P. C .1334 
 
 L. J. Ex. 325 ; llJur. (n.s.) 43: 13 
 
 1279, 1330 
 
 617 
 
 126, 953 
 
 ,, ,-. Walkei-, 3 H. & C. 209 
 W. R. 232— Ex. Ch. . 
 King Oscar, 6 Not. of Cas. 284 
 King William, 2 W. Rob. 231 .
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Ixxvii 
 
 Kinualo-k, 1 Siniiks, 2tJ3 658 
 
 Kiimsfor.l /;. .Maisliiill. S T.iiic;. 4r.S : 1 M. & Scott, G'-T : 1 L. J. C. V. 
 
 ']:}.'). . . . '^ 1095 
 
 Kingston 0. Knibbs, 1 C.mip. 508, 7i. ; 10 II. K 74'J, j?. . . . . 1057 
 
 i\ Mclntdsh. 1 Camp. 518 1334 
 
 .-. Phelns, eitod 7 Term Kep. 165 1212 
 
 Kingstoii-].y-the-Sea, 3 W. IJob. 152 698 (2), 754 
 
 Kingston- upou-Hull Dock Co. r. Browne, 2 1>. & Ad. 43 .... 885 
 ,, ,, ,, ,. r. Huntington, 2 Chit. 597 .. . 884 
 
 Kirbv V. Scimlia (Owners^ The Scindia, 4 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 84 ; 35 L. .1. 
 
 P. C. .53 ; L. R. 1 1'. C. 241 ; 12 Jur. (x.s.) 534 . . 641, 1013 
 
 .. r. Smith, 1 B. & AUl. 672 ; 19 R. R. 412 1195 
 
 Kiiby Hall, 52 L. J. Adm. 31 ; 8 P. D. 71 ; 48 L. T. 797 : 31 W. R. 658 ; 
 
 5 Asp. yi. C. 90 800, 817, 999 
 
 Kivchnei '■. Venu.s. 12 Moore, P. C. 361 ; 5 Jur. (n.s.) 395 ; 7 W. R. 
 
 455 . 367, 389, 428, 435, 443 
 
 Kirk -•. Cibbs, 1 H. & X. 810 : 26 L. ,1. Ex. 209 280 
 
 Kirkley ,-. Hodgson, 2 L). & Ky. 848 ; 1 11 & C. 588 ; 1 L. J. (u.s.) K. B. 
 
 185 .... ■ 38,172 
 
 Kish '•. Cory. 44 L. .1. <,». B. 205 ; L. R. 10 Q. B. 553 ; 32 L. T. 670 ; 23 
 
 W. R. '880 ; 2 A.sj). M. C. 593— E.\. Ch 449, 491 
 
 KitcliHii c. Irvine. 8 El. & Bl. 789; 28 L. .T. Q. B. 46; 5 Jur. (n.s.) 
 
 118 177 
 
 Kjobeidiavn, 30 L. T. 136 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 213— P. C. . . 687, 693 (2), 705 
 Kleinwort • Casa .Maritinia of Genoa, 2 Aj'p. Cas. 156 ; 36 L. T. 118 ; 25 
 
 W. R. 60S ; 3 Asp. U. C. 358— P. C 212 
 
 <: Shepard, 1 El. k El. 447 ; 28 L. J. (). !'.. 147 ; 5 Jur. (x.s.) 
 
 863 ; 7 W. R. 227 1107,1176 
 
 Klingender c. Bond, 14 East, 484 : 13 IL K. 292 1203 
 
 ,, (". Home and Colonial Insurance Co., 15 L. T. 16 . . . 1238 
 
 Knarwater, 63 L. J. Adm. 65 ; 6 R. 784 801 
 
 Knight '•. Berry, Holt, 647 ; Carth. 26 ; Comb. 109 .... 929 
 
 r. Cambr-dge. 1 Str. 581 ; Cowp. 153 ; 2 Ld. Ravm. 1349 ; 1 
 
 Jlod. 230 ■ . . .106 
 
 r. Coates, (1838) 1 Ir. L. R. 53 54 
 
 ',, ". Cote.sworth, 1 Cab. & E. 48 1192 
 
 r. Faith, 15 (,>. B. 649 ; 19 L. J. Q. B. 509 ; 14 Jur. 1114 . 1062, 1299. 
 
 1300 
 Knill i-. Hooper, 2 H. & N. 277 ; 26 L. J. E.\. 377 : 5 W. R. 791 . .1154 
 Knox ''. ilayne, Ir. Hep. 7 C. L. 557 ....... 545 
 
 „ r. Wood, 1 Camp. 543 ; 10 R. R. 746 1136,1138 
 
 Knutsford, [1891] P. 219; 64 L. T. 352; 39 W. K. 559; 7 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 33 1000 
 
 Koebel v. Sann<lfir.s, 17 C. B. (n.s.) 71 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 310 ; 10 Jur. (n.s.) 
 
 920 ; 10 L. T. 695 ; 12 W. R. 1106 501,' 1156, 1177 
 
 Kong JIagnus (Lien), [1891] P. 223 ; 63 L. T. 715 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 583 . 719 
 (Interest), [1891] P. 223; 65 L. T. 231 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 64 . 729 
 Kopitoff/;. Wilson. 45 E. J. (,). B. 436 ; 1 Q. B. D. 377; 34 L. T. 677 ; 24 
 
 W. R. 70t) ; 3 Asp. i\I. C. 163 258 
 
 Ko.ster r. Easoii, 2 M. & S. 112 ; 14 R. R. 603 1342 
 
 ,, r. Innes, Ry. & M. 333 ; 27 R. H. 733 1086 
 
 ,, r. Reed. 6 B. k C. 19 ; 9 D. & R. 2 ; 30 R. B. 239 . . . 1086 
 
 Krall c. Burnett, 25 \V. R. 305 367, 406 
 
 Krecft '.-. 'i'honipson, Gabarrow r. Kreeft, 44 L. J. Ex. 238; L. R. 10 Ex. 
 
 274 ; 33 L. T. 365 ; 24 W. R. 146 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 36 . . . 365 
 
 Kreuger -•. Blanck, 39 L. J. Ex. 160; L. R. 5 Ex. 179; 23 L. T. 128 : 18 
 
 W. R. 813 494 
 
 Kionprinz. The Ardandhu, 56 L. J. Adm. 49 ; 12 App. Cas. 256 ; 56 
 
 L. T. 3! 5 ; 25 W. R. 783 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 124— H. L. (K.) . . 751 
 
 Krunse r. Drynan, 18 Ct. of Sess. Ca.s. (4th ser.) 1110 .... 490 
 
 Kulcn Kemp c. Vignc, 1 Term Rep. 304 ; 1 R. R. 205 .... 1104 
 
 Kyna.stoM /-. Liddell, 8 Jloore, 223 ....... 1321 
 
 Kynter's <,'a.se, Li'on. pt. 1,46. . . . . . . . 150 
 
 Lack V. Seward, 4 Car. & P. 106 685,691 
 
 La Constancia (or Con.stancia) (Bottomry; Towage), 2 W. Rob. 404, 
 
 460; 10 Jur. 845; 4 Not. of Cas. 285, 
 
 512, 677 221 
 
 ,, ,, ,, (Aihniraltv ; Average). 4 Not. of Cas. 512, 
 
 677 ; 10 Jur. 845 ...'.... 582,592,922 
 
 S. f
 
 kxviii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 La Constancia (or Coiistancia) (Bottomry ; Viaticum), 15 W. R. 
 
 183 ■ 113, 218 
 
 La Cour v. Donaldson, 1 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 912 .... 473 
 
 La Plata, Swabey, 220, 298 698, 700, 82_2 
 
 La Purissinia Conceiicion (Salvajjre ; Agreement to Refer), 13 Jur. 545 . 595, 
 
 659, 980 
 
 La Ysabel, 1 Uods. 273 205 
 
 Lacon v. LiHen, 32 L. J. Ch. 315 ; 9 Jur. iN.s.) 477 ; 7 L. T. 774 ; H 
 
 W. R. 474— L. 1"4 
 
 Laconia, Pajiayanni v. Russian Steam Navigation and Trading Co., 2 
 
 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 161 948 
 
 Ladbroke v. Orickett, 2 Term Rep. 649 ; 1 R. R. 571 . . 227, 228, 979 
 
 Ladbrooke v. Lee, 4 Ue G. & Sm. 106 1349 
 
 Lady Ann (Collision), 7 Not. of Uas. 364 846 
 
 Lady Anne (Collision ; Negligence), 15 Jur. 18 ; see S. C, 7 Not. of Cas. 
 
 '370 699, 804, 826 
 
 Lady Blessington, 34 L. J. Adm. 72 961 
 
 Lady Campbell, 2 Hag. Adm. 5 131 
 
 Lady Cranstown, cited 2 Hag. Adm. 207 622 
 
 Lady Downshire, 48 L. J. Adm. 41 ; 4 P. D. 26 ; 39 L. T. 236 ; 27 
 
 W. R. 648 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 25 711, 798, 829 
 
 Lady Durham, 3 Hag. Adm. 196 . . . . 107, 112 (2), 119 (2), 1126 
 
 Lady Egidia, Lush. 513 611 
 
 Lady Flora Hastings, 3 W. Rob. 118 680 
 
 Lady Jocelyn, 12 Jur. (x..s.)965 813 
 
 Lady Katherine Barham, Lush. 404 ; 5 L. T. 693 . . . 599, 662, 670 
 Lady of the Lake, 39 L. J. Adm. 40 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 29 ; 21 L. T. 683 ; 
 
 '18 W. R. 528 958 
 
 Lady Wodehouse. 2 Times L. R. 252 831 
 
 Lady Worsley, 2 Spinks, 253 599 
 
 Laertes, Cargo c.r, 56 L. J. Adm. 108 ; 12 P. D. 187 ; 57 L. T. 502 ; 36 
 
 W. R. Ill; 6 Asp. M. C. 174 326.620 
 
 Lagan, otherwise The Mimax, 3 Hag. Adm. 418 . . . 89, 162, 956 
 
 Laidler v. IJurlinson, 2 il. & W. 602 22 
 
 Laing v. Glover, 5 Taunt. 49 . . .1168 
 
 ,, V. Hollway, 47 L. J. Q. B. 512 ; 3 Q. B. D. 437 ; 26 W. R. 769— 
 
 C. A 458 
 
 Laird v. Brownlie, The Ulster (Collision), Lush. 424 ; 1 Moore, P. C. (x.s.) 
 
 31 ; 8 Jur. (N.S.) 1067 ; 6 L. T. 736 ; 10 W. R. 794 . 696, 699 
 ,, V. Brownlie, The Ulster (Practice ; Appeal), 1 Moore, P. C. (n..s. ) 
 
 31 ; 10 W. R. 794 1012, 1013 
 
 ,, V. Robertson, 4 Bro. P. C. 488 1043 
 
 Lake Megantic, 36 L. T. 183 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 382 . . . . 864, 1009 
 Lake St. Clair. The, and The Underwriter, Wilson v. Canada Shipping Co., 
 
 2 App. Cas. 389 ; 36 L. T. 155 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 361— P. C. . 698, 701, 809, 
 
 815, 859 
 
 Lamare v. London and St. Katherine's Dock Co., 39 L. T. 330 . . 912 
 
 Lamb v. Burnett, 1 C. & J. 291 ; ] Tyr. 265 ; 9 L. J. (o.s.) Ex. 55 . . 136 
 
 ,, V. Kaselack, 9 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 482 ... . 491 
 
 Lambert v. Aeretree, 1 Ld. Raym. 223 953 
 
 r. Liddard, 1 Marsh. 149 ; 5 Taunt. 480; 15 R. R. 557 . 1057, 1221, 
 
 1325 
 Lambtou, Ex parte (or Greener, Ex parte), Lindsay, I)i re, 44 L. J. 
 Bk. 81 ; L. R. 10 Ch. 405 ; 32 L. T. 380 ; 23 W. R. 602 ; 2 Asp. 
 
 .M. C. 525 ■ 22 
 
 Laming Co. v. Seater, 16 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 828 . . .177 
 
 Lanarkshire, 2 Spinks, 189 952 
 
 Lancashire (Collision ; Fog), L. R. 4 A. & E. 198 ; 29 L. T. 927 ; 2 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 202 693, 700, 804 
 
 ,, (Collision ; Stop and Reverse), 63 L. J. Adm. 80 ; [1894] App. 
 
 Cas. 1 ; 6 R. 46 ; 69 L. T. 663 ; 7 A.sp. M. C. 376— H. L. (E.) . 817 
 Laucister, 9 P. D. 14 ; 49 L. T. 705 ; 36 W. R. 608 ; 5 A.sp. M. C. 174— 
 
 C. A 639, 646 
 
 V. Eve, 5 C. B. (x.s.) 717 ; 28 L. J. C. P. 255; 5 Jur. (n..s.) 
 
 683 .880 
 
 Landsdown, John, Ex parte, 5 East, 38 138 
 
 Lane r. Cotton, 12 Mod. 472 75 
 
 ,, V. Nixon, 35 L. J. C. P. 243 ; L. R. 1 C. P. 412 ; 12 Jur. (n.s.) 392 ; 
 
 14 AV. R. 641 ; .1159 
 
 Lang V. Anderton, 5 D. & R. 393 ; 3 'V>. k C. 495 ; 1 Car & P. 171 ; 3 
 
 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 62 ; 27 R. R. 412 1164 
 
 Linghorn v. Allnutt, 4 Taunt. 511 ; 13 R. R. 663 . . . 1219, 1260, 1306
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Ixxix 
 
 Lauglioni v. L'ologun, 4 Taunt. 830 ; 13 R. R. 613 1041 
 
 ,, V. Hardy, i Taunt. 628 ; 13 K. 11. 708 10.^,6 
 
 Laugton y. Horton, 5 Beav. 9 ; 11 L. .1. Ch. "233 ; 6 Jur. 357, 594 ; see 
 
 also S. C. 1 Hare, 549 ; 11 L. J. Cli. 299 . 155, 170, 177, 542, 543 
 
 Lannoy r. Werry, 4 Bro. P. C. 630 460 
 
 Lano V. Neale, 2 Stark. 105 148 
 
 Lanyon r. Blanchanl, 2 Camp. 597 ; 11 R. R. 808 1347 
 
 Lapraik v. Burrows, The Austialia, 13 ]\loore, P. C. 132 ; Swabev, 480 : 7 
 
 W. R. 718 37, lbr>, 1.^)8, 161, 164, 946 
 
 Lapwing, The Hochung and The, China ]\Ierchants' Steam Navigation Co. 
 
 V. Bignokl, 7 App. Cas. 5i2; 51 L. J. P. C. 92; 47 L. T. 485 ; 31 
 
 AV. R. 303 ; 5 As]., M. C. 39 709, 738, 792, 843 
 
 Larnax, The, C. M. Palmer and The, 29 L. T. 120 ; 2 Asp M. C. 94— 
 
 P. C 693, 694, 787, 1011 
 
 Laroche i: Oswin. 12 East, 131 ; 11 R. R. 337 .... 1214, 1218 
 
 Lateward f. Curling, 1 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 288 1247 
 
 Latham v. Chartered Bank of India, 43 L. J. Ch. 612 ; L. R. 17 E>[. 205; 
 
 29 L. T. 795 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 178 364 
 
 Latlnvell r. Fisher, 1 Keb. 334 300 
 
 Laura, Dionissis i\ The Queen, 3 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 181 ; 12 L. T. 685 ; 
 
 13 W. R. 369 27, 1013 
 
 Laurel (Bottomry), Br. & Lush. 317: 11 -hir, (m.s.) 46; 13 W. R. 352 199, 
 
 201, 224 
 i Pleading), Br. .t Lush. 191 ; 33 L. J. Adm. 17; 9 L. T. 457 199, 
 
 1019 
 Lauretta, 48 L. J. Adm. 55 ; 4 P. D. 25 ; 40 L. T. 444 ; 27 AV. R. 902 ; 
 
 4 A,sp. M. C. 118 861 
 
 Laurie v. Douglas, 15 jM. & W. 746 330, 335, 342 
 
 Lauritzen v. Carr, 72 L. T. 56 . . . . . . . . 347 
 
 Lavabre V. Wilson, 1 Dongl. 284 ........ 1213 
 
 Laveroni v. Drury, 8 Ex. 166 ; 22 L. .1. Ex. 2 ; 16 .Jur. 1024 ; 1 W. R. 
 
 55 340 
 
 Law V. Hollingsworth, 7 Term Rep. 160 . . . . . . .1158 
 
 Lawrence v. Abcrdein, 5 B. .*c Aid. 107 ; 24 R. R. 299 . . . . 1074 
 
 ,, V. Sydebotham, 6 East, 45 : 2 Smith, 214 ; S R. R. 3^5 . . 1223 
 
 Laws V. Smith. The Rio Tinto, 9 Ap]i. Cas. 356; 50 L. T. 461 ; 5 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 224— P. C 946, 964 
 
 Lawson r. Burness, 1 H. & C. 396 ; 10 W. R. 733. S.C, Xisi Prius, 2 
 
 F. k ¥. 793 474 
 
 ,, '•. Carr, The .lames, Swabev, 60 ; 10 .Moore, P. C. 162 ; 4 W. 1!. 
 
 353— P. C. . . ". . . . 699, 708, 789, 793, 806 
 
 ,, r. Dumlin, 9 C. B. 54 144 
 
 ,, ('. Grangemoutii Dockyanl Co., 15Ct. ofSess. Cas. (4th sei.) 753 612 
 Lawther v. Belfast Harljour Co., 17 Ir. Ch. Kep. 54 .... 433 
 
 Leader, 37 L. J. Adm. 57 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 314 ; 18 L. T. 767 ; 17 W. P. 
 
 61 972 
 
 Lcary y. Lloyd, 3 El. ^^ El. 178 ; 29 L. J. M. C. 194 ; 6 .lur. iN.<.) 1246 l:'.3, 
 
 139 
 Leask r. Seott, 46 L. .). «,». 15. 576 ; 2 Q. P.. I). 376 ; 36 L. T. 7-> I ; 25 
 
 W. R. 654 ; 3 A.sp. M. C. 469— C. A 347 
 
 Leatham 1-. Terry, 3 Bos. & P. 479 1295 
 
 Leathers. Simpson, 40 L. .1. Ch. 177 : L. 1.'. 11 Ei|. 398 ; 24 E. T. 2>i6 ; 
 
 19 W. R. 431 ; 1 Asp. .M. C. 5 366 
 
 Leathlcy v. Hunter, 5 M. & P. 457 ; 7 Hiiig. 517 ; 1 C. & J. 423 ; 1 Tvr. 
 
 355; 9 L. J. (.j.s.) Ex. 118— E.v. Ch. 1220 
 
 Lebanon, Avery v. Bowden, 6 El. k Bl. 953 ; 26 L. .1. (.>. 1!. 3 ; 3 .lur. 
 
 (N.s.) 238 ; 5 W. It. 4 5— Ex. Ch 283 
 
 Lebeau v. General Steam Navigntion Co.. 12 !,. .1. C. P. 1 ; L. R. 8 C. 1'. 
 
 88 ; 27 L. T. 447 ; 21 W. K. MH ; 1 Asj.. .M. C. 435 . . 306, 321 
 
 Le P)ian('li y. Granger, 35 ISeav. 187 292 
 
 Le Caux V. Ed(ai, 2 Dougl. 594 952 
 
 Le Cheniiiiant r. Alliintt, Le Clieniinant r. Pearson, 4 Taunt. 367 ; 13 
 
 ii. R. 636 26, 1109, 1259 
 
 ,, V. Pearson. See Le Cheminant v. Allnutt, mcpra. 
 
 LeCrasy. Hughes, The Omou Case, 3 Dougl. 81 ; 2 Park. Ins. (8th ed.| 
 
 568 . ^ 1139, 11 J3 
 
 Leda (Costs), Br. & Lush. 19: 32 E. .1. Ailm. 58 ; 9 .lur. (S.n.) 208; 7 
 
 L. T. 864 ; 11 W. 1!. 302 855,1018 
 
 ,, (Salvage), Swabey, 40 ; 2 .lur. (n.s.) 119 ; 4 W. R. 322 . 596, 661, 663 
 Leddy V. Gib.soii, 11 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 304 . . 73, 83, 135 (Addenda) 
 Leduc V. Ward, 57 L. .J. (). B. 379 ; 20 i,>. U. D. 475 ; 58 L. T. 908 ; 36 
 
 W. R. 537 ; 6 Asp. .M. C. 290— C. A 310, 331 
 
 Lee, 30 L. T. 939 ; 6 Asp. .M. C. 395 676 
 
 ./-2
 
 Ixxx TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Leo, E.i' pti/rfe (In^nvanoc ; Hostile rro|ierty), 13 ^'^^s. 04 . . . . 1142 
 
 ,, ., (Insurance: Hankruptcv), 1 Km. C. ('. 100 . . . 1334 
 
 ,, y. Beech, 1 Park. Ins. (Stheil.) 46.S 1152 
 
 ,, V. Bullen, 8 El. & Bl. 692, //. : 27 I.. .1. (,>. V,. lOl ; 4 .lur. (x.s.) Hf./ 1310 
 „ V. Southern Insurance Co., 39 L. .1. C. 1'. 218 ; L. K. f. C. V. 397 ; 
 
 22 L. T. 443 ; 18 W. K. 863 1273 
 
 Leecli V. Seward, 4 Car. & T. 106 690 
 
 Leer v. Yates, 3 Taunt. 387 ; 12 1!. \l. 671 486 
 
 Lees v. Smith, 7 Term Rc]i. 338 . . . . . . . .1351 
 
 Leeviu v. Cormac, 4 Taunt. 488, ,>. ; 13 1!. 1!. 6.')4 .... 1204, 1306 
 
 Les^atus, Swabey, 168 ; 5 AV. R. 154 731 
 
 Lecj^e V. Boy.l. 1 C. B. 92 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 138 : 9 Jur. 307 ... 949 
 Leideman v. Sehultz. 14 C. B. 38 ; 2 C. L. K. 8/ ; 2:; L. J. C. 1". 17 ; IS 
 
 Jur. 42 509 
 
 Leigh I'. Adams, 25 L. T. 566 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 147 . . . . 1190, 1193 
 
 ,, r. Hurley, Owen, 122 929 
 
 „ r. Mather, 1 Ks]i. 412 ; 5 B. K. 740 1056 
 
 Leitch/'. Wilson, 7 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3vd ser.) 150 384 
 
 Leith, 7 Not. of Cas. 137 809 
 
 Leith, Hull and Hamliuri,' Steam Packet Co. v. Lord Advocate, 11 Ct. of 
 
 Sess. Cas. (3rdser.)597 26 
 
 Leitrim (Countess) v. Burns, The RossguU and Tlie Spaniel, 24 Ct. of Sess. 
 
 Cas. (4th ser.) 993 817 
 
 Le Jonet, 41 L. J. Adm. 95 ; L. R. 3 A. .%. E. 556 ; 27 L. T. 387 ; 21 
 
 AV. R. S3 ; 1 Ss\). M. C. 438 632 
 
 Leman v. Gordon 6 Car. & P. 392 1343 
 
 Le Jlesurier v. A^aughan, 6 East, 382 ; 2 Smith, 492 : 8 R. R. 500 . 1149 
 
 Lemington, 32 L. T. 69 ; 23 AV. R. 422 ; 2 Asp. lAI. ('. 475 . . . 720 
 
 Lemuella, Lush. 147 ; 30 L. J. Adm. 1 1023 
 
 Lena, The Hannah Park and The, 14 L. T. 075 .... 702, 796 
 Leunard v Robinson, 5 Kl. & P.l. 125 ; 3 C. L. R. 1363 ; 24 L. .T. Q. B. 
 
 275 ; 1 Jur. (n.s.) 853 233 
 
 Leo, Lush. 444 ; 31 L. J. Adm. 78 : 6 L. T. 58 . . . 721, 852, 856 
 Leon, 50 L. J. Adm. 59 ; 6 P. D. 148 ; 44 L. T. 613; 29 AV. R. 916 ; 4 
 
 Asp. M. C. 404 717, 759, 994 
 
 Leon XIII. , AVardrop r. The Leon XIII. (Owners), 52 L. J. Adm. 58 ; 8 
 
 P. D. 121 ; 48 L. T. 770 ; 31 AV. K. 882 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 73— C. A. . 124 
 Lepanto, 66 L. T. 623 ; [1892] P. 122 ; 7 Asp. M. ('. 192 . . 611, 642 
 
 Lepool and Tryau's Case, Style, 470 936 
 
 Leptir, 52 L. t. 768 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 411 375^ 
 
 Le Seigneur Atlmiral (or Duke of York) v. Linstred, 1 Kel). 657 ; 1 Sid. 
 
 pt. 1, 178 935 
 
 Leslie, £'.'• pmie, Drury, In re, 3 L. J. Bk. 4 ...... 44 
 
 V. Guthrie, 1 Seott, 683 ; 1 Bing. (n.c.) 697 ; 4 L. J. C. P. 227 . 394 
 
 v. AVilson, 6 Aloore, 415 ; 3 Br. & B. 171 ; 23 R. P. 605 . . 551 
 
 L'Esperauce, 1 Do<ls. 46 ....... . . 641 
 
 Letchford v. Oldham, 49 L. J. <}. P>. 458 ; 5 (}. B. D. 538 : 28 AV. R. 789 
 
 — C. A 1095 
 
 Lethulier'sCase, 2Salk. 443 1168 
 
 Letricheux v. Dunlop, 19 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 209 . . . . 489 
 Leuckhart c. Cooper, 3 Bing. (x.c) 99 ; 3 Seott, 521 : 6 L. J. C. P. 
 
 131 .594 
 
 Leuw V. Dudgeon, 37 L. J. C. P. 5, n. ; L. R. 3 C. P. 17, m. ; 17 L. T. 
 
 145 ; 16 W. R. 80 341 
 
 Lever y. Fletcher, 1 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 507 1205 
 
 Leverington, 55 L. J. Adm. 78 ; 11 P. D. 117 ; 55 L. T. 386 ; 6 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 7— C. A 811 (2), 823 
 
 Levi 1'. Allnutt, 15 East, 267 1173 
 
 ,, V. Barnes, Holt, N. P. 412 1344 
 
 ,, (or Levy) r. A^aughan, 4 Taunt. 387 ; 13 R. R. 643 .... 1173 
 Levin (or Sevin) v. Dcslaudes, 30 L. J. Ch. 457 ; 7 Jur. (x.s.) 837 ; 3 
 
 L. T. 461 ; 9 AV. R. 218 291 
 
 ,, ??. Newnham, 4 Taunt. 722 ; 14 R. R. 648 1176 
 
 Levin Lank, Swabey, 45 ......... 980 
 
 Levy V. Barnard, 2 Moore, 34 ; 8 Taunt. 149 ; 19 R. R. 484 . . 1347, 1348 
 ,, V. Costertou, Holt, N. P. 167; 4 Camp. 389; 1 Stark. 212; 16 
 
 R. R. 808 279 
 
 ,, V. ^Merchants' Marine Insurance Co., 1 Cab. & E. 474 ; 52 L. T. 263 : 
 
 5Asp, M. C. 407 1136,1239 
 
 ,, (or Levi) v. A'aughan, 4 Taunt. 387 ; 13 P. P. 643 .... 1173 
 
 Lewin v. East India Co., Peake, 318 ; 3 R. P. 700 252 
 
 Lewis V. Burkes (or Bankes), 4 C. B. (n.s.) 330 : 27 L. J. C. P. 247 ; 4 
 
 Jur. (N.s.) 663; AV. R. 652 1322
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxi 
 
 Lewis V. Gray, 45 L. .1. C. 1'. 720 ; 1 (". P. 1). ir,-2 : 34 L. T. 4-21 ; y A.sp. 
 
 31. C. 13() 877 
 
 ,, V. Jewliurst, !"» L. T. 275 13;j 
 
 ,, V. Marshall, 7 Man. & G. 729 ; S Scott (x.K.) 729 ; 13 L. J. G. P. 
 
 193 ; 8 Jur. 84S 2."*4, 419, 499 
 
 ,, r. M'Kee, 38 L. .T. Ex. 62 : L. R. 4 Ex. 5S ; 19 L. T. .'r22 : 17 
 
 W. R. 325— Ex. Cli .348 
 
 ,, V. Rucker, 2 Burr. 1167 1138 
 
 Leycester v. Loj^an Limitation Action ), 3 K. & .). 44t) ; 2tj L. .1. Cli. 306 ; 
 
 5 \V. R. 334 . 740, 745, 750 
 
 ., V. Lo<?an (Limitation ; Value\ 4 Iv. & .J. 725 ; 6 AV. R. 849 . 739 
 Libra, 6 P. D. 139 ; 45 L. T. 161 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 429 . . 785, S20, 831 
 Lickbarrow v. Mason, 4 Bro. P. C. 57 ; 1 H. Bl. 357 : 2 H. Bl. 211 ; 2 
 Term Rep. 63 : 5 Term Rep. 367, 683 ; 6 Term Rep. 131 ; 1 R. R. 
 
 425 ; and see 6 East, 20, ii 343, 350, 568 
 
 Li.Mard i: Lopes, 10 East, 526 ; 10 R. R. 368 378 
 
 Lidgett V. Perriu, 11 G. B. (x..s.) 362 ; 2 F. & F. 763 .... 406 
 ,, V. Secretan (Duration of Risk), 39 L. J. G. P. 196 ; E. 1!. 5 C. P. 
 
 190; 22 L. T. 272; 18 W. R. 692 1065 
 
 ,, u. Secretan (Valued Policy), 40 L. J. G. P. 257; L. R. 6 G. P. 
 
 616 ; 24 L. T. 942 ; 19 W. R. lOSS ; 1 A.sp. M. G. 95 . . 1141 
 
 ,, I'. Williams, 4 Hare, 464 ; 14 L. J. Gh. 459. . . 53, 58, 236, 500 
 
 Lidskjalf, Swabey, 117 695(2) 
 
 Lilfey, 58 L. T. 351 ; 6 Asp. M. G. 255 594, 624 
 
 Ligo, 2 Hag. Adm. 356 .... ..... 701 
 
 Lilly y. Ewer, 1 Doiigl. 72 1169 
 
 ,, V. Stevenson, 22 Gt. of Sess. Gas. (4tli ser.) 27S .... 489 
 
 Lima, 4 Jur. (n.s.) 147 736 (Addenda) 
 
 Limerick (Mortgage: ilaster\ 1 P. J). 292 ; 34 L. T. 70S ; 3 Asp. ,M. G. 
 
 206— G. A 190 
 
 ,, (Master; Disbursements), I P. D. 411 ; 34 L. T. 70S : 3 Asp. 
 
 M. G. 206— G. A 94, 103 
 
 Limerick Harbour Gonimissioners v. Knne, 2 L. \l. Ir. 473 . . . 902 
 
 Limland r. Stepliens, 3 Esi). 269 129 
 
 Linda, 4 Jur. fx.s.) 146 ; 6 W. R. 196 628,728 
 
 Linda Flor, Swabey, 309 ; 4 Jur. (n.s.) 172 ; 6 W. R. 197. 119, 120, 719, 761 
 
 Lindo V. Rodney, 2 Dougl. 612, ;( 952 
 
 Lindsay, Ir. Rep. 1 Eq. 259 728 
 
 ,, III re, Lambton, Kv parte (or Greener, Kr parte), 4 1 L. J. Bk. 81 ; 
 L. R. 10 Ch. 405 ; 32 L. T. 380 ; 23 W. ].'. 602 ; 2 Asp. M. G. 
 
 525 22 
 
 ,, V. GiblKs (Register; Freight), 22 Beav. 522 ; 2 Jur. is.a.) 1039 ; 
 
 4 W. R. 788 .29,181,393,444 
 
 ,, c. Gibbs (Go-owners ; Freight), 2 De G. & J. 690 ; 28 L. J. Gb. 
 
 692 ; 5 Jur. (.\.s.) 376 ; 7 AV. R. 320— L.JJ. 49, 50 (2). ■115, 1047 
 
 ,, r. Janson, 4 H. & X. 699 ; 28 L. J. Ex. 315 . . . . 1066 
 
 V. Lcathley, 3 E. & F. 902 ; 11 L. T. 194 . . . .1288 
 
 ,, « Scliolicld, 24 Gt. of Sess. Gas. (4th ser.) 530 .... 342 
 
 Linstrcd v. i^e Seigneur Admiral (or The Duke of York\ 1 Iveb. 657 : 1 
 
 Sid. jit. 1, 178 . . . 935 
 
 Lion (Deatii of Plaintiir, 19 \V. R. 168; 1 Asp. M. G. 321 . . 924 
 
 ,, (Compulsory Pilot), 'J'he Lion (Owners) t'. The Yorktown (Owners), 6 
 Moore, P. G. Cx.s.) 163; 38 L. J. Adm. 51 ; L. R. 2 1'. G. 525 : 21 
 
 L. T. 41 ; 17 W. R. 993 7«:-, 776, 784 
 
 Lion .Mutual Marine lnsuran(;c A.isociation /■. 'I'ucker, 53 1,. .1. i). W. ls5 ; 
 
 12 <,>. 15. I». 176 : 49 L. T. 761 ; 32 W. R. 516— ('. A. . . 1362 
 
 Tiip.son c. Harrison, 2 \V. R. 10 . . . . . . .",<i5 
 
 Li.sbon, \v. Ii'cp. 1 V.'\. IN. (J03 
 
 Lishman o. ("hiistie, 56 E. J. (,l. P>. 538 ; 19 (,>. B. D. .•J33 ; 57 ii. 'i\ 552; 
 
 35 W. 1!. 744 ; 6 Asj). ,M. G. 186— C. A 322 
 
 ,, V. Northern Jlaritinie Insurance Co., 44 L. .1. C P. 185 ; L. R. 
 10 G. P. 179 ; 32 L. T. 170; 23 W, R. 733 : 2 Asp. .M. G. 504 — 
 
 E.Y. Gh 1062, 1180 
 
 Lisniorc, Ganliner v. Alacfarlanc, 20 (Jl, of Scss. Gas. i'lth ser.) 414 . 482 
 
 Lister v. I'.axt.er, Str. 695 . . . 225 
 
 ,, c. Payn, 11 Sim. 34S 103, 184 
 
 ,, V. Vail Haansbergen, 45 E. J. •.>. li. 495 ; 1 <,>. li. D. 269 ; 34 L. T. 
 
 446 ; 24 W. R. .395 ; 3 Asp. .M. G. 1 15 446 
 
 Little V. Burns, The Owla7id The Ariadne, 9 Gt. of Sess. Gas. (Ith ser.) lis 787, 
 
 803. 810 (2) 
 „ V. Port Talbot Co., TJie A]ml]o, r,\ ].. .1. Adm. 25; [1891] App. 
 Gas. 499; 65 L. T. 590; 7 Asj.. .M. C. 115; 55 J. P. M.'o— 
 H. L. (E.) 911
 
 Ixxxii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Littlo r. Stevenson, 6fi L. J. P. C. 09 ; [1896] App. Cas. lOS ; 74 L. T. 
 
 r.29; 8 Asp. M. C. ]t5-2— H. L. (So.) 465 
 
 Little .loe, Lush. 88 : 6 Jur. (n..s.) 783 ; 2 L. T. 473 . . . 603, 606 
 Little Lizzie, L. R. 3 A. & E. 56 ; 23 L. T. 84 ; 18 W. R. 96() . 673, 847 
 
 Littledale r. Dixon, 1 Bos. & P. (x.ii.) 151 ; 8 R. R. 774 . . 1195, 1199 
 
 Lively, 3 \V. Rob. 64 622 
 
 Liver Alkali Co. v. Johnson, 43 L..T. Ex. 216 ; L. R. 9 Ex. 338 ; 31 L. T. 
 
 95 : 2 Asn. M. C. 332— Ex. OIi 74 (2) 
 
 Liverpool, [1893] P. 154 ; 1 R. 601 ; 68 L. T. 719 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 340 612, 614 
 Liver) >ool Borough Bank r. Turner, 2 De G. F. & J. 502 : 30 L. J. Ch. 
 
 379 ; 7 Jur. (n.s.) 150 ; 3 L. T. 494 ; 9 AV. R. 292— L.C. 38, 148, 154, 174 
 Liverpool, Brazil and River Plate Steam Navigation Co. r. P>enham, The 
 Hallev, 5 Moore. P. C. (x.s.) 263 : 37 L. J. Adm. 33 ; L. R. 2 P. C. 
 193 ; 18 L. T. 879 : 16 W. R. 998 . . . . • 720,^ 759, 760 
 Liverpool, Brazil and River Plate Steam Xavigation Co. r. Holmes. The 
 Copernicus, 45 L. J. Adm. 108 ; [1896] P. 237 ; 74 L. T. 757 ; 8 
 
 Asp, M. C. 166— C. A 1069 
 
 Liveriiool Marine Credit Co. r. Hunter, 37 L. J. Ch. 386 ; L. P. 3 Ch. 
 
 479 ; 18 L. T. 749 ; 16 W R. 1090— 
 
 L.JJ 185 
 
 V. AVilson, 41 L. J. Ch. 798 ; L. P. 7 Ch. 
 507 ; 26 L. T. 717 ; 20 W. P. 665 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 323 . 179, 193, 396 
 
 Livia, 25 L. T 887 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 204 771 
 
 Livie V. Janson, 12 East, 648 ; 11 R. R. 513 1093, 1175 
 
 Livietta (Salvage ; Derelict), 8 P. D. 24 ; 48 L. T. 799 ; 21 W. R. 643 ; 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 132— C. A 649 
 
 (Salvac^e ; Solicitor's Lien), 52 L. J. Adm. 81 ; 8 P. D. 209 ; 49 
 
 "l. T. 411 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 151 121. 665, 972 
 
 Livingstone, Swabey, 519 708, 793 
 
 Lizzie, L. R. 2 A. & E. 254 ; 19 L. T. 71 211 
 
 Liubica, 23 L. T. 474 850 
 
 Lloyd 7-. Fleming, Lloyd r. Spence, 41 L. J. Q. B. 93 ; L. R. 7 Q. B. 299 : 
 
 25 L. T. 824 ; 20 W. R. 296 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 192 . . . 1312 
 V. General Iron Screw Collier Co., 3 H. & C. 284 ; 33 L. J. Ex. 269 ; 
 
 10 Jur. (N-.s.) 661 ; 10 L. T. 586 ; 12 W. R. 882 . . .829 
 , r. Guibert, 6 B. & S. 100 ; 35 L. J. Q. B. 74 ; L. R. 1 Q. B. 115 : 
 
 13 L. T. 602— Kx. Ch 84, 214, 240 
 
 ,, r. Iron, 4 F. & F. 101 915 
 
 ,, v. Spence. See Lloyd r. Fleming, siqrra. 
 Lloyds, The (or The Sea Queen), Br. & Lush. 359; 32 L. J. Adm. 197 ; 9 
 
 L. T. 236 781 
 
 Lochiel, 2 W. Rob. 34 205 
 
 Lochlibo, Pollok v. McAli.in, 7 Moore, P. C. 427. Reversing 3 W. Rob. 
 
 310; 14 Jur. 1074 .... 763, 771, 772, 773 (2), 775 (2), 804 
 Lockhart >: Falk, 44 L. J. Ex. 105 ; L. R. 10 Ex. 132 ; 33 L. T. 96 ; 23 
 
 W. R. 753 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 8 435. 446, 447, 492 
 
 Lockwoods, 9 Jur. 1017 602 
 
 Lockyer /'. Offley, 1 Term Rep. 252 ; 1 R. R. 194 1065 
 
 Lodergreen r. Flight, 6 East, 622, «. : 8 R. R. 578 . . . . 432 (2) 
 
 Lohrc /•. Aitehison, 49 L. J. Adm. 123 ; 4 App. Cas. 755 ; 41 L. T. 323 ; 
 
 28 VV. R. 1 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 168— H. L. (E.) . . . 580, 631, 1268 
 London (Costs), Br. & Lush. 82 ; 9 Jur. (n.s.) 1330 ; 9 L. T. 348 . . 859 
 
 „ (Port Tack Ship), 6 Not. of Cas. 29 806,824 
 
 London (or City of London), Morgan r. Sim (Collision ; Burden of Proof), 
 
 11 Moore, P. C. 307 : Swabey, 245, 300 : 5 W. R. 678 788, 789, 793, 847 
 London (Corporation) r. Hunt, 3 Lev. 37 ...... 83 
 
 London and Caledonian Marine Insurance Co. r. London and Edinburgh 
 
 Shipping Co., 5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 982 552 
 
 London and Edinburgh Shipping Co. r. The lona (Owners), The lona, 
 
 4 -Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 336 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 426 ; 16 L. T. 158 . . 770 
 London and Provincial Marine Insurance Co. r. Seymour, 43 L. J. Ch. 
 120 ; L. R. 17 E(i. 85 ; 29 L. T. 641 ; 22 W. R. 201 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 
 169 . . . _ ■ , • 1331 
 
 London and South Western Ry. Co. r. James, 42 L. J. Ch. 337; L. R. 8 Ch. 
 
 •241 ; 28 L. T. 48 : 21 W. R. 151 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 526 . . 746, 871 
 London A.ssociation of Shipowners v. London and India Docks Joint 
 Committee, [1892] 3 Ch. 242 ; 67 L. T. 238 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 195— 
 
 C. A. . 90i^ 
 
 London Dock Co. v. Sinnott, 8 El. & Bl. 347 ; 27 L. J. Q. B. 129 ; 4 
 
 Jur. (x.s.) 70; 6 W. R. 165 .904 
 
 London ;Marine Insurance Association, /// re, Andrewe's and Alexander's 
 Case, Chatt's Case, Cook's Case, Crew's Case, L. R. 8 Eq. 176; 20 
 L. T. 943 ; 17 W. R. 784 1364
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxiii 
 
 London Marine Assurance Association, In re. Smith's Case, 38 L. J. Cii. 
 
 681 ; L. R. 4 Ch. 611 ; 21 L. T. 97 ; 17 W. R. 941 . . 1033, 1360 
 
 London (Mayor) v. Hunt, 3 Lev. 37 83 
 
 London Merchant, 3 Hag. Adm. 394 635 (2) 
 
 London Packet, 2 Not. of Cas. 501 805, 809 
 
 London Steamship Owners' Insurance Co. (or Association) v. Grampian 
 Steamship Co., 59 L. J. Q. B. 549 ; 24 Q. B. D. 663 ; 62 L. T. 784 ; 
 
 38 W. R. 651 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 506— C. A 1084 
 
 Londonderry, 4 Not. of Cas. Suppl. xxxi 692, 787 
 
 Londonderry Harbour Commissioners r. Londonderry Bridge Commis- 
 sioners, [1894] 2 Ir. R. 384 . . . . ' . . ■ .888 
 
 Long u. Allen, 4 Dougl. 276 1169 
 
 „ V. Duff, 2 Bos. & r. 209 29, 1184 
 
 „ ?». Young, 2L. J. (().s.)Cii. 139 400 
 
 Long Newton, 59 L. T. 260; 6 Asp. M. C. 302 812 
 
 Lon<'ford (Costs ; Appearance), f L. J. Adm. 28 ; 6 P. D. 60 ; 44 L. T. 
 
 254 ; 29 W. R. 491 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 385 .... 1018 
 
 (Salvage), 50 L. J. Adm. 28 ; 6 P. D. 60 ; 44 L. T. 254 ; 29 
 
 W. R. 491 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 385 628, 629 
 
 (Notice of Action), 58 L. J. Adm. 33; 14 P. D. 34 ; 60 L. T. 
 
 '373 ; 37 W. R. 372 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 371— C. A 1005 
 
 Longridge r. Dorville, 5 B. & Aid. 117 763, 852 
 
 Loraine 0. Tomlinson, 2 Dougl. 585 1307 
 
 Lord Advocate v. Clyde Steam Navigation Co., L. R. 2 H. L. (Sc.) 409 ; 
 32 L. T. 287 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 502 ; 2 Ct. of Sess. Cus. 
 
 (4th ser.) 23 25, 749 
 
 V. Grant, 1 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 447 ; 32 L. T. 287 ; 
 
 2 Asp. M. C. 502 "3 
 
 Lord Auklaud, 2 W. Rob. 301 856 
 
 Lord Bangor, 65 L. J. Adm. ; [1896] P. 28 ; 11 R. 822 ; 73 L. T. 414 ; 
 
 8 Asp. M. C. 217 81^ 
 
 Lord Byron, cited Maud & Pollock on Shipping (4th ed.) 607 . • .798 
 
 Lord Cochrane (Bottomry), 1 W. Rob. 312 ; 1 Not. of Cas. 283 . 217, 227 
 
 2 W. Rob. 320 ; 3 Not. of Cas. 172 201, 202, 224 
 
 (Security for Costs) 1 ^Y. Rob. 35 864 
 
 Lord Hobart, 2 Dods. 100 90. 933, 952 
 
 Lord John Russell, The (,)ueen, 38 L. J. Adm. 39 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 354 ; 
 
 20 L. T. 855 713, 765 
 
 Lord Melville, cited 2 Shaw, Scotch App. Cas. 395 /35 
 
 Lord Nelson, Edwards, 79 631 
 
 Lord of the Isles, 64 L. J. Adtn. 15 : [1894] P. 342 ; 11 R. 736 ; 71 L. T. 
 
 92 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 500 681, 1084, 1316 
 
 Lord Snumarez, 6 Not. of Cas. 600 803 
 
 Lord Sealon, 2 W. Rob. 391 ; 4 Not. of Cas. 164 . . . • 847, 848 
 Lord Stanley, Fellows v. The Lord Stanley (Owners), [1893] 1 Q. B. 98 ; 
 
 5 R. 115 ; 67 L. T. 857 ; 41 W. R. 253 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 298 . . 945 
 Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports 7-. His Majesty in his Oliici^ of the 
 
 Admiralty, 2 Hag. Adm. 438 660 
 
 Loretta, 40 L. -f. Adm. 50 ; 24 L. T. 447 : 1 Asp. M. C. 19 . . . 93/ 
 Lothian v. Henderson. 3 Bos. c't P. 499 ; 7 R. R. 829 .... 11/2 
 Lotus, 7 P. D. 199 ; 47 L. T. 447 ; 30 W. R. 892 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 595 674, 1018 
 Louisa (Salvage Agreement), 2 W. Rob. 22 ; 2 Not. of Cas. 149 . . 65^ 
 
 ,, (Pillagii by Salvors), 7 Jiir. 182 6:-^ 
 
 (Salvage, Advance of; Award), 6 Not. of ('as. 531 ; 3 W. Rob. 
 
 " • 99 " ' _ . . 622, 635 
 
 (Salvage: .Turi.sdiction). P.r. iS: Lush. 59; 9 .lur. (n.s.) 676; 11 
 
 " W. R.614 661,662 
 
 „ (Salvage; Military Salvors), I Dods. 317 .... 594,624 
 
 Louisa Bertha, 14. Fur. 1006 , • ^^^ 
 
 Love, III ,r, Wjtson, Ex partr., 46 L. .1. Bk. 97 : 5 Ch. D. 35 ; 36 F.. 1 . 
 
 75 ; 25 W. R. 489 ; 3 Any. M. C. 396— C. A -'i^ 
 
 „ t'. Baker, 1 Cas. in Ch. 67 ; Nels. 103 '^^ lH 
 
 Love Binl, 6 P. I). 80 ; 44 L. T. 6.''.0 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 427 . 760, 799, 81/, 860 
 
 Lowe c. Ri.hnrdson, 3 Mad. 277 ^f 
 
 Lowry r. Bourdiou, 2 Dougl. 468 ^''"^ 
 
 Lowtiier r. Curwen. 58 L. T. 168 "f^ 
 
 Lowther Castle, 1 Hag. Adm. 384 p" ro " 
 
 Loyd (or Lloyd) r. Fleming, Loyd >: Spenc, 41 L. J. 0- I'- •'•_5 ; 
 
 L R. 7 O. B. 299 ; 25 L. T. S2\ ; 20 W. R. 296 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 192 1312 
 Lozano v. .lanson, 2 El. & El. 160 ; 28 L. J. (,>. B. 337 ; 5 .Tur. (N.s.) 1401 ; 
 
 7W. R. 654 ^\l^ 
 
 Luard r. Butcher, 2 Car. & K. 29 Ift 
 
 Lubbock y. Potts, 7 East, 449 l-^*^"'
 
 Ixxxiv TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Lubbock i\ Rowcroft, 5 Esp. 50 ; S R. K. 830 12it:j 
 
 Lucas, Ex parte, Gwyer, In re. 3 Dc (i. k J. 113 r>4Li 
 
 e. Noekells, l' CI. & F. 138 ; '29 R. R. 7-21 — 11. L. (E.)- Aliirmiu.i;- 
 
 •t Rin.'. 7-29 ; 1 .M. c^ P. 783 ; 2 Y. & J. 304 ; 3 .M. & Scott, (i'27 - 
 
 Ex. Cii -'90, 439 
 
 Luccua r. Craufunl, 2 Bos. & P. 7o; 2 Bos. & P. (nm;.) 209 : 1 Taunt. 325 ; 
 
 R. R. 023— Ex. Ch 1144 
 
 Lucey c. Tn<j;ram, M. & \V. 302; 9 L. .1. Ex. 19t) .... 770 
 
 Luckie v. Bu.slibv, 13 C. B. 864 ; 1 C. L. R. 685 ; 17 -lur. 027) ; 1 \V. R. ir..^ ; 
 
 22 L. ,1. C. P. 220 1310 (Adilemla) 
 
 Lucovicli, 12 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4thser.) 1090 228 
 
 Liike V. Lydc, 2 I Suit. 882 ; 1 W. P.l. 190 382 
 
 Luudie y. Maebvayne, 21 Ct. ot'Sess. Cas. (4th scr.) 1085 ... 79 
 
 Lusitauo, 1 W. Rob. 166 997 
 
 Lustre, 3 Hag. Adiii. 154 . 617 
 
 Lutctia, The Tlianics and The, Maclarcn r. Coiuiiagnie Fran^aisc dc 
 
 Navisatiou a Vapeur, 9 App. Cas. 040 ; 12 Ct. of Sess. Gas. (4th 
 
 ser.) 1 819, 820 
 
 Lutscher v. Com]>toiv d'Esconipte de Paris, 1 (}. B. 1). 709 ; 34 L. T. 798 ; 
 
 3 Asp. M. 0. 209 349 
 
 Luttrell ii. China Navigation Co., 1 X. R. 329 82 
 
 Lutwidge v. Grey, cited 2 Burr. 887; Abbott ou .Shipping (13th cd.) 
 
 591 375 
 
 Luxford V. Large, 5 Car. & P. 421 086, 091, 701 
 
 Lyall r. Hicks, 27 Beav. 616 86, 202, 207 
 
 Lydia, 58 L. J. Adni. 37; 14 P. D. 1 ; 59 L. T. 843; 27 W. R. 161 — 
 
 C.A 1011 
 
 Lvnch I'. Dunslbrd, 13 East, 494 ; 13 R. R. 295 1197 
 
 "„ V. Hamilton, 3 Taunt. 37 ; 12 R. R. 591 . . . : 1179, 1196 
 
 Lynn v. Chaters, 2 Keen, 521 - 152 
 
 Lyon V. Fishmongers Co., 46 L. J. Ch. 68 ; 1 Ajip. Cas. 662 ; 35 L. T. 
 
 569; 25 W. R. 165-H. L. (E.) 880 
 
 „ V. Mells, 5 East, 428 ; 1 Smith, 478 ; 7 R. P. 726 .... 257 
 
 Lyons, 57 L. T. 818; 6 Asp. M. C. 199 967 
 
 „ ('. Hotfnung, 59 L. J. P. C. 79 ; 15 App. Cas. 391 ; 63 L. T. 293 ; 
 
 39 W. R. 390 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 551— P. C 573 
 
 Lysart ;;. Coleman, 64 L. J. Q. B. 175 ; [1895] 1 q. B. 49 ; 14 R. 22 ; 71 
 
 L. T. 830 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 552— C. A 1272 
 
 M. 
 
 M. MoxHAM, 46 L. J. Adm. 17 ; 1 P. D. 107 ; 34 L. T. 559 ; 24 W. 1!. 
 
 650 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 191— C. A 700, 890 
 
 Maanss v. Henderson, 1 East, 335 ........ 1348 
 
 Maasdam, 6 R. 716 ; 69 L. T. 659 ; 7 A.sp. JL C. 400 . . . . 595 
 
 Mac, Macadam v. The Saucy Polly, 51 L. J, Adm. 81 ; 7 P. D. 120 ; 40 
 
 L. T. 907 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 555— C. A 590, 003 
 
 McAndrew v. Adams, i M. & Sc. 517 ; 1 Biug. (x.c) 29 ; 3 L. J. C P. 
 
 236 306 
 
 w. Bell, 1 Esp. 373 1140,1195 
 
 V. Chappie, 35 L. J. C. P. 281 ; L. R. 1 C. P. 643 ; 12 ,lur. 
 
 (.v.s.) 567; 14 L. T. 556; 14 W. R. 891 512 
 
 McAndrews r. Vaughan, 1 Park. Lis. (8th ed.) 252 1235 
 
 McAuliff V. Bicknell, 2 C. :\I. & R. 263 ; 1 Gale, 232 ; 5 Tyr. 10o5 ; 4 
 
 L.J. Ex. 225 1-y 
 
 McBain v. Wallace, 6 App. Cas. 588 ; 45 L. T. 201 ; 30 W. R. 65— 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) --^0 
 
 ]\lacBrayne v. Patience, The Islay, 20 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 224 . 144 
 McCall V. Houldei', 06 L. J. Q. B. 408 ; 70 L. T. 409 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 252 581 
 McCalmont r. Rankin, 8 Hare, 1 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 215 ; 17 Jur. 475. S. C, 
 
 further consideration, 2 De G. M. & G. 403 ; 22 L. J. Cb. 554 . 34, 35, 37, 
 
 148, 175 
 McCarthy v. Abel, 5 East, 388 ; 1 Smith, 524 ; 7 P. P. 711 . . • 1295 
 McCowaii v. Baine, The Niobe, [1891] App. Cas. 401 ; 05 L. T. 502 ; 7 
 
 Asp. M. C. 89— H. L. (Sc.) ^ • 1085 
 
 McCuUoch V. Royal Excbange Assurance Co., 3 Cam]i. 406 ; 14 R. R. 765 1306 
 McDonald v. Jopling, 4 M. & W. 285 ; 7 L. J. Ex. 220 .... 128 
 McDougle V. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., 4 M. & S. 503; 4 Camp. 
 
 283 ; 16 R. R. 532 • 1096 
 
 McDowall V. Fraser, 1 Dougl. 260 1101 
 
 Macey v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 33 L. J. Ch. 377 ; 10 Jur. (n.s.) 
 
 333 ; 10 L. T. 66 ; 12 W. R. 619 ; 3 N. R. 669 . . . • 881
 
 TABLE 0¥ CASES. Ixxxv 
 
 :\lactail;iiie c. Gianiiacopulo, :J H. & X. 860 ; 28 L. .T. Ex. 72 . . . 12(37 
 
 McGhee v. Amleisoii. 22 Ct. of Sess. Gas. (4tli ser.) 274 .... 72 
 :McGie<?or v. Hoisfall, 3 iM. & W. 320 ; 6 D. P. C. 338 ; 7 L. J. Kx. 71 ; 
 
 2 Jur. 257 1-^^^ 
 
 :MaeGiegor Laii^l, 36 L. J. Adin. 10 ; L. R. 1 A. & E. 307 ; 15 AV. R. 262 . 996 
 Macsiej,n3i's Trustees r. Cox, 10 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4tli scv.) 1028 . . 415 
 
 [Maclu'll, Kr parte, 2 Yes. & B. 216 ; 1 Rose, 447 32, 40 
 
 .Moliitosh V. Sinclair, Ir. R. 11 C. L. 456 . . . . 462, 470, 488 
 
 r. Slade, 6 B. & C. 657 ; 9 D. & R. 738 ; 5 L. J. (u.s.) K. H. 
 
 345 ; 30 R. R. 494 776, 777 
 
 Mclver v. Henderson, 4 ^l. & S. 576 ; 16 1!. R. 550 .... 1291 
 
 V. Humble, 16 East, 169 41 
 
 Mackassaek r. ilolleson, 13 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4tli ser.) 445 .. . 294 
 
 :Mackaj' v. Roberts, The Fortune, 9 ^loore, P. C. 357 . . • • 804 
 Mackenzie r. Coulson (or Mackenzie's Case), China Steamship and Labuan 
 Coal Co., Li re, 38 L. J. Ch. 199 ; L. R. 8 E<[. 368 ; 19 
 
 L. T. 667 : 17 W. R. 343 1033 
 
 1-. Liddell, lOCt. of Sess. Cas (4th ser.) 705 . . . .247 
 V. Pooley, 11 Ex. 638 ; 25 L. J. Ex. 124 ; 4 W. R. 262 . . 40 
 
 f. Rowe, 2 Camp. 482 552 
 
 r. Sheddon, 2 Camp. 431 ; HE. R. 759 .... 1071 
 
 i\ Wliitworth, 45 L. J. Ex. 233 ; 1 Ex. D. 36 ; 33 L. T. 655 ; 
 
 24 AV. R. 287 ; 3 Asp. i\l. C. 81— C. A 1037 
 
 Mackie r. Landon, 1 Alarsh. 585 ; 6 Taunt. 256 143 
 
 Mackillr. Wright, 14 App. Cas. 106— H. L. (.Sc.) 273 
 
 Mackintosh v. Marshall, 11 M. & W. 116 : 12 L. .1. Ex. 337 . 1190, 1199, 1319 
 /•. Miteheson, 4 Ex. 175 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 385 ... 64, 961 
 
 JLackrcU v. Simond, 2 Chit. 666 384 
 
 McKune v. .Toynson, 5 C. B. (x.s.) 218 ; 28 L. .1. ('. P. 133 ; 4 Jur. (x.-s.) 
 
 760; 6 W. R. 658 117. 12« 
 
 McLaren, In rr, Cooper, Ex parte, 48 L. J. Bk. 49 ; 11 Ch. D. 68 ; 40 
 
 L. T. 105 ; 27 W. R. 518 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 63— C. A. . . 574 
 ,, r. Compagnie Francaise de Navigation ;i Vapeur, The Thames 
 
 and The Lutetia, 9 App! Ca.s. 640 ; 12 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th .ser.) 
 
 H. L. 1 S19, S--iO 
 
 .MeLarty r. Middleton, 9 AV. R. 861 ; 4 L. T. 852. Aliirmed on appeal 
 
 (L.J.I, ditleringi, 10 W. R. 219 28, 185 
 
 McLean r. Fleming, L. R. 2 H. L. (Sc.) 128 ; 25 L. T. 317; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 
 16C ; 9 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 38 . . 32(), 422, 423, 428 
 '•. Alunck, 5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 893 .... 323 
 
 AIcLellan Gumm, Hooper v. Gumni, 26 L. J. Ch. 605 ; L. R. 2 Ch, 282 : 16 
 
 L. T. 107 ; 15 W. R. 464— L.C. & L.J 170 
 
 AlcLeod. 50 L. J. Adm. 3 ; 5 P. D. 254 ; 29 AV. R. 34 .... 95 
 ,, 'v. Harrison, 8 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 227 .... 574 
 
 McMasters v. Shoolbred, 1 Esp. 237 ; 5 1!. R. 735 1292 
 
 McMillan v. Liverpo.d and Texas Steamship Co., 38 L. T. 288 ; 3 .Asp. .M. ','. 
 
 579 I-"--' 
 
 Ab.'.Murdo. /// ////■ (loo'h uf, L. R. 1 V. k .M. 540 ; 37 L. .1. P. 14 ; 17 L. T. 
 
 .393 ;'l6 VV. R. 283 138 
 
 McPhail ('. Hamilton, 5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4tli ser.) 1017 . . . • 958 
 
 MacNair c. Coulter, 4 Bro P. C. 450 1142 
 
 Aiacnaniara r. Mae(|ueen, Dick. 223 ....... 93/ 
 
 M>-Strphens (or Alacsteplien) r. Carnegie, 49 L. .1. Cli. 397 : 12 L. T. 309 : 
 
 1 As).. M. C. 215— C. A 182, 976 
 
 .McSwiney c. Royal Exchange Assurance < ',iip,>ralion, 11 (^ li. 634; 18 
 
 L. J. (,). !'.. "l93 10''J 
 
 iMaddox V. Fisher, The Artliur (Jordon and Indi'jH'iiilence, M .Mooie, P. C. 
 
 103 ; Lush. 270 ; 4 L. T. 563 ; 9 W. K. 587 f,90, 698, 736, 755, 810, 811, 
 
 814, 826 
 ,AIadg.- AVilddre, Simpson v. Blues, 41 L. J. C. P. 121 ; L. K. 7 C. P. 290 ; 
 
 26 L. T. 697 ; 20 W. R. 680 ; 1 Asp. Al. C. 326 . . 938 (2) 
 
 Madonna D'Idra, 1 Dod.s. 37 1P<> 
 
 Ma-ander, The, and Tlie Florence Nightingale, Garvin r. BiV.bv, Br. & Lush. 
 29 ; 1 Moore, P. C. (x.s.) 63 ; 9 Jur. (N.s.) 475 ; 8 L. T. 34 ; 11 
 
 W. R. 542 822, 823, 860 
 
 Ar;eander, or Tln^ Florence Nightingale (Appeal ; Time), 1 Moore, P. C. 
 
 (N.s.) 42 ; 32 L. .1. Adm. 1 ; 8.iur. (n.s. ) 1067 ; 6 L. T. 765 ; 10 AV. R. 794 1012 
 Mieamler (Amount Claimed ; Practice), Br. & Lush. 29 ; 6 L. T. 400 . 1002 
 
 Magalharne <;. Basher, 4 Camp. 54 1070 
 
 Magdalen (Salvage ; Costs), 5 L. T. 692 676 
 
 ,, (Salvage; Success; Practice), 31 L. .1. .\dm. 22; 5 L. T. 807 597, 
 
 599, 6-14, 666 
 Magellan Pirates, 1 Spinks. 81 031
 
 Ixxxvi TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Mao<ne Arnistroii-, The, ami The JUuo I'.rll, 14 L. T. 340 . . 694, 695 
 Magna Charta, -25 L. T. 512 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 153— P. C. . . . 802, 998 
 Ma"net (or The Em,'enie, Tlie Magnet, The Duke of Sutlieiland, and The 
 "Fanny M. Carvill), 44 L. J. Adni. 1 ; L. R. 4 A. & E. 417 ; 32 L. T. 
 
 129 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 478 712, 847 
 
 Jlacnieta, 59 L. J. Adni. .55 ; 15 P. D. 101 ; 63 L. T. 1 14 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 531 829 
 J^lagnns c Butten.uT. 11 C. B. 876 ; 21 L. J. C. P. 119 ; 16 Jur. 480 1081, 1096 
 
 Maidot'Anekiana. ti Not. of Cas. 240 701 
 
 Maid of Kent, oU L. J. Adni. 71 ; 6 P. D 178 : 4'. L. T. 718 ; 29 W. R. 
 
 897; 4 Asp. M. C. 476 lOO-''* 
 
 jMaid of the lAIist. 21 W. R. 310 839 
 
 Main (Stern Liyht), 55 L. .T. Adin. 70 ; 11 P. D. 132 ; 55 L. T. 15 ; 34 
 
 W. R. 678 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 37— C. A 797 (2) 
 
 ,, (Insurance) 63 L. J. Adm. 69 ; [1894] P. 320 ; 6 R. 775 ; 70 L. T. 
 
 247 : 7 Asp. M. C. 424 1115 
 
 Mair V. Glennie, 4 M. k S. 240 ; 16 R. R. 445 ... 38, 151, 171 
 
 ilaitland, 2 Hag. Adni. 253 965 
 
 Major V. White, 7 Car. & P. 41 519 
 
 Malcohnson v. Chivton, The Ann, 13 Moore, P. C. 198 ; Lush. 55 ; 3 L. T. 
 
 128 : 8 W. R. 567 843 
 
 V. Geueial Steam Navigation Co., The Ranger and The 
 Cologne, 9 Moore. P. C. (n.s.) 352 ; L. R. 4 P. C. 519 ; 
 27 L. T. 769 ; 21 AV. R. 273 : 1 Asp. M. C. 484 . 786, 811, 
 
 830, 845 
 ,, V. Meeson. See The Malvina, rnfni. 
 
 Maklonado v. Slaiiy, Benloe, 140 927 
 
 Alali Ivo, 38 L. J. Adni. 34 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 356 ; 20 L. T. 681 . . 853 
 
 ]\Iallouf;li r. Barber. 4 Camp. 150 1337 
 
 Malta, 2 Hag. Adm. 158 112,129,850 
 
 Mnlton ('. Nesbit, 1 Car. & P. 70 849 
 
 Malvina, ^Malcohnson v. Meeson, Br. k Lush. 57; 1 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 
 357'; 9 .Jiir. (n.s.) 527 ; 8 L. T. 403 ; 11 AV. R. 576— P. C. Affirming 
 
 Lush. 493 822, 839 
 
 Mammoth, 53 L. .T. Adm. 70 ; 9 P. D. 126 ; 51 L. T. 459 ; 33 W. R. 172 ; 
 
 5 Asp. ]\I. C. 289 1020 
 
 j\Lanchester, 1 W. Rob. 62 848 
 
 Manche.ster Trust r. Furness, AVithv & Co., 64 L. J. Q. B. 766; [1895] 
 2 Q. B. 539 ; 14 R. 739 : 73 L. T. 110 ; 44 AV. R. 178 ; 8 A.sp. M. C. 
 
 57-C. A. . 238 
 
 Manfield v. Maitland, 4 B. & Aid. 582 ; 23 R. R. 402 . . . 1114, 1131 
 
 Mangerton, Swabey, 120 ; 2 Jur. (N.s.) 620 786 
 
 Mangles v. Dixon, 3 H. L. Cas. 702. Reversing 1 Man. & Gr. 437 ; 1 
 
 H. k Tw. 542 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 240 445 
 
 Man V. Shifiner, 2 East, 523 1349 
 
 Mann v. Forrester, 4 Camp. 60 ; 15 R. R. 724 1340 
 
 Manners y. Raebnrn, 11 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 899 . . . . 60 
 Mannheim, 66 L. J. Adm. 6 ; [1897] P. 13 ; 75 L. T. 424 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 
 
 210 . . . . . 990 
 
 Manning v. Gist, 3 Dougl. 74 1169 
 
 V. Irving, 1 H. L. Cas. 287 ; 6 C. B. 391— H. L. (E.) . 1139, 1224 
 
 0. Newnham, 3 Dongl. 130 ; 2 Camp. 624, n. ; 12 R. R. 761 . 1226 
 Maori King (Owners) V. Hughes, 65 L. J. Q. B. 168 ; [1895] 2 Q. B. 550 ; 
 
 14 R. 646 ; 73 L. T. 141 ; 44 AV. R. 2 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 65— C. A. . 327 
 
 Marathon (Pilot ; Costs), 48 L. .T. Adm. 17 857 
 
 (Damage to Cargo), 40 L. T. 163 ; 4 A.sp. M. C. 75 . 327, 725, 970, 999 
 
 Marco Polo, 24 L. T. 8o4 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 54 92, 100, 963 
 
 Marechal Suchat, 65 L. J. Adm. 94 ; [1896] P. 233; 74 L. T. 789; 45 
 
 AV. R. 141 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 158 668, 973 
 
 Margaret (Cause of Action ; Collision), 50 L. J. Adm. 67 ; 6 P. D. 76 ; 44 
 
 L. T. 291 : 29 AV. R. 533 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 375— C. A. . 687, 689, 
 
 736, 834 
 
 (Bail Bond), 2 Hag. Adm. 275 955 
 
 ;, (Salvage), 2 Hag. Adm. 48, n 593 
 
 (AVages; Lien), 3 Hag. Adm. 238 119 
 
 ,, Cayzer v. Carron Co. (Collision ; Contributory Negligence), 54 
 L. J. Adm. 18 ; 9 App. Cas. 873 ; 52 L. T. 361 ; 33 W. R. 
 281 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 371— H. L. (E.). Reversing S. C. infra . 687 (2), 
 
 735, 827, 831 
 ,, (Construction of Collision Rules), 53 L. J. Adm. 17 ; 9 P. D. 
 47 ; 50 L. T. 447 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 204— C. A. Reversed on 
 other grounds, see Tlie Margaret, Cayzer v. Carron Co., supra . 758 
 j\Iargaret and Jane (or The Margaret Jane), 38 L. J. Adm. 38 ; L. R. 
 
 2 A. &E. 345; 20L. T. 1017; 17 AV. R. 1064. . . 670,675,984
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxvii 
 
 Margaret and The Tiiscar, 15 L. T. 86 • 69^ 
 
 Margaret Mitcliell, Swabey, 382 ; 4 Jur. (x.s.) 1193 . . . 160, 161 
 
 Maria (Salvage), Eilw. 175 -'^8 
 
 (Prize ; Colonial Trade), 5 C. Roll. 365 1211 
 
 ' (Pilot), L. R. 1 A. & E. 358 ; 16 L. T. 717 ; 15 W. R. 1113 . 776, 778 
 '' (Practice), 39 L. T. 549 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 94 . . . ^__ _■_ 9/3 
 „ (Pilot), 1 W. Rob. 95 .... 765, 766 (2). 772, / /;-, r /6, /84 
 Maria das Dores, Br. & Lush. 27 ; 32 L. J. Adin. 163 ; 7 L. T. 838 ; 11 
 
 w. R. :-ioo • s.^0 
 
 Maria .lane, 14. Tiir. 857 „.;,„-:,• ' fln'ul] 
 
 Maria Luisa, Swabey, 67 ; 2 .lur. (n.s.) 264 ; 4 ^\ . R. 3/6 . . 660, 922 
 
 Maria Theresa, 1 Dods, 303 yf'> 
 
 Marianna, 3 Hag. Adin. 206 . . . • ■ • ^•. \, ,,• "' 
 
 Marianne, 60 L. .1. Adm. 39 ; [1S91] P. ISO ; 64 L. T. 539 ; / Asp. M. C. 
 
 Marie, 7 P. D. 203 ;'47 L. T. 737 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 27 . . . • «02 
 Marie Constance, 37 L. T. 366 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 505 . . . . .9/6 
 Marie .Joseph (or The .loseph), Pease r. Gloahec, Br. & Lush. 449 : ^ 
 Moore P. C. (n.s.) 556 ; 35 L. J. P. C. 66 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 219 ; 12 
 
 Jur. (N.s.) 677 ; 15 L. T. 6 ; 15 W. R. 201 -'69 
 
 Marin,.,50L.'l. Adm.33;29\V. R.508 .... 104,109,999 
 Marine Insurance Co. r. China Transpacific Steamship (Jo., 56 L. J. Q. J.. 
 lUO • 11 App. Cas. 573 ; 55 L. T. 491 ; 35 W. R. 169 ; 6 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 6S-H. L. (E.) 12o3(2) 
 
 Marine Mutual Insurance Association r. Young, 43 L. T. 441 ; 4 Asp 
 
 M. C. 357 '^^■''^' Hti 
 
 Mariners' Case, 8 Mod. 379 . . . . • • ■ -„-^ / 
 Marion, 54 L. .1. A-lni. 8 ; 10 P. I). 4 ; 51 L. T. 906 ; 33 A\ . R. 432 ; 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 339 ^- -,- ,V r," 
 
 Mariposa, 65 L. .1. Adm. 104 ; [1896] P. 273 ; 75 L. T. t.4 ; 4.. ^\ . R. 
 
 191 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 159 • S', 626 
 
 Maritime (or Imperial) :Marine Insurance Co. r. Fire Reinsurance Corpora- 
 tion, 48 L. J. C. P. 424; 4 C. P. U. 166 ; 40 L. T. 166 ; 27 AV R. 
 
 680 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 71 ^ \r-^*^;V ' 
 
 Mark Lane, 15 P. D. 135 ; 63 L. T. 468 ; 39 W. R. 47 ; 6 Asp. U. C. 
 
 Markland, L. R. 3 A. & E. 340 ; 24* L. T." 596 '; 1 Asj.. M. C. 44 . . lUOS 
 Marmion (Crossing Ships). 27 L. T. 255 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 412— P. C. . . 81.> 
 Marpesia, The Marpesia (Owners) v. The America (Owners), 8 Moore, I . C. 
 
 (x.s ) 468 ; L. R. 4 P. C. 212 : 26 L. T. 333 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 261-P. C. 699 
 ^ ^ 704, 706. 803, 844, 859 
 
 Marpessa, 61 L. .1. Adm. 9 ; [1891] P. 403 : 66 L. T. 356 ; 40 W. R. 239 : 
 
 7 Asp. M. C. 1.55 , •, ; 
 
 Maniuandf. Banner, 6 El. & P.l. 232; 25 L. .1. (). P>. 313 ; 2 Jur. (N.s.) 
 
 708 ;.'•., 
 
 Marquis of Tluntlev, 3 Hag. Adm. 246 . . . ■ ^- ^ "i pi" 
 
 Marriott v. Anchor Reversionary Co., 3 De (i. F. & J. 177 ; 30 L. •'•/^ '• 
 
 571 ; 7 Jur. (n..s.) 713 ; 4 L. T. 590 ; 9 W. R. 726. Affirming 2 (.ill. 
 
 457 1'* 
 
 Marryatt v. Wil.son, 8 Term Rep. 31 : 1 P.os. & P. 430 . . • • l^OJ 
 
 Marsdcn '•. Rei.l, 3 Ea.st, 572 : 7 R. K. 516 V^oA^i 
 
 Marsh V. i'e<hler, 4 Camp. 257 -,,„.'■., r 
 
 „ V. Robinson, 4 Esp. 98 : 2 Anstr. 479: 3 1{. R. 617 • • ^^f; lJ4f> 
 Marshall -r. Bolckow, 6 (,». B. D. 231 ; 29 W. K. 7!t2 . . • •Ibl, 46S 
 
 r. Cliff, 4 Cam].. 133 ;•' 
 
 r. I)c la Torre, 1 Es].. 367 r'n '. 
 
 -•. .Moian, The Ocean Wave, 6 lyfoore, P. C. (n.s.) 492; L. I.. -_ __ 
 P. C. 205; 23 L. T. 218 '"''•"'' o/.n 
 
 932 
 957 
 
 V. Nicholls, 18 (>. ]',. 882 
 
 839 
 
 i'arker, ' 2 Ca.nj.. (39 ; 1 1" It. R. 665 . 1 086, 1 1 0'.', 11 1_0, 1 20i> 
 
 11 : 1. i;. 
 
 886 
 680 
 600 
 
 ,. '•. Ulleswati^' Steam Navigation Co., 41 1/ 
 
 (.). V,. 166 ; 25 L. T. 793 ; 20 W. R. 144 . 
 Martha (Towage), Lusli. 314 .... 
 
 ,, (Salvage), Swabey, 489 ?"^ 
 
 ,. (Freight), 3 C. Rob. 106, w • 'I'l 
 
 Miiitinr. Crokatt, 14 East, 465; 13R. R. 281 . . „.•, . -^.J^^^' ^'^^■' 
 
 - 'I' "70/: • 11 W i;. /58 — 
 
 1238 
 
 92H 
 
 992 
 
 1303 
 
 (Jrainger, 4' B.' & S. 9; 's L. T. 796; 11 W. 1,". 7.58 
 
 Ex. Ch 
 
 , c. fJreen, 1 Kob. 730 ....•••■ 
 
 , V. RoliDson, 2 Lee's Eccl. Ca.ses, ;!97 
 
 , f. Sitwell, Show. 156 ; , ', . i," i.,f, 
 
 . r. Temperley, 4 (). B. 298 ; 3 C <^ D. 497 : 12 L. J. <.'. L- 1-' 
 7 Jur. 150 • ■ • 
 
 71, 716
 
 Ixxxviii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 .Martin I.utlu'i' (Salvii.!j;e ; Awiml), Swaliry, 287 .... 63;", 610 
 ,, Tlu' Thomas Ijailey and The (>aecn ot the East r. The 
 
 Martin Luther, 1-2 L. T. 58.') 641 
 
 :\lartin ot Norfolk, 4 0. llol>. 293 165,924,956 
 
 Mary (Collision ; Pilot), 48 L. J. Adm. 66; 5 1'. D. 14 ; 41 L. T. 351 ; 
 
 28 W. K. 95 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 183 . . . , 682, 754, 755, 769 
 
 ., (Collision ; Costs), 7 P. 1). 201 ; 48 L. T. 28 ; 31 W. K. 248 ; 5 
 
 Asp. M. C. 33 863. 1023 
 
 „ (Salvage), 1 W. Rob. 448 606 
 
 Marv (or Alexandra) (Foreign PlaintilV; Security), L. R. 1 A. &: E. 335: 
 
 16 L. T. 98 1009 
 
 „ ,, (InteiTogatories), 38 L. J. Adni. 29 ; L. K. 2 A. & E. 
 
 319 : IS L. T. 891 ; 17'W. R. 551 998 
 
 Marv Ann (Uottonuy), L. R. 1 A. & E. 13 199 
 
 ,,- ,, (IJottoniry), 10 Jur. 253; 4 Not. of Cas. 376 .... 203 
 
 ,, ,, (Bottomry), 9 Jur. 94 217, 220 
 
 ,, ,, (Salvage), 1 Hag. Adm. 158 617 
 
 ,, ,, (or Anne) (Master's Wages), 35 L. J. Adm. 6 ; L. R. 1 A. & E. 8 ; 
 
 12 .lur. (N.s.) 31 ; 13 L. T. 384 ; 14 W. R. 136 ... 99, 101. 718 
 
 I\Iary Anne (Salvage ; Jurisdiction), lir. & Liisli. 334 ; 34 L. J. Adm. 73 ; 
 
 12 L. T. 238 663, 664, 974 
 
 ,, ,, (Salvage; Sharing), 11 Ij. T. 85 652 
 
 .^lary Caroline, 3 W. Rob. 101 738 
 
 Maiy Hounsell, 48 L. J. Adm. 54 ; 4 P. D. 204 ; 40 L. T. 368 ; 4 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 101 709, 792, 794 
 
 Mary Lohden, 58 L. T. 461 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 262 . . . 823, 831, 836 
 
 ilary Pleasants, Swaliey, 224 619, 632 
 
 Mary Stewart, 2 W. Rob. 244 805 
 
 Mary Thomas, 63 L. J. Adm. 49 ; [1894] P. 108 ; 6 R. 792 : 71 L. T. 
 
 104 ; 7 Asp,. M. C. 495 . ^ . _. . ^ . . . . 1265 
 
 J\Iary Tug Co. v. P>ritish India Steam Navigation Co., The Meanatchv, 66 
 
 L. .J. P. C. 92 ; [1897] App. Cas. 351 ^ ' . 696 
 
 Marzetti r. Smith, 49 L. T. 580 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 166. Attirming S. C, 1 
 
 Cab. & E. 6 541 
 
 ^Mashiter r. Duller, 1 Cani[). 84 ........ 368 
 
 3Iason r. Abdy, Holt, 738 206 
 
 ,, r. Joseph, 1 Smitii, 406 1335 
 
 ,, y. Skurray, 1 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 2.53 1248 
 
 Masonic. 5 L. T. 460 962 
 
 :\Iassachusetts, 1 W. Rob. 371 695 
 
 Masseyt^ Morris, 63 E. J. M. C. 185 ; [1894] 2 (,). B. 412; lu R. 342; 
 
 70 L. T. 873 ; 42 W. R. 638 ; 7 Asp. 1^1. C. 586 ; 58 J. P. 673 . 79 
 
 Masson v. Nicholson, 20 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 176 . . . . 72 
 Master Pilots ot Newcastle v. Hammond, 4 Ex. 285; 8 L. J. Ex. 
 
 417 885, 90S 
 
 Matchless, 10 Jur. 1017 733,1007 
 
 Mathesis, 2 AV. Rob. 286 925 
 
 :tlathilda, The Fanny, The Mathilda, 48 L. T. 771 : 5 Asp. M. C. 75— 
 
 C. A 84, 236 
 
 .Alatson (or Batson) t: Scobel. 4 Burr. 2258 884 
 
 31atthew Cay, 49 L. J. Adm. 47 ; 5 P. D. 49 ; 41 L. T. 759 ; 28 W. R. 
 
 262 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 224 857 
 
 Matthews, .i',/-_?/rtr/c, 2 Yes. Sess. 272 158,172 
 
 ,, V. Gibbs, 30 L. J. Q. B. 55 ; 7 Jur. (x.s.) 186 ; 3 L. T. 551 ; 
 
 9 W. R. 200 372, 434 
 
 r. Lowther, 5 Ex. 574; 19 L. J. Ex. 364 ... . 299 
 
 31atthewson v. Rav, 16 M. & W. 329 ; 16 L. J. Ex. 288 .... 493 
 
 Maude, 36 L. T. 26 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 338 606 
 
 ilaury v. Shedden, 10 East, 540 1293 
 
 Mavor r. Simeon, 3 Taunt. 497, 7( 1309 
 
 Mavro v. Ocean Marine Insurance Co., 44 L. J. ('. P. 229 ; L. R. 10 C. P. 
 
 414 ; 32 L. T. 743 ; 23 W. R. 758 ; 2 Asp. :\I. C. 590— Ex. Cli. . 1257 
 Max V. Roberts, 12 East, 89 ; 2 Bos. & P. (x.i:.) 454 .... 531 
 
 Maxima, 39 L. T. 112; 4 Asp. M. C. 21 175 
 
 Mav V. Christie, Holt, 67 ; 17 R. R. 608 13i)8 
 
 Maydew v. Forrester, 5 Taunt. 615 ; 15 R. R, 597 1337 
 
 -Maydhew v. Scott, 3 Camp. 205 1177 
 
 JIayne (or Meyne) v. Walter, 2 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 73U . . . .1172 
 
 Mayor of London v. Hunt, 3 Lev. 37 ...... . 83 
 
 Mead v. Davison, 4 N. & .M. 701 ; 3 A. & E. 303 ; 1 H. & W. 1.-6 ; 4 
 
 L. J. K. B. 193 1063 
 
 ^leanatchy, Mary Tug Co. v. British India Steam Navigation Co., iS(i 
 
 L. J. P. C. 92 ; [1897] App. Cas. 351 696
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxix 
 
 Mecca (Necessaiios), 64 L. J. Adin. 40 ; [1S95] P. 9o ; 11 R. 742 : 71 L. T. 
 
 711; 43 W. R. 209; 7 Asp. M. C. .".29— C. A. Reversed on otlier 
 
 "inaiuls, 66 L. .J. Adm. 86 ; [1897] Ap]>. Cas. 286 : 76 L. T. .'w!' : 4.'". 
 
 W. R. 667 : 8 Asp. .M. (". 266— H. L. (E.) . . . . W',, ^fQG 
 
 Meclauliam (or Xeflanliaiii) r. Foliamli (or Foldaiiib), ('tillicit. K. 1'.. H ; 
 
 2 Vin. Abr. 539 93-3 
 
 Medeirosy. Hill, 8 Biiig. 231 ; 1 M. & S.-. 311 ; ". Car. & 1'. 1S2 : 1 
 
 L. J. C. P. 77 284 
 
 Medina, 2 P. D. b ; 3', L. T. 779 ; 2.". W. R. 1.-.6 : 3 Asp. M. C. 30r.~ 
 
 C. A. .Iffirmiuf; 45 L. .T. Adm. 81 6.^4 
 
 Medora, Caledonian Steam Tut; Co. v. Hutton, i) Xot. of Cns. 1 "iC . . 63r> 
 Meek c. Davidson, 4 X. k U.' 701 ; 3 A. k E. 303 : 1 H. & W. I.'i6 : 4 
 
 L. J. K. B, 193 1041 
 
 Meg Merrilies, 3 Hag. Adm. 346 667 
 
 Meggie, L. R. 1 A. & E. 77 i^«it 
 
 Meier v. Kiiciienmeister, 8 Ct. of Se.ss. Cas. (4th ser.) 642 .. . 6ib 
 
 Meikl.'rfci<l c. AVest, 45 L. .T. M. C. 91 ; 1 q. 15. D. 428 : 34 L. T. 3.' 3 : 
 
 24 W. R. 703 : 3 Asp. :\t. C. 129 121 
 
 Mellish 0. Allnutt, 2 ,M. & S. 106 ; 14 R. 1!. .'.99 10.",.^ 
 
 -•. Andrews. 15 East, 13 ; 13 R. R. 3.51 1281 
 
 v. Bell, 15 East, 4 ; 13 R. R. 344 1036 
 
 ;, <•. Stanifortli, 3 Taunt. 499 1176 
 
 Jlollona (Bail ; Limitation : Proceedings i,i re„i), 3 W. Rob. It! . 718, 738 
 (Speed ; Look Out : Damages), 3 W. Rob. 7 . . . 691,730 
 
 (Evidence), 10 .lur. 992 848 
 
 Melpomcn.; (Salvacce : Inettectual Service), 42 L. .1. Adm. 45; L. R. 4 
 \. & E. 129 ; 29 L. T. 405 : 21 AV. R. 956 : 2 Asp. .Al. C. 
 
 -i-20 596 
 
 (Salva"-c ; Consolidation), 42 L. J. Adm 45 ; L. R. 1 A. c^ E. 
 129 • 28 L. T. 76 ; 21 AV. R. 956 ; 1 Asp. AL C. 515 . . (168 (2) 
 
 Melville ,: I)e Wolfe, 4 El. .t Bl. 844 ; 3 C. L. R. 960 ; 24 L. .1. ( ). P.. 200 ; 
 
 1 .lur. (N..S.) 758: 3 W. R. 401 11!> 
 
 Memnon, 62 L. T. 84 : 6 Asp. AI. C. 488— H. L. (E.) .... 818 
 Memphis, L. R. 3 A. Jt E. 23 ; 21 L. T. 727 : 18 W. R. 74 . . . i*W 
 Menetone f. Gibbons, 3 Term Rep. 267 . . . ^ 152, 198. 2(tl, 225, 921 
 Mercantile and Exchange Bank r. Gladstone, 37 L. .1. Ex. 13i) ; L. R. 3 Ex. 
 
 2.33 ; 18 L. T. 641 ; 17 W. R. 11 '^1=' 
 
 ^lercantile Marine Insurance Co. r. Titherington, 5 li. .t S. 765 ; 34 
 
 L. .1. (». B. 11:11 .lur. (x.s.) 62 ; 11 L. T. 340 ; 13 W. R. 141 . I(i67 
 Mcrcjintile 'steamship Co. r. Tyser, 7 Q. B. D. 73: 29 W. R. 790: 5 
 
 Asp. M. C. 6, 1081,1112 
 
 Merchant Prince (Collision), 54 L. .i. Adm. 79; 10 P. D. 139; 53 L. 1. 
 
 ' 914 ; 34 AV. 1.'. 231 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 520 . . 788, 798 
 (Collision; Proof; Accident), [1892] ]'. 179; 67 L. T. 
 
 251 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 208— C. A 702, 706 
 
 Merchant Shipping Co. .-. Armitage, 43 L. J. Q. B. 24 : L. K. 9 (,». P.. 99 : 
 
 29 L. T. 8(19; 2 As].. .M. C. 18.^.— Ex. Ch 382 
 
 Merchants' Trading Co. r. Universal Marine Co., cited L. P. 9 (,>. B. 596 ; 
 
 2 Asp. M. C. 431, lOS^ 
 
 Mercurius, 1 C. Rob. 80 ^■> 
 
 Meredith, White --. Ditclifp-M Jo P. D. 6<.t : 52 L. T. 520 : 5 Asp. .M. C. 40" h. 60 
 Mcretony -'. Dunlope, cited 1 Term Ri'p. 2fi0 : 1 K. R. I'.'S . . . lOh.s 
 
 Merle, 31 L. T. 447 : 2 Asp. .M. C. 402 715,719,890(2) 
 
 Mersey Docks a7nl Harbf.ur I'.oard v. Gibbs, Mersey Docks, &c. r. Peii- 
 
 hallow, 11 H. L. Cas. 686; 35 
 L. J. Ex.225; L. R. 1 H. L. 93; 
 12 .Tur. (n..^.) 571 : 14 L. T. 677; 
 14 W. R. 872-11. L. (H.) . 009 
 
 ,-. llend.-rson, 58 L. .1. (.1. P. 152 : 13 
 Ap].. C^iis. 595; 59 L. T. 697; 
 37 W. R. 449 ; 6 A.sj.. .M. ('. 338 
 -II. L. (E.) . . . . .^t^O 
 r. Llaneilian Overseers, 54 L. .'. «,'. I'-. 
 49 ; 14 C). 15. T). 770 ; 52 L. T. 
 118; 33 W. R. 97; 5 Asp. .M. C. 
 248; 49 .T. P. 164— C. A. . .013 
 r. I'eidiiillow. See Mer.sey Docks, &c. 
 
 c. Gibbs, siiprri. 
 r. Turner, The Zetn, 63 i^. .1. Adm. 
 17: 118931 App. C.'is. 468; 1 1.'. 307: 69 L. T. 630: 7 Asp. .M. C. 
 .369; 57.1. P. 660- H. L. (E.). . . • • •,•„,•, '^^^ 
 Mersey Steam.ship Co. r. Shuttl.^worth, 52 L. .1. C>. B. ^'22 : 11 C>. I.. D 
 
 .531 : 48 L. T. 625 : 32 W. R. 245 ; 5 Asp. .M. C. 48 . • 428,941
 
 xc TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Messageries Imperiales r. Ijaincs, 7 L. T. 763; 11 AV. R. 322 . . 53, 84, 291 
 Messenger, Swabey, 191 . . . . . . . . . . 645 
 
 Messina v. Petiocorchino, 41 L. J. P. C. 27 ; L. R. 4 P. C. 144 ; 2G L. T. 
 
 561 ; 20 W. R. 451 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 298 . . . 1150, 1257 (Addenda) 
 Jlestaer r. Atkins, 5 Taunt. 381 ; 1 Marsh. 76 .... 31,916 
 
 I'. Gillespie, 11 Yes. 621 ; 8 P. R. 261 .. . 36, 155, 1117 
 
 Metcalfe v. Britannia Ironworks Co., 46 L. .1. Q. B. 443 ; 2 Q. B. D. 423 ; 
 
 36 L. T. 451 ; 25 W. R. 720 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 407— C. A. . 375 
 r. Hetherington, 5 H. & N. 719 : 11 Ex. 257 ; 8 W. R. 475— 
 
 Ex. Ch 910 
 
 r. Parry, 4 Camp. 123 ; 15 R. R. 734 .... 1205, 1220 
 
 Meteor, Ir. Rep. 9 Eq. 567 C87, 775 
 
 Meyer r. Dresser, 16 C. B. (x.s.) 646 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 289 ; 10 L. T. 612 ; 
 
 12 W. R. 983 319, 380. 381 
 
 i\ Gregson, 3 Doui;l. 402 1306 
 
 r. Ralli, 45 L. J. C. P. 741 ; 1 C. P. D. 358 ; 35 L. T. 838 ; 24 
 
 AV. P. 963 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 324 .... 1132, 1137, 1269 
 
 ,, r. Sharp, 5 Taunt. 74 ; 2 Rose, 124 343 
 
 Meyue (or Mayne) v. Walter, 1 Park. Ins. (Sth ed.) 431, 730 . . 1172, 1181 
 Michael, Kc pci'ie, 41 L. J. Q. B. 349 ; L. R. 7 Q. B. 658 ; 26 L. T. 871 ; 
 
 1 Asp. M. C. 337 966 
 
 ,, v. Fripp, 38 L. J. Ch. 29 ; L. R. 7 Erp 95 ; 19 L. T. 257 ; 17 
 
 W. R. 23 160, 173 
 
 ,. V. Gillespv, 2 C. B. (x.s.) 627 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 306 ; 3 Jur. (n.s.) 
 
 1219 " 1062, 1111, 1233 
 
 'c. Tredwin, 17 C. B. 551 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 83 . . . . 1155 
 ]\Iichell V. Brown, 1 El. k El. 267 ; 28 L. J. M. C. 53 ; 5 Jur. (n.s.) 707 81, 896 
 
 Michenson r. Beghie, 6 Bing. 190 ; 3 M. & P. 442 418 
 
 lilichigan, Reg. v. Judge of City of London Court, 59 L. J. Q. B. 427 ; 25 
 
 Q. B. 0.^339 ; 63 L. T. 492 ; 38 W. R. 638 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 547 . 940 
 
 Midas, Bragington v. Cha])man, 7 Asp. M. C. 77, n 39 
 
 Middleton v. Scolly, cited Lev. pt. 3, 60 932 
 
 Middlewood v. Bhike.s, 7 Term Rep. 162 ; 4 R. R. 405 . . . . 1213 
 
 Midlothian, 15 Jur. 806 848 
 
 Miedbrodt v. Fitzsimon, Tlie Energie, 44 L. J. Adm. 25 ; L. R. 6 P. C. 
 
 306 ; 32 L. T. 579 ; 23 AV. P. 932 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 555 . 434, 538, 562 
 
 Mikes V. Caley, Holt, 467 80 
 
 Milan, Lush. 388 ; 31 L. J. Adm. 105 ; 5 L. T. 590 ... 737, 860 
 
 Milanese, 45 L. T. 151 : 4 Asp. M. C. 438— H. L. (E.) . . . 859, 860 
 Milburn v. L. k S. AV. Ry., 40 L. J. Ex. 1 ; L. R. 6 Ex. 4 ; 23 L. T. 418 ; 
 
 19 AV. R. 105 750, 991 
 
 Mildred v. Maspons, 53 L. J. Q. B. 33 ; 8 App. Cas. 874 ; 49 L. T. 685 ; 
 32 AV. R. 125 ; 5 Asp. AI. C. 182— H. L. (E.) Affirming S. <^.,nom. 
 Hermanov. Mildred, 9 Q. B. D. 530 . . . .1032,1047,1119 
 
 Miles V. Thomas, 9 Sim. 606 54 
 
 Milford, Swabey, 362 ; 4 Jur. (n..s.) 417 ; 6 AV. R. 554 . . . 104, 107 
 
 Miller y. Brant, 2 Camp. 590 ; 1 1 R. 806 132 
 
 ,, V. Mackay. 31 Beav. 77 ; 34 Beav. 295 60 
 
 ,, «. Potter, 3 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4tli ser.) 105 17 
 
 ,, -y. Powell, 2 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 976 .... 740,753 
 ,, V. Tetherington. 7 H. & N. 954 ; 31 L. J. Ex. 363; 8 Jur. (x.s.) 
 
 1039 ; 9 L. T. 231 ; 10 AV. R. 356— Ex. Ch. . . . 1246, 1319 
 , , V. Warre, 7 D. & R. 1 ; 4 B. & C. 538 ; 1 Car. k P. 237 ; 4 L. J. 
 
 (0..S.) K. B. 8 1111, 1146 
 
 „ V. AVoodfall, 8 El. & Bl. 493 : 27 L. J. Q. B. 120 ; 4 Jur. (x.s.) 302 386, 1296 
 
 Milles V. Fletcher, 1 Dougl. 231 1301 
 
 3Iills V. Armstrong, The Bernina, 57 L. J. Adm. 65 ; 13 A])p. Cas. 1 ; 58 
 L. T. 423 ; 36 AV. R. 870 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 257 ; 52 J. P. 212— 
 
 H. L. (E.) 687. 726, 737, 866 
 
 ,, r. Ball, 2 Bos. & P. 457 ; 5 R. R. 653 576 
 
 ,, V. Blackall, 11 Q. B. 358 ; 17 L. J. Q. B. 31 ; 12 Jur. 93 . . 92 
 
 ., i;. Campbell, 2 Y. & C. 389 1145 
 
 ,, V. Gregory, Sayer, 127 932 
 
 ,, V. Long, Sayer, 136 ......... 933 
 
 ,, v. Roebuck, 1 Park. Ins. (Sth ed.) 460 1150 
 
 Milu V. AValton, 2 Y. & Cull. C. C. 354 ; 7 Jur. 892 .... 445 
 
 Milvain v. Perez, 3 El. & El. 495 ; 30 L. J. Q. B. 90 ; 7 Jur. (x.s.) 336 ; 
 
 3 L. T. 736 ; 9 AV. R. 269 294 
 
 Alilward v. Hibbert, 3 Q. B. 120 ; 2 G. k D. 142 ; 11 L. J. '>. B. 137 ; 6 
 
 Jur. 706 ... . 587, 1245 
 
 Miuiax, otlierwise The Lagan, 3 Hag. Adm. 418 . . . 89, 162. 956 
 
 Minerva (Wage.s), 1 Hag. Adm. 347 112 
 
 ,, (Derelict), 9 AV. R. 81-P. C 641
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xci 
 
 Minett v. Anderson, 1 Peaki-, 277 ; o R. R. 692 1104 
 
 „ V. Forrestev, 4 Taunt. 541, n. ; cited 1 Term Rep. 113 . . . 1343 
 
 Minna, L. R. 2 A. & E. 97 »j89, 725, 774, 840, 854 
 
 Minna Craig Steamship Co. r. Chartered ilercantile Bank of India, Loudon 
 and China, tj6 L. J. Q. 15. 339 ; [1897] 1 (). B. 460 ; 76 L. T. 310 : 
 
 45 W. R. 338 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 241— C. A 314 (Addenda) 
 
 Minnehaha, ^Vard r. ^IcCorkill (Salvage ; Tug), Lush. 335 ; 15 Moore, 
 P. C. 133 ; 30 L. J. Adm. 211 ; 7 Jur. (n.s.) 1257 ; 4 L. T. 
 
 810 ; 9 W. R. 925 607, 613, 672, 677 
 
 (Interrogatories), L. R. 3 A. & E. 148; 23 L. T. 747; 19 
 
 W. R. 304 098 
 
 Minnett r. Robinson, Bunh. 121 ........ 933 
 
 Minnie, [1894] P. 336 ; 11 R. 705 ; 71 L. T. 715 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 521— 
 
 C. A 823 (2) 
 
 Minto, Ex parte, 35 L. T. 808 ; 25 W. R. 251 ; 3 Asp. ^L C. 323 . . 876 
 Mirabita v. Imi)erial Ottoman liank, 47 L. .J. E.x;. 418 ; 3 Ex. 1). 164 ; 38 
 
 L. T. 597 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 591 359 
 
 Mii-anda (Salvage), 41 L. J. Adm. 82 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 561 ; 27 L. T. 389 ; 
 
 21 ^V. R. 84 ; 1 As)). M. C. 440 619 
 
 ,, (Preliminarv Act), 51 L. J. Adm. 56 ; 7 P. D. 1S5 ; 47 L. T. 447 ; 
 
 30 W. R. 615 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 595 843, 992 
 
 Miriam, 43 L. J. Adm. 35 ; 30 L. T. 537 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 259 . . .978 
 Jlissouri Steamshi]) Co., In re, Monroe's Claim, 58 L. .1. Ch. 721 ; 42 
 
 Ch. D. 32] ; 61 L. T. 316 ; 37 W. R. 696 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 423— C. A. 241 
 Alitcbel V. Ede. See Mitcliel) v. Ede, infra. 
 
 Mitchell V. Burn, 1 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 900 392 
 
 ,, i: Cockburn, 2 H. Bl. 379 1035 
 
 ,, V. Darthez, 2 Scott, 771 ; 2 Bing. (n.c.) 555 ; 1 Ho.lges, 418 ; 5 
 
 L. J. C. P. 154 383 
 
 ,, (or Mitchel) v. Ede, 3 P. k D. 513 ; 11 A. & E. 888 ; 9 L. ,1. q. B. 
 
 187 ; 1 R. R. 318 305, 348, 1280 
 
 ,, V. Edes, 2 Vern. 391 ; Pre. Ch. 125 Ill 
 
 ,, V. Foe, Maclaehlan on Shipping (4th ed.) 234 . . .109 
 
 ,, V. Glennie, 1 Stark. 230 ; 18 R. R. 765 66 
 
 ,, V. Kahl. 2 F. & F. 709 . . . . . . . . 919 
 
 „ V. Rodney. 2 Br. P. C. 423 44, 931, 952 
 
 V. Scaife, 4 Camp. 298 ; 16 R. R. 795 .... 315, 442 
 
 ,, V. Tarbutt, 5 Term Re]». 649 ; 2 R. R. 684 840 
 
 Mitclieson v. Begbie, 6 Bing. 190 ; 3 AI. & P. 442 418 
 
 „ V. Nichol, 7 Ex. 929 ; 21 L. J. Ex. 323 . . . . . 499 
 
 V. Oliver, 5 El. & Bl. 419 ; 25 L. J. Q. B. 29 ; 1 .Inr. (\.s.) 
 
 900— Ex. Ch 61 
 
 M. Mo.xham, 1 P. D. 107 ; 46 L. J. Adm. 17 ; 34 L. T. 559 ; 24 W. R. 
 
 6.50 ; 3 Asj). M. C. 191— C. A 760, 890 
 
 Moakes r. Nicholson, 19 C. B. (.N.s.) 290 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 273 ; 12 L. T. 
 
 573 353 
 
 Mobile (Wages), Swabcy, 256 ; 5 "\V. R. 830 952 
 
 ,, Kates V. Don Pablo Sora (Collision), Swabev, 127 ; 10 ]\Ioore, P. C. 
 
 467 ; 4 W. R. 708 " . . . 698, 805, 807 
 
 Mocatta !•. Muigatroyd, 1 P. AVms. 393 172 
 
 Moderation, Dryden'r. Allix, 1 .Aloore, P. C. (x.s.) 528; 9 L. T. 586 . 825 
 Moeller (or M oiler) v. Young. 5 El. ^V: VA. 755 ; 25 L. J. i). B. 94 ; 2 Jur. 
 
 (n.s.) 393 ; 4 W. R. 149— Ex. Ch 404,488,534 
 
 Moes V. Leitii and Aberdeiii Sliipping Co., 5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd .ser. ) 988 336, 
 
 337 
 
 Mollat f. Fai<|uliaisoii, 2 Pro. C. C. 338 49 
 
 ,, V. Ward, 4 Dougl. 31, n 1057 
 
 Moir r. Royal Exdiangr Assuranci^ Co., 6 Tnuiil. 241 ; 1 .Maisji. 570 ; 3 
 
 M. &S. Un ■ 4 Cam].. S4 ; 16 R. R. 330 1163 
 
 Moliere, 62 L. .1. .Ailm. 102; 11893] J'. 217 ; 1 R. 639 ; 69 L. T. 263 ; 7 
 
 Asp. jM. C. 361 821 
 
 Moller r. Jeek.s, 19 (.'. B. (.\.s.) 332 488 
 
 ,, V. Living, 4 Taunt. 102 420 
 
 Mona (Admiralty ; Wages), 1 W. Rol). 137 932 
 
 ,, (Tender), 63 L. .1. Adm. 137 ; |1894] P. 265; 6 R. 7'i7 ; 71 L. T. 
 
 24 ; 43 W. R. 173 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 478 1003 
 
 Monaghan V. Bueiianan, 13 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser. ) S60 . . . 867 
 
 Monarch, 56 L. .L A-lm. 4 1 ; 12 ]'. I). 5 ; 56 L. T. 204 ; 35 W. R. 292: 
 
 6 Asi). M. C. 90 616, 649, 666 
 
 (Co.sts'; Varying DcrTee), 1 W. Rob. 21 .... 736,1022 
 Monkhouse v. Hay, 8 Price, 256 ; 2 Br. & B. 114 : I Moore, 54!i . . 38 
 Monkseaton, 58 L. J. Adm. 52; 14 P. D. 51 ; 60 L. T. 662; 37 W. R. 
 
 523 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 383 859, 1024
 
 xcii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Moiisoii r. Macfarlnnc, (ir. I,. J. Q. 1',. 57 ; [1895] 2 (,». I',. 562 ; 7:] L. T. 
 
 5-18 ; S Asp. M. ('. »:!— C. A 4GG 
 
 :Monte Rosa, 62 L. J. Adin. 20 ; |1S93| P. 2:! : 1 H. 557 ; OS L. T. 299 ; 
 
 41 W. R. :J04: 7 Asp. M. C. 326 772, 77a 
 
 ^lontuonierie r. Uniteil Kingdom MutualSteaiushii) Assurance Association, 
 60 L. .1. Q. 15. 429 ; 11891] 1 <.>• i'- 370 ; 64 L. T. 323 ; 39 W. R. 
 
 391 : 7 Asp. M. C. 19 1356 
 
 Jlontgoniery 1-. Eggington, 3 Term Kcp. 362 ; 1 R. R. 718 . . . 1140 
 JMontoza r. London Assurance Co., ti I'lx. 451 ; 20 L. J. Kx. 254 . . 1074 
 
 Montreal, 17 Jur. 53S . 780 
 
 :\[oodv i: Surridgc, 2 Esp. 633 : 5 R. R. 757 1248 
 
 iloorcook, 58 L. .). Adm. 73 ; 14 W 1). 64 ; 60 L T. 654 ; 37 W. R. 439 ; 
 
 6 Asp. iM. C. 373— C. A 880 
 
 JMoore v. Harris, 45 L. .1. P. (.'. 55 ; 1 App. Cas. 318 ; 34 L. T. 519 ; 24 
 
 W. R. 887; 3 Asp. M. C. 173— P. C 307, 312 
 
 ,, V. ^Midland P!.ail\vay Co., Ir. Reji. 9 C. L. 20. S. C. on deninn-er, 
 
 Ir. Rep. 8 C. L. 232 . . . .... 77 
 
 ,, V. ^loorgue, Cowp. 479 ......... 1337 
 
 ,, V. Taylor, 3 N. k M. 406 ; 1 A. & E. 25 ; 3 L. J. K. 15. 132 . . 1060- 
 
 Moores r. Hopper, 2 P.os. & r. (n.k.) 411 550 
 
 :Moorslev, 27 L. T. 663 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 471 1016 
 
 Moor.som v. P>ell, 2 Camp. 616 : 12 R. R. 755 491 
 
 ,, r. Greaves, 2 Camji. 627 ; 12 R. R. 763 ..... 377 
 V. Kynier, 2 M. & S. 303 ; 3 Camp. 549, v. : 15 R. R. 261 . 403 
 
 r. Page. 4 Camp. 103 : 15 R. R. 731 496,500 
 
 .^loran v. Jones, 7 Kl. i l!l. 523 : 26 L. .1. (,i. 15. 187 ; 3 .lur. {x.s.j 663 ; 
 
 5 W. R. 503 1244 
 
 Morck r. Abel. 3 P.os. & P. 35 1304 
 
 Mordy v. .Jones, 6 D. .t R. 479 : 4 P.. Ot C. 394 ; 3 L. .1. (o.s.) K. B 250 ; 
 
 28 R. R. 305 1302 
 
 Morewood t: Pollock, 1 El. & I'.l. 743 ; 1 C. L. R. 78 : 22 L. J. Q. B. 250 : 
 
 17 Jur. 881 ; 1 \V. R. 304 328, 511 
 
 ilorgaii /'. Castlegate Steamship Co., The Castlcgate. 62 L. J. P. C. 17 ; 
 [1893] App. Cas. 38 ; 1 R. 97 ; 68 L. T. 99 : 41 W. R. 349 ; 
 
 7 Asp. M. C. 284— H. L. (Ir.) 98,100 
 
 V. Price, 4 Ex. 615 ; 19 L. ,1. Ex. 20] 1330 
 
 ,, V. Sim, The City of London (or The London), 11 Mooic, P. C. 307 ; 
 
 Swabey, 245, 300 ; 5 W. R. 678 . . . 788, 789, 793. 847 
 
 i: Stockdaie, 4 Ex. 615 1040 
 
 Jlorisou r. Bartolomeo, 5 Ct. oF Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 848 .... 729 
 
 Morocco, 24 L. T. 598 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 46 666, 668, 1003 
 
 Morocco Lai^d and Trading Co. r. Fry, 11 Jur. (x..s.) 76 ; 11 L. T. 618 ; 
 
 13 W. R. 310 . ." 1032 
 
 Morris r. Bercley (or Berkeley and Morris' Case), 2 Keb. 441 ; Hardres, 502 931 
 r. Levison, 1 C. P. D. 155 ; 45 L. J. C. P. 409 ; 34 L. T. 576 ; 24 
 
 \V. R. 517 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 171 495 
 
 ,, r. Robinson, 5 D. & R. 35 ; 3 B. & C. 196 : 27 R. R. 322 . 374. 525, 
 
 1301 
 
 /■. Thormodsen, 60 J. P. 644 503 
 
 .Morrison r. Ceneral Steam Navigation Co., 8 Ex. 733 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 233 ; 
 17 Jur. 507 ; 1 W. R. 311— Ex. Ch. Affirminii 13 C. B. 581 : 
 22 L. J. C. P. 178 ; 17 Jur. 673 ; 1 AV. R. 330 . . 687. 707 
 ,, r. Howden, 66 L. J. Q. B. 264 ; [1897] 1 Q. B. 378 : 76 L. T. 
 
 150 ; 45 W. R. 221 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 249 ; 61 J. P. 246 . . 873 
 
 1-. Parsons, 2 Tannt. 407 ; 11 R. R. 622 . . . . .392 
 ., r. Univer.sal Marine Insurance Co. (Evidence), 25 L. T. 108; 
 
 1 Asp. ]\r. C. 100 . . 1032 
 
 ,, ?•. Universal Marine Insurance Co., 42 L. J. Ex. 115 ; L. R. 
 8 Ex. 197 ; 27 L. T. 791 : 21 W. R. 774 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 503— Kx. Ch. 1032, 
 
 1035, 1180 
 Morrough i'. Coniyns, 1 Wils. 211 ....... 43, 150' 
 
 Mors r. Slew (or Slue), 3 Keb. 72, 112, 135, 866 ; Sir T. Raym. 220 ; 
 
 1 Mod. 85 ; 1 Ventr. 190, 238 75 (2), 80 
 
 Morsde-Blanch (or Le Blanch) r. AVilson, 42 L. J. C. P. 70 ; L. R. 8 C. P. 
 
 227 ; 28 L. T. 415 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 605 .... 443, 538, 563 
 
 Morse V. Australian Steani Navigation Co., 8 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 482; 
 L. R. 4 C. P. 222 ; 27 L. T. 357 ; 20 W. R. 728 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 
 407 88, 523, 1301 
 
 ., r. Buckworth, 2 Yern. 443 42 
 
 Morteo v. Julian, 48 L. J. M. C. 126 : 4 C. P. D. 216 ; 41 L. T. 71 ; 4 
 
 Asp. M. C. 166 * . . 143 
 
 Mortimers. Broadwood, 20 L. T. 398 ; 17 AV. R. 653 .... 1137 
 V. Fleming, 4 li. .S; C. 12C ; 6 1). & R. 176 . . . 35.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xc-iii 
 
 Morto)i V. Hutchinson, The Fraukliuid iiiul The Kestrel, !) Moore, P C 
 
 (N.s.) 365 ; L. R. 4 P. C. r,29 ; 27 L. T. 633 : 1 Asp. M. C. 489 . 800 
 
 Moselle, 32 L. T. r)70 ; 2 Asp. M. C. .'.St! 7S:j 
 
 Mo.ses i: Pratt, 4 Camp. 297 ; Id R. R. 794 1307 
 
 ]Moss v. African Steamship Co., The Calabar, L. R. 2 1*. (,'. 2oS ; 19 
 
 L. T. 768 692. 770. 772 
 
 ,, r. Byrom, G Term Rep. 379; 3 R. R. 208 .... 109>. 1201 
 
 ,. r. Cliarnoek, 2 East, 399 ; Holt. 603 l.Vs 
 
 ., r. Mersej' Dock ami Harliour Doan], 2(5 L. T. 42.'. ; 20 W. R. 700 : 
 
 1 Asp. M. C. 274 901 
 
 .. r. Mills. 6 East, 144 .-js 
 
 ,, r. Smith, 9 ('. 15. 94 ; 19 L. .1. C. 1'. 225 ; 14 .lur. 10(13 . . 1225, 1233 
 
 Alotteux V. London Assuiaiu-e Corporation, 1 Atk. 545 . . 1042, 1059. ]21:; 
 
 Mould r. Andrews, 35 L. T. 813 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 329 . . . . .-,it 
 
 Mount r. Harrison, 4 Bing. 388 : 1 M. & P. 14 ; 6 L. .1. (.).s.) ('. P. fi . 12s:; 
 
 '•. Larkins, 8 Bing. 108, 195: ] :\I. & Scott. 165, 357- 1 
 
 L. J. C. P. 20 1211 
 
 Mount Vernon, 64 L. T. 148 : 7 Asp. M. ('. 32 5!i 
 
 Mountaineer, 2 W. Roll. 7 ........ . i)2:! 
 
 Mouse's Case, 12 Co. Rep. 63 . . . . . . . . .541 
 
 Moxon /'. Atkins, 3 Camp. 200; 13 R. R. 789 1045. 1057 
 
 .Mu.'klow c. Mangles, 1 Taunt. 318 : 9 R. R. 781 20 
 
 Mud Hopper, 40 L. T. 462; 4 Asp. M. C. 103 (535 
 
 .Muddle r. Stride, 9 Car. & ]'. 380 554 
 
 Mnir r. Fleming. 1). & R. N. P. C. 29 ; 25 R. R. 775 .... 1349 
 Muirhead r. Forth and Xortli Sea Steambn.it Mutual Insurance Associa- 
 tion. [1894] App. Cas. 72 : 6 R. 59; 21 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (Itli scr.) 
 
 1— H. L. (Sc.) 1355 
 
 Mulgrave, 2 Hag. Adm. 77 ....... . (i54. (i57 
 
 Mui'ler /■. Bal.hvin, 43 L. .1. (.'. P.. ](;4 : E. R. 9 (,>. 1!. 457 ; 30 E. T. 864 ; 
 
 22 W. R. 909 ; 2 Asp. .M. C. 3(1 1 883 
 
 ,, c. Gernon. 3 Taunt. 39 1 1208 
 
 ,, /■. Thompson, 2 Cami). 610 ; 12 R. R. 753 .... 1177, 1208 
 
 Midl.tt /•. Hook, M. & M. 88; 31 R. R. 716 67 
 
 r. Sheddon, 13 East, 304 ; 12 R. R. 347 1294 
 
 Mulliugar. 26 L. T. 326 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 252 97-! 
 
 :MuUov f. Backer, 5 East, 316 ; 1 Smitli, 447: 7 R. R. 70 1 . . . 87o 
 
 .Munro r. Vandam, 1 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 4(i9 10S9 
 
 Mnnroe. 189;3J P. 248 : 1 R. 642 ; 70 L. T. 246 : 7 Asp. .M. ('. .|(i7 . 10S3 
 
 Murillo, 28 L. T. 374 : 1 .Asp. .M. C. 579 998 
 
 Murphv r. Bell, 4 Bing. 567 : 1 .NE .V: I*. 493: 6 E. .E (k.s.) C. P. US: 
 
 29 R. R. 630 . . 113S 
 
 /■. Coffin, 12 (,). B. 1). 87 : 32 W. R. 616 ; 5 .\sp. M. < '. 531, >i. 4(i6, 
 
 167 
 
 ., r. Mooreiiead, 16 Ir. Cli. Ri'p. 45 1 15:! 
 
 '., r. Palgrave. 21 L. T. 209 i;w 
 
 -Murray r. Curric, 40 L. .E C. i". 26 : E. R. •) C. P. 21 : 23 E. T. 557 ; 19 
 
 W. R. 104 515 
 
 ,, f. Montrie, 6 Car. ^: !'. 171 l:i(> 
 
 Myer v. Van lier Dehl, Abl)ott on Shijijiiim EUh i-il.) I p; . . . 591 
 
 iMver-s r. Willis, 18 C. B. Rso : 25 E. .1, ('. P. 255: 1 W. IE 637— 
 
 E.X. Cii 40, 64 
 
 Mvlaiider /•. I'.iriK's. 6 IE .*v: X. 509 lolO 
 
 X. 
 
 X. p. XiKi.sKN, 31 E. T. .588 ; 24 W. R. :V24 ; 3 Asp. M. (J. 169 . 
 X. R. CosfalM-irk, Swabey, 344 ; 4 .lur. (.n.s.) 742; 6 W. R. 871 
 X. Strong, f]892j P. 10.5; 67 E. T. 299 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 194 . 
 Xantes i: Thomp.son, 2 East, 385 ; 6 IE R. 458 .... 
 Xaonii, 32 l>. T. 836 ; 23 W. R. 387 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 588 . 
 Naples, 55 E. .1. .\ilm. 61 ; 11 1'. I). 121 ; 55 E. T. 584 ; 35 W. R. 
 
 6 Asp. >E C. 30 858 
 
 Xa.smyth, 54 E. .1. A<lni. 6:i ; lo 1'. 1). 11 : 52 1,. T. 392 : 33 W. R. 736 ; 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. :564 657, c::!. HH'I 
 
 Xat.han r. Giles, 5 Taunt. 558 : 1 .Marsli. 226 : 15 R. IE 5S1 . . . :;i:! 
 
 Native Pearl, 37 E. T. 542; 3 Asp. .M. C. 515 58, 9i7 
 
 Natu.seh r. Hendcwi-rk, 7 l^ U. 1). -UiO, n E'tOM 
 
 Nautik, 64 L. .1. Adm. 61 ; [1895] P. 121 ; 11 R. 716 : 72 E. T. 21 : 13 
 
 AV. R. 703 ; 7 Asp. M. ('. 591 9.S8 
 
 Xavotie i: Haddon, 9 ( '. 15. :iO : 19 E. .1. C, 1'. I'll .... 1235, 125(( 
 
 S. il 
 
 1 9 
 
 9.' SOI 
 
 
 1115 
 
 8(;3 
 
 »9 : 
 
 , 1022
 
 xciv TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Xavl»i- r. I'ahiUT. In Kx. :!8-i : -J ('. h. K. ]-J<i-j ; -j:; I,. .1. Kx. oii'! : IS 
 
 Jur. ixn : -J W. K. t)21 — H\. Cli Il(i7, l'2:'.r. 
 
 ,, r. Taylor. M. \- M. 20r, ; ;• 1!. \ 0. ns : 4 M. .^ l.'v. o'2() : :!1 
 
 R. R. 731 : 378, 1209, I'iHl 
 
 Neal r. Irving, 1 E.si). (il ; 5 K. ],'. 720 13:i« 
 
 Keave c. Pratt, 2 lios. .t 1*. (N.i:.) 408 .128 
 
 Nedaiiliam (or Mcilanliain) r. Fdliaiiib (ur FoMainb), (JiKli. '.• : (i Viii. 
 
 Abr. r)39 933 
 
 Neora, 5 P. D. 118 ; 42 L. T. 74:; ; 4 Asp. M. C. 277 . . . 1020, 1023 
 
 Neill 'r. Ridley, 9 Ex. «77 : 2 C. L. \l. 1018 391 
 
 Xuilsoii r. Do la Cour, 2 E.sp. 619 1215 
 
 r. Skinner, 17 (-'t. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 1243 .... 168 
 Nei.sh r. Crahani, 8 El. & 151. 505 ; 27 L. .1. Q. 15. 15 ; 4 Jur. (v.s.) 49 . 442 
 
 Nellie, 29 L. T. 516 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 142 607 
 
 Nollv Schneider, :! P. 1). 1.52; 39 L. T. 300; 27 W. R. :!0S : 4 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 54 164 
 
 Nelson (Bottomry), 1 Hag. Adni. 169 203 
 
 ,, (Pilot), 6'C. Rob. 227 .948 
 
 ,, /•. Association for Protection of Wrecked Pro])ertv. 4:! L. .1. V. P. 
 
 218 "... 434 
 
 ,. v. Couch. 15 C. P. (N\s.) 99 : :J3 L. J. C. P. 46 : 10 Jiir. (x.s.) 366 : 
 
 8 L. T. 577 : 11 W. R. 964 851 
 
 ,, /•. Diihl (ori)ahl r. Donkin, or NcLson), 50 1.. .1. Ch. 411 ; 6 App. 
 Cas. 38 ; 44 L. T. 381 : 29 W. i;. 543 ; 4 Asp. M. V. 392— 
 
 H. L. (E.) 243, 289. 447. 461 
 
 ,, /•. Salvador, M. & M. 309 ; 31 R. R. 733 116:1 
 
 Nepoter, 38 L. J. Adm. 63 ; L. R. 2 A. .^ E. 375 ; 22 P. T. 1 77 : 18 W. R. 
 
 49 340, 344 
 
 Neptunas, 6 W. R. 262 1001 
 
 Neptune (Wreck : Wages), 1 Hag. Adm. 227 . . . . 112,720,1126. 
 
 ., (Collision). 13 L. T. 510 812,815. 
 
 „ Two Sets of Salvors), 1 W. Pob. 297 .59.'^ 
 
 ,, Green r. Bnilev (Salvage ; Amount ; Ai)i)eal). 12 Moore, P. C. 
 
 346 ." . . ' 645. 
 
 ,, Hodges r. Sims (Admiralty ; Material j\lan ; Civil Law), 3 
 
 Knapii, 94. Reversing y.'C, 1 Hag. Adm. 129. 177, 948, 960, 961 
 ,, Steam Navigation Co. v. Sclater, Tiie Delano, 64 L. J. Adm. 
 8; [1895] P. 40 ; 6 R. 810; 71 L. T. 544: 4:1 \V. R. 65; 
 
 7 Esp. M. C. 52:3— C. A 1017 
 
 Neptum- the Second. 1 Dods. 467 ....... 692, 763 
 
 Neraiio, and Tlie Dromedary. 20 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4thser.)237 . . 820' 
 
 Nereid. 58 L. .1. Adm. 51 :"l4 P. 1). 78 : 61 L. T. 339 ; 37 W. R. 688 : 
 
 6 A.sp. M. C. 411 75J 
 
 Ne.sbitt r. Lushington, 4 Term Rep. 783 ; 2 R. R. 519 . . . 1091, 1093 
 
 Nether Holme, Hine i: Steamship Insurance Syndicate, 11 1!. 777: 72 
 
 L. T. 79 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 558— C. A. . . " 1341 
 
 Netherlands Steamboat Co. r. Styles, The P>atavier, 9 Moore. P. C. 286 ; 
 
 1 Spink.s, 378 691 
 
 Nevada, 27 L. T. 720 ; 1 .\sp. M. C. 477 713 
 
 Never Despair, and The Stork, 53 L. J. Adm. 30 : 9 P. I). 34 : 50 1.. T. 
 
 369 ; 32 W. R. 599 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 211 992 
 
 New Brunswick, 1 W. Hob. 28 224 
 
 New Draper, 4 C. Rob. 287 956 
 
 New Dumbarton Steamboat Co. r. Clyde Navigation Tinstees, 8 Ct. of 
 
 Sess. Cas. (3rd ser. ) 850 . . ' 902 
 
 New Eagle, 2 W. Rob. 441 ; 4 Not. of Cas. 426 962 
 
 New Ed, The Gustaf and The, 9 L. T. 547 79o 
 
 New Pelton, 60 F.. .1. Adm. 78 ; [1891] P. 258 ; 65 L. T. 494 ; 7 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 81 83:-. 
 
 New Phoaii.x (Drunkenness : Wages), 1 Hag. A(hn. 198 .... 131 
 New Steam Tug Co. r. McClew, 7 Ct. of Ses's Cas. (3rd ser.) 73:S . . 49o- 
 Newbattle, 54 L. J. Adm. 16 : lo P. IX 33 ; 52 L. T. 15 ; 33 W. R. 318 : 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 356— C. A. 762,841,864 
 
 Newberry r. Colviii, 1 CI. & F. 283 ; 6 Bligh, 167. Adirmintc 4 U. & P. 
 876 ; 7 Bing. 190 ; 1 C. & J. 192 ; 1 Tyr. 55 ; 9 L. J. (o.'s.) Ex. 13— 
 
 Ex. Ch ' . . . . . 238, 296 
 
 Newby f. Reed, 1 W. Bl. 416 1039^ 
 
 Newcastle (Master, Pilots and Seamen) /•. Hammond, 4 ]']x. 285 ; 18 L. J. 
 
 Ex. 417 885, 908 
 
 Newland v. Horseman, Cas. in Ch. pt. 2, 74 . . . . . . 371 
 
 Newman r. Cazalet, 2 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 900 1258 
 
 V. Lamport and Holt. 65 L. .1. Q. B. 102 ; [1896] 1 (,•. P.. 20 ; 
 73 L. T. 475 ; 8 As^). M. C. 76 239'
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xcv 
 
 Newman *•. Walters, 3 Bos. & 1'. 612 : 7 K. K. S^^t; ..... 62r> 
 Ncwnhaiii r. Graves, cited 1 JMad. 399 •••.... 29 
 
 Newport. Swaliey. 317, 335 ; 6 AV. 1!. 3Ui — 1'. C 273 373. 
 
 Ngapoota, 66 L.'j. P. C. 88 ; [1897] Apii. Cas. 391—1'. C. . . 786' 818 
 
 Nichol r. Goodall, 10 Ves. 1.5;'. 114:> 
 
 Nieliola-s r. Dracaehis, 45 L. J. Adin. 45 ; 1 P. D. 72 : 24 W. R. 461 . 987 
 NichoUs r. LeLeuvre (or Slater), 2 Biug. (n.c. ) 81 ; 1 Hodges, 255; 2 
 
 Scott, 146 ; 7 Car. & P. 91 ; 4 L. J. C. P. 281 . '^. ' . ' . 571 
 
 Nichols V. Clent, 3 Price, 547 ........ 305 
 
 Nicholson c. Chainnan, 2 H. Bl. 254 ....... 595 
 
 '•. Crolt, 2 Pmrr. IISS .' 1320 
 
 '•. Mouncev, 15 East, 384 ; 13 K. K. 5rtl ... 92 7-'-3. 
 
 r. Power, 20 L. T. 580 II80 
 
 ,, /•. Williams, 40 L. J. M. C. 159 ; L. U. G (,) B. 632 ; 24 L. T. 
 
 875 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 67. S. C, nom. Reg. v. Kingston-iipon-Hull 
 
 (Ju-stices), Nicholson c. Nicholson, 19 AV. K. 973. .... ^.^2 
 Niekson v. Thomas, 1 .Stark. 85 ........ 42 
 
 Nicolaas Witzeii, 3 Hag. Adm. 369 .640 
 
 Nicolai Heinrieh, 17 .Jur. 329 ........ 598, 635 
 
 Nicolina, 2 W. Rob. 175 ......... 678 
 
 Nied Klwin, 1 Dods. 50 98.3- 
 
 Nielsen c. Neame. 1 Cali. A: E. 288 . . . . . . .421 
 
 /•. Wait, 55 L. .1. Q. B. 87: 16 (,). B. D. 67 : 54 L. T. 344 : 34 
 
 W. R. 33 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 553— C. A 254. 465 
 
 Niemann r. Moss, 29 L. J. Q. B. 206 : 6 Jur. (x.s. ) 775 . . . . 4.-18 
 Nif'a, 62 L. .J. Adm. 12 : [1892] P. 411 : 1 R. 540 : ()9 L. T. ',6 : 7 Asip. 
 
 .M. ('. 321 253 
 
 Night Watch, 32 L. .1. Adm. 47 ; 8 Jur. (x.s. 1 1161 : 7 L. T. 396 ; 11 
 
 W. R. 189 756, 840, 922' 
 
 Nile, 44 L. J. Adm. 38 ; L. R. 4 A. A: E. 449 : 33 L. T. 66 : 3 Asp. M. C. 11 618 
 Nimrod (Salvage : Evidence), 14 Jur. 942 ...... 999 
 
 ,, (Collision), 15 .Fur. 1201 822 (2) 
 
 Nina, 5 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 60; 38 L. J. Adm. 17: L. K. 2 P. C. 38: 
 
 17 L. T. 585 124. 127 
 
 Niobe (CoIli.sion), 57 L. J. Adm. 33 ; 13 P. I). 55 : 59 i.. T. 257: 3t; 
 W. R. 812: IS Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4t]i sor.) 57 : 6 Asp. U. C. 
 
 300— H. L. (Sc.) 682,754,758 
 
 ,, McCowan r. Baine (Insurance), [1891] Aj.p. Ca.s. 401 ; 65 L. T 
 
 502 ; 18 Ct. of Sess. Cfus. (4th .ser.) 57 : 7 Asp. M. C. 89— H. L. (Se.) 1085 
 Niord, The Esk (Owners) v. The Niord (Owners), 7 .Moore, P. C. (x.s.) 
 
 276 ; L. R. 3 P. C. 436 : 24 L. T. 167 : 1 Asp. M. C. 1 . 811, 830' 
 
 Nitro- Phosphate and Odums Chemical Manure Co. v. London and St. 
 
 Katherine's Dock Co., 9 Ch. D. 503 ; 39 L. T. 433 : 27 W. R. 267— 
 
 C. A 9(14 
 
 Nix r. Olive, Abbott on Sliiiipingn3tli cd.) 7<i7 572 
 
 Ni.xon f. .Vlbion Jlaruie Insurance Co., 36 li. . I. \-'.\. iso : L. K. 2 K.\. 33.s : 
 
 16 L. T. 568 : 15 W. R. 564 I(i29 
 
 ,, r. Roberts. 1 J. & H. 739 ; 30 E. .1. Cli. M4 : 7 .Iiir. (n.s. : S2(i : 4 
 
 L. T. 679 ; 9 W. R. 890 7:!8. 745 
 
 No, 1 Sjiinks, 184 999- 
 
 Nobel's E.\|>losives Co. v. .lenkins, 65 E. .1. (,>. \'>. f):;,s : [lS9i;l 2 <.». IJ. 326 ; 
 
 75 E. T. 163 ; 8 A.sp. M. C. 181 339 
 
 Noble u. Adams, 7 Taunt. 59 ; 2 Maisii. :i6ti : Holt, 24.^ : 17 1.'. U. 115 . 577 
 
 „ '•. Kennaway, 2 Dong!. 510 1189 
 
 Nocki-lls c. Lingham, 2 .liir. 438 4(iO 
 
 Noden c. John.son, 16 (^>. P.. 218 ; 2(i I-. .1. «,•. P.. 95 : 15 Am. 124 . 8], 86'J 
 
 Nonnen v. Kettlewell, 16 East, 176 ....... 1052 
 
 V. Reid, 16 East, 176 10.55, 1056, 1150 
 
 Nonpareil, 33 E. . I. Adm. 201 115 
 
 Nor, 30 L. T. 576 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 264— P. C 688. 698, 8(»5 
 
 Nord Kaji. and The San.lhill, I1S941 App. Cas. t;;t; : II 1;. in . 699 
 
 Nordcn, 1 Spiiiks, 185 622 
 
 Norden .steamship Co. r. Ocmpsev. 42 E. .1. ( '. P. 76 1 : 1 C. P. D. 651 : 
 
 24 W. R. 984 . . . " 462 
 
 Nordstjernen, Swabev, 260 ......... 96.h 
 
 Norma (Salvage ; Va'lue), Eu.sh. 124 ; 3 L. T. 310 6;il 
 
 ,, (Collision;, 35 E. T. 418 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 272— P. C. . 813, 815, 917 
 Norman v. Binnington, 59 E. J. Q. B. 490 ; 25 Q. li. 1). 475 : 63 E. T. 
 
 108 ; 38 \V. R. 702: 6 Asj.. M. C. .528 :•>-•> 
 
 Normandie (Owners) v. The Pekin (Owners), The Pekin, 66 L. J. P. C. 97 ; 
 
 [1897] App. Cas. 532 : 77 L. T. 443 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 367—1'. C. . 81 1 
 
 Nonnandy, 39 L. J. Adm. 48 ; L. R. 3 A. & K. 152 ; 23 L. T. 631 ; 18 
 
 W. R. 903 716, 746, 750 
 
 .V-2
 
 xcvi TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Xorris r. Williams, 1 Car. .'i: M. SJ-J -. 2 L. J. Ex. -I'u . . . 38. I(i7 
 
 North Ainericaii (Both ti> Blaine : Detciitioii Fet-.s), Swahey. 46(5 . 7i)-2, 981 
 
 (Detc)iti<iii Fees), .Swalwy, 4t)t) '.181 
 
 North Aiiieri(;an, The, and Tlie Tuda Carnii'n, Zuga.sti r. Jjaiiier i Pleadiug : 
 
 Costs), Swabey, :5.")8 : 12 .Moore, ]'. V. Xn 7?.6, 842, 843, 860, 861, 1024 
 North A:iicricaii, The, and The Tccla Carmen (Cross Action), Lush. 79 ; ;'> 
 
 Jur. (N..S.) 6:19 ' . 739,842,1021 
 
 North American, The, and The Wild Rose, 14 L. T. 68 . . 773, 799, 803 
 
 North Britain, Roberts r. (.)cean Marine Insurance Co., 63 L. J. Adni. 33 ; 
 
 [1894] P. 77 ; 6 R. 673 ; 70 L. T. 210 ; 42 W. R. 243 ; 7. Asp. M. C. 
 
 413— C. A 1084 
 
 North Britisli and ilercantile Insurance Co. r. London, Liverpool and 
 
 Globe Insurance Co., 46 L. J. Ch. 537 ; 5 Ch. D. .'.69 ; 36 L. T. 629— 
 
 C. A 1.3.33 
 
 North German Llovd Steamship Co. r. Elder, The Sehwalbe, 14 j\Ioore. 
 
 P. C. 241 ; Lush. 239 ; 4 L. T. 160 770 
 
 North of England Iron Steamship Insurance Co. r. Armstrong, 39 L. ,1. 
 
 Q. B. 8] ; L. R. -, Q. B. 244 : 21 L. T. 822 : 18 W. R. .020 . 1139, 1141, 
 
 1313, 1333 
 North of England Pure Oilcake Co. v. Archangel JLiritime Bank and 
 
 Insurance Co., 44 L. J. (}. B. 121 ; L. R. 10 Q. B. 249 ; 32 L. T. 561 : 
 
 24 W. R. 162; 2 Asp. M. C. 571 1311 
 
 North Star, Lush. 45 ; 29 L. J. Adm. 73 ; 2 L. T. 264 . . 206. 228, 580 
 
 Northwestern Bank c. Bjornstrom, 5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 24 . 413 
 
 v. Povnter, [1895] App. Cas. 56 : 11 R. 73 ; 22 Ct. of 
 
 Sess. Gas. (4th ser.) ]—H. L. (Sc.) 549 
 
 Northampton, 1 Spinks, 152 695. 772, 846 
 
 Northcote v. Henricii Bjorn (Owners), The Henrich Bjorn, 55 L. J. Adni. 
 
 80 ; 11 App. Cas. 270 ; 55 L. T. 66 ; 33 W. R. 719 : 6 Asp. M. C. 1 — 
 
 H. L. (E.). Aflirming 54 L. J. Adm. 33 : 10 P. D. 44 ; 52 L. T. 560 ; 
 
 33 W. R. 719 ; 5 As].. iM. ( '. 391 .... 56, 197, 961, 966 
 
 Northey r. Field, 2 Esp. 613 ....... . . 571 
 
 Northumberlanil, The, and The Andalusia. 12 L. 'J\ 584 .... 631 
 
 Northutnbria (Limitation Action), 39 L. J. Adm. 24 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 24 751 
 ,, (Collision ; Interest on Danmges), 39 L. J. Adm. 24 ; L. R. 
 
 3 A. & E. 6 ; 21 L. T. 681 ; 18 W. R. 188 742 
 
 Norway (Freight), 12 L. T. 57 : 13 W. R. 296 .... 380, 557 
 
 ,, Norway (Owners) i: Ashburiier (Charterparty), Br. & Lush. 404 ; 
 
 3 Moor-, P. C. (N.s.) 245 : 11 Jur. (.n.s.) 892 ; 13 L. T. 50 ; 13 W. R. 
 
 1085— P. C. S. C, on demurrer, Br. & Lush. 226 272, 308, 340, 427, 432, 440 
 
 Nostra Signora del Carmen, 1 C. Roil. 228, ?i 950 
 
 Notara v. Henderson, 41 L. J. (2- 15. 158 ; L. R. 7 Q. B. 225 ; 26 L T. 
 
 442 ; 20 W. R. 443 ; 1 A.sp. M. C. 278— Ex. Ch 520 
 
 Nothard v. Pepper, 10 Jur. (n.s.) 1077 ; 17 C. B. (n-.s.) 39 ; 10 L. T. 7.^2 S47 
 Nottebohn v. Hichter, 56 L. .L <,». 15. 33 ; 18 (}. B. D. 63 ; 35 W. R. 300 
 
 — C. A 506 
 
 Notting Hill, 53 L. J. Adm. 56 ; 9 P. D. 105 : 51 L. T. 66 : 32 W. R. 
 
 764 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 24] 733 
 
 Nourse v. Liverpool Sailing Shipown<'rs Mutual Protection and Indemnity 
 
 Association, 65 L. .1. (,). B. 507 ; [1896] 2 Q. B. 16 ; 74 L. T. 543 : 
 
 44 W. R. 500 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 144— C. A 1271 
 
 Nugent r. Smith, 45 L. J. C. P. 697 : 1 C. P. D. 423 ; 34 L. T. 827 : 24 
 
 W. R. 237 : 3 Asp. M. C. 198— C. A 75 
 
 Numida, The, The CoUingrove, 54 L. J. Adm. 78 ; 10 P. D. 158 
 
 68] ; 34 VV. R. 156 ;' 5 Asp. M. C. 483 . 
 Nuova Loanese, ] 7 Jur. 263 ....... 
 
 Nuova Raflfaelina, Jaj.p ?•. Durante, 41 L. J. Adm. 37 ; L. 1.'. 
 
 483 ; 24 L. T. 321 ; 20 W. R. 216 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 16 
 
 Nutt v. Jiouidieu, 1 Term Rep 429 
 
 Nyholm, Ej: park. Child, Li /v, 43 L. J. lik. 21 ; 29 L. T. <!34 ; 
 
 174; 2 Asp. M. C. 165 
 
 Nymph (Sale), Swabey, 86 
 
 Nynijihe (Salvage ; Evidence), 5 L. T. 365 .... 
 
 0. 
 
 Oakfield, 55 L. J. Adm. 11 : 11 P. I). 34 : 54 L. T. 578 : 34 W. R. 6S7 ; 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 575 772, 773, 775 (2), 857, 860 
 
 'Oaklcv V. Portsmouth ami Rydc Steam Packet Co., 11 Ex. t]'l>^ . . 76 
 ,, ' v. Speedy, 40 L. T. 881 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 134 . . . . 80, 764 
 
 nberburgomeister, 18 W. R. 443 125 
 
 'Obey, L. R. 1 A. & E. 102; 12 Jur. (N.s.) 81.7 744 
 
 ; 53 L. T. 
 
 
 . 856, 
 
 1020 
 
 
 201 
 
 3 A. ct E. 
 
 
 
 232 
 
 
 1097 
 
 22 W. R. 
 
 
 
 430 
 
 165 
 
 , 718 
 
 
 673
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xcvii 
 
 Ocean (Necessaiies). 1 W. Eob. 368 : 9 Jur. 381 96.-. 
 
 „ (Bottomrv : Valiilitv), 2 AV. Rob. 429 216 
 
 ., (Bottomry : Simple Contract Debt), 2 W. Koli. 46.-. . . .216 
 
 „ (Salva.i^e), 2 W. Rob. 91 ........ 607 
 
 Ocean Iron Steamship Assurance Association v. Leslie, 22 (^ W. D. 722 : 
 
 .=)? L. T. 722 : 6 Asp. .M. C. 226 l:'.r.6 
 
 Ocean (»neeii, 1 W. liob. 4-.7 9(!.'> 
 
 Ocean Steamshi[> Co. c. Anderson, 33 W. R. 536. And see S. C. in H. L., 
 nom. Anderson r. Ocean, ke. Co., 10 App. Ca.s. 
 107 ; 52 L. T. 4 11 ; 38 W. i;. 481 : .-. Asp. il. ( '. 
 
 401— H. L. (E.) 583, 992 
 
 ,, ,, V. Apcar, The Aratoon Apcar, 59 L. J. P. C. 49 ; 15 
 
 Ai.i). Cas. 37 : 62 L. T. 331 ; 38 W. R. 481 : 6 Asp. M. C. 491— 
 
 p. C 711, 786, 820 
 
 Ocean Wave, Marshall v. Moran, 6 Mooro, 1'. C. (n..s.)492 ; L. R. 3 P. C. 
 
 205 ; 23 L. T. 218 769, 771, 772, 780 
 
 Oceanic Steam Navif,'ation Co. r. .lones. The Alexandria, 41 L. .1. Adni. 
 
 94 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 574 ; 27 L. T. 565 : 1 Asp. M. C. 464 144, 839, 945 
 
 Oceano, The, and The Virgo. 3 P. D. 60 811,830 
 
 Octavia Stella, 57 L. T. 632 ; 6 Asp. M. V. Ii>-1 . . . 80, 7t>l. 769 
 
 Octavie, Hr. .t Lush. 215: 33 L. .1. Adm. 115: 9 L. T. 695 . . . 105 
 
 Oddy c. Bovill, 2 East, 473 ; 6 R. R. 4.S2 1173 
 
 Odessa, 46 L. T. 77 : 4 Asp. M. C. 493— C. A 831 
 
 rh:olus (or .Eolu-s), 42 L. ,T. Adm. 14 : L. R. 4 A. & E. 29 : 28 L. T. 41 : 
 
 21 W. R. 704 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 516 •>03, 615 
 
 Ogden c. Graham, 1 B. & S. 773 : 31 L. .1. <>. H. 26 : 8 .(ur. (n.s.) 613 : 5 
 
 L. T. 396 : 10 W. R. 77 285 
 
 Ogg V. Shuter, 45 L. .1. C. P. 44 : 1 (,'. P. D. 47 : 33 L. T. 492 ; 24 W. P. 
 
 100 : 3 Asp. J[. C. 77— C. A 355. 54a 
 
 Ogle r. Atkinson, 1 Marsh. 323 : 5 Taunt. 759 : 15 R. R. 647 . . . 360 
 ,, c. AVrangham, Abbott on Shipping (13th ed.) 96 . . . 49,1048 
 
 Oglesbv r. Yglesias, El. Bl. & El. 930 : 27 L. J. (.). B. 356 : ti W. R. 690 45o 
 Oldsen'--. Drumniond. 4 Doiigl. 356 : 2 Chit. 705 .... 270,511 
 Olirlotr r. P.riscoll, The HeK-nc, 4 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 70: Br. k Lush. 
 41S : :i5 L. .1. P. C. 63 : L. b'. 1 P. C. 231 : 12 .hir. (n.s.) 675 : 14 
 
 L. T. 873 ; 15 W. R. 202 339,517 
 
 Ohrly c. Dunbar, 1 X. & P. 244 : 5 A. .V K. 824 : 2 II. X- W. \-,i : 6 
 
 L. J. K. B. 15 1=^23 
 
 Olive (Witnesses' Expcu.ses), Swabey, 292 1021 
 
 ,, (Attachment : Costs), Swabey. 423 ; 5 .lur. (N.s.) 4 15 . . . 1021 
 
 ,, r. Smith, 5 Taunt. 56 1^^44 
 
 Oliver (•. Cohen, 27 W. R. 822 '512 
 
 „ c. Cowley, 1 I'ark. Ills. (8th ed.) 470 11»1 
 
 ,, r. Eielden, 4 Ex. 135: IS L. -F. Ex. 353 504 
 
 „ r. Muggeridg.-, 7 W. R. 164 =513, 453 
 
 Oliverson '•. Brightman, 8 (). B. 7M : 1 Car. & K. 360: 15 h. .1. (,». B. 
 
 274 : 10 .hir. 875 1-16 
 
 V. Loughman, 4 M. & S. 346 : cited 2 B. .t Aid. 322 . . 1151 
 
 Olivia, Lush. 497 : 6 L. T. 398 795 
 
 <)livi.-r (orOIlivier), Lush. 484 ; 31 L. .1. Adm. l:;7 : 6 L. T. 259 . . 211 
 
 Ollive <■. Booker, 1 Ex. 416; 17 L. .1. Ex. 21 262 
 
 Om..a Ca.se, Le Cras r. Hughes, 3 Dougl. 81 : 2 Park. lii>. (sth cd.) 56.S . 1139. 
 " 1143 
 
 Omoaan.l Ch-land Coal and Iron Co. i: lluiithy. 2( . P. D. PM ; 37 L. 'I 
 
 184 : 25 W. li. 675 ; 3 A.sp. M. C. 501 
 
 <rNeil /•. Armstrong, Mitchell .t Co., 65 L. .1. <,». B. 7; [18951 2 <.'. I 
 418 : 1 1 R. 7i>9 : 73 L. T. 178 ; 8 A-sj.. .M. C. 63-C. A. 
 ,, i: Bankin, 11 rt. (.!' Sess. Cas. (3rd ser. ) 53S 
 Oneiza, L. R. I A. .^ E. 36 : 27 L. T. 632 : 21 W. P. 232 ; 1 Asp. M. ( 
 
 470 
 
 Onni, Lush. 154; 3 L. T. 417 963(2) 
 
 Onward, 42 L. J. Adm. 61 : L. R. 1 A. .^ E. 38 : 2s L. T. 204 ; 21 W . U. 
 
 601 : 1 Asp. M. C. 540 ■-^^^' "^^'^n] 
 
 Com c. Bruce, 12 Ea.st, 225 : 11 K. i;. 3I-.7 1^04 
 
 „ r. Tavlor. 3 Camp. 204 ; • ^^'^ 
 
 Ooster Eems, I C. Rob. 28 1, ,/. : May ami .Marri<.t. Pn 1. xxvn. : ciled 3 
 
 C.Rob. 357 . . . 595, 94.-,, 950 
 
 Oporto, 66 L. .1. Adm. 49; [1,h97J P. 219--C. A. Allirming S.C., 66 
 
 L. .1. Adn.. 12; 75 L. T. 599 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 21:! . • • '8.,, 82.. 
 
 Oppenh.im /■. Eraser, 34 L. T. 524 ; 3 A.sp. M. C. 146 . . . 149, 261 
 ,-. Ery, 5 B. .^ S. 348 ; 33 L. J. (,>. B. 267 : 10 L. 1 . 5-39 ; 
 
 i2W. R. 31-Ex. <■!, ^^^''^'ii-: 
 
 Opy '•. Child, 1 .-^alk. :;i ^'^l 
 
 294 
 
 llh 
 72 
 
 973
 
 xeviii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 O.iueiiao, :kS L. T. l.')! : :! Asji. :\I. ('. .^r.S ms, 592 
 
 Orlioiia, 1 Spiiiks, Itil 599 
 
 Oivhis, ->9 L. J. .'\(liii. :n : 15 1\ ]). US : (i2 L. T. 407 : ;JS W H. 472 : 
 
 (5 Asp. M. C. .-)01^C. A 183 
 
 O'Rt'illy r. Goiine, 4 Camp. 249 ; 16 R. R. 7SS 1177 
 
 r. Royal Exfliaiii^'e Assurance Co., 4 Caiii].. 24(; : ](J R. R. 786 . 1177 
 
 Oreiia, :i Hag. Adiii. 75 203 
 
 Oi'gaii r. liiodifc, Id K.\. 449 ; 3 C. L. R. .'.] ; 24 L. .1. Kx. 70 ; 3 W. R. 13 .68, 135 
 Orient (Aniendnient), 39 L. .1. Ailni. 10; 21 L. T. 762 .... 1002 
 „ Yco t: Tatom 'Collision), 8 Jloore, P. C. (x.s ) 74 : L. R. 3 I'. C. 
 
 696 ; 40 L. .1. A<liii. 29 : 24 L. T. 918 ; 20 AV. R. 6 : 1 Asp. M. V. 108 845, 
 
 976 
 Orienta, Elliott r. TI113 Orienta (Owners), 64 L. J. Adni. 32 : [1895] P. 49 : 
 
 11 R. 687 : 71 L. T. 711 : 7 As]). M. C. 529-C. A. . . .96, 99, 100 
 Oriental. Wallace /•. Fielden, 7 .Moore, P. C. 398 .... 208, 209 
 Oriental Steanishi)) Co. /■. Tylor, 63 L. J. (,). B. 128 ; |1893] 2 Q. B. 518 : 
 
 4 R. 554 : 69 L. T. 577; 42 W. R. 89 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 377— C. A. . 411 
 Original Hartlejiool Collieries Co. r. Gibl>, 46 L. .). Cii. 311 : 5 Cli. U. 
 
 713 : 36 L. T. 433 : 3 Asp. .M. C. 411 S80 
 
 Orion, 60 L. .1. Adni. 90 : [1891] P. 307 : 65 L. T. 500 : 7 Asp. 31. C. 88 794 
 Orpliens, 40 L. J. Adm. 24 : L. R. 3 A. k E. 308 ; 28 L. T. 855 . 721, 977 
 Orr r. Dickinson, 1 .loluison, 1 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 516 ; 5 .Inr. (n.s.) 672 32, 154, 155 
 
 ., r. jMurdock. 2 Ir. C. L. R. 9 578 
 
 Orwell (Damages ; Jury), 57 L. J. Adni. 61 ; 13 P. D. SO : 59 I.. T. 312 ; 
 
 31 W. R. 703 : 6 Asi>. :\I. C. 309 989 
 
 Oscar (Salvage), 2 Hag. Adm. 257 633 
 
 ,, (Collision), 10 L. T. 789 : 12 W. R. 872 847 
 
 Osgood 1: Groning, 2 Camp. 466 : 11 R. R. 765 368 
 
 Osmanli, 7 Not. of Cas. 322 : 3 W. R.oh. 198 204, 205 
 
 Oster Ri.soer, 4 C. Rob. 199 376 
 
 Oswell r. Vigney, 15 East, 70 ; 13 R. R. 375 1205 
 
 Otter, L. R. 4 A. & K. 203 ; 30 L. T. 43 ; 22 W. R. 557 : 2 Asp. M . C. 20S . 700, 
 
 1003 
 Otto, and Tlie Thorsa, Wilson r. Cnriic, [1894] App. Cas. 116 : 6 R. 162 ; 
 
 21 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4tli ser.) 17 820 
 
 Otto Herman, 33 L. .1. Adm. 189 606, 634,635,649 
 
 Ougier r. Jennings, 1 Canii). 505, //. ; Ki R. R. 739, //. . . . 1060, 1319 
 
 Ouston r. Hebden, Wils. K. P>. i)t. 1, 101 929, 953 
 
 Ovarense, Reg. r. Ca.saca, 49 E. .1. P. C. 41 ; 5 A]ip. Cas. 548 : 43 L. T. 
 
 290 : 4 Asp iM. C. 308 971 
 
 Ovington r. Bell. 3 Camp. 237 1254 
 
 Owen Wallis. 43 L. J. Adm. 36 : L. R. 4 A. & E. 175 ; 30 L. T. 41 : 22 
 
 W. R. 695 : 2 Asp. iM. C. 206 788, 790, 832 
 
 Owl, The, and The Aria<lne, Eittle ?•. Barnes, 9 Ct. of Sess. Cns. (4th. ser.) 
 
 118 787, 803, 810(2) 
 
 Owston y. Ogle, 13 Kast, 538 : 12 R. R, 426 58 
 
 Oxendale i\ AVethereil, 9 P.. & C. 386 1124 
 
 Oylcs c. Mar.sliall. Style, 418 1335 
 
 P. 
 
 P. Cai.am), The, and Freight, (Owners) v. Glamorgan Steamshi]t Co., 
 
 62 L. J. Adm. 41 ; [1893] App. Cas. 207 ; 1 R. 138 ; 68 L. T. 469 ; 
 
 7 Asp. M. C. 317— H. L. (E.) . .793 
 
 Pacific, Br. & Lush. 243 ; 33 L. J. Adm. 120 : 10 Jur. (x.s.) 1110 : 10 
 
 L. T. 541 190, 963 (2), 966 
 
 ,, (Collision; Speed), 53 L. J. Adm. 67 ; 9 P. 1). 124 ; 51 L. T. 127 ; 
 
 33 AV. R. 124 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 263 691, 699, 796 
 
 Packet de Bilboa, 2 C. Rob. 133 351 
 
 Pactolus, Swabey, 173; 5 W. R. 167 726 
 
 Padstow Total Loss and Collision Association, /w re, 51 L. .1. Ch. 344: 
 
 20 Ch. D. 137 : 45 L. T. 774 : 30 W. R. 326 1350 
 
 Page r. Fry, 2 Bos. & P. 240 ; 3 Esp. 185 : 5 R. R. 583 . . . .1145 
 
 ,, V. Thom]ison, 1 Park. Lis. (8th ed.) 175 1092 
 
 Palatine, 27 L. T. 631 ; 1 Asp. il. C. 468 . . . . 697, 812, 821 
 
 Palermo (Inspection), 53 L. J. Adm. 6 ; 9 P. D. 6 ; 49 L. T. 551 ; 32 
 
 W. R. 403 ; 5 Asp. AL C. 165— C. A 996 
 
 ,. (Limitation), 54 L. J. Adm. 46 : 10 P. D. 21 : 52 L. T. 390 ; 33 
 
 W. R. 643 : 5 Asp. ]\L C. 369 748 
 
 Palestine, 13 W. R. Ill 703, 708 
 
 Pa]inuru.s, 37 W. R. 266— C. A. Affirming 57 L. J. Adm. 21 ; 13 P. D. 
 
 14 ; 58 L. T. 533 : 36 W. R. 768 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 271 . . 796. 979
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xcix 
 
 Palmer v. lilacklmni, 1 Biiig. 61 : 7 Moore, 3:59 ; 1 L. .1. (o.s.) C. 1'. 1 : 
 
 •Jo K. K. 599 l-!59 
 
 ., V. Femiiug, 9 Biug. 460 : 2 ,AI. Jt Scott, fi24 .... 1211 
 
 ,, 1!. (loocli, 2 Stark. 428 63 
 
 ,, r. MarsliiilJ, ] j\[, & Scott, 161. 474 ; S Biug. 79. 317 ; 1 L. J. 
 
 ('. 1>. 19 1212, 1319 
 
 ,, r. Moxoii. 2 M. &S. 43 38 
 
 ,, r. Xavlor, 10 Ex. 382 ; 2 C. L. K. 12ii2 : 23 L. .1. Kx. 323 : IS 
 
 .InV 961 : 2 W. E. 621— Kx. Cli 1077. 1235 
 
 „ r. Pope, Hob. 79, 212 927 
 
 ,, v. Pratt, 9 Moore, 358 : 2 Bing. 185 : 3 L. .1. (o.s.) C. P. 25tt : 27 
 
 R. R. 583 . . .' 1131 
 
 „ I'. Rouse, 3 H. c<^ N. 5()5 ; 27 L. J. Ex. 437 ; 6 W. R. 674 . . 630 
 „ V. Thomas. 2 M. & P. 296 : 7 L. J. (<..s.) C. P. 73. S. C. ao,>u 
 
 Farnell i: Tliomas, 5 Bing. 188 : 30 R. R. 568 . . . 485 
 ,, V. Wick, ri894j App. (Jas. 318 : 21 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4tli scr.) 39 
 
 — H. L. (Sc.) 73 
 
 ,, /•. Zarifi, 37 L. T. 790 ; 3 Asp. .M. C. 540 453 
 
 I'almyra, 25 L. T. 884 : 1 Asp. M. C. 182 ... . 635, 648, 649 
 I'aiomares, 54 L. J. Adm. 54 ; 10 P. D. 36 ; 52 L. T. 57 ; 33 W. H. 616 : 
 
 5 Asp. Jl. C. 343 979 
 
 Palyart v. Leckic. 6 .M. & S. 21*0 : 18 R. R. 381 1304 
 
 Paiiaghia Rhouiba, Baltazzi r. Ryder, 12 .Moore, 1'. ('. 168 . . . 285 
 Panauia, Barrou c. StevVart, 6 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 484; 39 L. ■). Adui. 37: 
 
 L. R. 3 P. C. 1S9 : 23 L. T. 12 : 18 W. R. 1011— P. C. , . . 208 
 
 Panda, 1 W. Rob. 423 951 
 
 Pandorf f. Hamilton, 57 L. .1. (,». B. 21 : 12 App. Cms. 518 ; 57 L. T. 726 : 
 
 :56 W. R. :i69 : 6 Asp. .M. C. 212 : 52 .1. P. 196— H. L. (E.) . . 275 
 Pantliea, 25 L. T. 389 ; 1 Asp. .M. C 1:!3 .... !»7, 101. 968. 986 
 
 Pantlicr, 1 Spinks, 31 790, 822 
 
 Papa de Russie, 3 P. D. 160 ; 27 AV. R. 367 • 101» 
 
 Papayatmi r. Hocijuanl, The True Blue, 4 Moore, P. C. i'n.s.) 96 ; L. 1!. 
 
 1 P. G. 250 '■>43 
 
 ,, /•. Russia Steam Navigation and Trading Co., The Laconia. 2 
 
 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) lt;i 948 
 
 Parana, 2 P. 1). 118 : 36 L. T. 388 : 25 W. R. 596 ; 3 Asi). M. C. :399— 
 
 C. A -'-nS, 863 (2) 
 
 Parlitt r. Thon)]is(ni, 13 M. & W. 392: 14 L. .1. Ex. 73 . . .1161 
 
 l>aris (Salvage), 1 Spinks, 289 63>t 
 
 ',, (Costs), 65 L. .]. Adm. 42: is'.Hi P. 77 : 73 L. T. 7:!6 : 8 A>p 
 
 M. C. 126 l^'-^-^ 
 
 I'arish ?•. Crawford. 2 Str. 1251 " 
 
 Parisian, 57 E. .1. A(hn. 13: 13 I'. 1). 16 : 5s L. T. 92: :56 W. K. 704 : 
 
 6 As].. .M. C. 249 1"01, 1007 
 
 I'^rW /•. Ifammoiid, 6 Taunt. 495 : 2 Marsh. ]8;t ; 4 Camp. 344 : Holt, 
 
 N. P. SO; 16 R. R. 6.'-.S 1168, 1.337 
 
 Parke /•. Hebson, cited 2 lir. .t B. 326, 32<.t ; 23 R. R. 451, 453 . . 111/ 
 
 Barker, In the ,,n„(lH nf, 2 S. .'^ T. 375 : 28 E. .). P. 91 : 5 .lur. (s.s.) 55:i . 138 
 
 „ r. Bea.sley, 2 i^L & S. 423: 15 H. R. 299 1342 
 
 ,, V. .lames, 4 Cam]!. 112 . . . ■ •'••' 
 
 „ r. I'otts, 3 Dow, 23 : 15 R. R. 1 H'-^ 
 
 ,, c. Smith, 16 East, :}82 : 14 R. R. :i6t; 13ii!» 
 
 ,, r. Winlow, 7 El. .t Pd. 942 ; 27 E. -1. <.>. I'-. 49 : I .lur. (n.s.) 84 . 2:!:'.. 
 
 163 
 
 Parker and llanohrs Case. Ec.n. ].t. 2, 114 -'b^ 
 
 I'arkin /•. Dick. 11 East, 502: 2 Cam].. 221 : 11 W. W. 258 . . . 1202 
 
 „ /•. Tunno, 2 Camp. 59 : 11 East, 22 ; 10 R. R. 422 . . Iii60, 121.. 
 
 I'arkinson r. Cdlier, Park. Ins. (8th .-d. ) 47, ti53 .... 1044, 1219 
 I'arhMiient Beige, 5 P. I). 197; 42 E. T. 273: 2S W. It. 6)2; 4 Asp. 
 
 M. (\234-C. A 720,72.5,762,98(1 
 
 Panneter '•. Cousins, 2 Canip. 235 : i; i;. B. 702 l'"''G 
 
 /'. Tudhunt.'r, 1 Camp. 511 202, 20s. 12/7 
 
 Parnabv r. I,ancaster Canal ('.... 11 \. K E. 223: 3 I'. .V I ). 162: !• E. .1. 
 
 Ex. 33S— Ex. Ch. 
 
 89:5 
 
 Parr i: Amh^r.son, 6 East, 202 : 2 Smith, 316: 8 H. IE I'll • •--=' 
 
 „ )'. Applel>ec, 7 De •!. M. & (;. 585 ; 24 E. .ECh. 767 : :'. W . IE 645 :!S. 1/0 
 Parre (or Parr) r. Evans, Sir Th. Raym. 78 ; 1 Kcb. 489 .... 928 
 I'arrett Navigation Co. v.. Robins, 10 M. .V W. 59:5 : 12 E. .1. Ex. si s96 
 
 PaiTy, E-r I'lirlr^ 5 \'es. 575 ....••••• l'-'4 
 ,, r. Aberdeen, 4 M. .\: Hv. 34:! : '.• B. ,V C. (11:7 E. .1. ^..s. ) K. 15. 
 
 •jfjO . 1289, 1294 
 
 ,. r. Great Shi)i Co.. \ 15. .^ S. 55<; : :!3 E. .1. <,». 1'.. 11 ; 10 -lur. (N.s.) 
 
 294 : 9 E. T. 379 : IJ W. K. 7- lO"'"''
 
 e TA15LK OF CASES. 
 
 I'arsons r. S('0tt. -2 'I'auiit. -nti;; ; 11 i;. i;. tno l-2!^2 
 
 i'artria-e, 1 U:\<4. Ailin. 81 9r.() 
 
 rasitli.'M, :. P. 1). ". ()78 
 
 I'iisniore r. IJou.slielil, 1 Stark. -IW . . r.2 
 
 I'aterson i: Haidacn-, 1 Taunt. Ill . . . . . . . . 42 
 
 ,, r. HaiTi.s. 1 1). .'(c S. 3:!tJ : :J0 L. .1. (,). W. :3.")4 ; 7 .hir. (n.s.) 1270 ; 
 f) L. T. r.;! : •» W. K. 7-1:'.. And see 2 1'.. vV: S. 814 ; it Jur. 
 
 (N-..S.) 17:; 1078, 1228, 1248, 13:iO 
 
 r. Powell. 2 .M. ct Scott, :]99, 77:J : V» Bing. ;!20 : 2 L. J. C. P. i:J 1138 
 I'atiia, 41 L. J. Adiii. 23 : L. I!. 3 A. .^ K. 436 : 24 L. T. 849 : 1 Asp. 
 
 -M. C. 71 304, 307, 315, 332. 34."., lUS 
 
 Patrick r. Eamcs, 3 Caiiii.. 441 1068 
 
 Patriotto. The, and The Rival, 2 L. T. 301 .... 689, 695, 696 
 Patroclus, 13 P. D. .".4: 5S L. T. 774; 3ii \V. R. 928: 6 Asp. M. C. 
 
 28.') 796 
 
 Patten r. Tlioniiison. 7, M. & S. 3.".0 ; 17 1!. R. 350 570 
 
 Patterson r. Ritrhie. 4 M. .t S. 393 : 16 P. R. 498 1289 
 
 Pattison /■. .Mills, 2 i;li<;-h (n.s.) .519 ; 1 Dow .'^ Clark, 342 : 31 It. R. 49 llOn, 
 
 1351) 
 Paul. 35 L. .1. Adni. 16 : L. R. 1 A. & K. 57 : 14 L. T. 192 . . . 676 
 
 ., r. I'.irch, 2 Atk. 621 416 
 
 ,, r. Knicrht. W. Kel. K. B. 222 1335 
 
 Pauline, 2 Vv. Rob. 358 : 9 Jur. 286 630 
 
 Pawson v. Rarnevelt, 1 l3ougl. 12, /i. . . . . . . .1148 
 
 i: Ewer, 1 Dougl. 12, /( 1149 
 
 ,, r. Watson, Cowp. 785; 1 Dougl. 11, /(. . . . . .1148 
 
 Payne *•. Hutchinson. 2 Taunt. 405, n. : 11 R. It. 620 .... I(t60 
 
 Paynter v. Jame.s, IS L. T. 449 ; 16 W. R. 768- Ex. Cli. Atliiming L. R. 
 
 2 C. P. 348 ' . 406, 553 
 
 Peace (Salvage ; Freight), Swabev, 85 ; 4 W. R. 635 .... 671 
 
 ,, (Salvage ; Value ; Costs), S\vabe}\ 115 ; 4 "W. R. 635 . 629, 638, 678 
 
 Peacocke v. Lacv, 2 Co. Rep. 93 ....... . 922 
 
 Peake V. Carrington, 5 ISroore, 176 : 2 P.r. & B. 399 142 
 
 ,, y. Screech, 9 (,). B. 603 : 14 L. ,1. (,). B. 317 78 ; 
 
 Pear], 5 C. Rob. 224 ]2s 
 
 Pearse v. Green, 1 Jac. & Walk. 135 ; 20 R. R. 258 57 
 
 Pearson v. Commercial Union Assurance Co., 45 L. J. (). 15. 761 : 1 Aj.p. 
 Cas. 498 : 35 L. T. 445 ; 24 W. R. 951 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 275 
 
 — H. L. (E.) 1065. 1086. 1103, lit;:; 
 
 r. (Mischen, 17 C. B. (n.s.) 352 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 2tJ5 : 10 Jur. (n.s.) 
 
 903; 10 L. T. 758 ; 12 W. R. 1116 4:'.7 
 
 '■. Nell, 12 L. T. 607 ; 13 W. R. 967 40, 64 
 
 Pease c. (iloahec, The Marie Joseph (or The Joseph), Br. .fc Lush. 449: 3 
 Moore, P. C (n..s.) 556 : 35 L. J. P. C. (H^ : L. H. 1 P. C. 219 : 12 Jur. 
 
 (x.s.) 677 ; 15 L. T. 6 : 15 W. R. 201 56;> 
 
 Pecktorton Castle, 47 L. J. Adm. 69: 3 P. 1). 11 : 37 L. T. 816: 26 
 
 W. R. 346 ; 3 Asp. JM. C. 533— C. A 807, 808, 81 1> 
 
 Pederson v. Lotinga, 5 W. R. 290 ')5it 
 
 Peek r. Larsen, 40 L. J. Ch. 763 ; L. P. 12 E(i. 378 : 25 L. T. 580 ; 19 
 
 W. R. 1045 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 163 317, 388, 431. 5(;2 
 
 Peel V. Price. 4 Camp. 243 : 16 R. P. 785 :'.l:'. 
 
 Peele y. Xorthcote, 7 Taunt. 478 : 1 Moore, 178 : 18 P. P. 549 . 1:!I2 
 
 Peerless, Prow.sev. European and American Steam Shi). ping Co. (Collision ; 
 Jurisdiction ;' Pleading), Lush. 103 : l:! Moore, P. C. 484 : 30 
 L. J. Adm. .s9 : 3 L. T. 125. Affirming S. ('., Lush. 30. . 695, 
 706, 765, 773. 774, 785, 827. 846. 922. 994, lOoi 
 
 (t'osts of Reference), 6 L. T. 107 86:i 
 
 Peggy, 4 C. Rob. 304 929 
 
 Pekin, The Xormandie (Owners) r. The Pekin ((twiu'rs), 66 L. J. P. < '. 97 : 
 
 [1897] Aj.p. Cas. 532 : 77 L. T. 443 : 8 Asp. .M. C. ;567— 1". C. . 811 
 
 Pellagii's Case, cited Bulstr. pt. 3, 29 93(t, 931 
 
 I'ellas ?\ Xejitune ]\Iarine Insurance Co., 49 L J. C. P. 153: 5 C. P. D. 
 
 34 ; 42 L. T. 35 ; 28 W. R. 405 : 4 Asp. M. C. 213— C. A. . 1312, 1331 
 Pelly r. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., 1 Burr. 341 .... 1102 
 
 Pemson v. Lee, 2 Bo.s. & P. 330; 5 R. R. 614 1323 
 
 Pennsylvania, 23 L. T. 55— P. C 793, 802 
 
 Pennsylvania, The, and The Westphalia, 24 L. T. 75 ; 1 Asp. JI. C. 12 . 802 
 Penrose i: ^\'ilkes, cited 13 East, 570 ....... 371 
 
 Pensacola, Br. & Lush. 306 62:5, 652 
 
 Pensher, Swabey, 211 728, 73ti 
 
 Pentucket, The Tees, Lu.sh. 505 6(t7 
 
 Pepperfll, Swabey, 12 691, 804 
 
 Peppin i: Solomons, 5 'I'erni Hep. 19(1 ....... 1325
 
 TABLE OF CASES. ci 
 
 Percy. 3 Huj;. Ailni. 402 218 
 
 Perez r. Alsop, 3 F. & !•'. 18S 44.".. 
 
 Peri, :J2 L. J. Adm. 4« : 8 Jur. (n.s.; l-j:;() : ]] \V. K. 4 1 l&l, 8r.<;, ItSn. lOdO 
 
 Pericles, P)r."& Lusli. 8b til 4 
 
 PerkiiLS c. Oiiigell, 5(1 .1. P. 277 8:'..'. 
 
 ,, r. The Couiloi-, Tlie 8\vaiisi-;i ami Tlie Condor. 18 L. .1. Adin. o."i : 4 
 
 P. D. 11.-. : in L. T. 442 : 27 W. !,'. 748 : 4 A.sp. ,M. C. llf.-C. A. . 702, 
 
 7i^2, 860, 1024 
 
 Perla (Salvafje. Swal.cy, 2:?0 602- 
 
 ,, >>\'L-e.s.saries), Swabey, 353 : 4 -lur. (n.s.i 741. .... 1)62. 
 
 Peron r. Prone, 1 Barnard.' K. 15. 304 . 1328 
 
 I'errott r. AVillis, 9 Ir. ('. L. K. 338 68 
 
 Persia, 1 Sjuuks, 16(i 639- 
 
 Persian. 1 Xot. of Cms. ■•iu4 1021 
 
 Pcrtli, 3 Haj;. Adni. 414 803 
 
 I'enivian (uiaiio Co. r. lioi-kwoiilt, 52 L. .i.Cii. 714 : 23 Cli. J). 225 : 4^ 
 
 L. T. 7 ; 31 W. II. 851 : 5 Asp. i\l. C. 29— C. A. 548 
 ,, r. Dreytns, 61 L. .1. Ch. 749 : [18921 Apj.. Cas. 166 : 
 
 66 L. T. 536 : 7 As).. .AI. C. 225- H. L. (K.) 557 
 
 Peshawnr, 52 L. J. Adm. .'id ; 8 P. D. ■•i2 : 48 L. '{'. 796 : :;i W. K. 66(i : 
 
 5 A.sp. M. C. 89 991 ;■ 
 
 Pet, 20 L. T. 961 : 17 W. H. 899 850, 9^9' 
 
 PetiT der (jios.se, 34 L. T. 749 : 3 Asp. .M. C. 195— C. A. Allinning 1 P. 1). 
 
 414 321 
 
 Peter Graham (or Tliu Petaj, 9 P. D. l:;4 : 51 L. T. 154 : :!:! \V. \l. 190 ; 
 
 5 As]'. -M. ('. 276— C. A 803 
 
 Petersen v. Dunn, 43 W. R. 349 482. 
 
 r. Freebody, 65 L. J. (). It. 12; [1>S95] 2 (,). IJ. 291 : 7.3 L. T. 16:j : 
 
 44 W. R. 5 ; 14 R. 49:', ; s Asp. .M. C. 55—C. A. . . 535 
 Petfislield, The, and The ,lu<iith Rando![ili. Mar.sden on Collisions (4th ed. j 
 
 165; cited 2 Shaw's Scotch Aj.p. Cas. 403 ..... 7"!5 
 
 Peterson i: McLcmii, 6 Ct. of Scss. Ca.s. ^3i(l .ser.) 21. s . . . . 72. 
 
 Petrel (Breaking Arre.st), 3 Hag. Adm. 299 9Sl 
 
 ,, (Tonnage;, 62 L. J. Adm. 92; [1S93J I'. 320 : 1 H. 651 : 70 L. '1'. 
 
 417 : 7 A.sj.. .M. C. 431 74S 
 
 Petrocochino i: Bott. 43 L. .1. C. I'. 211 : I-. 1!. 9 C. I'. :;55 : :!0 L. '1'. 84o : 
 
 2 Asp. M. C. 310 . . . 531, :>-y.i- 
 
 I'ettv '•. Catto, The Christina, 6 Moore, P. C. 371 ; 3 W. llol.. 27 . . 756 
 Piianloni, L. R. 1 A. *: K. .58 : 12 Jur. (n.s.) 529 ; 14 W. \l. 771 . 647, 655- 
 
 I'helps '•. Auhljo, 2 Camp. 3.5(1: 11 R. R. 725 ]21(>- 
 
 r. Comber, 54 L. .1. Ch. 1017 : 29 Ch. I). 813 : 52 L. T. s73 : :!:! 
 
 \V. R. 829 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 428 -C. A 568 
 
 r. Hill. (50 I.. .1. (,). 15. 382; [1891] 1 <,». 15. 605 : 61 I.. T. 610 ; 7 
 
 As].. .M. C. 42— C. A 2SS 
 
 I'hilad.-lphia, Br. & Lush. 28 ''.t;!)- 
 
 I'lnlippine, L. R. 1 A. & K. .309 ; 16 L. T. -i I : 15 W. K. 162 . . . 972 
 
 Philips r. 15aillie. :'. Dongl. 371 26S, 1169' 
 
 Phillips r. Barber. 5 IS. .'t Aid. 161 : 21 K. 11. .117 1085. 
 
 r. 15riard, 1 11. .t .\. 21 : 25 1,. .1. hlx. 23:1: 1 W. K. 1S6 . 253, 917 
 
 ,, r. Chanii.ion, 1 .Marsh. 402 ; 6 Taunt. 3 107:1- 
 
 ,, c. Clark, 5. lur. (n.n.; lOM — I'lx. Ch. Alii-niiiig 2 ( '. 15. (N.s.) 156 : 
 
 26 L. .1. (•; I'. ]6S : :; .lur. (n.s.) 467 : 5 W. \l. 582 . . :!:'.9 
 
 r. Kdward.-. 4 11. ."^ .\. M;}; 2S h. .1. K.\. 52 . . . . 7lv 
 
 r. Headlam. 2 I!, k Ad. 3.S0 ; 9 1,. .1. (o.s.l K. 1!. 23S . I 17. 1091 
 ,, i: Highlaii.l IfiiiiwavCo., The Ferret, 52 L. .1. P. C. 5] : s .Vpp. 
 
 Cas. :J29 : IS j/. T. 915 ; ;il \V. It. ,S69 ; 5 Asp. .M . C. 94 . 946 
 
 '•. Irviiig, 7 Man. k (i. 325 ; S Sett (n.i:.| 3 ; 13 L. .1. < '. 1'. 145 1218 
 
 /•. Nairne(or .Naiie), 4 C. 15. .-543 ; 16 L. .1 . ( '. I'. 194 ; It .liir. 455 1225 
 
 ,; r. Rodie, 15 Kast, 517 ; 13 B. i:. .52S 129 
 
 Philoniele, 1 Spinks, 155, // 846 
 
 Philotfi.xe (((.llish.ii , ;;7 I,. T. 5in ; :; Asp. .M. C. 512 . Ii92, 788, 811, 852, 
 
 998, 999 
 
 .Salvage , 29 L. T. 515 : 2 As|.. M. ('. 1 (1 .... 606- 
 
 Philpot '•. Wiiliaiii.s, 2 Kden, 231 ' I'- 
 
 Philpott '•. Swaiin, 11 C. B. (n.s.) 270 ; :'.o h. .1. C. I'. :;5,s ; 7 -Inr. (n.s.) 
 
 1291 ; 5 B. T. 183 -'7;:, 12.!3 
 
 Plueiiix Life Assurance (Jo., /x n: Biu'esniKl Stock's ( '.is.', 2 .1. .t II. Ill : 
 
 31 B. .1. Ch. 749 ; 10 W. B. .S16 l:'-"'2 
 
 Phyn f. Royal K.xeliange Assiuaiu'e Co., 7 Term Kep. 505 ; I B. I.'. 5iis . 10^.7 
 
 I'iancini v. Bondun .V South Western \l\. (o.. 1>> ( '. B. 22ti . (7 
 i'ickering <•. iSarklev, Style, 132 ; 2 l.'oil. Abr. 5s .... 274, 3:;i 
 
 /•. Dowsoii. 1 taunt. 779 1 B> 
 
 I'ickersnell r. .iauberrv. 3 F. .ic I'. 217 ^'-l «
 
 •Qu TABLE OF CASKS. 
 
 l'ii;kup '•. Tliiinu's Miiiinc liisuiaiicc Co. (or 'I'liamivs mikI Mi rsrv Marine 
 lusmanceCo.), 47 L. J. Q. B. 749 ; 8 (,). I!. D. r.!t4 ; :39 L. T.' -Ul : -26 
 
 W. R. 689 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 43— C. A 11 CO 
 
 Pickwick, 16 .liir. titi9 (5-24 
 
 Pidgeoii i\ Trent, Keh. (MO, (j47, •i.'il 93.") 
 
 Pierce r. Hopper, 1 Str. -249 144 
 
 Piersoii v. Robinson, :'. Swanst. l:')".* . . . . . . . 4"), 100 
 
 Pieschellr. AUniUt, I'ioschell r. Lavie, 4 Taunt. 792 . . 1202 (Addenda) 
 
 Pieve Superiore, Dapneto i: "Wyllie, 43 L. .1. Adni. 20 ; L. R. 5 P. C. 
 
 482 ; 30 L. T. 887 ; 22 W. R. 777 : 2 Asp. M, C. 319 9»)8, 969, 970, 974 
 Pil^aini, 64 L. J. Adni. 78 : [189:".] P. 117 ; 11 R. '>7 . . . . 748 
 
 Pimm /■. Lewis, 2 F. & V. 778 1179 
 
 I'inder r. Wills, '> Taunt. 612 : 1 .Marsh. 218 403 
 
 Pink V. Fleming, 59 L. .1. (}. P. r..-,9 ; 2.') l). P.. 1). 396; ti3 L. T. 413; 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. r,.04 -C. A . 1083 
 
 Pinnas, .59 L. T. 526; 6 Asp. M. C. :il:'. :.98 
 
 Pipon V. Cope, 1 Cani].. 434 ; 10 R. K. 720 1100, 1104 
 
 Piratical Gunboats, 2 Hag. Adni. 407 971 
 
 Piratical Proahs, 3 Hag. Adm. 426 971 
 
 Pirie i'. Anderson, 4 Taunt. 652 ; 3 Camp. 242 ..... 42 
 
 ., /•. Middle Pock Co., 44 L T. 426 ; 4 As).. M. C. :388 . . . 589 
 
 ,. c. Steele. 2 .M. & l!ob. 49; 8 Car. & P. 200 1269 
 
 ,, -•. Warden (Pill of Lading), 9 Ct. of Ses.s. Cas. (3rd ser.) .523 . . 347 
 Pitman r. Universal Marine Lisurance Co., 51 L. J. (). V,. .561 ; 9 (J. B. D. 
 
 192 ; 46 L. T. 863; 30 W. R. 906 ; 4 Asp. .M. C. 544— C. A. . 1225, 1270 
 
 Pitt, 1 Hag. Adm. 240 956 
 
 Pittegrew i: Pringle, 3 P. & Ad. 514 1165 
 
 Pittes I'. Gainee, 1 Ld. liaym. 558 80 
 
 Place, //( vr, 8 Ex. 704 ; 22 L. J. Kx. 241 : 17 .lur. 328 .... 935 
 ., I'. Potts (Freight ; Admiralty -lurisdiction), 5 H. L. Cas. 383 ; 24 
 
 L. .T. Ex. 225; 3 W. i;.\574— H. L. (K.) . . . 415, 989 
 
 ,. r. Potts (Freight ; Pleading), 8 Ex. 705 ; 22 L. .'. Ex. 269 • 
 
 1 W. R. 337 427 
 
 Pladda, 46 L. J. Adm. 61 ; 2 P. D. :'.4 692, 693, 7<I5 
 
 Planche (or Plandiee) r. Fletcher. 1 Dougl. 251 ; 1 Park. Ins. (Sthed.) 
 
 428 11<»8 
 
 i'lanet, 49 L. T. 204 ; 5 Asp. .M. C. 144 985 
 
 Plantamour v. Staples, 1 Term Rep. 611, u. ; 3 Dougl. 1 . . . . 1048 
 
 Platzolf r. Lebean, 4 F. & F. 545 . 919 
 
 Pleiades (The) v. The .lane, The Pleiades (Owners) r. The -lane (Owners), 
 60 L. .1. P. C. .59; [1891] Apji. Cas. 259; 65 L. T. 169; 7 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 41 855 
 
 Plummer r. Wildman, 3 M. & S. 482 ; 16 R. R. 334 . . . 584, 1241 
 
 Plym, 2 W. Rob. 345 981 
 
 Poingdestie v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., Py. & M. 378 : 27 R. K. 759 1269 
 Pole\-. Cetcovitch, 9 C. B. (x..s.) 430; 30 L. .1. C. P. 102; 7 Jnr. (x.s.) 
 
 604 ; 3 L. T. 438 ; 9 AV. R. 279. Nisi Prius, 2 F. & F. 104 . 284 
 ,, (or Poole) c. Fitzgerald {ov Fitzgerald /•. Pole), Willes. 641 ; Ambl. 
 
 145, 214 ; 4 Iko P. C 439 1064,1182,1240 
 
 ,, r. Harrobin. 9 East, 416, n. : ■', Dougl. 61 139 
 
 „ r. Jonsoii, 2 W. Bl. 764 884 
 
 Pollard r. Bell, 8 Term l!ep. 434 ; 5 1.'. 1!. 404 1172 
 
 Pollok ('. McAlpin, The Lochlibo. 7 .Moore, P. C. 427. In Court below, 
 
 3 W. Rob. 310 ; 14 .lur. 1074 . . 763, 771, 772, 773 (2), 775 (2). 804 
 
 Polvmede, 1 P. 1). 121 ; 34 L. T. 367 ; 24 \V. R. 256 ; 3 Asp. 1\L C. 124 987, 994 
 
 Pomeranian, 65 L. .1. Adm. 39 ; [1895] P. 349 1268 
 
 Pommeraiiia, 48 L. .1. Adm. 55 : 4 P. D. 195 ; 39 L. T. 642 . . .666 
 
 Pond r. King, 1 Wil.s. 191 1104 
 
 Pongola, 73 L. T. 512 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 89 . . ' 51, 60 
 
 Pontida, 33 L. .1. Adm. 78 ; 9 P. I). 177 ; 51 L. T. ,s49 : 3:i W. P. 38 : 
 
 5 Asp. M C. 3.30— C. A 224, 227 
 
 Poole V. FitzgerahL See Poh; r. Fitzgerald, sitpni. 
 
 Porcupine, 1 Hag. Adm. 378 . . ' 115, 1003 
 
 Porter r. Izat, 1 M. .t W. 381 ; 1 Tyr. & (i. 639 300 
 
 Porteus (or Porteous) r. Watney, 47 L. J. <j. V,. 643 ; 3 (,». P.. I ). 534 ; 39 
 
 L. T. 195 ; 27 W. R. 30 ; 4 Asp. JL C. 34— C. A 486 
 
 Portia, 9 .lur. 167 624, 670 
 
 Portsea, 2 Hag. A.lm. 84 177,925 
 
 Portsmouth, 6 C. Rob. 317, ". 147 
 
 Postlethwaite v. Freelaiid, 49 L. .1. Ex. 630 ; 5 Ai^p. Cas. 599 ; 42 L. T. 
 
 845 ; 28 W. R. 833 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 302— H. L. (E.) . . . 2S9, 461 
 Pwtter r. P.urrell, ^Ci L. .T. Q. H. 63 : |1S97] 1 ».>. H. 97 ; 7-5 P. T. 491 : 45 
 
 \V. P. 145 ; 8 Asp. -M. C. 200— C. A. . . . 2:'.9, 264, 472, 532
 
 TABLE OF CASES. ciii 
 
 Potter r. Campbell, Barker -•. Jausoii, 37 L. J. C. P. Id'- : L. H. 3 C. P. 
 
 303 : 17 L. T. ■)73 ; 16 W. R. 399 . . . . 1139, 1237, ]-279 
 „ P. Xew Zealand Shipi.in^' Co., 64 L. J. Q. B. 689 . . . . 4-J4 
 , ('. Rankin, 42 L. .1. C. P. 169 ; L. R. 6 H. L. 83 : "29 L. T. 142 : 
 
 22 W. R. 1 ; 2 Asp. .M. C. 6.5— H. L. (E.) 1278, 1283, 1289, 1294 
 
 Powell '•. Gudgeon, 5 M. & S. 431 ; 17 R. R. 385 13uo 
 
 ,, r. Hyde, 5 El. & HI. 607 ; ^i, L. .1. (}. H. 6.5 : 2 .luv. (n.s.) 87 : 
 
 4W. R. .51 1106 
 
 ,, V. Robinson, Bnnlniiv, 9 936 
 
 Power v. Bntcher, 10 15. & C. 329 ; f. M. i: Rv. 327 . . • 1346 (2) 
 
 „ V. Butcher. 5 M. & Ry. 327 1346 
 
 ,, r. Whitniore, 4 M. & S. 141 ; 16 R. R. 416 . . .584, 1241, 1247, 12.57 
 
 Powles V. Innes, 11 .M. & W. 10 ; 12 L. J. Ex. 163 131.5 
 
 Poyntellr. Billota, Benloe, pi. Ill ; Dyer, fo. 1.59 // 926 
 
 Pratt V. Ashley, 1 Ex. 257— Ex. Oh. Affirming 16 M. k \V. 471 : 17 
 
 L. .1. Ex. 135 P-^''^ 
 
 ,, /•. Cuti; 4 East, 43, -/ 108 
 
 Pray ,: Euie, 1 Term Rep. 313 ; 1 R. R. 200 1036 
 
 Preiin v. Bnilev, Tlie Kttrick, 6 P. D. 127 : 4.5 L. T. 399 ; 4 As|>. M. C. 
 
 465. Affirming .50 L. , I. Adm. 65 '>"27 
 
 Pr.-ndergast r. Compton, 8 Car. & P. 454 869 
 
 Prcndiville r. National Steam Navigation Co.. The Englan.l, .5 Moore, 
 
 P. C. CN.^.) 344 : 3S L. .1. Adm. 9 : L. R. 2 1\ C. 253 : 20 L. T. 46 . 646 
 
 Pressing Mariners, Case of. 18 St. Tri. 1326 139 
 
 J'reston r. Crcenwood, 4 Dt)Ugl. 28 . . . . ■ • 1"'>18 
 
 r. Taniplin,2 H. &N. 684 ; 27 I.. .1. Ex. 192: 3 .hir. (n.s. i 1217 : 
 
 6 W. R. 82— Ex. Ch • • .167 
 
 I'revitc V. .Adelaide Eire and Marine Insuranei; Co., 32 L. T. 768 : 2 .\si>. 
 
 M. C. 577 1131 
 
 Price *;. A 1 Ships' Small Damage Insurance Co., 58 L. .1. <,>. P. 269 : 22 
 (>. B. D. 580: 61 L. T. 278 ; 37 AV. R. 566 ; 6 Asp. .Al. ( . 
 
 435-C. A l-'^'-^ 
 
 ,, V. Hell, 1 East, 663 H'l 
 
 ,. r. Livingstone. 53 P. .1. «,>. I!. 11n : 9 (}. 1!. 1). 679 : 47 I.. T. frjn : 
 
 5 As].. M. C. 13— C. A 217.408 
 
 ., ,-. Nolile. 4 Tannt. 123 ; 13 R. R. 566 580,588 
 
 Pride of Canada, Br. i Lnsh. 208 : 9 L. T. 546 .... 625,652 
 I'ride of Wah's, The, and The Annie Lisle (Owners an. I .Mortgagees of). 
 
 7/t /r, 15 L. T. 606 ; 15 W. R. 381 180,185 
 
 I'riestlev v. Fernie, 3 H. & C. 977 ; 34 L. .1. Ex. 172 ; 11 .lii)-. (n.s.) 813 ; 
 
 13'L. T. 208: 13 W. R. 1089 320, 5..1 
 
 Priiiinla, Uto]>ia ^Owners /■. TIic I'rimula (Owner.s), 63 L. .1. Adu). 118: 
 
 [1.S94] P. 12S : 6 R. 749; 70 L. T. 2.53 ; 42 W. R. .527; 7 Asj.. M. C 429 251 
 
 Prince Frederick, 2 Hag. Adm. 394 11.5,118 
 
 Prince George (Bottomry ), Smith r. Gould, 4 .Mooic, P. C. 21 . . 20;) 
 
 ,, (Wages), V Hag. A.lm. 376 .... 119,127,9.53 
 
 I'rince of Saxe Coburg, Scares c. Rahn, 3 .Moor.-, P. C. 1 . . . 2o3, 208 
 
 Prin.e of Wales, 6 Not. of Cas. .39 ||03 
 
 Prince Regent, cited 2 W. Rob. 85 ....••■ • -"-' 
 
 I'rineo.s (Collision : Damages), 52 L. T. !i:!2 : 5 Asp. .M. C I.M 727 
 
 (Charterpartv), 6 R. 723 : 70 !-. T. 3.^8 ; 7 Asp. M. r. 1:12 2..1 
 
 Princess Alice 'Appeal;, The Alir;e and The, 3S L. .1. Adm. 5 : I,. P. 2 I'. ( . 
 
 245; 19 L. T. 678 ; 17 W. R. 209 
 
 ,, (Salvage), 3 W. Rob. 1.38 ''H 
 
 Princess Charlotte (Register), Br. A: Lush. 75 26.11/0 
 
 (Necessaries), .-'.3 L. . I. A<lm. ISS 9t.;. 
 
 Princess Helena, Lush. 190 ; 30 L. .1. Adm. 137 : 4 L. T. S6<t . 90 2\ 95, 621. 
 
 650. 1006 
 
 Princess Royal (Masl.-r's Wages), 2 W. Rob. 37:'. ''0 
 
 ,, (Amendmenlj. 39 L. .L Adm. 29 : L. P. 3 .\. .V K. 27 . 1002 
 ,, ., (Damage to Cargo: Salvage), 39 L. .1. Adm. i:i : L. K. ."! 
 
 A. it E. 41 : 22 L. T. -39 .....•• ''^- *'''^^> •"'" 
 
 Princeton, 17 L. .1. .\.lm. 33: 3 P. D. 90 : :;s L. T. 2t;0 : :'. A-p. .M. ( '. 562 695 
 
 772, 7«0, S5, 
 
 Pringle '•. Haitlev, :i Atk. 195 1292,1332 
 
 /•. .MolJett, 6 M. A: \V. >0 : !• L. .1. K.n. MS ^ij 
 
 Prinston r. Court of Ailmiralty. Bulstr. [it. :'.. 117 -'30 
 
 Prin/ Fiedeiik, 2 Dod.s. 451 • ''-•' 
 
 Prinz Heinrich, 57 L. J. Adm. 17 : 13 I'. I). :!1 : 5S L. T. 5;.3 : :;6 W . b. 
 
 511 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 273 •'•"' 
 
 Pris.illa, Lush. 1 : 5 .lur. (n.s.) 1421 : 1 L. T. 272 . • • '22" 
 
 (Collision: Going About). !,. R. 3 A. .V K. 125: 23 L. 1. :•<><;■. 
 1 Asp. M. C. 468 '-^^ f^O^ ^'^-^
 
 t-iv 'I'AIJLI-: OK CASES. 
 
 Privateer, 'J L. K. li. 10." ^^J" 
 
 riohibitiou to tin- Ailniinilt.v, .loms' Case. Wiiuli, S . . . . ij-j'i^^ 
 
 i'rosper, Kdw. 72 .....■•••• • '-"'^ 
 riospeiiiu) l^ilassc, 2Si L. T. ti2-2 : 2 Asp. M. (J. IT-S . . . rJ2:j, nr.:{- 
 
 rrotector, 1 W. Roh. !.'> '"*> 
 
 I'lon.ltbot /•. Monteiioie. 8 B. .*c S. niO ; ;'.6 L. .1. <^>. P.. 225 : L. R. 2 Q. 15. 
 
 T)!"! : It; L. T. .08r> ; 1". W. R. 920 1178, llSti, 118S 
 
 I'loutiug r. Hamiiiond, S Taunt. 688 ; Gow, 41 1^8 
 
 Provim-ial Iiisuraiiee Coiiipanv of Canada r. Leduc, 4?. L. J. 1'. C. 49 ; 
 
 L R <i P C ■>-'4 • 01 L.T. 142 ; 22 W. R. 929 : 2 Asp. M. C. 338. 104 4,. 
 
 1129(2), 1162, ]282, 1284, l:!!;'.- 
 Piowse r. Kniope;in ami Anieiican Steam Shi]ipiiig' Co., The Peei'le.s.s, 
 
 Lnsli :;0 lo:;-. l:i Moore, P. C. 484 : :J0 L. .1. Adin. 89 : 3 L. T. 12.o 695, 
 
 706 
 
 I'ulilic Opinion. 2 Hag. Adni. 398 837,922: 
 
 Pnasby c. Ropkins, 61 L. J. (). R. 645 ; [1892] 2 (,». 15. 1S4 : 67 L. T. 369; 
 
 ° 40 W. R. 596 : 7 Asp. M. C. 215— C. A 939, 94:! 
 
 Puller r. Clover, 12 East, 124 I'-^l':- 
 
 r. Halliday. 12 Kast, 494 ; 11 R. P. 464 1117 
 
 ., r Stauitbrtii, 11 East, 232 ; 10 R. E. 4.S6 1116 
 
 Purissinia Concepcion (Salvage 1 IV Agent), 3 AV. Rob. 181 . . . 622 
 
 (Salvage Agreement : liar), l:'. .hir. 545 . 595. 659, 9So 
 Purk'is r. Flower, 43 L. J. (}. 15.^33 ; L. R. 9 (^ P.. 114 : 30 L. T. 40 : 
 
 22 ^V. R. 239 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 226 72f, 93/ 
 
 Pust r. Dowic, 5 15. & S. 20; 34 I.. .1. Q. P.. 127: 13 W. R. 459— 
 
 Kx oil ■•^'■1' '^72, 420- 
 
 Pyman V. Burt, 1 Cab. .^ E. 207 „T''''' ^"'^ 
 
 PVman and Dreyfus, //( re, 59 L. J. »,'• 15. 13 ; 24 (,». P.. 1). 152 : 61 L. 1. 
 
 ■ 721 : 3S AV; R. 447 ; 6 As].. M. C. 444 46/ 
 
 Pvreinier. P.r. & Lush. 189 <''-^7 
 
 ( »rFi;ic Mariur Insuiauee Co. v. Commevcial Rank of Canada, 39 L. J. 1'. C. 
 ' 53 : L. R. 3 P. C. 234 ; 22 L. T. 559 ; 18 W. P. 769 . . 1153 (2) 
 (Uieen 'Collision; Salvage), The Retriever and The, The Hannibal and 
 
 The, 37 L. J. Adm. 12 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 53 ; 17 L. T. 329 ._ 604 
 ,, (Appraisement ; .Marshal's Expenses), 19 L. T. 705 . . 96/. 1021 
 
 ,, (Wages ; Priority ; Marslial), 19 L. T. 70t) 102 
 
 ,, and The Lord .lohn Russell, (Standing by), 3.s P. -1. Adm. 39 ; L. R. 
 
 2 A. & E. 354 ; 20 L. T. 855 713, /65 
 
 (,)ueen Mab, 3 Hag. Adm. 242 ''^^^ t'^l 
 
 (,)ueenofthe()r\ve]l. 7 L. T. 839: 11 W. R. 499 712 
 
 Queen Vietoria, 64 L. T. 520: 7 Asp. M. 0. 9— C. A. .^ . . _ . 
 (^)ueen's Average Association, In re, Lynes, E.r'porte, 38 L. T. 9(i ; 26 AA . P. 
 
 432 ; 3 Asp. iM. C. 576 
 
 Ouickstrp 59 L. .1. Adm. 65; 15 P. 1). 196; 153 L.T. 713: 6 Asp. M. C. 
 
 60:; 
 
 693 
 i:!(;:i 
 
 758 
 
 R. 
 
 R. L. AlsIon, 8 P. 1). 5 ; 48 L. T. 469 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 4:{— C. A. Reversing 
 
 30 W. R. 707 ^^•'^ 
 
 R. M. Mills, 3 L. T. 513 63:3, 641, 984 
 
 Racehorse, 3 C. Rob. 101 '^'^ 
 
 Racer, 30L. T. 904 ; 2 Asp. iM. C. 317 *>"'^' 
 
 Radley c. Eglestield (or Kcele.stteldj, 1 Ventr. 173 926 
 
 Radnor.shire, 49 L. J. Adm. 48 ; 5 P. D. 172 ; 4:; L. T. 319 ; 29 W. R. 476: 
 
 4 Asp. M. C. .338 «•«' "•*' 
 
 Rae, //( /A« r/owAv'//; 27 L. R. Ir. 116 1-^8 
 
 „ V. Hackett, i2 M. cV W. 724 ; i:; L. .1. Ex. 216 ; S .lur. 427 . • 281 
 
 Raffaeluccia. 37 L. T. 365; 3 Asp. M. C. 505 l'^5 
 
 Paft of Russian Timber, //( /-e, 5, lur. (N..S.) 1109 ■'«'0 
 
 Raft of Timber, 2 W. Rob. 251 «60. 923, 949 
 
 Ragg r. King, 2 Stv. 858 ; 1 Com. 74(> : 1 Barnard. K. 15. 297 . •''''' if/ 
 
 Raikes, 1 Hag. Adm. 246 _ 6'j''' 
 
 Painbow. 53 L. T. 91 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 479 9;., 100 
 
 Pain.' r. P.ell, 9 East. 195 ; 9 R,. R. 533 l--' 
 
 Raingcr, 2 Hag. Adm. 42 63/ 
 
 Raisby, Cardiff Steamship Co. v. Barwick, 54 L. 4. Adm. 65 ; 10 1'. D. 114 ; 
 
 53 L T. 56 : 33 \V. K. 938 : 5 Asp. M. C. 17:; . . 654, 656, 657, 1020'
 
 TABLE OF CASES. cv 
 
 Raitliwaite Hall, 30 L. T. :233 ; -2 As].. M. C. 210 .... 827, 1015 
 Raitt V. Mitchell, 4 Camp. 14(5 : 16 E. K. 76.'. .... 23 
 
 Rajal., 41 L. .1. Adiii. 97 : L. K. 3 A. cV E. .^.39 ; 27 L. T. 102 ; 21 W. K. 14 : 
 
 ] Asp. M. C. 403 741 
 
 Rajah of Coohiu. Swabey, 473 SH), !»S, 946 
 
 Ka'jasthan. Swabey, 171 639, 641 
 
 Kalii V. Jansoii, 6^ El .t Hi. 422 ; 25 L. .1. (,». V>. 30ii : 2 .liir. ^^..s.) 566 : 
 
 4 W. R. 56S~E.\. < li 122S 
 
 c. Universal Marine Insurance Co.. 4 De G. F. & -I. 1 : 31 E. .1. Cli. 313 : 
 
 S Jur. (x.s.) 495 ; 6 L. T. 34 ; 10 W. R. 278 1313 
 
 Rali)hCrcyke, .55 L. T. l.^>5 : 6 Asp. M. C. 19. . . .694,691^700(2) 
 
 Ramsay r. Quinu. Ir. Rep. S C. L. 322 83 
 
 Ranistiom r. Bell. 5 M. i: S. 267 1031 
 
 Ran.lal c. Cockvau, 1 Ves. Sen. 9S 1313,1331 
 
 Rau.lall r. Lynch. 2 Camp. 252 : 12 East, 179 : 11 R. R. 340,727 427, 475, 493 
 
 Rands i: Thomas. 5 JL & S. 244 41, 64 
 
 Ranfjer, 3 Not. olCas. 589 ; 9 .lur. 119 598 
 
 Ran"ei-, The, and The Cologne, Malcolmson r. (M'neral Steam .N'avigatinu 
 to., 9 Mooie, P. C. (N-.s.) 352; L. R. 4 P. C. 519 ; 27 E. T. 769 : 21 
 
 W. R. 273; 1 Asp. M. C. 484 786. 811, S30. 845 
 
 Ranken r. Reeve, 1 Park. Ins. ^8thed.) 627 1219 
 
 R^uikin r. Potter, 42 L. J. C. P. 169 ; L. R. 6 H. L. S3 : 29 L. T. 142 ; 
 
 22 \V. R. 1 : 2 Asp. M. C. 6.5— H. L. (E.). . 1278, 1283, 1289. 1294 
 Rankine r. Raschen, 4 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser."> 725 .... 742 
 Ranking r. Tod. 8 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd. ser.) 914 .... 217,100} 
 
 Rai.id (Salvage ; Costs), 18 W. R. 150 676, 984 
 
 ,, (Salvage), 3 Hag. Adm. 419 617 
 
 Rjipp V. Allnutt, 15 East, 601 1028 
 
 Rappahannock, otherwise The Beatrice (Security lor Costs), 3*i E. .1. .Ulm.lO mio 
 
 (Possession), 36 L. .1. Adm. 9 '.t5(; 
 
 Riische, 42 L. .1. Adm. 71 ; L. R. 4 A. & E. 127 : 22 W. K. 240 . . 641 
 Ratata. ^ L. .1. Adm. 39 : [1897] 1'. 118 : 76 L. T. 221 : ^ Asp. M. C. 
 
 236-C. A '^i^t? 
 
 Hat.lifoi-.l r. .Meadows, 3 Esp. 69 41 
 
 KatclilV f. School bred, 1 Park. Ins. (8th ed. I 413 1196 
 
 Hattenbury v. Fenton, 3 My. & K. 505 ; 3 E. .1. Cli. 203 . . . 63, 151 
 
 Hayne. Ex padr. 1 Q. B. 982 ; 1 G. k. I). 374 ; H' E. .1. <,>. I"'. 351 . . 738 
 
 c. Benedict, 10 E. .1. Cn. 2!)7 ; 5 .lur. 598 .... 88, 527 
 
 Rayner r. Harford, 27 E. .1. Cli. 70S : 4 .hir. (.n.s.) 703 ; 6 W. H. 743 . 546 
 
 V. Godmon.l, 5 B. c<; Aid. 225 ; 24 R. IE 335 .... 1095 
 
 c. Redcriaktiebolaget Condor, 64 E. .1. <}. B. 540 ; [1895] 2 q. W. 
 
 28'.» ; 15 R. 542 ; 73 L. T. 96 ; 8 Asp. -M. C. 43 . . . 316 
 
 ,, i: Ritson, 6 B. .S: S. 888 ; 35 L. J. <?. B. 59 ; 14 W. K. 81 . . 1318 
 Read r. P>onham, 6 Moore, 397 ; 3 Br. k Bing. 147 ; 23 R. K. 5.S7 127'.i. 12it9 
 ,, r. ('haimian. Strange 937 ; 2 W. K'el. K. I'>. 226 : 2 I'.aiiiard. K. I!. 
 
 160 ... 93:; ,21 
 
 ., V. Fairbanks, 13 ('. B. 692; 1 C E. H. 7S7 ; 22 L. .1. C P. 2('i; : 
 
 17 .lur. 91 s 19 
 
 „ V. Isaacs, ti Moore, 437 1-".^1 
 
 „ V. Rann, 10 15. & C. 438 ; S E. .1. (u.<.\ K. 1!. 1 1 1 . . . 915, 916 
 
 Rebecca, 5 C. Rob. 102 2-'' 
 
 Reb.-ckah, 1 C. Rob. 227 !'•''" 
 
 Hecepta (Tonnage), .5.S E. .1. Adm. 70; 11 P. 1). 131; 61 E. T. ti9S ; 6 
 
 Asp. .M. C. 433 749 
 
 Gordon v. Framis (County Court), 62 L. J. Adm. 18 : |1893] P. 
 255 : ] H. 644 ; 69 E. T. 252 ; 41 W. 1.'. 561 : 7 Asp. M. C. 
 
 3-,9_C. A 1014 (Ad.lenda) 
 
 Hi'd Hover. 3 W. Rob. 150 <>"!• 
 
 Red Sea, Underwriters on Tlie|{ed Sear. Sea InsuranceCo., 64 E..1. Adm. !» ; 
 
 [1896] P. 20 ; 73 1>. T. 462 ; 4 1 \V. R. 306 : 8 Asp. .M. C. 102 . 131 1 
 
 Redman t\ Eou(h>n, 1 Marsli. 136 ; 5 Taunt. 462 ; 3 ("ami.. -''0=5 • ^042, 1222 
 V. Wilson, 14 .M. .t \V. 476 ; 14 L. .1. Ex. 333 : 9 .lur. 714 . 1071 
 
 Redmon.l v. Smith, 7 Man. k G. 457 ; 2 I), .t E. 2S0 ; s S,;ott(N.K.) 250 : 
 
 13 E. .1. C. P. 159 : M .lur. 711 114.1158,1331) 
 
 Redpath r. Allen. The Hibernian, 9 Moore, I'. C. (n.s.) 340 ; 12 E. J. Adm. 
 8 ; E. R. 4 ]'. C. 511 : 27 E. T. 725 : 21 W. R. 275 ; 1 As].. .M. C. 
 
 491 "•••' <■-' 
 
 Re.hvay v. Sweeting, 36 E. •!. Kx. \<> : E. b". 2 Ex. 400 : 16 E. T. 495 ; 
 
 15 W. R. 908 l-'S^ 
 
 R.ed r. Cole, 3 Burr. 1512 ^•''••^' 
 
 ., I'. Deere, 7 B. A: C. 261 : 2 Car. k P. 624 : 31 R. IE 190 <"o, 
 
 ,, r. Ingham. 3 EI. & P.l. ssi) ; 2 ( '. E. R. 1495 : 23 E. E M. C. 156 : 
 1 .lur. (N-.s.) 61 
 
 1031 
 
 41
 
 cvi TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 KiH'ii r. Wliilr, r. V.siK 12-J f.b- 
 
 Rees I'. Beniii-itdii. -2 Ves. r.4() 114.S- 
 
 Reeve f. Davis, :J X. & M. 873 : 1 A. A: K. ?A-2 65 
 
 Regalia, 51 L. T. 904 ; 5 Asp. M. ('. :'.:]8 9^5 
 
 Rcj,'atta, t) X. R. 248 184 
 
 Rci?. i: Allen, 10 Cox, C. C. 405 2t> 
 
 „■ r. Amlcisoi), 38 L. .1. M. C. 12 ; L. R. 1 ('. C. l(il : T.» I.. '1'. 4(iO : 
 
 17 AV. R. 208 : 11 Cox, ('. C. 198 S:J7, 923 
 
 ,, r. Aniaud, 9 Q. 15. 806 ; 16 \j. .1. (j. H. 50 : 11 Jiir. 279 . . 21> 
 
 ,, r. ISeusoii, 3 Ha-. Adm. 96 951 
 
 „ r. lijonism, L. .t C 545 ; .34 L. .1. M. C. 180 ; 11 Jur. (x.t<.) 589 ; 
 
 12 L. T. 47:! ; 13 W. R. 664 ; 10 Co.k, C. C. 74 . . . 42 
 
 ,, c. l^.iistol Dock Co., 1 G. & D. 286 ; 2 (,). P.. 64 ; 2 Railway Cas. 
 
 599 903, 906 
 
 ,. r. Cailin, The Salvador, 39 L. .1. Adiu. 33; L. R. 3 V. C. 218: 
 
 23 L. T. 203 ; 18 W. R. 1054 951 
 
 ,, r. Cmit, 10 (,). H. D. 76 ; 47 L. T. 450 : 4 Asji. iM. C. 604 . . 837 
 ,, r. Casaca, The Ovareuse, 49 L. J. 1'. C. 41 : 5 App. Cas. 548 ; 43 L. T. 
 
 290 ; 4 A.sp. U. C. 308 971 
 
 „ i: Chaney, 6 Dowl. 281 143 
 
 r. City of London Court, Judge, (or Kerr) (Collision in London Dock), 
 
 51 L. J. g. B. 305 ; 8 (,). B. D. 609 ; 30 W. R. 566 . . 837, 941 
 
 , V. City of London Court, Judge, (Action against Pilot), 61 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 337 ; [1892] 1 Q. B. 273 ; 66 L. T. 135 ; 40 W. R. 215 ; 
 
 7 Asp. M. C. 140— C. A 838, 942 
 
 v. City of London ('oiirt. Judge, The Michigan (County Court ; 
 
 Wages), 59 L. J. Q. B. 427 ; 25 (}. P,. D.' 339 ; 63 L. T. 492 : 
 
 38 W. R. 638 ; 6 Asp. U. C. 547 940- 
 
 ,, r. City of London Court, Judge, (Passengers" 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 28 ; 12 (). H. D. 115 ; 51 L. T. 197 : 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 283 ...... 
 
 ,, V. Collingridge, or Reg. r London Ijocal P)Oard, 34 
 
 12 \V. R. 1109 
 
 ,, r. Cunningham, Bell, C. C. 72 .... 
 
 ,, c. Dunnett, 1 Car. & K. 425 
 
 ,. (or Dvke) r. Elliott, The Gauntlet, 41 L. .1. Adm. <;5 
 
 184 ; 26 L. T. 45 ; 20 W. R. 497 ; 1 Asp. .M. C. 
 ,, V. lOwen, 2 Jur. (n.s.) 454 ..... 
 ,, r. Freeman, h: Rep. 9 C. L. 527 .... 
 ,, r. Gardner (Tonnage), 16 Ir. C. L. R. 349 
 ,, r. Gardner (Master ; Indictment), 1 F. iS: F. r.ysi 
 ,, V. Hamilton. 5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 573 . 
 ,, V. Johnston, 55 L. T. 265 ; 16 Co.x, C. C. 221 ; 6 Asp 
 
 J. P. 22 
 
 ,, r. Keyn, The Frauconia, 2 Fx. D. 63 ; 46 L. J. M. C. 1' 
 
 ,, V. Kingston-u])on-Hull (Justices), or Nicholson r. Williams, 40 L. .(. 
 
 M. C. 1.59 ; L. R. 6 (,>. B. 632 ; 24 L. T. 875 : 19 W. R. 973 : 
 
 1 Asp. M. C. 67 882 
 
 ,. r. London (Local Board). See Reg. v. Collingridge, sn/ini. 
 
 ,, r. Lopez, Reg. r. Sattler, 7 Cox. C. C. 431 92.3. 
 
 ,, V. Lucey (or Watermen's Co.), Gosling, E.f j)arti', Oti L. .1. t^ I>. 308 : 
 
 [1897J1 (,). B. 659 ; 61 J. P. 388 141 
 
 ,. r. McCleverty, The Telegrafo (or Restauracion), 8 iMonre. P. C. (.\..s.) 
 
 43 : 20 L. J. Adm. 18 ; L. R. 3 P. C. 673 : 24 L. T. 748 ; 1 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 63 lo8 
 
 ,, f. Rose, 2 Cox, C. C. 329 133 
 
 ,, V. Sattler. See Reg. v. Lopez, siqjm. 
 
 „ V. Seberg (or 8ven Seberg), 39 L. J. M. C. 133 ; L. R. 1 C. C. 
 
 264 ; 22 L. T. 523 ; 18 W. R. 935 : 11 Cox, C. C. 520 . . 26 
 
 ,, V. Smith, 3 Cox, C. C. 413 1.32 
 
 ., r. Southend Countv Court, Judge, 53 L. .1. (,». B. 423 : 13 (,>. B. D. 
 
 142 ; 32 W. R. 754 . .' 938 
 
 ,, V. Stanton (or Stanton v. Banks), 8 El. .V: Bl. 445 : 27 L. .1. .M. C. 
 
 105; 4 Jur. (N.s.) 10, 332; 6 W. R. 39 783- 
 
 ,, V. Soutlqiort Corporation (or Southpoit Corpor:itiou c. JMorriss), 62 
 
 L. J. M. C. 47 ; [1893] 1 (,). B. 359 ; 5 R. 201 ; 68 L. T. 221 ; 
 
 41 \V. R. 382 ; 7 Asp. .M. C. 279 ; 57 .1. P. 231 . . . 865 
 
 „ V. Taylor, 9 Car. & P. 672 6;m 
 
 „ V. Tibbie (or Tibbie v. Beadon), 4 El. & Bl. 888 ; 24 L. J. M. C. 104 141 
 „ V. Tomlinson, 36 L. J. M. C. 41 ; L. R. 1 C. C. 49 ; 12 Jur. (N.s.) 
 
 945 ; 15 L. T. 188 ; 15 W. R. 46 ; 10 Cox, C. C. 323 . . 876 
 ,, V. Trinity Mouse (("orjioration) (Cimpie Ports ; Pilot). 4 W. \\. 
 
 1-24 . . . 147 
 
 Luggage), 
 
 53 
 
 
 32 W. R. -2 
 
 :91 ; 
 
 
 
 867, 
 
 942 
 
 L. .1. (,). B. 
 
 9 ; 
 
 876 
 922 
 135 
 
 ; L. R. 4 P 
 
 . C. 
 
 
 211. 951 
 
 (.Addenda) 
 
 
 27. 
 
 , 951 
 
 877 
 
 26 
 
 131 
 
 958 
 
 .. .^L C. 14 
 
 : 51 
 
 139 
 
 . 17 922 
 
 (Addenda)
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 evil 
 
 Rfg. V. Tiinitv House (Coq-oratiou) (Hull : Pilot). ^5 W. K. 83," . 
 
 ,, V. Williams, r.3 L. .1. V. C. 6i : 9 App. Cas. 418 . . . . 
 
 ,. v. Wilson, Dears. <<: 15. :)o8 ; -27 L. .1. M. C. 23ii : 4 .lur. (n..s.) 670 : 
 
 ti W. K. 503 : 8 Cox, C. C. -Jo 
 
 Regina del Mare. Br. & Lusli. 31."> ........ 
 
 Reid r. Allan, Cross r. Allan, i Ex. 3:i0 ; 19 h. 
 
 146- 
 893 
 
 137 
 
 1333 
 
 K\. 3!i : 13 .liir. 1082 1035, 
 1351 
 . 947. 1301 
 I. C. r. 2U6: 17 
 
 ,, i: Darl>v. 10 East, 143 . 
 
 ., c. Fairbanks, 13 0. B. 092 ; 1 C. L. H. 787 
 
 Jtir. 918 
 
 „ v. Harvey, 4 Dow, 97 : 16 R. R. .!> 
 ., V. Hoskins, 6 El. .*t Bl. 953 ; 26 L. 
 AV. R. 45— Ex. Ch. . 
 Reiher, 45 L. T. 767 ; 4 Asp. .M. C. 478 . ._ 
 Reinier r. Ringrose, 6 Ex. 263 ; 20 L. ■!. i'.x. 17 
 Rein v. Lane, 8 B. & S. 83 ; L. R. 2 (,». !!. 144 
 
 L. T. 466 ; 15 W. R. 345 
 
 Reinbeck, 60 L. T. 209 : 6 Asp. M. C. 366 . 
 
 Rei.scher v. Borwiek, 63 L. J. (,). B. 753 ; [18941 2 (,). \'>. 518 
 
 71 L. T. 238 : 7 Asp. M. C. 493— C. A 
 
 Reliance (Wages), 2 W. Rob. 119 
 
 ,, (Hottonnv), 3 Hag. Atlni. 66 
 
 Reney r. Kirkenclbriglit (.Magistrates). 61 L. J. 1'. C. 23; [1892, Ap].. 
 Cas. 264 : 67 L. T. 474 ; 7 Asp; I\l. C. 221 ; IS Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4tli 
 
 .ser.) 11— H. L. (Sc.) 914 
 
 Rennio v. Young, 2 L)e (J. & .1. 136 : 27 L. .1. Ch. 753 . . . . 35 
 Renno v. Bennett, 3 G. & J. 54 : 3 (). B. 768 : 12 L. .1. (,). !',. 17 . . 117 
 Renpor, 52 L. J. Adni. 49 ; 8 P. D. 115 ; 48 L. T. 887 ; :!1 W. 1!. 640 : 
 
 22 L 
 
 .1. (,). I!. 5 ; 3 Jur. (N.s.) 238 ; 5 
 
 36 L. .1. (). B. 81 : 15 
 
 85. 5 
 9 R. 558 
 
 19- 
 1193 
 
 284 
 
 797 
 
 1250- 
 
 229' 
 1, 726 
 
 1083 
 112 
 
 199 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 98— C. A 
 Renteria r. Riuling. M. & iM. 511 . 
 Rejiulse (Wages: .Misconduct), 4 Not. of Cas. 166 . 
 
 (Salvage). 2 W. Hob. 396 
 
 (Mastei's Wages), 5 Not. of Cas. 348 : 9 .Iiir. 738 
 
 Resolution, 60 L. T. 430 ; 6 Asp. :\I. C. 363 
 
 Restitution Steamsliip Co. /•. Pirie, 64 L. T. 491, //. ; 7 Asp. .M. C. 11, 
 
 — C. A. Aliirining 61 L T. 330; 6 Asp. M. C. 428 . 
 Resultatat, 17 Jur. 353 ......... 
 
 Retriever, The, and The (,)ueen, 17 L. T. 329 
 
 Reusse r. Meyers, 3 Camp. 4 74 .. . ... 
 
 Rew r. J'ayne, 53 L. T. 932 : 5 A>i>. .M. C. 515 .... 
 
 Reward, 1 W. Rob. 171 
 
 Re.K V. Allen, 7 Car. c^ P. 153 
 
 ,, r. Benson, 3 Hag. Adni. 96 . . . ... 
 
 ,. /■. Broom (or Bronie), Cartii. 39s ; 12 Mod. 135: Cmuli. 114 . 
 
 85, 610, 656- 
 404 
 95 
 059 
 100 
 802 
 
 \dd. to I'ul. xxvi. 
 
 Easl, !'. C 
 
 Hag. A.lni. 257 
 
 i;. .V \:. 138 : 1 Taunt. 95 
 
 ,, r. Brown, 1 iv-b. 120 
 
 ,, f. Bruce, 2 Ecacii, C. < '. 1093 
 
 ,, ('. Caiew, 3 Swanst. 009 . 
 
 ., V. Coonibe, 1 Leach, C. C. 38,s 
 
 ,. r. Douglas, 5 East, 47 7 
 
 ,, V. Easterby, 2 Leach, < '. ( '. 'j\] 
 
 ,, c. Foi'ty-nine Casks ot liiMUily. 
 
 ., r. (Jillson, 2 Lea.li. C. ( . lo()7 
 
 ,, /•. Lainbe, 5 Term Rep. 76 .... 
 
 ,, r. Liverpool (Collector of Customs), 2 M. k S. 22:'. 
 
 ,, r. London (C(dlector of Custnms), 1 M. & S. 202 
 
 ,, r. Marsh, P.ulstr. j.t. 3, 27 .... 
 
 „ V. Ncah', 8 Term Hep. 241 
 
 ,, r. Phil|., 1 .M. C. C. 203 
 
 ,, V. I'ikc, 2 Keli. 779 
 
 ,, r. Pi X ley, 13 East, 91 
 
 ,, r. Pro|)crty Derelict, 1 Hag. Adm. 38.". 
 
 ,, r. .Salcguaril, Andrew.^, 2:'.l .... 
 
 „ r. Teal, 11 East, .307 ; 10 P. R. 510 . 
 
 „ r. Trinity Hou.se (Corporation), 1 Kcb. 137. 250, 270, 3(i( 
 
 ,, r. Tuiibs, (>i\vp. 512 . 
 
 ,, r. Two Casks of Tallow. :! Hag. Adm. 29 1 
 
 ., '•. Wainwright, 1 Kch. 607, 621 
 
 ,, /•. Walsh, 3 N. k M. 632 ; 1 A. & E. 4S1 
 
 ,, r. Watts, 2 Esj.. 675 ; 5 R. R. 766 . 
 Reyner r. Hall, 4 Taunt. 725 ; 14 R. R. 05(i . 
 ,. t: Pear.son, 4 Taunt. 662 : 13 H. R. 723 
 HevnoMs ,: .lex, 7 I'.. .^ S. 80 : 34 L. .1. (.). !!. 251 
 
 450. 
 058 
 604 
 27. 257 
 359 
 Oil 
 692 
 951 
 928. 931, 
 9.!6, 950' 
 923 
 922 
 930 
 922 ('Addenda). 
 139 
 
 I,. .1. M. r. imi 
 
 l:; W. i;. 96S 
 
 949, 951 
 
 . 1U30 
 
 112. 770 
 
 41. 159 
 
 38 
 
 930(2), 931 
 
 142, 776 
 
 . 42, 45 
 
 932 
 
 31 
 
 59 1 
 
 1 
 
 902 
 
 1 .39 
 
 951 
 
 930, 931 
 
 31 
 
 71. 722 
 
 1176, 1263 
 
 ll(i3, 1176 
 
 31 1
 
 -cviii TAlilJ-: OF CASES. 
 
 i;.'Viiul<l.s -•. •roiiilinsou, iu, L. .1. <}. i;. 4!ti! : |l,SitO, ] (,>. 15. 't^C. ; 7-1 1.. T. 
 
 r)91 : S Asp. M. (_'. loO -irii 
 
 Rliadainiiiitlie, 1 Dod.s. 201 2(1.'., 219 
 
 Khiml r. \Vilkiiis,.ii. 2 Taunt. 2;'.7 : n i;. i;. ri.'i] .... 114."i(2) 
 
 Klioi'ics r. lA'urh, 2 Stiirk. .')lt; lo? 
 
 i;liuii<l(l;i, Scicluii:! /•. StfViMisoii, s A]>p. ('a.-^. r.4'.i ; 4!i L. T. 210 : 3 Asp. 
 
 .M. C. 114 . . . 700, 819, 823 
 
 Kliiisiiin, Edwards r. ]'"Mliii(iutli Haibdur Connnissioiiers, 54 L.. I. Adiu. 72 : 
 
 10 r. 1). ]:'-] : :>:i J.. T. 30 : 33 W. R. 794 : '.Asp. .M. C. 4(50— C. A. 772, 
 
 910 
 Hialto, tilt L. .1. .\diii. 71 : [189]j P. 17". ; 64 L. T. .•i40 : 7 Asp. M. C. 3.^. 659 
 Hibl.le Navigation Co. /•. Harf(i-eaves, 17 C. 15. 385 : 2.'. L. .1. C. P. 97 . 898 
 
 Kihy (h-ovc, 2 W. Kol). 52 932 
 
 IJii'urdo Schmidt, Casanova (or Cussanova) r. Reg. (Slave Trade), 4 Aluove. 
 
 P. C. (x.s.) 121 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 268 : 12 .lur. (n.s.) 895 . . . 971 
 Itirirdo Sclmiidt, Casanova (or Cassanova) c. Reg. (Appeal : Time), L. R. 
 
 1 P. C. 115 ; 12 .lur. (x.s.) 127 ; 14 W. R. 617 .... 1012 
 
 Kicii /■. Coe, 2 Cowji. 631 ; 1 Term Rep. 108, ii 61, 65, 964 
 
 ., <-. Kneeland. Hoi.. 17 : 2 Cro. 330 75 
 
 ,, r. Parker, 7 Term Rep. 705 : 4 R. R. 552 ll.M) 
 
 Rieliards /-. (Jellatly, L. R. 7 C. P. 127 : 26 L. T. 435 : 1 As].. M. C. 277 997 
 Richardson /-. Anderson, 1 Camp. 43, /(. : 10 R. R. 628, n. . . . 1253 
 
 c. Cam].bell, 5 P. & Aid. 196, 203, /( 166 
 
 ., V. London Assurance Co., 4 Camp. 94 . . . . . 1060 
 
 „ c. Nourse, 3 B. .t Ahl. 237 582 
 
 r. Stanton, 45 L. .1. C. P. 78 : 33 L. T. 193 : 24 W. R. 324 ; 
 
 3 A.sp. M. C. 23— H. L. (K.) 259,501 
 
 Ri.hard.sons, Samuel & Co., //(. n:. m L. .1. ^}. P. 868 : 77 L. T. 479 : 8 
 
 .V.sp. J\I. C. 330— C. A 252, 491 
 
 Richmond Hill Steamship Co. r. Trinity House (Corjioration). [1896] 2 
 <,). B. 134 ; 65 L. J. (,). li. 561 : 75 L. T. 8 : 45 \V. R. 6 : 8 Asj.. 
 
 M. C. 164-C. A 26 
 
 Kickards /•. ?»lurdock, Pi P. c^ I'. 527 : S P. .1. (o.s. ) K. P. 210 . 1199. 120(1 
 Rickman /•. L'arstairs. 2 X. & M. 562 : 5 P. ^: Ad. 651 : 3 L. .1. K. P. 
 
 28 1056, 1140 
 
 Ricord v. Petteiih;iui, 3 Burr. 1734 69 
 
 Ridowav r. Kwliank, 10 L. .1. (,». P. 109 501 
 
 ',, " r. R(.berts, 4 Hare, 106 25. 163, 197, 957 
 
 Ridley r. EgglesHeld, Lev. pt. 2, 25 930 (Addenda) 
 
 Ridsd"ale V. iXewnham, 3 .M. et S. 456 : 4 Camp. Ill ; 16 R. R. 327 . . 1164 
 
 ,, r. Sheddou, 4 Camp. 107 1043 
 
 Riga, 41 L. .1. Adm. 39 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 516 ; 26 L. T. 202 : 20 W. R. 
 
 927 ; 1 Asp. i\l. C. 246 961 
 
 Rigborgs :\linde, 52 L. .1. Adm. 74 ; 8 P. D. 132 : 49 L. T. 232 ; 5 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 123-C. A. . . 764, 772 (2). 773, 774, 776, 778, 860 i'2), 861 
 
 Rigden v. Hedge.s, 1 Ld. Raym. 446 ; 12 Mod. 246 981 
 
 llingdovc (Master's Wages ; Freight), Swabey, 310 .... 100,977 
 ,. ( Master's Disbursements), 11 P. D. 120; 55 L. .1. Adm. 56 ; 55 
 
 L. T. 552; 34 AV. R. 744 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 28 99 
 
 Rio Grande do Sul Steamship Co., In re, 46 L. J. Ch. 277 : 5 Ch. D. 282 : 
 
 36 L. T. 603 ; 26 W. R. 328 : 3 Asp. M. C. 424— C. A. . . 97, 102 
 Rio Lima (Possession Fees; Costs), 43 L. J. Adm. 4 ; L. R. 4 A. & E. 157 : 
 
 29 L. T. 517 : 22 W. R. 303 : 2 Asp. M. C. 143 . . .981 
 (County Court ; Transfer), 28 L. T. 775 ; 2 Asji. y\. C. 34 . 998 
 Rio Tinto, Laws c. .Smith, 9 Ai.p. Cas. 356 ; 50 L. T. 461 ; 5 As[i. M. C. 
 
 224— P. C 946, 964 
 
 Ripley v. McClure, 4 Ex. 345 ; 18 L. .1. Ex. 419 537 
 
 ,, v. Scaife, 7 D. & R. 818 ; 5 P, & C. 167 ; 2 Car. & P. 132 . . 388 
 Ripon (Lights), 54 L. ,1. Adm. 56; 10 P. D. 65 ; 52 L. T. 438 ; 33 W. R. 
 
 659; 5 Asp. .M. C. 365 773,775.829 
 
 (Compulsory Pilot), 6 Not. of Cas. 245 770,776 
 
 Ripon City, 65 L." .1. Adm. 110; il897] P. 226; 77 P. T. 98 ; 8 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 304 101 
 
 Risca, JMarsden on Collisions (4th ed.) 355 ...... 847 
 
 Risohito, 52 L. J. Adm. 46 ; 8 P. D. 109 ; 48 L. T. 109 ; .31 W. R. 657 : 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 93 733, 1006 
 
 Ritchie v. Atkin.son, 10 East. 295, 530 ; 10 R. R. 307 .... 380 
 
 ,, i: Bowstield, 7 Taunt. 309 ; 18 R. R. 490 766 
 
 ,, V. Couper, 28 Beav. 344 56, 58 
 
 Rivazu Geru.ssi, 50 L. J. Q. B. 176; 6 (,). P. D. 222: 44 L. T. 79 : 4 
 
 Asp. M. C. 377— C. A 1124,1179 
 
 River Dcrwent, 64 L. T. 509 ; 7 A.sp. il. C. 37. Atliriiiing S. ('.. 62 I>. T. 
 
 45 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 467— H. L. (E.) 827,834
 
 TABLE OF CASES. cix 
 
 Kivc-i- L!l^Mu, :,- L. J. Adiii. -28 : 55 L. T. 11-) : 'i Asj.. M. ('. 281 . 856, 1019 
 
 Kjukai), 14 \V. R. 973 852 
 
 K..1.. Rov, .-3 W. Rob. 190 791 
 
 Robert Dickinson, 54 L. .1. A.hn. 5 ; 10 1'. D. 15 ; 52 L. T. 55 : :3:j W. R. 
 
 400 : 5 Asp. M. C. 341 H55 
 
 Robert Dixon, 5 P. D. 54 : 42 L. T. 344 : 28 ^V. R. 71tJ : 4 Asp. .M. C. 
 
 •24tj— C. A t)07, GS3 
 
 Robert Ingram, Lush. 327 ......... 708 
 
 Robert ^Morrison, The Schwan and The, 43 L. -1. Adm. 18 ; L. R. 4 A. 5: E. 
 
 187 ; 30 L. T. 537 ; 22 W. R. 743 857, 1018 
 
 Robert Pow, lii'. & Lusli. 99 ; 32 L. .1. Adni. 164 ; 9 L. T. 237 ti83, 756, 941 
 
 Roberts r. ('add, Bunburv, 247 936 
 
 r. Founereaii, 1 i'ark. Ins. (Sth I'd.) 405 1196 
 
 i: Havelock, 3 B. & Ad. 404 15 
 
 v. Jackson, 2 Stark. 225 914 
 
 ,, V. (Jcean Marine Insurance Co., The \ortli Britain, i;3 L. J. Adni. 
 33 ; [1894] P. 77 : 6 R. 673 : 70 L. T. 210 : 42 W. R. 243 : 
 
 7 Asp. M. C. 413— C. A 11184 
 
 i: Ogilbv, 9 Price, 269 ; 23 R. R. 671 .... 1047, 1341 
 
 ,; r. Sha\\% 4 15. & S. 44 ; 32 L. .1. ">. 15. 308 ; 10 -lur. (x.s.) 147 : 
 
 8 1.. T. 634 ; 11 W. R. 829 411 
 
 „ V. Treuiayu, 2 Rolle, 47 ; Cro. Jac. 508 206 
 
 Robertson r. Amazon Tug and Ligliterage Co., 51 L. .1. ",>. i>. 68: 7 
 Q. B. D. 598 ; 46 L. T. 14t) ; 30 W. R. 308 : 4 Asp. M. C. 
 
 496— C. A 679 
 
 V. Carruthers, 2 Stark. 571 : 2U R. R. 73S .... 1300 
 r. L'hirk. 8 .Moore, 622 i 1 Pdng. 445 ; 2 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 71 : 
 
 25 R. R. 676 . • 1060, 1300 
 
 ,. /•. Dennistoun, 3 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rdser. ) 829 . . .154 
 
 ,', r. Ewer, 1 Term Rep. 127; 1 R. R. 164 1129 
 
 c. French, 4 East, 130 ; 4 Esp. 246 ; 7 R. R. 535 . 43, 1044. 1051, 
 
 1056, 1146, 1320 
 V. Hamilton, 14 East, 522 : 13 R. R. 303 . . . .1144 
 
 V. Jackson, 2 < '. B. 412 ; 15 L. .1. C. P. 28 : 10 .lur. 98 . . 474 
 v. Majoribanks, 2 Stark. 573 : 20 R R. 740 . . . .1115 
 c. Money, Ry. & M. 75 : 27 R. R. 732 . . ._ . . Iu60 
 
 Robey & Company's Perseverance Ironworks r. Collier, L. Ii. 7 Cli. 695 : 
 
 27 L. T. 362'; 20 \V. R. 956 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 413 ... . 561 
 Robin, [1892] P. 95 ; 67 L. T. 298 ; 7 As].. Jf. C. 194 . . 1020 (Addenda) 
 Robinows c. Ewiiig's Trustees, 3 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4tli ser. ; 1134 . . 1258 
 
 Robins ,-. Power, 4 C. B. fN.s.) 778 ; 27 L. .1. C P. 257 ;'4 Jur. (x.s.) 810 122 
 Robinson c. Alexander, 2 Bligh (n.s.) 352 ; 2 Cl. k F. 717 .. . 47 
 ,, i: (Meadow, 2 Scott, 250 : 2 liing. (x.u.) 156 ; 1 Hodges, 245 . I047 
 V. Knights for Knight), 42 E. J. (J. P. 211 ; E. R. 8 C. P 465 : 
 
 28 E. T. 820 ; 21 W. R. 683 : 2 Asp. M. C. lu . . ;;.si 
 
 ,, V. Evall, 7 Price, 592 <i3 
 
 r. Macdonneil, 2 B. & Aid. 134 : 5 M. & S. 22S 154, l.V., 394 
 
 „ V. Price, 46 L. .1. i.>. B. 551 ; 2 <,». 1}. D. 295 ; 36 E. T. 354 : 25 
 
 W. R. 46!) ; 3 Asp. M. < '. 407— C. A 5S1 
 
 ,, c. Read, 9 15. & C. 449 ; 4 .Man. .'t Ky. 349 ; 7 E. .1. < ls. K. 15. 237 52 
 ,, V. 'I'honi|i.son, 1 Vern. 465 ....... 5(i 
 
 ,, V. Tobin, ] Stark. 336 1043 
 
 „ V. Touray, 1 M. k S. 217 : 3 (amp. 158 : 13 1.'. P. 7M . 1031 
 
 r. Tur].in. 1 Peake, 203, //. ; 3 R. It. 671 510 
 
 Robinsons, Th.-, and The Sat.dlit.;, 51 E. T. 905 ; 5 Asp. .M. C. 338 . 958 
 
 Robson V. The Kate 'Own.rsi, Th<' Kat.-, 57 E. J. <,>. B. 546 : 21 Q. B. I). 
 
 13; 59 E. T. 557; 36 W. R. 910; 6 Asp. .M. C. 330 . . . !U1 
 
 Rocher v. iiusliei', ] Stark. 27 ....•••• • 6:; 
 Rockett V. Chippingdale (or Clippingdalc), 60 E. J. <,». B. 782: |1.S91J2 
 
 il B. 293 ; 64 E. T. 641 _ • >62 
 
 l{oddick /•. In'ien)nity .Mutual .Marine Insurance (Jo., 64 E. .1. i). B. 73."! : 
 1 1895] 2 «,». P.. 380 ; 14 R. 516 ; 72 E. T. 860 ; 44 W. K. 27 ; 8 As].. 
 
 M. C. 24-C. -A H30. 1178 
 
 Ko.leri.;k /•. Ilovil, 3 Cam].. 103 1028 
 
 Roderick Dim, Swabey, 177 ; 5 \V. R. 168 . . - • 2(i(*, 202 
 
 l.'odger I', (-'omiitoir d'E-scomjitc d(; Paris, 5 .MuoH'. P. ( '. (N..s.) 538 ; 38 
 
 L. J. P. C. 30 ; L. R. 2 P. C. 393 ; 21 E. T. 3:5 ; 17 W. R. 468 346, 568 
 Rodgers r. Forresters, 2 Cam]i. 483; 11 1!. R. 773 ..... 475 
 Rodocanachi v. Ellictt, 43 E. J. C. P. 255 ; E. It. 9 C. P. 518 ; 31 E. T. 
 
 239 ; 2 As].. M. C. 399— Ex. (Jh 1090 
 
 V. .Milburn, 56 E. J. ().. 15. 202 ; 18 Q. P.. D. 67 ; 56 L. T. 
 
 594 ; 35 \V. R. 241 ; 6 .As].. .M. C. 100— C. A 237, 560 
 
 Rodrigues X'. Melhuish, lo Ex. 110 ; 24 E.J. Ex. 26: 2 AV. P. 51.s . 770. 779 
 
 S. /'
 
 ex TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 l.\.o. Sxvab.v. M 622 
 
 Koelmck, :n L. T. 274 : 2 Asp. M. C :JS7 103, 104 
 
 Koecliir, 38 I.. J. Adiu. [>t> ; L. K. 2 A. ^: li ;;«:! ; --'O L. T. f-bli ; 17 W. K. 
 
 745 721, 977 
 
 lit.elaiults V. Harrison, 9 Ex. 444 : 2 C. L. K. !•!•.-. : 2:'. L. ,1. Kx. 169 246, 407 
 
 Rogers r. Davis, 2 Park. Ins. (8tli e.l. I 601 1039 
 
 ■ V. Hunter. 2 Car. & P. 601 486 
 
 ,, V. McCarthy, 3 Esp. 107 ; 1 Park. Ins. (8tli e.l.) 39 . . 1028, 1320 
 
 ,, V. Maylor, 1 Park. Ins. (8tli ed.) 267 1262 
 
 Rogerson 7.'. Raid. 1 Kna)>p, 362 17 
 
 Rohl V. Parr, 1 Esp. 445 ; 5 R. R. 741 . . . . . . 1081 
 
 Rolet V. Kegina, 12 IMoore, P. C. (x.s.) 41 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 198 ; 12 Jnr. 
 
 (X.S.W15: 15 W. R. 238. . " ^'47 
 
 Rolles V. Newell. 59 L. J. Q. B. 423 ; 25 Q. P.. D. 335 ; 63 L. T. 384 : 39 
 
 \V. K. 96 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 563 ; 55 J. P. 70 . . . . 139, 835 
 
 Rolleston v. Sniitli. 4 Term Rep. 161 154 
 
 Romiiev j\[aish (Pailitls of) v. Trinity House (Corporation), 41 L. J. Ex. 
 
 106 ; L. R. 7 Ex. 247 ; 20 W. R.' 952— Ex. Cli 69 
 
 Rona (Admiraltv ; County Court ; Appeal), 51 L. .1. Adni. 65 ; 7 P. 1>. 
 
 247 ; 46 L. T. 601 ; 30 W. R. 614 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 520 . . lnlO 
 
 ,, I'Master), 51 L. T. 28 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 259 86 
 
 Rona, The, and The Ava, 29 L. T. 781 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 182 786. 788, 791, 810 
 Ronneberg r. Falkland Islands Co., 17 C. B. (n.s.) 1 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 34 ; 
 
 10 .hir. (x.s.) 940 ; 10 L. T. 530 ; 12 W. R. 914 . . . . 522 
 Roper r. English and Scottish Marine Insurance Co.,1 Arnold, Ins. (6tli ed.) 
 
 157, >i. 1358 
 
 Rory. 51 L. J. Adni. 73 : 7 P. D. 117 ; 46 L. T. 757 : 4 Asp. M. C. 534— C. A. 995 
 
 Rosalie (Salvage), 1 Si.inks, 188 617, 660 
 
 ,, (Collision), 50 L. .1. Adni. 3 : 5 P. I). 245 ; 44 L. T. 32 : 4 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 384 789, 793, 806, 815 (2) 
 
 Rosalind, 12 L. T 553 600 
 
 Rosario, 46 L. J. Adm. 52 ; 2 P. D. 41 : 35 L. T. 816 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 334 653 
 
 Roscow V. Corson. 8 Taunt. 684 ; 21 R. R. 507 1098 
 
 Rose (ilortgage), 42 L. .1. Adm. 11 : L. R. 4 A. & E. 6 ; 28 L. T. 291 : 21 
 
 W.'R. 511 : 1 Asp. M. C. 567 li»4 
 
 „ (Risk of Collision), 2 W. Kob. 1 78G. 805 
 
 „ V. Bank of Australasia, 63 L. J. Q. B. 504 : [1894] Ap].. Cas. 687 ; 
 
 6 R. 121 ; 70 L. T. 422 ; 7 As].. M. C. 445— H. L. (E.) . . 583 
 
 ,, t). Baxter, 13 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 185 25 
 
 ., ;-. Miles, 4 M. & S. 101 ; 16 R. R. 405 71, 723 
 
 Rose of England, .59 L. T. 262 : 6 Asp J»l. C. 304 . . . . 700, 832 
 
 Ro.sehaugh, 1 Spinks, 267 616 
 
 Rosetta,'59 L. T. 342 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 310 707, 800. 817 
 
 Rosettu r. Gurney. 11 C. B. 176 ; 20 L. J. C. P. 237 : 15 Jur. 1177 . 1236 
 
 Rosevear China Clay Co., &■ 2Mrtc. Cock, In re, 48 L. J. 15k. 100 ; 11 
 
 Ch. 1). 560 : 40 L. T. 730 ; 27 W. R. 591 ; 4 A.sp. M. C. 144 . . 571 
 Rosita, 38 L. J. Adm. 20 ; L. R. 2 P. C. 214 : 19 L. T. 753 : 17 W. K. 209 848 
 Ross y. Baxter, 13 Ct. of Se.ss Cas. (4th ser.) 185 . . . . . 25 
 
 ,, V. Hunter, 4 L. T. 33 ; 2 R. R. 319 1097, 1098 
 
 ,, r. Thwaite, 1 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 23 1050, 1101 
 
 ,, r. Walker, Wils. K. B. pt. 2. 264 . . . . . • 922 
 
 Ros.sgull, The, and The Spaniel, Leitrim (Countess) r. Burns. 24 Ct. of 
 
 Se.ss. Cas. (4th .ser.) 993 817 
 
 Ros.si ;;. Grant. 5 C. B. (x.s.) 699 ; 5 .)ur. (n.s.) 895 ; 7 AV. R. 205 . . 126 
 
 Rotch r. Edie, 6 Term Rep. 413 : 3 R. R. 222 1091 
 
 Rothbnrv, 57 L. J. Adm. 99 : 13 P. 1). 119 ; 59 L. T. 672 : 37 W. R. 158 ; 
 
 6 As)). M. C. 332 74 
 
 Rotherford (or Rutherford) r. Scot (or Seott), Kel. pt. 2, 214 ; 2 Str. 936 . 9:'.6 
 Rothwell V. Cooke, 1 Bos. & P. 172 1305 
 
 ,, V. Hutchingson, 13 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 463 ... 73 
 
 Rouen, 31 L. J. Adm. 132 : 6 L. T. 508 1019 
 
 Rougemont, 62 L. J. Adm. 121 ; [1893] P. 275 ; 1 R. 658 : 70 L. T. 420 ; 
 
 7 Asp. M. C. 437 '^41 
 
 Routh V. Macmillan, 2 H. & C. 750 ; 33 L. J. Ex. 38 ; Id -lur. (.\.s.) 158 : 
 
 9 L. T. 541 ; 12 W. R. 381 256 
 
 ., V. Thompson, 13 East, 274 : 10 R. R. 539— Ex. Ch. In Court 
 
 l)elo\v, 11 East. 428 . 1143, 13(4 
 
 Roux r. Salvador, 1 Bing. (x.c.) 526: 1 Scott, 491 : 4 L. .1. C. 1'. 156. 
 S.C, 4 Scott. 1 : 3 Bing. (x.r.) 266 ; 2 Hodg. 209 : 7 L. .1. Ex. 328 
 
 —Ex. Ch. ; Nisi Prius, 1 Hodges, 49 109:!, 1236 
 
 Row c. Alport, 1 Brownl. & Golds. 4 .926 
 
 Rowcroft V. Dunsmore, cited 3 Taunt. 228 ; 12 R. R. 643 .. . 1085 
 
 Rowena, 37 L. T. 366 ; 26 \V. R. 82 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 606 . . . 225, 227
 
 TABLE OF CASES. cxi 
 
 Roy r. Hamilton, 5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) r>73 ..... Q;,S, 
 Royal Arch, S«abey, 269 : 6 W. R. 191 . 190, 199. 2(i2, 207, 218, 223, 225, 982 
 Roval Charter, 38 L. J. Ailin. 36 ; L. E. 2 A. .'(: K. 362 : 20 L. T. 1019 • 
 
 18 w. R. 49 sr.r 
 
 Roj-al Exchange'Assurance Co. c. McSwimicv, 14 <,». ]!. 634 : 19 L. J. ( > B 
 
 222; 14 Jur. 99S-EX. Ch. . . ' ' 1128(2) 
 
 Royal Exchange Shipping Co. v. Dixon, 56 L. .J. (>. 1!. 266 : 12 App. Cas. 
 
 11 : 56 L. T. 206 ; 35 W. R. 461 ; 6 Asp. :\I. C. 92— H. L. (K.) . 504 
 
 Royal Eaniily, 31 L. T. 704 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 421 97 
 
 Roval Mail Steam Packet Co. v. English Bank of Rio de Janeiro, 57 L. J. (}. B. 
 
 " 31 : 19 (). B. D. 362 : 36 W. R. 105 585 
 
 Roval Stuart, 2 Spinks, 258 202 
 
 Royalist, Br. .t Liisli. 46 ; 32 L. J. Adni. 105 ; 9 Jur. (x.s.) 852 . . 82 
 Ruabon Steamship Co. r. London Assurance, 66 L. J. Q. B. 841 : [1897] 
 
 2 Q. B. 456 ; 77 L. T. 402 : 8 Asp. M. C. 369 1253- 
 
 Rubicon, 3 Hag. Adm. 9 204 
 
 Ruby, 59 L. J. Adm. 68; 15 1'. D. 164 : 63 L. T. 735 : 39 ^V. R. 42; 6 
 
 Asp. M. C. 577— C. A. . • 778, 85S 
 
 Ruby Queen, Lush. 266 695, 720, 843 
 
 Ruck r, HatHeld, 5 B. & Aid. 632 : 24 R. R. 507 574 
 
 Rucker c. Allnutt, 15 East, 278 ; 13 R. R. 465 122o 
 
 ,, V. Green, 15 Ea.st, 288 1174 
 
 ,, V. London Assurance Co., 2 Bo.s. & P. (x.i:.) 432, w. : 3 Esp. 29U ; 
 
 5 R. R 639, n I(i54 
 
 ,, r. Lunt, 3 F. & F. 959 1345- 
 
 ,, r. Palsgrave, 1 Taunt. 419 ; 1 Camp. 557 1323 
 
 Ruckers, 4 C. Rob. 73 925- 
 
 Runqiiist v. Ditchell, 3 Esp. 64 : 2 Camp. .'>56, v 83, 267 
 
 Rusden v. Pope, 37 L. J. Ex. 137 : L. R. 3 Ex. 269 : 18 L. T. 651 ; 16 
 
 W. R. 1122 .39r» 
 
 Russell r. Bangle V, 4 B. & Aid. 395 1254 
 
 „ r. Boheme. 2 Str. 1127 ]320 
 
 ,, V. Dunskev, 6 Moore, 233 ........ 1264 
 
 ,. r. Griffiths, 2 F. & F. lis -jli:; 
 
 ,, r. Niemann, 17 C. B. (n.s.) 163; 34 L. .1. ( '. !'. 10: lu L. T. 
 
 786 ; 13 W. R. 93 308, 338 
 
 r. Sa Da Bandeira (Viscount), 13 C. B. (n.s.) 149 ; 32 L. J. C. P. 68 14 
 „ r. Thornton, 6 H. & N. 140 ; 30 L. J. Kx. (59 : 6 Jur. (n.s.) 1080 : 
 
 2L. T. 574 : 8 W. K. 615— Ex. Ch 1191 
 
 Russian Steam Navigation Trading Co. r. Silva, 13 C. B. (n.s.) 610 . 3(i7 
 Rutland, 66 L. J. Adm. 105; [1S97J Aj.p. Cas. 333: 76 L. T. 662; 8 
 
 Asp. M. C. 270—11. L. (E.) 78-> 
 
 Rutherford (or Rotherfoid) v. Scott, Kel. ])t. 2, 214 ; 2 Strange, 936 . 936 
 Ruys ('. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., 66 L. J. (^ P.. 534 : [1897] 2 Q. B. 
 
 135 ; 77 L. T. 23 ; 8 A.sp. M. C. 294 . . . . . . 1108. 
 
 Rylc V. Haggle, 1 Jac. k Walk. 234 35, 152^ 
 
 S. 
 
 S.\BINA, 7 Jur. 182 666 
 
 Sablicich r. Ru.ssull. f.. II. 2 Ivi. 441 : 14 \V. I,'. 91:! .... 97(t 
 
 Sack v. Ford, 13 C. B. (s.s.) 90 ; :52 L. J. C. P. 12 : :i .Inr. (\.s.) 750 . 519- 
 Sadler v. Dixon, 8 M. & AV. 895 ; 11 L. J. Ex. 435 K\. Ch. . 73, 1074, 1101 
 Sadlers' Companv )•. Iiadcock, 2 Atk. 554 . . . . . .113s 
 
 Sailing Sliip All('rt<.n C». r. Falk, 6 Asp. .M. ( . 2s7 . . . 27s. 17s 
 
 .Sailing Ship Garston Co. r. Hickie (Chaiterjiarty : Collision;, 56 L. J. C>. B. 
 
 38 ; IS (j. IJ. D. 17 ; 55 L. T. 879 : 35 W. K. 33 : 6 A.sp. AI. C. 71— C. A. 275- 
 Sailing Ship Garston Co. r. Hickie (Freight), 15 (.». 15. 1). 580 ; 53 L. T. 
 
 795 : 5 Asp. M. C. 499— C. A 10s, 1061 
 
 St. Audrie.s, 54 L. T. 278 ; 5 A.sj.. M. C. 552 811 
 
 St. Catherine, 3 Hag. Adm. 253 203. 
 
 St. Clnud. Ilr. k Lush. 4 : 8 L. T. 54 .... 311, 51 s, 519. 970 
 
 St. Lawrence, 49 L. J. A<lm. 82; 5 P. D. 25i) 219 
 
 St. Nichohis, Lush. 29 ... . 638 
 
 St. Olaf (Damage Lien ; I'.ail). 58 L. J. Adm. 41 : L. I! 2 A. Jt K. 3<i0 : 20 
 
 L. T. 758: 17 W. R. 743 71'.'. .s51. 983 
 
 ,, (Discontinuance), 46 L. J. Adm. 74 : 2 1'. I). IL! : ::•; I-. T. .1" : 3 
 
 Asp. M. C. 341 K'04 
 
 ,, (Register). 2 P. 1). 113 ; .35 L. T. 42S : :) A>i.. M. C. 268 . . 31, 97 
 
 Salacia (Salvage), 2 ILig. Adm. 262 623, 631, 635 
 
 „ (Bottomry), Lu.sli. 578 ; 32 L. J. Adm. 43 : 8 L. T. 91 . 219. 22S 
 
 ,, (BottomrV : Master's Wages), 32 L. J. Adm. 41 : 9 Jur. (n.>. ) 27 : 
 7 L. T. 440 '. 11 W. K. 189 H'l. 120, 122, 216- 
 
 //-2
 
 cxii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Saliuoii, //; /v, (Jouiil, A'.'- //-■'/•/(•, 2 Movrcll, i:57 173 
 
 Salomons /•. Jsisseii, 2 Tcnii Ivcp. iu-i ; 1 h'. Iv. filt^ . .... 569 
 
 Saloucci t: .loliiisoii, 4 Douii;!. 'I'lA ........ 1171 
 
 ,, r. Wooamass, :! l)ou<,'l. .-Mo 1172 
 
 Salt Union v. Wood, 62 L. .1. M. C. 75 ; [1893] 1 «,). I'.. 370 : ', K. I7ti ; (uS 
 
 L. T. 92 : 41 W. K. 301 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 281 ; ',7 .1. 1'. 201 . . 133 
 
 Saltburn (Costs ; Collision), [1892] P. 333 ; 1 R. 543 : 69 J.. T. 88 ; 7 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 325 8ti2, 1019 
 
 (Salvage), 6 K. 702 ; 71 L. T. 19 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 474 . . «53 
 
 Saltern. Adey, 1 .lur. (.N.s.) 930 60 
 
 Salvador, Bc'^. r. Cailin. 39 L. J. Adni. 33 ; L. K. 3 P. C. 218 ; 23 L. T. 
 
 203 ; IS W. R. 10.-,4 951 
 
 v. Hopkins, 3 Burr. 1707 1046 
 
 Salvesen y. Guy, 13 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 85 450 
 
 Samson v. Bragginjiton, 1 Ves. Sen. 87, 442 ; lb. Bi'lt's Supp. 87, 202 . 197 
 
 Sanniel, 15 Jiir. 407. 657 
 
 „ V. .Tones, 7 L. T. 760 35, 183 
 
 ,, V. Royal Exchange Assurance, 8 B. & C. 119 ; 6 L. .1. (o.s.) K. B. 
 
 315 . " 1066 
 
 .Samuel Laing, 39 L. .1. Adm. 42 ; L. K. 3 A. & E. 284 : 22 L. T. 891 . 1016 
 Sin Jose Priineiro, 3 L. I'. 513 ........ 135 
 
 San Roman, Anderson v. The San Roman (Owners), 42 L. J. Adm. 46 ; L. R. 
 
 5 P. C. 301 ; 28 L. T. 381 ; 21 \V. R. 393 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 603— P. C. 240, 
 
 277, 290, 530 
 Sand(!nian v. Scurr, 8 B. & S. 50 ; L. R. 2 (,). B. 86 ; 36 L. .T. (,). B. 58 : 
 
 15 L. T. 608; 15 W. R. 277 518 
 
 Sanders v. Jenkins, 66 L. J. (.). 15. 40 ; [1897] 1 Q. B. 93. . . .467 
 
 V. Maclean, 52 L. J. Q,. B. 481 ; 11 Q. B. I). 327 ; 49 L. T. 462 ; 
 
 31 W. R. 698 : 5 Asp. M. C. 160— C. A 547 
 
 ,, r. Vanzellev, 3 G. & 1). 580; 4 Q. P.. 260 ; 12 L. J. Ex. 497— 
 
 Ex. Ch 404 
 
 Sanderson r. Bnsher, 4 (Janip. 54, />. ....... 1168 
 
 /'. j\lcCulloni, 4 :\l()ore. 5 1043 
 
 „ V. Synionds, 1 Br. & B. 426 ; 4 Moore, 42 ; 21 R. R. 675 . 1043 
 
 Sandhill, The Nord Kap and The, [1894] App. Cas. 646; 11 R. 144 — 
 
 P. C 699 
 
 Sands' Case, The Ex]iectation and The Commerce, nom. Sands v. Exton, 
 Sir T Raym. 488 ; 2 Show. 302. S. C, novi. Sandys r. East India 
 Co., Skinner, 91 ; 7io)n. Child /•. Sands (or Sands v. Child), Lev. pt. 3. 
 351 ; Carth. 294; Comb. 215 ; 4 Mod. 176; 1 Salk. 31 ; 1 Dan vers, 
 
 6, pi. 9 926 
 
 •Sanguinetti v. Pacific Steam Navigation Co., 46 L. J. Q. B. 105 ; 2 
 Q. B. D. 238 ; 35 L. T. 658 ; 25 W. R. 150 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 300— C. A. 
 
 Sansinena v. Houston, 1 R. 203 ; 68 L. T. 567 ; 7 Asp. ]\L C. 311- 
 
 H. L. (E.) 
 
 Santa Anna, 32 L. J. Adm. 198 
 
 ■Santipore, 1 Spiuks, 231 ......... 
 
 Santon, 26 AV. R. 810 . . 
 
 -Santos V. Brice, 6 H. & N. 290 : 30 L. J. Ex. 108 . . . . 
 -Sappho, The Sappho (Owners) v. Denton (or The Ada and The Sapjiho). 8 
 
 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 66 ; 40 L. J. Adm. 47 ; L. R. 3 P. C. 690 ; 28 L. T. 
 
 825 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 4. Affirming 19 W. R. 24 . . . . 619, 827 
 .Sara, Hamilton v. Baker, 58 L. J. Adm. 57 ; 14 App. Cas. 209 ; 61 L. T. 
 
 26 ; 28 W. R. 129 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 413— H. L. (E.) .... 99 
 
 .Saracen, 6 iMoore, P. C. 56 ; 2 W. Kol). 451 ; 4 Not. of Cas. 498 . 855, 984 
 Saragossa, Saragossa (Owners) v. Westoll, 68 L. T. 400. Affirmed H. L., 69 
 
 L. T. 664 ; 7 Asp U. C. 289 821 
 
 Sarah (Damage Lien), Lu.sh. 549 720, 839 (2), 921 
 
 „ (Salvage), 3 P. D. 39 ; 37 L. T. 831 ; 3 Asp. .M. C. 542 . 606, 649, 678 
 
 „ (Salvage Award), 1 C. Rob. 313, n.- 635 
 
 :.Suiah Bell, 4 Not. of Ca.s. 144 . . • 642 
 
 .Sarah Jane, 2 W. Rob. 110 658 
 
 ^Saratoga, Lush. 318. . . . . . . . . . . 613 
 
 .Sargent ('. Morris, 3 B. & Aid. 277 550 
 
 Sarquy v. Hobson, 3 D. k R. 192 ; 2 B. i: C. 7 ; 4 Bing. 131 ; 12 Moore, 
 
 474 ; 1 Y. & J. 347 ; 1 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 222 ; 26 R. R. 251 ; 30 R. R. 
 
 794— Ex. Ch 1087, 1300 
 
 Sarpedon, Cargo (or Sfjccic) c; 3 P. D. 28 ; 37 L. T. 505 ; 26 W. R. 374 ; 
 
 3 As]). M. C. 509 . 609, 627, 677 
 
 Satanita, Dunraven (Lord) v. Clark, 66 L.J. Adm. 1 ; [1897] .\pp. Cas. 59 ; 
 
 75 L. T. 337 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 19(i— H. L. (K.) 746 
 
 .Satellite, The Robinsons and The, 51 L. T. 905 ; 5 Asp. M. C, 338 . . 958 
 
 L 449, 
 
 492 
 
 . 309 
 
 9.5, 969 
 
 . 598 
 
 164, 937 
 
 . 414
 
 TABLE OF CASES. cxiii 
 
 Satellite, The Einend.l, 'I'lir \'iMo.s;ila, The Toiler, 42 L. T. 9ti : 4 Asi-. 
 
 ^I. 0. 228 lt»ol 
 
 SauiKlers, I,i the goods of, L. If. 1 P. & M. 16 ; 35 L. J. P. 26 : 11 Jur. 
 
 (N.s.) 1027": 14 W. K. 148 13& 
 
 c. liaring, 34 L. T. 41H ; 3 Asp. M. ('. iy:i .... 12S8 
 
 c. Drew, 3 P. & Ad. 44.'i; 410 
 
 Savernake (Costs of Kefereiicc), 49 L. .1. Adm. 71 ; .'. P. I). 166; 29 W. R. 
 
 123 ; 5 A.s]). M. C. 34, /< 86'> 
 
 Savei-nake, The, and The Vesuvius, Cha[>iiian r. Koyal Netherlands Steam 
 
 Xavigatiou Co. (Division of Loss), 48 L. J. Adiu. 449 ; 4 P. D. 157 : 
 
 40 L. T. 433 ; 27 W. R. 554 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 107— C. A. . . 736, 743 (2) 
 Saville c. Campion, 2 B. & Ahl. 503 ; 21 R. R. 376 .... 295^ 
 
 Sawtell r. Lowdon, 5 Taunt. 359 ; 1 Marsh. 99 ... . 1»>31, 1190 
 
 Saxonia (or The Snxoida and The Ec-lipsc), Hamburg American Steam 
 
 Navigation Co. r. North of Scotland Banking Co., Lusli. 410 : 15 Moore. 
 
 P. C. 262 : 31 L. J. Adm. 201 ; 8 .hi;-, (x.s.) 315 ; 6 L. T. 6 ; 10 
 
 W. R. 431 761, 787 (2), 804, 861 
 
 SUitega V. Attwood, The Clievedeii and Tlie Diana, 64 L. J. P. C. 22 ; 
 
 [1894] Api). Cas. 625 ; 6 R. 575 : 71 P. T. 101 : 7 Asp. M. C. 489 — 
 
 P. C 828, 837 
 
 Scadding's Case, Noj'. 131 !'•''<> 
 
 Scaife c. Tobin. 3 B. .^ Ad. 523 : 1 L. .1. Iv. U. 183 .... 589 
 
 Scaramanga v. Marquund, 53 L. T. 810 : 5 Asp. M. C. 506— C. A. 
 
 Affirming 1 Cnb. & E. 500 560, 628 
 
 V. Stamp, 49 L. .1. C. P. 674 ; 5 C. P. D. 295 ; 42 L. T. 840 ; 
 
 28 W. R. 691 ; 4 Asp. .M. C. 295— C. A 286 
 
 Scarndjorrow v. Lyrius, Noy. 95 19S> ^'^^ 
 
 .Sceptre, 35 L. T. 429 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 269 ...... 27 
 
 Schack /■. Anthony, 1 M. & S. 573 ■ -599 
 
 Sclieibler r. Furness (or Baumvoll Manufautur von Cnrl Sdicibler /•. 
 
 Gilchri.st and Furness), 62 L. J. Q. B. 201 ; [1893] App. Cms. 8 : 1 R. 
 
 59 ; 68 L. T. 1 : 7 Asp. M. C. 263— H. L. (E.) .... 238, 297 
 Schiller, raniua; 2 P. D. 145 ; 36 L. T. 714 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 439— C. A. 608, 639 
 Schilizzi c. iWry, 4 El. & Bl. 873 ; 24 L. .1. Q. B. 193 ; 1 Jur. (s.s.) 795 : 
 
 3 W. R. 374 -'^4 
 
 Schlo-ss c. Heriot, 14 C. 15. n.s.) 59 ; 32 L. .1. C. P. 211 : Id .lur. (x.s.) 
 
 76 ; 8 L. T. 246 ; 11 W. H. 596 258, 591, 1155 
 
 Schmaltz (or S(dimalz) r. Avory, 16 (,). B. 655 ; 20 L. .1. i,>. B. 228; 15 
 
 .Jur. 291 231,298 
 
 Sclimidt /•. Royal Mai! Stcamshii. Co., 15 P. .1. <,». P.. 646 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 
 •^\l. n '■''■^'i 
 
 (orSmidt; v. Tideii, 43 P. .1. <,». P.. 199 ; L. H. 9 (,). li. 466 ; 30 
 P. T. 891 ; 22 W. \{. 913 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 3o7 . . . • • ^^I'S 
 
 Schotsmans r. Lancashire and Yorkshire Ry. Co., 36 L. .1. Ch. 3(il ; L. R. 
 
 2 Ch. 332 ; 16 L. T. 189; 15 \V. R. 537 •>''^ 
 
 Schroeder r. Thompson, 1 Moore, 163 ; 7 Taunt. 462 ; 18 R. R. 540 . I<i91 
 
 y. Vau.K, 15 Ea.st, 52; 13R. R. 758, « 120S 
 
 Schnst<T v. Fletcher. 47 L. -L (,). V,. 530 : 3 (). li. D. 418 : 38 L. T. 605 ; 
 
 26 W. R. 756 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 577 . ■ • ">83 (2), 1274 
 
 /•. McKelh.r, 7 El. & Bl. 704 ; 26 L. .1. C». li. 2M ; 3 ,lur. (n.s.) 
 
 1320 ; 5 W. \i. 656 316 
 
 Schwalbe (Evidence), Swabcy, 521 848 
 
 ,, Nr)rth Cerinaii Lloyd SteaiiisiiipCii. -•. Elder (Coiiipuisory I'iiot), 
 Lush. 239; 14 Moore, P. C. 241 ; 4 L. T. 16(i .... 770. 772 
 Schwaii, The, and The Albano, (1892 I'. 419 ; i;ii |,. T. 34 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 
 347_C. A ''98, 706, 741, 764, 771 
 
 Schwan ami The Rolurt Morrison, 43 L. .1. Adm. 18; li. R. 4 A. k E. 
 
 187 ; 30 L. T. 537 ; 22 W. R. 743 ; 2 Asf.. .M. C. 259 . . 857, H»18 
 
 Schwan (Collision ; Tliiimes Hules), 61 L. T. 308 ; 6 Asp. M. <'-,,'J09 . 834 
 
 Scicluna c Stevenson, The Ivhondda, 8 App. Cas. 549 ; 49 L. T. 210 ; 5 
 
 Asi.. M.C.I 14 700.819,823 
 
 Scindia, Kirby r. Scindia (Owners), 4 Moore, 1'. C. (n.s.) 84 ; 35 L. .L 1'. C. 
 
 53; L. R. 1 P. C. 241 : 12 .lur. (n..s.) 531 .... 641, 1013 
 
 Scio, L. H. 1 A. & E. 353 ; 16 L. T. 642 1;'2 
 
 Score r. [jord .admiral. Parker, 273 ....•••• '^•'^ 
 Scotia (Collision ; (Jr.'w), 63 L. T. 324 ; 6 Asp. -M. C. 541 . 690 (2), 699, 736 
 
 Scotson V. I'egg, 6 H. & N. 295 ; 30 L. .1. Kx. 225 ; 3 L. T. 753 ; 9 W. R. 280 452 
 Scott i: Avery, 5 H. L. Ca.s. 811 ; 25 L. .1. Kx. 3(i8 ; 2 .lur. (N.s.) 815; 4 
 
 \\\ K. 746— H. L. (E.) 1=^24, 1362 
 
 ,, )•. I'.ourdillon, 2 Bos. & P. rN.i;.)213 1248 
 
 ., '•. Irving, 1 B. .-t A.I. 605 ; 9 L. .1. (o.s.) K. li. 89 . . • 1266 
 
 ,, r. MiUer, 5 Scoft, 11 ; 3 liing. (X.c.) 811 89 
 
 ., c. Scott, 2 Stark. 438: 20 P. P. 711 '^-^
 
 exiv TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Scott '■. Tlioinpsoii, ] 15os. .t P. (N.i;.) l'"*! • • • • • ^ • l-^'J 
 Scottish Marino liisuiaiu'e Co. r. Turner, 1 'SbAc>[. H. L. -Mi ; 1 H. L. Gas. 
 
 312, n. ; 17 Jur. (531 ; 1 W. K. r»:57 1073, 1111, l-'96 
 
 Scout, 41 L. J. Adni. 42 ; L. K. 3 A. & K. ol2 ; 26 L. T. 371 ; 20 W. R. 
 
 617 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 258 t321, 067, 668 
 
 Scovell V. Bevaii, .-)6 L. J. Q. 15. 604 ; VJ (). B. I). 428 ; 36 \V. K. 301 . 938 
 
 Scrutton i: Cliikls, 36 L. T. 212 : 3 Asp. M. C. 373 249 
 
 Somlanioi-e r. Vandenstone, 2 Roll. Abr. 22 ; 2 Co. Inst. 673 . . . 235 
 Sea Insurance Co. v. Hadden (or Hodden), 53 L. J. Q. P>. 252 ; 13 Q. B. D. 
 
 706 ; 50 L. T. 657 ; 32 W. R. 841 ; 5 Asp. ]M. C. 230— C. A. . 1313, 1332 
 Sea Insurance Company of Scotland r. (Javiii, 4 l)li.i,di ( n.s.) 578 ; 2 Dow & 
 
 C' 129 1220 
 
 Sea Nymph, Lush. 23 _ . • 697, 809 
 
 Sea'frave r. Union Marine Insurance Co., ] H. & R. 302 : 35 L. J. C. P. 
 ' 172 ; L. R. 1 C. P. 305 ; 12 Jur. (x.s.) 358 ; 14 L. T. 479 ; 14 W. It. 
 
 690 112r., 1147 
 
 Sealiam, 40 L. T. 38 : 4 Asp. M. C. 58 992 
 
 Seaman r. Founereau, 2 Str. 1183 . . . . . - . .1182 
 Scath r. jSIoore, 55 L. J. P. C. 54 ; 11 App. Cas. 350 ; 54 L. T. 61)0 : 5 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 586— H. L. (Sc.) 21 
 
 Scatou (Collision), 53 L. .1. Adiu. 15 ; 9 P. I). 1 : 49 L. T. 747 : 32 W. R. 
 
 600 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 191 785, 810 (2), 821 
 
 Secoombe v. Wood, 2 M. & Rob. 290 .. ^ 687 
 
 Secret (Collision ; Coming to an anchor), 26 L. T. 670 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 318 692, 
 
 693, 704, 844 
 Secret, The Innisfail and The, 35 L. T. 819 : 3 Asp. M. C. 337 695, 857, 859 
 Secretary of the P.oard olTrade r. Sundholm. 41 L. T. 469 ; 4 Asp. :M. C. 196 111 
 Secretary of State for India r. Hewitt. 60 L. T. 334 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 384 .^ 993 
 
 Sedgwortli v. Overend, 7 Term Rcji. 279 52, 840 
 
 See Router, 1 Dods. 22 95" 
 
 Seeder, v. Duthie, 8 C. B. (n.s.) 45, 72 ; 30 L. .1. C. P. 65 ; 7 Jur. (x.s.) 
 
 '239 ; 3 L. T. 478 ; 9 W. R. 166— Ex. Cli. . 231, 388, 399, 410, 456, 487 
 Segreda, The Eliza Cornish, otherwise The, 1 Spinks, 36 ; 17 Jnr. 738 . 162 
 
 Seine (Costs), Swabey, 513 ; 1 L. T. 340 863 
 
 ,, (Liability of Shijiowner ; Collision), Swabey, 411 . . . 714,822 
 
 Selina, 2Not. of Cas. 18 " 632 
 
 Cellar r. McVicar, 1 Bos. & P. (n.i;.) 23 ; 8 R. R. 744 . . . . 1071 
 
 Senatr. Porter, 7 Term Rep. 158 ; 4 R. R. 403 1089 
 
 Scialiiia, Br. & Lush. 277 '-^07 
 
 .Seraglio, 54 L. J. Adm. 76 : lo P. D. 120 : 52 L. T. 865 ; 34 W. R. 32 ; 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 421 979 
 
 Serhassen Pirates, 2 W. Rob. 354 ^971 
 
 Seringajiatam (Division of Loss), 3 W. Rob. 38 736, 842 
 
 ,, (Port Tack Ship), 2 W. Rob. 506 ; 5 Not. of Cas. 61 . . 805 
 
 Serraino r. Campbell, 60 L. J. Q. B. 303 ; [1891] 1 Q. B. 283 ; 64 L. T. 
 
 615 ; 39 \V. R. 356 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 48— C. A 308 
 
 Servante v. James, 5 M. & Rob. 299 ; 10 B. & C. 410; 8 L. J. (.).s.)C. B. 
 
 64 51 
 
 Seville Sulphur and Copi)er Co. *•. Colvils, 15 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 
 
 616 .276 
 
 Sevin (or Levin) r. Deslandes, 30 L. .1. Cli. 457 : 7 .hir. (n..s.) 837 : 3 L. T. 
 
 461 ; 9 W. R. 218 291 
 
 Sewai-d r. Ratter, 12 Ct. of Sess. (.'as. (4tli ser.) 222 .... 129 
 
 ,, V. The Vera Cruz (Owners), The Vera Cruz (Lord Camiibell's 
 Act), 54 L. J. Adm. 9 ; 10 App. Cas. 59 ; 52 L. T. 474 ; 33 
 W. R. 477 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 386 ; 49 ,1. P. 324— H. L. (E.) .838 (2) 
 ,, V. Vera Cruz (Owners), The Vera Cruz (Board of Trade Emiuiry ; 
 Both to blame ; Breach of Regulations), 9 P. 1). 88. Reversed as to 
 Lurd Cam])beirs Act. See S. C. siqn-a ..... 760, 876 
 Sewell V. Burdick, 54 L. J. Q. B. 156 ; 10 App. Cas. 74 ; 52 L. T. 445 : 
 
 33 W. R. 461 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 376 — H. L. (E.) . . 351, 357 
 l: Royal Exchange Assurance Co., 4 Taunt. 856 . . 1106, 1201, 1202 
 Seymour r. London and Provincial ^larine Insurance Co., 41 L. J. C. P. 193 ; 
 
 27 L. T. 417 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 423 1177, 1193, 1210 
 
 Sfactoria, 2 P. D. 3 : 35 L. T. 431 ; 25 W. R. 62 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 271 987, 994 
 Shadforth r. Cory, 32 L. J. Q. B. 379 ; 8 L. T. 736 ; 11 W. R. 918— 
 
 Kx. Ch 474 
 
 „ V. Higgin, 3 Camp. 385 268 
 
 Shallcross r. Oldham, 2 J. & H. G09 : 5 L. T. 824 : 10 W. R. 291 . . 80 
 Shand r. Sanderson, 4 H. & N. 381 ; 38 L. J. Ex. 278 ; 7 W. R. 416 . 415 
 
 Shank, Kr 'parte, 1 Atk. 234 24 
 
 Shankland r. Athya, 3 Ct. of Sess. ('as. (3rd ser.) 810 .' . . . 556 
 Shannon, 1 W. Rob. 463 692, 707
 
 TABLE OF CASES. cxv 
 
 Slmrp V. Gibbs, 1 H. ^ X. 801 ■26\i 
 
 „ V. Gladstoue, 7 East, 24 ; 3 Smith, 39 ; 8 R. R. 5S3 . . . 1297 
 „ V. Lethbridge, 4 Man. vV: G. 37 ; 4 Scott (X.s.) 722 ; 11 L. .1. C. P. 
 
 189 1322 
 
 ,, c. Rettie, 11 Ct. ofSess. Cas. (4thser,) 745 .... 131,133 
 
 ,, r. Taylor, 2 Ph. 801 33, 47 
 
 Sliarplcy f.-Hunell (or Huile), Cro. Jac. 208 ; 2 Roll. Ri-p. 48 . 201, 206 
 
 Shaw, Savill &. Co. v. Aitken, 1 Cab. & E. 19.". 499, 866 
 
 J ,, ., V. Tiniani Harbour Board, 1.") Ajip. Cas. 429 ; .o9 L. J. 
 
 P. <•. 77; 62L. T. 913 ; 6 As].. .M. C. r,2]— P. C 722 
 
 Shawe v. Felton, 2 East. 109 1226 
 
 Shee f. Clarksoi), 12 East, r>07 ; 11 II. P. 473 1309 
 
 Sheers r. .Martvn, 1 Kel>. 789 935 
 
 Shepard r. UeBeruales, 13 East, 565 ; 12 R. R. 442 . . 310, 389, 399 
 
 Sheuher.l v. Chewber, 1 Cainp. 274 ; 10 R. R. 681 1262 
 
 --. Harrison, 40 L. J. Q. B. 148; L. R. 5 H. L. 116; 24 
 
 L. T. 857 ; 20 W. R. 1 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 66— H. L. (E.) 355, 
 
 363, 544 
 c. Henderson, 7 App. Cas. 49 ; 9 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 1 — 
 
 H. L. (8.'.) 1282(2) 
 
 r. Kottjren, 47 L. .1. C. P. 67 ; 2 C. P. D. 585 ; 37 L. T. 618 ; 
 
 ■M\\. R. 120 ; 3 Asp. iM. C. .544— C. A. . . . 581, 1240 
 1-. Moore, 1 H. & N. 125 ; 25 L. J. Ex. 264 ; 2 Jur. (n.s.) 617 ; 
 4 W. R. 570, /(.—Ex. Ch. And see 2 El. & Bl. 382 ; 22 L. .1. <.>. B. 
 
 377 ; 17 Jur. 1179 902 
 
 Sheppard f. Wrij,dit, 1 Shower, P. C. (ed. 1876) 18 580 
 
 Sherbro, 52 L. J. Adiii. 28 ; 48 L. T. 767 ; 5 Asp. .Al. C. 88 . . 189, 195 
 Sheridan v. New Quay Co., 4 C. B. (x.s.) 618 ; 28 L. .1. C. P. 5S ; 5 Jur. 
 
 (N.s.)24S 362 
 
 Sherill'r. Cadell, 2 Esp. 617 42 
 
 „ r. Potts, 5 Esp. 97 1219, 1262 
 
 Sherman v. Bennett, M. & M. 489 l--^8 
 
 Shertiioulin (or Tlierniolin) r Sands, Carth. 423 ; 1 Ld. Rayin. 271 . . 931 
 Shersby r. Hibbert, The J )ukc ol.Manchester, 6 I\loore, 1'. C. 90. Aftinii- 
 
 hi'j, 2 W. Rob. 470 ; 4 Not. of Cas. 582 ; 10 Jur. 863 . . 602, 775 
 
 Shiel.l r. Wilkins, 5 Ex. 304 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 238 242 
 
 Shields -•. Davis, 6 Taunt. 65 ; 4 Camp. 119 380, 388 
 
 Shitfn.-r c. CJordon, 12 East, 296 1:$05 
 
 Ship unknown, 1 C. Rob. 331 981 
 
 Siiiptou i: Thornton, 1 P. .S: 1). 216 : 9 A. & E. 314 ; 8 L. J. Q. \'>. 
 
 73 . . 372 
 
 Shirley c. Wilkinson, 1 I)on,^l. 3o6, ,/. ; 3 l)(n)gl. 41 . . 1181, 1196 
 
 Shirt and Flovd's Case, cited Dyer, fo. 1.59/- 927 
 
 Shirwell v. Slieplock, 2 Chit. 397 •''•'>4 
 
 Shore v. Bentall, 7 P.. .t C. 798, u. ; ] -Man. & Ry. 680, n. ; 31 R. R. 
 
 302, /( '-'•'''> 11-'''' 
 
 Short V. Simj.son, 1 H. .t K. 181 ; 35 L. .1. ('. P. 147 ; L. R. 1 C. P. 248 ; 
 
 12 Jur. (.v.s.) 258; 13 L. T. 674 ; 1 1 W. K. 307 .... 348 
 
 Shower c. Cudmore, Sir Th. Jones, 21 •! . -j^" 
 
 Shubriek 1-. Salniond, 3 I'.nrr. 1637 . . . . • . 2j0 
 
 Sibbaldr. Hill, 2 D..W, 263 ; 14 R. P. 160 IPt'.i 
 
 Sibson r. Ship jiareraig Co., 24 (Jt. of Scss. Cas. (4th ser.) 91 . . . 383 
 
 Si.-k.;ns r. Irviug, 7 C. B. (N.s.) 165; 29 L. J. C. P. 23; 6 Jur. (n.s.) 
 
 •JOO -•'•■1 
 
 SievkiM«r. Muas, 6 El. .S: Bl. 670 ; 25 E. J. (,>. I',. 358 ; 2 Jur. (n.s.) 515 ; 
 
 4 W. R. 606- Ex. (h -80 
 
 SiHTveii c. Alliintt, 1 M. A: S. 39 1-'" 
 
 ,, r. Lw, 2 Bos. & P. (.v.i;.) 484 ; 9 i{. R. 676 .... lo92 
 
 „ (?. Wray, 6 East, 371 ; 2 Smith, iso _ ■>^-' 
 
 Sigard v. Bobcats, 3 Esp. 71 l-3> ^'-^^ 
 
 Silesia, 5 P. D. 177 ; 43 L. T. 319 ; 2'J W. K. 156 ; 4 Asp. -M. C. 338 . 654 
 
 Sills r. I'.rown, 9 Car. & 1'. 601 'iS-'"'. "^^ '^"4, 849 
 
 Silver j'.ullion, 2 Spinks, 70 ''ON •'-"A •^'^3 
 
 Simeon c. Bazett, 2 M. &S. 94 l-'O'' 
 
 Simey r. Peter, :! Ct. of Serss. Cas. (3rd ser.) 883 "'•>» 
 
 Simlah, 15 Jur. 865 • ■ • . ,• . ''•' 
 
 Simmoiids (or Simonds) r. Ilodj^son, 3 1). & Ad. 50 ; 1 E. I- I"*. •'■ •'' 
 
 Ex. Ch. . . • '•" 
 
 Simon 1-. Sedf(wiek, <;i L. J. Q. P.. 163; [1893) 1 (^ B. 303 ; 4 U. 1 2S : 
 
 67 J>. T. 785 ; 41 W. K. 163 ; 7 Asp. .M. C. 245— C. A. . . • 10.-2 
 
 Simond c. Boydell, 1 Don;,'!. 268 ■ • I'"*' 
 
 Simonds 'or Simmonds) /•. Hodjjson. See Simmoiids >: Hodgson,
 
 cxvi TAJiLK OF CASES. 
 
 Simonds r. Wiiitc', 1 l». ct K. -'Jr;' : -J. \'>. k C. bo:< : 2 L. .1. (n.s.) K. U. 
 
 159 ; 26 K. K. .OOd 5:s8, r>l»(i, 12r;:> 
 
 Simpson «. l]ith\voo(l, :'. Liv. 307 : 2 Daiiv. 42!t 594 
 
 ., >: lUucs, The Miido-e WikUire, 41 L. .1. ('. I'. 121 : L. H. 7 C. 1". 
 
 29(1 ; 2() I.. T. 697 ; 20 \V. R. 680 : 1 Asp. JM. C. 326 938 (2) 
 
 ,, v. Fogo (Action oi^ rem), 1 H. & ]\I. 195 ; 32 L. ,1. (,'li. 249 : 9 
 
 ,lnr. (x.s.) 403 ; 8 L. T. 61 : 11 W. J{. 418. . . .188 
 ., (or liiverpuol ISorough Bank] r. Fogo (Foieigii .ludgmtiit), 1 
 .1. & H. 18 ; 29 L. .T. Cli. 657 : 6 .lur. (n.s.) 949 ; 2 L. T. 
 
 594 ; 8 W. K. 4u7 187 
 
 ,, I'. Thomson, 3 App. Cus. 279 : 38 L. T. 1 : 3 Asp. iM. C. 567— 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) 725. 840, 1313, 1-332 
 
 V. Yonng, 2 F. & F. 426 919 
 
 Sims r. Bond, 2 N. & M. 608 ; 5 B. & Ad. 389 59 
 
 ,, c. Britten \oy Brittain), 1 N. & M. 594 ; 4 B. .t Ad. 375 . . 48, 57 
 
 Singapore, Tlic, and The Hebe, The Singapore ((Jwneis) r. The Hebe 
 
 (Owners), 4 Moore P. C. (n.s.) 271 ; L. R. 1 V. C. 37S . 806, 815, 861 
 Simpiasi, 50 L. J. Adm. 5 ; 5 P. ]J. 241 ; 43 L. T. 768 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 
 383 755, 769, 774 
 
 Siordet I'. Brodie, 3 Camp. 253 ........ 870 
 
 „ r. Hall, 4 Bing. 607 ; 1 IM. & P. 561 : 6 L. J. (<i.s. i C. P. 137 : 
 
 29 II. R. 651 554 
 
 Sir Charles Napier, 5 P. ]). 73 ; 42 L. T. Km : 28 \V. R. 718 : 4 Asp. J\l. C. 
 
 231— C. A 92, 940 
 
 Sir Francis Bnrton, 2 Hag. Adm. 156 619, 633, 657 
 
 Sir tieorge Seymonr, 1 Spiuks, 67 ..-■••- • 853 
 Sir Henry Con.stable's Case, 5 Co. Rep. KH! a ; Amleis. 86 . . . 948 
 
 Sir Henry Webb, 13 Jur. 639 84, 44.'. 
 
 Sir John Gilbert's Case, cited Dyer, fo. 159 w 930 
 
 Sir Julius Cesar's Case, Leon. pt. 1, 106 934 
 
 Sir Ralph Abererombie, 4 Jloore, P. C. (N.s.) 374 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 454 . 634 
 Sir Robert Peel, 43 L. T. 364 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 321— C. A. . . 999. 1014 
 
 Sir Thomas Bacon's Case, Leon. pt. 2, 103; i>t. 3, 192 .... 934 
 Sisters (Damages ; No Collision ; Ayipeal), 45 L. J. Adm. 39 : 1 i'. D. 117 ; 
 
 34 L. T. 338 ; 24 W. 1!. 412 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 122— C. A. . . 685, 
 
 698, 719, 1011 
 ,, (Limitation ; Transfer of Money in Court), i 1'. D. 281 : 35 L. T. 
 
 36 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 224 . ' . 749 
 
 „ (Limitation ; Admission of Liability), 32 L. T. 837 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 
 589 ■ 740, 749 
 
 (Posses.sion), 3 C. Rob. 213: i C. Rob. 275 ; 5 C. Rob. 155 . 955 
 
 Sjoerds c. Lu.scombe, 16 East, 201 ........ 507 
 
 Skandinav, 51 L. J. Adm. 93— (_'. A 271, 420 
 
 Skibladner (or Skiblander),47 L. J. Adm. 84 : 3 P. I>. 24 : 3S L. T. 1.50 : 
 
 3 Asp. M. C. 556 605, 64S 
 
 Ski].with, 10 Jur. (N.s.) 445 ; 10 L. T. 43 .... 192,960.1002 
 Skittrell c. Siiovell, 59 L. J. M. C. 26 ; 61 L. T. 874 ; 54 J. P. 325 . 140 
 
 Slater c. Willis, 1 Beav. 354 3t) 
 
 Slnbev v. Heyward, 2 H. Bl. 504 ; 3 H. R. 486 575 
 
 Smalf r. Gibson, 4 H. L. Cas. 3.53: 1 C. L. R. 363: 17 Jur. 1131 — 
 FL L. (E.) Affirming 16 (,». B. 12S ; 20 L. J. (,). i;. 152 : 15 
 
 Jur. 325— Ex. Ch. ' 1154 
 
 ,, v. Moates, 9 ]5ing. 579 ; 2 j\L iV Scott, 674 4:i6 
 
 ,. c. United Kingdom Marine Mutual Insurance Assoeiation, 66 L. J. 
 ' O. B. 736 : [1897J 2 i}. B. :!11 ; 76 L. T. 828 ; 46 W. R. 24 : 8 As]). 
 
 M. C. 293— C. A 1099, 1136 
 
 Smart v. Wolff, 3 Term Rep. 323 921 
 
 Smidt (or Schmidt) r. Tiden, 43 L. J. (,». P.. 190 : L. it. 9 (,». B. 446 : 30 
 
 L. T. 891 ; 22 W. R. 913 : 2 Asp. M. C. 307 398 
 
 Smith. In re. The City of Mecca, Li re. 45 L. J. Adm. 92 : 1 I'. D. 
 300; 35 L. T. 380; 24 \V. 1!. 903; 3 Asp. >L C. 25<t — 
 
 C. A 975 
 
 ,, r. Bank of New South Wales, The Staffordshire, 8 ]\Ioore, I'. C. 
 (X..S.) 443; 41 L. J. Adm. 49: L. R. 4 P. C. 194: 27 
 L. T. 46 ; 20 W. R. 557 : 1 Asp. M. C. 365 . 198. 200, 201, 
 
 208, 947 
 ., V. Bedouin Steam Navigation Co. ; [1896] Ajifi. Cas. 7t' : 65 L. J. 
 
 P. C. 8-PL L. (Sc.) 555 
 
 ,, c. Boutoher, 1 Car. & K. 573 915.917' 
 
 ,, r. Brown, 40 L. .1. Q. B. 214 ; L. 1!. 6 (,>. P.. 729 ; 24 L. T. 808 ; 
 
 19 \V. R. 1165 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 56 838 
 
 ,, V. Cologan, 2 Term Rep. 188. // 1329 
 
 ,, V. Crosby, l^'ortesc. 230 . . . ' 933
 
 TABLE OF CASES. cxvil 
 
 Smitli V. Dart, r>4 L. A. (,». B. 121 : 14 (>. 1'.. 1 ). lo." ; frj L. T 218- •'53 
 
 \v. K. 4r>r, : r. Asp. m. c. ytio ' . 26.% 
 
 ,, i: Dohsoii, •■; Man. & G. 59; 3 Scott (x. i:.i .-Jiit; . . . fiSG. 701 
 
 ,, r. Drmniuuml, 1 Cab. iS; E. I(j0 ....... 29-1 
 
 ,, r. Fleiniiijf, 1 H. L. ("as. 513. ..... 69, 1236 12S5 
 
 ,, V. Francis, 55 .1. P. 4(i7 .........' 14o 
 
 ,, V. Fnge, 3 Cani[). 456 ......... 40 
 
 „ V. Gibson. Cas. t. Hard. 271, 317 . . . . . . 956 
 
 ,. V. Goss, 1 Camp. 282 ; 10 K. R. 684 ...... 57.^^ 
 
 ,, *■. Gonld, Tlic Prince George. 4 A[oorc. P. ('. 21 .... '^((5 
 
 ,, f. Kirby, 1 I,). 15. I). 131 ; 24 W. K. 207 . . ! . ! 742 
 
 ., v. Lascelles, 2 Term Hep. 187 ; 1 P. P. 457 ..... 1339- 
 
 ., r. Lay, 3 K. & .F. 1()5 . ] . m 
 
 r. London and St. Katherine'.s Dock Co.. 37 L. .(. C. P. 217 : L. P. 
 
 3 C. 1'. .326 -. 18 L. T. 403 ; 16 W. \t. 7-8 . . " . . 91 -j 
 
 ,, r. McGuire (or Maguire), 3 H. & X. 554 : 27 L. .1. Ex. 465 : 
 
 6 AV. R. 726. S. C, Nisi Prius. 1 F. .V F. 199 . 229, 2-34. 302. 
 
 51:-. 
 ,, c. ^lacXeil, 2 Dow, 538 ........ 1255 
 
 ,, r. Nicholls, 5 Ring. (x.t. i 208: 7 Scxtt, 147 : 7 D. P. C. 282- 
 
 8 L. J. C. P. 92 94G, 991 
 
 ,, i: Pluninier, 1 R. & .Md. 575 ; 19 R. U. 391 '97 
 
 ,, v. Price, 2 F. .t F. 748 13:19 
 
 ,, V. Pyman, 60 L. A. (). B. 621 ; [1891] 1 (,). P,. 742 : 64 L. T. 436 : 
 
 39 W. R. 466: 7 Asp. .M. C. 7— C. A 410. 411 
 
 ,, r. Read.'iliaw, 2 Park. Ins. (8th cd.) 7fiS IhjO' 
 
 ,, r. Reynolds, 1 II. & X. 221 : 25 L. .1. Ex. 337 : 4 W. K. 644 . 1132, 
 
 1137 
 ,, V. Robertson, 2 Dow, 474 : 14 R. R. 174 . . . . 1283, 1290' 
 ,, V. Ro.sario Nitrate Co., [1894] 1 (}. B. 174 ; 9 R. 776 : 7u L. T. 68 : 
 
 7 Asp. M. C. 417— C. A 485 
 
 ,, c. Scott, 4 Taunt. 12(i : 13 R. R. 568 1082: 
 
 ,, r. Shepherd, Abbott on Sliip]iing (13tli ed.) 459 .... 76 
 ,, c. Sieveking, 5 El. & Bl. 589 : 1 Jur. (n.n. ll:'.5 : 4 W. it. 25— 
 
 Ex. Ch 452 
 
 ,, c. Small, 14 Sim. 119 38 
 
 ,, r. St. Lawrence Tow Boat Co., L. P. 5 P. C. 3(i8 ; 28 L. T. 885 ; 
 
 21 W. K. 569 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 41 . . . . 755, 769, 803 
 
 ,, V. Steele, 44 L. .1. (,». B. 60 ; L. H. 10 (,». U. 125 : :!2 L. T. 195: 
 
 23 W. R. 388 : 2 Asp. M. ('.487 145. 726 
 
 ,, c. Surridgc, 4 Esp. 25 : f. R. ]{. ,S37 1211 
 
 ,, r. Tilly, 1 Kd). 70S «t29, 964 
 
 „ V. Tregarthen, 56 L. .1. i.>. B. 1;!7 ; 57 b. T. 5s : 35 W. R. 665 : 
 
 6 Asit. M. C. 137 55!> 
 
 „ <•. Voss, 2 H. k X. 97 : 26 L. .1. Ex. 233 : 5 \V. R. 534 . . 822. 
 
 ,, r. Wilson (Charterpartyj, 6 AI. & S. 78; 8 Ea.st, 437 . . . 288 
 
 ,, for Howard-Smith /•. Wilson (Wrecki, 65 L. A. P. C. 66 ; [l,s96l 
 
 App. Cas. 579 : 75 L. T. 81 ; .s Asp. .M. C. 197— P. C. . . . 895- 
 
 Smithctt .'•. Blytiie, 1 B. k Ad. 509 ; 9 L. .1. m.s. 1 K. 15. 39 . . . 897 
 
 Smitli.son v. Pain, 1 Keb. 15s . . . . . . ji.jj^ <)2S 
 
 Smurtliwaite /•. llaiinay, 6:{ L. .1. i). \). 7:;7 ; |1S94| App. Cas. 49 1 ; 6 1{. 
 299 ; 71 L. T. 157 : (3 W. K. 1]:! : 7 Asp. .M. C. 485 
 
 — II. L. (E.I 556, 668. 973 
 
 ,, V. Wilkins. 11 C. 15. {.s.s., S12 ; 31 L. ,1. C. P. 214 : 5 L. T. 
 
 842; 7 L. T. 65; 10 W. P. .386; 7 A.s|i. M. C. 485 . :!ll. lo:; 
 
 Smyrna, Imperial Royal Privileged Danubian Steam Xavigation Co. r. 
 <!reek and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (Collision; Local 
 Hide.s), 2 Moore, P. C. (n.s).435 ; lO.Iur. {N..s. :977 ; 11 L. T. 74 ti99, 
 
 8(1.3, S27, 828 
 
 ,. (<'olli.sion : .\iiilioi Dredging), cited Lush. 385 .... 792 
 
 Snell r. .Marryatt, Abboti on Shipping n3th ed.) .358 .... 26S 
 
 Snook '■. Davidson. 2 Camp. 21S : 11 R. P. 696 13)7 
 
 So:imes '. Loncrgan, 2 D. .t l,'. 71 : 2 15. .t C. 564 : 2 L. .1. (o.s. 1 K. 15. 
 
 106 ; 26 R. P. 460 . 512 
 
 Soures 1: Ralin, The Prince olSaxc ('obiirg, .3 Moore, P. ('. 1 . . 203, 208 
 ,, /•. Thornton. 7 Tannt. 627 ; 1 Moore, 373 : 18 R. R. 615 . I(i99 
 
 Soldomsten or Soblomstern , 36 L. .1. Adm. 5 ; L. H. 1 A. k E. 29:; ; 15 
 
 L. T. 393 : 15 W. li. 591 .... 368, 372, 37.3, 592. 972 
 
 Sociedade Felix, 1 W. Rob. .30.3 971 
 
 Softley, In n; Winter, A'.r /,i/,(r, 41 I,. .1. Bk. 107; L. 1.'. 20 E4. 716 ; 
 
 33 L. T. 62 ; 24 W. R. 68 174 
 
 Solis, .54 L. A. Adm. 52 ; 10 P. D. 62; .52 L. T. 110 ; ••'.■. W. R. 6.59 : 5 
 
 .\k]). M. C. 368 98>i
 
 <-xviii TAIJLK OF CASKS. 
 
 Sollv r. Wliitiiion', :. \). k Aid. 4.'. ; 21 R. K. '27-1 . . • • ^ • I'-^^l 
 Sohvav, r.urtr. Livingstone, .')4 L. .1. Adn'.. s:3 ; 10 I'. I). ]o7 : '.-'5 L. T. 
 
 tiSO : :54 W. R. 2:52 ; .". Asp. iM. C. 4.S2 S48, 1000 
 
 Solwiiv rrin.'f, tjr. L. .1. Adm. 4r> : [ISiKi] V. 12(1; 74 L. T. :!2 ; s Asp. 
 
 M. C. 128 ^26 
 
 Soniei-s and Ruukluy's L'aso, Leon. pt. 2, 182 i^31 
 
 Somes r. Ihitish Empire Shipping Co., 8 H. L. Cas. 388 ; :?0 L. .1. <}. L. 
 
 229 : ti ,lur. (N.s.) 761 ; 2 L. T. .547 ; 8 W. R. 7o7. . . ItJ 
 
 ., r. Sngrne, 4 Car. k W -276 ■ • • 12«S 
 
 .Soomo i\ Gleen, Sid. pt. 1, 27 '^^^ 
 
 Sophin Cook, 4 P. D. 30 -^-^ 
 
 Soi)hie (Necessaries), 1 W. Rob. 368 962 
 
 ,, (Seenrity for Costs), 1 W. Rob. 32t; 1010 
 
 Sorensen r. The Queen, The Ariel, 11 .Moore, P. C. Hit .... I-jO 
 Soto, 62 L. .T. Adm. 17: [189:3] P. 7:!; 1 R. 579; 09 L. T. 2:S1 : 41 
 
 W R. 479 ; 7 Asp. i>L C. :33.'. 1020 
 
 South Sea, Swabey, 141 lO"-^"^ 
 
 .S..utlia,nn,toii Doek Co. r. Hill, 16 C. ]',. (x.s.) .567; 10 L. T. 462; 12 
 
 \V. R. 200 -Lx. Ch 907 
 
 r. Southampton Harbour and Pirn- Hoard, 
 41 "l .1 t'k 832; L. R. 14 K.i. .')9.'> ; 26 L. T. 828; 20 W. R. 
 
 ..•40 ■. ' -, ,• ^*^'^ 
 
 Southampton Steam Collier (or Colliery) Co. r. Clarke, 40 L. .1. L.v. 8; 
 
 L. R. 6 Kx. 53 ; 19 W. R. 214— Ex. Ch 415, 497, 50.5 
 
 Southgate, [1893] P. 329 • • ^'^5 
 
 Southport (Conioration) v. Morriss (or Iveg. r. Southport Corporation), 62 
 
 L. .L M. C. 47 : [1893] 1 <2. B. 359 ; 5 R. 201 ; 68 L. T. 221 ; 41 
 
 W. R. 382 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 279 ; 57 -L P. 231 865 
 
 S )vereign, Lu.sh. 85 ; 29 L. .L Adm. 113 ; 6 .lur. (n.s.) 8:32; 2 L. T. 669 675 
 Spaight V. Farnworth, 49 L. J. Q. P.. 346 ; 5 (). P.. D. 115 ; 42 L. T. 296 ; 
 
 28 W. R. 508 ; 4 Asp. iM. C. 251 422 
 
 ,. r. Tedoastle, 6 App. Cas. 217 ; 44 L. T. 589; 29 W. It. 761 ; 
 
 4 Asp. M. C 406— H. L. (K.) 755 (2), 763, 769 (2) 
 
 Spal.ling V. Ruding, 6 Heav. 376 ; 12 L. .1. Cli. 503 . . . . . 570 
 
 Spanisli Aml)assad"or, Don Degoe Servient Deaeuno r. Runtish and Points, 
 
 ' 2 Pmlstr. :>.22 . ^^'^ 
 
 Spark r. Stailord, Hardi'. 183 930, 934 
 
 Sparkes r. ]\Lirshall, 3 Seott, 172 : 2 Ping, (x.c.) 761 : 2 H.i.lges, 44; 5 
 
 L. .T. C. P. 286 1121 
 
 Sparks r. Martyn, 1 Ventr. 1 936 
 
 Si)arrow v. Caruthers, 2 Str. 1236 1055 
 
 V. Paris, 7 H. & N. 594 ; 31 L. .1. Ex. 137 ; 8 .lur. (x.s.) 391 ; 
 
 5 L. T. 799 ; • "-69 
 
 Si)earman, The Yourri and The Spearman, 10 App. Cas. 276 ; 53 L. T. 29 ; 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 458-P. C •'^23, 82/ 
 
 Speculator (Wages ; Droit), 3 Hag. 330. // 9-t2 
 
 (Registrar), 12 .lur. 546 1005 (Addenda) 
 
 Speerman r. Degrave, 2 Vern. t)43 61, 6/ 
 
 Speldt /•. Leehmere, 13 Ves. 588 36, 15u 
 
 Speller (or Spiller) v. Bristol Steam .Vavigation Co., 53 L. .1. «,». 13. 322 ; 
 
 13 O. P.. D. 96 ; 50 L. T. 419 ; :!2 W. R. 670 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 228— 
 
 ('.A •'-''■^ 
 
 ^Vewj' r. Chadwick, lo <.». P.. 517 : 16 L. .L<.). B. 313 ; 11 Jur. 872 . 306, :3:32, 
 ' 339 
 
 ,, /•. Union Marine Insurance Co., :i7 L. .1. C. P. 1<)9 ; L. R. 3 < '. P. 
 
 427; 18 L. T. 632; 16 W. R. 1010 1229 
 
 Spencer ('. Franco, cited 2 Burr. 695 1138 
 
 Spero Expecto, 49 L. T. 749 ; 32 W. R. 524 ; 5 As).. ]\1. C. 197 . . 988 
 
 Spindrift, The .lennie S. Barker and The Spindrift, 44 L. .L Adm. 20 : 
 
 L. R. 4 A. & E. 456 ; 33 L. T. 318 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 42 . . 787, 789 
 
 Si.irit of the Age, Swabey, 286 635, 648 
 
 Spirit of the Ocean, :i4 L. .1. Adm. 74 ; 12 L. T. 2:39 . . . 155,744 
 S].itta r. Woodman, 2 Taunt. 416 ; :i Taunt. 406 ; 11 R. R. 62S . . lO..,) 
 Splendid, The Thomas P>ailey and The (,)ueeu of th(! East r. The Maitin 
 
 Luther, 12 L. T. 585 . . 641 
 
 Splidt V. Bowles, Id East, 279 ; 10 R. R. 296 393 
 
 Spree, [1893] P. 147 ; 1 R. 584 ; 69 L. T. 628 ; 7 As]). M. C. 3!t7 . . 650 
 
 .Sprin^r, L. R. 1 A. & E. 99 ; 12 Jur. i n.s.) 788 ; 14 \V. R. 975 . 806, 825 
 
 Stackpoole r. Reginn, 9 Ir. Rep. 9 Eip 619 630, 950 
 
 Stadacona, 5 Not. of Cas. 371 786 
 
 STadgroom, E.'-pmfr, 1 Vcs. 163 38 
 
 Stiilford r. Dyer, 64 i.. ,L M. C. 194; [1895] 1 (.». B. r,M ■ 15 P. 2S7 ; 72 
 
 L. T. 114:7 Asp. M. C, 568 "81
 
 TABLE OF CASES. cxix 
 
 Statfonlsliire, Smith c. Bank <>[' New Soiith 'Wales, S ilooic, 1'. ('. (s.s. ) 
 
 443 ; 41 L. J. Adm. 49 ; L. R. 4 P. C. 194 ; 27 L. T. 46 : 20 W . K. 
 
 557 : 1 Asp. M. C. 365— P. C 198, 200, 201, 208. 947 
 
 Staiiibank c. Feniiiiicc, 11 C. B. 51 ; 20 L. J. C. P. 226 ; 15 Jur. 1082: 
 
 aiKl.seel3 C. B. (n.s.) 418 1133 
 
 r. Sheppard 13 C. B. 418 ; 1 C. L. K. 609 ; 22 L. .1. Ex. 341 : 
 
 17 .luv. 1032 ; 1 ^V. R. 505— Ex. CIi. . . . 196. 200. 207. 1131 
 
 Stakesbv, 59 L. ,T. Adm. 72 ; 15 P. 1). 166 ; 63 L. T. 115 ; 39 \V. R. 80 ; 
 
 6 Asp. :M. C. 532 797 
 
 Stamma r. Brown, 2 Str. 1173 10."., 1099 
 
 Standard, 6 W. R. 222 213, 219 
 
 Staniforth r. Lyall, 7 Bing. 169 ; 4 :\1. c^ P. 829 ; 9 L. .1. (o.s.) C. P. 23 . 302, 
 
 Stanmore, 54 L. J. Adm. 89 ; 10 P. I). 134 : 53 L. T. 10 : 5 Asp. M. C. 
 
 441— C. A 819 
 
 ^Stanton r. Austin, 41 L. .1. C. P. 218 : L. R. 7 C P. 651 . . . 504 
 ,, -■. Banks (or Reg. r. Stanton), 8 El. & Bl. 445 ; 27 L. -I. M. C. 
 
 105; 4 Jnr. (N.s.) 10, 332; 6 VV. R. 39 .... 783 
 r. Richardson. 45 L. .1. C. P. 78 ; 33 L. T. 193 : 24 AV. R. 324 : 
 
 3 Asp. y\. ('. 23— H. L. (E.) 259, 501 
 
 Stiij.leton r. Haymen, 2 H. & C. 918; 33 L. ,1. Ex. 170 ; 10 -lur. ('\.s.) 
 
 497 ; 9 L. t. 655 ; ]2 W. R. 317 155 (2) 
 
 Star of India, 1 P. D. 466 ; 45 L. J. Adm. 102 ; 35 L. T. 407 : 25 \V. R. 
 
 377 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 261 733 
 
 StarufPer.sia, 57 L. T. 839; 6 Asp. M. ('. 220— P. C 646 
 
 Stavers i\ Curling, 3 Bing. (N.. .) 355 ; 3 Scott, 740 : 2 H.idges, 237 : 6 
 
 L. J. C. P. 41 91 
 
 Steamship Bentinck Co. v. Poltei, Tlie (ieorge Roper, 52 L. .1. Adm. 69; 
 
 8 P. 1). 119 ; 49 L. T. 185 ; 31 AV. R. 953 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 134 . f^'M), 830 
 isteanishiii Nurden Co. r. Dcmpsey, 45 L. J. C. P. 764 ; 1 C. P. D. 654 ; 
 
 24 \V. R. 984 --^i'-Z 
 
 Steamship Thanemore Co. c. Thom]isiiii, 52 L. T. 552 ; 5 As)i. .M. C. 39S . 1316 
 Steamship Westphalia, 24 L. T. 75 ; 1 Asp. .M. C. 12 . . . . 802 
 
 ♦Stearine Comnanv r. Heintzman. 17 < '. B. (N.s.) 56; 10 .lur. (n.s.) SM : 
 
 11 L. 7.272" ••''19 
 
 .Steel /;. Lacv, 3 T;.unt. 285 ; 12 R. R. 6.^8 . . . .1152,1171,1209 
 
 ,, /•. Lester, 47 L. .1. C. P. 43 : 3 C. P. D. 121 : 37 L. T. •i42 ; 26 
 
 AY. R. 212 ; 3 Asp. .M. C. 537 70. 295, 715 
 
 „ ,-. Schomberg, 3 C. L. R. 302 ; 4 El. <v: Bl. 620 ; 24 E. J. <.•. B. 87 : 
 
 1 Jur. (n.s.) 679 873 
 
 ,, (or Strang) v. Scott, 5!t E. .1. P. CI: M App. Cms. 601 ; 61 E. T. 
 
 597 ; 38 W. R. 452 : ti Asp. M. C. 419 . . . . 541, 587 
 
 ,, i: State J.ine Steanishiii •'..., 3 A]!]). Cas. 72 : 37 E. T. 333 : 3 Asji. 
 
 M. C. 516 257,325,331,334 
 
 Str.dc v. Di.\<in, 3 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 1003 62, 68 
 
 .Steinnian i: Angler Line, 60 L. J. (,). B. 425; [18911 1 Q. B. D. 619 ; 
 
 64 L. T. 613 ; 39 W. R. 392 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 46— C. A. . . 334 
 
 Stella, 36 L. J. Adm. 13 ; L. R. 1 A. A:. E. 340 ; 16 L. T 335 ; 15 W. i;. 
 
 9.36 ''''1 
 
 .Stephrn Wright, 12 .lui. 732 . 127 
 
 .Stui.iieiis '•. Austrahisiau insumm'.' Co., 12 E. .E I'. P. 12: E. II. S t '. P. 
 
 18 • 27 E. T. 585 ; 21 W. R. 228 ; 1 Asji. M. C. 45s. 50:!. 1(141, 
 
 1118, 1130. 1117, 1208 
 /•. Harris, 57 L. .E <^ B. 203. Allirmiug on otiicr grounds, 5ti 
 
 L. .1. <,». B. 516; 57 L. T. 618 ; 6 Asj). .M. ('. 192 . 177. 1^1 
 r. Macleod, 19 Ct. of Si:ss. Cas. (itii s.r.) 38 .... 470 
 
 ,, (!. Sole, cit.-d 1 Atk. 157 177 
 
 Steidienson c. Pri(;c, 3 Dougl. 353 •''!■* 
 
 .Stettin (Bill of Lading), 5s E. .1. Adm. si ; 11 P. J). 1 12 : .11 E. T. 200 : 
 
 :J8 W. R. 96 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 395 314 
 
 „ (Conipuhsory Pilot), P.r. .t Lush. 19'.t: :;i I,. J. Adm. 2()s ; 6 E. T. 
 
 6i:3-P. C. ' 782. 783 
 
 Stevens c. Bagwell, 15 Ve.s. 139; 10 l;. i:. 46 • 9;.2 
 
 ,, V. Gonrley, The Cleadon, 1 I .Moore P. C '.t2 ; Eii-b. 15s ; i E. I . 
 157 .....•■■•••• 7-'l, 761 
 
 SU'Vcnson'*!. Siiow, 3 Burr. 1237: 1 W. Bl. 315 1305 
 
 ...... "'9 
 
 "... 150 
 
 r. York, 2 Chit. 570 
 Ktewart, Er part'-, 1 fUyn & .1. 3 1 I . 
 
 Abenlein, 4 M. ."c W. 21 1 : 1 1 1. .V I E 2S I : 7 E. .1. E.v. 2V2 . 1267 
 
 ,-. Bell, 5 B. & Aid. 23S: 24 K. IE -Wl 
 
 r. Dunlop, 4 Bro. P. C. 4S2 
 
 f. Eddow.-s, Hudson r. Stewart, 43 E. .1. < ■. P. 204 : E. it. !• ( . I". 
 311 ; 30 E. T. 333; 22 W. IE 53 J 
 
 1 1 89 
 1188 
 
 148
 
 (•XX TAiJLK OF CASKS. 
 
 Sti'wait c. (Irccimck .Muiiiic Insuiaiico Co.. 2 II. L. ('as. iriii : 1 iMauq. 
 
 H. L. :;-2S . . . . . . l-_':il, ]-i9t), l:Jl:!. 1333 
 
 ., r. Hall, •_' I)..w, -i!* 17 
 
 ,, r. Jlacbetli, 10 Gt. ol'Sess. Cas (1th ser.) 382 .... 186 
 ,, V. Jlercliaiits' .Marine Insuninco Co., .'')5 Fa. ,1. Q. B. 81 ; 16 Q. P>. 
 1). (ilP : r.3 L. T. 892 ; 34 "W. R. 208 : f. Asp. M. V. 506— 
 
 ('.A 1251 
 
 ,, V. Kogur.soii, L. II. 6 C. P. 421 464. 53.^ 
 
 ,, y. Steulu, 5 Scott (n.k.) 927 1276 
 
 ,, V. We.st India and Pacific, Steanisliiii Co., 42 L. .1. (,). B. 101 ; 
 L. R. 8 (,>. B. 362 ; 28 L. T. 742 ; -Jl W. It. 953 : 2 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 32— Kx. Ch 585, 588. 1246 
 
 ,, r. Wilson, 12 M. & W. 11 ; 13 L. J. Ex. 27 : 7 .liir. 1020 . . 1153 
 
 Stilk r. .Myiick, J Camp. 317 ; 11 R. R. 717 116 
 
 Stindt V. Roberts, 5 D. .<: L. 460 : 2 B. C. Re[). 212 : 17 L. .1. <,>. B. 166 ; 
 
 12.1ur. 518 404, 452 
 
 Stirling v. Vaughan, 11 East, 619 ; 2 Camp. 225 1143 
 
 Stitt cWardell, 2 Esp. 610 121.^ 1219 
 
 Stock (or Storke) c. CnUou, Jones. 66 ; 3 Keb. 598 .... 945, 946 
 ,, r. Denew (or Denew r. Stock), Cas. in <'li. 3)05 ; 3 Swanst. 652 937, 946 
 ., /•. Inglis, 53 L. J. Q. B. 356 ; 12 Q. B. D. 564 : 51 L. T. 449 ; 5 
 Asp. .M. C. 294— C. A. S. C, on apjieal, 54 L. J. (,». B. 582 : lOApp. 
 Cas. 263 : 52 L. T. 821 ; 33 W. R. 877 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 422— H. L. (K. ) 1123, 
 
 1147 
 Stockdale v. Diuiloi., 6 M. k W. 224 ; 4 .Tur. 681 : 9 L. J. Ex. 83 . . 1121 
 Stoekkebye I*. Cordon, The Gertrude and The Baron Aberdare, 13 P. D. 
 105 ; 59 T.. T. 251 ; 36 W. R. 616 : 6 Asp. :\1. C. 315— G. A. 
 
 AttirniingS. G., 56 L. J. Adni. 106 1008 
 
 Stockton and Darlington Railway r. Barrett, 11 CI. & F. 590 — H. L. 
 
 (E.). AffirmingS.C, 7 Man. &. G. 870: 8 Scott (N.ii.) 641 — Kx. Gli. 898 
 Stokes r. Game, 2 Camp. 339 ...... . . 4(» 
 
 Stone r. Ocean Marine Insurance Go. of Gothenbuig (or Marine Insurance 
 Co. Ocean Limited, of Gothenburg), 45 L. .1. Ex. 361 : 1 Ex. D. 81 ; 
 34 L. T. 490 ; 24 W. R. 55 ; 3 Asp. i\l. C. 152 .... 1059, 1065 
 
 Stonehouse r. Grant, 2 (,). B. 431, // 62 
 
 Stoney r. Brown, 4 Bro. P. G. 445, ,i 1240 
 
 Stoomvaart Maatschappy Xederland r. The Khedive (Owners), The Khe- 
 dive (Practice ; Stay), 5 P. D. 1 : 41 L. T. 392 ; 28 W. R. 364 ; 4 
 
 Asp. M. C. 182 1008, 1010 (Addenda)- 
 
 Stoomvaart Maatschappy Kederland r. I'enijisular and Oriental Steam 
 Navigation Co.. The Ivliedive (Division of Loss), 7 Ap]i. Cas. 795 ; 
 52 L. J. Adni. i : 47 L. T. 198 : :!1 W. W. 249 : 4 As].. AL G. 567— 
 
 H. L. (E.) 735, 736, 737 
 
 Stoomvaart Maatscha]i])y Nederland *■. Peninsular and Oriental Steam 
 Navigation Co., The Khedive (Collision : Regulations), 5 App. Cas. 
 876 ; 52 L. J. Adm. 1 : 43 L. T. 610 : 29 \V. R. 173 : 4 Asp. M. C. 
 
 360— H. L. (E.) 690. 711 (2), 760, 785. 818, 824 
 
 Storer r. Gordon, 3 M. .^ S. 3U8 : 15 R. R. 49!t 512 
 
 Stork, The Never Despair and The. 53 L. .1. Adm. 30 ; 9 P. I). 34 ; 50 
 
 L. T. 369 : 32 W. R. 599 : 5 Asp. M. G. 21 1 992 
 
 Storke (or Stock) r. Cullen, 3 Keb. 598 ; Jones, 66 . . . . 945, 946 
 
 Stormcoek. 53 L. T. 53 ; 5 Asp. jM. C. 470 ..... 754, 757 
 
 Stornoway, 51 L. J. Adm. 27 : 46 L. T. 773 : 4 Asp. .M. G. 529 238, 279, 441, 
 
 562. 
 Stort f. Clemeids, 1 Peake, 107 ........ 724 
 
 Storv (or Storev), &■ parte. 47 L. .1. (,>. B. 266 : 3 (,>. B. D. 166 : 38 
 
 L. T. 29 ; 26 AV. R. 329 : 3 Asji. M. G. 549 .... 82, 874 
 
 Stowe r. (,)iierner. L. H. 5 Kx. 155 ; 39 L. J. Ex. 60 ; 22 L. T. 29 ; IS 
 
 AV. R. 466 1029 
 
 Strachaii r. Baton, 3 Bligli (x.s.) 359 16 
 
 Strahan c. Gabriel. 1 Ma\ule it Pollock on Sliipi)iiig (4th ed. ) 407, ji. (7.) . 538 
 Straker c. Hartland, 2 IL & M. 570 : 5 N. 1,'. 163 : 34 L. J. Ch. 122 : 10 
 
 .lur. (X.s.) 1143 : 11 L. T. 622 739 
 
 r. Kidd, 3 (,>. B. I). 22:'. ; 47 L. ,1. (,). B. 365 : 2t) W. R. 511 ; 4 
 
 ' Asp. M. C. 34, ■// 486 
 
 Strang (or Steel) r. Scott, 59 L. .1. P. G. 1 ; 14 Apj). Cas. 601 ; 61 L. T. 
 
 597 ; 38 W. R. 452 : 6 Asp. .M. C. 419—1'. G 541, 587 
 
 Stranger, 6 Not. of Cas. 36 699, 805 
 
 Strathallan, 6 L. T. 107 . 1023 
 
 Strathgarrv, (Salvage ; Consolidation), 64 L. J. Adm. 59 : [18951 P. 264 : 
 
 11 R. 732 : 72 L. T. 202 ; 7 Asj). M. G. 573 . . 668 (2) 
 
 (Salvaue : Alireemcnt), [1895] P. 264 : 11 R. 783; 72 L. T. 
 900 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 19 657
 
 TAJ^LE OF CASES. cxxi 
 
 -Strathnaver, 1 App. Cas. r,S : 3i L. T. 14S : 3 Asp. :\l. C. 11:?— 1\ C. 611, 669, 
 
 So6, 980 
 Strathspey, The. and Tlie Islav, IJurrell /-. Marbiayne, IS Ct. cifSess. Ca.s. 
 
 (4th SC1-.) 1048 . . ". . . . ' . . . . 114, 77:^ 
 
 Strelly f. Wiiisou, 1 Vera. -297 ; Skill. -230 .^..^. Ci) 
 
 Striblev v. Imperial Marine Insurance Co., 45 L. J. (,>. B. -"JOd ; 1 (^). B. D. 
 
 ;)07 : 34 L. T. 281 ; 24 W. K. 701 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 134 . 1184. 1187, 1188 
 Strickland v. Neiison, 7 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 400 . . . 03, 290 
 
 Stringer r. English and Scottish Marine Insurance Co.. 10 B. & S. 77ti : 
 39 L. J. (,). B. 214 ; L. B. :, (}. B. .')99 : 22 L. T. S(i2 : 
 
 18 W. K. 1201— Ex. Ch 1090.1230.1286 
 
 r. Murray, 2 B. & Aid. 248 37 
 
 Strong r. Hart, 6'B. .t C. 160 ; 9 D. & R. 189 ; 2 Car. .\: W .0.') : f. L. J. 
 
 (o.s.) K. B. 82 ; 30R. K. 272 ' 414 
 
 ,, i: Harvev, 3 Bing. 304 ; 11 Moore, 72 ; 4 L. .1. (o.s.) C. 1'. 57 1262. 1352 
 
 ,, c. Xatally. 1 P.os. .S: P. (n.i:.) 16 : 8 R. R. 741 . . . . 1054 
 
 ,, r. Rule, 3 Bing. 315 : 11 .Moore, 86 : 4 L. J. (o.s.) C. 1'. 73. . 1354 
 
 .Stniguell r. Friedrich.sen. 12 C B. (N.s.) 452: 9 .Inr. (x.s.) 77 . 49(1, 514 
 
 Stuart r. British and African Steam Navigation Co., 32 L. T. 257 : 2 Asji. 
 
 M. C. 497 311 
 
 ., i: Isemonger, The Diana, 4 ^loore, \\ C. 11. Alliniiiiig 1 W. Ituh. 
 
 ■ 131 . 691. 774 
 
 -Stuck.-v *■. I5ailev, 3 F. & E. 1 149 
 
 .Stuniore r. Breen, 56 L. .1. <,>. I'.. 401 ; 12 App. Cas. 698 . . .s6, 325 
 
 Sturge c. Halm, 4 Ex. 646; 19 L. .1. Ex. 119 1326 
 
 Suart V. Powell, 1 15. & Ad. 266 ; 8 L. .). (o.s.) K. B. 391 . . . 1202 
 •Suhmarine TeJHgrapli Co. v. Dickson, 15 C. B. (x.s.) 759; 33 i>. .1. C. P. 
 
 139 72, 7.59 
 
 Sullv, 48 L. .1. Adn). 56 960 
 
 ,,' V. Duranty, 3 H. & C. 270; 33 L. -1. Ex. 319 . . . 2.50, 293 
 
 Sullai!, BaunivoU Manufactur von Carl Scheibler r. Farness (or (Tilclirist) 
 62 L. .1. (,». B. 201 ; [1893J .\pp. Cas. 8 ; 1 R. 59 : 68 L. T. 1 : 
 
 7 Asp. .M. C. 263-H. L. (E.) 238,297 
 
 ,, Ctinjo t'.r (15ottomry), Swabey, 504 ; 5 .luv. (x.s.) 1060 . 198,206,225 
 Suniiiiers r. Huchan, 18 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4tli .ser.) 879 .... 664 
 
 .Snmnic'S v. .Marthain, cited Dyer, fo. 159, n . !t34 
 
 Sunnier i-. Creen, 1 H. P>1. 302 206 
 
 .Sun<lerlaiid 'i)r SutherlaiKl) r. Pratt, 11 M. .«;; W. 296; 2 D. (N.s.) 81:1; 
 
 12 L. .1. Ex. 235 : 7 .)ur. 261 11-.^1, 1:115 
 
 >>underland .Marine Iii.surance do. c. Kearney, 16 <^>. B. 925 ; 20 L. .1. (,•. I!. 
 
 417; 15 .hir. 1006— Ex. Ch. . . " 1327 
 
 iSunderlainl .StL-aiiishiii Co. v. Xorth of England Iron Sleaiiisliip Insurance 
 
 .Association, 14 R. 196— C. A 1045 
 
 ^Snnniside, 52 L. J. Adm. 76 ; 8 P. D. i:!7 ; 49 L. T. lol ; 31 W. K. 8.'.9 : 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 140 ^y-i^ 
 
 ♦Superior, 6 Not. of Cas. 6ii7 ......... 824 
 
 Supply, II. M.S., 12 E. T. 79l» 798 
 
 Susan, 2 Hag. Adm. 229,/^ 130 
 
 .Susaiiiiali, 3 Hag. Adm. 345, /'. . 679 
 
 >>ii.sans c. Turner, Xoy. 67 ....... . 927, 928 
 
 Siister /'. Cowi;!!, 2 Keb. 430 1335 
 
 Sulherlaiid, .56 L. .1. A.lin. 94 : 12 P. D. 154 ; 57 L. T. tWJl : :!6 \V. K. 13 ; 
 
 6 Asp. .M. C. ISI 782 
 
 (or Sunderland) r. I'ratt, 12 M. >"^ W. 16: 2 1). (n..s.) 813 : 
 
 13 L. J. Ex. 240 ; 7 .lur. 261 1121, 1315 
 
 ?^ntton c. Buck, 2 Taunt. :502 ; 11 R. R. 585, 5S7 . . 67. 148, 623 
 
 „ c. Mitchell, ] Term Rep. 18 328 
 
 iSvensden r. Wallace (Custom of Trailc), 4t; L. T. 712: :io W. W. 841 : 
 
 4 Asp. M. ('.550 1217 
 
 „ /•. Wallac(; (Criieral Avrage), 54 L. .1. <,». B. 197 : 10 .\p|>. Cas. 
 
 404 ; 52 L. T. 901 ; M W. !!. 369 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 453--n. E. (K.) 5s4, 1247 
 
 ^iwainston v. Clay, 4 Cill". 187 ; 1 N. W. :507 ; 9 ,lur. (x.s.) 401. Aliiri I, 
 
 3 De C. .1. k S. 558 ; 2 N. R. 345 ; 32 E. .1. Ch. 5o3 ; 8 L. T. 
 
 563; n W. R. 811— L.J.I 18, 21 
 
 V. (iariick, 2 E. .1. Kx. 255 516 
 
 ,Swiillo\v (Costs; Aiu.ral : C.dlision : Pio(,f), 36 E. T. 2:!1 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 
 ;371_C. A 788, 832, 1011, 1024 
 
 ,, (Costs ; Eviilrncc), Swabcy, :iO 847, 855 
 
 tiwaii (Salvage), 1 W. Rob. 68 " ''!'-l 
 
 „ (Adniiraltv : County Court), 40 E. .1. .\.lm. s : E. 1.'. 3 .\. k E. 31 1 : 
 
 23 E. t. 6.33: 19 W. H. 424 4'.'2, 94 1 
 
 ,, (or Swann) v. Barlier, 49 E. .J Ex. 25:1 : 5 Ex. D. BiO : 12 E. T. 490 : 
 
 28 W. P.. 563: I A-^p. .M. <'. 264— C. A 4:W
 
 cxxii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Swiinhiinl, -2 SpiiikN, lo7 7o8 
 
 Swausoa, TIk', ami 'I'lic Condor (or Perkins r. Thf Condor), 48 L. J. Adiii. 
 .3-3 ; 4 K. ]). 11.'. : 40 L. T. 442 ; 27 W. II. 748 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 115 
 
 — C. A 702, 792, S6(), 1024 
 
 Swansea Sliipjnng Co. r. Duncan Fox& Co., i') L. .1. Q. 15. 638 : 1 <,>. 1>. I>. 
 
 644 ; 3y L. T. 879 : 2.". W. R. 23H ; .3 Asj). M. C. 34.''.— C. A. . . 533 
 
 Swanslon '•. Lishman, 45 L. T. 360 : 4 Asp. Rl. C. 450 . . 91*7 (Addenda) 
 Sweeting i: Uarthez, 14 C. IJ. 538 : 2 C. L. R. 1:'.75 : 23 L.J. C. V. 131 ; 
 
 IS .Tur. 958 ; 2 W. R. 414 419,469 
 
 /•. Pearee, 9 C. B. (n.s.) 534 ; 30 L. .). C. I'. 109 : 7 .lur. (n.s.) 
 
 800 : 5 L. T. 79 : 9 W. R. 343— Ex. Cli 1267, 1342 
 
 Swift, 1 J)ods. 320 236. 1202 
 
 Sydney Cove (Wages). 2 l)(.ds. 11 119,932 
 
 (Bottonirv), 2 L)od.s. 1 202,219 
 
 Syeds c. Hay, 4 Term l!ep. 260 : 2 R. R. 377 535 
 
 Syeres v. Bridge, 2 Dougl. 527 1224 
 
 Syers r. Piekersgill, 27 L. .1. i-'.x. 5 ; 6 W. R. 16 1322 
 
 Sylph (Collision : Altering Course), Swabey, 233 .... 786, 809 
 ' ,, (Collision : Regulations ; Custom), 2 Spinks. 75 . . 786, 788, 822 
 ,, (Diver Injured; Jurisdiction: Arbitration), 37 L. J. Adni. 14; 
 
 L. R. 2 A. & K. 24 : 17 L. T. 519 .... 71, 853. 926, 990 
 
 Sylvan, 2 Hag. Adm. 155 852 
 
 Symington r. Campbell. 21 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4tli ■ser.) 434 . . . 726 
 
 Symonds r. Pain, 6 H. & N. 709 ; 30 L. J. Ex. 256 .... 680 
 
 T. ('., //( /v, 11 Ir. Rrp. K(j. 151 103 
 
 Tabbs r. llendelack, 3 15os. & P. 207. //. ; 4 Esp. 108 .... 1170 
 
 Tadhuuter r. Buckley. 7 L. T. 273 141 
 
 Tait ('. Levi, 14 East, 481 : 13 R. R. 289 1157, 1216 
 
 ,, V. lioyal Exchange Assurance Co., 1 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 224 . . 1262 
 Talabot, 15 P. D. 194 ; 63 L. T. 812 ; 6 Asp. iM. C. 602 . . . . 699 
 
 Talbot, [1891] P. 184 ; 64 L. T. 542 ; 7 Asp. .M. C. 36 . . . . 829 
 
 ,, r. Lewis, 6 Cai-. k P. 603 950 
 
 Talca, 5 P. D. 169 : 42 L. T. 61 ; 29 W. R. 123 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 226 953, 954 
 
 Tamarac, Lush. 28 .......... . 983 
 
 Tamvaeo r. Lucas, 3 B. i^ S. 89 : 31 L. J. (,>. B. 296 : 6 L. T. 697 : 10 W. l\. 
 
 733— Ex. Ch 131.1 
 
 r. Simpson, 1 H. & R. 374 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 196 ; L. R. 1 C. P. 363 ; 
 11 .lur. (x.s.) 926 ; 14 L. T. 893 ; 14 W. R. 376— Ex. Ch. . . 439 
 
 Tanner /■. Bennett, M. & M. 182; 27 R. R. 743 1298 
 
 ,, r. Heard, 23 P>eav. 555 ; 3 Jur. (n.s.) 427 : 5 AV. It. 420 . 185, 195 
 ,, i: Phillips, 42 L. J. Ch. 125 ; 27 L. T. 480, 717 : 21 W. K. 68 ; 
 
 1 Asp. M. C. 448 187, 396, 425 
 
 r. Scovell, 14 U. k W. 28 ; 14 L. J. Ex. 321 .... 576 
 
 Tapley r. Martens, 8 Term Rep. 451 413 
 
 Tapscott !'. Balfour, 42 L. J. C. P. 16 : L. P. 8 C. P. 4tJ ; 27 L. T. 710 ; 
 
 21 \V. R. 245 ; 1 Asp. AI. C. 501 462 
 
 Tarleton r. McGawley, 1 Peake, 205 (p. 270, 3rd ed.) : 3 P. R. 689 . . 81 
 Tarrabochia v. Hickie, 1 H. & N. i83 ; 26 L. J. Ex. 26 .... 263 
 
 Tartar, 1 Hag. Adm. 1 201, 204 
 
 Tasker v. Cunningham, 1 Bligh, 87 ; 20 R. R. 33 1212 
 
 v. Scott, 1 Marsh. 556; 6 Taunt. 234; 16 R. R. 608 . . . 1131 
 Tasmania (Towage Contract), 57 L. J. Adm. 49 ; 13 P. D. 110 ; 59 L. T. 
 
 263 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 305 682, 720, 758 
 
 (Owners) r. Citv of Corinth (Owners), 1 5 App. Cas. 223 ; 63 L. T. 
 1 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 517— H. L. (E.). Rever.sing 37 W. IJ. 552 . . S26 
 Tate V. Hvslop, 54 L. J. (,». B. 592; 15 Q. B. D. 368; 53 L. T. 581 ; 5 
 
 Asp. M. ('. 487— C. A 1185 
 
 ., r. Aleek, 8 Taunt. 280 ; 2 Moore, 278 ; 19 R. R. 518 . . -440 
 
 Tathain v. Hodgson, 6 Term Rep. 656 1087 
 
 Tattersall r. National Steamship Co., 53 L. J. (,). B. 332 ; 12 Q. P.. D. 297 ; 
 
 50 L. T. 299 ; 32 W. R. 566 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 206 .... 327 
 Taubman r. Pacific Steam Navigation Co., 26 L. T. 704: 1 Asp. M. C. 
 
 336 S71 
 
 Taylor r. Clay, 9 Q. B. 713 ; 16 L. J. (). B. 44 ; 11 Jur. 277 . . • 509 
 V. Curtis, 2 Marsh. 309 ; 6 Taunt. 608 ; Holt, 192 : 4 Camp. :'.37 ; 
 
 ICR. R. 686 y^i-'' 
 
 ,, V. Dean, 22 P.eav. 429 1^''^'''^ 
 
 V. Dewar, 5 B. & S. 58 ; 33 L. .1. Q. B. 141 : jO Jur. (.v..'^.) 361 : 
 
 10 L. T. 267 ; 12 .W. R. 579 . . . . 725, 1083, 1084, 1136
 
 TABLE or CASES. cxxiii 
 
 Tavloi- r. Dmiliar, aS L. J. C V. 178 : L. K. 4 (.'. F. 20(5 : 17 ^\'. K. :J62 107;. 
 
 r. Kiiilwli, 1 Stark. 17;". 1;'.4 
 
 ,, r. LivLM]iool ami Great AVesterii Steamshii' Co., 43 L. J. (}. B. "iOa : 
 L. 1{. 9 Q. B. r.46 ; 30 L. T. 714 : ^-i W. R. 752 ; 2 As[>. M. C. 
 
 275 341, 342 
 
 '•. Wilson, 15 East, 324 : 13 R. R. 488 1117 
 
 c. Woodness, 2 Park. Ins. (Stheil.) 707 117ii 
 
 Taylour c. Rochfort, 2 Ves. Sen. 281 138 
 
 Tec-la Carmen, The North American ami The Tecla Carnit-n, /iinasiii 
 
 1-. Lamer (Pleading), Swabey, 358 : 12 Moore, P. C. 331 . . ' 730, 842 
 Tecla Carmen, The North American and The Tecla Carmen (Cross Action). 
 
 Lush. 79 : .'. .Tur. (N.8.) 659 739,842,1021 
 
 Tecumseli, 3 W. Rob. 109 '.mi 
 
 Tees, Tl)e, and The Pentucket, Lush. 505 I)(i7 
 
 Teignmouth ami General Mutual Sbipping Association, fti re, Martin's 
 Claim, 41 L. J. Cii. (379 ; L. R. 14 Kq. 148 ; 26 L. T. 684 ; 1 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 325 1(129, 1363 
 
 Telegrafo (or Restauracion), Reg. r. ^IcClevertv, 8 Moore. P. ( '. (x.s.) 43 : 
 40 L. J. .\dm. 18 : L. R. 3 P. C 673 ; 24" L. T. 748 : -lu \V. K. 242 : 
 
 1 Asp. M. C. 63 158 
 
 Telegrapli. 1 S|)inks. 427 703, 708, 859 
 
 Temiscoiiuta. 2 Spinks, 208 851 
 
 Temora, Lush. 17 : 2 L. T. 418 776 
 
 Temperley c. Brown, 1 I). (N.s.) 310 ; t; .lur. 150 493 
 
 Temi.le lin; 55 L. .1. Adm. 1:11 P. 1). 6 : 53 L. T. 904 ; 34 AV. R. ()8 : 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 509 1002 
 
 Tenant, v. Elliott. 1 Bos. ,'(c P. 3 : 4 R. R. 755 1344 
 
 r. Ellis, 50 L. .1. (,). B. 143 ; 6 (,>. B. D. 46 : 43 L. T. 506 ; 29 
 
 W. R. 121 862, 945 
 
 Tench and Hubrison's Case, Style, 340 948 
 
 Tennant i-. Henderson, 1 Dow, 324 1189 
 
 Teresa (or Theiesa), 11 R. 681 ; 71 L. T. 347 : 7 Asp. M. ('. 505 . . 945- 
 
 Te.st (Collision), 5 Not. of ('as. 276 815.821 
 
 ,, (Seamen), 3 Hag. Adm. 307 . . . . . . .131 
 
 Teutonia. Duncan i: Kiister, .s Moore, I'. C. (n.s. i 411 : 41 L. .1. Adnj. 57 : 
 L. R. 4 P. C. 171 : 26 L. T. 48 : 2(i W. K. 421 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 214 
 
 --?. C 283, 377, 529, 533 
 
 Tliacker r. Moates, 1 M. & Rob. 79 63 
 
 Thames M!ankruptcy\ 63 L. T. 353: 6 Asii. M. C. 536 .... 186 
 ,, ((Jollision ; Coming Alongside) 5 C. Rob. 345 .... 700 
 ,, (Collision : Third Sjiip,, 32 L. T. 343 : 2 Asp. M. C. 512 . . 698 
 Thames, The, and Tiie Lntctin, Maclaren r. (^onuiiignic Frani^aise de 
 
 Navigation ;i Vajnur. 9 App. ('as. 64(i ; 12 Ct. ofSess. Cms. ( 4tli ser.) 1 819. 
 
 820' 
 Thames and Mersev Marine Insurance Co. r. Hannlton, 56 L. .1. (,•. B. 
 626 ; 12 App. Cas. 484 : .'.7 L. T. (i95 ; 36 W. R. 337 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 
 200— H. L. (K.) 1075 
 
 Thames and Mersey Marine Insnranee Co. r. Pitts, [1893J 1 (.>. B. 176 ; 5 
 
 R. 168; 68 L. T. 524 : 11 W. P. 346 : 7 Asp. M. C. 302 . . 12 11', 1262 
 
 Thames Conservancy '/•. Sontli Kasiein l!:iil\\a\- Co.. 24 L. T. 216 ; 1 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 3 ■ ^^7 
 
 Thaiiu's Conservators /■. Hall, :;7 L. .1. C. 1'. 163; L. R. 3 C. 1'. 415; I,s 
 
 L. T. 361 : 16 W. 1!. 971 7ti5 
 
 Thames ironworks and Shipbuilding Co. r. Patent Derrick Co., 1 .1. .'(: II. 
 
 93 ; 29 L. .1. Cli. 714 : »"> .iur. (n.s.) 1013 : 2 L. T. 208 ; 8 \V. \l. ■\^ls 23 
 'I'iianei.'iore .Steamship Co. r. Thompson, 52 li. T. 552: 5 Asp. M. C. 
 
 :{98 131t: 
 
 Tliar.sis Sulphur and Co].|per Mining Co. r. Cullilbrd, 22 \V. b'. P; . 238, 27'.» 
 Tliarsis Sul]ihiu' and (Jojiper C'o. r. Loftns, 12 L. .1. ( '. P. >'< ; P. P. 
 
 8 C. P. ] ; 27 I-. T. 549 ; 21 W. R. 109 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 15.-, . 1251 
 
 Tharsis Sulphur Co. r. Morel, 61 L. .1. (.». B. 11 : |ls-.ni 2 »,•. B. 617 : <<:, 
 
 L. 'I". 659: 40 W. R. 5,s ; 7 Asp. .\l. c. 106— c. .\ 46,s 
 
 Tliellusoii r. P.ewiek, 1 Es|i. 77 . . . . . • . 1 1 :'>7 
 
 r. She.lden, 2 Boh. & P. (N.I!.) 228 1109 
 
 c. Staples, 1 Dougl. 366, ,( Ur,:, 
 
 'I'licllussou r. Ferg\i.sson, 1 Dougl. ;^60 . . . . . . .1165 
 
 i>. Fletcher, 1 Esp. 73: 1 Dougl. :;i 5 .... 1117, 128-.i 
 
 V. I'igou, 1 Dougl. 3fi(i, // 1165 
 
 The,, dor Korner, 47 L. .1. A«lm. 85; 3 1'. I). 162; 3.H [>. T. 81S ; 27 
 
 \\. P. 3(i7 : 4 As).. M. C. 17 ^*'> 
 
 Theodora (Admiralty ; County Court), 66 L. .1. Adm. 50 ; [1^971 I'. 279 ; 
 
 76 L. T. 627 ; 46 W. i{.157 ; 8 A.sp. .M. C. 259 .... 911 
 Theodore, Swabey, 351 651
 
 cxxiv TAJ3LE OF CASKS. 
 
 Throdoiv II. Kaiul, I'.Mker r. Tlir T]hm.,1.,iv 11. Kaii.l (Owii,is), .'.ti L. .1. 
 Adiii. «.'. ; 12 App. (Jas. 'lAl : .'.ti L. T. :34:5 ; ;J.'. AV. i.'. 7S1 ; t3 Asp. 
 
 M. C. T2-2-11. L. (K.) 709, 807 
 
 ■riuicsa (or Teivsa), 11 K. tiSl ; 71 L. T. :542 : 7 As]). M. C. :,i):> . . !t4.'. 
 
 Thcniiolin (or Slieiiiioiiliii) r. Saiuls, Cartli. 42:5; Ld. Rayni. 271 . . !*;>! 
 
 Th.-ta, t;:l L. .1. A.ini. 1«0 ; [1894] P. 280 ; G R. 712 ; 71 L. T. 2.'. : 4:j 
 
 W. ];. 160 : 7 Asp. M. 0. 480 92.') 
 
 'i'lietford, o7 L. T. 455 ; « Asp. M. C. 179 83(5 
 
 Tlictis (Salvage), 2 Kiui])]). 390. See S. C, 3 Hag. 14. 98, 228 . . 640 
 
 ,, (Collision; Liability), 38 L. J. Aani. 42 ; L. If. 2 A. & K. 30.'); 
 
 22 1.. T. 276 . .'^ . . • 714 
 
 'riiin r. Kiclmrds, 62 L. .1. (,). I'.. 39 ; [18921 2 (,>. I!. 141 ; 66 L. T. 584 ; 
 
 40 W. R. 617 : 7 Asp. M. L\ 165-C. A 259 
 
 Tliiodou r. Tiiidall, 20 L. .1. (,>. 1!. 526 ; 65 L. T. 343 ; 40 W. R. 141 : 7 
 
 Asp. .A[. C. 76 39, 151 
 
 Thiis (or Thie.ss, or Tiis) r. Byers, 45 L. J. (,». H. 511 ; ] i). P,. ]). 244 : 
 
 34 L. T. 526 ; 24 W. R. 611 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 147 . . . . 478 
 
 Thomas, 1 C. Rob. 322 956 
 
 r. Clarke, 2 Stark. 450 ; 20 R. R. 714 515 
 
 c. Fovle, 5 Esp. 88 1320 
 
 1-. Lewis (or Oxley), 48 L. J. F.x. 7 ; 4 Ex. IX 18 : 39 L. T. 669 ; 
 
 27 W. R. lli ; 4 Asp. y\. C. 51 59, 255 
 
 ,. r. Royal Exobaiige Assurance (Jo., 1 Price, 195 .... 1215 
 
 r. Tobin, 3 Hag. Adm. 197, /' I<i7, 119 
 
 Thomas Allen, The Thomas Allen (Owners) r. (4o\v, 12 App. Cas. 118 ; 56 
 
 L. T. 285; 6 Asp. M. 0. 99— P. (J 646 
 
 Thomas Plyth. Lush. 16 635 
 
 Thomas Fielden, 32 L. .1. Adni. 61 608, 638 
 
 Thomas .lolitle (or The Avon), [1891J P. 7 ; 63 L. T. 712 ; 39 AV. R. 176 : 
 
 6 Asp. ]\1. C. 605 756 
 
 Thomas Lea, 38 L. J. Adm. 37 : 20 L. T. 1017 852 
 
 35 L. T. 406 ; 3 Asp. AL C 260 788 
 
 Thomas Powell. The, and The Cuba. 14 L. T. 603 704 
 
 Thomas Wood, 1 AV. Rob. IS 674 
 
 Thomas AVorthington. 3 AV. Rob. 128 103 
 
 Thomlinson'sOase, 12 Co. Re]). 104 928,948 
 
 Thompson r. Beale, 1 Dow, 299 ; M P. b'. 73—11. L. (E.) . . 108, 111 
 
 ,, (or Thomson) r. Brown, 7 Taunt. 656 ; 1 ^loore, 358 255, 337, 371 
 
 r. Charnock, 8Term Rej). 139 302 
 
 „ r. Cleik, 7 L. T. 269 ; 11 AV. R. 23 ; Nisi Prius, 3 F. & F. 183 172 
 
 r. Collins, 1 B. & P. (n.i;.) 347 130 
 
 r. Dominy, 14 M. & AV. 403; 14 L. .1. Ex. 320 . . . 344 
 
 ,, V. Farrer,"51 L. J. Q. B. 534 ; 9 (,). B. D. :i72 ; 4 7 L. T. 117 ; 
 
 4 Asp. M. C. 562— C. A 877 
 
 ,, c. Finden, 4 Car. & P. 158 56 
 
 ,, V. From, The Dumfries, 10 Aloore, P. C. 461 : Swabey, 125 ; 4 
 
 AV. R. 708 759. 761, 786, 805 (2) 
 
 V. Gillespie, 5 El. .t Bl. 209 ; 24 L. .1. (}. B. 340 ; 1 .lur. (n.s.) 
 
 779 ; 3 AV. R. 505 247, 260, 409 
 
 ,, v. Havelock, 1 Camp. 526 ....... 80 
 
 V. Hoi)per, El. BL & El. 1038 ; 27 L. .1. (,). B. 4 41 ; 6 AV. R. 
 
 357— Ex. Ch 1078. 1154 
 
 r. Hunter, cited 2 M. & Rob. 51 1270 
 
 ,, c. Inglis, 3 Camp. 428 ........ 514 
 
 V. Irving, 7 M. & AV. 367 ; 10 L. .1. Ex. 98 ; 5 Jur. 103 . . 1202 
 
 c. Leake, 1 Madd. 39 36 
 
 V. North Eastern Railway Co., 2 B. & S. 106 ; 31 L. J. (.). 15. 
 194; 8 Jur. (n.s.) 991 ; 6 L. T. 127; 10 AV. R. 404— 
 
 Ex. Ch 909 
 
 r. Redman, 11 AL c'c \V. 487 : 2 D. (x.s.) 1028 ; 12 L. .1. Ex. 
 
 310 1328 
 
 r. ReynoLls, 7 EL & 151. 172 ; 26 L. .1. <.>. P.. '.'3 ; 3 .lur. (n.s.) 
 
 464 1270 
 
 ,, r. Royal Exchange Assurance (Insurance ; Abandonment). 16 
 
 East, 214 1289 
 
 „ y. Royal Mail Steam Packet Co., 5 Asp. AL C. 190, /'. . . 78 
 
 „ ■ V. Rowcrolt, 4 East, 34 1295 
 
 c. Small, 1 C. B. 328 ; 14 L. .1. C. P. 157 .... 520 
 ,, y. Smith (Prohibition), Siderf. pL 1, 320 .... 931 
 
 y. Smith (Registration), 1 Mad. 395 29,33,172 
 
 V. Taylor, 6 Term Rep. 478 : 3 R. R. 233 .... 1072 
 i:. Tiaill, 2 Car. & P. 3:!4 ; 6 P.. ^ C. 36 : 6 D. X- R. 31 : 5 
 L. J. (U.S.) K. B. 34 ; 30 R. !;. 2^2 315
 
 TABLE OF CASES. exxv 
 
 TIioiiipsou (•. West Soinci«et Mineral Hy. Co.. .', \V. II. -JiiG . . . S88 
 
 .. r. Whitmoie, 3 Taunt. 227 108;" 
 
 Thoiiisoii r. Adam, ,'> Moore, 280 : 2 IJr. & 15. 4;'0 ..... 4ii(i 
 
 ,. (or Tliompsou) r. Brown, 1 Moore, 358 ; 7 Taunt. li;"-G 255, 3:J7. ;i71 
 ,, V. Buchanan, 4 Bro. P. C. 484 . . . . . . .1178 
 
 ,, r. Greenock Harbour Trustees, 3 Ct. of Scss. Cas. (4tli ser.) 
 
 1194 81)2 
 
 ,, r. Hart, 18 Ct. of Se.ss. Ca.s. (4tli ser.) Just. Cas. 3 . . . 130- 
 ,, c. Koval Exchange Assurance Co. (Insurance : Bottomry). 1 
 
 M. & S. 30 : 14 K. E. 388 ' . 1034 
 
 ,, c. Smith, 2 Keb. 158 . 929, 935- 
 
 Thornian v. Burt, 54 L. T. 349: 5 Asp. .M. C. 5t)3— C. A. Allirming 1 
 
 Cab. & K. 596 310. 316 
 
 Thorn cley r. Hebson, 2 B. .'k: AM. 513; 21 K. R. 3S1 . . . 1109. 1294 
 
 Thornley, 7 Jur. 659 707, 859 
 
 Thornton c. Betliel, Lutw. 704 ........ 336 
 
 ,, V. Bolaml, 9 iloore, 403 ; 2 Biiig. 219 ... . 142, 776 
 
 ,, V. Fairlie, 2 Jloorc, 397 : 8 Taunt. 354 38'2 
 
 ,, 1-. Knight, 16 Sim. 509 : 13 Jur. 180 .... 1200.1334 
 
 ,, V. Lance. 4 Cainii. 231 ........ 1201 
 
 ,, V. Ro\-al Kxclmnge Assurance Co., 1 I'calce. 37 .... 1159' 
 
 Thorogood i: Brian. 8 C. B. 115 ; 18 L. J. C. P. 336 . 686, 687, 726, 866 
 Thorsa, The Otto and The, Wilson r. Currie, [1894] App. Cas. 116 : 1 R. 
 
 162 ; 20 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th .ser.) 876— H. L. (Sc.j . . . 820 
 
 Thorsen c. McDowell, 19 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th .ser.) 743 . . . 489, 535 
 Thracian, 41 L. J. Adni. 71 ; L. II. 3 A. & K. 504 : 25 L. T. 889 : 20 
 
 W. R. 380: 1 As].. M. C. 207 1011» 
 
 Tlirift c. 'S'oule, 46 L. J. C. P. 402 : 2 C. P. D. 432 ; 36 L. T. 114 ; •'! 
 
 As]>. M. C. 357 .......... 339 
 
 Thrunscoe, 66 L. J. Adni. 172: [18117 1 P. 3ol : 77 L. T. 407: 8 A.sp. 
 
 M. C. 313 :«3 
 
 Thurgar v. Morley, 3 Mer. 20 621 
 
 Thuringia (Affidavits), 41 L. J. Adni. 20 : 25 L. T. t>05 : 1 .\sp. M. C. lot; 1005, 
 
 loot; 
 
 (Collision ; Damages), 41 L. J. Aihn. 1} : 26 L. T. 4 IG : 1 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 283 712. 728, 10i)6 
 
 Thvatira (Colli.sion : Parties), 52 L. J. Adni. So : 8 P. D. 155 ; 49 L. T. 
 
 406 ; 32 W. R. 276 ; 5 Asp. M. C. U7 7:;5 
 
 (Registrar's Report: Damages), 49 L. '!". 71:1: 5 As].. M. C. 
 
 178 . ■ 1007 (2) 
 
 Tibbald r. Wood, 1 V. & F. 287 40, 62 
 
 Tibbie V. Beadon, 24 L. J. .M. C. 104. S. C. num. Keg. v. Tibbie, 1 Kl. k 
 
 Bl. 888 ■ . . . .141 
 
 Ticonderoga, Swabey, 215 720 (2), 758 
 
 Tierney c. Ktherington, cited 1 IJurr. :!4.S 1058 
 
 Tiis (Thiis or Tiiiess) c. P>yers, b". 1.. .1. (.>. l:. .'11 : 1 (,». i;. D. 211 : .34 
 
 L. T. 526 : 24 W. R. 611 ; 3 Asp. .M. C 1 17 . . . . 478, 533 
 
 Tigress, Br. it Lush. 38; 32 L. J. Adm. 97 : 1' Jur. (n.s.) .-Uil : 8 L. T. 
 
 n7;llW. R. 538 .352. .5t)9 
 
 Timor, 9 L. T. 397: 12 W. R. 219 105, 125 
 
 Tindall, Ey pcrfc, Burchard v. M.Farianr, (iO I,. .1. (}. I!. 5,S7 : |1>'.M] 2 
 
 C>. li. 241 ; 65 L. T. 282 ; 39 \V. \l. ti9 1 : 7 A>p. M. C. !i3 . :;9 
 
 c. Bell, 11 M. k W. 228 ; 12 L. J. Ka". 16(. 731 (2) 
 
 (•. Tavlor, 4 Kl. .t I!!. 219 : :! C. L. R. I'.tH : 24 L. .1. i.>. 1). 12 : 1 
 
 Jur. (N.s".) :12 519 
 
 Tindle V. Davidson, 61 L. .1. .M. C. 107 : 66 I.. T. :i72 : 7 .\sp. .M. C. 169 : 
 
 56 J. P. 390 lo;> 
 
 Tinkler r. Walpole, 11 East, 226 I' 
 
 Tirzali, 48 L. J. Adm. 15 : 4 P. D. 3.3 : 39 L. 'I". 5 17 : 27 W. 1!. 5S4 ; 1 
 
 Asp. M. C. 55 712. 791, 79:: 
 
 Tisdell r. Combe, 3 X. k V. 29; 7 A. k K. 7.ss : 1 W. W. .^ II. 5 : 7 
 
 L. J. M. C. 48; 2 Jur. :'.2 883 
 
 Titia, 64 L. T. 148 ; 7 Asj.. M. C. 32 988 
 
 Tivnaii, In re, !, B. & S. 645 971 
 
 Tobago, 5 C. Rob. 218 198,376 
 
 Tobin V. Crawford, 9 M. k W. 716 : 12 L. .1. Ex. 19o-Ex. Ch. . . lo2 
 ,, V. Harford, 17 C B. (n.s.) 528 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 37 ; 10 Jur. |n.-.) 
 
 8.'>9 : 10 L. T. 817 : 12 W. H. 1062— Kx. Ch 1110. 126o 
 
 Todd r. Iteid, 4 15. & Aid. 210 1266 
 
 ,, r. Ritchie, 1 Stark. 240: IS H. ]{. 76S 109S 
 
 Toiler, The Vildosala. The Kmerald, The Satidlit-, 42 L. T. 9ti : 1 .\sp. 
 
 M. C. 228 1001 
 
 Toivo, 1 Spinks. 185 20.V 
 
 S. '
 
 CXXVl 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 
 -0. A. 
 
 01 
 
 342 
 
 Tolsoii i-. Hallott Aiiilil. -JtiO 
 Toiij,^' r. Watts. 2 Str. 12'.] . 
 Toiuiolior r. Smith, 77 L. T. 277 ; S As] 
 Topaze, H.M.S., 10 L. T. t;r.9 ; 12 W. I! 
 Toulniin v. Aiuleisoii, 1 Taunt. 227 . 
 
 V. In<,dis, 1 Caini.. 421 ; 10 II. R. 71;'., 
 Toiitciii,' r. Huhhaid, :$ Bo.s. & P. 291 ; (J R. R. 
 
 Towaii," 2 W. Rob. 2;'.9 
 
 Toward, The, and Thu Tmkistan, 13 Ct. of Scss. Oas. (4th ser.) 
 
 Townson ?'. Guyoii, 2 Park Ins. (Sth ed.) 620 .... 
 
 Towse r. Hen(h'rson, 4 Ex. 890 ; 19 L. J. Ex. HV.i . 
 
 Train v. P.ennett, 3 Car. & P. 3 ; M. & M. 82 . 
 
 Transit, The Ghmnibanta and The, 1 P. D. 283 ; 34 L. T. 934 
 
 1033 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 233— C. A 
 
 Trantor v. Watson, 6 Mod. 11 ; 2 Ld. Raym. 931 . 
 
 Trask v. Dowie, The Carrier Dove (ColHsion), Br. & Lusli. 113 
 
 P. C. (n.s.) 260 
 
 ,, V. Maddox, The Carrier Dove (Salvage), 2 Moore, P. C. (x.S.) 
 Traveller (Port Tack Ship), 2 W. Rnix 197 .... 
 
 (Salvage), 3 Hag. Adni. 370 
 
 Trayes v. AVorms, 19 C. B. (n.s.) 1.59 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 274 ; 11 Jur. 
 
 639 ; 12 L. T. 547 ; 13 W. R. 898 
 
 Tredegar Iron and Coal Co. v. The Calliope, 60 L. J. Adni. 28 ; 
 
 App. Cas. 11 ; 63 L. T. 781 : 39 W. R. 641 : 6 Asp. ]M. C. 58 
 
 J. P. 357— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Trcdwen (or Tredwin) r. Hohnan, 1 H. & C. 72 ; 31 L. J. Ex. 398 ; 
 
 (n.s.) 1080 ; 7 L. T. 127 ; 10 W. R. 652 .... 
 Trelawney (Salvage ; Action in prrsoiuim), 3 C. Rob. 216. n. S. C 
 
 Rob. 223 
 
 Trenienhere v. Tresilian, 3 Kol). 91 . 
 
 Treniont, 1 W. Rob. 163 
 
 Trent and Huniber Sliipbnildiiig Co., In re, 38 L. .1. Cli. 38 ; L. R 
 
 112 ; 19 L. T. 465 ; 17 W. R. 181 
 
 Trent (or Trent ;ind Mersey) Navigation (Proprietors) v. Wood, 3 Esp, 
 
 3 Dongl. 287 . . . " , 
 
 Trewhella r. Rowe, 1 1 East, 435 
 
 Tribbald v. AVood, 1 F. & F. 287 
 
 Tridaham v. To]), 1 Keb. 202 
 
 Trident (Collision), 1 Spiid<s, 217 . 
 
 (Bottomry), 1 W. Rob. 29 
 
 Trindale v. Levy, 2 F. & F. 441 
 
 Trinders, Anderson & Co. v. North (Queensland Insurance Co., 66 
 8 Asp. 300. Affirmed 67 L. .1. Q. B 
 
 . 62, 67 
 . 1117 
 407 
 798, 824 
 . 1100 
 . 1212 
 . 378 
 600, 679 
 . 70.5 
 . 1213 
 259, 496 
 112, 132 
 24 W. R. 
 
 691, 859 
 662, 934 
 2 jMoore. 
 696. 770. 
 243 . 
 
 (x.S.) 
 
 [1891] 
 
 5 ; 55 
 
 8 Jur. 
 
 771 
 .^.94 
 805 
 640 
 
 12/ 
 
 880 
 
 1324 
 
 4C. 
 605, 035, 667 
 87, 162 
 165 
 4Ch. 
 
 16 
 
 127 
 
 75, 
 
 699, 
 
 551 
 167 
 43 
 930 
 840 
 220 
 510 
 
 L. .1. 
 
 666 : 
 
 99, 
 
 Q. B. 802 ; 77 L. T. 80 
 
 8 Asp. M. C. 373— C. A 1076 
 
 Trinity House (Corjioration) v. Staples, 2 Chit. 689 898 
 
 ,, ,, ,, V. Boieman, Br. & Goldesb. ]>t. 2, 13 . . 935 
 
 r. Clark, 4 M. & S. 288 . . . 296,897 
 
 y. Sorsbie, 3 Term Rep. 768 . . . .896 
 
 Tritonia (Salvage). 2 W. Roll. 522 ; 5 Not. of Cas. Suppl. i 
 
 Triune, 3 Hag. Adm. 114 
 
 Tronson v. Dent, 8 Moore, P. C. 419 ... . 
 
 Trott V. Le Cle, Colles, P. C. 219 ; Pre. Ch. 239 
 
 Troubadour, L. R. 1 A. & E. 302 ; 16 L. T. 156 
 
 True Blue (Salvage of Agreement), 2 W. Rob. 176 ; 2 Not. of Cas. 413 
 
 True Blue. Papayanni v. Hocquard (Salvage ; Derelict), 4 Moore, P. C 
 
 (n.8.) 96 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 2.50 
 
 True Briton, cited 3 C. Rob. 360 
 
 Truscott ('. Christie, 5 Jloore, 33 ; 2 Br. & B. 320 . 
 
 Tucker r. Humphrey, 4 Biug. 516 ; 1 M. & P. 378, n. ; 6 L. .1. (o.s.) C. P 
 
 92 . . . . ' 
 
 Tuir r. Warman, 5 C. B. (x.s.) .573 ; 27 L. .1. C. P. 322 ; 5Jur. (n.s.) 222 ; 
 
 6 W. R. 693— Ex. Ch 686 
 
 Tuite ('. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., 1 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 224 . . 1262 
 
 Tul'y ;•. Howling, 46 L. .]. Q. B. 388 ; 2 Q. B. D. 182 ; 36 L. T. 163 ; 25 
 
 W. R. 290: 3 As],. M. C. 61— C. A 258, 506 
 
 ,, V. Terry, 42 L. .1. C. P. 240 ; L. R. 8 C. P. 679 ; 29 L. T. 36 ; 2 
 
 Asp. M. "C. 61 324, 422 
 
 Tunno-y. Edwards, 12 East, 4S8 ; 11 R. R. 458- C. A 1230 
 
 Tunzell v. Allen. See Twizzel c. Allen, infra. 
 
 Turgrjt, 11 P. D. 21 ; 54 L. T. 276 ; 34 W.' R. 552 ; 5 Asp. AI. C. 548 . 90, 99 
 
 Turliani, 32 L. T. 841 ; 2 Asji. AI. C. 603 . . . . 961, 967, 978 
 
 Turnbidl r. .Janson, 36 L. T. 635 : .3 Asp. M. C. 433— C. A. . . . 1154 
 
 V. Woolfe. 9 .hir. (x.s.) 57 ; 7 L. T. 483 ; 11 AV. R. 55 . . 1158 
 
 658 
 745 
 ., 550 
 599 
 191 
 657 
 
 643 
 595 
 
 1070 
 
 570
 
 TABLE OF CASES. cxxvii 
 
 Tinner c. IJoanl of Tiaile, 22 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) IS . . . 876 
 ., r. Liverpool Docks Trustees, 6 Kx. 543 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 393 — Ex. Cli. 355 
 ,, i: iSlersey Docks and Harbour IJoard, Tlir Zeta, 63 L. .1. Adni. 17 ; 
 [1893] App. Cas. 468 ; 1 K. 307 : 69 L. T. 630 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 
 369 ; 57 J. P. 660— H. L. (,E.) 941 
 
 ,, v. Neale, Lev. pt. 1, 243 936 
 
 i\ Owen, 3 E. & F. 176 112,115 
 
 c. Peat, 53 J. P. 230 143 
 
 ,, r. Snntli, Siderf. pt. 1, 367 931 
 
 Tnniidge v. Shaw, 3 El. & ]'.l. 588 ; 30 L. .1. yi. C. 113 ; 7 .hir. (n.s.) 755 ; 
 
 3 L. T. 147 ; 9 AV. R. 381 883 
 
 Turpin v. P.ilton, 6 Scott (n.s.) 447 ; 5 Man. .t G. 455 ; 12 L. J. C. P. 
 
 167 ; 7 Jur. 950 1339 
 
 Tiitela, 6 C. Rob. 177 284 
 
 Twee Gesuster, 2 C. Rob. 284, // <t50 
 
 Tweedsdale, 58 L. .L Adm. 41 ; 14 P. 1). 164; 61 L. T. 371 : 37 W. R. 
 
 783 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 430 795,812,820 
 
 Twemlow v. Oswin, 2 Cainj). 85 ; 11 R. R. 670 ..... 1087 
 
 Twentje (or The AVest Eriesland), Van Hasselt r. Sack, Swabey, 456 : 13 
 Moore, P. C. 185 : 2 L. T. 613 ; 8 AV. R. 423. Reversing S. C, 5 Jur. 
 
 (n.s.) 658 166,960,962,978,981 
 
 Twenty man v. Hart, 1 Stark. 366 191 
 
 Twilling Riget, 5 C. Rob. 82 ........ . 376 
 
 Twizell (or Tunzell) i: Allen, 5 Al. c^ AV. 337 ; 7 D. P. C 496 ; S L. .1. Ex. 
 
 269 591 
 
 Two P^rothers, 45 L. J. Adm. 47 : ] P. D. 52 ; 33 L. T. 792 ; 24 \V. R. 
 
 112 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 99 1014.1015 
 
 Two Ellens, Johnson v. Black, 8 Aloore, P. C. (y.s.~i 398 : 41 L. J. Adm. 
 33 ; L. R. 4 P. C. 161 : 26 L. T. 1 ; 20 \V. R. 592 ; 1 Asp. AI. f. 
 
 208— P. (' 184, 190, 396. 964 
 
 Two Friends (Preliminary Acti, Lush. 552 ...... 99:! 
 
 ,, (Wages; Salvage; Reca]ttiirel, ] C. Rob. 271 . 131, 607, 949 
 
 (Salvage), 2 W. Rol). 349 ; 8 .lur. 1011 . . . 621,623 
 
 Two Piratical GuJiboats, 2 Hag. Adm. 407 971 
 
 Two Sicilies (King ol) r. AVillcox (or Peidnsular and Oriental Steam Packet 
 
 Co.), 1 Sim. I'N.s.) 334 ; 19 L. J. Cli. 202, 488 ; 14 Jur. 751 . . 29 
 
 Two Si.stcis, 2 AV. Rob. 125 128 
 
 Tyler r. Home, Alarsh. Ins. (4th ed.) 661 ; 1 Park. Ins. (Sth ed.) 455 1303 (2) 
 'i'yne Iniitrovement ('ommissioncrs v. General Steam Navigation Co., 
 8 H. & S. 66 ; 36 L. J. n. 15. 22 ; L. P. 2 <}. !!. ti5 ; L".' L. T. 487 : 
 
 15 W. R. 178— Ex. Ch 776, 784 
 
 Tyne Kcelnien v. Davison, 16 C. B. (.\.s.) 612 907 
 
 ,, ,, V. Elliott, 16 C. B. (N..S.) 612 ;mi7 
 
 Tyne Steam Shipping Ci>. v. British Shipowneis' Co., The Waikwortli, 53 
 L. J. Adm. 65 ; 9 P. D. 145 ; 51 L. T. 558 ; 
 33 W. R. 112 ; 5 Asj). Al. C. 326— C. A. . 707. 
 
 744, 75.3 
 ,, ,, ., r. Smith, Tlic C. AI. Palmei- and The l.arnax, 
 
 29 L. T. ]2() ; 21 W. R. 702 : 2 Asp. iM. C. 94-P. C. . . . 6!t3 
 
 Tyuwald, Kelly r. Isle of Man Steam Packet Co., 64 L.J. Adm. 1 : |1S!)5| 
 P. 142; 11 K. 690; 71 L. T. 731 ; 43 AV. R. 5(i9 : 7 Asp. .M. C. 
 
 539 <»44 
 
 Tyrell r. 'I'homa.s Lady;, 1 Vin. .\bi. 1 s;j, pi. 5 189 
 
 Tyrer v. Henry, Tlie Despabli, 1 l ,\b„,re, P. C. .s:; ; l.usb. Its : 3 I,. T. 219 693, 
 
 695 i'2\ 844 
 
 Tyrie r. Fletcher, Cowj). 666 1305 
 
 Tyser c. Shipowners' Syndicate (Reassured), 65 L. .1. t,», 1!. 238; |lMMi) 
 
 1 (,». B. 135 ; 73 [,."T. t;05 ; 44 AV. R. 207 ; 8 Asp. .M. C. 81 . . 1317 
 Tyson r. Guiiiey, 3 Trim, h'i'p. 477 Ill", 1170 
 
 IJ. 
 
 rill.K '■. Warlters, 3 Calii].. 16 ed. 1818, p. ]',) ; 1 :; 1,'. !,'. 7:!7 . 1 o5'.t 
 
 rhla, 37 L. J. Adm. 16, /(. ; L. 1!. 2 .\. .^ L. 29, ,i. : In L. '1\ 89 . i;'.'6, 704 
 risfi-r. Laird i: P.rowidie (Appeal ; Timei, 1 .Moore, 1'. C. (n.s.) :',] ; lo 
 
 W. R. 794 . . ' . . KM-.', 1III3 
 
 Laird r. I'.iowiilie ( 'uliision), 1 Mooic, P. C. (N.s.) 31 : 6 L. T. 
 
 736 ............ I'i'.ti'i, 6'.t9 
 
 Ulysses, Cart/o r.r, 58 L. J. Adm. 11 ; 13 P. D. 205; 60 L. T. Ill ; U7 
 
 AV. R. 270 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 354 61 H 
 
 rmhilo, 60 L. J. .Adm. 7 ; [1S91 1 P. lis ; t;4 L. T. .328 ; 39 AV. P. :i36 ; 
 
 7 ,\s].. M. C. 26 7 IS
 
 cxxviii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 I'na, Tlif. ana Thr Th.Miias L,a, 14 L. T. 834 MS 
 
 Un.laimtcd (Salvai,'e), r.f) L. J. Aain. -24: 11 I'. D. 4() : 54 L. T. :<i-2 : 
 
 •24^V. R. b8G : 5 As),. M. C. r>so tJ.sO 
 
 (Towagy) Lush. 90 ; 29 L. ,1. Acini. 17t) ; "2 L. T. r.i'O . . .^9(5 
 
 I'lulerwood r. Robertson. 4 Cain]>. 138: Ki R. R. 760 .... 1301 
 
 Underwriter (Necessaries), 25 L. T. 279 ; 1 Asp. M. ('. 127 . . 50. 9t>-j 
 
 ,, The Lake St. Clair and The, Wilson r. Canada Shiiipinj^- Co., 
 
 2 Aim. Cas. 389 : 36 L. T. l.'io ; Asp. M. C. 361— I'. C. . 698, 701, 
 
 809, 815, 859 
 Uniao A^-ncedora (or The (iipsy), 33 L. J. Adni. 195 ; 1 1 L. T. 351 . . 161 
 
 Union, Lush. 128 ; 30 L. J. Adni. 17 : 3 L. T. 280 . . 119, 217. 225. 719 
 Union Rank of London r. Lenantou. 47 L. J. C. P. 409 ; 3 C. 1'. J). 243 : 
 
 38 L. T. 698 : 3 As}). M. C. 600— C. A 157 
 
 Union ,Marinr Insurance Cc v. Bonvick, 64 L. J. Q. P>. 679 ; [1895] 2Q. R. 
 
 279 ; 15 R. 546 ; 73 L. T. 156 ; 8 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 71 1082 
 
 r. Martin, 35 L. .1. C. V. 181 . . . 1037 
 
 Union Steanishiii Co. r. The Araran, The Anicrican and The Syria, 43 
 L. .1. Adni. 30 : L. K. 6 1'. C. 127 : 31 L. T. 42 : 22 W. R. 927 : 
 
 2 Asp. M. C. 35(t-P. C 754 (3), 792, 814. 826 
 
 United Kingdom, The, and The Syrian, 14 L. T. 833 . . . . 6-34 
 United Kiiigdoni (or United) JMutual Steamshiii AssociatiDU v. Xcvill, 56 
 L. .1. l,>. R. 522; 19 (,). P.. I). 110; 35 W. R. 746; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 
 226. /(.— C. A. . . . l-''''7 
 
 United Service. Cole r. Great Vannouth Steam Tug Co., 53 L. J. Adni. 1 ; 
 
 9 r. D. 3 ; 49 L. T. 701 ; 5 A.S1.. M. C. 170— C. A. . . . 682,715 
 
 United States, 12 L. T. 33— P. C 697, 7;;6 
 
 United Steam Tug Co. v. The Alert (Owiurs), The Alert, 11 R. 702 : 72 
 
 L. T. 124 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 544 1016 
 
 Unity. Swaliey, 101 785, 786, 8^2 
 
 Universo Insurance Co. of Milan r. .Minhants' Marine Insurance Co., 66 
 L. .1. Q. P.. 564 ; [1897] 2 (,>. I'.. 93 : 76 L. T. 748 : 45 W. R. 625 : 8 
 
 Asp. M. C. 279— C. A l-'^H 
 
 Unwin r. Wolseley. 1 Term Reji. 674 -jOI 
 
 Upnor, 2 Hag. Adni. 3 ^06 
 
 Urania (Ligh'ts), Swal.ey, 253 708 
 
 ,, (Admiralty ; Pilot), 5 L. T. 402 : 10 W. R. 97 . . 8:!9 (Addenda) 
 
 Uriiuhart v. Barnard, 1 Taunt. 450 ; 10 R. R. 574 P-l'-» 
 
 Usher (•. Lyon, 2 Price, 118 1^- 
 
 ,, c. Noble, 12 East, 639; 11 K. i;. 5115 . . . . • . 1260 
 Uto]iia, The Utopia (Owners) v. The I'liniula (Owners), 62 L. .1. P. C. Us -. 
 [1893] App. Cas. 492: 1 1!. 394: 70 L. T. 47; 7 As].. M. C. 408 
 
 -P. C 722 
 
 Uzielli r. Bo.ston Marine Insurance Co., 54 L. J. Q. B. 142 ; l.'>(,>. P. i>. H : 
 
 52 L. T. 787 : 33 W. R. 293; 5 Asp. M. C. 405— C. A. . . . 1239 
 
 V. 
 
 A^^LENTE V. Cibb.s, 6 C. B. (x.s.) 270 ; 28 L. J. C. P. 229: 5 .Tur. (N.s.) 
 
 1213; 7 AV. R. 500 ^'0 
 
 Valiant, 1 W. Rob. 64 •'•'•'■ '•") 
 
 A^alieri c. Boyland, 35 L. J. C. P. 215 : L. K. 1 C. P. 382 ; 12 .lur. (s.s ) 
 
 566 : 14 L. T. 362 : 14 AV. R. 637 •^-•' 
 
 A^xllancer. Dewar, 1 Camp. 503; lOR. R. 738 11S9 
 
 c. Falle, 53 L. J. Q. B. 459 ; 13 Q. B. D. 109 : 51 L. T. 158 ; 
 32 W. R. 769 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 280 ; 48 J. P. 519 .... 13/ 
 
 A'alleio (or A'allezjo) r. Wheeler, 1 Cowp. 143 : Lofft. 631 ; and see 1 
 
 Term Rep. 329 • ■ 105, 1097 
 
 A^an Baggen v. Bahies, 9 Ex. 523 ; 2 C. L. R. 543 : 23 L. J. L.x. 213 . 26b 
 
 Van Casteel 1'. Booker, 2 Ex. 691 ^'^ 
 
 A^an Hasselt v. Sack, The Twentje, Swabev, 456 ; 13 .Mooiv, P. C. 185 ; 2 
 L. T. 613 ; 8 AV. R. 423— P. C. Reversing S. C, no^i. Tiie West 
 Frieshmd (or The Twentje), Swabey, 454 : 5 Jur. (x.s.) 658 166, 960, 
 
 Van Omnon v. Dowick, 2 Cani[i. 42 ; 11 R. R. 656. . . . 525, 1302 
 
 Vanderpiank i: Miller, M. & M. 169 685, 692 
 
 A'andyck, 47 L. T. 694 ; 5 Asp. AI. C. 17— C. A. Altinning7 P. I>. 42 593, 604 
 
 V. Hewitt, 1 Past, 96 ; 5 H. K. 516 1303 
 
 Vanguard, 6 C. Rob. 207 H- 
 
 A'anner v. Frost. 39 L. .T. Ch. 626 -'•'^ 
 
 Vargas, 15 Jur. 710 _• !^'*'-* 
 
 A'aux r. Sheflcr. The 1 laganda Sara Clasimi, 8 .Moore. P. C. <5 736. /S.>. 81.)
 
 TABLE OF CASES. cxxix 
 
 Velasquez, The Velas-iuez ((3wiiers) r. Tlie Star of Cevlou (0\viieis\ 4 
 Moore, P. C. fx.s.) 4-2(5 : 3<i L. .1. A.liu. 19 : L. R. 1 1'. ('. 494 ; IC 
 
 L. T. 777 ; 16 W. H. S9 770, 774, S1:J 
 
 Velocity, General Steam Navigation Co. /•. Hedlev, Mooro, I'. C. (n..s.) 
 263 ; 39 L. .1. A.lin. 20 ; L. II. 3 P. C. 44 ; 21 L. T. H86 ; 18 W. R. 
 
 264 786, 787, 811, 81.', 830 
 
 Veltha.seu c. Onusley, 3 Term Rep. 315 .... 837, 922. 927. 928 
 
 Vennall v. Garner, 1 ("ar. & .M. 21 ; 3 Tvr. 8". 685 
 
 Venus, Cargo c: L. R. 1 .\. -t K. -.0; ]2 .Iiii-. (n.s.) 379 : 11 W. K. 
 
 460 • • 'J-3, 984 
 
 Vera Cruz (Board of Trade Innuiry : IJoth to Blame ; Breach of Regula- 
 tions), 9 P. 1). 88. Reversed as to Lord Campbell's Act, 
 
 see S. C, infra 760, 876 
 
 Seward r. The Vera Cruz (Owners) (Lord Campbell's Act), 54 
 L. .1. Adni. 9 : 10 A].p. Cas. 59 ; 52 L. T. 474 : 33 W. R. 477 : 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 386 ; 49 .1. P. 324— H. L. (E.) Affirmmg S. C, 53 L. J. 
 Adm. 33 : 9 P. D. 96 : 51 L. T. 104 ; 32 W. R. 783 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 
 270— C. A 838(2) 
 
 Verdon f. Wihuot, 2 Park. Ins. (8rli cd.) 696, /( 1169 
 
 Vernon, 1 W. Rob. 316 759 
 
 Vertue c. Jewell. 4 Camp. 31 570 
 
 Vesta (Salvage). 2 Hag. A<lm. 189 637. 647 
 
 ,, (Compulsory Piloij. 51 L. .1. Adm. 25 : 7 P. D. 24o : 46 L. T. 492 : 
 
 30 \V. R. 705 ; 4 As].. M. C. 515 78o 
 
 Veziaii r. Crant, 2 Park. Ills. (8th ed.) 671 1167 
 
 N'iainia, Swabey, 405 696 
 
 Vibilia, 1 \V. Rob. 1 198, 201, 215 
 
 Victor OVrrest of Cargo). Lusli. 72; 29 1.. .1. .\dm. 110: 2 L. T. 331 72o, 977, 
 
 1008 
 
 „ (Sale), 13 L. T. 21 161 
 
 Victor Covacevitch, 54 L. .1. Adm. 18 ; 10 P. 1). 40: 52 L. T. 632: 5 
 
 Asp. M. C. 417 817, 997 
 
 Victoria (i'dot), Ir. Rep. ] Kq. 336 776,784 
 
 (Disbursements bv Mate), 37 L. . I. Adm. 12 . . . 107,953 
 
 „ (Sceurity lor Costs). 1 P. 1). 280; 3 J L. T. 931 : 24 W. R. 596: 
 
 3 Asp. M. C. 230— C. A 1"10 
 
 (Light.s), 3 W. Rob. 49 787, 78.s, 803, 804 
 
 ., (Possession), Swabey, 4t)M ; 5 .lur. (N.s.) 204 : 7 W. R. 330 . 956 
 ;, (Limitation), 57 L. J. Adm. 103: 13 I'. P. 125; 59 L. T. 728; 
 
 37 \V. R. 62 ; 6 A.sp. M. C. 335 . . . . . 715, 753 
 
 ., (Damage to Cargo : Collision), 56 L. .1. .Vdni. 75 ; 12 P. D. 105 : 
 56 L. T. 499; 35 W' R. 291 ; 6 Asp. M. ('. 120 . . . . 969 
 
 Victorin fc-. Cleeve, 2 Str. 125(1 1169 
 
 Vildo.sala, The KmeraM, The Sat(dlite, Tlie Toiler, 42 L. T. 96 ; t Asp. 
 
 .M. C. 228 ■ lom 
 
 Village lielie, :i0 L. T. 232: 2 Asp. .M. C. 228 277 
 
 Viiliers, Ja /r, ,ited Hob. 79 93o 
 
 Viiidoliala, 58 L. J. Adm. 51 : 14 1'. D. 50; (!U L. T. 657 ; 37 W. P. 409; 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 376 -C. .\ 17 (21. 55. .V.), 960 
 
 Viiidomora, The Vindoniora (Owners) r. j.amb, [1891J App. Cas. 1 : f,:; 
 L. T. 749 ; 6 Asp. ,M. C. 569 — 11. !,. (!•:.) Allirming 59 h. .1. .\dm. 
 
 8; 14 P. D. 172: 3s \V. 1.'. 119 7nl, 786. sol 
 
 Vine, 2 Hag. Adm. 1 622 
 
 Vink.;stone c. Kb<len, 1 Saik. 24S 886 
 
 Violet c. Bhi'.;ne, fro. .bie. 514 .s:!7. !);34 
 
 Violett /•. Allnnit, 3 Tanni. 119: 13 1!. \l. 676 1219 
 
 Virgil, 2 W. Rob. 201 803 
 
 Virgo anevitablc A.-cident), 35 L. T. 519; 25 W. R. 397 ; 3 Asp. .M. C. 
 
 285 .. 705, 859 
 
 ,, (Crossing l!ule), Tlie Oeeano and Th.' Virgo, :;!•. I). 60 Ml. 830 
 
 \'irtue, 1 Spinks, 77 ..... • .... 9;)/ 
 
 Visger r. Pre.sc-ott, 5 Ksp. l.si ; 8 I.', i;. .S46 1109, 1142 
 
 Vivar, 2 P. D. 29 ; 35 L. T. 7K2 : 25 W. R. 453 : 3 A.sp. M. C. .308— (\ A. 759. 974 
 A'ivian c. .Mersev Docks and Hnrbonr Board, 39 L. J. C P. 3; L. b'. ■> 
 
 C. I'. 19; 2] L. T. .362 "*!•" 
 
 Vivi<l (Ciilli.sioM ; Poul Berth), 42 L .L A<lin. 57 ; 2s I,. T. .375 : 1 Asp. 
 
 .M. C. 601 _ • • • ''•"' ''-^-r 
 
 .. (Collision: Keep hei' (Jour.se), 7 Not. of Ca.s. 127 .... ■'^15 
 ,, I'hurehward o. Palmer (Speed in Fog), 10 .Moore, P. C 172: 4 
 
 W. R. 7.5.5— P. C. Allirming, Swabey, 88; 4 W. R. 504 . . 6H1. S()4 
 Vivienne, .56 L. .1. Adm. I<i7 : 12 P. D. 185; 57 L. T. 316: 36 \V. K. 
 
 110; 6 Asp. M. C. 17H '*•''"' 
 
 Vlierboou'. r. Cliapman, 13 M. .v W. 230; 13 1,. .1. L.x. 384 ; 8 .liir. Ml . ::, I
 
 exxx TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Volant (.luiisdictioii : Liinitiitioii ; Costs), 1 Not. of Cas. HOo : 1 W. Koh. 
 
 3S:] 738, 744, 10-.^1 
 
 Volcnno, -i W. Ko!.. :'.:i7 695(3) 
 
 Yon Tufjeln )•. Dulmis. 2 Camp. ]f.l 1172 
 
 Vooi'waaits, The, and The Kliedivi', Stoonivaart Maatcliapjjy Nederland ?•. 
 Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (Divi.sion of Loss), 52 
 L .1. Adm. 1 : 7 App. Cas. 795 : 47 L. T. 198 ; 31 W. R. 249 : 4 
 Asp. M. C. 507— H. L. (E.) .... 73.5,736,737,738,743 
 
 Voorwaarts, The, and The Khedive, Stoomvaart Maatschappy Nederland 
 c. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (Infringement of 
 Kegulations), 52 L. ,T. Adm. 1 ; 5 App. Cas. 876 : 43 L. T. 610 : 29 
 W. R. 173 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 360— H. L. (E.) 690, 711 (2), 760, 785, 824, 827 
 
 A'ortigern, Swabey, 518 ; 1 L. T. 307 842, 843, 992 
 
 Vrede, Lush. 322 ; 30 L. J. Adm. 209 625 (2) 
 
 Vreede Seholtvs, 5 C. Rob. 5, n 27 
 
 Vrouw :\Largaretha, 4 C. Rob. 103 675 
 
 Vrow Anna Catharina, 6 C. Rob. 269 ... ... 376 
 
 Vrow Elizabeth, 5 C. Rob. 2 27 
 
 Vrow Henrietta, 5 C. Rob. 75, n 376 
 
 Vrow Mina, 1 Dods. 234 125,953 
 
 Vulcan, The, and Tlir ISelin, 9 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) ](i57 . . 640 
 
 W. 
 
 \V. A. Shoi.tex, 57 L. .1. Adm. 4 ; 13 P. D. 8 ; 58 L. T. 91 ; 36 ^\'. R. 
 
 559 ; 6 Asp. M: C. 244 975 (Addenda) 
 
 Wagstaff V. Anderson, 49 L. J. C. P. 485 ; 5 C. -P. D. 171 : 42 L. T. 720 : 
 
 28 W. R. 856 : 4 Asp. M. C. 290— C. A 
 
 Wahlberg v. Young. 45 L. J. C. P. 783 ; 24 W. R. 846 ; 4 Asp. U. C. 27, 
 
 Wainhou.ne r. Cowie, 4 Taunt. 178 . 
 
 AVait i: Baker, 2 Ex. 1 
 
 Wake r. Atty, 4 Taunt. 493 ; 13 R. If. 660 .... 
 
 „ r. Harrop, 1 H. & C. 202 ; 31 L. J. E.x. 451 ; 8 ,Tur. (n.s.) 845 
 
 L. T. 96 ; 10 W. R. 626— Ex. Ch 
 
 Wakefield, cited 3 Hag. Adm. 8 
 
 Waldron r. Coombe, 3 Taunt. 162 ; 12 R. R. 029 . 
 AValker v. Adams, 2 Keb. 200, 215, 227 : Siderf. 331 
 
 t'. Fletcher, 1 Ph. 115 ; ]2 Sim. 420 ; 11 L. J. Ch. 103 ; 6 Jur. 4 738 
 
 r. .Jackson, 10 M. .^ W. 161 ; 12 L. .T. Ex. 165 .... 78 
 V. Kirchner (or How r. Kirchner), 11 Moore, P. C. 21 : 6 W. R. 
 
 198 443 
 
 (•. Maitland. 5 B. & Aid. 171 : 24 R. R. 320 .... I<i73 
 ,, >\ North of Scotland Steam Navigation Co., 19 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 
 (4th .ser.) .386 . . .' 040 
 
 r. Preswick, 2 Yes. Sen. 622 ; lb. Belt's Supi.l. 449 ... 21 
 Wallace r. Fiel.len, The Oriental, 7 Moore, P. C. 398 . . . 208, 209 
 
 f. Tellfair, 2 Term Rep. 188, ;^ 1339 
 
 Waliey r. ]\[ontgomery, 3 East, 585 ; 7 R. R. 526 353 
 
 Walpole r. Ewer, 2 Park. Marine Insurance (8th ed.) 898 . . 629, 1135 
 
 Walshe r. Provan. 8 Ex. 843 ; 1 C. L. R. 823 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 355 . . 3-9 
 Walter D. Wallet. 62 L. J. Adm. 88 : [1893] P. 202 ; 1 R. 627 : 69 L. T. 
 
 771 : 7 Asp. M. C. 398 980 
 
 Waltham c. Mulgar. Sir F. Moore, 776 930 
 
 /'. Thomp.son, Mar.sh. Insur. (4th ed.) 294 .... 1168 
 Walthew ;•. Navrofani, 39 L. J. Ex. 81 ; L. R. 5 Ex. 116; 22 L. T. 
 
 310— Ex. Ch. " 580. 1243 
 
 Walton r. Butler, 29 Beav. 428 45,152 
 
 ,, u. Fothergill, 7 Car. & P. 392 515 
 
 ,, V. Hamburv, 2 Vern. 592 ........ 49 
 
 ,, f. Shelley, "l Term Rep. 296 42 
 
 Wansfell, 1 Spinks. 269 805 
 
 Waples V. Eames, 2 Str. 1243 1064 
 
 Ward V. Beck, 13 C. B. (x.s.) 608; 32 L. .1. C P. 113; 9 -Tnr. (s.s.) 
 
 902 ... 156 
 
 ,, ('. Felton, 1 East, 507 401, 432 
 
 „ r. Harris, 8 L. R. Ir. 365— C. A 1268 
 
 ,, V. McCorkill, The Minnehaha, Lush. 335 ; 15 Motne, I'. C. 133 ; 30 
 
 L. .T. Adm. 211 ; 7 Jur. (x.s.) 1257 ; 4 L. T. 810 ; 9 W. R. 925 607, 
 
 613, 672 
 
 „ r. Royal Exchange Shipping Co., 58 L. T. 174 : Asp. .M. ('. 239 . 191 
 
 Waring v. Cox, 1 Canijp. 369 ......... 348 
 
 
 234, 520 
 
 r, 
 
 V. 683, 
 
 
 752 (2) 
 
 
 . 1205 
 
 
 . 548 
 
 1 
 
 205, 1337 
 
 ' 
 
 ; 7 
 
 
 2:'. 1 
 200 
 
 
 . 1201 
 
 
 928
 
 TABLE OF CASES. txxxi 
 
 Warkwoitli, o3 L. J. Adm. 6:'. ; 9 P. D. 14'. : 51 L. T. 558 : 33 W. K. 
 
 112 : 5 Asp. M. C. 326— C. A 707,744,753 
 
 Wai-re, 8 Price, 269 155 
 
 „ r. :MiIler, 7 D. & R. 1:4 P.. & C. 538 : 1 Car. k P. 237 : 4 L. J. 
 
 (o.s.) K. B. 8 1220 
 
 Warren r. Peabody, 8 C. B. 800 ; 19 L. J. C. P. 43 : 14 .lur. 150 . 424, 498 
 
 ■\Varrior (Possession), 2 Dod.s. 288 956 
 
 (Wages), Lush. 476 ; 6 L. T. 133 113, 625 
 
 (Collision), L. R. 3 A. & E. 553 : 27 L. T. 101 : 21 W. P. 82 ; 
 
 1 Asp. M. C. 400 814, 826 
 
 Warwick, 15 P. D. 189 ; 63 L. T. 561 : 6 A^p. JM. C. 545 . . 794, 1361 
 
 ,, (•. Scott, 4 Ciiiiip. 62 1167 
 
 ,, r. Slade, 3 Ciiiup. 127 ; 13 U. R. 772 1336 
 
 Wasa, The Ida and The Wasa (or Nieolaistadt), 15 L. T. 103 . . 806, 826 
 
 Washinj,aoii, 5 .liir. 1067 736, 805. 859 
 
 Wasp, L. R. 4 A. .>t E. 367 ; 16 L. T. 854 1005 
 
 Wataga, Swal.ey, 165 : 5 W. R. 155 966 
 
 Waterhen, 2 Hag. Adm. 279, n 955 
 
 Waterloo, East India Co. v. Moffat, 2 Dods. 433 620 
 
 Watkinson c. Baniadistoii. 2 P. W. 367 ....... 24 
 
 Watson, E'' pnrtr. Love, In re, 46 L. .J. Bk. 97 ; 5 Ch. D. 35 ; 36 L. T. 
 
 75 ; 25 W. R. 489 : 3 Asp. M. C. 396— C. A. . . . 572 
 
 ,, r. Board of Trade, 19 Cr. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 1078 . . 876 
 
 ,, i: Christie. 2 Bos. & P. 224 ; 5 R. R. 579 137 
 
 V. Clark, 1 Dow, 336 ; 14 R. R. 73 260, 1160 
 
 ,, c. Duncan, 6 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 1247 .... 155 
 V. King, 1 Stark. 121 : 4 Cam].. 272 ; 16 R. R. 790 . . . 159 
 r. Pearson, 9 .Tur. (N.s.) 501 : 8 L. T. 395 ; 11 W. R. 702. . 16 
 V. Shankland, L. K. 2 H. L. (Sc.) 304 ; 29 L. T. 349 : 2 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 115 ; 10 Ct. of Se.s.s. Cas. (3rd .ser.) 142 . . 412, 426 
 
 /•. Swanii, 11 C. B. (x.s.) 756 : 31 L. J. C. P. 210 . . . 1315 
 
 c. Warner, Sid. pt. 2, 161 927, 964 
 
 Watt, 2 W. Rob. 70 642 
 
 „ v. Morris, 1 Dow, 32 1158 
 
 Watts, E.r parte, Attwatcr. hi r<; :',2 L. .1. Hk. 3.', : 9 .Inr. (x.s.) 238 ; 
 
 7 L. T. 585 21 
 
 Waugh r. Morris, 42 L. J. (,>. i'.. 57 : L. 11. * <,'. H. 202 : 2S L. T. 265 : 
 
 •21 W. R. 438 : 1 Asp. M. C. 573 483 
 
 Wave, 15 .Tur. 518 201 
 
 Waverley. 40 L. J. Adm. 42 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 369 : 24 L. T. 713 ; 1 Asp. 
 
 yi. C. 47 653, 655, 674 
 
 Wavertree Sailing Ship Co. r. Lowe, 66 L. J. P. C. 77 ; [1897] App. Cas. 
 
 373 : 76 L. T. 576 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 276— P. C 590 
 
 Way r. Modigliani, 2 Term Rep. 30; 1 R. R. 412 1213 
 
 Wear (Hiver) Commissioners r. Adanison, 47 L. .1. Q. B. 193 : 2 App. Cas. 
 
 743 : 37 L. T. 543 : 26 W. R. 217 : 3 Asp. M. C. .521 — 11. L. (E.) 70, 
 
 714, 715, 88S> 
 
 Wear Packet, 2 Sj.inks, 256 600 
 
 Wi'ath<'ri>cu r. Laidhr, 8 Moure, 37 ....... 131 
 
 Wel.l. r. Brooke, 3 Taunt. 6 69 
 
 „ ,-. Thompson, 1 Mos. k P. 5 : 4 P. P. 757 1167 
 
 Webster -•. KostiT, 1 Ksp. 407 1191 
 
 -•. De Tast.'t, 7 Term Re].. 157: 4 ll. 1.'. 402 .... 1126 
 ., r. Manchester, Sheffield, and Liiieolnsljirc Paiiwav Cn., 5 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 256, H " . . . 84?^ 
 
 ,, r. Se.'kamp, 4 B. .<: Aid. 352 ; 2:'. It. Pv. 3o7 .... 6:! 
 
 Wedderburn -•. Bell, 1 (amp. 1 : 10 R. H. 615 .... 11.52, 1176 
 
 Wcga, 64 L. J. Adm.ns: |1,S951 P. 1.56: 11 R. 726; 72 L. T. 332: 7 
 
 Asj.. M. C C. 597 835 
 
 Wegen.T r. Smith. 15 C. B. 285 ; 21 P. .1. C P. 25 : :; ( '. P. 1,'. 17 . 4.52 
 
 Wegmdin r. Cellier. 12 L. .1. Adm. 7.58 ; P. K. 6 II. L. 286; 22 W. R. 
 
 26 304, 349, 367, 394, 397 
 
 Weidner ,-. }|oggett, 1 (J. P. I>. 533; 35 L. T. 36S 455 
 
 Weir r. Ab-Tdeen, 2 B. *: Aid. 320 ; 20 P. P. 4.50 . . . 1031, 1156, 1192 
 
 Welch /•. Anderson, 61 L. .1. <.». P.. 167 ; 66 L.T. 442 : 7 Asp. .M. C. 177 ( ". A. 303 
 Wellfield (Owners) r. Adnmsoii. Th.' Alfred, .50 P. T. 511 : 5 Asp. .M. C. 
 
 '214 '557, 681 
 
 Wells r. Cas Float Whitton N... 2, 66 L. .1. Adm. 99 : [1897| App. ("as. 
 
 337 ; 76 L. T. 663 : 8 Asp. M. C 272— H. L. (E). . .595, 911 
 
 „ -•. Hopwood. :; 15. .<: Ad. 20 1095 
 
 ., /-. King.ston-ni.on llnll (Mavor. 14 P. .1. ('. P. 257: P. R. lo C. P. 
 
 402 ; 32 L. T. 615 : 23 W. K. :.r,l -. 2 As].. M. C. 5:i0 . . 913 
 ,, 1'. Osman (or Osmond". 2 I,d. Pvaym. 1011 ; 6 .Mod. 238 . . . 9:!2
 
 cxxxii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 WrrUlsboij^aion, 4 C. 1!..1>. 17 :'.79 
 
 Werni, r>6 L. .1. Adiii. r,:i -. 12 1'. J). .VJ ; :,i\ 1.. T. r)SO : ^f) \V. ];. o'>2 ; (J 
 
 Asp. M. C. llf) 637 
 
 AVesley, Lusli. 21)8 782 
 
 West Frieslaml (or 'I'lie Twcntic) Van Hasselt r. Sack, Swabey, 456; 13 
 
 Moore. P. C. ISo ; 2 L. T. 61:3: S \V. R. 42:5— P. C. Reversing 
 
 Swabey, 454 ;:") -lur. (N.s.) g.'i.S. . . . 1(J6, f»60, 962, 978, 981 
 
 West India and Panama Telegrajili di. r. Home and Colonial Alarine 
 
 Insurance Co., 5i) L. .T. (}. V,. 41 : ti (,». 1!. ]). 51 : 4:i L. T. 420 ; 29 
 
 L. T. 92: 4 As).. .M. C. 341 — C. A 1075, 1082 
 
 West of England, 3t) L. J. Adin. 4 ; L. R. 1 A. & K. 308 . . . 702 
 West of England and South Wales District Hank r. Canton Insurance Co., 
 
 2 Ex. D. 472 1318 
 
 Westbourne (Salvage), 58 L. J. Adni. 78 : 14 P. 1). 132 ; til L. T. 15C ; 
 
 38 W. R. 56 ; 6 Asp. .^1. C. 405— C. A 656 
 
 Westbrook v. Australian Royal Mail Steam Navigation Co., 14 C. B. 113 78 
 Westburn (Salvage), 74 L. T. 200; 8 Asp. i\l. C. 130 . . . .614 
 Westbury r. Aberdein, 2 M. & W. 267 : iM. & H. 49 : 6 L. .1. Kx. S3 : 1 
 
 Jnr. 201 1195 
 
 Westerdell r. Dale, 7 Term Reji. 306 67 
 
 Western r. Wildy, Skinner, 152 223,952 
 
 Western Insurance Co., L\i' parte, Eddistone J\Iarine liisuranrc Co., //( r<\ 
 61 L. J. Ch. 362 ; [1892] 2 Cli. 423 ; iJd L. T. 370 ; 40 W. 1!. 441 : 7 
 
 Asp. M. C. 167 1038 
 
 Western Ocean, L. R. 3 A. & E. 38 186 
 
 Westland r. Robinson, cited 2 Yern. 212 : 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 371 . . 386 
 
 r. Westniore, 6 Esp. 1 09 1067 
 
 Westminster, 1 W. Rob. 229 607, 659 
 
 Westmoreland. 1 W. Rob. 216 129 
 
 Weston r. Ernes, 1 Taunt. 115 1320 
 
 ,, ,: Foster, 2 Bing. (n.c.) ()93 : 3 Scott, 155 ; 5 L. .T. C. P. 242 . 198 
 
 ,, c. Wright, 7 M. & W. 396 : lo L. .1. Ex. 329 .... 65 
 W.'stlalic. (or Westphalia), Hogarth r. Miller (Charterpartv), 60 L. .1. 
 P. C. 1 : [1891] App. Cas." 48; 64 L. T. 205: 18 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 (4th ser.) 10 ; 7 Asp. :\I. C. 1— H. E. (Sc.) . . . 256, 388, 425 
 
 Westidialia, Steamship (Collision), 24 L. T. 75 ; 1 Asp. .M. C. 12 . . 802 
 Wcstrui) /■. Great Yarmouth Steam Cari'ving Co., 43 Ch. D. 241 : 59 
 
 E. J. Ch. Ill : 61 L. T. 714 ; 38 W. R. 505 : 6 Asp. M. C. 443 . 684 
 
 Westwood V. P.ell, 4 Cam).. 349 ; Holt, X. P. 122 ; 16 R. R. 800 . . 1349 
 
 Westzinthus, In vr, 5 V,. k. Aid. 817 : 2 X. & M. 644 ; 3 L. J. K. 15. 56 570 
 
 Wetterhorn, 34 L. T. 587 : 24 W. R. 323 : 3 As]k ^\. C. 168 . . . 995 
 Wexford, 57 L. J. Adm. 6 ; 13 P. D. 10 : 58 E. T. 28 : 36 W. R. 560 ; 6 
 
 Asp. M. C. 244 984 
 
 Weymouth (Corporation) c. Nugent, 6 B. & S. 22 : 34 L. .1. .M. C. 81 : 11 
 
 Jur. (x.s.) 465 : 11 E. T. 672; 13 W. R. 338 897 
 
 Wharton, 3 Hag. Adm. 148, n 933, 960 
 
 c. Pits, 1 Salk. 548 928 
 
 Wheatsheaf, The, andThe Intrepide, 13 E. T. 612 719 
 
 Wheeler v. liavidgc, 9 Ex. ti68 : 2 C. E. R. 1077 ; 23 E. .1. Ex. 221 . 290, 298 
 
 ,, (•. Thompson, 2 Str. 707 933 
 
 Whiter. Earing, 4 Esp. 22; 6 R. 1.'. S:!(i 97 
 
 r. Crisp, 10 Ex. 312; 23 E. . I. Kx. 317 71,722 
 
 ., c. Ditchliehl, The Meredith, 10 P. D. 69: 52 E. T. 520; 5 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 400 47 
 
 ,, r. Dobinson, 14 Sim. 273 ........ 1332 
 
 ,, V. Fnrness, Withy & Co., The Inchulvii, 64 E. .E Q. B. 16] ; [1895] 
 App. Cas. 40 ; 11 R. 53 ; 72 E. T. 157 ; 7 Asp. U. C. 574 — 
 
 H. L. (E.) 400 
 
 ,, V. Mattison, 2 Stark. 325 122 
 
 ,, ('. Munro, 3 Ct. of Se.ss. Ca.s. (4tli ser.) 1011 918 
 
 ., V. Parkin, 12 East, 578 ; 11 1.'. R. 488 255 
 
 - ;, V. Phillips, 15 C. B. (x.s.) 245 : 33 E. .1. C. P. 33 . . . 722 
 
 ., c. Steamshii. Winchester Co.. ]:! Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th .ser.) 521 . 265 
 
 „ r. Wilson, 2 Bos. .t P. lltj 117 
 
 White Star, E. R. 1 A. & E. 68 613 
 
 Whitecross Wire Co. r. Savill. 51 E. .1. (,). B. 426; 8 Q. 15. D. 653 : 46 
 
 L. T. 643 : 30 W. H. 588 : 4 Asp. M. C. 531— C. A. . . ^'Si^. 1245 
 
 Whitehead r. Bancc, 4 liro. P. C. 44ti. /#. : 1 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 165 . 1240 
 
 Whitfield n Parhtt, 4 De G. .t Sm. 240 ; 15 .)nr. 852 .... 171 
 
 Whiting V. Carpenter, 24 E. T. 576 901 
 
 Whittel r. Crawford, 4 W. R. 654— Ex. Ch 708 
 
 Whitwell r. Hanisoii, 2 Ex. 127 : IS E. .1. lv\. 465 1067 
 
 r. Pen-in, 4 C. B. (N.s.) 112 56
 
 TABLE OF CASES. cxxxiii 
 
 Wliitwell c. Scheer. S A. .v K. oOl ; 3 N. .t P. :50S ; 7 I-. .1. <,'. 13. 
 
 244 .. --'SO, 30:J 
 
 ■\Vliitworth, //* /■'', t-iibbes, Ke parte (or Blackb\ini, £'.>• pcr/c), 4o L. .1. 
 Ch. 10 ; 1 Ch. D. 101 ; 33 L. T. 4/9 ; -24 W. K. 2<JS ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 
 74 •'''' 
 
 "Whinvoi-th Brothevs r. Sbeplieia, 12 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 204 . 1283 
 
 Why Not, 38 L. J. A.lin. 2o : L. R. 2 A. k E. 265 ; 18 L. T. S61 . S44, 993 
 
 Wi""in.s V. BocMingtoii. 3 Car. k P. .".44 912 
 
 f. Iiidetoii, 2 Lil. Paym- 1211 1"^^) 
 
 r. .lohuston, 14 M. &W. 609 : 15 L. .1. Ex. 202 . . .418 
 
 \Vig<ion r. Biaitlnvait, 1 Ld. Raym. 473 ; 12 Mod. 259 ; Holt, 758 . . 949 
 
 Wights c. Biini.s, 11 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4tk ser.) 217 137 
 
 Wigtownshire, 36 L. J. Adiii. 11 ^- "'yO 
 
 Wild Raiijcev (Securitv for Costs), Lush. 553 ; 31 L. -J. .\diii. 206 : 6 L. T. 
 
 "^ 164.' 1010 
 
 (Bail : Rearrest), Br. & Lusli. 84 .... 977, 986 
 
 (Limitation), Lusli. 553 : 32 L. .1. Adni. 49 : 9 .lur. (x..s.) 
 134 ; 7 L. T. 725 : 11 W. R. 255 . . . 738, 740, 747, 753, 761 
 Wild Rose, Tlie Nortli American and Th.-, 14 L. T. 6S . . 773, 799, 803 
 
 Wilelmina Eleoiiora, 3 ('. Rob. 234 376 
 
 Wilev V. Crawford. 1 B. & S. 2.>J : 30 L. -J. »,>. J!. 319 : 7 .lur. (n.s.) 943 : 
 
 4 L. T. 6.53: 9 W. K. 741— Ex. Ch 31 
 
 Wilhelm, 14 L. T. 636 ^54 
 
 Wiliielni Frederick, 1 Hag. A.lm. 138 125, 953 
 
 WiilR-lm Smidt, 25 L. T. 34 : 1 Asj.. M. C. 82 . . . 232. 281, 5-30 
 Wilhelm Tell, 61 L. .1. Ad.n. 127 : [1892] P. 337 : 1 R. 551 : 6!. ],. T. 199 : 
 
 41 W. R. 205 ; 7 Asp. .\L C. 329 '"'52 
 
 Willielmin,-, 1 Not. ofCas. 376 617,6/6 
 
 Wilkes r. Sauninn, 47 L. .1. Ch. 150 : 7 <'h. D. 188 .... 186 
 
 Wilkie r. Oed.les, 3 Dow, 57 -. 15 H. K. 17 1159 
 
 Wiikins r. Carmicdiael, 1 Dougl. 1(1] 97 
 
 -•. Despanl. 5Term Kep- 11-: - !'• J^— '-^^ .... 43 
 
 -•. Mure, 1 Cox, 1.50 .. . =592 
 
 WiikinsuM r. Alston. 48 L. .1. i>. B. 733 ; 41 L. T. 394 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 
 191; 44 .L P. 3.'.— C. A lt)8 
 
 /•. Clay, 6 Taunt, lln; 4 Camp. 171 : U) 1!. 1!. 5'.)1 . . 1344 
 
 -•. Frasier. 4 T-Lsp. 182 H-'' 
 
 1- Ilvde 3 C. P.. (n.s.~ 30: 27 I.. .1. C. P. 116: 1 .lur. (N.s.) 
 
 ■4S2 . . ' l-'-^9 
 
 .-. Lindo, 7 -M. & W. 81 1329 
 
 /•. .Martin, 8 Car. & P. 1 915 
 
 '•. Sliarland Pha-ling,. 10 Kx. 724: 3 C. L. R. 619: ".^ I 
 
 L. .1. K\-. 116 : 1 .lur. (\..s.) 114 : 3 W. K. 207 . . 427 
 r. .<;harlaiid (Am.-ndnient), 3 C. L. R. 619 ; 11 Ex. 2:i : 1 .lur. 
 
 (n.s) 405 : 3 W. R. 418 127 
 
 ,, r. Wil.-,on, The P>onaparte, 8 .Moore, J'. C. 459. 1 11 ( nui I below. 
 
 3 W. Rob. 298 -H- -^- 
 
 Willem IIL, L. R. 3 A. & K. 4>'7 : 25 1,. T. :;si\ -. -JO W. P. -Ki: 1 A^j.. 
 
 M.C. 129 ^'10. 670 
 
 Willcs -•. Glover, 1 ilos. .\: P. (s.li.) 14 : s If. |;. 739 .... 1196 
 
 William (Salvage: Tender: Cost.s), 5 Nut. uf Cas. lO.S . . 674 (Addenda) 
 
 ,, (Pottoinry : .Master's Wages), .Swabey, 346 ; 6 W. P. 871 . 101 
 
 (Ma.ster's Wages : Costs), Lush. 19'.l .... I'i23 
 
 (Pilot), 6C. Rob. 316 1 '^ 
 
 William and .lohn, Br. &, Lush. 49 ; 32 L. .1. Adm. loi : 9 .lur. (.\.s.) 2>4 : 
 
 H L. T. 56: 11 W. H. 535 .;t;2, 663 
 
 William Beekford. 3 C. Hob. 355 ^'>'-''-> 
 
 William IbiUi.lt. eited 2 W. Pol.. 172 : "J Not. ul(a>. Siii,].!. i.wii. . 612 
 
 William F. Salford. Lush. 69 : 29 1,. ,1. .\.ln,. 109 : 2 P. T. 3m1 119, 21 1, 
 
 •2]S, 967 (2) 
 
 William Fn-drriek (Wag.'s), 1 Mag. Adm. 138 125,953 
 
 William Frederick and The Mvfoge.lChristens.'ii. I A j.p. Cas. 6.;9 : 11 P. 'i . 
 
 535 : 28 W. H. 233 : 4 Asp. .M. C. 201 II. I.. (K.) • 815,824,82.. 
 
 William Ilandlton, 3 ILng. Adm. ]>;>> <j^=' 
 
 William Hutt, Lush. 25 .i.is, s50, 854, 8:.5, 1013 
 
 William Lindsav, D-.ward .-. I.indsi.v, P. b'. 5 1' C. 33s ; -.'O L. T. 35;. : 
 
 22 W. H. 6 : 2 Asp. .M. C. lis' r. C. • ■ "^^S <594. 705. /Oo 
 
 William Lushington, 7 Not. i.f Cas. :!61 *>->^ 
 
 William M..ncv, 2 Hag. Adm. 136 •'•'if 
 
 William .Schmidt, 25 L. T. 31 : 1 Asj.. .M. C. S2 -41 
 
 Willi;,m Syndngtun, 5 1 L. .1. Adm. 4 : P) P. I >. 1 : 51 P. T. I'il : ■•■■• 
 
 W. R. 371 : 5 Asp. M. C. 293 '"-j 
 
 William Tell. The .lohn Harlcv .ind The, ]:; P. T. 113 .... ••'•'•'
 
 cxxxiv TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Williaininii, :i 1'. D. !'7 863, 1018 
 
 Williams' Cliiim (or Kr parte), The Great Eastern Steainshiji Co., In re, 53 
 
 L. T. 594: r. As]). M. 0. f.ll . 11 !• 
 
 Williaius /•. African 8tc.inisliip Co., 1 TF. & N. 300 : 26 L. .J. Ex. 69 ; 2 
 
 .lur. (x.s.) 693 328 
 
 r. Allsu]., 15 C B. (\.s.) 417 ; 30 L. ,T. C. P. 3.^3 ; 8 Jnr. (x.s.) 
 
 57 : 4 L. T. r.50 24, 192 
 
 ., c. British Marine Mutual Insurance Association, 57 L. T. 27 ; 6 
 
 Asp. M. C. 134 1363 
 
 ,, r. Cliapnian, 4 Not. of Cas. 585— P. C. AHirinin-- 2 W. Kob. 
 
 377 \ . .787 
 
 r. Dobbie, 11 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 982 . . . . 555 
 
 c. East India Co., 3 East, 192 ; 6 R. R. 58!t .... 502 
 i: Gutch, The Chancellor, 14 Moore, P. C. 202 : 4 L. T. 627 761, 
 
 805 
 ,, V. London Assurance Association, 1 M. k 8. 318 : 14 R. R. 
 
 441 125 
 
 V. Marshall. 6 Taunt. 390. S. C, new trial, 7 Taunt, 468 ; 2 
 
 Marsh. 92 : 1 Moore. 168 1204 (Addenda) 
 
 r. Newton, 14 M. & W. 747 ; 15 L. J. E.\. 11 . . . 777, 783 
 V. North China Insurance Co., 35 L. T. 884 : 1 C. P. D. 757 : 3 
 
 Asj). M. C. 342— C. A. . . . 1046, 1114, 1139, 1140 
 
 r. Shee, 3 Camp. 469; 14 R. R. 811 1218 
 
 ,, V. Steadman, Skinner, 345 ; Holt, 126 ..... 223 
 r. Swansea Harbour Trustees, 14 C. P.. (x.s.) 845 . . . 910 
 
 Williamson e. Hine, 60 L. J. Ch. 123 : [1891] 1 Ch. 390 ; 63 L. T. 682 : 
 
 39 W. R. 239 ; 6 As].. M. C. 559 60 
 
 r. Innes, 8 Ring. 81 ; 1 M. & Rob. 88 1071 
 
 f. Page, 1 Car. & K. 581 62, 87 
 
 Willis e. Cooke. 5 El. & HI. 641 ; 25 L. J. (,). B. 16 ; 1 .lur. (x.s.) 1164 : 4 
 
 W. R. 54 870, 1126 
 
 „ V. Palmer, 7 C. P.. (x.s.) 340 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 194 : 6 Jur. (x.s.) 
 
 732 ; 2 L. T. 626 ; 8 AV. R. 295 367, 395, 870 
 
 AVillonghby, E.y parle, Westlake, In re, 16 Ch. D. 604 : 44 E. T. Ill : 29 
 
 W. R. 934 22 
 
 I'. Horridge, 12C. B. 742 79 
 
 Wills V. Burrell, 21 Ct. of Sess. Ca.s. (4th .ser.) 527 168 
 
 Wilmshurst i\ Bowker, 7 Man. & G. 882 ; 8 Scott (x.i:.) 571 : 12 L. J. Ex. 
 
 475— Ex. Ch 353, 578 
 
 AVilson 1-. Bank of Victoria. 36 L. ,1. *,). B. 89: L. R. 2 (,». B. 203: 16 
 
 L. T. 9 ; 15 W. R. 693 1242 
 
 „ V. Bird, 1 Ld. Raym. 22 934 
 
 i>. Backhouse, 2 Peake, 119 1149 
 
 ,, V. Canada Shipping Co., The Lake St. Clair and The Under- 
 writer, 2 App. Cas. 389 ; 36 L. T. 155 : 3 Asp. M. C. 361— 
 
 P. C 698, 809, 815 
 
 c. Carter, 7 L. T. 676 : 11 W. R. 337 895 
 
 ,, c. Creighton, 3 Dough 132 : cited 1 Term Rep. 113 . . . 1343 
 „ V. Cuirie, The Otto and The Tlumsa, [1894] A].p. Cas. 116 ; 6 R. 
 
 162 ; 20 Ct. of Se.ss. Cas. (4th ser.) 876— H. L. (Sc.) . . 820 
 
 ,, r. Cutting, 10 P>ing. 436 ; 4 M. & Scott, 826 .... 49 
 
 r. Dickson, 2 B. k Aid. 2 ; 20 R. R. 331 .... 79, 738 
 
 ,, r. Ducket, 3 Burr. 1361 1303, 1333 
 
 V. Foderingham, 1 M. & S. 468 303 
 
 r. Foster, '6 Taunt. 25 : 1 Marsh. 425 : 16 R. R. 560 . . . 1225 
 „ V. Gabriel, 4 B. & S. 243 : 8 L. T. 502 ; 11 W. R. 803 . . 3_94, 428 
 ,, V. General Screw Collier (or Colliery) Co., 47 L. J. Q. B. 239 ; 37 
 
 L. T. 789 : 3 Asp. M. C. 536 " ]<► 
 
 ., y. Heather, 5 Taunt. 642 17o 
 
 „ V. Hickes, 26 L. .1. Ex. 242 51:'. 
 
 V. Jones, 26 L. .1. Ex. 78: L. 1!. 2 Kx. 139 : 15 L. T. 669 : 15 
 
 W. R. 435— Ex. Ch 1227 
 
 „ r. Killick, 68 L. T. 312 : 7 Asp. .M. C. 275 235 
 
 ,, r. Kymer, 1 M. & S. 157 401 
 
 ,, r. London, Italian and Adriatic Steam Navigation Co., 1 PI. & R. 
 29 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 9 ; L. R. 1 C. P. 61 : 12 Jur. (n.s.) 52 : 
 
 13 L. T. 435 534, 540 
 
 r. Martin, 11 Ex. 684 : 25 L. J. Ex. 217 1113 
 
 ;, c. Millar, 2 Stark. 1 : 19 R. R. 670 1302 
 
 V. Nelson, 5 !'.. ^: S. .354: 33 L. J. (>>. P.. 220: 10 Jur. (x.s.) 
 
 1044; 10 L. T. 523; 12 AV. R. 795 1140 
 
 V. Newport Dock Co., 4 H. & C. 232 : 35 L. J. Ex. 97 : L. R. 1 
 Ex. 177 ; 12 Jur. (n..s.) 233 ; 14 L. T. 230 : 14 W. R. 558 . . 911
 
 TABLE OF CASES. cxxxv 
 
 Wilson c. Kaiikin, -35 L. J. Q. 15. 87 : 1-. U. 1 g. B. 10-J : Yd L. T. 564 : 
 
 14 W. R. 198— Ex. Ch 1156, V207 (2) 
 
 „ V. Kegina, L. R. 1 P. C. 405 .... . . t<47 
 
 „ V. Robertson, 4 El. & Bl. 923 ; 24 L. ,1. <,•. P.. 185 ; 1 Jur. (n-.s.) 
 
 755 8^'^ 
 
 V. Roval Exflianuc Assurance Co., 2 Caiiip. 623 : 12 P. R. 760 . 1130, 
 ^ ' 1226 
 
 r. Smith, 1 W. Bl. 507 : 3 Burr. 1550 1248 
 
 r. The Xautho, The Xantho, Car(/o ex; 56 L. J. Adm. 116 : 12 
 Ai.p. Gas. 503 ; 57 L. T. 701 : 3t; \V. R. 353 : 6 Asp. M. 0. 
 
 207-H. L. (K.> 329, 553 
 
 „ ,-. Wilson, 41 L. .r. Ch. 423 : L. P. 14 K.]. 32 : 26 L. T. 346 : 20 
 
 W. P. 436 : 1 Asp. .M. C. 265 179, 395 
 
 r. Znlueta, 14 Q. B. 405 : 19 L. J. Q. B. 49 : 14 .hir. 366 . . 113 
 
 Wilsons. 1 W. Rob. 172 185, 617 
 
 Wilton r. Atlantic Royal Mail Steam Navigation Co.. 10 C. B. (x.s.) 453 ; 
 30 L. J. C." P. 369 : 8 Jur. (n..s.) 231 ; 4 L. T. 706 : 9 W. R. 
 
 748 78,871 
 
 „ r. Reatson. 1 i'ark. Ins. (8th.i.l.i 16 Iti2.> 
 
 Wiuestead, 64 L. .J. Adm. 51 ; [1895] P. 170 : 11 R. 59 : 72 L. T. 91 ; 
 
 7 As]). M. C. 547 ''^^ 
 
 Win<'ate c. Foster, 47 L .T. (,). B. 525 : 3 (,>. B. D. 582 : 38 L. T. 737 : 6 
 
 W. R. 6.50: 3 Asp. .M. C. .598—0. A 1064, 1213 
 
 Winstanley, 65 L. .1. Adm. 121 : [1896] P. 297 : 75 L. T. 133; 8 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 170— C. A 830 
 
 Winston, 53 L. .1. Ailni. 69 : !• P. L). 85 ; 51 L. T. 183 : 5 A.sp. M. C. 
 
 274— C. A 772, 782 
 
 Winter, Ey ixn-ti; Hodgkin, E.i' jxirh; Softlev, In re, 44 L. .(. Bk. 107 ; 
 
 L. R. 20 lV|.' 746 : 33 L. T. t;2 : 24 W. R. 68. . . . 174 
 
 ,, v. Haldimand, 2 li. .t Ad. 649 1276 
 
 „ v. Mair, 3 Taunt. 531 »1^ 
 
 „ v. Trimmer, 1 W. Bl. 395 302 
 
 Wirrall, 3 W. Rob. 56 (i91 
 
 Wiseman r. Yandei>utt, 2 Vcrn. 203 •'>67 
 
 Withers f. Lvs, Holt, X. !'. 18 576 
 
 Wolnirn Abbey (Salvage), 21 P. T. 707— P. C ti04, 645 
 
 (Collision : Pilot). 38 L. J. Adm. 28 ; 20 L. T. 621 694, 695, 774 
 Wolf /■. Summers, 2 Camp. 631 ; 12 R. P. 764 ... 436, 563, 870 
 
 WolH'r. Horncastle. 1 Bos. & !'. 316 : 4 P. R. 808 . . . 1036, 1119, 1132 
 Wood r. Bell. 6 El. <t Bl. 355 : 25 L. J. Q. B. 321 : -1 .lur. (n..s.) 664 : 4 
 
 W. R. 553— Ex. CI. 23 
 
 „ r. Burns, 20 Ct. ol'Sess. Cas. (4th scT.) 602 556 
 
 c. Hamilton, cited .Ma(.-lachlan on Shiiiping (4th e(l.) 69— J I. L. 
 
 (Se.) !">+ 
 
 „ c. Jones, 7 I). & P. 126 566 
 
 r. Smith, The Citv of Cambridge, 43 L. J. Adm. 11 : L. P. 5 P. C. 
 
 451 : 30 L. t. 439 ; 22 W. P. 578 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 739 . 764, 779 
 ,, r. Woad, 43 L. J. Kx. 153 : P. R. 9 Ex. 190 : 30 L. T. 815 ; 22 
 
 \V. i;. 709 : 2 Asp. M. C. 2.^9 1359 
 
 Wuodham -■. Peterson, 25 L. T. 2f. : 1 .\sp. M. C. 9:! .... 902 
 Woodley r. .Mi.hell, 52 L. J. <,». P.. :i25 ; 11 g. i;. D. 17 : 48 L. T. 599 : 
 
 31 W. R. 651 : 5 As|.. M. C. 71--('. A 275, 329 
 
 Woodrop. 2 Dods. M 735, 736 
 
 Woods r. Pussell, 5 V,. k Aid. It 12 ; 1 D. .V Hv. 587 : 24 P. R. <!21 . . 20 
 Woodside /•. Clobe Marine Insunuiee Co., 65 L. J. Q. B. 117 ; [189i;| 1 
 
 <^ B. 105 : 73 P. T. 626 : 14 \V. P. 187 : 8 Asp. M. C. 118 .1101 
 
 Woodward -•. Bonitham. Sir T. Havm. .3 !'34 
 
 Wooldridge ?•. Boydell. 1 Dongl. 16 '■•^13 
 
 Woolfr. CliigriCtt, 3 Ksp. 257 : 6 P. P. 830 1159 
 
 Woolley /•. Reddelien, 5 .Man. & G. 316 : 6 Scott (N.ii.j 19;i : 12 P. .1. C. !'. 
 
 152 ; 7 Jur. 930 -8'> 
 
 Woolmer 'or Woomeri r. Muilman, :i Purr. 1119 ; 1 W. PI. 427 . .1118 
 
 Woosung, C'lnin .,-■ (Pile Salvage;. 4 1 P. .1. Adm. 45; 33 P T. 394 ; :'. 
 
 Asp. .M. C. 50 *:09 
 
 (Salvage Agreement , 1 P. D. 260: 35 P. T. 8: 25 
 W. P. 1 : 3 Asp. M. <•. 239. Peversing 44 P. .1. Adm. 45 (J. A. . 617, 
 ' 618, G.59 
 
 Worms ,-. Storey, 11 Kx. 427 ; 25 P. .1. Kx. 1 -•''" 
 
 Wright r. P.aruard, 2 Esp. 700 : 5 P. P. 767 130] 
 
 ,, 1-. Campbell, 4 Burr. 2016 : 1 IP Bl. ti28 .... 3;.l, 3o'2 
 
 „ ,-. Pawes, 4 P:,sp. 82 ",, "V^ 
 
 „ r. Lethbridge. 63 P. T. 572 : 6 Asj.. .M. C. 55S C. A. 908 (Addenda] 
 r. Pondou Dock Co., 5 Jur. (N.s.) 1411— L.JJ •'•"
 
 cxxxvi TA15L1'] OF ("ASKS. 
 
 "Wii.'lu c. .Manvooa, (loiduii r. Garwood, :,0 L. .1. <,). li. dl3 : 'i <,>. 1!. I). 
 62 ; 45 L. T. 297 ; 20 \V. R. 67:5 : 1 Asp. M. C. 4.")] — C. A. 
 
 r,S(5 (2), 1245, 1246 
 ,, r. iMitchell, 9 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rdser. ) 51 1! . . 577 (Addenda) 
 
 /-. New Zealand Shippino- Co., 4 Ex. D. 165 ; 40 L. T. 41.3 ; 4 
 
 Asp. M. 0. 118— C. A 472, 532 
 
 ,, r. Shitliier, 11 East, 515 : 2 Camp. 247 ; 11 R. R. 263 . . . 1165 
 ., r. Ward, 24 L. T. J39 ; 20 W. R. 21 ; 1 Asp. 51. C. 25 . . 1353 
 
 :. ,-. Welbie, 1 Chit. 49 : 22 R. R. 792 1208,1209 
 
 Wyllic r. Harrison, 13 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 92 . . . 489, 490 
 Wynne r. KcUows, Holt, 4(;(; 300 
 
 Xamiih, Wilsmi v. Thr Xantho, rVfjv/c rr, 56 L. .1. Adm. 116 ; 12 App. 
 ('as. 503: 57 L. T. 70l ; 36 W. R. 353; 6 Asp. M. C. 207— 
 
 H. L. (K.) 329, 553 
 
 Xeiios t\ Addersley, The Evan^elisnios, 12 .Moore, P. C. 352 ; Swabey, 
 
 378 ... ' 852. 856, 980 
 
 „ /■. Fox, 38 L. .1. C. r. 351 : L. K. 4 C. P. 665 : 17 W. R. 893— 
 
 Ex. Ch 1084, 1272 
 
 ,. r. Wiekhani, -K, I.. .1. C P. 313 : L. K. 2 H. L. 296 : 16 L. T. 800; 
 ■ 16 W. R. 38 . . . 104<', 1336 
 
 Y. 
 
 Ya M.Vchdw (otherwise The Glasgow), Swahey, 1 45 ; 12 Moore, ]'. ('. 355, /;.. ; 
 
 2.1ur. (n.s.) 1147; 5 W. R. 10 161 
 
 Yallop, Er parte, 15 Ye.s. 60 ; 10 R. I!. 24 28, 1145 
 
 Yan Yean, 52 L. .T. Adm. 67; 8 P. D. 147 ; 49 L. T. 187 : 31 W. R. 950; 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 135 1301 
 
 Yarmouth (Corporation) r. Simmons, 47 L. .1. 01:. 792; in Cli. I). 518; 
 
 38 L. T. 881 ; 26 AV. R. 802 888 
 
 Yates V. Dnff, 5 Car. & P. 369 866 
 
 ,. V. Hnll, 1 Term Rep. 73 69, 85 
 
 ,; /•. Mennell (or Meynell). 8 Taunt. 302 ; 2 Moore, 297 : 19 R. R. 527 439 
 „ /•. Railston, 8 Taunt. 293 ; 2 Moore, 294; 19 R. R. 521 . . .439 
 ., r. Whyte. 4 P.ing. (x.c.) 272: 2 Scott, 640; 7 L. .1. C. P. 116 . 729 
 
 Yeames r. Lijulsay, 3 L. T. 8.55 ; 9 W. R. 313 918 
 
 Yeo /;. Tatem, Tlie Orient, 8 Moore, ]\ C. (N.s.) 74 ; 40 L. .1. Adm. 29; 
 
 L. R. 3 P. C. 696 ; 24 L. T. 918 ; 20 W. R. 6 ; 1 A.sp. M. C. 108 845, 976 
 Yorkshireman, 2 Hag. Adm. 30. «. ........ 782 
 
 Youle i: (jhajunan, (5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser. 427 392 
 
 York, Duke of (or Einstred r. Le Seigiieiu- Admiral), 1 Keh. 657 ; 1 Sid. 
 
 pt. 1, 178 .' . . . . ' 935 
 
 Young, h> parte, 2 Ves. & R. 242 : 2 Rose, 78, /(. ; 13 R. R. 73 24, 44, 45, 67 
 
 ,,' r. l')rander, 8 East, m -il 
 
 „ /•. Fewson, 8 Car. & P. 55 868 
 
 ., r. Lindsay, 27 P.eav. 405 444 
 
 ,', -■. .M.xdier, 5 El. & Bl. 7.')5 ; 25 L. .1. (). P.. 94 : 2 .Inr. (x.s.) 393 : 
 
 4 W. R. 149— Ex. Ch 404, 488, 534 
 
 ,, -•. Xeill, 32 Reav. 529 ; 2 N. R. 212 : 9 .Inr. (x.s.) 97(i ; 9 L. T. 9 : 
 
 11 W. i;. 1052 ■^^'. .'>63, 918 
 
 ,, '•. Turing, 2 Scott (N.I!.) 752 ; 2 Man. & C. 593 .... 1225 
 Young .lames, 39 L. .1. A<lm. 1 : L. R. 3 A. & E. 1 : 21 L. T. 397 : IS 
 
 W. R. 52 753, 937 
 
 Yourri, The, and Tlir Sprarman, 10 Ai)p. Cas. 276 : 53 L. T. 29 ; 5 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 458— P. C 823, 827 
 
 Z. 
 
 Zmiok, 53 L. .1. Adm. 7:i : 9 ]'. 1 1. 1 N ; .".O L. T. 695 : 32 W. R. 1003 : 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 252 SOO, 802 (2), 803, 826 
 
 Zanzibar, 61 L. .1. Adm. 81 ; |1S92] P. 233; (iS L. T. 297 ; 40 W. R. 
 
 702 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 258 699,748 
 
 Zephvr (Suit i;« ^«rA(jMff//i), 11 L. T. 351 . . . . . . 715, 851 
 
 ,," (Salvage). 2 Hag. Adm. 43 ;'.93 
 
 Z.-phyrus, 1 W. Rob. 329 -''97, 608 
 
 Zi'ta, Meiscy Doeks and Harbour Hoard r. Turner (Admiralty : Pilot), 
 
 63 L. ,J. Adm. 17 ; [1893J App. Cas. 468 ; 1 R. :i'i7 : 'i!' I.. T. (i30 ; 
 
 7 Asp. M. C. 369; 57 J. P. 660— H. L. (E.) !141
 
 TABLE OF CASE 8. exxxvii 
 
 Zfta (AVicck), 44 L. J. Adm. 22 : L. 1!. 4 A. & E. 4B0 : 33 L. T. 477 ; 
 
 24 "VV. R. 180 : 3 Asp. JI. C. 73 629 
 
 Zeus, 13 P. D. 188 : 59 L. T. 344 : 37 W. IJ. rJ7 : 'i As].. M. P. 312 . 93;r 
 
 Zipsey r. HiU, 1 F. & F. r.70 til 7 
 
 Zodiae, 1 Hag. Adm. 320 205, 224 
 
 Zoe, 55 L. J. Adm. 52 : 11 V. D. 72 : 54 L. T. 879 : 35 W. l!. (51 : 5 
 
 Asp. M. C. 583 .......... 754 
 
 ZoUverein, Swabev, 96 ; 2 Jur. (x.s.) 429 : 4 W. R. 555 . . . 700, 761 
 ZuCall, 44 L. J. A\lm. 16 ; 32 L. T. 571 : 23 W. R. 328 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 
 587 • . . 125, 1009 
 
 Zugasti V. Lamer, The Novtli American and Tin- Tecla Ciinnen. 12 iloore. 
 
 P. C. 331 ; Swabe}-, 358 736 
 
 Zulueta r. Twie, 15 Beav. 577 ........ 543 
 
 Zwilchcnbart i: .\lexander, 1 B. A: S. 234: 30 L. ,1. (). B. 254: 7 -lur. 
 
 (n.s.) 1157 : 4 L. T. 412 : 9 W. R. 670— Ex. Ch. . 919 
 r. Henderson, 9 Ex. 722 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 234 . . .390
 
 ADDENDA ET CORIUGENDA. 
 
 for "Ir. i;. 9 CIi. -JO,' 
 
 d "Ir. R. 
 
 •Col. 38 . . Kirhy r. Hodgson : r«((^ "Kirklcy ?•. Hodgson." 
 
 .loiie.s, Eximi-ic: for "4 M;in. k (\. 4.o0," read "4 M. & S. 
 
 450." 
 Cole r. Doylo : read "Cole r. I'arkiii." 
 
 Moss V. Mills : add "Kain v. Old, 2 E. & C. 627 : 2 L. .1. K. 
 B. 102; 4 1). & R. 52." 
 
 42 . . For ""Watson r. Slielli-y, 1 Term Rep. 30," read "Walton r. 
 
 Shelley, 1 Term Rep. 296 " 
 
 43 . . "Owner — Ownership of Cargo — Evidence. — As against a 
 
 wrongdoer the shipowner is ^)/7'wi(( /acu' owner of the goods 
 on Vioard. Bnuieker v. Moli\neux, 2 B. & C. 627." 
 ., 48 . . Blunt r. Cnniyus : /-/;• '■ 2 Ves. 331," read "2 Ve.s. Sen. 331." 
 
 ,, 60 . . Miller v. Mackay : for "34 Beav. 295," read "31 Beav. 295." 
 Jlauners v. Raeburn : for " 10 Ct. of Sess. Gas. (4tli ser.) 
 899," read " 11 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4tli ser.) 899." 
 ^, 61 . . Brenan r. Preston : for "2 W. R. 138," read "2 De O. M. 
 & (;. 813— L.JJ. ; and see ,S'. 6'., I AV. R. 69, 86. 122, 172." 
 ^, 73 . . Lord Advocate r. Grant : rcftc^ " Lord Advocate r. Clyde Steam 
 
 Xavigation Co." 
 Cameron v. Nystrom -.for " 48 L. T. 722," read " 68 L. T. 722." 
 ^j 74 . . "Common Carrier- Indian Law. — 'l"he lialiility in India of a 
 shipowner as a cummon carrier is governed b}* the Knglish 
 common law, and is not alfected by the Indian Contract 
 Act, 1872. Irratciiildji Flotilla, Co. v. Biigicandass, 65 L. T. 
 595 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 129— I'.C." 
 ,, 75 . . Barclay v. Cucnlla z Cama: for "3 Dowl. 389." read "3 
 
 Dougl. 389." 
 ,, 77 . . Moore v. ^Midland 1 
 
 9 C. L. 20." 
 ,, 81 . . Michell ;;. Brown: fir "28 L. .1. .Adi 
 
 , M. C. 53." 
 ,, 83 . . Headley r. Pinckney i^ Sons' Steamship Co. The tirst words 
 of the paragraph should read as follows : "The captain of a 
 merchant ship is a fellow servant of the seamen ; and the 
 shipowner is not liable for." &c. And aild liere and at cols. 
 73, 135, ''S.F. Leddy V. Gibson, 11 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd 
 ser.) 304." 
 ,, 92 . , Sir Charles Napier: for "43 L. T. 364; 4 Asp. M. C. 321," 
 
 ■read "42 L. T. 167 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 231." 
 ,, 93 . , Huntley v. Sanderson: for "1 Car. & M. 467," read "1 
 
 Cronii)t. & Mus. 467 ; 2 L. .1. Ex. 204." 
 ,, 144 . . Fm- " Burrell v, McBragne, Islay (Owner of) r. Patience, 22 
 Ct. of Ses.s. Cas. (4th ser.) 224," read '.McBrayne r. 
 Patience, The Islay, 20 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser. i 224'." 
 ,, 161-164 . Bomba : vcrtt^ " Bon ita." 
 ,, 166 . . Douglas v. Ru.ssell : before "4 Sim. .'i33," inserl " 1 Myl. & K. 
 
 488. Affirming," &c. 
 ,, 167 . . Wills V. Burrell : add " Cf. Baylcv r. ('hadwick, 39 L. T. 429 ; 
 
 4 Asp. M. C. 59." 
 ,, 170 . . Delete "Payne v. Smitii." 
 ,, 177 . . Stephens ('. Sole: delete "1 Ves. 352, S. C." 
 
 ,, 197 . . Johnson v. Shippen : for " 11 Mod. 79," read " 6 Mod. 79." 
 ,, 200 . . Stalfordshire : delete "25 L. T. 137." 
 ,, JJOI . . Hersey : add " Affirmed, 3 Moore, P. C. 5." 
 ^, 220 . . Edward Oliver: delete "the references," and read ",v;<^*/'rt, 
 
 col. 216." 
 Priscilhi: for "2 L. T. 272," read "1 L. T. 272." 
 
 read "28 L. .1.
 
 ADDENDA ET COEPJGENDA. 
 
 CXXXIX 
 
 S'. (J. ill C. A." re«d 
 8 Asp. M. C. 
 
 . T. 479 
 
 '-14 I,. 
 
 C. ]8," 
 
 M. C. 
 
 T. OOt) " ; ana 
 rrad " 2 As]). 
 r!02." read "4 
 
 Col. 225 . . Aline : for " 2 W. Rob. Ill," rccul " 1 W. Rob. 111." 
 Gla.scott V. Lang : delete "2 Ph. 323." 
 ,, 231 . . Bowdeii, K.e imrle: read "Esposito r. Bowden, infra, col. 
 
 1142." 
 ,, 244 . . ('a]iper v. Wallace: fur "3 Asp. M. C. 223," '/t«(/ " 4 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 223." 
 ,, 252 , . Ricliardsons, Samuel & ("o., In re : fm 
 "Affirmed, 66 L. J. (,). 15. S68 ; I'l L 
 330." 
 ,, 253 . . Alhanibra -.for "43 L. T. 636," read ■ 
 
 at col. 243 
 ., 200 . . Corklin^f c. Masse)': fur "1 As}i. M. 
 
 M. C. IS." 
 ,, 289 . . Postlctliwaite v. Freeliody : for " 7 As] 
 
 Asp. M. ('. 302." 
 ,, 314 . . Grieves c. King: add "Cf. iliima Craig Stcanislii]i Co. v. 
 Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, jjondon and (liina. 66 
 L. J. (,>. B. 339 : [1897] 1 (,). B. 460 ; 76 L. T. :!lo ; 45 
 W. R. 338 ; S As]). M. C. 241." 
 ,, 331. . Pickering; r. Barclay :,/o/- "2 Holle Alir. 248," rmf? "2 Rolle 
 
 Abr. 58 ; Style, 132." 
 ,, 336. . Swift: /w "5 C. Rob. 320," m<'? "1 Dods. 320." 
 ,, 356 . . Dick v. Lunisden : for *' Peake, 251," read "1 Peakc, 189." 
 
 ,, 383 . . Sibsou r. Ship Barcraig Co. : /or "2 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th 
 ser.) 91," read "24 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th scr.) 91." 
 Asfar r. Blundell : fur "[1895] 2 Q. 15. 196." /wr/ ""1896] 1 
 (,>. B. 123. Attinning, 1.^. 1!. 481." 
 ,, 392 . . Boson c.Sandford : for " Levinz, pp. 3, 258," rend " Levinz, 
 • pt. 3, 258." 
 
 Mitchell r. Burn : /w "2 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4tli ser.) 900," 
 read "1 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4tli ser.) 90(i." 
 ,. 399 . . Collier v. Hinde : delete " 17 L. T. 341. ■ 
 
 404 . . Sanders i: Vanzeller : delete "2 0. & I). 244." 
 
 Moeller r. Young : for " 3 .liir. (n.s.) 393,"?rrt(? " 2 Jur. (n.s.) 
 393." 
 416 . . Capper c 
 
 425 . . Hogarth 
 
 read " 
 444 . . Brown t. 
 485 . . Harris /■. 
 487 . . Sccger r. 
 
 C. !'. 65 : 
 E.\. Ch." 
 526 . . \Vaj,'.stalf 1-. Anderson -.fur "44 L. T. 720," read "42 L. T. 720." 
 
 555 , . AVillianis r. Dobbie : for "10 Ct. of Sess. Ca.s. (4th ser.) 982," 
 read, "11 Ct. of Sess. Ca.s. (4tli ser.) 982." 
 
 556 . . (Jannan v. Meaburn : f</r "1 L. J. (o.s. ) C. P. S'i," read "2 
 L. .). (o..s.) K. ]J. 60 " ; and delete " 2 Moore. 633 " ; and .so 
 at col . 738. 
 
 564 . . Firth r. Forbes :/«>•" 1 .lur. \.s. , 1113: In A\'. K. 291," 
 read ".S.Tur. rN,.s.) 115; 11 W. H. 14." 
 
 576 . " Stoppage in Transitu Goods in hands ofWarehouseman. — 
 
 (looils pinrli:iscd of r,. in Ijinidon, by A. !i\iiig at l''al!i!<putli, 
 Were shipped for i''aliiii)Ulli, :ind "ii tin- same <lay an invoice 
 was sent by B. to A. On arrival of tlic steamer at I^'alinontli 
 the gnods were landed and taken to C."s warehou.se. C. was 
 in the liabit of warehousing goods at the lisk and subject to 
 the ord'-r of the consignee, with tlie e.xciusive right, as 
 betwe<Mi hini.self and the sliijiow-nei-s, of delivering to tlie 
 consignee. Five days after A.'s bankruptcy, l>. tidegrapheil 
 to C. not to deliver the goods; — Ibdd, tliat the transitns 
 was not at an enil,aiid that 11. had the right to stop deliverv. 
 llarniir, K.e ,,arli\ ]Vues,l,ll, In /v , 6 Cli. I). 783: 46 \,. J. 
 Bk. 71 ; .".6 I,. T. 325 : 25 W. ];. 4';f; : 3 Asp. M. C. 387." 
 •" Stoppage in Transitu Goods on board Ship of Purchaser. — 
 B. dt (Ji(., acting as Hgeiit.'- in Kngland for a foreign principal, 
 ]iur. 'based from V. \: Co., in F.nglaml, cement for the New 
 V'ork market. The cement was (jrdered to be sent alongsidi- 
 a vessel which B. >V Co. hail |iiircha.sed for their principal, and 
 was shipped on bnard that vessel. .Mate's leieipts for the 
 <'.enient were Niken liv F. A; Co., and handed by llieni to 
 P.. & S., who exchanged them for bills of hniing, in which 
 1>. \ S. weie mimed as ship]ieis, making the cemejit didiver- 
 
 . Kdister :./;//• "3 Scott, 129," rccul •' 5 Scott, 129." 
 r. .Miller ; lur "16 Ct. of Se.ss, Cas. (4th ser.) 599," 
 18 Ct. of Se.^^.s. Cas i4th .ser.) 599." 
 Tanner : Reversed on another point : see col. 396. 
 Best Ryley : delete "Ityley." 
 
 Duthie': add "Aliirmed. 8 C. B. (n.s.) 72 ; 30 L. J. 
 Jur. (.\.s.) 239 ; 3 L. T. 478 ; 9 \V. W. 166—
 
 •xl 
 
 ADDENDA ET COKIMGENDA. 
 
 674 
 
 68/ 
 
 688 
 690 
 696 
 
 697 
 70(J 
 704 
 
 706 
 
 70S 
 
 715 
 
 
 alik- to tlic (iidur of V>. k S. 1!. & S. <f:i\c directions as to 
 the destination of tlic goods and tin^ sailim^ of the \esscl. 
 During the voyage to JS'ew York B. .'t S. hoeanie bankru[)t. 
 F. ik Co., who knew that the ship belonged to the princiiial 
 of 15. & S., and that tlie cement was liougiit for liim, chnnied 
 as nuiKiid veii(h)rs to stop it in tiansitu : — lltdd, that tliey 
 were not enlith'd to st(i|) it. I'nuiii Si/ni it' ,V";/, Fraitris, 
 E.v pidtr, 56 L. T. 577 ; 4 Aioriell, 146 : (! xYsji. M. C. 13S." 
 Col. .'i77 . . FowU'r r. iMcTaggart : for '• Kvnirr," irmf " Kynier." Add 
 "Cf. Wright'r. Mi'tciiell. \< Ct. of Sess. • Cas. (.3rd ser.) 
 r.l6."' 
 580 . . Sheppard r. Wrigiit : f-n- "Shower, P, C. 23," rm(/ 
 
 P. C. 18. ■■ 
 582 . . Pichardson v. Nourse : fm- "3 Pi. & Ad. 237," 
 
 P,. .^ Ahh 237." 
 
 584 . . Da Co-ta /•. Xewnhani : dc/i/c "2 Purr. 407." 
 
 585 . . ytewart r. West India & I'aeifie Steamship Co. : fnr "1 As[). 
 11. C. 528," rend "2 Asp. M. C. 32" ; and at col. 1246. 
 
 595 . . Cambrian: add "Cf. The Plelvctia, 8 A.sp. M. C. 264, v." 
 
 For "Rex. r. Cinqne Ports (Lord Vrarden)," riud "Cinque 
 
 Ports (Lord Warden) v. The King in his olhce of Admiralty." 
 602 . . Duke of Manchester: for "2 W. h'ob. 470." &c., rend "6 
 
 :\loore. P. ( '. 90. Altirnung, 2 W. Rob. 470," &c. 
 607 . . Nellie : for " 21 L. T. 51 H," rmd " 29 L. T. 516." 
 
 618 . . Charlotte Wylie : for "2 W. Rob. 495," read " 
 495." 
 
 619 . . Sappho: /;/,• "24 L. T. 795. '' rrod "28 L. T. 8 
 ]\1. C. 4. ' 
 
 622 . . llaiipy l.'etnru : ad,l "The I'avorite, 2 W. Rob. 25." 
 
 624 . . For "Colly v. 'Watson," read " Colby r. Watson." 
 631 . . Xoriiia : for "5 L. T. 340," read ".3 L. T. 340." 
 635 . . Ella Constance: /or " 15 [;. .1. Adni. V.>]," read 
 
 Adni. 191." 
 639 . . Schiller, Can/oex: delete "3 Asp. M. C. 226." 
 
 648 . . Pabiivra : for "25 L. T. 804 ; 1 Asp. i\I. C. 278," read 
 
 P. T. 884 : 1 Asp. M. C. 182." 
 662 . . "Salvage — Jurisdiction Service 
 stranded on the Knglisli coast 
 
 with a foreign salvage i-juijiany to jiay them half the value 
 of the ship when salved. She was floated and brought to 
 Southampton. The salvage eoni]iany instituted a salvage 
 action claiming payment of tlu- sum agreed upon : — Held, 
 that there was no jurisdiction to order service of the writ 
 upon the defendants, because there was no obligation upon 
 them to pay the money within the jiu'isdicrion, within the 
 meaning of Order XL, r. 1 (r.) ; and that the existences of 
 the salvage lien maib' no dilferenee. I'hf. Elder, Neptune 
 ^alrai/e i'o. v. Norddevtseher JJoi/d, 62 L. J. Adm. 65 ; 
 [1893] P. 119 ; 1 R. 593 ; 69 L. T. 622 : 7 Asi>. M. C. 354 
 — C. A." ; and at eol. 975. 
 "Salvage — Tender — Costs. — Where the tender was adequate 
 and the salvors had incurred no risk-, the Court nevertheless 
 refu.sed to condemn tlie .salvors in costs. Peculiarity of 
 .salvage cases in this respect. T/x JViUiam, 5 Xot. of Cas. 
 108." 
 C.eneral Steam Xavigation Co. r. Morrison: add "Affirmed, 8 
 Ex. 733 : 22 L. .1. lv\. 233 ; 17 Jur. 5(i7 : 1 W. R. Ill — 
 Ex. Ch." 
 Nor: dflete "22 W. P. 30" ; and at col.s. 697, 805. 
 Scotni : add " Cf. The Dunstanborough. [1892] P. 363, «." 
 ,Iohn Fenwick: /iw " L. R. 4 A. .Ce. 500," 7wr^ " L. R. 3 
 
 A. & E. 500 " ; and at col. 88. 
 Sea Xymph : delete "15 L. T. 103" ; and at col. 809. 
 Agua<lillana : for "30 L. T. >S\irre'id " <i0 L. T. 897." 
 Secret: add "The Thomas Powell and The Cuba, 14 L. T. 
 
 603." 
 AVilliam Lindsay: delete "22 W. R. 6." 
 For " Inliexil>le," o-ead " Ironmastei'." 
 Palestine: delete "1 A.sp. M. C. 468." 
 
 River Wear Commissioners r. Adamson : /'*/• " 4() L. .1. 'X P>. 
 83 ; 24 W. R. 872." read "47 L. J. (}. 15. 193 : 26 W. R. 
 217." 
 '19 . . Sisters : for "6 Asp. M. C. 583," read "-3 Asp. M. C. 122." 
 
 ] W. Rob. 
 25 ; 2 Asp. 
 
 "33 L. .L 
 
 of Writ. — A foreign ship 
 and her master contracted
 
 ADDENDA ET COEEIGEXDA. 
 
 cxli 
 
 Col. 7-J4 
 
 „ 753 
 
 „ 761 
 
 ,, 7«9 
 
 786 
 J99 
 
 805 
 808 
 
 Sll 
 
 818 
 
 8-22 
 820 
 
 827 
 
 837 
 839 
 
 840 
 
 841 
 8411 
 
 8r.8 
 
 860 
 S63 
 
 87'.* 
 
 881 
 M:>, 
 
 !tln 
 
 !" ; and at col. SoP. 
 read "L. R. 3 P. C. 
 
 . C. 114," read "53 
 
 ' 4 Asp. M. C. 360 " 
 
 Compagnie Franoaise dc 
 
 "1 Spinks, 31." 
 ■6L. 
 
 400," 
 
 Charkieh : for " 22 W. R. 437," rmf? " 21 W. R. 437." 
 
 "Wild Ranger: fur "32 L. J. Adni. 49," read '^31 L. J. Ad 
 
 206." 
 Vera Cruz : for "9 P. D. 96." read "9 P. D 
 
 Ocean Wave : for "L. R. 5 P. C. 205," 
 205 " : and at col. 774. 
 
 Rhosina : for "53 L. T. 210 : 5 Asp. JI 
 L. T. 30 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 460." 
 
 Kliedive : for " 4 Asp. M. C. 567," read " 
 and at col. 818. 
 
 Rose : add '• Inflexible, H.M.S., Swabey, 32." 
 
 " Collision — Article 16— Steamship dead in the water — Fog. — 
 A steamship lying dead in tlie water, in a dense fog, on 
 hearing a whistle, may get sucli way on her as will enable 
 lier to keep under command. The Earl of Dumfries, The 
 Boskenna Bay, 5 Asp. if. C. 329 n." 
 
 Traveller : for '' 2 W. Rob. 197,'^ read " 3 Hag. Adm. 370." 
 
 Peckferton Castle : for "38 L. T. S16," read '• 37 L. T. 816 " : 
 and at col. 810. 
 
 For '-St. Andrew.s," read- "St. Audries. " 
 
 Independence: for "4 L. T. 553: 9 W. R. 587," read " 4 
 L. T. 563 ; 9 W. R. 582. " 
 
 Emmy Haase : delete "Maclareu ? 
 Navigation a Vapeur." 
 
 Panther : for " 6 Spinks, 31," read 
 
 Mreauder, and The P'lorenee Xightingale : for 
 read " 8 L. T. 34 " ; and at col. 822. 
 
 River Derwent : for "64 L. T. 500," read "62 L. T. 45, 
 infra, col. 834." 
 
 Dorrington's Case : fur " Moo. 916," read "Sir F. Moore. 916." 
 
 Alexandria: add ''S. P., The Urania, 5 L. T. 402"; and at 
 cols. 144, 945. 
 
 Malvina:/o?- "lyiish. 495," &c., read " P>r. & Lush. 57, &i-. 
 Atlinning, Lush. 459." 
 
 "Parties — Amendment of Writ — Name of PlaintiiF. — In an 
 action in personam lor collision, the name of the agent, 
 instead of that of the owner of the cargo was by mistake 
 inserted in the writ, and the mistake was not discovered 
 imtil the case had been carried to the House of Lords, when- 
 the defendant's ship was found to be alone in fault :- Ibid, 
 that the judgment in an iVdmiralt}' action not being final, 
 the writ could l>e amended by substituting as jilaintiff tlie 
 name of the cargo-owner fur that of the agent. The J hike of 
 Bucclcurjh, 61 L. J. Adm. 57 ; [1892] P. 201 ; 40 AV 
 455 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 294— C. A." And at cols. 974, 975. 
 
 Haswell : add "S.P., The Amelia, Lush. 311— P. ('." 
 
 Earl Spencer :/c;r "4 Asji. M. C. 523," reail " 2 As]). i\I 
 
 William Hutt : dele/e " 1 Swabey, 696 ; 2 L. T. 448 " 
 col. 855. 
 
 En<leavour: fur "rem," rrad "sum." 
 
 Daioz: delete "The Daioz." And delete " i7 L.J. 
 37 L. T. 137 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 377— C. A." 
 
 Rigborgs Minde : /iyr " 8 P. D. 11 7 : 49 L. T. 23 ; 5 Asji 
 
 R. 
 
 C. , 
 
 and at 
 
 Adm. 1 
 
 M. C 
 
 460," read "8 P. I). 132 : 49 L. T. 232 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 127. 
 Peerless: drl,-/r "Lu.sli. 30." 
 Seine : f„r "2 L. T. 340," read " 1 L. T. 340 " 
 P.atnit r. Hartley : >>• " L. R. 9 (,). H. 594; 29 L. T. 9(;S," 
 
 read " L. R. 7 <^ 15. 594 ; 26 L. T. 968." 
 For "Daviesi*. Petley," read "Dimes r. Petley." 
 Huchannn /•. CJvdc Lighflmnscs Truslei-s : for "lOCt. of Sess. 
 CaK. Mtli ser.j 5.",!, " r-v^/ "1 1 Ct. ofSess.'Cas. (4lh ser.)531." 
 "Unsafe berth Liability Government Dockyard.— .\ bargo 
 belonging to tlic jilaiiitill's was moored in ( lialliiim |)oikyard 
 in a beitli, pointed out by the iKrcman, .nid was then 
 damaged. In an action to recover the damage liom the 
 Port Admiral, the Ailmiral Superintendent, and the (,)ueen's 
 Harbour Master, the olljcials in eliarge of tiie !)(»ckyarii, the 
 jury found that tlie berth was unsafe, iinil fouml a verdict 
 for the plaint ills. Held, that the doctrine of risjmiid<u/ 
 fticprriur did not apply ; and that thiMi; being no evidence 
 that the defeiiclants invited the plaiiitilfs to the berth, they 
 were not liable. Jl'ri'/ht v. Letldiridge, 63 L. T. 572 ; ti 
 Asp. M, C. 558— C. A."
 
 cxlii ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA. 
 
 Col. i>22 . , Peacock v. Lucv : add " l>iit see Itcxv. Coombe, 1 Leacli C. C. 
 388." 
 "Locality — Criminal Jurisdiction. — The Central Criminal Court 
 and the High Court of Admiralty had no jurisdiction to try 
 for nianslauf:;hter the foreign master of a foreign ship who 
 drowned a British subject by collision with a British ship 
 within two miles of Dover pier. Eeg. v. Keipi, The Fran- 
 conia, 2 Ex. D. 63 ; 26 L. J. M. C. 17." 
 ,, 927 . . Johnson v. Drake: add "Gwynne and Constantine'.s Case, 
 cited Godb. 386." 
 Mcretone v. Gibbons: read " Menetone r. Gibbons" ; and at 
 cols. 198, 201, 925. 
 ,, 928 . . Walker v. Adams : for "2 Keb. 201, 722," read " 2 Keb. 215, 
 227." 
 Barljcr r. Wharton : /or "2 Barnard. 2," read " 1 Barnard. 
 K. B. 2." 
 ^, 929 . . .Tohnson v. Shippen : for " Mod. 79," raid "6 Mod. 79." 
 ,, 930 . . Waltham y. Mulgar : /ar "Moore, 776," read " Sir F. .Moore, 
 
 776." 
 ,, 932 . . Bennet v. Buggin : for "4 Burr. 2032," read "3 Burr. 
 
 2035." 
 ,, 933 . . Medenham v. Foliam -.for " Gibb. 9," rcail "Gilb. 9." 
 
 Wharton : /or "3 Hag. Adm. 141 n.," read "3 Hag. Adm. 
 
 148 n." 
 Read v. Chapman -.for "Keb. 394," read "2 W. Kel. K. B. 
 226." 
 ,. 934. . Spark r. Stafford : /or "Havdr. 185," nm/ "Hardr. 1S3." 
 
 Tlionison v. Smith : delete " 2 Ld. Kayni. 805." 
 ., 935 . . i- or " Hill's Case," rcrtfZ "Anon." 
 
 l, 938 . . Stafibrdshire : for " 25 L. T. 137," read " 27 L. T. 46." 
 ., 951 . . "Admiralty — Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870 — Tug Towing 
 Prize. — A French ship of war captured in the English 
 Channel a Prussian ship. A prize crew was put on board, 
 and the ship was subsequently driven by weather into tlie 
 Downs, and anchored in British waters. The French consul 
 at Dover engaged a British tug to tow the prize to Dunkirk 
 Roads : — Held, that an offence under s. 8 of the above Act 
 had been committed, and that the tug was forfeited to the 
 Crown. 2'Ac Gauntlet, Dyke v. Elliott, 41 L. J. Adm. 65 ; 
 L. i;. 4 P. C. 184 ; 26 L. T. 45 ; 20 W. R. 497 : 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 211." 
 
 " Arrest — Release on Bail. — Wliere a ship is arrested for 
 
 an alleged oifence under the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870, the 
 Court ma}% with the consent of the Crown, order the ship 
 to be released on bail. The Clttindlet, L. R. 3 A. & E. 319 ; 
 24 L. T. 897: 1 Asp. M. C. 45." 
 " Telegraph Cable. — During war between France and Ger- 
 many an English company contracted with the French govern- 
 ment to lay down telegraph cables on the French coast, so 
 as to complete a line of communication between Dunkirk 
 and Verdon. The cable was shipped on board a vessel at 
 London, which was arrested for violation of the Foreign 
 Enlistment Act, 1870. It was proved that the undertaking 
 was primarily of a commercial and not of a military or naval 
 character : — Held, that the shi]i must be released. The 
 International. 40 L. J. Adm. 1 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 321 ; 23 
 L. T. 787." 
 
 "- Foreign Enlistment Act, 59 Geo. 3, c 69. — A British 
 
 subject, in the service of a fijreign ]irince at peace with this 
 country, captured a British vessel, which was afterwards 
 lawfully condemned as prize for bieaking blockade : — Held, 
 that he was not liable to an action at the suit of the owner. 
 Dohrcc v. Napier, 2 Bing. (n.c) 781; 3 Scott, 201; 5 
 L. J. C. P. 273." 
 ,, 956 . . John v. Siegmund : cald "But see The Experimento, 2 Dods. 
 
 38 (where the claimants were IJiitish)." 
 ., 957 . . "Writ — Foreign Corporation — Address. — A writ in personam 
 for service within the jurisdiction, addressed to a foreign 
 corporation, without giving its address, set aside. Tlic 
 W. A. Sholten, 57 L. J. Adm. 4 ; 13 P. D. 8 ; 58 L. T. 91 ; 
 36 W. R. 559 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 244." 
 „ 961 . . Hallidav v. Harris : delete "Albion," "27 L. T. 732." and "1 
 Asp. M. C. 481."
 
 ADDENDA ET COERIGENDA. cxliii 
 
 Col. 975 . . "Appearance — Solicitors— Attaclimeiit. — In a collision action 
 in rem solicitors accepted service of the writ, which tliey 
 endorsed to the effect that thej' accepted service on behalf of 
 the defendants, and undertook to put in bail. The defendants 
 subsequently withdrew their autliority, and the solicitois 
 did not enter an apjiearance: — Held, that they had noi 
 broken their undertaking so as to be liable to attachment. 
 The Anna and Btrta, fi4 L. T. 332 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 31." 
 
 ,, 981 . . North American : delete "2 Asp. M. C. 589." 
 
 ,, 984 . . Venus, Cunio e.r : for " L. R. 4 A. & E. 50," read " L. R. 
 1 A. & E. 50." 
 
 ,, 992 . . Ocean Steamshi]i Co. r. Andeison : fur " col. 992," rend 
 
 " col. 58:J." 
 
 ,, 997 . . "Interrogatories — Co-ownership Action — Documents — Dis- 
 covery. — In an action against a managing owner for an 
 account, the defendant must answer interrogatories as to 
 documents relating to the ship's accounts. He cannot avoid 
 answering on the ground that the books and accomits are 
 kept by a firm of which he is a member, and that the action 
 is against him individuallv. Swanstoii v. Lisliman, 48 L. T. 
 360 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 450." ' 
 
 ,, 1005 . "Collision — Damages — -Value of Ship. — The value of a ship 
 
 lost in collision is fur tlie Registrar and merchants to decide 
 in the first instance, and not for tlie Court. The Speculator, 
 10 Jur. 546." 
 
 „ 1006 . Flying Fish, H.M.S. : y-//- "2 Moore, P. C. (x.s.) 77," read 
 
 '■ :/. 3Ioore, 1'. C. (n.s. ) 77." 
 
 ,, 1011 . Annot Lyle : add "The application nmst be made to the 
 
 Court of Appeal, and not to the Ailmiralty Division. The 
 Klicdive, Stooiiivaart Maatsckappy Nedcrland v. TJic Khcdicc 
 {Owners), 5 1'. D. 1 ; 41 L. T. 392 ; 28 W. R. 364 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 182." 
 
 ,, 1013 . William Hntt : drhtr "Swal)ey, (i96 : 2 L. T. 448." 
 
 ,, 1014 . "County Court— Appeal — Prohibition. — A judge of the 
 
 Admiralty Division has all the jjowers of a judge of the High 
 Court as to prohibiting a county court judge in an Admiralty 
 matter. An a]>j)eal I'rom a refusal by him to grant a prohibi- 
 tion lies directly to the Court of Appeal, if he rc^.^uires no 
 further arguments. The lleccpta, (lordou v. Francis [1893], 
 P. 255; 1 K. 644 ; 69 L. T. 252; 41 \S. R. 561; 7 Asp. 
 M. C. 359— C. A." 
 
 ,, 1016 . M.uusley : frr "29 L. T. 663," rea,l " 27 L. T. 663." 
 
 " Admiralty Appeal from County Court — Evidence on 
 Appeal. — \\'h(i(- no note of the evidence or proceedings was 
 taken, a Divisional Court may order that tlie witnesses of 
 both parties who were examined in the court below be 
 produced and examined on the apiieal. The Crescent, Great 
 Northern Sleainsht}i Flshiiui Co. v. TJte Crescent {Oieners), 
 62 L. .1. A<lm. 63 ; 1 R. 613 ; 68 L. T. 556 ; 41 AV. R. 533 ; 
 7 Asp. M. C. 2<.t7— «'. A." 
 
 ,, 1020 . "- Costs — Higher Scale. — Co.sts on the higher scale were 
 
 allowed in an action liy shijiowners against dockowncrs for 
 damage .sustained by tlieir siiiji in taking the ground on an 
 uneven bottom ; exjiiu't evidence of engineers and surveyors 
 liaving l)ei'n i-alled as to whetin'r tlie sliij) was fit to take the 
 ground. The llolmt, [1892] 1'. 95 ; 67 L. T. 298 ; 7 Asj). 
 .\I. C. 194." 
 
 " Counsels' Fees— Refreshers. — A trial extended over 
 
 tw.j hours and a (piaiter on tiie fust day and two liours and 
 a half on the second day. Refreslmis were allowed. The 
 Courier, 61 L. .T. Adm. 11 ; [1891] P. 355; 66 E. T. 386; 
 7 As).. l\. C. 157." 
 1025 . For " Poi.iciKs, ]. Slaiuinmi, d. Leg:dity," rcail " PuMciios, 
 
 la. Lcrjalilij, l(i3.'>" ; an.l lit col. 1035. 
 1027 . For " Eos.sK.s, 4. AdjuHtnant, d. J'ayincnt, 1 266," read " LossKs, 
 
 4a. I'aymenl, 1266" ; and at col. 1266. 
 
 1036 . Pray t'. Edie:/w"2 Term. Rep. 313," r<'ad, "1 T.um. IIi^ii. 
 313." 
 
 1037 . Mackenzie ?•. Whitworth : /'or "2 Asp. .M. C. 190," reoil 
 "3 Asp. M. C. 81." 
 
 1039 . /V " Newly c. Peed, 1 W. lil. 116," r/ad, " Newby r. Reel, 
 
 1 AV. 151. 416." 
 1048 . For " lirack r. Douglas," read. " Pi'aik r. Douglas."
 
 cxliv 
 
 ADDENDA ET C01UUGENJ)A. 
 
 Col. lO.'O 
 
 ,, 10a I 
 
 „ 1059 
 
 ,, 1084 
 
 ,, 1007 
 
 ,, 1123 
 
 ,, 112t) 
 
 ,, 1139 
 
 ,, 1142 
 
 „ llf)'! 
 
 ,, 1154 
 
 „ 1157 
 
 ,, 1171 
 
 ,, 1172 
 
 „ 1202 
 
 „ 1204 
 
 1209 
 1224 
 
 1246 
 1262 
 
 1279 
 
 1308 
 1310 
 
 1328 
 1335 
 1342 
 
 2 Bos. & P. (N. R.) 153," read 
 
 ' 3 Hag. Adm. 
 E. C96," read' 
 n." read " 1 
 
 De Svnioiuls r. Shcildeu : fn 
 
 "•i I '.OS. & P. 153." 
 Hurry /•. Royal Exchaiif;e : for "2 iSos. & P. (N. ]!.)430," 
 
 redd "2 P>os. & P. 430" ; and delete " 6 R. R. 801." 
 De Wolf !•. Archangel Maritime Bank and Insurance '.'o. : for 
 
 " 39 L. T. 605," read " 30 L. T. 605." 
 Coev V. Smith : for "22 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 955," read 
 
 "22 Milne, Ct. of Sess. Cas. 95.5." 
 Vallejo r. Wheeler : for " Cowp. 143," read. " 1 Cowp. 143." 
 Bowrin.r; r. Elmslie : add "And see Elton r. Brogden, 2 Str. 
 1264 ; De Frise r. Stephens, Marshall Ins. (4th ed.) 413, ?i." 
 Dixon V. Wliitworth. Reversed, as to salvage ; see 49 L. J. 
 
 C. P. 408— C. A. ; and at col. 1132. 
 Lady Durham : for "3 Hag. Adni. 201," reael ' 
 
 196." 
 Cousins r. Nantes: for "3 Taunt. 512; 13 R 
 
 "3 Taunt. 513 ; 12 R. R. 696." 
 Delmada v. Motteux : /or "1 Term. Rep. 85, 
 
 Term. Rep. 89, n." ; and at col. 1209. 
 Dent. V. Smith : add '•' Followed Messina v. Petrococchino, 41 
 L. J. P. C. 27 ; L. R. 4 P. C. 144 ; 26 L. T. 561 ; 20 W. R.. 
 451 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 298 " ; and at col. 1257. 
 Thompson r. Hopper: for 'El. Bl. & El. 10 i9," read "El. 
 
 Bl. & El. 1038." 
 Shore r. Bentall : for " 1 M. & Ry. Ill," read " 1 j\Ian. & Rv. 
 
 680, «." 
 Fisher r. Ogle: add " Cf. Christie v. Sccretan, 8 Term. Rep. 
 
 192." 
 Geyer r. Aguilar : add "Bell v. Carstairs, 14 East, 374 ; 12 
 (;. R. 557 ; Baring i-. Christie, 5 East, 398 ; 1 Smitli, 462 : 
 2 Smith, 142 ; 7 R. R. 719." 
 "Illegality as to part of the goods.— If a vessel brings goods 
 under a license and also goods not licensed, the insurance on 
 the licensed goods is not thereby vitiated. Pieschell v. 
 Allnutt, Ficscliell v. Laire, 4 Taunt. 792; cf. Keir v. 
 Andraade, 2 Marsh. 196 ; 6 Taunt. 498." 
 Boulton r. Dobree : add " Cf. liranckner /;. Nesbitt, 6 Term. 
 
 Rep. 23 ; De Tastet r. Taylor, 4 Taunt. 233." 
 Leevin v. Cormac : add " But see Willianis v. Marshall, Q 
 
 Taunt. 390 ; 7 Taunt. 468 ; 2 Marsh. 92 ; 1 Moore, 168." 
 For "Anon. 1 Chit. 53," read " Wright t'. Welbie, 1 Chit. 49." 
 For " d. Payment," rcad^ " 4a. Payment " ; ami at col. 1266. 
 For "Naylor v. Palmer," read "Palmer v. Naylor " ; delete 
 
 "8 Ex. 739." 
 For "Harley v. Millvvard," 7-ead "Hurley r. Millwnrd." 
 Rogers v. JIaylor : for "Peake's Add. Cas. 37," read "1 Park, 
 
 Ins. (8th ed.) 267." 
 "Abandonment— Notice — Time.— A recaptured ship was carried 
 into a distant jxirt, and there sold for the benefit of all 
 concerned ; and the assured gave directions to tlie agent to 
 have the proceeds remitted to him. Four months after the 
 loss, he gave notice of abandonment : — Held, too late. 
 Allwood V. HcitekeU, 1 Park Ins. (8th ed.) 399." 
 For "Natusch v. Symondson," read "Natuschr. Hendewerk.'" 
 Boddington r. Castelli : add " S.P. Luckie v. Bushby, 13 
 C. B. 864 ; 1 C. L. R. 685 ; 22 L. J. C. P. 220 ; 17 Jur. 625 ; 
 1 W. R. 455." 
 Peron v. Frome : for "2 Barnard. 304," 
 
 K. B. 304." 
 Paul V. Knight: for "2 Keb. 222," read " 
 
 222." 
 Peele r. Northcote : for "16 R. R. 655," read "18 R. R. 
 
 rea(t "1 P>arnard. 
 AV. Kelyng. K. B.
 
 H S^iGcet 
 
 OF CASES RELATING TO 
 
 SHIPPING, ADMIRALTY 
 
 AND 
 
 INSURANCE LA^^\ 
 
 A. SHIPPING. 
 
 I. lU'iLDiNG Repairs and Tonxagi:. 
 
 1. Cimtnict for, 14. 
 
 2. Adra>UT.s/iir. 17. 
 
 '■i. Property in I 'iiji nixhrd I full. I'.i. 
 
 4. lianlirnptrij of Oicncr nr Hnildcr. '1\. 
 
 :,. Lirii. 
 
 II. Of Shipwriglit. 'IW. 
 
 h. Of Othois. L'4. 
 <p. Tiiiiiiinir. '2'). 
 
 II. N'ATKiNAr, CHAUACTEU. I'C. 
 
 III. llE<;i.sTi:ATION. 
 
 1. I'lidcr Mrrrliiiiit Sh'ipp'inij Ai-lx. 
 II. Title by, 2S. 
 
 h. Foreit^n Owners — Forelj,'ii Slii|i~. 2'.i. 
 
 r. Sliijjs owned by I'aitiiers. :!(». 
 
 d. Certificate. HO. 
 
 /■. Ini|>i()|)er ReLristratidii. :{:.'. 
 
 f. Iv|iiitiible Interests. '.W. 
 
 I/. Old KcLristry Aft>. .•(•;. 
 //. Miserlhineoiis. '.is. 
 
 2. Iti'iiixl ration at IJoijiV x. '{K. 
 
 !V. Ow.NKIlS. 
 
 1. ^\ho,^rr. 
 11, Evi(lence(ifOwnerslii|) — Tiie I.'i'gister, 
 
 4(1. 
 //. Other Plviilence. 42. 
 V. Generally, 4:$. 
 
 2. I'lirt OinirvK. 
 II. Are Tenants in ( (innrinii. II. 
 Ii. liifriits and liialiiiities Ix tucrii ilicni- 
 
 selves, 4.'>. 
 /•. Itiirhts and liabilities airainst and to 
 
 Others. .-.1. 
 d. Ilct'usinrr t(i NaviLTate. .'il'. 
 ?i. MaiKiijiiKJ Oirncriind Shifix llnslmnd . ■"••". 
 
 4. Liuhilitij on Coiitrnrt. 
 
 a. Necessaries and Kepairs. (>l. 
 h. Liability of Part Owners. (iC. 
 
 c. In other Gases, (iS. 
 
 ."). Lidhilifij and llighfx in Tort. 
 
 a. Injury caused by or to Ship. (!'.•. 
 
 h. Injury to Crew, 73. 
 
 r. Unseaworthiness — Overloadiiiir. 78. 
 (i. Liahilitij a.'s Carrier. 
 
 a. Aj)art from Contract, 74. 
 
 h. Under C'ontract of Carriai^e. 7(!. 
 r. Liability to rassen,ii:ers. 7S. 
 7. Limitation of Liahil if ij, 7'.i. 
 
 5. Olf'ence.'< />//, 7'.l. 
 
 V. Master. 
 
 1. 1'o.iifion, Dntirx, and Liiil>iiitii:i. Sii. 
 
 2. Anthoritij to hind Oirnem, S:{. 
 
 I). Aiifhorily to .sell Shtji or f'ari/o, S7. 
 4. I'riniai/e and I'reniiiiinx, .S'.t. 
 ."i. Wiifirx and Dixhnrxenirntx. 
 rt.'(JeneralIy, Si>. 
 
 b. i.ien. '.I7." 
 
 V. Priorities. Kil. 
 
 d. Forfeiture. lti>. 
 
 e. Forei{,ni Master. Mil. 
 C. liarrutrij, Id."). 
 
 7. Crrtijieate. KlC. 
 
 VI. Seame.v (incliidiii.Lr 4'iia.mi:s \\'ati;i{Mi:n). 
 
 1 . 1 1 'aijex. 
 
 11. OeiK'ially. Inc>. 
 h. (!ontract. 
 
 i. Stamp. I 1:5. 
 ii. Form. III. 
 
 iii. Division of I'rolits, 1 I.'., 
 iv. Additional Wajzes. 11.".. 
 V. Allowance for Short I'rovision.s, 
 
 117. 
 vi. Advance Note. 1 I 7.
 
 SHIPPING. 
 
 vii. .lurisdiclioii t.> set asiilc I'n- 
 
 reasoiiable C'outi-ai'ts, IIS. 
 viii. Dissolution, 1 IS. 
 
 c. Lion — I'liovitics. ll'.l. 
 
 d. llecoverv of Wa.ui's. 
 
 1. Wlio Liable. 121. 
 ii. Ui.uht to sue Uarrol TiS. 
 iii. F(iieigii Seamen or Ship, 124. 
 iv. Advance Note, 1 2."). 
 c. Practice, 12(). 
 JMirrtion, Mixconduct mid Forfrlt iirc. 1 2S. 
 Prorecdi/ifjx (ujanixt Sriiwcii. VVl. 
 Buiij and LhihUltij of M'l.-trr or .S7//>- 
 
 oiviirr, 133. 
 Author it !i of Mn-^tcr to pinilsji^ VM;. 
 (Wfiticnte of Cliii meter. 137. 
 Protei'f ion from. Inipoxit'ioii. 137. 
 WilU of Seamen, 13S. 
 Iiiiprexsmeiit, 13S. 
 Sli/i/di/inu irithoi/t Licence. 13".). 
 Thiniiex U'literiiieii, 13'.). 
 
 VII. Pilot. 
 
 1. lieeorcrji of Feex and P.-miUies. \\\. 
 
 2. Biitie.'i, Mii/Jifx.and Liiihi'itie.-:, 144. 
 
 3. Lieenee.s, 14."). 
 
 4. Duty to Emjdoij. 147. 
 
 VIII. Sale and Transfeu. 
 
 1. Contract for Sfile, 147. 
 
 2. Title. 
 
 n. By Bill of Sale, ir)4. 
 /;. In other Cases, in 7. 
 
 3. Who can Sell. 
 
 a. :Managins Owners, ir.S. 
 //. Part Owners, 1.')'.). 
 e. Attorney, 1")'.). 
 
 d. Guardian of Infant, KJi). 
 
 e. Sheriff, Ifil). 
 
 f. Master. Kin. 
 
 V/ Ratification bv Owner, KJo. 
 
 ■/(. Mortgagee— Xv IX. Mortgage. 
 
 4. Sale h;/ Admiralty (oiirt. \M. 
 ."). LiahiUtics of Piireliaxcr, IC'). 
 (!. Oimiiii.s.sloii, l<i7. 
 
 IX. Mortgage. 
 
 1. Lei/al, 168. 
 
 2. Equituhle, 173. 
 
 3. Mortyayor in Po.s.se.s.si<in. 1 7."). 
 
 4. Piylit.1 of Mortyayee. 177. 
 
 ."). Beeovery if Money Advanced. ISS. 
 
 6. Prioritie.i, IS'J. 
 
 7. Liability of J/ortyiiyee, l'.)l. 
 
 5. Jiiri.idietio/1 if Admiralty ( oiirt. li)3. 
 1). /:'„.s^f.v, l'J4. 
 
 X. Bottomry. 
 
 1. lii.tlriimeid.s Amonntiny to. l'.).".. 
 
 2. Yaliditii. 
 
 ,1. Matters Affecting, IDS. 
 h. Authority of Master, 2<)(;. 
 ,-. By what' Law, 213. 
 
 3. Alloivahle Items, 214. 
 
 4. J'rioritiei, 21(!. 
 
 .-.. Mar.-ihalliiiy. 220. 
 (;. (ondition of Lo.s.^ or Payment. 221. 
 7. Interest or Premium. 223. 
 S. ,/iiri.s-diction, 22."). 
 ',). Practice, 22.">. 
 10. Costs, ■l-l'!^. 
 
 XL (HARTERPARTY. 
 
 1. Stamjiiny. 22'.). 
 
 2. The Contract. 
 
 a. Parties, 2:^0. 
 I h. Legality, 23.".. 
 
 c. (ieiierally. 
 
 i. Form and Construction, 23(5. 
 i ii. Law Aytplicable. 240. 
 
 iii. Proceeding to a Port, or as near 
 as the Ship can safely get. 
 242. 
 iv. Frost preventing Loading, 24."). 
 V. Sailing, 246. 
 vi. Other Provisions, 247. 
 vii. Evidence to E.xplain. 2.'i2. 
 
 d. Alteration, Variation and Cancella- 
 
 tion, 2r)4. 
 
 e. Conditions and Warranties. 
 
 i. Class of Ship, 2o6. 
 ii. Seaworthiness and Fitness, 
 2r)7. 
 
 iii. Position and Sailing. 260. 
 iv. Capacity, 270. 
 
 3. E-remjdiina from Liahility. 273. 
 
 4. Prori.^iong as to Bills of Ladiny and 
 
 Document.^, 278. 
 'k Pi rformanee. 
 
 a. Nominating Port, 280, 
 
 h. Hostile and Blockaded Ports, 281. 
 
 c. Deviation and Delay, 286. 
 
 //. Enforcing in Equity, 291. 
 
 6. Liahility of Charterer or Ayent, 2'.)2. 
 
 7. I)cmi.seof'shij).2'Ji. 
 
 8. Plc'idiny.^, Eridence and Damaye.^, 297. 
 
 XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 1. Stampiny. 304. 
 
 2. Form and Xature of. 
 
 a. Form, 304. 
 
 h. Duration and Currency, 305. 
 
 c. llevocability, 30."). 
 
 d. Construction, 306. 
 
 e. Presentation, 313. 
 
 3. Etf'ectof. 
 
 a. Signature by Master, 314. 
 h. Mate's Receipt, 318. 
 
 c. As to Quality, Quantity, and Date of 
 
 Shipment, 319. • 
 
 4. E.revrption.s-from Liahility. 
 
 a. Seaworthiness, Warranty, 32.">. 
 h. Liability to General Average, 327. 
 <■. Statutory Limitation, 328. 
 
 d. Perils of the Sea, 328. 
 
 e. Negligence or Fault of Master and 
 
 Crew. 333. 
 /. Other Exceptions, 338. 
 o. Indor.iement. Assiynment, and Tran.sfer. 
 (I. Generally, 343. 
 /). Passing Property, 3."0. 
 r. Condit"ionally — Drawn against Bills 
 of Exchange, 3.")9. 
 6. Pledyinj. ST).
 
 SHIPPING. 
 
 6 
 
 7. L'lfii of Sit ij) ping Atji'ut. 'M\Q 
 8 
 
 Fon/ed, 36(5. 
 XIII. Freight. 
 
 1. yature of, 'MM. 
 
 2. ^,V]^^■tt Paijiihlp. 
 
 a. Generally, 3(is. 
 h. On Transhipment. 371. 
 <■. Pro Eata Itineris. 373. 
 d. Capture, 37."). 
 
 />. Restraint of Princes — Prohilnted 
 Cargo, 377. 
 
 f. Damage to Careo — Short Delivery, 
 
 380. 
 
 g. Abandonment, Loss, or Detention of 
 
 Ship, 384. 
 
 3. Piujnu-nt. 
 
 a. To Whom. 
 
 i. Generally. 38S. 
 ii. On Assignment. 3t»2. 
 iii. On Mortgage, 3'J."j. 
 *. By Whom. 
 
 i. Consignor or Consignee, 31)7, 
 ii. Agent. Factor, Broker, or 
 Charterer, -loo, 
 iii. As<i2Tiee. Appointee. or Indoi'see. 
 402. 
 
 f. Time, 40G. 
 
 d. Manner. 
 
 i. Advance of Freight, 408. 
 ii. Bill of Exchange, 413. 
 iii. Other Cases, 414. 
 
 e. Hate and Amount. 41;"). 
 
 /'. Over-payment, Kecovery of, 42(1. 
 
 g. Tender, 42tj. 
 
 h. Payment Guaranteed, 427. 
 '. Pleadings, 427. 
 4. Lien on Cargo. 
 
 II. Creation of. 428. 
 
 h. Against Charterer or Agent with 
 
 Notice, 43(). 
 '-. Against Indoi-see or Assignee of Bill 
 
 of Lading. 440. 
 d. Waived, Suspended or Lost. 443. 
 '). Axxigninenf. 443. 
 
 XIV. Demurrage. 
 
 1. Liiih'ilitg under ('out riiH . 
 
 II. Charterer — Cesser Clause, 44(>. 
 
 h. Consignee and indorsee of Bill of 
 
 Lading, 4.jl. 
 '•. Other Cases, 4r)3. 
 
 2. .\utiic of Arriral, 4.")(). 
 
 3. Time and Calculation if Dmjx. I.")7. 
 
 4. Plavr. 4«1. 
 
 ■"). Liitidiii<i mid JJi.vhiir<iinii — lln/e.s of J'ort 
 
 470. 
 (i. Ciiiixex of Delag. 
 
 ". \V'eath(;i-, 47(i. 
 
 h. Not producing ISill 
 
 '•. Strikes. 4H0. 
 
 d. Other Causes, 4S2. 
 
 7. Uate of Payment, \\)\. 
 
 8. Lien for, 41(1. 
 '.'. Prartirr. 
 
 a. Jurisdiction, 4'.I2. 
 h. I'leading, 41(3. 
 
 2. Fitness for Shipment, .")01. 
 
 3. Dccli Cargo. .-)02. 
 
 4. Xotire of Arriral of Ship — Ready to 
 
 Load, .')04. 
 •"). Loading. 
 
 a. Generally, .")04. 
 
 h. Custom and Manner, .J08. 
 
 i: Lighters. .510. 
 
 d. Place of. .")11. 
 
 e. Return Cargo. 511. 
 
 ./". Refusal or Neglect to Load. .'.13. 
 t). Stowiige. 
 
 a. Employment of Stevedore, TAT>. 
 h. Duty of Master and Owner. ."ilC. 
 I'. Damages, .")1S>. 
 
 7. Demand hy Shijiper of Re-dclircry, 519, 
 
 8. Duty of Miixter to Preserve, Tranxhip, or 
 
 Sell Cargo. 
 a. To Preserve and Reship, 52o. 
 h. To Tranship. 521. 
 
 f. To Sell— Power of Master. 523, 
 y, Delirery and Discharge. 
 
 a. Time, 527. 
 li. Planner, 535. 
 r. Place, 535. 
 
 d. Refusal to Receive, 537. 
 
 e. Warehousing. 538. 
 
 10. Jettison, 541. 
 
 11. Sale, Assignment, and Mortgage. 541. 
 
 12. Action for Imss, Detention, Dumuge, or 
 
 Non-deliccry. 
 a. Parties, 550. 
 h. Proof of Receipt, 552. 
 r. Proof of Loss or Negligence, 553. 
 d. Damages, 557. 
 
 13. Lien on Cargo, 561. 
 
 14. Miscellaneous, 5(i4. 
 
 liottomry, see tit. X, : Damage to Cargo, 
 see tit. Xlll.; Stopjiage in Transitu, 
 see tit. XVI, : Admiralty Jiirixdirtion, 
 see tit. XXVI. 
 
 if Lad ill'.'. 17;i. 
 
 XV. CARGf). 
 
 \. Suffirirury of Cargo. 
 
 a. .Meaning of 'Cargo." 494. 
 
 //. Full and Complete Cargo, 494. 
 
 X\"I. Stoppage in Transitu. 
 
 1. Generally, 505. 
 
 2. Tranxfer of Jiill of Lading. 5(!8. 
 
 3. Tranxitiix not at an End, 571. 
 
 4. Part Delirery, 574. 
 
 5. Goods in Hands of Wharfnyer. '. 
 H. Tranxitux at an End. 57(;. 
 
 XVII. Average, 
 
 1, Generally — Arerage Art, 580. 
 
 2, Spars, ,\v„ Sacrificed . 581. 
 
 3. Cargo Sddfor Itrpairs, 582. 
 
 4. Forwarding and Sulci ng Cargo. 
 '>. Port if Jicfugc E.rpensex. 5S3. 
 (i. Fire, 585. 
 
 7. Jettison, 58(;. 
 
 8. Contrihutiou. hy a-hat Laic. 588. 
 
 9. Who and what Contrihiitc ; 
 
 Manner. 5,H8. 
 
 10. A reraye , Statement, 590, 
 
 11. Avcrayc Jfond, 590. 
 
 12. Action for — I'raetice. 591. 
 
 13. Jvrixdicfioii. Ad mi rait y. 592, 
 
 XVI II. Sai.v.\:;i;. 
 
 1. G cue rail y, 593. 
 
 2. Success, 59<(. 
 
 1-2 
 
 i82. 
 
 a-hat
 
 SHIPPING. 
 
 o. I'o.s-xrx.tiiiii of St/Irorx. .Mis. 
 
 4. Mixivndiiii or Want of Sh\IL:>W. 
 
 5. ,S(iJr(ir/r Srrrirrs. 
 
 (I. Suiiiilvinji- Am-hnr. Cit:'.. 
 /). Ciiviiii;' Advitr. CiICk 
 c. After Collision, <iii:>. 
 ^7. Mutiiij', (U)"). 
 e. Various Services, 005. 
 
 6. Life Salriif/e, 607. 
 
 7. Salvage or Toivagc. 
 
 a. Towage not Salvage, (111. 
 h. Salvage not Towage, (ill. 
 c. Towage converted into Salvage. i'A'l. 
 
 8. Sf/Jraf/c or Pilotage, (514. 
 '.•. 117(0 (irr Entitled to. 
 
 (I. Officers and Crews of H.M. Sliiiis. (U 7- 
 h. Both Ships belonging to Same Owners, 
 61'.). 
 
 c. Shipowner or Charterer, 620. 
 
 d. Apprentices, 621. 
 
 e. Agents, 621. 
 
 /; Owner of Salving Ship, 622. 
 
 V/. Coastgnard and Lightship Men, 622. 
 
 '//. Other Persons, ()23. 
 
 10. 117/0 are, LiuUe to Pag Sal rage. 626. 
 
 11. Contrlhutloii to Salragc. 626. 
 
 12. Derelict and WreeJ,\ 62!t. 
 
 13. Award. 
 
 u. (Jenerall}'. 6.'^1. 
 
 li. Amounts Awarded, 63S. 
 
 c. Derelict, 641. 
 
 d. Apiieal — lleviewing Award. (Ul. 
 
 14. Apportionment^ 647. 
 
 15. Agreements to Apportion. i\:>\. 
 
 16. Assignment of Right to Sal rage. 6.')8. 
 
 17. Salvage Agreements. 6.")3. 
 
 18. Jurlsdietion. 
 
 a. High Court, 660. 
 h. Justices, 662. 
 
 c. County Court, 6f>4. 
 
 19. Salvage Lien, 66.">. 
 
 20. Prartin . 
 
 II. Oenerallj', 666. 
 
 h. Parties, 667. 
 
 e. Consolidation. 66S. 
 
 d. Tender, 66l». 
 
 e. Arrest and Sale — Pail. 670. 
 
 f. Pleadings, 671. 
 If. Evidence, 672. 
 '//. Costs, 674. 
 
 XIX. TOWAGK. (;71». 
 
 XX. COLLlS^lOX. 
 
 1. Kegligenec. 
 
 II. (ienerally, 6S.". 
 
 //. In Particular (.'ases. 
 
 i. Sufficiency of Ciew, CiSli. 
 ii. Speed, 61)0. 
 iii. Look-out, (jDI. 
 iv. Coming to an x\nchor, 602. 
 V. Anchor ready to let go, (JOH. 
 vi. Foul Berth. "61)4. 
 vii. When at Anchor or Moored, 61).") 
 viii. (letting under Way. 61t6. 
 ix. At a liaunch. 61t(;. 
 .\. Going About, ('>1»7. 
 xi. Wrong Act of otlier Ship, CDS. 
 xii. Various Cases, 6118. 
 
 10. 
 
 Limitation 
 
 11 
 
 12. 
 
 IB 
 
 r. r roof of Negligence. 701. 
 d. Inevitable Accident, 70H. 
 PresH nipt ion of Fa nit. 
 a. Infringement of the Regulat ions, 
 i. Under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 71». 7o7. 
 ii. Under 17 & IS Vict. c. 104. 708. 
 iii. Under 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68. 70S. 
 iv. Uneler 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, 708. 
 h. Not Standing by after Collision. 712. 
 
 Llahllitg. 
 a. Personal Liability of Shipowner, 714. 
 li. Liability of Ship in Admiralty — 
 Maritime Lien, 717. 
 
 c. Damage by Suidcen Ship. 721. 
 
 d. liiability of Pilotage and Harbour 
 
 Authorities, 722. 
 
 e. Damage by Queen's Ship, 723. 
 
 /'. Damage by Ship of Foreign Sovereign, 
 724. 
 PersoiiK Entitled to llrrovcr. 725. 
 Damages, 
 a. (ienerally. 726. 
 
 h. Plaintifi"'s Negligeiicj after Collision, 
 730. 
 
 c. Salvage Ex])enses. 73(». 
 
 d. Demurrage. 731. 
 
 e. lioss of Freight, I'rotits, or Charter- 
 
 party, 732. 
 Dirixlon (f Loss, 735. 
 Limitation, of Llahllitg. 
 II. Bv General I^aw, 
 
 738. 
 h. Under 53 Geo. 3. c. 15;i. 738. 
 r. Under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. 731». 
 d. Under subsequent Acts, and Gen 
 
 rally, 740. 
 c. Measurement of Tonnage. 747. 
 /. Limitation Actions — Practice, 741). 
 Tug and Toio. 754. 
 Foreign Slilps — Foreign Eur. 758. 
 Compnlsorg Pilotage. 
 II. Generallj', 763. 
 h. Ship in Tow. 761). 
 
 c. Proof of Pilot's i''anlt. 7/0. 
 
 d. Duties of Pilot. 771. 
 
 e. Duties of Shipowner. 
 
 Crew, 774. 
 /. When Compulsory. 
 i. Generally. 776. 
 ii. Under 6 Geo. 4. c 
 iii. At various Places, 777. 
 The Pegnlatlons. 
 II. Generally. 7S5. 
 h. Cases on the Itcgulat ions, 787 — S27. 
 
 TmcoI Rules, 
 
 II. Danube, 827. 
 
 h. Humber. 828. 
 
 r. Mersey, 821). 
 IT. Newport. 830. 
 
 d. Thames. 830. 
 
 r. Tees. 835. 
 
 ./'. Tyne, 836. 
 Jurlsdietion and Praetlee. 
 
 a. .Jurisdiction. 837. 
 
 /;. I'arties, 840. 
 
 r. Default of Appearnncc. 841 . 
 
 d. Cross Action — P>ail — Sec\n-ity. S41.. 
 
 e. Preliminary Act. 842. 
 /. Pleadings, 843. 
 
 q. Interrogatories, 840. 
 /(. Inspection. 846. 
 ?. Evidence, 847. 
 
 IMasIci- anif. 
 
 125. 776.
 
 9 
 
 SHIPPING. 
 
 10 
 
 ^ ,/. Res or Bail Insufficient, S.jO. 
 
 h. Generally, S51. 
 I. Costs. 
 
 i. Generally, S.j."). 
 ii. Compulsory Pilot, So*), 
 iii. Inevitable Accident. .s.")8. 
 iv. Both Vessels in Fault, 8."»9. 
 V. Appeal. S60. 
 vi. High Court or County Court. 
 
 S61. 
 vii. lleference. S02. 
 viii. .Security for Costs, 864. 
 
 XXI. PAriSEXGER Ships. 
 
 1. Qii(ditirut'ion. 8()I. 
 
 2. Contract of Conreyancc, 8GG. 
 
 3. Einiiirant ShipK, 873. 
 
 4. Pa.imfie Jirolirr. 873. 
 
 XXII. I'OARD OF TUADE PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 1. WrecU Inqninpn, 874. 
 
 2. Marine Board Inqxirlex. 870. 
 
 3. I'liaeaworthij IShipx, Detrittinn, 877. 
 
 XXIII. Wharfinger. 
 
 1. Lundhuj and S/i/j)j)inf/ (roodx. 878. 
 
 2. Ohxtruetloii to or hij Wharf, S7;). 
 
 XXIV. Ports, Piers, Harbours, Light- 
 houses, AND Docks. 
 
 1. I>ortx. 
 
 a. Generally, 882. 
 
 h. Tolls and Dues. S83. 
 
 2. Picrit, Ilarhoura and LUjlttliouxex. 
 
 a. Piers, .s,s(J. 
 
 h. Injury to Piers, 8.s'.). 
 
 I-. Obstructions to Harbours, SflO. 
 
 d. Tolls, Dues, and Met ages, 8;)0. 
 
 3. Ihirltx. 
 
 a. Picparatioii and Iicgulation. !)n3. 
 }i. Tolls and Dues. iMici. 
 <•. Liability (if Dock Cmnpanics. IMIS. 
 d. Duties of Dockiiia>tci^ and others, 
 
 yi3. 
 
 XXV. SMIPimOKEKS AND AGENTS. 
 
 1. Conimixxiiiii mid ICmploijnieni . !)I4. 
 
 2. L'uihilitirs. '.I I '.I. 
 
 XX VI. An.MiuALTy Law and Practice. 
 
 I. Il'ijh Court of Adiniraltij a nd Admiralty 
 JJirixioii, 
 a. .Juiisdiction. 
 
 i. Sultject-niaticr. '.t21. 
 ii. Locality, 'J22. 
 iii. Maiitimc Lien, '.123. 
 iv. Between Fmeigners, '.)24. 
 V. ^lortgages, 'J2'>. 
 vi. Assault and Ill-usage, !»2.'>. 
 vii. I'eisonal Injury — Jjoss of Life, 
 
 '.»2.". 
 
 xiih-luadx 
 
 (.!/( to othrr nialtirx 
 hrloir.^ 
 h. Actions for Wrongfully Suing in 
 
 Adnuralty, '.t2ti. 
 /:. Prohibitions, 1»2(J. 
 d. Chancery .Jurisdiction in Admiralty 
 
 blatters. '.»3(;. 
 
 2. Count 11 Ciiiiiix, !)37. 
 
 3. Paxxiuji- Court. i)4."i. 
 
 4. Cinqiir Portx, '.)4.">. 
 
 "). Virr- Adniiralt If. Colonial, and, Conxnlar 
 Conrtx. '.Mt;. 
 
 (!. Miviixtrar, 0/ficr if, '.(48. 
 
 7. L'/io Apjdirahlc, 948. 
 
 8. Hifih Court, not of Eccord, 'J48. 
 ;». irm7.', 'J4S. 
 
 1(1. Droitx, <.l.-)0. 
 
 11. Ii('arona;/(\ '.K>\. 
 
 12. Jllrffal Coloin-x, '.K,] . 
 
 13. Forriijn Knlixtmcnt, '.i.'il. 
 
 14. Prizi; i).-.l. 
 
 15. Waijcx and IJixhiirxrnirnlx. 1).")2. 
 1«. llrxtraint, '.t.")3. 
 
 17. Poxxexxion, '.Kto. 
 
 18. Co-ownrrxliij/, 'J.') 7. 
 
 19. JVrcrxxarif'^i. 
 
 a. Generally, 9(10. 
 I/. "What are, 901. 
 I'. Lien. 904. 
 
 d. Foi'eign Ships, 90."). 
 ('. Priorities, 907. 
 
 20. Jircarh of Contract — Diimaqr to Cargo^ 
 
 '.108. 
 
 21. Slavfl Trade — Piraeff—JhiHHtii'x, 971. 
 
 22. Praetiee. 
 
 a. Practitioners. 97 L 
 
 7>. Parties, 973. 
 
 e. Writ and Ai)[)earance, 975. 
 //. Arrest, 970. 
 
 e. Bicaking Arrest, 981. 
 
 /. Bail. '.isi. 
 
 //. Aiipraiscment and Sale, 984. 
 
 Z/. Default Proceedings, 987. 
 
 i. Stay and Transfer, 989. 
 
 I'l'eliniinary Act. 992. 
 
 rk'adings, 993. 
 
 Particulars, 995. 
 ni. Inspection and Discovery, 995. 
 H. Interrogatories, 997. 
 o. Assessors, 998. ' 
 J). Kvideiice. Kiou. 
 t/. Consolidation. lOdl. 
 /•. Aincndinent of l'rocee< lings. 1001. 
 .V. .Jury. 1002. 
 t. Right to Begin, 1003. 
 V. Tender. 10(I3. 
 /■. Proceedings in Actions — Various, 
 
 1004. 
 a\ Reference to Registrar. 1(mi5. 
 j: Decree — .Judgment — i^xccution, 
 
 1O07. 
 //. Security for Costs. Iiin9. 
 
 23. Appealx. 
 
 a. To Court of Appeal. lOlO. 
 li. To Privy Council, 1012. 
 e. From County Court. In] |. 
 
 24. Coxtx. 
 
 a. tb'u. Tally. loi7. 
 /;. Of Itcfercncc, 1 022. 
 e. Of Appeal. 1021. 
 
 B. MARINE INSURANCE. 
 Policies. 
 
 1. Stanipimj and lleifnirementx. 
 
 a. Necessity of Stamp. I()2S. 
 h. Cpo/i Alteration. WM\. 
 e. Slips :uid Informal Contracts, 1032. 
 ]a. Lei/aliti/, 1035. 
 
 2. lle-inxn ranee. 1030. 
 
 3. Jtonhle Inxii ranee, l()3'.t. 
 
 4. (leant and Ixxne tf Polieij, 1040. 
 
 7.
 
 11 
 
 SHIPPING. 
 
 12 
 
 5. Alteration n/nl (\irrrction. lOll. 
 
 6. Construction, 10-to. 
 
 7. Mat ideation, 1046. 
 
 8. Proj)crt>/ in Policij, 104fi. 
 
 II. lNSURA>rCE BY AGENTS, PAKT OWNERS, OR 
 
 Trustees. li)4(). 
 
 III. Duration of Eisk. 
 
 1. On Goods. 
 
 a. What Goods, 104S. 
 
 h. On Loading or Landing Cargo, lOaO. 
 
 c. Mode of Loading and Landing. 10.")4. 
 
 d. What Port, 10r)5. 
 
 , 2. On Sit ip. 
 
 (I. p]xtent of Liability, 10.")8. 
 
 h. Termination on Mooring, 1064. 
 
 c. Time Policy. I0(i7. 
 
 3. On Freif/Jit, 1068. 
 
 IV. Nature ov Risk. 
 
 1. Perils of the Sen. 
 
 a. Injury consequential on, 1072. 
 h. Collision — Running Down Clause. 
 1082. 
 
 c. Whilst under Repair, 1085. 
 
 d. Ship Missing, 108G. 
 
 e. Other Cases'^ 1087. 
 
 /. Evidence of Loss, 1087. 
 
 2. Restraint and Detention, 1089. 
 
 3. Strandinr/. 
 
 a. Operation of Memorandum, 1092. 
 I). What is, 1093. 
 
 4. Barratrij. 
 
 a. Wliat is. 1097. 
 
 h. Who can Commit, 1099. 
 
 c. Effect and Proof of, llOO. 
 
 5. Jettison, 1101. 
 G. Fire, 1102. 
 
 7. Capture and Seizure. 
 
 a. What Amounts to, 1104. 
 I. Proof, 1108. 
 
 8. Other Hish.s. 1109. 
 
 V. Interest of Assured. 
 
 1. Freight, 1110. 
 
 2. Goods and Cargo, 1118. 
 
 3. Passaiie-moneij, 112o. 
 
 4. Seamen's Wages, 112(». 
 
 5. Frpceted Profits, 112f,. 
 
 6. SJe/]) and Fur7iitvre. 1129. 
 
 7. Beeh Cargo, Jettison, 1130. 
 
 8. £ills and Adeanees for Ship's use, 1130. 
 
 9. Bottomrtj, Pe.yjondentia, Mortgage, 1132. 
 
 10. Commission, 113G. 
 
 11. F^'peeted Losses, 113(1. 
 
 12. Wagering Policies. 1137. 
 
 13. Vaiued Policies, 113,s. 
 
 14. Kentral or Hostile P rope rtg. 1142. 
 1.5. Prize, 1143. 
 
 16. Legal or Fquitahle. 114."). 
 
 17. Averment and Proof <f Interest, 1145. 
 
 VI. Warranties. 
 
 1. Construction Ge//rra!h/. 1148. 
 
 2. Nationality, 1149. 
 
 3. Sea worthiness. 
 
 a. Sufficiency Generally, 1150. 
 h. On Time Policy, 1154. 
 <■. Carrying Goods, 1155. 
 
 d. Crew, 1157. 
 
 e. Pilot, 1158. 
 /. Repairs, 1158. 
 
 (/. Tackle and Furniture, 1159. 
 'h. Lighters, 1159. 
 ■;. Proof, 1159. 
 
 4. Position of SJiip, 1161. 
 
 5. To Sail on a giren Dag, 1163. 
 (!. I'o Sail with Convoy, 1167. 
 
 7. Neutrality, 1170. 
 
 8. Against Confi.scatiou, 1173. 
 
 9. Against Capture, 1176. 
 
 10. As to Cargo, 1177. 
 
 11. Uninsured, 1177. 
 
 12. Free from Average — See X. LOSSES. 
 
 VII. Concealment AND Misrepresentation. 
 
 1. Wlieu Material Generally, 1178. 
 
 2. Kmovledge of Agents, 1185. 
 
 3. Known Course of Proceeding, 1188. 
 
 4. Intelligence at Lloyd's, 1189. 
 
 5. (Sy^^f ««^Z Condition of Ship and Curqo, 
 
 1191. 
 
 6. Time of Sailing, 1194. 
 
 7. Ship's Name, lohen in Danger. 1196. 
 
 8. P((?f (/?• Place of Sailing or Loading. 1197. 
 
 9. Commencement of Hostilities, 1198. 
 
 10. Terms of Insurauce, 1199. 
 
 11. i^rw/; 1199. 
 
 12. Chancery Jurisdiction. 1200. 
 
 VIII. Voyage. 
 
 1. General Legality , 1201. 
 
 2. Si mulitted Papers. 1205. 
 
 3. Clearetnce, 12(i6. 
 
 4. Z>«'/; t>/;Y/(\ 1207. 
 
 5. Ho.<!tile Ports, 120.S. 
 
 6. Ports under Emhargo, 1209. 
 
 7. Neutral Trading, 1209. 
 
 8. Abandonment of Vogage, 1211. 
 
 IX. Deviation. 
 
 1. Generally, 1212. 
 
 2. Stress of Weather, 1215. 
 
 3. //(wf/Zr Pt>r^,v, 1215. 
 
 4. Restraint, 1216. 
 
 5. Trading, 1217. 
 
 6. Liberty to Touch at Ports, 1219. 
 
 7. Seeking Convoy, 1223. 
 
 8. Cruising. 1223. 
 
 X. Losses. 
 
 1. ^d^wZ i('.svs, 1224. 
 
 2. Constructirc Total Loss. \2'.')(i. 
 
 3. Arcrage Loss. 
 
 a. (icueral Average, 1240. 
 h. Warranty against, 1247. 
 
 4. Adjustment. 
 
 a. Persons Adjusting. 1253. 
 h. Computation. 1255. 
 c. Effect of. 1262. 
 4tf. Payment, 126(). 
 
 5. Frpenses — Sue and Labour Clause, 1268.
 
 13 
 
 SHIPPING, 
 
 14 
 
 XI. Abaxdoxmext. 
 
 1. Xoticr. 
 
 a. Form of. 1277. 
 
 h. By whom Given. 1278. 
 
 c. Time for, 127S. 
 
 (I. Accei)ta]ice of, 1282. 
 
 2. In ivluit Ca-scf, 128H. 
 
 3. On Loss hi/ Pcrllx of Sea, 1288. 
 
 4. On Citjfture. 1289. 
 
 5. Embargo and Cunfisraf ion. 12'J2. 
 
 6. On Loxi) by other Means, 12!t4. 
 
 7. Effect of, on Freight and Canjo, 
 
 12U4. 
 
 XII. Sale, by Master, of Ship and Cargo. 
 
 1. Ship, 1297. 
 
 2. Cargo. 1801. 
 
 XIII. Premiums. 
 
 1. Rdnrn of. 
 
 a. Policy Voitl. 1H03. 
 I. Voyage Illegal. ISOB. 
 r. Pvisk not Commenced or Incomplete. 
 1305. 
 
 d. Ship in Safety, 130«. 
 r. Other Matters. 180S. 
 
 2. Payment — Aetiou for. loO".*. 
 
 XIV. Assignment of Policy, 1311. 
 
 XV. Subrogation. 1313. 
 
 XVI. Action ox Policy. 
 
 1. fiencrally. 
 
 a. Parties, 1314. 
 h. Time for, 1317. 
 
 e. Eyidence, 1317. 
 
 d. Consolidation. 1321. 
 
 /'. pHvmcnt into Court. 1323. 
 
 ./'. Arbitration. 1323. 
 
 g. Pleading, 132."). 
 
 2. llightx of Iimiirerx, 1331. 
 8. Buiiliniptry, 133t. 
 
 4. Interext Ilerorrnililr. 1334. 
 ;■). Chanrery JiiriKdirtioii. I;i3l. 
 «;. Jutrly Aetion.'i in, P.ilirirs. 133.-.. 
 
 XVII. Insiranci: liitoKints and Agknt.s. 
 
 1. llrtai Iter and Eiiijdogment . \'.V.\7k 
 
 2. Jtiitgand LiahilUg. 133r.. 
 
 3. Aiithori/ If til I'd If mid I'eeeire Losxr.f. 
 
 1340. 
 
 4. Srt-off\ 1342. 
 
 ',. Liainlityfor r.ilinj Mmiri/s. 13 11. 
 C. Urmunrratiiiii. Kill. 
 7. /,/>//. 134(J. 
 
 XVIII. InSURANCK CoMI-ANI1:s ANO MUTI'AL 
 
 Marine Insurance Associations. 
 
 1, Legality, 13.->0. 
 
 2, ActioHK for Coiit r'lliiitiiui. I3.-)2. 
 
 3. 7iw/r.v, 13.-.7. 
 
 4 . J Vi nd ing-vp. 1 : '. ( > I > . 
 
 A. SHIPPING. 
 
 I. BUILDINi; IIEPAIKS AND TONNAGE. 
 
 1. Coiitraetfor. 14. 
 
 2. Ad ranees for. 17. 
 
 3. Pro/nTtij in Unfnislied UtiU. \\K 
 
 4. lianhnipteg of Owner or Jii/ilder. 2(». 
 
 5. Lien. 
 
 a. Of Ship\vris:ht. 23. 
 h. Of Others. 24. 
 (i. Tonnage, 25. 
 
 Liability for, Power to Order, Repairs.] — See 
 IV. OWNERS; VIII. Sale and Transfer, '>. 
 Liabilitiks of Purchaser. 
 
 And see XXI. PASSENGER Ships. 
 
 1. Contkact for. 
 
 Contract to Build— Cost of Extras— Penalty 
 for Non-completion.] — The plaintifE contracted 
 \yith the defenduut to build for the P. goyern- 
 ment a steam yessel of war for 10.400?.. such price 
 to be inclusive of all charges excei)t as therein- 
 after mentioned : the vessel to be built according 
 to Lloyil's rules as specified to the satisfaction 
 of S. : "to be delivered on a day named " finished, 
 fitted, found and equipped in manner similar in 
 all respects to that which is practised with sliips 
 or vessels of the same class in lier majesty's navy, 
 under contracts with the admiralty, excejjt 
 machinery "—(which was being manufactured by 
 the plaintifE under another contract") — '-arma- 
 ment, furniture, stores, plate, linen, glass, 
 crockery and opticians' instruments." And it 
 was agreed that the sum of 10,400/. was to be 
 "inclusive of all charges for the said ship or 
 vessel finished and fitted perfectly in^ every 
 respect, and no charges shall be demanded for 
 extras : but any addition or additions which may 
 be made by order in writing of the said S. as an 
 extra or extras shall be paid for at a jjrice to be 
 previously agreed upon in writing." Penalty 5/. 
 for each' day upon non-delivery by the day 
 named : provided that if tlic vessel sliould not be 
 launched and delivered at the time api>ointed by 
 reason of any cause not under the control of the 
 plaintitt', the" same to be certified by S., then the 
 penalty should not be enforced for such time as 
 S. should name. In the course of her construction 
 large additions were made to the shiji under 
 verbal directions of servants of the 1'. govern- 
 ment :— Held that the plaintitt' could not recover 
 the i)rice of tliesc. Itnssell v. Sa Da Bandera 
 \viseoHnt). 13 C. W. (N.s.) 14'.» : 32 L..I., C. P. (iH. 
 
 The vessel was not finished by the day named, 
 and fhe<lefendaiit claimed to enforce the penalty 
 of .■>/. jjcr day. Tlie delay ha<l in i>art arisen by 
 icason of disputes as to the conslinction of the 
 contract : — HcM. that tlie plaint ilT was not liable 
 for the penalty. //'. 
 
 Sale of Ship to be built and delivered Abroad.] 
 
 _A -liiplMiildcr at ( i Im-.'ow .■onira<-i rd to build 
 and deliver a >liii> at St. Lucia. On iicr voyage 
 out she was lost, and the buyer sued tiie builder 
 for repayment of the price, whicii had been paid 
 by insfalnients as the building went on ; — Held, 
 that, in the absence of proof that the buyer 
 agreed to take delivery at Glasgow the money 
 nuist l)e repaid. Ifene'liell. J)ii JlnisMui ,<• Co. \. 
 Swan ,S- Co.. 17 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 2.-.2. 
 Cf. Ifazind V. Il.id.ies. 7 W. It. 20 I.
 
 15 
 
 SHIPPING — I. BulhVuui Repairs and Tonnafjc 
 
 16 
 
 Broker's Commission on Building Ship — 
 Recovery by Purchasers.] — .Xrilxon v. Sliinnrr,- 
 
 juist. col. it;s. j 
 
 Contract to Build and Deliver— Ship Sunk.] — 
 
 Sec Jiriircr v. Diiiicdii. VJ I I. SAl.I': AND 'I'UANS- 
 FER. post. ciil. !.">:{. I 
 
 I 
 
 Bills given for Purchase-money to be paid i 
 out of Freight — Priorities.] — Sec J/ tin v. \\'cil-\ 
 ion. post. ciil. 44.">. 
 
 Contract by Purchasing Company to Allot 
 Shares to Builder— Payment in Cash.] — See 
 
 Mi'Milhiii V. Lirerjiiiiil ttiid Tr-rds Strdiiinhij) Co., 
 Xlll. Sale and 'J'han.sfer, post, eol. l'>'^. 
 
 Chain Cable — Warranted Tested.] — In every 
 contract for the sale of a chain cable, whether 
 for use on a British ship or not, there is an 
 implied warranty that it has been tested and 
 stamped as required by law. Hitll v. Billinq- 
 ham, rA L. T. 387 ; 34 W. R. 122 : 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 538. 
 
 Contract for Repairs — Construction — Evi- 
 dence.] — A tirm of shipbuilders agreed to 
 lengthen and repair an iron steamship ; the 
 object being that she might be classed 100 A 1 
 at Lloyd's. The specitication forming part of 
 the contract contained this stipulation — " Iron 
 work : The plating of tlie hull to be carefully 
 overhauled and repaired, but if any new plating 
 is required the same to be paid for extra (fourteen 
 words deleted, signed A. and J. I., D. G.). Deck 
 beams, ties, diagonal ties, main and spar deck 
 stringers, and all iron work to be in accordance 
 with Lloyd's rules for classification": — Held, 
 that the shipbuilders were bound to supply 
 without extra charge any new plates required 
 to enable the vessel to be classed 100 A 1 at 
 Lloyd's ; and that neither the letters of the 
 parties before the contract was signed, nor the 
 initialled deleted woixls in the contract, could be 
 considered for the i)urpose of interpreting the 
 intention of the parties. Inijli.s v. liuttrry, 3 
 App. Cas. .■i.")2— H. L. (Se.) 
 
 Held, also, the costs of Lloyd's survej'. and 
 the board of trade tonnage measurement, should 
 be borne by the shipowner. lb. 
 
 Action under, before Completion.] — A 
 
 ship outward-bound with goods, being ilamaged i 
 at sea, put into a harbour to receive some repairs 
 which had become necessaiy for the continuance 
 of the voyage, and a shipwright was engagetl 
 and undertook to put her into thorough repair. | 
 Before this was completed, he requiied payment | 
 for the work already done, without which he 
 refused to proceed ; and the vessel remained in \ 
 an unfit state for sailing : — Held, that the ship- ' 
 Wright might maintain an action for the work 
 already done, though the repair was incomplete, 
 and the vessel thereby kept from continuing her 
 voyage at the time when the action was brought. 
 Boherts v. Ilardork, 3 B. i; Ad. 404. 
 
 Tender of Reasonable Sum — Detention.] 
 
 — A declaration alleged that the defendant 
 'agreed to repair a ship for the plaintiff for a 
 reasonable and proper price in that behalf, to 
 be charged by him to the plaintiff, and to 
 redeliver tlie ship when repaiied upon payment 
 
 of sucli price ; that the iilaintiff was icady and 
 willing to pay such price, but that the defendant 
 did not charge a reasonable price, and refused lo 
 redeliver the ship except upon payment of an 
 exorbitant aiid unreasonable sum ; and claimed 
 damages for the detention of the ship : — Held, 
 that it was not necessary that the plaintifE should 
 aver a tender of a reasonable sum. Wafxon v. 
 Pearson, \) Jur. (N.s.) 501 ; 8 L. T.395 ; 11 W. II. 
 702. 
 
 Damages for Breach of Contract.] — When a 
 
 breach df contract with the owner of a ship has 
 been connnittcd, whereby he is i)revented from 
 employing her u])on an adventure, the damages 
 jiayable to him cannot be reduced on the ground 
 that he has earned a pi'ofit by sending another 
 ship upon the same adventure in place of the 
 first-mentioned ship. Jehsen v. East and West 
 India Bock Co., 44 L. J., C. P. 181 ; L. E. 10 C. P. 
 300 ; 32 L. T. 321 ; 23 W. R. ()24 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 505. 
 
 A com])any having contracted to supply a 
 steamship with a propeller shaft and other 
 fittings, supplied useless fittings, whereby the 
 owners, Ijesides being obligeil to rejilace the 
 fittings, lost the use of the ship for nine days : — 
 Held, that the lost earnings of the ship for the 
 nine days ought to be included in the damages 
 recoverable. Wilson v. Gcncval Screw Collicrij 
 Co., 47 L. J., Q. B. 239 ; 37 L. T. 789 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 536. 
 
 A shipbuilding company, at the time of being 
 wountl up, was under a contract with a steam- 
 packet comi)any to do certain repairs to a shij) 
 within a given time, and under orders obtained 
 in the matter of the winding-up, the official 
 liquidator was authorised to complete the repairs, 
 the rights of all i)arties being reserved. The 
 repair's not having been comi)letefl within the 
 stipulated time, leave was given to the steam- 
 packet company to go in under the winding-up 
 order and prove in respect of any damage that 
 might have accrued from the delay : — Held, that 
 the measure of damages was the net profits which 
 the steam-packet comjiany might have made if 
 the contract had been completed in time, but 
 that the company was not entitled to prove for 
 damages arising from imperfect workmanship 
 during the delay. 'I'renf and Ilumher Ship- 
 hnildinq Co., In /r, 38 L. J., C;h. 38 ; L. K. 4 Ch. 
 112; 19 L. T. 405 ; 17 W. 11. 181. 
 
 Repairs Improperly Executed,] — Shipwright 
 held entitled tn agreed cost, less damages by 
 reas(Mi of inipro})er work and materials. St radian 
 V. I'aton, 3 Bligh (N.s.) 359. 
 
 Payment for Use of Dock during Detention.] 
 
 — A shipowner received an estimate for rei)airs, 
 
 the last item of which was " the cost of use of 
 
 graving dock for the job will be from 120 to 
 
 150 guineas." The ship was repaired, and the 
 
 I account was sent in with this item included. 
 
 No objection was made to this item, but time 
 
 I was required for payment. The shipwright, who 
 
 I claimed and enforced his lien on the ship for 
 
 j)aymcnt. urged the removal of the ship, saying 
 
 that from a certain day he should charge 20Z. 
 
 \ a day for the u.se of the dock : — Held, that these 
 
 j facts did not constitute an implied contract on 
 
 I the part of. the shipowner to pay the adilitional 
 
 I charge, and tliat having paid it under protest, he 
 
 ! might lecover it back. Sonici v. Jiritixh Empire
 
 SHIPPING— I. IhiihUuii Tlquiirs and Tounanc 
 
 17 
 
 Shij)j)!»(j Co.. S H. L. Cas. 838 : .SO L. J.. Q. V,. 
 22'J : « Jiir. (X.s.) 7()1 ; 2 L. T. .",4 ; 8 W. K. 707. 
 
 Repairs— Master— Power to Bind Owners — 
 Bottomry.] — 1'. W. iV: (J(j. nulcivd a sliip ou com- 
 niif^rsion for colonial purchasers, and advanced 
 money for her outfit. They appointed a master 
 and sent her out to New Zealand for the pur- 
 chasers. The shii) had been oritjinally registered 
 in the name of F. W. (Sc Co., but before mailing 
 was transferred to a bank manager to secure 
 advances by the bank. On the voyage she suffered 
 damage anil i)ut into a port to refit. The master, 
 for money advanced for necessary i-epairs, gave a 
 bond binding himself and also the ship and freight. 
 At the same time he drew l^ills on 1*. W. iV: Co. 
 for the amount. The purchasers became insol- 
 vent ; P. W. ic Co. got the ship transferred to 
 them by the bank, sold her and received the 
 price. In an action against them by the holders 
 of the bills, which they had refused to accept : — 
 Held that 1'. W. .Sc Co. were liable, being 
 employers of the master, and the real owners of 
 the sh'ip. Miller v. Potter, 8 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 (4th ser.) 105. And see post, X. BOTTOM KY. 
 
 Semble, the bond given by the master was not 
 a valid bottomry ItDud. ///. 
 
 Liability of Owners — Payment to Agent.] 
 
 — Repairs done at Hull upon the order of the 
 owner's agents at the instance and direction of 
 the master. Account made out to the master 
 and owners and sent in to the agents, but jjay- 
 ment not demanded for some months. Mean- 
 while, the owner ])aid the agents for the rei>airs. 
 The agents being in difiiculties. the shii)wright 
 ai)plied to the owner f<ir payment : — Held, that 
 he was liable. Steinirt v. J/idl, 2 Dow, 21). 
 
 Sec <iUo IV. OWXKRS. 
 
 2. Advances for. 
 
 A mcr^atitilc house at Newry direct a house at 
 Quebec t|i contract for tlie building of a ship, for 
 which the Newry house would send out the 
 rigging. Tlie Quebec house contract with some 
 shipbuilders accordingly. The Newry house then 
 direct their correspondent at Liverpool to send 
 out the rigging. He docs so ; and. ithavingbeen 
 actually delivered to the Quebec house :— Held, 
 that the property in it was veste<l in the Newry 
 house, and that "the Quebec house had a right to 
 retain it against the liiverpnnl coriespondcnt, on 
 account of tjieir lien on it for advances made to 
 the builders, and i)aymcnt <if custom-Iiouse ex- 
 l)cnses, although, i)reviously to the <lelivery, they 
 liad f)btaineil an assignment of thi' ship td fliem- 
 ftolves from the builders, and iiad rcgis1ere<l it in 
 the name of one of the ]iarln<Ts in their liousc. 
 Jloqerxoii v. lle'id, 1 Knapp, :{(i2. 
 
 By an agreement in isC.I. but not executed till 
 the '] Itli A)iril, ]H(;2, sliiiibuilders agreed to build 
 a schooner for V. On the 12tii Ajiril tiie agree- 
 mcTit was assigne<l to tlie ])laintitf to secure .')00/. 
 already advanced to tlieni for tlie purpose of 
 enabling them to complete her, and future 
 advances tip to a certain amount, ami the vessel 
 was assigned to the i>laintiff. to be held by him in 
 lien for such advances and interest. On the I'.lth 
 Way the agreement between the builders and K. 
 was ])nt an end to, and on IIk; 2(lth they entered 
 into a new contract with the ))laintifT toconiplete 
 an<I sell the vessel to him for l.KH)/., of which 
 tlie advanced ."jOO/. was to be taken as jiart pay- 
 ment. No registration of the vessel ever took 
 
 18 
 
 ])laee. but on the 2Uth ^lay the builders eerlitied, 
 according to the provisions of tlie 17 i: 18 Vict, 
 c. 104. that they had built the schooner for the 
 plaintiff. The advances did not appear to have 
 been laid out exclusively upon the vessel, and 
 before the 20th May the builders had discharged 
 their workmen and were virtually insolvent, 
 though this was not proved to have been brought 
 to the plaintiff's knowledge. The vessel was 
 unfinished on the 2nd June, when they were 
 adjudicated baidcrupts, and on the IDth the 
 defendants were chosen assignees. On a bill to 
 support and enforce the lien, as to the instrument 
 of the 12th April : — Held, that the lien under it 
 was destroyed, if imt by the cancellation of the 
 agreementwith P\, yet "by the fact tliat the .")()()/. 
 thereby secured was merged into and taken as 
 part payment of the purchase-money, under the 
 agreement of the 20th Mav. Sict/imton v. Cltii/. 
 2 N. R. 34.-) ; 2 l)e G. .).k s' .->.J8 : H2 L. J. Ch. oOH : 
 8 L. T. nos : 11 W. E. 811.— L.JJ. Affirming 4 
 Giff. 187. 
 
 As to the memorandum of the 20th May : — 
 Held, that under it the plaintiff was entitleil to a 
 lien on the unfinished ship for the 500/. actually 
 advanced. lb. 
 
 Held, also, that no registration under the 17 
 & 18 Viet. c. 36. was necessary. Jb. 
 
 Held, also, that the vessel was not within the 
 order and disposition of the builders at the time 
 of their baidcruptcy. lb. 
 
 L., who was executor of H., and manager of a 
 bank, agreed to take a security on ship " E.." 
 belonging to F., in lieu of a security given by F. 
 to H. on another ship, and he abstracted money 
 from the bank, which he advanced to F. to enable 
 him to complete repairs on the shij) "E.," taking 
 from V. a security ou the ship to himself, as 
 executor, for these advances, as well as for the 
 sum advanced by H. The bank, having dis- 
 covered L.'s improper abstraction of their money, 
 required security for it. and L. assigned to them 
 the securities on the ship. The ship was sold for 
 a sum much less than the amount originally 
 advanced by H. :— Held, first, that as the bank 
 took the assignment from Ij. to secure a pre- 
 exist nig debt due from him jiersonally to them. 
 and hail notice that the securities belonged to the 
 estate of H., they could have no better title 
 against the estate than L. woulil have had if he 
 had advanced his own money, instead of that of 
 the bank, ('olliiii^oii v. Lifter. 25 L. .1.. Cli. :?8 ; 
 2 Jtir. CN.8.) 75 : 4 W. 11. i:«-L..I.I. 
 
 Held, secondly, that L. woiilil in l hat case have 
 had no claim against the estate, as he had not 
 advanced the money for re])airs from necessity 
 and bona tide, and therefore could not set up his 
 claim ill respect oC these advances against the 
 secuiitv for the sum lent by M. lb. 
 
 Held, thirdlv, thai the ])ank could not claim a 
 lien on the proceeds of the sale of the sliip(.n the 
 ground of following trust moneys ol' theirs im- 
 properly disjiosed of by L.. for that they ha.l. by 
 taking the security from him, treated the traiis- 
 actinnas a loan from them to him: ami more- 
 over, as he was their agent, they were affected by 
 his acts in making the ailvances. lb. 
 
 Held, fourthlv. that whether tlie title- to the 
 shii) coidd or could not )>e atfectwl by the trusts 
 of the mortgage fi-.m F. to L.. the moneys 
 received from the sale of it were subject to those 
 trusts, and that the registered transfer of the 
 securities to the bank did not enable the bank to 
 retain the moneys discharged from tlictse trust.s.
 
 10 
 
 Sllli'i'lNG — I. lUiUdhui lu'pa'ns and Toiniafic 
 
 20 
 
 :?. IMiOI'l'.UTY IN rXFINISIli:!) IlUI-Ii. 
 
 When Property passes to Purchaser. ]— The 
 
 (U'l'^'iulaiiis rmitractotl willi ;v (•(iinimny to make 
 and supply new Ixiilers and certain inaeliinery 
 for a steamship of the eonijiany, and to alter the 
 en.ijines of such steamship into compound surface 
 condensing engines according to a specification. 
 The engines, boilers and connections were, by 
 the contract, to be coniijleted in every way ready 
 for sea so far as specified, and tried under steam 
 by the engineers (the defendants) previously to 
 being handed over to the company ; the result of 
 such trial to be to the satisfaction of the com- 
 pany's inspector. The price of the work was to 
 be rJ.SOOZ.. and was to be paid as the woik i)ro- 
 gressed, in the following manner: viz. 2,O()0Z. 
 when the boilers were plated, and 2,U00i^. when the 
 will lie of the work was ready for fixing on board, 
 and the balance, 1,800/., when the work was fully 
 completed and tried under steam. These pay- 
 ments were only to be made on the certificate of 
 the company's inspector. The old materials 
 removed from the ship were to become the 
 property of the defendants. The specification 
 contained elaborate provisions as to the fitting 
 and fixing the new boilers and machinery on 
 board the ship, and the adaptation of the old 
 machinery to the new. The boilers and other 
 new machinery contracted for were comijlefed 
 and ready to be fixed on board, and one instal- 
 ment of 2,0110/. had been paid under the contract, 
 when the ship was lost by perils fif the sea. The 
 value of the work actually done by the defen- 
 dants nnder the contract amounted to 4,1187. 
 The second instalment of 2,000/. was subse- 
 (|ucntly i^aid, at the time of which payment the 
 company knew of the loss of the shi)), but the 
 defendants did not. The company claimed de- 
 livery of the boilers and other machinery com- 
 pleted nnder the contract, and this being refused, 
 brought an action for the detention of the same, 
 or to recover back the 4,000/. paid by them to the 
 defendants : — Held, that the contract was an 
 entire and indivisible contract for work to be 
 done upon the company's ship for a certain ])rice, 
 from further performance of which both parties 
 were released by the loss of the ship ; that the 
 property in the articles manufactured was not 
 intended to pass until they were fixed on board 
 the ship ; and that consequently the company 
 was not entitled to the boilers and machinery, 
 nor could they lecover the 4,000/. already paid 
 as npon a failure of consideration. Aiif/lo- 
 EgtllttUni yat'tqatioii Co. v. llcnnir, 44 L. J.. 
 C! P. i:^0 ; L. R. 10 C. P. 271 ; 82 L. T. 467 : 28 
 W. 11. (J2(i. The case was ultimately referred to 
 arbitration. .SW- L. 1!. lo C. P. r>7]."n. 
 
 A builder contracted with the plaintiffs to 
 Vjuild them a ship, and the ])laintiffs from time 
 to time advanced money for the building. Before 
 the ship was comi)leted the builder gave the 
 plaintiffs a bill of sale, habendum " when the 
 sliip shall be completed and finished," and the 
 vessel was thereu])on registered in the ])laintifFs' 
 'names. The buildei- afterwards registered the 
 ship in his own name, and. having borrowed 
 money from the defendants in order to finish her, 
 executed a bill of sale to them, and gave them 
 possession of the ship : — Held, that the i)!ainti£fs 
 could recover in trover against the defendants 
 for conversion of the sliij). and that the measure 
 of damages was the value of tiie ship at tiie time 
 of the convcr:;ion. Urud w Fairl (itihx. 18 ('. V>. 
 (;'.I2 : 1 C. I.. 1!.7j7; 1'2 I,. .I..U. 1'. I'oC, : I7.lui.'.US. 
 
 Ship paid for by Instalments.] — Where a ship 
 is contracted to be paid for by instalments, to be 
 paid at dirt'erent stages of her building, the 
 property in the ship and her gear as approved 
 and paid for ])asses to the vendee. Wmulu v. 
 nii.s.srU, 5 P.. iV: Aid. il42 ; 24 R. K. 621. 
 
 Ship Lost — Recovery of Advances.] — See 
 
 Ilciu-h'Il, iJii Jlniitsd/t S- Co.v.Swau ,S- t't*., supra, 
 col. 14. 
 
 Ship in Builder's Yard Distrained for Kent.] 
 
 — A shipbuilder contracte<l to build a ship on 
 |)remises which he held as tenant to the defen- 
 dants. The ship was to be paid for by instal- 
 ments. After the ship had been partly built 
 and paid for, it was seized by the defendants as 
 a distress for rent. The person for whom the 
 ship was being built paid the rent under protest 
 and sued to recover the amount : — Held, that, 
 assuming the ])roperty in the ship to have passed 
 to tlie i:>iaintift', the ship was nevertheless liable 
 to distress. Clurhc v. Jlillmill Dor// Co., 55 
 L. J., Q. B. 878 ; 17 Q. B. D. 4<»4 ; 54 L. T. 814 ; 
 34 W. R. 698 ; 51 J. P. 5— C. A. 
 
 Purchaser acquires no Property until Ship 
 finished.] — In the absence of a special agree- 
 ment the purchaser of a barge or vessel ordered 
 to be built acquires no property therein until 
 she is finished and delivered, actually or construc- 
 tively. Painting the purchaser's name on the 
 stern held to be immaterial. Miichlow v. 
 3Iam/les, 1 Taunt. 81S : 9 R. R. 784. 
 
 Law of Scotland— Bankruptcy of Builder.] — 
 
 B. and C. verbally agreed to make advances to 
 A. on the security of a ship he was building on 
 his own account, provided A. made an absolute 
 contract for sale of the ship. A. thereupon 
 agreed to complete and deliver the ship to B. 
 and C. for a price to be paid in two instalments, 
 with powers for B. and C, in case A. failed to 
 complete the ship, to enter into possession of the 
 ship and to complete and sell her. In a corre- 
 spondence between A. and B. and C. and a ship- 
 broker relating to the sale of the ship, she was 
 called A.'s ship : but nothing was written to 
 any one inducing him to deal with the ship as if 
 she were the property of A. B. and C. after the 
 contract made advances to A., taking a receipt 
 as for payment of part of the ])urchase-nioney ; 
 at the same time, bills for the like amount were 
 accepted by A. The advances amounted to the 
 full purchase-money of the ship. Before she 
 was completed A.'s estate was sequestrated (in 
 Scotland). The bills were paid by B. and C. 
 In a question between A.'s trustee and B. and 
 
 C. : — Held, by the law of Scotland there was a 
 bona tide sale, but no delivery ; and that B. 
 and C. were entitled to the ship. M-Jiniii v. 
 Wallace, 6 Api). Cas. 588 ; 45 L. T. 261 : 80 
 W. R. 65— H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 See uho 4. BANKRUPTCY OF Owner or 
 Builder, infra ; and vases supra, cols. 17, 18. 
 
 4. Bankruptcy of Owner or Builder. 
 
 P. contracted with a shipbuilder to buihl him 
 a ship for a named sum. to be paid by instal- 
 ments as the work went on : an agent of P. to 
 superintend the building. The ship was partly 
 built and approved by P.'s agent when the 
 Iniilder became liankrupt. The assignees com- 
 pleted the ship. All the instalments of purchase- 
 inonev were Maid or tendered bv P, Inaction
 
 SHIPPING — I. Buildinrj Repairs aud Tonnacje. 
 
 21 
 
 of trover by F. against the assignees :— Held, 
 that upon each instahnent being i>ai(l the j)ro- 
 pei'ty in the part finished vested in P.. subject 
 to the right of the bnikler to retain it for the 
 purpose of completing the ship : and that each 
 material subseqviontly added became the pro- 
 perty of P., and that the ship did not pass to 
 the assignees as being in the order and disposi- 
 tion of the bankrupt. Chirltr v. Sjx-in-e. 4 A. &; 
 E. 448 : 6 N. .t M. 81t;i ; 1 H. .t W . TliU : r> L. J., 
 K. B. 161. 
 
 In December. ISUl, the baidvrupt contracted 
 with W. to build a barge for him, to be paid lor 
 in bricks, the barge to be completed on .">th June. 
 LS62. The bankrui)t hired a barge building- 
 yard for a period which expired before the 
 "barge was built, and W. then hired the yard. 
 In "June it was agreed by the bankrupt in 
 writing that the barge should be held by W. as 
 security for advances made by him. In July 
 the bankruptcy took })lace. The advances made 
 by W. exceeded the amount of work done on the 
 barge and materials supplied for her by the 
 bankrupt : — Held, ihat W. had a lien upon and 
 was entitled to hold the barge unless the 
 assignees chose to complete her. Wutfx. Ev 
 l>art<: Atfiadcr. In re, 82 L. J.. Bk. 8."i. 
 
 C. & Son. engineers in Scotland, agreed with 
 the api)ellants to fit up engines in ships then 
 being built by the appellants, who made 
 advances to C. & Son as the work progressed. 
 ('.A: Son being insolvent to the knowledge of 
 the appellants, an agreement was entered into 
 Vx'tweeii them to the effect that ui)on payment 
 l>eing made in respect of any ship, the materials 
 lai<l <lowii and work done in respect of tliat >hip 
 should become the property of the ajipelhuits 
 subject to the lien of V. ^ Son for any balance 
 of the jnice of the same. C. i; Son having 
 become bankrupt, it was held that, by the law 
 of Scotland, the appellants were not entitled as 
 against the trustees in ('. iSc Son's l)ankruptcy to 
 materials in ('. A: Son's yard intended to have 
 lx;en used upon the ships. Sntf/i v. Mooit. ;").") 
 L. J., r. C. .-,4 : 11 ApiJ. C'as. 8r)() : .-.4 L. T. (3!H» ; 
 5 Asp. M. C. r.HO— H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 B. i: Co. agreed to build a shi]) for !•'. S., 
 before the agreement was signed, advanced 
 money upon the terms that the benefit of the 
 agreement should be assigned to him, ami that 
 he should have a lien on the .slii]). The agree- 
 ment was cancelkd. 1>. A: Co. agrecfl to sell tlie 
 ship, which was not finished, to S. Four days 
 before this they had stopped jjayment and 
 shortly aftei' became l)aid<rupts : — Held, that S. 
 was entitled to a lien on the ship. Sindiixton v. 
 Cliiy, 8 l)e v.. J. & S. ."..-.S ; 2 N. K. 84.-. : 82 
 L. j'., Ch. ni)8 : .H L. T. .".t;8 ; 1 1 W. K. 811— L.JJ. 
 
 A. contracted to liuild a ship for I'., tiie 
 purchase-money to be paid by instalments partly 
 in l)ills, the partly built ship to become the 
 jtroperty of B. upon paynu-nt of the first Instal- 
 ment to tiie extent of his i)aynients and subject 
 to A.'s lien for unpaiil instalments. 1'.. gave 
 acceptances to A. in payment of the instalments, 
 which A. disc-ounteil. I'.efore the ship was com- 
 pleted A. and B. became insolvent. 15. 's creditors 
 accepted a composition, B. abandoned the con- 
 tract, and A.'s trustee in bankruptcy finishcil the 
 ship. I'.ankcrs. holdeis of tin- bilis. claimed to 
 have a lien on the ship :— IhJd, that U'liriii;/. K.r 
 /^^a^', dill not apply, and that the bankeis were 
 not enfitleil to a lien. Linnhfiui, Ex jmrtf, 
 or (ivvrnrr. E.c j)artp, LitKhaij. In rr, 44 L. J., 
 Bk. 81 : ].. II. 10 Ch. 40.-;; 82 L. T. 880; 28 
 
 22 
 
 W. R. (;02 : 2 Asp. M. C. .-.2.'.— L.JJ. Attirming 
 <V. C. nom. (rrrrin'r. E-r jxirtr. Li/i(Ix(ti/, In it, 
 82 L. T. 20.-.. 
 
 Engineers contracted with the owner of a 
 barge to supply machinery to the barge iu a 
 certain dock, the price to be paid by bills. The 
 barge was entered in the books of the dock com- 
 pany in the name of the engineers, who remained 
 in possession of her until slie was finished, when 
 the owner filed a li()uidation petition, and a 
 receiver was appointed. Meanwhile, the engi- 
 neers had been j.aid part of the price of the 
 work, partly in bills which they had discounted, 
 and partly in cash : — Held, that the engineers 
 were entitled to a lien for the unpaiil balance 
 of the price of the engines. Mll/iu/i/hhi/. E-r 
 piirtc. We.stl(il;c In re. 10 Ch. D. 004 :' 44'L. T. 
 Ill : 2'.) \V. H. 1184. 
 
 A shipbuilder had in his possession at his 
 baidcruptcy a ship which he had sold but not 
 completed : — Held, not to be in his order and 
 disposition. HoUlmieKx v. Ilanhin. 2 l>e tl. 
 F. A; J. 2.-.S : 2;t L. J.. Ch. 7.-)8 ; (i Jur. (X.S.) 
 'J(i8, i)2,s : 8 W. R. 718— L.JJ. 
 
 In consideration of ])eriodical payments to be 
 made by B., A. agreed to build a ship, to be 
 launched on or before July 81st. 18.-.8. with a 
 j.roviso that if A. failed to complete the shij* 
 according to the agreement, it should be lawful 
 for B.to take possession of the ship "which from 
 and after the payment of the first instalment, 
 shall be and be deemed and continue to be 
 as soon as the said sliij) shall be commenced, 
 in every respect, and for every puipose. the 
 property of B.'' — and to finish her '• using such of 
 the materials of A. as shall be applicable to the 
 pur])Ose" — A. to rcj.ay to B. so much as he 
 should expend thereon in excess of the contract 
 price. A. failed to complete the ship, and B. 
 took possession of her. and after an act of baidc- 
 ruptcy by A. proceeded to finish hei-. using 
 materialsin A.'s yard that had not been appro- 
 priated for the ship. None of these materials 
 had been used uiKui the ship, but some had been 
 selected and placed by B. in the ship's carcase 
 before A. became bankrui.t : — Held, that the 
 assignees were entitled to recover against R. the 
 value of these materials, llahrr v. (Ini>j. 17 
 C. ]'.. 4(;2 : 2.-. L. J., C. I'. Hil : 2 Jur. QN-S.) Rin : 
 4 W. R. 2117. 
 
 In l.s83.an<luntil his baidcruptcy. .1. I.. carried 
 on business as a sliijiljuilder : ami on June loth 
 he agreed to build for I.7.".(i/. a ship then l)eiiig 
 built in his yard, jiayment to be made by various 
 persons mentioned in the agreenu-nt in amounts 
 there specified. The plaintiff sigiu'd in October. 
 1.S88, for one fourtii of the ship, ami J. L. signed 
 uiKlerneath accepting the priceaiid mode of pay- 
 ment. The i.hunliff paid for his share by bills 
 before J. L.'.s baidcruptcy. The T. C. C.pinpany 
 signed the agreement for one fourth : and H.. a 
 inendK'r of the company, used to go ilowii nu'! 
 superintend tiic building of the ship. J. L.'s fore- 
 man having instruct ions to work under IL's orders. 
 At the bankruptcy of J. L. the ship was on the 
 stocks unlinishedin J. L.'s yard ; and after tiie 
 bankruptcy some of the shlpwriiilils <-ontinued 
 to work on her and to receive their pay fioni 
 H. :— Held, that the property in one fourth of 
 the ship liad not passed to 'I'. L.. the plaintiff. 
 Laitller v. Jliirl hixon, 2 M. \ W. t;02 ; C. L. J.. 
 Kx. Itio. 
 
 J. agree.1 to buiM an iron steamship for the 
 plaintiff for IC.OUn/. payable by iiistalineuts, the 
 fii-st. of I.(«Hi/., to be payable immediately.
 
 •2B 
 
 SHIPPINCt — 1, J>iiil(Uii(i Hcpalr^^ <uuJ 'roiincKjc. 
 
 24 
 
 I'laintilV mlvauci'tl iimiK'y to .). in aiiticii)ati(iii of 
 iiistalmonts as the work went on. .]. became 
 banknipt. the vessel being in his yard unfinished, 
 together with her engines and jiart of her frame- 
 work, wliieli liad not been fitted or l)uilt into 
 lier. The amount advaneed by ))Uxintif[: to J. 
 exceeded the vahie of the engines and unfixed 
 framework. The pkaintilf's name was stamped 
 on the ship's keel before J.'s bankruptcy : — Held, 
 that the ship's loose engines and framework 
 were the property of tlie jilaintiff and not of .J.'s 
 assignees ; and tliat tlie jilaintitf was entitled to 
 recover damages against the assignees for deten- 
 tion of the ship, bnt not of the engines and 
 framework. Wood v. Bell, (5 El. & Bl. 3o5 ; 25 
 L. J., Q. B. 821 ; 2 Jur. (N.s.) (iCA ; 4 W. R. n.iS. 
 See also Br/h-r v. (j'nn/, 17 C. B. 462 ; 25 L. J.. 
 V. l\ Kil ; 2 Jur. (N.S.) 400; 4 W. II 2i)7, 
 snjjra. 
 
 5. Lien. 
 a. Of Shipwrig-lit. 
 
 Nature of.] — A shipwright has a lien upon a 
 ship for repairs. Fninldiii v. Iloxicr, 4 B. & Aid. 
 •341 ; 23 R. R. 305. 
 
 But a shipwright in the river I'hames has no 
 lien on a shiji taken into his dock to be repaired, 
 without an express agreement for that purpose, 
 because by the usage of the trade the credit is 
 alwavs given to the owner, linitt v. Mitchell. 
 4 Camp. 146 ; 16 R. R. 765. 
 
 It is otherwise wliere the shipwright deals for 
 ready money. Ih. 
 
 Priority of Rights.] — When a sliipwright has 
 received a vessel into his yard and repaired her, 
 his rights are subject to all existing oljligations 
 then complete and due against the vessel. TJtc 
 Gustaf, Lush. 506 : 31 L. J., Adm. 207 : 6 L. T. 660. 
 
 Claims for salvage take precedence of a ship- 
 wright's lien in respect of subse(juent repairs to 
 the vessel. Ih. 
 
 A shipwright's lien is postponed to master's 
 find seamen's wages earned piior, but not to such 
 wages earned subsequently, to the time when the 
 vessel entered the shipwright's yard. Ih. 
 
 The seamen and master are, in the case of a 
 f < ireign vessel, entitled to an allowance for return 
 to their own country, and this right takes priority 
 also of such shipwright's claim. Ih. 
 
 The shipwright's lien takes precedence of all 
 claims in respect of necessaries supplied subse- 
 quently to the time when the vessel entered the 
 shipwright's yard. Ih. 
 
 Effect on Priorities of Material Men.] — The 
 
 possessoi-y lien of material men is not detcr- 
 niineil by the aii'csts of the vessel by warrant 
 of the high court of admiralty in a suit for 
 c'(iui])ment and repaii'. TIip Acacia, Hiiiiilton 
 v. HarhiNd. 42 L. T. 264 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 254. 
 
 Eight of Sale.] — A lieir npon chattels confers 
 no right of sale npon the person holding such 
 lien, though the retention of the chattels maybe 
 attended with expense : and therefore, where 
 shipbuilders having a lien on a ship built Ijy 
 them, accoi'ding to contract, for the unpaid pui'- 
 <-hase-money, filetl in equity a bill to enforce 
 their lien by a sale, a demui'rer was allowed. 
 T/u/mr.s Ironwoi'k.s-u//fl SIiij)hiiil{7iiu/ Co. v. Patent 
 Drrrich Co.. 1 J. Ac H. 93 : 29 L. J.. Ch. 714 : 6 
 Jur. (X.S.) 1(113 ; 2 L. T. 208 : 8 W. R. 408. 
 
 Unpaid "Vendor.] — Plaintiff agreed to l)uild a 
 shi[) for P. and i^. and got tlie sln'p buill accord- 
 
 ingly. V. paid Ids moiety of tlu; pi'ice. L. did 
 not. The builder gave a bill of sale of the ship 
 to the plaintiff, and possession to L., from whom 
 he took bills of excliange in payment of ins half 
 share in the ship. The Ijills were dishonoured, 
 and L. died. His executors sold L.'s half of the 
 ship to P., having notice ; P. sold the ship to S. 
 without notice. Decree against P. that lie pay 
 the plaintiff one-half the purchase-money he 
 received for the ship ; L.'s representatives to 
 reimburse P. M'alhrr v. Prc.siricI/, 2 Ves. Sen. 
 622; Belt's Suppl. 419. 
 
 Possession.] — A slii]) was i)]aeed on a iiatent 
 slip for repairs. When part of the reijairs were 
 completed she was removed by the shipbuilders 
 for their own convenience to a wet dock, into 
 which the shipway opened, and the repairs were 
 there completed, the ship being made fast to pawls 
 on the shipbuilders' jjremises. She was moved 
 from time to time for the convenience of persons 
 using the slipway, chiefly by the shii)builders' 
 men, but under ordeis of the harbour master. 
 The master was always on board during the day, 
 and a shipkeeper at night : — Held, that the 
 shipbuildeis had not parted with their lieu. 
 Parr v. ('oiij>er, 2 Ct. of Sess. Ca. (4th ser.) 14. 
 
 No Maritime Lien.] — On aship's being repaired 
 in the river Thames, and fitted out there with 
 new rigging and apparel, the ship itself is not 
 liable, but the owners. WatliuiJioit. v. littrnadigtou, 
 2 P. Wms. 367. S. P., S/ut/iJi, P-vjiarte, 1 Atk. 234. 
 
 Secus, if rejiaired or fittetl out at sea, whei'e 
 the master alone may hypothecate. IVatkhtso/i 
 V. ParHad'i.fton, supra. 
 
 No lien on a ship abroad can be created by parol 
 nor by bills of exchange drawn by the master ; 
 unless, upon mistake clearly established, the 
 instrument can be corrected. Ilallictt, E.v parte, 
 2 Rose, 194, 229 : 19 Ves. 474. 
 
 A ship, while the possession of it is retained, 
 is specifically chargeable in respect of the ex- 
 pense incurred in rejiairing it ; but the possession 
 being ])arted with tlie lien is lost. Bland, Ex 
 parte, 2 Rose, 91. 
 
 JSTo lien on a ship or proceeds from sale of it 
 for repairs done, except in course of a voyage ; 
 liberty given to bi'ing an action as to the per- 
 sonal liability of the pai't owners who received 
 the benefit. Lord Hardwicke's decision in Bod- 
 dinijton V. ILillet (1 Ves. 497) has been over- 
 ruled, and now settled that part owners in a ship 
 are not to be considered as partners. Bu-i-ton v. 
 Snce, 1 Ves. 154 ; Yunng, E,i- imrtc, 3 V, & B. 243. 
 
 ■ Tinder Mortgage. ] — ^A mortgagor of a ship, 
 
 wlio remains in the ostensible ownership, has an 
 implied authority to confer a right of lieu for 
 repairs to keep her seaworthy. Wdl'aiiui^ v. 
 AlLsitp. 1(1 C. H. (N.S.) 417 : 30 L. J., C. P. 353 ; 
 8 Jur. (X.s.) 57 : 4 L. T. 550. 
 
 As against Admiralty Process.] — See The 
 
 Ha, 
 
 b. Of Others. 
 
 Consignees of Cargo — Lien on Cargo — Repairs. ] 
 
 — Consignees of cargo, who by agroenienv with 
 tlie ownei' charter a ship and expend money in 
 her to enable her to fetch the cargo, liave with- 
 out special agreement a lien on the cargo in the 
 sliipowner's hands for tlie money expended : and 
 one who is not consignee has under similar 
 (Mi'cumstanccs a similai' lien, if he can arri'st tlie
 
 25 
 
 SHIFPIXG— II. Xatuniol Character. 
 
 20 
 
 caviro before it comes to the liands of the shii)()er. 
 Younq V. -AW//. 82 Beav. 529 : 2 N. K. 212 : Si 
 Jur. (X.S.) 1>76 : '.» L. T. i» ; 11 W. K. 1052. 
 
 Disputed Ownership.] — The plaintiffs bought 
 a shi}). upon a sale by the master abroad, and 
 repaired lier. The sale was disputed, and ui)on 
 her arrival in England registration in the names 
 of the plaintiffs resisteil by her owners : — Held, 
 that assuming that the ])laintiffs had acquired 
 no legal interest by the sale, they had no lien in 
 respect of the money laid out by them in re[)airs. 
 and that the bill of .sale could not operate by way 
 of bottonny. RldijLcuij v. lloheiix, -t Hare. 106. 
 
 Engines of new Ship — Engineer's Lien — 
 Possession." — P>iigineei's contracte'l with a ship- 
 builder 10 put engines into a ship he was build- 
 ing on lier being brought to Leith. The contract 
 Ijiovided that the engines were 1o be the projjcrty 
 of the engineers until paid for in cash, but sliould 
 be subject to a lien in favour of the shipbuilders 
 for moneys or biUs paid by them to the engineers : 
 that the ship was to be at the disposal of the 
 engineers at Leith for the purpose of ]jutting the 
 engines on boaid : that she should be taken away 
 by the shipbuilder when tlie engines were on 
 board, the engineers providing men to work them : 
 and that the shii) should •• throughout be in 
 charge of the shi[)buildcrs." The ship was towe<l 
 to Leith and lianded over l;y the shipwright in 
 charge to the engineers, but a master remained 
 on board. The engineers also put a man on board 
 and moved the shij) witliout consulting tlie 
 master : — Held, that the engineers had no lien on 
 the ship. Ri)iix v. lia.rfcr, IS Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 (4th ser.) IS."). 
 
 «. Tonnacm:.. 
 
 Si-c aixpx XX. Collision. 7. Limitation of 
 LiAiiTLlTV. infra, col. 717. 
 
 Awning Deck.] — A vessel had an upper deck 
 aljove her main deck, but such upper deck was 
 not continuous from stem to stern of the vessel, 
 and the hatches and other fittings in it were 
 not water-tight : — Held, that such upper deck 
 was not a third deck or spar deck within the 
 .Merchant Shipping Act. l.S.-)4 (17 ..V: 18 Vict. c. 
 104). s. 2L sub-s. 5 : and that tiie space between 
 it and tiie main deck was not space available 
 for cargo, or for accommodation of passengers 
 oi- crew, within sub-s. 4. ami consequently should 
 not l>e re<;koned in estimating her tonnage. Lord 
 Adrnciifr \\ Clydr Sfrrim .\iii-i//iifioii f'li.. L. K. 2 
 II. L. (Sc.) 40'.'» : S2 L. T. 2H7 :' 2 Ct.oF Sess. ('as. 
 ( Ith ser.) 2H; 2 Asj). M. C :.()2. 
 
 Tlie 17 A: LS Vict. c. lo4. s. 2!!. provide- that 
 in every ship propelled by steam or other )(Owcr 
 requiring eiigiiu! room, an allowance shall be 
 made foi' the space occupied by the ])ropelling 
 power, and the amount so allowed shall be 
 fleducted from the gross tonnage of f he slii|). to 
 l»e estimated as provided by that act. Sect. 2'.» 
 gives power to the commissioners of cn>toins. 
 with the saiKrtion of the lioard of trade, to m:dic 
 such nKMlitications and alterations as from lime 
 to lime become necessary in tiie tonnage rules : 
 — Held, that the connnissioners had u<> power to 
 rdter the provisions of the act. as to estimating 
 the tonnage of ships, f'i/;/ of Diihlin Strain 
 I'irhrf Ci<. V. Thoiiiimoti. \ JL vV: H. :W.) : :V> 
 I,. .1.. f. 1'. I'.t8 : L. 11. 1 C. I'. :{.V. : 12 Jur. (N.s.) 
 72ti: i:. L. T. 112: 14 W. K, :!7r,_Kx. Ch. 
 Aftirming VJ C. 15. (N..S.) ."..')H. 
 
 For Dues — Deck Cargo — "Goods" — 
 
 Horses and Cattle.J — Horses and cattle carried 
 as deck cargo are "goods" within the meaning 
 of s. 28 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 187ti. 
 Jlirhiiiund Hill Steii III .ship Co. v. 'J'riiiiti/ Jfoiixr 
 Corjwriitioii. C". L. J.. Q. P.. "jtil : [lS'.Mi]'2 Q. 15. 
 184 : 75 L. T. 8 : 45 W. E. G : 8 Asp. M. C. 164— 
 C. A. 
 
 The proper methoil of measuring the space 
 occupied by such goods for the purpose of 
 ascertaining the additional toiuiage upon which 
 dues are payable, is to measure a rectangular 
 space sufficient for the animals to live in during 
 the voyage, allowing them reasonable facilities 
 for moving. lb. 
 
 Ke-measurement on Alteration— At what Port. 
 
 — A vessel duly registered at D. in Ireland under 
 17 & IS Vict. c. 104, was in 18ti2 altered at L. in 
 England, where a surveyor appointed under the 
 above act certified his measurement to the sur- 
 ve^-or at that port. The owners objected to the 
 measurement and applied for a mandamus to the 
 registrar at D. to have the ship re-measured : — 
 Held, that the court had no jurisdiction, since 
 the act i-equires the regi>tration to l)eat the port 
 of alteration, lln/. v. (rardiiK-r, H! Ir. C. L. 11. 
 84'.i. 
 
 Closed in Space.] — The space on the main deck 
 under a hurricane deck held lujt to be a ■•closed 
 in space on the ui)i)er deck available for cargo or 
 stores, or for the berthing or accommodation of 
 passengers or crew." and therefore not to be 
 included in the ship's measurement. Leith, Jliilt 
 find ffiiinhiirii Strum Parhrt Co. v. Lord Ad lo- 
 cate, 11 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (8rd ser.) 5'.»7. 
 
 II. NATIONAL CHARACTEK. 
 
 Evidence.! — A ship's register, containing a 
 statement of British ownershii). even if, by 
 17 A: 18 Vict. c. 104. s. 107. made iniina facie 
 proof of such ownership, may be outweighed by 
 circumstantial I'vidence to the contraiy. Thr 
 Princrxx Charlotte. 15r. i: Lush. 75. 
 
 The nationality of a British ship is sufficiently 
 proved by stateiuents of the master and crew 
 that she is a 15ritisli shii> sailing under a British 
 tiag, without |)roof of her having been registered : 
 anil even if it appears that she has not been 
 registered, a prisoner charged with connuitting 
 a crime on board miudit be convicted. Jte;/. v. 
 ,>v-/ym/. 8'.l L. .1.. M. C. 188: L. I!. I <'. C 261 : 
 22L.T.528: IH\V.H.'t85: 11 (o.x. ('. C 52n. 
 
 To prove that a ship is a British >liip. it is 
 not necessary to priKluce the registiy or a copy 
 thereof: it is sufficient to shew orally that she 
 belongs to r.riti>h owners, and carries the ISriti^h 
 flag. "jtei/. v. Alien, 10 Co.\, C. C. 405. 
 
 A register is nut a document required iiy the 
 law of nations as expressive of a siiips national 
 character. />/• Cheiniiiant v. J'eaiKon, I Taunt. 
 867: 18 U. K. 686. 
 
 A native of the Ionian Islands purcliaM-d an 
 
 American ship. 1. n) '^ declaration that he 
 
 was a r.ritish >ulije.-t. obtained from the Mritish 
 consul at Cuba a provisional regi-tryof the ship 
 as 15ritish. The ship was afterwaids seized and 
 coiKlemne.l for a bivaeh of the Slave Trade Acts. 
 I'lM.n an objc'tioii taken on appeal to the juris- 
 diction of tiie court below, on the ground of the 
 national character of the owner «>f the ship and 
 ^.aipo :— Held, that the registry, flag and pass of 
 a. shipcarrv with them the presumption that they
 
 SHIPPING— III. llnjistnitioii. 
 
 •27 
 
 are true an.l ('(invcl. autl that tlic owner \v.is 
 estoppoil from pniviii,^- that he was not a Biitish 
 subject, and consequeiitly tlie register of the ship 
 was void. Tfir Lmini. :$ iMoore, I'. C CN-S.) 181 : 
 12 L. T. 08.^): i:? W. It. -W.). 
 
 Register no Evidence by itself that Ship is 
 
 British-built. J— See i.Vv/.v.vr v. .lA//^'/'.v. S Camp. 
 4 74. infra, eol. i'.'«7. 
 
 Illegal Colours.]— A r.ritisli mereliant sin)! was 
 ln.anleil, havinsj; an ensign witli the St. (ieortic's 
 <Toss. i:e., colours other than those legally worn 
 1)V merchantmen, contrary to 17 cV: 18 Vict. c. lU4r, 
 s.'lO.'). A warrant of arrest was directed to issue 
 jigainst the master, upon attidavits of the facts in 
 lieu of declarations in support of them. lieg. v. 
 IJiccii. 2 Jur. (N.S.) 4.04. 
 
 Concealment of British Character— Forfeiture.] 
 
 Wlien a British suljjeet. tlie owner of a British 
 
 ship, by a representation to the collector of 
 customs at the port of registry that his ship has 
 lieen sold to foreigners, procures the closing of 
 I lie registry, and sails her uuder a foreign certi- 
 ticate of registry and under a foreign flag, whilst 
 lie continues to own her and to receive the 
 profits of working her. doing such acts with the 
 intent to conceal her British character from 
 the officers of customs, and i)revent her seizure 
 us unseaworthy, he commits an offence against 
 the provisions' of the :Mercliant Shipping Act. 
 18.-)-t (17 i: 18 Vict. c. 104). s. lUH, by reason of 
 wliich his ship is liable to and will be con- 
 ( lemned to forfeiture to her majesty. The Sccjitir, 
 3.-> L. T. 42t» ; H Asp. M. ('. 2(;'.t. 
 
 Forfeiture, as against bona fide Purchaser 
 
 for Value.]— The foitViture incui'red under s. 108 
 .,f the Merchant Shipjiing Act, 18.")4, accrues at 
 the time of the illegal and fraudulent act, and 
 SI subsequent seizure relates back to the date of 
 the act constituting the cause of forfeiture ; and 
 this is so even as against a bona fide purchaser 
 without notice of such act. 'J'ltfi AHniinduU, 47 
 L. J.. Adm. B : 2 P. D. 218 ; H7 L. T. 1S9, 3(;4 ; 
 'it; W. R. 38 : :^ Asp. M. C. .")04— C. A. 
 
 A shi]). with the consent of the British owners, 
 sailed under the Belgian flag in 1874. In 187(i 
 tlie defendant bought her bona fide, and for 
 valuable consideration. The ship was claimed 
 as forfeited to the crown uiuler s. WA of the 
 Merchant Slnpinng Act, 1854. The defendant 
 pleaded his bona fide purchase for valmtble con- 
 sideration :— Held, that such sale was of no effect 
 as ao-ainst the i)rior forfeiture, which accrued at 
 the "time of the act of sailing under foreign 
 colours. Ih. 
 
 In Prize Cases.]— The flag and ship's docu- 
 ments are conclusive as to the nationality of 
 the ship, but not of tlic cargo. The Vreedr 
 SrhoUy.^.n C.Rob. 5, n. The Vrow Elhahcth, 
 -> C. Rob. 2. 
 
 Seizure of British Ship as Prize —Action 
 against Commander of Captor.]— No action lies 
 aL'-ainst tlie connnander of a British ship of war 
 for seizing and detaining a vessel on suspicion 
 of her betng hostile prize. Faith v. Ptarxoii. 
 i; Taunt. 4;?'i: Holt, N. P. C. 113 ; Ifi R. H- 649. 
 
 Trover of Ship— Illegal Seizure.]— Damages 
 recovered against a king's officer illegally com- 
 missioned to seize interlo])ers in the Guinea 
 trade. IJorhirray v. Dirheii.wn, Comb. 'M)i\. 
 
 28 
 
 See (ilxo r.. :Marixe Insurance. VI. Wau- 
 RANTIE.S, post, cols. 114i), 1170; XXVI. Admi- 
 ralty Law and Practice, 12. Illegal 
 Colours, post, col. yrji. 
 
 III. RECISTRATION. 
 
 1. Tender .Vrrrhi(/it i->hq/j/iii{/ Aef.s. ^ 
 
 ,1. Title l)y, 28. 
 
 h. Foreign Owners — Foreign Ships, 2'J. 
 e. Ships owned by Partners, Ho. 
 d. Certificate, 30. 
 c. Improper Registrati(ui, 32. 
 /". P^quitable Interests, 34. 
 '<l. Old Registry Acts. 3(5. 
 //. Miscellaneous, 3S. 
 
 2. Bet/iff raflon at Llni/d.i', 38. 
 
 1. Under Merchant Shipping Acts. 
 a. Title by. 
 
 Evidence.] — The legistry of a ship is con- 
 clusive evidence of the property : even against 
 the claim of creditors upon a joint purchase and 
 various acts of apparent ownership, within the 
 Bankrupt Act (21 Jac. 1, c. 19), s. 11. Yulloj}, 
 Ex parte, 15 Ves. 60 ; 10 R. R. 24. 
 
 The registry of a ship is conclusive evidence of 
 the property, even between creditors ; excluding 
 all trusts created by acts of the parties, as by 
 payment of money on a purchase in the name of 
 another. Distinction as to trusts arising by 
 operation of law upon bankruptcy or death. 
 Ilof/f/htun, J'Jf parte. Grihhle, Kr parte, 17 Ves, 
 251 i 1 Rose, 177 ; 11 R. R. 73. 
 
 Sale by Mortgagee.] — The purchaser from a 
 mortgagee selling improperly after the amount 
 due on the mortgage has been tendered to him, 
 having registereirhimself as owner under 17 iV: 18 
 Vict c. 104. got a good title. McLarty v. ^[id- 
 dleton, 4 L. T'. 852. Aftirmed, 10 W. R. 21 9— C. A. 
 
 Power of Attorney given by Mortgagor.] 
 
 — A., the owner of forty-eight shares in a ship 
 belonging to the port of Liverpool, gave a power 
 (jf attorney to B.. the other part owner, empower- 
 ing him to sell A.'s share of the ship. The ship 
 then sailed from Liverpool under the command 
 of B., having on board her certificate of registry 
 and the jiower of attorney. While she was at 
 sea A. mortgaged his forty-eight shares in the 
 ship and all future freight "to the plaintiffs, who 
 had no notice of the power of attorney, and a 
 memorandum of the mortgage wasentered in the 
 Liverpool register. Subsequently B. sold all the 
 shares in the ship and cargo at Sydney (as to A.'s 
 shares by virtue of the power of attorney) to C, 
 who had no notice of the mortgage made by A. 
 The ship was thereupon registered de novo at 
 Sydney, and was freighted by C. at his own 
 expense with a new cargo for England. She 
 .sailed, and arrived in London without having 
 been to Liverpool. The plaintift's took possession 
 of the ship and cargo in the Loiulon docks, and 
 gave notice at all the wharves of their claim to 
 forty-eight shares of the ship and freight. The 
 defendants afterwards also took possession : — 
 Held, that the plaintiffs had the Vjetter title 
 under the registry act to forty-eight shares of 
 both the ship and freight, and that they had 
 ])roperly taken possession of them under the cir- 
 cumstances. Cattt V. Irrnif/, 5 De G. & Sm. 210 ; 
 21 L. J.. Ch. (i75 ; Hi Jur. l(;i. 
 
 Mortgage of Ship at Sea— Registration — 
 Policy of the Registration Acts.]— .Mortgage of
 
 29 SHIPPING— III. Registration. 30 
 
 a ship at sea, the forms required by the rcLristry j registered as British, iiotwithstandintr the 
 
 acts beino: observed, had valid injunction granted 
 to restrain an improper indorsement on the 
 register. The policy and effect of the registry 
 acts discussed. T/iinjij).wn v. Smith, 1 JIad. 
 395 ; see Xeic/ilidin v. Grarcx. liurhm- v. Chnp- 
 man, cited Ih.. p. 399. 
 
 Judicial Sale of Interest.] — A purchaser under 
 a judicial sale of a beneticial interest in a British 
 ship is not entitled to be registered as owner of 
 it. Chuxteaiiiieiif v. Capeiiron, 'A L. J.. P. C. 37 : 
 7 App. Cas. 127 ; 46 L. T.'fi.") : -1 Asp. M. C. 489 
 —P. C. 
 
 Charge on Freight— Prior Transfer of Ship.] 
 
 — An owner <if a sliip assigned twenty-fnur 
 sixty-fourth parts to A., and the remaining forty 
 sixty-fourth parts to P>.. and afterwards, repre- 
 senting himself to be the owner of the ship, gave 
 C. a charge uj)on the freight then being earned. 
 A. registered the transfer to hin^ prior to the date 
 of C."s charge, but B. did not :— Held, that C. 
 had a lien upon the freight in [iriority to B. 
 Lnulmij V. (rthhx,-22 Beav. r)22 : 2 .lur. (N.S.) 
 1039 : 4 AV. 11. 7S8. See S. ('.. col. 393. 
 
 Held, also, that the expenses incurred in earn- 
 ing the freight were the first charge upon it. li. 
 
 Action between Co-owners — Title.] — In an 
 
 action between co-owneis. title to ship held good, 
 though the Registry Act (8 cV: 9 Vict. c. 29),s. 18, 
 bad not been complied with. Curhilc v. Mac- 
 uljiiii. 2 ft. of Sess. Cas. (.Hid ser.) 882. 
 
 Ship Transferred to Infant Son— Arrestment — 
 Scotch Law.] — Bell v. (toic. 1 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 (3nl ser.) 1S3. 
 
 Srr iilxii VIII. Salk and Transfer, and 
 Jjiimiton V. lliirton. Parr v. Applchrr. Whitjirld 
 V. I'arjit, and The Eaxterii JJcllc, sub tit. 
 Mortgage, infra, cols. 170. 171. 
 
 b. Foreign Owners — Foreign Ships. 
 
 Ships Owned by Company — Foreign Members.] 
 
 — Si-inbic that the Mat. 3 .V 4 Will. 1, c. :..".. s. 33. 
 which authorises a particular mode of registering 
 vessels belonging to joint-stock companies, does 
 not apjdy to a joint-stock cfinipany in which 
 foreigners are shareholders. Jlenxnit v. Ilrdthoni, 
 ] V. A: C. C. C. 32«. 
 
 Under 8 & 9 Vict. c. 89. s. 12. a corporation 
 within tiic Uidtcd Kiiigdoni. some mend)ers of 
 which were foreigners and jiersons residing 
 abroad, might register ships wliich were the 
 jiropcrty of such coriioraf ion. llrij. v. Ariuiud. 
 9 Q. B. 80(; : H; I,. .1.. i). I!, .'.ii ; n'.hir. 279. 
 
 Old Registry Acts— Foreign Ships. ] — A f( ncig 1 1 - 
 liuiit slii|i. I'.ritisii (iwiicd. \\;i^ not. undrr 3S 
 <ico. 3, c. 7<). s. (i. ie(iiiiu-d to he registered, and 
 might sail without convoy. Loikj v. 7>w//', 2 
 Bos. i: P. 209. 
 
 It is not a fraud to cause a sliip belonging to 
 foreigners to \>c rcgisterctl in the names of I'ritisli 
 subjects. Tini Sirilirx (Ai//i/ <;/') v. Milni-r or 
 J'fiiinxiilor and Oririitiil Strum J'lichrt Co., 
 19 L. J., Ch. 4MK : ] Sim. (N.S.J 334: 14 Jur. 
 
 7r,i. 
 
 Wlierc an act of the legislative c-ouncil of 
 India enabled ships " owned l>y I'ritisli subjects" 
 to be registered as British: — Held, that a ship 
 once owned by foreimiers. lait at tlie date 
 
 imperial registry acts, which disipialified such 
 a ship from being registered as British. Craw- 
 ford v. SpooHcr. () Moore, P. C. 1. 
 
 c. Ships owned by Partners. 
 
 Ships purchased by one partner hckl separate 
 propert}% as between creditors, after his bank- 
 ruptcy and death of the other, upon circum- 
 stances, particularly the registry being made in 
 the name of one party only, and being afterwards 
 continued for a fraudulent purpose. Curtis v. 
 Pevrij, 6 Ves. 739 : (1 K. R. 28. 
 
 Under a commission of bankruptcy against 
 two partners, ship registered in the name of one 
 of them, but in the order an<l disposition of both, 
 forms ]jart of the joint estate. Burn, E.r parte, 
 
 1 Jac. ct Walk. 378 ; 21 II. R. 18(5. 
 
 A ship, the property of a jjartnershij) and 
 registerecl in the name of the partnership, is 
 within the 3 &; 4 Will. 4, c. .">o. s. 32. and may 
 therefore be tlealt with as any other ))artnershii) 
 property. Iloicden, E.r parte, Lltherland. In re, 
 
 2 Mont. D. & U. .")74. 
 
 Agreement between A., B., and C. that they 
 shall purchase ship to be registered in names of 
 A. and B., is against public l)olicy, and demurrer 
 allowed to bill for account in such transaction. 
 Batterxhi/ v. Smi/fJi, 3 :Ma(ld. lid. 
 
 Under ti Geo. 4, c. 110, s. 32, where a shiji 
 belonged to three partners in business and the 
 names of two only appeared on the register, it 
 was held that the third, whose name did not 
 aiipear. had no interest in the ship. Slater v. 
 Willis, 1 Beav. 3.-j4. 
 
 Two co-owners of a ship tuok two jjartners but 
 executed no transfer of the ship to them : — Held, 
 under the old registry act, that the fou:- partners 
 had no such legal or ecjuitable interest in the 
 sliij) as enabled them to insure her in tiie names 
 of the four. Camden v. Anderson. ."> T. R. 709. 
 And see ,S'. C. C Term Reii- "-•"' ; ' '■"-■ '^ ''• -"-• 
 
 d. Certificate. 
 
 Possession of Certificate — Jurisdiction of 
 Chancery Court. — Sec Jhirlnj v. Uuinrx. \\\'i\:\. 
 col. 4i;. 
 
 Vendor — Interest in., — The vender of n -hip, 
 with a covenant for title, retains after the sale 
 (in order tiiat he may fulfil his contract, and 
 defend liiniself against an action brought upon 
 his c<ivciiant) such an inlciesi in liie certificate 
 of registry as enables him In sustain a suit for its 
 delivery against a i>arty uidawfully detaining it. 
 (lihsoii V. Intjo, (» Hare, 112. 
 
 Lien of Master on.] — A master litis no lien on 
 tlic certificate of registry, either for his Wiigcs «.r 
 for moneys disbiM'sed by him for the u-e of the 
 ship: nor have shiijliiokers .-my jicii ..ii the 
 certificate of registry for advances made l»y tliein 
 tn the owner for tiie use of the ship. Ih. 
 
 The admiralty divisidii of the high court has 
 power, ujion the applicatimi of the owners of a 
 ship, to order a nuister who lisis been <li-missed 
 fiom their employment to deliver up the certifi- 
 cate of registry .'ind oilier papi'is aii<l iiropcity 
 Ix'longing to the ship, wliere lie refuses tu sur- 
 render them. Scmble. that a master, whether 
 co-owner or ii<it. cnn have no lien upon a certificate 
 
 question o\\ ncd by Biitish subjects, could be I of registry or ship's papers in ca.sc of wrongful
 
 ai 
 
 SHIPPING— III. Iloiisf ration. 
 
 32 
 
 ilisnii->:il liv the nianiV<iiiiut>\viiors. T/ie Sf^. ()/af\ 
 •2 V. 1>. 1 i:i : S.-) L. T/428 ; S Asp. M. C. L'C.S. 
 
 To secure Advances — Unregistered 
 
 Owner, i — The S ^: [) Vict. r. Si), s. ;!(). did not 
 luiwiit ;i Hon being created on n certificate of 
 ail oriLrinal rejjiistrv, tlei)Osite(n)y an unre^istereil 
 owner to secure advances for the nse of the ship. 
 Cliirf/r V. Jiiitterx, 1 K. c*c J. 242. 
 
 Of Factor.]— Where a factor for the 
 
 owner i>f a >hip at an Englisli port had, by a 
 request To tlie master, obtained a certificate of 
 registry fur the alleged pui'pose of paying the 
 tonnage (hities at the custom-house : — Held, that 
 he had no lien on the ceitificate so obtained for 
 the general balance due to liim in respect of the 
 ship'. Burn v. Jlm/ni, 2 Stark. 272 ; I'.l U. 11. 
 7 lit. 
 
 Of Agent for Sale.] — The former ship 
 
 registry acts did not jjrevent a- person from 
 having a lien on papers, dejiosited with liim. 
 of a sliip which lie was commissioned to sell. 
 .Vcxffirr V. Atl'i/is, 5 Taunt. 8S1 ; 1 Marsli. 76. 
 
 Equitable Mortgagee.] — Where a certificate of 
 a >lup's register had been deposited as a security 
 for advant'es for the use of the ship : — Hehl. that 
 this gave the holder a sufiicieiit lien to defeat an 
 action of trover for the certificate. Jimrc/i v. 
 F(i.r. 10 B. 6c C. -11 ; 5 M. & Rv. 5 : 4 Car. .t P. 
 4.-)2 : 8 L. J. (O.S.) M. C. OS. 
 
 Refusal of Master to Deliver.] — After a ship 
 had arrived at the port of discharge, but before 
 it was discharged, tlie owner demanded the cer- 
 tificate of registry from the master, intending to 
 dismiss him, but not communicating that inten- 
 tion to him : — Held, that the master was not 
 liable to be convicted, uTuler 17 iV: IS Vict. c. 104. 
 s. ")0. for refusing to deliver up the certificate 
 without a reasonable cause. Ifurl-fr or Arlilr v. 
 Ili'inrll. S El. .*c Bl. 828 ; 27 L. J., M. C. 110 ; 
 4 Jur. (x.s.) 80(j. 
 
 A conviction under G Geo. 4. c. 110. s. 27, and 
 H A; 4 Will. 4, c. 55, s. 27. for detaining the cer- 
 tificate of a ship's registry, was bad, unless it 
 stated the puri^ose for which the certificate was 
 wanteil, and the person who demanded it was 
 the ■•proper'' ofticer. Ih-r v. Wtilxh. S N. &: M. 
 r.S2 : 1 A. cS: E. 481 : H L. J.. M. C. 100. 
 
 Under 34 (ieo. 3, c. (i8, s. 18, the master could 
 not be convicted for refusing to deliver the ship's 
 certificate of registry to the owner. llr.v v. 
 Pi,rki/, 13 East, yi. 
 
 Pledge of.] — A pledge, by the master and sole 
 owner of a ship, of the certificate of registry, 
 though for a good and sutticient cojisideration. is 
 illegal and void ; and therefore an action will lie 
 liy the master and sole owner against the person 
 detaining it. after a demand made upon him to 
 return it" for the purposes of navigation. M'ilci/ 
 v. Crawford. 1 B. & S. 253 ; 30 L. J.. Q. B. 31 S) ; 
 7 Jur. (X-^) •'^:^ ; "i L. T. ()53 : !) W. R. 741— 
 Ex. Ch. 
 
 Sale under Order of Court— Conversion of.]— 
 An owner of a ship consigned her to persons 
 abroad, who hypothecated her, and directed the 
 captain to sign a bottomry bond : on her arrival 
 in London, he. by their direction, delivered the 
 register to the agent of the consignees, who gave 
 it to their solicitor to institute proceedings in 
 the court of admiralty on the bottomiy bond : 
 
 the ship wivs sfdd by order of that court, and the 
 register decreed to be given up to the purchaser. 
 The owner became bankrupt, and his assignees 
 brought an action for the register : — Held, that 
 they coulil not recover, as they might have 
 appeared in the adniiraltj^ court and prevented 
 the sale of the vessel, and as the delivery of the 
 register to the purchaser, under the decree of 
 that court, was not a conversion. Uossack v 
 J/asson, i Moore, o(il. 
 
 Possession of Certificate.] — Sale by mortgagee 
 whilst ship under agreement between mortgagor 
 and a company to run as one of the company's 
 liners. See T/ie Celtic K'ukj, post, tit. IX. Mort- 
 gage, coL 182. 
 
 Admiralty Court.] — The admiralty court 
 
 would not formerly interfere to give possession 
 of a ship's register to a person whose title is in 
 doubt. The Fninrct! of Leith, 2 Dods. 420. 
 
 e. Improper Registration. 
 
 Liability for Goods supplied.] — The registered 
 owners of a ship are prinul facie alone liable for 
 goods supplied, though so registered without 
 their knowledge. M/(c/idl, E-v parte. 2 Ves. & B. 
 21(5 ; 1 Rose, 447. 
 
 Fraudulent Registration — Relief in Equity.] 
 — A bill stateil that the vendoi'st)f a ship executed 
 a bill of sale to a purchaser, which was to be 
 handed to him upon his paying the consideration 
 in a manner stipitlated, but that he took it away 
 with some other paper, as it was supposed, by 
 mistake, and afterwards returned it, saying, he 
 could not comply wnth the terms. The bill 
 further alleged, that the plaintiffs, the vendors, 
 had discovered that the defendant, the purchaser, 
 had taken advantage of his accidental possession 
 of the document, to make himself the registered 
 owner of the ship, and was about to sail in her : 
 — Held, that the alleged fraud would not enable 
 the court to interfere, and a denuirrer to the bill 
 was allowed. FoUeft v. Dehinii, 2 De G. i: Sm. 
 235 ; 17 L. .1., Ch. 254 ; 12 iwY. 549. 
 
 Where a person, having no title to a ship, 
 procures it to be registered in his name, the 
 court will compel him to retransfer it to the 
 rightful owner, and account for the earnings, 
 even though there has been no fraud, and 
 notwithstanding the 17 >.V: 18 Vict. c. 104. 
 /ft>l(lrr)ie.s:t v. Ltimjiort, 2it Beav. 12S> : 30 L. .J., 
 Ch. 481t ; 7 Jur. (x.s.) 5G4 : 'J W. R. 327. 
 
 Gives no Title.]— Under the 17 iV: IS Vict. 
 
 c. 104. s. 71). the registry of a bill of sale, which 
 though purpoi ting to be valid, so that the registrar 
 has no alternative but to register -it. is in fact 
 invalid, and gives no title, even at law, to the 
 person therebj' registered as sole owner of the 
 ship. Orr v. Dieliiii.sini. 1 Johns. 1 ; 28 L. J.. Ch. 
 5H> ; 5 Jur. (N.S.) 072. 
 
 Therefore where a bill of sale, though executed 
 ))y the person named for that purpose by the 
 phiintiff. the then owner of the ship, and purport- 
 ing in all other resi)ects to be made in conformity 
 with the certificate of sale, was, in fact, made 
 for less than the minimum price specified in the 
 certificate, and the ship was registered in the 
 name of the jjurchaser as sole owner : — Held, 
 that the registry was void ; and the ship havhig 
 been sold by arrangement pending a suit, that
 
 33 
 
 SHIPPING— III. Registration. 
 
 84 
 
 the plaintiff was entitled to the net proceeds of 
 the sale. lb. 
 
 Qupere, whether under the 17 & IS Vict. c. lOi, 
 s. 79, and 18 & 19 Vict., c. 91, s. 10, the court of 
 chancery has jurisdiction to interfere with a title 
 required at law by the registration of a valid bill 
 of sale of a ship. lb. 
 
 The 65th section of the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, 
 does not deprive the court of chancery of its 
 ordinary jurisdiction to protect property during 
 litigation. lb. 
 
 Belief in Equity,] — Equitable relief may be 
 given against the registered owner of a ship in 
 cases of fraud. Armstrong y. Armstrong, infra. 
 
 Improper Eegistration abroad.] — Two British 
 subjects, H. and B., owmed an American built ship, 
 which, in fraud of the American law, they caused 
 to be registered in America in the name of C, an 
 American citizen. After she had made several 
 voyages between England and America, B. 
 excluded A. from his share in the ship's earnings 
 and against his will sent her on a further voyage 
 to America : — Held, that assuming the registra- 
 tion and trading of the ship were contrary to 
 American registration and British navigation 
 law, A. was nevertheless entitled to an account 
 and payment of his share of the ship's earnings, 
 and that B. would be personally liable in case 
 the ship or her proceeds were not forthcoming. 
 aharji V. Taylor, 2 Ph. 801. 
 
 Improper Indorsement — Injunction.] — Mort- 
 gage of ship at sea (the form of Kegistry Act 
 being observed) held valid, and injunction 
 granted to prevent an improper indorsement on 
 certificate of registry of ship. 7'/iunijjson v. Smith, 
 1 Madd. H95 ; and see Ilex v. Collector of Customs, 
 post, col. 44. 
 
 Agreement to Purchase — Improper Registra- 
 tion.] — Agreement between A.. B. and C, that 
 they shall purchase shi]» to be registered in 
 names of A. and B., is against i)ublic policy, and 
 demurrer allowed to bill for account in such 
 transaction. liattersby v. Smyth, 3 Madd. 110. 
 
 Propriety of Eegistration — Evidence.] — The 
 
 registry is conclusive as to the >\\\\> being in a fit 
 state to be registered under 8 Ac 9 Vict. c. 89, 
 although there may be evidence to shew tiiat 
 the ship was not comiiletcfl at the time of registry. 
 Cuoinhrs v. Mnnxfiil/I, 3 Drew. 19:^ ; 3 Ef]. K. .ofWi ; 
 24 L. J., Ch. bis ■ 1 Jur. (X.s.) 270 ; 3 W. 11. 
 345. 
 
 Sale by Mortgagee— Discharge of Mortgage — 
 InvalidTransfer— Registration of New Transfer.] 
 — in 1688 a mortgagee oi shares in a sliip sold 
 them for the amount of the mortgage debt. A 
 disciiarge of the mortgage and bills of sale in 
 favour of the purchaser were ;it the same time 
 entered on the register. The bills of sale were 
 not properly executed, and in 1892 tlie mortgagee 
 granted new bills of sale. The purchaser tendered 
 these for registration, but the mortgagor liaving 
 claimed the shares, the registrar refused to 
 register the new bills of sale : — Held, that an 
 order sliould go to the registrar to enter them on 
 the register. Ifuthie v. Ailten, 20 Ct. of Sess. Ca.s. 
 (4th s'er.) 211. 
 
 Wrong Name.1- 
 
 " City of I'.ruxclle 
 
 VOL. XIII, 
 
 —The name of a vessel was the 
 s." and was so described in a 
 
 mortgage. It was registered by the owner and 
 by the mortgagee as the " City of Brussels" : — 
 Held, that the misdescription did not vitiate or 
 affect the validity of the registration. Bell v. 
 Bank of London, 3 H. & N. 730 ; 28 L. J., Ex. 
 lit). 
 
 Mandamus to Register.]— See liexx. Liirrpool 
 Collector of Customs, 2 M. & S. 223, post, col. 44. 
 
 f. Equitable Interests. 
 
 Proceeds of Sale of Ship.] — The policy of the 
 Ship Kegistry Act (8 & 9 Vict. c. 89), in disre- 
 garding interests not appearing on the register, 
 is inapplicable both to the money arising from 
 the sale of a ship, and to the produce of the 
 freight. Armsfrom/ v. Armsfronr/, 3 Eq. Eep. 
 973 ; 21 Eeav. 78 ; 24 L. J., Ch. G59 ; 1 Jur. (n.s.> 
 859 ; 3 W. K. 563. S. C, on motion for in- 
 junction, 2 W. R. 678. 
 
 When a party who appears on the registry to- 
 be the absolute owner of a ship, enters into an 
 agreement for valuable consideration, admitting 
 he is a trustee, and engaging to sell the ship, and 
 hand over the produce to the true owner, the 
 court, notwithstanding 8 i: 9 Vict. c. 89, ss. 34-39, 
 will enforce the agreement. lb. 
 
 Shares in a ship ptirchased with A.'s money 
 were registered in B.'s name. After A.'s death, 
 B. entered into an agreement with his represen- 
 tatives, admitting tlieir right, and for valuable 
 consideration agreeing to sell the shares at the 
 end of twelve months, and to account to the 
 representatives for the proceeds. B. accordingly 
 sold to C. :— Held, that though the 8 ck 9 Vict, 
 c. 89, ])revented the representatives enforcing 
 any right against the sliip itself, still that they 
 were entitled to recover the purchase- money 
 in the hands of C. lb. 
 
 Between the date of a bill of sale of shares of 
 a ship, and the entry of the transfer on the 
 register, the purchaser had notice that the 
 vendor, though the shares were registered in his 
 name, was a trustee. The case presenting a 
 prima facie appearance of fraud, the court 
 granted an interim injunction to restrain the 
 purchaser from dealing witii the shares or 
 indorsing the transfer on tiic certificate of 
 registry, so as to insure the effective determina- 
 tion of the questions at tlic licaring. S. C, 21 
 Beav. 71. 
 
 There is nothing in the policy of the Ship 
 Registry Acts to prevent a third party not luxving 
 any registered siiare in a ship from acquiring 
 from tiie owner an interest in the jjroceedsof the 
 sale of the ship in the hands of a purchaser, 
 wiicn tiic ship A\\\\\ have been sold, the court 
 not being required to recognise any interest in 
 such third person in the ship itself, semble. 
 M'Calmont v. Itankin, 8 Hare, 1 ; 19 L. J., Cli. 
 215 ; 14 Jur. 475. 
 
 But whether, under a contract by which a 
 party has an interest in the proceeds of tiie sale 
 of a ship, such party can compel the owner to 
 sell the ship, or obtain a decree for tiic sale, 
 fjufcre. lb. 
 
 The provisions of the Ship Registrj' Acts apply 
 erpially to contracts as to sales; and (he whole 
 frame of the.«c acts negatives any equity result- 
 ing out of tlie doctrirn' of ixiticc. An unregis- 
 tered agreement, therefore, with the registered 
 owner of a ship, which the owner subsequently 
 transfers for value to another person wlio has 
 notice of the agreement, cannot Ije enforced
 
 85 
 
 SHIPPING— III. Registration. 
 
 36 
 
 cither as acjainst the ship or its proceeds. S. C, 
 2 Be G. U^. & O. W3 ; 22 L. J., Ch. 554. 
 
 Non-registratiouoC mortg-aseheld not to affect 
 mortgagee's title to proceeds of sale of ship. 
 Lister v. Puyn, 11 Sim. 348. 
 
 Unregistered Assignment — No Relief in 
 Eq.uity.] — An assionnimt of a ship by way of 
 mortgage, which is defective by not having 
 complied with the old registry act, cannot be 
 made good in equity. Bidtccl, Ex 'parte, 2 Cox, 
 213 ; 2 K. K. 31". 
 
 Jurisdiction of Chancery Courts.] — By 25 & 26 
 Vict. c. G3. the court has jurisdiction over 
 equitable rights of mortgagees and owners. 
 Samuel v. Jones, 7 L. T. 7G0. 
 
 The vendor sold a share in a ship, executed the 
 bill of sale, and gave a receipt for the purchase- 
 money, though it had not been paid. Relief 
 given in equity. Bi/le v. Ilcu/ffie, 1 Jac. & Walk. 
 234. 
 
 Contract for Sale— Specific Performance.] — 
 
 According to the proper construction to be put 
 upon the o4th section of 8 & 9 Vict.c S'J, a court 
 of equity will not enforce specific performance of 
 a contract for the purchase of a ship, although 
 such contract does not affect to make a transfer 
 •of the ship, but is merely executory. Quiere, 
 whether an action may not now be maintained 
 .at law on such a contract, althotigh it would 
 Irave been void under the old registry acts (26 
 Geo. 3, c. 60. and 34 Geo. 3, c. GS). HiKjhes v. 
 Jlorvis, 2 De G. M. &; G. 349 ; 21 L. J., Oh. 761 ; 
 16 Jur. 603. 
 
 Bill for specific performance of contract to 
 buy ship dismissed. Brewster v. Clarke, 2 Mar. 
 75. 
 
 The act 54 Geo. 3, c. 68, s. 15, applied to an 
 executory contract for sale of a ship. Mortimer 
 V. Fleming, 4 B. & C. 120 ; 6 D. & R. 176. 
 
 Trust for Sale.] — An executory trust for sale 
 of a ship cannot be enforced (under the old 
 registry act). Hodgson v. Broicn, 2 B. & Aid. 
 427. 
 
 Account of Freights— Purchaser unregistered 
 — Payment out of Freights.] — An account of 
 freights grounded on a contract for the sale of 
 the ship, which was to be paid for out of 
 freights received by the purchaser, takeu in 
 ■ equity; although the ship was not registered in 
 the name of the purchaser, and although (under 
 the old Registry Acts, 3 & 4 "Will. 4, c. 55, and 6 
 Geo. 4, c. 110) he had no equitable interest in 
 the ship. Bavenport v, Whitmore, 2 Myl. & Cr. 
 177. 
 
 Possession. — G. having entered into a contract 
 for the purchase of a ship not binding under the 
 registry acts, agreed with the plaintiff that he 
 should set up engines in her, to be paid for at a 
 specified price if a certain speed was attained, 
 but if not, to be removed by the plaintiii. The 
 jjlaintiflf, with the knowledge and approbation of 
 Y.. the registered owner, set . up the engines, 
 which did not enable the vessel to attain the 
 re(iuired speed. Y. then refused either to pay 
 the stipulated price or allow the plaintiff to 
 remove the engines : — Held, that the plaintiff's 
 remedy against Y., if any, was at law, and that 
 there was no around for equitable interference. 
 Me7mie v. Yofuig. 2 De G. & J. 136 ; 27 L. J., Ch. 
 753. 
 
 Unregistered Mortgagee — Eight to Restrain 
 
 Sale.] — Where the mortgagee of a shi() omitted 
 to procui'e the indorsement on the certificate of 
 registry as required by the registry act, and after 
 that period the registered owner became banki upt : 
 — Held, that he had no equitable right to restrain 
 the assignees from sale of the ship, distinct from 
 his legal right, and depending upon the rule of 
 law regarding the banki'upt's having the order 
 and disposition. Campbell v. Thompson, 2 Hare, 
 140 ; 7 Jur. 59. 
 
 High Court of Admiralty.] — Under the Registry 
 Act of 1839, the high court of admiialty. in a 
 cause of possession, refused to regard equitable 
 interest in a ship. The Valiant, 1 W. Rob. 64. 
 
 And see, tit. Teaksfer and Sale, [lost. 
 
 g-. Old Registry Acts. 
 
 Transfer of a share in a ship to another part 
 owner, void by not procuring the indorsement 
 upon the certificate, within the tinne prescribed 
 by the registry acts after the arrival of the ship. 
 Spcldt V. Lechmere, 13 Ves. 588. 
 
 The bill of sale passes the alsolute property in 
 a ship at sea, subject only to be devested in case 
 the indorsement on the certificate of registry not 
 being made within ten days after the return of 
 the ship to port ; power of attorney to sign an 
 indorsement on a certificate not revoked by 
 bankruptcy of the vendor, subseqttently to the 
 execution of the power, but previoush' to the 
 indorsement, being a power onij- to do a. mere 
 formal act, which the bankrupt himself might have 
 been compelled to execute, notwithstanding his 
 bankruptcy, and for a valuable consideration ; 
 therefore, in this case, the indorsement on the 
 certificate being made within the ten days, under 
 a power of attorney, the grantor of which had 
 since become bankrupt : — Held, a sufficient com- 
 pliance with the terms of the registry act. Di.ron 
 V. Ewart, 3 Mer. 322 ; Buck. 94. 
 
 Sale of a ship at sea valid, notwithstanding 
 the bankruptcy of the vendor before her arrival 
 in port ; and, therefore, before the title is com- 
 plete by the indorsement on the certificate of 
 registry, if the other requisites of the ship 
 registry act were previouslv complied with. 
 3Iestaer v. Gillespie, 11 Ves. 639 ; 8 R. R. 261. 
 
 Whether, the legal title under an assignment 
 of a share in a ship failing under the Ship 
 Registry Acts (26 Geo. 3, c. 6U, 34 Geo. 3, c. 88), 
 or for want of the indorsement upon t he certificate, 
 within ten days after the return of the ship to 
 port, if that was prevented by fraud, relief can 
 be had in equity, sed quajre, in what form, and 
 quaere whether it may not be had as to the 
 freight, if not as to the ship, though both were 
 comprised in the same bill of sale. Ih. 621. 
 
 Sale of a share of a ship is good without actual 
 delivery. Whether an executory agreement for 
 the sale of a ship must recite the registry under 
 the 26 Geo. 3, c. 18, s. 17, quasre. Addis v. 
 Buher, 1 Anstr. 222. See 6 R. R. 28, n. 
 
 If on sale of a ship there is no bill of sale or 
 indorsement of certificate of registry, no relief 
 can be given in equity on ground of accident or 
 fraud. Thomjfson v. Leake, 1 Madd. 39. 
 
 The old registry acts did not apply to ti-ansfers 
 by operation of law. Bloxani v. Huhhard, 5 
 East, 407. 
 
 Until registration, the bill of sale had no legal 
 existence. Boyson v. Gibson, 4 C. B. 122 ; 16
 
 87 
 
 SHIPPING— III. Registration. 
 
 49i 
 
 L. J., C. P. U7 ; 7 Jur. (x.s.) 150 ; 3 L. T 
 y W. R. 2D2. 
 
 A bill of sale of a ship was made a collateral 
 security, and the papers, kc, delivered, but there 
 was no recital iu the bill of sale of the registry, 
 pursuant to act 26 Geo. 3, c. 60. This cannot be 
 supplied against assignee of a, bankrupt, and bill 
 for that purpose dismissed. Hibbcrtv. MoUeston, 
 3 Bro. C. C. 571. 
 
 The non-registration of a ship, required by the 
 8 &; '.» Vicr. c. 89, ss. 37, 38, by the first purchaser, 
 did not affect the title of a subsequent bona fide 
 piirchaser. The Australia, Zaj)raik v. Burrows, 
 13 Moore, P. C. 132. 
 
 Sale of ship at sea ; non-registration until 
 after bankruptcy of vendor : — Held, invalid as 
 against assignees of vendor. Moss v. Chariwcli, 
 2 East, 399. 
 
 Mortgage of ship held invalid where registry 
 act, 26 Geo. 3, c. 60, not complied with. Bul- 
 teel, Ex])arte, 2 Cox, 243. 
 
 The application of the doctrine as to order and 
 disposition not affected by the old registry acts. | 
 Hay V. Fairfield, 2 B. & Aid. 193. j 
 
 Two ships and sixteen sixty-fourths of a third 
 were (in 1830) mortgaged, whilst the ships were 
 at sea, to W. & Co. ; the bill of sale was registered 
 by the customs oflScers at the ships' port before 
 their return to port. One ship afterwards 
 returned, but no indorsement under 6 Geo. 4, 
 c. 110, s. 39, was made on her register. After 
 being insured she sailed on a fresh voyage within 
 thirty days and was lost. But a suljsequent bill 
 of sale, to which W. & Co. were parties, after 
 reciting the prior mortgage, the mortgagor 
 a.ssigned the same ships and shares, with policies 
 upon two ships, and the sum payable under a 
 charter of the third, with all his equity of 
 redemption, &;c., subject to the prior mortgage to 
 W. k Co. This bill of sale was registered before 
 the return to port of any of the ships. The 
 mortgagor became bankrupt. Two of the ships 
 returned, and upon their certificates of registry 
 were duly indorsed within thirty days the two 
 htills of sale in order of their date : — Held, that 
 the second bill of sale was valid under 6 Geo. 4, 
 c. 110, ss. 31, 37, against the assignees of the 
 bankrupt, although the mortgagor became bank- 
 rupt wirhiii thirty days of the ships' arrival iu 
 jiort ; and the same as to the policy and charter- 
 jiarty moneys. Jones. Ex parte, liichardson, 
 In i-e. 2 Tyr. C71 ; 2 C. A: J. 513 ; 1 L. J., Ex. 
 l.'I8. 
 
 Where A., having contracted for a ship to be 
 built for him in the East Indies, agreed during 
 the time of the building to sell a share to B., and 
 15. paid a part of the price iu pursuance of the 
 agreement, and afterwards, on the ship's arrival 
 in England, A. caused her to be registered, and 
 accounted with B. as part owner ; but B.'s name 
 was never on the register as part owner : — Held, 
 that B. had no legal interest in the ship. 
 Stringer v. Murray, 2 B. A; A1<1. 248. 
 
 The old registry acts precluded any appli- 
 cation of the equitable doctrine of notice. 
 Coombes v. Mansfield, 3 Eq. Eep. 506 ; 3 Drew. 
 94 ; 24 L. J., Ch. 513 : 1 Jur. (N-.s.) 270 ; 3 
 ■\V. K. 345. S. P., McCalmont v. Ranliin, 2 
 De G. M. &; G. 403 ; 22 L. J., Ch. 554 ; 14 Jur. 
 475. 
 
 A bill for an account of the earnings of a ship 
 described some of the owners as resident in 
 England and the others in India, and stated the 
 ship to have been built by B. & Co.. of Newcastle ; 
 but it did not contain any positive averment 
 
 38 
 
 that the ship was British built : — Held, that for 
 want of such averment, a demurrer foundeil on 
 the ship registrv acts could not be supported. 
 Smith V. Small, 14 Sim. 119. 
 
 The following cases wei-e decided upon points 
 arising under the old registry acts : — Kirhy v. 
 Hodimn, 2 D. & Ry. 848 ; 1 B. & C. 588. IJid- 
 dcll v. Leader, 1 B. &: C. 327. Campbellx. Stein, 
 6 Dow. 116. Palmer v. Moxon, 2 M. & S. 43. 
 Mair V. Glennie, 4 M. & S. 240; 16 R. R. 145. 
 Jones, Ex parte. 4 Man. i: G. 450. Cole v. Boiile, 
 12 East, 471. Batson, Ex parte, 3 Bro. C. C. 362. 
 Monlihousc v. Hay. 8 Price, 250 ; 4 Moore, C. P. 
 549 ; 2 Br. & B. 1 14. Stad//room, Ex parte, 1 Ves. 
 103. Livei-pool Borough BanU v. Turner, 30 L. J., 
 Ch. 379 ; 7 Jur. (N.s!) 150 : 3 L. T. 494— L. C. 
 Parr v. Applehee, 7 De G. M. & G. 585 ; 24 L. J., 
 Ch. 767 ; 3 W. E. 645. infra, col. 170. NorHs v. 
 Willia7}is. 1 C. & M. 842 : 2 L. J., Ex. 257. 
 Moss v. 3/ills. 6 East, 144. 
 
 li. Miscellaneous. 
 
 When Unnecessary.] — It was decided under 
 the repealed statute 8 & 9 Vict. c. 89, that if a 
 vessel under fifteen tons burden, navigating on 
 the coast of the United Kingdom, was registered 
 by her owner, a British subject, he might transfer 
 it to another British subject without any instru- 
 ment in writing, or fresh registry, for s. 34 of 
 that statute did not apply, inasmuch as 8 & 9 
 Vict. c. 88, ss. 13, 14, the original registration 
 was unnecessary. Benyon v. Cressicell, 12 Q. B. 
 899 ; 18 L. J., Q. B. 1 ; 12 Jur. 1080. 
 
 Condemned Ships.] — The purchaser of a ship, 
 which appeared by the sentence of condemnation 
 iu the vice-admiralty court abroad to have been 
 taken and condemned for being engaged in tlie 
 slave trade, was not entitled to register such 
 ship at the custom-house under 20 Geo. 3, c. 00, 
 as the owner of a shij) taken and condemned as 
 lawful prize, although he produced a certiticate 
 fr#m the judge of the court abroad, certifying 
 that she was condemned as lawful prize. Jtex 
 V. London Collector of Customs, 1 51. A: S. 202. 
 
 Jurisdiction — Registration in Scotland.] — 
 
 The registration uf a ship in Scotland is no 
 ground of jurisdiction over an English share- 
 holder in an action of set and sale. Anderson v. 
 Sillars, 22 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ~er.) 105. 
 
 Assignment of Barge — Whether Registration 
 required.] — See Gapp v. Bond, post, col. 15(i. 
 
 Liability for Repairs — Evidence of Owner- 
 ship. — Nr OWNKi;.-. intra. 
 
 2. Eegistuation at Lr.oYD.s'. 
 
 Negligent Classification— Right of— Purchaser 
 relying on.] — Tiie dvtVndant^. the rru>tiMS of 
 Lloyds' Register of Shipping, had on the request 
 of the owners of the '• Midas," caused her to be 
 surveyed, and issued a certificate in the usual 
 form that she was elfieient and that she had been 
 entered on the register as A 1 for seven years. 
 The survey fees were paid by lier owners. The 
 l)laintiff, relying on this certificate, bought the 
 " Mid;?d " from her owner. Slic was in fact 
 defective, and the plaintiff in consequence 
 suffered damage. It was admitted for the 
 purposes of the action that the survey had been 
 
 2—2
 
 89 
 
 SHIPPING— IV. Oinicrs. 
 
 40 
 
 negligently iniide, anil that but for such negli- 
 gence the plaintiti" would not have sustained 
 damage : — Held, that the plaintifE could not 
 recover against the defendants, .as there was no 
 contract between tlicm and the plain! iJY, and 
 no fraudirlcnt misrepresentation. The Mida.i, 
 Bragnuiton. v. Chapiuan, 7 Asp. M. C. 77, n. 
 See 'aho S. P., Th}odon v. Thithdl, GO L. J., Q. B. 
 r)2fi ; 6.-) L. T. S-i;} ; 40 W. K. 141 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 76, infra, col. 151. 
 
 Kemoval of Ship from her Class — Damage.] — 
 
 A >lii]ii)Wiier whose sliip was removed from her 
 class by Lloyds' in consequence of non-com- 
 pliance with a new rule passed with reference 
 to scuppers, sued Lloyd's for damages : — Held, 
 that there was no contract and that the action 
 failed. Henderson v. Llayd.t' Jirz/istcr of British 
 and Foreign Shijjpi/if/, 6 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th 
 ser.) S'S'). 
 
 Suspension of Class — Right to notify Non- 
 registry.] — Upon a inotion for an injunction by 
 subscribers to an association called the Under- 
 writers' Kegistry, who had had a ship registered 
 by the association in the highest class, to restrain 
 the committee of the association from inserting, 
 after a subsequent survey allowed by the plain- 
 tiffs, in their published registry of ships the 
 words, "class suspended" against the plaintiffs" 
 ship : — Held, that the committee was justified in 
 notifying to their subscribers and the public 
 their honest opinion as to the merits of the ship, 
 and had a right to suspend the class irntil the 
 plaintiffs should have altered the ship according 
 to their requirements. Clocer v. B.oi/den. 48 
 L. J., Ch. 665 ; L. 11. 17 Eq. 190 ; 29 L. T. 639 ; 
 22 W. E. 254. 
 
 Production of Documents — Action in Scotland 
 — Commission against Chairman and Secretary 
 of Lloyds'.] — There is no jurisdiction under 
 6 & 7 Vict. c. 82, s. 5, or otherwise, for a judge in 
 chambers to order the chairman and secretary of 
 Lloyds', not being jiarties to the action in Scot- 
 land to appear before a commissioner appointed 
 by the Scotch court for examination or to produce 
 documents specified in the commission. Bur- 
 chard V. McFarlarie, E.c parte, Tindall and 
 Bryhurst, 60 L. J., Q. B. 587 ; [1891] 2 Q. B. 
 241 ; 65 L. T. 282 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 93. 
 
 IV. OWNERS. 
 
 1. Who are. 
 
 a. Evidence of Ownership — The Register, 40. 
 
 b. Other Evidence, 42. 
 e. Generally, 43. 
 
 2. Part Owners. 
 
 a. Are Tenants in Common, 44. 
 I. Eights and Liabilities between them- 
 selves, 45. 
 
 c. Rights and Liabilities against and to 
 
 others, 51. 
 
 d. Refusing to Navigate, 52. 
 
 3. MaiKiiiintj Owner uiul Shiji's Ilvsland, 55. 
 
 4. Liahility on Contract. 
 
 a. Necessaries and Repairs, 61. 
 
 b. Liability of Part Owners, 66. 
 
 c. In other Cases, 68. 
 
 B. Liability and Biyhts in Port. 
 
 a. Injin'y caused by or to Ship, 69. 
 
 b. Injury to Crew, 73. 
 
 c. Unseaworthiness — Overloading, 73. 
 
 (!. Lidhility (IS Currier. 
 
 a.. Apart from Contract, 74. 
 
 b. Under Contract of Carriage, 76. 
 
 r. Liability to Passengers, 78. 
 
 7. Limitation of Liability, 79, 
 
 8. Offences by ^ I'd. 
 
 Barratry.]— .SVfl Y. Master. 6, P.akt^atry ; 
 B. Makine Insurance, IV. Nature op Risk, 
 4. Barratry. 
 
 Liability for Wa?:es.] — See VI., Seamen. 
 
 1. Who are. 
 a. Evidence of Ownership — The Eeg-ister, 
 
 Action on Contract made by Master.] — The 
 
 register is by itself no evidence of ownership, so 
 as to fix the party whose name appears thereon 
 with liability for contracts entered into by the 
 master on behalf of the ship. Myers v. Willis, 
 18 C. B. 886 ; 25 L. J.. C. P. 255 ; 4 W. R. 637 ; 
 Ex. Oh. S. P., Pearson v. Kell, 12 L. T. 607 ; 13 
 W. R. 967, infra, col. 64. 
 
 Action for Goods supplied. 1 — In an action 
 against several for stores sup[)iied to a ship by 
 order of the captain, the I'cgister obtained on the 
 oath of one is prima facie evidence of ownership 
 against all. Stokes v. Came, 2 Camp. 339. 
 
 A declaration of ownership in a ship is prima, 
 facie proof of ownership without the registry, 
 and though the party has ceased to be owner ; 
 yet if he has been present when the work was 
 done, giving directions about it, that will be 
 evidence of liability for repaiis. Tlbbald v. 
 Wood, 1 F. & F. 287. 
 
 But the bare production of a register containing 
 the names of several owners will not be evidence 
 to support a plea m abatement by one of them 
 of nonjoinder of the others in an action against 
 him alone. Flower v. Youny, 3 Camp. 240, 
 And see Bitchburnv. SpraeMin, 5 Esp. 31. 
 
 Proof of the execution of a bill of sale of a 
 ship to the defendant is not evidence to charge 
 him as an owner with stores furnished to tlie 
 ship, without shewing his assent to such sale. 
 Tinkler v. Walpolc, 14 East, 226. S. P., Cooper 
 V. South, 4 Taunt. 802. 
 
 A person registered as owner without his 
 knowledge held liable for goods supplied to the 
 ship. Machcll, Ex parte, 2 V. & B. 216 ; 1 Rose, 
 447. 
 
 In an action against the owner of a ship for 
 stores supplied to her, the register purporting to 
 be granted on the oath of the defendant, and 
 stating him to be sole owner, is no evidence of 
 ownership. Smith v. Foyo, 3 Camp. 456. 
 
 The fact of a person being the registered 
 owner of a ship, is not of itself evidence that the 
 master has authority to bind him by contracts 
 for necessaries supplied to the ship, but it must 
 be shewn that the master is his agent for that 
 purpose. 3Iachenzie v. Pooley, 11 Ex. 638 ; 2."> 
 L. J., Ex. 124 ; 4 W. R. 262. 
 
 Where a ship sailed for a foreign port, the 
 master having a power of attorney from the 
 owner, and whilst the ship was at the port, the 
 defendant purchased it : — Held, that he did not 
 thereby become liable for necessaries supplieil to 
 the ship by order of the master. lb. 
 
 The registered owner of a ship is prima facie 
 liable for goods furnished for the use of that 
 ship, but such liability may be rebutted by 
 evidence of the credit having been given to
 
 41 
 
 SHIPPING— IV. Owners. 
 
 42 
 
 others. Co.r x. Bei(l 1 Car. & P. G02 ; E. 4: M 
 199. See also Ccises ante, cols. 15, seq. 
 
 Street, city of London, merchant. Eehder was 
 alien born, and it did not appear that he was a 
 denizen of this country or naturahsed. The ship 
 Liability while on Register.]— Where there | was foreign built, and the othcers and crew, 
 were two joint owners of a ship, and one, by j including the accused, were foreigners : — Held, 
 private agreement, parted with all his interest in that although the register might be prima facie 
 his share to the other, to be paid for by bills at evidence of the facts stated therein, and that the 
 <lifferent dates, but kept his name on the register ship was a British ship, vet the proof that the 
 by way of collateral security for the payment of owner was alien born rebutted the inference 
 the bills : — Held, that he was liable for repairs i from the register that he was a British subject, 
 done to the ship subsequently to such agreement, [ and he was therefore disqualified by 17 & IS Vict! 
 although he had never afterwards interfered , c. 104, s. IS, from being the owner of a British 
 
 in the concern or manasement of the vessel. I 
 D0WSO71 v. Lealte, D. & B., K. P. C. .52. 
 
 In order to charge a party, by reason of his 
 name appearing on the ship's register as part 
 owner, for repairs done to the ship, it must 
 distinctly appear that they were done upon his 
 credit, and that the order for them was given 
 with his authority, express or implied. Curling 
 V. Rohertson, 8 Scott (N.E.) 12 ; 7 Man. & G. 336 ; 
 13 L. J., C. P. 137. 
 
 Where a party takes a share in a ship under 
 a conveyance which is void for want of conformity 
 with the provisions of the registry acts he is 
 not liable to pay for goods supplied for her use, 
 unless credit is* given to him individually, or he 
 has held himself out as owner, or unless he has 
 made an express promise to pay, or has received 
 profits from the ship. Ilarrinqfon v. Fnj, 9 
 Moore, 344 ; 2 Bine. 1 79 : 1 Car. & P. 289 ; B. i: M. 
 i)0 ; 3 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 244. 
 
 The mere fact of a man's being registered as a 
 part owner of a ship, under an absolute bill of 
 sale, which was in fact given as security for 
 advances, does not give the owner or the master 
 (appointed by his co-owner) authority to pledge 
 his credit for necessary repairs. HaclncooA v. 
 Lnjnll, 17 C. B. 124 ; 2.5 L. J., C. P. 44, n. ; 
 2 .Jur. (N.S.) 44, n. S. P., Bands v. Thomas, 5 
 M. & S. 244, infra, col. 64. 
 
 The vendor of a ship for a month after the 
 sale neglected to have the register indorsed 
 ]>ur.suant to 34 Geo. 3,c. 68, s. 15, remaining on 
 the register as legal owner. Bepairs were 
 meanwhile ordered by the vendee. Helil, that 
 the vendor was not liable for them. Y<mng \. 
 Jirandcr, 8 East, 10. S. P., Mclxcr v. Ilumhlc, 
 16 East, 169. 
 
 Liability for Wages.] — Owners at Liver- 
 pool conveyed the ship to others and the 
 certificate ol registry was indorsed by the proper 
 officer at Liverpool. The officer in London to 
 whom the certificate w.as transmitted failed to 
 enter the indorsement at the custom house in 
 London : — Held, that the former owners were not 
 lialjle for seamen's wages earned after the con- 
 veyance. Hatch ford v. Meadows, 3 Esp. 69. 
 
 Bankruptcy of Owner— Collision— Application 
 by Shipwright to have Sums found due in 
 Admiralty Action paid out. '\ — Sec The Uudeacour, 
 XX. COLLISION, post, col. 729. 
 
 Evidence of Ownership in Criminal Cases.] — 
 
 A murder was committiMl on bci.nd a ship on the 
 liigii seas sailing under tlie P.ritisli Hag, and the 
 accused was brought to England in custody, and 
 put on his trial for the crime. To shew juris- 
 diction in the courts of this country, it was 
 sought to establish that the ship was a British [ failed 
 ship, and the register of the ship at the jiort of | jirove 
 
 ship. Reg. v. Bjornsen, L. & C. 545 : 34 L. J., 
 M. C. 180 ; 11 Jur. (N.S.) 589 ; 12 L. T. 473 ; 13 
 W. R. 664 ; 10 Cox, G. C. 74. 
 
 Held, also, that it would not be presimied that 
 he was denizened or naturalised. lb. 
 
 Entry in the book of redstrv pursuant to 
 6 Geo. 4, c. 110. s. 37, of the bill of.sale of part of 
 a ship held sufficient evidence of ownershii) in a 
 criminal case. Rea; v. Pkilp, 1 M. C. C. 263. 
 
 Bill for Discovery of Owners.] — Bill in 
 chancery for discuvery of the [lart owners of a 
 ship to enable the plaintiff to sue at law for 
 destruction of his goods on board h\ fire. Morse 
 V. Buckworth, 2 Vern. 443. S. P., He itheote v. 
 Fleete, 2 Vern. 442. 
 
 Injury to Person — Liability.] — A ship, of 
 
 I which tlie defendant was the registered owner, 
 
 I was laid up in dock under the charge of a shi[)- 
 
 j keeper, by whom one of the hatchways was 
 
 negligently left open, whereby the plaintiff, who 
 
 \ was lawfully passing over the deck of the ship, 
 
 fell through the hatchway ami was injured. At 
 
 the trial of an action to recover ('omi)ensatiou, 
 
 it did not appear bj' whom the shipkeepcr was 
 
 appointed, and the only evitlence to charge the 
 
 defendant with liability was the ship's register, 
 
 in which he was ilescribed as owner : — Hehl, by 
 
 Blackburn and Lush, JJ.(dissentientc, Mellor. .).), 
 
 that this was prima facie evidence, from which, 
 
 if uniebutted. they might infer that the sliip- 
 
 keeper was appointed Ijy tlie tlefendant. J/ihhx 
 
 V. BOS.S, 9 B. ,5c S. (J55 ; 35 L. .1.. Q. B. 193 ; L. K. 
 
 1 Q. B. .534 ; 12 Jur. (N.S.) 812 ; 15 L. T. 67 ; 14 
 
 W. R. 914. 
 
 Evidence of Possession.] — Property in a ship 
 must be proved by eviilence (if possession in tlie 
 jdaintitf, his vendors or bailees, accompanied 
 with a certificate of registry. J'irir v. Aiidrrson, 
 4 Taunt. 652 ; 3 Cani[). 242. An<l see I'aler.son. 
 V. JIardaere, 4 Taunt. 115. 
 
 Eegistered Owner — Denial of Interest.] — A., 
 whose name has Ijcen registered .-is the jiart 
 owner of a vessel on the oath of B., and has 
 afterwards conveyed sucli siiare by ih'QiX to H., 
 covenanting for tlic goodness of his title, cannot 
 be admitted to prove by the evidence of I'>. that 
 he lias in fact no interest in tlie vessel, yiehsmi 
 v. Thomas, 1 Stark. 85. And sec Watson v. 
 Shellfij, 1 Term Rep. 301. 
 
 b. Other Evidence. 
 
 Parol.]— It a phiinliff 
 souglit to prove his tith 
 Held, tliat 
 pfisscssory 
 
 in trover fur a ship 
 
 by the regi-.ter and 
 
 I'j could not afterwards 
 
 title bv parol evidence. 
 
 Lomlon was put in, wherein the owner's name j Sherriff v. didell. 2 Esp. 616. 
 
 was stated to be C. A. Rfh-hr. of 1 1. Lnn.l..ii ' Ownership in an a<:ti.)n up..n a iioliry may hi
 
 43 
 
 SHIPPING— IV. Oirners. 
 
 44 
 
 proved by parol evidence. Bolicrtson v. FrcncJi, 
 4: East, 180 : 4 Esp. 24G ; 7 E. R. 535. 
 
 Appearance in Action.] — In an action against 
 the owners of a shij.) it is primS, facie evidence 
 of ownership to produce an undertaking to 
 appear for them, given before the commencement 
 of the action, by the person who subsequently 
 acted as their attorney in defending it, in which 
 he describes them as owners without further 
 pj-oof of agency. Muvshall v. Cliff, 4 Camp. 
 1H3. 
 
 Declaration of Ownership.] — A declaration of 
 ownership held to be prima facie evidence of 
 ownership without the register. Tribhald v. 
 Wood, 1 F. .t F. L\«!7. 
 
 Bill of Sale — Defeasance.] — If there is a bill 
 of sale of a ship not containing any qualification, 
 and such unqualified bill of sale is entered 
 properly on the register, and there is also a deed 
 of defeasance, making void such bill of sale on 
 the payment of a sum of money, the deed of 
 defeasance may be given in evidence on the part 
 of the defendant, in an action for goods on his 
 liability as the registered owner, in order to shew 
 the qualified nature of his ownership. Cux v. 
 Tteid, 1 Car. & P. 602 ; Ry. & M. 199. 
 
 c. Generally. 
 
 Dispossessing Owners on Register.] — The 
 court cannot look behind a ship's register for the 
 purpose of dispossessing an innocent purchaser 
 for value whose name is on the register. The 
 HorJoclt, 47 L. J.. Adm. 5 ; 2 P. D. 243 ; 36 L. T. 
 622: 3 Asp. M. C. 421. 
 
 Co-ownersMp Action — Owners on Eegister — 
 Jurisdiction — Admiralty Court Act, 1861.] — 
 
 Quffire, wiiether s. 8 of tliL' Admiralty Court Act, 
 1861. giving the admiraltj'^ court jurisdiction to 
 decide questions between co-owners, is not con- 
 fined to questions between registered co-owners. 
 The Bonnie Kate, hi L. T. 203 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 149, infra, col. 48. 
 
 Infant Shipowner— Guardian.]— See Michael 
 v. Frijiji, infra, col. 160. 
 
 Within 17 & 18 Vict, c. 104, s. 147. sub-s. 1— 
 Contract to purchase a Share, Effect of.] — A 
 
 person who, thou;Th not a registered owner, has 
 entered into a contract enforceable in equity for 
 the purchase of a share of a ship, is an owner 
 within the meaning of s. 147. sub-s. 1, of 17 & 18 
 Vict. c. 104. Hnqhcs v. Sutherland, 50 L. J., 
 Q. B. 567 ; 7 Q. B. D. 170 ; 45 L. T. 287 ; 29 
 W. R. 867 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 459 ; 46 J. P. 6. 
 
 Ship forfeited — Trover.] — The owner of a ship 
 forfeited for breach of the Navigation Act 
 (12 Car. 2, c. 18), could not maintain trover for 
 the ship against the seizor. Wilhins v. De>'pard, 
 5 Term Rep. 112 ; 2 R. R. 559. 
 
 Ships captured in War — Ownership.] — At 
 
 common law the subject is entitled to all that 
 he can take in time of war from the king's 
 enemies — per Wright, J. Morroufjh v. Corny m, 
 1 Wils. 211. 
 
 A British ship captured by the enemy and 
 taken into his port is presumed to have been 
 condemned, and the title of the former owner 
 
 divested. The Countess of Lnvdeednle, 4 C. Rob. 
 283. 
 
 Any subject of her majesty may seize an 
 enemy's ship, but she does not thei'eby become 
 the prize of the seizor. The Johdiina EiiiiVui, 
 1 Spinks, 317. 
 
 Ships captirred in war belong to the erowu. 
 The Elsehe, 5 C. Rob. 173, 181. 
 
 Admiralty Jurisdiction in Prize.] — Prize or 
 no prize cannot be tried at common law ; it is 
 triable only before the judge of the admiralty 
 by the law of nations. Mitchell v. Rodney, 
 2"Br. P. C. 423. 
 
 See also, further, as to Ownership sub tits. 
 Transfer AND Sale ; Registration ; Build- 
 ing AND Repairs ; Part Owners. 
 
 2. Part Owners. 
 a. Are Tenants in Common. 
 
 Part owners of a ship are tenants in common, 
 not joint tenants ; the other partners have no 
 lien therefore on the share of one, a bankrupt 
 having been also managing owner for outfit, 
 freight, etc. Youna, Ex parte, 2 V. & B. 242 ; 
 2 Rose, 78, n. ; 13 R. R. 73. 
 
 The owners of a ship are not interested in it 
 as joint tenants, but as tenants in common ; 
 upon a bankruptcy, therefore, the bankrupt's 
 share passes to the creditors under the bank- 
 ruptcy, without being liable specifically to the 
 claims of the other part owners in respect of 
 their disbursements and liabilities for the ship. 
 Ilarrison, Ex inirtc, 2 Rose, 76. 
 
 Part owners are tenants in common of a ship, 
 but jointly interested in her use and employ- 
 ment ; and the law as to the earnings of a ship, 
 whether as freight, cargo or otherwise, follows 
 the general law of partnership. Green v. Brigys, 
 6 Hare, 395 ; 17 L. J., Ch. 323 ; 12 Jur. 326. ' 
 
 A mandamus to the officers of customs to 
 register a ship transferred by the survivor of two 
 part owners, merchants, was refused on the 
 ground that the executors of the deceased part 
 owner ought to have joined in the transfer. 
 Bex V. Liverpool (^Collector of Customs'), 2 
 M. & S. 223. 
 
 A mortgagee of a ship agreed with one of the 
 part owners that he would pay all disbursements 
 of a voyage, and in consideration was to have 
 the proceeds of the freight handed over to him, 
 in priority of all other charges. He failed to 
 advance any money, and the part owner was 
 obliged to do so instead. Both having become 
 bankrupt and the ship having been sold : — Held, 
 that the assignees of the mortgagee were entitled 
 to their full share of the proceeds, as, though he 
 had not fulfilled his contract, yet the ownership 
 of a vessel is in common and not joint, and this 
 agreement and dealing had not made it joint ; 
 and that the part owner had no claim on the 
 share of the mortgagee for his advances. Leslie, 
 Ex jmrte, Drury, In re, 3 L. J., Bk. 4. 
 
 A surviving merchant, who claimed a joint 
 interest in a ship with another who was dead, 
 sued the defendant for dctpiuing the ship ; plea 
 in bar ; judgment for the plaintiff ; the plea 
 should have been in abatement. Kempe v. 
 Andrews, 3 Lev. 290 ; Carth. 170. 
 
 A master sued in chancery for lOZ., due to him 
 on account of the ship, the executor of a de- 
 ceased part owner : — Held, that the other part
 
 45 
 
 SHIPPIXG— IV. Ouncrs. 
 
 46 
 
 owner must be a party. 
 3 Swanst. 139. 
 
 Picrsoti V. Itohhiso)). 
 
 Are not Partners.] — Part owners in a ship are 
 not as such partners. Buj-ton v. Siiee, 1 Yes. Sen. 
 155. And see Helme v. Smith, infra. 
 
 Part owners formerly held to have a lien on 
 the shares of their co-owners for payments made 
 for goods supplied to the ship. Bodclbujion v. 
 Hallett, 1 Ves. Sen. 496. But this overruled, 
 see Ih., Suppl. 87 ; 2 V. & B. 2i2. Young, E.v 
 j?arte, supra. Green \. Brig gs, supra. Harrison, 
 H.V parte, supra. 
 
 May be Joint Tenants of a Share.] — Two or 
 more persons mav hold a >hare in a ship jointly. 
 Rex V. Fhilp, 1 M. C. C. 263. 
 
 b. Kig-hts and Liabilities between them- 
 selves. 
 
 Application of Freight — Ship's Outfit.] — A 
 part owner of a ship has a riyht to require the 
 gross freight to be applied, in the first place, in 
 payment of the expense of the outfit of the ship 
 for the voyage in which the freight was earned, 
 nothwithstanding he might sue his co-owners 
 for their proportion of the expenses before the 
 adventure ends. Green v. Briggs, 6 Hare, 895 ; 
 17 L. J., Ch. 323 ; 12 Jur. 326. 
 
 The same rule applies to the expenses of repairs 
 to the hull of the ship, where such repairs were 
 done with a view to the particular adventure 
 in which the earnings were made, and without 
 which that adventure could not have been 
 undertaken. Ih. 
 
 Where Part Mortgaged.] — A part owner of a 
 ship, whose share was subject to a mortgage, 
 agreed with the other part owner (whose share 
 was not subject to any mortgage), but without 
 the concurrence of the mortgagee, to purchase 
 guano on the joint account of the two part 
 owners, and bring it in the ship to England. 
 On the completion of the vf>yage, and when the 
 cargo was about to Vje dischaiged, the mortgagee 
 took possession : — Held, that he had no claim 
 against the owner of the mortgaged share for 
 freight, and could, at the utmost, only claim 
 to atlopt the mortgagor's contract, and stand in 
 his place as the profits of the adventure, after 
 deducting all expenses. Alexander v. Simin.i, 5 
 Dc G. M. & G. 57 ; 23 L. J., Ch. 721 ; 2 W. 11. 
 32D. See .S'. C, infra. 
 
 Ship owned by Partners.] — If the names of 
 two partners in lra<le appear on the* certificate 
 of registry as owners of a ship, the registry acts 
 do not prevent the shewing how and in what 
 ptoportions the several owners are respectively 
 entitled ; and though the jiartners may derive 
 title under different conveyances, yet, if their 
 shares were purchased with the jjaitnership 
 funds, and treated by them as jiartnership pro- 
 [lerty, and tlie partners became bankrupts, these 
 shares will be considered as tlie joint property. 
 Jone.t, PJx parte, 4 M. & S. 450. 
 
 A ship was purchased V.iy a partner for himself, 
 but was paid for out of the partnership assets. 
 The firm l)ecame bankrupt : — Ilelil, that tlie 
 firm had no interest in the ship, or any lien on it 
 for the amount of the purchase-money. Walton 
 V. Butler, 29 Beav. 42,S. 
 
 Interest of Unregistered Partner of Registered 
 Owner.] — See Cimpdcn \. Anderson, Kegistka- 
 Tiox, supra, col. 30. 
 
 Ship's Expenses — How Recovered,] — A. and 
 others agreetl to run a vessel during the winter 
 between two places, and to share jirodts and pay 
 expenses ratably according to the cajutal sub- 
 scribed by each ; if the ship's earnings shoulil be 
 insatficient to keep A. in funds, each of the sub- 
 scribers to pay A. from time to time instalments 
 of the capital subscribed. The ship's earnings 
 were insufficient to meet her expenses, which 
 were paid by A. : — Held, that the proper form of 
 action for the recovery of such expenses was an 
 action against the other subscribers for breach of 
 the contract to pay up the instalments. Brown 
 V. Tajjscott, 6 M. & W. 119 ; 9 L. J., Ex. 139. 
 
 A part owner of a ship is not necessarily a 
 partner ; therefore, a part owner, wlio as ship's 
 husband incurs expense in fitting her out may 
 sue his co-owners separately for their shares of 
 the expense. Ilelnie v. Smith, 7 Bing. 709 ; 
 .-. M. & P. 714 : 9 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 206. 
 
 Court of Chancery.] — A court of equity will 
 not interfere by injunction to restrain a part 
 owner of a ship from retaining jiart of the 
 machinery of the ship, unless the admiralty 
 court has been previously applied to, and refused 
 to interfere, or can only afford a dilatory and 
 inadequate relief. Brennan or Brenan v. Pre.^- 
 ton, 10 Hare, 331 ; 2 De G. M. k. G. 813 ; 1 W. 11. 
 69, 322. 
 
 No question arises as to the jurisdiction of 
 this court in enforcing the rights of some 
 against the other part owners of a ship, with 
 regard to the management of the ship and the 
 possession of tlie certificate of registry, where 
 those rights are regidated by an agreement 
 entered into between all the owners of the ship. 
 Barlnj v. Bainrs, 9 Hare, 369 ; 21 L. J., Ch. 801. 
 
 Bill for Account — Parties.] — In a l)iU 
 
 some |}aii owners for an account against 
 
 others of profits of the ship, all those claiming 
 tlie account must be parties. MoflUt v. Far- 
 (juhargon, 2 Bro. C. C. 338. Overruled, .sec Note, 
 lb. 
 
 A suit between two shipowners, and the mort- 
 gagee of one, was dealt with as in an adminis- 
 tration suit, by first directing the payment of all 
 the costs (excei)t the mortgagee's) out of the 
 fund, and distiibuting the residue pro rata. 
 Alexander v. Simm.'<, 20 Beav. 123 ; 24 L. J., Ch. 
 618. See S. C, supra. 
 
 A. and B., liritish sulijects. purcha-sed and 
 rcjiaircd an American-built sliiji. on a joint 
 specuhition, with a view of emiiloying her in 
 the trade between the two countries, until an 
 op|iortunity should occur for reselling her to 
 advantage; for which purpose they procured 
 her to be registered in the United Stales in the 
 name of C, a citizen of that ciuintry, upon a 
 false dec.lriration that she was V>ona fide the 
 sole jiroperty of C. After the shi|i had ma.le 
 several voyages, B., who had had the manage- 
 ment of h"er, attempted to exclude A. from his 
 sliare in the speculation, and, in sjiile of the 
 dissent of A., sent her on anoiher voyage to 
 America :— Held, that even supiiosing the 
 declaration above mentioned, and the registra- 
 tion thereby effected, to have been a fraud upon 
 the American law, and the subsequent employ- 
 ment of the shiii so registered to have been a
 
 47 
 
 SHIPPING— IV. Oimcrs. 
 
 48 
 
 fraud upon the English navigation law, such 
 fraud would not jircvcnt A. from maintaining 
 a suit against B. for an account and payment 
 of his share of the realised profits of the 
 speculation. And in decreeing such account 
 the court also directed an inquiry what had 
 become of the ship since she was sent on her 
 last voyage, and what was her value when so 
 sent, with a view to making B. personally 
 liable for such value in case either the shi[) or 
 the proceeds of her sale should not be ultimately 
 forthcoming. S/iarj) v. I'ajjlor, 2 Ph. SOL 
 
 A., in 1799, purchased shares in a ship of 
 G. K., who, having also shares in the same 
 ship, was intrusted by A. and the other part 
 owners with the whole management of the 
 ship, and to keep the accounts relating to it 
 from the time of the purchase until the ship 
 was sold by G. K., with the consent of all the 
 owners in 1805. Upon the occasion of the 
 sale, G. E. stated and settled accounts with 
 W., one of the part owners, and paid him the 
 balance due upon the earnings of the ship and 
 the proceeds of the sale. In 1824, G. R. died. 
 Upon a bill filed by A. in March 1826, for 
 an account against the executors of G. R., it 
 appeared by a ledger (found in a room wholly 
 disused by G. R.) containing the accounts of 
 the ship, that the credit and debit account 
 Ijetween him and A. was not carried beyond 
 ISO."). On the debit side there were two items, 
 one in 1811, and another in 1812. A. left Eng- 
 land in 1820, and some time after his departui-e 
 his brother-in-law called several times upon G. R. 
 with messages from A., and on those occasions 
 asked him to come to a settlement with A. 
 respecting the ship ; G. R. never stated that he 
 was not indebted to A. An account was decreed 
 .against the executors of G. R., and that decree 
 athrmed on appeal. Rohhisim v. Alexander, 8 
 Bhgh (N.S.) 352 ; 2 CI. & F. 717. 
 
 Action in Admiralty.] — Account of earnings 
 of a ship ordered upon the petition of a part 
 owner. Tin- Albion, (J L. T. 165. 
 
 Liability of Purchaser.] — A purchaser of 
 shares in a ship), which at the time of the sale is 
 on a voyage, is liable for the expenses of this 
 voyage, and of the vessel's outfit for it, and is 
 entitled to a share of the freight. The Yinrlo- 
 hala, 58 L. J., Adm. 51 ; 14 V. D. 50 ; 60 L. T. 
 657 ; 37 W. R. 409 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 376— C. A. 
 
 A vessel was chartered for twelve months, and 
 during the currency of the charter the charterers 
 made default in certain payments and the charter 
 lapsed. The vessel was rechartered by a voyage 
 charter from K. to England. During the per- 
 formance of this voyage the defendant purchased 
 a share in this vessel : — Held, on objection to the 
 registrar's report in a co-ownership action, that 
 the defendant was not liable to bear any of 
 the losses occasioned by the time charter. The 
 Meredith, or White v. Ditch field, 10 P. D. 69; 
 52 L. T. 520 ; 5 Asp. JI. C. 400. 
 
 Liability of Trading Owners.] — Part owners 
 wl-.i do not dissent fmui tlie employment of a 
 ship, and are aware that other part owners have 
 dissented, are liable to bear the expenses, and are 
 entitled to receive the profits of the ship in the 
 proportion which their shares bear to the num- 
 ber of shares in the ship, after the deduction of 
 the shares of the dissentient part owners. Tlie 
 Vindobala, supra. 
 
 Transfer of Share— Bill of Sale.]— The manag- 
 ing owners of Ihe stcaiuship " B. K." in 1882, 
 agreed to sell tlie defendant V. one sixty-fourth 
 share in the " B. K.," for wliich he gave them 
 a bill of exchange for 156^., and received from 
 them a receipt for the same .as " being one sixty- 
 fourth share in the s.s. 'B.K. '" In 1883 the 
 managing owners sent V. SI. in respect of profits 
 on his share, and subsequently sent him a state- 
 ment of accounts. No bill of sale was ever 
 executed by the managing owners, .and it 
 appeared that their shares in the " B. K." were 
 mortgaged at the time of the sale to V., and 
 that subsequently they never were in a position 
 to redeem them. Certain of the owners having 
 paid losses incidental to the working of the ship, 
 now sued V. as a co-owner for his proportion 
 of the losses : — Held, that notwithstanding the 
 receipt by V. of the 81., he was not, either in law 
 or equity, a co-owner ; that the managing owners 
 had no authority to pledge his credit, and that 
 therefore he was not liable. 27ic Bonnie Kate, 
 57 L. T. 203; 6 Asp. M. C. 149. 
 
 Use of Ship by Part Owner— Freight.] — M, 
 
 contracted with his co-owners for use of their 
 ship on a voyage to S., and he shipped in her 
 some thousands of bricks, which, on the arrival 
 of the ship, were reduced to dust. F.j freight 
 was paid at S., nor was the dust removed, 
 but the agent of the other owners at S. used 
 it as ballast on a voyage by the same ship 
 from S. to C, where it was sold for a small sum. 
 In taking the accounts between them, the chief 
 clerk charged the ship's husbands with the 
 freight of the bricks, although they had received 
 no part of it ; and a motion by them to vary 
 was dismissed, with costs. Garrett v. Melhvish, 
 4 Jur. (N.S.) 943; i>^V. R. 491. 
 
 Fraudulently disposing of Co-owner's Share.] 
 
 — A part owner cannot sue his co-owner for 
 fr.audulently disposing of his share in the ship. 
 Graves v. Saucer or Saivcer, 1 Keb. 38 ; 1 Lev. 
 29 ; Sir T. Raym. 15. 
 
 Ship's Money received by Agent of one Part 
 Owner — Action by Co-owners.] — A., B. and otl.ers 
 were owners of a ship in the service of the East 
 India Co. B. was managing owner, and 
 employed C. as his agent for general purposes 
 aitd to receive moneys on account of the ship ; 
 C. keeping a separate account with B. To obtain 
 payment from the company on account of the 
 ship it was necessary that the receipt should be 
 signed by one or more of the owners, besides the 
 managing owner, and upon a receipt signed by 
 B. and another owner C. received from the com- 
 pany 2,000/. and placed it to B.'s credit in his 
 books as managing owner. The part owners 
 brought money had and received to recover the 
 balance of that account : — Held, that C. had 
 received the money as agent for B. .and was 
 accountable to him only, and that the action 
 would not lie. iSiiiis v. Jirittain or Britten, 4 
 B. e<: Ad. 375 ; 1 N. & M. 59 L 
 
 Share of Prize.] — Thirty shares in a privateer 
 remaining unsul)seribed for and taken by the 
 managers of the concern on their own account, 
 after a valuable ca[)ture, held to be the exclusive 
 property of the managers. Bill on behalf of 
 the other subscribers dismissed ; since, if there 
 had been a loss, they could only have been 
 answerable to the amount of their own shares. 
 Blunt V CiiDii/nn, 2 Ves. 331.
 
 49 
 
 SHIPPING— lY. Ouncrs. 
 
 50 
 
 Liability for Damages.] — A. and B. were 
 owners of a ship ; A. working the ship, defraying 
 all the expenses, and taking the uncontrolled 
 management of her, and paying himself by 
 taking two-thirds of the gross earnings ; B. 
 taking the remaining one-third as portion : — 
 Held, that A. was a hirer of the share of B., 
 and not the servant or agent of B., so as to 
 render B. liable for damages caused by the 
 nceligence of A. Bernard v. Aaron, 9 Jur. 
 (N.s.) 470. 
 
 Illegal Capture— Costs.] — Part owners of a 
 privateer must bear costs proportionally of an 
 illegal seizure of a prize at sea. Walton v. Han- 
 bur ij, 2 Yern. 592. 
 
 Damages between Co-owners.] — Claim for 
 damages by some of the part owners against the 
 others in co-ownership action. The Ceylon, IS 
 L. T. 417. 
 
 Money paid for Appointing Master.] — iloney 
 paid to pait owners fur their votes in the appoint- 
 luent of a captain is no profit of the ship. 
 JloJ'att V. Farquhurs-on, 2 Bro. C. C. 33S. 
 
 Offer to buy Shares of Co-owners — Acceptance 
 by Some only.] — In a .Scotch action of set and 
 sale the pursuer offered to buy the shares of his 
 co-owners. One accepted the offer, the other 
 did not : — Held, that the pursuer was not bound 
 to buy the shares of one defender only. Ander- 
 »on V. S'dlars, '2-2 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 
 ]0.->. 
 
 Cost of Insurance.] — Although one of two 
 part owners of a ship has no authority as 
 such to order insurances to be effected on 
 account of the others, yet if they are in partner- 
 ship together, an order to insure given by one 
 renders all liable. Ilooiyer v. Lushy, 4 Camp. 
 66. 
 
 One part owner cannot charge another with 
 any part of the premium, unless the insurance is 
 authorised or ratified b3' him. Oijle v. Wraiig- 
 havi, Abbott on Shipping, 13th ed. 90. 
 
 A., a part owner. a,ssigned his proportion of 
 the freight payable in respect of a voyage, to 
 C. ; B., his co-owner, subsequently, without 
 notice of the assignment toC, concurred with A. 
 in authorising a broker to pay the insurance 
 of the ship and fieight for the voyage : — 
 Held, that the costs of such insurance were 
 projter expenses of the voyage, and that they 
 (.tught to be deducted from the freight before 
 dividing it between B.and C. Lindsay v. Gihhn, 
 infra. 
 
 Broker's Bill.] — Upon a settlement of 
 
 account^ at the end of a voyage, one of the shi])- 
 owners agreed to pay the broker'.s Ijill, and, in 
 consideration, was alluweil a large share of tlie 
 profits, ile omitted to pay the bioker. who sued 
 ix)th owners fur the amount. The other owner 
 having paid it : — Held, that he might sue him 
 for the amount. M'ilxon v. Cvttiiitf, 10 Bing. 
 43<; ; 4 M. A: Scott, 82G. 
 
 Policy Moneys.] — Where a ship originally 
 l)eloiiged to one of two partners, and had Ijcen 
 conveyed to B. for securing a debt, and B. became 
 the sole registered owner of the shi[). ami attei- 
 wards, as agent for both partners, insured the 
 fcbip and freight, and charged them with the 
 
 premiums ; and, on a loss happening, received 
 the money from the underwriters : — Held, that he 
 was accountable to the assignees of the surviving 
 partner for the surplus, after payment of his 
 own deVjt, and not to the executors of the 
 decea.sed partner, to whom the ship oiiginallj' 
 belonged. Dixon y.Ifamond, 2 B. & Aid. 310. 
 
 Expenses of Earning Freight.] — The wages of 
 the captain and seamen of a ship, being the 
 expenses which produce the income thereof, are 
 proper deductions to be made from the gross 
 freight, as between the part owners of the .ship 
 and the assignees of the freight belonging to the 
 other co-owners. Lindnay v. Glhhf;. 4 Jur. (N.s.) 
 779 ; 6 W. R. 733. Affirmed. 3 De G. i: J. 6!I0 ; 
 28 L. J., Ch. 692 ; .5 Jur. (N.s.) 37G ; 7 W. R. 
 320. See S. C. col. 1047. 
 
 Advances for Supplies.] — A co-partner in a 
 ship may sue the ship for advances made by him, 
 but not if he is interested in the particular 
 voyage for which the ship is supplied. 'Hie 
 Underwriter, 27^ L. T. 279 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 127. 
 
 Liability of Part Owners for Necessaries.^ — 
 See Davison v. D.>/:ti/d.s,in, iufra, col. '>2. and 
 cases infra, cols. OtJ, G7. 
 
 Mode of Payment.] — The four defendants and 
 B. were the owners in certain shares bclwecu 
 them, of a ship to which the plaintiffs by order 
 of W!, the .ship's husband, and with the authority 
 and consent of the defendants, did certain 
 repaii-s, and upon the account for such reiiairs 
 being sent in to the ownc^rs, it was arranged 
 between W. and the plaintiffs, that it should be 
 paid partly in cash (subject to discount) and 
 partly in good bills, and that the total amount 
 of the contract should be ajiportioned bilwecu 
 the several owners according and in ijropo.tioii 
 to their interest and the number of their respec- 
 tive shares in the ship. The necessary calculation 
 having been made by W., the account was then 
 paid to the plaintilis through W., partly by a 
 cheque of the defendant Andrews, payable to 
 W.'s order, and indorsed l)y him for the amount 
 of Andrews' proportion, partly by cash payuuiits 
 from each of the other three defendants for the 
 amount of their respective proportions, and 
 partly by a bill at six months, drawn by W. on 
 and accepted by B., for (he amount of B.'s 
 proportion of the account. B.'s bill being dis- 
 honoured at maturity, the plaintiffs brought an 
 action against the defendants to recover from 
 them, as joint owners of the ship, the amount of 
 such dishonoured bill, in answer to which the 
 defendants coiitemled that the plaintilis, l)y 
 taking B.'s bill, and giving him time, hail placed 
 his co-debtors, the <lcfendants, in a worse posi- 
 tion, and necessarily iiostponeil tin-ir rcmc<ly 
 against B., and had consequently dischaigid iIk; 
 defendants :— Held, that the defendants were 
 bound by the mode of payment adopted, and 
 that that circumstance distinguished tin- case 
 from that of principal and siuety. .Vniild v. 
 Andrcwg, 35 L. T. 813 ; 3 Asp. M. C.32. 
 
 Settlement of Accounts— Majority Bind the 
 Best. 1— If llic major |i;irt of part owii' r.s .-.rlih! 
 the ship's account, it .shall bind the rest. Jlol-i'i- 
 gon v. 'Jlinnipxoii, 1 Vcrn. 405. 
 
 In all sea-adventures the acts of the majority 
 of partners shall bind the whole. Ful/dutid v. 
 Cheney, 5 Bro. I'. ''. 170.
 
 SHIPPIxNG— IV. Oiciwrs. 
 
 52 
 
 Claim against Managing Owners— Reopening 
 Account — Statute of Limitations.] — The rela- 
 tions between co-owuers of a vessel engaged in 
 foreign voyages and her managing owners are, 
 in the absence of any evidence to shew that each 
 voyage is a separate trading transaction, to be 
 treated, in relation to the profit and loss on her 
 voyages, as a continuous partnership or agency, 
 as the case may be. Consequently the rule as to 
 l^artnership accounts applies, the accounts may 
 l)e gone into without any limit as to time, and 
 the statute of limitations does not apply so 
 long as the partnership or agency is continuous. 
 27ie Ponyoht, 73 L. T. 512 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 89. 
 
 Ship's Register — Detention by Master Part 
 Owner.] — A master, part owner, refusing to 
 tleliver up the ship's register to the managing 
 owner, held not liable to penalty under 17 & 18 
 Vict. c. 104, s. 50. Arlde or Ildrlde v. Hcnzell, 
 8 El. & Bl. 828 ; 27 L. J., M. C. 110 ; 4 Jur. (x.s.) 
 301). 
 
 Contribution to Losses — Power of Majority to 
 Bind All — Costs of defending Action.] — The 
 
 liwners of a ship, except A., who had one share, 
 resided in England, and were found liable in an 
 action in England to cargo owners for its loss. 
 A., who resided in Scotland, did not join in the 
 defence. The owners were insured by an asso- 
 ciation of which their managing agent was a 
 member. The agent, in his own name, sued the 
 association upon the policy. The action was not 
 successful, and an appeal was aVjandoned upon a 
 money payment being made by the association 
 by way of compromise. In an action against A. 
 by the other owners for contribution to the 
 loss : — Held, that, notwithstanding the compro- 
 mise with the insurers, he was liable. Bennett 
 V. McLellan, 17 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 800. 
 
 Held, also, that the costs of defending the 
 action in England were included in A."s lia- 
 bilities. III. 
 
 Sale by Part Owners.']— See post, tit. VIII. 
 Sale and Transfer. 
 
 And see further, post, tit. XXVI. ADiilRALTY 
 T.AW AND Practice. 
 
 c. Rights and Liabilities against and to 
 Others. 
 
 Bankruptcy — Set-off.] — Part owners of a ship 
 cannot set oft" their proportions of a debt to the 
 bankrupt on account of the ship against debts 
 due to them severally from the bankrupt. 
 Chriaie, Ex parte, 10 Ves. 10.">. 
 
 Covenant with Part Owners — Joint or Several.] 
 — A covenant with the part owners of a ship, 
 and their several and respective executors, to 
 pay money accruing for the hire of the ship for 
 freight, and for use of the ship's tackle, to the 
 covenanters, their and every of their several and 
 respective executors, at a specified bank, in such 
 proportions as were set against their several 
 and respective names, is a several covenant, and 
 cannot be sued on by the covenanters jointly. 
 Sen-ante v. James, 5 M. & Piob. 299 ; 10 B. & C. 
 410; 8L. J. (O.S.) K. B. G4. 
 
 Part Owners suing for Injury to Ship in 
 Separate Actions — Aoatement.] — If one of two 
 jiart owners of a shij) sues alone for an injury 
 done to the ship, and the defendant does not 
 
 plead in abatement, the other part owner may 
 afterwards sue alone, and the defendant cannot 
 plead in abatement to the second action. Sedei- 
 loortli V. Orerend, 7 Term Eep. 279. Cf. Addison 
 V. Overcnd, 6 Term Bep. 7(16. 
 
 Liability of Owner for Supplies — Acceptance 
 of Agent's Draft for Price — Dishonour.] — A 
 
 tradesman who had sup[)lied goods to a ship 
 took the acceptance of the shipowner's agent for 
 the amount of his bill for the goods, and after- 
 wards consented to the renewal of the bill twice. 
 Upon the agent's failure and dishouo'.'f of the 
 bill : — Held, that the shipowner was liable for 
 the price of the goods, although the agent had 
 throughout had in his hands money of his 
 principal sufficient to pay for the goods. liohin- 
 son V. Bead. 9 B. & C. 449 ; 4 M. & Ey. 349 ; 7 
 L. .J. (O.S.) K. B. 236. 
 
 Joint Agent — Liability,] — If persons, sepa- 
 rately interested in aliquot parts of a ship, 
 employ a joint agent, they are liable in the 
 aggregate. Pasniore v. Bousjield, 1 Stark. 29G. 
 
 Surviving Part Owner — Trover.] — A surviving 
 part owner may bring trover for the whole ship. 
 Boclavray v. Dlclienson, Comb. 3G6. 
 
 Necessaries — Liability of Part Owner,] — The 
 plaintiff sold stores for a ship to T., who was 
 ship's husband and managing owner. The defen- 
 dant was part owner of this ship, and was also 
 interested with T. in the adventure for which 
 the ship was fitted out. The plaintiff applied to 
 T. for payment, but did not obtain it. Three 
 months after the goods were supplied, and again 
 two years after that, the defendant settled 
 accounts with T., and gave him credit for the 
 price of the goods, supposing they had been paid 
 for. More than three years after the goods had 
 been supplied, T. having become bankrupt, the 
 plaintiff for the first time applied for payment 
 to the defendant, and brought his action for the 
 price of them : — Held, that there had been no 
 such conduct on the part of the plaintiff as 
 would diseharsje the defendant from liability. 
 Bavmni v. I)(>)ialdson, 9 Q. B. D. 023 ; 47 L. T. 
 564 ; 31 W. R. 277 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 601— C. A. 
 
 Liabilities in respect of Repairs.] — A., B. and 
 C. being part owners in a ship, A. directed B. 
 and C. not to order any repairs in their joint 
 names, and informed them that he would no 
 longer consider them as managing owners : re- 
 pairs were done in their joint names upon the 
 direction of the captain employed by B. and C. : 
 — Held, that A. was jointly liable. Gleadon v. 
 Tlnckler, Holt, 586. 
 
 Liability for Repairs and Expenses.] — See 
 The Vinduhala. supra, col. 47. And see 4. LIA- 
 BILITY ON Contract, infra, cols. 61, seq. 
 
 Liability for Damage — Ship worked by One 
 Part Owner — Liability of the Other.] — See 
 
 Burnard v. Aaron, infra, eol. 72. 
 
 d. Refusing' to Navig-ate. 
 
 Chancery Jurisdiction.] — The court of ad- 
 miralty is open all the year round to applications 
 by part owners to restrain the sailing of ships 
 without their consent until security given to the 
 amount of the respective shares. But where the 
 shares are not ascertained, the court of chancery
 
 SHIPPING— IV. Owners. 
 
 54 
 
 will exercise a concurrent jurisdiction, by in- 
 junction, to restrain the sailing of a ship until 
 the share of the party complaining shall be 
 ascertained, and security given to the amount of 
 it. In this case it was referred to the master to 
 make the inquiry and to settle the security 
 accordingly. Malij v. Goodson, 2 Mer. 77 ; 16 
 R. R. 14.5. 
 
 Injunction to restrain the sailing of vessel 
 containing goods sold to a person who had 
 become insolvent, but over which the plaintiff 
 retained a right of stoppage in transitu, refused. 
 A coiut of equity has not jurisdiction in any 
 case to stop goods in transitu, semble. Goodhart 
 V. Lowe, 2 J. & W. 349 ; 22 R. R. 164. 
 
 Injunction to restrain the sailing of a ship 
 upon the application of a part owner, refused, 
 where the ship was intended to sail the next 
 day, and it did not appear by the affidavit filed 
 in sttpport of the motion that there were any 
 circumstances to account for the plaintiffs delay 
 in applying. Christie v. Craig. 2 Mer. 137. 
 
 i?emble, the court of chancery will not, in a 
 case within its jurisdiction, interfere beyond or 
 otherwise than the court of admiralty would 
 interfere, at the suit of some part o^\-ners to 
 restrain the sailing of a ship or control her 
 management ; there being no question as to the 
 ownership, and the only dispute being as to the 
 powers of the owners inter se. Cuxtelli v. Cook, 
 7 Hare, 89 ; 18 L. J.. Ch. 148 ; 13 Jur. 675. 
 
 The master of an American vessel arriving in 
 England, authorised by the owners to sell or 
 charter the ship, entered into a charterparty 
 with the plaintiff for a voyage to Ceylon and 
 back. A few days afterwards the defendant 
 purchased the ship from a party acting under a 
 ])ower of attorney from one of the owners to sell 
 her. The greater part of the cargo had been 
 put on board under the charter-party. The 
 defendant attempted to stop the sailing of the 
 ship : — Held, that the master having authority 
 to charter the ship, which he had done, and the 
 defendant knowing of the charterparty, an in- 
 junction would lie to restrain the purchasers 
 from interfering with the sailing of the ship, in 
 pursuance of the charterparty. Mexsagerien 
 Imperialeg Co. v. Haines, 7 L. T. 763 ; 11 W. R. 
 322. 
 
 Whether the court will grant an injunction 
 restraining a party from taking a ship to any 
 other than a certain port, thereby in effect com- 
 pelling him to proceed to such port, (juaere. 
 Lidgttt V. Williams, i Hare, 4G.D ; 14 L. J., Ch. 
 459. 
 
 A shipowner of Hamburg made, at Hamburg. 
 an agreement with a domiciled Englishman fur 
 the sale to the Englishman of a Hamburg shi|i 
 whenever she might return from the voj'age on 
 •which she then was. The ship returned, and was 
 by the owner ordered to proceed to Sunderland. 
 The master of the ship, who was authorised Ijy 
 the shipowner to act as his agent in the sale, 
 refused to deliver the ship except on certain 
 tenns. The purchaser filed a bill against the 
 owner and the master for specific performances. 
 He obtainc<l leave to substitute service on the 
 master for the owner, and moved for an injunc- 
 tion to restrain the defendants from removing 
 the ship out of the juri.>diction : — Held, that the 
 court harl jurisdiction to restrain the defendants 
 from removing the ship, and injunction granted. 
 Huii V. Ucrwig, 42 L. J., Ch. 457 ; L. R. 8 
 Ch. 860 ; 29 L. T. 47 ; 21 W. R. 063 ; 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 03. 
 
 Held, that substituted service on the master 
 was effectual and proper. Ih. 
 
 Application to Chancery to restrain Sailing 
 by Minority Owner.] — The court of chancery 
 will not restrain a ship from sailing on the appli- 
 cation of the owner of the smaller ascertained 
 share. The court only interferes where the shares 
 are unascertained. The application is too late 
 when the ship is on the point of sailing with 
 emigrants. Hallaran v. Donal, 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 
 217. 
 
 The proper application in such case is to the 
 court of admiralty for security. 11). 
 
 The defendant, a Spaniard, executed at San- 
 tander, in Spain, a mortgage to A. B. of a 
 Spanish vessel, of which he was the master, to 
 secure the repayment by the defendant to A. B., 
 or whoever in future might represent his right, a 
 sum of money and interest ; and the mortgage 
 deed contained a proviso that A. B., or whoever 
 might represent him, might exact payment of 
 the loan and interest at any time and in any 
 manner. The plaintiff was the transferee of the 
 mortgage, and the defendant and the vessel being 
 at the port of Q., ^^•ithin the jurisdiction, the 
 plaintiff commenced an action against the 
 defendant to enforce the mortgage, and for an 
 injunction to restrain the defendant from remov- 
 ing the vessel out of the jurisdiction, and duly 
 served the defendant with a copy of the writ. 
 He now moved for an interlocutory injunction 
 to restrain the defendant from removing the 
 vessel out of the jurisdiction until the hearing : 
 — Held, that the court had jurisdiction to grant 
 such an injunction, and it was granted accord- 
 ingly. Claccriiifj V. Aguii-e, 5 L. R., Ir. 97. 
 
 Certain persons entered into an agreement in 
 writing for forming themselves into a company, 
 one of their rules being to manage the affairs by 
 a committee, but no time being fixed for the 
 duration of the company. Four of the members, 
 took upon themselves the exclusive management 
 of a ship, the property of the company, and were 
 about to send her on a voyage disapproved of 
 by some of the members, whereupon the latter 
 filed a bill to restrain the four from proceeding 
 otherwise than under the direction of the com- 
 mittee, and to obtain delivery up of books, <S:c. 
 A demurrer for want of equity was allowed. 
 Milen V. Thoniait. 9 Sim. 606. 
 
 Ship taken Possession of by Minority Ovmers 
 and Lost.] — A ship was forcibly taken possession 
 of by a minority of the part owners, and sent 
 on a voyage on which she was lost : — Held, that 
 trover could not be maintaincil and damages for 
 her loss recovered. Xnif/lit v. Cmttes, 1 L. R., 
 Ir. 53. Following 7?rtrrt«rf('.v/«7t v. C/iajJinan, cited, 
 4 Ea-st, 121 ; Bui. N. V. 34. 
 
 Action by Part Owner against Co-Owner — 
 Sending Ship to Sea. J — An aeiinn dues nut lie at 
 the suit ot one part owner against another for 
 sending the shij) on a voyage without the plain- 
 tiff's assent, whereby the plaintiff lost his .sliarc. 
 Graves v. Sawcrr, l Lev. 29 ; 1 Keb. 38 ; Sir T. 
 Raymond, 15. 
 
 And see. tit. XXVI. AD.MIBALTY Law and 
 rKACTICE, 16. llESTnAINT. infra. 
 
 Dissenting Part Owners— Sharing Profits.— A 
 part owner of a slii|>, which had be(.ii let to the 
 East India Coni|iany for a voyage to India, alter 
 the other part owner had expended a large sum
 
 SHIPPING— IV. Otrncrs. 
 
 56 
 
 in repairing and fittin.c: it out for the voyage, 
 aiTCsted the ship by piocoss out of the admiralty 
 court, and compeUed the other i)art owner to 
 give security for his share ; the shij) afterwards 
 sailed to India and returned home: — Held, that 
 the iiart owner who had taken the security was 
 not entitled to any share of the profits of the 
 voyage, but was bound to ]iay his poition of the 
 repairs and outfit. Dari-i v. Johitdon, 4 Sim. 
 53!). 
 
 A dissenting part owner who takes security 
 in admiralty for the return of tlie ship is not 
 entitled to share in her earnings. A/uni.. Ca. in 
 Ch., pt. 2, 36. And see Anuii., Skinner, 230, 
 jufra. 
 
 Bearing Loss.] — If the ship is lost, a 
 
 part owner who does nut dissent from the voyage 
 bears his share of the loss. Tlie ]'ht(hibi/la, 13 
 P. D. 42 : supra, col. 47. ^liter, if he expressly 
 dissents, Horn v. Gilpin, infra. 
 
 One part owner of a ship freighted against the 
 express dissent of the other : the ship and cargo 
 are lost : the loss falls wholly on the partner who 
 freighted. Horn v. Giljjin, Ambl. 255. N. B., 
 Slrelli/ v. Winson, infra, is wrongly reported. 
 
 A., one of three part owners of a ship, refuses 
 to navigate ; B. and C, the other two, navigate 
 svithout his consent, and ship is lost in the 
 voyage. A. shall bear his proportion of the loss, 
 for he would have been entitled to an account of 
 the profits. StreUij v. Win-son, 1 Vern. 297; 
 Skinner. 230. 
 
 If a dissenting part owner does not expressly 
 prohibit the voyage, he shall have an account of 
 the profits ; if the ship is lost, he shall not be 
 answered his part. Anon.. Skinner, 230. 
 
 3. Managing Owner and Ship's Husband. 
 
 Authority of Managing Owner to Bind other 
 Owners for Ship's Necessaries.] — W. was the 
 registered owner of certain shares in a ship, and 
 had been entered on the register as managing 
 owjier. The defendant subsequently became the 
 registered owner of other shares in the ship. 
 The defendant was not aware in fact thatW. was 
 so registered as managing owner. W. sent the 
 shijj on a voyage without the defendant's know- 
 ledge, and contrary to the terms of an agreement 
 made between them. The defendant did not 
 participate in the adventure, and had previously 
 informed W. that he did not intend to navigate 
 tlie ship or take any part in her management. 
 The plaintiffs supplied necessaries for the ship 
 previous to such voyage, upon the order of W., 
 wittiout the knowledge or consent of the defen- 
 dant. Tiie plaintiffs, before supplying the goods, 
 consulted the register, and found the defendant's 
 name entered therein as part owner of the ship : 
 — Held, that the fact that the defendant had 
 allowed the entry on the register describing W. 
 as managing owner to remain unaltered did not 
 per se amount to a holding out of W. as his 
 agent, so as to render the defendant liable for 
 the necessaries supplied by the plaintiffs, and 
 that inasmuch as W. !iad not in fact authority 
 to bind the defendant, the plaintiffs could not 
 recover against the defendant for such neccs- 
 sai'ies. Fruzer v. Cuthlert.son, ."lO L. J., Q. B. 
 277 ; 6 Q. B. D. 93 ; 29 W. K. 39G. 
 
 If a person who supjilies stores to a ship, of 
 which there are several owners, takes in pay- 
 ment the bill of the ship's husband (a part 
 owner) only, and settles with him alone, he dis- 
 
 charges the other owners, particularly if the bill 
 is renewed. Repcl v. White, 5 Esp. 122. 
 
 Necessaries were furnished to a shi]) on the 
 order of the ship's husband (himself a jjart 
 owner), by whom alone the sliip was managed ; 
 — Held, that the co-owners were liable, although 
 part of the supplies had been paid for by bills 
 drawn by the ship's husband ujjon the brokers 
 of the ship : and on the bankruptcy of the latter, 
 the plaintiff had ])roved against their estate for 
 the balance. Whitwell y.Perrin, 4 C. B. (N.s.) 
 412. 
 
 Necessaries supplied to foreign ship in England 
 on order of part owner do not create a maritime 
 lien. See The Heinrich Bjorn, post. tit. XXVI. 
 Admiralty Law and Peactice, coL 960. 
 
 Recovery from Part Owners.] — A part 
 
 owner of a ship is not necessarily a partner ; 
 therefore a part owner, who, as a ship's husband, 
 incurs the expense of the outfits, may sue the 
 other part owners separately for their respective 
 shares of the expense. Helme v. Smith, 7 Bing. 
 709 ; 5 M. & P. 744 ; 9 L. J. (o.S.) C. P. 206. 
 
 One of several co-owners who acts as ship's 
 husband, is only entitled to charge the cost price 
 of supplies to the ship furnished by him in the 
 course of his business. Ritchie v. Coiqwr, 28 
 Beav. 344. 
 
 In an action against one of the owners for 
 work done to a vessel by the order of the ship's 
 husband, such owner will be liable, unless it is 
 shewn that the dealing was, that the person who 
 directed the work to be done should be looked to 
 exclusively. Thompson v. Finden, 4 Car. & P. 
 158. 
 
 Releasing Ship from Arrest.] — A managing 
 owner has power to release a vessel from arrest 
 under an order of the court of admiraltj', in 
 order that she may prosecute her voyage and 
 earn freight ; and he is not bound to do this 
 at his own expense, but may release the ship 
 according to the rules of the court, by procuring 
 bail for damages and costs. JBarher v. Iliijhley, 
 15 C. B. (N.s.) 27 ; 32 L. J., C. P. 270 ; 10 Jur. 
 (N.S.) 391 ; 9 L. T. 228 ; 11 W. K. 968. 
 
 Master Suing in his own Name.] — Where the 
 master is part owner, but has the entire control 
 and management of the ship, paying to his co- 
 owner a third of the net profits, he is competent 
 to sue in his own name. Cawthron v. Trichett, 
 15 C. B. (N.s.) 754 ; 33 L. J., C. P. 182 ; 9 L. T. 
 609; 12 W. R. 311. 
 
 Repairs.— Authority to pledge Credit of Co- 
 owners— Underwriters liable for Damage.] — A 
 
 managing owner, who lias Ijcen deputed by his 
 co-owners to employ a vessel for tlieir benefit, in 
 such trades as he may from time to time think 
 fit, has authority to give orders for the repair, 
 fitting and outfit necessary for such employment. 
 The huntsman, [1894] P. 214 ; 6 E. 098 ; 70 
 L. T. 386 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 431. 
 
 If the ship is damag-ed, a peison repairing her 
 may do so on the credit of the owners, by the 
 orders of the managing owner, although there is 
 reason to believe That the sliiii is insured, and 
 that the underwriters are liable for the damage. 
 lb. 
 
 Aliter, where the repairs are not of necessity, 
 sec Chappcll v. lira;/, infra, col. 66. And see 
 fvrtJier, as to power of managing owner to order. 
 Steele V. Di-Ton. infra, col. 02.
 
 57 
 
 SHIPPING— IV. Oicners. 
 
 58 
 
 Ship's Husband — Duty to Account — Interest — 
 Proceeds of Prizes.] — Owners of a privateer 
 acting for themselves and crew in the sale of 
 prizes, having neglected to render accounts and 
 delayed distribution of proceeds, charged with 
 interest on balances and costs. Pearse v. Green, 
 1 Jac. & Walk. 135 ; 20 R. K. 258. 
 
 Eight to Advances out of Freight.] — The right 
 of a ship's husband to be repaid out of the 
 freight for advances made on account of the 
 ship is a right of lien or retainer and not in the 
 nature of a charge on the freight ; and there- 
 fore if he is removed from his office by the owners 
 before he is in a position to receive the freight, 
 an assignee of his inteiest in the freight cauuot 
 maintain a claim to it as against the owners. 
 Bpynon v. Godden, 48 L. J.,''Ex. 80 ; 8 Ex. D. 
 263 ; 39 L. T. 82 ; 26 W. K. 672 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 10— C. A. 
 
 Appointment of Agent by.] — A. and B., joint 
 part owners of a ship, intrusted the management 
 to C, their co-part owner, as ship's husband ; C. 
 employed D. as his agent to raise and pay money 
 in respect of the ship, and also for his general 
 affairs. The ship was chartered by the East India 
 Company, earning freight for them, which D. 
 ]-eceivcd, upon giving receipts signed (as required 
 by the rules of the company) by one other part 
 owner, in addition to C, the ship's husband. D., 
 who knew that C. was only part owner, but 
 was never controlled by the others, placed the 
 amount of freights received to the account of 
 C, as ship's owner, and kept a distinct general 
 account with him. C. dietl insolvent : — Held, 
 that A. and B. could not sue D. for the balance 
 due from him on the ship's account, because 
 there was no privity of contract between them ; 
 D.'s rcspon.sibility was to the executors. Shiis v. 
 Britten or Brittaln, 1 N. & M. 51)4 ; 4 B. & Ad. 
 375. See Wal.s/ie v. Pnirtiti, post, col. 38'.). 
 
 Assignment of Freight to secure Private Debt.] 
 — S. & Co. were owners of seven-eighths of an 
 American vessel and ship's husbands. T. was 
 owner of the remaining eighth, and was captain 
 of the vessel, which was dispatched on a voyage 
 to Liverpool. Before the voyage S. i: Co. spent 
 a large sum in repairs, and for the puipose of 
 taking up bills which they had accepted on 
 account of the repairs, they borrowed a sum 
 of money fi'ora the j)laintiffs, and assigned the 
 fieight to them by way of security. On the 
 arrival (jf the vessel in Liverpool the plaintiffs 
 obtained an injunction to prevent T. from receiv- 
 ing tlie freight : — Held, that a part owner, who 
 is hhijj's liuhband, has not the right, as against 
 other part owners, of making an assignment of 
 tlie whole freiglit to secure moneys advanced tf) 
 him ; that tlie legal right to receive the freight 
 was in tiie captain, and that, in the absence of 
 any sufficient allegation and jiroof that he was 
 about to misapply it, the injunction ought not to 
 have been granteil. Guio/i v. Trash, 1 Do G., 
 F. & J. 373 ; 2!) L. J., Cb. 337 ; 6 Jur. (N.S.) 
 185 ; 1 L. T. 46'J ; 8 \V. II. 206. 
 
 Action for not Accounting.] — Part o^vnel•^ of 
 a ship having agreed, "each and every of them 
 with the others and each and every of the 
 others," that the ship should proceed on a cer- 
 tain voyage under the exclusive management and 
 control of one of them as ship's husband; and 
 that after her return, " a full account should be 
 
 made of the ship and her concerns." and the net 
 profits be tlivided in proportion after deducting 
 all charges ; the duty of making out such ac- 
 count is cast upon the ship's husband ; and for 
 not doing so, and not dividing the net profits, 
 after deducting all charges, within a reasonable 
 time after the ship's return, an action lies against 
 him upon the agreement by each of the parti 
 o\vuers ; though it is not averred in terms that 
 the charges were or could have been ascertained 
 before the account brought, for that is matter of 
 defence. Owstun v. Ogle, 13 East, 538 ; 12 
 R. R. 426. 
 
 When an action is brought in rem against a 
 ship by the owners of certain shares therein, 
 claiming possession and an account against the 
 managing owner, and the latter makes default 
 in appearing, the court will order such managing 
 owner to be joined as defendant, so that his 
 accounts may be investigated, and will give pos- 
 session to the plaintiffs if they hold a "majority 
 of shares : but will not order, before the refer- 
 ence, a sale of the defendant's shares to satisfy 
 the plaintiffs' costs and any sum fouml due at 
 the reference. The Native Pearl, 37 L. T. 542 ; 
 3 Asp. M. C. 515. 
 
 Authority to pledge Owner's Credit for Costs 
 of Action.] — A slii]i's husband has no authority 
 to pledge his owner's credit for the expenses of a 
 law suit. Camphell v. Slein, 6 Dow, 116. 
 
 May deduct Expenses from gross Freight.] — 
 
 A shiji's iiusbaud. wliu had advanced for outfits 
 and disbursements of llie ship sums considerably 
 exceeding the money received under the charter- 
 party at the commencement of the vo\'age, had, 
 before the freight was delivered, obtained a loan, 
 by deposit of the charterparty to relieve himself 
 from his advances on account of the ship. Mot ion 
 by one of the part owners to restrain the ship's 
 husband from receiving or dealing with the 
 freight refused with costs, the shijj's husband 
 being entitled to receive the freight and deduct 
 his disbursements, and his coniluct not having 
 been so imj^roper as to justify the restraint of 
 this right. Harris v. RrijuohJx, 4 W. R. 278. 
 
 Managing Part Owners — Eight to sue for 
 Supplies furnished.] — Some of the joint owners 
 of a ship, aciiiiu' as managers on Vielialf of the 
 owners generally, furnishing supplies for the 
 voyage, are entitled to sue lor an aecminl of the 
 transactions between themselves and tin; other 
 owners. Vanner v. Frust, 39 L. J., Ch. 626. 
 
 Cost Price only.] — One of several co-owners of 
 a slii|i, who acts assiiip's husband, is oidy entitled 
 to charge the cost price of supjilies to the ship 
 furnished by him in the course of his business. 
 Itiiehie V. Ciiupcr, 28 Beav. 344. 
 
 As Charterers.] — The plaintiffs (wlio were p.nt 
 owners of the shi|)), having f(iunded their tith' to 
 relief on their riglits as ciiarterer.s, and staled 
 that they were managing owners, not for tiio 
 purpose of relief as maiiagingowners, but in order 
 to ]irotect their rights as charterers, are not 
 entitled to an injunction founded merely oi» 
 their right as managing (pwners. hut can only be 
 so on the found.-itiou of their rights as charterers. 
 Litltjeit v. Williamjt, 4 Hare, 464 ; 1 1 L. .L, Ch. 
 45'J. 
 
 Eetracting Authority of.] — Per Lord Esher,. 
 M.R. : — The managing owner of a ship i.s the
 
 59 
 
 SHIPPING— IV. Oiniers. 
 
 60 
 
 assent of each co-owner separately, and each 
 co-owner may retract his auilujiity to the 
 managing owner without consulting the other 
 co-owners. T/ie Vindolinhi, supra, col. 4:7. 
 
 Duty to Account — Co-cwnersliip Action.] — 
 
 It is the tluty of a managing owner to account 
 to his co-owners for the ship's earnings and dis- 
 bursements within a reasonable time, but what is 
 a reasonable time must depend ui)on the circum- 
 stances of each case. There is no fixed rule that 
 a ship's accounts are to be ready before she sails 
 on her next vovase. 2'Iie Jlouiit Vei'non, 64 L. T. 
 148 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 32. 
 
 Powers and Duties of.] — Powers and duties of 
 the managing owners of a ship, as between them- 
 selves and the other part owners. Darhy v. 
 Haines, 9 Hare, 369 ; 21 L. J., Ch. 801. 
 
 Construction of an agreement, entered into by 
 Che part owners of a ship, with regard to the 
 management of the ship, and the allowance for 
 brokerage and commission. Ih. 
 
 Account with Banker.] — The managing owner 
 of a ship chartered by the East India Company 
 receives the warrants for the freight, and pays 
 them into a banker's in his own name, drawing 
 cheques from time to time for various sums out 
 of the proceeds, part of which are applied for the 
 use of the ship, and part for other purposes : — 
 Held, that the other part owners have no lien 
 on this fund in the hands of the bankers, nor 
 anv claim against the bankers as their debtors. 
 Grihile, Ex parte, 3 Deac. & G. 339. 
 
 Cancelling Charterparty.] — A ship's hrrsband, 
 as such, has no authority to bind the shipowner 
 to pay money to the charterer in consideration of 
 the cancellation of the charterparty. Thomas v. 
 Leicis or Oxleif. 48 L. J.. Ex. 7 ;'4 Ex. D. 18 ; 
 39 L. T. 669 ; 27 W. E. Ill ; 4 Asp. M. C. 51. 
 
 Mortgage of Warrant for Freight.] — Where 
 A., as the managing owner of a vessel, was per- 
 mitted by the other owners to have possession of 
 two warrants or orders of the East India Com- 
 {lany to pay to the owners or bearer the sum of 
 money therein mentioned, for freight, and A. 
 deposited those warrants in the hands of his 
 bankers, and they received the money due on 
 them, and gave him credit for it on account : — 
 Held, in an action brought after A.'s death by the 
 surviving part owners against the bankers, that 
 on proof of these facts they could not recover 
 the money, because it was not shown that the 
 loan was upon their account, for the fact of 
 the warrants being the property of all the part 
 owners when placed in the banker's hands, was, 
 upon the evidence, consistent with the supposi- 
 tion that the loan of the proceeds to the bankers 
 M-as A.'s loan. Sims v. Bond, 2 N. & M. 608 ; 
 .-i B. & Ad. 389. 
 
 Payment to — Misapplication — Rights of Owner 
 paying.] — Where a pait owner of a ship pays to 
 the managing owner his contribution due upon 
 the ship's accounts as agreed between the co- 
 owners, the managing owner receives such contri- 
 bution as agent for all the owners ; and in the 
 event of the managing owner misapplying such 
 payment to his own use, and not paying the 
 ship's accounts therewith, the contributing owner 
 is entitled to be credited with the amount so 
 paid, but all the owners, including himself, must 
 make good the defalcations in proportion to their 
 
 shares. Tlw Ida, :>:^ L. T. 59 : 6 Asp. M. C. 21. 
 See also The Dora Tally, post, 'col. 9."). 
 
 Co-ownership Action — Accounts of Managing 
 
 Owner.]— See The CJiarlcs Jaek.-ion, (Joieeit v. 
 Sjjrott, post, col. y."'.9. 
 
 Claim against Managing Owner — Statute of 
 Limitations — Opsuiug Account.] — See Tl'e Pon- 
 'jolii, 73 L. T. 512, supra, col. 51. 
 
 Right to Commission.] — The managinar owner 
 of a ship is competent to appoint himself to act 
 as broker to the ship in collecting and distribut- 
 ing the freight, there being no incompatibility 
 between those services (as, semble, there would 
 be between the services of a ship's chandler or a 
 ship's carpenter) and his fiduciary character 
 as managing owner. Smith v. Lay, 3 K. & J. 
 105. 
 
 But, before allowing him a commission in 
 respect of the services in question, the court 
 directed an inquiry whether, according to the 
 custom of shipowners or otherwise, he, being 
 managing owner, was entitled to any and what 
 commission in respect of duties performed hj 
 him, and which duties are ordinarily performed 
 by shipbrokers. lb. 
 
 A part owner being the manager of a ship, 
 is entitled to remuneration for his services, but 
 there is no fixed rate applicable. The 3Ieredlth, 
 or White v. Ditohjield, 10 P. D. 69 ; 52 L. T. 520 ; 
 5 Asp. M. C. 400. 
 
 The procuring of charters and freights is one of 
 the ordinary duties incidental to the position of 
 a managing owner of a ship : and in the absence 
 of a special contract he is not entitled to retain, 
 as against the ship, commissions on the charters 
 or freights procured, whether he is acting as 
 shipbroker himself or employing other brokers. 
 Williamson v. Mine, 60 L. J., Ch. 123; [1891] 
 1 Ch. D. 390 ; 63 L. T. 682 ; 39 W. R. 239 ; 6 
 Asp. M. C. 559. 
 
 A part owner acted as ship's husband without 
 agreement for commission ; his predecessor had 
 acted in the same way, and had received commis- 
 sion : — Held, entitled to reasonable remunera- 
 tion. Salter v. Adey, 24 L. T. 229 ; 1 Jur. (N.S.) 
 930. 
 
 The directors of a company owning vessels 
 cannot authorise one of themselves to act as hus- 
 band of one of the vessels, and to receive the usual 
 remuneration of a ship's husband. Benson v. 
 Heathorn, 1 Y. & CoU. C. C. 326. 
 
 In the absence of an agTeement, semble. a part 
 owner acting as ship's husband is not entitled to 
 charge commission. Miller v. Maehay, 34 Beav. 
 295 ; see also S. C, 31 Beav. 77. 
 
 Ship's Husband — Commissions not accounted 
 for — Right of a single Part Owner to sue.] — A 
 single part owner may sue the ship's husband for 
 an account of rebates of commissions allowed 
 to him by brokers. Planners v. Raeiurn, 10 
 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 899. 
 
 Commission retained — Concealment.] — A., B. 
 
 and C. being joint owners in a vessel, it was 
 agreed that A. should act as the ship's husband 
 and broker, and be entitled to commission on 
 " gross freight " ; and in case of gross negligence 
 or fraud on the part of A., that B. and C. might 
 put an end to the agreement by notice and pur- 
 chase of A.'s shares. A. effected a charterparty 
 of the vessel, the charterer paying all expenses, 
 and 130Z. per week for the ship, and 4?. a week to
 
 61 
 
 SHIPPING— lY. Owners. 
 
 62 
 
 A., ■who, in the accounts he rendered to B. and C, I 
 represented the amount paid as 130/!. a week j 
 only : — Held, that the concealment of the receipt | 
 of the 4Z. a week was such a fraud on B. and C. 
 that it entitled them to put an end to the agree- 
 ment ; that the fraud could not be justified on 
 the ground that, had the charterparty been 
 effected on tlie usual terms of the owners of the 
 vessel paying the usual expenses of the ship, A. 
 could haVe been entitled to as large a sum by 
 wav of commission on gross freight. Brenan v. 
 Preston. 2 W. R. 138. 
 
 Sembie, that B.. having once signed the notice 
 to put an end to the agreement, could not after- 
 wards withdraw. lb. 
 
 Charges given by — Eight of Co-owners — 
 Mortgagee.] — See T/ip Fuu.st. post, col. 182. 
 
 Authority of Master to Sind.] — See \. 
 Master, post, cols. 83, se;[. 
 
 Duty as to Cargo on Failure of Consignee to 
 take Delivery.] — See 'llie Clan Macdonald, post, 
 col. 539. 
 
 Eight to Sell Ship.]— 5 r VIII. Sale axd 
 Transfer. 
 
 4. Liability ox Contract. 
 a. Necessaries and Repairs. 
 
 Authority of Master to Bind.] — Whoever 
 supplies a shi[j with necessaries has a treble 
 security: 1, the person of the master; 2. the 
 specific ship ; and 3, the personal security of 
 the owners. Rich v. Coe., 2 L'owp. 639 ; 1 Term 
 Rep. 108, n. S. P., Bland, Ex 2>arte, 2 Rose, 
 yi : aliter later cases, Alljnn-t v. Thomas, Giib. 
 227. 
 
 Contract by master for necessary goods sup- 
 plied to the ship binds the owner ; decree against 
 part owners pro rata. Speerman v. Derjrave, 
 2 Vem. 643 ; Cavy v. Wliite, 5 Brown, P. C. 323 ; 
 1 Abr. Eq. Ca. 722. 
 
 The plaintiff proved that he supplied goods, 
 and flid work to fit out the ship "Progress" then in 
 London, in dock ; that the orders were given by 
 T., who appeared in the register as master, and 
 that the defendant appeared on the register as 
 owner. Some evidence was given, from which 
 it might be inferred that T. was appointed by 
 the defendant. The defendant proved that he 
 had agreed to sell the ship to 6. ; that T. was 
 appointed master by G., and gave the orders for 
 G., and that tlie defendant afterwards resumed 
 pos.ses8ion of the vessel. The judge directed the 
 jury, that if T. acted as master with the defen- 
 dant's privity and consent, and the goods were 
 bona fide sup[)lied on the credit of the owner, 
 the defendant was liable, and that, though tiie 
 defendant's evidence was believed, he was not 
 conclusively entitled to a verdict : — Held, that 
 the defendant was not liable for tlie goods ordered 
 by T. unless he had .sanctioned his appearing to 
 be his captain, acting for him, and the goods 
 were supplied on the faith of T.'s being so. and, 
 consequently, that the direction was wiong. 
 MitchiMn \ . Olii:pi;5 EI. i: Bl. 419 ; 2.5 L. J., 
 Q. B. 39 ; 1 Jur. (X.s.) 900— E.\. Ch. 
 
 The liability of an owner to pay for rcjiairs 
 and equipments ordered by the master ilepcnds, 
 not upon the ground of ownershi]) of the vessel, 
 but upon the ground of a contiact made with 
 the vendor by a person who was the owner's 
 
 agent for the ptirpose of ordering such neces- 
 saries. The Great Eastern, L. R. 2 A. & E. 88 ; 
 17 L. T. 667. 
 
 The master's contract cannot bind the owner, 
 unless autliorii\' to bind the owner has been 
 actually given to him ; or unless the owner has, 
 by word or deed, held out the master as his 
 master, and there 'uy induced tlie vendor to sujiply 
 the necessaries upon the credit of the owner. lb. 
 
 The master, both at home and abroad, has 
 authorii}' to bind the owne:sfor rejjairs or stores 
 ordered by him which are necessary for the 
 equipment and navigation of the ship in the 
 vovage or trade in which the owners emplov her. 
 Fni.9tY. Oliver. 1 El. &B1. 3ul : 1 C. L. R.'l003 ; 
 22 L. J., Q. B. 3.53 : IS Jur. KJi). 
 
 Goods supplied on Order of Ship's Husband.] — 
 Ov\Tiers are liable for necessaries supplied to the 
 ship upon the order of the ship's husband. Tulsoii 
 V. Ilallctt. Ambl. 270. 
 
 Eepairs — Power of Managing Owner.] — Where 
 a vessel is in a home port and the owners acces- 
 sible, the managing owner cannot, without 
 authority, bind his co-owners for extensive 
 structural repairs. Steele v. Bi.ron, 3 Ct. of 
 Sess. Cas. (4lh ser.) 1003. 
 
 Liability of Owner and Master.] — The repairer 
 of a ship has his election to sue the master or 
 the owner ; but if he undertakes on a special 
 promise from either, the other is discharged. 
 Gurnhaui v. Bennett, 2 Str. 816 ; lloxhins v. 
 Slaijton, Cas. t. Hard. 376. 
 
 Order for Eepairs by one not Owner.] — A 
 person who gives the order for repairs may be 
 liable though he is not the owner. Tibbald v. 
 Wood, 1 F. & F. 287. 
 
 Goods supplied on Master's Order at Home 
 Port.] — The master has authority by law to 
 pledge the credit of his owner, resident in 
 England, for money advanced to the master in 
 an English port where the owner has no agent, 
 if such advance of money was necessary for the 
 prosecution of the voyage ; and whether it was 
 so or not is a question for the jury. Arthur v. 
 Barton, G M. cS: W. 138 ; 9 L. J., Ex. 187. 
 
 AVhere clothes have been supplied to a ship's 
 crew on the orders of the master, in a port 
 within a day's post of the residence of the 
 owners of the vessel, and an undertaking to jiay 
 given by the master, the value of the goods 
 cannot be recovered from the OANTiers. Curran 
 v. Wood, 15 L. T. 592. 
 
 In an action against an owner to recover 
 money a<lvanced to the captain for the use of 
 the ship whilst in a home port : — Held, that the 
 only question for the jury was, whether the 
 captain's position was such as to constitute him 
 the authorised agent of the owner, in order to 
 procure such advances ; and that the state of 
 the accounts between the captain ami Hie owncn- 
 at the time had nothing to do with the case. 
 Williunmon v. Puije, 1 Car. & K. 581. 
 
 In a home port, as well as a foreign one. the 
 master has implied authority to borrow money 
 on the owner's credit in ca.se of necessity. Stone- 
 house V. Grant. 2 Q. B. 431, n. 
 
 But the master had no implied authority to 
 pleilge the owner's credit in rc-npcct of necessary 
 sui)plics ami advances for tlie use of tlie ship 
 during several weeks while she lay at Newport,
 
 SHIPPING— IV. On-ners. 
 
 64 
 
 ^loiniiouthshiio ; (lie owner during nil that time 
 !iavii\o- lesidel at l'lymouth,an(l nothing ajjpear- 
 iuLT to iiavt' prevented eonimuiii(.'ation, if desired, 
 ln'tweeii the master and owner. ///. 
 
 Ill a home port, Ihc master has the implied 
 authority to borrow money for the necessary use 
 of the ship, if tlie owner is absent, and no com- 
 munieatii.n with him can be had without great 
 prejudice and tlelay. Jiihn.sY. iSiiiions,2 Q. B. 425. 
 
 A vessel having been a fortnight wind-bound 
 at Newport, her owner residing at Exeter, one 
 day's post from Newport, the master borrowed 51. 
 froii a broker, in order to enable him to purchase 
 ])H)visions necessary for the use of the ship : — 
 J I eld, that the jury was justified in inferring 
 tliat there was such a reasonable necessity for 
 ])Oi-rowing the money as to render the owner 
 liable for it, thougli there was no proof that the 
 goods might not have been obtained by the 
 master on credit. Edwards v. Ilavill, 14 C. B. 
 107 : 2 C. L. K. 1343 ; 23 L. J., C. P. 8 ; 17 Jur. 
 110.3; 2 W. R. 12. 
 
 A shipowner (in England) is liable for money 
 advanced to the master at his request, for the 
 nece-sary use of the ship after her arrival in an 
 English port, nor is the consent of the owner 
 necessary to establish his responsibility. Rubiti- 
 KUH V. Lijall, 7 Piice, .092. 
 
 Abroad."] — An owner of a vessel is liable for 
 mdiifV ;..ui)plied to the captain in a foreign port, 
 priivided tlie supply is absolutely necessary for 
 ihe use of the vessel. R:>c]icr v. IJ usher, 1 Stark. 
 27 : 18 R. R. 742. 
 
 The plaintiff must shew that it was necessary 
 to boriow the money, and must prove the actual 
 apiilicatiou of it. Jior/le v. Afty, Gow, .50. 
 
 It is not sufficient to prove the advance of a 
 much larger sum than was necessary for the use 
 of the ship, and an apyilication of part of that 
 .'-um to such uses, and that the residue was placed 
 to the pi-ivate account of the captain. I'almcr 
 V. GoQch, 2 Stark. 428. 
 
 A shipowner is not only liable for necessary 
 rci)airs done to a ship bv the n:aster's order, but 
 fur such as are fit and proper for the vessel 
 fin her voyage, and such as a prudent owner, 
 if present himself, would order. Webster v. 
 Seckamp, 4 B. & Aid. 3.52 ; 23 R. R. 307. 
 
 An owner is not liable for money advanced 
 to the master, and expended by him in tlie 
 necessary use of the ship, unless the money is 
 advanced expressly for that purpose. Timelier 
 V. Moatcs, 1 M. & Rob. 79. 
 
 'Ihe master drew bills on his owners for dis- 
 bursements at a foreign port by charterer's 
 agent, which were dishonoured. The disburse- 
 ments were not necessary : — Held, that the 
 owners were not liable for excliange and re- 
 exchange. Strieldand v. Neilsun, 7 Ct. of Sess. 
 Cas. (3id scr.) 400. 
 
 Lial:ility of intended Transferee of Ship — 
 Agreement to accept Bills of Owner for Kepairs.] 
 
 — A shipowner being indebted to his agent 
 transferred the ship to the agent under an 
 agreement that the agent should accept the 
 siiipowncr's draft for the amount of repairs to 
 the ship owing to the shipwright. The agree- 
 ment was not communicated to the shipwright. 
 'I'll- shipowner became bankrupt without having 
 di-awn upon the agent: — Held, that the ship- 
 wright could not recover for the amount of 
 rejiairs atjainst the agent. Rattcnlmry v. Fcntun, 
 3 My. &'K. 505 ; 3 L. J., Ch. 203. 
 
 Onus of Proof.] — In an action against a ship- 
 owiiL'i- foi- goods supplied and money lent to the 
 master at a foreign pert, the onus is on the jilain- 
 tiff to prove that the goods and money supplied 
 were necessaries. Macliintosh v. JMitelirsm, 4 
 Ex. 175 : IS L. J., Ex. 385. 
 
 The presumption that repairs to the ship 
 ordered by the master are under an im))liec[ 
 authority from the owner may be rebutted by 
 circumstances, as where the master promisco t(i 
 pay cash and no mention is made of the owner. 
 Gordon V. Ilare, 1 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 70. 
 
 Evidence of Ownership — Register.] — The de- 
 fendant living at Yarmouth was one of the regis- 
 tered owners of a ship at Yai-mouth. The plaintiff 
 at the order of the master, through the direction 
 of P., who had been ship's husband, supplied 
 necessaries to the ship for her voyage, it did 
 not appear whether P. was a registered co-ownei', 
 or whether he acted as ship's husband with the 
 assent of the defendant. In an action by the 
 plaintiff against the defendant for the price of 
 the necessaries, the plaintiff was nonsuited. 
 There was evidence that the defendant had been 
 on board, and had made inquiries as to repairs 
 which were being done to the ship : — Held, that 
 there must be a new trial. Burton v. Burton, 
 1 L. T. 552. 
 
 The defendant in an action for goods supplied 
 to a ship ]s not liable where, although on the 
 register as part owner, he never was a part owner ; 
 although in order to clear the title after the 
 supply of the goods, he executed a bill of sale 
 containing a covenant for title. Rands v. 
 Thomas, 5 M. & S. 244. S. P., Reu: v. Teal, 11 
 East, 307 ; 10 R. R. 516. 
 
 In an action against A. for the costs of repairs 
 ordered by the master it was proved that he said 
 he was the largest part owner ; that the repairs 
 were necessary ; that credit was given to the 
 master only ; and that the defendant was the 
 sole registered owner. Verdict for the plaintiff ; 
 but new trial ordered on the ground that there 
 was no evidence to go to the jury. Pearson v. 
 Nell, 12 L. T. 607 ; 13 W. R. 967. 
 
 And see III. Registration, ante ; and Cases, 
 ante, col. 40. 
 
 Liahility for Disbursements — Coals — Charter- 
 party.] — See The Durham City, post, col. 249. 
 
 Ship transferred at Sea — Liability of Trans- 
 feree on Contracts of Master.] — The liability of 
 the owner for acts of the master arises solely 
 from the relation of principal and agent ; and in 
 order to make a person liable, such relation must 
 be shewn, either expressedly or impliedly, to. 
 exist between him and the master. Myers v. 
 Willis, 18 0. B. 886 ; 25 L. J., C. P. 255 ; 4, 
 W. R. 637— Ex. Ch. 
 
 The owner of a ship, which was then at sea. 
 transferred it to the defendant by absolute bill 
 of sale, and the transfer was duly registered. 
 The bill of sale was in fact intended only as at 
 collateral security for a loan, and the defendant 
 in no way interfered with the ship. While 
 abroad the master entered into contracts (which 
 were within his general authority) with the 
 plaintiff, neither party being aware of the 
 transfer to the defendant : — Held, that he was 
 not liable on these contracts, as there was nO' 
 evidence of authority from him to the master to- 
 act as his agent. li.
 
 65 
 
 SHIPPIXG— IV. Owners. 
 
 60 
 
 Sale of Ship — Goods supplied before Sale com- 
 pleted.] — See A/t Arranginri Trader. lit, re, 1 
 Ir. liop. Eci. 21G, infra, col. 68. 
 
 Where Covenant by Master to Repair.] — 
 
 Thfiugh the master of a vessel is also lessee of 
 it, by agieemeut with the o^-ners. for a term of 
 vcars. under a covenant on their part that he 
 shall have the sole management of the ship, and 
 employ her for his own sole benetit, and on his 
 part that he shall repair her at his own sole cost 
 and charge, the o\vners are still liable for neces- 
 saries furnished for the ship by order of the 
 master, though without the knowledge, or without 
 their being known to the person supplying them. 
 Rich V. Coe, Cowp. 636 ; 1 Term Eep. 168, n. 
 
 The registered owners of a steam-boat let it 
 to A., the captain, for one year ; the boat to 
 be repaired by A., the engines to be repaired by 
 the owners, who were to appoint an engineer : — 
 Held that the o^vTiers were not liable for repairs 
 ordered by A. .unconnected with the engine. Ih. 
 
 The registered owner is not liable for articles 
 furnished without his order for the repair of a 
 vessel, chartered for a year, by a partj' who has 
 undertaken to renair the ship during that term. 
 Itcei-e V. Davh, 3 N. k. M. 873 ; 1 A. & E. 312. 
 
 Nor, when there is no charterparty unless the 
 goods were ordered by the agent of the owner, or 
 were beneficial to him. lb. 
 
 Ship demised — Owner not liable.] — The regis- 
 tered owner of a ship having chartered her to 
 the then captain at a rent for a certain number 
 of voyages, is not liable for stores furnished to the 
 ship l3\' order of the charterer, during the chartcr- 
 jjarty. Frazer v. Mar-tli, 13 East, 238 ; 2 Camp. 
 517 : 12 R. R. 336. See Baumwoll Mainifactur 
 ^'uH Curl Si-hrihlcr v. Furne.is, post, col. 297. 
 
 Where Express Stipulation in Charterparty.] 
 — Whrie A., chai-turer of a vessel, by the 
 charterparty, agreed that, on the arrival of the 
 ship at the outward port, he would, through his 
 agent there, supply cash to the master for the 
 <lisbursenient of the vessel, to be repaid by bills 
 to be drawn by the master on the owner ; and 
 on tlie arrival of the vessel there, the agent 
 supplied goods for the use of the crew, and paid 
 certain money demands made on the master, Vjtit 
 did not advance any actual cash : — Held, that 
 although it was not shewn that any bills were 
 (hawn by the master for the amount, A. might 
 recover it from the owner in an action for goods 
 sold and delivered and for money paid, the master 
 having authority to obtain sujijtlies of goods and 
 money for tiie necessary use of the ship en the 
 credit of the owner, inriependently of the express 
 ■(fipulation of the charterparty. H'cxto/i v. 
 U'rir/Zif. 7 M. Ac W. 31)6 ; 10 L. J., Ex. 32'J. 
 
 A chartered shij) at her outward port being in 
 A-ant of money for lier necessary disbursements, 
 a merchant tliere being shewn the ciiarterparty, 
 by which the freighter covenanted to fuinish 
 what money might be required fur tlie necessary 
 disbursements of the ship, advanced the recjuisite 
 sum to the master, and took a bill of exchange 
 drawn by him for the amount upon th<.' freiglitcr : 
 — Held, tiiat. on this biU being <lishonourcd by 
 the freighter, the owner of tlie ship was not liable 
 '' ;■ any part of the money advanced. Jlurhnr v. 
 
 ■ '■othrrxtnnc, 4 Camp. 254. See also cates, jiost. 
 
 -is. 2!»3. 411. 
 
 Where Solvent Agents Appointed.] — The 
 
 nia>t(r of a >hip has no jiower to pledge the 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 I owner's credit for requisite supplies to her in a 
 I foreign port at which a solvent agent for lier 
 has been appointed ; and a ship chandler who, 
 in ignorance of there being an agent at the 
 port, furnishes goods or advances money for the 
 ship's use upon an order given by the master 
 without the owner's authority, cannot recover 
 the price of the goods or the amount of the loan 
 from the owner, if at the time of supplying the 
 goods or advancing the money he had the means 
 of knowing that an agent able and willing to 
 furnish what was requisite for the ship had been 
 appointed by the owner to act at the forei<rn 
 port. Guim v. Jiohcrf.9, 43 L. J., C. P. 233 ; L.ll. 
 9 C. P. 331 : 30 L. T. 424 ; 22 A7. R. 652 ; 2 
 Asp. M. C. 250. 
 
 Abandonment to Underwriters.] — The owner 
 is liable for stores and necessaries supplied by 
 the order of the supercargo, after the detention 
 and liberation of the vessel by a foreign power, 
 although the supplies are afforded after an aban- 
 donment by the owner to the underwriter!?. 
 Mitchell V. Gletmic, 1 Stark. 230 ; 18 R. R. 765. 
 
 Disbursements — Advances for — Bills dis- 
 honoured — Liability of Owners and Master. 1 — 
 Ship-brokers made disbursements for a Gernian 
 ship and took bills for the amount drawn by 
 the master on the owners, which were returned 
 unaccepted. The brokers sued the master in 
 Germany on the bills but failed on a technical plea. 
 They then sued the owneis in Scotland on the 
 debt ; plea, that by electing to sue the master 
 the brokers were barred from suing the owners : 
 — Held, that not having obtained judgment, the 
 brokers were i^ot barred. Meier v. Kiichot- 
 meistcr, 8 Ct. of Sess. Ca. (4th ser.) 612. 
 
 Owners' Liability — Bond on Freight —Master. ] 
 
 — It was agreed by cliai teipart y that (lisl)urse- 
 ments at the port of loading should be advanced 
 by charterers' agents on account of freight. 
 The agents refused to make the advances without 
 a boncl on the ship. The master, gave an obliga- 
 tion on the ficight : — Held, that the master had 
 power to give such obligation, and that the sliip- 
 ovvners were liable to the charterers' agents for 
 their advances, lirun v. Porrct, 6 Ct. of Sess. 
 Cas. (3rd ser.) 577. 
 
 Bill drawn by Master on Owner for Advances 
 — Advance Freight.] — See A'c/VA Wislcm Jluiih 
 v. lijornstrom, XIII. KitKicjirr. post, col. 113. 
 
 Sec also as to lialiiliiy of owners for neces- 
 saries, XXVI. Adji Hi A LITY Law AND I'KACTioii;. 
 19. NECES.SARIEH, post, cols. 960, seq. 
 
 b. Liability of Part Owners. 
 
 Au express authority is necessary from a part 
 owner to tlie ship's husband to order works not 
 necessary a.4 repairs ; hut such authority once 
 given cannot be revoked after it has been acted 
 upf>ii. and it is for the part owner, when sued for 
 contril)n(ion, to prove that it was revoked before 
 the works were commenred. or a contract for 
 tlicm entered into. Chappell v. Urai/.Vt W.ic N. 
 145 ; 30 L. J., Ex. 24 ; 3 h. T. 278 ; 9 W. K. 17. 
 
 A. and B. being joint owners of a ship, A. 
 conveyed his moiety to B. ; but in the bill of Bale 
 the certificate of regi'^lry was not truly recited ; 
 B. took pos.session, and .afterwards mortgaged the 
 whole ship to A., who did not take possession; 
 
 3
 
 07 
 
 SlllPriXCl— lY. Oiniers. 
 
 G8 
 
 ♦lien n. ordered ('.to reiniif the ship ; afterwavils 
 l'>. eoaveyeil diie hall' of the sliip to A., aud the 
 other to D. : — Held, that the first bill of sale was 
 an absoluie nullity iiiuler 2(5 Geo. 3, c. 00, s. 17, 
 and that A. was liable to C. for the repairs of 
 the ship in an aetiou for work and labour brought 
 by C. : A. not having pleaded in abatement that 
 B. ought also to have been sued. We.stcnlell v. 
 D.iJe. 7 Term Rep. 30(5. See Sutton v. Jiuck. 2 
 Taunt. 302 ; II R. R. 585, 587. 
 
 The defendant, a part owner of a ship jointly 
 with L.. contracted to sell his share in the ship 
 to L., but which contract afterwards went off, 
 no price having been agreed on. Between tiie 
 time of making such contract and its going off, 
 L., without the authority of the owner, sent the 
 ship to the plaintiff's dock to be repaired. The 
 defendant shortly after the repairs had been 
 begun, and before the contract for sale had gone 
 oit. gave express notice to the plaintiff that he 
 would not be responsible: — Held, that as there 
 was no evidence of the plaintiff having ever 
 before repaired the ship on the joint credit of the 
 defendant aud L., or of the defendant having 
 held out L. as his agent for such purpose, the 
 authority to contract for repairs, which the 
 meic fact of being part owner would imply, 
 was rebutted by the circumstances, and the 
 defendant was not liable to the plaintiff' for 
 such repairs. Jirodie v. Iloicurd, 17 C. B. 109; 
 25 L. J., 0. P. 57 ; 1 Jur. (N.S.) 1201). 
 
 One part owner of a ship assigned his share to 
 the defendant in trust to sell, and with the pro- 
 ceeds to repay himself money advanced and 
 expenses, and to pay over any residue to the part 
 owner. In the indorsement on the certificate 
 of registry no statement was made according to 
 4 Geo. 4, c. 41, s. 43. The defendant never inter- 
 fered with the ship, and the part owner continued 
 to act as husband : — Held, first, that the defen- 
 dant was not liable for goods supplied by the 
 part owner's orders, it not appearing he had the 
 ■defendant's authority, either express or implied, 
 to give those orders. Briqgs v. Wilkbuon, 7 
 B. & C. 30 ; 9 D. & R. 871; 5 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 
 .349. 
 
 A part o\\^ler who orders supplies on his own 
 iiccount without mentioning any co-part owners, 
 cannot pjlead in abatement that the^^ are co-part 
 owners, who ought to have been joined, the 
 plaintiff being ignorant that there were other 
 jiart owners. Baldney v. li'itrli'ie, 1 Stark. 338. 
 And see Mullett v. Hooh, M. A: M. 88 ; 31 R. R. 
 716. 
 
 Part owner of a ship in the East India Com- 
 pany's service is liable to i)ay the bills of the 
 tradesmen employed by the husband of the said 
 ship in fitting her out. Tolxon v. Hallctt, Ambl. 
 2(19. 
 
 In chancery part owners held liable for goods 
 supplied upon the master's order in proportion 
 to their shares. Sjiecrinan v. IJcgrtive. 2 Veru. 
 613, supra, col. 61. 
 
 An agreement between A., tlie owner of a 
 lighter, and B., a lighterman, that B. shall work 
 her, and that A. and B. shall share the net profits, 
 constitutes a partnership, and B. as well as A. is 
 liable for repairs to the lighter. I)ry v.Jiosicell. 
 1 Camp. 329. 
 
 The doctrine that part owners of a ship are 
 partners and liable in solido for goods supplied 
 and repairs done to the ship {Doddhigton v. 
 HuUctt, 1 Ves. Sen. 496), overruled, spc (per Lord 
 Eldon) Young, Ex parte, 2 V. & B. 242 ; 2 Rose, 
 78, n. ; Green v. BrUjfjH, ante. col. 44. 
 
 Two firms, S. & Co. and W. & Co., were joint 
 owners of a shiji. W. ordered goods for the ship 
 from P., who sup[)lied the goods not knowing 
 that S. were part owners. About the same time 
 W. & Co. were registered as sole owners, after 
 which W. & Co. in their accounts gave credit 
 to S. k. Co. for payment in discharge of P.'s 
 demand, assumed to have been, but not actually 
 made by P. P. sued W. & Co. for the price of 
 the goods : — Held, that W. & Co. w.rc liable. 
 Perrott v. Willis, 9 Ir. C. L. R. 338. 
 
 B., the registered owner, contracted to sell A. 
 a moiety of the ship, payment to be half in cash 
 and half by bill. A. paid no cash, and sent B. 
 his acceptance for half the price. Eventually 
 B. transferred to A. one fourth of the ship. Dur- 
 ing this transaction C. supplied goods to the 
 ship : — Held, that the contract not being com- 
 pleted at the date of the supply, the estate of 
 B., who was an arranging trader, was not liable. 
 An Arranging Trader, In re, Ir. R. 1 E}. 216. 
 
 Necessaries supplied to foreign ship in England 
 on order of part owner do not create a maritime 
 lien. Tlte Hrinrieh Bjorn, post, col. 901 
 
 Liability of a |)art owner who has directed his 
 co-owners not to repair. See Gleadon v. Tiiiel:ler, 
 ante, col. 52. 
 
 Liability of co-owner for repairs on order of 
 managing co-owner. See Strele v. Bi-ron, ante, 
 col. 62. 
 
 c. In other Cases. 
 
 Maintenance of Sailors injured.] — Several 
 sailors on board a merchant \ essel having met 
 with a serious accident in weighing the vessel's 
 anchor, wei'e taken on shore by the captain to 
 the plaintiff's, a public-house. the captain telling 
 the plaintiff that the owner of the vessel wouUl 
 pay for what the sailors had. The captain 
 immediately afterwards hired some fresh hands, 
 and proceeded on the voyage. At the time the 
 sailors were intrusted to the care of the plaintiff', 
 there was no probability that thej' would be able 
 to resume their duties for that voyage, and they 
 lemained at his house for several weeks. In an 
 action against the owner of the vessel for food 
 and medicine supplied to the sailors : — Held, 
 that as the matters supplied were not necessary 
 for the due prosecution of the voyage, the captain 
 had no authority to pledge the owner's credit, 
 and conseqitently that the latter was not liable. 
 Orqan v. Brudie, 10 Ex. 449 ; 3 C. L. R. 51 ; 24 
 L. J., Ex. 70 ; 3 W. R. 13. 
 
 Bill drawn by Master on Third Party.] — 
 There is no implied undertaking on the piart of 
 the owner of a ship that a bill of exchange 
 drawn by the master on a third jjcrson for money 
 advanced for the use of the ship abroad should 
 be honoured. Harlier v. Brotherstone, 4 Camp. 
 254. 
 
 Money lent to Master to buy Cargo.] — Where 
 shipowners have had the benefit of money 
 borrowed by the master without authority 
 abroad, and expended by him in purchasing 
 the cargo, the carriage of which was the main 
 purpose of the voyage, they are liable to repay 
 the money advanced ; but the lender has no 
 lien on the careo. Ash mall v. l]'ood, 3 Jur. 
 (N.S.) 232 : 5 W'^R. 397. 
 
 Expense of Pumping Ship in Dock.] — Ship- 
 owner held liable for expense of pumping and 
 lightering his ship which was so leaky that she
 
 69 
 
 SHIPPING— IV. Ouners. 
 
 70 
 
 could not ualt her turn for unloading in dock. ! 
 JB/ackctt V. Sill it ft. 12 East, 513. j 
 
 Expense of removing- Sunken Vessel — Owner 
 not Liable — Dublin Port and Harbours Act, 
 1869 C82 & 33 Vict. c. c), s. 96.]— Sect. 9ti of 
 
 02 A: 83 Vict. c. c. which enables the harbour 
 master of Dublin to remove sunken wrecks, and 
 provides that the owner shall repay the expense, 
 giving power to the harbour master to detain 
 and sell the wreck, does not impose a personal 
 liability on the owner of the wreck, where the 
 vessel was sunk by act of God, or by the 
 negligence of a person for whom the owner is 
 not responsible. The Edith, 11 L. E., Ir. 270. 
 And see case-f, post, cols. 893, seq. 
 
 Adoption of Acts of Master. ] — Where, on 
 
 account of the impossibility of continuing the 
 voyage, tlie master wouhl under ordinary cir- 
 cumstances be the agent of the cargo owner, 
 and all parties concerned, the owners may by 
 their subsequent conduct adopt him their sole 
 agent so as to be bound by his acts. Fleming v. 
 Smith. 1 H. L. Cas. 513. 
 
 Bansoming Ship.] — Money lent for the pur- 
 pose of enabling tlie owner of a ship captured V)y 
 the enemy to ransom her, contrary to 45 Geo. 3, 
 c. 72. cannot be recovered. Wehh v. Brouhe, 
 
 3 Taunt. 6. 
 
 Ransoming a ship from the enemy does not 
 enable the alien enemy to sue on the ransom bill. 
 Aiithvn V. Fisher, 3 Dougl. IfJG : Cornii v. Bliirh- 
 bvriie. 2 Dougl. <)41. Aliter, Bicurd v. Betten- 
 liaiii. 3 Burr. 1734. where peace having been 
 made the point was not considered. (Ransom 
 now illegal by 22 Geo. 3, c. 25.) 
 
 A promise by the master on behalf of his owners 
 that one of the seamen who went as a liostage to 
 ransom the ship should be jjaid monthh' wages is 
 binding on the owners, although they abandon 
 fchip and caigo. Yute.i v. IhiU. 1 Term Rep. 73. 
 
 Power of Master to bind Shipowner.] — See 
 X . M.VSTElt. post, cols. S3, seq. 
 
 5. Liability and Riuht.s in Tort. 
 &. Injury Caused by cr to Ship. 
 
 Srr (•//.«(( X.X. diLLlSION. 3. LlAIJILITY. 
 
 Injuries to Sea-wall — Delay in Breaking up so 
 as to save Cargo. j — A vessel being driven u|iim 
 a sea-wall l^ecame a wreck, and could not be 
 jeinoved otherwise than by breaking her up. 
 Valuable property was on board which would 
 Jutve been lost if she had been immediately 
 broken u[). The owners of the vessel removed 
 the property with reasonable speed, and tlien 
 broke up the vessel. During the period which 
 elapsed between the time when she could have 
 been first broken up and the time when she 
 was broken up in fact, damage was done by the 
 vessel to the sea-wall on which she lay : — HeM 
 (a.ssuming the owners not to have been guilty of 
 any negligence), that they, although remaining 
 in possession, were only bound to use rea,sonablc 
 care and diligence in preventing the shij) from 
 damaging the sea-wall, and were entitled to 
 remove the ))roperty on board before breaking 
 her up. and that having done so with rea.sonable 
 speed they were not liable. Boviriey Marxh 
 
 {Bailiffs of) v. Trinity House Corporation, 41 
 L. J.. Ex. 106 ; L. R. 7 Ex. 247 ; 2U W. R. 952 
 —Ex. Cb. 
 
 The vessel, owing to the negligence of their 
 servants, struck on a sandbank, and becoming 
 from that cause unmanageable, was driven by 
 the wind and tide upon a sea-wall, which it 
 damaged : — Held, that the owners of the vessel 
 were liable for the damages so caused. Ih. 
 
 Where Vessel Let to Master.] — The owner 
 of a ship, who, by a verbal agreement, gives 
 up all control over her to the caijtain, but 
 retains a right to one third of the net profits, 
 and is subsequently to the agreement registered 
 as managing owner under the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1875, is liable for the negligent management 
 of the vessel by the captain, although occurring 
 during her employment under a charterparty of 
 which the owner knew nothinor. Steel v. Lester, 
 47 L. J.. C. P. 43 ; 3 C. P. D. 121 : 37 L. T. 642 : 
 26 W. R. 212 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 537. 
 
 A sloop was navigated under a verbal agree- 
 ment between Lester, the managing owner, 
 registered according to the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1875, and Lilec, the captain, by which, on 
 condition that Lester should have one third of 
 the net profits, accounts of which were to be 
 rendered to him by the captain from time to 
 time, he was at liberty to go to any port, and 
 take or refuse an}' cargo he chose, and was also 
 to hire and pay the crew and supply the stores, 
 Lester having no control over the vessel. While 
 discharging cargo under a charter made by the 
 captain, " for and on behalf of the owner,"' the 
 vessel, through the negligence of the captain, 
 broke loose from her moorings and damaged the 
 wharf of the plaintiff, who brought an action 
 against Lester ami Lilee : — Held, that the agree- 
 ment did not amount to a demise of the vessel, 
 and whatever was the precise relationship thereby 
 createil between them inter sc, Lester was respon- 
 sible to the public for the negligence of Lilee, 
 and, therefore, both were liable to the action. 
 lb. See also M'Gkce v. Anderson, infra, col. 72. 
 
 Vis major — Injury to Pier.] — A vessel was 
 driven ashore by a violent, storm, and after 
 having been ai^aiidoned was forced by the wind 
 and waves against a pier. wherel)y .serious 
 damage was occasioned : — Held, that the owners 
 of the ship were not liable under s. 74 of the 
 Harbours, Docksand Piers Act, 1847. Wear Birer 
 fommi-tsioners v. Adamson, 47 L. J., Q. I>. 193; 
 2 Ai)i). Cas. 743 ; 37 L. T. 543 ; 26 W. K. 217— 
 H. L. 
 
 Injury to Submarine Telegraph Cable by 
 
 Anchor.] — A ship <':ist anchor near the South 
 
 Fonlaiid. Her anchor got foul of a submarine 
 
 telegr.aph cable. The crew iKiaved up the anchor 
 
 to the water's edge, and the cable came up 
 
 entangled with it. In order to free the anchor 
 
 from the cable the mate of the shij), acting under 
 
 the direction of the ma.stcr, cut the cable in two 
 
 with a hatchet. P.y the exercise of ordinary 
 
 nautical skill the anchor might have been freed 
 
 from the cable l)y tht; crew without cutting the 
 
 ! cable : — Held, that the court had juris<liction to 
 
 j entertain an action inslitulcd by the owners of 
 
 the cable against the ship for the damage done 
 
 I to the cable, and that the owners of the tele- 
 
 ■ graph cable were entitled to judgment. The 
 
 Clara Killam. 39 L. J.. Adm. 50 ; L. K. 3 A. & E. 
 
 161 ■. 23 F-. T. 27: 19 W. H. 27,. 
 
 3—2
 
 71 
 
 SHIPPING— IV. On-ncrs. 
 
 72 
 
 Injury to Diver.] — Whore a diver, wliilc 
 eniployeil in (liviiis;- in a navigable river within 
 the body of a county, was injnieil by the paddle- 
 wheel of a steamship, and instituted a cause of 
 1 damage against the steamship in the court of 
 ■ admii-alty'for the recovery of damages in respect 
 of the personal injuries he sustained : — Held, 
 that the 2-i Yict. c. 10, s. 7, gave the court of 
 admiralty iurisdiction. TJic S>/lj)Ji, 37 L. J., 
 Adm. 14": L. 11. 2 A. & E. 21 ; 17 L. T. 519. 
 
 Obstruction to Navigable Creek.] — The defen- 
 dant with Iiis barti'es obstructed a public 
 navigable creek, whereby the plaintifE navi- 
 gating his barges therein was put to expense in 
 having to unload his goods and carry them over 
 land :— Held, that this was special damage for 
 which the plaintiff could recover in an actioii on 
 the case. Jto6v v. Miles, 4 M. & S. 101; 1(5 R. R. 
 405. 
 
 Damage to Dolphin.] — A steamship, without 
 negligence, came into contact with a mooring 
 dolphin, which fell over under the pressure : — 
 Held, in admiralty, that the dolphin being 
 erected for the purpose of receiving the pressure 
 of ships in the ordinary course of navigation, 
 the owners of it could not recover. The Albert 
 Edward, 44 L. J., Adm. 49 ; 24 W. E. 179. 
 
 Damage by Licensed Watermen in Thames.] 
 
 — The owner of a barge on the Thames required 
 by law to be navigated by licensed watermen 
 is liable for damage done by her, although the 
 licensed watermen have a monopoly of the 
 navigation. Martin v. Tempcrley, 4 Q. B. 298 ; 
 3 G. & D. 497 ; 12 L. J., Q. B. 129 ; 7 Jur. 150. 
 
 Damage by Sunken Ship.] — The owner of a 
 vessel sunk in a public navigable river, so long as 
 he remains in possession is bound to take reason- 
 able precautions that other vessels are not injured 
 by striking on it ; and this duty may be trans- 
 ferred with the possession of the sunken ship ; on 
 abandonment of the wreck the obligation ceases. 
 White V. Crisp, 10 Ex. 312 ; 23 L. J., Ex. 
 317. 
 
 Duty to Buoy.] — There is no duty in the 
 
 owner of a ship sunk without his fault to mark 
 her with a buoy. Brown v. Mallett, 5 C. B. 599. 
 
 The owner 'of a vessel sunk in a navigable 
 channel is bound to place a buoy over it. Mar- 
 moiid V. Pearson, 1 Camp. 515. 
 
 Indictment for Obstruction by.] — An indict- 
 ment cannot be maintained against the owner of 
 a vessel sunk by accident or misfortune in a 
 navigable river for not removing the wreck. Rex 
 V. Watts, 2 Esp. 675 ; 5 E. R. 766. 
 
 Damage by Unbuoyed Anchor.] — Declaration 
 for damage d(me to plaintiffs' ship by defendants' 
 anchor unbuoyed in a river, without shewing how 
 it got there, bad. Ilancuch v. York, JVewcastle 
 and Berwich By.. 10 C. B. 348. 
 
 See also, infra, cols. 721, 890, seq., as to sunken 
 ships. 
 
 Expense of Raising Wrecks.] — As to liability 
 of owners for expense of raising wrecks, see The 
 Crystal, and cases infra, col. 993. 
 
 Ship damaged during Arrestment.] — In an 
 
 issue whether a foreign ship arrested and taken 
 from her anchorage was injured by the negligence 
 of the defenders" it is immaterial whether the 
 
 damag-3 occurred before or after the arrestment. 
 Peterson v M'Llean, 6 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 
 218. 
 
 Damage to Telegraph Cable.] — A ship let go 
 her anchor so as to foul and damage a telegrajih 
 cable lying at the bottom of the sea :— Held, that 
 whether the damage was done within or without 
 the three-mile limit from British shores, the action 
 would lie. Submarine Teli-graph Co.y. Dickson, 
 33 L. J., C. P. 139. 
 
 Ship worked by one Part Owner— Liability of 
 
 the Other.] — A. and S. were part owners of a ship. 
 A. worked the ship, paying all expenses and 
 managing her entirely himself. A. took two thirds 
 of her gross earnings and S. the remaining one 
 third : — Held, that S. was not a partner with A. 
 so as to render him liable for injury to the plain- 
 tiff's horses by a piece of timber let fall upon 
 them whilst unloading the ship. Barnard v. 
 Aaron, 31 L. J., C. P. 334. 
 
 Damage by Foreign Ship — Loss of Life.] — Sect. 
 527 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (17&1& 
 Vict. c. 104), which gives a remedy in certain 
 cases against the owner of a foreign ship for 
 damage done to a British subject in any part of 
 the world, is confined to damage to property, and 
 does not extend to injury to the person. Harris 
 V. Owners of the Franoonia, 4G L. J., C. P. 363 ; 
 2 C. P. D. 173. 
 
 Wilful Act of Crew— Liability— Fishing Boat 
 worked ' ' on Deal " — Crew cutting Nets adrift. ] — 
 The ov^^ier of a fishing boat let out "on deal" 
 held liable for loss of nets of a stranger cut adrift 
 by the crew to save their own. ilf' Ghee v. Ande r- 
 son, 22 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 274. 
 
 Collision— Liability for.}— See tit. Collision, 
 infra. 
 
 Wrongful Arrest — Of Seaman by Master — Lia- 
 bility of Owner— 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 246.]— 
 
 A shipowner is not liable for a misuse by the 
 master of the power to arrest a deserting seaman 
 under the above enactment. O'Xeil v. Eanhin, 
 11 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 538. 
 
 Of Passenger.] — BeeLundiey.Maebrayne, 
 
 infra, col. 79. 
 
 Sea Fisheries Act, 1883, Sched. Art. XIX.— 
 Damage to Long Lines by Trawler.] — The crew of 
 a fishing boat sliot their long lines at sea near a 
 buoy round which two trawlers were fishing 
 within a radius of a mile. The crew of the trawler 
 could have seen that the lines were being shot,il; 
 being daylight ; they trawled over the lines and 
 injured them : — Held, that the trawler was liable, 
 and that she had no exclusive right to the fishing 
 round the buoy. JIason v. Nicholson, 20 Ct. of 
 Sess, Cas. (4th ser.) 176. 
 
 Shipowner and Stevedore joint Wrong-doers 
 — Right to Contribution — Damages.] — The 
 
 relatives of a man killed by the negligent use of 
 improper tackle in imloadiug a ship, sued the 
 ship's owner and the stevedore, and got a decree 
 against them jointly and severally for the whole 
 amount of damages and costs. The shipowner 
 paid the whole sum and took an assignment of 
 the decree, and sued the stevedore for contribu- 
 tion. The stevedore refused to pay his moiety
 
 73 
 
 SHIPPING— IV. Owners. 
 
 74: 
 
 upon the ground that he and the shipowner were 
 joint wron^-doers : — Held, that the stevedore was 
 liable, the foundation of Ihe claim being the civil 
 debt created bj the judo-ment. Palmer v. WicJi, 
 [189i] App. Cas. 318— H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 to. Injury to Crew. 
 
 See also VI. 8EAMEN, infia. 
 
 Expense of curing Seaman injured — Shipowner 
 liable — 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, ss. 228, 229.J — 
 
 Injury received by a seaman by a sea striking the 
 ship and making her a complete wreck is " an 
 injury received in the service of the ship to which 
 he belongs" ; and the shipowner is liable for the 
 expense of curing them. Lofd Advorate v. Grant, 
 1 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 447 ; 32 L. T. 287. 
 
 Volenti non fit injuria.] — The common law 
 rule that a servant working in the face of known 
 danger cannot claim damages from his master 
 does not apply to seamen on board ship. Both- 
 loell V. Hutchimon. 13 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 
 463. 
 
 Shipowner and Stevedore joint Wrong-doers — 
 Contribution.] — l^ee Palnu'r v. Wicli, supra. 
 
 Seaworthiness of Ship — Negligent Use of 
 Appliances.] — See case.itit. Uxseaworthixe.ss. 
 infra. 
 
 Liability to Seaman for Negligence of Captain. ] 
 — The shipowner is not responsible for injury to 
 or death of seaman by the negligence of the 
 master. Iledlei/ v. Plnkney ,A'' Sons Steaiiis-Iiip 
 Co., 63 L. J.. Q. B. 419; [18'J4] A. C. 222; 70 
 L. T. 630 ; 42 W. R. 4S)7 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 13:)— H. L. 
 (E.) Not following Paiiisei/ v. Qid/i, Ir. Hep. 
 L. R. 10 C. L. 322 ;' infra, col. 72ti. 
 
 Master and Servant- Common Employment — 
 Shipowner and Stevedore — Injury to Seaman.] 
 — Where a stevedoie had cuntracted to discharge 
 a vessel for a lump sum, the fact that the master 
 of the vessel had some control over the dis- 
 charging held not to make the servants of the 
 stevedore the servants of the- .shii)owner, so as to 
 free the stevedore from lialjility for injury to one 
 of the seamen by their negligence. Cameron v. 
 Nyxtrom, 62 L. .L, V. C. 8r, ; [1893] A. C. 308 ; 1 
 l\. 362 ; 48 L. T. 772 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 320— P. C. 
 
 Maintenance of Injured Seaman.] — See Orqaii 
 V. Jirodir, supra, cdI. 6.S. 
 
 Compulsory Pilot— Injury to— Common Em- 
 ployment.] — See Smith v. Steele, infra, cul. 1 1"). 
 
 c. Unseaworthiness — Overloadins:, 
 
 Duty of Shipowner to Crew—" Seaworthy for 
 the Voyage." — 'I'ln' words ■•seaworthy lor tin- 
 voyage'' m «. ") of tli(; Merchant Shiiipiiig Act, 
 18'76, mean that the ship must be " in a fit state 
 a.s to repair.><, equipment and crew, and in all 
 other respects, to encounter oidinary perils of 
 the voyage." Tliey do not include "a neglect 
 projierly to us(; the a|)pliarices on board a vessel 
 well ci|uipped and fuiiiished." Di.ron v. Sadler 
 (J, M. & W. 405) api)roved. Iledleij v. Piiiltne,/ 
 4'- Sovii' Steamxhij) Co., 63 L. .T.. Q. V,. 4 ID ; 
 
 tl8!)4] A. C. 222 ; 6 II. 106; 70 L. T. 630 ; 42 
 J. R. 407 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 483— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Carriage ofGrain— Shifting-boards— Feeders.] 
 
 — A ship having two tlecks and loaded witli a 
 cargo of barley in bulk at a i)ort in the Medi- 
 terranean must, upon the proper construction 
 of s. 4, sub-s. (r), of the Jlerchant Shipping 
 (Carriage of Grain) Act, 1880. and the Board oi 
 Trade Regulations of August, 1881, be provided 
 with shifting-boards in the lower hold. By 
 paragraph 4 (b) of these regulations — which 
 tlirects that feeders shall be fitted to feed the 
 grain carried in the between-decks, such feeders 
 to contain not less than 2 per cent, of the com- 
 partments they feed — it is intended that the 
 feeders feeding the grain carried in the between- 
 decks shall contain not less than 2 jier cent, of 
 the grain in the com])artnients in tlie between- 
 decks which they feed, and of the grain in the 
 hold below which is fed bv such compartments. 
 The Rothhury, .->7 L. J.. Adm. 9'.) ; 13 P. D. 119 ; 
 .59 L. T. 672 ; 37 W. R. l.-.S ; 6 Asik M. ('. 332. 
 
 Timber — Excessive Deck Cargo — Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1894, s. 451,'— See Morris v. 
 Tliormodsen. 60 J. P. 644, infra, col. .503. 
 
 6. Liability as Carrier. 
 
 a. Apart from Contract. 
 
 Contract to carry Goods at Through Rate — 
 Damage by Peril of the Sea.J — The dclemhuit 
 undertook to carry the plaintiff's wool, partly 
 by sea and partly by land, at an agreed through 
 rate per ton including insurance. The insur- 
 ance was effected by tlie tlefendant through liis 
 own brokers at an amount per bale which was 
 in accordance with directions given by the 
 plaintiff. There was no bill of lading or any 
 stipulation as to excei)ted [)erils of the .sea. 
 The wool was damaged by .sea- water in the 
 coiu'se of the carriage by sea : — Held, that the 
 defendant was liable for the damage sustained, 
 inasmucli as he had undertaken the duty of a 
 connniin cairier, and Lad neither ex|)rcssly nor 
 impliedly limited his liability as a common 
 carrier, and also that he had eft'ecteil the insin-- 
 ance on tin; wool, not .as agent for tlie plaint iff, 
 but in order to protect himself against damage 
 to or loss of the wool, hirer Alkali Co. v. 
 Johnson, infra, followed. Hill v. .S''(»/^ 6.') L. .1., 
 Q. B. 87; [189.'>J 2 Q. P.. 713 ; 73 I.. T. 458— 
 C. A. 
 
 Notice — Liability limited by.] — A shipowner 
 may bind tin: frciizhtcr liy noiire given that lie 
 will not be liable e.xecpt for the negligence of 
 his servants. Erann v. Soule, 2 M. &: S. 1. 
 
 Liability of Shipowner as Common Carrier.] 
 — A barge owner let out his vessels for tiie con- 
 veyance of goods to any cusfcuners who applied 
 to iiiin. Each voyage was nuide under a stijiaratc" 
 agreement, and a barge was not let to more than 
 one person for the same voyage. He did not ply 
 Ix'twceii any (i,\e<l t<M'inini, but tiu! <'iistomer 
 fixed, in each p.-irticular ••:ise. the points of arrival 
 and departure. In an action against the barge 
 owner by a liirer for not safely ami eecurcly 
 carrying his goo<l8 : — Hehl, that in exercising 
 this employment he had incurred the lialjility of 
 a common carrier, and was liable though tin; 
 goo<Is were lost without negligence on his pari. 
 Jjirrr Alhali Co. v. Jolnixaii, 43 L. J., Ex. 216 ; 
 L. R. 9 Ex. 33S ; 31 L. T. 9.5 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 332 
 — Ex. Ch. bee also Svijcnt v. Smith, infra.
 
 75 
 
 SHIPPING— IV. (hnier.9. 
 
 Tfi 
 
 Tho bavgc owner wii;^ not a common carrier 
 nor liaVilo :\s such, hut was li ible as a sliipowner 
 carrying goods I'o • liirc u|)on the custom ai)iili- 
 cable to him as siuli. /.''. 
 
 Hoyman on the Thames.] — A lioyman between 
 Lnn<lon and Milt.m in Kent held liable npon the 
 custom of the realm and at common law for loss 
 of a passeuiier's portmanteau. J{ich v. Kticclutul, 
 Hob. 17; 2Cro. ;«0. 
 
 Liability for Theft by Crew.]— The shipowner 
 is liable for cargo lost or embezzled by the negli- 
 gence of the master. Boucher v. Lnwsun, Ca. 
 "temp. Hardw. 8.5 ; Cun. 241. 
 
 The master of a general ship, on board which 
 goods have been laden in the Thames for a foreign 
 port, is liable for the loss of them by robbery in 
 the river. Burclay v. Cticulla y Gama, 3 Dowl. 
 389 ; cited 1 Tcrin Rep. 33, uom. Bin-clay v. 
 Ileyycnn. 
 
 liability for Eobbery — Custom of Realm.]— 
 Action on the custom of the realm against the 
 master of a ship bound from London to Cadiz 
 for the loss of goods taken from her by robbers 
 whilst lying in the Thames at Stepney :— Held, 
 that the niaster was liabh\ JSIortie v. ^lew or 
 ,S7«^, 1 Vent. 190. 238 ; 2 Keb. 72, 112, 13.5, 8G0 ; 
 Sir T. Raym. 220 : 1 Mod. 85. 
 
 "In the case of Morse v. Slew, supra, if the 
 ship had been robbed at sea the master had not 
 been answerable, yet he was chargeable at land " 
 —per Holt, C.J. " Lane v. Cotton, 4 Taunt. G28 : 
 12 Mod. 484. 
 
 Damage to Goods by Ship striking an TJnbuoyed 
 Wreck.] — Shipowners are liable as carriers for 
 damage to goods in their ship, which was sunk 
 by striking on an anchor of another ship 
 negligently left unbuoyed : — Held, that they 
 could not sue the goods owner for the expenses 
 of recovering the goods. Trent (or Trent and 
 Merse^f) yariqation (Proj)rietors of) v. Wood, 3 
 Esp. 127 ; 3 Dougl. 287. 
 
 Pleading — Action on Custom or in Assumpsit.] 
 
 — Action for negligent carriage of wines by com- 
 mon carrier from Bristol to Gloucester ; plea, not 
 guilty ; issue found against defendant : in error 
 held that the issue was erroneous, the action being 
 in assumpsit. Bradlri/ v. Bcnncij, Noy, 114. 
 
 Refusal to carry Plaintiff — Action against 
 Shipowners as Common Carriers.] — See Bennett 
 v. P,_'ninx/tl(( (did Oriental Steanihoat Co.,(i C. B. 
 755, infra, col. 78. 
 
 Loss by Act of God.] — A mare on board a 
 steamer trading regularly between London and 
 Aberdeen, was injured during bad weather, which 
 caused her to kick and strain herself, without 
 negligence on the part of the ship's crew or 
 owners : — Held, that the shipowner was not 
 liable. Xvrjent v. SmUh. 45 L. .J.. C. P. G97 ; 1 
 C. P. D. 423 : 34 L. T. 827 : 24 W. E. 237 ; 3 
 Asp. M. C. 198— C. A. 
 
 Loss by act of God is lo=s occasioned by 
 agency of nature not to be prevented by ordinary 
 care. lb. 
 
 Semble, carriers by sea arc not subject to the 
 liabilities of a common carrier. Ih. 
 
 Jettison, to save Life.] — A box of specie 
 
 was thrown ovtrbDard to save life : — Held, that 
 the barge owner was not liable : semble, act of 
 God. Ciravescnd Barye Case, 1 Rolle, 79. 
 
 Must be immediate — Striking en Sunken 
 
 Wreck.] — The act of God. to excuse a ship- 
 owner for loss of the goods, mu-,t be immediate. 
 Sini/Ji V. Shepherd, Abbott on Shipi)ing, Ed. 13, 
 p. 459. 
 
 The defendant's ship struck on a mast of a 
 sunken ship in the Humber, being on her passage 
 from Selby to Hull, and sank, and the goods 
 were spoiled : — Held, that the shipowner was 
 liable. Ih. 
 
 Rats.] — A hoyman carrying goods is 
 
 insurer against everything except act of God and 
 the king's enemies, and is therefore liable for 
 damage to goods by water let into the ship 
 by a hole eaten by rats. Dale v. Hall, 1 Wils. 
 
 281. See also Goff v. Cllnhard, cited 1 Wils. 
 
 282, n. where the carriage was from London to 
 Amsterdam. 
 
 Hoyman— Capsizing by Sudden Squall.] 
 
 — Hoyman held not liable for ujisettinguf Lis hoy 
 by a sudden gust of wind (act of God). Amies- 
 V. Stephens, 1 Str. 127. 
 
 Collision between Tug and Craft in Tow.] 
 
 — Goods on board a boat in tow of a steamer in. 
 the Solent were damaged by reason of the boat 
 in tow being pitched by the sea upon the rudder 
 of the steamer (which had stopped to avoid 
 another), whereby she sprang a leak. The 
 defendants, the owners of the steamer and tow- 
 boat, were carrying the goods as common carriers: 
 — Held, that the loss was not an act of God. and 
 the defendants were liable. Oaldetj v. Ports- 
 mouth and Byde Steam Pachet Co., 11 Ex. 618. 
 
 b. Under Contract of Carriag-e. 
 
 Leakage — Notice as to Liability.] — Where 
 carriers t>y sea received a cask of brandy to 
 carry, on the terms that they should not be 
 liable for any loss or damage arising from any 
 cause whatever during the transit: — Held, that 
 they were not liable, as common carriers, for an- 
 injury to the cask. Phillips v. Edwards, 4 
 H! & N. 813 ; 28 L. J., Ex. 52. 
 
 Owners of a steam vessel ])lying between 
 London and Bristol, issued every month hand- 
 bills of the times of their vessels' sailing, and 
 which contained a notice that they '■ received 
 goods for shipment on the conditions and agree- 
 nient only that they are not liable for inward 
 condition, leakage and breakage, and that they 
 would not receive any goods for conveyance by 
 their vessels except upon the terms that they 
 should not be responsible for any loss or damage 
 of or to such goods from any cause whatever 
 during the voyage." On the 8th March, the 
 plaintiffs, who had received these handbills, 
 shipped on board one of the defendants' vessels 
 two casks of brandy to be carried to Falmouth. 
 On the 11th March the shipping broker delivered, 
 to the plaintiffs a freight note, at the foot of 
 which was a notice that the defendants did not 
 hold themselves liable for leakage of oils, spirits 
 or other liquids, unless from bad stowage. In 
 the course of the voyage one of the casks of 
 brandy was staved in and nearly all its contents 
 lost :— Held, that the notice in the handbill.'* 
 constituted the terms of the contract under 
 which the goods were shipped, and that those 
 terms were not qualiiieil by the notice at ths 
 foot of the freight note. and. conse luently, that 
 the defendants were not responsible. lb.
 
 77 
 
 SHIPPING— lY. Ouners. 
 
 78 
 
 Loss of Bullion — Covenant for good Behaviour 
 of Master.] — Shipowner held liable for non- 
 delivery of moidores, where s-hip let to charterer 
 for the voyage, the shipowner having covenanted 
 for the good behaviour of the master. Parlxh v. 
 Crairfonl. 2 Str. 1251. 
 
 Railway Company— Notice as to Nonliability 
 — 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31. J — A railway company 
 owning and working steamships cannot by 
 notice limit its liability for loss of passengers" 
 luggage, being subject to the Railway and Canal 
 Traffic Act, 1854, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31, s. 7, and 
 the Regulation of Railways Act. 1S6S, 31 cV: 32 
 Vict. c. 119. s. 16. Cohen v. S. E. By., 46 L. .J., 
 Ex. 417 ; 2 Ex. D. 253 ; 36 L. T. 130 ; 25 W. R. 
 475 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 248— C. A. 
 
 A condition in a contract for carriage of 
 animals by steamboats worked or chartered by a 
 railway company that the company should not 
 be liable for negligence of master or crew is un- 
 reasonable and void. 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31 : 26 & 27 
 Vict. c. 1*2, s. 31 : 34 & 35 Vict. c. 119, s. 12. 
 Boolan v. Midland By., 2 App. Cas. 792 ; 37 L. T. 
 317 ; 25 W. R. 882 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 685. 
 
 Carriers Act, 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 68. 
 
 —The Carriers Act, 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. Us", 
 held to apply to a railway company carrying 
 passengers and goods partly by land and partly 
 by sea (from London to Jersey). Pianciuni v. 
 L. 4- S. W. By.. 18 C. B. 226. 
 
 Carriage of Goods partly by Land and partly 
 by Sea — Negligence of Crew of Steamship — 17 & 
 18 Vict. c. 31, s. 7 : 31 & 32 Vict. c. 119, s. 16— 
 34 & 35 Vict. c. 78. s. 12— Void Condition.]— A 
 lailway coiniiany euntra<jte<l Icj carry goods 
 " through,'' partly hy land and partly by sea. 
 A condition exempting them fiom liability for 
 negligence of the captain and crew of a steam- 
 ship, owned and worked by a steamship company 
 who had made arrangements with the railway 
 company for through booking, is no answer to 
 an action for lo.ss <)i gootls caused by the negli- 
 gence of the crew of the stcamsliii), being 
 unreasonable and voiil. Moore v. Midliind Jti/., 
 It. R. 9 Ch. 2u. And see S. ('., Ir. R. 8 C. L. 
 232. 
 
 Railway Company and Shipowners Joint 
 
 Contractors — Carriage of Pigs.] — A. >hippid 
 pig s on a steani.-hip belonging to 15. that jtlied 
 bctll^Ri Cork and Milford, and jiaid to R. a 
 through freight fur the eaniage of the pigs to 
 Lfindon by the South Wales and (Jreat Western 
 Railways. Over R.'s door was |)ainted " South 
 Wales Railway Office" ; also over the adjoining 
 cattle yard. The shi|)j)ing agents were paid by 
 ]>., and tlie signbo.-irds were not sanctifineil by 
 the lailway eom|)any : but there was an agree- 
 ment l)etwe(.'n I!, and the railway <;<(inpaiiy as 
 to dividing the freights : — Held, that the railway 
 company an<l 15. were both liable for breach <»f 
 contract to carry the pigs ; and that tlie railway 
 comjiany were liable in an actif)n for money had 
 and received for money produced by the sale 
 of carcases of pigs destrovid on tlie voyage. 
 llfiiiex\. Siiith Walrx Ity.'w \\\ V. \,. R. 474. 
 
 Landing Goods at Sufferance Wharf.] — .See 
 Burhn- V. Mriinxtrni. W.) L. .(.. C 1'. 1M7 ; L. K. 
 4 H. L. 317 : 22 L. T. 808 ; 18 W. R. 1041, infra, 
 col. 535. 
 
 Passengers' Luggage.] — See infr.i, XXI. I'AS- 
 SEX(;i:;u .':>HII'!S. eul. 867." 
 
 Improper Abandonment— Salvage — Recovery 
 against Shipowner.] — Salvage paid by cargo 
 owner by rtason of improper abandonment by 
 master is recoverable against the ship and her 
 owner. 27ie Prinec.s:s Boyul, 39 L. J.. Adm. 43 ; 
 L. R. 3 A. & E. 41 ; 22 L. T. 29. 
 
 See also tits. XT. Charterparty : XII. Bill 
 OF Lading : XXII. Admiralty Law axd 
 Practice, 20. Damage to Cargo. 
 
 c. Liability to Passeng-ers. 
 
 Passengers' Luggage.]— The plaintiff, a pas- 
 senger in the defendant's ship from Xew York to 
 Galway. signed a ticket, upon which it was stated 
 that the shipo\^^lers would not be accountable 
 for passengers' luggage, unless bills of lading 
 were signed. The ship and luggage were lost by 
 the master's negligence : — Held, the shipowners 
 were not liable. \ViUoii v. Atlantie Boi/al Mall 
 Steam Xav. Co., 10 C. B. (N.S.) 453 ; 30 L. J., 
 C. P. 369 : 8 Jur. (x.s.) 232 ; 4 L. T. 700 ; 9 W. R. 
 748. 
 
 Notice as to Nonliability.] — A passenger took 
 and signed a ticket for Colon by the defen- 
 dant's steamship, upon which was printed "The 
 company will not be responsible for any loss or 
 damage to luggage in any circumstances.' The 
 passenger was put ashore ill aiul insensible at 
 .Jamaica, with his box, which was lost : — Held, 
 that he could recover nothing for the loss. 
 ThonijywH v. Boi/al Mall Steam Packet Co., 
 5 Asp. M. C. 190. n. 
 
 Delay in Sailing.]— For unreasonable delay in 
 sailing, passengei-s may recover damages, even in 
 the ab.sence of a fixed time being advertised — 
 per Alderson, B. Ellis v. 'J' It o in //.in /i. 3 M. iV: W. 
 456 ; 7 L. J., Ex. 185. 
 
 Separate Actions by Passengers — Stay — In- 
 sufacient Accommodation.] — Stny of proceedings 
 in seven out of eight actions brought against a 
 shipping company by passengers, for insutlicient 
 accommodation on boartl shij), refused. W'e/it- 
 hrooh V. Aiixtrallan Jloi/al Mail Steam A7/r. Co., 
 14C. P.. 113. 
 
 Refusing to Carry Plaintiff Common Carrier.] 
 — Declaration against shijiowneis as c<inniion. 
 carriers, for refusing to take plaintiff as pas- 
 seng(!r from S(iutham)iton to Gibraltar. Verdict 
 for the plaintiff sustained. Jieiinett v. Penm- 
 nular and Oriental Steainhnut Co., 6 C. 15. 775. 
 
 Injury by Negligence of Crew. ] — See Dilyell 
 V. Tyrer, infra, XX. CoLt-lsro.N— LiAltil-lTV. 
 Monayhaii \. Buehnnan, infr.i, .\XI. 1'ai?si;.N(;eic 
 SllIl'S. 
 
 Ferry Boat Negligence in Landing Pas- 
 sengers' Goods. —I ill' plaint id's phaclon, con- 
 tainiuL' a casi' fC watches and jewellery. wa.s 
 being landed from the Wo()dside ferry, at Liver- 
 pool, when it overpowered the men who were 
 landing it, ran backwards violently, and the 
 watches ami jewellery were iiijur< d : — Held, that 
 it was a question lor the jury wliether there was 
 a cfintract to land the eaniage and contents, and 
 whether the landing had been completed with- 
 out negligence. Wallirr v. Jaelmon, 10 M. A: W. 
 161 : 12 L. .).. Ex. lti.5. 
 
 Held, also, that the plaintiff's right of action
 
 79 
 
 SHIPPING— V. Master. 
 
 80 
 
 was iiotallootoil liy his iidt liavin.L;- cuninmnicated 
 Ihe fact of the jcwclki'v beiiii;- iu thu (.'aniage. 
 Jl>. 
 
 Injury to Horse in Landing.] — The lessees 
 
 of a ferry on the Mersey hrld liable for injury 
 to a horse under the charge of its owner caused 
 by the giving way of a side vail of the gangway 
 or brows used between the ship and the shore. 
 Wnio)U]hlni V. norr)(hjc. 12 C. B. 742. 
 
 Liability for Arrest of Passenger— Purser.] — 
 
 A passenger sued a shipowner for an alleged 
 wrongful arrest by the purser : — Held, that the 
 action would lie, the ]nirser having a statutory 
 jiower to arrest. Luiulir v. JIitch}'tn/7u\ 21 Ct. of 
 t^ess. Cas. (4th ser.) 108."j. 
 
 Passengers forwarded from Wreck.] — Bee 
 T/ie Jf(ir/j/o.sa, infra, col. 87. 
 
 7. Limitation of Liability. 
 
 Loss by Fire— 26 Geo. 3, c. 86.]— The statute 
 :2U Geo. 3, c. 86, limiting shipowner.s' liabilit}- for 
 loss by fire, did n«t protect the owners of a 
 "gabbert" (lighter) on board which goods were 
 -burnt : the statute applied to seagoing ships only. 
 Ilinifcr V. McGowan, 1 Bligh, 573. 
 
 Master, Part Owner— 53 Geo. 3, c. 159.]— In 
 
 . an action against several defendants, shipowners, 
 for loss of goods on board their ship: — Held, 
 under .53 Geo. 3, c. l.")9, s. 1, that their liability 
 was limited to the value of the ship and freight, 
 although the loss was caused by the fault of one 
 of the defendants, who was master and part- 
 owner ; the value of the ship to be taken at the 
 time of the loss ; and money paid as advance 
 freight to be included in the item of freight. 
 WilxoH V. Bicl'son, 2 B. & Aid. 2 ; 2() R. R. 3:^1. 
 
 Eansom Bill.] — Owners were not liable upon 
 a ransom bill beyond the value of ship and 
 freight. Hdly v. Grant, cited 1 Term Rep. 76. 
 
 In case of Collision.] — Sec tit. XX. Colli- 
 sion, infra. 
 
 8. Offences by. 
 
 Certificated Master— Icemaster.] — A whaling 
 ;-sliip went to sea with a certiticated master and 
 an icemaster, who was in fact in charge of the 
 ship by the owner's orders. The owner was 
 convicted, under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 136, 
 for employing a master who had no certificate. 
 Conviction quashed. Hedop v. Cadenliead, 14 
 "Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 3.5. 
 
 Excessive Deck Load — Timber — Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1894, s. 451, sub.-s. 3 («),]— See 
 Jliiffix V. 'J'li.oriiKidxPU. infra, col. .503. 
 
 Grain Cargo — Unseaworthiness.] — 8ee The 
 JiotliWi'U. supra, col. 74. 
 
 Overloading by Master without Knowledge of 
 Owner — Liability of Owner.] — A shipowner does 
 not '-allow" the overloading of his shi]j within 
 the meaning of s. 28 of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1876. and thus render himself liable to the 
 penalty thereby imposed, merely by appointing 
 the master who was in charge of the ship at the 
 time of overloading. Massey v. Morr/s, 63 L. J., 
 M. C. 18.5 ; [1894] 2 Q. B. 412 ; 10 R. 342 ; 70 
 L. T. 873 : 42 W. R. 638 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 586 58 
 J. P. 673. 
 
 Discharging Seamen Abroad— Wages, j — S,'i; 
 VI. Seamen, infra. 
 
 Ships' Lights.] — &v XX. Collision, infra. 
 
 V. MASTER. 
 
 1. Position, Duties and Llahilitics, 80. 
 
 2. Authority to hind Owners, 83. 
 
 3. Avtlioritij to sell Ship or Ctrgo, 87. 
 
 4. Primage and Pre ni in ins, 89. 
 
 5. Wages and Dishurtseinents. , 
 
 a. Generall}", 89. i 
 
 b. Lien, 97. 
 
 c. Priorities, 101. 
 
 d. Forfeiture, 103. 
 
 e. Foreign Master, 104. 
 
 6. Barratry, 105. 
 
 7. Certificate, 106. 
 
 1. Position, Duties, and Liabilities. 
 
 Must give Whole Time to Ship.] — The master 
 of a ship is bound to employ his whole time and 
 attention in the service of his employer ; and, 
 semble, a custom allowing such master to trade 
 on his private account during the voyage cannot 
 be maintained. Gardner v. M'Cutcheon. 4 Beav. 
 534. 
 
 If A., whilst employed as master of a ship, of 
 which B. is owner, gives part of his services for 
 an agreed payment to C, and C. pays this sum 
 to B., an action to recover it will not lie at the 
 suit of A. against B. Tliompson v. Havclocli, 1 
 Camp. 526. 
 
 Must account for Trading Profits.] — A master 
 of a ship who, having authority to employ the 
 vessel on freight to the best advantage, but not 
 to purchase a cargo on the owner's account, and 
 being unable to procure remunerative freight, 
 loaded the ship with a cargo of his own : — Held, 
 liable to account to the owners for all profits 
 made by the sale of the cargo, and not merely 
 for a proper freight. Shallcross v. Oldham, 2 
 .J. & H. 609 ; 5 L. T. 824 ; 10 W. R. 291. 
 
 May Sue Wrongdoer.] — The master may sue 
 a wrongdoer who takes possession of the ship. 
 Pittes V. Gainee, 1 Ld. Raym. 558. 
 
 Trespass to Cargo.] — The master may sue for 
 trespass to cargo. Mikes v. Caley, Holt, 467. 
 
 Authority of Master to Sue for Collision.] — 
 
 See The Reinheclt, infra, col. 85. 
 
 Robbery — Liability for.] — Where goods were 
 taken by robbers on the Thames, the master was 
 held liable. Mors v. Slew or Shir, supra, col. 75. 
 
 And see as to the duties of the master with 
 reference to charge, tit. XV. Cargo, infra. 
 
 Pilot — Master not liable for Fault of.] — For a 
 
 collision caused by the fault of the pilot, the 
 master is not liable. The Octavia Stella, 57 L. T. 
 632 : 6 Asp. M. C. 182. 
 
 The captain is not responsible to the owner for 
 the fault of the pilot. Aldrich v. Simmons, 1 
 Stark. 214. And sec VII. Pi LOT, XX. COLLISION, 
 post. 
 
 Penalties.] — The master is not liable to penal- 
 ties for infringement of rules of navigation 
 where the ship is in charge of a compulsory 
 pilot. OaJiley v. S^jeedij, 40 L. T. 881 ; 4 Asp.
 
 81 
 
 SHIPPIX"(J— Y. Master. 
 
 82 
 
 TI. C. 134. S. P., MiclieU v. Brown, 2S L. J., Adm. 
 
 Assaults by/ — A captain is not justified in 
 tliiDW ing a stone at a person in a boat who has 
 fastened it to the ship, and thereby impeded and 
 ciuhingeied it. for the purpose of mailing him let 
 go. unless it was not possible, either at the time 
 or before the immediate pinch of the danger, to 
 adopt anv other mode for the purpose. £yre v. 
 A'orswiiri/iij, 4 Car. & P. .502. 
 
 An action lies against the master for pur- 
 posely firing a cannon at negroes, and thereby 
 preventing them trading with the plaintiff ; and 
 it is no answer that the plaintiff had not con- 
 formed to the law of the country in paying the 
 diitv due to the kins: for his licence to trade. 
 Tukeiun v. M-Guiclcij, Peake, 270; 3 E. E. 
 689. 
 
 False Imprisonment of Passenger.] — Damages 
 2.")/., recovered by a passenger for false imprison- 
 ment by the master. The authority of the 
 master over passengers is limited to the necessi- 
 ties of the erase, the preservation of discipline, 
 and the safety of the ship. Aldworth v. Stewart. 
 4 F. & F. y.57 ; 14 L. T. ^(32. 
 
 Justifiable Force against Passenger.] — Semble, 
 the master may use force to passengers, as in 
 compelling them to fight an enemy, if the safety 
 of the ship or th.se on board her requires it. 
 Jiiij/iT V. JicnjUfi'c, I Camp. 60 ; Buyce v. Dovg- 
 IftgK. 1 Camp. 59. Or to preserve order. Nodeii 
 V. J„Iin.si»i. 10 Q. B. 218 ; 20 L. J., Q. B. 95 ; 15 
 Jur. 424. 
 
 Seaman — Authority of Master to Punish.] — 
 ,S>(' tir. Skamkn. 
 
 Entry of Offances in Log.^ — .See IliU v. 
 
 T/riiij).f:'/t, infra, col. 1 :'<(;. 
 
 Infringement of Patent by.] — An action was 
 brought against the master of a ship to restrain 
 liim ironi using i)unipR which were an infringe- 
 ment ot the plaintiffs letters patent. He denied 
 having used any pumps which were an infringe- 
 ment of the jiatent, and did not suggest that the 
 owners ought to In; parties. It was shewn that 
 the ."^hip w;is fitted up exclusively with pumps 
 which were an infringement of the letters 
 jiatent. but had been so fitted up before the 
 «k'fendant, who was not a part owner, had taken 
 command of her ; he had nothing to do with 
 putting them on board, and they had never Vjcen 
 worked in British waters : — Held, by l?rott and 
 i'otton, L..J.J. (dissentiente. James, L..J.), that 
 the injunction was rightly granted, on tlie 
 ground that tlic defendant, Vjeing in command 
 of a ship exclusively fitted up with ])umps 
 which were an infringement of tlic letters 
 l)atent,was intending t/j use the patented inven- 
 tion. Ai//iir V. Youny, 12 Ch. D. 13 ; 40 L. T. 
 59S— C. A. 
 
 Service without Agreement.] — The law will 
 l)resinne that the terms ot a master's engage- 
 ment for one voyage extend to a succeeding 
 voyage performed witliout a new agreement, 
 oxpress or clearlv implied. The Gananoque, 
 Lush. 448. 
 
 Wrongful Dismissal — Jurisdiction.] — A claim 
 
 for damages for wrongful dismissal is within the 
 
 cognisance of a court having original admiralty 
 jurisdiction, and, semble, of a county coui't 
 having admiralty jurisdiction b}' statute. Thi^ 
 Blcs-ung, 3 P. D. 85 ; 38 L. T. 259 : 2() W. E. 
 404 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 501. 
 
 Measure of Damages.] — A master engaged 
 
 for a voyage out and home, if wrcngfully d s- 
 charged abroad, is entitled to wages until lie can 
 obtain other emploj'ment. The Caniilla, Swabey, 
 312 ; W. E. 840. 
 
 Notice of Dismissal.] — The master of a ship, 
 in the absence of ex^jress stipulation in the con- 
 tract of hiring, is entitled to reasonable notice 
 of dismissal from the shipowner. Creen v. 
 Wriqht, 1 C. P. D. 591 ; 35 L. T. 3.39 ; 3 Asp. 
 M. C. 254. 
 
 Certificate of Master — Suspension.] — The 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1870 (39 cS: 40 Vict. 
 c. 80), does not extend the jurisdiction to sus- 
 pend or cancel the certificate of the master to 
 cases not witliin the Merchant Sliipping Act, 
 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104), ss. 242, 432. 'There 
 is, therefore, no power to suspend the ma.ster's 
 certificate where a ship has merely been stranded 
 without material damage to the ship or loss of 
 life. Stoni, Ex jMrtc. 47 L. J., Q. B. 200 ; 3 
 Q. B. D. ioO: 38 L. T. 29; 20 W. E. 329; 3 
 Asp. M. C. 549. 
 
 See further, XXII. Board of Teade Pro- 
 ceedings. 
 
 Eemoval of.]— By 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 240, 
 the court of admirnltj' has power, on an ajjpli- 
 cation by the owner or part-owner, to remove 
 the master of a shi[). if satisfietl that the renu)val 
 is necessary. Tlie Buyalixt, Br. \: Lush. 40 ; 32 
 L. J., Adm'. 105 ; 9 Jur. (N.s.) 852. 
 
 The removal is necessary if the master has 
 conmiitted a fraudulent bi'each of tru^t against 
 the owners, such as making a payment of 5/. on 
 ship's account, and fraudulently claiming 25/. of 
 the owners, and the court will make the order of 
 removal on the appiicationof one part owneronly, 
 notwithstanding another part owner (the siiip's 
 husbaiiii) is dissentient. Ih. 
 
 Authority to raise Seaman's Rating] — The 
 master has authority to engage a seaujan to 
 serve at higher wages as steward, the slewar<l 
 being dead. HirhH v. Walker, 4 \V. E. 511. 
 
 To Hire Steward.] — A., master of a ship 
 
 in the temporary possession of B.. has implied 
 authority from B. to hire a steward for the ship's 
 purposes. Lnltrcll v. China A'lirh/ntion Co., I 
 N. E. 329. 
 
 Liability of Master for Nec^ssarieB.]— See The 
 
 Marco J'olo. an 1 cases infra, e'ol. 92. 
 
 Ship let to Master— Liability for Repairs, 6kc.] 
 — See Jtnir v. JJaris. ante. col. 0">. 
 
 Refusing to give Seaman Certificate of Dis- 
 charge.] — Srr VI. Ska.MKN. 
 
 Master refusing to deliver up Certificate of 
 Registry.]— See Jifj- v. Pij-lnj. ante col. ;n. 
 
 Effects of Master dying on Board— Succeed- 
 ing Master Trustee thereof. ;— The maNtcr dies. 
 The succeeding master talu's |,o~srHsion of money
 
 83 
 
 SHirriNG— V. Master. 
 
 84 
 
 on hoard belonging to him ami tvailesvvith it : — 
 Held, that he was a trustee and accountable to 
 tlie willow for what he made of it. Broioii and 
 Litton^ CiiM: 2 ¥,:[. Ca. Abr. 722 ; Lucas' Rep. 
 2(1. 
 
 Weighage — Custom 
 liable. J — The master of ; 
 aue on goods brought into London 
 (^('in-jnifutiti/i) V. Ifinif, B Lev. 87. 
 
 of London — Master 
 
 ship is liable for weigh- 
 
 Loiidon 
 
 Official Log— Ship's Draught— M. S. A. Amend- 
 ment Act ( 34 & 35 Vict. c. 110), s. 5.]— A ship- 
 master sailed from Uatavia fur other ports in 
 Java, 50;) miles from Batavia, to take in his 
 cargo. He did not record his ship's draught of 
 water in the official log, until he finally sailed 
 for home : — Held, that he had not complied with 
 tlie act. Board of Trade v. liroion, 13 Ct. of Scss. 
 Cas. (4th ser.) 58. 
 
 Commander of King's Ship — Trespass — Seizure 
 as Prize.] — No action at common law lies against 
 the commander of a king's ship fjr seizing a ship 
 as prize, or for false imprisonment of her crew. 
 The onl}^ remedy is in admiralty. FaUh v. 
 Pmr-sira, Holt, N. P. 113 ; 16 R. R." (Jf t). 
 
 Not fellow-servant of Seamen.] — The captain 
 of a merchant shi[i is not a fellow-servant of the 
 sailois. but is the agent or rei)resentative of the 
 owners of the vessel during the voyage, and the 
 owners of the vessel are responsi'Dle for the 
 injury to, or death of, a sailor resulting from the 
 negligence of the captain during the voyage. 
 ]htiiisay V. Qitinn (Ir. R. 8 C. L. 322), not fol- 
 lowed. Iledlcij y. Pinckneii S)' Sons S. S. Co.. 
 supra, col. 73. ^ \AJ\^t^ V'bS', 
 
 Impressment.] — Semble, the master of a trading 
 vessel is not free from impressment. Chalaeoinhe, 
 E.r ]>trffi. 13 East. 550, n. ; 12 R. R. 4;]1, n. : 
 Biirriur.s Cag<\ U East, 34(1. 
 
 Ssaman — Entry of Offence in Log — Slander.] 
 
 — Se'' J/i/I V. 'J'hoiJijixDii, infra, col. IHti. 
 
 Not Agent of Cargo Owner.] — The master is nr)t 
 tlie agi-iit (if the car^o owners unless expre-sly 
 so constituted bv them — Per Lortl Stowell. The 
 Mennn-ni.% 1 C.Rob. 80, 84. 
 
 Bill of Lading.] — Duty of master as to deliver- 
 ing goods nndei'. See 'The Sfrttin, infra, col. 314. 
 
 2. Authority to bind Owners. 
 
 To substitute Voyage.] — A captain of a ship 
 has no authority, as such, to agree to a sub- 
 stitution of another voyage in the jdace of one 
 agreed upon between his owners and the freighters 
 in England, and on which he has sailed to a 
 foreign country. Burrjon v. Sharpe, 2 Camp. 
 529 ; 11 R. R. 788. 
 
 Usual Course of Business.] — If the master 
 makes a particular engagement or warranty 
 relating to the conveying of merchandise accord- 
 ing to the usual employment of the ship, the 
 owners will be bound thereby, although made 
 without their consent, llunqiiist v. Bltchell, 3 
 Esp. (54 ; 2 Camp. 55(!, n. 
 
 As Servant of Charterer] — Where the owner 
 
 Las let the shii) to freight for a specific voyage. 
 
 the master is the agent of tlie freighter, and con- 
 sequently the owner is not liable for the non- 
 delivery of the goods on the contract of the 
 master. James v. Jones, 3 Esp. 27. 
 
 By Charterparty.] — A master has no authority 
 to bind his owners by writing forward to a broker 
 in a foreign port, prior to the ship's arrival 
 therein, authorising the broker to charter his 
 ship. The authority of a master to bind his 
 owners by eharterparty arises when he is in a 
 foreign port, and his owners are not there, and 
 there is difficulty in communicating with 
 them. A master is not the agent for his owners 
 to hold out a person as authorised to charter 
 his ship, so as to bind the owners. The Fanny., 
 The Matilda, 48 L. T. 771 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 75— 
 C. A. 
 
 The master chartered the ship abroad to M. & 
 Co., with a view to secure to them payment of 
 a debt due from the shipowners. The freight 
 being in court, it was claimed by M. & Co. ; by 
 mortgagees of the ship under an assignment 
 of freight by the master to secure advances 
 made to the ship ; and by assignees of the 
 owners : — Held, that the assignees were entitled; 
 the master having no power to bind the owners 
 by charter or assignment of fieio.ht. The Sir 
 Ilenrii Webb, 13 Jur. 639. 
 
 The master of an American vessel arriving 
 in England, authorised by the owners to sell or 
 charter the ship, entered into a eharterparty 
 with the plaintiff for a voyage to Cevlon and 
 back. A few days afterwards the defendant 
 pttrchased the ship from a party acting under a 
 power of attorney from one of the owners to sell 
 her. The greater part of the cargo had been 
 put on board under the eharterparty. The 
 defendant attempted to stop the sailing of the 
 ship : — Held, that the master having authority 
 to charter the ship, which he had done, and the 
 defendant knowing of the eharterparty, an 
 injunction would lie to restrain the purchasers 
 from interfering with the sailing of the ship, 
 in pursuance of the eharterparty. JJess irjeries 
 Iiiiper/ale.-< Co. v. Baine.-:, 7 L. T. 763 : 11 W. R. 
 322. 
 
 By what law Governed,]— The power of a 
 master to biml his owners personally is but a 
 branch of the general law of agency ; and where 
 the master contracts as such in a foreign port 
 to carry goods for a foreigner, his authority to 
 bind his owners is that conferred by the law of 
 the country to which the ship belongs ; and the 
 flag of the ship is notice to all the world that 
 his implied authority is limited by the law of 
 that flag. Lloyd v. Guiherf. 6 B. & S. 100 ; 3> 
 L. J., Q. B. 74 ;■ L. R. 1 Q. B. 115 ; 13 L. T. 602 
 —Ex. Ch. Aflirmina' 1 .1 ur. (n.s.) 949 ; 12 W. R. 
 953. 
 
 Where a master of a French ship contracted 
 in the West Indies to cany goods of an English- 
 man thence to Liverpool, and on the voyage was 
 obliged to put into a port of refuge, and there 
 properly borrowed money on bottomry bonds for 
 the use of the ship and crew, and the owner 
 of the goods \^as obliged to pay money to the 
 holder of the bonds in order to redeem his goods: 
 — Held, that the owner of the goods had no 
 claim against the owners of the ship, if they 
 choicto abandon the ship and freight : inasmucli 
 as by the law of France, it was lawful for them 
 to free themselves from the acts and engagements 
 of the master, in all that concerned the ship and
 
 85 
 
 SHIPPING— Y. Master. 
 
 86 
 
 voyage, by the abandonment of the ship and 
 freight. lb. 
 
 Power to ransom Ship.] — The master had 
 power (^when ransom was legal) to bind ship and 
 cargo bv an agreement with the captors. — Per 
 Lord Stowell. " Tlie Gratltudhw, 3 C. Eob. 240, 
 250. 
 
 Authority to institute Action for Collision.] — 
 The master of a ship carrying cargo where his 
 shi}) and cargo have been damaged by collision in 
 or near a foreign port, has authority to institute 
 an action in rem in the foreign port against the 
 offending ship on behalf of both ship and cargo, 
 and the owners of the cargo cannot, so long as 
 that suit is pending in their names, be allowed 
 to denv his authoritv. The Rrinhecli, 60 L. T. 
 209 ; (5 Asp. ]M. C. "300— C. A. 
 
 May bind Owner beyond Value of Ship.] — The 
 master may by contract bind his owners beyond 
 ihevahieof ship and cargo. Yates v. ILill, 1 
 Term Ilep. 73. 
 
 Special Contract with Seamen.] — A promise 
 by a captain on behalf of his owners to pay 
 monthly wages to one of the sailors, in order to 
 induce him to become a hostage, is binding on 
 the owners, although they abandon the t-hip and 
 cargo. lb. And see Ilclhj v. Grant, 1 Term 
 Kep. 76. 
 
 Settling Demurrage.] — A., the owner of a ship, 
 entered into a charterparty containing stipula- 
 tions as to demurrage. The ship was detained 
 in South Africa beyond the time stipulated for. 
 The ca))tain was in possession of the ship : he 
 was to be i)aid freight and demurrage by bill in 
 South America. After making the charterparty, 
 and before the settlement hereinafter men- 
 tioned, the ship with the charter was sold to F. 
 The captain became a part owner of the ship. 
 The captain having settled the account for 
 freight, demurrage and delay with the charterer 
 by t.-diing a bill in South America : — Held, that 
 V. and A., in whose names lie was suing, were 
 bound bv such settlement. Alexander v. Uowie, 
 1 H.& N. ir»2 ; 2r> L. J., Ex. 281. 
 
 Collecting Freight.] — An order by an owner nf 
 a ship to a house abroad to cc)lle<'t freight, takes 
 tlie freight out of the hands of the master. 'J'/ir 
 Eilmond, l-u>h. r.S : 2'.t I.. .I..A(hn. 76 : 2 L. T. 
 l'J2. 
 
 Salvage.]— 01)S(Mvat ions of I'.rett. M.lt.. as to 
 the implieil autliority of sliipnuisters to hind 
 owners bv salvage agreements. See The lleiipor. 
 .-.2 I-. .1.,"^ A(hn. 4!) ;' K 1'. 1). 115 ; 48 L. T. 887 ; 
 31 W. K. 610— f!. A. : infra, SALVAGE. 
 
 Power to bind Owners for Necessaries.]— <S'w 
 caniK anti', •■ol-'. 61 , ><• |. 
 
 For Repairs.] — See .Miller v. Potter, ante, 
 
 col. 17, and (w.vr.v ante, cols. 61, seq. 
 
 Duty as to Repair.] — If a vessel after she has 
 started on licr voyage receives damage, the master, 
 in considering what steps he .shall take in regard 
 lo carrying on the cargo or lirst rejiairing tlie 
 ehip, is IjouihI to consider not one individual 
 
 interest, but the interests of all concerned ; 
 whether it be to return to his port of loading 
 and repair, or repair at the nearest possible place 
 before proceeding, or go on without repairing : 
 but if it be in his power to effect the repairs 
 without any great delay or expense to the in- 
 terests intrusted to his charge, it is his dutj' to 
 repair before proceeding. The Itoiia, 51 L. T. 
 28 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 25!l. 
 
 Authority to make Towage Agreements.] — 
 
 See TIte Alfred, U'ellfield (^>mv«7>-) v. Ailaiiif^ou, 
 post, col. 681. 
 
 Liability — Bill of Lading — Power of Ship'^s 
 Brokers to Exempt.] — The mere euiploynieut of 
 shi[)"s brokers at a foreign jnu-t to tincl a cargo 
 for a ship and adjust the terms upon which it is 
 carried does not give them implied power to 
 relieve the master, when he signs bills of lading 
 {uesented to him, from the duty of seeing that 
 the dates of shijiment are correctly stated in the 
 bills. In breach of that duty the master is 
 liable to his owners. Stitmore v. Breeii, 56 
 L. J., Q. K. Idl : 12 App. Cas. 698— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Authority to hire and raise Seaman's Rating. ] 
 
 — See Jlii-lix V. W((Iker. and iv/.vr.v >upra, col. 
 
 Payment of Past Services— Borrowing Money 
 for.] — The master has, in the absence of tin- 
 owner, or means of connnunicating with him, 
 authority to pledge his credit for all things 
 necessary for the jturpose of conducting the 
 navigation to a favourable termination, and for 
 that purpose he may borrow money for services 
 which re juire promitt payment ; but he has no 
 authority to borrow money generally in order to 
 pay for services alreadv rendered. Jteldon v. 
 Cdmphell, 6 I<:x. 886 ; 2()" L. .)., Kx. 312. 
 
 Special Instructions — General Authority.] — 
 A shipowner, in his written instructions to a 
 captain, directeil him, in case of emergeiu-y, to 
 apply to certain firms abroad. " who would give 
 him an}' assistance ie([uire(r' : — Held, that 
 this did not authorise tlie captain to do any- 
 thing not included in his general jiowcr and 
 authority as captain. Lijall v. If irks, 'll Heav. 
 616. 
 
 Owner taking Benefit of Master's Contract. ] — 
 
 The master ol' a sliij) wiio had expended all tli(> 
 money furnishe(l to iiim I'V hiscmployi'rs, enlii-cd 
 into a contract .'ibroad for the j impose of ol)lain- 
 ing funds toenaljle iiini to lay in the cargo wliicl> 
 constituted the main object of ills voyage : — 
 Held, upon its apjiearing that the owners had 
 derivcil benefit from the contract in (|ucstion. 
 that they liad no right to repudiate the claim of 
 the party by whinn the advance was made, ujiou 
 the ground' that the master had exceeded his 
 autliority in th<' transaction, or that he had 
 obtained tin; advance by means of rciucscnfa- 
 tions to llie lender the truth of whicii the latter 
 was not in a positifin toprove. Axhiiuill v. Wnnd. 
 3 Jur. (N..S.) 232 ; 5 W. U. 397. 
 
 Power to draw Bill on Owner — Necessaries. I 
 
 The m.'ister in a forei^'ti jKUt ejiiinot bind the 
 
 owners by drawing a liillon tlnui. Jtruin wSeatt, 
 3 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 111. 
 
 The ma.ster cannot bind the osvncr for good.s
 
 87 
 
 SHIPPING— Y. Master^ 
 
 88 
 
 supplied that arc not necessary or proper for the 
 ship. lb. 
 
 Authority of Master to borrow Money in a 
 Home Port.] — In an action against a shipowner 
 jur money advanced to the master in a home 
 jiort : — Held, that the only (luestion for the jury 
 \vas whether, under thecircumsranees, the master 
 was agent for the owner to get the advance ; and 
 that the state of accounts between the master 
 and the owner had nothing to do with the case. 
 Will ill iii.to/i V. P'Xjc, 1 Car. & K. .581. 
 
 "Wreck of Passenger Ship— Carrying on Pas- 
 sengers — Agency of Master, j — Where a passenger 
 ship is wrecked, and by the terms of the contract 
 with the passengers the owners are under no 
 liability to forward them to their destination, the 
 master, who makes arrangements with another 
 ve-,sel to carry on the passengers, does so as the 
 rment of the passengers, and not of the owners. 
 Th,' Mariposa. 6.5 L. .J., Adm. lOi ; [1896] P. 
 27:5 ; 75 L. T. 54 ; 45 W. K. 191 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 
 159. 
 
 Power to Hypothecate.] — Sec tit. X. Bot- 
 tomry. 
 
 Bankruptcy of Shipowner — Money Payable 
 under Charterparty.] — See WVhhis v. Mure, 
 infra, col. 392. 
 
 Mate succeeding to Command — Death of 
 Master.] — Power of mate to bind owners by 
 altering rating of seamen. See lia axon v. Eoijdon, 
 infra, col. 117. 
 
 Power to extend Lay Days — To give Discharge 
 from Demurrage.] — See Ilidnuiii v. Pennian 
 Aitrate Co., infra, col. 479. 
 
 Coals — Charterer to Provide— Power of Master 
 to bind Owner.] — See The Castleqate, infra, col. 
 250. 
 
 3. Authority to sell Ship or Cargo. 
 Cargo.] — See infra, col. 523. 
 
 Ship — Necessity alone justifies Sale — Insur- 
 ance.] — The master of a VL-s>el has no power to 
 sell her so as to affect the insurers, except under 
 circumstances of stringent necessity : such cir- 
 cumstances as, after sufficient examination of 
 her condition, and after every exertion in his 
 power, within the means at his disposal, to extri- 
 cate her from peril or to raise funds for the 
 repair, leave him no alternative but to sell her as 
 she is. Cohequid Marine In.surance Co. \. Bar- 
 tcaux, L. R. P. C. 319 ; 32 L. T. 510 ; 23 W. fl 
 892 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 536. 
 
 No Power to sell Ship.] — The master cannot 
 sell the ship, even in case of necessity, without 
 the owner's consent. Anon., Sid. pt. i. 453. 
 
 Wreck.] — The master cannot sell the 
 
 ship, even when wrecked, without the owner's 
 consent. Tremenhere v. Tre.iiUan, 3 Keb. 91. 
 
 Power to sell Ship in case of Necessity.] — 
 
 In case of absolute necessity to save something 
 from an adventure that cannot be completed the 
 master may sell the ship — Per Lord Stowell. Tlic 
 Fanny and Elniira, Edw. 118. 
 
 Sale of Cargo not justified by CircuniGtances.] 
 — On the 19th of April an Austrian ship, with a 
 valuable cargo on board, ran upon a rock on the 
 eastern side of Algoa bay, distant fifty miles by 
 sea, and about eighty by land, from Port Eliza- 
 beth. The Austrian consul at Port Ehzabeth 
 came to the spot, and, there being no hope of 
 getting the vessel off, he advised the master to 
 sell her with the cargo. The master accordingly 
 advertised the ship and cargo for sale, and they 
 were sold in one lot by auction on the 30th of 
 April for 9,500Z. after a brisk competition. The 
 purchaser got some part of the cargo out of the 
 wreck, but on the 19th of June the ship went to 
 pieces with the rest of the cargo on board. The 
 owners of the cargo having abandoned it to the 
 underwriters as a total loss, the underwriters filed 
 their bill to have the goods which had been brought 
 to land delivered to them as not having been effec- 
 tually sold. The master had not gone to Port 
 Elizabeth, nor endeavoured to procure funds to 
 enable him to save the cargo ; nor had he made any 
 effort to induce any persons to undertake the sal- 
 vage of the cargo. Several witnesses at Port Eliza- 
 beth deposed that in their opinion no person could 
 have been induced to undertake the salvage ; 
 others gave their opinion that offers to save the 
 cargo could have been obtained if a large per- 
 centage of the net proceeds had been offered 
 There was a good deal of evidence to shew that, 
 in the opinion of persons on the spot, the coui-se 
 which had been adopted of selling the wreck and 
 cargo was the most advisable one in the interest 
 of all parties concerned : — Held, that no such 
 necessity was proved to have existed as would 
 make the master the agent of the owners of the 
 cargo to effect a sale : that the sale was void ; 
 and that the plaintiffs were entitled to the 
 cargo saved, subject to a proper allowance for 
 salvage and other expenses. Atlantic Mutual 
 Marine Insuranee Co. v. Hutli, 16 Ch. D. 474 ; 
 44 L. T. 67 : 29 W. E. 387 : 4 Asp. M. C. 369. 
 
 Onus is on Master to prove Necessity.] — 
 
 The authority of the master to sell the goods of 
 an absent owner is derived from the necessity of 
 the situation in which he is placed ; and conse- 
 quently, to justify his selling, he must establish 
 a necessity for the sale ; and an inability to com- 
 municate with the owner. Aiistralasian Steam 
 Navigation Co. v. Mor.^e, 8 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 
 482 ; L. R. 4 P. C. 222 ; 27 L. T. 357 ; 20 \V. R. 
 728 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 407. 
 
 Duty to sell Cargo in case of Necessity.] — It 
 
 is the master's duty in a port wheie he cannot 
 communicate with the owner of the cargo to do 
 what is necessary for its preservation ; he may 
 bottomry or even sell it — Per Lord Stowell. The 
 Gratitudine, 3 Rob. 259. 
 
 Eight of Cargo Owner to restrain Master from 
 Selling— Terms.] — Where a vessel has become 
 unable to proceed on her voyage without repairs, 
 the owners of goods shipped on board the vessel 
 may obtain the assistance of the court to restrain 
 the captain from selling the cargo. But before 
 the court will grant such assistance, the plaintiffs 
 must shew their title to the goods, and must 
 settle with the captain for what is due to him, 
 and must exonerate the captain from his contract 
 to deliver the goods at their place of destination, 
 and from all liability on the bills of lading. 
 Itayne v. Benedict. 10 L. J., Ch. 297 ; 5 Jiu'. 
 598.
 
 89 
 
 SHIPPING— Y. Master. 
 
 90 
 
 Exception of Perils of Sea — Unnecessary Sale.] 
 — Where the ship is unable to complete her voyage 
 from accident, the excej^tion of " dangers and 
 accidents of the seas and navigation " does not 
 justify the master in selling the cargo. Cannan v. 
 Meaburn, 1 Biug. 243 : 8 Moore, 127 : 1 L. J. 
 (o.S.) C. P. 84. See Freouaa v. East India Co., 
 post, col. 525. 
 
 Stip sold by Master — Possession.] — Possession 
 of a ship sold by lier master without owner's con- 
 sent decreed to her former owners, in default of 
 appearance by the purchasers. The Lagan, 
 otherwise JJinia.r, 3 Hag. Adm. 418. 
 
 4. Primage and Premiums. 
 
 Primage.] — Primage belongs of right to the 
 master, and nothing but an express agreement 
 can deprive him of his right to recover it from 
 the freighter. An agreement by the master to 
 receive from the owner a fixed sum, " in full of 
 all cabin and other allowances," does not divest 
 the master of his right. Best v. Saunders, 
 M. & M. 208 ; 3 M. & R. 4 ; 7 L. J. (o.S.) K. B. 50. 
 See Cau(/Jie>/ v. ffnrdon, 3 C. P. D. 419; 27 W.R. 50. j 
 
 By a bill of lading freight was to be paid '• as \ 
 per charterparty. with primage and average ( 
 accustomed" -.—Held, that the reference to the 
 charterparty applied to the freight only, and 
 that in an action for primage the charterparty ' 
 need not be produced. Ih. 
 
 "Where there is a written agreement between 
 the master and owners, not mentioning primage. 
 and the owners have received payment in respect 
 of primage from the freighters :— Held, that the 
 master, by the usage of trade, is entitled to such 
 payment. Charlcton v. Cutesworth, Ey. & Mood. 
 17.5. 
 
 As to what amounts to an agreement as between 
 shipowner and master to dispense with primage, 
 see Scuttv. Jfillcr. 5 Scott, 11 ; 3 Bing. (N.c.) 811. 
 
 Premiums on Bills.] — If the master in a 
 foreign port, from the state of the exchange, 
 receives a premium for a bill drawn upon England 
 on account of the ship, this belongs to his owner, 
 although there may have Vjeen a usage for masters 
 of ships to ajjpropriate such premiums to their 
 own use. Dij/lnck v. lilurlihiivn, 3 Camp. 43 ; 
 13 R. R. 744. I 
 
 Master's Gratuity— Liability of Consignee.]— 
 
 See Jl<'ic,tt V. I'did, infra, col. 400. 
 
 5. Wages and Disbursements. 
 a. Generally. 
 
 Actions for.] — A master is entitled to sue the 
 ship for wages as earned on board the ship 
 within 24 & 25 Vict. c. 10, s. 10, if he performed 
 the duties of master, although during liis service 
 he did not sleep on board the slii]), and many of 
 his duties were pcrfonned on shore. The ( hirf- 
 tain, Br. it Lush. 104 ; 32 L. J.. Ailm. lud ; 'J Jur. 
 (N.s.) 3.<8 ; 8 L. T. 120 ; 11 W. R. 537. 
 
 He may also sue for disbursements made by 
 him during such service on the ship's account, 
 but not for mere liabilities incurred. Ih. 
 
 A master suing for wages anfl disbursements 
 is bound to furnish accounts before bringing his 
 suit, otherwise he will not be entitled to his 
 costs. Tlie Flcur-de-Lls, L. R. 1 A. & E. 49 ; 12 
 Jur. (N.s.) 379. 
 
 He is entitled, under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. 
 83. 187, 191, to double pay for the number of 
 
 days (not exceeding ten), during which the p.i;. - 
 ment of his wages is improperly withheld ; but 
 he is not so entitled, if he himself causes the 
 delay, by improperly keeping back the accounts 
 of the ship. The Prince.is HcJout, Lush. 190 ; 
 30 L. J., Adm. 137 ; 4 L. T. SCO. Overruled by 
 The Arina, infra, col. 95. 
 
 The 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 189, read with 
 s. 191, extends to masters of ships. The Blalie- 
 ney, Swabey, 428 : 5 Jur. (n.s.) 418. 
 
 Being compelled, by pressing necessity of ill 
 he:. 1th. to leave his ship abroad, he is entitled to 
 sue immediately for his wages. The Rajah o/ 
 Cochin, Swabey, 473. 
 
 In Admiralty.] — Formerly the master 
 
 could not sue in admiraltv for wages. Clai/ v. 
 Snelqrove, 12 ilod. 405 ; Holt, 595 ^ Carth. 518. 
 S. P., The Lord Hohart, 2 Dod. 104. 
 
 Under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 191, the master 
 could not claim in admiralty for disbursements, 
 unless the owners or mortgagees made a claim 
 against him ; in which case the court would 
 examine the whole account. The Caledonia, 
 Swabey, 17 ; 2 Jur. (N.s.) 48 ; 4 W. R. 183. 
 
 The master claimed wages from the mort- 
 gagees in possession ; they claimed to deiluct 
 advances without going into the accounts to 
 shew that tliey were entitled to do so : — Held, 
 that they could not do so. Ih. 
 
 Under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 112, s. 16, the master 
 could not sue for wages in admiralty, although 
 the owner had compounded with his creditors, 
 and had been released from his debts. The 
 Tecnmseh, 3 W. Rob. 109. 
 
 Arrest' of the ship, under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 111. 
 s. 22, for master's wages, the owner having filed 
 a declaration of insolvency, but not having been 
 made bankrupt : — Held, illegal. The Great 
 Northern. 2 AV. Rob. 509. S. P., The Princr.-<.t 
 Royal, 2 W. Rob. 373. 
 
 Where, in an action for master's wages, it 
 appears that, at the institution of the suit, 
 accounts are outstanding between the owners 
 and thtj plaintiff, and that the same have not 
 been taken or settled, and that within two days 
 of the institution of the suit the wages are ])aid, 
 the owners have not refused to pay " without 
 sufficient cause" within the meaning of s. 1S7 of 
 the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, and therefore 
 the plaintiff is not entitled to recover ten days' 
 double pav. The Turgot, 11 P. D. 21 ; 54 L. T. 
 276 ; 34 W. R. 552 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 548. 
 
 Wages not Dependent on Freight.] — The rulo 
 of marine law. tliat wages depend on the earning 
 of freight, does not apply to the wages of tlie 
 master. Ilawhinn v. Twizell, 5 El. A: Bl. 883 ; 
 25 L. J., Q. B. 160; 2 Jur. (N..s.) 302; 4 W. 11. 212. 
 
 Therefore, wliere a ship is lust, llie .administra- 
 trix of the captain is entilleil to maintain an 
 action for the period of his service before the 
 loss. ///. , , 
 
 When freight ha,s been earned, the master 
 though also part owner, m.iy sue in the admiralty 
 court^ for Ids wages and disbuisemeiits. I'hr 
 Frronia, 37 L. J., Adm. 60 ; L. R. 2 A. & K. 65 ; 
 17 L.T. 619; 16 W. R. 585. But sec The Sara, 
 col. 99. . ^^. 
 
 1 In an action by the master against his owners 
 i to recover wages which accrued during hisdeten- 
 ition in a foreign port, it is notincumV.)ent(m him 
 to prove that freight was earned \ it is suthcient, 
 I for him to shew that he has performed his ser- 
 vices • and the owners must adduce evidence to
 
 91 
 
 SHIPPING— Y. Master 
 
 92 
 
 prove that: he is not entitled to remuneration. 
 Jirown V. MUlencr, 1 Moore, G.") ; 7 Taunt. ST.* : 
 18 R. R. 493. iSV «/.v(» XXVI. Admiralty Law 
 AND Pkactice, infra, col. 1).")2. 
 
 Part Owner — Mortgage of Part.] — F. and S., 
 
 both residiim' at Halifax, Nova Seotia, were the 
 owners each of a moiety of a ship and cargo. F. 
 (as it was alleged) mortgaged his moiety to S. 
 The ship sailed in November, 18GS, from that 
 port, F. being the master. After so sailing, S. 
 assigned his own moiety antl the other moiety, 
 of which he was, as he alleged, mortgagee, to B., 
 of Liverpool, who, on the arrival of the ship at 
 Cork, onlered F. to take her round to Liverpool. 
 F. declined to obey that order, on the ground 
 that he, F., was the owner of a moiety of cargo 
 and ship, and lie denieil in strong language in a 
 letter to B. that he hail mortgaged his moiety to 
 ^. The ship and cargo were arrested by order of 
 the admiralty court and sold, at a price iusuf- 
 licient to cover the expenses : — Held, that F. 
 was entitled to his wages as master earned on 
 board the ship, even thougli he was part owner, 
 and that the owner of the other moiety must 
 pav him a moietv of such wages. The Joseph 
 Dt'.rtcr, 20 L. T. S2(». 
 
 Claim to Equitable Share.] — In a suit for 
 wages between an owner and the master, who is 
 also a part owner, the court can take no cog- 
 nisance of a claim by the master to an equitable 
 siiare in the vessel, 'f/io D. Jcx, 13 L. T. 22. 
 
 Contract — Independent Condition.] — The cap- 
 tain of a South Sea whaler covenanted with the 
 <kfendant that he would proceed to the fishery 
 and procure a cargo of sperm oil, or as great a 
 proportion as might be, under all circumstances, 
 within his power to ol^tain ; would return to 
 London, and at his own cost deliver the cargo ; 
 would obey instructions, be frugal of provisions, 
 and not dispose of any of them without account- 
 ing for the same ; and would not smuggle or 
 trade, or permit anyone on board to do so. The 
 defendant covenanted, on performance of the 
 before-meutionetl terms and conditions on the 
 part of the captain, to pay him a certain propor- 
 tion of the net proceeds of the cargo : — Held, 
 fliat the captain's covenants were independent, 
 and that the performance of them was not a 
 condition precedent to an action on the defen- 
 dant's covenant. Starers v. Curlinq, 3 Bing. 
 (x.c.) 3.55 ; 3 Scott, 740 ; 2 Hodges, 2i37 ; 6 L. J., 
 (J. P. 41. 
 
 Executed.] — A declaration stated, that 
 
 the defendant was ])ossessed of a ship, and the 
 ].laintiff was a master mariner, having interest 
 in the island of N., in the West Indies, for load- 
 ing a vessel ; and it having been proposed by 
 the plaintiff to the defendant that the defendant 
 should give the plaintiff the command of the 
 >hip for a voyage to the West Indies and back, 
 thereupon it was agreed, that, in consideration 
 of the plaintiff having interest in N. for loading 
 :; vessel, the defendant would give the plaintiff 
 the command of the ship, wath the understanding 
 tliat he would use all possible exertions for the 
 benefit of the ship and the owners thereof, 
 s.nd that for such services the defendant would 
 jj.-iy the plaintiff. Averment, that, in pursuance 
 i,f the agreement, the defendant gave the 
 idaintiff the command of the ship, and that he 
 set out in command of the ship on the voyage, 
 and safely delivered the outward cargo; that, 
 
 finding that a homeward cargo was not likely to 
 be obtained at N. without disadvantage to the 
 ship and the owners, the plaintiff proceeded to 
 the West Indies, and there procuicd a homeward 
 cai'go, and safely delivered tlie same, and then 
 resigned the command of the ship intuthe hands 
 of the defendant ; and that, during all the time, 
 the plaintiff used all possible exertions for the 
 benefit of the ship and the owners. Breach, 
 nonpayment bj' the defendant. I lea, that the 
 plaintiff did not use all possible exertions for 
 the benefit of the ship or of the owners : — Held, 
 first, that a sufficient consideration appeared on 
 the face of the declaration, the contract having 
 been executed by the plaintiff. Mills v. Blackall, 
 11 Q. B. 3.58 ; 17 L. .J., Q. B. 31 ; 12 Jnr. 93. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the plea shewed only a 
 partial failure of the consideration, and was, 
 therefore, insttfficient. II). 
 
 Counter-claim in Action f.r Wages.] — In an 
 action of wages by master against shipowner, 
 tlie defendant, by way of set-off and counter- 
 claim, claimed damages for the loss of the ship 
 by the negligence of the idaintiff : — -Reply, that 
 the ship was insured against a total loss, and 
 that the underwriters had paid or agreed to pay 
 to the owners the whole amount paj^able by 
 them on a total loss : — Hehl, on demurrer, that 
 the reply was bad, becau'^e the plaintiff had not 
 pleaded that the money had been actually paid 
 to the defendant, or that the counter-claim had 
 been brought without the authority of the under- 
 writers. nieSir Ch"rles Naij'ier. .5 P. D. 73 ; 43 
 L. T. 364 ; 28 W. R. 718 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 321— C. A. 
 
 Jurisdiction of County Court.] — A contract 
 that a master mariner shall take a share of a 
 fishing adventure and bear a share of certain 
 disbursements is a contract of wages by the 
 general maritime law, independently of the 
 Merchant Shipping Amendment Act, 1873 (36 
 & 37 Vict. c. 8.5), s. 8 ; and jurisdiction over 
 such a contract is conferred on county courts 
 having admiralty jurisdiction by the Countv 
 Courts Admiralty .Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 3 2 
 Vict. c. 71). s. 3, sub-s. 2. Thr Blesshig, 3 P. D. 
 3.5 ; 38 L. T. 259 ; 26 W. R. 404 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 561. See The Dictator., 3S L. T. 947 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 19, infra, col. 940. 
 
 Si'c also XXVI. Admiralty Law and Prac- 
 tice. 
 
 Liability for Necessaries.] — The captain who 
 gives directions for rejjairs, is liable to a trades- 
 man in the first instance, if it does not appear 
 that any credit was given to the owners. Essery 
 V. Cohb, 5 Car. & P. 358. 
 
 Where goods were ordered for a ship by the 
 owner, before the appointment of the captain, 
 though some were not delivered till af terw^ards, 
 yet as no personal credit was given to the 
 captain, he was not answerable for any of them. 
 Farmer v. Davies, 1 Term Rep. 108 ; 1 R. R. 
 159. See Nicholson v. 3Iounsey, 15 East, 384 ; 13 
 R. R. 501. And The Marco Polo, 24 L. T. 804 ; 
 1 Asp. M. C. 54. 
 
 Disbursements — From what Time,] — A master 
 can only claim against his ship for disbursements 
 from the date on which he is jjlaced on the 
 ship's register as master. The Alhioii. 27 L. T. 
 723; 1 Asp. M. C. 481. 
 
 Counter-claim on Accounts when a Co- 
 owner.] — In a cause of wages and disbursoment.s
 
 93 
 
 SHIPPING— V. Master 
 
 94 
 
 institnted on behalf of <a master, himself a 
 co-owner, against other part owners, they may 
 plead in answer that on a balance of account 
 between the plaintiff as master and co-owner 
 and the defendants nothing is due to the plain- 
 tiff, and set up a onunter-claini for a balance 
 dj"^ to them. Till- C/'y of Mobil r. 4B L. J.,Adni. 
 41 ; L. R. 4 A. A: E. I'lH : l"J L. T. 4()i; ; 22 
 AV. R. I'.d : 2 Asp. ^\. C. 12;!. 
 
 Defence on Criminal Charge — Forfeit.] — 
 
 A master, while nt a tnreigii pmt witli a home- 
 ■ward-bound vessel, incurred ex[)ensL's in defend- 
 ing himself agaiii-t a charge of murder, mali- 
 ciously brought by two of the crew, whom he had 
 censured for misconduct. The master was tried 
 and acquitted, and bound over in loZ. to prose- 
 cute the men for jierjury. He forfeited the lOZ. 
 in order to return with the vessel to England : — 
 Held, first, that he was entitled to the expenses 
 of his defence, on the ground that the chaige 
 originated directly from the performance by tlie 
 master of his duty to his owners in chastising 
 the men. Tlie JanicsSfvldon.'i'^ L. J., Adm. 117 ; 
 L. E. 1 A. & E. 02 ; 12 Jur. (N.S.) m\) ; 14 W. R. 
 973. 
 
 Held, secondly, that he was entitled to be 
 allowed the 10/. foifeit, as it was for the interest 
 of his owners that the master should not be 
 delayed in returning with the vessel. Ih. 
 
 Bills of Exchange.]— Upon an appeal 
 
 from the rei)ort of tlie registrar and mercliants 
 as to a master's claim for wages and disburse- 
 ments, the following items were objected to : 
 
 1. Sums of money for which the master as well as 
 the ship was liable, but which he hud i ot paid. 
 
 2. Slops supplied to .seamen, who aftcrwai'ds 
 <lesertc<l. 3. Tlie amount of a dishonoured bill 
 of exchange drawn for ship's purposes by the 
 master upon the managing owner, but it was 
 doubtful whether the master had received notice 
 of the dishonour :— Held, as to the first item 
 that the claim might be allowed upon proof to 
 the satisfaction of the registrar that the sums 
 were actually paid. The Ffi-o/ii/i. :57 L. ■).. A<ini. 
 60 ; L. R. 2 A. ic K. (w ; 17 L. T. (Jll) ; Ki W. U. 
 r>85. But see Thf^ .Sura, post, col. 'J'.l. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the items for slops were 
 pro] )erl v a 1 lo wei I . lb. 
 
 Held' thirdly, that as to the amount of the 
 bill of exchange, even if notice of dishonour had 
 not been waived, the master had not claimed the 
 benefit of notice, and that therefore, as he was 
 lial»le for the amount, the item was properly 
 allowed. Ih. 
 
 There is no implied undertaking on the part 
 of the owner, that a bill of exchange, drawn hy 
 the mastcron a third ])erson, for money advanced 
 for the ship's use, shall be rluly honoured. 
 Jliirhcr V. JinithiTxtoiw., 4 Camp. 2r>4. 
 
 When the owners of a ship in.struct tiic 
 captain to make purchases in a foreign country, 
 and to draw bills upon them in payment, the 
 promise imiilied by law is not a promise to 
 accept or pay ihe bills, but a promise to indem- 
 nify the captain against any loss or damage 
 sustained by him from having drawn the bills. 
 Jluiitlni V. Siindrrxiiii, 1 Car. iV M. 4tJ7. 
 
 In April and May, 1880, the master of a 
 Kteamihi|) obtained at a British culonial port 
 coals for the ship, and paid for them by bills of 
 exchange drawn on the charterers of the ship. 
 "i tx o.ils were dishonoured by the charterers, 
 and in August, 1880, the master was served with 
 
 a writ in an action brought to recover the 
 amount of the bills. Judgment in this action 
 was recovered against the master in July, 1881. 
 In October, 1881, the steamship) was sold, and 
 the master in November, 1882, instituted an 
 action of disbursements against her and her 
 frei^^ht. The pui chasers appeared and put in 
 bail. At the hearing of the action the judgment 
 recovered against the plaintiff in August, 1881, 
 remained still in force and unsatisfiefl, and the 
 plaintiff claimed to recover as a dis'oursement 
 the amount for which he was liable untler it : — 
 Held, that the liability of the plaintiff to satisfy 
 the judgment against him must be considered as 
 a tlisbursemenl in respect of which a maritime 
 lien existed under the 10th section of the 
 Admiralty Court Act, ISGl. The Fairjwrt, r)2 
 L. J., Adm. 21 ; 8 P. D. 48 : 48 L. T. o3G ; 31 
 W. R. 616: 5 Asp. M. C. 62. 
 
 Held, also, that the right to enforce such lien 
 had not been lost by any want of reasonable 
 diligence on the part of the ]ilaintiff. and that 
 his claim must Ije pronounced for. Ih. 
 
 Recovery against Owner of Disbursements 
 Paid to Shipwright.] — When shipwrights exe- 
 cute repairs to a ship at the older iA the master 
 given under circumstances by which the ship- 
 wrights acquire a right to claim against either 
 the owners or the master, and they elect to 
 claim against the master, the latter may, in an 
 action for wages and disbursements, proceed 
 against the ship and recover for the amount of 
 such shi[>wright's claim as a disbursement mail'.- 
 on ship's account. Tlie Liinrrirl:, 34 L. T. "08 ; 
 3 Asp. M. C. 206— C. A. 
 
 Sum Paid under Bond given on Collision.] — 
 When a .ship through the default of her master 
 has run into and damaeed another ship, and the 
 master of the former has in respect of such col- 
 lision given a bond forthc amount of thedamage 
 binding himself and his owners and the ship, he 
 being himself a wrong-doer, cannot, in an action 
 for wages and disbuif-ements. claim the amount 
 of such bonil or to be indeninilied against any 
 claim to be m.ade against liiiu thereumler in 
 resiiect of Ihe collision. //'. K^versim: 4."> 
 L. J., A<lin.',t7 : 1 1'. D. 2',t2. 
 
 Misconduct— Master taking Ship to Sea -Mort- 
 gagee -Wrongful Dismissal. J — A mcirtgageetnok 
 piissessioiiMta slop by put ling a man on hoard and 
 giving notice lo the master. The latter, by order 
 of the mortgagor, look the vessel to sea with the 
 man in possession on board. In an action by the 
 master for wages, and for compensation for 
 wron'^'ful dismissal, the registrar awanle I him a 
 sum as comiiensat ion, being the amount of wagi's 
 iiayable for two months after the mortgagee look 
 possession :— Held, on aiijieal. that the master 
 had been guillv of mi-c.,nduet in taking the 
 vessel to si-a, anil could not as against Ihe mort- 
 tra<a-e be pmperlv awarded any sum as eompen- 
 s-iUim for wrongful dismissal. Tlir F,iir/>«rf, r.4 
 L. J., Adm. 3 : 10 V. D. IH : r,'2 T,. T. ('.2 : 33 W. R. 
 44H : 5 Asp. M. «'. 348. 
 
 Fraud of Managing Owner — Privity of 
 
 jIaBter.l— A masoi on hi« appointment agre,.,d 
 with Ihe managing owner that he, the master 
 Hhould find the pn.visions for the oflicers and 
 crew at a certain rate per day. The master sub- 
 seouentlv a'^rcc'd with the niana^'ing owner, who 
 was also'a shili's store dealer, that the managing
 
 95 
 
 SHIPPING— V. Master. 
 
 96 
 
 owner should supply the provisions and should | 
 charge them against moneys of the master which 
 he held in his hands. The managing owner, 
 however, debited his co-owners with the costs of 
 the provisions, and fraudulently applied the 
 master's money to his own purposes : — Held, 
 in an action in rem against the owners by the 
 master to recover wages and disbursements, that 
 tlie master was entitled to credit for such an 
 amount in the settlement of his accounts with 
 the owners, the fraudulent application of his 
 money by the managing owner being a wrong 
 done to the co-owners for which he was not 
 responsible. The Dora Tully, 54 L. T. 467 ; 5 
 Asp. M. C. r)r)0. 
 
 Eig-ht to Wages up to Final Settlement of 
 Claim.] — \ master is not entitled under tlie 
 Merchant Seamen (Payment of Wages) Act, 
 1880. s. 4, to wages up to the final settlement of 
 his claim. The Arhm, uG L. J., Adm. 57; 12 P. D. 
 118 ; 57 L. T. 121 ; 35 W. K. (554 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 141. 
 
 Right to Ten Days' Double Pay.] — A master is 
 not entitled under ss. 187 and I'Jl of the Merchant 
 Shij^ping Act, 1854, to the double pay for delay 
 in the payment of wages recoverable by " sea- 
 men " under the former section. The Princess 
 Helena (Lush. 190) overruled. Ih. 
 
 "Under the provisions of s. 187 of the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1854, and s. 4 of the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1880, as to nonpayment of wages, 
 the right to recover ten days' double pay and 
 wages to the time of final settlement is not 
 enforceable where there is a bona fide question 
 as to liability. The Bainhow, 53 L. T. 91 ; 5 
 Asp. M. C. 479. 
 
 Taking Bill of Exchange.] — The master took 
 a bill of exchange from the shipowner in pay- 
 ment of a balance due for wages and disburse- 
 ments : — Held, that he could sue in admiralty 
 for wages under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 112, s. 16. The 
 Si mill Ji, 15 Jur. 865. 
 
 Neglect to make Protest — Admiralty Juris- 
 diction.] — The omission of the master to make a 
 correct protest as to damage to goods, whereby 
 the cargo owner is prevented from recovering 
 average and insurance moneys, is not a matter 
 over which the admiralty court has jurisdiction 
 uiuler 24 Vict. c. 10, s. 6. The Santa Anna, 32 
 L. J., Adm. 198. 
 
 Misconduct — Habitual Drunkenness of 
 
 Master.] — A shipmaster who has been habitually 
 drimk (luring his employment cannot maintain 
 a;i action for his wages. 'The J/acleod, 50 L. J., 
 Adm. 6 ; 5 P. D. 254 ; 29 W. R. 34. And see 
 FOKFEITUKE, infra, col. 103. 
 
 Wrongful Discharge.] — A master wrongly dis- 
 charged abroad is entitled to wages until he gets 
 otlier employment, or (semble) until the end of 
 the voyage. The Co nulla, Swabey, 312 ; 6 W. R. 
 840. And see Tlie Farrport, supra, col. 94. 
 
 Deductions for Misconduct.] — In a suit by 
 the master for his wages the owners may deduct 
 the amount of any loss he has occasioned them 
 by his misconduct. The Bepulse, 4 Kot. of Cas. 
 l(;i). 
 
 Disbursements— Liability on Bill.] — In an 
 action for masters wages, a mortgagee inter- 
 vening and declaring to set up a right of set-off 
 
 or counter-claim, but not filing any such counter- 
 claim in the registry, but only a statement that 
 he objected to all the claims in the master's 
 account except those relating to the payment of 
 wages and the wages claimed, must submit to a 
 settlement of all the accounts between the master 
 and the ship, exclusive of any private account 
 between the master and the owner in respect of 
 extraneous matters. The Glentanner, Swabey, 
 415. Overruled, see The Sara, 14 App. Cas. 209, 
 infra, col. 99. 
 
 In this settlement the amount of a bill drawn 
 by the master on the owners for the ship and 
 dishonoured by them, for which judgment has 
 been recovered against the master, but execution 
 not levied, is to be taken into account. Ilj. 
 
 Disbursements and Liabilities.] — The master 
 of a British ship drew a bill of exchange on her 
 owners in favour of the vendors of necessaries 
 supplied to her in a home port on her owners' 
 request. The bill was accepted by the owners 
 and afterwards dishonoured, and the master was 
 sued upon it to judgment : — Held, that he had 
 not made a disbursement or incitrred a liability 
 on account of the ship under s. 1 of the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1889, so as to be entitled to a 
 maritime lien upon the ship. The Orienfa, 
 Elliott V. The Orienta {Owners) ; 64 L. J., Adm. 
 32; [1895] P. 49; 11 R. 687; 71 L. T. 711 : 
 7 Asp. M. C. 529— C. A. 
 
 Payment of Seamen's Wages — Eecovery 
 
 in Admiralty by Master,] — The master having 
 paid the seamenthcir wages could not (formerly) 
 sue the owners in admiralty. Anon., Fortesc. 2:]0. 
 
 Coals — Charterer liable to supply — Bill 
 
 by Master on Owner.] — See The Cast leu ate, infra, 
 col. 98. 
 
 Lien for Disbursements — Enforcement — 
 
 Winding-up.] — The master of a ship belonging 
 to a company drew a bill on the company for 
 necessaries supplied to the ship, which was 
 accepted, but was dishonoured at mattrrity. 
 He paid the bill, and claimed repayment from 
 mortgagees who had taken possession of the 
 ship. On the following day an order was made 
 for winding up the company. The master then 
 applied in the winding-up for leave to take 
 proceedings in the admiralty court, and 
 obtained an order giving him leave. The 
 liquidator applied to discharge this order, and 
 an order was made for the liquidator to pay 
 into court to a separate account to meet the 
 claim 150Z., which exceeded the principal and 
 interest, the master undertaking not to proceed 
 in the admiralty court ; the payment to be 
 without prejudice to any application by him to 
 increase the amount. The 150Z. was paid in, 
 and he applied to increase the amount so as to 
 cover the costs of defending an action brought 
 against him by the holder of the bill, and his 
 costs of the application in the winding-up. 
 The Vice-Chancellor ordered the principal and 
 interest on the bill to be paid to the master out 
 of the 150Z., and the residue to be paid to the 
 liquidator : — Held, that though if there had not 
 been mortgagees in possession of the ship the 
 proper mode of enforcing the master's lien on the 
 ship would have been by application in the 
 winding-up, the order giving leave to proceed 
 in the admiralty court was a proper order, the 
 mortgagees not being parties to the winding-up;
 
 97 
 
 SHIPPING— V. Master. 
 
 98 
 
 and that the master was entitled to all his costs 
 Ijefore the vice-chancellor as costs properly 
 incurred by a luortsaoee in enforcing his 
 security, llin Gratific Do Sid Steamship Co., 
 In rr, 46 L. J.. Ch. 277 : 5 Ch. D. 282 ; 30 L. T. 
 (JOB ; 25 W. R. 328 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 424. 
 
 Detention Money as Witness.] — In calculating 
 the amount due to a master for detention money 
 and board whilst detained ashore as a witness, 
 in a cause for the recovery of his wages, the fact 
 that he through his wife carries on a business will 
 not deprive him of his right to be allowed 
 detention money : but if he lives at his place of 
 business during his detention, the fact that he 
 can live more cheaply at home than elsewhere 
 is to be taken into consideration in fixing the 
 amount to be allowed for subsistence money. 
 T/ie Rorjal Famili/, 31 L. T. 704 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 421. 
 
 Chancery Suit between Owners and Mort- 
 gagees — Master's Costs.] — The captain of a ship 
 .served a notice on the trustees of the docks, in 
 which the cargo of the ship was being discharged, 
 not to suffer its removal till the freight was paid, 
 and wrote to the owners of the ship to inform 
 them that he had stopped the cargo till the 
 wages of himself and the seamen had been paid. 
 In a suit between the owners and the mortgagee 
 of one of them, the captain was made a party, 
 and did not, by his answer, disclaim. The chief 
 clerk found that certain sums were due to him 
 in respect of wages, but that other sums claimed 
 were not due : — Held, that the plaintiff was 
 justified in making the captain a party, and 
 that the latter was justified in not disclaiming, 
 and was therefore entitled to his costs. Alcx- 
 amlcv v. Sbmna, 20 Beav. 123 ; 24 L. J., Ch. G18. 
 
 b. Liien. 
 
 Ship's Register.] — The nuxstcr has no lien on 
 (he certificate of registry. Gihsony. Iiu/o, (J Hare, 
 112. 
 
 The master, whether co-owner or not, has no 
 lieu upon a certificate of registry or ship's papers 
 in case of wrongful dismissal. The St. Olaf, 
 2 r. D. 113 ; 35 L. T. 428 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 268. ' 
 
 For what.] — The master has at common law 
 a jiosscssoiy lien on the cargo, not only for 
 freight, but also for general average. Galam 
 ( Corgo ex\ 3 N. R. 254 ; Br. & I.ush. 1G7 ; 2 
 .Moore, P. C. (N..S.) 216 ; 33 L. J., Adm. 07 ; 10 
 Jur. (N.s.) 477 ; 9 L. T. 550 ; 12 W. li. 405. 
 
 A captain who has entere<l into engagements 
 f)n account of tlie shif), thereby naiuires a lien 
 on the goods, and on Ihe freight, to the extent 
 of hi.s engagements. White v. Jiarliig, 4 Ksp. 
 22 ; 6 R. 11. 836. S. P., The Pimthi;a,'25 L. T. 
 :W.) ; 1 Asp. M. C. 133. 
 
 But he has no lien on tlie ship for money 
 expended, or debts incurred by liini for repairs 
 dune to it on the voyage, llnxury v. Chridie, 
 OEa.st, 426; 13 Ves. 509. 
 
 Nor on tlie freight for his wages, nor for his 
 <lisbursenicnts on account of the shi]) during the 
 voyage, nor for thcprLiuiums ])aid by hiinal)road 
 f< II' tlie purpose of prufuring the cargo. Smith 
 v. in II miner. 1 B. & Aid. 575 ; 10 K. R. 301. 
 
 Nor for wages, stores or rcjiairs done in 
 England. M'ilki/ig v. Curniirhrirl, 1 Dougl. 101. 
 
 A master lias no lien on the sliip or freight for 
 
 VOL. XIIT. 
 
 wages, nor for any expenditure wliich lie may 
 make in the ordinary discharge of his duties as 
 master, however necessaiy for the performance 
 of the voyage. But the case becomes one of 
 ordinary principal and agent, where he makes 
 a sj^ecial contract, in itself ultra vires, in order 
 to fulfil which he incurs special expenses ; if 
 the owmer adopts the benefit of that contract, he 
 must, in equity, also bear its burdens. Jii-i.<ttow 
 V. Whitmorc. H. L. Cas. 301 ; 31 L.J.. Cli.467; 
 8 Jur. (x.s.) 291 ; 4 L. T. 622 ; 9 W. R. 621. 
 Afiirming 1 Johns. 96 ; 4 De (?. & J. 325 ; 6 
 Jur. (N.s.) 29. Reversing 28 L. J., Ch. 801 ; 
 1 L. T. 173; 7W. R. 150. ' 
 
 The master has no lien upon freight for his 
 wages or other demands, unless it is a matter of 
 express stipulation between himscK and his 
 owner. Athimon v. Cote.iworth. 5 D. & R. 552 ; 
 3 B. & C. G47 : 1 Car. ic P. 330 ; 3 L. J. (o.s.) 
 K. B. 104 ; 27 R. R. 450. 
 
 Where Unsatisfied Judgment against Master 
 for Necessaries.] — See The Fuirport, 8 P. D. 48, 
 supra, col. 04. 
 
 Lien not lost by taking Mortgage of Ship.] — 
 
 A master is not deprived of his lieu for wages 
 and disbursements by the fact that he has taken 
 a mortgage on the ship for the balance of his 
 wages and disbursements, more especially if the 
 shipowner has concealed from him the fact that 
 there was a prior mortorage. The Albion, 27 
 L. T. 273 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 481. 
 
 Priority.] — Sec post. col. 101. and The Queen, 
 10 L. T. 706 ; The Bangor Castle, infra, col. 
 120. 
 
 Delay.] — See The Chieftnin, infra, col. 101. 
 
 Under Tortious Hirer — Kelease.]-— The relea.se 
 by the master of his personal claim against the 
 shi])0wncr for wages does not operate as a 
 release of the ship fi'om his lien for such wages. 
 Tlie fact that the master was hired by one who 
 had fraudulently obtained posse-;>ion of the ship, 
 will not juevent the master liaviiig a lieu upon 
 the ship for his wages and disljursements, if he 
 has discharged his (hities in ignorance of the 
 fraud. The Ell win, Br. Jc T-ush. 211 : 33 L. J., 
 Adm. 197; 10 L. T. 6.58; 12 W. R. 002. But 
 see The Sara, infra, col. 00. 
 
 Colonial Law.]— By 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, 
 s. 101. a master has a lien for his wages in the 
 vice-admiralty coiut, wliatevcr may be the 
 municipal hiw of the colony. The Jlajah of 
 Corhin, Swabey, 473. 
 
 Disbursementa — Maritime Lien — Master's 
 Authority.] — A master of a ship acquires, 
 under s. 1 of liic JI<;rchant Shipjiing Act, 1SS!», 
 no lien upon the ship for disi)ursemonts for 
 wiiicli lie has no authority to liind thi' owner. 
 The CaKtleqiitr, J/orifan v. Caxtlfijnle Steamnhip 
 Co., 62 L. J., P. C. 17 ; [1803] A. C. 3S ; 1 R. 97 ; 
 68 L. T. 00 ; 41 \V. R. 340 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 284— 
 H. L. (Ir.) 
 
 Where no lien on the ship exists, there can be 
 no lien on the freight. //'. 
 
 Maritime Lien— Master's Lien for Disburse- 
 ments.] — A liability incurred at the request of 
 the vendors of necessaries and «i the shipowners 
 by the master of a P>riti«li shi]) in rcs;>cct of 
 
 •4
 
 99 
 
 SHIPPING— V. Master. 
 
 100 
 
 necessaries supplied to her by the order of the 
 owners at the port in England where they carry 
 on business does not create a maritime lien which 
 takes priority to a mortgage of the ship existing 
 at the date of the necessaries being supplied. 
 TIiP Orients, M L. J.. Adm. 32 ; [1895] P. 49 ; 
 11 R. 687 ; 71 L. T. 711 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 529— C. A. 
 
 Master — Disbursements — Lien for — Neces- 
 saries.]— The Admiralty Court Act, 1861 (24 
 A'ict. c. 10) does not give the master a maritime 
 lien on the ship for disbvu'sements. The GIoi- 
 tanncr (Swabev, 415) ; TJie JLa-y Ann (L. R. 1 
 Adm. 8) : The Feroma (L. R. 2 A. & E. 65) ; and 
 TJie Bhifjdore (11 P. D. 120) overruled. The 
 Sara, Hamilton v. Balier, 58 L. J., P. 57 ; 14 App. 
 Cas. 209 ; 61 L. T. 26 ; 38 W. R. 129 ; 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 413— H. L. (E.) [Sec 52 & 53 Vict. c. 46, 
 s. 1.] 
 
 Maritime Lien — Eight against Shipowners 
 or Charterers — Authority.] — Where a ship is 
 chartered under a charter providing that the 
 master shall be appointed by the charterers, 
 that the owners are to provide and pay for all 
 provisions and wages of captain and crew, and 
 for the necessary equipment and efficient working 
 of the ship: that the captain is to be dismissed 
 by the ovraers if he fails to give satisfaction, and 
 that the charterers shall provide and pay for all 
 coals, pilotages, port charges, &c., the master is 
 the servant of the shipowners, and hence he has 
 a right in rem for his wages and such disburse- 
 ments as are necessary for the navigation of the 
 ship, and which the charterers had not by the 
 provisions of the charterparty undertaken to 
 pay ; and semble, per Lord Esher, M.R.. if the 
 charterers had refused to make these disburse- 
 ments, and without them the ship could not be 
 navigated, the master would be entitled to 
 charge them against the shipowners. Semble, 
 where the master is the servant of the chai'terers 
 and not of the shipowners, he has no right 
 against the owners in respect of wages and 
 disbursements. The JSeeswinr/, 53 L. T. 554 : 
 5 Asp. M. C. 484— C. A. 
 
 will not deprive him of his rcnicdv. The Rain- 
 low, 53 L. T. 91 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 479. 
 
 AVhere shipowners, in answer to a claim for 
 wages, plead an agreement between the managing 
 owner and the plaintiff, that the plaintiff shall, 
 instead of receiving his wages, allow it to remain 
 in the hands of the managing owner, and has 
 thereby foregone his right against the ship, the 
 onus is upon the defendants to clearly prove that 
 there was an express arrangement to that effect, 
 before the court will deprive the plaintifE of his 
 right. 1 5. 
 
 Master under Liability for Necessaries may 
 proceed in rem.] — A master who becomes 
 personally liable for necessaries has the right 
 to proceed in rem against the ship. The Marco 
 Polo, 24 L. T. 804 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 54. 
 
 Wages Suit— Mortgagee intervening — Right 
 to release of Ship — Bail.] — In an action against 
 ship and freight for master's wages the mortgagee 
 in possession" is entitled to a release of the ship 
 on giving bail, although the master has made 
 himself ikble on bills of exchange drawn upon 
 the charterers for the ship's use. The Eingdoce, 
 Swabey, 310. 
 
 What Ship subject to Lisn.] — The masters 
 lien for wages under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 112, s. 16, affects 
 only the ship in which the wages were earned. 
 TJie JuUndvp, 1 Spinks, 71. 
 
 Master Joint Mortgagee— Sale by Mortgagees 
 —Master's Claim for Wages.] — The master of a 
 ship was a joint mortgagee of her. The owners 
 became bankrupt, and the ship was sold by the 
 mortgagees in possession, with the knowledge of 
 the master, who did not interfere with the sale : 
 — Held, that the master could sue the ship for 
 wages under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 112, s. 16. The 
 Rejmlse, 9 Jur. 738. And see 5 Not. of Cas. 
 348. 
 
 Suit entered in too small Sum— Release of 
 
 Ship.] — A suit by a master for wages was euterecl 
 for a sum which, by reason of the defendants' 
 
 By charterparty it was agreed that the owners aelay, proved insufficient to cover his claim and 
 
 of the ship should provide and pay for provisions 
 and wages, and that the charterer should provide 
 and pay for coals and other expenses. The 
 master was to be appointed by and was to follow 
 the instructions of the charterer. The master, 
 with notice of the charterparty, ordered and 
 made himself liable for provisions and coals for 
 the vessel at a foreign port. These provisions 
 and coals were necessary to enable the vessel to 
 perform her voyage : — Held, in an action by the 
 master against the vessel, that he was entitled 
 to recover for the provisions but not for the 
 coals, as by the terms of the charterparty he 
 had no power to pledge the owner's credit in 
 respect of them. The Turgot, 11 P. D. 21 ; 54 
 L. T. 276 ; 34 W. R. 552 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 548. 
 
 Agreement with Owners — Loss of Lien — 
 Non-payment.] — A master, who after receiving 
 a portion of his wages from the managing owners, 
 elects to allow the balance to remain in their 
 hands at interest, by so doing loses his lien, and 
 cannot recover the balance in rem, but if he has 
 had no opportunity of receiving his wages, or has 
 been refused pavment of them on demand, the 
 mere fact of his" allowing them to remain in the 
 managing owner's hands after they become due 
 
 costs : — Held, that the ship should not be released 
 until claim and costs paid in full. The Helen, 
 14 W. R. 502. 
 
 Lien in Admiralty— None in Chancery.]— A 
 
 master sued in chancery the executor of a 
 deceased part owner for lOL, due to him on 
 account of the ship. No remedy in equity 
 against the ship, but semble aliter in admiralty. 
 Fierson v. Rolinson, 3 Swanst. 139. 
 
 Ship liable though Owners not liable— Master 
 appointed by Persons allowed to remain in Pos- 
 session of Vessel— Maritime Lien.] — The master 
 of a ship, appointed by persons who are not the 
 real owners, but who "have been allowed by the 
 real owners to remain in possession and to have 
 the control of the vessel for the pm-pose of using 
 her in the ordinary way, may have a maritime 
 lien on the ship for his disbm-sements and 
 liabilities properly incurred by him on account 
 of the ship, although the owners may not be 
 personally liable for the disbursements or the 
 matters in respect of which the liabilities hav_e 
 been incurred. The Caatlegate (62 L. J., P. C 
 17 ; [1893] A. C. 3S) and The Orienta (64 L. J. 
 P 32 ; [1895] P. 49 ; supra, col. 99,) disiin-
 
 101 
 
 SHIPPING— Y. Master. 
 
 102 
 
 guishcd. Tlie Elpo?i City, 66 L. J., P. 110 : 
 
 [1S'J7] P. 22G ; 77 L. T. 98 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 304. 
 
 c. Priorities. 
 
 Extent of.] — The master has a maritime lien 
 ou the ship for liis wages and disbursements, and 
 his claim takes priority over all other claims, 
 save claims for salvage and damage by collisiou. 
 T/ii! Paidhea, 25 L. T. 389 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 133. 
 
 Maritime liens, being in the nature of rewards 
 for services rendered, rank against the fund out 
 of which they are to be paid in the inverse order 
 of their attachment on the res, and the last in 
 time should be the earliest in payment. The 
 Bope, 28 L. T. 287 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 563, infra. 
 
 Over Bottomry Bond.] — The claim of a master 
 for his wages earned and disbursements made 
 subsequently to a voyage, during which a 
 bottomr}' bond has been given on his ship, takes 
 priority over the claim of the bondholder. Ih. 
 
 A bottomry bondholder is entitled to priority 
 over the claim of a master for wages earned on 
 voyages previously to that during which the bond 
 is given. Ih. 
 
 Against the balance of proceeds of sale of a 
 vessel sold in a bottomry suit, the master has in 
 respect of his claims, both for wages and dis- 
 bmsements, priority over the rights of the mort- 
 gagee. The Mary Ann or Anne, 35 L. J., Adm. 
 6 ; L. K. 1 A. & E. 8 ; 12 Jur. (x.s.) 31 ; 13 L. T. 
 384 ; 14 W. R. 136. But see The Sara, supra, 
 col. 99. 
 
 A master, being sole owner, having given a 
 bottomry bond, binding himself, ship and freight, 
 cannot claim his wages to the prejudice of the 
 bondholders. Tlie William, Swabey, 346 ; 6 
 W. R. 871. 
 
 When a master, being also part owner of a 
 vessel, had bound himself by a bottomry bond 
 on ship, freight and cargo : — Held, that the 
 owners of part of the cargo could not oppose his 
 right to be paid his wages and disbursements in 
 pii(jritv to the bondholder. The Davinq, 37 
 L. J., Adm. 29 ; L. K. 2 A. & E. 260. 
 
 In such a suit by the master, the court will not, 
 under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1855, s. 191, 
 entertain a counter-claim by the owner of the 
 cargo. Ih. 
 
 The master cannot compete with the bond- 
 holder for his wages against the ship's freight 
 where he binds himself by the bond. Wheie, 
 however, he has incurred no such personal obliga- 
 tion, he is not barred. The Sulacia, 32 L. J., 
 Adm. 41; 9 Jur. (x.s.) 27 ; 7L. T.440; IIW. R. 
 189. 
 
 Over Seamen.]— Tlie 17 i<c 18 Vict. c. 104, 
 8. 191, does not alter the relation of the master 
 to the seamen, and he cannot compete with them 
 to their dctiiment for a share in a fund. Ih. 
 
 Over Mortgagees,] — A master does not lose 
 his lien upon a ship for wages due by delaying 
 to enforce such lien for ten months after his 
 discharge, notwithstanding he has had an oppor- 
 tunity to do so ; but he may enfoice it even 
 against persons who, as mortgagees, have in tlie 
 interim become interested in the ship with notice 
 of the lien. The Chieftain, Br. & Lush. 212. 
 And see The limigor Caiftle, post, col. 120. 
 
 A master's claim for wages and di.>bursements, 
 whenever earned or made, takes prioiily over the 
 claims of mortgagees. The Uope, 28 L. T. 287 ; 
 1 Asp. M. C. 503. 
 
 Wliere the master of an ordinary seeking ship 
 entered into a charterparty, under seal, to carry 
 troops from the Mauritius to England, and stipu- 
 lated, on his own responsibility, in the charter- 
 party, that he would make certain alterations in 
 the ship, in order to enable him to carry the 
 troops, and at the Cape of Good Hope entered 
 into another charterparty, not untler seal, to a 
 similar effect, and made the specified alterations, 
 and paid money, and drew bills to meet the 
 expenses necessary to the making of these altera- 
 tions, and the voyage was performed : — Held, 
 that, apart from lien, in equity, the master was 
 first entitled out of the freight earned under 
 these charterparties to be repaid the sums 
 advanced, and to be indemnified against the 
 bills, and that the owner (or his mortgagee) was 
 onlj^ entitled to the net freight after deductiiig 
 these charges. Bri>>tow v. Whit more. 9 H. L. Cas. 
 391 ; 31 L. J., Ch. 467 : 8 Jur. (N.s.) 291 ; 4 L. T. 
 622 ; 9 W. R. 621— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Enforcing Claim against Ship.] — The master 
 of a ship belonging to a company drew a bill ou. 
 the company for necessaries supplied to the ship,, 
 which was accepted, but was dishonoured at 
 maturity. He paid the bill, and claimed repay- 
 ment from mortgagees who had taken jiossession. 
 of tlie ship. On the following daj' an order was 
 made for winding up the company. The master 
 then applied in the winding-up for leave to take 
 proceedings in the admiralty court, and obtained 
 an order giving him leave. The liquidator 
 applied to discharge this order, and an order was 
 made for the liquidator to pay into court to a 
 separate account to meet the claim 150?., which 
 exceeded the principal and interest, the master 
 undertaking not to proceed in the admiralty 
 court; the payment to be without prejudice to 
 any application by him to increase the amount. 
 The 150/. was paid in, and he applied to increase 
 the amount, so as to cover the costs of defending 
 an action brought against him by the holder of 
 the bill, and his costs of the application in the 
 vnnding-up. Bacon, V.-C, ordered the principal 
 and interest on the bill to be paid to the master 
 out of the 150/., and the resiilue to be paid to- 
 the liquidator : — Held, that though if there had 
 not been mortgagees in possession of the ,«liip 
 the proper mode of enforcing the master's lieu 
 ou the ship would have been by application in 
 the winding-up, the order giving leave to i)ro- 
 ceed in the ailmiralty court was a jiroper ortlcr^ 
 the mortgagees not being [larties to the winding- 
 up ; and that the master was entitled to all his 
 costs before the vice-chancellor as costs proiieily 
 incurred by a mortgagee in enforcing his secui ity, 
 Jiio (iraiiflr ])« Siil Stram,ihip Co., In re, 46 !>. .1., 
 Ch. 277 ; 5 Ch. D. 282 ; 36 L. T. 603 ; 25 W. R. 
 328 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 424— C. A. 
 
 Priority of Claim of Material-Men.] — A mast. !• 
 being pait owner of .i tmeign ^liip or<lered ncc("^- 
 saries for the ship. The iieci'ssarics were sup- 
 plied, and the master Ijecaine li.nble for iiaynient : 
 — Held, that the material-meu were entitled lo 
 be paid for the necessaries out of the proceeds of 
 the shiji and freiglit in priority to a claim of th<' 
 master for wages and disbursements, llir Jeinni 
 Lind. 41 L, J., Adm. 63 ; L. R. 3 Adm. 529 ; 26 
 L. T. 591 ; 20 W. 1!. 895 ; 1 Asj.. M. C. 294. 
 
 A shipwright's lien is pcistponed to a raastci'"s 
 claim for wages earned prior to the repairs. The 
 Oustaf, Lush. 506 ; 31 L. J., A(hn. 207 ; 6 L. T. 
 660. Cf. The Queeii, 19 L. T. 706. 
 
 4—2
 
 103 
 
 SHIPPING— V. Master. 
 
 101 
 
 Interference of Court of Bankruptcy with 
 Arrest under Warrant.] — A master mariner 
 claimiiis^'a lien for wages and disbm-sements upon 
 a vessel the property of the arranging debtor, 
 who had declared himself insolvent, caused the 
 vessel to be arrested under the warrant of the 
 court of admiralty. The court of bankruptcy, 
 upon an apiilication to restrain the further 
 action of the court of admiralty in respect of 
 the vessel, declined to do so, except upon the 
 terms of lodging in com-t a sum sufficient to 
 answer the claim and costs, and an undertaking 
 to abide any further order in respect of any 
 further sum which might be declared due for 
 costs or otherwise. T. C, In re, Ir. K. 11 Er[. 151 
 
 Lien for Disbursements— Priority over Mort- 
 gage.] — Master's liability for necessaries has 
 inuority over mortgage debt. Tlie Limcricl;, 1 
 'P. D. 411 ; 3i L. T. 708 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 206. 
 
 Master's Lien — Mortgage— Sale of Ship.] — 
 
 JMaster restrained by injunction from enforcing 
 his alleged lien against proceeds of ship which 
 had been mortgaged and afterwards sold on the 
 voyage as unseaworthy. Lister v. PdijH, 11 
 Sim. 348. 
 
 d. Forfeiture. 
 
 Drunkenness.]— Constant drunkenness, or non- 
 performance of duty ascribed to it, on the part 
 of the master, does, but occasional intoxication 
 does not, work a forfeiture of wages. Tlie Atlan- 
 tic, 9 Jur. (N.s.) 183 ; 7 L. T. 647 ; 11 W. E. 188. 
 S. P., The 3IaeIco(l, 5 P. D. 254. 
 
 Occasional drunkenness in port on the part of 
 -the master of a vessel will not, if unaccompanied 
 ■with neglect of duty, work a forfeitui-e of wages. 
 TJie Huebuck, 31 L. T. 274 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 387, 
 infra. 
 
 Semble, that constant drunkenness on the part 
 of a master, whether there is proof of neglect of 
 duty or not, will work a forfeiture of either the 
 whole or part of his wages, according to circum- 
 stances, lb. 
 
 Error in Judgment — Neglect.] — An error in 
 
 -judgment on the part of the master will network 
 a forfeiture of his wages. The Atlantic, supra. 
 
 As where he makes a mistake in the manage- 
 ment of the ship's affairs in a foreign port. The 
 Thomas Worthlngton, 3 AV. Bob. 128. 
 
 Neither error of seamanship in a master, nor 
 neglect to communicate to a Lloyds' agent, 
 stranding of the vessel, nor neglect to sign a 
 bottomry bond, works a forfeiture of wages. Tlte 
 Camilla, Swabey, 312 ; 6 W. K. 840. 
 
 Taking Bill instead of Cash for Freight,] 
 
 — When a master receives instructiijns to take the 
 balance of freight due at the end of a voyage in 
 cash, or by bank bill upon London, and without 
 sufficient 'inquiry, but without mala fides and 
 rather through error of judgment, he takes a bill 
 which he believes to be (but which is not) a bank 
 bill, and which is afterwards dishonoured, causing 
 loss to his owners, this negligence or disobedience, 
 not being wilful, does not work a forfeiture of 
 his wages, nor can the owners claim to deduct 
 the amount of their loss from his wages. The 
 Dunmore, 32 L. T. 340 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 599. 
 
 Insubordination.] — The owners of a vessel 
 have a riuht to dismiss an officer who directly or 
 
 indirectly promotes insubordination, and such 
 officer has no rigtit to wages otherwise due to 
 him by agreement after such dismissal. The 
 Marina, 50 L. J., Adm. 33 ; 29 W. R. 508. 
 
 F., part owner of a vessel, mortgaged (as it was 
 alleged) his .share to the other part owner S., who 
 assigned his own share and the other mortgaged 
 share to B. F. refused to obey B.'s orders, and 
 denied in strong language to him that he had 
 mortgaged to S. : — Held, that even if B. was 
 owner of the entire ship and cargo, F.'s conduct 
 and language were not such as to raise a for- 
 feiture of his wages. The Joseph Dexter, 20 
 L. T. 820. 
 
 Employing Ship contrary to Orders.] — When 
 a master receives express orders from his owners 
 as to the voyages which he is to make and the 
 ports to which he is to take the ship, and such 
 orders are given under and with a view to a 
 state of circumstances out of which danger might 
 arise to the ship, and which are known to and 
 discussed by the master and owner at the time 
 when they are given, the master is not justified, 
 out of an alleged apprehension of that danger, in 
 taking the ship on other voyages and to other 
 j)orts ; and if he does so take the ship, he will not 
 be entitled to recover his wages for the time 
 during which she is engaged against the owners' 
 orders, even if the voyages are for the owners' 
 benefit. The RoeMich, 31 L. T. 274 ; 2 Asp. JVI. C. 
 387. 
 
 Desertion.] — A master's wages may be forfeited 
 bj' desertion, but there can be no absolute deser- 
 tion of his ship working a forfeiture of the whole 
 of his wages if there is an animus revertendi upon 
 the part of the master. Ih. 
 
 When a master quits his ship and remains 
 away for such a time and under such circum- 
 stances as lead his owner reasonably to suppose 
 that he has no intention of returning, the owner 
 will be justified in removing the vessel from the 
 place where it is left, and appointing another 
 master : and the original master will not be 
 entitled to recover his wages for any period after 
 the time when he so quitted the ship. Ih, 
 
 e Foreign Master. 
 
 Eemedy for Wages.] — In a suit by a foreign 
 master against the freight for his wages, the 
 question whether the freight is liable is a ques- 
 tion of remedy, and not of contract, and is, 
 therefore, to be determined by the lex fori. Tlie 
 Mllford, Swabey, 3G2 ; 4 Jur. (N.S.) 417 ; 6 
 W."K. 554. 
 
 The 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 191 (notwithstand- 
 ing s. 107), extends to the masters of foreign 
 ships, and gives them a remedy against ship and 
 freight for wages. lb. 
 
 A master of a foreign ship instituted a cause 
 against the ship for his wages, and no notice of 
 the institution of the cause was given by him to 
 the consul of the foreign state. The owners 
 appeared under protest ; and the consul pro- 
 tested, as consul, against the cause being allowed 
 to proceed. The cause was dismissed on the 
 ground that the jurisdiction of the court of 
 admiralty over causes of wages of foreign 
 masters is discretionary only ; that notice of the 
 institution of any such cause ought to be given 
 to the consul of the state to which the ship 
 belongs ; and that the protest of the consul was
 
 105 
 
 SHIPPING— YI. Seamen. 
 
 106 
 
 a bar to the cause proceeding. The Uerzogin 
 Marie, Lush. 292 ; 5 L. T. 88. 
 
 Protest by Consul.] — The protest by a foreign 
 consul ;igaiusi the continuance of a wages cause 
 against a foreign vessel does not deprive the 
 court of jurisdiction ; but the court will use its 
 discretion whether or not to exercise the juris- 
 diction. The Octavle, Br. & Lush. 21.5 ; 33 L. J., 
 P. 11.5 ; 9 L. T. 695. And see The Li'on XIII.. 
 52 L. J., Adni. 58 ; S P. D. 121 ; 48 L. T. 770 ; 5 
 Asp. M. C. 73— C. A. 
 
 In a suit for wages by foreign seamen, if their 
 consul intervenes and asks that payment of the 
 wages due to them be made to him on their 
 behalf, the court usually grants the application. 
 The Timor, 9 L. T. 397 ; 12 W. E. 219. 
 
 Lien — Bottomry Bond.] — A master of a foreign 
 ship having, in the terms of a bottomry bond, 
 bound as well himself as the ship and freight, 
 cannot enforce his lieu for wages agamst the 
 claim of the bondholder. The Jonathan Good- 
 hue, Swabey, 524. 
 
 6. Barratry. 
 
 Cotton stowed on Deck.] — Ninety bales of 
 cotton, insured against barratry of the master 
 and mariners, were stowed upon deck, and were 
 jettisoned in a storm. Before the ship sailed one 
 of her agents discovered that the captain was 
 stowing cotton on deck, and opposed it. and 
 desired him to send the cotton by another vessel. 
 The captain, notwithstanduig the remonstrance, 
 continue<l to stow the cotton upon deck. This 
 it was contended amounted to barratry, as " an 
 act of wrong (kme by the master against the ship 
 and goods" : — Held, that it did not amount to 
 barratry. Atkinmn v. Great Weateni Insiiranre 
 Co., 27 L. T. 103 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 382. 
 
 Kidnapping.] — When a master ships and 
 carries Polynesian native labourers without a 
 licence against the provisions of the Kidnajiping 
 Act, 1872 (35 k. 30 Vict. c. 19), proof that the 
 master, allhouglihe may never have seen the act 
 itself or the proclamation thereof in the Austra- 
 la.sian colonies, was informed before shipping 
 the laVjourers that such an act existed, and that 
 it was illegal to carry them, is sufficient evidence 
 to justify a jury in finding that he shipped and 
 carried Ihe labourers wilfully and with know- 
 ledge of the ]»rohihition, so as to make his act 
 barratrf^us. Aiixt raliiii Inxiirance Co. v. Jaeh- 
 noil, 33 L. T. 2S(i ; 3 Asp. M. C. 2C>. 
 
 Scuttling Ship.] — Scuttling a sliip with tlie 
 kii'.wlidLT'' ut; the shipowner, but witliout tlie 
 knowleilgc of tlie freighter, is barratry, in respect 
 of which the frcigliter may recover against the 
 imderwriteis. loiiidcs v. Vender. 13 L. J.. Q. B. 
 227 ; L. 11. 9 Q. IJ. 531 : 30 L. T. .547 ; 22 W. li. 
 8Hj : 2 Ah[i. M. C. 2fir,. See also Grill v. 
 Grinral Iron Srrnr Collier Co., po-f, col. 329. 
 
 Deviation for Master's Convenience.] — Devia- 
 tion for master's convenience is barratry. 
 I'allejo v. Wheeler, 1 Cowp. 113. 
 
 Barratry may be cotnniitted against a char- 
 terer who is pro h'.c vice owner. Ih. As to 
 this report see per lUdler, J.. 1 Term liep. 329. 
 
 Deviation for the Ownsr's Benefit." — Is not 
 barratry. Stainnia v. Brown, 2 Str. 1173. 
 
 Fraudulent Intsnt.] — On the part of the master 
 is necessaiy : neglect to pay port dues is not 
 barratry. Kniqht v. Caml/ridi/e. 1 Str. 581 ; 
 Cowp. 153 ; 2 Ld. Raym. 1540 ;'l Mod. 230. 
 
 Extent of Owner's Liability for.] — A master of 
 a ship, without the owner, entered into a charter- 
 part}' with p'laintitf to undertake a voyage on 
 certain terms, and for due jierformance he bound 
 the ship, tackle, kc, valued at 300?. The master 
 deviated, and committed barratry, for which 
 plaintifE obtained a sentence against him in 
 Spain. The owner brought trover for the ship, 
 and an action against plaintiff for the freight. 
 Per cttr.. the master is liable for the deviation 
 and barratrj- , but the owner is not liable beyond 
 the sum at which the ship was valued in the 
 eharterparty. Anon., 2 Ch. Cas. 2, 238. 
 
 See also B. Maeine Insurance, infra. 
 
 7. Certificate. 
 
 Ship in Charge of Uncertificated Master.] — 
 See Hcslnj) V. Cilr/ihiail. intra. 1 V.. Ow^'KitS ; 
 10, Offences by ; Stor!/,£.i- jMute.nute, col. 82. 
 Seealsotit. Wreck Inquiries, post,cols.874 seq. 
 
 VI. SEAMEN (including Thames Watermen). 
 
 1. Wages. 
 
 a. Generally, 106. 
 
 b. Contract. 
 
 i. Stamp, 113. 
 ii. Form, 114. 
 
 iii. Division of Profits, 115. 
 iv. Additional Wages. 115. 
 V. Allowance for Sliort Provisions, 
 
 117. 
 vi. Advance Note, 117. 
 vii. Juri.-diction to set aside Unreason- 
 able Contracts, 118. 
 viii. Dissolution, 118. 
 
 c. Lien — Priorities, 119. 
 
 d. Becovery of Wages. 
 
 i. Who liable, 121. 
 ii. Bight to sue Barred. 123. 
 iii. Foreign Seamen or Ship, 124. 
 iv. Advance Note, 125. 
 
 e. Practice. 12C>. 
 
 2. Desertion, Miseondiiet and Forfi ituve, 128. 
 
 3. Proeei dinf/.\- iigiil n.it Srniiien, 132. 
 
 4. iJnfi/ and' Liiiliilili/ of Ma.itvr or Shipowner, 
 
 133'. 
 
 5. Anthorit;/ of Jfaster to I'nnish, 130. 
 0. Certifieate of Chararter, 137. 
 
 7. I'roteetion from Impoxition, 137. 
 
 8. Wills of Seamen, 138. 
 
 9. Inipresxmrnt, 13S. 
 
 10. Siippli/ini/ withunt Lieener, 139. 
 
 11. 7'lianies Watermen, 139. 
 
 Injury to.] — sVv IV., Ownkr-S. 
 
 1. Wac;i;s. 
 a. Generally. 
 Jurisdiction of Admiralty Court.]— The juris- 
 (lictiiin of the admiralty in wages suits is 
 founded on the general jnaritimc law, and ha.s 
 exihtcd from the first establishment of the court. 
 The CoiirtiiPii, Edw. 239. Sir also post, XXVI. 
 ADMIRALTY LAW AND PHACTICE — PUO- 
 Hir.IlION. 
 
 Paid by Mate.] — The court of admiralty has 
 no jurisdiction in a claim by a mate for wagca
 
 107 
 
 SHIPPING— YI. Seamen. 
 
 108 
 
 \Kud to seamen and disbursements. The 
 Victoria, 37 L. J., Adm. 12. 
 
 Law of Flag or Forum.] — A subject of the 
 United States was mate on board a vessel of that 
 country during a voyage from California to 
 Great Britain. By the death of the master, the 
 mate assumed that position. He proceeded in 
 the British court of admiralty against the 
 freight for wages due to him. The owners 
 appeared under protest, objecting that the law of 
 The flag was applicable, and not the lex fori : — 
 Held, tiiat the lex fori must govern the case, and 
 the protest be overruled, and that the mate had 
 a lien on the freight, whatever might be the law 
 of the United States, and notwithstanding the 
 provisions of the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, ss. 109, 
 l',)l. TJin 31'ilford, Swabcy, 3G2 ; i Jur. (N.s.) 
 417 ; G W. E. 554. 
 
 Freight the Mother of Wages.] — Freight is the 
 mother of wages. If the ship is lost the mariners 
 lose their wages. Dunhh-ij v. Buhver, G Esp. 
 (iS. infra. 
 
 Freight is the mother of wages. The ship- 
 owner "gets no freight unless the ship unloads, 
 ixnd the seamen lose their wages. Anon., Siderf. 
 pt. 1, 236 : A/1071., 2 Show. 283 : Anon., Siderf. 
 pt. 1, 119. S. T.. The L'idij Bin-hnm, 3 Hag. 
 Adm'. 19G : Tltomasv. Tobin. 3 Hag. Adm. 197, n. 
 
 Aliter, where special Agreement for 
 
 Wages.] — A special agreement for wages held 
 good though no freight earned. Cumjnon v. 
 yicolas, Str. 405. 
 
 Voyage abandoned— Ship unseaworthy.]— 
 
 Where the ship went to sea in an uusl,■a\^•llrthy 
 condition and the voyage had to be abandoned, 
 the seamen could not sue for wages, since no 
 freight was earned. EaJun v. Thoni, 5 Esp. 6 ; 
 .8 rTr. 824. 
 
 Ship lost on Home Voyage.] — A ship 
 
 Avas hired by government to take our convicts to 
 Van Diemen"s Land. From that place it sailed 
 -to Batavia, and on several other trading voyages. 
 It sailed on the homeward voyage to England, 
 and aiTived safe at St. Helena, but was lost 
 before arrival at the port of discharge, and all 
 •on board perished :— Held, that proof of these 
 -facts, and of a seaman having gone on board the 
 ship in England, and having been seen working 
 on board at Van Diemen's Land, at Batavia, and 
 afterwards at St. Helena, was sufficient to entitle 
 the seaman to waees prorata for the voyage out. 
 Harris V. la), 1 H. & W. 238. 
 
 Seamen entered into articles to serve for 
 monthly wages on board a ship " bound for the 
 ports of Madeira, any of the West India Islands, 
 and Jamaica, and to return to London" ; and it 
 was agreed that they should not demand or be 
 entitled to their wages, or any part, until the 
 .arrival of the ship at the port of discharge 
 (meaning London) :— Held, that though the ship 
 earned freight upon the delivery of an outward- 
 bound cargo at Madeira, and of another cargo 
 taken in at Madeira, and delivered in the West 
 Indies ; vet. that, being lost in her passage home 
 by a stoi-m, the seamen could not recover wages 
 pro rata upon the outward voyage by reason of 
 the express terms of the stipulation respecting 
 wages. Applchij v. BocU, 8 East, 300 ; 9 E. R. 
 450. 
 
 Wages to Port of Delivery — Prepaid Freight.] 
 — If the ship is lost after her dei)arture fiom a 
 pint of delivery, wages are due to the port of 
 delivery ; if freight is prepaid and the ship lost 
 before arriving at a port of delivery, wages are 
 due according to the amount of freight prepaid. 
 Anon., 2 Show. 283. And see Tlia Juli ina, 2 
 Dods. 504 ; CulleJi v. 3Iico, 1 Keb, 831. 
 
 Ship captured.] — A seaman was taken out of 
 a captured ship and carried to France ; the ship 
 was recaptured and taken to her destination : — 
 Held, that no wages were due. 17ie Friends, 4 
 C. Rob. 143. 
 
 The wages of a sailor are not payable if the 
 ship is lost or taken before the end of the voyage 
 {Ilernaman v. Baicden, 3 Burr. 1844) ; although 
 afterwards ransomed. Wiggins v. Ingleton, 2 
 Ld. Raym. 1211. 
 
 An ofhcer or a sailor, who was engaged to 
 serve on board a letter-of-marque for wages 
 during the voyage, and a share of all prizes, is 
 not entitled to any part of the wages if the ship 
 is taken before she completes her voyage, 
 although he shall have been sent from the ship 
 before the capture, as prize-master on board a 
 prize taken in the course of the voyage. Aher- 
 nrthy V. Lnndiile, 2 Dougl. 53i). 
 
 Whsre Recaptured.] — If a ship is cap- 
 tured in the course of her voyage, and is after- 
 wards recaptured, and arrives at her port of 
 destination, the sailors are entitled to their 
 wages. Bci'gstro/ii, v. Mill.-i, 3 Esp. 36 ; G R. R. 
 810^ 
 
 Detention by Foreign Power.] — A seaman 
 may recover for wages during a hostile embargo 
 in a foreign port, while he was imprisoned on 
 shore, on proof that the crew was restored to the 
 ship, and that she completed her voyage and 
 earned freight, without producing the order by 
 which the embargo was taken oif. BrlamainPi' 
 V. Wintn-ingham, 4 Camp. 18G. S. P., Fra(t v. 
 Cuf, 4 East, 43, n. 
 
 The Russian government laid an embargo on 
 British ships in Russian ports, until an alleged 
 convention between the Russian and British 
 government should be fulfilled by the latter. 
 The crews were taken out of the ships, marched 
 up the country, and there detained for six months, 
 and treated as prisoners of war ; and at the end 
 of that time they were marched back to their 
 ships, and the vessels with their cargoes restored : 
 — Held, that this was an embargo, and not a 
 hostile c;ipture, and that the seamen were 
 entitled to wages during the time of the deten- 
 tion. TIiowj)sim V. Bealc, 1 Dow, 299 ; 14 R. R. 
 73 ; 4 East, 546 : 1 Smith, 153 ; 3 Bos. & P. 405. 
 
 So it was held, where the plaintiff was a 
 foreign seaman. John-^on v. Broderich, 4 East, 
 566 \ 1 Smith, 144 ; 7 R. R. G36. 
 
 When Seaman Impressed.] — A seaman im- 
 pressed from a merchant ship was not entitled 
 to wr-ges up to his impressment (2 Geo. 2, c. 36) 
 if his ship was lost and no freight earned. Ditnh- 
 ley V. Biilwcr, 6 Esp. 86, supra. S. P., Anon., 
 2 Camp. 320, n. 
 
 The mariner gets his wages up to the time of 
 impressment if the ship earns freight. If the 
 ship is captured the mariner gets no wages, even 
 though she is afterwards recaptured. Wiggins 
 V. Ingleton, 2 Ld. Raym. 1211. 
 
 Seaman entitled to wages up to impressment. 
 Chandler v. Meade, cited, 2 Ld. Raym. 1211.
 
 109 
 
 SHIPPING— VI. Seamen. 
 
 Discharge in foreign Port/— A master is not 
 srenerally at libertj- to discharge his crew in a 
 iforeign port, but circumstances may justify him 
 in doing so upon conditions. The Elizahetli, 2 
 Dods. i03. 
 
 Circumstances under -nhich a master is justified 
 in dischrrring a first engineer abroad considered. 
 T7ie Jloii II. 50 L. J., Aclm. 33 ; 29 W. K. 508. 
 
 Damages for wrongful Discharge. J — Mariners' 
 wages ilccreed with penalties for wrongful dis- 
 missal (5 (fc 6 "Wi 1. i, c. 19, s. 11). A seaman 
 was shipped for a voyage out and home. The 
 ship was sold during the voyage at a foreign 
 port, and the seaman was paid wages to the time 
 of sale and paid his passage home : — Held, that 
 the seaman was entitled to be put into as good a 
 position pecuniarily as he would have been in if 
 the voyage had been completed ; gain of time 
 and re-employment being taken into considera- 
 tion. Jlitchell V. Foe, cited, JluducJian on 
 Ship., 4th ed. 234. 
 
 Hardships incurred In an action by a sea- 
 man for breach of the stipulations in his agree- 
 ment for service, the court, in addition to the 
 compensation provided by the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1854, can award general damages for breach 
 of the agreement, and for hardships incurred by 
 the seaman through the vessel being employed 
 for purposes other than those contemplated by the 
 agreement. The Justitta, 56 L. J., Adm. Ill : 
 12 P. D. 145 ; 57 L. T. 816 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 198. 
 
 Agreement for Voyage not exceeding Six 
 Months — Compensation for Discharge within One 
 Month.] — The re.^pundent, a seaman, was en- 
 gaged under an agreement in the prescribed 
 form to serve on a ship on a voyage from Sun- 
 derland to Bilbao, and any other ports within 
 certain degrees, and back to a port of discharge 
 in the United Kingdom. The term of employ- 
 ment was not to exceed six months. The wages 
 were stated to be at a montldy rate. The ship 
 returned to Sunderland within twenty-three 
 days, and, the voyage being thereupon ter- 
 minated, the respondent was duly discharged. 
 Upon a summons issued by the respondent 
 against the appellant, the master, the judges 
 held that he was entitleil to compensation up to 
 one month's wages for such dischaige under the 
 provisions of s. 167 of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1854, and notwithstanding any agreement : 
 — Held, that, being properly discharged under 
 his agreement, the respondent was not entitled 
 to the Ix-nefit of s. 167, since discharge Ix-fore 
 the commencement of the voyage, or an impropi.-r 
 discharge before one month's wages have been 
 earned, is the condition precedent to the relief 
 given by the act. Tindle v. Darimm, 61 L. J., 
 M. C. 107 ; 66 L. T. 372 ; 56 J. P. 3'JO ; 7 Asp. 
 M. C. 169. 
 
 Expenses of Maintenance and Passage Home. ] 
 — Sect. 1^6 of the .Merchant Shipping Act". 
 1894, which provides that where the service of 
 any seaman belonging to any British ship 
 terminates at any port out of her majesty's 
 dominions ; the master, besides paying the 
 wages to which the seaman is entitled, shall as 
 one of several alternatives, •' (</) depo-it witli 
 the consular officer . . . such a sum of money 
 as is by the officer . . . deemed sufficient to 
 defray the expenses of his maintenance and 
 passage home," iinposes upon the consular 
 
 110 
 
 officer the duty of determining the amount to 
 be deposited ; and where the master has de- 
 posited the amount fixed by the officer, no 
 further claim can be made against the shipowner 
 under the section for any expenses incurred by 
 the seaman. Edivurd.t v. Steel, Younn S,- Co cl; 
 L. J., Q. B. 690 ; [1897] 2 Q. B. 327 ; 45 W. 1!. 
 689— C. A. 
 
 ■■ Home " in the section means the port at 
 which the seaman wa.s originally shipped, or 
 such other port in the United Kingdom as he 
 agrees to go to. lb. 
 
 Where seamen are wrongfully discharged 
 abroad they are entitled to recover their necessary 
 expenses (^The Frederick, 1 Hag. Adm. 219) ; and 
 the whole of the wages for 'the voyage. The 
 Elizabeth, 6 Jur. 156. 
 
 Ship lost— Certificate of Master— 7 & 8 Vict. 
 c. 112.] — The en.nctment 7 cV: 8 Vict. c. 112, 
 s. 17, as to seamen being entitled to wages in 
 case of wreck on receiving the master's certificate, 
 does not apply to a case where the seamen would 
 have been entitled to wages before the act. 
 Where, therefore, a vessel was lost in a seeking 
 voyage after carrying and delivering cargoes in 
 the course of it : — Held, that the seamen were 
 entitled to wages without any certificate from 
 the master. Hielts v. Walher', i W. R. 511. 
 
 Ship Insured — Owner Bankrupt— Seamen's 
 Wages paid out of Insurance Money.] — A\'heie 
 au insured ship was lost, ami the insurance 
 money was recovered by the assignees of the 
 owner, who had become bankrupt : — Held, that 
 the seamen were entitled to be paid in full out 
 of the insurance monev. Dawson, In re, 1 
 Fonb. 229 ; 17 L. T. (o.s.) 100. 
 
 Owner and Master Bankrupt— Mate entitled 
 to Six Months' Wagas.^ — L'ndi r a liat against 
 the master and owner of a ship, the mate i.s 
 entitled to be paid six mouths' salary in full. 
 Hamborg, E^v purte, Mtidgitn, In re, 2 Mont. D. & 
 D. 642 ;11 L. J., Bk. 229 ; 4 Jur. 898. 
 
 When Left Behind by Own Negligence.] — 
 
 A seaman sliippcd luiilcr ail ides, by which he 
 agreed that he w<iuld s(.Mvo<)n voyages to certain 
 named places and liome to tlie final port of <hs- 
 charge of the ship, in consideration of which 
 services to be dul}' perfoinied the master agreed 
 to pay as wages a certain sum per calendar 
 month. He was left beliind at one of tlie place-* 
 at which the shij) sti)i)|)ed : and tlie jury fnuiid 
 that tliere was no desertion, l)Ut tliat lie hnd Ix'cii 
 guilty of drunkenness an<l al)iisive language, to 
 the subversion of discipline, and was left behind 
 through his own negligence : — Held, that he was 
 entitled to his wages up to the time of his being 
 left behind. Button v. Thorn pMn, 38 L. .!..(;. l*. 
 22.- ; L. K. 4 C. P. 330 ; 20 L. T. 568 ; 17 W. R. 
 1069. 
 
 Death before Termination of Voyage. 1 — A 
 seaman entered into articles to serve on board 
 the ship " R.," '• bound from the port of L. to the 
 S. S., to procure a cargo of s]iitiii oil, and to 
 return therewith to the port of L., where (he 
 voyage was to end": instead of wages he was 
 to receive a share of the net proceeds of the 
 cargo; and it was stipuLited that no one of the 
 crew .should "demand or be entitled to his share 
 of the net procee<ls of the cargo until the 
 arrival of the ship at L., atul her cargo should
 
 Ill 
 
 SHIPPING— YL Seamni. 
 
 112 
 
 be there sold and clelivcitd. aiul ilu' money for 
 the same actually received by the owners." A 
 cargo was jjrociircd, the ship was afterwards 
 condemned in a forei.<i;n port, and the mariner 
 accompanied part of the cargo on its homeward 
 voyage (it having been transhipped into another 
 vessel, the " A.''), but died at sea : — Held, that 
 ■• until" in the articles ■was a word of limitation 
 of the mariner's right to wages, and not of post- 
 ponement of payment of them merely ; and, 
 consequently, that as the ship did not return to 
 L.. the administrator of the mariner was not 
 entitled to recover his share of the net proceeds 
 of the "R.'s" cargo, but only to recover on a 
 (jitantum meriiit for his services on board the "A." 
 Jcsf^e V. Ro)/. 1 C. M. & R. 31G ; i Tyr. 626 ; 3 
 L. J.. Ex. 268. 
 
 If a sailor hired for a voyage takes a promis- 
 sory note fi'om his employer for a certain sitm, 
 provided he proceeds, continues and does his 
 duty on board for the voyage, and before the 
 arrival of the ship he dies, no wages can be 
 claimed, either on the contract or on a quantum 
 meruit. Ci/ttcr v. Powell, 6 Term Eep. 320 ; 3 
 R. R. 185. 
 
 Where a seaman dies on the voyage his repre- 
 sentatives are entitled to his wages up to his 
 death or last time for payment, according as 
 wages are pavable. lieale v. Tlionipson, i East, 
 546. 
 
 Seaman Carried on after Service Expired — 
 Damages.] — The plaintiff signed articles on 
 February 11, 18'J6, to serve on board a steamship 
 for a i)eriod not exceeding twelve months, and 
 he was to be discharged either in the United 
 Kingdom or on the continent between the Elbe 
 and Brest. On February 11, 1897, the date when 
 the contract expired, the steamship was at Aden, 
 whence she was to sail to Batoum. The plaintiff 
 applied for his discharge according to the terms 
 of the articles, but being refused he was taken 
 on board the steamei' to Port Said, from which 
 pjort he had to pay his passage home on another 
 vessel : — Held, that he was entitled to recover 
 the cost of his passage, his wages till arrival in 
 the United Kingdom, and the cost of his board 
 and lodging till he got a passage from Port Said. 
 Dunhlii \.'llastie, 61 J. P. 568. 
 
 Assignment of Wages.] — A seaman assigns 
 his wages as a security for money, and dies 
 indebted to other persons. The assignment 
 speciflcalh'' binds the wages, and the money 
 secured theieby shall be paid preferably to all 
 other debts. Croucli v. Martin, 2 Vern. 595. 
 
 A seaman assigned his wages to J. as a security 
 for a debt he owed to J., and died intestate ; it 
 was insisted that this was only an agreement in 
 nature of a letter of attorney, and determined 
 by the seaman's death, and that there were 
 bond debts. Decreed J. shall be paid in due 
 course of administration. Mitchell v. Edcs, 2 
 Vern. 391 ; Pre. Ch. 125. 
 
 Expense of bringing sick Seaman Home — 
 Deduction from Wages.] — A seaman who fi'om 
 bad food supplied on board ship fell sick has 
 received an injury in the service of the ship 
 within 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 228, sub-s. 1 ; and 
 the board of trade are not entitled to deduct 
 from wages received on his account the expenses 
 of bringing him home. Board of Trade (^Secre- 
 tary) \. Sundholm. 41 L. T. 469 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 196. 
 
 Seainan unable to do Duty.] — A seaman is 
 entitled to his whole wages though he has been 
 unable to render his service, if his inability has 
 proceeded either from a hurt received in the 
 performance of his duty, or from natural sick- 
 ness happening to him in the course of the 
 vovage. Chandler v. Grieves, 2 H. Bl. 606, u. ; 
 6 term Rep. 325, n. ; 3 R. R. 525. 
 
 Captain causing Men to refuse to work.] — 
 
 If a seaman's claim for wages is resisted on the 
 ground that he would not do his work, which by 
 the ship's articles is to cause forfeiture of wages, 
 it is a good answer to shew that the refusal to 
 work was caused by the misconduct of the 
 captain, which went to induce the men to incur 
 such forfeitures. Train v. Bennett, 3 Car. & P. 
 3 ; M. & M. 82. 
 
 Insurance of Wages.] — The seaman could not 
 (formerly) insure his wages. The Ladij Durham, 
 3 Hag. Adm. 196. 
 
 Wages Payable out of Proceeds of Wreck.] — 
 
 Where the mariners saved parts of their ship 
 after she had lieen wrecked they are entitled to 
 be paid their wages so far as the wreckage goes, 
 though no freight earned. The Xeptunr, 1 
 Hag. Adm. 227T S. P., The Ladij Biirham, 
 supra. 
 
 And similarly where the wreck is salved by 
 others. The Reliance, 2 W. Rob. 119. 
 
 Illegal Voyage.] — Claim for wages as mate 
 dismissed, the service being in contravention of 
 the slave trade acts. Ttie Vanqua rd, 6 C. Rob. 
 207. 
 
 Wages may be recovered from the master 
 though the vessel be forfeited for illegal trading 
 to which the mariners were not parties. The 
 Malta, 2 Hag. Adm. 158, n. 
 
 Deviation from agreed Voyage.] — Deviation 
 from the voyage agreed upon fiom accident or 
 overruling necessity does not entitle the mariner 
 to his discharge ; but a deviation of importance, 
 withoitt necessitv, does. The Eliza, 1 Hag. 
 Adm. 182 ; The 'Covntess of Harcovrt. lb. 248 ; 
 Tlie 3Hmrva, II). 347 ; Xlie Geurqe Holme, 11, 
 370. 
 
 The voyage was described in the articles as 
 from London to Madi'as and Calcutta and back 
 to London. The ship deviated from Madras, 
 going to Calctrtta by way of Prince of Wales 
 Island : — Held, that "the seaman was entitled to 
 his discharge at Madras, and that, although 
 remaining on board to Calcutta, where he de- 
 manded his discharge and refused work and left 
 the ship, he was entitled to wages up to leaving 
 the ship. The Cambridge, 2 Hag. Adm. 243. 
 
 Ship TJnseaworthy — Desertion of Crew.] — 
 
 If the ship is not seaworthy by icason of some 
 of the crew having deserted, the rest of the crew 
 are not bound to go to sea in her, and their 
 contract is at an end. ITrrtleii v. Punsonln/, 7 
 EL & Bl. 872 ; 26 L. J., Q. B. 322 ; 3 Jur. (N.S.) 
 746 ; 5 W. R. 659. 
 
 Seaworthiness — Warranty.] — When a seaman 
 signs articles at a foreign port there is an implied 
 warranty of seaworthiness, and if the ship is 
 unseaworthy there is consideration for a new- 
 contract for extra reward to induce him to sail 
 in her. Turner v. Owen, 3 F. & F. 176.
 
 113 
 
 SHIPPING— VI. Seamen. 
 
 114 
 
 Voyage abandoned — Ship Unseaworthy.^ — See 
 Eaken v. I'hoin, supra, col. 1U7. 
 
 Half Wages if Ship detained by Ice.] — A 
 
 ship's articles cmitained a clause to the effect 
 that if the ship should winter abroad ou accoimt 
 of ice the officers and seamen should receive half 
 wages during such detention. The ship went 
 '• seeking "'; the ice prevented her getting a cargo, 
 but notl'rom sailing without one ; she wintered 
 abroad : — Held, that the crew were entitled to 
 half waees only. The Hoghton, 3 Hag. Adm. 
 100. 
 
 Apprentice may sue for.] — An a]iprcntice is 
 entitled to sue the proceeds of the ship in which 
 he has served for wages due, under a general 
 apprenticeship to the owner, but not for 
 the penalty contained in the indenture for 
 lircach of the agreement. Tlte Allcrt Crushy, 
 Lush. 44. 
 
 Wages of Apprentice harboured in another 
 Ship. J — A. the master of an ajiprentict'. who. 
 being^ harboured by B. the master of another 
 ship, serves as a seaman on board her, may waive 
 the tort and sue B. for the services of the 
 apprentice. Foster v. I'iteivurt, 3 M. k. S. I'Jl ; 
 15 K. K. 459. 
 
 Termination of Contract.] — On the wreck of a 
 ship the seamen are bound to do their utmost to 
 save ship and cargo ; but the seamen's contract 
 of service may be terminated either by final 
 abandonment of the shij) or by a discharge given 
 by the master. The WuTvivr, Lush. 476 ; G 
 L. T. 133. 
 
 Forfeiture of Wages by Misconduct.] — Sfc 
 infra, cols. 12S scq. 
 
 b. Contract. 
 
 i. St tun J). 
 
 Under 55 Geo. 3, c. 184.]— Tlie jilaiiitiff and 
 the defendant being resident in England, and B. 
 at Havana, and the defendant being a foreign 
 agent, a written agreement was entered into by 
 tiie plaintilf with the ilefendant on behalf of B. 
 that the plaintiff would .serve as stoker on board 
 n steamer, about to leave London for Havana, in 
 the service of B. During the outward voyage, 
 rations were to be served out to the jjlaintiff on 
 account of B., the contiact to be in force for one 
 year: and shfmld the plaint iif be discharged 
 befoie tliat time, three months' wages were to 
 be paid in advance, besides finding him a 
 hoir.ewanl passage, I', bciiigat liberty to continue 
 tlie engagement or to discharge the plaintiff and 
 to find liim his pa.ssage back to JOngland, the 
 wages to be jiayable up to the day of t he plaintiff's 
 airival in Knglan<l, and unless he siiould be 
 discharged for misconduct, one month's pay to be 
 .nilvanceil for his outfit for tlie voyage : — Held, 
 lliat the agreement did not require a stamp, 
 being an airreement for tlie hire of a labourer. 
 
 W'ihiin v. Ziilvrtii, 14 (.^ B.. Ju.'i ; 1'.) L. J., Q. 15. 
 49; 14. J ur. HOC. 
 
 An agreement by a master of a ship to take 
 out a mariner to a forei'-'U i)ort, he working on 
 board, is within the above e.xemption, as heing 
 
 an agreement for the hire of a labourer. Corn- 
 fcrfit V. Uanube and Black Hca llij., 2 F. & F. 
 
 197. 
 
 ii. Form. 
 
 Statutory.] — The 5 & G Will. 4, c. 19, s. 2. 
 enacted that it shall not be lawful for any 
 master of a ship to carry to sea any seamen, 
 without first entering into an agreement, in 
 writing, specifying the wages, <S:c. The defen- 
 dant pleaded, to an action on a policy of insur- 
 ance, that the master had not entered into any 
 such agreement with the seamen, or any one of 
 them, wherefore the voyage was illegal : — Held, 
 that the non-compliance with the statute was no 
 answer to an action on a policy of insurance 
 effected on the ship, as it did not make the 
 voj^age itself illegal, or the vessel urseaworthy. 
 Bcdmond v. Smith, 7 Man. iV: G. 4..V : 8 Scott 
 (N.B.) 2.50 ; 13 L. J., C. B. 159 ; 8 Jur. 711. 
 
 Contract to Serve "in same Employ" — Trans- 
 fer to another Ship.] — A seaman, in March, 
 1854. shii)ped ou btiard a vessel called the '• Gustos,'' 
 to serve as steward, antl signed articles, asrequircil 
 by 13 & 14 Vict. c. 93. which professed to be an 
 agreement between the master and the several 
 persons whose names were thereto subscribed, at 
 'dl. per month wages, for a voyage '" from Liver- 
 pool to the west coast of Africa, to trade in any 
 ports, bays, or rivers therein, and back to a final 
 port of discharge in the United Kingdom, or for 
 a term not to exceed three years." The articles 
 contained the following ])rovision : '' The crew, 
 if required, to be transferred to any other ship 
 in tire same employ." After the "Gustos" 
 remained some time on the African coast, the 
 seaman, at the request of the captain, w.as trans- 
 ferred to another and larger vessel, engaged in 
 the same trade, called the " Dauntless," entering 
 into fresh articU'S with the master, under which 
 he was to receive wages at the rate of 4/. per 
 month. The " Dauntless" arrived in Liverpool 
 on the return voyage in June, 185G, when he 
 claimed wages at 4/. per month for the period 
 during which lie had served on board the 
 " Dauntless." The defendant refused to jiay him 
 at the increased rate, insisting that he was bound 
 by the original articles to serve on board any 
 ship "in the same employ" ; and he declined t«> 
 accept the sum mentioned in the original articles : 
 — ?Ield, first, tiiat llie articles were not invalid 
 for being, in the alternative " from Liveriioul to 
 the westicoast of Africa and back, or for a term 
 not to exceed three vcars." Frnzcr v. Iluiion. iJ 
 C. B. (N.S.) 512 ; 2G'L. J., C. B. 22G ; 3 Jur. (.\.s.) 
 G94, 
 
 Held, secondly, that tiic provision for Die 
 transfer of tlic crew to another vessel in the sarnie 
 employ, was not in contravention of tlie 13 A; 14 
 Vict. c. 93. Ih. 
 
 Held, thirdly, (hat the provision for transfer 
 was not limited lo a Iran-fcr of (he wliole crew 
 coJlcclively. but that llie articles constituted an 
 agreement between (lie owners and cacii of the 
 crew for liinisclf. and conscquendy, that he wan 
 bound to serve under the original articles, an<r 
 (iiere was therefore no consideration for the 
 master's promise to pay the increased wages. 
 Ih. 
 
 Execution before Consular Agent.] — Held, 
 last Iv, that the ciriMim-tanccs of the fresh articles 
 not having been e-\ccntcd in (he presence of » 
 consular agent, was not an objection to their 
 validity, provided they could have been set up. 
 Ih.
 
 115 
 
 SHIPPING— TI, Seamen. 
 
 116 
 
 No rate specified in Articles.] — Wngcs pro- 
 nounced for ; no rate being specified in the 
 articles. The Poroipine, 1 Hag. Adm. 378 ; 
 The Prince Georrjc, 3 Hag. Adm. 37G. 
 
 Custom in Slave Trade. 1 — Ships' articles arc 
 conclusive as to amount of mariners' wages. 
 Claim of a custom in the slave trade that the 
 mate is allowed to carry a slave disallowed. 
 The Isabella, 2 C. Eob. 241 : and see The Prince 
 FrcdericK 2 Hag. Adm. 394. 
 
 See also Turner v. Oicen, infra, col. 117 ; 
 Baiter v. Cresicell, infra, col. 117, as to contract 
 for further remuneration. 
 
 Currency — ConstructioninFavour of Seaman.] 
 
 — When, in a seaman's articles, it is covenanted 
 to pa}' wages in dollars, sterling and not currency 
 value' is to be assumed as intended, and the wages 
 are to be paid at the rate of 4.«. 2d. per dollar. 
 The Annie Sherwood, 12 L. T. 582 ; 13 W. E. G41, 
 965. 
 
 Where it was alleged that there was a specific 
 covenant in seamen's articles, duly read over and 
 explained to the crew, that the wages when due 
 should be payable in United States currency or 
 its equivalent : — Held, that the court would not 
 enforce such a condition against the seamen, 
 from the fact of its being contrary to equity and 
 justice, and an imposition on them. Ih. 
 
 JVhere the amount of wages due to a seaman 
 under his contract was greatly lessened by a 
 depreciation of the currency at the date of his 
 claim, and it did not appear at what rate such 
 wages were to be calculated, the court con- 
 strued the uncertain contract most strongly in 
 favour of the seamen, and allowed him wages at 
 the fullest rate. The JVonjutreil, 33 L. J,, Adm. 
 201. 
 
 iii. Division of Profits. 
 
 Consideration for." — Where an agreement was 
 entered into between the captain and the 
 mariners, whereby, in consideration of their 
 faithfully serving in a fishing voyage to the 
 South Seas and back, they were each to receive 
 a certain share of the net proceeds of the cargo 
 brought home, and the owner was appointed 
 agent to dispose of the cargo for the benefit of 
 all concerned : — Held, that an action would not 
 lie against him by one of the mariners to recover 
 his sliare of the net proceeds, on proof that the 
 defendant had sold the cargo, and that the price 
 of it had come to his hands, unless an admission 
 of faithful services could be proved. Ecans v. 
 Bennett, 1 Camp. 300. 
 
 Sailor not a Partner.] — If a sailor engages on 
 a whaling voyage, and is to receive a certain 
 proportion of the profits of the voyage in lieu of 
 wages, when the cargo is sold he may maintain 
 an action for his wages against the captain, and 
 he will not be considered as a partner. Wilkin- 
 son V. Frasier, 4 Esp. 182. 
 
 iv. Additional Waqes. 
 
 "What is sufficient Consideration.] — No action 
 will lie at the suit of a sailu:- on a promise of 
 the captain to pay him extra wages in considera- 
 tion of his doing more than his ordinary share of 
 navigating the ship. Harris v. Watson, Peake, 
 102 : 3 R. E. 654. 
 
 Where a seaman signed articles containing 
 
 the following provision : " The crew, if required, 
 to be transferred to any other ship in the same 
 employ " ; and after serving for a certain period 
 on one vessel was shipped by the captain's 
 desire on another vessel engaged in the same 
 trade, under which he was to receive further 
 remuneration : — Held, on the refusal of the defen- 
 dant to pay him at the higher rate, that there 
 was no consideration for i lie master's promise to 
 pay increased wages, and that there was no 
 neglect or refusal on the part of the defendant, 
 so as to render him liable to the penalty imposed 
 by 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 187. Frazer v. Ilatton, 
 2 C. B. (N.s.) 512 ; 26 L. J., C. P. 226 ; 3 Jur. 
 (X.S.) 61)4 ; 5 W. E. 632. 
 
 Where Ship Undermanned.] — A ship being on 
 a voyage from L. to P. and back, when in port 
 at P. became so short-handed that it was dan- 
 gerous to life to proceed with only the reduced 
 crew ; the captain, being unable to procure 
 additional hands, voluntarily promised the remain- 
 ing seamen, who were under articles for the 
 whole voyage, an additional sum if they would 
 assist in taking the ship to her next port : — 
 Held, that the seamen were not bound to pro- 
 ceed on the voyage, as it involved risk of life, 
 and that the promise was therefore binding on 
 the captain. Hartley v. Ponsonhy, 7 El. & Bl. 
 872 : 26 L. J., Q. B. 322 ; 3 Jur. (N.S.) 746 ; 5 
 W. R. 659. 
 
 The plaintiff and other seamen had entered 
 into articles of agreement to serve for a voyage 
 from Liverpool to Melbourne and home. At 
 Melbourne several of the crew deserted, and one 
 of the crew was discharged by the captain. 
 Whilst the desertion was going on, the captain 
 entered into a fresh agreement with the plaintiff' 
 and the other remaining seamen, to raise their 
 wages for the remainder of the voyage : — Held, 
 that he never was, under the circumstances, 
 released from the obligation of the original 
 articles, and could not, therefore, maintain an 
 action to recover the increased rate of wages for 
 the voyage home. Harris v. Carter. 3 El. & Bl. 
 559 : 2 C. L. R. 1582 ; 23 L. J., Q. B. 295 ; 18 
 Jur. 1014 ; 2 W. E. 409. 
 
 Ship TJnseaworthy.] — See Turner v. 
 
 Owen, supra, col. 112. 
 
 Promise to pay Seamen higher "Wages — "Want 
 of Consideration.] — In the course of a voyage 
 some of the seamen deserted, and the captain 
 not being able to find others to fill their places 
 promised to divide the wages which would have 
 become due to them amongst the remainder of 
 the crew : — Held, that the promise was void for 
 want of consideration. Stilh v. Myriclt, 2 Camp. 
 317; 11 E. E. 717. 
 
 Semble, a promise by the master to pay 
 seamen extra wages for extra work in the ship 
 is void as against public policy. Harris v. 
 Wat.wn, Peake, Gas. 102 : 3 E. E.654. 
 
 The plaintiff, at the request of a captain in 
 the royal navy, agreed to enter on board his ship 
 as captain's cook, he undertaking to pay the 
 plaintiff over and above the government pay to 
 which his rating would entitle him. The plaintiff 
 having performed the service : — Held, that there 
 was a sufficient consideration to enable the plaintiff 
 to maintain an action for s-ucli wages. Clvtter- 
 Imck V. Coifin, 4 Scott (N.E.) 509 : 1 D. (n.s.) 
 479 : Car. k M. 273 ; 3 Man. & G. 842 : 11 L. J., 
 C. P. 65 ; 6 Jur. 131.
 
 11'; 
 
 SHIPPING— YL Seamen. 
 
 118 
 
 A mariner, who has signed articles for a voyage 
 at a certain pay per month, cannot claim any 
 further wages or gratuity by usage or custom. 
 Elsworth T. Woolinore, 5 Esp. 84. 
 
 Where a sailor sued for wages due ixnder the 
 ship's articles, and also for the average price of 
 a negro slave, lor which there was ouly a parol 
 agreement with the captain, and which was not 
 mentioned in the articles : — Held, that the con- 
 tract for the slave was void, as being in fact a 
 promise to pay further wages. White v. Wilson. 
 2 Bos. & P. 116. 
 
 Master may bind Owners to pay.] — The 
 master may bind the owners to pay a seaman 
 employed to do other duties, as those of a steward, 
 a higher rate of wages. Il'tchs \. Walker, -1 
 W. E. 511. 
 
 Death of Master — Mate succeeding to com- 
 mand — Power to alter Eating of Seamen.] — 
 
 Where, in consequence of the death of the captain 
 during the voyage, the chief mate becomes 
 captain, the latter has authority to appoint a 
 seaman to the post of second mate with the 
 wages of such : and a contract to that effect is 
 binding on the owners, notwithstanding no 
 alteration is made in the articles under which 
 the seaman shipped. Hanmn v. Royden. 37 
 L. J., C. P. GC ; L. E. 3 C. P. 47 ; 17 L. T. 214 ; 
 16 W. E. 205. 
 
 Ship's Articles.] — Semble. if the master 
 
 dies on tlie voyage, and the chief mate succeeds 
 him in the command, the crew is bound by the 
 ship's articles, though such chief mate is a 
 foieigner. Itfnno v. Beniwtt. 3 G. & D. 54 ; 3 
 q. 15^768; 12 L. .J.. Q. B. 17. 
 
 Articles conclusive as to Rating.] — A seaman 
 entered ou the articles as sucli held to be pre- 
 cluded fiom claiming additional pay for services 
 given in another capacity. Dafter v. Cn-KSicell, 
 7 D. 6c R. 11 ; 2 Car. k P. 161 ; 2'J R. E. 469. 
 
 V. Allowance for Short Prnv'i-siomt. 
 
 When Granted.] — Owing to the unexpected 
 length of a voyage, the crew of a vessel had been 
 jfut upon sliort allowance. They were allowed 
 conijicnsation under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. s. 223. 
 The Joncphine, tjwabey, 152 ; 2 Jiir. (>-.S.) 148. 
 
 vi. Advance Xote. 
 
 Liability — Condition.] — A captain gave one 
 of the seamen an a<lvance note in the following 
 form : "Ten days after the ship • Atldone' sails 
 from the jtort at Liverpool, the undersigned does 
 ])roniise and agree to pay to any p^•I■son who 
 shall a<lvancc to Reuben Hill on tliis ngicuinent, 
 lliesum of G/., provided Reul)en Mill sliall sail 
 in the sliip from the port of Liverpool." An 
 outfitter gave the seaman in exi;liange for the 
 note 'M. iis. in cash, and 21. lox. w.miIi of wearing 
 apparel ; l>ut he stated, that if he had .advanced 
 the wliole in cash, he would have charged a 
 discount of 7J per cent. The .seaman having 
 sailed witli the vessel :— Held, that the con- 
 dition upon which the liolder was entitled to 
 sue the maker was fulfilled l)y giving the sea- 
 man the amount in money atid nn>noy"s worth. 
 Mr Kline v. Joi/nnon. 5 C. B. (N.s.~) 218 ; 28 L. J., 
 <;. P. 133 ; 4 jur. (N.S.) 700 : G W. U. G58. 
 
 Assignment.] — See Bellamy v. Lunn, post, col. 
 12G. 
 
 vii. Jurisdiction to Set Aside Unreasonalle 
 Contracts. 
 
 Ships' articles are conclusive as to the amount 
 of wages and the voyage ; ou collateral points the 
 court of admiralty may cousiiler how far the}' 
 are reasonable and just. Therefore, a clause pro- 
 viding that if contraband goods were found in the 
 forecastle, the seamen living therein should forfeit 
 their wages and 10^., is not conclusive to work a 
 forfeiture of wages against those not proved to 
 be guilty of the offence. The penalty cannot 
 be enforced in admiralty. The Prince I'rederich,' 
 2 Hag. Adm. 3'J4. 
 
 Contract that if a ship miscarries party shall 
 lose his wages is unreasonable. £ast India Co. 
 V. Athijns, 1 Comyn, 348. 
 
 The captain of a ship on an cutward-bottnd 
 voyage, takes bonds from his seamen to himself 
 in 200/. penalty, conditioned, that they shall not 
 demand any wages until the ship arrives in the 
 port of London. The ship is lost, and the sea- 
 men sue the captain for their wages : — Held, that 
 those bonds were unjust and void in law. Buck 
 V. Raiclinson, 1 Bro. P. C. 138. 
 
 East India Company'- takes bond from the 
 mariners and officers of the ships, &c., not to 
 demand their wages unless the ship returned to 
 the port of London. The ship arrives at a 
 delivery port, and is afterwards taken by the 
 French. The seamen and officers shall have 
 their wages to the time of the arrival of the ship 
 at the delivery port. Edwards v. Child, 2 Vern. 
 727. 
 
 A covenant that no wages to be payable unless 
 the ship arrives at the last port of discharge, was 
 not upheld in admiralty\ The Juliana, 2 Dods. 
 501. 
 
 viii. Dis.s'liition. 
 
 Contract determined by War— Foreign Warship 
 —Declaration of War — Wages.] — Shipbuilders 
 in this coinitry contiaiti; 1 wiiii u foreign govern- 
 ment to buil<l a warsliip and deliver it abroad to 
 the foreign purcliaseis. lu pur.-u;>nce of this 
 contract the shipbuilders contracted in writing 
 with the defendant that he should as cajitain 
 take out the ship to the purchasers at a fixed 
 rate of pay. Thetlefendaut engaged the plaint itf 
 to serve as one of his crew for a lump sum for 
 the voyage. During the voyage tlic foreign pur- 
 chasers declaied war upon a foreign power. 
 After the declaratj.in oi war, and during th<' 
 voyage, the [daintiff left the ship and smd th>' 
 defendant for the wliole of the sum agreed to l-c 
 paid him for the voyage :— Held, that h.' was 
 entitled to recover tlie wliolc sum. upon (In- 
 ground that the defendant had iM-'ld liiniself out 
 as the agent of the foreign puichaser.s, wlio by 
 tiieir declaration of war liad altered tlie risks of 
 the vovage. OX'ril v. Arnistrom/, Mifrhrll S' <-0., 
 (•,:, L.'j:. Q. B. 7: [18'.)5] 2 (). B. 418; 14 \i. 
 700; 73 L. T. 178— C. A. AHirniing 43 W. E. 
 554. 
 
 Seaman sent home as Witness.]— Th(.- idaintilT 
 was hired as a in:iiiii''r oil bo;inl .-i ship for a 
 specific vovagi'. lu Ih'' coiiise of the voyage he 
 was obliged to leave the ship, and wa.s sent to 
 England by autlioritv of a P.iitish eon'*u1, under 
 7 & 8 Vict. c. 112. ss. 5'.). GO, and 13 & 14 Vict. 
 c. 93, as a witness on a trial of a [lerson for an 
 offence committed on Die liigli seas :— HeM, that 
 this operated as a dissolution of tin- eoiit met, and 
 that he could not recover any wiLr.'ssub-.- pi'Mitl -
 
 119 
 
 SHIPPING— YI. Seamen. 
 
 120 
 
 to the period '.vlicii he was sent to En^rlaiid. 
 Melvilh- V. De Wolfe, 4 El. & Bl. 84i : 2t J.. J.. 
 Q. B. 200 ; 3 C. L.R. 960 ; 1 Jur. (N.s.) 758 ; :5 
 W. K. 401. 
 
 C. Lien ; Priorities. 
 
 Wages are Lien on Ship and Freight.] — Sea- 
 men's wages arc a lieu uikhi tlie ship mul freir,dit ; 
 and are generally entitled to jiriority. T/ie Louisa 
 Bertha, 14 Jur. iOOG : The Lad ii Durham, 3 Hag. 
 Adm. 190 : The Llmlo Flor, 'Swabey, 309 ; ^4 
 Jur. (N.s.) 172 ; W. E. 197, infra. 
 
 Lien not lost by Sale of Ship.] — It is not 
 destroyed by sale to a purchaser without notice. 
 ITie Batavla, 2 Dods. 500. 
 
 Lien Enforced.] — A deci'ce for wages and costs 
 against freight and master enforced against the 
 ship, upon her coming to this country. TIlc 
 Jlarnaret, 3 Hag. Adm. 238. 
 
 Voyage not proceeded upon.] — Seamen engaged 
 liy the iiwners or tlieir agent for a voyage upon 
 a foreign-going ship, which does not proceed upon 
 the voyage, are entitled to a lien for their wages 
 upon the ship, and the proceeds of sale thereof, 
 although the engagement of the seamen has not 
 been in writing. Great Eastern Steamship Co., 
 In re, Willlains' Claim, 53 L. T. 594 ; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 511. 
 
 Lien on Freight — Sub-Charter. ] — Seamen 
 have a maritime lien on freight due from sub- 
 charterers to the charterers of a ship, and can 
 arrest the cargo for the purpose of enforcing 
 such lien. The AiiiluHiia, infi'a, col. 120. 
 
 No Lien on Cargo.] — The seamen's lien is only 
 on shi[i and tieight, not on cargo ; althougli 
 insurances may have been effected upon ship and 
 cargo. The L:((]y Durham, 3 Hag. Adm. 196 ; 
 Thomas v. Tohin, 3 Hag. Adm. 197, n. 
 
 Wages prior to Mortgage Debt.] — Wages are 
 ])ayable ijefoi'e the mortgage debt. The Prince 
 George, 3 Hag. Adm. 376. 
 
 Wages and Subsistence Money prior to 
 Bottomry.] — Mariners' wages, witlr subsistence 
 money where necessary, take precedence of a 
 bottomry bond. The Sydnei/ Cove, 2 Dods. 13 ; 
 The Madonna D'Idra, 1 Dods. 37. 
 
 A wages claim is preferred to a bottomry bond 
 previously pronounced for, the bond having been 
 given before the wages were earned. The Wil- 
 liam F. Saford, Lush. 69 ; 29 L. J., Adm. 109: 
 2 L. T. .301. 
 
 A claim by a person having paid wages to a 
 ship's crew, at the request of the master, on 
 account of a ship is in the nature of a wages 
 claim, and entitled to the same priority. Ih. 
 
 There is no distinction in their right of prece- 
 dence to a bottomry bond batween seamen's 
 wages earned antecedently, and those earned 
 subsequently to the execution of the bond. The 
 Union, Lush. 128 ; 30 L. J., Adm. 17 ; 3 L. T. 
 280. 
 
 Foreign Ship— "Viaticum.] — The master and 
 crew nf a fiiriMgii ship ai-rested in this country 
 are entitled to priority over a bottomry boiKl- 
 holder in respect of their expenses home. Tlie 
 Constaiwia,, 15 W. R. 183. 
 
 When a foreign ship is under arrest, and no 
 aiipearance is entered for her, the court will 
 allow the payment of wages and viaticum out of 
 freight in the hands of a plaintiff in a bottomry 
 suit, and order the discharge of the crew, although 
 there is no suit instituted for their wages. Tlie 
 Bridgwater, 37 L. T. 366 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 506. 
 
 Wages postponed to damage Lien.] — A vessel 
 had been pronounced liable for damage resulting 
 from a collision ; wages were due to the crew of 
 the damaged ship. The proceeds of the sale of 
 the ship doing the damage were not sufficient to 
 satisfy both claims : — Held, that the wages were 
 not entitled to priority. The Linda Flor, 
 Swabey, 309 ; 4 Jur. (N.s.) 172 ; 6 W. E. 197. 
 S. P., The Chivuera, 4 Jur. (n.s.) 172. 
 
 Suit for seamen's wages against the proceeds 
 of the ship condemned and sold in a collision 
 suit, and which were insufficient to satisfy the 
 damage claimant, dismissed upon the ground 
 that they coidd be recovered elsewhere. The 
 Duna, 5 L. T. 217. 
 
 Mortgage Debt.] — -The owners of a vessel who 
 have recovered juilgment against another ship in 
 an action for damage by collision have a prior 
 right against the proceeds of such ship to seamen 
 who have recovered judgment against the same 
 ship for wages earned before and after the 
 collision. The Elin, 52 L. J., Adm. 55 ; 8 P. D. 
 129 ; 49 L. T. 87 ; 31 W. E. 736 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 120— C. A. 
 
 Master's Guarantee.]— While a master's lien 
 for wages against his ship takes precedence of an 
 ordinary claim by mortgagees, it docs not take 
 priority of any part of the mortgage debt, the 
 payment of which the master has personally 
 guaranteed to the mortgagees. The Bangor 
 Castle, 74 L. T. 768 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 150. 
 
 Seamen's Wages prior to Master's Wages 
 and Disbursements. J — Seamen are entitled to 
 their wages in priority to the master's claim, 
 either for his own wages or for advances made by 
 him in ijayment of the seamen's wages. Tlie 
 Salucia, 32 L. J., Adm. 41 ; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 27 ; 7 
 L. T. 440 ; 11 W. E. 189. 
 
 Wages prior to Possessory Lien.] — Mariners 
 have ijriority for wages over persons with a 
 possessory common law lien up to the time of 
 the beginning of such lien, and they are entitled 
 to subsistence money from the time they leave 
 the ship to the time they return home ; this and 
 the expenses of the journey home, and the costs 
 of the action, rank with their prior wages. The 
 Immucolata Conee:ione, 53 L. J., Adm. 19 ; 9 
 P. D. 37 ; 50 L. T. 539 ; 32 W. II. 705 : 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 208. 
 
 The master and seamen nest after the salvor 
 take precedence of the shipwright for wages 
 earned before their ship comes into the ship- 
 wright's hands. If foreigners, they are also 
 entitled, in addition to such wages, to a sufficient 
 sura to take them back to their own countrj'. 
 'Ihe Gustaf, Lush. 506 ; 31 L. J., Adm. 207 ;"G 
 L. T. 660. " 
 
 Wages prior to Towage Lien.] — The lien of 
 seamen for wages ranks Ijcfore a claim in respect 
 of payments fur the tnwage of the ship from sea 
 to an inland port, and the light dues and dock 
 dues. The Andalina, 12 P. D. 1 ; 56 L. T. 171 ;
 
 121 
 
 SHIPPING— VI. Seamen. 
 
 122 
 
 3."; \V. K. ?>?>C, : C A-]., il. C. 02. But see as to 
 towage, iiifia. XIX. Towage 
 
 V/ages prior to Necessaries Lien." 
 1'.) L. r. 70.-.. 
 
 'The Queen. 
 
 Expenses of Sending Home — Solicitor's Lien 
 — Priority.] — S(>li,-itors fnr (IcfcnilaiUs in a 
 salvage actio-i against a foreig'i ship, who are 
 entitled to a cliaigo upon the sliip, or the pro- 
 ceeds thereof, for t'neir costs and expenses in- 
 curred in the prccrvation of the property, do 
 not take priority of the claim of the foreign 
 government, who, on the abandonment of the 
 ship by her ov/ners. are entitled, by the provisions 
 of their code, to a lien upon the ship, or the 
 proceeds, for the expenses of sending back the 
 ship's crew to their own country. An Italian 
 ship was brought into a British port by salvors. 
 A salvage action having been instituted, the ship 
 ■was sold by order of the court, and a sum was 
 awarded out of the proceeds to the salvois. 
 After payment of that sum, and the costs of the 
 plaintiffs, a balance of (!<■'. lU.v. 'M. remained in 
 court. The defendants' solicitors had incurred 
 expenses in pumping the ship, paying tlie 
 marshal's possession fees, &c., and claimed a 
 charging order upon the sum in court for such 
 ■expenses, ami sought payment out of s'icli balance 
 to them. The Italian government, through their 
 consul in this countr}', had sent liome the crew 
 of the sliip, and had incurred expenses by so 
 doing. By Italian law such last-mentioned 
 cxjicnses are a lien upon the ship. The Italian 
 consul opposed payment out to the defendants' 
 .scjlicitors, and claimed pr'ority for the lien of 
 the Italian government : — Held, that the I'.alian 
 government was entitled to sueli prioiitv. The 
 "Lirtetffi. ->2 L. J.. Adui. 81 ; 8 P. D. 2n;) ; 49 L. T. 
 ■Ill; 5 Asp. M. C. 4.-.I. 
 
 d. Recovery of Wages. 
 
 i. 117/.; Li.ihie. 
 
 Charterer or Owner— Allotment Note of Sea- 
 mcn.j — By the Merchant Shipping Act, 18.")I, 
 (17 i: 18 Vict. c. 104), s. lOM. the wife of any 
 seaman in wliosc favour an allotment note of 
 {jart of his wages is made, may recover by sum- i 
 niary pio'ciiurc the sum allotted, willi costs. ' 
 from the owner oi- any agent who li.'is autlioiiseil 
 the (hawing of tlie note. Tlic registered ownei- 
 ■of a ship cntc;eil inio a chartei'party, by whicli 
 lie demised the sliip to the cliarterer for a stipu- 
 lited peiioil, and paricil with all control over it. 
 lie took possession of On; sliip. anri ajipointed a 
 master, wlio engaged \V. as one of the crew, and 
 gave liis wife an allotment noti', allotting and 
 1-e'liiiriiig the clKirtei-iT to pay iicr (J/, monthly 
 out of her liiisljiiiid's wages. The charterer 
 liaving become insolvent : — Held, tliat tlie seel ion 
 dill not, under the circninslances, make the regis- 
 tered owiiijr liable to pav the arrears due under 
 the note. J/ei/.leniil v." MV.v/. 4.-. L. .1.. M. C. Itl : 
 1 Q. B. I). 42.S ; 3i L. T. liV, ; 24 W. 11. 7o;5 ; H 
 
 Asp. M. <;. 12;). 
 
 On Change of Ownership.] — Where a change 
 of owneisliip in a British vessel lakes place l)y 
 sale in this country whilst she is in a foreign 
 port, the contiact under which the ciew shipped 
 is (rpioad the new owner) at an end ; but if one 
 ■of the crew continues to serve on board the vessel 
 at the request of an agent of the new owner 
 
 without entering into any fresh articles, and 
 afterwards, and before the termination of tiu! 
 contemplated vo3"age. quits with the eonscnt of 
 the ca[)tain appointed by the new owner, he may 
 recover wages pro rata against such new owner. 
 Rol'ins V. P,iwcr, 4 C. B. (N.S.) 778; 27 L. .1., 
 0. P. 2.57 ; 4 Jur. (N.S.) 810. 
 
 Against Master.] — The seamen may recover 
 their wages against the master. The Sidtwi//. ;i2 
 L. J., Adm. -il : I) Jur. (X.S.) 27 ; 7 L. T. 410 : 
 IIW. E. 189. 
 
 During a voyage the ship -was wrecked, and 
 the captain gave the mariners an order upon the. 
 owners for the amount of their wages to the ilate 
 of the wreck, acknowledging, at the same time, 
 that he had hired them by the month : — Held, 
 that, under these circumstances, no action for 
 wages could be maintained by the mariners 
 against the captain, at least without proving 
 that they had first made a demand uiion the 
 owners. Forxhoum v. Krvgor, 3 Camp. 197. 
 
 The owners of a ship let it out to freight, and 
 by the charterparty it was agreed, that no freight 
 should be paid to the owners until six ilays after 
 the ship should return to the port of London, and 
 make a full delivery of her lading, but the master 
 might detain the imiMcst money : and if the sliij) 
 should be lost in her voyage, the master and 
 owners should not expect any other satisfaction 
 than the imprest money for the freight and 
 demurrage of the ship. The ship was lost; and 
 upon a question who was liable to jiay the sea- 
 men's wages : — Held, that the master was liaMe 
 in the lirst instance, as having hireil them. l>ut 
 that he h.ad his lenicdy against the owners. 
 Buck V. Ituwlinxoii, 1 Bio. P. C. 1:58. 
 
 King'3 Ship— Purss:-.]— .V purser's steward on 
 board a kings ship oaimot I'ecover wages fmin 
 tiie purser upon an im|ilied contract for his 
 services a'^; sucli stewaid on boaid the ship. 
 Carter v. IML 2 Sti.rk. 3G1. 
 
 Owner on Register not Owner in Fact.] — 
 
 Owner on rrgisicr not li;il)le lor wa'^es. if n'>t 
 owner in fact. Jiufrh/ord v. MeadiHi's, 3 E-p. (i9. 
 
 Mortgagee not in Possession.] — Mortgagee 
 not ill pi.ssission is iml lialde tor wages. Aniu'lt 
 V. Cirxtriirx. 3 tJanip. 3ri4. 
 
 Part Owners.] — Some of the mariners may sue 
 some of the pait owners for wages : but smilile 
 in admiralty ihi? part owners are lialili' only pro 
 rata. .l//r.«<'// v. JA//'.vA, 2 Vent. isi. 
 
 Action when brought— Before Proper Time.] 
 — Where a seaman is leslricled by llie ship'H 
 arlicli.'S from demamling his wages until tin; 
 expiration of tweiily <lays afli-r the ship's arrival 
 at her riestineil port ;ui<l the delivery of her 
 cargo:— Held, that although the seaman had 
 (!oiiinieneed his action before the expiration of 
 the iMciily days, he might still recover a sum 
 which the captain had arliiiitted to be due lo him 
 for wa-jes. and wlii<;li he had olTer'-il to pav him. 
 W'hife V. Mill limn, 2 Stark. 32.".. 
 
 Action brought after accountitig to Greenwich 
 Hospital.] — Wliere Ihe captain had, und'i^ 37 
 Geo. 3, c. 73. ai'i'oiinted upon oath to the collec- 
 tor foi' the wages of a decease<l seaman, and paid 
 the same to Greenwich Hospital, the representa- 
 tives of such seaman niav still sue the inaster for
 
 123 
 
 SHIPPING— VI. Seamen. 
 
 124 
 
 anv waffcs bcvoiul the sum so paid. Anndrong 
 V. 'Smith. 1 Bus. & P. (N.K.) 2yi». 
 
 Against Ship and Freight or Owner.] — The 
 admiralty couit has no power to restrain seamen 
 from proceedingagainst the ship and freight for 
 their wages, or to compel them to sue the owner ; 
 although the result may be to prejudice a holder 
 of a bottomry bond on ship and freight. The 
 Aral). 4 Jiir. (N.s.) 417. 
 
 Wages Earned after Action brought.] — A 
 
 seaman who brings a snit in rem for the recovery 
 of his wages cannot have a decree for wages or 
 subsistence money after the date of the com- 
 mencement of his suit, although he is retained in 
 the service of the ship by the master ; but he will 
 be entitled to an allowance in the way of costs 
 for detention and subsistence money from the 
 date of the institution of the suit to the date 
 of the decree. The Carolina, 34 L. T. 399 ; 3 Asp. 
 M. C. 141. See The Constancia, supra, col. 119 ; 
 The Hrldfjwater, supra, col. 120. 
 
 ii. Right to Sne Barred. 
 
 Made Abroad.] — If foreign sailors stipulate, in 
 their own country, before the commencement of 
 a voyage, that they will not sue the captain for 
 any money abroad, but be satisfied with what he 
 may advance them in deduction of their wages 
 till they return home, they cannot maintain an 
 action against him for wages in the courts of this 
 countrv. Johnson y. Machiclsne. 3 Camp. 44 ; 13 
 K. E. 745. 
 
 Even though the ship and cargo are confiscated 
 in an English port, and the voyage thereby 
 ended. Glcnar \. Jlei/er, 2 H. Bl. 603 ; 3 E. K. 520. 
 
 Made with Part Owner.] — Where a seaman, 
 about to proceed on a trading voyage, entered 
 into and signed articles, whereby he agreed not 
 to site for wages any of the owners, except one, 
 who was the captain, and who alone was a party 
 to the articles : — Held, that he could not sue 
 the other owners, although they sold and received 
 the proceeds of the cargo, and one of them, the 
 managing owner, adjusted the wages, and settled 
 with the seamen. M'AuUf v. JJichneJl, 2 C. 
 M. & E. 2G3 ; 1 Gale, 232 ; 5 Tyr. 1035 ; 4 L. J., 
 Ex. 225. 
 
 Contract not to Sue before Voyage Ended.] — 
 A seaman cannot maintain assumpsit for re- 
 covery of wages pro rata, where he has contracted 
 to serve on a voyage to A. and back, and that no 
 wages should be payable until the end of the 
 voyage, although he was wrongfully dismissed at 
 A. bv" the master. JIullex. ihightman, 2 East, 
 145: 4 Esp. 75. And see White v. Mattison, 
 supra, col. 122 : BucTi v. Baidinson, anH Cases 
 supra, col. 118. 
 
 Eight to Sue on Wrongful Dismissal.] — 
 AVhere seamen were not to be entitled to their 
 wages until the voyage was ended, and that 
 voyage was to a foreign port, and the master, for 
 no good or legal cause, dismissed a seaman before 
 the ship's arrival at such port : — Held, that such 
 seaman might immediately maintain an action 
 for his wages. Sigard v. Itolerts, 3 Esp. 72. 
 
 Statute of Limitations.] — Semble, a suit for 
 seamen's wages is not within 21 Jac. 1, c. 16. 
 Hgde v. Partridge, 2 Ld. Eaym. 1204. 
 
 iii. Foreign Seamen or Shij). 
 
 Foreign Ship.] — The court of admiralty has 
 jurisdiction to entertain a suit for wages against 
 a foreign ship, the words of the 24 & 25 Vict. 
 c. 10, s. 10, being '• any " ship ; but the court 
 ought not to exercise jurisdiction without first 
 giving notice to the consul of the nation to which 
 such ship beloncrs. The SVina. 37 L. J., Adm. 17 ; 
 L. E. 2 P. C. 38 ; 17 L. T. 585 ; 5 Moore, P. C. 
 (N.s.) 60. 
 
 The protest of a foreign consul does not ipso 
 facto operate as a liar to the prosecution of the 
 suit : but the court ought to determine accord- 
 ing to its discretion, judicially exercised, whether, 
 having regard to the reasons advanced by the 
 consul, and the answers offered on behalf of a 
 claimant, it is fit and proper that the suit should 
 proceed or be stayed. lb. 
 
 A British subject having shipped on board a 
 Portuguese ship as mate, and having signed an 
 agreement to be bound by the law of Portugal, 
 which required hhn to submit all differences 
 between the master and seamen to the Portuguese 
 consul, arrested the ship, and instituted a suit 
 against the owners in the court of admiralty in 
 England for wages, whereupon the Portuguese 
 consul entered a protest against the proceedings : 
 — Held, that the suit ought to be dismissed and 
 the ship released, but without costs. lb. 
 
 Quffire, whether 17 & IS Vict. c. 104, s. 189 
 applies to a claim for wages earned on board an 
 American ship. Burns v. Chapman., 5 C. B. 
 (x.s.) 481 ; 28 L. J., C. P. 6 ; 5 Jur. (x.s.) 19 ; 
 7 W. E. 89. 
 
 Tn an action for wages and wrongful dismissal 
 brought by persons domiciled in England against 
 a foreign ship, in which they had served under 
 articles signed in a port of the country to which 
 the ship belonged, in which action imprisonment, 
 hardship, and ill-treatment were alleged, the 
 court refused to interfere with the discretion 
 of the judge below in declining to exercise juris- 
 diction against the protest of the consul, which 
 alleged that, by the law of the country to which 
 the ship belonged, all disputes relating to the 
 ship, or claims against the owner or master, were 
 to be referred to and decided by the tribunals 
 or consuls of that country. The Leon XIII., 
 Wardro}} v. Leon XIII. (^Owners). 52 L. J., Adm. 
 58 ; 8 P. D. 121 ; 48 L. T. 770 ;' 31 W. E. 882 ; 
 5 Asp. M. C. 73— C. A. 
 
 When a ship has been sold in a cause in which 
 no appearance has been entered, and the pro- 
 ceeds remain in the registry, all preliminary 
 proceedings in a cause of wages may be waived, 
 and the money due paid out of court. The 
 Juliana, 35 L. T. 410 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 264. 
 
 The court will not pay the money to a foreign 
 consul at his request, but will require the solicitor 
 of the parties to satisfy any claims the consul 
 may have before receiving the money. lb. 
 
 A Prussian seaman sued the master and owner 
 of the Prussian ship for wages in an admiralty 
 action in the court of session. The ship had 
 been arrested : — Held, that the action being for 
 less than 20Z. did not lie. Bruhn y. Grwacaldt, 
 2 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 335. 
 
 Discretion of Court.] — The discretion of 
 
 the admiralty court as to entertaining an action 
 by foreign seamen against a foreign ship against 
 which the foreign consul has entered a protest 
 may be exercised on the motion of the defendant
 
 125 
 
 SHIPPING— YI. Seamen. 
 
 126 
 
 not ;vithstancling his absolute appearance. Tlte 
 Oheriurgoiuelster von Wi7iter, IS "\V. E. Ho. 
 
 What Law applicable.] — The claim of a f oreira 
 seaman on board a foreign ship to wages to be 
 decided by the law of the ship's fas:. 2'he Joliann 
 Frederich, 1 W. Rob. 37. 
 
 Foreign Consul.] — The admiralty will enter- 
 tain a suit against a foreign ship for the wages 
 of her crew being foreigners, provided the repjre- 
 sentative of the foreign state consents ; but 
 municipal laws of the foreign state will not be 
 enforced. The Courtney. Edw. 239. 
 
 The court of admiralty has jurisdiction to 
 entertain a suit for wages promoted by foreign 
 seamen against a foreign ship. The consent of 
 the foreign minister or consul is not necessary to 
 found the jurisdiction in such cases ; but notice 
 of the proceedings should be given to the repre- 
 sentative of the foreign government. The Goluh- 
 chick, 1 W. Eob. 143 ; see also The Vvoio 2fina, 
 infi-a ; The William Frederich, 1 Hag. Adm. 
 138. 
 
 Payment to.] — In a suit for wages by 
 
 for ig -(J amen, if the foreign consul intervenes 
 arc! a .s that payment of the wages be made to 
 him uuon the seamen's behalf, the court usually 
 grants the application. 'The Tlnior, 9 L. T. 397 ; 
 12 '\V. R. 219 : and see The Juliana, supra. 
 
 Wages earned by foreign seamen on board a 
 foreign ship abandoned at Cowes to creditors 
 jitonounced for. The William Frederich, 1 Hag. 
 Adm. 138. 
 
 Passage Money — Consul's Certificate.] — 
 foreign seamen, discharged in Great Britain, and 
 who recover wages in a suit against a foreign 
 ship in which they served, are not entitled as of 
 course to their passage money home, but will 
 obtain it when their consul certifies that they 
 have gone or are about to go home. The liaffuel- 
 luccia, 37 L. T. 365 ; 3 Asp. il. C. 505. 
 
 Security for Costs.] — ^When a cause of wages 
 was instituted against a foreign ship by her 
 master and crew, who were also foreigners, and 
 although they were at the time in this country, 
 tlieir only place of residence was on board the 
 ship, and the ma.ster had stated that he had no 
 means and intended to leave England, the court 
 ordered them to give a security for costs in 130?. 
 The Zufoll, U L. J., Adm. IG ; 32 L. T. 571 ; 23 
 "\V. R. 328. See also ADMIRALTY, LAW AND 
 I'liACTICE, infra. 
 
 Alien Enemies Suing.] — Alien enemies are 
 entitled to sue in tliis country for wages earned 
 by them as mariners on a voyage to this country 
 under a licence. The Maria Thvrem, 1 Doils. i'l i3. 
 
 American seamen serving on board a British 
 ship disguised as American, there being war 
 between England and America : — Held, entitled 
 to sue for their wages. The Frederick, 1 Dods. 2ri(j. 
 
 The court entertains a suit for wages earned 
 on Vjoard a foreign .ship Vjelonging to an alien 
 enemy coming to this country under a licence. 
 The Vrow Mina, 1 Dod.s. 234. 
 
 iv. Advance JVote. 
 
 The plaintiff took a seaman's advance note for 
 67., conditional upon his sailing in the ship, in 
 exchange for dl. 5#. in cash and 27. 15«. in wearing 
 
 apparel: — Held, that the holder had adva^.-td 
 the seaman 61. within the meaning of the note 
 and could recover against the maker. McKune 
 V. Ju)/nso)t, 5 C. B. (x.s.) 218 ; 28 L. J., C. P. 
 133 ; 4 Jur. (N.s.) 760 ; 6 W. R. 658. 
 
 Assignment — Condition— Liability of Owner.] 
 
 — An advance note was given to A., a seaman, 
 for a half month's wages. The note was in this 
 form : " Five days after the ship ' W.' leaves P. 
 pay to the order of A. (provided he sails in the 
 said ship and is duly earning his wages, acconl- 
 ing to his agreement),'' kc. It was directed to 
 B. &; Co. the shipowner's agents at P., and there 
 was a note upon it that it should at once be 
 presented to B. & Co. for acceptance. A. 
 transferred the note to C, who presented it to 
 B. & Co., by whom it was duly accepted. Four 
 days after the ••'W." left P.. A. was discharged. 
 The master of the •• "W."' informed B. & Co. that 
 
 A. had been discharged within five days of sail- 
 ing, and directed them not to pay the note. 
 
 B. & Co. paid the note. On action by B. & Co. 
 I against the shipowners for the amount of the 
 
 note : — Held, that, as A. was not earning his 
 wages at the end of five days after the " "W. " left 
 P., the condition of the note was not fulfilled, 
 and that neither the shipowners nor B. «S: Co. as 
 acceptors were liable upon it. Bellamy v. Lunn, 
 77 L. T. 396. 
 
 e. Practice. 
 
 Before Justices."— The 7 & 8 "S'ict. c. 112. s. l.-> 
 (similar to s. 188 'of 17 & IS Vict. c. 104, Part 
 III., s. 188), did not give any jurisdiction to a 
 justice of the peace to adjudicate upon a claim 
 for wages, by the administrator of a deceast-d 
 seaman, and such administrator was not deprived 
 of his right of action. Ilollingsworth v. Palmer. 
 4 Ex. 267 ; 18 L. J., Ex. 409. 
 
 The admiraltj- court should not, under 5 A: 6 
 Will. 4, c. 19, ss. 15. 16, entertain a wages suit 
 under 207., except where the magistrates coulil 
 not do justice. The King WiUiam, 2 W. Rol). 
 231. 
 
 In Superior Court — Place of Business.] — ,V 
 
 j)lace of occasional business is iiul a residei 
 
 within the meaning of the latler part of s. ls'.> 
 of 17 it 18 Vict. c. 102. Th Blahncy. Swab.v. 
 428 ; 5 Jur. (X.S.) 418. 
 
 Pleading.] — To an action by a scainaii 
 
 for wages a defence that 17 A: IS Vict. c. lul. 
 s. 189, prohibits any suit in a superior court fur 
 the recovery of wages under .'>0/. is not open 
 under the plea of never indebted, but must lie 
 pleaded specially. Juh mton v. Ililberr y, 3 11 . & C . 
 328. 
 
 A seaman having brought an action for w.-i^i - 
 to an amount le-s than 507., tugctljcr with a 
 claim for damages for an assault, the court 
 allowed the defendant (ui)on terms) to j/lead a 
 plea founded upon the 18Sth and I89th sections 
 of the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. litmi v. Grant. ', 
 C. B. (N.s.) 699 ; 5 Jur. (X.s.) 895 ; 7 W. R. 2o;{. 
 
 Jurisdiction— Admiralty Court.j — The 17 & 18 
 Vict. c. 104, s. 189, Ijars a seaman from recover- 
 ing wages less than .507. in the court of admiralty, 
 except in the contingencies therein specified. 
 The Harriet, Lush. 285 ; 5 L. T. 210. 
 
 The court of admiralty has no authority to 
 restrain seamen from proceeding against the ship
 
 1^7 
 
 SHIPPING— YI. Seamen. 
 
 12S 
 
 for their wages, however well satisfied it may be 
 that the owuer is solvent. The Arab, 5 Jur. 
 (X.S.) -117. 
 
 The court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim 
 by seamen for wrongful dismissal and the conse- 
 quential ilaniages. JAf (rir/it Eastern, 36 L. J., 
 Adm. ir, : L. K. 1 A. & E. 384 : 17 L. T. 228. 
 
 The object of the 24 & 2:> Vict. c. 10, s. 10, is 
 to extend the jurisdiction which the court of 
 admiralty had in the ordinary case of wages to 
 1 he case of wages under a special contract, and 
 of disbursements on account of the ship. The 
 Mm, 37 L. J., Adm. 17 : L. R. 2 P. C. 38 ; 17 
 L. T. .585 ; 5 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 60. 
 
 County Court.] — See The Michigan, Brg- 
 
 V. City of LundDn Court {^Jmlije), post, col. 940. 
 
 Vice-Admiralty Court.] — See The Ferret, 
 
 post, col. 'J46. 
 
 "Dispute as to Liability" — Counterclaim.] — 
 
 A counterclaim in respect of a separate cause of 
 action is not " a reasonable dispute as to liability" 
 within the meaning of s. 4, sub-s. 4, of the 
 l\Ierchant Seamen (Payment of Wages) Act, 
 IS80. Belaroquii v. O-venlioline SteamsJiij) Co., 
 I Cab. & E. 122. 
 
 Payment — Lien for Costs.] — Payment to 
 seamen by shipowners befoie a shipping master 
 is no satisfaction of wages pronounced for in a 
 suit in the court of admiialty so as to deprive 
 tile proctor of his lien for costs. I'he Araviinta. 
 «wabey, 81 ; 2 Jur. (x.s.) 310 : 4 W. II. 396. 
 
 Ship lost — Monition against Owner.] — Moni- 
 tion to shew cause granted against tlie owner of 
 a ship totally lost at the instance of a seaman 
 for unpaid wages, 7 & 8 Vict. c. 112, s. 17. 
 Application for arrest of owner refused. The 
 Ste2)hen Wright, 12 Jur. 732. 
 
 Defence — Forfeiture for Misconduct — Log- 
 ging.] — In a defence to a wages suit it was not 
 necessary to plead the entries in the log of the 
 acts of disobedience relied on as working a for- 
 feiture of wages. The John Xnox, 16 Jur. 1161. 
 
 Seaman Dead — Decree renewed to Adminis- 
 trator.] — Semble, a decree for wnges to a 
 mariner, with costs, may be renewed to the 
 administrator of the seaman, when deceased. 
 The Prince George, 3 Hag. Adm. 376. See also 
 post, tit. Admiralty, Law and Practice. 
 
 Evidence.] — If, in an action for sailors' wages 
 on articles under seal, the words are, " to which 
 ihe parties have set their hands," without saying 
 '■ seals," the plaintiffs will not be nonsuited, if it 
 ;ij)pears that they did not mean to contract by 
 deed. Cleme7it v. Gunhouse, 5 Esp. 83. 
 
 In an action for seamen's wages, the plaintiffs 
 might, under 2 Geo. 2, c. 36, give evidence of the 
 contents of the ship's articles, without having 
 served a notice to produce them. Bowman v. 
 Manzelman, 2 Camp. 315 ; 11 R. II. 716. 
 
 The 2 Geo. 2, c. 36, requiring articles to be 
 •entered into between the masters of ships and 
 the mariners, and providing that the "mariners 
 .shall not fail on any suit for wages from not 
 producing the articles, did not apply in the case 
 of a British seaman entering on board a foreign 
 ship in a British port. Bickman v. Benson, 3 
 Camp. 290. 
 
 2. Desertion, Mi.scoxduct and Forfeiture. 
 
 Desertion— Left Ashore by Ship's Fault.] — 
 If seamen go on s'nore on the ship's duty, and 
 when the boat is about to return request" to be 
 permitted to remain on shore to get some victuals, 
 wliich is refused, and tlie boat goes without them, 
 if they afterwards go and offer to return to their 
 duty on board the ship it is not a desertion. 
 Sigurd v. Roberts, 3 Esp. 71. 
 
 By own Fault.] — A sailor, under articles 
 
 providing for a forfeiture of wages in case of 
 breach of any of his engagements, among which 
 is that of serving faithfully during the voyage, 
 can recover nothing if he 'is left ashore in the 
 course of it owing to his own fault in being 
 absent, though he had no intention of deserting. 
 Sherman v. Bcnnet, M. & M. 489. 
 
 Master Refusing to give Leave.] — If 
 
 there is a clause in the ship's articles, that the 
 seamen may leave at the end of three months if 
 the ship is in port or in perfect safety, of which 
 the captain is to be the sole judge, and the ship 
 is in port in safety after three months, the 
 seamen may leave the ship without the permis- 
 sion of the captain. ]Vea.ve v. Pratt, 2 Bos. 
 & Pul. (N.E.) 408. 
 
 Cargo not Discharged,]— A seaman leaving 
 the ship after arrival and mooring at her port of 
 delivery, but before cargo discharged, does not 
 incur forfeiture of wages irnder 5 & 6 Will. 4, 
 c. 19, s. 9, but loses one month's pay under s. 7. 
 McDonald v. Joining, 4 M. ic W. 285 : 7 L. J., 
 Ex. 220. 
 
 - Old Law as to-5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 19.]— 
 
 The ancient law as to desertion not altered except 
 by the express enactments of 5 & 6 Will. 4,c. 19. 
 The Two Sisters, 2 W. Rob. 125. 
 
 Works Forfeiture of Wages.]— By the 
 
 maritime law desertion works a forfeiture of 
 wages. The Baltic Merchant. Edw. 86 :' The 
 Jupiter, 2 Hag. Adm. 221 ; Anon., 1 Ld. Raj-m. 
 639, 739. 
 
 Mooring Ship — Discharging Cargo.]— Tlie 
 crew are not discharged by the ship's arrival ; 
 they are bound to moor the ship and discharge 
 the cargo. The Baltic Mereliant, Edw. 86 ; The 
 Cambridge, 2 Hag. Adm. 243. 
 
 Seaman Eefusing to Return on Board.] — 
 
 Wages forfeited by refusing to return on board 
 when ordered after absence on shore by leave. 
 The Buhner, 1 Hag. Adm. 163. 
 
 Leaving before Ship Docked.] — Leaving 
 
 the ship when she is detained by a crowd of ships 
 from entering the harbour is desertion, llie 
 Pearl, 5 C. Rob. 224. 
 
 Provision in Articles as to.] — A clause 
 
 in ship's articles to the effect that mere absence 
 for less than twenty-four hours shall not be 
 deemed desertion relates to occasional absence, 
 and not to wilful denial of authority. The 
 Amphitrite, 2 Hag. Adm. 403. 
 
 Alteration of Voyage — Leaving Ship not 
 
 Desertion.] — Ship's articles and voyage were 
 altered after sailing: — Held, that a seaman did 
 not forfeit his wages by leaving the ship ; )ialf
 
 129 
 
 SHIPPING— YI. Seamen. 
 
 130 
 
 wages awarded up to the seaman's reaching the 
 port of discharge named in the articles. The 
 Eliza, 1 Hag. Adm. 182. 
 
 — I — Deviation by Stress of Weather,] — It is 
 no justification for a mariner who deserts his 
 siliip, that she has been driven out of her course 
 by stress of weather. The CamhyUhje. 2 Hag. 
 Adm. 243. See also Cases, supra, col. il2. 
 
 Desertion must be clear, to forfeit Wages.] 
 
 — The Frederiek, 1 Hag. Adm. 211 ; The George, 
 infra. 
 
 No Contract proved.] — AVhere the ship- 
 owner proved no contract to serve for any 
 specified term :— Held, that no desertion such as 
 would forfeit wages was proved. Tlie Georejc, 
 1 Hag. Achn. 168, n. 
 
 Mate sent Home to give Evidence.]— It 
 
 is not desertion for a mate, in obedience to orders 
 from the consul at a foreign port, to leave the 
 ship and come to England to give evidence in a 
 charge of slabbing against the master, which 
 charge afterwards p'loved to be groundless. 
 Cross V. Uklis, 16 W. E. 967, 
 
 Seaman apprehended Ashore.] — A sea- 
 man, having taken some of his clothes ashore, 
 was apprehended ashore for assault. The ship 
 sailed without him : — Held, that, desertion not 
 beintr jiroved, his wages were not forfeited. 
 ikKurd V. Ratter, 12 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 222. 
 
 Going Ashore to get Advice.] — Going 
 
 ashore to get advice as to their duty under the 
 .ship's articles held not to be a desertion. The 
 Westmoreland, 1 W. I'lob. 21t5. 
 
 Ship not Moored— 2 Geo. 2, c. 36.]— A 
 
 seaman who quits his ship after arrival in port 
 but before she is moored does not forfeit his 
 wages under 2 Geo. 2, c. 3G, s. .3. To entitle the 
 master to deduct a month's wages under that 
 statute he must shew that the seaman left the 
 ship without leave in writing ; and he cannot 
 set ofE the amount in an action for wages unless 
 the provisions of the statute are complied with. 
 Frontint v. Frost, 3 Bos. & T. 302. 
 
 Owing to Misconduct of Officers.] — If a 
 
 master by inhiiinan treatment ronipels a sailor 
 to quit a ship, it is not such a desertion as will 
 amount to a forfeiture of his wages for the voyage 
 performed. Liviland v. Stephens, 3 Esp. 20'J. 
 
 To a declaration by a seaman for wages, the 
 
 dcf-'udant pleaded that the i.laintiff had been 
 
 (■Mcraged as a seaman on board the "Candace," a 
 
 I'.iitish registered ship, for a voyage from Liver- 
 
 |M)ol to San Francisco and back, and bad (ku-ing 
 
 the voyage, and while he belonged to the shi|) at 
 
 San Francisco, deserted from the ship, within tlie 
 
 meaning of the 7 A: 8 Vict. c. 112, s. 'J ; and that 
 
 the plaintiff afterwards, and while he was such 
 
 deserter, engaged himself as a seaman for the 
 
 voyage bark to England from San Francisco with 
 
 , the defendant, as the master of another ship, for 
 
 ' wages for which this action was brought. Kepli- 
 
 ' cation, that while the plaintiff was serving as 
 
 I seaman on briard, the cajitain and ofTiccrs flogged 
 
 and punished him with great and unreasonable 
 
 crucify and severity, and that such flogging an<l 
 
 l.unisliment were not rendered necessary by 
 
 mutinous or improper conduct, but were unne- 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 cessary and unreasonable : that the plaintiff 
 requested the captain and officers to desist, which 
 they refused to do, whereupon the plaintiff, 
 having reasonable grounds to believe that they 
 would continue to flog and punish him with 
 great and unreasonable cruelty and severity, in 
 order to escape therefrom deserted from the 
 ship : — Held, a good answer to the plea. Edward 
 V. TrereUich, 4 El. & Bl. 59 ; 2 C. L. E. 1605 ; 24 
 L. J., Q. B. 9 ; 1 Jur. (N.s.) 110 ; 2 W. E. 586. 
 
 The plaintiff also replied that he was a negro, 
 and that negroes are boitght and sold as slaves in 
 divers states of the United State> ; that he was 
 serving on board the "Candace," and before he 
 deserted, the captain of the ship threatened to sell 
 him, the plaintiff, as a slave to citizens of the 
 United States ; that San Francisco is situated in 
 one of the United States, to wit, in California, 
 and that the plaintiff had just and reasonable 
 grounds for believing and did believe that, on the 
 arrival of the ship at San Francisco, the captain 
 was about and meant to carry his threat into, 
 execution ; and that, in order to prevent the 
 captain from selling him as a slave, the plaintiff 
 deserted : — Held, no answer to the plea. lb. 
 
 Inciting to Desert — Storekeeper,] — A store- 
 keeper, who had been verbally engaged to serve in 
 port and for the next voyage, held to be a seaman 
 within 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. ss. 2, 257. Thomson v. 
 Uart, 18 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.), Just. Cas. 3. 
 
 Misconduct generally.] — Misconduct of sea- 
 men in port not res-arded so seriously as when at 
 sea. The Blahe, 1 W. Eob. 73. 
 
 Wages not forfeited by mere misconduct, but 
 only where the seaman's conduct woidd have 
 made hisdischaigc necessary for ship's safety. Ih. 
 
 Wages are forfeited by acts of mutinous 
 tendenev not apologised for. The Susan, 2 Hag. 
 Adm. 229, n. 
 
 Misconduct on the part of a mariner such a-s 
 will forfeit wages must be of a serious character. 
 The Malta, 2 Hag. Adm. 15S ; The Ealing Grove, 
 infra, col. 131. Ordinary drunkenness not suffi- 
 cient. The Lady Campbell, 2 Hag. Adm. 5. 
 
 Negligence of Mate leading to Thieving.] — A 
 mate may incur forfeiture of wages for general 
 neglect of duty or a neglect of duty leading to 
 robbery of tiie cargo— I'er Dr. Lushington. The 
 Duchess of Kent, 1 W. Rob. 283. 
 
 Thieving.] — Wages decreed, though seaman 
 had thieved, and had been put on .shore abroad 
 (in violation of 39 Geo. 3, c. 80, s. 29). The 
 Beaver, 3 C. Eob. 292. 
 
 If a sailor executed the articles prescribed by 
 37 (ieo. 3, c. 73, and served accordingly, and 
 during the voyage part of the cargo was plundered, 
 but by whom couM not be ascertained, he did not, 
 in conseiuencc of such plunderage, forfeit his 
 wages. Thorn /'SOU v. Colli )i.i, 1 Bos. Ac 1'. (X.K.) 347. 
 
 Detention of Property of,]— Where the second 
 mate was ordered, with three other seamen, to 
 take the ship's boat and convey tlie ca|»tain, 
 who had gone on shore at the Mauriliu«, on board, 
 and, on their getting on shore, tiiey refused to 
 return with him, but remained tlwre all night, 
 and he was obliged to get back to his shij) in 
 another boat, and redeem his own on the follow- 
 ' ing moming, when the mate was t.-d^en before a 
 ! nia"istrate at the Mauritius, and conmiitted to 
 prison for a month :— lleM. that this was such an
 
 131 
 
 SHIPPING— YI. Seamen. 
 
 132 
 
 act of disobedience as to warrant the captain in 
 detaining his property on the vessel by way of 
 forfeitnre ; and, consequently, that trover could 
 not be maintained against the captain for such 
 detention. Wcithcrpeii v. Lii'ulU-r, 8 Moore, 37. 
 
 Endangering Safety of Ship.] — To sustain an 
 imiirtiiieut iov a niistlenieam mr under 17 >.*c IS Viet. 
 c. 101, s. 2'S'.K it i-^ not necessary that the act done 
 or omitted should be followed by actual loss, des- 
 truction, or damage of such ship. Meff. v. Gardner, 
 1 F. & F. 669. 
 
 Drunkenness.] — Getting drunk on shore at 
 Dominica and not returning on l)oard at expira- 
 tion of leave, held not to work forfeiture of wages. 
 The Ealini] Grove, 2 Hag. Adra. 15. See col. 12'J. 
 
 A seaman may get moderately druiik without 
 forfeiting his wages. The Lady CampleU, 2 Hag. 
 Adm. 5 ; The jS'ew Phoenix, 1 Hag. Adm. 199. 
 
 Deductions from Wages.] — Semble, the master 
 -may reimburse himself out of seamen's wages for 
 loss by their fault. Anon., 1 Ld. Eayni. 650. 
 
 Loss by the gross negligence of a mariner may 
 Idc set off against a claim for wages. The New 
 Phoenix, 2 Hag. Adm. 420. 
 
 Neglect of Duty — Damages — Retention of 
 Wagjes— 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, ss. 243, 244—25 & 
 26 Vict. c. 63. s. 11.] — In an action by an engineer 
 for wngos. tlie sliipowner claimed a right to retain 
 wages for damage to boilers by the plaintiff's 
 neglect : — Held, that the above statutes did not 
 
 • exclude, by implication, a claim by the shipowner 
 for damages at common law, and that the pro- 
 visions excluding proof of misconduct not entered 
 in the log book applied only to criminal proceed- 
 ings under s. 243. Great Korthern St earn ship 
 Fishing Co. v. Edgcliill (11 Q. B. D. 225), infra, 
 
 -col. 133, observed upon. Sharp v. Rettie, 11 Ct. 
 of Sess. Ca. (4th ser.) 74.-). 
 
 Disrating.] — The plaintiff, having shijjped 
 ■ on board the " H. C." as refrigerating engineer, 
 with wages at the rate of lOZ. per month, was, 
 •cluring the voyage, disrated by the master for 
 alleged drunkenness and unfitness for his duties. 
 He was placed in the main engine-room, and his 
 
 -wages were reduced from lOZ. to II. per mouth : 
 
 Held, that this disrating and reduction of wages 
 was not a "deduction" from the wages within 
 the meaning of s. 171 of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1854, and that it was not therefore, neces- 
 sary that the amount by which the wages had 
 been reduced should be shewn under theliead of 
 deductions in the account of wages delivered to 
 the plaintiff by the master. The lliqh land Chir-f, 
 61 L. J., Adm. 51 ; [1892] P. 76 ; m L. T. 468 • 
 40 W. R. 416 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 176. 
 
 No Duty to attempt Rescue after Capture.] — 
 Mariners are not under any duty to attempt a 
 rescue if their ship is captured. The Two Friends, 
 1 C. Eob. 271. 
 
 Charge of Misconduct not Sustained,] — Tlbc Test 
 (2), 3 Hag. Adm. 307 ; The Exeter, 2 C. Eob. 261. 
 
 Admiralty Court — 'Whole Wages or None.] — 
 The court had no power to pronounce for part of 
 the seaman's wages in a case of misconduct ; it 
 must pronounce for the whole or none. The 
 Blalie, 1 W. Hob. 73. 
 
 Compensation.] — By a clause in the ship's 
 articles of a iSouth Sea whaler, the seamen serving 
 on board were to lose their wages if they did not 
 return with the ship to the port ofLoiulon. 
 After serving twenty-seven mouths, some of the 
 seamen were, with the consent of the captain, 
 exchanged into another ship for others belonging 
 to that ship : — Held, that, if these seamen had 
 lost their wages under the articles, they could at 
 any rate receive a reasonable compensation for 
 their services. HUhjard v. Mount, 3 Car. & P. 93. 
 
 Waiver.] — If seamen have incurred a forfei- 
 ture of their wages, and in a time of distress, 
 when the ship is aground, the captain calls ou 
 those seamen to assist in getting her off, this is 
 no waiver of the forfeiture ; but if the captain 
 continues them in their work after the peril is 
 over it is otherwise. Train v. Bennett, 3 Car. & P. 
 3 ; M. & M. 82. 
 
 Where it is provided by a ship's articles that 
 any of the crew who shall absent themselves 
 froni the ship without leave shall forfeit their 
 wages ; if, after one of the crew has so absented 
 himself, the master receives him back again, and 
 allows him to work like the others, the forfeiture 
 is waived and the wages are recoverable. Miller 
 V. Brant, 2 Camp. 590 ; 11 R. R. 806. 
 
 3. Proceedings against Seamen. 
 
 Time for Proceeding.] — The Merchant Ship- 
 jjiug Act, 1854, s. 257, makes it an offence to per- 
 suade or attempt to persuade any seaman to 
 neglect or refuse to join, or to desert from his 
 ship ; by s. 525 no conviction for any offence 
 shall be made in any summary proceeding, 
 unless such proceeding is commenced within six 
 months after the commission of the offence ; or 
 if both or either of the parties to such proceed- 
 ing happen daring sttch time to be out of the 
 United Kingdom, unless the same is commenced 
 within two months after they both first happen 
 to arrive or to be at one time within the same : 
 — Held, that "parties to the proceeding" meant 
 the seaman and the person persuading or attempt- 
 ing to persuade ; and that if either of them 
 leaves the kingdom during the six mouths after 
 the commission of the offence, an information 
 may be laid within two mouths of his return. 
 Austin V. Olsen. 9 B. & S. 46 ; 37 L. J., M. C. 34 ; 
 L. R. 3 Q. B. 208 ; 17 L. T. 537 ; 16 W. R. 426. 
 
 Informal Engagement. ] — Held, also, that 
 the offence might be committed, although the 
 formalities required by s. 150 in the engagement 
 of the seaman had not been complied with. lb. 
 
 A seaman engaged by the master, and taken 
 to sea without any such written agreement 
 having been entered into between them as was 
 rendered necessary by 7 & 8 Vict. c. 112, s. 2, 
 was not a seaman or a mariner M-ithin 11 & 12 
 Will. 3, c. 7, s. 9, and therefore was not liable 
 under that section for making a revolt by desert- 
 ing his vessel in port, and inducing the rest of 
 the crew to do the same. Req. v. Smith. 3 Cox, 
 C. C. 443. 
 
 Mutiny — Confinement of Captain — Justifica- 
 tion.] — Upon an iudictnieut under 11 it 12 Will. 3, 
 c. 7, s. 9, for mutiny, it is no justification that 
 the conduct and orders of the captain were 
 unreasonable, unjust or vexatious ; but if the.y 
 were such that, unless the crew had confiuod tlie 
 captain, they would have been in danger of their
 
 133 
 
 SHIPPING— ^1. Seamen. 
 
 134 
 
 lives, or of bodily harm, there is justificatioa. 
 Heg. V. Rose, 2 Cox, C. C. 320. 
 
 Summary Proceeding excludes Civil Remedy.] 
 — The Merchant Sliii)iiing Act. l>."ii (17 >jc 18 
 Yict. c. 101), s. 243 — which enables a seaman 
 •who neglects without reasonable cause to join his 
 ship to be punished upon proceedings before a 
 court of summary jurisdiction with imprisonment 
 and forfeiture of part of his wages — by impli- 
 cation takes away any other remedy against the 
 seaman for the breach of contract, and the ship- 
 owner cannot, where the amount which he claims 
 does not exceed 10/., take proceedings for tlic 
 recovery of damages under the Employers and 
 "Workmen Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Yict. c. 90), s. 4. 
 Great Xortliern Steamshij} Fish'nig Co. y. Eilge- 
 hni,\\ Q. B. D. 225. See Sharp v. Rvttie. supra, 
 col. 131. 
 
 Evidence of Desertion.] — A seaman having 
 remained ashore all night at a foreign port, the 
 master went to the consul without any notice to 
 the seaman, and obtained his certificate that the 
 seaman had deserted. In a simimary proceeding 
 before justices in this country by the seaman to 
 recover his wages, the consul's certificate is not 
 conclusive evidence of the fact of desertion. 
 Lewis V. Jewlmrst, 15 L. T. 275. 
 
 Ship must be Registered.] — The sections 
 coming under the head of " Discipline," in 
 17 & is Vict. c. 104, have reference to British 
 ships alone ; and s. 257 renders liable to a )ieualty 
 every person who wilfully harbouis or secretes 
 any seaman or apprentice who has deserted from 
 his ship, and in order to convict an offeiuler under 
 this section, it must be shewn that the ship 
 deserted from is a British ship ; and inasmuch 
 as by s. ID every British ship must be registered, 
 and no ship thereby required to be registered 
 shall, unless registered, be recognised as a British 
 ship, proof that the sliip is registered must also 
 be given, either by the production of the original 
 register, or by au examined or certified copy of 
 it. as required bv s. 107. Leavij v. Lloyd, 3 
 EI. k El. 178 ; 29 'L. J., M. C. 194 : 6 Jur. (N.S.) 
 124G. 
 
 Proceedings before Justices — " Seagoing 
 Sh'p."] — A ship registered as a l]riti>h ship, that 
 is engaged iu carrying cargo upon rivers and 
 their estuaries, although it may be capable of 
 going to sea, is not a "seagoing ship" within 
 the meaning of s. 109 of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1854. Therefore the provisions of s. 243 of 
 that act for the punishment of olfences by sea- 
 men do not apply to a man who is employed 
 upon such a stnp, and he may be dealt with 
 under the Emi>luvers and Workmen Act, 1H75. 
 Salt Union v. Wood, 02 L. J., M. C. 75 : [1893] 1 
 Q. B. 370 ; 5 K. 170 : 08 L. T. 92 : 4 1 \\. R. 301 ; 
 7 Asp. M. C. 281 ; 57 J. P. 201. 
 
 Wrongful Arrest, Desertion — Liability of 
 Owners.j — OWiil v. Itankin, IV. Ownehs, 5. 
 Liability in Toet, ante, col. 72. 
 
 4. D0TY A>D Liability of Ma.ster 
 OR Shipow.ver. 
 
 Who may engage — Persons contracting to 
 purchase one Share of Ship. — I'.v s. 1 17..--Mb-s. 1, 
 Jjf the Merchant Shipping 'A-t,' 18.14 (17 & 18 
 Vict. c. 104), if any person not licensed by the 
 tM)ard of trade other than "the owner or master 
 
 lor mate of a ship, or some person who is bona 
 lide the servant and iu the constant emiiloy of 
 the owner, or a shipping master duly appointed 
 as aforesaid, engages or supplies any seamen or 
 apprentice to be entered on board any ship in 
 the United Kingdom," he incurs a penalty. The 
 respondent having bona fide contracted to pur- 
 chase one sixty-fourth share in a British ship 
 from P.. who, though not registered as the o^\Tier, 
 had the full possession and control of the ship 
 under a contract to purchase the sixty-four 
 shares, supplied an apprentice to P.. who engaged 
 the apprentice for the ship : — Held, that the 
 respondent was an "owner" within the meaning 
 of the exemption, since though not a registered 
 owner he had a contract enforceable in equity 
 for the purchase of a share iu the ship. Hmjhes 
 Siithfrlayid. 50 L. J., Q. B. 507 ; 7 Q. B. D. iOO ; 
 45 L. T. 287 ; 29 W. R. 807 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 459 ; 
 40 J. P. 0. 
 
 Implied Warranty.] — There is no implied 
 warrant}' of seaworthiness in a contract between 
 an owTier of a ship and a seaman to serve on 
 board it for a particular voyage. Therefore an 
 action by a seaman- against an owner of a ship 
 for so negligently fitting out the ship, that by 
 reason thereof it was tmseaworthy, and the sea- 
 man was unable to sleep in his hammock, and 
 obliged to undergo excessive labour, and was 
 thcrebj' injured in his health, not alleging any 
 knowledge of the unseaworthiness, or any per- 
 sonal blame on the part of the owner, cannot 
 be supported. Couch v. Steel. 3 El. A: Bl. 402 ; 
 2 C. L. R. 940 ; 23 L. J., Q. B. 121 ; 18 Jiu. 515 ; 
 2 W. R. 170. 
 
 To supply Medicines.] — A count alleged that 
 the defendant neglected to supply and keep on 
 board the vessel a )noper supply of medicines, 
 whereby the plaintifli's health suflered : — Held, 
 that 7 & 8 Vict. c. 112, s. 18 (similar in enact- 
 ment to s. 224 of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104), made it 
 the duty of the shipowner to have on board such 
 medicines, and that though the act imposed a 
 penalty recoverable as the specific punishment 
 for the breach of that iluty as to the public, 
 sailors sustaining a private injury from a breach 
 of that statutable duty were entitled to maintain 
 an action to recover damages ; and that the 
 count was good. Ih. 
 
 Increase of Bisk.] — Tlie jilaintiff agreed wiili 
 the defendant to serve as one of the crew of a 
 ship, whereof the defendant was master, for 
 twelve months, from London to Rio, or any nther 
 of tlie ports specifii'd in ihc at:r"'<-ment, amongst 
 which were ports in the Pacific <»<;t'an. :nid back 
 to a final port of discliarge. and to obey during 
 tliat period all theiiefendant's lawful commands. 
 He subsequently sailed for Rio with the ship. 
 She was destined, as it appeared fiom iier 
 cliarterparty, for the scrvico of the Peruvian 
 government, and had on board a cargo of coal 
 and ammunition. In the course of her voyage 
 to Rio she joined comnany with two Peruvian 
 war steamers, to wiiich from time to time hIk; 
 supplied coal and ammunition. At Rio it liecamc 
 known to the plaintilf and the defemlant that 
 hostilities had commenced between Sfiaiu and 
 Peru, two powers at peace with Englaml. Tiio 
 defendant, notwithstanding this circumstance, 
 announced to the plaintiff that he inten<led to 
 go on to Callao, in the Pacific, anotiier Peiuvian 
 port. He was at tiiat time acting nnil<'r tho 
 
 5—2
 
 135 
 
 SHIPPING— YI. Scamcu. 
 
 13G 
 
 direction of a rcruvian agent on board the sliip, 
 who received his instructions from the com- 
 manders of the two war steamers. The plaintiff 
 objected to serve any further on the voyage 
 on the ground that it had become illegal, and 
 involved greater danger than he had anticipated 
 when he entered into his agreement with the 
 defendant. He accordingly left the ship. In an 
 action for breach of contract brought by him 
 against the defendant : — Held, that he must be 
 taken to have engaged the i)laintifE for an ordi- 
 nary voyage, audthat tlie plaintiff was entitled 
 to treat'as a breach of contract the defendant's 
 employment of him on a voyage which would 
 expose him to greater danger than he originally 
 had reason to anticipate. Burton v. Pbiherton, 
 36 L. J., Ex. 137 ; L. R. 2 Ex. 3-tO ; 16 L. T. 419 ; 
 15 W. K. 1139. 
 
 Damages for Breach of Contract. ] — The 
 
 plaintiff, after leaving the ship, was imprisoned 
 at Hio for some days as a Peruvian deserter. 
 When he came out of })rison the ship had gone, 
 carrying some of his clothes on board of her. 
 The jury awarded damages both for the imprison- 
 ment and the loss of clothes : — Held, that these 
 damages were too remote to be recoverable. Ih. 
 
 Leaving Seamen Abroad.] — In an indictment 
 against a master of a merchant ship, under 
 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 19, for wilfully and wrongfully 
 leaving a seaman behind before the termination 
 of the voyage for which he was shipped, the 
 allegation"^ of ownership is material ; and the 
 only defence which the master can set up is, 
 the production of a certificate of the consul or 
 other party mentioned in the statute, or proof 
 that it was impossible to obtain such certificate. 
 Beg. T. Dunnett, 1 Car. & K. 425. 
 
 Liability for Expenses.] — Where seamen 
 
 are injured by an accident, and put on shore 
 while the ship proceeds on her voyage, the 
 captain has no implied authority to make the 
 shipowner liable for expenses incurred for their 
 maintenance and care. Organ v. BrocUe, 10 Ex. 
 449 ; 3 C. L. R. 51 ; 24 L.'j., Ex. 70 : 3 W. R. 
 13. 
 
 > Passage Money.] — Foreign seamen engaged for 
 a voyage out and home are entitled, upon being 
 discharged in this country against their own 
 consent, to receive, out of the proceeds of the 
 ship, passage money for their return home ; but 
 not so seamen engaged during the course of a 
 voyage. The San Jose Prlmeiro, 3 L. T. 513. 
 
 Seamen forced to provide themselves, the 
 ship's provisions being exhausted, are entitled to 
 board wages out of the proceeds of the ship. lb. 
 Seamen of a disabled foreign vessel are entitled 
 to an allowance for a return to their own country. 
 The Gustaf, Lush. 506 ; 31 L. J., Adm. 207 ; (i 
 L. T. 660. See also The Bafaelluecia, col. 125. 
 
 Captain and Seaman— Common Employment.] 
 
 —The owner of a ship is not responsible for the 
 injury to, or death of, one of the crew resulting 
 from the negligence of the captain of the ship, 
 the captain and the crew being fellow-servants 
 engaged in a common employment. Hedley v. 
 Piniinev A- Sons Steamshqi Co., 61 L. J., Q. B. 
 179 ; [iS92] 1 Q. B. 58 ; 66 L. T. 71 ; 40 W. R. 
 113 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 135 ; 56 J. P. 308— C. A. 
 
 Shipping Act, 1876, in any contract of service 
 between the owner of a ship and tlie master or 
 any seaman thereof, there is to be implied an 
 obligation on the owner of a ship that he and 
 the master shall irse all reasonable means to 
 insure the seaworthiness of the ship for the 
 voyage at the time when the voyage commences, 
 and to keep her in a seaworthy condition for the 
 voyage during the same : — Held, that the espres- 
 sioQ "seaworthy" in that section meant that the 
 ship should be in a fit state, as to repairs, equip- 
 ment and crew, and in all other respects, to 
 encounter the ordinary perils of the voyage at 
 the time of sailing upon it ; and that if a ship 
 was properly equipped to encounter such perils, 
 the negligence of the captain, in not using with 
 proper care the means of safety provided, did 
 not make the ship unseaworthy within the 
 meaning of the section. III. 
 
 Misconduct— Entry in Log — Slander.] — A 
 
 master entered in the log that the mate wilfully 
 and intentionally disobeyed his orders in not 
 allowing a seaman to steer. The mate sued the 
 master for slander : — Held, that he must prove 
 malice and want of probable cause. TfiJl v. 
 Thomps(m, 19 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 377. 
 
 Liability for Injuries to Seamen.]- 
 
 IV. Owners, col. 73. 
 
 -See ante. 
 
 " Seaworthy " Ship - 
 Owner to provide.] — By 
 
 What 
 s. 5 of 
 
 5. Authority of Master to Punish. 
 
 In what Cases.] — The captain of a merchant 
 ship, lying in a foreign port, sent a seaman, who 
 had committed mutiny on shore, into the custody 
 of the local authorities, and procm-ed him to be 
 flogged and imprisoned : — Held, that the captain 
 was answerable, having taken an active part i.'i 
 the proceedings, and not merely lodged his com- 
 plaint. Aitiun V. Bedwelly M. & M. 68 ; 31 
 R. R. 712. 
 
 Where C, a mariner on board an East India- 
 man at anchor in the bay of Canton, within two 
 miles of Macao, and within hail of several other 
 vessels, having been guilty of disorderly conduct 
 in the absence of the captain, was, upon the 
 captain's return to the ship four days afterwards, 
 ordered to be flogged, upon which L., a mariner 
 on board the sameship, resisted the execution of 
 the captain's orders, and was guilty of riotous. 
 and mutinous conduct, for which, by command 
 of the captain, he was flogged :— Held, that the 
 captain was justified in flogging L. ; and that 
 the authority of the captain to inflict moderate 
 punishment is not confined to a case where the 
 vessel is at sea beyond the reach of assistance ; 
 and that such punishment need not be inflicted 
 immediately upon the act being done for wliicb 
 the punishment is inflicted. Lamb v. Burnett, 
 1 C. & J. 291 ; 1 Tyr. 265. See also Broiujliton 
 V. Jackson, 18 Q. B. 378 ; 21 L. J., Q. B. 2G5 ; 
 16 Jur. 886. 
 
 It is the duty of the captain of a merchant 
 vessel, in case of misconduct of one of the crew, 
 previously to the infliction of punishment, to 
 institute inquiry, with the assistance of others, 
 and to have the result entered in the log. JJurray 
 V. Moidrie, 6 Car. & P. 471. 
 
 A seaman employed in cutting blubber on 
 board a whaler, in consequence of a quarrel with 
 the captain followed by a blow from the mate, 
 threw down his knife and refused to do any 
 is — Duty of more work in the ship : — Held, that such con- 
 the Merchant duct was an act justifying moderate pimishmcnt ;
 
 137 
 
 SHIPPING— YI. Seamen. 
 
 138 
 
 iind that, aIthoup:li the punishment was excessive, 
 yet, if the seaman, by some concession, might 
 have put an end to it, and refused, he could not 
 recover damages for the continuation of the 
 punishment after such refusal. lb. 
 
 Apprentice — Eight to Chastise.] — A master 
 has a right to chastise an apprentice, and the 
 court will not inquire whether the chastisement 
 was deserved, provided there was no cruelty. 
 Whjlits V. Burns, 11 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 217. 
 
 Evidence in Action against Captain.] — In an 
 
 action against the captain of an East Indiaman, 
 for flogging the plaintiff (a gunner's mate) on 
 board the ship, the latter cannot give evidence 
 as to his being of a respectable familj' and con- 
 nexions, unless these circumstances could be 
 proved to have been known to the captain at the 
 time. Jihodes v. Leach, 2 Stark. 516. 
 
 Excessive Punishment.] — .500Z. damages re- 
 covered for excessive punishment by master of 
 his seaman. Watson v. Christie, 2 Bos. i: P. 
 224 ; :> R. E. .571). 
 
 Threatened Mutiny — Force.] — The master is 
 justified in using force to prevent a threatened 
 mutiny. Bingham v. Garnault, Bull. N. P. 17. 
 
 6. Certificate of Character. 
 
 A master having made and signed a report of 
 a seaman's character, uyjon his discharge, in the 
 form sanctioned by the boai'd of trade, the 
 sliipping master gave the seaman a cojiy of such 
 reiiort. A. knowingly and fraudulently made a 
 fac-similc of this report, but instead of writing 
 the letter M., which stood in the original to 
 intlicate that the seaman's character for ability 
 and conduct was middling, wrote " G.," indi- 
 cating tliat it was good : — Held, that A. was 
 guilty of an offence within 17 ic 18 Vict. c. 104, 
 s. 176. Riff. V. M'il.sii/i, Dears. & B. 5.58 ; 27 
 L. .!.. M. C. 280 ; 4 Jur. (N.S.) 670 ; 6 W. K. 
 :,iy.) ; 8 Cox, C. C. 2.5. 
 
 Refusal to give Certificate of Discharge — 
 Penalty.] — An actinn will nut lie for tlir iclu.<al 
 Vt give to a seaman the certificate of dischiirgc 
 <lirefted to be given b3' the 172iid .section of the 
 Merchant Shiiijiing Act, 1854, the only remedy 
 for sucii refusal being the penalty provided by 
 that section. VaUiuire v. Ftillr. 58 L. .J., Q. V>. 
 451) : 18 Q. B. D. ID!) ; 51 L. T. 15S ; 82 \W. U. 
 761) : 5 Asp. M. C. 280 ; 48 J. P. 511). 
 
 7. I'liOTECTlOX FROM I.M I'O.SITIOX. 
 
 Persons going on Board before final Arrival of 
 Ship. — \. \v;i> rh.ii'.'id iiii(l<,-r the Mcrcliaiit 
 Miippiiig Act, 1S51 (17 A: 18 Vict. c. lOJ), s. 287, 
 vvitli iKi.'irdiiig, without the permission rif the 
 master, a ship " about to arrive at her place of 
 <iestinatif>ii Ik-Foic her actual arrival in liock or 
 ai the ])lace of h<T discharge." The siiip, at the 
 time he boarded lier. had just entered- the Cum- 
 berland B.isin, in the port of Bristol, at 7 p.m. 
 'J'he basin is divided from the river Avon by 
 d<jek gates, and is a complete dock, forming jiart 
 of. but divided by other dock g.ites from, the 
 rest of the docks. There are quays in the basin, 
 but tlie ship was not intended to discharge in 
 the Ijasin : she remained in the basin all night, 
 
 and the next morning she was moored further in 
 the floating harboui-, and discharged her cargo at 
 the quay there. The justices dismissed the com- 
 l^laint :— Hel<l. that the ship had not arrived 
 "at her place of destination " by merely arriving 
 in the port of Bristol, and that she had not 
 "actually arrived at her ])Iace of discharge." 
 which was the quay where she ultimately did 
 discharge ; but that she had actually arrived in 
 dock, within the meaning of the section, although 
 the dock was not the dock in which she ultimate! j^ 
 discharged : and that the justices' decision was 
 therefore risht. Aftirood v. Ca.w, 45 L. J.. M. C. 
 20 ; 1 Q. B. D. 134 ; 33 L. T. 507 ; 24 W. i;. 114. 
 
 Disposition of Court to Protect.] — Mariners 
 are, from their ignorance ami helpless state, 
 jtlaced in a peculiar manner under the tender 
 protection of the court — per Sir W. Scott. The 
 Rcc'ter, 2 C. Bob. 2')1. 
 
 Assignment of Prize Money.] — Assignment by 
 seaman of his prize money to the surgeon set 
 aside. Tayhmr v. liorhfort. 2 Ves. Sen. 281. 
 Baldwin v. Rochfort. 1 Wils. 229. 
 
 Contract to give up Salvage.]— ^t*? post, 
 XXVI. .Salvage. 
 
 Unreasonable Contracts for Service.] — See 
 
 Buck v. Ruiclin.-iiin. mid Ca.sr.i ante. col. 118. 
 
 8. Wills of Seamex. 
 
 Probate — Mariner's "Will.] — 1 Vict. c. 2t). 
 s. 11. 
 
 A mariner on board ship at Port Adelaide 
 wrote a letter relating to the disposition of his 
 property in case of his death ; — Hekl. that this 
 letter was entitled to probate, under 1 & 2 Vict, 
 c. 26. s. 11, as a codicil to a will which he had 
 previousl_y executed. Parhrr, In the i/nods of. 
 2 S\v. & Tr. 375 ; 28 L. J., P. Ul ; 5 jiir. (N.s.) 
 558. 
 
 Will of a seaman on board the "Excellent"' 
 training ship, permanently stationed in Ports- 
 mouth liarljoui-, lield to V>e tlie will of a mariner 
 or seaman being at se.'i within 1 Vict. c. 26, s. 11. 
 J/rMiirdo. lu the f/o,>d.i of, L. It. 1 P. A: M. 540. 
 
 A surgeon in the navy, returning fi<iin service, 
 vviiilst at sea wrote a letter stating how he 
 wished his prtiiicrty to be disposed of at his 
 death : — Held, that he was a m.-uiner or .seaman 
 within 21t Car. 2. c. 8, s. 28, and 1 Vict. c. 26. 
 s. 11, and probate granted. .Saundrr.t, In the 
 good.sof, I,. K. 1 V.lx. M. 16. 
 
 A staff-surgeon in the navy wrote a letter, 
 some scntrn<-es of which wfic testamentary, on 
 boaril H.M.S. "Ser|)cnt" at Devoiiport. The 
 ship was lost at .sea a few days after: — Helil, 
 that tiie will was entitled to probate. Roe, In 
 tin- .u<:d.,ni\ 27 L. P.. Jr. 116. 
 
 1). j,Ml'ICI>.-.MEST, 
 
 A man is not excused from impressment as 
 being headborough of tlie place in whicli he 
 resides. Semble, there are no exemptions. oxce|)t 
 by statute, and jjcrhaps ferrymen. Fox, Ex 
 parte. 5 Term Picp. 276 : 2 \\. U. 5116. 
 
 H:ibeas corpus not granted at prayer of the 
 master to bring uj) his apprentice who had been 
 impressed. Lniidxdoun, IJ.r parte. 5 East. 38. 
 
 When an nppliiiiinn by the mastet f(u- a
 
 139 
 
 SHIPPING— VI. Seamen. 
 
 140 
 
 habeas corpus warrant, granted by Mansfield, 
 O.J., to bring before biim apprentices wrongly 
 impressed. The Apprentices' Case, 1 Leach. C.C. 
 203. 
 
 Impressment of seamen is legal. Case of 
 Pressing Mariners, 18 St. Tr. 1326. 
 
 A seaman is not exempt from impressment 
 because he is a freeholder. Bex \. Dovglas, 5 
 East, 477. See Goods' Case, W. Bl. 251 ; or 
 ship's carpenter Boggln, Ex parte, 13 East, 
 549. 
 
 A lord mayor's waterman is not exempt from 
 impressment. lie.v v. Tuhls, Cowp. 517. 
 
 A bond given by an impressed person to pay a 
 sum in consideration of his release is void. Pole 
 V. Harrohin, 9 East, 416, n. ; 3 Dougl. 61. 
 
 A bargeman protected from impressment 
 whilst carrying timber to the royal yards held 
 not subject to impressment. Goldswairis Case, 
 
 2 W. Bl. 1207. 
 
 To^convict for harbouring deserters under 17 & 
 18 Vi'ct. c. 104, s. 257, it must be shewn that the 
 ship was British and registered. Leary v. Lloyd, 
 
 3 El. & El. 178 ; 29 L.^J., M. C. 194. 
 
 Wages of Seamen Impressed.] — Sec Cases 
 supra, col. 108. 
 
 10. Supplying without Licence, 
 
 Onus of Proof of Licence on Defendant.] — 
 
 A defendant having been charged iinder the 
 147th section of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, 
 with supplying a seaman to a merchant ship, 
 in the United Kingdom, he not being a person 
 holding a licence from the board of trade for 
 that purpose : — Held, on a case stated, that 
 proof having been given of the supply of the 
 seaman by "the defendant, the onus of proving 
 that he held a licence from the board of trade 
 rested with him. Reg. v. Johnston, 55 L. T. 
 265 ; 16 Cox, C. C. 221 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 14 ; 51 
 J. P. 22. 
 
 11. Thames "Wateemex. 
 
 Thames By-laws — Navigating Steamboat — 
 Towing more than Six Barges.] — A by-law 
 mailf in pursuance of the Watermen and Lighter- 
 men Amendment Act, 1859, provides that any 
 person, who, when in charge of or navigating 
 any steataboat on the river between Vauxhall 
 Bridge and the entrance to the Victoria Docks, 
 shall at the same time tow more than six bai-ges 
 exceeding ten tons each attached thereto, shall 
 incur a penalty. A person in charge of a steam- 
 boat towed thirty-one barges of more than ten 
 tons each from the upper dolphin, situate about 
 100 yards above the entrance of the Victoria 
 Docks, into the docks : — Held, that he was not, 
 while so doing, navigating a steamboat upon the 
 river within the meaning of the by-law, and 
 could not be convicted of a breach thereof. 
 Eolles V. Newell, 59 L. J., Q. B. 423 ; 25 Q. B. D. 
 335 ; 63 L. T. 384 ; 39 W. R. 96 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 563 ; 55 J. 1\ 70. 
 
 Barge — Number of Men.] — By-law 16 
 
 of the Thames conservators provides that all 
 barges, boats, lighters and other craft navigating 
 the river Thames, shall, when under way, have 
 at least one competent man constantly on board 
 for the navigation and management thereof, and 
 all such craft of above fifty tons brtrden shall 
 when under way have one man in addition on 
 
 board to assist in the navigation of the same : — 
 Held, that, " one man in addition " in this by- 
 law means one competent and skilful man in 
 addition, and that where the craft is above fifty 
 tons burden, the by-law requires two competent 
 men on board, and is not satisfied by having 
 on board one competent man being a licensed 
 lighterman, and a boy about sixteen years of age. 
 Goldsmith v. Slattern, 63 L. T. 273 ; 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 561. And see Perhins v. Gingell, col. 835. 
 
 Watermen's Act — Apprentice — Temporary 
 Employment.] — When a person qualified to take 
 apprentices under the Watermen and Lighter- 
 men's Act, 1859, has no employment for the 
 time being for his apprentices, he may find 
 temporary employment for them with another 
 person so qualified. Smith v. Francis, 55 J. P. 
 407. 
 
 Apprentice — Second Hand on Barge.] — 
 
 An apprentice bound as prescribed in the Water- 
 men's Act, 1859, is qualified to act as a lighter- 
 man under s. 54, although he does not hold, and 
 is not qualified to hold, a licence under the act ; 
 and he may be a competent person to act as 
 second hand on board a barge or other craft of 
 over fifty toirs burden, within the meaning of 
 by-law 16, made under the Thames conservancy 
 acts. Gosling v. Newton, 64 L. J., M. C. 160 ; 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 793 ; 15 R. 395 ; 72 L. T. 500 ; 
 43 W. E. 559 ; 18 Cox, C. C. 135 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 587 ; 59 J. P. 406. 
 
 Working Craft for Hire — Labourer em- 
 ployed at Weekly Wages.] — The appellant, who 
 
 was not a freeman of the Company of Watermen 
 and Lightermen of the river Thames, was con- 
 victed of an offence under s. 54 of the Watermen 
 and Lightermen Amendment Act, 1859 (22 & 23 
 Vict. c. cxxxiii). That section provides that, 
 " if any person not being a freeman licensed in 
 pursuance of this act, or an apprentice qualified 
 according to this act, . . . shall at any time 
 act as a waterman or lighterman, or ply or work 
 any wherry, passenger-boat, lighter, vessel, cr 
 other craft upon the said river from or to an_7 
 place or places or ship or vessel within the 
 limits of this act for hire or gain," every such 
 person shall be liable to a penalty. The 
 appellant, who was engaged as a labourer at a 
 wharf at weekly wages, by the orders of his 
 employers, rowed a numljer of labourers in one 
 of his employers' boats to a ship lying in the 
 river within the limits defined by the act. He 
 received no separate reward or payment for so 
 doing : — Held, that the conviction was wrong. 
 Shittrell v. Shoicell, 59 L. J., M. C. 26 ; 61 L. T. 
 874 ; 54 J. P. 325. 
 
 Construction — Master on Paddle-box.] 
 
 — By the 99th by-law under the Watermen's 
 and Lightermen's Amendment Act, 1859, which 
 provides that if the master of any steam vessel 
 shall not (when practicable) remain on one of 
 the paddle-boxes or on the bridge of such vessel, 
 or shall not cause and procure a proper look-out 
 to be kept " from the bow " of such vessel, he 
 shall incur a penalty, is not inconsistent with 
 or impliedly repealed by the 36th by-law made 
 under the Thames Conservancy Act, 1864, which 
 provides that the master of every steam vessel 
 shall be and remain on one of the paddle-boxes 
 or bridge, and shall cause a proper look out to be 
 kept from the said vessel. Green v. Gosling, 62
 
 141 
 
 JSHIPPIXG— YII. Pilot. 
 
 142 
 
 L. J.. M. C. 45 ; [1803^ 1 Q. B. 109 : 5 E !•! • 
 «7 L. T. So3 ; 41 W. R.'Ul : 7 Asp. M. C. 248 • 
 57 J. P. 87. 
 
 Barge in Tow— Waterman on Board."' — 
 
 A barge oil the Thames iu tow of a tug must 
 have a licensed \\-atermau on Loaid and in charge. 
 Elmore v. Hunter, 47 L. J., M. C. 8 : 3 C. P D 
 116 ; 38 L. T. 179 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 555. 
 
 Navigating without Licence.] — A person, 
 
 other than those mentioned in 22 & 23 Vict. 
 c. cxxxiii, s. 54, who navigates a barge for hire 
 within the limits of the act, is liable to the 
 penalty of the act. although the barge has sailed 
 from a place outside thelimits of the act, and 
 might, under 7 & 8 Geo. TV. c. Ixxv, have been 
 navigated by such person. Botch v. Phelps^, 
 30 L. J.. M. C. 2 ; 6 Jur. (x.s.) 1371 ; 3 L. T. 
 296 ; 9 W. E. 70. 
 
 The above section does not apply to a person, 
 other than a freeman, who conveys for his own 
 purposes his servants or workmen, without 
 charge. Titdhunter v. Bucldey, 7 L. T. 273. 
 
 A steam tug of eighty-seven tons, under 7 & 8 
 Geo. 4, c. Ixxv, s. 37, may be navigated by a 
 person who is not a freeman without incurring a 
 penalty. i?mZ v. Lujliam. 3 El. ct Bl. 889 ; 23 
 L. J.. M. C. 156 ; 2 C. L. Pt. 1495 ; 1 .Jur. (n.s.) fil. 
 
 A barge, foiinerly a western barge, but at the 
 date of the offence employed in carrj'ing goods 
 for the Great Western Railway from a basin of 
 the Grand Junction Canal, outside the limits of 
 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. Ixxv. to a wharf in the Thames 
 within the limits of the act, is not a western 
 barge within s. 101 of the act. TllUe v. Bcadoii, 
 24 L. J., M. C. 104. S. a, nom. Reg. v. TMle^ 
 4 El. & Bl. 888. 
 
 Validity of By-law— Penalty.]— A by- 
 law imposing a penalty on any freeman who 
 employed a non-freeman to navigate craft on the 
 Thames is good. Edmonds v. Waterman's Co., 
 24 L. J., M. C. 124 ; 3 C. L. R. 902 ; 1 Jur (N.s.) 
 727. 
 
 Licence Granted — Administrative, not Judi- 
 cial Act— Certiorari.] — Tlie making of an order 
 for tiie i-siH- of a licence or certificate by the 
 court of the Conijiany of Watermen and Lighter- 
 men of the river Thames autliorising a person 
 who lias actually served for two years under a 
 contract with a lighterman qualified to take 
 ai)|)reritices, to act as a lighterman, is not a 
 judicial, but an administrative act, and conse- 
 quently such an order cannot be removed into 
 the high court bv certiorari. Ite'/. v. Liicei/, 
 (f'osliii//, E.r jmrte^m L. J., Q. B. "308 ; [1897] 
 1 Q. B. 659 ; 61 J. P. 388. 
 
 VII. PILOT. 
 
 1. Jiecovery of Fees and PenalticK. 141. 
 
 2. Duties, Ilitihts, and LiahilHtes, 144. 
 
 3. Licences, 145. 
 
 4. Duty to Employ. 147. 
 
 And see XX., COLLISION, 10. COMPDLSOBY 
 
 Pilotage. 
 
 1. Recovery of Fees and Penalties. 
 
 Production of Licence.] — The master of a 
 f^hip was iKit liable to the penalty imposed by 
 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, s. 58, for refusing to employ a 
 pilot, unless the pilot jiroduced his licence as 
 required by s. 66, although it was demanded. 
 
 Hammond \. Blale. 10 I!. & C. 424 ; 5 M. i: Ry 
 361 ; 8 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 140. 
 
 A pilot nonsuited inaction for pilotage because 
 he did not shew his license. 52 Geo. 3, c. 39, s. 34. 
 V^slier V. Lyon, 2 Price, 118. 
 
 Offer by Pilot to take charge.] — A conviction 
 under 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, s. 7U. for continuing in 
 charge of a ship after a duly licensed pilot had 
 offered to take charge of it. was bad, if it did not 
 shew that the offer was made to or in the presence 
 of the party in charge of the vessel, or that it 
 otherwise came to his knowledce. Chancy v. 
 Payne, 1 G. & D. 348 ; 1 Q. B. 712. 
 
 In an action against a master of a vessel for 
 penalties under 52 Geo. 3, c. 39, s. 34, the decla- 
 ration must have alleged that a licensed pilot 
 offered to the master to take charge of the vessel, 
 or made such offer in his presence or hearing ; 
 and it was not sufficient merely to follow the 
 general words of the act. Peahe v. Carrinrjton, 
 5 Moore, 176 ; 2 Br. & B. 399. 
 
 Transporting in Thames.]— The 5 Geo. 2, c. 20, 
 which inflicted a penalty on persons piloting 
 ships down the Thames, only extended to vessels 
 sailing on foreign voyages, and not to those 
 which, having performed their voyages, were 
 moved from one wharf to another on the river, 
 for the purpose of unloading their cargoes. lie.v 
 V. Lamhe, 5 Term Rep. 76. S. P., Bcc v. Keale, 
 8 Term Rep. 241. 
 
 Extra Fee for Locking.] — A ship arriving at 
 the entrance of the West India Docks too late for 
 docking that tide, held not liable under G Geo. 4, 
 c. 125, to an extra pilotaere charge for ■• docking " 
 next tide. The Adah, 2"Hag. Adm. 326. 
 
 In Charge ofVessel— 6 Geo. 4. c. 125, s. 70.] — 
 
 Where a jitrsuu selects the cmiise of a ship, and 
 takes the maiiageiiient of her for the pui-pose of 
 directing her in that course, he is in the charge or 
 conduct of the vessel within 6 (Jco. 4, c. 125, s. 
 70. The master was not, however, precluded by 
 that section from employing any moving jiower. 
 as, for instance, steam or other ]io\ver, bona fide 
 used as a moving jtower, if upon the party ap|)ly- 
 ing such ))ower necessarily devolved the select ion 
 of the ship's course, and the charge or conduct 
 of her in that course. Dcilhy v. t>cott, 7 M. A: W. 
 93 : 10 L. J., Ex. 149. 
 
 The master of a vessel navigating it himself as 
 pilot, after a duly licensed pilot otrei('<l himself, 
 was not liable to the |ienalty imiiosed by 6 Geo. 
 4, c. 125, s. 70, although he was liable to double 
 the amount of tiie ](ilotagc of the vessel, within 
 s. 58. JleiUni V. Shepherd, '^ Ex.40; 18 L. J., 
 Ex. 73. 
 
 Change of Pilots. J — Wlun-a ni,i>i(r d a \o-sel 
 disciiargi'l a cin'iue jKirt jiilnt in Standgale- 
 creek, and (lroppe<l a mile down the jiort of 
 Uochcstcr, with a signal flying for a trinity 
 house pilot, who came on board at Slieerness : — 
 Held, tiiat he was liable to a ]ifnalty under 52 
 Geo. 3, c. 39. Thornton v. Bohind, 9 Jloore, 403 ; 
 2 Bing. 219. 
 
 Charges — Thames.] — A jiilot who lirings a ship 
 from Gravcseud to the eutrnnce of the Tilbury 
 Docks, and thence into the docks, is not entitled 
 under the order in council of M,T,y 17, 1KS2, to 
 the special charge "for removing a vessel from 
 moorings into a dvj or wet dock," or to charge
 
 143 
 
 SHIPPING— YIL Pilot. 
 
 144 
 
 any sum other than the rate from Gravesend to I ports for the penalty for piloting a ship in the 
 
 Northtieet. Thr Clan Grant, 5(5 L. J., Adm. G2 ; 12 
 P. D. 139 ; oV L. T. ll'i ; 85 W. K. G70 ; 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 144. 
 
 Liability of Shipbroksrs— Pilot carried to Sea.] 
 
 — The ten ^^hilliugs and six[)euce per day to 
 which a licensed pilot, taken, without his consent, 
 to sea, or beyond the limits of his pilotage district, 
 in any ship, is entitled by 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104 
 (The "Merchant Shipping Act, 18.54), s. ,357, are 
 not '■ pilotage dues" for which the shipbrokers 
 are liable under s. 363. Morteo v. Julian, 48 
 L. J., M. C. 120 : 4 C. P. D. 216 : 41 L. T. 71. 
 
 Penalties — Suing for.]— The penalty imposed 
 by 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, s. 70, might be sued for by a 
 common informer. Beilby v. Scott, 7 M. & W. 
 93 ; 10 L. J., Ex. 149. 
 
 Calculation of.]— The penalties imposed 
 
 by 52 Geo. 3, c. 39, s. 11, on ships neglecting to 
 take in a pilot on arriving off Dungeness, were to 
 be calculated on ships bound for the river, not on 
 tlie pilotage due from Dungeness to the Downs, 
 but on that which would be due on the ship's 
 arrival at her ultimate place of destination in 
 tlie river. JIackie v. Landon, 1 Marsh. 585 ; 6 
 Taunt. 256. 
 
 ■ • Acting as Pilot.] — T. was third mate of 
 
 a ship, and after P., a duly licensed pilot, had 
 differed to take chai-ge, continued to act as pilot. 
 T. was charged under s. 361 of the Merchant 
 .Shi[ii)ing Act, 1854 : — Held, that the justices 
 rightly convicted T. without regard to his being 
 or not being mate of the ship. Turner v. Peat 
 53 J. P. 230. 
 
 Local Act — Pilotage Fees.]— Where a 
 
 liublic local act. in force before tlie passing of 
 the Merchant Sliip|)ing Act, 1854, and regulating 
 a port, imposes a penalty on unauthorised persons 
 acting as pilots, pilotage is compulsory. Pilotage 
 rates, fixed by by-laws made by trustees under 
 a local act, and under the Merchant Shipping 
 Act. 1854, and duly sanctioned by her majesty in 
 council, may be sued for by a pilot viio has 
 rendered services as such. The Merchant Ship- 
 ping Act Amendment Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. 
 c. 68), is retrospective, as it declares what the 
 meaning of the principal act of 1854 always has 
 been, and by it the word " ship " in the act of 
 1854 includes "foreign sliip." Jones v. Bennett, 
 63 L. T. 705 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 596. 
 
 Master Piloting his own Ship.] — A master 
 
 or ])art owner nut being a jiilof may not, under 
 3 (jco. 1, c. 13, pilot his own shij) up'the Thames. 
 Kcmlcr V. Blanchard, W. Bl. 690. 
 
 Refusal to take Pilot.] — For a commit- 
 ment under 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, s. 70, to be good it 
 must appear that tlie offer by the pilot to take 
 cliai-ge of the ship was made to the accused, or in 
 his presence. Reg. v. CluiTwy, 6 Dowl. P. C. 281. 
 
 Sued for in Admiralty — Non-qualified Pilots' 
 
 Charges.] — Pilotage sued for in admiralty ; how 
 far .-tatutorv rates applicable to non-qualified 
 pilots. The Xelson, 6 C. Kob. 217. 
 
 A pilot may sue in admiralty for his services 
 at sea. The Bee, 2 Dods. 498. 
 
 Proceedings in the admiralty of the cinque 
 
 Thames contrary to 3 Geo. 1, c. 13. Declaration 
 for attachment in prohibition. Pierce v. Ilojijier, 
 1 Str. 249. 
 
 2. Duties, Rights, and Liabilities. 
 
 Liability of Pilot of King's Ship.] — Liability 
 of pilot of king's slii[). See Stort v. Clements, 
 post, XX. Collision, 3. Liability. 
 
 Action against Pilot for Collision — Venue.] — 
 
 An action against a piLjt for negligently damag- 
 ing another ship by collision need not, under 
 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, s. 84, be brought in the county 
 where the cause of action arises. Laicson v. 
 Zhniilin, 9 C. B. 54. 
 
 Pilot Getting Under Way in Improper 
 Weather.] — A pilot who took a heavy steam- 
 ship out of dock and down the Ch'de in weather 
 such that she ought not to have left the dock, 
 held liable in damages for a collision that 
 followed. Burrell v. McBrayne, Islay (^Owner 
 of) v. Patience, 22 Ct. of Sess. Gas. (4th scr.) 224. 
 
 Held, that taking the ship to sea in such 
 weather was "wilful or culpable neglect or mis- 
 management," within the above act. Ibid. And 
 see The Stratlispey and The Islay, XX. COL- 
 LISION ; 9, Compulsory Pilotage. 
 
 Jurisdiction against — Court of Passage.] — A 
 
 ship, by compulsion of law, in charge of a duly 
 licensed pilot in the river Mersey, came into 
 collision with and occasioned damage to another 
 vessel. The owners of the damaged vessel 
 instituted an admiralty suit in the court of 
 passage against the pilot : — Held, that the coiu-t 
 of passage had not jurisdiction to entertain the 
 suit, as an admiralty suit. Tlie Ale-vandria, 41 
 L. J., Adm. 94 ; L. E. 3 A. & E. 574 ; 27 L. T. 
 565 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 464. 
 
 Of Court of Admiralty.]— Semble, that 
 
 the court of admiralty has not jurisdiction to 
 entertain such a suit. Ih. 
 
 There is no admiralty jurisdiction to entertain 
 a suit against a pilot who, in navigating a ship, 
 has caused a collision between that shiji and 
 another. lb. 
 
 Of County Court.]— An action against a 
 
 pilot for collision and damage caused to a barque 
 by a vessel under his charge, is not an "admi- 
 ralty cause," within 31 &; 32 Vict. c. 71, and 
 32 & 33 Vict. c. 61, which confer admiralty 
 jurisdiction upon county courts. Flower v. 
 Bradleij. 44 L. .L, E.x. 1 ; "31 L. T. 702 ; 23 W. R. 
 74 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 489. 
 
 — — - Joinder of Pilot as Defendant — Collision,] 
 
 — See The Germanic, post, XX. Collision, 13. 
 Pkactice. 
 
 Collision with Dock Wall — Liability of 
 
 Pilot in Admiralty.] — See The Zeta, Mersey 
 Boclis and Harbour Trustees v. Turner, post, 
 XX. Collision. 
 
 Liability of Harbour or Pilotage Authority for 
 Collision caused by Pilot.] — See post, tit. Col- 
 lision — Liability. 
 
 Duties of Pilot in charge of a Ship.] — See post, 
 XX. Collision. 9. Co.aipulsoky Pilotage.
 
 Ui 
 
 SHIPPING— VII. Pilot. 
 
 14G 
 
 Injury to Pilot — Not Fellow-servant of Crew — 
 Liability of Owners.] — There is no implied con- 
 nact Ijctwcc'U the owners of a ship and a pilot 
 whciui they are compelled to employ, that the 
 pilot shall take upon himself the risk of injury 
 from the negligence of the shipowners' servants ; 
 and an action will lie by the pilot against the 
 shipowner's for injuries caused to him whilst 
 acting as pilot on board their vessel, by the 
 Hei^ligeuce of their servants. Smitli, v. Steele, 
 ■li'L^J., Q. B. GO ; L. R. 10 Q. B. 12o ; 32 L. T. 
 195 ; 23 W. R. 38S. 
 
 And where a pilot went on board a vessel in 
 the course of bis duty, in a district in which 
 pilotage is conijiulsory, and while he was on 
 board, a boat, which had been negligently slung 
 by servants of the shipoMTiers, fell on and killed 
 him : — Held, that his widow could recover in an 
 action against the shipowners brought by her, as 
 executrix, under Lord CampbelFs Act. lb. 
 
 Additional Remuneration — Salvage.] — Where 
 a pilot is called upon to perform extraordinary 
 service, he may recover additional pilotage 
 remuneration. Tlie General Palm er, 2 'Ra.g.Adin. 
 17G ; The Enterpvhe, 2 Hag. Adm. 178, n. And 
 see post, XVIII. Salvage. 
 
 3. Licences. 
 
 Licences— Renewal,] — By 17 & 18 Vict. c. 101, 
 6. 374, no licence granted by the Trinity house 
 shall continue in force beyond the 31st January 
 next ensuing the date of such licence, but the 
 same may, upon the application of the pilot 
 holding such licence, be renewed on such 31st 
 January in every year, or any subse pent day ; 
 <ind a" pilot's licence renewed on the 20lh 
 January is within the intention of this provision, 
 so as to be in operation and etl'ect in the May 
 following. The Beta, 3 Mooie. P. C. (X.S.) 23 ; 
 Br. &; Lush. 328 ; 34 L. J., Adm. 70 ; 12 L. T. 1. 
 
 Refusal to Deliver up.] — Under 17 &; 18 
 
 Vict. c. 104. s. 3.'>2. a ipiulifiiMl jjilot refusing to 
 deliver up liis licence whi-ii re<(uired to do so by 
 the pilotage authority, is liable to a penalty, and 
 cannot defend himself on the ground that the 
 pilotage authority has acted capriciously in 
 requiring the delivery. Jfenry v. Aeweasfle 
 Trliiiti/ House Hoard, 8 El. & Bl. 723 ; 27 L. J., 
 M. C. 57 ; 4 Jur. (N.s.) G8.J ; G AV. R. 232. 
 
 Leith Trinity House — Limits,] — Tlie 
 
 Trinity house of Leilli has not power to grant 
 licences to pilots within the jurisdiction f>f the 
 Trinity house of Lonilon,and therefore a pilot to 
 whom'a licence has been gianted by (he Trinity 
 house of Leitli to navigate a ship .-ilong the east 
 coast of England to Orfordness, tlience to the 
 Note, and vice vcrsil, is subject to a penalty, under 
 5 (ieo. 2, c. 20, s. 1. Ihmneh v. 6'/v/v/. G B. &: S. 
 598 ; 34 L. J., M. C. 209 ; 11 Jur. C-N--^) '-''Jii ; 12 
 L. T. 701 ; 13 W. R. 8.VJ. 
 
 Hull Trinity House — Authority to 
 
 Licence.] — By a charier of Klizatieih i lie liinity 
 lunise of'^Hull was auihori^ed to take duties "in 
 the port of the tov.ii of Kiiigston-upon-Hull, 
 and in all jdaccs within the limits and liberties 
 thereof, that is to say, in all havens, creeks, and 
 other places where our customer of Hull by 
 virtue of liis office hath any aiUhority to take 
 any custom;" and they were empowered to 
 exercise jurisdiction over disputes arising within 
 
 the same limits ; and to forbid any mariner of 
 Hull to take charge as pilot of any ship to cross 
 the seas, except such as should be first examined 
 and licensed bj' them ; and to punish any person 
 who should act as pilot to cross the seas without 
 their licence. The limits' in question extended 
 many miles up the Humber and river Ouse. 
 Goole, a place within those limits, where the 
 customer of Hull had formerly exercised juris- 
 diction, was constituted a port in 1828. Till 
 after that time the Trinity house had never 
 licensed pilots to take charge of vessels upon 
 the Ouse, or the Humber, above Hull roads : — 
 Held that the power given by the charter to 
 license in all places where the customer of Hull 
 had authority to take custom, extended over all 
 the limits within which the customer might so 
 act at the time when the charter was granted : 
 consequently, that Goole, though now an inde- 
 pendent port as to customs, was still subject to; 
 the charter, in respect of the licensing of pilots. ' 
 Benhij V. Baper, 3 B. & Ad. 284. 
 
 Held, also, that it was not requisite, by the 
 terms of the charter, that every licence should 
 be for crossing the seas ; but that the corporation 
 might grant a more limited licence, as from 
 Goole to Hull roads. Ih. 
 
 Pilotage Certificates — Grant of.] — The master 
 of a vessel applied for a certificate, purporting 
 to enable him to i)ilot his vessel within certain 
 waters, and submitted to the required examina- 
 tion. The certificate was signed and sealed by 
 the pilotage authority, and was lying in the 
 ottice to be called for by the master, but he had 
 not applied for it, and was ignorant that it was 
 ready and would be given him on application : — 
 Held, that the certificate was not granted to the 
 master, nor possessed by him, within 17 iV: 18 
 Vict. c. 104, ss. 340, 3.')3, so as to enable him to 
 pilot his vessel in the specifictl waters. The 
 Killarney, Lush. 202; 30 L. J., Adm. 41; 5 
 L. T. 21. 
 
 Evidence by a clerk from the Trinity house 
 that the Trinity house has. fiom a period prior 
 to the Merchant Shipiiing Act, 18.")4, been in the 
 habit of licensing pilots for the district in (pies- 
 tion, is prima facie proof of their authority. 
 The Juno, 45 L. J.. Adm. M5 ; I 1". D. 135 ; 34 
 L. T. 741 ; 24 AV. R. 9()2 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 217. 
 
 Under 17 &: 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 355, the board 
 of trade can issue certificates to masters or 
 mates of ships described in s. 354, and of such 
 ships only. The Earl of Auehluiid, Lush. 3.S7 ; 
 15 Moore, 1*. C. 304 ; 5 L. T. 558 ; 10 W. R. 124 
 — r. C. 
 
 A i)ilotagc certificate issued to a master 
 descriiiing a ship as the property of a iier.son. 
 who was not the owner either at the time of 
 the granting of the certificate, or at the tinu-of 
 a collision subsequently occurring, is invalid at 
 the time of that collision. Jh. 
 
 Refusal of Pilotage Authority to Renew.] 
 
 — A pilotage aulliMriiy ha> an ahsuliite disereliun 
 under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854. s. 341, 
 to refuse to renew a pilotage certificate granted 
 to the master or mate of a ship under s. 340. 
 Ileg. v. Trinitij JIohhc, 35 W. R. 835. 
 
 Cinque Port Pilot Revocation of Licence — 
 Powers of Trinity House. —Tlie Trinity house, 
 since IG iV, 17 Vict. c. 129, have power to revoke 
 the licence of a cinque port i)ilot granted by tlie 
 lord warden, under G d'o. 4, c. 125, for a juoper
 
 147 
 
 SHIPPIXG— YIII. Sale and Transfer. 
 
 148 
 
 cause. Xaturcof the iiKiuiiy and hearing to be 
 had in sxich case discussed. Fug. \. Trinity 
 House, i W. R. 124. 
 
 Duty to produce.] — See Ilammonil v. Blalie, 
 supra, tol. 142. 
 
 4. Duty to Employ. 
 
 Compulsory Pilotage.] — See post, XX. Colli- 
 sio>', y. Compulsory Pilotage. 
 
 Duty of Master to employ Pilot.] — It is the 
 duty of a master arriving ofE a strange port to 
 do his best to prociire a pilot : but if he cannot 
 obtain one, the insurance is not therefore void. 
 PhiUips V. He.'idlam, 2 B. & Ad. 380 ; 9 L. J. 
 (O.s.) K. B. 2oS. See Law \. Ilollingsworth, 7 
 Term Rep. IGO. 
 
 A captor neglecting to take a pilot into 
 Guernsey, whereby the prize was lost : — Held, 
 liable in damages. The William, 6 C. Rob. 
 31(j. 
 
 A captor who properly places his prize in 
 charge of a jjilot is not liable for her loss. The 
 Pmixmouth, G C. Rob. 317, n. 
 
 VIII. SALE AND TRANSFER. 
 
 1. Contract for sale, 147. 
 
 2. Title. 
 
 a. By bill of sale, 154. 
 h. In other Cases, 157. 
 
 3. Who can Sell. 
 
 a. Managing owners, 158, 
 
 h. Part owners, 159. 
 
 c. Attorney, 159. 
 
 cl. Guardian of Infant, 160. 
 
 e. Sheriff, IGO. 
 
 /. Master, IGO. 
 
 (J. Ratification by owner. 1G3. 
 
 '/;. Mortgagee — ,SVs IX. MoPvTGAGE, infra. 
 
 4. S.ile hy Admiralty Court, 1G4. 
 
 5. Liahilities and L'iyhts of Purchaser, 165. 
 C. Commission, 1G7. 
 
 1. Contract for Sale. 
 
 Written Agreement for — Necessity of Regis- 
 tration.] — An agreement in writing to transfer a 
 ship does not require to be registered iinder the 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 18.v4 (17 & 18 Vict. 
 c. 104). s. 55, nor need the special description of 
 the ship sold required by that section to be 
 inserted in a bill of sale transferring the ship 
 be contained in such agreement. The plaintiff 
 agreed in writing with the defendant to sell, 
 and the defendant agreed to purchase, a yacht 
 belonging to the plaintiff for the sum of 2,600/., 
 whereof "the plaintiff was the registered owner, 
 on condition that the defendant should be at 
 liberty to rescind the said agreement should the 
 yacht" prove unsound. The defendant refused to 
 carry out his part of the agreement, and the 
 plaintiff brought an action against the defendant 
 for specific performance, or, in the alternative, 
 2.600^., and for damages for breach of contract. 
 The defendant pleaded that the agreement, if 
 any was made, was not a bill of sale, nor was it 
 registered, nor did it contain a sufficient descrip- 
 tion of the yacht, as required by the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1854. The i)laintiff demurre<l : — 
 Heid, that s. 55 of the Mei'chant Shipping Act. 
 18Ji, applies to the actual instrument by which 
 
 the ship is to be transferred, and not to an 
 agreement to transfer. Battliyany v. Bouch., 50 
 L. J., Q. B. 421 ; 44 L. T. 177 ; 29 W. R. 665 ; 
 4 Asp. M. C. 380. 
 
 An unregistered contract for the sale of shares 
 in a British vessel could not be enforced in 
 equity before the passing of the 25 & 26 Vict. 
 c. 63, s. 3. Huqhes v. Morris, 2 De G. M. & G. 
 349 ; 21 L. J.. Ch. 761 ; 16 Jur. 603, infra. S. P., 
 M-Cnlmont v. Bayikin, 2 De G. M. & G. 403 ; 22 
 L. J., Ch. 554 ; Zirerj)ool Borough Banlt, v. 
 Turner, 2 De G. F. & J. 502 ; 30 L. J., Ch. 379 ; 
 7 Jur. (N.s.) 150 ; 3 L. T. 494 ; 9 W. R. 292 : 
 Boyson v. Gibson, 4 C. B. 121 ; 16 L. J., C. P. 
 147. A)ul see III. Registration, supra. 
 
 Executory Contract — Recital of Registry.] — 
 
 An action would not lie for the breach of an 
 executory contract for the sale or transfer of a 
 ship, unless the contract contained a recital of 
 the certificate of registry pursuant to the pre- 
 vious statute, 8 &; 9 Vict. c. 89, s. 34. Duncan v. 
 TindalJ, 13 C. B. 258 ; 22 L. J., C. P. 137 ; 17 
 Jur. 347. 
 
 Payment of Earnest.] — Trover was held to lie 
 for a ship, whei-e, upon a bargain of exchange, 
 tlie contract and delivery were fully completed 
 bv the payment of earnest. James v. Price, 
 Lofft, 219. 
 
 Illegal Stipulation in.] — A stipulation, in a 
 contract for the purchase of a ship made with a, 
 shipbuilder, that a certificate shall be delivered 
 to the purchaser by the builder, for the purpose 
 of enabling the former to obtain a register as 
 owner, under 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 55, ss. 15, 25, 
 before the masts were on board, and before the 
 ship was in a sufficiently forward state for the 
 measurement required to be made by that act, 
 did not render such contract illegal. Goss v. 
 Ouinton. 3 Man. & G. 825 : 4 Scott (N.K.) 471 ; 
 12 L. J.. C. P. 173 ; 7 Jur. 901. 
 
 Irregular — Effect of, against Wrongdoer.] — 
 
 The plaintiff bought and paid for a ship stranded 
 on the English coast, but the transfer was not 
 regular ; he tried to save her, but she went to 
 pieces : the defendant possessed himself of parts 
 of the wreck which drifted on his farm : — Held, 
 that the plaintiffs possession enabled him to 
 recover them in trover. Sutton v. Buck, 2 
 Taunt. 302; 11 R. R. 585. 
 
 Parol Evidence to shew Alteration.] — E., as 
 
 agent to H.. agreed to sell a ship to S., and a 
 written contract was signed by S. The contract 
 was forwarded to H., who made an alteration 
 therein, antl returned it to E., who thereupon 
 produced the written contract, as altered by H., 
 to S., who assented, without resigning the con- 
 tract : — Held, that parol evidence was admissible 
 to shew that S. assented, without re-signing, to 
 the alteration made by H. in the contract after 
 S. had aflixed his signature. Steicart v. Eddoioes, 
 and Hudson v. Stewart, 43 L. J., C. P. 204 ; 
 L. R. 9 C. P. 311 ; 30 L. T. 333 ; 22 W. R. 534. 
 
 Varying by Evidence of prior Contract.] — An 
 
 agreement for the sale of a ship ami kintlage 
 will not be varied or controlled by a prior con- 
 tract for the purchase of the latter only. Lano 
 v. ^'eale, 2 Stark. 105. 
 
 Warranty by subsequent Bill of Sale.] — A 
 contract by parol, or by letter, having been
 
 149 
 
 SHIPPING— Till. Sale and Transfer. 
 
 150 
 
 entero=l intD for the sale of a ship, with a war- Action on Bond for Quist Possession.] — Action 
 
 rantj, :i subsequent bill of sale, not containing upon bondbyveiuUir for quiet enjoyment of a shi}> 
 
 aTiy 'contract of warranty, does not necessarily sold ; breach alleged, that tlie purchaser was sued 
 
 destroy the previous warranty, supposing there for ballast supplied to the ship before the sale: — 
 
 is no evidence that the parties did not intend Held, that the plaintiff not having shewn that 
 
 that it should continue. Stuchcy v. Bailey, 3 , the ballast was in the ship at her sale, he coukl 
 
 F. <fe F. 1. not recover. Kynter's Case, Leon, part 1, 46. 
 
 Existence of Subject-Matter — Implied War- 
 ranty.] — By a deed-poll, A. sold to B. a ship, | 
 with its masts, tackle and appm-tenances. and 
 covenanted that he had good right, full power, 
 and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell, i 
 assign and set over the premises : — Held, that | 
 this was a covenant that the subject-matter of | 
 the transfer existed in the character of a ship, at 
 the date of the deed ; and if it was physically 
 destroyed, or had ceased to answer the designa- 
 tion of a ship, the covenant was broken. Ban- 
 V. Glhson, 3 M. & W. 390 ; 7 L. J.. Ex. 124. 
 
 Condition precedent — "Ship now at Ran- 
 goon."^ — In an action by the vendors against 
 their vendees for refusal to accept, evidence was 
 given to shew the circumstances under which 
 the contract was made, and that it was of vital 
 importance that the vessel should be in the port 
 named at the time of making the contract. The 
 jury found that the condition. " ship now at 
 Rangoon," had not been fulfilled, and that it 
 was a condition absolutely vital : — Held, that it 
 was rightly left to the jury to say under what 
 circumstances the contract was made, and that 
 the words " ship now at Bangoon " amounted to j 
 ■A warranty justifying the defendants in saying i 
 that there' had been a failure of performance of i 
 a condition precedent, and in refusing to carry ! 
 out the contract. Oppcnhtim v. Fraser, 34 L. T. 
 ,524 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 146. 
 
 Held, also, that the finding of the jury was 
 rightly taken as an element in enabling the 
 court to say that the words amounted to a con- 
 dition precedent. Ih. 
 
 Eemoving Ship after Contract for Sale.] — 
 A shiijowuer of Hani)rtirg made, at Hamburg. 
 an agreement with a domiciled Englishman for 
 the sale to the Englishman of a Hamburg ship 
 whenever she might return from the voyage on 
 which she then was. The ship returned, and 
 was by the owner ordered to proceed to Sunder- 
 land. ' Tliemaster'of the ship, who was authorised 
 V)y the shijiowner to act as his agent in the sale, 
 refused to deliver the sliip excejtt on certain 
 terms. The jiurchaser tiled a bill against the 
 owner and the master for specific jieriformanccs. 
 He oVjtained leave to substitute service on the 
 master for the owner, and moved for an injunc- 
 tion to restrain the defendants from removing 
 the ship out of the jurisdiction : — Held, that the 
 f-ourt had jurisdiction to restrain tlie defendants 
 fiom removing the ship, and injunction granted. 
 JIart v. Uvviclq, 42 L. J., Ch. 4.->7 ; L. K. 8 t'li. 
 8G0 ; 2'.» L. T. 4'7; 21 W. II. 0G3; 2 Asp. M. C. 63. 
 
 Sale with all Faults— Misrepresentation.";— 
 Contract for sale of shi[( '• with all faults." Tlie 
 vendors before signing the c^'-'ract liad sliewn 
 the purchaser an inventory or advertisement 
 circulated at her previous sale to them, wliicli 
 was misleading as to her condition and value : — 
 Held, that the jiarties were bound by the signed 
 contract, and that no action for deceit would lie 
 upon the representation. Pichrinri v. Lougon, 
 4 Taunt. 7 7 'J. 
 
 Sale when War imminent.] — The sale of a 
 ship absolutely and bonfi fide by an enemy to a 
 neirtral when war is imminent, is not illegal. 
 The Ariel, Soreyisen v. TJie Queen. 11 Moore, P. C. 
 11 L». 
 
 Transfer after Capture.] — A transfer by the 
 captor of a ship before condemnation is valid if 
 the ship be afterwards condemned. Mormugh 
 V. Comyers, 1 Wils. 211. 
 
 Sale of Ship and all belonging tc her — 
 Chronometer on Shore.] — A ship ready to sail 
 was sold with all belonging to her on board and 
 on shore : — Held, that a chronometer on shore 
 with an optician for regulation 'by him, and 
 previously used in the ship, was included in the 
 sale. Avmxtrong v. M'Gregor, 2 Ct. of Sess. Ca. 
 (4th ser.) 339. 
 
 Specific Performance.]— On a sale by auction 
 of shares in a ship, part of a bankrupt's estate, 
 one of the conditions was, that the purchase- 
 money should be paid to the solicitor of the 
 assignees on or before a certain day, when the 
 purchase was to be completed, and the purchaser 
 to have possession, and a bill of sale ; the pur- 
 chasei paid part of the purchase-money to the 
 solicitor before the day appointed for the com- 
 pletion of the purchase, and had possession, but. 
 not a bill of sale : — Held, that the payment, and 
 the execution of the bill of sale, ought, in 
 pui-suance of the condition, to have been con- 
 temporaneous ; that the assignees, not having 
 received the money from the siilicitor. or executed 
 the bill of sale, would not be restrained from 
 taking proceedings to recover possession of the 
 ship ; and that the purchaser was not entitled 
 to a decree for specific jierformance of the con- 
 tract, by the execution of tlie bill of sale by the 
 assignees, upon payment to them of the balance 
 of the inircbase inonev. J/ii'ifi<.i v. Morris. 2 
 De Li. M. A: G. 349 : 21 L. J., Ch. 701 ; 10 Jur. 
 6(J3 — L.JJ. Artirming 9 Hare, 630. 
 
 Bankruptcy Jurisdiction.] — Xo jurisdiction in 
 baiikrii|>ic-y tn ruiii|i. 1 bimkrupt loperfect bill of 
 sail' of a .siiip. Slnnirt, L',r jiurlr. I (ilyn, .V J. 
 344. 
 
 Breach of Contract to Sell.]— B. (.iin;!'- xi to 
 
 ])UriliaM' a baiL"' of H., tiic iiurchase-mdiiey to 
 
 be j.aid l>y in>talnu!its. I'art of tiie money so 
 
 to be paid was paid, and H. gave notice to B. 
 
 tliat he liad .s.ld the barge (<> another person, and 
 
 ' he must give it up. and gave a formal notice to 
 
 ! that effect. On i.etition under the Merchant 
 
 .>>liipping Act. 1.S.'.4. s. O.'i. to restrain tlie dealing 
 
 , with the barge until a .lay specified, order m:ule 
 
 ion the terms of bringing tlie arrears of instal- 
 
 I ments into court, and giving security for the 
 
 completion of the contract. Uakcr, Ex jjarte, 
 
 ly L. T. 313. 
 
 Failure of Consideration.] — The owner of a 
 ship proposes to his agent, to whom he was 
 indebted on account, to transfer the ship to him, 
 provided the agent would answer the owner's
 
 151 
 
 SHIPPING— YIII. Sale and Transfer. 
 
 draft for repairs, in respect of which the owner 
 'i^-ns indebted to a third party not named. Tlie 
 ship was, in jiursuance of tills proposal, trans- 
 ferred to the agent, and tlie vendor afterwards 
 Ijeeanie bankrui)t, witliout liaving (hawn on tlie 
 purchaser, and without any communication of 
 tlie terms of the purchase having been made to 
 the creditor to whom the vendor was indebted 
 for the repairs. There is no consideration between 
 tiie purchaser and the vendor's creditor to entitle 
 the latter to recover from the purchaser the 
 amount of the repairs. Bnttenhurij v. Featun, 
 
 3 Jlyl. &; K. 505 ; 3 L. J., Ch. 203. 
 
 Order and Disposition.] — Ship at sea, policy, 
 and cargo assigned to S. as security for an 
 advance. On the ship's arrival, S. failed to talic 
 possession or do anything to show that the 
 property had been transferred to him : — Held, 
 that the ship and cargo passed to the assignees 
 in bankruptcy of the transferor, as being in his 
 order and disposition. 3Iair v. Glennie, 4 M. & S. 
 240 ; 16 E. II. 445. 
 
 The owner of the major part of a vessel in port 
 mortgaged his share and transferred the bill of 
 sale to the mortgagees. The mortgagees did not 
 take possession, but suffered the mortgagor and 
 the other part owners to manage her. The mort- 
 gagor having become bankrupt : — Held, that his 
 share passed to the assignees under 21 Jac. 1, 
 c. 19. Hall V. Gurneii, 3 Dougl. 356. 
 
 Assignment of a ship at sea for a valuable 
 consideration may be good against assignees of 
 bankrupts, though no possession is taken thereof ; 
 aliter, as to a Thatnes passenger boat. Bourne v. 
 Djdsun, 1 Atk. 154. See also col. 158. 
 
 Misstatement in Class Certificate issued by 
 Lloyd's Committee — Action by Purchaser of 
 Ship.] — Lloyd's committee had furnished the 
 owner of a sailing yacht witli a certificate whicli 
 classed the 3'acht as A 1 for eleven years. After 
 the owner had sold the yacht to the plaintiflE it 
 was discovered that slie was not entitled to this 
 classification. The plaintiff brouglit an action 
 for damages against the committee upon the 
 ground tiiat owing to the representation in the 
 certificate he had given more for the yacht than 
 she was worth : — Held, that the plaintiff had no 
 cause of action. Tliiodon v. T'uuhdl, 00 L. J.. Q.B. 
 526 ; 65 L. T. 343 ; 40 W. R. 141 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 IG. 
 
 Public Policy — Sale Void.] — A sale by part 
 owners of some of tlieir shares upon the terms 
 that the purcliaser shall be master of the ship 
 and tlie vendors, who retained four-sixteenths of 
 the ship, managing owners, hehl void.on grounds 
 of public policy. Card v. Hope. 2 B. & C. 6()] ; 
 
 4 D. & R. 164 : 2 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 96 : 26 R. R. 
 503. 
 
 Liability on Bills for Price of Ship.] — R. con- 
 tracted with a company for the sale to the 
 company of two ships to be sent by him to the 
 Danube, and to be equipped by him for the 
 voyage. The plaintiffs, on belialf of the com- 
 pany, agreed to give their bills for part of the 
 purchase-money, R. undertaking that tliey should 
 not be called upon to pay more than a specified 
 part of the amount of the bills, and tliat not 
 before a time named. The rest of the purchase- 
 money was to be secured by mortgage of the 
 ehips to R. No transfer to the compnny and no 
 mortgage to R. was executed. R. then sent the 
 
 152 
 
 ships upon a voyage not to the Danube uitli a 
 contraband cargo, reritlering tliem lialile to 
 seizure and confiscation. He also mortgagetl 
 tlie ships, and indorsed over bills of excliaiige 
 given for the mortgage money, all without the 
 knowledge of the company : — Held, that the 
 plaintiffs were entitled to be relieved from their 
 liability upon the bills given to R. in respect of 
 the purchase-money, the agreement for sale by 
 11. to the company being no longer enforceable 
 by R. Brirlte v. Ror/erson, 12 Jur. (N.S.) 635 : 
 14 L. T. 780— L.JJ. 
 
 Kon-payment of Purchase-money.] — When the 
 
 vendor of a share in a ship has executed the bill 
 of sale, and a receijjt for the purchase-money, 
 without its being in fact paid, a court of equity 
 will give relief as well as discovery. Ryle v. 
 Ilofifjie, 1 Jac. & Walk. 334. 
 
 An agreement was entered into for the sale 
 of a ship to A. and B. (one-third to A. and 
 two-thirds to B.), at the price of 750Z. ; and, if 
 default should be made by the purchasers, for 
 the resale of the ship, the deficiency, if any, 
 upon the resale to be made good by the default- 
 ing: purchasers. Possession of the ship was 
 delivered to the purchasers by the vendors, who 
 received 250/. from A., and two bills of exchange, 
 drawn by them, and acce]jted by A. for the 
 remaining 500Z. In the bills of sale, by which 
 the agreement was carried into effect, the pur- 
 chase-money for the one-third and two-thirds oi 
 the ship was expressed to have been paid by A. 
 and B. respectively. The acceptances of A. were 
 dishonoured and he became bankrupt. On a bill 
 filed by the vendors, who had become entitled to 
 the whole interest in the purchase-monej', against 
 B., who liad become the sole owner of the ship 
 by purchase from A.'s assignee, praying specific 
 performance of the agreement by B., or that the 
 ship might be sold, and the proceeds applied in 
 payment, the court held that it had jurisdiction, 
 and decreed an account and payment of the 
 unpaid pui-chase-nioney by B., or a I'esale of the 
 ship, in default of payment in a limited time. 
 Lynn v. Cluiters. 2 Keen, 521. 
 
 No Lien for Purchase-money.] — There is no 
 lien on the ship for purchase-money unpaid, or 
 for other interest in her. Walton v. Butler, 29 
 Beav. 428. 
 
 Breach of Contract to Sell— Damages.] — The 
 
 vendor of a ship covenanted witli the purchaser 
 that he had power to sell her. 8he had been 
 bottomried, and was arrested and sold bj^ the 
 admiralty couit at the suit of the lender on 
 bottomry : — Held, that the vendor was liable in 
 damages. Discussion of the policy and law of 
 hypothecation. Meretone v. Gibbon-^, 3 Term 
 Rep. 267. 
 
 Contract ty Purchasing Company to allot 
 Shares tc Builder — Payment in Cash.] — Ship- 
 builders contracted with a company to build for 
 the company a vessel, to be paid for as-to one- 
 tenth in shares u-" the company at par on delivery 
 of the ship, and as to the rest in cash bj' instal- 
 ments. The shipbuilders afterwards objected to 
 take any part of the price in shares, and no 
 shares were allotted to them until three years 
 after the ship was delivered, when the company 
 was about to be womid up : — Held, th.at the ship- 
 buildeis having insisted upon payment in cash
 
 153 
 
 SHIPPING— YIII. Sale and Trausfrr. 
 
 15i 
 
 how. the time of delivery of the ship, the coni- 
 pfiiiy was not bound to allot them shares at that 
 time, and were not liable to the shipbuilders in 
 'an action for breach of the contract to allot the 
 shares. M-Millan v. Lirerpool and Texas Steam- 
 sJtij) Co., 38 L. T. 288 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 579. 
 
 Nonpayment of Purchase-money — Mortgage 
 for securing — Liability of Purchasers of Mort- 
 gaged Property — Sale of Ship rescinded.] — 
 An agreement recited that A. was desirous of 
 purchasing, and B. of selling to A., the half of 
 a schooner for 2001., and that B. had agreed to 
 lend A. 370Z., on having the repayment and the 
 interest secured by a mortgage of a rent-charge 
 to which A. was entitled, and of the dividends of 
 certain stock, and by a policy of insurance and 
 two houses ; and B. agreed to dispose of the 
 schooner to A., and to execute the necessary deed 
 for that purpose, the 200?. purchase-money of the 
 schooner to be part of the 370Z., for which the 
 mortgage was to be given by A., and that A. 
 should execute a mortgage of the schooner to B. 
 as a further security for the 3707., which A. was 
 to pay back by annual instalments of aOL, until 
 the principal and interest should be paid ; and if 
 
 A. neglected to pay ofiE all or any of the instal- 
 ments, with interest, B. should have power and 
 authoiity to call in the 3707., or so much as 
 should be then due. The schooner proved unsea- 
 worthy, and was by mutual consent returned to 
 
 B. A. afterwards assigned the other property 
 comprised in the agreement to C, who had 
 
 . notice of the agreement : — Held, that a suit 
 could be maintained against C. for an account 
 of the sum due on foot of the 1707. actually 
 advanced, and for a sale, although the agreement 
 rpioad the schooner had been rescinded. Murphy 
 V. Moin-chead, 16 Ir. Ch. K. 4.54. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the return of the schooner 
 to B. was not to be considered as a payment of 
 instalments. li. 
 
 Bight to Freight earned after Sale.] — Where 
 shi[) sailed in ballast from L. to J., and was sold 
 on her voyage there, and afterwards sailed from 
 J. to L. with cargo, on contract with owners of 
 ship at time of sailing ; the creditors of the 
 ff>rmer owners have no lien on freight due in 
 )esi)ect of voyage from J. Hill, Ex parte, 1 
 Madd. 61. 
 
 Sale in Contemplation of War.] — A sliip sold 
 in contemplation of war by an enemy to his son. 
 a neutral, and paid for only in part, condemned 
 by prize court as enemy's propei-ty. The JJaUica, 
 1 Npink"s Prize Cases, 264. 
 
 Delivery — Ship sunk.] — After a ship was 
 lauiii'hed and the last instalment of her jirice 
 jiaid and her certificate handed to the purchasers, 
 whose captain was in charge of liei', she was 
 blown from licr moorings and sunk : — Meld, that 
 delivery had been made, and that the ship was 
 at tlie risk of the purchasers. Jircicrr v. Vnncan, 
 20 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th scr.) 23U. 
 
 Offer to buy Shares of Co-owners— Acceptance 
 
 by One, Refusal by the Other.] — Sec Andi rson 
 V. iSi'Jart. aiil.ij, <:<<{. I'.'. 
 
 Broker's Commission on Ship to be built — 
 Recovery by Purchaser.] — yriLson v. Skinner, 
 XXV. Shipbkokers and Agents. 
 
 Ship's Stores — Appurtenances.] — A ship's 
 husband, who was a part owner, bought his 
 co-owner's share in the ship shortly after her 
 return from a voyage. In an action by the 
 seller against him for an account of the last 
 voyage : — Held, that stores laid in for the voyage 
 to be performed after the date of the sale were 
 not appurtenances of the ship and must be paid 
 for by the buyer. Iluberf.iun v. Den?mtou)i, 3. 
 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 829. 
 
 Sale of Ship to be built and delivered 
 Abroad— Ship lost— Recovery of Advances.] — 
 
 Jlcnchdl, Da Bul<;sim <)'• Cu. v. Swan ^- Co., 
 ante, col. 14. 
 
 2. Title. 
 
 a. By Bill of Sale. 
 
 Mode of Transfer by.]— Under the 17 & IS 
 Vict. c. 104, sales of ships can only be made in 
 the manner prescribed by the statute. Lirerpool 
 Boronqh Banh v. Turner, 1 Johns. & H. 159 ; 
 29 L."J.. Ch. 827; 6 Jur. (N.s.) 935; 8 W. K. 
 730. Affirmed, 2 De G. F. & J. 502 : 30 L. J., 
 Ch. 379 ; 7 Jur. (N.s.) 150 ; 3 L. T. 494 ; 9 W. R. 
 292. 
 
 A mere literal deviation from the form of con- 
 veyance of a shi]) prescribed will not render it 
 void. Taylor v. Kinloch, 1 Stark. 175. 
 
 Notwithstanding the 26 Geo. 3, c. 60, s. 17, 
 enacted that a bill of sale of a ship should be 
 absolutely void, unless the certificate of the 
 registry was truly and accurately inserted therein, 
 a mere clerical mistake would not vitiate it. 
 RoUe.tfon v. Smith, 4 Term Rep. 101. 
 
 A bill of sale of a ship is not void, although it 
 omits to set forth the true consideration, and is 
 not stamped with an ad valorem stamp ; but the 
 parties thereto are liable to a penalty. Rohlnsott 
 v. Macdonnell, 5 M. & S. 228 ; 2 B. & Aid. 134, 
 infra. 
 
 A bill of sale made to a trustee for the benefit 
 of underwriters, whose names are not stated, is 
 not prinu\ facie void, because contrary to the 
 register acts. Heath v. Hulhard, 4 East, 110 ; 
 4 Esp. 205. 
 
 Where a bill of sale, though executed by the 
 person named for that purpose by the plaintiff, 
 the then owner fif the shii). and jiuriioiling iu all 
 other rcsjiccts to be made in conformity with the 
 certificate of sale, was, in fact, made for less than 
 the minimum i)ricc specified in the certificate, 
 and the ship was registered in the name of the 
 jiurchaser as sole owner: — Held, that the registry 
 was void ; and the ship having been sold by 
 arrangement pending a suit that the plaint ifl 
 was entitled to the net proceeds of the sale. 
 Orr v. J)irkin.son, infra. 
 
 When Necessary.] — A vessel which had been 
 regislen il. was by the owners used for the space 
 of'four years as a mere coaling hulk and work- 
 shop, moored at one of their coaling stations; 
 she was then transferrcil by them, under an 
 agreement in writing, to a comiiany to which 
 the ownei-s transferred their business. She was 
 describeil in the agreement, and also in an 
 invoice delivered, as a coal hulk :— Ilehl, as a 
 matter of fact, tliat under the circumstances of 
 the case she was not a shiji, at any rate as between 
 the parties, so as to be by 17 A: 18 Vict. c. 104, 
 s. 53, transferable only by Ijill of sale, and 
 therefore that the property in her passed to the 
 company. European and Australian Royal
 
 155 
 
 SHIPPING— AlII. Sole and Transfer. 
 
 150 
 
 JUail Co. V. P. A' 0. Sfeam. Xnviqattnn Co., 
 12 Jur. (x.s.) do;) : li L. T. 704 ; U W. K. 843. 
 
 Vesting of the Property.] — The property of a 
 ship vests in the i>urchaser, instantly upon the 
 execution of the bill of sale. Huhhard v. John- 
 stone, 3 Taunt. 177. 
 
 The non-registration of a ship, required by 
 S ifc 9 Vict. c. 89, ss. 37, 38, by the first purchaser, 
 did not affect the title of a subsequent bona fide 
 f-iurchaser. The Australia, 13 Moore, P. C. 132 ; 
 Swabev. 480 : 7 W. R. 718. 
 
 Under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 79, the registry 
 of a bill of sale, which, though purporting to be 
 valid, so that the registrar has no alternative 
 but to register it, is in fact invalid, gives no title, 
 even at law, to the person thereby registered as 
 sole owner of the ship. Orr v. Dickinson, John- 
 son, 1 ; 28 L. J., Ch. .51(3 ; .5 Jur. (N.s.) 672. 
 
 The property in a ship passes, as between the 
 vendor and his assignees and the vendee, by a 
 bill of sale, although'the transfer is not registered 
 pm-suant to the Merchant Shipping Act, 18.54. 
 Stapleton v. Iluymen. 2 H. & C. 918 : 33 L. J., 
 Ex. 170 : 10 Jur. (n.s.) 497 ; 9 L. T. G53 ; 12 
 "W. E. 317, 
 
 The duty to register a transfer of ownership 
 rests with "the vendee ; the bill of sale entirely 
 divests the title of the vendor ; immediately on 
 the execution of the bill of sale the vendor 
 becomes entitled to all the benefits of owner- 
 ship, and he takes with them all the concurrent 
 liabilities. The Spirit of the Ocean, 34 L. J., Adm. 
 74 ; 12 L. T, 239. 
 
 Vesting of Property — Sequestration against 
 Seller whilst registered as Owner.] — Under 
 17 «& 18 Vict. c. 120, 17 >.V: 18 Vict. c. 104, and 
 25 & 26 Vict. c. 6, s. 3, a bill of sale followed by 
 possession vests the ship in the purchaser, and 
 his property is not affected by subsequent seques- 
 tration of the seller whilst still registered as 
 owner, Watson v. Duncan, G Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 (4th ser.) 1247. 
 
 What passes by.] — A bill of sale of a whaler 
 absent on a fishing adventure, together with all 
 masts, &c., boats, oars, and appurtenances, does 
 not pass the cargo of oil, &;c., acquired during 
 the adventure. Langton v. Horton, 5 Beav. 9 ; 
 11 L. J., Ch, 233 ; 6 Jur. 357, 594. 
 
 Assignment of Future Earnings of Ship.] — An 
 
 assignment of freight and earnings of a ship 
 held not to include earnings not in existence, 
 actual or potential. Robinson v, Macdonnell, 5 
 M. & S. 228 ; 2 B. & Aid. 134, supra, col. 154. 
 
 Future earnings of a ship held assignable in 
 equity. The Warre, In re, 8 Price, 269. S. P., 
 Houghton, Ex parte, 17 Ves. 251 ; 1 Eose, 177 ; 
 11 R, R, 73, Speldt v. Lechmere, 13 Ves. 588 ; 
 3Iestarr v. Gillespie, 11 Ves. 621 ; 8 R. E. 261 
 (though the ship not transferred in the registry). 
 
 Purchase hy an Infant.] — A transfer of a 
 vessel by a bill of sale, under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. 
 s, 55, to' a bona fide purchaser for value, vests 
 the property in such vessel in the transferee 
 from the moment of its execution, and gives him 
 a good title against the assignees of his vend(jr 
 for seizing and selling the vessel under the bank- 
 ruptcy of the latter, although, until registration 
 of the transfer, the transferee could not have 
 transferred the vessel to a purchaser from him- 
 self, Stapleton v, Haymen, 2 H, & C. 918 ; 33 
 
 L. J., Ex. 170 ; 10 Jur. (n.s.) 497 ; 9 L. T. 655 ; 
 12 W, R, 317, 
 
 On a purchase of a vessel by a person under 
 twenty-one, the vendor becomes a trustee in 
 equity for the purchaser, until the latter, on 
 coming of age, is enabled to make the declara- 
 tion of ownership required by 17 die 18 Vict. 
 c, 104, s. 38, previously to registering the vessel 
 in his own name ; and s. 3 of the 25 k. 26 Vict. 
 c. 63, expressly recognises and gives effect to 
 such an equitable right, and enables it to be 
 enforced. lb. 
 
 Assignment — Dumb Barge — Bill of Sale.] — 
 A dumb barge, propelled by oars, plying on the 
 river Thames and carrying goods, wares and 
 merchandise (without passengers) is a vessel 
 within the exception of the Bills of Sale Acts, 
 1878 and 1882, which excepts from registration 
 as a bill of sale transfers or assignments of a ship 
 or vessel or any share thereof. Gaj)p v. Bond, 
 56 L. J., Q. B. 438 ; 18 Q. B. D. 200 ; 57 L. T. 
 437 ; 35 W. R, 683— C. A. 
 
 An assignment of a ship at sea is valid, though 
 no possession is given ; but of a passage craft in 
 the Thames is void. Bourne v. Dodson, 1 Atk, 
 134. Cf. Brown v. Heathcote, 1 Atk. 160. 
 
 Whether Absolute or Conditional.] — A bill of 
 sale of some shares in a ship was executed to T., 
 and with it a declaration of ownership, as 
 required for registration. T. did not register the 
 instrument for more than four years, although 
 he knew that this proceeding would be necessary 
 to complete his title as part owner. He sought 
 to have the vessel sold, nnd accounts taken 
 between him and the defendant. The defendant 
 alleged that the bill of sale had been given by 
 him only as security for a loan which had since 
 been fully paid. On several occasions T. accepted 
 portions of the ship's earnings, without requiring 
 to see vouchers or any regular accounts : — 
 Held, that his conduct was that of a creditor, 
 and not of a jiart owner, and that the setting up 
 of the bill of sale as an absolute conveyance was 
 an afterthought, and a course of conduct which 
 would not be sanctioned by the court. The Jane, 
 23 L. T. 791. 
 
 When a bill of sale of a ship has been executed 
 in the form prescribed by 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, 
 s, 55, the provisions of s._66 do not prevent the 
 owners from shewing that the transfer, though 
 absolute in its terms, was intended as a securit_y 
 only. Ward v. Bech, 13 C. B. (N.s.) 668 ; 32 
 L. J., C. P. 113 ; 9 Jm\ (N.s.) 912, 
 
 The 25 & 26 Vict, c. 63, s. 3, is a declaratory 
 enactment that this is the true interpretation. lb. 
 
 In Julv, 1853, A., being owner of a ship, sold 
 it to D., of the firm of D., Y. & Co., for 4,725^., 
 and received in payment their draft on B., at 
 twelve months' date. In September, 1853, the 
 ship sailed from London on a voyage to San 
 Francisco, and thence on a seeking voyage home. 
 In June, 1854, the captain, who was sent out by 
 D. to take charge of the vessel, chartered it to 
 load a cargo of flour for Sydney. Some days 
 after the bill of exchange became due, D., Y. k, 
 Co. requested A. to renew it, and he consented 
 to do so on having the vessel transferred to him 
 as a security. The vessel was accordingly trans- 
 ferred to him by deed of assignment, which was 
 in the form of an absolute sale. In October, 
 1854, the captain, who had no knowledge of the 
 assignment, received l.OOOZ. on account of freight 
 and remitted it to D., Y. k, Co, by a bill of
 
 157 
 
 SHIPPING— YIII. Sale and T}-ansfer. 
 
 158 
 
 exchansre. In November, 185-t, D., Y. & Co., 
 who hcd acted as ship's husband, became bauk- 
 i-upt : — Held, that though the assignment was in 
 form absolute, yet the court might look to the 
 real nature of the transaction, and see that it 
 was bv way of mortgase onlv. Gardner v. 
 Cnzenuve, i'H. & N. 423 : 26 L. J., Ex. 17; 5 
 \\. P.. 195. 
 
 b. In other Cases. 
 
 Ship sold to Foreigner.] — A ship built in 
 order to be sold to a foreigner, and to be 
 delivered to him at a foreign port, was assigned 
 by her builder to a bank for a valuable considera- 
 tion, under an agreement which was not in the 
 form of a bill of sale given by the Merchant 
 Shipping Act. 1854. The assignment was not 
 registered, either under that act or under the 
 Bdls of Sale Act, 1854. At the time of the 
 assignment the vessel had been completely built 
 and had been tried : — Held, that the siiip was 
 not a British ship within the meaning of the 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, and that an 
 assignment of her need not be bj" bill of sale, 
 nor registered under that statute. Union Bank 
 of Lundon v. Linunton, 47 L. J.. C. P. 409 ; 3 
 C. P. D. 243 ; 38 L. T. 698 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 600— 
 C. A. 
 
 Held, also, that an assignment of her fell 
 within the proviso in the Bills of Sale Act, 1854, 
 s. 7, which exempts assignments of a ship from 
 the operation of tliat statute. Ih. 
 
 A transfer of a ship, which has not been 
 registered as a British ship under s. 19 of the 
 Merchant Sliipping Act, 1854, is good, although 
 not made by bill of sale under s. 55. Ih. 
 
 Shares in Ship.] — An original omierof shares 
 in a ship cannot enforce his title to those shares 
 against a registered owner who has purchased 
 them lx)na fi'ie for value from a person whose 
 name was on the register as owner, even though 
 such person had been registered through fraud 
 in the original owner. The Ilorlock, 47 L. J., 
 Adm. 5 ; 2 P. D. 243 ; 36 L. T. 622 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 421. 
 
 A statement of defence alleging a fraudulent 
 registration of the plaintiff's predecessor in title 
 vvas demurred to, and the demurrer sustained, 
 .111 the ground that a fraudulent registration on 
 the jiart of an intermediate transferee is no 
 defence to an action for possession by a bona 
 tide purchaser for value, without notice of the 
 Craud. Ih. 
 
 An injunction granted ex parte, on application 
 of the jjlaintiff to prevent the defendant deal- 
 ing, and to restrain the registrar of shipping 
 trom registering any dealings, in shares of a ship 
 the subject of a co-ownership action pendente 
 lite. Ih. 
 
 The sale of a share in a ship is good without 
 actual delivery. Addis v. Baker, 1 Anst. 222. 
 
 ■ As against Registered Mortgagee.] — A 
 
 fchipowiier sold <i itaiu shares in a ship, and the 
 ))urchaser, having neglected to register the sale, 
 Kubsequentiy mortgaged the whule ship to a 
 third jierson, who had no knowledge of the 
 previous sale, to secure a balance exceeding the 
 value of the ship. The purchaser subsequently 
 registt-ved his shares, and then finding the niort- 
 j^age registered, instituted a suit against the 
 •iiiip. claiming as against his co-owner an account 
 and the sale of the ship. The mortgagee inter- 
 vcnud ind claimed the release of the ship and 
 
 damages and costs for its detention : — Held, 
 that he was entitled to the release of the ship 
 and to costs from the time the ])laintiff became 
 aware of his claim. Tlic Eastern Belle, 33 L. T. 
 214 ; 3 Asp. M. 0. 19. 
 
 Sale by Licitation.] — The transfer of a British 
 ship is governed bj' the exi)ress provisions of 
 the merchant shipping acts, which make a 
 clear distinction between the legal estate and 
 mere beneficial interests therein : — Held, that 
 a sale by licitation of a British ship (or of a 
 share therein) without a conveyance by bill of 
 sale did not create such an interest in the pur- 
 chasers as rendered it compulsory on the 
 registrar, under the Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1854, to register them as owners, and that the 
 registrar was right in refusing so to do, and to 
 erase from his books the inscriptions contained 
 in the register against the ship in the names of 
 the mort£,'agees. Chasteaiincnf \. Ca/iri/ron, 51 
 L. J., P. C.'"37 : 7 App. Ca:s. 127 : 40 L. T. 65 ; 
 4 Asp. M. C. 489— P. C. 
 
 Purchase by Surveyor.] — A person surveying 
 a ship, with a view to a sale by the master, may 
 be justified in becoming the purchaser. The 
 Australia. Swabey. 480 ; 13 Moore, P. C. 132 ; 7 
 W. E. 718. 
 
 Pirate Ship.] — A ship which had been engaged 
 in acts of alleged piracy, and which, before any 
 proceedings had been taken by the crown, had 
 been sold by her owners at a public auction to a 
 bona fide purchaser, was afterwards arrested by 
 the crown : — Held, that although the ships and 
 goods of pirates are upon conviction forfeited to 
 the crown, yet the ship of a pirate which hiis not 
 been piratically taken, and which before con- 
 viction has been transferred to an innocent 
 purchaser, is not liable to seizure by the crown. 
 The Teh'ijrafo or Brsfauracinn, Brij. v. M'Cle- 
 vertij, 8 Moore, P. 0. (N.S.) 43 ; 40' L. J.. Adm. 
 18 ; L. R. 3 P. C. 673 ; 24 L. T. 748 ; 2(i \\. K. 
 242 ; 1 Asp. M, C. 63. 
 
 Kegistration— Bankruptcy— Order and Dis- 
 position.] — The defendant grantee uiulcr a bill of 
 sale of asliip at sea, failed to register in accord- 
 ance with 20 Geo. 3, c. <1(), and 34 Geo. 3, c. 68, 
 s. 16, before the bankruptcy of the grantor, but 
 registered after his bankruptcy : — Held, that tlio [ 
 property in the ship did not pass, and tliat the 
 assignees of tlie bankrupt could rccnvrr in 
 trover. .l/().v.v v. Charnork, 2 East, 399 ; Holt, 603. 
 
 Where a ship is sold at sea, in order to pre- 
 vent her passing to the vendor's assignees upon 
 his bankruptcy, as being in his order and dis- 
 position, the bill of sale should be delivered to 
 the purchaser, who must take posses'^ion of the 
 ship on her arrival. Mnttheirs. K.v purtr, 2 Ves. 
 Sen. 272. Cf. ]lr,>irn v. Ileathrotr, 1 Alk. lOO. 
 
 Sn: aim III. KE<;i.STtt\TION, supra, and Cases, 
 col. 151. 
 
 'Validity of Sale — By what Law.]— See The 
 Bomha and The Charlotte, infra, col. 161. 
 
 3. Who can Sell. 
 a. Managing' Owners. 
 Authority of. ]— D.. the niana,L.'ing owner of 
 a ship, ihrouu'h the plaintiffs, liis agents nt Cim- 
 stantini.ple, s'dd her to the Turkish government, 
 and received a bill upon the Oriental Baidc in 
 Loudon for the purchase-money, which bill was
 
 SHIPPING— VIII. Sale and Transfer. 
 
 159 
 
 (lulv paid. D. had no express authority at the 
 time from the defendants (who were the owners 
 of g|ths of the ship) to sell her, but the latter 
 knew that a sale was contemplated ; and, after 
 the sale, they executed a power of attorney, 
 reciting that they had agreed to sell the vessel 
 to the^ Turkish "government, and had actually 
 received the purchase-money, and empowering 
 the plaintitfs to transfer their respective shares 
 and to hand over the vessel to the purchasers. 
 The defendants afterwards received from D. (or 
 settled in account with him) the value of the 
 then respective shares : — Held, that the jury was 
 warranted in finding that the defendants had 
 authorised the sale of the ship to D., or had by 
 their subsequent ratification so adopted his act 
 as to render them jointly liable to the plaintitfs 
 for the commission" due "to the latter on the sale. 
 Xeay v. Femcicl; 1 C. P. D. 715— C. A. 
 
 Held, also, that the position of the defendants 
 was not so altered by the fact of the plaintiffs 
 having drawn upon D. a bill at three months' 
 date for the amount of the commission, as to 
 release the former from liability upon the dis- 
 honour of the bill. II). 
 
 IGO 
 
 b. Part Owners. 
 
 Eights of.]— A broker was employed to sell a 
 ship belonging to three part owners, two of 
 whom communicated with him on. the subject ; 
 to them he paid their shares of the proceeds of 
 the sale, but, after admitting the amount of the 
 third part owner's share to be in his hands, 
 refused to pay it to him without the consent of 
 the other two ; an action having been, brought 
 by the third part owner for the share :— Held, 
 that he was not entitled to recover. Halsall v. 
 Griffith, 2 C. & M. 679 ; 4 Tyr. 487 ; 3 L. J., Ex. 
 ltd". 
 
 A. and B. being in partnership and ]omt 
 owners of a ship, A. requested C. and D. to 
 accept two bills amounting together to 2,600^. 
 on the security of the ship, which they agreed to 
 do, and A. accordingly executed a bill of sale to 
 them, and the ship was registered in their names, 
 A. agreeing that they might sell the ship, and 
 indemnify themselves out of the proceeds, if he 
 neglected to provide for the bills when due. A. 
 became bankrupt, and the bills were paid by 
 
 C. and D., who thereupon assumed the ownership 
 of the ship :— Held, that the ship, being the 
 partnership property of A. and B., and registered 
 in the name of the partnership firm, was within 
 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 55, s. 32, and that A. had there- 
 fore a right to deal with her as with any other 
 partnership property, and consequently could 
 sell or mortgage her without a power of attorney 
 from his partner B. Hoicden, Ex parte, 2 Mont. 
 
 D. &D.574 ; 11 L. J.,Bk. 19. 
 A mandamus to the oflicers of customs to 
 
 re-jister a ship transferred by the survivor of two 
 pan owners, merchants, was refused on the 
 ground that the executors of the deceased part 
 owner ought to have joined in the transfer. 
 Hpx v. Liverpool {Collector of Customs), 2 
 M. & S. 223. 
 
 c. Attorney. 
 
 Ordinarily a power of attorney authorising the 
 sale of a vessel is revoked by the death of the 
 owner. Watson v. King, 1 Stark. 121 ; 4 Camp. 
 272 ; 16 E. U. 790. 
 
 But a power of attorney to execute the indorse- 
 
 ment of sale upon the register of a ship when 
 she returns home is not revoked by the bank- 
 ruptcy of the party giving the power. Dixon v. 
 Ewart, Buck, 94 ; 3 Mer. 327. 
 
 A power of attorney to sell a ship may be sub- 
 stantially revoked by parol, and the attorney 
 selling thereafter is guilty of a breach of trust. 
 The Marqaret Mitchell, Svvabey, 382 ; 4 Jur. 
 (N.s.) 1193. 
 
 If the trrantee of a power of attorney to sell 
 a ship sells fraudulently, or so as to commit a 
 l)reach of trust, the fraud of the attorney vitiates 
 the title of the purchaser, if the fraud was known 
 to him, or could have been known by reasonable 
 inquiry. Ih. 
 
 d. Guardian of Infant. 
 
 The guardian of an infant shipowner has no 
 power under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 99, to mort- 
 gage or sell a ship of which such infant is the 
 owner. Michael v. Fripp, 38 L. J., Ch. 29 ; 
 L. R. 7 Eq. 95 ; 19 L. T. 257 ; 17 W. E. 23. 
 
 e. Sheriff. 
 
 An execution debtor, being a registered pro- 
 prietor of shares in a ship, a ti. fa. was delivered 
 to the sheriff ; and the solicitor for the creditor, 
 by the direction of the sheriff, procured the 
 certificate of registry from the ship, and delivered 
 it to the sheriff, who retained it. The sheriff was 
 registered at the custom house, under the Mer- 
 cliant Shipping Act, as the owner of the shares, 
 which were afterwards sold by him and trans- 
 ferred to a purchaser by a bill of sale, which 
 was also registered : — Held, that the seizure was 
 effectual, although the sheriff did not go on 
 board the ship, and that the property in the 
 shares was regularly transferred by the bill of 
 sale. Hurley v. Hurley, 11 Ir. Ch. Eep. 451. 
 
 f. Master. 
 
 Authority and Necessity.] — The master of a 
 vessel has no power to sell her so as to affect the 
 insurers, except under circumstances of stringent 
 necessity ; such circumstances as, after sufticient 
 examination of her condition, after every exertion 
 in his power, within the means at his disposal, 
 to extricate her from peril or to raise funds for 
 the repair, leave him no alternative but to sell 
 her as she is. Cobeqiiid 31arine Insurance Co. v. 
 Barteanx. L. E. 6 P. C. 319 ; 32 L. T. 510 ; 23 
 W. E. 892 : 2 Asp. M. C. 536. 
 
 By the law of England, and the general mari- 
 time law, the master has no power to sell eithei- 
 cargo or ship, except in cases of absolute and 
 utter necessity. Cammell v. Seioell, 5 H. & N. 
 728 ; 29 L. J., Ex. 350 ; 6 Jur. (N.S.) 918 ; 2 
 L. T. 799 ; 8 W. E. 639— Ex. Ch. 
 
 A ship reached Savannah in March, 1855, 
 laded a cargo of timber, and in April, before she 
 cleared the'mouth of the river, drove ashore in 
 a hurricane ; she was got off, discharged her 
 cargo, and was surveyed : extensive repairs were- 
 found necessary ; neither the owner, who lived 
 at Gloucester, in England, nor the master hatl 
 any credit, the ship was uninsured, and money- 
 could not be raised on bottomry; tmder these- 
 circumstances the master sold her without any 
 express authority from the owner ; she was 
 repaired by the purchasers, sailed to Liverpool, 
 and was arrested there at the suit of the former- 
 owner :— Held, that the sale was valid, and tke-
 
 IGl 
 
 SHIPPING— YIII. Sale and Transfer 
 
 1G2 
 
 sLip was desreed to be restored v.ith costs and \ 
 demurrage ; but in such cases the burden of \ 
 proof lies upon the purchaser, unless the sale 
 took place under the decree of a competent 
 court. TJie Glas/jow, Swabev. 145 : 12 Moore. 
 P. C. 35.5, n. : 2 Jur. (X-S.^) 1147 ; 5 W. K. 10. 
 S. P., Tin- Victor, 13 L. T. 21. 
 
 If a ship, being in a foreign port, cannot be 
 sent upon her voyage without repairs, and the 
 repairs cannot be done except at so great and so 
 certain a loss that no prudent man would venture 
 to encounter it, this constitutes a case of neces- 
 sity, justifying a sale of the ship by the master. 
 The Australia, Lapraih v. Burruws, infra, col. 
 164. 
 
 The sale of a ship abroad, by the master, with- 
 out the consent of the o^NTier, can only be justified 
 bv proof of urgent necessitv. The Margaret 
 JlitchelL Swabey, 3S2 ; 4 Juf. (N.s.) 1193. 
 
 Where, in consequence of damage to a ship 
 during the voyage, it becomes impossible to 
 prosecute the adventiu-e, the master has authority 
 to sell her for the benefit of all parties interested, 
 and a person employed by hiin to superintend 
 the sale may lawfully pay over the proceeds to 
 him or to his order. Ireland v. Thomson, 4 C. B. 
 149 ; 17 L. J., C. P. 241. 
 
 To constitute a valid sale at a port of distress, 
 there must be the consent of the master (except 
 umler most peculiar circumstances), and impos- 
 sibility of repairs except at a luinous cost, or 
 an equally ruinous delay and an inexpediency 
 arising from imminent risk of awaiting com- 
 munication with the owners. The Uniao 
 Vencedora, otherwise The (jijj-sij. 33 L. J.. Adm. 
 195; 11 L. T. 351. 
 
 Duty of Master.] — A master, before selling 
 the ship, is bound, if practicable, to communicate 
 with his owner. Tlie Bumba and The Charlotte, 
 infra. 
 
 It is the duty of the master of a British ship, 
 before selling her in a foreign port, to consult 
 the British consular oflicer there resident, the 
 opinion of the consul being much considered l^y 
 the court in determining the validity of the sale. 
 lb. 
 
 After Collision.] — "Where an English-owned 
 vessel came into collision in a foreign port, 
 within telegraphic communication of England. 
 at which port a British consul and agent of 
 Lloyd's resided, and the master, believing the 
 vessel would not again be fit for sea, sold her 
 against tlie advice of the agent of Lloyd's and 
 without first fully communicating with the 
 owner and waiting for his rcjily, and it subse- 
 quently turned out tliat tlie vessel was but 
 slightly injured, and was at a small expense 
 fitted for sea, the court set aside the sale. Th^^ 
 Jinnita, 30 L. J., Adm. 145 ; 5 L. T. 141 ; Lush, 
 252. 
 
 Onus of Proof.] — The master of a British ship, 
 except under urgent necessity, is not entitle*! to 
 sell without the authority of the owner: and the 
 proof of such necessity lies upon tlie purchaser. 
 The liomba and The Charlotte, Lush. 252 ; 30 
 L. J., Adm. 155, n. 
 
 The first purchaser of the master is bound to 
 prove such necessity ; but wlicthcr such onus 
 proVjandi attaches to a second purchaser depends 
 on all the circumstances of the case. Tha Aug- 
 traJ>n. Swabey. 480 ; 13 Moore, P. C. 132 ; 7 
 'VV. K. 71><, supra. 
 
 TOL. XIII. 
 
 By Fraud and Forgery.] — A sole owner and at 
 first master, after some intermctliate appoint- 
 ments, made his son master, who, in Australia, 
 without authority, sold the vessel, asserting him- 
 self to be the sole owner and master, the certifi- 
 cate of registry and indorsement bearing out, on 
 the face of it, such assertion. The son received 
 the purchase-money, but never transmitted it to 
 the father : — Held, that the sale was effected by 
 the fraud and forgery of the son ; that the mis- 
 leading description of him on the certificate of 
 registry, which enabled him to practise such 
 deceit, was not proved to arise from any culpable 
 neglect in the instructions given by the father 
 to the custom-house, and that the sale was null 
 and void. The Empress, Swabev, IGO ; 3 Jur. 
 (X.S.) 119 ; 5 W. E. 165. 
 
 According to Law of Foreign Country.] — The 
 validity of the sale of a Britifh shijj in a foreign 
 port is determined by the law usually enforced 
 in the court of admiralty, unless the foreign law 
 is specially pleaded. The Bomha and The Char- 
 lotte, Lush. 252 ; 30 L. J., Adm. 155. n. 
 
 A British ship was sent home under the com- 
 mand of a master in the navy, who was placed 
 in charge by the naval officer commanding on 
 the station. On her voyage she met with bad 
 weather and put into a port at Fayal, where she 
 was, after survey, sold at public auction to a 
 Portuguese merchant by the master : — Held, that 
 no necessity being shewn, and the proof of the 
 validity of the sale by the law of the country 
 not being made out, the sale was invalid by the 
 general maritime law, and by the law of Eng- 
 land. Tlie Eliza fy/v/w/i, otherwise The Segreda, 
 1 Spinks. 36 : 17 Jur. 738. 
 
 C, a British subject, owner of a ship, trans- 
 ferred her whilst on her voyage, by bill of sale, 
 to H. The master had meanwhile drawn up a bill 
 for necessaries at Melbourne, on C. in England, 
 which C. refused to accept, and the bill was dis- 
 honoured. The ship having touelied at Havre, 
 the holder of the dishonoured bill indorsed it to 
 T. & Co., French subjects residing at Havre, who 
 thereupon commenced proceedings in the court 
 of the civil tribunal there, against the master 
 and against the shi)). The master allowcil judg- 
 ment to go against him by consent, and was con- 
 demned to pay the amount of the bill, with 
 interest, and the vessel was si)ld, H.'s claim as 
 holder of the bill al sale of the ship being 
 negatived : — Held, that the iiroceedings in the 
 French court were proceedings in rem ; and, 
 consequently, the sale under its decree passed 
 the property in the ship, and that H. was not 
 entitled to recover. Castrique v. Imrie, 8 C. B. 
 (N.S.) 405; 30 L. J., C. P. 177; 7 Jur. (.v.s.) 
 1076; 4 L. T. 143; 9 W. K. 4.55 — £.\. (li. 
 Affirmed, .39 L. J.. C. P. 3.-.0 ; L. i:. 4 H. L. Ill; 
 23 L. T. 48 ; 19 W. It. 1— H. L. ( K. > 
 
 Master cannot Sell without Owner's consent. j 
 — Tlie master <'annc)t sell the .shij) wiiimut 
 the owner's onsent even in CJisc of wreck or 
 imminent risk of loss. Tremenhrre v. TresiUan, 
 3 Keb. 91 ; Anon., Siderf. part. 1. 453. 
 
 Ship sold by master without consent of owners : 
 possession decreed to former owners in default of 
 appearance of purchasers. The Lagan, otherwise 
 Mimax, 3 Hag. Adm. 418. 
 
 Fraudulent Salo by Master.] — The master 
 fraudulently sold the plaint ills ship to the Ea.st 
 India Company, having no authority to sell her. 
 
 G
 
 163 
 
 SHIPPING— YIII. Sale and Transfer. 
 
 ICA 
 
 The plaintiff brought his bill in chancery against 
 the company for an acconnt and recovered the 
 value of the ship and interest thereon. JSk'nis v. 
 IJast India Co., 2 Bro. P. C. 382] ; affirming 1 
 P. \Yms. 395 ; 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 722. 
 
 Improper Sale by Master,] — A ship belonging 
 to the defendants registered in the port of Lon- 
 don, sustained serious damage on her voyage to 
 New Zealand, and on her arrival there was sur- 
 veyed and pronounced not seaworthy. The 
 master was unable, either by loan or bottomry, 
 to raise money for her repair, and he at length 
 sold the ship to the plaintiffs, and on receiving 
 payment of the purchase-money by a bill of 
 exchange in London, executed to them a bill of 
 sale of the ship. The plaintiffs repaired the ship, 
 and sent her to England with a cargo. The 
 defendants refused to ratify the sale or consent 
 to the registry of the ship in the plaintiffs' 
 names, and on the arrival of the ship in the port 
 of London the defendants put several men on 
 board to take possession of the ship and cargo 
 for them. The plaintiffs thereupon applied for 
 an injunction to restrain the defendants from 
 interfering with the ship, or removing her out of 
 the jurisdiction, and for a manager and receiver 
 of tlie ship and cargo : — Held, that the plaintiffs 
 had no equitable, as distinct from a legal, title 
 to the ship, and inasmuch as their title (if they 
 had acquired any) was a pm-ely legal one, and 
 the case of interference, if wrongful, was there- 
 fore a mere trespass, the court could not inter- 
 fere in favour of the plaintiffs by injunction. 
 That the plaintiffs, according to the case made 
 on the motion, if they failed at the hearing to 
 establish their right to the ship, woidd be entitled 
 to equitable relief in respect of the bill of 
 exchange given for the purchase-money, and 
 that tliey were entitled to have the trial of the 
 legal right ]-)ut in a course for determination, 
 and to have the property protected in the mean- 
 time. Semble, in such case, independently of 
 the relief in respect of the bill of exchange, if 
 engagements had been contracted of which the 
 conduct of the defendants would prevent the 
 fulfilment, and if there could be no adequate 
 compensation to the plaintiffs in damages, or if 
 the defendants were about to carry away or 
 destroy the property, the court might interfere 
 bv injunction. Ridqway v. Rolcrts, 4 Hare, 
 106. 
 
 See further as to sale by master, Cases sub tit. 
 B. Marine Ixsxjrance, infra. 
 
 g. Ratification by Owner. 
 
 What is.]— Semble, that the master has 
 authority, when, in consequence of injury to the 
 ship during the voyage, there is no prospect of 
 bringing her to the termination of the voyage, 
 to sell her for the benefit of all parties interested. 
 At all events, where the proceeds of such sale 
 have been received by the owner, that is a suffi- 
 cient ratification by him of the act of the master 
 in selling her, so as to prevent him from after- 
 wards recovering back the ship from the pur- 
 chaser or one claiming under him. Hunter v. 
 Varler, 7 M. & W. 322 ; 10 L. J., Ex. 281. 
 
 So, it is equally a ratification of a sale by an 
 auctioneer acting under a parol authority for the 
 master. Ih. 
 
 If there has been acquiescence by the owner, 
 however unauthorised the sale may have been at 
 
 the commencement, it amounts to a ratification 
 by the owner. The AnMrnlia, Lajn'aik v. Bur- 
 roios, 13 Moore, P. C. 132 : Swabey, 480 ; 7 W. It. 
 718. 
 
 Confirmation of a sale by an owner will not be 
 inferred from vague expressions of approval, if 
 the owner at the time was not aware of the true 
 state of the facts relating to the sale. T/ic 
 Bomha and The Charlotte, Lush. 252 ; 30 L. J., 
 Adm. 141. 
 
 Acceptance of purchase - money generally 
 operates as a ratification of the sale ; but not so 
 if the money was received without the intention 
 of appropriating it ; or if received in ignorance 
 of the facts relating to the sale. Ih. 
 
 Pieceipt of the purchase-money by a vendor 
 and absent principal, acts only as a ratification 
 of a sale when received by him with an intention 
 to appropriate it to his own use, and with fitU 
 knowledge of the facts of the case. The Bonita, 
 30 L. J.,"Adm. 145 ; 5 L. T. 141. See also Kcay 
 V. Fi'mvicli, ante, col. 159. 
 
 4. Sale by Admiralty Court. 
 
 Sale by Court when Person absolutely Entitled.] 
 
 — Under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, 
 ss. 62 — 64, the court will order a particular sale 
 to be carried out, instead of making an order for 
 sale generally, if that course is shewn to be 
 preferable. Santon, In re, 26 W. R. 810. 
 
 Where a petitioner under those sections claims 
 as sole executor and general legatee of the regis- 
 tered owner, and makes the application within a 
 year, though more than four weeks after the 
 occurrence" of the event on which the transmis- 
 sion took place, it is not necessary to serve the 
 crown or any other person. 1 i. 
 
 Where jurisdiction was given in respect of a 
 particular" kind of proceeding, by an act passed 
 before the passing of the judicature acts, to the 
 court of chancery alone, but, by a later act, 
 still before the passing of the judicature acts, 
 the jurisdiction was extended to the court of 
 admiralty, the chancery division now has juris- 
 diction under the judicature acts. lb. 
 
 In Co-ownership Action.] — The admiralty 
 division of the high court of justice has power, 
 under the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, s. 8, in a 
 co-o\\Tiership action, to order the sale of a ship 
 on the apphcation of a minority of owners, but 
 such power will always be exercised with great 
 caution. The Nelly Schneider, 3 P. D. 152 ; 
 39 L. T. 300; 27 W. E. 308; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 54. 
 
 Part owners of a vessel, in a suit for sale 
 brought against them by their co-owners, set up 
 in their answer a claim for damages alleged to 
 have been occasioned by the negligence or other 
 wrongful act of such co-owners. The plaintiffs 
 in their reply denied the jurisdiction of the court : 
 Held, that the court had jurisdiction to enter- 
 tain such a claim. The Ceylon, 18 L. T. 417. 
 
 Sale by Court— Good against the World.]— A 
 
 sale by order of the admiralty court in a salvage 
 suit is good against a claim of the crown under a 
 prior forfeiture for breach of revenue laws. 
 Att.-Gen. v. Norstedt, 3 Price, 97; 17 E. E. 
 
 554 
 
 The title conferred by the court under a 
 sale of a ship by its order is good against the
 
 K. 
 
 y 
 
 SHIPPING— YIII. Sale and Transfer. 
 
 IGQ 
 
 ■\vorlil ; and in the case of a foreijrn ship without 
 transfer of the ship's register. T/ie Trcmont, 1 
 AV. Rob. 163. 
 
 Sentence of Foreign Court — Prize.] — The 
 sentence of a French court of admiralty con- 
 demning a ship for prize is binding in the courts 
 of this country. Hughs v. Conielius. Sir T. Eaym. 
 473. 
 
 Sale under sentence of a foreign admiralty 
 court not to be called in question. Tlie Martin 
 of XvrfolTi, 4 C. Eob. 293. 
 
 Foreign Judgment in rem.] — A ship was, 
 whilst in a port of an English colony, repaired 
 and furnished with necessaries for the voyage. 
 The captain drew on his owner for the amount 
 due. The bill was never accepted. The ship 
 sailed on its prescribed voyage, and before reach- 
 ing England entered a French port. The bill 
 was indorsed to a French subject, who sued the 
 captain on it, and obtained in the tribunal do 
 commerce a judgment against him, but the 
 jud.gment freed him from personal arrest, and 
 declared the debt "privileged on the ship" 
 (having priority over others). The ship was 
 taken possession of by the French authorities 
 under this judgment. While the ship was on its 
 voyage, and before its arrival in the French port, 
 the owner had executed a mortgage of the ship 
 to a creditor. Neither the original owner nor the 
 mortgagee was in any way jjcrsonally cited in 
 the action. The ship could not be actually sold 
 till the civil tribunal of the district had con- 
 firmed the original judgment. It was confirmed, 
 after the original owner and his assignee (for he 
 had in the meantime become bankrupt) had been 
 cited before the civil tribunal, antl that court 
 disregarded the opinion of an English lawyer 
 as to what would be the relative rights of the 
 holder of a bill of exchange and the holder of 
 a bill of sale of the ship. The assignee of the 
 mortgage afterwards instituted before the civil 
 tribunal a process in the nature of a replevy of 
 the ship, but failed in the process, and the ship 
 was sold : — Held, that there had been a judg- 
 ment in rem in the French court, and that the 
 title of the vendee of the ship (an Englishman) 
 could not afterwards be disturVjcd in t his country. 
 Caxtrique v. Imric, 39 L. J.. C. F. 350 ; L. R. 4 
 H. L. 414 ; 23 L. T. 48 ; 19 W. R. 1— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Sen nUo infra, XXVI. ADMIRALTY LAW AND 
 PKACTICE, 18. CO-0'VVNKHSIIIP. 
 
 '). Liabilities of Purchaser. 
 
 Goods supplied.] — The ship having been sold, 
 but \\\i: tniii-fer not having been registered, the 
 vendor held not liable for goods supplied to the 
 ship on the master's order. Yuunt/ v. JJrvr/irlnr, 
 8 East, 10. Cf. Mclrcr v. Iluwhle, 16 East, 169. 
 
 The entry In the custom-house books of the 
 transfer of a vessel to a person named, without 
 proof of authority to make the entry from the 
 person named, is no evidence in an action for the 
 price of goods supplied to the ship. Fraser v. 
 JIopMns, 2 Taunt. 5, 
 
 Bottomry — Salvage — Wages.]— TIic purchaser 
 of asiiip takes her with the liabilities attached 
 by law — seamen's wages, bottomry bond, demand 
 for salvage ; and his remedy must be against the 
 vendor. The Nymph, Swabey, 86 ; TJie Catherine 
 formerly The Croxdale, 15 Jur. 231. 
 
 A shipowner assigned fifteen-sixteenths of a 
 ship to his creditor, in trust to sell and retain his 
 debts, and afterwards became bankrupt. The 
 ship was afterwards sold : — Held, that the creditor 
 must bear his proportion of the seamen's wages 
 and other expenses on account of the ship. 
 Douglas v. Mussell, 4 Sim. 533. 
 
 Where a ship was transferred while at sea to 
 a vendee resident in the port in which she was 
 registered, and money was paid by the vendee's 
 agents under the sentence of a foreign court for 
 salvage and wages of the captain and crew, pro- 
 visions, and sundry ship disbursements : — Held, 
 that the salvage and mariners' wages were a 
 lien on the ship, but not the sums paid for the 
 captain's wages, nor the disbursements. Iticha rd- 
 son V, CamiiheU, 5 B. & Aid. 203, n. 
 
 Ship's Expenses.] — The lien on a ship for 
 necessaries supplied continues, not^v^thstandlng■ 
 the sale of the nhip, if there have been no laches, 
 in enforcing the lien. The West Frieslundy 
 Swabey, 454 ; 5 Jur. (N.s.) 658. Cf. Douglas v. 
 Russell, supra. 
 
 Where A., who had contracted to buy a share 
 of a ship in July (but did not execute a bill of" 
 sale till the Sejitembcr), by a memorandum of 
 agreement dated September 30th. transferred his 
 share with all his liabilities as owner to B., and 
 afterwards sued B. for expenses incurred by him- 
 self with respect of the ship, after the contract 
 for the purchase of the ship in July, but before 
 the execution of the bill of sale in September : — 
 Held, that, as the memorandum shewed nothing 
 to make B. liable for expenses not incurred by 
 the owner, the action therefore would not lie. 
 Chapman v. C<tllis, 9 C. B. (x.S.) 769 ; 30 L. J., 
 C. P. 241 ; 7 Jur, (N.S.) 995 ; 3 L. T. 890 ; a 
 W. R. 375. 
 
 Repairs.] — B., managing owner of a ship, 
 ordered necessary repairs. R. was at that time 
 a registered part owner, but, before tlie order was 
 given, had entered into a contract, to which B. 
 was privy, for the sale of her share, and had 
 received a bill of exchange in payment, though 
 the contract was not completed until after the 
 repairs had been made. R. never interfered in 
 the concerns of the ship. The bill for repairs 
 sent in was headed, " the captain and owners of 
 the ship 'F.'" : — Held, that R. was not liable for 
 the repairs. Curling v. llohcrtson, 8 Soott (N.R.> 
 12 ; 7 Man. <t G. 336 ; 13 L. J., C. P. 137. 
 
 Although ic'.'al ownership Is prima facio evi- 
 dence of liability, yet It may be rcbutteil by 
 proof of the benciicial interest having ])cen 
 li.artcd wltli, and of the legal o\vners having 
 ceased to interfere with the m.anagcmcnt of the 
 vessel ; and the true question for the jury in 
 cases of this description is, "on whose credit 
 the repairs were done." Joinings v. Griffiths, 
 R. & M. 42 ; 27 R. R. 730. 
 
 Eepairs before Registration.] — The sole regis- 
 tered owner of a siiip g.ive orders for mate- 
 rials to be furnished and work to be done for the 
 repairs of it ; but before all the articles were 
 delivered on board, he conveyed the vessel, with 
 all Its furniture, to another, by a blU of sale, 
 which was chily rcgistereil : — Held, that the 
 vendee was not liable for any of the goods 
 furnished Ijcfore the legal title was conveyed to 
 him, .and registered in the manner prescribed by 
 the registry acts, whatever equitable agreement 
 might have existed before between him and the 
 
 6—2
 
 16i 
 
 SHIPPING— IX. Mortgage. 
 
 168 
 
 vendor, for the conveyance of the whole or a 
 share of the ship, which was unknown to the 
 tradesmen ; nor was the vendee even liable for 
 any of the goods delivered on board after the 
 sale to him, "by virtue of the previous orders of 
 the vendor, to' whom the credit was personally 
 given ; but the vendee was held liable for 
 articles which were ordered by the captain for the 
 use of the vessel after the legal title was trans- 
 ferred to him. Trewhella v. Bowe, 11 East, 435. 
 
 Sale — Preliminary Charter.] — A., being sole 
 owner of a vessel, contracted to sell one-half 
 share in her to M. and T., and agreed with them 
 that they should have exclusive direction, 
 management, and control of the vessel, to be 
 dealt with and managed by them as managing 
 owTiers and ship's husbands as they might think 
 best, without let or hindrance from A. There 
 Ivas at the end of the contract a clause that M. 
 »nd T. were to pay A. 900Z. as a charter for his 
 half share of the vessel for the first six months 
 from the date of the vessel being ready to receive 
 her cargo. During those six months repairs 
 became necessary to the vessel, and were ordered 
 to be done by T. : — Held, that A. was liable as 
 part owner to pav for such repairs. Prestnn v. 
 Tamplin, 2 H. & N. 684 ; 27 L. J., Ex. 192 ; 3 
 Jur. (N.s.) 1247 ; 6 W. E. 82— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Sale by Auction — Agreement to pay Liens — 
 Trover.] — The purchaser of a ship at an auction 
 .after the sale agreed to pay the purchase-money 
 to the auctioneer who was to distribute it amongst 
 . creditors of the vendors who had a lien on the 
 ship. He subsequently paid the purchase-money 
 to the vendor, and the shipwright in whose yard 
 the vessel lay refused to let her leave the yard : 
 — Held, that the purchaser, who had obtained a 
 biU of sale of the ship, could not maintain trover. 
 Norris v. Williams, 1 Car. &. M. 842 : 2 L. J., 
 Ex. 527. 
 
 Purchaser's Liability for Repairs and Supplies 
 before Sale.] — The purchaser of shares in a ship 
 fully provisioned and fitted for sea is not liable 
 for repairs executed before the sale or for pro- 
 visions supplied for the voyage ; though if freight 
 is earned the cost of provisions is a proper deduc- 
 tion from gross freight. Carswell v. Finlaii, 14 
 ■ Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 903. 
 
 Damage to Ship before Purchase — Right of 
 Purchaser to Sue.] — Symington v. Camjjhell, 
 XX. Collision, 4. Persons entitled to recover. 
 
 6. Commission. 
 
 Sale of Ship — Principal and Agent — Profit 
 ■made by Agent.] — Theplaintiilin ISGS consigned 
 a ship to G. & Co., in China, for sale, fixing a 
 minimum price, and requiring cash payment. 
 G. & Co. employed the defendant in .Japan to sell 
 the bhip, with the same instructions. This was 
 done -with the knowledge and consent of the 
 plaintiff. The defendant having vainly attempted 
 to sell the ship on the terms mentioned, took her 
 himself at 90,000 dollars, and about the same 
 time resold her to a .Japanese prince for 160,000 
 dollars, payable as to 75,000 dollars in cash, and 
 the rest on credit. The plaintiff was not informed 
 that the defendant had purchased the vessel him- 
 self or that he had resold it till June, 1869, after 
 the transaction was completed. The defendant 
 
 paid 90,000 dollars to G. k Co., who remitted it to 
 the plaintiff, and eventually obtained the whole 
 purchase-money of 16(),000 dollars. In 1873 the 
 plaintiff filed a bill in chancery to compel the 
 defendant to account for the profit made by him 
 in the resale of the ship : — Held, that the defen- 
 dant was liable to account to the plaintiff for the 
 profit made hj him, the relationship of principal 
 and agent existing between the parties. Be 
 Bussche V. Alt. 47 L. J., Ch. 381 ; 8 Ch. D. 286 ; 
 38 L. T. 370 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 384— C. A. 
 
 A. told W. that if he were the means of intro- 
 ducing a purchaser of A.'s ship, he should have 
 a commission. W. had an offer through B., 
 
 A. agreed that if the ship were sold W. and B. 
 should share the commission. The offer fell 
 through, also a second offer from C. to B. After 
 some time C. wrote to A., introducing another 
 person, who eventually bought the ship. The 
 jury found that W. was authorised to find a pur- 
 chaser, and that the purchaser was found through 
 
 B. : — Held, that C, as agent of the purchaser, 
 having acted on information received from B., 
 W. was entitled to his commission. Willdnson 
 V. Alston, 48 L. J., Q. B. 733 ; 41 L. T. 394 ; 44 
 J. P. 35 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 191— C. A. And see 
 XXV. Shipbrokers and Agents. 
 
 Commission on Building Ship.] — Shipbuilders 
 agreed with a shipbroker to build a ship for 
 56,000?., the builders to take half the shares in 
 the ship. The builders agreed in a separate letter 
 to pay the broker 1 h per cent, commission on the 
 contract price : the usual commission on sale was 
 2J per cent. The shares were taken up, and the 
 price collected by the broker, and paid to the 
 builders. The broker superintended the building. 
 The commission was paid to the broker, and 
 vouchers were sent to the owner's accountant 
 shewing the payment. Four of the owners who 
 had bought their shares from the owners, sued 
 the broker for their shares of the commission : — 
 Held, that thev could not recover it. Neilsen 
 V. Skinner, 17 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 1243, 
 
 Introduction of Purchaser.] — Purchaser intro- 
 duced by broker, but sale not thereby effected : 
 no commission. Wills v. Burrell, 21 Ct. of Sess. 
 Cas. (4th ser.) 623. 
 
 IX. MORTGAGE. 
 
 1. Legal, 168. 
 
 2. Eqxitahle, 173. 
 
 3. 3Ioi'f(jagor in Possession, 175. 
 
 4. Eights of Mortgagee, 177. 
 
 5. Recovery of Money advanced, IBS. 
 
 6. Priorities,\'i'^i. 
 
 7. Liahility of Mortgagee, 191. 
 
 8. Jurisdiction of Admiralty Court, 193. 
 
 9. Costs, 194. 
 
 Insurance by Mortgagee.] — See B. Marine 
 Insurance, V. Interest of assured, 9. Bot- 
 
 TOMET, KESPONDENTIA AND MORTGAGE. 
 
 1. Legal. 
 
 Efifect of Registration — Bankruptcy.] — On the 
 10th of June, 1830, E,. mortgaged, by bill of sale 
 to W. & Co., the ships " Lady East," " Pyramus," 
 and •' Sprightly," then being at sea. The bill of 
 sale contained an assignment of the freight and 
 policies. On the 12th of June the bill of sale 
 was entered in the book of registry. On the 18th 
 of October the " Sprightly "returned to port, and
 
 169 
 
 SHIPPING— IX. MorUiage. 
 
 TO 
 
 sailed again on the 16th November. On the 
 7th January, 1831. R. mortgaged the same ships, 
 freights and policies to the petitioners by bill of 
 sale, containing a recital of and subject to the 
 first mortgage ; on the 11th May, 1831. the second 
 bill of sale was entered in the book of registry : 
 on the 14th June E. became bankritpt ; on the 
 same day the " Pyramus " arrived from sea ; and 
 on the 15th of July the "Lady East" arrived 
 from sea ; on the 21st June both mortgages were 
 indorsed on the certificate of the " Pyramus " ; 
 and on the 16th of July both mortgages were 
 indorsed on the certificate of the " Lady East." 
 The " Pyramus " was lost at sea : — Held, that the 
 second mortgage was valid as to the interest in 
 the ships, freights, and policies. Jones, Ex parte, 
 Bichardson, In re, 2 C. i: J. 513 ; 2 Tyr. 671 ; 
 1 L. J., Ex. 218. 
 
 Priorities.] — A. mortgaged a ship for 
 
 1,200L to B.. who "transferred the mortgage to C. 
 A. afterwards executed a second mortgage for 
 400?. B. afterwards paid off C, and C. signed a 
 statutory receipt, instead of a retransfer. This 
 receipt was produced to the registrar, who made 
 an entry in the register-book, under the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1854, s. 68, to the effect that the 
 mortgage had been discharged. C. afterwards 
 executed a deed purporting to be a retransfer of 
 the 1,200/. mortgage to B., which was registered, 
 and at the same time a note was made by the 
 registrar against the entry of the receipt, stating 
 that the receipt was signed in error, and the 
 mortgage was afterwards again transferred to C 
 to secure a balance on account current, and this 
 deed remained in C.'s hands, after satisfaction of 
 all that was due on the account. B. then took a 
 fresh mortgage from A. for 2,500/., which in- 
 cluded the 1,200/. and 400/., and had since been 
 transferred to the plaintiff. After the new mort- 
 gage. B. agreed with C. that the mortgage for 
 1,200/. should be a security for advances on a 
 current account. The transfer of the mortgage 
 to the fjlaintiff was not registered until after this 
 agreement. Upon a aucstion of priority between 
 C. and the plaintiff :— Held, that the receipt with 
 the entry on the register operated as a discharge of 
 the first mortgage, and the same could not after- 
 wards be revived bythe note made by the registrar. 
 Jidl V. Jihifh, 3S"L. J., Ch. 178 ; L. K. 4 Ch. 
 136; I'J L.T. 662 ; 17 W. K. 194. 
 
 Indorsement on Register — Postponement of 
 Power of Sale. J — A claimant, upon an inter- 
 pleader in a county court as to liis title to 
 a ship seized in execution upon a judginent 
 against the registered owner, ))rovcd a previous 
 mortgage of the ship to liim by such owner fur a 
 loan, with a proviso in the mortgage postponing 
 until a date subsequent to the seizure of the ship 
 the power of sale vested in the mortgagee by 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 71, and thatsuch mortgage 
 was recorded in the register-book of the port of 
 the shi[>"8 registration in the form prescribed by 
 8. 66, but there was no indorsement on the certifi- 
 cate f)f registry, according to 4 Geo. 4, c. 41, ss. 35, 
 43, and 3 & 4 WiU. 4, c. 65, ss. 34, 42 :— Held, 
 that the mortgage Avas not invalid, either as a 
 fraud against creditors, or as not being according 
 to 17 & 18 Vict. 0. 104, on the ground of the post- 
 ponement of the power of sale. Uicki/tgoii v. 
 Kitrhrn, 8 El. & Bl. 789. 
 
 Held, also, that, even if the registration of the 
 mortgage was imperfect, by reason of the want d 
 the indorsement on the certificate, yet a judgment 
 
 given by the county court upon the interpleader 
 summons against the claimant in favour of the 
 execution creditor was eiToneous ; for the claimant 
 became and was the OTAner of the ship, by reason 
 of the mortgage, and such common-law incident 
 to a mortgage is not abrogated by 17 &: IS Vict, 
 c. 104. s. 70, which was intended to protect a 
 mortgagee, taking possession of a mortgaged ship 
 in order to make it available as a security, from 
 liabilities that might otherwise attach upon him 
 as owner of a ship in possessi. li. 
 
 Where Fraudulent Concealment.] — The legal 
 title of a mortgagee of a ship who, for the pur- 
 pose of facilitating a sale by the mortgagor, con- 
 ceals his mortgage, cannot prevail in equity 
 against a purchaser for valuable consideration 
 without notice. Hooper t. Gumm, 36 L. J.. Ch. 
 605 ; L. Pi. 2 Ch. 2S2 ; 16 L. T. 107 ; 15 "W. R. 
 464. 
 
 Of unfinished Ship.] — A., being owner of a ship 
 which was unfinished, on the 5th of July mort- 
 gaged it to B. A., on the 5th of August, regis- 
 tered the ship as owner, pursuant to 17 & IS Vict, 
 c. 104, s. 42. On the following day, B. caused 
 the mortgage to himself to be inserted on the 
 register. A. having become bankrupt : — Held, 
 that A.'s consignees could not maintain trover 
 against B. for the ship. Bdl v. Bank of London, 
 
 3 H. & N. 730 ; 28 L. J., Ex. 116. 
 
 Erasing Entries of.] — There is no provision in 
 the merchant shipping acts which authorises 
 the registrar to erase entries of mortgages. In 
 case of their having been duly discharged, an 
 entry to that effect may be made under s. 68 of 
 the act of 1854. Chagtcanncuf v. Cojtri/ron. 51 
 L. J., P. C. 37 : 7 App. Cas. 127 ; 46 L. T. 65 ; 
 
 4 Asp. M. C. 489— P. C. 
 
 Eegistration.]— A mortgage (1813) that failed 
 to comply with the Register Act was absolutely 
 void. Wihon v. Heather, 5 Taunt. 695. 
 
 See also Camphdl v. TJiomjmm, supra, col. 36 ; 
 Cuto v. Irving, BuUeel, Ex parte ; Pai/n v. Smith ; 
 Coomhes v. j/ansfield; Lindsay v. Gihhs, supra, 
 III. REGISfTRAxioN. 
 
 Registered first mortgagees of a ship, with 
 power of sale, to.ik from the mortgagor, by an 
 unregistered d-icunicnt, a declaration tliat the 
 mortgage should be a security, not only for the 
 mortgage debt, but for such sums as miglit, for 
 
 i the time being, be due from the mortgagor, 
 
 'either alone or willi any jjartner to the mort- 
 gagees or their firm, liDwever coinposetl. Subse- 
 quently anotlier incumbrancer took a rcgistercil 
 
 I niortg.Mge, expressed to be subject to the first 
 mortgage, but not referring to the unregistered 
 
 I charge, of wliioh, however, tlie last niortgageo 
 did not deny having had notice when he took 
 his security :— llfld, tliat the unregistered docu- 
 ment was "nut imnly a further charge but a new 
 
 1 security, and that the Shipping Act. 8 & 9 Vict, 
 c. 89, 8. 34, excluded it from priority over the 
 last mortgage. Parr v. A/ipfrhrr, 7 De G. JI. & Q. 
 
 ' 585 ; 24 L. J., Ch. 767 : 3 W. R. 645. 
 
 ' Bill of Sale, held to be Mortgage.]— 
 
 'Bill of sale of a sliils though absolute in its 
 terms, mav, notwithstanding the Ship Registry 
 I Act. Vje in'equity lield a mortgage, if such appears 
 'to have been the real intention of the parties. 
 ' Lanfitcn v. Jforton, 5 Beav. 9 ; 11 L. J., Ch. 233 ; 
 , 6 Jur. 357, 594.
 
 171 
 
 SHIPPING— IX. Mortgage. 
 
 172 
 
 The ownci" of ei^ht sisty-fouvths of a vessel, in 
 consideration of 100/., assigned them by bill of 
 sale ; contemporaneously -svitli its execution, a 
 memorandum was indorsed thereon, signed by 
 an agent of the assignee, stipulating that, on the 
 assignor repaying to the assignee the 100/. and 
 interest, the bill of sale should be void. Subse- 
 quently, the assignee received interest, and gave 
 a receipt for it, as for interest on 100/. advanced 
 on security of the bill of sale. The registry at 
 the custom-house was of an absolute sale. The 
 assignee sold the eight sixty-fourths, and the bill 
 of sale to the purchaser was duly executed ; but, 
 before its registry, a bill to redeem by the 
 original owner was filed, and the court restrained 
 the registry of the bill of sale, and made a decree 
 for redemption on payment of the 100/. and 
 interest, with costs so far as they were increased 
 by the dispute of the plaintiff's right to redemp- 
 tion. Whitfield V. Parjitt, 4 De G. & Sm. 240 : 
 15 Jur. 852." 
 
 Registered Mortgagee — Unregistered Prior 
 Purchaser.] — Kegistered mortgiv^L-e preferred to 
 unregistered prior purchaser. TJie Eastern Belle, 
 33 L. T. 21i ; 3 Asp. M. C. 19. 
 
 Debenture charging Ships — Notice.] — Sec- 
 tion 3 of the Merchant Shipping Amendment Act, 
 1862, did not repeal any part, but only explained 
 the meaning of s. 69 of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1854. Therefore, though equitable interests 
 in ships are recognised, a legal mortgage of a 
 ship in statutory form and registered has priority 
 -over an equitable charge previously given, even 
 where the legal mortgagee takes with notice of 
 the charge. Black v. Williavts, 64 L. J., Ch. 
 137 ; [1895] 1 Ch. 408 ; 13 E. 224 ; 43 W. 11. 
 -346 ; 2 Manson, 86. 
 
 Mortgage and Subsequent Sale.] — The owner 
 of eiglit-sixteenths of a ship mortgaged them 
 and afterwards sold them to another who took 
 possession of them and of the great bill of sale. 
 Held, that the mortgagee was to be preferred to 
 the purchaser. Gillespie t. Coutts, Ambl. 652. 
 
 Payment off — Duty of Registrar.] — Upon 
 production of a mortgage with a receipt for the 
 mortgage money indorsed, the registrar's duty is 
 to enter the discharge of the mortgage on the 
 register. Holdnrness v. Lamport, 29 Beav. 129 ; 
 30 L. J., Ch. 489 ; 7 Jur. (n.s.) 564 ; 9 W. E. 
 327. 
 
 Mortgage of Ship at Sea — Bankruptcy — Order 
 and Disposition.] — A transfer of a ship and cargo 
 at sea conveyed by M. and S. as security for money 
 advanced by executing and delivering to S. a 
 bill of sale of the ship, a policy upon ship and 
 cargu, indorsing the bills of lading, was held 
 not to pass the property to S., where S. neglected 
 upon the ship's return and notice thereof to take 
 possession, or to do any act to notify the transfer 
 of the property to him ; but that the property 
 passed to the assignees of M., a bankrupt, as 
 being in his order and disposition ;. also that an 
 agreement that the captain should have a share 
 of the profits or loss on the voyage did not 
 prevent S. from taking possession. 3Iair v. 
 Gleimie, 4 M. & S. 240 ^16 R. E. 445. 
 
 E. W. and his partner gave a bond to H. for 
 1,200/., and the same day assigned to H. or order 
 the goods in two ships at sea, also the bills of 
 lading and policies upon the same goods as 
 collateral security ; the policies indorsed to H., 
 
 the bills of lading not : — Held, upon H.'s bank- 
 ruptcy, that the ships and cargoes were not in 
 his order and disposition. Brown v. Heathcote, 
 1 Atk. 160. 
 
 Mortgage of a ship at sea is good as against 
 creditors in bankruptcy if the mortgagee takes 
 the bill of sale and gets possession promptly ; 
 otherwise not. Mattheivs, Ex parte, 2 Ves. 272. 
 S. P., Thompson v. Smith, 1 Madd. 395. 
 
 Mortgage of a ship in the port of Dublin, and 
 delivery of muniments ; the mortgagee insured 
 her there, and made a second mortgage ; the 
 second mortgagee took possession as soon as he 
 was informed she was in an English port ; this 
 is a sufficient possession to take it out of the 
 Stat. 21 Jac. 1, c. 19. Batson, Ex parte, 3 Bro. 
 C. C. 362. 
 
 A. being indebted to B., assigns a ship to C. 
 as trustee for B. by way of mortgage. The ship 
 is registered de novo in the name of C, and a 
 certiticate of registry is put on board ; but she is 
 left under the control of A., who becomes bank- 
 rupt. Quaere if she passes to his assignees under 
 21 Jac. 1, c. 19. Hay v. Monkhou.se, Holt, 603. 
 
 Sole owner of a ship secretly mortgages three 
 fourth shares in her as security for a debt, and 
 is allowed by the creditor to retain possession of 
 her until he becomes bankrupt ; the require- 
 ments of the registry acts having been com- 
 plied with : — Held, that the vessel passed to the 
 assignees under 21 Jac. 1, c. 19. s. 11. Kirkleyy. 
 Hod.rison, 2 . & R. 848 ; 1 B. & C. 588 ; 1 L. J. 
 (o.s.) K. B. 185. 
 
 Trover.] — Where a ship was mortgaged at 
 
 sea with a proviso that the mortgagor should con- 
 tinue in possession till failure of payment of the 
 mortgage money on demand, the grand bill of 
 sale was delivered and the mortgagor became 
 bankrupt before the arrival of the ship, and the 
 mortgagee took possession on her arrival : — Held, 
 that he could maintain trover against the 
 assignees, although he had made no demand 
 on the bankrupt or his assignees. Atkinson v. 
 Maling, 2 Term Eep. 462 ; 1 E. R. 524. 
 
 Bill of Sale left in Mortgagor's Hands— 
 Indorsement of Subsequent Charges.] — Mort- 
 gagee of a ship by deed intrusts the mortgagor 
 with the original bill of sale, and the mortgagor 
 indorses tliercon subsequent mortgages, or bills 
 of sale, of several parts of the ship, and mort- 
 gagee acquiesces : this is evidence of an assent 
 in such mortgagee, and shall therefore postpone 
 him. Mocatta v. Murgatroyd, 1 P. Wms. 394. 
 
 Commission on Loan — Agreement to give 
 Legal Mortgage of^Ship — First Mortgage.] — 
 
 Action to recover commission upon a loan 
 obtained by the plaintiff for the defendant upon 
 security of his ship. The defendant agreed to 
 accept the loan and to give a '■ legal mortgage" 
 of his ship. The lender, upon investigating the 
 borrower's title, found that there was a first 
 mortgage upon the ship, and refused to make 
 the advance : — Held, that the agreement between 
 the plaintiff and defendant was that the defen- 
 dant should give a first mortgage as security ; 
 and that the verdict for the plaintiff for his 
 commission should stand : new trial refused. 
 Thompson v. Clerk, 7 L. T. 269 ; 11 W. R. 23 ; 
 S. C, nisi prius, 3 F. & F. 183. 
 
 What Gear included— Fishing Boats— Nets.] 
 — In a case where certain fishing boats hail been
 
 173 
 
 SHIPPING— IX. Mortgage. 
 
 mortgaged by the bankrupts, and the mortgagees 
 laid claim to the nets and the fishing gear which 
 had been used on board the said vessels (but of 
 which no particular nets were appropriated to or 
 specially belonging to any particular vessel) on 
 the ground that such nets and fishing gear came 
 within the word " ship " in s. 72 of the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1854r, and the word "appurte- 
 nances" in the form of mortgage of a ship now 
 in use and substituted for Form I. given in the 
 ilerchant Shipping Act, 1854: : — Held, that in 
 order to make a thing an appurtenance it must 
 be specified ; that in the present case there was 
 no evidence to show that any specific nets were 
 appropriated to any particular ship, but that they 
 were used indiscriminately, and that they could 
 not in consequence be considered "appurte- 
 nances " wnthin the meaning of the act. Gould, 
 Ex parte, Salmon, In re, 2 Alorrell, 137. 
 
 Articles on Board at or after Mortgage,] — 
 
 A mortgage of a ship includes everything on board 
 at the date of the mortgage which was necessary 
 for the prosecution of the voyage, or anything 
 which has been brought on board subsequently 
 in substitution for what was there for the same 
 object at the time when the mortgage was 
 entered into. Coltman v. Clunriberlain, 59 L. J., 
 Q. B. 563 ; 25 Q. B. D. 328 ; 39 W. R. 12. 
 
 Mortgage of Whaler and Catch of Oil — Mort- 
 gage without Notice of Prior Mortgage— Priori- 
 ties. ] — See Feltham v. Clark, post, XV. Caego, 
 l.j. .Sale, Assignment and Moetgage. 
 
 Trawl "Warp— Mortgage of Trawler — Factors 
 Act, 1889.] — See Hull Hope Worlts Co. v. Adams, 
 infra, col. 188. 
 
 By Guardian of Infant.] — The guardian of 
 an infant -liifMAvncr has no power under the 
 Merchant Sliippiug Act, 1854, 17 & 18 Vict, 
 c. 1 04. s. 99, to mortgage or sell a ship of which 
 suf-li infant is the owner. Mlcluid v. Frlpp, 38 
 L. J., Ch. 29 ; 19 L. T. 257 ; 17 W. R. 23. 
 
 2. Equitable. 
 
 Notice — Effect of,] — A mortgagee of a ship, 
 witii notice of a prior unregistered equitable 
 mortgage, registers ; the prior equitable mort- 
 gagee is postponed to him. C^'ornhvn v. Munxjidd, 
 3 Drew. 193 ; 3 Eq. R. 560 ; 24 L. J., Ch. 513 ; 
 1 Jur. (N.S.) 270 ; 3 W. R. 345. See also Hooper 
 V. Guiiiiii, supra. 
 
 Validity of.] — In August, 1874, a shipbuilder, 
 having uverdrawn his account with his bankers, 
 offcrc(l to give them a security over a. ship wliich 
 he was then building. This offer was declined in 
 the first instance, with the intimation, however, 
 that circumstances might arise which might 
 render it desirable for the bank to liavc the 
 security offered, whereupon he iiromised that 
 whenever he was required to give it he would <lo 
 so. Two months later, his account being still 
 largely overdrawn, the bankers re<]UC8ted him to 
 give them the promised security. Accordingly 
 he deposited with them the builder's certificate 
 of the ship, which was still unfinished, and the 
 following day they put a man in jiossession. At 
 the same time he, in consideration of 770/. then 
 advanced to him, assigned to the bankers a trade 
 debt of 2.3«4/. 2.«. 8rf., as a further security for 
 the general Vjalance of his account. Two days 
 afterwards he filed a petition for liquidation : — 
 
 174 
 
 Held, that the transaction iietwcen him and hia 
 bankers was neither a fraudulent preference nor 
 an act of baukruptcv. Winter. Ex parte, Softley, 
 In re, 44 L. J., Bk.'l07 ; L. R. 20 Eq. 746: 33 
 L. T. 62 ; 24 AV. R. 68. 
 
 By Deposit of Builder's Certificate.] — 
 
 Held, also, that the deposit of the builder's cer- 
 tificate was a good equitable mortgage of all his 
 property and interest in the ship, antl that, 
 although unfinished, it did not require registra- 
 tion under the Bills of Sale Act, 1854. Ih. 
 
 Of Unfinished Ship— Incapable of Begis- 
 
 tration.] — Whether a ship not yet finished, and 
 therefore incapable of registration under the 
 merchant shipping acts, is properly called a 
 ship or not, it is a thing capable of assignment 
 by certificate in the usual way. lb. 
 
 Equitable agreement by articles for security 
 ujion a share of a ship then building, with a 
 covenant for a future biU of sale, and if the ship 
 should be sold in the interval, for payment out 
 of the purchase-money ; postponed to a subse- 
 quent bill of sale, with possession taken as far as 
 it could be subject to the builder's possession and 
 lien. Ifuiael v. Itusxcll, 14: Ves. 393. 
 
 Under 17 & 18 Vict, c. 104.]— Although 
 
 the 17 & 18 Vict, c. 104, contains no provision 
 negativing the validity of a mortgage made 
 otherwise than according to the terms of the 
 act, the whole scope of the act is to that effect, 
 and an equitable mortgage is invalid. Liverpool 
 Borough Bank v. Turner, 2 De G. F. & J. 502 ; 
 30 L. J., Ch. 379 ; 7 Jur. (N.s.) 150 ; 3 L. T. 494: ; 
 9 W, R. 292. But see 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 3. 
 
 In Bankruptcy.] — A registered mortgagee 
 
 of a ship having depositeil with a creditor the 
 instrument of mortgage thereof, and subsequently 
 become bankrupt : — Held, that such deposit took 
 the ship out of the order and disposition of the 
 banki-upt, and constituted the creditor equitable 
 mortgagee of the ship. Lacon v. Li/fen, 32 L, J., 
 Ch. 31.5 ; 9 Jur. (x.S.) 477 ; 7 L. T. 774 ; 11 W, R. 
 474— L, C, 
 
 By Parol as a Lien.] — An owner of a ship maj 
 verbally authorise a creditor to take possessiou 
 of it as a lieu, an<l the creditor so taking jiosses- 
 sion may enforce such lien without any alteration 
 in the registry. Cuzrnore v. Clayton. 2 M. vV: Rob. 
 552. See Parr v, Applebce, ante, col. 1 70. 
 
 Bight to Proceeds of Sale of Ship,] — Moneys 
 were advain'fd l>y tlic plaiiitill- to M. M.. upon 
 the agreement iliat tliey should 1)C leiiiilturscd by 
 the proceeds of a sliip then being Iniilt in New 
 Brunswick, and of her cargo, whicli weie to be 
 consi!.nie<l by M. M. to the plaintiffs forsale ; and 
 a bill of Lading of tlie cartjo, and a jiower of 
 attorney from the registered owner, enaliling the 
 plaintiffs to sell the ship, were tiansmitfed by 
 M. M. to the plaintiffs. M. M. afterwards trans- 
 fcrreti the shiii and cargo to C. and G. The ship 
 was thereupon registered in the names of C. an<l G. 
 who sohl the ship and cargo to R. and P., and the 
 ship was then registered in the name of P. A new 
 m.aster was appoint cd, ;iud a new bill of lading 
 signed, and the ship and cargo were consigned by 
 R. and P. (with n power of attorney from 1'. to sell 
 the ship) to R. ainl G., in which firm all the mem- 
 bers of the firm of R. and P. were partners, except 
 P. The plaintiffs filed their bill against C. and G.,
 
 175 
 
 SHIPPING— IX. Mortgage. 
 
 17G 
 
 R. and P., and R. and G., and the assignees of 
 M. M., to establish a lien on the proceeds of the 
 ship, and on the cargo, under their agreement 
 with M. M. The defendant H., one of the part- 
 ners in the firms of R. and P. and R. and G.. was 
 alone within the jurisdiction and served with the 
 snbpa'na : — Held, that in the absence of P., who 
 appeared to be the registered owner of the ship, 
 the court could not make any decree establishing 
 the plaintiffs' lien on the proceeds of the sale of 
 the ship ; that, although it appeared that the 
 ship had been sold by R. and G., pending the suit, 
 under the power of attorney from P., and that 
 the proceeds had been accounted for by R. and 
 G. to R. and P., no fraud being proved in the 
 transactions under which those firms had acquired 
 the ship and the proceeds, the plaintiffs were not 
 entitled to any relief in respect of the proceeds 
 of the sale in the suit in which R. only appeared ; 
 that the claim of the plaintiffs in equity to the 
 proceeds of the ship would not be assisted by 
 proof of notice by P. of the transactions between 
 the plaintiffs and M. M. M^ Calmont v. JRank'm, 
 8 Hare, 1 ; 19 L. J., Ch. 215 ; 14 Jur. 475. S. C, 
 on farther consideration, 2 De G. M. & G. 403 ; 
 22 L. J., Ch. 554. 
 
 Judgment Creditor of Equitable Mortgagee.] 
 — A creditor getting judgment against a ship 
 that is subject to an equitable mortgage is 
 entitled to the interest of his debtor in the ship, 
 and no more. De WuI/y. Pitcairn, 17 W. R. 914. 
 
 Assignment by Bill of Sale, in Form Absolute, 
 held to be Mortgage.] — See Whltjield v. Parjitt, 
 and caacit supra, col. 171. 
 
 Agreement to give Mortgage.] — Means a first 
 mortgage. Tliuiiqjsini v. Clark, supra, col. 172. 
 
 3. Mortgagor in Possession, 
 
 Effect of Charterparty.] — Where a beneficial 
 charterparty has been entered into by a mort- 
 gagor in possession of a ship the mortgagee 
 cannot object to the charterparty being carried 
 out simply upon the ground that the effect of 
 carrying out the charterparty will be to remove 
 the ship out of the jurisdiction of the court, and 
 to render it difficult for him to enforce his mort- 
 gage security. The Fanclum, 50 L. J., Adm. 4 ; 
 5 P. D. 173 ; 42 L. T. 483 ; 29 W. R. 339 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 272. 
 
 When shares in a ship are mortgaged, posses- 
 sion being retained by the mortgagors, and the 
 managing owner, duly appointed by all the co- 
 owners, including the mortgagors, charters the 
 ship for a foreign voyage, and she loads and is 
 about to proceed on the voyage, the mortgagee, 
 even though he takes possession of his shares 
 before the sailing of the ship but after the 
 making of the charterparty, cannot arrest the ship 
 or demand bail in an action brought by him to 
 compel payment of his mortgage debt, provided 
 the performance of the charterparty is not pre- 
 judicial to the security ; and the court will, upon 
 the application of the co-owners, release a ship 
 so arrested, and will condemn the mortgagee 
 arresting in costs. The Maxima, 39 L. T. 112 ; 
 4 Asp. M. C. 21, 
 
 Where a mortgagor of a ship does some act 
 which prejudices or injures the security of the 
 mortgagee, the declaration in 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. 
 ss. 70, 71, that the mortgagor is to be deemed 
 the owner, ceases to have any binding effect 
 
 against the mortgagee, and he may exercise the 
 powers given to him by the mortgage, subject to 
 this qualification — every contract entered into by 
 the mortgagor in possession is a contract which 
 derives validity from the declaration contained 
 in the statute of his continuing to be the owner. 
 Such contract would, however, enure for the 
 benefit of the mortgagee, on his giving notice to 
 the party who is to pay the mortgagor under that 
 contract. Collins v. Lamport, 34 L. J., Ch. 
 196 ; 11 Jur. (N.s.) 1 ; 11 L.T. 497 ; 13 W.R,283. 
 
 Therefore where, pending a mortgage, the 
 mortgagor had contracted for the sale of the ship, 
 and before the contract was completed the pur- 
 chaser had entered into a charterparty with the 
 plaintiff, the mortgagees, on the bankruptcy of 
 the mortgagor, were restrained from selling or 
 otherwise dealing with the ship in any manner in- 
 consistent with the terms of the charterparty. lb. 
 
 Where a mortgagee took, with notice of a 
 charterparty entered into by the mortgagor, an 
 interlocutory injunction was granted restraining 
 the mortgagee from exercising his power of sale 
 in such a manner as to interfere with the rights 
 of the charterer. De Mattos v. Gibson, 4 De G. 
 & J. 276 ; 28 L. J., Ch. 165, 498 ; 5 Jur. (N.s.) 347, 
 555 ; 7 W. R. 100, 152, 403, 514. 
 
 Eight to Possession under.] — A., being the 
 owner of a steamship, mortgaged it to B., and 
 subsequently, under circumstances held to shew 
 acquiescence by B., entered into an agreement in 
 contemplation of a partnership with C, by the 
 terms of which C. was to work the ship for A. 
 till further notice, paying all the expenses and 
 receiving all the profits, A. agreeing to indemnify 
 him against loss, if any, upon a periodical state- 
 ment of accounts. SulDsequently to this agree- 
 ment B. gave notice to C. of the mortgage, and 
 required possession of the ship. The ship was 
 being employed in voyages at a distance from 
 England, between S. and T., and was at that 
 time at S., under engagements which had been 
 entered into by C. with third parties, with respect 
 to its next voyage to T. The ship was given up 
 to B.'s agent at T. at the termination of its next 
 voyage thither. At the time of such delivery C. 
 owed to the crew of the ship a large sum for 
 wages, which entitled them to proceed against 
 the ship in the admiralty court ; and shortly 
 after the delivery of the ship the crew took such 
 proceedings, and the ship was seized by the 
 ofiBcers of the court. B., after suffering much 
 delay and loss, jaaid the wages and obtained 
 possession of the ship. In an action of trover for 
 the ship, brought by B. against C. : — Held, that 
 C. was entitled to retain possession of the ship 
 till its arrival at T., in order to fulfil the engage- 
 ments incurred before notice. Johndon v. Mcynl 
 Mad Steam Packet Co., 37 L, J., C. P. 33 ; L. R. 
 3 C. P. 38 ; 17 L. T. 445. 
 
 Held, also, that as there had been a delivery of 
 the ship at T., notwithstanding it was subject to 
 a maritime lien for wages, A. was not entitled to 
 recover on a count for trover, lb. 
 
 Constructive Possession,] — A mortgagee may 
 recover upon a ship mortgage, though never in 
 possession of the ship, if the mortgagor has given 
 all the possession he can give, Belchier v. Parsons, 
 1 Kenyon, 38, 48. 
 
 Mortgagor of three hoys suffered by mortgagee 
 to remain in possession, and to work them. 
 Upon his bankruptcy the hoys were held to pass 
 to his assignees as being in his order and disposi-
 
 177 
 
 SHIPPING— IX. Mortgage. 
 
 178 
 
 t;on. Stephens v. Sole, 1 Ves. 3o2. ^S. C, cited 
 1 Atk. 157. 
 
 Eight to Proceeds of Ship Sold in Wages Suit.] 
 
 — Surplus proceeds of ship sold in wages suit not 
 paid out to mortgagees, who had never been in 
 possession ; ordered to remain in the registry. 
 The Portsfea, 2 Hag. Adm. 84. 
 
 A mortgagee in possession of a ship sold under 
 a decree of the court of admiralty for the pay- 
 ment of seamen's wages, is entitled to the re- 
 mainder of the proceeds after payment of sea- 
 men's wages and costs. The yejjtu/te, IIo(hjes v. 
 Sims, 3 Knapp, 94. 
 
 Eight to Charter Mortgaged Ship.] — R., owner 
 of a ship, having mortgaged it to the defendants, 
 contracted with L. for the sale of the ship to him, 
 and before R. became finally bound by the 
 contract L. entered into a charterparty with the 
 plaintifEs. Before the vessel started on her 
 voyage R. stopped payment, whereupon the 
 mortgagees took steps towards selling the ship. 
 It appearing that the terms of the charterparty 
 would not damage the security, an injunction to 
 restrain any dealings with the ship inconsistent 
 with the terms of the charterparty was granted 
 at the suit of the plaintiffs. Collins v. Lamport, 
 34 L. J., Ch. 196 ; 11 Jur. (X.S.) 1 ; 11 L. T. 497 ; 
 13 W. R. 283. 
 
 Mortgagor no Claim for Use of Ship.] — A 
 mortgagee out of possession of a whaler is not 
 entitled as against the mortgagor or his assignee 
 of the cargo to an allowance for the use of the 
 ship. Lamjton v. Ilortun, 5 Beav. 9 ; 11 L. J., 
 Ch. 233 ; fJ Jur. 3.=i7 ; .594. 
 
 Order and Disposition.]— .Sfe cases supra, cols. 
 151, 158. 
 
 Mortgagees Prejudiced.] — A mortgagor may 
 not so deal with his ship as to materially preju- 
 dice his mortgagees' security. Laming S,' Co. v. 
 Seater, 10 Ct. of Se.-s. C'as. (4th ser.) 828. 
 
 Arrest of Ship— Freight.]— First mortgagees 
 to whom the ship's freight had been assigned 
 after notice of a second mortgage, although they 
 arrested the ship, did not take possession of her 
 before the freight was paid :— Held, that they 
 were not liable to account for tlie freight as 
 mortgagees in possession. Having received it as 
 assignees of freight they were entitled to it as 
 against the second mortgagees, altliough the 
 assignment was made after notice of the sccoikI 
 mortgage. The Uenwell Tower, 72 L. T. 0G4 ; 8 
 Asp. M. C. 15. 
 
 Liability of Mortgagee for "Wages and Sup- 
 plies, —.-^ue JJ'jker w Jliichir, and ruscx, culs. 
 191, seq. 
 
 Mortgagor taking to Sea Mortgagees' Man in 
 Possession.] — See The Fairport, supra, col. 94. 
 
 }. Rights of Moetgagee. 
 To Sell and Use.— Where a ship has Vjcen 
 mortgaged for a dett, a creditor who has got 
 judgment against a registered owner of the ship 
 cannot take and sell the ship in execution, for to 
 do so would be to defeat the rights of the mort- 
 gagee to make the ship available as a security 
 for his debt, given him by 17 it 18 Vict, c Hit, 
 8. 70. Kitchen v. Irrine, 8 El. & Bl. 789 ; 28 L. J., 
 Q. B. 46 ; 5 Jur. (N.s.) 118. 
 
 Semble. that a mortgagee of a ship has power, 
 under 17 & 18 Yict. c. 104. s. 70, to use as well 
 as to sell the ship. European and Avstralian 
 Royal Mail Co. ^. Royal Mail Steam, Packet Co., 
 4 Kay k J. 676 ; 5 Jur. (N.S.) 310. 
 
 Tinder what Conditions.] — Where a mort- 
 gagee of a steamship took possession of her, and 
 used her for the purposes of a speculation which 
 resulted in a loss, and subsequently sold her dis- 
 advantageously : — Held, that he must himself 
 bear such loss, and be charged with the value of 
 the vessel at the time he took possession of her. 
 Marriott v. Anchor Rcri'r.sionarij Co., 3 De G. 
 F. & J. 177 : 30 L. J., Ch. 571 ; 7 Jur. (N.S.) 713 ; 
 4 L. T. 590 ; 9 W' . R. 720. 
 
 A vessel was mortgaged for a nominal sum, to 
 secure an unascertained balance due to the mort- 
 gagee, with power to sell by public auction, and, in 
 case a vessel could not be sold, the mortgagee was 
 to hold, enjoy and possess the free use, control and 
 possession thereof as sole owner, until the full 
 amount of his claims should be satisfied. Default 
 was made in payment of the sum named before 
 the real balance was ascertained, and pending an 
 investigation thereof before arbitrators, the 
 mortga^^ee caused the vessel to be sold by private 
 contract : — Held, that such sale was wrongful, 
 and not warranted by the conditions of the 
 mortgage. Brouard v. Dumaresq^ne, 3 Moore, 
 P. C.^457. 
 
 Eight to Arrest — Eestraint Action.] — A 
 
 mortgagee cannot arrest a ship for the purpose 
 of s-etting security for her safe return. The 
 ITuihlaiider, 2 W. Rob. 109. 
 
 As to Sale of "Vessel at the Suit of a Mortgagee 
 of Part.] — See The Fan-lie, \>o^t, col. 191. 
 
 To defend Actions against Ship.] — The mort- 
 gagee may come in and defend his interest in the 
 shijj sued, but can only rely on tlefences open to 
 the owner of the ship. The Chieftain, Br. 
 cNc Lush. 104 ; 32 L. J.. A.lm. 100 ; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 
 388; 8L. T. 12U; 11 W. R. 537. 
 
 To receive Freight— Extent of Eight.]— A 
 mortgagee of a ship does not, ordinarily speaking, 
 obtain, "by the mortgage alone, a transfer, by 
 way of contract or assignment, of the right to 
 freight; the mortgagor remains the dominus of 
 the ship, with regard to everything relating to 
 its employment, or noneniployment, or to any 
 rate of freight to be earned by its employment, 
 until the mortgagee takes possession. The mort- 
 gagee on taking po^sessiim becomes the owner, 
 and it is by virtue of that ownership, and not by 
 virtue of any antecedent contract or right, that 
 he is entitled to receive the freight, wliich, by 
 contract or otherwise, is lawfully i)ayablc. Keith 
 V. Riirrotrs. 46 L. J., C. I'. M>1 : 2 Api-. Cas. CM ; 
 37 L. T. 291 ; 25 W. R. 831 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 481— 
 
 H. L. (p:.) 
 
 M. mortgaged his ship, then in California, to 
 K. ic Co., but the mortgage was not registered. 
 A cargo was afterwards (lUt on boarrl in Cali- 
 fornia on account of the ship, and bills f.f lading 
 were tlrawn for a nominal freight of l.». per Ion. 
 Before tlie sliip arrived in England. B. & Co., 
 without notice of the mortgage, advanced money 
 to M. on the security of the carf,-n. and then sold 
 the cargo to J. by a contract containing the fol- 
 lowing clause: "As cargo is coming on ship's 
 account, freight is to be computed at 55.«(. i.ei
 
 179 
 
 SHIPPING— IX. Mortgage. 
 
 180 
 
 ton, and invoice to be rendered accordingly." 
 M. paid for the cargo and received the bills of 
 lading, and handed them to B. & Co., with an 
 assignment indorsed of his interest in " the 
 within freight" expressed to be '■ at the rate of 
 5,5.v. per ton. and not the nominal amount of l.s. 
 per ton." K. &; Co. registered their mortgage, 
 and on the arrival of the ship took possession, 
 and claimed freight at the rate of 55-?. per ton : 
 — Held, that the sum of hbs. per ton was not 
 really freight, but was part of the price of the 
 cargo kept back till the arrival of the ship, and 
 that the mortgagees were not entitled to more 
 than 1*. per ton, the freight specitied in the bills 
 of lading. lb. 
 
 The first registered mortgagee of a ship, by 
 taking possession of her before the freight is 
 completely earned, obtains a legal right to 
 receive the freight, and to retain thereout not 
 only what is due on bis hrst mortgage, but also 
 the amount of any subsequent charge which he 
 ma}' have acquired on the freight, in priority to 
 every equitable charge of which he had no notice ; 
 and it makes no difference that a subsequent 
 incumbrancer was the first to give notice to the 
 charterers of his charare on the freight. Liverpool 
 iVarine Credit Co. y^Wilso?!, 41 L. J., Ch. 798 ; 
 L. R. 7 Ch. 507 ; 26 L. T. 717 ; 20 W. E. 6G5. 
 
 The mortgage of a ship carries with it a right 
 to receive the freight earned by the ship ; and 
 although the mortgagee cannot recover back 
 from the mortgagor freight which he has allowed 
 the mortgagor to receive, yet he may at any time 
 intercept the freight by giving notice to the 
 mortgagor, consignee, or charterer that he in- 
 tends to exercise his right of property, and to 
 require the freight to be paid to him. Wilson 
 V. Wilso7i, 41 L. .J., Ch. 423 ; L. R. 14 Eq. 32 ; 
 26 L. T. 346 ; 20 W. E. 436. 
 
 The owner of a ship assigned the freight not 
 yet earned, and three days afterwards, with the 
 knowledge of the assignee, mortgaged the ship 
 to persons, and the mortgagees registered their 
 mortgage. The assignee neglected to give notice 
 of his claim upon the freight to the mortgagees : 
 — Held, that the assignee was not entitled to set 
 up any right to such freight in opposition to the 
 rights of the mortgagees. lb. 
 
 When an entire ship is in mortgage, in order 
 to defeat the right of the mortgagor to receive 
 the fieight, the mortgagee must take possession 
 cf her before the completion of her voyage ; but 
 where the mortgagor of certain shares is ship's 
 liusband, if the mortgagees join with the owners 
 of the other shares in the ship in the appoint- 
 ment of a new ship's husband before the com- 
 pletion of the voyage, the mortgagor loses all 
 right as ship's husband to receive the freight. 
 Beiinon v. Godden, 48 L. J., Ex. 80 ; 3 Ex. D. 
 263 ; 39 L. T. 82 ; 26 W. E. 672— C. A. 
 
 In August, 1876, R. was mortgagor of certain 
 shares in a vessel, and also was acting as ship's 
 husband, and the defendant was charterer of the 
 vessel for the voyage upon which she was then 
 employed. R. obtained from the plaintiff a loan 
 of 200Z., and by a letter dated the 30th of August 
 requested the defendant to pay to the plaintiff 
 the freight due on the charter. On the 20th of 
 September the mortgagees of R.'s shares and the 
 owners of the other shares ajipointed E. ship's 
 husband in place of R. Upon the lltli of 
 October the vessel comi)letcd her voyage, and 
 upon the 14th began to discharge her cargo ; 
 upon the 16th the defendant sent to the plaintiff 
 a cheque for 2U0Z., which he afterwards dis- 
 
 honoured, E. having claimed the amount of the 
 freight : — Held, that the plaintiff could not 
 maintain an action to recover the amount of the 
 cheque. lb. 
 
 A mortgagee may entitle himself to freight by 
 taking possession of the shijj. Gibson v. Tngo- 
 6 Hare, 112. 
 
 First mortgagees to whom the ship's freight 
 had been assigned after notice of a second mort- 
 gage, although they arrested the ship, did not 
 take possession of her before the freight was 
 paid : — Held, that they were not liable to account 
 for the freight as mortgagees in possession. 
 Having received it as assignees of freight, they 
 were entitled to it as against the second mort- 
 gagees, although the assignment was made after 
 notice of the second mortgage. The JBenwell 
 Tower, 72 L. T. 644 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 15. 
 
 Before the mortgagee obtained possession of 
 the ship, the charterers and consignees of cargo 
 sold to the shipowner part of the cargo by way 
 of discharge of the freight : — Held, that the 
 mortgagee was not entitled to the freight. Bel- 
 fast Harbour Commissioners v. Laictker, 17 Ir., 
 Ch. E. 54. 
 
 A., a shipowner, mortgaged a ship, then on her 
 road home, to B., and afterwards gave a written 
 authority to C, to whom he was indebted, to 
 receive the ship's freight. A., becoming bank- 
 rupt, his assignees, under an order in bankruptcy, 
 sold the equity of redemption in the ship, anti, 
 after deducting the amount due to them, paid 
 the balance into court under the Trustee Relief 
 Act : — Held, that C.'s claim for freight could no*j 
 be sustained, no notice of the assignment by A. 
 having been given to the charterers or their 
 agents. Pride of Wales and Annie Lisle (^Owners 
 of), III re, 15 L. T. 606 ; 15 W. R. 381. 
 
 Held, also, that it was not necessary that the 
 mortgagors should admit the accuracy of the 
 mortgagee's account, in order to entitle them to 
 payment of the fund in court. 1 b. 
 
 The plaintiff, la shipowner, in July sold the 
 ship to D., of the firm of D. Y. & Co., and 
 received in payment of the price the draft of 
 D. Y. &; Co. on B. at twelve months. In Sep- 
 tember the ship sailed from London to San 
 Francisco, and thence on a seeking voyage home. 
 In June following the captain sent out by D. 
 chartered her to load flour for Sydney. Some 
 days before the bill of exchange became due, 
 D. Y. & Co. requested the plaintiff to renew it, 
 which he agreed to do upon having the ship 
 transferred to him as security. The ship was 
 accordingly transferred to him by an assignment 
 in form absolute. In October the captain, who 
 had no knowledge of the assignment, received 
 l.OOOZ. on account of freight, and remitted it to 
 D. Y. & Co. In November' D. Y. & Co. became 
 bankrupt : — Held, that the court could treat the 
 assignment according to its real nature as a 
 mortgage ; and that the mortgagee, not having 
 taken possession, was not entitled to the freight. 
 Gardner v. Cazenore, 1 H. & N. 423 ; 26 L. J., 
 Ex. 17 ; 5 W. R. 195. 
 
 Under an assignment of a ship, and her present 
 and future cargo, freight and earnings, by the 
 owner, for securing to the assignees all moneys 
 which they had advanced, or might become 
 liable to pay on account of the vessel and her 
 cargo, which they had furnished tlie means of 
 purchasing : — Held, the assignees, who were also 
 the ship's agents, were entitled to retain a bill 
 which was given for the purchase of part of the 
 homeward cargo, and was remitted, but not
 
 181 
 
 SHIPPING— IX. Mortgage. 
 
 182 
 
 indorsed, to them by the owner, notwithstandincr 
 he denied that it was remitted in payment, and 
 stated that they had not paid ; and, contrary to 
 an express understanding, had left him person- 
 ally liable to some of the debts incurred in 
 fitting out the vessel ; and an injunction which 
 had been obtained by the assignees, restraining 
 an action of trover for the bill, was continued 
 until the hearing. Curtis v. Auher, 1 Jac. & 
 Walk. 526. 
 
 A part owner of a ship, whose share was subject 
 to a mortgage, agreed with the other part owner 
 (whose share was not subject to any mortgage), 
 but without the concurrence of the mortgagee, 
 to purchase guano on the joint account of the 
 two part owners, and bring it in the ship to 
 England. On the completion of the voyage, and 
 when the cargo was about to be discharged, the 
 mortgagee took possessiun : — Held, that he had 
 no claim against the owner of the mortgaged 
 share for freight, and could, at the utmost, only 
 claim to adopt the mortgagor's contract, and 
 stood in his place as to the i^rofits of the adven- 
 ture after deducting all expenses. Alcvunder v. 
 Simms. .5 De G. M. & G. 57 ; 2 Eq. Rep. 8G1 ; 23 
 L. J., Ch. 721 ; 2 W. E. 329. 
 
 By the mortgage of a ship, under the 17 & IS 
 Vict. c. 104, the legal right to the freight is 
 transferred. Dohhya v. Comerford, 10 Ir. Ch. E. 
 327. 
 
 In October, 1883, "W. mortgaged to the plaintifE 
 certain shares in a ship. Subsequently AV., who 
 was captain and ship's husband of the ship, 
 incurred liabilities to the defendants for goods 
 supplied to and disbursements made for the ship. 
 In March, 1886, the ship was chartered for a 
 voyage from Montreal to Liverpool, the freight 
 being payable one-third at Quebec, and two- 
 thirds on right delivery of the cargo in Liverpool. 
 Immediately upon arrival of the ship in Liver- 
 pool the plaintifEs took possession, and gave 
 notice to the owners of the cargo to pay the j 
 freight to them. The defendants afterwards 
 obtained judgment against \V., and obtained 
 garnishee orders upon the receivers of the cargo, 
 attaching the freight due from them : — Held, 
 that the defendants had no right to the freight 
 as against the plaintiffs, J(q>p v. Camphdl^ 57 
 L. J., Q. B. 7y. 
 
 A vessel was chartered to proceed to A., there 
 take in a cargo to be shipjxjd by the charterers, 
 and return <lirect to London. After the ship's 
 arrival in the port of London, and whilst the 
 cargo was in course of delivery, a mortgagee, 
 under an ordinary statutory mortgage made 
 prior to the date of the charterparty, took pos- 
 session : — Held, that lie therebj' acquired a right 
 to the freight in priority Ui an assignee of tlie 
 freight by a de';d exocute<l .sub.-equeutly to the 
 cliarterparty, notice of which had been given \<y 
 the charterers. Brown v. Tanner, 37 L. J., Ch. 
 «J23 ; L. R. 3 Ch. 5'J7 ; 18 L. T. 624 ; 16 W. R. 
 882. 
 
 Registered assignee of freight preferred to 
 unregistercfl transferee of part of ship. Lindsay 
 V. Crihhu. supra, col. 29. 
 
 Charge by Managing Owner — Appointment of 
 Eeceiver of Freight— Rights of Co-owners.]— In 
 
 an action in jjrrMXiniii \>\ a plaintilf clainiing to 
 be equif at>lc mortgagee of the foreign shi]) " I".'' 
 and her freight, to secure a liability incurred by 
 him in accepting bills of exchange which had 
 been <lrawn by the managing owner, it ajjpeared 
 that the alleged mortgage was given to the plain- 
 
 tifE by the managing owner : that the plaintiff, 
 when he accepted the bills, thought the manag- 
 ing owner was sole owner, and that it was subse- 
 quently sworn on atHdavit that the managing 
 owner was only a part owner, but it did not 
 appear whether the amount of the bills was in 
 fact expended on the purposes of the ship. The 
 " F." was in an English port under charter to 
 carry cargo to a foreign port, when, on applicntiuii 
 by the plaintiff, an order was made appointing a 
 receiver, and authorising him to proceed with 
 the ship to the foreign port, and there receive 
 the sliip and all the freight due upon the voyage. 
 The defendants appealed : — Held, that, even 
 assuming the managing owner to be only a part 
 owner, yet that, as it did not appear that the 
 amount of the bills was not expended solely for 
 the purposes of the ship, the court had authority 
 to appoint a receiver to receive the whole of the 
 freight, and that, in the circumstances, it was 
 expedient that the order should stand. Burn v. 
 Herlof«on, or The Faust, 56 L. T. 722 ; 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 12G— C. A. 
 
 See alsn tit. XIII. FREIGHT, as to right of 
 mortgagee to freight. 
 
 Mortgagee intervening in Bottomry Suit to 
 get Freight brought in.] — See The Percy, 
 infra, col. 218. 
 
 Freight in hands of Foreigner Abroad — Ser- 
 vice of Notice of Writ.] — The tirst mortgagee of a 
 ship, with power to collect the freight, brought 
 an action against the second mortgagee (whose 
 mortgage contained an assignment of the freight) 
 and others, claiming an account and payment 
 out of the freight of the amount he had paid for 
 wages of the crew, and the wages and disburse- 
 ments of the master. The freight was in the 
 hands of R. & Co., foreigners, resident abroad, 
 to whom it had been paid as agents of the second 
 mortgagee, and who claimed to retain it in satis- 
 faction of a debt due to them from their prin- 
 cipal. The plaintiff sought to make R. i: Co. 
 defendants to the action : — Held, that Ord. XI. 
 r. 1, did not apply, and leave to serve notice of 
 the writ out of the jurisdiction refused. MrStc- 
 \])lbens v. Carnegie, 40 L. J., Ch. 397 ; 42 L. T. 
 309 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 215— C. A. 
 
 I Mortgage without Notice of prior Agreement 
 
 I for use of Ship— Sale by Mortgagee— Right of 
 
 I Purchaser to Certificate of Registry.] — The 
 
 ; owner of a ship cntenMl iniu a ronlract with a 
 
 I company that the ship should sail as one of the 
 
 I company's line. He subsequently mortgaged her 
 
 j without notice of the contract, and t In; mortgagee, 
 
 I after the death of the owner, and while the coii- 
 
 ! tract was in force, sold the ship, the purchaser 
 
 having notice of the contract :— Held, that such 
 
 contract was not binding upon the jiurcha-scr, 
 
 and that in any case he, being the duly legis- 
 
 tered owner, was entitled to have the certiticate 
 
 of registry of the ship delivere<l \x\> to him by 
 
 the company in whose possession it w.os. The 
 
 Cdtir Kimi, 63 L. J., Adm. 37 ; [1894] V. 175 ; 
 
 6 R. 754 ; 70 L. T. 562 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 44u. 
 
 Co-ownership Action— Mortgagee intervening 
 
 Release of Ship.] — When a part owner of a 
 
 ship institutes a ^ult against the ship, claiming 
 as against his co-owner an account ami a .sale of 
 the ship, a registered mortgagee. hoMiug a mort- 
 gage which would not be satisfied by a sale of 
 the ship, is entitled, on intervening in the suit,
 
 183 
 
 to a release of the ship, and to his costs from 
 the time of his claiminc; the release. The Eastern 
 Belie, 33 L. T. 2U ; 3 Asp. M. C. 19. 
 
 Ship's Expenses after taking Possession.] — 
 
 Mortpigees in possession of a sliip held not 
 entitled to prove against the bankrupt mort- 
 gagor's estate for the ship's expenses after they 
 had taken possession. Uowdcn, Kv ^arte, Litlier- 
 land, In re, 2 Mont. D. & D. 574 ; 11 L. J., Bk. 19. 
 
 Mortgagee not bound to Charter — Equitable 
 Eights in Ship.] — A mortgagee of a ship has 
 a power of sale by his seciirity. The ship arrived 
 at Glasgow, and the mortgagee advertised her 
 for sale by public roup in Scotland. An inter- 
 dict of the Scotch court was obtained to suspend 
 the sale. In the meantime, the parties claim- 
 ing other interest in the ship, proposed to the 
 mortgagee to enter into a charterparty for a 
 voyage of the ship, pending the disputes which 
 had arisen. The mortgagee refused to enter 
 into such charterparty. The ship afterwards 
 arrived at Liverpool : — Held, that the mortgagee 
 had a clear right to refuse, as being a speculation 
 which could not be imposed upon him. Samuel 
 V. Junes, 7 L. T. 760. 
 
 Held, also, that the interdict having thrown 
 a cloud upon the mortgagee's title, he was 
 entitled to a decree for a sale, and an account 
 as against all parties claiming an interest in 
 the ship. li. 
 
 By 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 3, the court has 
 jurisdiction over all equitable rights and claims 
 of owners and mortgagees of ships. Ih. 
 
 Arrest before Mortgage Debt due — Release 
 of Ship.] — "Where the registered mortgagees of 
 a ship instituted an action in rem as mortgagees 
 for possession, and the ship was arrested therein 
 before the mortgage money became diie, and 
 without any default on the part of the mortgagor, 
 the court, being of opinion upon the facts that 
 the ship was not being dealt with so as to impair 
 the mortgagee's security, ordered her release. 
 The Blanche, 58 L. T. 592 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 272. 
 
 Arrest of Ship for Disbursements — Payment 
 by Mortgagees — Liability of Owners to repay.] 
 
 — The plaintiffs were the registered mortgagees 
 of forty-eight sixtj'-fourth shares in a ship, the 
 defendants being the owners of the residue of 
 such shares. The captain, having incurred a 
 debt for necessary disbursements made by him, 
 instituted proceedings in rem against the ship 
 and arrested her in the admiralty division. The 
 jjlaintiffs, in order to obtain the release and get 
 possession of the ship, paid the captain's claim, 
 together with the costs of the proceedings : — 
 Held, that as the plaintiffs were comi)elled under 
 pressure of law to pay the sum in question in 
 order to release the ship from arrest and get 
 possession of her, there was an implied promise 
 on the part of the defendants to repay them 
 that sum, inasmuch as the mortgagor and the 
 defendants (the co-owners) were liable to the 
 captain for the disbursements made by him. 'Ihe 
 Orchis, 59 L. J., Adm. 31 ; 15 P. D. 38 : 62 L. T. 
 407 ; 38 W. L. 472 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 501— C. A. 
 
 Fraudulent Preference.] — The court will, 
 under the 17 & IS Vict. c. 104, s. 65, restrain a 
 mortgagee of a ship from dealing with the ship 
 in such a manner as would enable him to obtain 
 the benefit of a fraudulent preference, and will 
 
 SHIPPING— IX. Mortgage. 
 
 184 
 
 exercise such power of restraint for a definite 
 period, without requiring the applicant to file a 
 bill. The Regatta, 6 N. R. 248. 
 
 Mortgagee preferred to Material Men.] — A 
 
 British colonial vessel was mortgaged by her 
 owners. The mortgage was duly registered 
 under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854. In 
 February, 1808, whilst lying in the port of 
 London, the material men, on the order of the 
 master, did work and furnished supplies to the 
 ship necessary to put her in a seaworthy condi- 
 tion. In July, 18G8, the mortgagee executed an 
 instrument transferring the mortgage to B. This 
 transfer was without any valuable consideration, 
 and was not registered, being made to enable 
 him to take charge of the ship for the mortgagee. 
 In the same month B. took possession of the 
 ship. The material men having instituted a suit 
 against the ship to recover the amount due to 
 them for the work and supplies, B. intervened. 
 At the time of the institution of the suit, the 
 ship was under the arrest of the court, at the 
 instance of two of her crew who had instituted 
 a cause of wages ; the owners of the ship were 
 domiciled in Nova Scotia. The ship having been 
 sold, the proceeds were found insufficient to 
 satisfy the claim of the material men and the 
 mortgage debt : — Held, that the assignee of the 
 mortgagee was entitled to have his mortgage 
 debt satisfied before the material men were paid 
 the amount of their claim. Johnson v. Blaclt, 
 The Two Ellens, 8 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 398 ; 41 
 L. J.. Adm. 33 ; L. R. 4 P. C. 161 ; 26 L. T. 1 ; 
 20 W. R. 592 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 208— P. C. 
 
 Mortgagee postponed to Maritime Liens.] — 
 A mortgagee of a ship and freight is subject to 
 bottomry, salvage, or wages liens accruing after 
 the date of liis mortgage. The Dowthorne, 2 
 W. Rob. 73. 
 
 Masters' lien for Wages — Sale of Ship by 
 Master subsequent to Mortgage by him.] — 
 Where the captain of a ship mortgaged her 
 whilst on her voyage, and the ship, having 
 become unseaworthy by stress of weather, was 
 sold, and a bill for the proceeds drawn upon the 
 purchaser, and indorsed to the defendant, the 
 captain ; the court, being satisfied that the bill 
 represented the ship, granted an injunction 
 against the defendant, who was threatening to 
 put in force the bill to satisfy his claim of lien. 
 Lister V. Payn, 11 Sim. 348. 
 
 Sights of Creditor of Mortgagor as against 
 
 Mortgagee.] — There is nothing in 17 & 18 Vict. 
 c. 104, enabling a creditor of the mortgagor to 
 seize and sell a mortgaged ship, and the exercise 
 of such a right by him is inconsistent with the 
 right of the mortgagee, even though the mort- 
 gagee has agreed on his mortgage not to exercise 
 his statutory power of sale until a date subse- 
 quent to a seizure by an execution creditor of 
 the mortgagor. Dickinson v. Kitchen, 8 El. & Bl. 
 789. 
 
 Bond by Mortgagee not in Possession to 
 prevent Sale of Ship by Foreign Court— Chan- 
 cery Jurisdiction.] — The owner of a British 
 ship, having mortgaged it in England, employed 
 a Liverpool firm to consign it to their agents at 
 New Orleans. As the New Orleans firm happened 
 to be creditors of the owner, the Liverpool firm, 
 in consideration of their having the consign- 
 ment instructed their agents not to proceed
 
 185 
 
 SHIPPING— IX. Mortgage. 
 
 186 
 
 against the ship at New Orleans, but to remit 
 the proceeds to the mortgagees. Afterwards, 
 the Liverpool firm getting into difficulties, some 
 of the mortgagees insisted on the consignments 
 being changed, and the Liverpool firm with- 
 drew their instructions. When the ship arrived, 
 the New Orleans firm brought actions in their 
 courts against the owner : and. as the courts of 
 Louisiana do not recognise the rights of mort- 
 gagees without possession, writs of attachment 
 were obtained, under which the ship was seized. 
 The mortgagees then, to prevent the ship being 
 sold, gave to the New Orleans firm bonds for 
 the amounts to be recovered in the actions, upon 
 which the ship was released. The mortgagees 
 filed a bill to restrain the holders of the bonds 
 from suing on them, and to have the bonds 
 delivered up : — Held, that the court had no 
 jurisdiction to stay proceedings on the bonds ; 
 first, because the court would not have re- 
 strained execution of the attachment at New 
 Orleans, as it could not have placed all the 
 creditors, foreign and domestic, on an equal 
 footing ; secondly, because if it could have 
 clone so, the mortgagees should have sought to 
 restrain the attachment, and not have placed 
 themselves in a worse position by giving the 
 bonds ; and, thirdly, because if the prayer was 
 granted, the courts of New Orleans would never 
 in future release an English ship on the bond 
 of a mortgagee. Liverjjool Marbie Credit Co. v. 
 Uuntcr, 37 L. J., Ch. 386 ; L. E. 3 Ch. 47a ; 18 
 L. T. 749 ; 16 W. E. 1090. 
 
 Mortgagee bidding at Sale.] — Mortgagee of 
 a ship allowed to bid fnr her at a sale by the 
 court. The Wilsons, 1 W. Rob. 172. 
 
 Improper Sale by Mortgagee.] — A ship was 
 mortgaged to secure an unascertained balance due 
 to the mortgagee, with power to sell by auction ; 
 and in case the ship could not be sold, to hold and 
 enjoy the ship as owner until the debt should be 
 satisfied. Before the sum due was ascertained by 
 arbitrators the mortgagee sold by private con- 
 tract : — Held, that such sale was wrongful, and 
 that the mortgagee was liable for the value of the 
 ship after deducting the amount of his mortgage 
 debt. lirouard v. Bumaresq^ue^ 3 Moore, F. C. 457. 
 
 Mortgagee selling after tender of Sum due on 
 the Mortgage. J — .\ inurtgageu who sells the ship 
 when thi; amount (hie on the mortgage has Ijcen 
 tendered to him, is liable to pay the mortgagor 
 the value of the ship bevond that sum. M''L(irt>i 
 V. Middletoii. i) W. R siu ; on app. 4 L. T. 852'; 
 10 VV. R. 219 (L.JJ. differing). 
 
 Sale by First Mortgagee with Assent of 
 Second Mortgagee — Surplus Proceeds. j — A., the 
 first mortgagee of a sliip, with tlie sanctidu and 
 authority of B., second mortgagee, sold her and 
 received the proceeds, which exceeded tlie amount 
 due to him : — Held, that A. was accountable to 
 B. in the character of trustee for the surplus. 
 Tanner v. Heard, 23 Beav. Tjoo ; 3 Jur. (N.s.) 427 ; 
 6 W. R. 420. 
 
 Surplus Proceeds.] — Right of mortgagors to 
 have payment out of court without admitting 
 accuracy of account. See The Pride of Wales, 
 'llie Annie Lisle (^Otrwrs), In re, supra, col. 180. 
 
 Sale— ''Just Allowances."]^Aship was mort- 
 gaged to the flefendant to secure a sum exceed- 
 ing l,400Z. ; the mortgage was duly registered, 
 
 and the defendant took possession of the slup 
 and advertised her for sale. Before the sale the 
 plaintiff, who held a mortgage on the ship, made 
 and registered after .the date of the registration 
 of the moitgage to the defendant, instituted a 
 suit against the ship to enforce his mortgage, 
 and caused the ship to be arrested. The defen- 
 dant, to obtain the release of the ship, paid 500?. 
 into court in lieu of bail. The ship was sold 
 by the defendant, and the proceeds were insuffi- 
 cient to satisfy the defendant's mortgage. The 
 plaintiff, when the cause was ripe for hearing, 
 abandoned the suit. The court condemned the 
 plaintiff in costs, and ordered him to pay to the 
 defendant interest on the 500?. paid into court. 
 The Western Ocean, L. R. 3 A. & E. 33. 
 
 The mortgagees of a ship having seized it and 
 advertised it for sale, the mortgagors brought an 
 action against them for redemption, and moved 
 for an injunction to restrain the sale, when, 
 upon the mortgagees undertaking not to proceed 
 with the sale, a decree was taken by consent in 
 the action, directing an account of what was due 
 on the mortgage for " principal and interest," 
 and redemption on payment by the mortgagors 
 of the amount certified : — Held, that the mort- 
 gagees were justified in seizing the ship, and 
 that, in taking the account directed, they were 
 entitled to be allowed expenses incurred by them 
 in taking and holding possession of the ship, 
 advertising it for sale and effecting insurances, 
 under the head of " just allowances." Wilkes v. 
 Saunion, 47 L. J., Ch. 150 ; 7 Ch. D. 188. 
 
 Mortgage for Further Advances — Bankruptcy 
 of Mortgagor — Right of Mortgagee.] — Where 
 under a mortgage of a ship to secui'e further 
 advances, an advance is made on the date of a 
 receiving order against the mortgagor, who is sub- 
 sequently adjudicated bankrupt in respect of acts 
 of bankruptcy committed prior to the execution 
 of the mortgage, the mortgagee is entitled under 
 s. 49 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, as against the 
 trustee in bankru])tcy to recover such advance, 
 where before the date of the receiving order there 
 was a contract to make further advances, and a 
 promise to make the particular advance. Tim 
 Thames, 03 L. T. 353 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 53tJ. 
 
 Arrestment of Ship — Recall of Arrestment.] — 
 
 A mortgagee of a ship jictitioned for recall of 
 arrestment of the ship, and, pending an action 
 against the registered owner, the court allowed 
 the vessel to sail, on the petitioner consigning a 
 sum to be subject to the same claims and rights 
 of the mortgagee as the ship was, as against 
 the arresting creditor. Stewart v. J/acbeth, 10 
 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (^Ith .ser.) 382. 
 
 Improper Mortgage by Executor of Mortgagee 
 — Money borrowed to pay for Repairs— Right ot 
 Sub-Mortgagee.J— See CiIIUimui \. Lisfn; Mipra, 
 col. 1>^. 
 
 Payment of Wages by— Recovery from Mort- 
 gagor's Agent.]— The owner of a vessel mort- 
 gaged it and .sulj-equontly entered into an 
 agreement in contemplation of a partncrsiiip wit h 
 C, under which the latter was to work the vessel, 
 the owner paving all expenses. The vessel was 
 emplovcd on several voyages and finally given up 
 to tiic" mortgagee. At the time of such delivery 
 C. owed Large sums htv wages, in respect of which 
 proceedings were taken in the admiralty court 
 by the master and seamen. The vessel was
 
 SHIPPING— IX. MorUjaric. 
 
 187 
 
 seized, and the mortgagee, after much delay and 
 loss, paid the wages : — Held, that he was entitled 
 to recover siich pavnients from C, as money paid 
 to his use. Johnston v. Eoyal Mail Steam Pacltet 
 Co., 37 L. J., C. P. 33 ; L.'H. 3 C. P. 38 ; 17 L. T. 
 445. 
 
 Deduction of Advances hy Charterers.]— By 
 
 the terms cf a charterparty it was provided that 
 the charterers should advance necessary funds 
 for the ship's disbursements, not exceeding a 
 specified amount, at the port of lading. Pre- 
 viously to entering into the charterparty the 
 owner" had mortgaged the ship and freight. The 
 charterers made advances for the ship's disburse- 
 ments, considerably in excess of the amount 
 specified in the charterparty. Before the freight 
 became due the mortgagee took possession of the 
 ship, and stopped the cargo for freight : — Held, 
 that the charterers were not entitled to deduct 
 from the amount due for freight the advances 
 made by them in excess of the sum. provided by 
 the charterparty. Tanner \. Phillips, 4:2 L. J., 
 Ch. 125 ; 27 L. T. 4!S0, 717 ; 21 W. K. 68 ; 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 448. 
 
 "Wages Suit ~ Mortgagee Intervening.] — 
 "Where p. mortgagee intervenes in a wages suit the 
 account is taken'" in the same way as if the owner 
 were present to protect his interest. TJieJulindur, 
 1 Spiuks, 71. 
 
 Mortgagee entitled to Kelease of Ship on 
 giving Bail in Suit by Master for Wages.]— See 
 I'he Ringdove, ante, cols, yy, 100. 
 
 Master's Wages— Advances— Accounts.] — See 
 The Caledonia, Swabey, 17 ; 2 Jur. (x.s.) 48 ; 4 , 
 W. R. 183 ; supra, col. 93. 1 
 
 Sale by Order of Foreign Court.] — A British 
 ship was attached in Louisiana by creditors of the 
 registered owner, a British subject, for the pur- 
 pose of making her available for their demands. 
 Proceedings were taken by these creditors, in 
 which certain persons, British subjects, claiming 
 under a bill of sale by way of mortgage, from the 
 owner, duly registered in England, intervened for 
 the purpose of asserting their title and protecting 
 their rights. Their title was wholly disregarded 
 by the court of Louisiana, the law of that state 
 not allowing a mortgage of chattels ; and the ship 
 was sold, i'he ship arrived at an English port, 
 and the mortgagees filed a bill to establish their 
 charge : — Held, first, that the judgment of the 
 foreign court was not upon a proceeding in rem, 
 but in personam. Sirnjjsoii v. Fo(]0, 1 Johns. & H. 
 18 ; 29 L. J., Ch. 657 ; 6 Jur. (N.s.) 949 ; 2 L. T. 
 594 ; 8 W. R. 407. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the mortgagees had not 
 originated the proceedings in the foreign court 
 so as to estop themselves from asserting their 
 rights in this country. Ih. 
 
 Held, thirdly, that the judgment of the foreign 
 court as averred, proceeding, as it did, in total 
 disregard of the lex loci contracttls, was not a 
 decision which the court here would of necessity 
 uphold, or such as from its mere averment would 
 destroy the plain and clear title previously 
 averred in the mortgagees. lb. 
 
 The owners of a British ship mortgaged her 
 in England, and she afterwards was taken by 
 the mortgagors to New Orleans, where she was 
 attached by creditors, who took proceedings in the 
 courts there for the purpose of making her avail- 
 able for their demands. The English mortgagees 
 
 188 
 
 intervened in these proceedings for the purpose 
 of asserting their rights, but their claim was 
 wholly disregarded, the law of New Orleans not 
 recognising a mortgage of chattels ; and, under 
 an order of the court, the ship was sold to a 
 British siibject. Tlie ship having afterwards 
 returned to England with a cargo, the mortgagees 
 filed a bill to enforce their claim : — Held, that 
 the judgment of a foreign court of competent 
 jurisdiction is conclusive inter partes on the 
 merits of the matter in dispute, but may be 
 reviewed by the courts in England, if any error 
 appears on the face of the record. Sinqjsoii v. 
 Foqo, 1 Hem. & M. 195 : 32 L. J., Ch. 249; 9 
 Ju'r. (N.S.) 403 ; 8 L. T. 61 ; 11 W. E. 418. 
 
 Sale Abroad — Eight of Mortgagees.] — Con- 
 signees of a ship at Nl",v Orleans wlio had niatle 
 advances to the sliipowner, got her sold under an 
 order of a district court in Louisiana before the 
 expiration of the time which the judge had 
 directed should elapse before sale : — Held, that, 
 as against prior mortgagees, the sale was fraudu- 
 lent. JJland V. Lynani, 5 L. J. (O.S.) C. P. 87. 
 
 Hire and Purchase Agreement — Factors Act, 
 1889 — Attaching Goods to Ship — Ship's Gear — 
 Disposition of Goods.] — A hire and purchase 
 agreement, under whicli the hirer has no power 
 to determine the agreement by returning the 
 goods, is an "agreement to buy" within s. 9 of 
 the Factors Act, 1889. And if the hirer in such 
 case, being the mortgagee of a ship, attaches the 
 goods to the ship in such a way as to make them 
 part of the ship's equipment, then such act. at 
 any rate if followed by the mortgagee taking 
 possession, will constitute a delivery by the hirer 
 under a disposition by the mortgagee within the 
 same section. A. owned a smack which he mort- 
 gaged to B. & Co. After the mortgage A. entered 
 into a hire and purchase agreement with C, under 
 which he gave A. possession of a trawl warp for 
 the smack. The agreement, though it contained 
 provisions enabling C. to determine it in certain 
 events, gave A. no power to do so by returning the 
 warp to C. A. attached the warp to the smack. 
 Subsequently B. & Co. took possession of the 
 smack and warp under the mortgage. C. there- 
 upon forcibly retook possession of the warp. B. 
 & Co. sued C. in the county court for trespass : — 
 Held, that the county court was right in holding 
 that the warp had passed to B. c*c Co. under the 
 Factors Act, 1889, s. 9, and in giving damages. 
 Hull Hope Worlis Co. v. Adams, 65 L. J., Q. B. 
 114 ; 73 L. T. 44G ; 44 W. E. 108. 
 
 5. Eecovery op Mo>rEY Advanced. 
 
 Form of Action— Pleading. ] — Where the plain- 
 tiff assigned his ship to the defendant as a security 
 for the repayment of money ; but it appeared on 
 the register to be an absolute assignment, and the 
 defendant sold her, and told the plaintiff that 
 he had received the purchase-money, and would 
 account with him for the balance of the proceeds 
 of the sale : — Held, that the plaintiff was entitled 
 to recover this balance on the common money 
 coirnts, the acknowledgment being sufiicient to 
 support the action. Fronting v. Hanunond, 8 
 Taunt. 688 ; Gow, 41. 
 
 Though a bill of sale for transferring the pro- 
 perty in a ship by way of mortgage might be 
 void as such, for want of reciting the certificate 
 of registry therein, as required by 26 Geo. 3, c. 60, 
 s. 17, yet the mortgagor might be sued upon his
 
 189 
 
 SHIPPING— IX. Mortgage. 
 
 personal covenant contained in the same instru- 
 ment for the repayment of the money lent. 
 Kerrison v. Cole, 8 East, 231. 
 
 Ship Lost — Money to be paid out of Ship's 
 Earnings.^ — T. lent D. 600?., D. as»-ignecl one- 
 sixteenth in a ship, and by defeasance it was 
 declared that T. out of the earnings should pay 
 himself 600Z. and sliould account to D. for the 
 surplus, but there was no covenant for payment 
 of the money. The ship was lost, and T. brought 
 his bill against D."s executrix for the debt ; she 
 denied assets, prseter to satisfy specialty debts. 
 Decreed, she shoidd account for testator s estate, 
 and T. to account for the earnings, and to be 
 allowed for the outfit of the ship though cast 
 away. Tyrrelw. ITiomas QLadi/}, 1 Vin. Abr. 183, 
 pi. 5, 
 
 Liability of Mortgagor.] — A ship was mort- 
 gaged and taken to sea and captured. There 
 was no covenant for payment of the money : — 
 Held, that the executors of the mortgagor were 
 liable for payment of the mortgage money. 
 A)ion., cited in £^iti{j v. King, 3 P. Wms. 358, 
 360. 
 
 Mortgage of Three-fourths of Ship — Sale 
 ordered.] — Order made for sale of a ship at the 
 instance of a mortgagee of three-fourths of the 
 shares. The Fairlie, 37 L. J., Adm. &&. 
 
 Interest.] — The contract of mortgage of a 
 ship provided that interest should be paid half- 
 yearly in advance. The mortgagee sold the ship 
 shortly before a half-yearly day for payment of 
 interest, and received the balance of purchase- 
 money (covering his princi[ial debt) three days 
 after that half-yearly day : — Held, that he was 
 only entitled to interest in respect of the three 
 days for that half-vear. Banner v. BervUhie, 
 50 L. J., Ch. G30 ; IS Ch. D. 2.o4 ; 44 L, T. 68U ; 
 29 W. E. 844 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 420. 
 
 6. Peiokities. 
 
 See also supra, cols. 168, seq. 1. Legal Mort- 
 gage. 
 
 Priority over Material Men.] — Where a mort- 
 gagee brings an action to realise his security, and 
 material men with a common-law {lossessoiy lien 
 on the ship intervene, and the ship, by order 
 of the court, is sold, and the proceeds are on!)' 
 sufficient to satisfy the claim of the material 
 men. the mortgagee is still entitled to be paid 
 his taxed costs, up to the date of the sale, out of 
 the jtroceeds of the sale of the ship in priority to 
 the material men. The Sherhro. 52 L. J., Adm. 
 28 ; 48 L. T. 767 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 88. 
 
 A British colonial vessel was mortgaged by 
 her owners. The mortgage was duly registered 
 under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854. In 
 J-ebruary, 1808, whilst lying in the port of 
 Lonflon, the material men, on the order of the 
 master, did work and furnished supplies to the 
 ship necessary to put her in a seaworthy con- 
 dition. In July, 1868, the mortgagee executed 
 an instrument transferring the mortgage to 
 B. This transfer was without any valuable 
 consideration, and was not registered, being 
 made to enable him to take charge of the ship 
 for the mortgagee. In the same month B. took 
 possession of the ship. The material men having 
 instituted a suit against the ship to recover the 
 amount due to them for the work and supplies. 
 
 190 
 
 B. intervened. At the time of the institution of 
 the suit the ship was under the arrest of the 
 court, at the instance of two of her crew who 
 had instituted a cause of wages ; the owners of 
 the ship were ilomiciled in Nova Scotia. The 
 ship having been sold, the proceeds were found 
 insufficient to satisfy the claim of the material 
 men and the mortgage debt : — Held, that the 
 assignee of the mortgagee was entitled to have 
 his mortgage debt satisfied before the material 
 men were paid the amount of their claim. 
 The Two Ellens, Jnhnsoi v. Blach, 8 Moore 
 P. C. (x.s.) 308 ; 41 L. J., Adm. 33 ; L. K. 4 
 P. C. 161 ; 26 L. T. 1 ; 20 W. E. 592 ; 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 208— P. C. 
 
 Xecessaries were supplied in an English port 
 to a ship belonging to a colonial port. The 
 ship was under mortgage ; the mortgagee had 
 taken possession. No owner or part owner 
 being domiciled in England or "Wales, a suit in 
 rem against the ship was instituted in the 
 admiralty court by the person who had supplied 
 the necessaries. The mortgagee intervened to 
 defend, claiming priority : — Held, that the mort- 
 gagee had priority, the claimant for necessaries 
 having no maritime lien, and no equity to pre- 
 cede the mortgagee, li. 
 
 In November, 1861, A. supplied necessaries to 
 a British ship. On the 12th of December, 1861, 
 B. became a registered mortgagee of the ship, 
 and A. subsequently instituted a cause of neces- 
 saries against the ship : — Held, that the mortgage 
 of B. had priority over the claim for necessa'ries. 
 Tlie Pacific, B. & Lush. 243 ; 33 L. J., Adm. 120 : 
 10 Jur. (x.s.) 1110; 10 L. T. 541. 
 
 A. was quarter owner of a shi[) ; B. was owner 
 of three-fourths. B. mortgaged his share. The 
 mortgagee did not take possession, and the ship 
 was by arrangement between A. and B. left 
 under the control of A. A. ordered repairs to 
 the vessel, which was afterwards sold by order 
 of the court of admiralty : — Held, that "in the 
 distribution of the proceeds of the sale the 
 mortgagee of the three-fourths was entitled to 
 his proportion of the proceeds, without con- 
 tributing towards the payment of the material 
 men. The Harriet, 18 L. T. 804. 
 
 Liability of Master.] — In his accounts against 
 the mortgagee tlic master is entitled to securily 
 for the amount for which lie is personally liable 
 in respect of necessaries. The Limerick, 1 P. D. 
 292 ; 34 L. T. 708 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 206— C. A. 
 
 Mortgagee Postponed to Maritime Liens.] — 
 An assignee of ship or freight as security lor 
 a debt takes subject to subsequently accruing 
 liens, such as for bottomry, salvage, or wages. 
 The Dowthorpe, 2 W. Hob. 365. 
 
 Postponed to Bottomry.] — See The Royal 
 
 Arch, and Ca.sr. pust, cnl. 218. 
 
 Foreign Judgment against Ship in rem — 
 Effect of.]— Declaration that the cajitain «l a 
 British ship, whilst on a voyage, drew a bill of 
 exchange upon the then owners for the necessary 
 disbursements of the ship, and the liill was dis- 
 honoured at m.aturity; that the plaintiff li.ad 
 meanwhile Vjecomc mortgagee of the ship ; that 
 by the French law the bona fide holder of such 
 a bill, if a French subject, can attach an<l sell 
 the shif) in proceedings in rem in the French 
 courts; that the defendants, being British sub- 
 jects and holders of the bill, after it wa^
 
 191 
 
 SHIPPING— IX. Mortgage. 
 
 192 
 
 dishonoured conspired with T., a French subject, 
 that thfV should indorse the bill to him with- 
 out value, and that he should take proceedings 
 against the ship in the French courts, falsely 
 representing that he was a bona fide holder for 
 value ; that this was done and the ship sold by 
 order of a French court, whereby the plaintiff 
 was deprived of his rights as mortgagee : — Held, 
 that the declaration was bad. as no action could 
 Vje maintained whilst the foreign judgment was 
 unreversed. Ca.it riqup. v. Behvens, 30 L. J., 
 Q. B. 163 ; 7 Jin-, (x.s.) 1028 ; 4 L. T. 52. 
 
 Hypothecation of Freight — Priority — De- 
 benture Holders.] — The directors of a shipping 
 company held to have power under the articles 
 of the company, as against debenture holdei-s, 
 to charge the freight of two ships in order to 
 raise money to carry on the business of the 
 company. The debenture holders having brought 
 actions to enforce their securities, and the com- 
 pany having gone into liquidation : — Held, that 
 the charge upon the freight was to be preferred 
 to the debenture holders' securities. Ward v. 
 Boyal E-echange S/)ij)2)ifig Co., 58 L. T. 174 ; 6 
 Asp. M. C. 239. 
 
 Wages Lien — Priority to Mortgage Debt.] — 
 See The Banrjor Castle, supra, col. 120 ; ayid see 
 supra, 4. Eights of Mortgagee. 
 
 First and Second Mortgagees.] — The general 
 principle that a first mortgagee whose mortgage 
 is taken to cover future advances cannot claim 
 in priority over a second mortgagee the benefit 
 of advances made after he had notice of the 
 second mortgage applies to the registered mort 
 gages of ships notwithstanding s. 69 of the 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1^?.54. Where priorities 
 depend, not ui.ion the dates of the instruments, 
 but upon a state of facts wholly independent of 
 the dates of the instruments, that section does 
 not apply. The Benwell Tower, 72 L. T. 664 
 8 Asp. M. C. 13. 
 
 7. Liability of Mortgagee. 
 
 Possession.] — The mere fact of ownership, 
 without a privity of contract, is not suflicient to 
 render an owner liable for goods furnished on 
 the ship's accoitnt ; nor does it attach any obli- 
 gation on a mortgagee mereh^ as such, as he 
 derives no profit until the ship comes into his 
 actual possession. Baiter v. Buelde, 7 Moore, 
 349 ; 24 K. R. 6S5. 
 
 A mere mortgagee of a ship, who does not take 
 possession, is not liable for necessaries supplied 
 for the use of the ship previously to a retransfer. 
 TuxTvtyman v. Hart, 1 Stark. 366. 
 
 Where a ship is mortgaged, and the mortgagor 
 continues in possession, the master employed by 
 him cannot maintain an action for wages and 
 disbursements against the mortgagee. Ami-ett v. 
 Carstairs, 3 Camp. 354. 
 
 A reply in a cause of necessaries, leaving it 
 doubtful whether the person in possession of the 
 vessel at the time of the supply was the original 
 mortgaeee or the transferee of the mortgage, is 
 bad. The Troubadour, L. R. 1 A. & E. 302 ; 16 
 L. T. 156. 
 
 A mortgagee in possession will not be liable 
 for necessaries supplied, unless the master in 
 ordering them acted as the agent of the mort- 
 gagee, lb. 
 
 An allegation that a defendant was in posses- 
 sion of the vessel at the date of the supplies, and 
 personally liable for them, will not be a good 
 reply to an answer of a defendant claiming to 
 be a mortgagee prior to the date of the supply. 
 lb. 
 
 A., the owner of a ship, executed an absolute 
 bill of sale of it to B., and by another deed of 
 the same date assigned other property to B., 
 which deed of assignment (reciting that the bill 
 of sale was for the better securing a sum of 
 money lent by B. to A., and also reciting a bond 
 and warrant of attorney given by A. to B. to 
 secure the same sum) declared that these "several 
 deeds and instruments were made to enable B., 
 by sale of all the things comprised in them, to 
 raise the sum lent without the concurrence of 
 A., at any time before the money should be paid 
 off" ; but in the same deed there was a covenant 
 that, upon p.ayment of the monej', " B. should 
 reconvey to A., but so as not to prevent B. from 
 selling, &c., at any time before the full pay- 
 ment," &c. : — Held, that under these conveyances 
 B. was not absolute owner of the ship, but only 
 mortgagee ; and was not liable for necessaries 
 provided for the ship before he took possession. 
 Jackson v. Vernoji, 1 H. Bl. 114. 
 
 Mortgagee and Broker.] — If a person, who is 
 mortgagee as well as broker of a ship, gives 
 directions for repairs to be done, the question 
 for the jury will be, in an action by the trades- 
 man against him, whether he gave the directions 
 only in his character of broker, or as a person 
 having an interest in the vessel. Castle v. Bulie, 
 5 Car. & P. 359. 
 
 Repairs — Liability for — Lien.] — A mortgagor 
 of a ship, who remains in the ostensible owner- 
 ship, has an implied authority to confer a right 
 of lien for repairs necessary to keep her sea- 
 worthy, notwithstanding s. 70 of the 17 &; 18 
 Vict. c. 104, which enacts that a mortgagee 
 shall not by reason of his mortgage be deemed 
 to be the owner of a ship, or any share therein, 
 nor shall the mortgagor be deemed to have ceased 
 to be owner of such mortgaged ship or share, 
 except in so far as may be necessary for making 
 sitch ship or share available as a security for the 
 mortgaged debt. Williams v. Allsuj), 10 C. B. 
 (N.s.) 417 : 30 L. J., C. P. 353 ; 8 Jur. (n.s.) 57 ; 
 4 L. T. 550. 
 
 Mortgagees are entitled to payment in priority 
 to material men who at the time of supplying 
 the materials were not in such actual possession 
 of the ship as to give them a possessory lien over 
 her. The Scio,\.. E. 1 A. & E. 353; 16 L. T. 
 642. 
 
 Where a graving flat was attached to a vessel, 
 and chisels and other implements were on board 
 at the time of arrest, the property of the material 
 men : — Held, that these facts were insufficient 
 to prove possession. li. 
 
 Repairs prior to Transfer of Mortgage.] 
 
 — A mortgagee by transfer is liable for repairs 
 done prior to his transfer. The Shiinvith, 10 
 Jur. (N.S.) 445 ; 10 L. T. 43. 
 
 Mortgagee in Possession — Liability for Goods 
 Supplied.] — Mortgagees in possession are liable 
 for goods supplied in a foreign port on the order 
 of a manager acting under power of attorney, 
 to the same extent as owners are liable, and it is 
 not necessary for the person who supplied them
 
 193 
 
 SHIPPING— IX. Mortgage. 
 
 to prove that they were used for the ship. 
 Hai-illand v. Thomj)son, 3 Ct, of Sess. Cas. (3rd 
 ser.) 313. 
 
 8. JlTBISDICTION OF ADMIRALTY COUET. 
 
 Extent of.] — The enabling power conferred 
 upon the court of admiralty by 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65. 
 s. 3, did not extend to all questions arising out of 
 a deed of mortgage, but was confined to the ship 
 itself being mortgaged. Tlie Fortitude, 2 W. 
 Rob. 217. 
 
 Therefore by 24 & 25 Vict. c. 10, s. 11, the 
 jurisdiction was enlarged to claims in respect of 
 mortgages duly registered, whether the ship or 
 the proceeds thereof were under arrest or not. li. 
 
 In Action of Kestraint.] — Under 17 & 18 Vict. 
 c. 104. s. 6(3, and 2') k. 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 3. the court 
 will look behind the register to the real character 
 of transactions between co-owners, and treat as 
 a mortgage that which is on the face of it an 
 absolute transfer, if it should appear that such 
 was the intention of the parties. Tlie Innisfallen, 
 35 L. J., Adm. 110 ; L. E. 1 A. & E. 72 ; 12 Jur. 
 (N.s.) 653. 
 
 Under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 70, a mortgagee 
 not in possession of the vessel cannot maintain 
 an action of restraint. lb. 
 
 A vessel having been arrested in a cause of re- 
 straint between co-owners, the court, on a motion 
 by the charterer, to whom the vessel had been let 
 for a voyage, ordered her release, it appearing 
 that the alleged co-owner was only a mortgagee. 
 Ih. 
 
 To appoint Receiver on Application of Second 
 Mortgagee.] — Although a second nuirtgagee has 
 no rights as against a prior incumbrancer, yet as 
 against all other persons he has a right to pos- 
 session of the ship, and the court will, at his 
 instance, appoint a receiver. Liverpnol Marine 
 Credit Co. v. WiUo)i, 41 L. J., Ch. 798 ; L. R. 7 
 Ch. 507 ; 26 L. T. 717 ; 20 W. R. 665 ; 1 A.sp. 
 M. C. 32.3. 
 
 To decide Equities.] — Where an action has 
 been brought Vjy the registered transferee of a 
 mortgage, and the ship arrested, tlic court will, in 
 conformity with 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 3, enforce 
 equities between the owner and the mortgagee ; 
 and will, in estimating the right of the mortgagee, 
 consider not onh' the registered documents, but 
 all the transactions between the parties relative 
 to the mortgaged loan. The Catlicart, L. R. 1 
 A. & E. 314 ; 16L. T. 211. 
 
 To Declare Title.] — A British ship was mort- 
 gagi<l by an instrument that was in the form 
 prescribed by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, 
 and was duly registered. The mortgagor died 
 intestate, and the mortgagees sold the ship under 
 their power of sale, and executed a bill of sale to 
 the purchaser. By mistake, a receipt for the 
 p.ayment of the mortgage-money was indorsed on 
 the mortgage and signed by the mortgagee, and 
 produced to the registrar of shipping, who re- 
 corded the same. A.fterwards the bill of sale 
 wa.s produced to the registrar, wIkj refused to 
 register it, upon the ground that the property in 
 the ship had vested in the representatives of the 
 mortgagor. In order to complete the title c)f the 
 {(urchaser a suit in rem was instituted on behalf 
 of the mortgagee and purchaser : — Held, that 
 the court had jurisdiction to grant a decree 
 
 VOL. xiir. 
 
 194 
 
 declaring that the purchaser was entitled to 
 possession of the ship. 'Hie Mo.te. 42 L. J., Adm. 
 11 : L. R. 4 A. & E. 6 ; 28 L. T. 291 ; 21 W. R. 
 511 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 567. 
 
 To Order Sale.] — Sale of vessel at the suit of a 
 mortgagee of three-fourths of the shares, decreed. 
 The Falrlie, 37 L. J., Adm. i'>G. 
 
 Mortgages of Foreign Vessels— Jurisdiction.] 
 — The arrest necessary to found the jurisdiction 
 of the admiralty division of the high court 
 over claims by mortgagees of foreign ships 
 under 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65, must be in a cause over 
 which the court has jurisdiction ; a mere de 
 facto arrest is not sutficient. The Ernnijeliiitria, 
 46 L. J., Adm. 1 : 35 L. T. 410 ; 25 W. R. 255. 
 
 The admiralty division of the high court has 
 jurisdiction, independently of the judicature 
 acts, to and will entertain, on the intervention 
 of the representative of a foreign state, or by the 
 consent of parties, a cause of possession or mort- 
 gage of a foreign ship belonging to such state, 
 so far as to ascertain the true position of the 
 claimants and the nature of their title, and will, 
 where it is for the advantage of all parties, order 
 a sale of the ship. Ih. 
 
 To restrain Eemoval of Ship out of Jurisdic- 
 tion to Enforce Mortgage.] — The defendant, a 
 Spaniard, executed at Santander, in Spain, a 
 mortgage to A. B. of a Spanish vessel, of which 
 he was the master, to secure the repayment by 
 the defendant to A. B., or whoever in future 
 might represent his right, a sum of money and 
 interest ; and the mortgage deed contained a 
 proviso that A. B., or whoever might represent 
 him, might exact payment of the loan and in- 
 terest at any time and in any manner. The 
 plaintiff was the transferee of the mortgage, and 
 the defendant and the vessel being at the port of 
 Q.. within the jurisdiction, the plaintiff com- 
 menced an action against the defendant to enforce 
 the mortgage, and for an injunction to restrain 
 the defendant from removing the vessel out of 
 the jurisdiction, and duly served the defendant 
 with a copy of tlie writ. He now moved for an 
 interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant 
 from removing tlie vessel out of the jurisdiction 
 until the hearing : — Held, that the court had 
 jurisdiction to grant such an injunction, and it 
 was granted accordingly. Clavering v. Aijuire, 
 5 L. R., Ir. 97. 
 
 No Original Jurisdiction in Admiralty.]— Tlie 
 admiialty court had no inherent jurisdiction in 
 res[)cct of mortgages of a sliip. 7'he Portsca, 
 Hag. Adm. 84. The E.rmonth, 2 Hag. Adm. 
 83, n. 
 
 See alio XXVI. Admiralty Law and 
 Practice. 
 
 9, Costs. 
 
 Taxation of.] — Mortgngees' costs will be taxed 
 as Ijctween party and party, in accordance with 
 the practice of tlie court of chancery, and not 
 as between solicitors ami clients, where a decree 
 has been made by consent that tl>c mortgagees 
 are to receive their " costs, charges and expenses 
 properly incurred." The Kentrel, L- R- 1 A. I: E. 
 78 ; 12 Jur. (N.s.) 71.3. 
 
 Mortgagees are entitlerl to charges by their 
 solicitors for attending to take particulars of 
 other suits against the vessel to which they were 
 
 fv
 
 195 
 
 SHIPPING— X. Bottomry. 
 
 196- 
 
 not parties ; to costs of negotiation between rival 
 incumbrancers which led to nothing, and to 
 which the owners were not parties ; and costs of 
 confereuce with counsel at a stage of the suit 
 when it is not usual for a conference to be held. 
 Ih. 
 
 Vexatious Ai-rest— Order to Pay.] — Mortgagee 
 of four sixty-fourth shares of a vessel condemned 
 in the cost's, but not damages, occasioned by a 
 WTon"ful arrest of the vessel. The Egerateia, 
 38 L.^J., Adm. 40 ; 20 L. T. 965. 
 
 Priority over Material-men.] — SeeTJieSheriro, 
 infra. 
 
 First and Second Mortgagee.] — A first mort- 
 gagee of a ship, with the concurrence of the 
 second mortgagee, sold the ship and received the 
 proceeds. The second mortgagee, being unable 
 to obtain an account, filed a bill for an account, 
 also cliarging that the defendant was liable for 
 stores which he had improperly allowed the mort- 
 gagor to retain. The defendant alleged that the 
 proceeds of the sale were not sufficient to pay off 
 his mortgage. The chief clerk, by his certificate, 
 found in" favour of the defendant as to the stores, 
 but that he had received more than was due to 
 him upon his mortgage. Amotion by the defen- 
 dant to vary the certificate was refused. Upon 
 the question of costs : — Held, that the defendant 
 must pay the costs of the motion, but no costs of 
 the suit on either side. Tanner v. Jleard, 23 
 Beav. 555 ; 3 Jur. (N.s.) 427 ; 5 W. E. 420. 
 
 Ship in Possession of Material-men — Costs of 
 Suit to realise Security.] — A mortgagee brouglit 
 his action to recover his mortgage debt. The 
 ship was in possession of material-men, and, being 
 sold, produced a sum less than their claim : — 
 Held, that the mortgagee was entitled to his 
 costs up to the date of the sale in priority to the 
 material-men. The Sherhro, 52 L. J., Adm. 28 ; 
 48 L. T. 767 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 88. 
 
 X. BOTTOMRY. 
 
 1. Instruments amounting to, 195. 
 
 2. Validity. 
 
 a. Matters affecting, 198. 
 h. Authority of Master, 206. 
 c. By what Law, 213. 
 
 3. Allowahle Items, 214. 
 
 4. Priorities, 21G. 
 
 5. Marsluilling, 220. 
 
 6. Condition of loss or Payment, 221. 
 
 7. Interest or Premium, 228, 
 
 8. Jurisdiction, 225. 
 
 9. Practice, 225. 
 10. Costs, 228. 
 
 1. Instruments Amounting to. 
 
 Maritime Eisk essential Ingredient.] — A mas- 
 ter, being in want of funds, and without credit, 
 in a foreign port, executed an agreement with 
 certain parties for advances to be made to him. 
 This agreement contained the following con- 
 ditions : that the master should draw a bill of 
 exchange, to cover such advances, upon the con- 
 signees of the ship at the port to which he was 
 proceeding ; that within thirty-four days after 
 his arrival at such port he should discharge and 
 pay such bill of exchange, and all interest which 
 
 might have become due upon it, together with 
 the money paid by way of premium for effecting 
 an insurance of the vessel during the intended 
 voyage, and until the vessel had taken her de- 
 parture from tire port to which she was proceed- 
 ing, on a further outward voyage, as also interest 
 on all such money as last aforesaid, at the rate of 
 M. per cent, per annum, from the time of pay- 
 ment up to the time of such repayment ; andi 
 for securing tire repayment of all such sums and 
 interest, the master bound, pledged, mortgaged 
 and hypothecated the ship, with her tackle, 
 apparel and appurtenances : — Held, that suchi 
 an agreement is not an instrument which can be- 
 enforced in the coirrt of admiralty ; it is not a 
 bottomry bond, for there is no maritime risk, an 
 ingredient essential to its vitality. The Indomit- 
 able, Swabey, 446 ; 5 Jur. (N.S.) 632 ; and see 
 Hill V. Snoiv, infra, col. 206. 
 
 Personal Obligation— No Pledge on Cargo.]— 
 
 In a respondentia bond, the condition, after 
 reciting that the money was lent upon the goods- 
 laden and to be laden on board a ship on her 
 voyage out and home, was that if the ship shouldb 
 proceed on her voyage, and return within thirty- 
 six months (the dangers of the sea excepted), 
 and if the borrower within thirty days after her 
 arrival should pay to the lender the sum agreed 
 on, or if in the voyage and within thirty-sis. 
 months the ship should be lost by fire, enemies- 
 or other casualties, tlie borrower should within, 
 six months after such loss pay to the lender a. 
 proportionable average on all the goods carriedl 
 out and acqirired during the voyage which should; 
 be saved, then the obligation to be void : — Held, 
 that this was no more than a personal obligation 
 from the borrower to the lender, and did not give 
 the latter any specific pledge or lien on the home- 
 cargo, or the proceeds thereof. Husk v. Fearon,. 
 4 East, 319 ; 1 Smith, 103. 
 
 Payment not Dependent on Arrival of Ship.] 
 
 — A vessel having put into a foreign port in a. 
 damaged state, the master borrowed money of a. 
 merchant there for necessary repairs and dis- 
 bursements ; to secure which he drew biUs upon 
 his owner, and also executed an instrument which, 
 purported to be an hypothecation of the ship, 
 cargo and freight. By this instrument, the- 
 merchant who advanced the money forbore all 
 interest beyond the amount necessary to insure 
 the ship to cover the advances ; and the master 
 took upon himself and his owner the risk of the 
 voyage, making the money payable at all events, 
 and subjecting the ship to seizure and sale by 
 virtue of process "out of the high court of 
 admiralty of England, or any court of vice- 
 admiralty possessing jurisdiction at the port at 
 which the vessel might at any time happen to be 
 lying or to be, according to the maritime law and 
 custom of England," in the event of the bills 
 being refused acceptance or dishonoured : — Held, 
 that this not being such an hypothecation as. 
 could be enforced in the court of admiralty, the- 
 payment of the money borrowed not being made 
 to depend upon the arrival of the vessel, the- 
 merchant had no insurable interest in the ship^ 
 Stainhanh v. Shejjpard, 13 C. B. 418 : 1 C. L. R. 
 609 ; 22 L. J., Ex. 341 ; 17 Jur. 1032 ; 1 W. E. 505. 
 —Ex. Ch. 
 
 Bill of Sale cannot be Construed as Bottomry 
 Bond.] — "Where the master, in consequence of 
 damage sustained on the voyage, and the ship
 
 191 
 
 SHIPPING— X. Bottomry. 
 
 becomine unseaworthy, and uo advances on loan 
 or bottomry conld be obtained to repair her. sold 
 her to the plaint ifis, who repaired and sent her 
 with a cargo to her registered port in England, 
 but the owners refusing to ratify the sale, or 
 consent to the registry of the ship in the plain- 
 tiffs' names, put men on board to take possession 
 of her and the cargo : — Held, that the bill of 
 sale of the ship could not be treated as in the 
 nature of a bottomry bond, as it was not intended 
 so to operate. Rtdgicay v. Rolcrts, 4 Hare, 106. 
 
 Loan for Necessaries — Agreement that Lender 
 may insure at Borrower's Cost.] — A foreign vessel 
 wa~ in an English port, and the owner, being 
 temporarily in England and in want of funds 
 for the purchase of necessaries, made an a,giee- 
 ment with the plaintiffs, by which, in considera- 
 tion of their advancing him by cash or acceptance 
 GOO/, for necessaries supplied to and for the use 
 of the vessel, he thereby undertook to return 
 them the amount so advanced, with interest 
 and all charges, on the return of the vessel from 
 her voyage. And the plaintiffs were thereliv 
 authorised " to cover the amount advanced the 
 owner by insurance on ship, &c., out and home, 
 at owners cost." In an action in rem for neces- 
 saries in respect of the amount so advanced : — 
 Held (Brett. M.E., doubting), that the agreement 
 was not equivalent to a bottomry bond. The 
 Jleiurirh Biorn, .54 L. J., Adm. 33*; 10 P. D. 44 ; 
 .■,2 L, T. SCO ; 33 W. E. 719 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 391— 
 C. A. See .S'. C. in H. L. ; 5.5 L. J., Adm. 80 ; 1 i 
 App. Cas. 270 ; 55 L. T. 66 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 1— 
 H. L. (E.) 
 
 How Construed.] — Instruments intended to 
 effect bottomry are construed liberally, so as to 
 effect the intention. It is not necessary that sea 
 risk should be expressly mentioned, if it is clear 
 that the lender undertakes it. Simonds v. Hodq- 
 Min, 3 B. Ac Ad. 50 ; 1 L. J., K. B. 51. S. P., The 
 Kennersley Castle, 3 Hag. Adm. 1. 
 
 Maritime Interest not Necessary but Material 
 Element. — Tlnnigli uiaritiiue interest is not a 
 }jece»sary element of bottomry, the rate of 
 interest is material in considering the character 
 <>i the instrument. The Unmncipation, 1 W. Rob. 
 124. 
 
 Master may hypothecate Ship Abroad, but 
 cannot bind Owners Personally.] — The master 
 may hypothecate the ship abmad for necessaries : 
 but he cannot bind tlie owners so as to make 
 them (icrsonally liaVjle in admiralty. Johiifmn v. 
 Shijijiia (or Shrpwrij or iShi/>u:ai/'), 1 Salk. 3.5. 
 S. ("., Ld. Kaym. 982 ; 11 Mod. Kcp. 79 ; Holt, 48. 
 
 Cannot make Owner Liable Personally.] 
 
 — The master may bottomry the shif), and also 
 make the owner personally liable for the advance. 
 Saiiinua v. JinKjdbtfiton, 1 Ves. Sen. 442 ; Ihld.. 
 Suppl. 87. 202 ; but see Sttiuihaiik v. Shrjipard, 
 infra, col. 2U7 ; and Thr Dante, infra, col. 222. 
 
 No Maritime Risk no Bottomry.] — Articles 
 appended to a charterparty signed by the master 
 acknowledged the receipt of money on account 
 of freight, for which he had jtaid insurance, 
 which with other moneys he agreed should be 
 deducted from his freight "on his safe arrival in 
 L''>ndon " ; and in case his freight should not be 
 sufficient to pay the same, "the debit shall be 
 retained as a lx)ttomry bond." — Held, that there 
 
 198 
 
 being no maritime risk and no proof that the 
 money was for the ship's necessities, the amount 
 could not be paid out of the proceeds of the ship, 
 as upon bottomry. The Grecia, 7 Not. of Cas. 
 410. 
 
 A bottomry bond can only hypothecate some- 
 thing which is in danger of perishing by mari- 
 time risk during the time that the bond "is run- 
 ning, and therefore cannot validly pledge freight 
 to be earned on a voyage after that maritime 
 risk is ended and the bond is forfeited. The 
 Stafford. shire, Smith v. Bank of J^. S. Wales, 
 infra, col. 200. 
 
 Part not exposed to Maritime Risk.] — A bond, 
 covering in part property not exposed to mari- 
 time risk is bad as to that part, but may be valid 
 as to the residue. The Sultan, iSwabey, 504 ; 5 
 Jur. (N.s) 1069. 
 
 Where a part only of goods hypothecated by 
 a respondentia bond reaches its destination, such 
 part is only liable to pay a proportional part of 
 the money secured by the bond, namely, accord- 
 ing to the proportion that the value of the goods 
 brought to their destination bears to the total 
 value of the property on which the bond was 
 given. lb. 
 
 Lender on Bottomry has no Property in the 
 Ship.] — The lentler on bottomry acquires no 
 property in the vessel ; his interest is jus in rem, 
 not jus in re, until so declared by the court — Per 
 Sir William Scott. The Tdiatp). o'C. Rob. 218, 222. 
 
 Nature of Bottomry Discussed.] — Meretone v. 
 Gibbons, 3 Term Kep. 247. 
 
 Action for Money Lent — Bottomry Bond given 
 after Bills.] — Action in assumpsit for money 
 lent : vertlict for the plaintill; though subse- 
 quently to bills being given for the debt a 
 bottomry bond was given ; new trial refused. 
 Weston v. Foster, 2 Bing. (N.c.) 693 ; 3 Scott, 
 155 ; 5 L. J., C. P. 242. 
 
 Foreign Law as to Lien Material.] — The fact 
 that by the law of tlie country in which the 
 bond is given, there is a lien upon the ship 
 furnishes a presumption in favour of bottomry 
 as against personal credit. The Vibilia, 1 
 W. Rob. 1. 
 
 Admiralty Court — Prohibition refused.] — 
 iloney bunowed by one on board ship at sea of 
 another on board the same ship for the necessary 
 use of the ship upon bottomry is payable liy the 
 shipowner ; and if not jaid, the ship is bound. 
 Prohibition refuseil. Srarrehorrow v. Li/rius, 
 and Cases, infra, XXVI. Admikalty Law and 
 PlJACTICE. 
 
 2. VAI.iniTY. 
 a~ Matters afFectiner. 
 Agreement for Purchase of Ship.] — A bottomry 
 bond originally valid is nm alTected by any 
 agreement by the bondholder for the purchase of 
 the ship. The Heligoland, Swabey, 491 ; 5 Jur. 
 (N.S.) II. SO. 
 
 Bondholder — Communication of Bond to Mort- 
 gagees.] — A bottomry landholder is under no 
 obligation to communicate the existence of the 
 bond to the mortgagees of the ship, and is not 
 affected by the owner concealing it from tho 
 mortgagees. lb. 
 
 7—2
 
 190 
 
 SHIPPING— X. Bottomry. 
 
 200 
 
 Laches.] — A mortgagee canuot set up, as I 
 
 a defence to a bond, the laches of the bondholder, 
 unless his position has been thereby prejudiced. 
 Ih. 
 
 Executed before Shipment of Cargo.] — A bot- 
 tomry bond upon ship, freight, and cargo for 
 necessaiy repairs to the ship, executed after the 
 repairs done and the contract of affreightment, 
 but before actual shipment of the cargo, is 
 invalid as against cargo. Tlie Jonathan Goodhue, 
 Swabey, 35.5. 
 
 Voyage Illegal.] — Transactions between the 
 owner and mortgagee of the vessel which might 
 render the voyage illegal cannot invalidate a 
 bottomry bond given by the master to a bona 
 fide lender, who" has only to look to the facts, 
 that is, distress, absence of credit, and necessity. 
 The Mary Ann, L. E. 1 A. & E. 13. 
 
 Consideration — Pledging Credit.] — A bond 
 
 may be given, thouL;h money has not actually 
 been advanced, to a person who has pledged his 
 own credit for the expenses incurred. The Royal 
 Arch, Swabey, 269 ; 6 W. K. 191. 
 
 Executed after Advance— Lien by Foreign 
 Law.] — In a foreign port, where the law gave a 
 lien for advances made for repairs, the master 
 consigned the ship to a merchant to get the 
 repairs done, without any agreement being made 
 as to bottomry. Shortly before the ship sailed 
 the master gave the merchant, at his request, a 
 bottomry bond : — The bond was held valid. 
 The Laurel, Br. & Lush. 317 ; 11 Jot. (n.s.) 46 ; 
 13 W. E. 352. S. C. on pleading ; Br. & Lush. 
 191 ; 33 L. J., Adm. 17 ; 9 L. T. 457. 
 
 Advertising for Loan.] — It is proper to adver- 
 tise before taking up money on bottomry ; but 
 the neglect of the master to do so does not affect 
 the validity of the bond. li. 
 
 Maritime Interest.] — The absence of any pro- 
 vision for maritime interest does not make the 
 bond invalid. Ih. 
 
 Given against Owners' Order.] — A bottomry 
 bond given by the master trading abroad against 
 the orders of his owners to the agents of the 
 owners beyond the sum to which his credit was 
 limited by the owTiers. and without necessity : — 
 Held, invalid. The Reliance, 3 Hag. Adm. 66. 
 
 Lender not Bound to see to Expediency of 
 
 Eepairs.] — A foreign lender on bottomry is not 
 bound to see that the repairs for which he lends 
 the money are expedient. The Vibilia, 1 W. 
 Eob. 1. 
 
 Agreement that Third Party should Eepay 
 the Loan.] — Bottomry bond pronounced for not- 
 withstanding an alleged agreement with the 
 owner that the charterer, a partner of the bond- 
 holder, should pay the bond. The Huntclijf, 
 2 Hag. Adm. 285. 
 
 Bills — Collateral Security.] — A ship being 
 mortgaged to G-., sailed on a voyage to Melbourne 
 and back. On her arrival at Melbourne she 
 required necessary repair, and the agents having 
 refused to make 'further advances upon credit, 
 the master entered into a bottomry bond, 
 hypoth'i^ating the ship and her freight to Mel- 
 bourne and back, and drew bills on G. for the 
 
 amount secured by bottomry. Before the bills 
 arrived in England G. died, and the hoUlers of 
 the bond and bills failing to obtain either 
 acceptance or payment took proceedings on the 
 bond : — Held, that they, having failed in obtain- 
 ing acceptance or payment of the bills, were 
 entitled to sue upon the bond, but that the bond 
 could not validly hypothecate freight which had 
 not been earned at the time the bond was pay- 
 able. The Stafforilshirc, Smith v. Bank of Xi-w 
 South Wales, 8 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 443 ; 4i L. J., 
 Adm. 49 ; L. E. 4 P. C. 194 : 25 L. T. 137 ; 27 
 L. T. 46 ; 20 W. E. 557 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 365— P. C. 
 A bottomry bond may be given at the same 
 time with, and as a collateral security for, bills 
 drawn on the owners for money so borrowed. 
 Stainhanh v. Sheppard, ante, col. 196. 
 
 When a bottomry bond on ship, freight, and 
 cargo has been given by the master of a ship as 
 collateral security for a bill of exchange drawn 
 by him upon the bondholders, on the understand- 
 ing that if the bill is properly met by funds 
 being placed in the hands of the latter, the 
 bottomry bond will not be enforced, but the 
 master or shipowners, having placed no funds in 
 the bondholders' hands, give notice that they do 
 not intend to meet it, the bond is not invalid 
 as against the cargo, although the bondholders 
 have conditionally accepted the bill, and have 
 neither presented it to the master for payment nor 
 protested it. The Onward, 42 L. J., Adm. 61 ; 
 L. E. 4 A. & E. 38 ; 28 L.T.204 ; 21 W. E. 601 ; 
 1 Asp. M. C. 40. 
 
 The lender on bottomry may take bills of 
 exchange as collateral security. The Ariadne, 
 1 W. Eob. 411. 
 
 A bottomry bond is not invalid merely because 
 it is given as security for bills of exchange given 
 at the same time. The Einancijpation, 1 W. Eob. 
 124. 
 
 Nothing Due on Bond — Held Invalid.] — On 
 
 taking the accounts in a bottomry suit it was 
 found that, after reducing the commission 
 charged by the ship's agent, which was excessive, 
 nothing was due upon the bond : — Bond held 
 invahd. The Roderick Bhu, Swabey, 177 ; 5 
 W. E. 168. 
 
 Demurrage — Compromised Claim.] — A master 
 of a chartered ship having sold a part of the 
 cargo to pay expenses of demurrage, the ship 
 was in course of a subsequent voyage arrested in 
 a foreign port at the suit of the charterer. The 
 charterer's claim was, with the sanction of the 
 court, compromised for a sum of money, and a 
 bond given to the charterer in payment of that 
 sum : — Held, that the bond was invalid. Tlie 
 Ida. 41 L. J., Adm. 85 ; L. E. 3 A. & E. 542 ; 27 
 L. T. 457 ; 21 W. E. 39. 
 
 Freight Earned on Subsequent Voyage — 
 
 Liability.] — Fruight earned on a subsequent 
 voyage held liable to satisfy a bottomry bond 
 given on a previous voyage. The Jacob, i C. Eob. 
 245 ; commented on, L. E. 4 P. C. 194. 
 
 Bond given by a Master for Repairs in time 
 of his Predecessor.] — Bottomry bonds given by 
 successive masters for repairs done by order of 
 their predecessors, who had died, sustained. 
 The Wahefield, cited, 3 Hag. Adm, 8. 
 
 Excessive Premium.] — Excessive premium is 
 not a reason for pronouncing the bond invalid.
 
 201 
 
 The Lord CocJiranfl, 2 W. Eoh. 312. S. T.,The 
 Laurel, supra, col. 199. 
 
 Jf*oTirt given on Land — Admiralty Jurisdiction.] 
 — Semble, a bottomry bond made on land cannot 
 be sued on in admiralty. Anon., 1 Keb. 520. 
 
 Bottomry Abroad — Prohibition to the Admi- 
 ralty Refused, "i — -The master Lottrimried the ship 
 at Kotterdam for repairs. Prohibition to the 
 admiralty in a suit upon the bond refused. 
 Corset v. Huseley, Comb. 135 ; Holt, 48. 
 
 The admiralty has jurisdiction in bottomry 
 whether the bond is iriven on land or at sea. 
 Merctone v. Gihhons. 3 Term Kep. 207. 
 
 And see post, XXVI. Admiralty Law aud 
 Practice. 
 
 IJsnry — Maritime Risk.] — The usury laws are 
 not infringed where the money lent is at mari- 
 time risk. Shai-jjeley v. Hin-h', or Hurrell, cited, 
 2 Kolle. 48 ; Cro. Jac. 208. 
 
 Bond given by Master held Invalid as against 
 Cargo Owner.] — A butrdmry bond in ship, freight 
 and c:u ..'O was granted by the master at the port 
 where the owner of the cargo resided. Adver- 
 tisements for a loan on bottomry were published. 
 and the cargo owner was aware of them and of 
 the distress of the ship, and that the cargo had 
 been unloaded and reloaded, but no application 
 had been made to him for an advance, nor any 
 express notice given of the application for a loan : 
 — Held, that the bond was invalid as against the 
 cargo owner. The Xiwca Loanese, 17 Jur. 263. 
 
 Bond to Debtor to the Ship.] — A debtor to the 
 ship cannot lend on bottomry. The Ilehe, 2 
 W. Rob. 146 ; 7 Jur. 564. Bui xec next Case. 
 
 The bond is not vitiated by the fact that the 
 lender was indebted to the ship when the advance 
 was made ; it is bad pro tanto onlv. The Ilehe, 
 2 W. Rob. 412. 
 
 Bottomry Bond to Ship's Agents — Held Valid,] 
 — A bottomry bond in favour of agents aVjroad 
 who undertook the superintendence and ordering 
 of repairs, after communicating with the owners 
 of ship and cargo, without intimating that they 
 intended to take bottomry security until just 
 before the ship sails, pronounced against. 2'he 
 Wave, 15 Jur. 518. 
 
 A bottomry bond is not invalid merely because 
 the advance secured by the bond is made by 
 agents of the ship, provided that they could not 
 be expected to advance on the personal credit of 
 the owners, and gave the master an opportunity 
 of obtaining an ailvaiice on the owners' personal 
 credit elsewhere by refusing such an advance. 
 Tlie Stafford.ihire. Smith v. Batik of New South 
 Wales, 8 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 443 ; 41 L. J., Adm. 
 49 ; L. R. 4 P. C. 194 ; 27 L. T. 46 ; 20 W. R. 
 557 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 365— P. C. 
 
 Bond given to stranger in foreign port acting 
 as ship's agent, she lieing in great distress, held 
 valid. The Tartar, 1 Hag. Adm. 1. S. P., The 
 Vihilia. 1 W. Rob. 1. 
 
 Bond given abroad, partly for the benefit of the 
 shipowners' agent, who threatened to arrest the 
 ship, intended to cover simple contract tiebts 
 for goods sufiplied to the ship on the agent's 
 guarantee, held valid. TlieHersey, 3 Hag. Adm. 
 404. 
 
 Objections to bottomry bond, that it was 
 given to the ship's agents, that the money dis- 
 
 SHIPPING— X. Bottomry. 
 
 202 
 
 bursed was to be repaid bj' bills on the own>-;T, 
 that the repairs to the ship were improvident, 
 and that she ought to have been sold, overruled. 
 TlieLord Cochrane, 2 \\\ Rob. 312. 
 
 Or Invalid, according to Circumstances.] 
 
 — A. & Co. agreed to purchase at Akyab cargoes 
 of rice for F. & Co., A. & Co. to be secured by 
 hypothecation of the bills of lading and a fixed 
 freight of 5^. per ton. 'Whilst the ship was 
 loading one of the cargoes, A. & Co. advanced 
 about 540^. for ship's disbursements, but upon 
 hearing that F. k. Co. had stopped payment,, 
 induced the master to execute a bottomry bond 
 both for the advances already made and also for 
 a further sum of small amount : — Held, that the- 
 first advances were made partly upon personal 
 security and parth' upon the margin of freight, 
 and could not therefore be secured by a subse- 
 quent bottomry. The Empire of Peace, 39 L. J., 
 Adm. 12 ; 21 L. T. 763. 
 
 Held, also, that the further advances were too 
 trivial to render the bond valid with respect to 
 them. Ih. 
 
 The ship's agent took a bottomry bond, without 
 inquiry as to its necessity or application, for 
 money lent partly to pay for landing charges of 
 a cargo shipped by himself, which had heated. 
 The bond was held invalid. The Royal Stuart, 
 2 Spinks. 258. 
 
 An agent lending on bottomry is bound to see- 
 to the application of the money. lb. And see 
 The Bhoderich JJhu. infra. 
 
 Bond given for Master's Private Debt.] — The 
 master cannot hypothecate the ship for a debt of 
 his own. King v. Perry, 3 Salk. 23. 
 
 Recapture — Hypothecation by Mate Icr 
 Salvage. ^ — In case if cajjture and rccaj)ture, the 
 mate in the absence of the master can hypothe- 
 cate the ship for payment of salvage. Parincler 
 v. Todliunter. 1 Camp. 591. 
 
 Bottomry by Executor of Deceased Part 
 Owner in Good Credit.] — A bottomry bond- 
 holder had advancetl money bona fiile, with 
 knowledge of a i)revious mortgage of the ship 
 and of all other circumstances. The bond was 
 executed by the executor of the deceased sole 
 owner, who had himself already made the 
 necessary advances for the shij), and who had 
 ample credit, and also by the master, who had 
 been appointed by the executor. The bond, 
 opiiosed by the mortgagees, was pronounced 
 against. Tlie Bunvegan Castle, 3 Hag. Adm. 
 331. 
 
 Necessity alone justifies Bottomry.] — To 
 authorise a captain to hypothecate a ship or 
 freight for repairs, the necessity for such 
 hvpothecation must exist ; if, therefore, an 
 agent of tlie shipowner in a foreign port has 
 sufficient funds in his bands for tlic repairs, the 
 captain cannot hypothecate. Lyall v. IIich.s, 27 
 Beav. 6]i;. 
 
 The consent of a managing part owner to a 
 bottomry bond binds his co-owners, and is strong 
 evidence of the necessitv of the Iwnd. Htc Royal 
 Arch. Swabey, 269 ; 6 W. R. 191. 
 
 And sec Cases, col. 207, infra. 
 
 "Where no Personal Credit,]— Bottomry 
 
 can only be given whore money cannot be 
 obtained on personal credit. The Sydiiey Cove, 
 2 Dods. 1.
 
 203 
 
 SHIPPING— X. Bottomry. 
 
 204 
 
 It is the vital principle of bottomry bonds 
 that they shall have been taken where the ship- 
 twaer is known to have no credit — Per Lord 
 Stowell. The Xchon, 1 Hag. Adm. 1(;9, 175. 
 
 Before resorting to bottomry the master must 
 ascertain that the supplies cannot be procured 
 upon the owner's personal credit. The Eliza, 
 Heathorn v. Dayling, 1 Moore. P. C. 5. 
 
 The only ground upon which the master of a 
 ship is justified in resorting to bottomry bonds, 
 and upon which the court has jurisdiction to 
 enforce such bonds, is the inability of the master 
 to obtain money upon personal credit for refitting 
 the ship, or for payment for the repairs and 
 dispatch of the vessel. On a sale of a bottomry 
 bond by auction at a foreign port at the lowest 
 rate offered, an agent of the charterers and sole 
 owners of the cargo, who was at the same port, 
 expressed his willingness to advance what was 
 necessary upon the personal credit of the owners; 
 though it was not ]>roved tliat the bondholders 
 had notice of the offer at the time the bond was 
 given, the admiralty court, pronounced against 
 the bond, and the sentence was aiiirmed on 
 appeal. The Prince of Saxe-Cohurg, Soares v. 
 Itahn, 3 Moore, P. C. 1. 
 
 See also infra, h. Authority of Master. 
 
 Shipowner may Bottomry in Case of Neces- 
 sity.] — The shipowner may bottomry his ship. 
 if he cannot otherwise obtain money, for the 
 ship's neces-sities ; though the master does not 
 join in the bond. Such a bond will rank before 
 a prior mortsage of the ship. The Duhe of 
 Bedford, 2 Hag.^Adm. 294. 
 
 Lender must ascertain Necessity.] — The 
 lender on bottomry must ascertain that neces- 
 sity for bottomry exists, and that without the 
 money the ship cannot proceed. Whether he is 
 bound to see to the application of the money 
 advanced, quaere. The Orelia, 3 Hag. Adm. 75. 
 
 Bond for Kepairs before Voyage begun, and 
 given after Voyage ended.] — A bottomry bond 
 may be valid whatever the number of voyages 
 the adventure includes, provided such voyages 
 are intended or consented to by the owners. A 
 bond given in payment of repairs rendered 
 necessary by an accident which occurred before 
 the commencement of a voyage, and dated after 
 the termination of the voyage, held valid. The 
 JIarij Anne, i Not. of Gas. 376 ; 10 Jur. 253. 
 
 Repairs Improvident.] — See The Lord 
 
 Cochrane, suj>ra, col. 2u2. 
 
 For Repairs, given to Consignees of 
 
 Charterers — Bills of Exchange.] — A bottomry 
 bond given just before the ship sailed, for 
 money due for repairs, to the consignees of 
 the charterers, they having been directed by 
 the charterers to "value ujjou the owner" for 
 other than trivial expenses, sustained. Bills of 
 exchange given at the same time do not affect 
 the validity of the bond. 2'he St. Catherine, 
 3 Hag. Adm. 253. 
 
 Cargo — Bottomry or Sale for Repairs.] — The 
 
 whole cargo may be bottomried, or part of it 
 sold, to pay for repairs to the ship, provided the 
 cargo owner is thereby benefited. The Gruti- 
 tudine, 3 C. Eob. 240, 2G1. 
 
 Part of Cargo Saved.] — Bottomry bond on 
 
 ship, freight and cargo, to be paid twenty-one 
 days after the ship's arrival in London, and not 
 to be pa3'able if the ship and cargo be lost or 
 cast away. The ship was abandoned as a total 
 loss before reaching Londun ; part of the cargo 
 was sold and the proceeds brought to London, 
 and part carried to England in another ship. 
 There was no proof that the ship could not 
 have been repaired. The bond pronounced for. 
 Tlie Elephanta, 15 Jur. 1185. 
 
 Bottomry of Cargo — "When Valid.] — The 
 
 cargo cannot be bottomried unless where the 
 ship and freight are insufficient. Where the 
 bond was upon ship and cargo only, the freight 
 was applied in discharge of the bond before the 
 cargo was resorted to. The Doicthorjje, 2 
 W. Rob. 73. A7id see Cases infra, cols. 209, 210. 
 
 By Substituted Master.] — Bond given by 
 substituted master to the merchant who ap- 
 pointed him, held valid. The Eubicon, 3 Hag. 
 Adm. 9. 
 
 Abandonment by Shipowner — Bond by Sub- 
 stituted Master.] — The shipowner having aban- 
 doned, a suljstituted master gave a bottomry 
 bond to a holder of a collateral security. Bond 
 sustained. The Kennersley Castle, 3 Hag. Adm. 1. 
 
 By Master under Arrest.] — Bond executed by 
 master while under arrrest, held valid. The 
 Heart of Oak, 1 W. Bob. 204. 
 
 Excessive Premium — Refusal of Chancery to 
 Assist in Case of.] — A part owner borrowed 
 money from the plaintiff on bottomry, payable 
 on the return of the ship from the voyage, and 
 he was then going in the service of the East 
 India Company. The East India Company broke 
 her up in the Indies, and the owner sued them and 
 recovered damages, but not to the full vahte of 
 the ship. The bottomry bondholder brought his 
 bill in chancery to have satisfaction out of the 
 money so recovered, but his bill was dismissed ; 
 for a court of equity will not assist a bottomry 
 bond which carries an unreasonable interest. 
 Dandy v. Turner, 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 372. 
 
 May be Good in Part and Bad in Part.] — A 
 bottomrj^ bond may be good in part and bad in 
 part, the Tartar, 1 Hag. Adm. 1 ; The Ilehe, 
 2 W. Bob. 412 ; The Augusta, 1 Dods. 283 ; The 
 Osntanli, 3 W. Bob. 198 : 7 Xot. of Cas. 322 ; 
 The Heart of Oak, 1 W. Bob. 204. And see The 
 Empire of Peace, supra, col. 2o2. 
 
 The court of admiralty has power to reduce the 
 premium on a bottomry bond, if excessive. The 
 Heart of Oak, supra. 
 
 Bottomry bond pronounced for under sus- 
 picious circumstances; of 1,9G1Z. 11*. (><L 
 claimed upon the reference, 475Z. \\s. 6d. only 
 allowed ; no costs of suit given to either party ; 
 cost of the reference given to the shipowners. 
 The Gauntlet, 13 Jur. 413. 
 
 A bottomry bond may be good in part, though 
 void for the residue. Where, therefore, a bottomry 
 bund was given by the master at New York, as 
 well for advances to obtain his discharge from 
 arrest, at the instance of the consignees, on 
 account of damage done on the voyage to
 
 201 
 
 SHIPPING— X. Bottomry. 
 
 206 
 
 part of the cargo, as for payment of the] For Insurance Preminms.J — The master put- 
 port duties and other disbursements necessary ting into a foreign port of distress has no autho- 
 
 to enable the ship to prosecute her voyage, the 
 judicial committee (reversing so much of the 
 decision of the admiralty court as rejected 
 the bond in toto) sustained the bond to the 
 extent of the sums advanced for necessary sup- 
 .plies and payments of the port duties. TJie 
 iPrince George, Smith v. Gould, i Moore, P. C. 21. 
 
 Bond given in Port of Owner's Country.] — 
 
 The master may hypothecate ship and cargo 
 though lying in a port of the country in which 
 the owners reside, provided he has no means of 
 communicating with the owners. La Ymlel, 
 I Dods. 273. 
 
 Bond g^ven before Voyage commences — 
 •Quaere.] — Whether a bottomry bond given in 
 port prior to the commencement of a voyage is 
 valid. The Jtnny, 2 "W. Eob. 5. 
 
 Bond by Master of British Ship in this 
 •Country.] — Botttomry bond granted by the 
 master of a British vessel in a port of this 
 country upheld. The Trident, 1 W. Bob. 29. 
 
 Money lent at Cowes for repairs and service 
 of a British ship, whose owners resided at New- 
 •castle, held not to be matter for bottomry. The 
 Lochiel, 2 W. Rob. 34. 
 
 In Jersey.] — Bond given upon a British 
 
 €hip in Jersey : quaere, whether it is valid. The 
 Barlara, 4 C. Bob. 1. 
 
 In Ireland.] — A bond given in Ireland 
 
 on a British ship held valid. The lihadamanthe, 
 1 Dotls. 7U4. 
 
 Bond given to free Ship from Arrest.] — A 
 
 ibottoinry bund given to free the sliij) from arrest 
 at Malta for a debt due from the owner to his 
 agent there on a general account, held valid. 
 The Osmanli, 3 "\V. Eob. I'JS ; 7 Not. of Cas. 
 522. 
 
 The mere fact that by the law of the port in 
 which the bond is given the ship may be 
 ^detained does not make a bond, otherwise 
 invalid, to be valid. The Augusta, 1 Dods. 283. 
 And see The Hersey, supra, col. 201. 
 
 Arrest for Salvage.] — Sec The Sultan, 
 
 infra, col. 2of;. 
 
 Bond to meet Consul's Charges.] — Bond given 
 at Briti-h consul's instigation, in great part for 
 payment of his commission, upheld. The Zodiac, 
 1 Hag. Adm. 320. 
 
 To defray Debts incurred on previous 
 
 "Voyage.^ — Money lent fur tlie payment of ilcbts 
 uu-aumA in a previous voyage not matter for 
 bottomry. The Lochiel, 2 W. Rob. 34. 
 
 To pay off Previous Bond.] — The amount 
 
 of a previous Vjond given in the same voyage, 
 having been paid off, may be included in a new 
 bond given on the same but not on a subsequent 
 voyage. TJie Toiro, Spinks. l>i->. 
 
 "Scuible. that payment of one bottomry bond 
 
 rity to insure the ship and freight for performing 
 the residue of the voyage, and has no authority, 
 therefore, to grant a bottomry bond on the ship 
 to pay for the premiums of such insurance. 
 The Serajina, Br. k Lush. 277. 
 
 To free from Arrest for Salvage.] — Where a 
 vessel is lying stranded, and the master cannot 
 commimicate with the owner, the master, in 
 order to tranship and send on, may on his own 
 authority give a respondentia bond to release 
 the cargo lying under arrest for salvage. The 
 iS'«?frt«,"Swabey, 504 ; 5 Jur. (x.s.) 13C'.). 
 
 Charges for Unloading Outward Cargo.] — 
 
 Every disbursement at a foreign port uecesr-ary 
 to enable a ship to prosecute her voyage, made 
 in or about the ship herself or her crew, is a 
 proper subject for bottomry. Charges upon the 
 unloading of the outward cargo are such neces- 
 sary disbursements. The Etlmond, Lush. 211 ; 
 30 L. J., Adm. 128 ; 2 L. T. 394. And see Lush. 
 57 : 29 L. J., Adm. 76 ; 2 L. T. 192. 
 
 Such disbursements must be for charges for 
 which the owner or master of the ship is liable ; 
 those for which the consignee of the cargo is 
 liable are not the subject of bottomry. Ih. 
 
 Average Contribution.] — A debt for general 
 average contribution, arising in respect of an 
 outward voyage, being a personal debt only, is 
 not a sufficient foundation for a bottonuy bom I 
 on the ship for the voyage homeward. The 
 North Star, Lush. 45 ; 29 L. J., Adm. 73 ; 2 L. T. 
 264. 
 
 Consuls Expenses in Suppressing Mutiny.]— 
 Expenses incurred by the British consul in a 
 foreign port, the crew being in possession of the 
 ship and the master in irons, in connection with 
 a nnttiny on boanl, and reinstating the master 
 in his command, held a good foundation for 
 Ijottomry Ixnid, although at the outset of the 
 matter nothing was said .as to giving a bond. 
 The Gauntlet, 3 W. RoIj. 82. 
 
 Usury Laws — Bottomry no Infringement of. ] 
 — Bottomry is not invalid as contiary to the 
 usury laws" Ijecause of tlie sea risk. Sharpleij v. 
 Ilurrell, Cro. Jac. 2()S ; Soome v. Glern, Siderf., 
 pt. 1, 27 ; Masoti v. Ahdij, Holt. 738 ; Chrxferjield 
 (^Earl of) V. Jansoii, 2 Vcs. Sen. 27, 124, 142 ; Jog 
 V. Kent, Hard. 418 ; Itohrrts v. 'J'ri'niagn,2 Rolle, 
 47 ; Cro. Jac. 508 ; Applrton v. Brian, 1 Keb. 711. 
 
 Bottomry bond i)ayable whether the ship 
 return or not sail, bad for usury. Hill v. Snow, 
 1 Keb. 358. 
 
 Foreigrn Ships trading to East Indies — 7 Geo. 1, 
 
 St. 1, c. 21.J— Vidiilily of l)oiioMiiy bonds ou 
 foreign ships trading to Eiust Indies. Sumner v. 
 Grce'n, 1 Jl. lU. 302. 
 
 b. Authority of Master. 
 
 Agent for Cargo Owners.] — Tlic character of 
 ac" III for thf owiMTsof the cargo is impnsrd u[)on 
 tiie master bv the necesHily of the case, and by 
 that alone. The ma.stcr is invested by presumption 
 of law with authority to hypothecate the cargo.
 
 207 
 
 SHIPPING— X. Bottomry. 
 
 208 
 
 imposed on the master, because the necessity 
 which creates it does not arise. The HamMrgh, 
 infra. 
 
 Agent for Owner of Ship.] — If the master 
 orders repairs for his ship, or borrows money on a 
 bottomry bond in order to execute the repairs, 
 he is the agent alone of the owner of the ship 
 in orderins^ such repairs and borrowing money. 
 Benson Y.^Buncan, 3 Ex. 644 ; IS L. J., Ex. 1G9 ; 
 14 Jut. 218— Ex. Ch. See S. C, infra. 
 
 Master cannot bind Owner beyond Value of 
 Ship.] — The master cannot by bottomry bind the 
 o\\Tiers beyond the value of the ship. A7ion., Ca. 
 in Ch., pt. 2, 238. 
 
 patch of the vessel for the completion of her 
 voyage ; and that the master should be unable to 
 obtain such advances upon personal credit. The 
 Priiwe cf tSa-fe-Coliurg, Soares v. Ralin^ 3 Moore, 
 P. C. 1. 
 
 Though the debts which a master in need of 
 repairs in a foreign port has incurred may be 
 personal, he may borrow money upon bottomry 
 of ship, freight and cargo to pay them from any 
 one not his creditor. The Karnah, supra. 
 
 By Mate — Capture and Recapture.] — A mate, 
 in the absence of the captain, has a right to 
 hypothecate tlie ship for the purpose of paying 
 the salvage to the recaptors. Parmeter v. Tod- 
 hunter, 1 Camp. 541. 
 
 Duty to Communicate with Owners.] — Before 
 resorting to bottomry for raising necessary sup- 
 plies, it is absolutely necessary, where practicable, 
 that notice should be given by the master to the 
 
 Necessity alone Justifies.] — The master may 
 hvpothecate the ship only in case of necessity. 
 Anon., Holt, 651 ; 3 Salk. 23. S. P., Bridgeman's 
 Case, Hob. 11. 
 
 A bottomrv bond executed by the master of a ^"^^ ^"^^^f, *"^^^" ""^ f^V-^^ u^ tuc ^c..ucx .^ .^. 
 
 n. uuiLUiJ^i.> uyju. c J ^„,„^^^ if owner of the vessel, and an allegation that such 
 
 ship cannot be supported against he owners if ] ^,oU^ is no excuse for not com- 
 
 the master, at the time of executing the bona, 
 had other resources for obtaining the necessary 
 supplies for the ship. JDohson v. Zyall, 2 Ph. 
 323, n. : 3 Myl. & C. 453, n. : G L. J., Ch. 115 : 11 
 Jur. 179, n. S. P., Lyall v. Hichs, supra, col. 202 ; 
 The Botjal Arch, supra, col. 199. 
 
 The obligee in a bottomry bond also chartered 
 the ship for the homeward voyage : — Held, that, 
 from the time the charterparty was made, the 
 sum that would become due for the freight was 
 a resource of the captain, applicable to procuring 
 such sums as were necessary to discharge expenses. 
 Bobson v. Lyall, supra. And see Cases supra, 
 col. 202. 
 
 Law of the Flag.] — The extent of the authority 
 conferred on the master of a vessel to bind the 
 owners either of the ship or of the cargo is derived 
 from, and governed by, the law of the flag. Tlie 
 Karnah, 6 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 136 : 38 L. J., Adm. 
 57 ; L. P. 2 P. C. 505 ; 21 L. T. 159 ; 17 W. R. 1028. 
 
 No Power to Bottomry before Voyage begun.] 
 
 — The master has no power to hypotliecate the 
 ship before the voyage is begun. Lister v. Baxter, 
 Str. 695. 
 
 Pledging Owner's Credit.] — A master has no 
 authority to hypothecate for money borrowed at 
 a foreign port for necessary repairs and disburse- 
 ments, and by the same instrument pledge the 
 personal credit of his owner for such advances, 
 whether maritime interest be stipulated for or 
 not. Sta'inhanU v. Shrj)pard, 13 C. B. 418 ; 1 
 C. L. Pv. 609 : 22 L. J.. Ex. 341 ; 17 Jur. 1032 ; 
 1 W. R. 505— Ex. Ch. 
 
 The master of a vessel requiring supplies for 
 the further prosecution of her voyage is bovmd 
 to ascertain whether such supplies can be pro- 
 cured on the personal credit of the owner before 
 he resorts to a bottomry bond as security for 
 their amount. The Eliza, Heuthorn v. Darling, 
 1 Moore, P. C. 5. 
 
 Master's Personal Credit.] — A bottomry bond 
 given by a master upon a threat of arrest for 
 supplies previously furnished on his personal 
 credit is void. The ITessey, Gore v. Gardner, 3 
 Moore, P. C. 79. 
 
 To justify resort by a master of a ship to a j of the ship, freight and cargo, 
 bottomry bond, it is requisite by maritime law I were not the repairers of tlie shi]i 
 
 municating with him, unless he has been judi- 
 cially declared insolvent, and the ownership oi 
 the vessel vested in his assignees, to whom such 
 notice must then be given. The Panama, Bar- 
 ron V. Stewart, 6 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 484 ; 39 L. J., 
 Adm. 37 ; L. R. 3 P. C. 199 ; 23 L. T. 12 ; 18 
 W. R. 1011. 
 
 A British ship, under a charter from London 
 to Callao, put into Melbourne for repairs. The 
 master, who was also a part owner, fearing that 
 the shipwrights would, unless their claims were 
 paid, detain the vessel, and that she might thus 
 be unable to fulfil her charter, raised the neces- 
 sary funds from the ship's assets at Melbourne 
 upon a bottomry bond of the ship and freight : — 
 Held, that the bond was not invalidated by the 
 absence of a previous communication between 
 the master ancl the co-owner. The Staffordshire, 
 8 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 443 ; 41 L. J., Adni. 49 ; L. R. 
 4 P. C. 194 ; 27 L. T. 46 ; 20 W. R. 557 ; 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 365— P. C. And see S. C. 25 L. T. 137. 
 
 Held, also, that the mortgagee of a ship cannot, 
 for the purposes of such previous communica- 
 tion as is necessary between the party hypo- 
 thecating the ship and the owner, be deemed an 
 owner : though it may be otherwise if the mort- 
 gagee is also the ship's agent and agent for the 
 owner. Ih. 
 
 The authority of a master to pledge by bot- 
 tomry for the purpose of raising money for the 
 absolute necessaries of the ship, only arises when 
 he cannot obtain the necessary abvances upon 
 the personal credit of the owner, and such power 
 to raise money by bottomry is vested in the 
 master, although the owner resides in the same 
 country, provided there are no means of com- 
 munication with the owners, and the exigency 
 of the case requires it. The Oriental, Wallace 
 V. Fielden, 7 Moore, P. C. 398. 
 
 A ship on a voyage from Galveston, United 
 States, to Liverpool, put into Bermuda disabled. 
 The master wiote to the owners of the ship and 
 cargo, and meanwhile, to avoid delay and loss, 
 commenced repairing the ship. The repairs 
 were completed, and the master then, fearing 
 detention of tliu ship, and having received no 
 replies from the owners of the ship and cargo, 
 raised money to pay for the repairs on bottomry 
 
 The lenders 
 —Held, that 
 
 that the advances should be merely to enable the 
 ship to refit ; or to pay for the repairs and dis- 
 
 the bond was valid, and bound the cargo. Tlie 
 Karnali, 6 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 136 ; 3Ji L. J., Adm,
 
 209 
 
 SHIPPING— X. Bottomry. 
 
 210 
 
 57 : L. R. 4 P. C. 505 ; 21 L. T. 159 ; 17 W, E. 102S 
 —P. C. See S. C. infra. 
 
 The possibility of communication with the 
 owners of the ship or cargo must be construed 
 by estimating the cost and risk incidental to the 
 delay from the attempt to make such communica- 
 tion, and the probability of failure after every 
 exertion made. lb. 
 
 Bottomry bond granted at New York by master 
 of a vessel whose o's^Tiers lived at St. John's. 2sew 
 Brunswick, between which place and 2Sew York 
 there was telegraphic communication. The 
 lenders had previously acted as agents for the 
 ship, and there had been no communication with 
 the owners ; bond held invalid. Tlie Oriental, 7 
 Moore. P. C. 398— P. C. Reversing 3 W. Rob. 213. 
 
 Seui le, a bottomry bond given by the captain 
 of a ship at a foreign port is not necessarily void 
 because there was time during the ship's stay at 
 such port for the captain to have written home 
 to his emplovers. and to have received an answer. 
 Gluscott V. Lang, 2 Ph. 310 ; 16 L. J., Ch. 429 ; 
 11 Jur. 642. 
 
 A plea, alleging that the bottomry bond was 
 executed by the master without any express 
 authority from the defendant ; and that, at the 
 time when the same was executed, the amount 
 of the costs and expenses exceeded the amount 
 of the value of the ship when repaired, and all 
 the freight that could be earned b}" the voyage, 
 should the vessel arrive at its destination ; and 
 that the defendant, so soon as he received notice, 
 abandoned the ship, and all right and title to the 
 same, and all freight in respect of the voyage, 
 and did never ratify the act of the master : — 
 Held, bad. Benson v. Duncan, 3 Ex. 344 ; 18 
 L. J., Ex. 169 ; 14 Jur. 218— Ex. Ch. See S. C. 
 hupra, col. 207. 
 
 See also supra, a. Matters Affecting 
 Validity, and infra, 3. Allowable Items. 
 
 Power of Master to Bottomry for Repairs.] — 
 See Miller v. Potter, aule, col. 17, and Casus 
 supra, col. 203. 
 
 Cargo — Power to Hypothecate.] — A master has 
 f>ower to hyporhrcate tlic cargo as well as the 
 bhij) for a rciisonable purpose only, for the benefit 
 of the ship and cargo. Ilussei/ v. Christie, 13 
 Ves. 599 ; 9 East, 426 ; 9 R. R. .585. 
 
 Where it appeared that at a foreign port, at 
 which the master had taken in necessary sup- 
 jihes, the owner of the vessel liad a recognised 
 agent within the possible and probable know- 
 ledge of the person making the advance : — Held, 
 that the Iwttomrv bond given for such advance 
 was void. Ilie Faithful.-Al L. J., Adm. 81. 
 
 The existence of the necessity wliich the 
 maritime law requires to validate the hypothe- 
 cation of the shifi and cargo Vjy bottomry, is to 
 be ascertained by evidence in the usual manner, 
 the meaning of the term "necessity" in respect 
 of hypothecation by the master being analogous 
 to its meaning m other parts of the law. The 
 Karnah, 6 M.;ore. P. C. (N.s.) 136; 38 L. J., 
 Adm. 57; L. It. 2 P. C. 505; 21 L. T. 159; 
 17 W. R. 102K— P. C. Sec S. C, supra. 
 
 The necessity, which will validate the hypothe- 
 cation of a cargo by bottomry, is a high <k'gree 
 of need, arising when choice is to be made of one 
 of several alternatives, under the peril of severe 
 loss, if a wrong choice should be made. And 
 any comV)ination of events which should prevent 
 the comjiletion of the voyage with profit, unless 
 money should be obtained by bottomry, would 
 raise the question whether there was need fc»r| 
 
 bottomry in such high degree as to create a 
 necessity. If. though the repairs are complete, 
 yet the ship cannot leave the port until they are 
 paid for, the completion of lepairs is an imma- 
 terial fact in estimating the degree of need for 
 bottomrj-, Ih. 
 
 A shipmaster has authority to bottomry cargo 
 as well as ship at a foreign port to enable the 
 ship to prosecute her voyage ; and the ship- 
 o\vner3 are liable to indemnify cargo owners if 
 the cargo is attached or sold by the bondholders, 
 ■without regard to the question of the validity of 
 the bond. Anderstoii Foundry Co. v. Law, 7 
 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 836. 
 
 A ship on her voyage from Newcastle to 
 Lisbon came into collison and put into Leith for 
 repairs. The master and mate were owners of 
 the ship and incurred a debt of oSOL to the ship- 
 broker, which included damages payable to the 
 other ship, repairs, and other charges. Only a 
 small part of this was chargeable against cargo, 
 the bulk being chargeable against ship and 
 freight. The master had no means, except 80Z., 
 and bottomried ship, freight and cargo for oOOZ. 
 The cargo owners refused to consent to bottomry 
 the cargo. The ship and cargo were sold for 
 155?. : — Held, that, except as to freight, the bond- 
 holder had no right against the cargo, as the 
 master had no power to bottomry it under the 
 circumstances. Dymond v. Scott, 5 Ct. of Sess. 
 Cas. (4th ser.) 196. And sec Cases supra, cols. 
 203, 204. 
 
 Cargo Bottomried — Indemnity against Ship- 
 owner. — A ship was damaged by perils of the 
 sea, and the master hypothecated, by a bottomry 
 bond, the ship, freight and cargo, amongst which 
 were the go<:>.ls of the plaintitf. The ship and 
 freight not realising the amount borrowed, his 
 fev/ods were attached in the admiralty court 
 until contribution was paid by him towards the 
 difference due to tlie obligee of tlie bond, and he 
 was obliged to pay his pioportion of the costs of 
 the suit instituted in the admiralty court: — 
 Held, that he caild maiutain an action against 
 the owner of the ship on an implied promise to 
 indemnify. Be/iso/i v. Duncan, 3 Ex. 644 ; 18 
 L. J., Ex. 169 ; 14 Jur. 21S— Kx. Ch. 
 
 Duty to communicate with Owner of Cargo.] — 
 The master of a ship, being only the agent of the 
 cargo in special cases of necessity, is bound, 
 when circumstances permit, to communicate 
 with the owner of the cargo before he does any 
 act which .'^eriously affects tlie value of the 
 cargo. The Onward, 12 L. J.. .\dm. 61 ; L. R. 
 4 A. Ac E. 38 ; 28 L. T. 204 ; 21 W. R. 601 ; 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 540. 
 
 A master, therefore, putting into Port Louis, 
 Mauritius, for repairs to his ship, and intending 
 to raise money for those repairs upon l^ittomry, 
 not only on ship and freight, but also upon 
 cargo of an imperishable nature and belonging 
 to one finn residing in Great Britain, is bound to 
 communicate with them before having recourse 
 to bottomry ; otherwise the bond is invalid. Ih. 
 
 Bottomry bond upon ship, freight, a)id cargo, 
 taken up by the master of a small Swedish vessel 
 at a port in Sweden. Part of the cargo was 
 consipied to England :— Held. that, considering 
 the distance between Sweden and England, and 
 the means of communication, it was essential to 
 the validity of tlie bond, so lar as the cargo was 
 concerned." that the master should communicate 
 with the owners of the cargo before resorting to 
 hypothecation of the cargo, as he coidd have
 
 211 
 
 SHIPPING— X. Bottomry. 
 
 212 
 
 obtained an answer within a period not incon- 
 venient with regard to the exigency of the 
 circumstances of the case. The Bonaparte, 
 Wilkinson v. Wilson, 8 Moore, P. C. 459. 
 
 The master during the voyage executed a 
 bottomry bond hypothecating the ship, freight, 
 and cargo. The cargo was not perishable, and 
 the master could have communicated with the 
 owners of the cargo before executing the bond : 
 — Held, that the "master should have communi- 
 cated with the owners of the cargo, and that the 
 bond was invalid in respect of the cargo. The 
 Hamhurgh, 2 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 289 ; Br. & Lush. 
 253 ; 33'L. J., Adm. 11(5 ; 10 Jur. (N.S.) 600 ; 10 
 L. T. 206 ; 12 W. E. 628— P. C. 
 
 Whether a master of a vessel without funds or 
 credit must communicate with the owners of the 
 cargo before hypothecating the ship, freight, and 
 cargo, in order to enable him to pay the expense 
 of the necessary repairs of the vessel, is a 
 question which can only be decided by the cir- 
 cumstances of each particular case. lb. 
 
 The master before giving a bottomry bond on 
 ship, freight, and cargo, is bound, as against 
 owners of cargo, to communicate both with the 
 owners of ship and the shippers or coDsignees of 
 cargo, where such communication is under all 
 the circumstances reasonably practicable ; but 
 not otherwise. The Olivier, Lush. 484 ; 31 
 L. J., Adm. 137; 6 L. T. 2-59. 
 
 The defence that a bottomry bond is void for 
 want of communication with the shipowner or 
 cargo owner must be specially pleaded. lb. 
 
 The master, before he hypothecates the cargo, 
 ought, if he has the means of doing so, to com- 
 mimicate with the owner ; and this is not merely 
 to give the owner an opportunity of advancing 
 the requisite funds, but also to give him an 
 opportunity of unlading the cargo ; although he 
 cannot do this without pavment of the entire 
 freisht. The Lizzie, L. E."'2 A. & E. 254; 19 
 L. T. 71. 
 
 What Communication to Owner Sufficient.] — 
 
 To justify a master in giving a bottomry bond on 
 cargo where communication with the owners is 
 necessary, a mere statement of injuries sustained 
 }jy the ship and of the consequent necessity for 
 repairs entailing considerable expense, unaccom- 
 panied by a statement that a bottomry bond is 
 proposed, is not a sufficient communication ; the 
 law does not require the owners from such 
 premises to draw the conclusion that the ship 
 and cargo must be bottomried ; although it may 
 not be required that the words " bottomry of 
 cargo " should be used in the communication, the 
 fact itself should be stated, or at least the 
 necessity for a bottomry bond should be an 
 obvious and irresistible inference from the cir- 
 cumstances stated. The Onward, supra. 
 
 A communication detailing the disasters to the 
 ship, and the probable expense of repair, but not 
 expressing the intention to bottomry the cargo, 
 and requesting the owners of cargo to wait for 
 further information, is not, where any communi- 
 cation is necessary, sufficient : more especially 
 where the information as to the Vjottomry has 
 been given to the shipowners, but withheld from 
 the owners of cargo ; and under such circum- 
 stances the owners of cargo are not bound to 
 conclude that the master will resort to bottomry, 
 or to reply to the communication. lb. 
 
 A master cannot bottomry a ship without 
 communication with his owner, if communica- 
 tion is practicable, and, a fortiori, he cannot 
 
 hypothecate the cargo without communicating 
 with the owner of it, if communication with such 
 owner is practicable. Such communication must 
 state not merely the necessity for expenditure, 
 but also the necessity for hypothecation. Klein- 
 ivort V. Cassa Marrittima of Genoa, 2 App. Cas. 
 156 ; 36 L. T. 118 ; 25 W. E. 608 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 
 358— P. C. 
 
 A statement by the master of the injuries 
 sustained by a ship and of the repairs necessary 
 is not a sufficient communication with the owners 
 to justify him in giving a bottomry bond upon 
 the ship and cargo, if unaccompanied by a state- 
 ment that such bond is necessary. lb. 
 
 The mere receipt by the owners of the cargo of 
 general information that the ship is damaged, 
 and in need of repairs, does not impose upon 
 them the duty of supplying money for such 
 repairs without further information. lb. 
 
 A Swedish vessel, bound from a port in Sweden 
 to Hull, was driven, by stress of weather, to put 
 back into another port in Sweden. This took 
 place in November, 1848. Ten days afterwards 
 the cargo was unladen, and the ship found to be 
 greatly damaged. The repairs were completed, 
 and the cargo reloafled. The master at once 
 communicated with the owners of the ship resi- 
 dent in Sweden, who, being without funds, con- 
 sented to the master taking up a bottomry bond 
 for payment of the necessary repairs, and the 
 British consul at the port where the vessel lay 
 wrote on behalf of the master, and as his agent, 
 to the consignees at Hull, informing them of the 
 damage sustained by the vessel, but made no 
 application for money, nor referred to the 
 necessity of repairs. No answer was made to 
 this letter, and the master, in March, 1849, 
 hypothecated the ship, freight, and cargo, for the 
 money borrowed for the repahs : — Held, that 
 such letter to the consignees was a sufficient 
 notice to authorise the master raising money by 
 bottomry on the cargo. The Bomqjurte, Wilkin- 
 son V. Wilson, 8 Moore, P. C. 459. 
 
 Bond given to meet Expenses caused by 
 
 Cargo Owners' Delay — Deduction from Freight.] 
 
 — Where the master was obliged to sell part of 
 the cargo abroad to defray the ships' expenses 
 and gave a bond on cargo for further advances, 
 the owners of the cargo, if they caused the delay 
 which occasioned the expenses, cannot refuse 
 payment of any part of the freight or deduct it 
 from the sum due on the bond. The Angenora, 
 1 Dods. 382. 
 
 Bond given to Consignee of Cargo.] — A 
 
 bottomry bond given to consignee of cargo, there 
 being a consignee of ship in the place, upheld ; 
 it not being shewn that the lender was aware 
 that bottomrv was not necessary. The Xelson, 1 
 Hag. Adm. 1(39. 
 
 Hypothecation of Cargo before Shipment.] — 
 
 The Jonathan Goodhue, Swabey, 33, supra, col. 199. 
 
 Hypothecation of Freight— Advances Deduc- 
 ted.] — A. chartered a ship then on an outward 
 voyage to load a cargo iu Cuba for London, 
 agreeing that his agent should make such 
 advances in Cuba as he should think the ship 
 required. The master bottomried the ship and 
 freight before she reached Cuba. Certain sums 
 were advanced by the agent in Cuba : and in 
 the bondholder's suit against the ship and freight 
 A. biought into the registry the freight less the
 
 213 
 
 SHIPPING— X. Bottomry. 
 
 sums advanced in Cuba : — Held, that such 
 deiluction was properlv made. The Standard, 
 6 W. 11. 222. 
 
 Hypothecation of Ship, Freight and Cargo — 
 Eights of Cargo Owner.] — The holder of a 
 bottomry bond <m ship, freight, and cargo, is 
 upon conclusion of proceedings by default against 
 ship and freight, entitled to the full freight in 
 payment of his bond and costs ; the owner of 
 cargo who has paid the freight into court, is not 
 entitled to a reference as to the amount due on 
 the bond, although part of the cargo was sold by 
 the master and the proceeds applied to ships' 
 expenses before the bond was executed. The 
 Gem of the Kith, Br. & Lash. 72. 
 
 Amount of Freight — Deduction of Insurance.] 
 
 — The charterer may deduct from the freight 
 payable to a bottomry bondholder the premium 
 for insurance of part of the freight advanced 
 according to stipulations in the charterparty 
 before the bond was granted. TJie Catherine, 
 Swabcy, 263 ; 5 W. R. «2y. 
 
 0. By what Law. 
 
 Where Ship is Foreign.] — The owner of cargo 
 who ships it on board a foreign vessel, ships it to 
 be dealt uitli by the master according to the law 
 of the flag, that is, the law of the country to 
 which the vessel belongs, unless that authority 
 be limited by express stipulation at the time of 
 the shii)ment. Therefore a bond made by the 
 master of a foreign ship hypothecating cargo 
 ladeii on Iward such ship, if valid according to 
 the law of the flag of the ship, will be enforced 
 by the English admiralty court, on the arrest of 
 the ship and cargo at the port of London (the 
 port of discharge within the meaning of the bond), 
 although the conditions imposed by English law 
 as essential to the valitlity of such bond have not 
 been complied with. 'Tlie Gaetano and Maria, 
 m L. J., Adm. 67 : 7 P. D. 137 ; 46 L. T. 8:« ; 30 
 W. E. 766 ; 4 Asj). M. C. 470— C. A. 
 
 The validity of a bottomry bond taken up in 
 a foreign port upon a foreign sliip, freight, and 
 cargo, the owners of the cargo being English, 
 and tlie ship ami cargo being proceeded against 
 in England, is to be governed by the general 
 maritime law, and not by the lex loci contractus, 
 or the law of the country to which the vessel 
 belongs. Tlie IIiimhvr<ih, 2 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 
 281» ; Br. k Lush. 2.-.3 ; 33 L. ■]., Adm. 116 ; 10 Jur. 
 (N.S.) 600 ; 10 L. T. 206 ; 12 \V. II. (528— P. C. 
 
 A master of a French shiij contracted to carry 
 a cargo, the property of the plaintiff, fnnn the 
 West Indies to Liverpool. The ship being sea 
 damaged put into a port of refuge for repairs, 
 to meet tlie charges of which the master hypo- 
 thecated the shi|), freight, and cargn. The French 
 law is not in force either at tiie place where tlie 
 cliarterparty was executed, or where the cargo 
 was shipped, or the jtort of refuge where the 
 fillip was repaired. Upon the arrival of the ship 
 at Liverpocjl, proceedings were instituted in the 
 a(hiiiralfy c(nnt upon the bottomry bonds execu- 
 ted by the master, to which suit the owners (the 
 def(nidants) being French subjects au<l domiciled 
 in France did not appear, relying on the French 
 law that the owner of a ship may in all cases 
 free himself from the acts and engagements of 
 the master, in all that concei'ns the ship and 
 voyage, by the abandonment of the ship and 
 
 214 
 
 freight. The value of the ship being insufficient 
 to satisfy the bonds, the plaintiff, in order to save 
 his cargo, paid the remaining sum due upon the 
 bonds, costs, kc, and then sued the defendants 
 as upon an implied indemnity : — Held, that he 
 was not entitleil to recover. Lloi/d v. Guibert, 
 6 B. & S. 100 ; 35 L. J., Q. B. 74 ; L. R. 1 Q. B. 
 115 ; 13 L. T. 602— Ex. Ch. Aflarming 10 Jur. 
 (K.S.) 949 ; 12 W. R. 953. 
 
 East India Trade.]— The 7 Geo. 1, c. 21, s. 2, 
 
 which prohibits loans of money on bottomry of 
 vessels designed to trade in the East Indies, has. 
 since the other restrictions upon the East India 
 trade have been removed, been repealed by 
 implication. The India, Br. & Lush. 221 ; 33 
 L. J., Adm. 193 ; 12 L. T. 316. 
 
 Power of Master to Bottomry— Law of Flag. ] 
 — Per Erie, C.J. See The Kamak, 6 Moore, P. C. 
 (N.S.) 136 ; 38 L. J., Adm. 57 ; L. R. 2 P. G. 505 : 
 17 W. R. 1028. 
 
 3. Allowable Items. 
 
 Premiums of Insurance — Advance Freight.] — 
 
 A charterer may deduct from the freight payable 
 to a bondholder the premium for insurance of 
 part of the freight advanced, according to stipu- 
 lations in the charterparty before the bond was 
 granted. The Catherine, Swabey, 263 ; 5 W. R. 
 829. 
 
 Expenses of Ship at Port.] — All expenses 
 incurred in the jjort where the bond is given 
 relating to the ship or crew, being expenses f(U" 
 which the master or owner of the ship is liable, 
 and being necessary to enable the ship to pro- 
 ceed on her voyage, may be allowed. The Ed- 
 mond, Lush. 211 ; 30 L. J., P. 128 ; 2 L. T. 394. 
 
 Law Expenses.] — The agent of a ship abroad 
 applied a balance of freight in discharge of law 
 exiienses rehiting to the ship's business, and took 
 a bottomry bond for other payments, for which 
 there was a lien on the ship : — Held, that the 
 amount of such law expenses could not bo 
 deducted from the bond. lb. 
 
 Commissions.] — Where a cargo is unshipped, 
 stored and t raiiship[)ed at a foreign port, and a 
 respondentia l)und is given to tlefray the cliarges, 
 the court, though considering the custom of the 
 port, will nut allow as items in the bond any 
 commissions beyond a, reasonable amount, calcu- 
 lated upon a princii)le of quantum meruit. Thi. 
 Oleninanna, Lush. 115. 
 
 Commissions charged at St. Tiiomas's of two 
 percent, on the value of cjirgo f(jr storage, and 
 of two and a half jier cent, for huiding an<l re- 
 shipping, disallowed, and iu lieu thereof reason- 
 able sums alloweil. Jh. 
 
 Commissions of flvc per cent, on cash advances 
 reduced to two and a half per cent., according 
 to the piactice olwerved in the registry. Jh. 
 
 Commissions on freight iu lespect of the 
 vessels chartered to transiiip disallowed. lb. 
 
 A usage to establish a riglit to deduct com- 
 missions for obtaining the charter from the 
 freight as against the holder of a bottomry bond 
 must be distinctly proved. The Kamak, infra. 
 
 A commission of two per cent, on the value of 
 ship and cargo, in addition to ten per cent, mari- 
 time interest on the sum advanced, charged for
 
 2].'^ 
 
 SHIPPING— X. Bottomry. 
 
 iriiinagoment of the ship's business in port of 
 dis::di6 by the lenders on bottomry disallowed. 
 r/).« Cah/pso, 3 Hag. Adm. 162. 
 
 Coniinissiou for unshipping and care of caj'go, 
 and \yages advanced to crew abroad, disallowed. 
 The Cognac, 2 Hag. Adm. 377. 
 
 Advance to Master.] — Advance of money to 
 master for alleged services in taking care of tie 
 cargo and for personal expenses was not allowed 
 as charges on cargo. The Glenmanna, supra. 
 
 In a suit on a bottomry bond hj'pothecating 
 " ship, cargo, and freight," it appeared that the 
 master had before bottomry obtained advances 
 on accottnt of freight from the charterers : — 
 Held, that the obligee had no claim to freight so 
 advanced by the charterers prior to bottomry, 
 provided the advances were made bona fide. 
 The Kurmk, G Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 136 ; 38 L. J., 
 Adm. 57 ; L. K. 2 P. C. 505 ; 21 L. T. 159 ; 17 
 W. R. 1028. 
 
 Sums Advanced for Disbursements.] — Sums 
 advanced for disbursements partly upon personal 
 security and partly upon security of freight 
 cannot be made the subject of bottomry. Tlte 
 Ennnre of Peace, 39 L. J., Adm. 12 : 21 L. T. 
 763. 
 
 Cost of Insuring Bottomry Loan.] — Charge for 
 insuring part of the money lent on bottomry at 
 a bottomry premium disallowed. The lender 
 must insure by a separate contract on his own 
 account. Tlie Hodd'uigtons, 2 Hag. Adm. 422. 
 
 Simple Contract Debts— Wages.] — The inquiry 
 before the master was, what sum of money on a 
 particular day was due and payable upon a 
 certain bottomry bond, and what was necessarj' 
 for discharging such other demands against the 
 ship as were necessary to be discharged, and of 
 defraying such expenses as it was necessary to 
 incur to enable the ship to proceed home : — Held, 
 that a private debt of the captain was not within 
 the meaning of the inquiry, although it might 
 prevent his rettirning with the ship. Dohsoit v. 
 Lyall, 2 Ph. 323, n. ; 8 Jur. 9G9. See S. C, 
 3 Myl. & Cr. 453, n. ; 6 L. J., Ch. 115 ; 11 Jur. 
 179, n., supra, cols. 205, 207. 
 
 Held, secondly, that a sum of money which 
 was required for the purchase of stores and 
 payment of wages at a port into which the ship 
 put on the homeward voyage was within the 
 meaning of such inquiry, although, on the par- 
 ticular day named, such sum "could not be 
 definitely foreseen. lb. 
 
 Thirdly, that a sum which became payable for 
 seamen's wages, dues, and other expenses, imme- 
 diately upon the completion of the homeward 
 voyage, was also within the meaning of the 
 inquiry. lb. 
 
 Price of Goods supplied on Personal Credit,] 
 
 — Goods supplied in the first instance on personal 
 security alone cannot afterwards be made the 
 subject of bottomry. The Augusta, 1 Dods. 283. 
 
 Advances made on Personal Credit.] — Small 
 advances made without express reference to 
 bottomry may be included in a subsequent bond. 
 The ViUlia, 1 W. Rob. 1. 
 
 Simple Contract Debts bought up by Lender 
 on Bottomry.] — Debts owing upon personal credit 
 bought up from the ship's creditors by the lender 
 
 216 
 
 cannot be the subject of bottomry. The Ocean, 
 2 W. Rob. 429, 16(1. 
 
 Advances to pay previous Debts.] — Advances 
 
 made for the ship's service, to pay debts incuned 
 before the advances, may be included in a 
 bottomry bond. The Ili'be. 2 W. Rob. 412 ; 
 4 Not, of Cas. 361 ; 10 Jur. 227. 
 
 See further as to Allowable Items, supra, cols. 
 198 seq. 
 
 4. Priorities. 
 Marshalling.]— ,S'«; infra, col. 220. 
 
 Master's "Wages.]— The claim of a master for 
 his wages earned and disbursements made subse- 
 quently to a voyage, during which a bottomry 
 bond had been given on his ship, takes priority 
 over the claim of a bondholder. The Hope, 28 
 L. T. 2S7 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 563. 
 
 A bottomry bondholder is entitled to priority 
 over the claim of a master for wages earned on 
 previous voyages. lb. 
 
 The master of a French lugger executed bot- 
 tomry bonds on ship, freight, and cargo, and 
 bound himself personally by the bonds. The 
 ship arrived at her port of destination, and the 
 bonds were indorsed to the owners of the cargo, 
 who instituted a suit against ship, freight and 
 cargo, to enforce payment of the bonds. The 
 master afterwards instituted a suit against the 
 ship and freight for wages. The proceeds of 
 the ship were insufficient to pay the bonds : but 
 the proceeds of the ship, together with the freight 
 and the value of the cargo, were sufficient to pay 
 the bonds as well as the ^yages of the master : — 
 Held, that the master was entitled to have his 
 wages paid out of the jwoceeds of the ship before 
 any portion of that fund was appropriated to 
 the payment of the amount due on the bonds. 
 The Eugenie, L. R. 4 A. & E. 123 ; 29 L. T. 314 ; 
 21 "W. R. 957 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 104. 
 
 Bottomry bond on ship, freight and cargo ; 
 proceeds of ship and freight insufficient : — Held, 
 that though the master bound himself by the 
 bond, and was also a part owner of the vessel, 
 the owners of part of the cargo cottld not oppose 
 his right to be paid his wages and disbursements 
 in priority to the bondholder. The Daring, 37 
 L. J., Adm. 29 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 260. 
 
 The general rule that a master who has bound 
 himself as well as ship and freight for the payment 
 of a bottomry bond is not entitled to jjayment 
 of his own claims in priority, will not be acted 
 upon where the bottomry bondholder will not 
 be prejudiced by the master being paid before 
 him. The Edward Oliver, 36 L. J., Adm. 13 ; 
 L. R. 1 A. & E. 379 ; 16 L. T. 575. 
 
 The master of a foreign ship having by the 
 bottomry bond bound himself as well as the ship 
 and freight cannot enforce his lien for wages as 
 against the bondholder. The Jonathan Goodhue, 
 Swabe}', 524. 
 
 By a bottomry bond, the master covenanted 
 that he had authority to charge the vessel, and 
 that the vessel and cargo, with the freight, 
 should at all times after the voyage be liable for 
 the payment of the amount due under the bond : 
 — Held, that this covenant did not affect the 
 master's right to be paid his wages in priority to 
 the bondholder. The Salacia, 32 L. J., Adm. 41 ; 
 9 Jur. (N.s.) 27 ; 7 L. T. 440 ; 11 W. R. 189.
 
 217 
 
 SHIPPING— X. Bottomrij. 
 
 218 
 
 Seamen's Wages.] — Seamen's wages earned ] and paying for them, gives credit to the master 
 before the giving of a bond are to be preferred and owners, and stands in a different position 
 
 to the bond. The Union, Lush. 128 ; 30 L. J 
 Adra. 17 ; 3 L. T. 2S0. 
 
 Bond on ship, freight and cargo, ship and 
 freight insufficient to pay the same, suit by sea- 
 men against ship and freight for wages, the 
 owners of the cargo allowed to defend, because 
 having an interest in the administration of the 
 fund, but the claim of the seamen ultimately 
 pronounced for, as superior to that of the bond- 
 holder, and therefore to that of the owners of 
 the cargo deriving through him. lb. 
 
 Payment on Account of Wages.] — Wages 
 
 are preferred to a bottomry bond given before 
 the wages are earned ; and one who has paid the 
 wages at the master's request. The William F. 
 Sajford, infra. And see The Mary Ann, 9 Jur. 
 9-1. 
 
 from a tradesman supplying ; his claim, tnere- 
 fore, does not take precedence as a claim under 
 a bottomry bond. Tlie Flur de Ftinchal^ 35 L, J., 
 Adm. 119 : 13 W. E. 1000. 
 
 A bottomry bond is preferred to a claim of 
 necessaries previously pi-onounced for, the neces- 
 saries havins been supplied before the bond. The 
 William F.''Saford, Lush. 69 ; 29 L. J.. P. 109 ; 
 2 L. T. 301. 
 
 Merging Claims.] — A cause of necessaries was 
 instituted in a county court, and subsequently 
 transferred to the court of admiralty. The 
 petition in the court of admiralty alleged that 
 a bottomry bond was given as security for the 
 amount due for necessaries : — Held, first, that 
 the claim for necessaries merged in the bottomry. 
 Thi' Elpis, 42 L. J., Adm. 43 ; L. R. 4 A. ic E. 1 ; 
 27 L. T. 664 ; 21 W. E. 576 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 472. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the suit having been 
 transferred as one for necessaries could not be 
 
 li. 
 
 Wages Paid by Bottomry Bondholder.] — 
 Bottomrv bondholder paying wages of crew in 
 
 order to save expense of their detention by order | ':;^^i;;^^l ^s a cause of bottomry, 
 of court given priority m respect of such payment i 
 over all other claims. The Kammerhevie Rosen- 
 lirants, 1 Hag. Adm. 62. 
 
 The court will not, unless upon application 
 being made to it, sanction the repayment of 
 wages to bondholders out of the proceeds of the 
 sale of a ship. The Cornelia Henrietta, L. E. 1 
 A. & E. 51 ; 12 Jur. (x.s.) 396 : 14 W. E. 502. 
 
 Disbursements and Wages Paid by Shipowner.] 
 ^A shipowner paid wages and other necessary 
 disbursements in respect of a ship upon which a 
 bottomry bond had been given. The ship was 
 sold at the suit of the bondholder :— Held, that 
 such payments being made without leave of the 
 court the shipowner was not entitled to priority 
 over the bottomry bond. The Janet Wilson, 6 
 W. E. 329. 
 
 Ship, Freight and Cargo Bound — Priorities.] — 
 Bottomry bond against ship, freight and cargo. 
 .Judgment by default against ship and freight ; 
 as against the cargo the bond contested : — Held, 
 that the bondholder is entitled to payment out 
 of the freight, and that the cargo owner has no 
 right to have it kept in court for payment of his 
 costs, in tlie event of the bond being pronounced 
 invalid against cargo. The Lord Cochrane, 1 
 W. Kob. 312. 
 
 Scotch Law — Arrestment— Freight — General 
 Average.] — (Jun-ignees of cargo subject to a 
 claim for general average on Vjoard a ship sub- 
 ject to bottDmry sold it upon the terms that the 
 price should include freight, '"the average and 
 bottomry bond to be for account of and settled 
 by sellers." The bill of lading was indorsed to 
 the purchasers, who retained part of the price to 
 meet a balance of freight. A creditor of the 
 owner and master of the 8hi]> subsequently used 
 arrestments in the hands of the iiolder of the bill 
 of lading : — Held, that the arrestees were account- 
 able for 80 much of the freight a.s remained in 
 their hands at the date of the arrestment without 
 fleducting the amount of the bottomry bond, to 
 which they had not acquired title until after the 
 
 Purchaser without Notice of Bond.] — A British 
 ship, upon which a bottomrj- bond had been 
 taken payable on her arrival in England, was 
 sold by her master at Bahia as unseaworthy to 
 a foreigner who repaired her and sent her to 
 England. There was no evidence of notice of 
 the bottomry having been given at the sale : — 
 Held, that the ship was subject to the bond. 
 Tlie Catherine, formerly Tlte Croxdale, 15 Jur. 
 231. 
 
 Viaticum of Master and Crew.] — The viaticum 
 of master and seamen of a foreign ship arrested 
 in this country by bottomry bondholder is paid 
 before the bond. The Constancia, 15 W. R. 183. 
 
 Mortgages.] — A bottomry bond is entitled to 
 priority of payment over a mortgage during the 
 voyage' for which the bond was executed ; but 
 when due, should be enforced within reasonable 
 time, and a voluntary agreement on the part of 
 the holder to postpone i)ayment under it alters 
 its character totally, and substitutes a contract 
 over which the admiralty court, at least, has no 
 jurisdiction. The Royal Arch, Swabey, 269 ; 
 6 \V. E. 191. 
 
 The charterer of a ship in a foreign port, who 
 had notice of a prior mortgage on the ship and 
 its future earnings, agreed with the master, who 
 was also owner, to advance on bottomry such a 
 sum as should he necessary to equip the ship for 
 the homeward voyage, ami a bottomry bond was 
 accordingly executed : but the necessary cost of 
 the outfit exceeded the amount of the bond : — 
 Held, that as against the mortgagee he was not 
 entitled to set off the excess against the sum 
 coming due under the chartcrparty. Dnhnon v. 
 Lyall, 2 Ph. 323. n. ; 3 Myl. Ac Cr. 453, n. ; 6 
 h. J., Ch. 115 ; 11 Jur. 1794. And sec tit. IX. 
 Mortgage. 
 
 Mortgagee Intervening— Freight not brought 
 in — Payment of Bond out of Proceeds of Ship.j — 
 
 A ship was sold in " 
 
 iMittomrv suit ; the owners 
 
 securitv) should be brough 
 Necessaries— Broker's Advances.]— A broker, 1 mortgagee had no right to impede payment to 
 ocuring necessaries to be supplied to a ship, I the bondholder. The Percy, A Hag. Adm. 402. 
 
 procuri
 
 219 
 
 SHIPPING— X. Bottomrjj. 
 
 220 
 
 Execution Creditor and Bondholder.] — See 
 Ladbrohe v. Crtchett, post, col. 227. 
 
 Later Bond preferred to Earlier.]— Bottomry 
 Iwnds of later date are preferred in payment to 
 those of earlier date. The Bhadamanthe, 1 
 Dods. 201. S. P. The Eliza, 3 Hag. Adm. 87. 
 
 As between bonds of different dates the last 
 executed must be first discharged. The Sydney 
 Cove, 2 Dods. 1 ; The Betsey, 1 Dods. 289. 
 
 Bonds of Different Dates Granted on same 
 
 Occasion.] — Bottomry bonds of different dates 
 gi-anted to lenders upon one advertisement for 
 tenders paid pro rota. The Exeter, 1 C. Rob. 
 173, 176. 
 
 Payment of Prior Charges.] — The court granted 
 leave to bondholders to pay prior charges, and to 
 have a lien on the ship, cargo and freight, in 
 respect of such payments, wliich were small in 
 amount, on an affidavit specifying the charges to 
 be paid. The Fair Harm, L. R. 1 A. & E. 67 ; 14 
 W. R. 821. 
 
 Advances under Charterparty.] — A bottomry 
 bond cannot affect a previous contract in a 
 charterparty, so as to take precedence of money 
 advances made subsequently to the bond under 
 the authority of the charterpartv. The Salacia, 
 Lush. 578 ; 32 L. J., Adm. 43 ; 8 L. T. 91. S. P., 
 The Standard, supra, col. 212. 
 
 Dock Dues.] — A person who has advanced 
 money for the purpose of discharging dock dues 
 stands in the same position as the dock company, 
 and his claim ranks with pilotage and towage 
 claims, and has priority over the claim of a 
 holder of a bottomry bond of a previous date. 
 The St. Lawrence, 49 L. J., Adm. 82 ; 5 P. D. 
 250. 
 
 Lien for Freight Preferred.] — "W. shipped at 
 Hayti, on board tlie ship " Galam," a cargo for 
 Europe. The ship during the voyage became 
 unseaworthy, and put in at Angra, where she 
 was condemned and the cargo discharged. The 
 captain took up a sum of money on the security 
 of the cargo, and granted a respondentia bond 
 for the amount, payable with interest on the 
 arrival of the ship at the port of Fahnouth. W. 
 chartered the ship " Mary Jane," of which C. was 
 master and owner, to proceed to Angra and fetch 
 home the cargo. The "Mary Jane" proceeded 
 on her voyage, and on her return she was by bad 
 weather driven ashore at Scilly, and it became 
 necessary to unship the cargo, which was received 
 by B. & Co., on behalf of C, and subject to a 
 right of lien in respect of freight. The respon- 
 dentia bond had been transferred to M'A. & Co. 
 W., in order to defeat this bond, ordered C. to 
 proceed to Hamburg instead of Falmouth ; M'A. 
 & Co. thereupon instituted a suit in the admiralty 
 court on the bond, and the cargo was arrested 
 by an order of that court : — Held, first, that as 
 the cargo could not be carried to its destination 
 by reason of the order of the admiralty court, 
 C. had earned his freight, and had a lien on the 
 cargo for freight, and that such lien was pre- 
 ferable to the claims under the respondentia 
 bond. Galam, Cargo ex, 2 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 
 216 ; Br. & Lush. 167 ; 33 L. J., Adm. 97 ; 10 
 .Jur. (N.s.) 477 ; 9 L. T. 550 ; 12 W. R. 495 ; 3 
 N. R. 254. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the subsequent carrying 
 
 of the cargo by C. was essential to making it 
 available e'ither for the holder of the bond or 
 anyone else, and was in the nature of salvage 
 service ; and that in a competition of liens, the 
 shipowner, who has rendered a service of this 
 description, is entitled to priority over the holder 
 of a respondentia bond, who has done nothing, 
 and whose money has contributed nothing towards 
 forwarding the cargo to its destination. It). 
 
 5. Makshalling. 
 
 In what Cases.] — Where there is a creditor on 
 two funds, and another creditor on one only of 
 those funds, the assets will be marshalled, if it 
 can be done without violating a rule entitled to 
 preferential observance. The Priscilla, Lush. 1 ; 
 5 Jur. (N.s.) 1421 ; 2 L. T. 272. 
 
 Where, therefore, there are two bottomry 
 bonds, the first in date on ship and freight only, 
 and the other or last bond on ship, freight and 
 cargo, and ship and freight are insufficient to 
 discharge both bonds, the last bond, which is 
 entitled to priority, must be paid out of ship and 
 freight. Ih. 
 
 A vessel being at Constantinople, in want of 
 repairs, the master, with the knowledge and 
 approbation of the owner, borrowed money on 
 bottomry. The bond was dated the 12th October, 
 1858. and was secured on the ship and freight. 
 A second bond on the ship, freight, and cargo, 
 dated the 11th December, 1858. was granted at 
 Odessa ; and a third, also on the ship, freight, 
 and cargo, dated the 13th January, 1859, at Syra. 
 The balance of the proceeds arising from the sale 
 of the ship and from the freight, was insufficient 
 to discharge all the claims under these bonds : — 
 Held, that, in order to leave a fund for the 
 payment of the first bond, the court could not 
 compel the owners of the cargo to contribute to 
 the liquidation of the two last executed bonds, 
 so long as the proceeds of the ship and freight 
 were not exhausted. Ih. 
 
 The general rule that a master who has bound 
 himself, as well as ship and freight, for the 
 payment of a bottomry bond, is not entitled to 
 payment of his own claims in priority, will not 
 be' acted upon, where the bottomry bondholder 
 will not be prejudiced by the master being paid 
 before him. Where the master gave bonds on 
 ship, cargo, and freight :— Held, that his claim 
 for wages and disbursements should have priority 
 over those of the bondholders, and that the assets 
 should be marshalled accordingly. The Edward 
 Olicer, L. R. 1 A. & E. 41 ; 9 Jur. (N.s.) 27; 
 7 L. T. 440; 11 W. R. 189. 
 
 The court, acting upon equitable principles, 
 will not direct assets to be marshalled except in 
 cases where the two funds to which one of the 
 1 creditors can resort belong to the same person. 
 The Edward Oliver, supra, distinguished. The 
 Chioqqia, 66 L. J., Adm. 174 ; [1898] P. 1 ; 77 
 L. T. "472. 
 
 W^here there are several bonds, some binding 
 the ship and freight, others the ship, freight, and 
 cargo, tlie couit of admiralty will marshal the 
 assets, directing one claim to be satisfied from 
 the cargo, and another from the ship and freight. 
 The Trident, 1 Wm. Rob. 29. S. P., The Mary 
 Ann, 9 Jur 94. 
 
 Ship and Freight Owners.] — Where a ship and 
 
 freight are bottormied. the owners being different, 
 the ordinarv rule is that they pay ratably. The 
 Bowthorpe,' 2 W. Rob. 73.
 
 901 
 
 SHIPPING— X. Bottomry. 
 
 222 
 
 Ship and Cargo Owners.] — Where there is a 
 bottomry bond upon ship alone, and another 
 upon cargo alone, claims for pilotage, towage, 
 and wages satisfied out of proceeds of ship and 
 freieht pro rata, and not out of freight onlv. 
 La'Coiistancia, 2 W. Hob. 460; 4 Not. of Ca. 
 512 ; 10 Jur. 845. 
 
 Different Bonds on Ship and on Cargo.]— Three 
 
 bonds of bottomry granted u|)Ou the same vessel ; 
 two of the bonds granted upon the ship alone, 
 the third bond upon the cargo only. In mar- 
 shalling the assets the court directed the two 
 bonds upon the ship to be paid out of the 
 proceeds of the ship exclusively ; the bond upon 
 the cargo to be paid out of the proceeds of the 
 freight in the first instance, and the cargo only 
 held liable if the proceeds of the freight should 
 be insufficient. La Constancin, 2 W. Rob. 404 ; 
 4 Not. of Ca. 285 ; 10 Jur. 845. 
 
 Ship and Freight to be exhausted before 
 Cargo.] — In bottomry, ship and freight must be 
 first exhausted before resort can be had to cargo. 
 The Prince Ileyeiit, cited in The Dowthorjje, 2 
 W. Rob. 73, 85. 
 
 6. Condition of Loss or Payment. 
 
 Abandonment of Voyage.] — A bond becomes 
 payable upon the abamlunment of the v(yage 
 agreed upon in the bond. Tlie Ueligolatid. 
 Swabey, 491 ; 5 Jur. (K.s.) 1180. 
 
 " Constructive Total Loss."] — The master, in 
 order to raise money for necessary repairs, hypo- 
 thecated the ship and freight. The bottomry 
 bond contained a clause which provided that 
 the obligation should be void if the obligors 
 should pay in consequence of the loss of the ship 
 such an average as by custom would have become 
 due on the salvage, or if the ship should Vje 
 utterly lost, cast away or destroyed, in conse- 
 quence of the perils of the sea. The ship, on her 
 homeward voyage, met with such bad weather 
 as to be obliged to put into an intermediate port, 
 in a damaged state, and after being surveyed 
 was found unseawortby, and sold, while existing 
 in specie, for a sum less than the amount of the 
 bond : — Held, first, that the doctrine of construc- 
 tive total loss does not ap[ily to a bottomry liond, 
 a.s in the case of an insurance between in^uiers 
 and insured, and the Vjondholder was entitled to 
 the entire proceeds of the sale of the ship. Tlir 
 Great Pacific, G Moore. P. C. (N.S.) 151 ; H8 
 L. J.. Adm. 45 ; L. K. 2 P. C. 516 ; 21 L. T. 38 : 
 17 W. K. 1(33. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the clause in the bond did 
 not af)ply when the ship remained in specie, 
 though so much damaged that it would liave cost 
 more to repair her than she was worth. ///. 
 
 Insurance on Constructive Total Loss.] — Tlie 
 condition of a bntt<iiiiry lioiid jiidviili-d for Its 
 defeasance on pajment of tlie amount (jf the 
 bond, "or, in case of the loss of the ship fa- 
 vessel, such an average as by custom shall have 
 become due on the salvage, or if on the voyage 
 the ship or vessel should be utterly lost, cast 
 away, or destroyed." The ship having hccomc 
 a constructive total loss, the bondholder, by a 
 decree in the admiralty court, obtained jiayment 
 to liim of the proceeds of the ship, which had 
 been paid into court, and which were insufficient ; 
 the court holding that a bottomry bond was only 
 
 discharged by payment or by an absolute total 
 loss, and that the condition providing for defeas- 
 ance on payment of such average as by custom 
 should have become due, did not refer to the 
 case of a constructive total loss. In an action 
 by the bondholder on a policy of insurance upon 
 the bond : — Held, that the doctrine of con- 
 structive total loss was not applicable to a policy 
 of insurance on bottomry, and that the conchtion 
 of defeasance did not apply to the case of a 
 constructive total loss. Bloomjield v. Southern 
 Tmtrance Co.. 39 L. J., Ex. 186 ; L. R. 5 Ex. 192 ; 
 22 L. T. 371 ; 18 W. R. 810. 
 
 Voyage not completed through Act of Master, 
 or impossible.] — When money has been advanced 
 on bottomry, and the completion of the voyage 
 is prevented by the act of the master, or by 
 some impossibility which the bondholder cannot 
 control, he may convert his security under the 
 bond into a debt upon personal credit. Bond 
 granted in London stipulating that the money 
 should be paid within twenty-four hours of the 
 ship's arrival in the United States. The ship 
 sailed and put into Plymouth, where she was 
 condemned as unseaworthy. The bond was 
 pronounced for. The Dante, 2 W. Rob. 427. 
 
 A., intending to go a voyage, enters into a 
 bottomry bond, but the ship not going the 
 voyage, but lying all along safe in the port of 
 London, the court decreed the defendant should 
 lose the premium, and the bondholder accept of 
 his principal with usual interest. Deguilder v. 
 Depeifter, 1 Yern. 263. 
 
 Ship arriving, but of no Value.] — A bottomried 
 ship was captured, recaptured, repaired, salved, 
 and then arrived at her destination. She was 
 not worth the amount of the bond, repairs and 
 salvage : — Held, that the holder could recover 
 upon the bond. Joyce v. Williamson, 3 Dougl. 
 162. 
 
 Ship abandoned as Constructive Total Loss.] — 
 
 The bond is payable altiiough the vessel is driven 
 to a port for repairs ; and although she is 
 abandoned as a constructive total loss. The 
 Arinadillo, 1 W. Rob. 251 ; 1 Not. of Cas. 75. 
 
 In this case the bottomry bondholder is not 
 entitled to salvage. Ih. 
 
 Salvage — Total Loss.] — Where there is an 
 actual loss, the h nder in bottomry is not entitled 
 to salvage. The Aline, 1 W. Rob. 111. 
 
 Money lent on Adventure— Ship lost by Fault 
 of Owner. ; — l^cht on bond f..r2n(i/. ; conditioned 
 io Ijc vuid on payment of 125/. within twenty 
 days xi the shi|)"s arrival. Defence that tliesliip 
 was disaliied and did not arrive. Replication 
 that she was disabled througli the neglect of tiio 
 defendant in allowing her to fall into disrepair : 
 — Jiidgiiicnt for tlie plaintiff. Dottin y.Dowrich, 
 Lutw. 2(;s. 
 
 Deviation— Bond payable though Ship lost.] — 
 Bill in chancery by obligor in a penal bottomry 
 bond to pay lO.v. per month for .".0/. The ship 
 was to go from Holland to the Spain'sh islands 
 and so to England. .She went to the Spanish 
 islands, took in Moors in Africa, and so to P>ar- 
 bados. and perished afterwards. The plaintiff 
 being sued on the bond, sought relief in chancery, 
 pretending that the deviation was on necessity. 
 The bill was dismis.sed .save as to the penalty. 
 Anon. Ca. in Ch., pt. 2,1.30.
 
 SHIPPING— X. Bottomry. 
 
 223 
 
 Moncv was lent upon an obligation to repay 
 the same, with interest, upon return of the ship 
 from the si)ecitied voyage, unless the borrower 
 should prove her loss. She deviated from the 
 voyage, and was afterwards lost :— Held, that the 
 money was payable. Western v. Wildi/, Skinner, 
 l.-)2. 
 
 Pleading.]— Action of debt on bottomry. 
 
 Defendant pleads that the ship sailed from L. 
 to B. without deviation, and was lost on her 
 voyac-e home. Eeplication, that she deviated by 
 sailing from B. to J. Rejoinder, that the alleged 
 deviation was because of her being pressed into 
 the kind's service ; absque hoc, that she deviated 
 after being pressed. Demurrer ; adjudged for 
 the plaintiffs. WilUamg v. Steadman, Skinner, 
 345 ; Holt, 126. 
 
 Bill of Adventure— Pleading Loss by Perils of 
 Sea.] — Action on bond to proceed on voyage 
 and return, dangers of the sea excepted — " or if 
 the ship be lost before the return or payment, 
 to be void " ; plea, the ship was lost ; demurrer 
 on the ground that loss by perils of sea was 
 intended. Demurrer overruled, the plaintiff 
 should have replied that the ship was lost by 
 defendant's fault. Boddingtonv. Wotton, 2 Keb. 
 768. 
 
 Insurance by Lender on Bottomry.] — See post, 
 Goddart v. Garrett, post, tit. B. Maeixe Insur- 
 ance ; StainbanJi v. STiejjpard, ante, col. 196. 
 
 224 
 
 7. INTEEEST OE PREMIUM. 
 
 Eate of.]— No particular rate of interest is 
 essential, though when the ordinary or a low rate 
 of interest is taken it raises a suspicion that sea 
 risk was not intended, and sea risk is essential 
 to the jurisdiction of the court. The Royal Arch, 
 Swabev. 269 ; 6 W. R. 191. 
 
 The defendants having paid into the registry, 
 by order of the court, a sum of money which 
 proved larger than the amount finally pro- 
 nounced to "be due to the bondholder, the bond- 
 holder was nevertheless held entitled to the full 
 ordinarv interest upon the latter sum from the 
 date of "the bond becominar due. The Udmond, 
 Lush. 211 : 30 L. J., Adm. 128 : 2 L. T. 394. 
 
 The rate of interest ordinarily payable upon a 
 bottomrv loan and the premium thereon after 
 the safe arrival of the ship at the end of the risk 
 is 4 per cent, per annum, and a provision in a 
 bond entered into by the master of a ship, pro- 
 viding for the payment of 10 per cent, per annum 
 interest is not binding on the owners of ship or 
 cargo, provided the provision was entered into 
 without their knowledge. The B. H. Bills, 38 
 L. T. 786 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 20. 
 
 Premiums besides Interest.] — A bottomry bond 
 on ship, freight, and cargo provided for payment 
 of a bottomry loan, together with interest at 8 
 per cent., at or before the expiration of five days 
 after the arrival of the ship at her port of dis- 
 charge. The bond further provided that an 
 additional premium of 10 per cent, on the loan 
 should become payable if default was made in 
 payment. The ship having arrived at her port 
 of discharge, default was made in payment of 
 the bond, and a suit was instituted by the bond- 
 holder against ship, freieht. and cargo, to recover 
 
 the amount of the loan and interest, .and the 
 additional premium of 10 per cent. : — Held, that 
 the additional premium of 10 per cent, could not 
 be enforced against the cargo, but that the bond- 
 holder was entitled to interest at 4 per cent, 
 from the date when the bond became payable 
 until payment. Tlie Sophia Cook, 4 P. D. 
 30. 
 
 Bottomry Bond not providing for Payment of 
 
 Interest.] — The master of a Danish vessel being 
 without funds or credit at Hamburg, in order to 
 obtain necessaries to enable his vessel to proceed 
 on a voyage to Africa and back to London, 
 obtained a loan on the security of instruments by 
 which he pledged his vessel and bound himself 
 for the repayment of the sum advanced within 
 six days after the arrival of the vessel in London. 
 No stipulation was made for interest of any 
 kind :— Held, in an action of bottomry instituted 
 against the vessel, that the instruments were 
 valid bottomry bonds, and that the holders were 
 entitled to payment out of the proceeds of the 
 vessel of the sum advanced, together with 4 per 
 cent, interest from the time when the bonds 
 became due. The Ceoilie. 4 P. D. 210 ; 40 L. T. 
 200 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 78. 
 
 In a bottomry bond taken at Calcutta, blanks 
 had been left where the rate of interest ought to 
 have been expressed ; the court pronounced for 
 the bond, with such interest as the registrar 
 should find to have been usual on such risks at 
 the time and place the bond was taken. The 
 Change, Swabey, 240 ; 5 W. R. 547. 
 
 Interest, from what Date.] — Where the 
 bottomry bondholder is resident abroad, and has 
 no agent in this country, interest will not be pay- 
 able prior to the arrival of a power of attorney to 
 receive the principal. The New Brumwich, 1 
 W. Rob. 28. 
 
 First decree in bottomry suit. Interest from 
 decree to payment out of proceeds of ship refused. 
 The Exeter, 1 C. Rob. 173. 
 
 Excessive Premium — Power of Court to reduce.] 
 
 — The court of admiralty has power to reduce 
 the premium on bottomry bonds, but exercises it 
 with caution. Premium reduced from 20 to 12^ 
 per cent, on a voyage from Rochelle to London. 
 The Cogtmc, 2 Hag. Adm. 377. S. P., The Zodiac, 
 1 Hag. Adm. 320. 
 
 The court, judging the premium to be excessive, 
 will refer it to the registrar and merchants to be 
 reduced. The Jhintlcy, Lush. 24. 
 
 See also The Poniida, infra, col. 227, as to 
 the power of the registrar to reduce excessive 
 premium. 
 
 Court of Equity.] — The plaintiff lent 
 
 money on bottomry of a ship chartered to the 
 East India Company, who broke her up in India. 
 The bondholder brought his bill to have satisfac- 
 tion out of damages recovered against the com- 
 pany by the shipowner. Bill dismissed — "for a 
 court of equity wiU never assist a bottomry 
 bond which carries an unreasonable interest." 
 Dandy v. Turner, Eq. Ca. Abr. 372. 
 
 Does not Invalidate the Bond.] — Tlio 
 
 Lord Cochrane, 2 W. Rob. 312. S. P., The Laurel, 
 supra, cols. 199, 201. 
 
 Usury Laws.] — See Sharpley v. Hnrle. 
 
 supra, col. 2Ul.
 
 225 
 
 SHIPPING— X. Bottomry. 
 
 226 
 
 8. JUEISDICTIOX. 
 
 A bottomry bond given by a master with the 
 consent of the owner, upon a British ship, lying 
 in a British port, for a new voyage, cannot be 
 sued upon in the court of admiralty ; but it is 
 otherwise if the ship was lying in a foreign port. 
 Tlie Royal Arch, Swabey, 269^; 6 W. R. 191. 
 
 The court has jurisdiction in the case of a 
 bottomry bond given by a British subject on the 
 occasion of his purchasing a British ship abroad, 
 and raising money for her outfit to return home 
 and a new vovage. The Heligoland, Swabey, 
 491 ; 5 Jur. (nIs.) 1179. 
 
 The court has jurisdiction over bonds of respon- 
 dentia as over bottomry bonds. The Sultan, 
 Swabey, 504 ; 5 Jur. (x.s.) 10ii9. 
 
 Prohibition in bottomry refused. Lister v. 
 Baxter, 2 Str. 69.5. 
 
 The admiralty court has jurisdiction in case of 
 a bottomry bond given in the course of a voyage, 
 though executed on land and under seal. Mciie- 
 tone v. Gihhon.i. 3 Term Eej). 2t37. 
 
 The court of admiralty has jurisdiction in a 
 case of bottomry where a bond has been given, or 
 an agreement to execute a bond, though the ship 
 has never put to sea. The Aline, 2 W. Rob. 111. 
 
 See alto post, XXVI. ADlllEALTY LAW AND 
 Practice — Peohibitioxs. 
 
 Jurisdiction of Admiralty Court not Exclusive 
 — Chancery.] — A bill was filed to set aside a 
 buttoiiiry bond which had been given at Trieste 
 without any communication fiom the captain to 
 the owners in England, and ns was alleged, by a 
 fraudulent conspiracy between tlie captain and 
 the obligee. The court suppoited the bond, but, 
 at the request of the obligee, directed inquiries as 
 to the amount due on the bond. Glancutt v. 
 Lanfi, 2 Ph. 310 ; 2 Ph. 323 ; 16 L. J., Ch. 429 : 
 11 .Jur. 642. And see -S'. C, 3 Mvl. & Cr. 451 ; 
 8 Sim. 358 ; 2 Jur. 909. 
 
 The court of chancery had jurisdiction in 
 respect of bottomry bonds. Dohsoii v. Lyall, 2 
 Ph. 323. n ; 6 L. J., Ch. 115 ; 11 .Jur. 179. n. ; 3 
 Myl. & Cr. 433, n. And see S. C, 8 Jur. 969. 
 
 Injunction granted by the court of chancery 
 to restrain ])roceedings in the a<lmiralty court 
 upon a bottomry liond and as to freight, upon 
 the ground that there were equities that could 
 be determined onlv in chancery. Duncan v. 
 McCnlmont, 3 Beav. 409; 10 L. J., Ch. 335; 5 
 Jur. 262. 
 
 Of Eegistrar and Merchants.] — See The 
 
 Pontida, infra, col. 227. 
 
 9. Practice. 
 
 Action on Bond.] — ]n an action of bottomry 
 the original linml must be brought in before the 
 validity of the bond is pronounced for. The 
 Jtowenn, 37 L. T. 366 ; 26 W. R. 82 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 506. See The Jexine Nanette, infra, col. 227. 
 
 Owners of Cargo — Persona standi.] — Where 
 
 the result of the suit maiidy atrcctcd the owners 
 of the cargo Vjottomried, the court allowed them 
 to have a persona standi through the bondholder. 
 Tlic Union, Lusli. 128 ; 30 L. J., Adni. 17 ; 3 L. T. 
 280. 
 
 Proceedings by Default — Reference — Cargo 
 Owner.] — Tlie owner of a bottomry bond on shij), 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 freight and cargo, is, upon the conclusion of 
 proceedings by default against ship and freight, 
 entitled as of couree to have the full freight due 
 upon delivery of the cargo paid to him, in order 
 to satisfy the sum secured by the bond with 
 costs ; and the owner of the cargo, who has paid 
 the freiglit into court, is not entitled to a refer- 
 ence of the amount due on the bond, notwith- 
 standing that, before the execution of the bond, 
 part of his cargo was sold by the master, and 
 the proceeds applied to the ship's expenses. The 
 Gem of the JVith, Br. & Lush. 72. 
 
 Claim of Holder to Sum awarded for Loss of 
 Freight.] — Semble, where in an action for limi- 
 tation of liability a sum of money is awarded as 
 compensation for loss of freight to the owners of 
 a vessel run down by the plaintiff's ship, the 
 holder of a bottomry bond on the freight of the 
 vessel run down is entitled to claim, in respect 
 of the loan on bottomry, a portion of the sum 
 awarded for loss of freight. The JSmpusa, 
 48 L. J., Adm. 36 ; 5 P. D. 6 ; 41 L. T. 383 ; 
 28 W. E. 263 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 185. 
 
 Proof of Good Faith.] — In disputed cases of 
 bottomry bonds the court expects that, where it 
 is practicable, the master will, by his affidavit, 
 shew affirmatively the good faith of his own 
 transaction, and the circumstances relating to it. 
 The Faithful, 31 L. J., Adm. 81. 
 
 Onus — Prima facie Validity.] — Where the 
 court has decreed the sale of a shij) and cargo at 
 the suit of a bottomry bondhokler, whose right 
 has not been questioned by the owner of the 
 property, the bond must be taken to be prima 
 facie valid, and a bondholder has a right to 
 require any other claimant to the proceeds in 
 the registry to prove his interest before he can 
 be called on to defend and maintain his own 
 claim. The India, 32 L. J., Adm. 185 ; 9 Jur. 
 (N.s.) 417 ; 9 L. T. 234 ; 11 W. R. 536. 
 
 Liability of Bail.] — When in a bottomry suit 
 bail has been given generally to cover ship and 
 freight, but the shi|) only is hehl to be pledged 
 by the bond, the bail is only liable to the extent 
 of the value of the ship at the time of release 
 from arrest, and an iniiuiry will be directed to 
 ascertain that value. The Sta (ford shire, Smith 
 v. Jiunh of Xeii) South Wales, 8 Moore, P. C. 
 (N.S.) 443"; 41 L. J.. Adm. 49; L. R. 4 P. C. 
 194 ; 27 L. T. 46 ; 20 W. R. 557 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 365. 
 
 Consent to Decree not Eeecinded.] — Where a 
 defendant in adequate possession of the facts 
 has given his consent to a decree, pronouncing 
 for the validity of a bottomry bond, the court 
 will not rescind the decree, though the facts 
 might possibly raise a valid defence, according 
 to a decision i)ronounced subse<jiicntly to the 
 decree. The Glcnhnrn, Br. & Lush. 62; II 
 W. R. 6S5. 
 
 Pleading.] — Action on hond to jirocecd to sea 
 and to return, perils of the sea excepted ; and to 
 repay money advanced if the shiji return, and 
 if the shi|) be lost the bond to be void. Plea, 
 that the ship was lost; demurrer, that loss by 
 peril of the .sea was intemled. Demurrer over- 
 ruled, because if loss by defeiidant's default 
 was intended it should have been pleaded. 
 lioddinqton v. Wotton, 2 Keb. 768. 
 
 8
 
 227 
 
 SHIPPING— X. Boitomrji. 
 
 228 
 
 War — Enforcement of Bond after Termination 
 
 of. J — Bottomry bond put in suit by :i French 
 uierchfint in 1702 — siisiH'udecl durinf;; the war — 
 not enforced during the following peace ; then 
 further prosecuted by a British subject, the 
 indorsee, iu ISO-i : — Held, that the bond could 
 not be enforced in the original proceedings. 
 The Behccca, 5 C. Rob. 102. 
 
 Payment out of Court of Proceeds of Ship.] — 
 Bottomry bond against ship, freight and cargo ; 
 judgment against ship and freight by default, 
 the consignees of cargo contesting the bond. 
 The proceeds of ship and freight paid out of 
 court to the bondholders, notwithstanding the 
 opposition of the cargo owners, on the ground 
 tliat such proceeds might be liable to claims by 
 him in respect of cargo sold by the master to 
 pay for repairs or in lespect of costs. The Lord 
 Cochrane, 1 W. Rob. 312. 
 
 Jurisdiction of Registrar and Merchants — 
 Reduction of Premium. ] — The validity of a 
 respondentia bond having been admitted, it 
 was referred to the registrar and merchants to 
 decide what amount was payable thereunder. 
 The registrar and merchants reduced the full 
 amount of the bond by lessening the charges in 
 respect of certain metal and felt supplied to the 
 ship, commissions payable to the agents, and 
 the premium on the bond, on the ground that 
 the amounts charged were unreasonable. The 
 plaintifEs objected to the reduction, and filed 
 pleadings in objection to the report : — Held, that 
 it was within the jurisdiction of the registrar 
 and merchants to reduce the amount payable 
 under the bond, since the defendants were not 
 bound to pay more than such sum as was 
 required to pay for things actually iiecessary for 
 the ship, and at a reasonable rate. The Pontida, 
 53 L. J., Adm. 78 ; 9 P. D. 177 : 51 L. T, 849 ; 
 33 W. R. 38 ; .5 Asp. M. C. 330— C. A. 
 
 Held, also, that as the premium on the bond 
 was excessive it had been rightly reduced, and 
 that the report must be confirmed. li. 
 
 See also 7. Interest or Premium, supra. 
 
 Rights of Execution Creditor and Bondholder.] 
 
 — The owner of a ship charged her for repairs done 
 in England by instrument under seal stated to 
 be by way of bottomry. She was arrested by 
 admiralty process, and sold to satisfy the claim 
 for repairs, and no appeal from the decree. 
 Whilst the suit was pending a writ of execution 
 issued against the shipowner at the suit of 
 another creditor. The sheriff cannot seize the 
 ship, nor maintain trover for her against the 
 admiralty ofticer. Ladhrohe v. Crichett, 2 Term 
 Rep. 649 ; 1 R. R. .071. 
 
 Original Bond in Foreign Court.] — The court 
 will not proceed upon an otticial or notarial copy 
 of a bottomry bond, the original of which is 
 preserved in a foreign court, without a certificate 
 that no further copy has been or will be issued. 
 The Jeune Nanette, 4 W. R. 92. See The Itowcna, 
 26 W. R. 82, supra, col. 225. 
 
 Amount of Freight to he paid into Court to 
 meet Bond — Advances by Charterer — Part Cargo 
 sold.] — A ship was chartered to go to a port of 
 loading, there to load and return, freight payable 
 as per sale. On the voyage out the master 
 hypothecated the cargo to be shipped, and the 
 ship and freight. At the port of loading advances 
 
 were made to the master by the charterers' 
 agent, with notice of the bond. On the voyage 
 home the master sold jiart of the cargo to pay 
 ship's expenses: — Held, that the charterers 
 might deduct the advances made abroad accord- 
 ing to the charter, and by the charter declared 
 to be deducted on settling freight, from the 
 amount of chartered freight to be paid into 
 court in respect of the bond ; also that the 
 freight which would have been payable upon the 
 goods sold should be deducted ; also that advances 
 made to the master beyond the sum stipulated 
 for in the charter should not be deducted, nor 
 the value of the goods sold. The Salacla, Lush. 
 578. 
 
 Liability of Freight earned from Sub-shippers.] 
 
 — Freight earned from sub-shippers of goods by 
 permission of charterers of the whole ship is 
 liable, as against the charterers, in payment of a 
 bottomry bond given at the charterers' port for 
 advances subsequent to the charterparty. The 
 Eliza, 3 Hag. Adm. 87. 
 
 Action against Master — Arrest of Ship.] — A 
 
 master, not a part owner, gave a bottomry bond. 
 The holder being unable to arrest the ship, the 
 bond being not yet payable, was about to sue 
 the master. He applied for a warrant to arrest 
 the ship, which was at Leith, to pi'event her 
 going to sea. Form of order made. The Luco- 
 dtcii, 12 Ct. of Sess. Gas. (4th ser.), 1090. 
 
 Proceedings abandoned — Fresh Proceedings 
 instituted.] — Parties who have abandoned pro- 
 ceedings irpon an alleged bottomry bond will 
 not be allowed, except upon strong grounds 
 shewn, to institute fresh proceedings upon the 
 same bond. The Fortitudo, 2 Dods. 58. 
 
 10. Costs. 
 
 Validity admitted — Amounts disputed.] — 
 
 Where the bond is admitted to be valid, and 
 referred to the registrar and merchants to report 
 the amount due, the plaintiff is usually entitled 
 to the general costs of the reference, but will be 
 condemned in costs clearly occasioned by im- 
 properly persisting in claims which cannot be 
 sustained. The Kepler-, Lush. 201. 
 
 Foreigners Ignorant of the Law.] — Where the 
 
 holders of a bond (foreigners) had acted solely 
 under a misapprehension of English law, the 
 court pronounced against the bond, but without 
 costs. The North Star, Lush. 45 ; 29 L. J., Adm. 
 73 ; 2 L. T. 264. 
 
 Arrest before Bond payable.] — Where the 
 holders of a bottomry bond, on ship and freight, 
 payable seven days after the arrival of the ship, 
 being apprehensive that her cai'go would be dis- 
 charged forthwith, and their security diminished, 
 instituted a bottomry suit, after the arrival of 
 the ship and before the expiration of the seventh 
 day, and arrested the ship, the court, on the 
 application of the owners of the ship, who had 
 paid the amount of the bonds and interest into 
 court, condemned the plaintiffs in costs. The 
 Eitdora, 48 L. J., Adm. 32 ; 4 P. D. 208 ; 40 L. T. 
 166 ; 4 Asp. M. G. 78. 
 
 Large Deductions made by Registrar.] — 
 Where, the bond having been pronounced for, 
 large deductions are made by the registrar and
 
 229 
 
 SHIPPING— XI. Charterparhj. 
 
 230 
 
 merchants, the bondholder will be liable to 
 the costs of the reference. The CatJterine, 
 3 W. Rob. 1. 
 
 XI. CHARTERPARTY. 
 
 1. Stamping, 229. 
 
 2. TJte Contract. 
 
 a. Parties, 230. 
 
 b. Legality, 235. 
 
 c. Generally. 
 
 i. Form and Construction, 236. 
 
 ii. Law applicable, 240. 
 iii. Proceeding to a Port, or as near as the 
 
 Ship can safely get, 242. 
 iv. Frost preventing Loading, 245. 
 
 V. Sailing, 246. 
 vi. Other Provisions, 247. 
 vii. Evidence to Explain, 252. 
 
 d. Alteration, Variation and Cancellation, 
 
 254. 
 e. Conditions and Warranties. 
 i. Class of Ship, 256. 
 ii. Seaworthiness and Fitness, 257. 
 iii. Position and Sailing, 260. 
 iv. Capacity, 270. 
 
 3. Exemptions frovi Liahility, 273. 
 
 4. Provisions as to Bills of Lading and Documents, 
 
 278. 
 -5. Performance. 
 
 a. Nominating Port, 280. 
 
 I. Hostile and Blockaded Ports, 281. 
 
 c. Deviation and Delay, 286. 
 
 d. Enforcing in Equity, 291. 
 
 ■6. Liahility of Charterer or Agent, 292. 
 
 7. Demise of Ship, 294. 
 
 6. Pleadings, Evidence, Damages, 297. 
 
 See also XII. Bill op Lading ; XIII. 
 Freight ; XIV. Demurrage ; XV. Cargo. 
 
 1. Stamping. 
 See rA & 55 Vict. c. 39. 
 
 Under previous Statutes.] — Brokers signed a 
 jiroperly-stamped charterparty as agents for their 
 principals, and then, at the request of the owner 
 •of the ship, signed a guarantee as follows : " In 
 consideration of our having signed the charter- 
 
 l)arty of as agents of , we heieby 
 
 guarantee the due fulfilment of same" : — Held, 
 that this docuinerit was sufficiently stamfjcd 
 with a sixpenny stamp, as an agreement, and 
 ■need not be stamped as a charterjiarty or an 
 agi-eement for or relating to the freight or con- 
 veyance of money, goods and eflects (ju board a 
 ship, under 5 Ac 6 Vict. c. 79, s. 2. Itcin y.Lanc, 
 8 B. & S. 83 ; 36 L. J., Q. B. 81 ; L. R. 2 Q. B. 
 144 ; 15 L. T. 46(; ; 15 W. R. .34.5. 
 
 A copy of the charter signed by or on behalf 
 of the charterer, though that copy is signed by 
 the shipowner, is a copy, and admissible un- 
 stamped, if there is any evidence that the 
 original was stamped. Smith v. Magvire, 1 
 F. & F. 199. See S. C, 3 H. &. N. 554 ; 27 L. J., 
 Ex. 465 ; 6 W. R. 726. 
 
 It is for the objector to a copy, even if a char- 
 terparty, on the ground that the original was not 
 stamped, to make out that fact ; at all events, 
 very slight evidence to the contrary will be suffi- 
 cient to rebut the objection, and a memorandum 
 on the charter. " the brokers hold the original, 
 ^stamped," is sufficient. Ih. 
 
 An unstamped charterparty was, within four- 
 teen days allowed, by 5 & 6 Vict. c. 79, s. 21, for 
 stamping such an instrument without payment 
 of a penalty, delivered at the office of the sub- 
 distributor of stamps at CardifE, for the purpose 
 of being transmitted to London to be stamped, 
 the proper amount of stamp duty and postage 
 being left with it. The clerk in that office, to 
 whom it was delivered, proveil that he sent to 
 London all documents left with him for that pur- 
 pose, but he had no recollection of the document 
 in question. The clerks in the office in London 
 were unable to say whether or not the document 
 reached their hands, but they said that, if it did, 
 it would, in the usual course, be returned to the 
 district office in the country. The clerk at CardifE 
 ( ould not say whether the document was returned 
 to him or not, but he stated that, on search being 
 made for it, no trace of it could be discovered : — 
 Held, that this sufficiently raised a presumption 
 that the document was stamped, so as to let in 
 secondary evidence of its contents. Closmadeuo 
 V. Carrel, 18 C. B. 36 ; 25 L. J., C. P. 216 ; 2 
 Jur. (N.s.) 474 ; 4 W. R. 547. 
 
 Executed Abroad — Evidence.] — A charter- 
 party executed entirely abroad, and stamped 
 within two months after it had been received in 
 this country, can be received in evidence, since 
 it falls within the provisions of 33 & 34 Vict. 
 c. 97, s. 15, and not of ss. 67 & 68 of that act. The 
 Belfort, 53 L. J., Adm. 88 ; 9 P. D. 215 ; 51 L. T. 
 271 ; 33 W. R. 171 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 291. 
 
 2. The Contract. 
 a. Parties. 
 
 Mistake as to.] — Action by charterer on a 
 charterparty. Defence, that the charterparty 
 was made between the defendant and a com- 
 pany, and not the plaintiff. Reply, that the 
 agreement was between the plaintill and the 
 defendant ; that in drawing up the charterparty 
 one of the company's jirinted forms was used, on 
 which the name of the company appeared as 
 charterers ; that by the mistake of the plaintiif 
 and the defendant the company's name was 
 omitted to be struck out, and remained instea<l 
 of the plaintifFs name ; that the charterparty 
 was signed by tlie plaintilf and the defendant, 
 and it was intended and agreed that the plaintiff 
 should be liable and entitled under it : — Held, 
 that it was unnecessary that the charterparty 
 should be rectified, and that flu; reply was good. 
 Jircxhiuer v. Bar wick, 36 L. T. 52 ; 3 Asp. JI. C. 
 353. 
 
 To an action on a charterparty for not loading, 
 the defendants jjleaded that they entered into 
 the charterparty solely as agents for D., and that, 
 before they signed, it "was agiecl that they were 
 only to sign as agents, so as to bind ])., an<l not 
 to render themselves liable as principals for flic 
 performance of the cluirteriiarty, and that they 
 signed it as follows, "For D. T. and 1 1., agents" ; 
 they and the plaintiff bona fide believing at the 
 time that fhev, having so signed, would not be 
 personally liable, and that tlicy had power to 
 bind D., Jind thiit he was bound h\ it, and liable 
 to be sued, and that the jdainliff was inequitably 
 taking advantage of the mistake in drawing the 
 charterparty so as to make the defendants per- 
 sonally liable as charterers, contrary to the 
 
 8—2
 
 231 
 
 SHirriNG— XI. Chartcrparty. 
 
 232" 
 
 intention of the plaii.tiff and the defendants : — 
 Held, that the ]i!ca was good on e(iuitablc grounds, 
 and also a aood jilea at law. Wohf v. llarroj), 
 1 H. & C. 202 : :U L. J.. Ex. 451 ; 8 Jur. (n.s.) 
 845 ; 7 L. T. 96 ; 10 VV. 11. G2G— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Charterparty under Seal — Execution by 
 Agents.] — A cliarterparty under seal cannot be, 
 executed by an agent not authorised under seal. 
 Horsley v. 'Rush, cited, 7 Term Rep. 209. 
 
 Master may Sue without joining Co-owners.] 
 
 — The master, a part owner, may sue above upon 
 a charterparty made between himself and the 
 charterer, without joining the other part owneis. 
 Seeger v. Duthle, 8 C. B. (N.s.) 72 ; 30 L. J., C. P. 
 (55 ; 7 Jur. (N.S.) 239 ; 3 L. T. 478 ; 9 W. K. 166 
 —Ex. Ch. 
 
 Who entitled to Sue — Principal or Agent.] — In 
 
 an action on a charterparty executed not by the 
 plaintiff biit by a third person, who in the con- 
 tract described himself as " owner of the ship " : 
 — Held, that evidence was not admissible to 
 shew that such person contracted merely as the 
 plaintiff's agent. Humhle v. Hunter, 12 Q. B. 
 310 ; 17 L. J., Q. B. 350. 
 
 A declaration alleged a charteryjarty to be 
 made " between A., therein described as the 
 owner of the good ship called, &c., of the one 
 part, and S., merchant and freighter, of the other 
 part." The charterparty when produced was 
 expressed to be made between A. of the one part 
 and S., " as agent of the freighter," of the other 
 part, and stipulated that, " being concluded on 
 behalf of another party, it is agreed that all 
 responsibility on the part of S. cease as soon as 
 the cargo is shipped." No principal was named 
 in the charterparty, and it appeared that S. was, 
 in point of fact, himself the real freighter, and 
 not merely an agent in the matter : — Held, that 
 he was entitled to sue as principal for a breach 
 of the charterparty, notwithstanding he had 
 contracted as agent, and that the above stipula- 
 tion applying only to his character of agent, had 
 not the effect of limiting his responsibility as 
 principal. Scludintz or Sclimalz v. Avery, 16 
 Q. B. 655 ; 20 L. J., Q. B. 228 : 15 Jur.29L 
 
 A contract for the conveyance of goods from 
 Liverpool to Australia was entered into as follows : 
 "It is this day mutually agreed between J. 
 and R. W., owners of the ship ' Jessica,' of the 
 first part, and S. J. C. of the other part," that 
 the ship should be ready by a given day to take 
 on board certain goods, and should proceed there- 
 with to Geelong and there deliver the same : 
 " the rates of freight determined upon by the 
 parties to this agreement are as under," &c., 
 " one-third to be paid in London, on receipt of 
 bills of lading, and the remainder by the Gee- 
 long and Melbourne Railway Company, at 
 Geelong " ; " goods to be taken on board at Liver- 
 pool at ship's expense " ; and the agreement was 
 signed " J. and R. W., S. J. C." :— Held, that 
 S. J. C. was personally bound by this contract 
 and entitled to sue foi- a breach of it. Cooke v. 
 WlUon, 1 C. B. (N.S.) 153 ; 26 L, J., C. P. 15 ; 2 
 Jur. (N.S.) 1094 ; 5 W. R. 24. 
 
 Whilst a vessel was yet to arrive, the char- 
 terer's agents (the consignees of the cargo) 
 appropriated the cargo and indorsed the bill of 
 lading through other persons to the plaintiffs. 
 The ship was delayed and the cargo damaged. 
 The plaintiffs sustained no loss by deterioration, 
 tor under their contract they paid for the cargo 
 
 after deductions settled by arbitration for the 
 damage done to it : — Held, that they were 
 entitled to sue in their own names or even as 
 trustees for the consignees. The Wilhelm Schmidt, 
 25 L. T. 34 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 82. 
 
 Broker for Commission under.] — A charter- 
 party made between captain and charterers 
 contained a clause providing for payment o£ 
 commission to the broker for negotiating the 
 charter : — Held, that the broker could not sue- 
 in rem under the County Courts Admiralty Juris- 
 diction Amendment Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 51), 
 s. 2, sub-s. 1, as he was not a party to the charter. 
 The Kuova Raff'acUna, 41 L. J., Adm. 37 ; L. R. 
 3 A. & E. 483 ; 24 L. T. 321 ; 20 W. R. 216 ; 1 
 Asp. M. G. 16. 
 
 Liability to he Sued — Principal or Agent.] — 
 
 The defendants, acting as agents for L., chartered 
 a ship for the conveyance of a cargo of curi'ants 
 from the Ionian Islands. The charterparty was- 
 expressed to be made and was signed by tire- 
 defendants as "agents to merchants," the nauje 
 of the principal not being disclosed : — Held, that 
 evidence was admissible in an action by the ship- 
 owners against the defendants upon the charter- 
 party, of a trade usage, by which, if the name of 
 the principal is not disclosed within a reasonable- 
 time, the agents themselves are personally liable. 
 Hvtchinmn v. Tathnm. 42 L. J., C. P. 260 : 
 L. R. 8 C. P. 482 : 29 L. T. 103 ; 22 W. R. 18. 
 
 The plaintiffs and defendants entered into a. 
 charter of the ship R. to load a cai-go of deals. 
 In the body of the charter the defendants were 
 described as follows :" It is this day mutually 
 agreed between Messrs. J. H. & Co., of New- 
 castle, for owners of the good ship R." The 
 defendants signed the charterparty at the foot, as- 
 follows : " For owners, J. H. & Co." A cargo was 
 loaded on board the ship at Hudigsval, and the 
 captain signed a bill of lading for it, stating that 
 he had received it in good condition. The cargo 
 was ultimately delivered to the plaintiffs at Glou- 
 cester, and was found on delivery to have been 
 injured to the extent of 50Z. In an action by the- 
 plaintiffs against the defendants for the damage, 
 in a county court, three letters, which had pas.sed 
 between the plaintiffs and the defendants and. 
 their solicitors, were admitted, and as soon as 
 the plaintiffs' evidence was closed, the defen- 
 dants' solicitor objected that there was no- 
 evidence against the defendants as principals, 
 and applied for a nonsuit, on the ground that it 
 appeared upon the charterparty that the defen- 
 dants were not principals but only agents of 
 the owner. The judge overruled the objection, 
 and decided that the defendants were liable as 
 principals. On an appeal : — Held, that there 
 was evidence to support the decision that the 
 defendants were liable as principals. Adams v.. 
 Hall, 37 L. T. 70 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 1. 
 
 Action on a contract alleged to have been 
 made by the defendant, to charter a ship for the 
 plaintiff. Proof, that the defendant made a. 
 memorandum of charterparty in B.'s name, and 
 purporting to be signed by the defendant as 
 agent of B. ; that the defendant had no authority 
 to contract for B., and knew that he had none, 
 and that B. refused to adopt the contract : — 
 Held, that the defendant was not liable as prin- 
 cipal in an action on the contract itself, and a, 
 nonsuit was entered. Jeuhinn v. Hutchinson, 13 
 Q. B. 744 ; 18 L. J., Q. B. 274. 
 
 By charterparty it was agreed between the-
 
 233 
 
 SHIPPING— XI. CharterparUf. 
 
 234 
 
 plaintiflF, owner irf a ship, and the defendants, of 
 London, mercliants. that the ship should proceed 
 to T., and there load from the factors of the 
 merchants a full and complete cargo at the 
 merchants' risk and expense, which the mer- 
 chants bound themselves to shi() : and being so 
 loaded should proceed to Merael. and deliver the 
 same on being paid freight, half to be paid on 
 unloading, in cash, and the remainder in good 
 ■bills on London : thirty running days to be 
 allowed the merchants for loading at T. and dis- 
 charging at Memel. '• By authority of and as 
 agents for S. of Jlemel. R. and F., J. M L." 
 (signatures of the defendants and the plaintiff) : 
 — Held, that the defendants were contracting 
 parties, and therefore were personally liable for 
 breach of the charterpartv. Lennard v. lluhin- 
 son, 5 El. & Bl. 125 ; 3 C." L. R. 1363 ; 21 L. J., 
 •Q. B. 275 ; 1 Jut. (N.s.) 853. 
 
 A memorandum of charterparty was exjiressed 
 to be made between '• P., of the good ship ' C.,' and 
 W., agent for E. W. & Son," to whom the ship 
 was to be addressed. It was signed by W., with- 
 out any restriction : — Held, that he was per- 
 sonally liable as charterer. Parlter v. Winlow. 
 7 El. & Bl. 942; 27 L. J., Q. B. 49; 4 Jur. 
 (x.s.) 64. 
 
 A charterparty was made in the following 
 ■terms : "It is this day mutually agreed between 
 (jcorge Dcslandes & Son, owners of the siiip 
 •called ' The Deslandes,' now lying in the port of 
 London, of the one part, and Messrs. Gregory 
 Brothers, as agents to Samuel Ferguson, of Ana- 
 maboo, merchants and charterers, of the other 
 part." and was signed, "For George Deslandes 
 & Son, of Jersey, owners, H. Gammon, as agent ; 
 for Samuel Ferguson, Esq., of Anamaboo, 
 ■Gregory Brotheis, as agents " : — Held, that 
 Gregory Brothers were not personally liable. 
 Dedandes v. Gregory, 2 El. & El. 602 ; 30 L. J., 
 Q. B. 36 : 6 Jur. (N.S.) 6.-,l : 2 L T. 634 ; 8 W. K. 
 685— Ex. Ch. 
 
 On the 24th of June the defendants, who 
 were shipbrokcrs, wrote to the plaintiffs, oflEering 
 them "room" in a ship called "F. K. Dumas," 
 for certain cement and stone from London to 
 Callao. On the 25th of June the defendants 
 chartered the ship for the voyage, the charter- 
 party providing, inter alia, that the whole ship 
 fhould be at the disposal of the charterers, except 
 the space necessary for the crew and stores ; 
 that the master and owners should give the same 
 sittcntion to the cargo, and in every respect be 
 responsible to all whom it might concern, as if 
 the ship were loaded at her l)crtli liy and for the 
 owners. inde[)cndcntly of tiie charter ; that ihe 
 master was to sign bills of lading at any rate of 
 freight the charterers might refjuire, without 
 l»rcjudice to the charterparty ; and that the 
 ■charterers' respfinsjbility, except for freight, 
 sliould cease on tlic vessel Vjcing loaded. On the 
 26th of June an agreement w.-is made between 
 the defendants, acting for the owners of the 
 •• F. K. Dumas," and the plaintiffs, tliat ihe former 
 should receive on board cement and stone, at 
 certain freight, from London to Callao, and sail 
 •on a certain day : freight to be paid mie-lialf on 
 .signing bills of lading, and the remainder on 
 final discharge at Callao. The cement and stone 
 were shipped, the half freight i)aid, and tlie 
 master signed bills of lading, making the 
 remainder payable at Callaf). On her voyage, 
 the ship, being damaged by bad weather. \mt into 
 an intermediate jjort, where the vessel was con- 
 •demned. The master, being unable to forward 
 
 the plaintiffs' goods to their destination, sold 
 them. In an action against the defendants for 
 their value, the jury found that the sale was 
 not justified : — Held, that, on the construction 
 of the above documents, there was no contract 
 between the plaintifEs and the defendants for 
 the carriage of the goods from Loudon to Callao. 
 Wafjstfff'y. A»di'rson. 49 L. J., C. P. 485 ; c 
 C. P. D". 171 ; 42 L. T. 720 ; 28 W. R. 856— C. A. 
 A charterparty, on its face, purported to be 
 accepted by M. G. by procuration of T. G. To 
 shew the authority of M. G., evidence was 
 adduced that T. G., although resident in Lon- 
 don, carried on business of a corn factor at 
 Limerick, where the charterparty was executed, 
 and that M. G. was his brother, and had the 
 general management of his business and ware- 
 houses there, and was in the habit of sending 
 great quantities of corn to London by vessels 
 hired and the charterparties signed by him, by 
 procuration of T. G. : — Held, that the jury was 
 at liberty to find that M. G. had a general 
 authority so as to bind the brother, although in 
 fact no authority had been given by him to 
 execute this charterparty, and it was one in 
 which he had no interest. Smith v. M'Guire, 
 3 H. & N. 554 : 27 L. J., Ex. 465 ; 6 W. R. 726. 
 <S'. C, at nisi prius, 1 F. & F. 199. 
 
 Agent of Government.] — A person enter- 
 ing into a charterparty in his own name, on 
 behalf of government, is personallj' liable. 
 Cunniwiliani v. Collier, 4 Dougl. 233. 
 
 Agent for the Charterer,] — See HoiighY. 
 
 2fanzcnw.s, infra, col. 294. 
 
 Partner.] — To a declaration for freight 
 
 due on a charter))aity made between the plain- 
 tiff as owner, and \\' . & Co. as merchants and 
 freighters, they pleaded that they entered into 
 the charterparty solely as agents for M. ; and 
 that, before they signed the charterparty, it was 
 agreed and understood they were only to sign 
 it as such agents, and were not to make them- 
 selves liable as principals for the payment of 
 the freight to become due under su('li charter; 
 that they signed as follows, "For JI., of C, 
 W. k. Co., agents," the defendants and the 
 plaintiff bona fide believing at the time the 
 charter was made that they having so signed 
 would not be liable to be sued on the charter; 
 that they hail power to bind M., and that the 
 ])l;uiitiff" was inequitaljly taking advantage of 
 their mistake in drawing the charter. At the 
 trial the defendant, who signed the charter- 
 party on behalf of the defendants" firm, deposetl 
 to a conversation bctwecTi himself and the plain- 
 tiff at the time of signing the ch.irtcr, wliicli 
 supported the jilea ; the plaintiff adniilted that 
 the defendant had correctly testified to what lie, 
 the defendant, had said, but aHirmed that he, 
 the plaintiff, had said nothing, or if he ha<l 
 made anv remark he could not then, at the trial, 
 rememb("r what he lia<l said. The judge <Iirccte<l 
 tlie jury that if they believcil Ihe defendant lijul 
 at the time of signing expressed his intention 
 not to render his firm personally liable by so 
 doing they were to find for thi; defendants, 
 wiiieh they accnnlingly did :— Held on a motion 
 for a new' trial on the ground of misdirection, 
 inasmuch as the judge should have gone on to 
 tell the jury that'they must find that the jJain- 
 tiff was an assenting party to the defendant's 
 expression of his intention not to render his
 
 235 
 
 SHIPPING— XI. Chavterparty. 
 
 23(J 
 
 firm liable by his sign.iture to the charter, that 
 the whole of the facts having been before the 
 juiy, the fhrectiou was sutticieut to bring before 
 the jury the issue they had to decide. Cowle v. 
 Witt, 23 W. R. 7G. 
 
 Adding Parties— Or d. XVI. rr. 11, 48— Non- 
 joinder of Party residing out of the Jurisdic- 
 tion.] — A defendant cannot claim as of right to 
 have his joint contractor in a charterparty, wlio 
 is resident out of the jurisdiction, added as a 
 party under Ord. XVI. r. 11. Wilson v. Killlcli, 
 68 L. T. 312 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 275. 
 
 Recovery by One not a Party — Deed Poll.] — 
 
 Cliarterpart}^ by indenture sealed and delivered, 
 but not being inter partes, whereby the defen- 
 dant covenanted to pay for tlie hire of the ship 
 a certain sum to B., master and part owner, and 
 to C. 300Z. : — Held, that the indenture being in 
 the nature of a deed poll, C. could recover upon 
 it. Cooker v. Cldld, 2 Lev. 74. 
 
 If a charterparty is expressed to be made 
 between A., owner of the ship whereof B. is 
 master, and C. ; and contains covenants by C. 
 with A. and B. : B. cannot sue thereon, although 
 he seals and delivers the instrument. Scudamure 
 V. Vandenstoiie, 2 Rol. Abr. 22 ; 2 Co. Inst. 673. 
 
 Authority of Master to bind Cargo Owner — 
 Charterparty on Transhipment of Cargo.] — See 
 
 Matthews v. Gibbs, infra, col. 434. 
 
 Charterparty, when binding on Dissenting 
 Part Owners.] — The Vindobala, supra, col. 55. 
 
 b. Leg-ality. 
 
 Cargo of Hay — Landing Forbidden.] — By a 
 charterparty made by the charterer's agent in 
 France, a ship was chartered, and it was stipu- 
 lated that the ship sliould load a cargo of pressed 
 hay at Trouville, in France, and proceed direct 
 to London ; and all cargo was to be brought and 
 taken from ship alongside. Tlie agent verbally 
 told the master that the consignees would require 
 the hay to be delivered at a particular wharf 
 in the port of London, to which the master 
 assented. On arriving in that port the master 
 was vmable to land the hay at the wharf, by 
 reason of an order in council under the Con- 
 tagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 18G9, forbidding 
 hay from a French port to be landed in the 
 United Kingdom. The order had been made 
 before the charterparty was entered into, but 
 neither party knew of it. After some delay the 
 charterer received the hay from alongside the 
 ship into another vessel, and exported it. There 
 was no legal obstacle to doing this, but eighteen 
 days were allowed by the charterer to elapse 
 beyond the lay days. The shipowner having 
 brought an action for this detention of his ship, 
 the charterer contended that the contract was 
 for an illegal purpose, and therefore void : — 
 Hold, that although it was the intention of the 
 parties, when the charterparty was entered into, 
 to land the hay at London, yet as the contract 
 was not made knowingly with the intention to 
 violate the law, and as it could be carried out 
 (as it ultimately was) without violating the law, 
 it was not void ; and the charterer was, there- 
 fore, liable for the demurrage. Wauqh v. Morris, 
 42 L. J., Q. B, 57 ; L. E. 8 Q. B. 202 ; 28 L. T. 
 265 ; 21 W. R. 438. See also Haines v. Bush, 
 post, col. 285. 
 
 Navigation Laws — Crown not bound by.]^ 
 The navigation laws are not binding on the 
 crown so as to prevent the conveyance of public 
 stores fi-om one colony to another. The Smfty 
 5 C. Rob. 320. 
 
 c. Generally. 
 
 i. Form and Construction. 
 
 As to Freight.] — See post, XIII. Freight.. 
 
 As to Cargo.] — See post, XV. Caego. 
 
 Early Charterparty.] — Declaration reciting 
 charterparty, dated 1698. Thornton c. Bethel, 
 
 Lutw. 704. 
 
 Intention.] — It is important not to give to a 
 mercantile instrument such as a charterparty an 
 imnecessarily strict construction, but such a con- 
 struction as with reference to the context and 
 the object of the contract would effectuate the 
 obvious and expressed intention of the parties. 
 Dlmech v. Corlett, 12 Moore, P. C. 199. 
 
 Agreement not in Writing.] — An agreement 
 between the owners and the merchants for the 
 employment of a ship on a voyage, not in writing 
 but acted upon by the parties, is equivalent to 
 a charterparty. Lidefett v. Williams, 4 Hare, 
 4G2; 14 L. J., Ch. 459. 
 
 Ratification by Master of,] — Gr., a shipbroker 
 at G. G., chartered tlie Finnish vessels F. andM. 
 prior to their arrival at G. G., and without com- 
 munication with the owners. G. had on several 
 previous occasions chartered the F. and M. 
 under similar circumstances, and all of these- 
 charterparties had been carried into effect.. 
 After the arrival of the F. and M. at G. G. their- 
 masters were on several occasions at G.'s office., 
 and were shewn their charterparties. A fort- 
 niglit after the vessels' arrival at G. G., during 
 which time freights had risen, the masters 
 refused to take up the charterparties : — Held, 
 that the masters, by their conduct, had not 
 ratified the charterparties in such a way as to 
 make the act a complete ratification. The 
 Fayiny, The Mathilda, 48 L. T. 771 ; 5 Asp.. 
 M. C. 75— C. A. 
 
 Insurance — Reference to Charterparty — Bill: 
 of Lading — Sale at Price to include Cost, Insu- 
 rance and Freight.] — A. & Co., merchants in. 
 France, agreed with B., a merchant at Glasgow, 
 to buy a cargo of 1,000 tons of coal at a certain, 
 price per ton, to include cost, insurance and 
 freight to Rochefort. B. chartered a steamer in 
 his own name to carry the coal, and at the 
 request of A. & Co. put on board thirty tons 
 of iron bought by him for A. & Go. The 
 charterparty exempted the shipowners from. 
 liability for loss from dangers of navigationi 
 caused by negligence of master or crew. B.. 
 took a bill of lading in his own name, exempt- 
 ing the shipowners from liability for loss by 
 dangers of navigation (no mention of negli- 
 gence), and bound the shipowners to deliver "oa 
 being paid freight, all other conditions as per 
 charter." The bill of lading for the iron was- 
 in similar form, but made uo reference to the 
 charter. B. insured the coals and iron in his- 
 own name and in the name of all to wdiom the- 
 same might appertain, for sums exceeding the 
 invoice price. On the ship sailing, B. sent 
 A. & Co. the bills of lading indorsed to them, and: 
 the charterparty. The ship and cargo were lost
 
 237 
 
 SHIPPING— XI. Charta-partij. 
 
 by negligence of master and crew. B. received 
 the insurance moneys, and credited A. & Co. 
 with the invoice prices of the iron and coals. 
 
 A. & Co.. in the interest of the insurers, sued 
 
 B. for nondelivery according to bill of lading : — 
 Held, as to the coals, that they became the 
 property of A. &; Co. on shipment, and that 
 the pursuers were entitled to recover ; the 
 negligence clause not being imported into the bill 
 of lading : — Held, also, as to the iron, that the 
 pursuers, being subject to the conditions of the 
 charterparty, were not entitled to recover. 
 Belaurier v. Wi/llie, 17 Ct. of Sess. Gas. (ith ser.) 
 167. 
 
 Bill of Lading differing from Charterparty.] — 
 
 The plamtitf chartered the defendant's ship for 
 carriage of a cargo of cotton-seed from Alex- 
 andria to the United Kingdom, The charter- 
 party provided that the master was to sign bills 
 of lading at any rate of freight and as customary 
 at port of lading without prejudice to the stipu- 
 lation of the charterparty. There was also a 
 cesser of liability clause. A cargo was shipped 
 under the charterparty at Alexandria by and on 
 account of the charterers, and a bill of lading 
 was given containing an exception, which was 
 not in the charterparty, protecting the ship- 
 owners from liability for damage arising from 
 any act, neglect or default of the pilot, master 
 or mariners. The cargo was lost by the negli- 
 gence of the master. In an action for nondelivery 
 of the cargo, the jury found that there was no 
 special custom at Alexandria with regard to the 
 form of bill of lading in use there : — Held, that, 
 whether such finding were right or wrong, the 
 terms of the charterparty did not authorise the 
 giving of a bill of lading containing the before- 
 mentioned exception ; and that, even if they did, 
 in the absence of express provision to the con- 
 trary, as between the shipowners and the 
 charterers only the charterparty could be 
 regarded as constituting the contract, and the 
 bill of lading must be looked on as a mere 
 receipt for the goods ; and consequently that 
 the defendants were liable for nondelivery of 
 the carL'o. Ilodocanarhl v. M'dhurn. .")(j L. .1.. 
 Q. B. 202 ; 18 Q. B. D. 67 ; 50 L. T. .594; 35 
 W. B. 211 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 100— C. A. 
 
 Eeadiug with Bill of Lading.] — The excepted 
 perils iii(iiiion( il in thr (;hiirt<T|iaity were more 
 nuinen^us than those in the Ijill of la(h'ng : — 
 Hcl<l, that, under the circumstances, both instru- 
 ments togetlier contained the contract. The 
 San lt„miiii. 41 L. .1.. A<lm. 72 ; J.. I!. 8 A. k. K. 
 :,H'^ : 2i; l.. 'J", '.us. .Mliinicd, 42 L. .J., Adni. 4(1; 
 J-. U. 5 I'. C. :UJ1 : 21 \V. B. :{'.>:5: 1 Asj). M. C. oo:{. 
 
 A vessel was charieied to carry a cargo of 
 coals from CardiflE to Bouen. The cliartciparty 
 provided that the liability of the charterers 
 should cease "when the ship is loader! and a<l- 
 vance of freight with demurrage at Cardiflf paid. 
 •Ship to have a lien on cargo for freight, dead 
 freight and flemuriage." The bill of lading 
 contained no restriction on the liability of the 
 charterers. In an action for balance of freight : 
 — Held, that the charterparty and Vjill of lailing 
 must be read together, and construed accdnling 
 to the plain meaning on the face of them, and 
 that the charterer's liability ceased on perform- 
 ance of the conditions in the chartei-partv. 
 M'irwick V. Burnyeat, S6 L. T. 25(1 ; 25 W. B. 
 .S!I5 ; .S Asp. M. C. .376. See also GuWchseii v. 
 Sft'icart, post, col. 440. 
 
 238 
 
 "With Letters.] — A charterparty was ex- 
 plained and construed by letters for the purpose 
 of fixing the liability under it upon persons 
 signing the charterparty "for owners." Adams 
 V. Hall, 37 L. T. 70 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 1. 
 
 General Ship— Inquiry by Shipper as to Char- 
 terparty.] — When a vessel about to sail is 
 advertised as a general ship, an intending shipper 
 is not bound to inquire as to the existence of 
 any charterparty. PeeJi v. Zarseii, 40 L. J.. 
 Ch. 763: L. E. 12 Eq. 378; 25 L. T. 580; i;» 
 W. B. 1045 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 163. 
 
 A Xor\vegian vessel was advertised as a general 
 ship by 0. & Co., an English firm, described in 
 the advertisement as brokers. The plaintiffs 
 entered into an agreement with C. & Co. for the 
 carriage of certain goods at a stipulated rate of 
 freight, and placed the goods on board before 
 they had notice of any charterparty affecting 
 the ship. It was afterwards proved that C. & Co. 
 were charterers of the vessel under a charter- 
 party, which provided that the owner should 
 have a lien for freight, dead freight and demur- 
 rage. The captain refused to sign biUs of 
 lading, except subject to the charterparty, or to 
 return the goods to the plaintiffs : — Held, that 
 the owners of the ship were not entitled to 
 retain the goods in satisfaction of their claims 
 under the charterparty, and that the plaintiffs 
 were entitled to have the goods delivered to 
 them free from any claim by the shipowners. 
 lb. 
 
 Sub-Charter — Notice to Shipper.] — A shipper, 
 who has loaded on tlie terms of a sub-charter, is 
 not affected by notice of a stipulation in the 
 original charterparty that the owner is to have 
 •■a lien on the cargo for arrears of hire." He 
 has a right to have bills of lading signed on the 
 terms of the sub-charter. Tharsis Sulphur and 
 Copper Mining Co. v. CuUiford, 22 VV. R. 46. 
 
 Bill of Lading — Notice to Shipper.] — The 
 
 goods of a shipper in a general ship arc not 
 affected by a clause in a charterparty of which 
 he has no notice or knowledge, giving the ship- 
 owner a lien on all cargo and freight for arrears 
 of hire due under the charterijarty. Thr Storno- 
 irai/, 51 L. J., Adm. 27 ; 46 L. T. 773 ; 4 Asp. 
 M.C. 52!t. 
 
 Captain to be Agent of Charterers — Liability of 
 Owners for Captains Acts.: — Wlicic a ■•liaiirr- 
 pai'iy contains a provision tliat the ca|)lain shall 
 be the agent and servant of the charlrii-rs for all 
 purposes, and shall sign bills of hiding only a.s 
 their agent, the liability of the owners to third 
 parties in respect of his acts d(>pends upon 
 whether he was in fact their servant or tho 
 charterers' only ; ami uiion that (pu'stiou tho 
 ciiartcrparty is not conclusive : — Held, in such a 
 case, that ihe captain was tlic servant of the 
 fiw'ners, who were thcicforc, liable upon l)ills of 
 lading signed bv him. Schrihlrr v. Fiiriwsa 
 ([1 81(3] A. C. 8) an.l Colrin v. Xrirl/crri/ (8 B. & C. 
 166) distin<_'uished. Mam-hrxtrr Truxt Co. v. 
 Turner, or Furncsd, 64 ],. •!.. i). W. 766 ; [1895] 
 2 Q. B. 53'.) ; 14 B. 730 ; 73 I.. T. 110; 44 W. R. 
 178; 8 Asp. M. C. 57— C. A. 
 
 Incorporation of Colliery Guarantee— Demur- 
 rage, &c. ^ Src Minis, II V. MiirJ'arlanc, XIV. 
 I)i;Mri!K.\(;i:. infra, col. M6.
 
 239 
 
 SHIPPING— XI. ChartcrparUj. 
 
 240 
 
 Inconsistency between Charterparty and Bill 
 of Lading.] — See Houston v. Sansinemi, and 
 ntlier cases, col. 309, iufra. 
 
 Incorporation in Bill of Lading— Provisions 
 as to Lien on Cargo for Freight, j— See Gardner 
 \. 'J'renc]nn(in,-M\d cases, intra, col. 431. 
 
 Advances to Master at Port of Loading — Loss 
 of Ship — Freight advanced — Deductions from 
 Freight.]— See The lied Sea, [LSliG] P. 20 ; B. 
 Marine Insurance ; IX. Losses (5). 
 
 Bill of Lading varying from Charterparty — 
 Parol Proof.] — By charterparty a ship was to 
 carry ceuieut fn^ni London to Aberdeen and 
 Cruden, a port north of Aberdeen, delivering 
 11)0 tons at Aberdeen and the rest at Cruden, the 
 freight for the latter being higher than for the 
 Aberdeen portion. In the bill of lading the 
 order of the ports was reversed. In an action 
 for freight :— Held, that parol evidence was 
 admissible that the bill of lading was varied 
 from the charterjxirty with consent of the con- 
 signees' agent, and that the master had complied 
 with the contract by going to Cruden first and 
 tendering delivery there. Dacidsun v. Bisset, 
 5 Ct. of Sess. Gas. (ith ser.) 706. 
 
 "Port Charges "—Light Dues— Deviation.] 
 
 — Upon a voyage from South American ports 
 to Leith the charterers of a ship exercised 
 an option, reserved to them upon payment of 
 port charges, of discharging part of their cargo 
 at Deptford. In consequence of the ship enter- 
 ing the port of London the whole of the light 
 dues up to and including Leith became payable. 
 But for this deviation the light dues would have 
 been payable at Leith by the shipowners. To 
 avoid detention in the port of London the 
 charterers paid all the light dues demanded, but 
 claimed to set them off against balance of 
 freight, upon the ground that they were not port 
 charges : — Held, that the light dues were port 
 charges, payable by the charterers in the terms 
 of the charterparty. Neioman v. Lamport, 65 
 L. J., Q. B. 102 ; [1896] 1 Q. B. 20 ; 73 L. T. 475 ; 
 8 Asp. M. C. 76. 
 
 _ Towage — Delay— Extent of Deviation Autho- 
 rised.] — A general clause giving a steamer 
 '• liberty to tow and be towed and'assist vessels 
 in all situations," must be construed as limited 
 to deviations which do not frustrate the object 
 of the contract. Potter v. Burrell, infra, col. 264. 
 
 Joint Account — Partnership.]— A clause in a 
 charterparty, that " any profit or loss on the 
 charter shall be equally divided between owners 
 and charterers," does not create a partnership 
 between the owners and charterers so as to 
 deprive the former of their right of action against 
 the latter for demurrage. Ih. 
 
 Consignees to take Cargo "from alongside 
 
 Ship"— Custom— Lighters.]— A custom in the 
 wood trade in the port of London which imposes 
 an obligation on a shipowner to discharge a cargo 
 of long lengths of timber into lighters, is not in- 
 consistent with a clause in a charterparty under 
 which the cargo is to be taken from alongsitle 
 the ship at merchant's risk and expense. 
 Alitieselkah Helios v. Ekman, 66 L. J., Q. B. 538 ; 
 [1897J 2 Q. B. 83 ; 76 L. T. .537— C. A 
 
 ii. Lmn Applicable. 
 
 Lex loci contractus.] — Prima facie, the law 
 of tlie place where a contract is made is that 
 whicli the parties intended, or ought to be pre- 
 sutned to have adopted, as the footing upon 
 which they dealt, and such law ought to prevail 
 in the absence of circumstances indicating a 
 different intention ; but a contract of affreight- 
 ment made between a charterer and owners of 
 the ship, being persons of different nationali- 
 ties, in a place where both of them were 
 foreigners, to be performed partly there by the 
 ship breaking ground in order to start for the 
 port of lading, a place where both parties would 
 also have been foreigners ; partly at the latter 
 port, by taking the cargo on board ; and partly 
 on board the ship at sea, subject there to the 
 laws of the country of the ship ; and partly by 
 final delivery at the port of discharge— is to be 
 construed by the law of the nation of the ship. 
 Lloyd V. Guihert, 6 B. & S. 100 ; 35 L. J., Q. B. 
 74 ; L. E. 1 Q. B. 115 ; 13 L. T. 602.- Ex. Ch. 
 
 A British subject at a Danish West India 
 island chartered a ship belonging to French sub- 
 jects, for a voyage from St. Marc, in Haiti, to 
 Havre, London or Liverpool, at the charterer's 
 option, he knowing that the ship was French. 
 The charterparty was entered into by the master, 
 in pursuance of his general authority as such, 
 and not by any special authority from the 
 owners. The charterer shipped a cargo at St. 
 Marc for Liverpool. On her voyage the ship 
 sustained damage from a storm, which compelled 
 her to put into a Portuguese port. There the 
 master properly borrowed money upon bottomry 
 of the ship, freight and cargo, and repaired her, 
 and she proceeded with the cargo, and arrived 
 safely at Liverpool. The bondholder proceeded 
 in the court of admiralty against the ship, 
 freight and cargo, which being insufficient to 
 satisfy the bond, he sued the owners to indem- 
 nify him for the deficiency. They abandoned 
 the ship and freight in such a manner as, by the 
 French law, absolved them from liability : — 
 Held, that the charterer was not entitled to 
 recover, because the French law, as being that 
 of the ship, governed the case. Ih. 
 
 The master of a German ship while at Con- 
 stantinople, by a charterparty, partly in English 
 and partly in German, and entered into with 
 Germans, chartered his ship to take a cargo from 
 Taganrog to England, Havre or Hamburg : — 
 Held, that the contract must be construed accord- 
 ing to German law. The L.i-press, 41 L. J., Adm. 
 79 ; L. E. 3 A. & E. 597 ; 26 L. T. 956 ; 1 Asix 
 M. C, 355. 
 
 A German ship, while in a German port, was 
 chartered by a charterparty in the English lan- 
 guage by English charterers, and the ports of 
 call for orders and of final delivery of cargo were 
 English. On a question of delay in delivery of 
 cargo : — Held, that the contract nnrst be governed 
 by English law. T]te San Iluii in. 42 L. J., Adm. 
 46 ; L. E. 5 P. C. 301 ; 21 W. E. 393 ; 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 603— P. C. 
 
 Intention of Parties.] — The master of a North 
 German ship lying at Constantinople entered 
 into a charterparty with North German subjects 
 there resident, to carry a cargo to a port in the 
 United Kingdom or on the Continent, to be 
 delivered to English consignees. The charter- 
 party and the bill of lading given under it were 
 in the English language, and it was stipulated
 
 241 
 
 SHIPPING— XI. CharterparUj. 
 
 242 
 
 that the ship should call at one of three ports 
 of the United Kingdom for orders. The ship 
 duly called at Falmouth, and was ordered to 
 proceed to an English port to discharge : — Held, 
 that as the intention of the parties as to what 
 law should govern was to be gathered from the 
 circumstances of the case, and as the giving of 
 the orders fixed the seat of the contract in 
 England, the law of England applied. The 
 Wiihelm Schmidt, 25 L. t. 3i ; 1 Asp. 51. C. 
 62. 
 
 Law of the Flag.] — A claim was made bv 
 an American citizen in the winding-up of a British 
 steamship company for damages for the loss of 
 his cattle arising through the negligence of the 
 master and crew. The ship in which the cattle 
 were carried was a British ship trading between 
 Boston and Liverpool. The charterparty con- 
 tained express stipulations exempting the com- 
 pany from liaVjility caused by the negligence of 
 the master and crew. The cattle were shipped 
 nt Boston, and bills of lading were given there, 
 in conformity with the contract. The ship 
 stranded on the coast of North Wales, owing, as 
 was admitted, to the negligence of the master 
 and crew. According to the law of the state 
 of Massachusetts, as at present ascertained, the 
 stipulations exempting the owners from liability 
 through negligent navigation were void ; but 
 according to English law such stipulations were 
 good, and were usually inserted in English bills 
 of lading. The question was whether the law of 
 the flag (that is to say, the personal law of the 
 shipowner) or the lex loci contractfts should 
 govern the contract of affreightment : — Held, on 
 the authority of Lloyd v. Guihcrt (1 L. R., Q. B. 
 15.5), that the stipulations weie valid, first on the 
 general ground that the contract was governed 
 by the law of the flag : and. secondly, on the 
 particular ground that from the special provi- 
 sions of the contract itself it appeared that the 
 parties were contracting with a view to the law 
 of England. Minxouri Steuinxk'q) Co., Mourar'n 
 Claim, In re, .58 L. J., Ch. 721 ; 42 Ch. D. 321 : 
 «1 L. T. 316 ; 37 W. R. 690— C. A. 
 
 Freight — Sale of Part of Cargo at Port of 
 Distress. J — I'.y a cliarterjiarty, in usual iMiglish 
 forni, made in London between the agents of the 
 (ierraan owner of a German ve.ssel and the defen- 
 dants, who carried on business in England, the 
 vcs.sel was chartered to the defendants to load a 
 cargo of rice at Bassein and deliver the same as 
 <^)rdercd, at a port in the United Kingdom or on 
 the continent between Havre and Hamburg, the 
 freight to be paid rm right delivery of the carg'). 
 On the voyage the ve>sel encountered bad 
 weather and had to |)Ut into a f»ort of distress. 
 A <|uantity of the rice was found to be so much 
 datuaged by sea water that it could not be 
 carried f»n, and was condemned aiid sold. In 
 an action l^y the sliipowner to recover freight in 
 respect of the rice sosolil, the plaintiff contended 
 that the charterjiarty was governed by the law 
 of the flag, and that, under (icrman law, full 
 freight w;i,s payable in respect of the rice justifi- 
 ably Hfjld at the port of distress : — Held, that 
 under the ciicuiiistances, the contract was an 
 English contract, to be construed according to 
 I'.iiglish law ; and that, therefore, no freight 
 was ])aj'able in respect of the rice sold at tlie 
 port of distress. The Indiixtric. 63 L. J., Adm. 
 M ; [ IS64] P. 58 ; 6 li. 681 ; 70 L. T. 71)1 ; 42 
 \V. 11. 280 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 457— C. A. 
 
 Custom — Admissibility of Evidence.] — See 
 infra, vii. Evidkxce to Explain — e. Con- 
 ditions AND WaRRANTIKS. 
 
 Sale of Cargo by Master — What Law appli- 
 cable.] — See The AvfjtLst, post, col. 525. 
 
 iii. Proceeding to a Port, or as iwar a.s the Ship 
 ran safelii get. 
 
 Insufficient Water in Dock — Eight of Char- 
 terers to order Ship to wait for Spring Tide.] 
 — A charterparty made between English ship- 
 owners and English charterers provided that 
 the ship should proceed to a dock in an English 
 port, or so near thereunto as she might safely 
 get, and tiiere load a cargo always afloat as 
 and where ordered by charterers. The depth 
 of water in the dock was such that the ship 
 could only load a full cargo always afloat during 
 spring tides. The ship arrived in the dock and 
 was ordered by the charterers to a berth, to 
 which she proceeded, but after loading part of 
 the cargo left the dock, because, the spring tides 
 being over, she would otherwise have taken the 
 ground, and demanded the rest of the cargo at 
 the nearest place at which she could safely load 
 always afloat : — Held (A. L. Smith, L.J., disseu- 
 tiente), that the charterers were not bound to 
 order the ship to a berth where she could load 
 immediately, but were entitled to give an order 
 for a berth in which the ship could load always 
 afloat within a reasonable time, and that, as 
 the shipowners must be taken to have ktiown 
 the ordinary conditions of the depth of water in 
 the dock, and as the order given was such that 
 it might have been obeyed at the next spring 
 tides, it was a reasonable order, which the 
 charterers were entitled to give. Carlton Steam- 
 ship Co.v. Ciistle Mail Pachets Co., 66 L. J., Q. B. 
 8iy ; [1897] 2 Q. B. 485 ; 77 L. T. 332 ; 46 W. K. 
 68— C. A. 
 
 ' ' And There load a full Cargo. " ] — A sti pulation 
 that a siiiij siiail pidcccd to a certain place, or as 
 near thereto as she can safely get, and there loatl 
 a full cargo, means such a place to which she can 
 safely get, and fioin which, when loaded, she can 
 safelv get awaj'. Shield v. WUhlns, 5 Ex. 304 ; 
 19 L' J., Ex. 23S. 
 
 Ship unable to lie Afloat without being 
 lightened.] — Where a vessel is chartei'.tl to pro- 
 cee<l with cargo to a "safe port ... as ordered, 
 or as near thereunto as she can safely get, and 
 always lie and discharge afloat," the master is 
 not bound to discharge at a port where she can- 
 not, by reason of her draught of water, " always 
 lie and discharge .dloat " without being lightene<l, 
 even if she can be lightened with reasonable 
 (lisiiatch and safety in the imme<liate vicinity of 
 the jiort or in the jiort itself. A vcs.sel was 
 chartered to procteed with a cargo of grain from 
 Baltimore to Falmouth for orders, "thence to a 
 safe port in the I'nited Kingdom as ordered, or 
 as near thereunto as she could safely get, and 
 always lie and discharge afloat." The vessel was 
 ordered to Lowestoft. Her dr.'iught of water, 
 when loaded, was such that she could not lie 
 afloat in l.,owestoft harbour without discharging 
 a |)ortion of her cargo, but the discharge of cargo 
 might have been carried on with rea.soiiable safety 
 in Lowestoft roads. The consignee offered at 
 his own expense to lighten the vessel in the 
 roads but the master refused to proceed ta
 
 243 
 
 SHIPPING— XL Chart, rparttj. 
 
 244 
 
 Lowestoft to discharge, and went to Hai-wich 
 as the nearest safe jiurt, and there discharged 
 the cargo : — Held, that the consignee could not 
 recover damages against the shipowner for the 
 refusal «t the master to discharge at Lowestoft. 
 The Alhamhra. 50 L. J., Adm. 36 ; 6 P. D. 68 ; 
 43 L. T. 636 ; 29 W. R. 655 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 410 ; 
 — C. A. 
 
 To sail to London, Surrey Commercial Docks.] 
 
 — A charterparty fur a ship to sail to " Loudon, 
 Surrey Commercial Docks " is not satisfied by 
 the ship arriving at the gate of the docks, but 
 not entering into the docks. Dahl v. Dunltin 
 or Nelson, 50 L. J., Ch. 411 ; 6 App. Cas. 38 : 44 
 L. T. 381 ; 29 W. R. 543 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 392— 
 H. L. (E.) 
 
 Cliarterer's Duties as to securing a Discharging 
 Berth.] — There is no established castom in the 
 port of London by which the charterer of a 
 timber-loaded ship is bound to secure for the 
 vessel, on its arrival in the river, and in close 
 contiguity to the docks named, the authority to 
 enter into the docks. The charterparty was to 
 " London, Surrey Commercial Docks, or as near 
 thereto as she may safely get, and lie always 
 afloat." As the docks were full the ship could 
 not be given a discharging berth, and the dock 
 manager therefore refused it entrance into the 
 docks. Both parties having named these docks 
 in the charterparty, this refusal of the dock 
 authorities was held not to be the fault of either 
 party. The cause of the delay as to being 
 sidmitted into the docks was immaterial ; the 
 length of the delay was material. The charterer 
 would not name any other flock to which the 
 ship might be taken. The ship's master there- 
 fore took it to the Deptford buoys (the nearest 
 place to the Surrey Commercial Docks where it 
 could lie in safety afloat), and there discharged 
 the cargo by lighters, carrying the timber into 
 the Surrey Commercial Docks, where it was 
 afterwards sorted and put in order on the wharf : 
 — Held, that, under the circumstances existing 
 in this case, the delay in discharging the cargo 
 was to be attributed to the charterer, who there- 
 fore became liable to demurrage, and to the 
 charges for unloading. Ih. 
 
 •' So near thereto as She may safely get at 
 all Times of Tide and always Afloat." _ — A ship 
 was chaitered to unload at S. or -as near thereto 
 a.s she might safely get at all timas of tide and 
 always afloat," and for delaj^ in unloading the 
 charterers were to pay demurrage. The state of 
 the tide prevented the ship from reaching S. for 
 four days after she arrived at the nearest point 
 •where she was able to float : — Held, that, accord- 
 ing to the terms of the charterparty, this was a 
 sufficient arrival of the ship at S. to found a 
 claim for demurrage. Hornley v. Pru-e. 52 L. J., 
 Q. B. 603 ; 11 Q. B. D. 244'; 49 L. t! 101 ; 31 
 W. R. 786 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 106. 
 
 •' If sufficient Water."] — A condition in 
 
 a charterparty that the ship shall "discharge 
 in a dock as ordered on aniving, if sufficient 
 water, or so near thereunto as she may safely 
 get, always afloat," means that she is to dis- 
 charge in the dock ordered, if there is sufficient 
 water at the time of giving the order. Allen v. 
 Coltart. .52 L. J.. Q. B. 686 : 11 Q. B. D. 782 ; 48 
 L. T. 944 ; 31 W. U. 841 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 104. 
 
 Expenses of Lightering to Place of Discharge.] 
 — By the terms of a charterparty the ship was to 
 take in a full cargo at Bombay, and proceed 
 therewith to a safe port on the continent between 
 Havre and Hamburg as ordered, " or so near 
 tliereto a-s she might safely get." The cargo was 
 to be brought to and taken from alongside at 
 merchant's risk and expense. The ship was 
 ordered by the charterers to Koogerpolder, in 
 Holland. Koogerpolder is some distance up a 
 canal, and the vessel with her full cargo on board 
 drew too much water to proceed up the canal. 
 No arrangements had been made by the char- 
 terere or consignees for taking delivery of any 
 part of the cargo at the mouth of the canal. The 
 portion of the cargo that required to be unloaded 
 in order to enable the vessel to enter the canal 
 was at least a third. The question arising under 
 these circumstances between the shipowners and 
 the charterers was which of them ought to bear 
 the expenses of lightering the cargo from the 
 mouth of the canal to Koogerpolder: — Held, that, 
 under the ciicumstances, the voyage under the 
 charterparty ended at the mouth of the canal, 
 and that consequently the charterers ought to 
 bear the above-mentioned expenses. Meaning 
 of the words " as near thereto as she may get " 
 discassed. Capper v. Wallace, 49 L. J., Q. B. 
 .3.50 ; 5 Q. B. D. 163 : 42 L. T. 130 ; 28 W. R. 
 424 ; 4 Asp. M. G. 223. 
 
 Danube Bar.] — The defendant agreed by a 
 charterparty that the ship should proceed to 
 Galatz, or as near thereto as she could safely get. 
 and there load a cargo, the act of God, 4cc., and 
 every other dangers and accidents of the seas, 
 rivers and navigation during the voyage excepted. 
 The ship arrived on the 5th November off the 
 mouth of the Danube. At that time, and until 
 the 7th .January following, the water was un- 
 usually low on the bar and the ship was unable 
 to cross. On the 11th December she was obliged 
 by stress of weather to go to Odessa, as the 
 nearest safe port, where she afterwards took in 
 a cargo and sailed for England. On and after 
 the 7th .January there was sufficient water in tlie 
 port for the ship to have crossed and to have 
 gone up to Galatz, and there shipped a cargo . — 
 Held, that there was a breach of the charter- 
 party, and that the defcnflant was not justified 
 in putting an end to the contract by anj' of 
 the excepted causes. ScJiilizzl v. Derry, 4 
 El. & Bl. 873 : 24 L. J., Q. B. 193 ; 1 Jur. (N.8.) 
 795: 3 W. l\. :171. 
 
 Part Cargo unloaded to cross Bar — Expense 
 of reloading — Duty of Ship to reload.] — A ship 
 under chant-r to r-uil to a naui'Ml port, or as near 
 thereto as she could safely get, and to loatl a* 
 much cargo as she could reasonably and con- 
 veniently ship and stow, went over the bar of 
 the port and took in a full cargo of hams and 
 cattle, for which the master signed bills of lading. 
 She sailed and grounded on the inner bar, and 
 part of the cargo had to be lightened, the master 
 offering to take that part of the cargo on board 
 again after passing the outer bar, at the. shipjK-rs 
 risk. The shippers agent refused to put the 
 cargo on board again on these terms, and the 
 ship sailed with so much of the cargo as wa.s 
 left on board : — Held, that the shipowner was- 
 entitled neither to freight nor to damages for 
 refusing to reship the cargo lightened, for that 
 the master having signed bills of lading for the 
 whole cargo, though not bound to go within tho
 
 245 
 
 SHIPPING— XI. Charterparty. 
 
 bar, was bound to carry to its destination the 
 whole cargo signed for. General Steam Xati^a- 
 tion Co. V. Slipper, 11 C. B. (x.s.) 493 ; 31 L. J.. 
 C. P. 185 ; 8 Jur. (>'.S.) 821 ; 5 L. T. 641 ; 10 
 W. R. 311. 
 
 Ghsgow — Custom to lighten at the Tail of 
 the Bank.] — See HilUtrom v. Gihmn, infra, XIV. 
 Demckuage, col. 476. 
 
 Unloading and Discharging — Eules of Port." 
 - — Ste XIV. Demckrage ; XV. Caego. 
 
 Safe Port— What is.] — See Reynolds v. Tom- 
 liiison. infra, col. 253. 
 
 iv. Fruit Preventing Loading. 
 
 Customary Manner of Loading.] — By the 
 terms of the charterparty the ship was to proceed 
 to the port of loading and there load a cargo of 
 iron in the customary manner from the agents 
 of the freighters. Cargo to be supplied as fast 
 as steamer can receive. Time to commence from 
 the vessel being ready to load, and ten days on 
 demurrage over and above the said lay days at 
 40/. per day. (•• Except in case of hands strik- 
 ing work, or frosts or floods, or any other 
 unavoidable accidents preventing the loading: 
 in which case owners to Lave the option of 
 employing the steamer in some short-voyage 
 trade until receipt of wxitten notice from 
 charterers that they are ready to resume employ- 
 ment without delay to the ship.") On the ship's 
 arrival the loading was commenced, but shortly 
 afterwards was wholly stopped for five daj^s 
 through frost : — Held, that the exception in the 
 charterpartj' as to frost did not relieve the 
 charterers from liability for demurrage, inas- 
 much as the detention of the cargo by ice 
 occurred in the canals before the cargo reached 
 the dock where the vessel was lying. Grant v. 
 Coterdale, 53 L. J., Q. B. 462 ; 9 App. Cas. 470 ; 
 51 L. T. 472 ; 32 W. R. 831 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 353— 
 H. L. 
 
 By the terms of the charterparty the ship 
 was to proceed to Cardiff, East Bute Dock, and 
 there load in the customary manner from the 
 agents of the freighters a cargo of rail iron : the 
 cargo to h»e loatle^i as fast as steamer could take 
 on board and stow within the customar}* working 
 hours of the port, commencinjj when steamer 
 was in berth and ready to load ; and if longer 
 detained merchants to pay steamer 30Z. per day 
 demurrage. " Detention by frost, floofis, ice, 
 not to be reckoned as lay days." The shipowner, 
 when the charterparty was made, did not know 
 who were the freighters' agents at Cardiff. 
 There were aVxjut six shippers of rail iron there, 
 all of them (with the exception of the freighters" 
 agents) having wharves in the West or East 
 Bute Dock. The agents' wharf was at a distance 
 from the docks upon a canal comniunicatiiicr 
 with the West Bute Dock, and their rail iron was 
 loaded on ships berthed in the Ea.st Bute Dock 
 by means of lighters pa.ssing down this canal 
 through the West Bute D<x;k, and from thence 
 •lown a smaller canal connecting the two docks. 
 The other shippers loaded in the Ea.st Bute Do<;k. 
 either from the quay or bj- lighters coming along- 
 side the ship from the wharves in the East Bute 
 Dock, or by lighters from the West Bute Dock, 
 passing down the connecting canal. The ship, 
 on arrival, was berthed in the East Bute Dwk. 
 and the loading was commenced, but shortly 
 
 24ff 
 
 afterwards was stopped for sixteen days by fro-t. 
 which covered the canal from the agents' wharf 
 to the West Bute Dock with ice and prevented 
 the passage of the lighters, though the water in- 
 the docks was not frozen : — Held, that the 
 exception in the charterparty with respect to 
 detention by frost did not apply to relieve the 
 freighters from liabilitv to demurrage. Kay v. 
 Field. 52 L. .J.. Q. B. 17 : 10 Q. B. D. 241 : 47 
 L. T. 423 : 31 W. R. 332 ; 4 A^p. M. C. 58S— C. A. 
 
 A. by charterparty engaged to load on boanl 
 B.s ships a cargo of coals - with due despatch." 
 The goods had to be brought by A. along a cana> 
 to the dock, and frost prevented the completion 
 of the loading : — Held, that A. was responsible 
 for the delay consequent thereon. Ktaron v_ 
 Peanson. 7 H. & X. 386 ; 31 L. J., Ex. 1 : Itr 
 W. R. 12. 
 
 The exception in a charterparty whereby a 
 certain number of laying days is allowed to the 
 charterer, detention by ice is not to be reckone*! 
 as such, applies wliere the ice not only renders 
 access to the ship impracticable in the pors 
 itself, but blocks up a river by means of which 
 alone the intended cargo can be conveved to the 
 port. Hiidwii V. Ede. 8 B. & S. 640 :' 37 L. J., 
 Q. B. 166 : L. R. 3 Q. B. 412 : 18 L. T. 764 ; 16- 
 W. R. 940— Ex. Ch. See Mliite v. Steamship 
 Winchester Co.. infra, coL 265. 
 
 "Accident"' — Snowstorm.' — A charterer 
 agreed to load a ship with coal in regular and 
 customary turn, " except in case of riots, strikes, 
 or any other accidents beyond his control," 
 which might prevent or delay her loading. To 
 an action for bicach of the above covenant in 
 the charterparty. he pleaded that he was pre- 
 vented loading the vessel by a snowstorm, which 
 rendered it impossible to bring the cargo to the 
 agreed place of shipment : — Held, that the snow- 
 storm was not such an accident. Fcnwich v. 
 Schmal:, 37 L. J., C. P. 78 ; L. B. 3 C. P. 313 ; 
 18L.T.27: 16W. R.481. 
 
 And see 6, Liability of Charterer or 
 Agent, infra. 
 
 T. Sailing. 
 
 Final Sailing.] — The term "final sailing" of 
 a vessel from the port of loading, stated in a 
 charterparty as the period for payment of 
 freight, or part of it, means the final departure 
 from the port, and being at sea ready to proceo<l 
 on her voyage, and not merely having the 
 clearances on board, and being ready to sail. 
 Itoehuult^ V. IlarriMm, 9 Ex. 444 ; 2 C. L. R. 
 995 ; 23 L. .J.. Ex. 169. 
 
 In determining a point at which a vessel has- 
 *• finally sailed." the circumstances of the par- 
 ticular i)ort of loading mu.st be considered ; and 
 where the vessel was wrecked after having her 
 clearances on board, and had left the dock gates, 
 and had "xjachcd a ship canal Ix-tween high an<ll 
 low water, where she was subject to ocrfain. 
 regidations under a local act, an<l where she wa.s- 
 liable to Ix; stopped by the harlxnir-njaster : — 
 Held, that she bad not finally .siilctl within th»- 
 meaning of the charteri>arty. Ih. 
 
 Extent of Port.] — By the terms of » charter- 
 p;nty the owners were entitled to an advance of 
 one-third of the freight within eight days "from 
 final sailing of the vessel from her last port i» 
 United Kingdom." The vessel was loaded at 
 Penarth Dock, and was towe<l by a steam-tuj^ 
 sevpn or eight miles, bringing her out aU>ut
 
 •247 
 
 SHIPPING— XI. Charlerpayhj. 
 
 248 
 
 three miles into the r>ristol Channel. She there 
 cast anchor, as the weather was threatening:. 
 Whilst she was lying at anchor a storm broke her 
 cables, and she ultimately ran ashore on Penarth 
 beach, and the cargo was spoiled. The vessel 
 ihad never been beyond the limits of the port of 
 'Cardiff as detined for fiscal purposes, but she had 
 left what, for commercial purposes, is considered 
 the port, and had been out at sea. She went 
 ashore within the limits of the port in its com- 
 mercial sense. The owners sued for one-third of 
 the freight, and the charterers resisted the claim 
 on the ground that the vessel had never sailed 
 from her last port in the United Kingdom : — 
 Held, that the word "port" must be taken in 
 its ordinary commercial sense, and that as the 
 •vessel had got out to sea without any intention 
 of returning, she must be taken to have finally 
 sailed from her last port, that her being driven 
 back into it by the weather made no difference, 
 and that the one-third of the freight was pay- 
 able. Price V. Livingstone, .53 L. J.. Q. B. 118 ; 9 
 Q. B. D. 679 ; 47 L. T. 629 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 13— C. A. 
 
 At the time a loss happened the ship had left 
 tlio harbour, but her crew was not complete, the 
 master and mate were not on board, her shrouds 
 and cables were not in proper condition, and the 
 bills of lading were not signed ; ihe intention 
 was that she should remain at anchor in the 
 roadstead until the preparations for her voyage 
 were complete : — Held, that she had not sailed 
 within the meaning of the charterparty. Tliomp- 
 son V. Glllespy, 5 El. & Bl. 209 : 24 L. J., Q. B. 
 340 ; 1 Jur. (n.S.) 779; 3 W. R.505. 
 
 A vessel being loaded and in a fit state for 
 sailing, but the clearances not being completed, 
 nor the bills of lading signed, left the harbour 
 with the captain on board. She crossed the bar, 
 and the captain returned to land in order to get 
 the papers completed and sign the bills of lading. 
 The vessel stood off and on waiting for the 
 •captain ; but it being found that she had been 
 injured, she returned into harbour to repair and 
 did not afterwards sail : — Held, that the vessel 
 had not sailed. Hudson v. Bllton, 6 El. & Bl. 
 565 ; 26 L. J., Q. B. 27 ; 2 Jur.(N.S.) 784. 
 
 Hire of Tug — Commenceinent of Hiring.] — 
 A tug was hired for salvage puj-po^es "from the 
 8th of September, at which date the vessel is to 
 loe at the disposal of the charterer at Greenock." 
 The tug, which might have left before, did not 
 sail from Greenock until 2.30 p.m. on the 8th 
 September, and the hirer lost the benefit of his 
 salvage contract: — Held, that the tug owner 
 ■was liable, as the tug should have sailed earlier. 
 Mackenzie v. Lidddl, 10 Ct. of Sess. Gas. (4th 
 «er.) 705. 
 
 vi. Other I'riir'.g'onx. 
 
 Ccmmission — Inwards and Outwards.] — 
 
 By a charterparty, a ship was to proceed with 
 a cargo from Glasgow to San Francisco, where 
 she was to be "consigned to the charterers' 
 agents, inwards and outwards, paying the usual 
 commissions": — Held, that the effect of the 
 expression " outwards " was not to bind the 
 master to take a cargo home from San Francisco : 
 the meaning only was that, if acargo was shipped 
 from San Francisco, the charterers should be 
 employed as shipbrokers to do all the business of 
 the ship in respect of such cargo. Cross v. 
 Paqliano, 40 L. J., Ex. 18 ; L. E. 6 Ex. 9 ; 23 
 -L. T. 420 ; 19 W. 11. I.-.9. 
 
 Memorandum Part of Contract.] — A 
 
 memorandum in a printed form between two 
 brokers, used by a charterer, "commission to be 
 paid to charterer, to whom the vessel is to be 
 addressed, on her return to London," the charter 
 being only for an outward voyage, and making 
 no mention of a homeward voyage : and the ship 
 not having returned direct from the port of dis- 
 charge, but taken a cargo elsewhere, requires 
 evidence that the memorandum was understood 
 by the parties to be part of the contract, and 
 that in mercantile usage it applied in such a 
 case to the return cargo, and meant that the 
 charterer should collect the freight and receive 
 commission on it. Illhhert v. Owen, 2 F, & F. 
 502. 
 
 Void or Voidable in Event of War.]— The 
 plaintiff chartered the ship " Edgar " to C. by 
 charterparty in which it was agreed that the 
 ship after completing intermediate employment 
 (which she was to be at liberty to take) should 
 proceed to Galatz for orders to load there, &c., 
 and being so loaded proceed to Malta for orders. 
 Upon the margin of the charterparty were the 
 words, " In the event of war, blockade, or pro- 
 hibition of export preventing loading, this 
 charterparty to be cancelled." The plaintiffs 
 then effected a policy with the defendants for 
 the insurance of the freight of the ship against 
 the perils of the sea, restraint of princes, &c. 
 The " Edgar" sailed for Genoa under the charter- 
 party on the 1st of May, 1877, war having been 
 declared by Russia against Turkey on the 24th 
 of April. Bcfoie her arrival at Genoa, the plain- 
 tiffs ascertained that Russia had closed the ports 
 of loading mentioned in the charterparty. The 
 " Edgar," however, discharged her cargo and 
 took in ballast at Genoa, and sailed for Constan- 
 tinople, and upon her arrival there on the 28th 
 of May, found that the loading ports wei'e closed, 
 and that there was no reasonable probability of 
 their being open in time for her to load her 
 eliartered cargo. She therefore did not proceed 
 farther towards Galatz, but obtained a homeward 
 cargo at a freight less than that stipulated for 
 by the charterparty. In an action upon the 
 policy : — Held, by Cockburn, C.J., and Manisty, 
 J. (Lush, J., dissenting), that tlie plaintiff's could 
 not recover, for according to the true construc- 
 tion of the charterparty the act of closing the 
 ports by the Russian government was a prohibi- 
 tion of export preventing loading, and that upon 
 the happening of that event the charterparty 
 came to an end— without any election by either 
 l^arty. By Lush. J., that the effect of the 
 memorandum in the margin was to make the 
 charterparty voidable only at the option of 
 either party, that neither party having elected 
 to avoid it the charterparty continued in force 
 up to the time when the loading became imprac- 
 ticable, and that the plaintiffs had sustained 
 such a loss of the chartered freight as to entitle 
 them to recover. Adamson v. Newcastle Steam- 
 ship Frelqht Insurance Association, 48 L. J., 
 Q. B. 670'; 4 Q. B. D. 462 ; 41 L. T. 160 ; 27 
 W. R. 818 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 150. 
 
 And see 5. Perfokmance, infra. 
 
 "Ship Damage."] — In a charterparty, between 
 the East India Company and the owners of a 
 ship taken into their service, was the following 
 clause: "But nevertheless the part-owners shall 
 not be charged with any sum of money in 
 respect of goods damaged on board the ship.
 
 249 
 
 SHIPPING— XI. Charterpavtij. 
 
 250 
 
 either in her outward or homeward bound voyage. 
 but such as shall, by the condition and appear- 
 ance of the package thereof, or by some other 
 reasonable proof, appear to be ship damage." 
 Part of the homeward-bound cargo was damaged 
 in a storm : — Held, that this was not sliip 
 damage within the meaning of the clause, which 
 was imputable only to such damage as happens 
 by the insufficiency of the ship, or the negligence 
 of those who have the charge of her. End India 
 Co. V. Todd, 1 Bro. P. C. 405. 
 
 Mistake as to.] — Although a clause, by way 
 of condition or of warranty, contained in a 
 charterparty, cannot be got rid of by reason of 
 its being part of a printed form, not adverted to 
 expressly by the parties, and intended by one 
 of them' to'be omitted ; yet, if the other party 
 was aware at the time that it could not be com- 
 plied with, and after shewing that it was broken, 
 treated the charter as subsisting, it will afford 
 him no defence to an action on the charter. 
 Blxon V. He riot, 2 F. & F. 700. 
 
 Provisions as to Lighterage — Writing and 
 Print. — ChaiMorers agreed with a shii.nwner by 
 charterparty that his ship should load at Bar- 
 badoes, St. Kitts, or Trinidad, a full cargo of 
 West India produce, "to be brought to and 
 taken from alongside at merchant's risk and 
 expense." These words, with others, were in 
 print. The charterparty also contained the 
 words "cargo at Trinidad as customary." These 
 words, with others, were in writing. The custom 
 at Trinidad is, that the ship paj's for the lighter- 
 age, and the shipowner allows the charterer the 
 reasonable expense thereof. The ship loaded at 
 Trinidad in the customary manner, but the 
 captain refused to pay the lighterage, whereupon 
 the charterers had to Vjear the expense of it : — 
 Held, that the stipulation, "cargo at Trinidad 
 as customary," worked an exception to the 
 stipulation as to loading at merchant's risk, anrl 
 that the charterers were entitled to recover the 
 lighterage from the defendant. Scrutton v. 
 ChiUh, 36 L. T. 212 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 373. 
 
 Disbursements — Coals — Liability of Shipowner 
 or Charterer.] — By a charterparty between the 
 tiefeiidants. the owners of a steamer and the 
 cliarteiers, it was agreed that the owners shoulil 
 maintain her in a thoroughly efficient state 
 during the term of the charterparty, and that 
 llie cliarteiers should provide and ])ay for coals 
 and fuel, port charges, pilotages, agencies, com- 
 missions and all other charges wliatsocver not 
 appertaining to the working nr efficiency of the 
 steamer. It was also agreed that if in conse- 
 quence of a breakdown of machineiy the vessel 
 put into a port other than that to which she was 
 bound, "port charges, pilotai,'C3 and other 
 expenses" should be borne by the owners. The 
 steamer put into Vigo, a port to which she was 
 not bound; in consequence, as was alleged by 
 the master, of the breakdown of the condenser. 
 The master sued the defendants in an action 
 for disbursements for the price of coals suiiplicil 
 to Iitm at Vigo : — Held, that, even assuming that 
 the putting into Vigo was a necessary conse- 
 quence of the breakflown of the machinery of 
 the steamer, the price of the coals supplied 
 there was not part of the " i)ort charges, pilotages, 
 and other expenses at the port." within the 
 meaning of the charterparty, and the defi'iidants 
 were not liable. The Durham City, oH L. J.,Adnj. 
 
 48 : U r. D. 8.5 : 61 L. T. 330 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 411. 
 
 Court-martial — Condition precedent to Pay- 
 ment under Covenant.] — Covenant in a charter- 
 party, whereby, if the ship should be lost, burnt,, 
 or taken, and it should appear to a court-martial 
 that the master had made the best defence he 
 could, the freighters covenanted to pay the value 
 of the ship. The holding of the court-martial 
 is a condition precedent. Davison v. Jlitrd, 3 
 Dougl. 28. 
 
 Detention of Ship by Foreign Government — 
 Expenses — Charterer or Shipowner.] — Exiicnses 
 caused by unjust detention of a ship by a foreign 
 government in respect of legal matters and 
 repairs : — Hehl, not to be expenses incun-ed by 
 the ship within the meaning of a clause throwing 
 such expenses on the charterers. Sully v.. 
 Duranty, 3 H. & C. 270 ; 33 L. J., Ex. 319. 
 
 Disbursements on account of Ship — Master's. 
 Claim — Authority of Master.] — By a charter- 
 l)arty it was agreed that the owners should pro- 
 vide and pay for all the provisions and wages 
 of the captain and crew, for the insurance of the 
 vessel, and maintain her in a thoroughly efficient 
 state. It was further agreed that the charterers 
 should provide and pay for all the coals, port- 
 charges, pilotages, commissions and all other 
 charges whatsoever, excei)t those before statcl ; 
 and it was further agreed that the captain, 
 although appointed by the owners, should be 
 under the orclers and directions of the charterers, 
 as regards employment, agency, or other arrange- 
 ments. The nuister ordered coals for the vessel 
 at two different foreign ports, in order to enable 
 the vessel to perform her voyage. These coals 
 were ordered from the firm of W. & Co., with, 
 whom the charterers had a contract to supply 
 their vessel with coal. The charterers were sub- 
 sequently adjudicated bankrupts. In an actioii 
 by the master against the ves.sel and her freight 
 for disbursements on account of the ship : — Hehl, 
 that he was not entitled to recover, as. by the 
 terms of the charterparty, he had no power to 
 ])ledge the owner's creilit. The Caxthqalt', 62 
 L. J., P. C. 17; [lSit3] A. C. 38; 1 li." 97 ; 6S 
 L. T. 99 ; 41 W. R. 349— H. L. (Ir.) 
 
 Despatch-money — "Sundays and Fete-days 
 excepted."] — A charterparty contained the fol- 
 lowing ])rovision : " The steamer to be discharged 
 at the rate of 200 Ions per day, weather ])ermit- 
 ting (Sundays and fele-days excepted), according 
 to the custom of the jjort of fli.scharge, and, if 
 sooner (lisehaigcd, to |)ayat the rate of 8.«. id. for 
 every hour saved": — Held, that in calculating 
 desiiatch-money, the charterers were iu)t entitlcil 
 to include the hours of Sundays and fi^tc-davs. 
 The (Ueuderon, (i2 L. .1., Adm. 123 ; [1893] 'P. 
 209 ; 1 U. 062 ; 70 L. T. 416 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 439. 
 
 Causes operating before Time of Shipment — 
 Breakdown of Railway.] — The defendants char- 
 tered tlir plaintills' vessel for the carriage of a 
 cargo of ore from Poti in the Black Sea, the 
 charterparty containing amongst the excepted 
 jierils which might prevent or delay the loading 
 of the vessel : " floods, stoj (pages of trains, miners 
 or workmen, accidents to railways atul to mines 
 or piers from which the ore is to be shi[)ped." In 
 the ordinary course the ore was brought from the 
 mines to the pier by lines of railway, and could.
 
 •251 
 
 SHIPPING— XI. ( ■harUrpavhj. 
 
 252 
 
 not be brought in any other way, and was not 
 generally brought until it was wanted for ship- 
 ment. The vessel arrived at Poti, but no cargo 
 -was or could be supplied to her in consequence of 
 the breakdown of the railway communication 
 between the mines and the pier, caused by storms 
 and floods, anil the vessel sailed away without 
 cargo. In an action by the plaintiffs against 
 the charterers for not supplying the cargo : — 
 Held, that the exceptions in the charterparty 
 applied not only to causes operating at the port 
 of loading, but also to causes operating to prevent 
 the ore being brought from the mines to the pier, 
 and that the charterers were therefore protected 
 by the exceptions. FurnessY. Fin-wood, 77 L. T. 
 •95. 
 
 Master's Signature to Bills of Lading— Penalty 
 for Delay in Signing.] — A stipulation in a 
 charterparty that the master shall sign bills of 
 lading within twenty-four hours after the cai-go 
 is on board, or pay 4d. per registered ton per day 
 for each day's delay, is a stipulation for a penalty. 
 Jones v. Hough (5 Ex. D. 115) followed. The 
 iPrincess, 6 e! 723 ; 70 L. T. 388 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 432. 
 
 If the master eventually signs the bill of lading, 
 the stipulation does not cease to be a stipulation 
 for a penalty. Ih. 
 
 Freight — Master to sign at any Eate of Freight 
 "without prejudice to this charterparty" — 
 Cesser Clause coupled with Lien — Duty of 
 jyiaster.] — Where a charterparty provides that 
 t he captain is to sign bills of lading at any rate 
 of freight required •' without prejudice to this 
 charterparty," the latter words impose no duty 
 upon the captain to refuse to sign any bills of 
 ilading not containing provisions that preserve 
 to the shipowner his lien for the full charter- 
 ^larty freight. They mean only that the ship- 
 owner's right of action against the charterer for 
 the charterparty freight is not to be prejudiced. 
 Hansen v. HarroU, 63 L. J., Q. B. 744 ; [1894] 
 1 Q. B. 612 ; 9 R. 315 ; 70 L. T. 475 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 464— C. A. 
 
 Advances for Disbursements on Account of 
 Freight — Obligation to make Demand.] — A 
 charterparty provided for the paymeut of certain 
 lump sum freights, and contained the following 
 ■clauses : " Cash for steamer's ordinary disburse- 
 ments at port or ports of loading, not exceeding 
 1 50^. in all, to be advanced at the excliauge of 
 ^Od. to the dollar on account of freight, subject 
 to 3 per cent, to cover costs of insm-ance, &c. 
 "(captain's receipts to be conclusive evidence of 
 the amount of such advances, and of their having 
 been properly made), and balance of freight on 
 ■right and true delivery of the cargo in cash " : — 
 Held, that the master of the ship was not obliged 
 to put the clause in force, but he was at liberty 
 to take advantage of it or not as he in fact found 
 it necessary, and that, therefore, if the shipowners 
 provided him with money for disbursements, or 
 he chose to advance it himself , it was unnecessary 
 for him to ask the charterers for an advance on 
 account of freight, and the owners could not be 
 held liable for breach of contract if he did not 
 ask for an advance. The Primula, 63 L. J., Adm. 
 118 ; [1894] P. 128 ; 6 R. 749 ; 70 L. T. 253 ; 42 
 W. R. 527 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 429. 
 
 Cesser Clause — Liability of Charterer as Holder 
 of Bill of Lading,] — A clause in a charterparty 
 
 providing for the cesser of the charterer's liability 
 on the goods being loaded, does not absolve the 
 charterer, if he be also the indorsee and holder of 
 a bill of lading, incorporating the conditions of 
 the charterparty, from liability for damage in- 
 curred at an intermediate port. Bryden v. 
 Kiehuhr, 1 Cab. & E. 241. 
 
 East India Company's Charter — Ship used for 
 War Purposes.] — The East India Company's 
 charterparties ])rovided that the company should 
 be at liberty to use the ship for war purposes, 
 and to put her under the command of the king's 
 officer's. The company altered the upper works 
 of a ship chartered by them, put more guns on 
 board than stipulated in the charterparty, and 
 put her under command of a king's officer : — 
 Held, that the charterparty authorised such use 
 of her. Dohrcc v. East India Co., 13 East, 290. 
 
 Ship Chartered for Trade or War — Loss on 
 Voyage of Discovery.] — A ship chartered to the 
 East India Company for trade or warfare was 
 lost whilst upon a voyage of discovery ordered by 
 the company : — Held, that her owners could 
 recover damages for her loss against the company 
 if they did not consent to the voyage ; but, it 
 appearing that they had consented, nonsuit. 
 Leioin v. East India Co., Peake, 243 ; 3 R. R. 
 700. 
 
 Agreement to pay Pilotage, &c. — Cargo Short 
 Delivered — Liability.] — Upon an agreement to 
 pay certain pilotage and port charges for an 
 entire voyage, though a part onlj^ of the cargo 
 is delivered, there will be no apportionment of 
 the pilotage and port charges, birt the whole 
 must be paid. Christy v. Row, 1 Taunt. 300 ; 9 
 R. R. 776. 
 
 Causes beyond Charterers' Control.] — The 
 
 words " or other causes beyond their control " in 
 the exception clause of a charterparty do not 
 relieve charterers from their liability to demur- 
 rage, where delay in loading a ve.ssel is due to the 
 disorganisation of workmen at the factory of the 
 sellers of the goods, the results of which disor- 
 ganisation could have been avoided had the char- 
 terers in the first instance made a better bargain 
 with the sellers. Such delay is not due to causes 
 outside the charterers' power or beyond their 
 control. Riehardsons and Samvels 4" Co., In re, 
 66 L. J., Q. B. 579 ; 66 L. J., Q. B. 868 ; 77 L. T. 
 479. S. C. in C. A. 
 
 vii. Evidence to Explain, 
 
 Custom — Lay Days.] — By a charterparty, made 
 at Riga, the ship was to proceed with a cargo of 
 timber, to Liverpool, and to deliver at such dock 
 there as ordered on arrival. On arrival at Liver- 
 pool the ship duly entered into dock, but in 
 consequence of the crowded state of the dock, 
 was unable for some days to obtain a berth 
 alongside the quay from which she was allowed 
 to discharge : — Held, that in an action for 
 demurrage, evidence was admissible tending to 
 shew that, by the cirstom of the port of arrival, 
 timber ships were not considered to have arrived 
 until they had obtained a discharging berth 
 within the dock. Steamship Co. Novden v. 
 Dempsey, 45 L. J., C. P. 764 ; 1 C. P. D. 654 ; 
 24 W. R. 984. 
 
 "Always Lay and Discharge Afloat."] — 
 
 Where a vessel is chartered to proceed with
 
 253 
 
 SHIPPING— XI. Charterparty. 
 
 254 
 
 cavgo to a "safe port ... as ordered, or as 
 near thereto as she can safely get, and always 
 lay and discharge afloat," the master is not 
 bound to discharge at a port -where she cannot, 
 hj reason of her draught of water, always lie 
 and discharge afloat, without being lightened. 
 Evidence that it was the custom at the port of 
 discharge for vessels to be lightened in the roads 
 before proceeding into the harbour held to lie 
 inadmissible. The AUiainhra, .')0 L. J.. Adm. 36; 
 c. P. D. 68 ; 43 L. T. 636 ; 29 W. E. 655 : 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 410— C. A. 
 
 Cargo to be " taken from Alongside at 
 Merchant's Expense," and "to be discharged 
 according to Custom of the Port."] — A charter- 
 party cuiitaiued two clauses. '• cargo to be taken 
 from alongside at merchant's expense," and 
 ■• to be discharged according to custom of the 
 port " : — Held, that these clauses were not con- 
 tradictory, and therefore evidence of custom was 
 inadmissible to charge the shipowner with the 
 c(jst of unloading. The Mfa, 62 L. J., Adm. 12 ; 
 [1892] P. 411 fl R. 540 ; 69 L. T. 56 ; 7 Asp. 
 M. C. 324. 
 
 not control the charterparty. Ilolman v. Peru- 
 vian Xitrate Co., 5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 657. 
 
 Evidence as to Keaning of " Cargo " and 
 
 " Freight."] — A. engaged with B. to have a 
 full cargo for the ship, the rates of freight for 
 which would average 40s. per ton. and at least 
 nine cabin passengers, passage-money to average 
 Ibl. The contract was fulfilled as to the 
 passengers, but the average rate of freight for 
 goods amounted to ZOs. only per ton. A. 
 shipped, however, steerage passengers, the net 
 profits from whom made the average earnings 
 of the ship over 40*. : — Held, that as this was an 
 unusual contract, evidence was not admissible to 
 shew that the terms " cargo " and " freight " used 
 with reference to the voyage on which the ship 
 was engaged would, by tlie general usage and 
 course of the trade, be considered to corapi-ise 
 steerage passengers, and the net profit arising 
 from their passage-money. Lewis v. Marshall, 
 1 Man. & G. 729 ; 8 Scott (x.R.) 729 ; 13 L. J., 
 C. P. 193 ; 8 Jur. 848. 
 
 "Safe Port" — Evidence as to Custom to 
 lighten Ship.] — Where a vessel is chartered 
 to proceed with a cargo to a port of call for 
 " " ■■ L the 
 
 ship- 
 owner is to deliver the cargo at a safe port in 
 the ordinary sense ; and if it would be necessary 
 to discharge part of the cargo in order to proceed 
 to the port named by the charterer's agents the 
 captain is entitled, unless it is otherwise provideil 
 by the charterparty, to refuse to proceed to the 
 port so named, and in such a case evidence of a 
 custom to lighten vessels to enable them to 
 proceed to the port named is not admissible. 
 The Alhamhra (50 L. J., Adm. 36 : 6 P. U. 68) 
 followed ; Nielsen v. Wait (55 L. J.. Q. B. 87 ; 
 16 Q. B. D. 67) distinguished, lleynolds v. 
 Tumlinson, 65 L. J., Q. B. 496; [1896] 1 Q. B. 586; 
 74 L. T. 591 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 150. 
 
 Evidence of General Custom admissible.] 
 In construing a charterparty evidence of the | orders to discharge at a " safe port " 
 existence of a general custom in the particular | United Kingdom, the contract of the 
 trade is admissible, but to affect the construction 
 of the document the custom must be proved to 
 exist. Cannhi/jham v. Fonhlanque, 6 Car. & P. 44. 
 
 Not where it adds New Term to Charter- 
 party.] — Where the charterers attempted to set 
 up against the .shipowner a custom that, unless 
 expressly excluded by the charterparty, and 
 notwithstanding a provision in the charterparty 
 that the cargo was to be consigned to the 
 'charterer's agents abroad free of commission on 
 the charter, the agents were, on procuring an 
 outward charter, to receive a commission on 
 freight payable under it : — Held, that evidence 
 *)i the alleged custom was not admissible, as it 
 would not explain the charteiparty, but would 
 add a new term to it. Pltillips v. Uriard, 1 
 H. &M.21. 
 
 Or is inconsistent with Charterparty.] 
 
 — By a charterparty the vessel was to deliver at 
 H., "or so near thereto as she could safely get"; 
 to discharge as customaiy ; the cargo to be 
 brought to and taken from alongside the ship 
 at merchant's risk and expense. The draught 
 of water of the vessel with the cargo on board 
 was too great to allow her to reach H. The 
 nearest jioint to which she could safely get 
 was S., where the merchant refu.sed to accept 
 delivery of any part of the cargo. In order to 
 lighten the vessel, part of her cargo was dis- 
 charged into lighters at S. and sent in them to 
 H. Her owner having sued the charterer to 
 recover the lighterage expenses : — Held, that a 
 •flefenee alleging that by the custom of the port 
 of H. the defendant was not bound to take 
 ■delivery elsewhere than at H. was bad on de- 
 murrer, inasmuch as it sought to set up a custom 
 inconsistent with the written contract, and that 
 the plaintiff was entitled to recover the lighterage 
 •expenses. Hayioii v. Irwin, 5 C. P. D. 130 ; 41 
 L. T. 666 ; 28 'W. R. 665 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 212— 
 C. A. 
 
 Local.] — Scmble. If the custom be local 
 
 ^nly, it niUit be known to both parties, or it will 
 
 d. Alteration, Variation and Cancellation. 
 
 Authority of Agent.]— An agent at a foreign 
 port to whom a ship is ad(h-essed for loading 
 under a charterparty has no implied authority 
 to vary the contract by substituting another and 
 a distant port of loading, or a diilerent (luality 
 or description of cargo. Sickens v. Iriin/j, 7 
 C. B. (N.s.) 165 ; 29 L. J., C. P. 25 ; 6 Jur. (N.s.) 
 200. 
 
 Effect of.] — The stipulations in a charterparty 
 may be v.aried by subsequent instructions, whirli 
 may amount to a new contract pro tanto ; and 
 an insurance of freight upon a new voyage, 
 though different from that described in the 
 chaiterparty, may be good. J/nl! v. Jfroton, 2 
 Dow, 367, 375. 
 
 In Margin.] — A merchant entcrc<l into a 
 charterparty in the following terms: " Jt is 
 agreed between tlie owner of the goo<I shi|> 
 " Zwaan," now at Amsterdam, and to sail from 
 thence for Liverpool on or before the 15lli of 
 March next, and the charterer, tliat the ship, 
 being tight, staunch and strong, shall with all 
 convenient speed be made ready," &;c. as in the 
 usual printed form of charterpaity. The excep- 
 tion was as follows : " Hestrictions of princes 
 and rulers, the dangers and accidents of the seas 
 and navigation, the act of God, fire, pirates and
 
 255 
 
 SHIPPING— XI. Chartevparty. 
 
 256 
 
 enemies, throughout this charterparty always 
 excepted." After the signing of the charter, the 
 broker who had acted for the owner wrote in 
 the margin, to come after the words " March 
 next," " wind and weather permitting, with 
 cargo or in ballast, for ship's benefit." He then 
 took the charter to the charterer, and told him 
 that he had made the note in the margin, which 
 he said did not affect it. The charterer said that 
 the note altered the matter, and he did not know 
 that he would then accept the charter ; and he 
 ultimately refused to do so. The ship did not 
 sail from Amsterdam, in consequence of what 
 ■was admitted to be " the act of God " :— Held, 
 that the charterparty was avoided by the altera- 
 tion so made in the margin. Cruockewit v. 
 Fletcher, 1 H. & N. 893 ; 26 L. J., Ex. 153 ; 
 5 W. K. 3i8. 
 
 By Parol.] — Assumpsit lies where a sealed 
 charterparty was afterwards altered by parol, 
 where the subsequent parol contract was distinct 
 fi-om, and not inconsistent with, the contract by 
 deed being anterior to it in point of time and 
 execution. White v. Park/n, 12 East, 578; 11 
 11. R. 488. And see JDaviesv.ITawkms, 3 M. & S. 
 488. 
 
 Where a shipowner coTcnanted to sail from 
 London to Gibraltar, and there to deliver an 
 outward cargo, and receive from the agents of 
 the f reighter'at Gibraltar, or at Malaga, Cadiz, or 
 Seville, as should be ordered by the agents at 
 Gibraltar, such goods as they might load on 
 board for the homeward cargo, and that the 
 vessel shduld return direct to the port of London 
 and deliver the homeward cargo; and the agents 
 at Gibraltar ordered the captain to proceed to 
 Cadiz, at which place other agents directed by 
 parol that the homeward cargo should be de- 
 livered at Liveipool instead of Loudon : — Held, 
 that the shipowner having delivered the cargo 
 .at Liverpool could not recover the freight, the 
 substitution by parol of Liverpool for London 
 being inconsistent with the covenant contained 
 in the charterparty. Thomj^sun v. Brown, 1 
 Moore, 358 ; 7 Taunt. 656. 
 
 Cancellation— By Ship's Husband.]— A ship's 
 husband cannot bind his owners by an agree- 
 ment to cancel a charterparty, and pay a sum 
 of money on such cancellation. Thomas v. Lewis 
 or Oxley, 48 L. J., Ex. 7 ; 4 Ex. D. 18 ; 39 L. T. 
 669 ; 27 W. R. HI ; 4 Asp. M. C. 31. 
 
 Option to Cancel — Ship not ready to 
 
 load.] — A charter] larty, provided that should 
 the steamship not be ready to load on or before 
 May 31, the charterer should have the option of 
 cancelling the charter. On that day the vessel 
 had discharged two holds only of her outward 
 cargo, and was not completely discharged until 
 the next day : — Held, that the charterers were 
 entitled to cancel. Groves v. Volliart, 1 Cab. & E. 
 3U9. 
 
 Eenunciation — Eight to Sue for Breach.] — A 
 mere intimation by the agent of the charterer 
 til the master before the time of loading had 
 expired that he had ceded the charterparty 
 with aU its rights and obligations to a third 
 party, and that he must address himself to the 
 third party for a cargo, does not amount to a 
 renunciation of the charterparty so as to entitle 
 the owner to sue as for a breach. Barrich v. 
 Baba, 2 C. B. (n.s.) 563 ; 26 L. J., C. P. 280. 
 
 Alteration by Charterer's Agent abroad — 
 Bate of Freight.] — See IT/V/r/Z/M- v. Jolimou, XIII. 
 Fkeight, infra, col. 418. 
 
 Freight — Substituted Voyage — Action on 
 
 Charterparty.] — See 'J'hdiii/i.sini v. Brown, 
 XIII. Freight, infra, col. 371. 
 
 Alteration of Voyage.] — See Davidson v. 
 Gwipme, infra, col. 306. 
 
 e. Conditions and "Warranties. 
 
 i. Class of Shi}}. 
 
 What is.] — In a charterparty made at New 
 York, between British subjects, a vessel was 
 described as " the A 1 Br. brig, ' Hannah 
 Eastee,' of Liverpool" : — Held that this descrip- 
 tion was a warranty by the owners that the 
 vessel was at the time classed A 1 at Lloyds' in 
 London. Bouth v. MaoMillan, 2 H. & C. 750 ; 
 33 L. J.. Ex. 38 ; 10 Jur. (N.s.) 158 ; 9 L. T. 541 ; 
 12 W. R. 381. 
 
 Not Continuing.] — A description in a charter- 
 party that a vessel is of a particular class is not 
 a continuing warranty, but applies only to the 
 classification at the time the charterparty is 
 made. French v. Newgass, 47 L. J., C. P. 361 ; 
 3 C. P. D. 163 ; 38 L. T. 164 ; 26 W. E. 430 ; 
 3 Asp. M. C. 574.— G. A. 
 
 In a charterparty the ship was described as 
 newly classed "A Ij. Record of American and 
 Foreign Shipping Book." The ship was char- 
 tered to New Orleans to load cotton. Soon after 
 her arrival there the certificate of her classifica- 
 tion was cancelled, and the charterers were in 
 consequence unable to obtain insurances on the 
 cotton, and they refused to load the ship. In 
 an action by the shipowners against the char- 
 terers for breach of the charterparty : — Held^ 
 that there was no breach of warranty by the- 
 shipowners, because the statement of the ship'3 
 classification in the charterparty was a warranty 
 only that she was so classed at that time, and 
 not that she was rightly, or would continue so 
 classed, and that the shipowners were entitled 
 to maintain their action. Ih. 
 
 The description of a vessel in a charterparty 
 as A 1, warrants only that she was A 1 at the 
 time of making the charterparty, not that she 
 should continue to be so. Hurst v. Ushorn, 18 
 C. B. 144 ; 25 L. J., C. P. 209 ; 4 W. R. 458. 
 
 Meaaing of Term "Steamship."] — When a. 
 
 vessel by which goods are forwarded is described, 
 as a steamship, simpliciter, in the bill of lading- 
 forming the agreement between the freighter amll 
 the owner of the vessel, the contract is that the- 
 goods shall be transported in a ship whereof the 
 primary and principal propelling power is steam,, 
 and the terms will not be satisfied by an auxiliary 
 screw steamship making a sailing voyage with 
 the occasional aid of her steam power. Frasev 
 V. Telegraph Construction and ]\J<iintenance Co., 
 41 L. J., Q. B. 249 ; L. R. 7 Q. B. 566 ; 27 L. T.. 
 373 ; 20 W. R. 724. 
 
 Meaning of Term "Efficient."] — The term 
 
 " efficient," as applied in a ehartcrparty to a. 
 ship, must be construed with reference to the 
 several classes of work which she has from time 
 to time to accomplish. Hogarth v. Miller, 60- 
 L. J., P. C. 1 ; [1891] A. C. 48 ; 64 L. T. 205 ;. 
 7 Asp. M. C. 1— H. L. (Sc.)
 
 257 
 
 SHIPPING— XL Charterparhj. 
 
 Nationality of Ship — Knowledge of Freighter.] 
 — To prove that a ship is British bailt, a British 
 register, so describing her, is by itself no evi- 
 dence. A ship was described in a memorandum 
 for a charterparty as " the Swedish ship or vessel 
 called 'the Maria.'" In fact she was British 
 built and had a British register, but she had 
 Swedish oaoers and a licence to sail as a 
 Swedish ship — which was known to the freighter. 
 In an action against the freighter for not loading 
 — Held, that he could not set up as a defence 
 that she was not a Swedish ship. Reusse v. 
 Meijeyg, 3 Camp. 474. 
 
 ii. Seaicorthiness aiid Fitness. 
 
 Implied "Wcixanty.] — In every charterparty 
 there is an undertaking on the part of the ship- 
 owner that the ship shall be seaworthy. Lyon 
 V. Mells, o East, 428 ; 7 R. R. 726. S. P., Bale 
 V. JLill, 1 Wils. 28 1. And see Ilollinqwortli v. 
 Jir.'drick, 7 A. & E. 40 ; 2 N. & P. 608'; 8 L. J., 
 Q. B. 80 ; 1 Jur. 430. 
 
 Sufficiency of Crew.] — Theowner is bound 
 
 to provide a competent master and crew. Shore 
 V. Bnntall, 7 B. & C. 798 ; 31 R. R. 302, n. ; and 
 see Wynne v. Fellowes, infra, col. 300. 
 
 Extent of Warranty.] — If a chartered vessel 
 is seaworthy at the commencement of the 
 voyage, but is afterwards damaged by perils of 
 the sea, though the owner is not bound to repair 
 the vessel, yet if he elects not to do so, he ought 
 not to proceed with the vessel in the unsea- 
 worthy condition. Worms Y.Stvrr}/, 11 Ex.427; 
 2.-> L. J., Ex. 1. 
 
 A shipowner who accepts goods which he is to 
 deliver in good condition, impliedly contracts 
 to perform the voyage in a shii) which is sea- 
 worthy. Sfeel V. Strttfl Line Steamship Co., 3 
 App. Cas. 72 ; 37 L. T. 333 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 516. 
 
 The implied warranty of seaworthiness into 
 which the owner of a ship enters with the owTier 
 of her cargo, attaches at a time when the 
 perils of the intended voyage commence, that is, 
 when she sets sail with the cargo on board for 
 her port of destination ; and this warranty is 
 broken if she is then unfit to encounter these 
 perils, although she may have been seaworthy 
 whilst lying in the port of loading, and also at 1 
 the time of starting from her anchorage for and | 
 arriving at the jilace of loading appointed by the ! 
 charterer, and of commencing to take on })()ard 
 her cargo. Cohen or Cuhii, v. Baridson, 4fi L. J., 
 <). B. 30;-) ; 2 Q. B. D. 4r,.5 ; 3« L. T. 244 ; 2n 
 W. K. 3«9 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 374. 
 
 A vessel was chartered for a voyage to Dundee 
 from the port of Sunderland, where she was 
 lying in a seaworthy condition. Pursuant, to the 
 terms of the charterparty, and \>y the orders of 
 the charterer, the vessel i)rocee<led to a wharf 
 situate in tlie port of Sunderland, and there 
 loaded on board a cargo of cement. At the time 
 wlien she commenced taking in the cargo sh(! 
 was seaworthy; but by the time of setting sail 
 cm her voyage she had from some unknown 
 cause become unseaworthy. The owners of the 
 vessel were not guilty of negligence in sending 
 her to sea in the condition in which she then 
 was. Soon after starting from Sunderland she 
 began to leak ; Vjut the wind being fair for the 
 voyage to Dundee, the master resolved to keep 
 his course, and he was not guilty of any negli- 
 gence in not returning to Sunderland. The 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 258 
 
 vessel did not reach Dundee, but foundered at 
 
 , sea, and the cargo of cement was totally lost : 
 
 Held, that the warranty of seaworthiness implied 
 by law upon entering into the charterparty had 
 been broken, and that the charterer was entitled 
 to recover the value of the cargo shipped by him 
 on board the vessel, Ih. 
 
 In every contract for the conveyance of 
 merchandise by sea there is, in the absence of 
 express provision to the contrary, an implied 
 warranty by the shipowner that his vessel is 
 seaworthy. Kopltof v. Wilson, 4.5 L. J., Q. B. 
 436 ; 1 Q. B. D. 377 ; 34 L. T. 677 ; 24 W. R. 
 706 ; 3 Asp, M. C. 163. 
 
 In an action to recover damages for the loss of 
 iron armour-plates, which were lost on board a 
 ship, it appeared that the shipowners, by their 
 servants, stowed the ship, and that during rough 
 weather one of the plates broke loose and went 
 through the side of the ship, which in conse- 
 quence was lost. At the trial the judge told the 
 jury, as a matter of law, that a shipowner war- 
 rants the fitness of his ship when she sails, and 
 not merely that he will honestly and bona fide 
 endeavour to make her fit, and "left to them the 
 questions, was the vessel at the time of the 
 sailing, in a state, as regards the stowing and 
 receiving of these plates, reasonably fit to 
 encounter the ordinary perils that might be 
 expected on a voyage at that season ? secondly, 
 if she was not In a fit state, was the loss that 
 happened caused by that unfitness ? — Held, that 
 the direction was right and correctly stated 
 the liability of a shipowner, even though he did 
 not hold himself out as a common carrier. lb. 
 
 In the contract of a shipowner to carry goods 
 shipped on board his vessel, there is no implied 
 condition that the vessel shall be seaworthy. 
 Schloss V. Heriot, 14 C. B. (n.s.) 59 ; 32 L. J,, 
 C, P. 211 ; 10 Jur. (N.S.) 76 ; 8 L. T. 246 ; 11 
 \V. R. 596. 
 
 But to an action by the shipowner against the 
 merchant who shipped goods on board, for the 
 hitter's share of an average loss, it is a good plea, 
 on the ground of avoiding circuity of action, to 
 plead that the ship was not seaworth_v at the 
 commencement of the voyage and that the 
 average loss was caused and arose from and in 
 consequence of such unseaworthiness. / h. 
 
 Throwing up Charter by Reason of Unsea- 
 worthiness of Ship, j — A. agreed to charter a ship 
 for twelve months after the cdnipletion of her 
 then present voyage. After the completion of 
 the voyage and when he was ready to load the 
 ship she was detained as unseaworthy ; and 
 the repairs were not finished until more than 
 two months after the coni[)letion of the voyage : 
 — Held, that the charterer was entitled to throw 
 up the charterparty. Tulltj v. Jfou>liii(i,A<S L. J., 
 Q. B, 3MH ; 2 y. P.. D. 1.H2 ; 36 L. t. 163; 25 
 W. U, 2'.tO : 3 Asp, M, C, 61— C. A. 
 
 Voyage in Stages.] — By a charterparty a ship 
 was to proceed to ()raii, and there load a part 
 cargo of esparto, for delivery at Garston, with 
 liberty to fill up with ore, or other dead-weight 
 cargo, for owner's benefit, and to call at any 
 jiorts in any older. She loa<led at Oran, and left 
 with a supply of coal insufficient for a voyage 
 thence to Garston. She called at Huelva, and 
 was filled up with ore, but no further sujipiy of 
 (•oal was taken on board. After leaving Huelva, 
 the ship went a,shore, by reason of the insufficient 
 sui)ply of coal, and the cargo was lost. In an 
 
 9
 
 259 
 
 SHIPPING— XI. Charteriiarty. 
 
 260 
 
 action for iion-dclivcry of the cspnrto : — Held, 
 by the court beUnv, that the voyajfc was au 
 entire voyage from Oran to Garston, and that 
 the warranty of seaworthiness at the commence- 
 ment of that voyage having been broken, the 
 plaintiffs were entitled to recover : — Held, on 
 appeal, that even if the voyage could be treated 
 as one divided into stages, the warranty of sea- 
 worthiness, which attaches at the commence- 
 ment of each stage, had been broken at Huelva, 
 and the plaintiffs were entitled to recover. 
 Thin V. Richards, 62 L. J., Q. B. 39 ; [18'.t2] 2 
 Q. B. 141 ; 66 L. T. 584 ; 40 W. R. 617 ; 7 Asp. 
 M. C. 165—0. A. 
 
 Fitness for Cargo.] — A ship was chartered to 
 sail to Manilla for orders to load there, or at 
 Yloilo, a full and complete cargo of sugar in 
 bags, hemp in compressed bales, -^ measure- 
 ment goods,iand therewith to sail to Cork, &c., 
 the freight to be at the rate of U. 2s. 6d. for dry 
 sugar, U. 5s. for wet sugar, and 4Z. 15*. for hemp 
 or measurement goods ; the master engaging 
 that the vessel before and when receiving cargo 
 .should be a good risk for insurance, and that 
 during the voyage he would take all proper 
 means to keep the vessel tight, staunch and 
 .strong, and in every way fitted and provided for 
 the voyage. At Yloilo* the charterer provided a 
 full cargo of wet sugar in bags. In the course 
 of loading it was found that the quantity of 
 molasses which had drained, and which might 
 have been expected to drain, from the wet sugar 
 was so great as to render the ship unseaworthy 
 unless removed, and that the ship's pumps were 
 unable to remove it. The ship was in all other 
 respects seaworthy, but could not have been 
 rendered seaworthy for that cargo without a 
 delay which would have frustrated the objects 
 of the voyage: — Held, that the charterer was 
 entitled unde'r the charter party to supply a full 
 cargo of wet sugar, and to have a ship provided 
 which was fit for such a cargo. Stanton v. 
 Richardson, 45 L. J., C. P. 78 ; 33 L. T. 193 ; 24 
 W. R. 324 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 23— H. L. 
 
 There is no undertaking on the part of a ship- 
 owner that his vessel (if really fit) shall be free 
 from suspicion of unfitness to receive a cargo on 
 board. Tuicsc v. Henderson, 4 Ex. 890 ; 19 L. J., 
 Ex. 163. 
 
 Damages.] — A ship was chartered and put w\> 
 at the ilauritius as a general ship, and received 
 on board sugars consigned to London. In con- 
 sequence of the unseaworthiness of the ship she 
 was forced to return to the Mauritius, and part 
 of the sugars which were damaged was there 
 landed and sold. The owners of the sugars 
 brought actions against the charterers for the 
 shortTdelivery. They having no defence suffered 
 judgment by default, and attended the execution 
 of the writs of inquiry. The owner of the vessel 
 had notice of the actions and of each step 
 therein, and was invited to take on himself the 
 defence, which he declined to do : — Held, that 
 the charterers weie entitled to recover the sums 
 paid by them in those actions, and also the costs 
 incurred by them therein. Blyth v. Smith, 6 
 Scott (N.R.) 360 ; 5 Man. & G. 405 ; 12 L. J., 
 C. P. 203 ; 7 Jur. 948. 
 
 Declaration for freight on a charterparty, 
 whereby the ship being tight and every way 
 fitted for the voyage should, at Sunderland, load 
 a cargo of coals and proceed to Constantinople, 
 being paid freight on the c|uantity delivered, 
 
 " one-fourth of the freight to be advanced to the 
 owners' agent in London, on the ship having 
 sailed, less five per cent, thereon for assurance, 
 interest and commission." Averment, that the 
 defendant caused the ship to be loaded with a 
 cargo of co;ds, and " that she, being so loaded, 
 sailed for C. pursuant to the charterparty." 
 Plea, that the ship was not, at the commence- 
 ment of the voyage, tight and every way fitted 
 for the voyage, and that by reason thereof the 
 ship and cargo were lost ; and a second plea, 
 that after the ship sailed, the plaintiff was 
 guilty of negligent and improper conduct with 
 regard to the management of the ship, by reason 
 whereof the ship and cargo were lost : — Held, 
 that the first plea was not a good plea in avoid- 
 ance of circuity of action, as the damages 
 sustained by the defendant were not necessarily 
 identical in amount with the sum claimed by the 
 plaintiff ; but that it was a bar to the action, on 
 the ground that the advance on the freight had 
 never become payable. Thompson v. Gillespy, 
 5 El. & Bl. 209 ; 24 L. J., Q. B. 340 ; 1 Jur. (N.s.) 
 779 : 3 W. R. 505. 
 
 Ship of Peculiar Construction — Special Appli- 
 ances.] — See The Marathon, 48 L. J., Adm. 17 ; 
 40 L. T. 163 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 75 ; XII. BILL OP 
 Lading, post, col. 327. 
 
 Proof of Unseaworthiness— Ship Unseaworthy 
 shortly after Sailing.] — Unseaworthiness at 
 sailing may be inferred from proved unsea- 
 worthiness shortly after sailing. Watson v. 
 Clark, 1 Dow, 336 ; 14 R. R. 73, and cases supra, 
 col. 257. 
 
 Liability for Damage to Cargo.] — See Hutham. 
 V. Ea-st India Co., and cases infra, XV. CARGO, 
 cols. 550 seq. 
 
 Action for Breach of Contract as to Seaworthi- 
 ness — Insurance— Pleading.] —Action by shipper 
 against shipowner for breach of contract that 
 the ship was seaworthy at commencement of 
 voyage, whereby i)laintiff was prevented from 
 insuring : plea that before any damage accrued 
 to the plaintiff the ship was made seaworthy : — 
 Held, bad. Dunbar v. Smithwaite, 3 W. R. 68. 
 
 See also post, XII. Bill of Lading, Sea- 
 worthiness, Warranty. 
 
 iii. Position and Sailing. 
 
 Position of Ship.] — By a charterparty it was 
 agreed that the ship "Ceres," of the measure- 
 nrent, &c., " expected to be at Alexandria about 
 the 15th of December," being tight, &c., "should 
 with all convenient speed " sail and proceed to 
 that port, and there receive from the charterers 
 a cargo of cotton seed. In an action against the 
 owner, the breach alleged in the declaration was, 
 that the ship was not expected to be at Alex- 
 andria about the 15th of December, 1871, but 
 was then in such part of the world and under 
 such engagements that she could not perforin 
 those engagements and arrive at Alexanilria 
 about the said day :— Held, a good breach, the 
 descriptive statement amounting to a warranty 
 that the ship was in such a position that she 
 might reasonably be expected to arrive at Alex- 
 andria by the day named. Corhlina v. Massei/, 
 42 L. J., C. P. 153 ; L. R. 8 C. P. 395 ; 28 L. T. 
 636 ; 21 W. R. 680 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 18.
 
 '261 
 
 SHIPPIXG— XI. Charterparty. 
 
 A plea, that, at the time ot' making the charter- 
 !party. the ship was, to the charterer's knowledge, 
 'engaged for a certain voyage, and that the 
 •charterparty was made subject to a condition 
 •that she should with all convenient speed fulfil 
 lier engagement and then ])roceed to the port 
 of loading, and that she did so, is a good plea. 
 lb. 
 
 " Ship now at Eangoon."] — In an action by 
 the vendors against their vendees for refusal to 
 accept, evidence was given to shew the circum- 
 ■stances under which the contract was made, and 
 that it was of vital importance that the vessel 
 •should be in the po;t named at the time of 
 making the contract. The jury found, that the 
 condition '• Sliip now at Eangoon," had not been 
 fulfilled, and that it was a coutlitiou absolutely 
 vfital: — Held, that it was rightly left to the jury 
 to say under what circumstances the contract 
 was made, and that the words " Ship now at 
 Rangoon " amounted to a warranty justifying 
 the defendants in saying that there had been a 
 failure of performance of a condition precedent 
 and in refusing to carry out the contract. 
 Oppenhelm v. Fraset: 34 L. T. 524 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 146. 
 
 Held, also, that the finding of the jury was 
 rightly taken as an element in enabling the court 
 to say that the words amounted to a condition 
 |)recedcnt. Ih. 
 
 "Now in port."] — By a charterparty, dated 
 London, the 19th of October, 1800, A.'s ship 
 ■was chartered to B. as follows : " It is this day 
 mutually agreed between A., owner of the good 
 ship or vessel called the M.. of 420 tons or there- 
 abouts, now in the port of Amsterdam, and B., 
 ■of London, merchant, that the shij) being tight, 
 staunch, strong, and everj' waj' fitted and ready 
 for the voyage, shall, with all possible despatch, 
 proceed direct to Newport, Monmouthshire," and 
 there take in cargo. On October 15th the shij) 
 was atNicuwediep, sixty-two miles from Amstcr- 
 tlam, and not in the port of Amsterdam, and 
 under favourable circumstances would have 
 reached the docks at Amsterdam in tvvelve hours 
 more, but in consequence of contrary winds and 
 the absence of steam-tug power, she remained 
 at Nieuwediep over the I'Jth of October, and ilid 
 not reach the docks till the 2;{rd of October-. 
 She discharged her cargo with all jKissible dis- 
 patch, was immediately made ready for sea, and 
 proceeded direct to Newpfirt, where she ariived 
 on the 1st of December. B. altogether refused 
 to load the ship : — Held, that tlie words "now 
 in the port of Amsterdam," in the charterparty, 
 imported a wari'anty, and that as the .ship was 
 not in the port of Amsterdam at the time when 
 the charteiparty was made, he was justifie<l in 
 saying that there had been a failure of perform- 
 ance of a conrlition precedent, and in refusing 
 altogether to carry out the contract. Jlehn v. 
 nurruss, 3 B. & S. 751 ; 32 L. J., Q. B. 204 ; t) 
 Jnr. (N.S.) 620 ; 8 L. T. 207 ; 11 W. R. 496— Ex. 
 Ch. 
 
 Time for Sailing — Warranty.] — To an action 
 for not loading a vessel, in p)irsu:ince f)f the 
 terms of a charterparty, the defendant pleaded 
 that it was agreed by the charter])arty, between 
 the plaintiff, oiiginal charterer of the good shij) 
 called the " Dove," A 1, of the measurement of 149 
 tons or thereabouts, now at sea, having sailed 
 three weeks ago or thereabouts, and the dcfen- 
 
 262 
 
 dant, that the ship, being tight, staunch, &c., 
 should proceed to Marseilles (after having 
 delivered her cargo at Genoa), and there load 
 goods of the defendant, and therewith proceed 
 to a safe port in the United Kingdom, calling at 
 Cork or Falmouth, for a certain rate of freight, 
 thirty working days to be allowed, Sundays 
 excepted. The plea then averred that time was 
 an essential and material part of the contract ; 
 and the probable situation of the ship, with 
 leference to the date of her sailing and the object 
 of her voyage, was also an essential part of the 
 contract ; and that, in point of fact, at the time 
 of making the charterparty, the ship had not 
 sailed three weeks, but a materially and unreason- 
 ably later time, of which the defendant had no 
 notice or knowledge, for which cause the defen- 
 dant neglected and refused to load the ship : — 
 Held, that the time at which the ship sailed was 
 material, and that the statement in the charter- 
 party amounted to a warranty. Ollive v. Booker, 
 1 Ex.416; 17 L. J., Ex. 21. 
 
 Guarantee of Despatch twenty - four hours 
 after Arrival.] — It was agreed by charterparty 
 that a vessel should sail to Sydney 2^ Moreton 
 B.ay, and thence proceed to Callao, Peru, where 
 the captain should report his arrival to G., who 
 should send the captain orders for loading a cargo 
 of guano at the Chincha Islands, to which place 
 the vessel should at once proceed, and after com- 
 pleting her loading, proceed to any safe port in 
 the United Kingdom ; freight to be paid at the 
 rate of U. sterling per ton weight of guano. 
 " The owners guarantee that for the freight of 
 ■il. per ton. the ship shall be despatched for 
 Australia within twenty-one days after arrival; 
 if detained over twenty-one days 3^. 10s. per ton 
 to be the rate of freight ; if ordered from Sydney 
 to Moreton Bay, the time so occupied not to be 
 reckoned in the days as above." The vessel 
 sailed from Liveriiool on the 5th July, 1853, and 
 anchored inside Sydney Heads on the 25th Octo- 
 ber, 1853. She was ordered to Moreton Bay, but 
 bad weather and the insubordination of a por- 
 tion of the crew prevented the vessel from 
 leaving Sydney Harbom- until the 4th November, 
 when she proceeded on her voyage, and on the 
 12th ancliored inside tlie Inlanders Rocks and 
 outside Moreton Bay. Slie was taken in charge 
 of a pilot, and on the llth arrived at her anchor- 
 age, where she remained until the 5th December. 
 Some of the crew having deserted, and othei's 
 refused to work, the remainder was not sullicient 
 to navigate the vessel safely to Callao, an<l no 
 addition to the crew could be procured at More- 
 ton Bay. On the 5th December the master 
 caused the anclior to be got up and the .sails set 
 by the men who were willing to work, with the 
 assistance of the harbour-master and pilot's 
 crew, and the vessel piocceded on her voyjige to 
 Callao, but wjis shortly afterwards bccalincd. 
 During the niglit several of the seamen deserted. 
 On the Gth tiie vessel proceeded some distance 
 further, when the greater part of the crew 
 refused to proceed to Callao, on the ground tliat. 
 the ship was not sufliciently manned, ami tliey 
 compelled the cajitaiii to return to Sydney. The 
 vessel arrive<l at Sydney on the ISlli December, 
 and remained there until the (Wli January, 1854, 
 when she sailed to Callao, where she ultimately 
 arrived and brought home a cargo of guano : — 
 Held, that under these circumstances the ship 
 was not despatched from Australia within 
 
 9—2
 
 263 
 
 SHIPPING— XL Chartcrparti/. 
 
 26^ 
 
 twenty-one days after her arrival, and conse- 
 quently that the owners of the vessel were not 
 entitled to the freight of il. per ton. Skarj} v. 
 Glhhs, 1 H. & N.8UI. 
 
 Condition precedent.] — Where a charter- 
 party, dated (jthof February, but averred not to 
 he. executed till the 15th of March, contained a 
 covenant by the owner that the ship should and 
 would proceed from D., where she then lay, on 
 or before the 12th of February, on her outward- 
 bound voyage, and return, &c., and a covenant 
 by the freighter, that, in consideration of every- 
 thing above mentioned, he would pay freight for 
 the voyage ; the voj'age being averred to be 
 performed, and the freight earned, the owner 
 may recover for it, without averring that the 
 ship sailed on or before the 12th of February, 
 such covenant that the ship should sail on or 
 before the 12th of February being either no 
 condition precedent, but onlj'- an independent 
 covenant, for breach of which the party had 
 his remedy in damages ; or not of the substance 
 of the contract, which was for the performing 
 of the voyage for which the ship was chartered, 
 and earning the freight ; or being rendered 
 impossible to be performed by the parties them- 
 selves not having executed the deed till after 
 the time appointed for doing the act, and 
 thereby dispensing with the performance of it. 
 Hall V. Cazenoi-e, 4 East, 477 ; 1 Smith, 272 ; 7 
 E. E.611. 
 
 Stipulations in a charterparty, that the vessel, 
 being tight, staunch and strong, shall sail with 
 convenient speed, and within a reasonable time, 
 are not conditions precedent to the performance 
 of a contract to load on the part of the charteier, 
 although if, by reason of the non-compliance 
 with those stipulations, the object of the charter- 
 party and of the voyage was wholly frustrated, 
 that may be an answer to an action for breach 
 of the contract. Tdrraliocltla v. H'lchie, 1 H. 
 & N. 183 : 2(; L. J., Ex. 26. 
 
 By a charterparty it was agreed, that the 
 vessel should proceed to Trieste, and there load 
 a full cargo of wheat, and, being so loaded, 
 should therewith proceed to a port in the 
 United Kingdom, "the vessel to sail from Eng- 
 land on 01' before the 4th of February then 
 next " : — Held, that the sailing of the vessel from 
 England on or before the day named was a con- 
 dition precedent to the owner's right to sue the 
 merchants for not providing a cargo at Trieste. 
 Glaholni v. Hayes, 2 Scott (N.R.) 471 ; 2 Man. & 
 G. 257 ; 10 L. J., C. P. 98. 
 
 The defendant chartered a ship of T. from 
 Sunderland to Barcelona : by the charterparty, 
 half the freight was to be advanced to the 
 master on his signing the bills of lading. T., 
 being indebted to the plaintiff, gave him an 
 order on the defendant, requiring the defen- 
 dant to pay to the plaintiff, on the ship " being 
 loaded and sailed, out of the advance," 73Z. The 
 defendant wrote at the foot of the order, that 
 he agreed to the above. The vessel being loaded 
 and in a fit state for sailing, but the clearances 
 not being completed, nor the bills of lading 
 signed, left Sundeiland Harbour, with the cap- 
 tain on board. She crossed the bar ; and the 
 captain returned to land, in order to get the 
 papers completed, and sign the bills of lading ; 
 he signed them, and got the advance of freight 
 from the defendant, who deducted a sum to 
 meet the I'Al. The vessel stood off and on, 
 waiting for the captain ; but it being found 
 
 I that she had Vieen injured, she returned to Sun- 
 deiland Harbour to repair, the captain not 
 
 I having joined her, and did not afterwards sail : 
 — Held, that the sailing of the vessel was a 
 condition precedc-yt to the liability of the 
 defendant to pay the 73/. Hudson v. Bilton, Q 
 El. & Bl. 565 ; 26 L. J., Q. B. 27 ; 2 Jur. (N.s.) 784. 
 
 "Ready to receive Cargo."] — In an 
 
 action for tlamages for loss of freight and for 
 demurrage, it was proved that tlie defendants 
 made a contract with the plaintiff containing 
 these clauses : " Steamer to load end of November 
 or early December. Charterers having the option 
 of cancelling if she is not ready to receive cargO' 
 by the 12th December next. Steamer to be 
 loaded on usual berth terms, 2 per cent, commis- 
 sion to us." The vessel arrived on the 10th 
 December, and her stern having been fastened, 
 to the breakwater, the captain gave the defen- 
 dants notice that he was ready to receive cargo,, 
 but the merchants refused to take the notice 
 that the vessel was " ready to receive cargo " 
 until she was moored alongside the quay, which 
 could not be done before the 18th December. 
 Meantime the merchants cancelled their con- 
 tracts with the defendants, and the vessel was 
 loaded at a lower rate of freight than that speci- 
 fied in the contract : — Held, that the plaintiff 
 was entitled to recover damages for the loss of 
 freight, as the vessel was "ready to receive 
 cargo" within the meaning of the contract, 
 although not moored alongside the quay, and 
 that the matter was not affected by an alleged 
 custom at the port, that a vessel was not to be 
 considered " ready to receive cargo " until moored 
 alongside the quay ; but that the plaintiff was 
 not entitled to damages for demurrage or deten- 
 tion of the vessel after 12th December, as the 
 contract came to an end on that date. Hick v. 
 Tweedy, 63 L. T. 765 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 599. 
 
 "Ready to Load,"] — A charterparty 
 
 provided that, should the steamer not be ready 
 to load on or before the 31st May, 1882, the 
 charterer should have the option of cancelling 
 the charter. On that day the vessel had dis- 
 charged two holds only of its outward caruo 
 and was not completely discharged till the 
 middle of the following day : — Held, that the 
 charterers were entitled to cancel the charter. 
 Groves V. Tolkai-t, 1 Cab. & E. 309. Affirmed iu> 
 C. A. And see The Austen Friars, Smith v. 
 Dart, infra ; Oliver v. Fielden, col. 604. 
 
 Obligation to Load — Date of Arrival.] — 
 
 A condition that ownei's will provide " steamers 
 to load between August antl early December 
 inclusive, at times to be in good time mutually 
 arranged, but as neai'ly as possible a steamer a 
 month," contained in a charterparty, under 
 which the charterers assume absolutely the obli- 
 gation of loading .such ships, does not make the 
 punctual arrival of the ship at dates mentioned.- 
 in a subsequent letter a condition precedent to 
 the arising of the charterers' obligation to load, 
 where the ships have been delayed by perils oft 
 the sea, which are excepted, or by towage which. 
 is allowed by the charterparty. Potter v. Burrell, 
 66 L. J., Q. B. 63 ; [1897] 1 Q. B. 97 ; 75 L. T. 
 491 ; 45 W. R. 145 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 200— C. A. 
 
 "Now Sailed or about to Sail " — Waiver, J 
 
 — The description in a charterparty of the ship as- 
 " now sailed, or about to sail," held to be of the 
 substance of the contract, and not a representa-
 
 2QI 
 
 SHIPPING— XI. Chartcrparti/. 
 
 •tion ; and that those words were a condition 
 precedent to the contract, and not a mere war- 
 iranty. The charterers could therefore have 
 refused to load. Sent sen v. Taylor, 63 L. J.. 
 <l. B. 15 : [1893] 2 Q. B. 274 ; 4 K. 510 ; 69 L. T. 
 487 ; 42 W. R. 8 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 385— C. A. 
 
 Where charterers have a right to repudiate the 
 contract, but induce the shipowner to send the 
 «hip to the port of loading in the belief that they 
 would only claim damages in respect of increased 
 freight and insurance premium : — Held, that 
 they had waived their right to insist on the non- 
 fulfilment of the condition, and were, therefore, 
 Lable for the freight. lb. 
 
 Sail with the next Wind.] — Defence to 
 
 action for freight that the ship did not sail with 
 the next wind : — Plea lield bad. Constable v. 
 Clocery, infra, col. 300. 
 
 Quarantine.! — By a charterparty of a 
 
 stcamshij) it was agreed that she should go to 
 ^' three safe loading jdaces" between two named 
 ports, and there load from the charterers a cargo 
 of oranges, and being so loaded proceed to Lon- 
 don . . . and deliver the same pursuant to bills 
 of lading . . . (the act of God . . . and all 
 dangers of the seas, rivers, and steam navigation 
 of what nature and kind soever during the said 
 voyage, always excepted), and the charterers 
 thereby i>romised to load the cargo, and stipu- 
 lated, after a provision for working and laydays, 
 that " should the steamer not be arrived at first 
 loading port free of pratique, and ready to load 
 on or before the 15th of December next, char- 
 terers have the option of cancelling or confirming 
 this charterparty." By dangers of the seas the 
 steamer, although arrived at the first loading 
 port, was not free of pratique and ready to load 
 on the 15th of December, and the charterers 
 therefore cancelled the cliarterjiarty. At the 
 trial of an action against them for not loading 
 the cargo, the judge left to the jury the disputed 
 <luestion whether the port was a "safe loading 
 2)lace," and thej' found in tlie affirmative : — Held, 
 that the excepted dangers clause applied oidy to 
 the voyage, and not to the clause giving the 
 (option to cancel the charterparty if the ship was 
 not ready to load on the day fi.xed, and tlierefore 
 the cancellation was justified. Sniifk v. Dnit, 
 54 L. .J.. Q. B. 121 ; 14 Q. B. D. 105 ; 52 L. T. 
 218 ; .33 W. II. 455 ; 5 As]). M. C. 360. 
 
 A shij) has not arriverl within the meaning of 
 a charteri)arty provision requiring the charterer 
 to load witiiin a fixed time aftei- lici' arrival, if 
 she cannf)t be loarled \>y reason (»f quarantine 
 unknown to both parties when the charterparty 
 was entered into. Lord Blackburn's opinion in 
 Jliidnoii v. Edr, and Pnxtli'thualtc v. Frerlmid, 
 col. 472, considered. Whitr v. Stramnhij) Wui- 
 cheufcr Co.. 13 Ct. of Sess. Ct-s. (4th ser.) 524. 
 
 A shij) that has not obtainf'<l ])rati(|ne, and is 
 prohibited tiy regulations of the jxirt from com- 
 municating with the shore, is not '-ready to 
 loa<l " within the meaning of those words in a 
 ■charterpartv. The Aiintni Friarg, Smith v. 
 Dart. 6 It. 739 ; 71 L. T. 27 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 503. 
 
 "Leave Amsterdam."] — A ship was 
 
 ■chartered to "sail and i)r<i(:ccd fron) Amstei'datn 
 ■with all convenient speed to Liverpool, to leave 
 Amsterdam not later than all (*''•) March." On 
 the 3oth of March the ship, having a portion of 
 her ballast on board, left the docks at Amsterdam, 
 and on the same evening got to the entrance of 
 
 266 
 
 the North Holland Canal. On the 31st of March 
 she proceedetl to Alkmaar. where she remained 
 during the 1st and 2nd of April, taking in the 
 remainder of her ballast. On the 3rd of April she 
 proceetled on her voyage, and (Quitted Xieuwediep, 
 and arrived at Liverpool on the 17th : — Held, 
 that the term "leave Amsterdam " did not meaa 
 "sail on her voyage from Amsterdam," and con- 
 sequently the stipulation in the charterparty had 
 been complied with. Van Baggen v. Banies, 9 
 Ex. 523 ; 2 C. L, R. 548 ; 23 L. J., Ex. 213. 
 
 Where Accident within Exceptions.] — 
 
 A merchant at Liver[)ool entered into a charter- 
 party with the owner of the ship as follows : " It 
 is mutually agreed between the owner of the 
 good ship ' Zwaan,' now at Amsterdam, and to 
 sail from thence for Liverpool on or before the 
 
 15th of March next, and , of Liverpool, that 
 
 the ship, being tight, staunch and strong, shall 
 with all convenient speed be made ready," «fec., 
 as in the usual printed form of charterparty. 
 The exception was as follows : — " Restrictions 
 of princes and rulers, the dangers and accidents 
 of the seas and navigation, the act of God, fire, 
 pirates and enemies, throughout this charter- 
 party always excepted." The ship did not sail 
 from Amsterdam in consequence of what was 
 admitted to be " the act of God " : — Held, that 
 notwithstanding the words " throughout this 
 charterparty," the sailing of the ship from 
 Amsterdam on the 15th of March was a con- 
 dition precedent to the obligation of the char- 
 terer to take and load the ship. Cmoliewit v. 
 Fletcher, 1 H. & N. 893 ; 26 L. J., Ex. 153 ; 6 
 W. R. 348. <SW' aim raxes post, col. 277. 
 
 To Sail Direct.] — By a charterparty 
 
 between the owner and the cai>tain of a ship and 
 the chartered agent abroad, for the carriage of 
 timber from Riga to Portsmouth at a stipulated 
 rate per load, the former bound himself, after 
 receiving his cargo on board, to sail with the 
 first favourable wind direct to the port of Ports- 
 mouth. The ship, howevei', unnecessarily entered 
 the harbour of Copenhagen, where she was 
 detained several weeks, by means whereof the 
 charterer was put to considerable expense in 
 having fresh insurances effected ui)on the cargo. 
 In an action for the freight : — Held, that the 
 covenant to sail direct to Portsmouth was not a 
 condition precedent ; and that the deviation 
 could not be given in evidence either as a bar to 
 the action or to diminish the damages. Horn- 
 niann v. To^ilie, 1 Camp. 377 : Id \\. U. 747. 
 
 A shipowner, by charterparty of October 20th, 
 1832, agreed to go in ballast from P. to St. M., 
 and bring back a cargo of fruit direct to L. ; the 
 cliarteier was to be allowed thirty-five running 
 (lays for loading and unloading, to commence on 
 December 1st tiien next ; and if the vessel did 
 not arrive at St. M. by the 31st January, 1H33, 
 the charterer was to be at liberty to rescind the 
 charterparty : — Held, that the sliijiowner was 
 liound to proceed at once to St. M., and was not 
 at liberty to make an intermediate voyage for 
 his own purposes, although, n<itwitlistan(!in{j 
 such interniediale voyage, he arrived at St. M. 
 before the 31sl .januiirv, 1M33. M-Anilnw v. 
 Adams, 4 M. A: Sc. 517; 1 Bing. (N.c.) 29 ; 3 
 L. J., C. P. 236. 
 
 Waiver.] — By a charterparty made at 
 
 Malta, dated the 24th of February, 1854, the 
 chartered ship was ilescribed as "coppered A l,o£
 
 2G7 
 
 SHIPPING— XL Charterpartij. 
 
 Malta," of a certain measurement, "now at 
 anchor at this port," and it was agreed that she 
 being tight, staunch, and strong, and properly 
 manned, and every way fitted for the voyage, 
 should, with all convenient speed, proceed in 
 ballast to Alexandria, in Egypt, and there load 
 from the charterer a cargo of beans and wheat. 
 At the date of the charterparty the ship was not 
 coppered, nor was she lying at anchor in port, 
 nor had she obtained her register. She was an 
 entire new vessel, in dry dock, her coppering 
 being in course of comi)lelion. The ship was 
 not ready to sail until the 28th of March, and, 
 from the state of the weather, she did not sail 
 until the 30th of that month, and reached 
 Alexandria on the 12th of April. No objection 
 was made by the charterer, at the time of the 
 delay. On her arrival the master gave notice to 
 the charterer" s agent there that he would be 
 ready to receive cargo on the Uth of that month. 
 Before the ship's arrival at Alexandria, the char- 
 terer's agent had made a cession to the charter- 
 party, and the agent referred the master to the 
 cessionary, informing him that his principal had 
 nothing more to do with the charterparty than 
 to guarantee the solvency of the cessionary. 
 Freights had fallen considerably below the rates 
 named in the charterparty between the date of 
 the charterparty and the date of the cession. 
 The cessionary sought to invalidate the cession 
 on account of the delay in the arrival of the 
 ship, and on that ground refused to give the 
 captain any cargo. Tlie captain refused to 
 aclinowledge the cessionary or release the char- 
 terer, but at the same time expressed his readiness 
 to receive a cargo from any one under the order 
 of the charterer's agent. The ship lay at Alex- 
 andria waiting for cargo the whole of her lay 
 days and the ten demurrage days, but received 
 no cargo from the charterer. The captain after- 
 wards took a small cargo and returned to Malta. 
 In an action brought by the shipowner against 
 the charterer in Malta : — Held, first, that it was 
 unnecessary to determine whether the completion 
 of the coppering of the ship was a condition pre- 
 cedent or not to the maintaining an action 
 against the charterer, as it was clear that that 
 statement had reference to the time of sailing 
 and not to the date of the charterparty. JDimrch 
 V. Corlett, 12 Moore, P. C. 199. And see Bentson 
 V. Taylor, supra, col. 265, as to waiver. 
 
 Held, secondly, as to the stipulation that the 
 ship should sail " with all convenient speed," 
 that as the parties had not expressly stated for 
 themselves in the charterparty that unless the 
 ship sailed on a specified day the charterparty 
 was to be at an end, and as the charterer 
 resided at Malta and had made no objection at 
 the time to the delay, or had given evidence that 
 any other loss than that occasioned by the falling 
 of "freights had taken place in consequence of 
 the delaj', his position was not thereby altered, 
 and an action was therefore maintainable against 
 the charterer upon the charterparty. li. 
 
 To Sail with Convoy.] — The owner of a ship is 
 bound by a representation of his broker, who 
 put up the ship at the Eoyal Exchange, and 
 at the coffee-house, as a general ship warranted 
 to sail with convoy, and distributed handbills to 
 the same effect. Rujiquist \. Ditchdl, 3 Esp. 
 64 ; 2 Camp. 550, n. 
 
 No Convoy — Loss of Insurance — 
 
 Damages.] — The defendant put up a ship at 
 
 Lloyd's as about to sail with the first convoy. 
 The plaintiff shipped goods in her, and insureJ 
 them with a warranty that the ship would sail^ 
 witli convoy. Before the ship sailed prelimi- 
 naries of peace were signed, and the ship sailerU 
 without convoy, none being appointed by the 
 government, but with French, Spanish, and' 
 American passports. No notice of her sailing- 
 without convoy was given to the plaintiffs. 
 The ship was lost in collision the day after she 
 sailed. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for 
 breach of contract, whereby they lost the benefit 
 of their insurance : — Held, that they were entitled' 
 to recover. Philips v. Baillie, .S Dougl. 374. 
 
 To Sail with Convoy — Warranty or not.] 
 
 — A ship advertised to sail with convoy was 
 blown out of the Downs, whilst waiting for con- 
 voy, and eventually, after endeavouring to put 
 into Falmouth to wait for convoy, sailed for 
 Grenada without convoy, and was taken. There 
 was no mention of convoy in the bill of lading. 
 In an action by the cargo owner against the- 
 shipowner for having lost the benefit of his. 
 insurance through the ship sailing without con- 
 voy, a verdict was given for the defendant ; but 
 a new trial was directed in order that the ques- 
 tion whether the advertisement amounted to a 
 warranty, and as to the efiiect of the omission of 
 mention of convoy in the bill of lading might be 
 argued. Snell v. MaiTyatt, Abbott on Shipping, 
 13th ed. 357. 
 
 To Arrive at Port of Loading.] — Proviso in a 
 charterparty, that, if a ship did not arrive at her 
 port of loading on or before, &c., unless pre- 
 vented by stress of weather or unavoidable 
 impediment, the freighter should not be obligedl 
 to ship a cargo : — Held, that, if ordinary diligence 
 was used in the voyage to reach the port of load- 
 ing, the owners were within the exception of the 
 proviso, though the ship was delayed till after- 
 the stipulated time by causes which extraordinary- 
 exertion might have counteracted. Granger v-. 
 Dent, M. & M. 475 ; 31 R. R. 752. 
 
 Where a ship was freighted to go in ballast to 
 Jamaica, and bring home a cargo, and the 
 freighter undertook to provide a full cargo for 
 her in time for the July convoy, provided she- 
 arrived out and was ready by the 25th of June : — 
 Held, where she did not arrive out till after the 
 25th of June, that the freighter was entirely dis- 
 charged from his contract to furnish a cargo. 
 Shailforth v. ILi<j(jin, 3 Camp. 385. 
 
 Where the plaintiff covenanted that on the 
 arrival of a ship at a certain port, he would 
 receive the defendant's cargo, and snil for 
 England therewith with the next June convoy, 
 provided the ship arrived and was ready to loarH 
 sixty-five running days before the sailing of such 
 convoy : — Held, that it was not a condition pre- 
 cedent to the defendant's part of the contract 
 that the ship should so arrive, but he was still" 
 bound to supply a cargo under a stipulation to 
 that effect in the contract. Beffel v. Broclde- 
 lanTi, 4 Price, 3G ; 3 Bhgh, 561. 
 
 "Always Afloat"— Neap Tides— Lighterage- 
 
 — Demurrage.] — By a charterjiarty the "(l." 
 (described as expected ready to load about the 
 10th of April) was to proceed to the North Dock, 
 Swansea, and there load, always af.oat, a full and 
 complete cargo of about 2,100 tons of fuel. It 
 was also agreed that if the - C." was unable to 
 complete loading at the Nor*^h Dock,. the chaj:-
 
 269 
 
 SHIPPING— XI. Charterparhj. 
 
 270 
 
 terers were to bear the expense of lighterage 
 necessary to enable her to complete her loading 
 elsewhere. The " C." arrived at the North Dock 
 on the 30th of April, and having there loaded 
 about 1,916 tons of fuel, was removed by her 
 master from the dock, and the remainder of her 
 cargo was taken to her in lighters. This was done 
 because, the tides being neap, the " C." would have 
 been unable to cross the sill of the North Dock 
 when fully laden, and would have been detained 
 there about a week, though there was sufficient 
 water in the dock for her to have completed her 
 loading remaining always afloat : — Held, that 
 the " C." was not " unable to complete her loading 
 at the North Dock," and that the fear of deten- 
 tion by being neaped did not justify her removal 
 by the master. The Curfew, 60 L. J., Adm. 53; 
 [1891] P. 131 ; 6i L. T. 330 ; 39 W. R. 367 ; 
 7 Asp. M. C. 29. 
 
 Damages.] — The defendant having guaranteed 
 that, in consideration of the plaintiff's shipping 
 goods by his ship, she should sail with or before 
 any other vessel in the berth, under penalty of 
 forfeiting half the freight, and another ship 
 having sailed before her, and the only plea being, 
 payment into court : — Held, that the sailing of 
 the vessel with or before any other was the event 
 intended to be secured ; that the half freight was 
 therefore recoverable as liquidated damages ; and 
 that it was unnecessary for the plaintiff to give 
 evidence of anv actual damage sustained hy him. 
 Sparrow v. PJrii^, 7 H. & N.'^59-l ; 31 L. J., Ex. 
 137 : 8 Jur. (N.s.) 391 ; 5 L. T. 799. 
 
 When a contract was made in the following 
 terms : — "We undertake to ship for you by the 
 ' Warrior Queen,' guaranteeing that she sails 
 not later than the first week in July, or forfeit 
 2.y. &cl. per ton, 300 or 400 packages, one-third 
 yarn, at a through rate of 42.s\ {'ul., free of com- 
 mission, provided they are forwarded per M. & Co., 
 on or before the 29th inst. ; " and the defendant, 
 in answer to a declaration for breach of the con- 
 tract by reason of the nonshipmcnt of a portion 
 of the packages so sent, j)lea<led the payment of 
 2s. 6d. per ton on the packages as and for the 
 forfeit according to the agreement : — Held, that 
 the plea was good. Iltiifjh v. L'sconihe, 4 L. T. 
 517. 
 
 Kepresentation or Warranty — Ship not at 
 Place Named.] — .\ssuini)sil on chartuiparty by 
 which defendant hired a ship from plaintiff to go 
 to Cronstailf, and there take a full cargo of 
 tallow and tleals, &c., and proceed to Lonilon ; 
 allowance for lay days and demurrage ; aver- 
 ment that the ship went to Cronstadt ; breaches 
 that the defendant did not load a cargo as 
 agreed, but shijiped deals only and not tallow ; 
 and that he detained the ship lx\Vf>nd the time 
 agreed on, whereby tlie plaintiff earned less 
 freight, and lost the u.se of his shij) during hc'r 
 detention. Plea, that plaintiffs had repiesinicd 
 that the ship was at W., and that j)laintiif had 
 entered into the charterparty on that undcr- 
 8tan<ling, whereas she was not at W. Replication, 
 that at the time, &c., the plaintiffs also stated to 
 the defendants, and it was mentioned in the 
 charterparty, that the shij) was on a voyage 
 from W. to H., and the plaintiffs believed stic 
 was iit W., wherea.s she had sailed from W. for 
 H. Rejoinder, that the rejirescntation men- 
 tioned was in the chartciparty, and was part of 
 the contract, and that the ship was not at the 
 time, kc, at W. : — Held, on special demurrer. 
 
 that the mere representation as alleged in the 
 plea was no answer to the declaration ; and that 
 the rejoinder, if it alleged a warranty, was a 
 departure. Elliott v. Von Glehn, 13 Q. B. 632 ; 
 18 L. J., Q. B. 221. 
 
 Held, by Erie, J., that, if the rejoinder had 
 not been a departure, the breach of warranty 
 would not have been an answer to the action, 
 the defendant having to some extent availed 
 himself of the contract. lb. 
 
 Covenant that Ship should Arrive by Named 
 Day — Non-arrival — Refusal to Load.] — A ship- 
 owner covenanted that his ship should sail from 
 M. for W., and the charterparty contained a 
 proviso that if the ship should not arrive at \V. 
 by a day named the freighter should be at liberty 
 to load her or not as he pleased. In an action 
 by the freighter against the shipowner for not 
 sailing for W., the defendant pleaded that he 
 was prevented by weather from sailing and 
 arriving at W. by the day named : — Held, on 
 demurrer, that the defendant was liable, having 
 undertaken that his ship shouhl arrive by the 
 day named. Shuhrick v. Salniond, 3 Burr. 
 1637. 
 
 Covenant — Ready to Sail by Day Named.] — 
 The plaintiff by charterparty covenanted that 
 his ship should be ready to sail by a day named 
 to load figs at Naples, and return to Topsham ; 
 and the defendant covenanted to pay freight for 
 the same. The plaintiff sued the defendant for 
 freight ; the defendant pleaded that the ship 
 was not ready to sail by the day named, whereby 
 he lost his profit. Demurrer to plea allowed, the 
 covenants being reciprocal. Shower v. Cudmoro, 
 Sir Th. Jones, 216. 
 
 Covenant to Unload and Sail.] — Covenant in 
 cliarterparty tliat the shij) having unloaded at T. 
 would sail for D., and there load defendant's 
 cargo. She did not unloail at T. : — Held, that 
 her unloading at T. was not a condition precedent 
 to recovery of freight, but a separate covenant. 
 Ohlscn v. Drummond, 4 Dougl.3.J7 ; 2 Chit. 70."). 
 
 iv. Capacity. 
 
 Description of Warranty.] — To an action for 
 not loading a shiji aiT(ii(HTig to the terms of 
 a charterparty. in wliich the shipowner was 
 dcscril)edas-'of tlieship 'A.,' of tlie measurement 
 of 180 to 200 tons, or tiiereaVxiuts," the ciiarterer 
 pleaded that by the charteri)arty the shij) was 
 warranted to be of the measurement of 180 tons 
 to 200 tons, or therealjouts ; and that the shij) 
 was of a measurement greatly and unreasonal)ly 
 exceeding 200 tons, ancl was not of the measure- 
 ment of 180 tons to 200 tons, or thereabouts ; 
 whereup(m he did not load : — Held, that the 
 plea was not proved, inasmuch as tlie statement 
 of tonnage in the charleriiarly was matter of 
 description only, and <li<l not amount to a 
 warranty H,i'rhrr \. \\'iiidlr,i\ VA. k lU. 67r> ; 
 2.-) L. J., Q. 15. 349 ; 2 Jur. (.N.8.) 1069 ; 4 W. K. 
 003— Ex. Ch. 
 
 A cargo of guano was shipped from the Chincha 
 Islands to London, by tlie " Oricnte." The 
 "Oriente," having become disabled, put into 
 Valfiaraiso, was condemned, and her cargo taken 
 out of her. The captain, " for account and ri.sk 
 of the owner of the cargo," chartered the " Fairy 
 Queen" to take on "the cargo brought by tho
 
 271 
 
 SHIPPING— XL ChavUrpartii. 
 
 272 
 
 ' Oricute,' beiuLT 470 tons move or less, not exceed- 
 iiiji' what she can reasonably stow," at the rate of 
 ."i/. '2x. M. per ton. The owner of the cargo had 
 an ajrent at Valparaiso, of which the captains of 
 the "Oriente" and the "Fairy Queen" were 
 aware, but no reference was made to him. After 
 the guano had been loaded on board the " Fairy 
 Queen," the captain of that vessel said that he 
 liad not more than 350 tons on board : and 
 ultimately the captain of the "Oriente" agreed 
 that freight should be paid on the full quantity 
 of guano mentioned in the charterparty ; and in 
 order to carry out the agreement, a bill of lading 
 was signed by the captain of the " Fairy Queen." 
 making the guano deliverable to M. & Co., the 
 agents for the general average settlement of the 
 '•Oriente," or their assigns, he or they pajnng 
 freight for the guano as 470 tons, as per charter- 
 party : — Held, that the charterparty contained 
 no warranty that the cargo amounted to 470 tons 
 more or less ; and therefore the owners of the 
 cargo were not liuble under the charterparty for 
 not loading a full cargo. Glhbs v. Greii^ 2 
 H. & N. 22 ; 26 L. J., Ex. 286 ; 3 Jur. (n.s.) 543 ; 
 5 W. E. 608. 
 
 A charterparty provided that the ship should 
 load a cargo of creosoted sleejiers and timber, 
 the charterers to have the option of shipping 200 
 tons of general cargo, and contained the follow- 
 ing words : " Owners guarantee ship to carry at 
 least about 90,000 cubic feet, or 1,500 tons dead- 
 weight." A lump sum was payable as freight. 
 The ship was in fact able to load no more than 
 65,000 cubic feet, equivalent to 1,120 tons dead- 
 weight of such cargo. In an action by the 
 charterers against the owners for damages : — 
 Held, that the words above mentioned did not 
 amount to a guarantee that the ship would carry 
 90.000 cubic feet of the specified cargo. Carnegie 
 V. Conner, 59 L. J., Q. B. 122 ; 24 Q. B. D. 45 ; 
 61 L. T. 691 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 447. 
 
 Condition Precedent.] — Where, by a charter- 
 party made at Liverpool for a voyage from 
 Liverpool to Sydney, the charterer agreed to pay 
 for the use and hire of the ship, in respect of the 
 voyage, 1,550Z. in full, on condition of her taking 
 a cargo of not less than I.OOO tons of weight and 
 measurement : — Held, that the stipulation or 
 condition of the ship taking a cargo of not less 
 than 1,000 tons of weight and measurement was 
 not a condition precedent ; and that, even if it 
 was so originally, the charterer having had a 
 substantial part of the consideration for his 
 promise to pay, could not plead it in bar. Past 
 v. Duwie. 5 B. & S. 20 ; 34 L. J., Q. B. 127 ; 13 
 W. R. 459— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Measurement of Cargo, how ascertained.] — By 
 
 a charterparty it was agreed that "a siiii) should 
 load a cargo, and proceed to a port in Great 
 Britain, and deliver the same on being paid 
 freight at and after the rate of 3.5*. per 180 
 English cubic feet taken on board, as per Gothen- 
 burg custom" : — Held, that the freight was to 
 be ascertained by measuring the cargo, accord- 
 ing to the method used at Gotheidjuig, and not 
 according to the method used at the port of 
 discharge. Tlw Shandinav, 51 L. J., Adm. 9!" — 
 C. A. 
 
 As to Weight.] — By a charterparty made at 
 Liverpool for a voyage from Liverpool to Sydney, 
 the charterer agreed to ])ay for the use and hire 
 of the ship, in respect of the voyage, 1,550Z. in 
 
 ftdl. (in eonditiiin of her taking a cargo of not 
 less than 1.000 tons of weight and measurement : 
 — Held, that 1,000 tons of weight and measure- 
 ment meant 1,000 tons of a cargo of goods in the 
 ordinary proportions of the port of lading, viz. 
 one third weight and two-thirds measurement, 
 and not as for the Sydney market, in which the 
 proportion is two-thirds weight and one-third 
 measurement. Pu.'<t v. Donne, supra. 
 
 In Fresh or Salt Water.] — A charterparty 
 contained a guarantee that a vessel should carry 
 3,000 tons dead weight upon a draught of twenty- 
 six feet of water : — Held, that both [>arties tothe 
 charter must have contemplated loading a cargo 
 in the river, and that, consequently, the guarantee 
 would ajiply to fresh as well as to salt water. 
 The Norway (^Owners) v. Anhburner, 3 Moore, 
 P. C. (N.s.) 245 ; Br. & Lush. 404 : 11 Jur. (N.s.) 
 892 ; 13 L. T. 50 ; 13 W. B. 1085. 
 
 Marginal Note — Guarantee as to Ship's 
 Capacity— Stowage of Machinery and Coal.] — 
 By a charterparty made between the respondents 
 and the appellants it was agreed that the 
 appellants' vessel should proceed to Glasgow and 
 thei'e " load all such goods and merchandise as 
 the charterers should tender alongside for ship- 
 ment, not exceeding what she could reasonably 
 stow and carry," &c. It was provided that the 
 freight should be a lump sum of 2,200/., and the 
 charterparty contained this guarantee : — " Owners 
 guarantee that the vessel shall carry not less 
 than 2.000 tons dead weight," and this provision : 
 •• Should the vessel not carry the guaranteed 
 dead weight as above any expenses incurred 
 from this cause to be borne by the owners, and 
 a pro rata reduction per ton to be made from the 
 first payment of freight." The cnrgo intended 
 to be carrieil was a general cargo consisting iu 
 jiart of railway locomotive machinerj'', and a 
 note was by consent of the parties written upon 
 the margin of the charterparty specifying the 
 "largest pieces" of machinery which were to be 
 included in the cargo by number, weight, and 
 measurement. The charterers tendered a cargo 
 not in excess of 2,000 tons dead weight, consist- 
 ing of railway machinery, including locomotives 
 and tenders, two parcels of coals, and general 
 goods. The large pieces of machinerv were much 
 more numerous than specified n the marginal 
 note. The vessel saile<l with oidy 1.691 tons 
 dead weight. It was not disputed that she con- 
 tained a carrying capacity n\) to the guarantee ; 
 and it was admitted that 2.<I00 tons dead weight 
 of the cargo terulered could not have been carried 
 on the vessel unless the coal had been packeil 
 with the machinery, which was not done. The 
 charterers claimed a deduction in the freight : — 
 Held, that the marginal note amounted to a 
 representation, and the cargo being such a cargo 
 as was not contemplated, and the fact being 
 that the vessel carried less than the guaranteed 
 dead weight because the charterers tendered 
 large machmery in excess of their representation, 
 they were not entitled to the benefit of the 
 stipulation for reduction of the freight, and the 
 whole lump freight was payable : — Held, also, 
 that the stowage of coal among machinery 
 without the consent of the shijipers of the 
 machinery and of the coal was not proper 
 stowage, and that it was the duty of the respon- 
 dents and not the duty of the appellants to 
 obtain such consent. J/nckill v. Writ/kt, 14 
 App. Gas. 106— H. L. (Sc.)
 
 273 
 
 SHIPPING— XI. Chartcrpartij. 
 
 Quantity of Cargo — "About."] — Under a 
 charterparty provitling that the ship shall load 
 empty petroleum barrels, as many as may be 
 required by the master, say about 5,000 ; the 
 word "about" entitles the master to require at 
 his option the shipment of 10 per cent, more or 
 less than the amount specitied. Alcock v. Leeuio, 
 1 Cab. & E. [18. 
 
 Freight — Vacant Space.] — See Potter v. New 
 Zealaiid Shijijjing Co., post, col. 424. 
 
 3. EXEMPTIO>,'S PROM LIABILITY, 
 
 "Perils of the Seas."] — Where there is an 
 exception in a charterparty of perils of the sea. a 
 loss from the ship's running foul of another by 
 misfortune is within the exception, and is a loss 
 bj' perils of the sea. B idler v. Fisher, 3 Esp. 
 67. 
 
 A vessel chartered for a voyage from the Cape 
 to Hondeklip Bay, there to load a cargo of copper 
 ore, and proceed therewith to Swansea, having 
 loaded part of her cargo, received damage to her 
 capstan in a storm, such that she was unable to 
 load the rest of her cargo, 120 tons, which were 
 ready, until the damage was repaired. The 
 master, instead of runningfor the Cape. 180 miles 
 distant, where the damage could have been 
 repaired, proceeded to St. Helena, 1,800 miles 
 distant, expecting to be able to repair there, and 
 intending to return for the rest of the cargo ; but 
 not being able to get repairs at St. Helena, he 
 ))roceeded to Swansea with a cargo short of the 
 120 tons. The shipowner having sued the under- 
 writer upon a policy of insurance upon chartered 
 freight, as for a total loss of freight upon the 120 
 tons b^' perils of the sea, the jury found that the 
 master acted throughout as a prudent owner, 
 uninsured, would have acted : — Held, that the 
 .shipowner could not recover, for that the master 
 was not jtrcvented bj' ]ierils of the sea from j)ro- 
 <;uring repairs and earning the freight. Ph\lj)ot 
 V. Swunn. 1 1 C, B. (N.s.) 270 ; 30 L. J., C. P. 3.58 ; 
 7Jur. (N..S.) 121»1 ; 5 L. T. 183. 
 
 The exception in a charterparty of perils of 
 the sea ajiplies not only to the voyage contracted 
 for, but also to the preliminary voj'age to the 
 port of loading. Iludnun v. Hill, 43 L. J., C. P. 
 273 ; 30 L. T. 555. 
 
 Pleading.] — See Wi/n/ic v. Fellows, Holt. 
 446, infra, col. 300. 
 
 Condemnation.] — The capture of a chartered 
 ^hi|), and condenination and sale Ijy a deciec of 
 ii vice-ailiniralty cf)urt, do not, if the decicc is 
 rcvcised by tlie court of appeal (although more 
 than three ycai'.s aftervvaiils), with costs and 
 damages, iiniount to a prevention l)y the perils 
 onumciated in the cliarter; Ijut the sliipowiicr 
 is )xiilnd to perform lii.s contract or to pay 
 damages. The Newport, Swabey, 335; 6 VV. K. 
 4^10— P. C. 
 
 Duration of Exception,] — A charterparty pro- 
 
 viiled thai a ship sliould proceed from a ])ort 
 where she was lying, loa usual loading-place, and 
 tlieie load a full andcomjilete cargo, and proceed 
 to a certain other port. The charterparty con- 
 tained a clau.se, " The act of God, tlic Queen's 
 enemies, restraints of princes and rulers, fire ami 
 all and every other dangeis and accidents of 
 the seas and rivers and navigation, of whatever 
 nature and kind soever, during the voyage, 
 
 274 
 
 always excepted " : — Held, that the passage from 
 the port where the ship lay to a usual place of 
 loading was part of the voyage, and within the 
 exception. Burlier \. M- Andrew, 18 C, B. (n.s.) 
 75'J : 34 L. .J., C. P. 191 ; 11 Jur. (N.S.) 637 ; 12 
 L. T. 459 ; 13 W. R. 779. And see Bruce v. 
 Nicolojndo, infra, col. 277. 
 
 Obligation to repair 'Vessel and complete 
 
 Voyage.] — The exception of perils of the sea 
 contained in a charterparty will not relieve the 
 shipowner from his obligation to complete the 
 voyage by carrying the cargo to the port of 
 destination in the chartered ship, if the damage 
 caused by such perils is capable of repair within 
 a reasonable time and at a cost not exceeding the 
 value of the ship when repaired. Asmcurazionl 
 Generali and Sclienlier v. Bessie Morris Steam- 
 ship Co., 61 L. J., Q. B. 754 ; [1892] 2 Q. B. 652 ; 
 4 R. 33; 67L.T.218; 41 -VV. R.83; 7Asp,M.C. 
 217— C. A. 
 
 " Perils of Navigation,"] — H., by a charter- 
 party, engaged a vessel of G., name to be given 
 up by G. to H. as soon as known, the vessel to 
 proceed from the port of Hull to the port of 
 Alexandria, with liberty to G. to ship cargo on 
 the outward voyage to Alexandria, and to call at 
 intermediate ports ; the ship on arriving at the 
 port of Alexandria to take in a cargo to be 
 shipped by H.'s agents and proceed with the 
 same at a certain stipulated rate of freight to be 
 paid by H.to G. to the ports of Hull or London. 
 The ship was to arrive at Alexandria within three 
 weeks of November 15th, 1870. but the charter- 
 party contained tlie usual exceptions as to ])erils 
 of navigation. The ship did not arrive at the 
 port of Alexandria until considerably after the 
 margin of time allowed by the charterparty, 
 whereby H., by losing the market for his cargo, 
 sustained damage. The delay was caused by 
 pei'ils of navigation within the exception clause 
 of the charterparty arising on the outward voy- 
 age from Hull to Alexandria to take in H.'s 
 cai-go. G. i)leaded tlie exception and the delay : 
 — Held, that the plea aflFoided an answer to the 
 action, inasmuch as tlie exception in the charter- 
 party covered dangers of navigation occurring on 
 the outward voyage before H.'s cargo was shipped 
 as well as the transit with his cargo on board 
 from Alexandria to Hull or London. Jfurrisonw. 
 Gurthorue. 26 L. T. 508 ; 20 'VV. R. 722 ; 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 303. 
 
 Pirates.] — Pirates are a peril of the se,i 
 within the meaning of a charterparty relieving 
 tlie sliipowner from liability for jierils of the sea. 
 I'irhrinij V. Barkley, St^'les, 132. 
 
 Construction — "Accidents of the Seas" 
 and "Unforeseen Circumstances" excepted — 
 Stress of Weather — Deviation.] — i'he owners of 
 a st(^'imshi|i :igreed Ijy (^liarlerpaily, cxcejiting 
 "dangers and accidents of the seas," to send her 
 to Baridw to load iron to be at Gla.^gownot later 
 than October 14th, "unforeseen circumst.'incos 
 excei)te<l." The steamer, which was loading coals 
 .'it (ilasgow, completed licr cargo, wiiidi slie 
 delivered at Dublin, but owing to Ijad wcatlierdid 
 not arrive at Barrow until October 16th. She 
 loaded the iron on Octo'ncr 1 7th, Init owing to bad 
 weather <h'd not arrive at (Jlasgovv until October 
 26th : — Held, that, since under oiiliiiary circum- 
 stances of weather, the ship could have delivered 
 Jicr coals at Dublin and arrived with the iron at
 
 SHIPPING— XI. Charterparty. 
 
 ii/o 
 
 Glasgow on October lUh, the jury were entitled 
 to icly on that fact,aiul that the owners were not 
 liable". Donaldson v. Little, 10 Ct. of Sess. Ca. 
 (Ith ser.) 413. 
 
 ♦' Dangers and Accidents of Navigation " — 
 Collision.] — A charterparty provided that a ship 
 should load a caigo of coal and deliver the same 
 at the port of discharge at a freight of so much 
 per ton on the quantity delivered (the act of 
 God, ckc, and all and every other dangers and 
 accidents of the seas, rivers and navigation 
 always excepted), the freight to be paid two- 
 thirds in cash ten days after the vessel's sailing. 
 and the remainder in cash on the right and true 
 «lelivery of the cargo agreeably to bills of lading, 
 less cost of coal delivered short of bill of lading 
 quantity : — Held, that a collision attributable 
 solely to the negligence of those in charge of the 
 other vessel was a " danger or accident of navi- 
 gation " within the meaning of the charterparty, 
 and therefore that the shipowners were not liable 
 in respect of non-delivery of part of the cargo 
 shipped caused by such a collision ; but that the 
 charterers were entitled nevertheless under the 
 charterparty to set oS the cost of the coal so 
 undelivered against the balance of freight pay- 
 able on delivery of the remainder of the cargo at 
 the port of discharge. Woodley v. Michell (11 
 Q. B. D. 17) distinguished. " Gurston" Sailinfj 
 Ship Co. V. Ifickie^5G L. J., Q. B. 38 ; 18 Q. B. D. 
 17 ; 55 L. T. 879 ; 35 W. R. 33 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 71 
 — C. A. 
 
 «' Dangers and Accidents of the Seas."] — Rice 
 was shipped under a charterparty and bills of 
 lading which excepted "dangers and accidents 
 of the seas." During the voyage rats gnawed 
 a hole in a pipe on board the ship, whereby sea- 
 water escaped and damaged the rice, without 
 neglect or default on the part of the shipowners 
 or their servants : — Held, that the damage was 
 within the exception, and that the shipowners 
 were not liable. Ilumilton. v. Pandorf, 57 L. J., 
 Q. B. 24 ; 12 App. Cas. 518 ; 57 L. T. 726 : M 
 W. R. 369 ; 52 J. P. 196 ; 6 Asp.M.C. 212— H. L. 
 (E.) 
 
 "Dangers of the Seas and Rivers" — Timber 
 Saft.] — Tunber had been towed alongside a 
 vessel lying in a river for shipment, and the 
 master's receipts for the quantity delivered had 
 been received, and owing to a rapid current 
 and strong wind then prevailing the usual means 
 for securing the timber proved inefficient and a 
 large amount was lost : — Held, that the loss was 
 a loss within the exception of a charterparty 
 excluding all " dangers and accidents of seas and 
 rivers." Pynian v. Jinrt, 1 Cab. & E. 207. 
 
 Effect of, on Option to Cancel.] — See Smith v. 
 Dart, ante, col. 265. 
 
 Seaworthiness — Engineers' Neglect — Error or 
 Negligence of Navigation.] — By charterparty 
 the shipowner was exempted from liability for 
 "act of God, the Queen's enemies, fire and all 
 and every other dangers and accidents of the 
 seas, rivers, and errors or negligence of navigation 
 of whatsoever kind during the said voyage." 
 The ship was lost through failure of steam power 
 to keep off a lee shore. The failure of steam 
 power was because the water had been allowed 
 to get too low in the boilers, so that they heated 
 iind contracted suddenl}' and leaked : — Held, that 
 
 27 G 
 
 tlie loss was by " error or negligence of naviga- 
 tion," and that the owners were not liable. 
 CunniiKihani v. Cohils, 16 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4tb 
 ser.) 295. 
 
 Muddy Water in Boiler.] — A steamship 
 charterparty exempted the owners from liability 
 for " act of God, the Queen's enemies, fire and all 
 and every other dangers and accidents of the seas, 
 rivers and (or) errors or negligence of navigation 
 of whatsoever nature and kind during the said 
 voyage." The ship was lost through the break- 
 down of her boiler owing to muddy water that 
 was in it before she sailed. The charterers sued 
 the owners for loss of cargo : — Held, that thtr 
 owners were liable, as the ship was unseaworthy 
 when she sailed. Seville Suljjhur and Cojjper Co: 
 V. Colcils, 15 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 616. 
 
 "Restraints of Princes."] — In an action for 
 breach of a charterparty, by which it was agreed 
 that a vessel should proceed to a port of loading, 
 and after loading a cargo convey it to a foreign 
 port, the act of God, Queen's enemies, restraints 
 of princes and rulers, fire and aU and every other 
 dangers and accidents of the seas . . . during the 
 voyage excepted, it was pleaded that before 
 breach there was a war between the country of 
 the port of destination and another country, so 
 that the performance of the charterparty became 
 illegal, and the shipowner refused to perform it : 
 — Held, that the plea was good, as the blockade 
 was within the meaning of the exception, 
 " restraints of princes," and that the shipowner 
 was not bound to have proceeded to the port of 
 loading, or to have waited in anticipation of the 
 removal of the blockade, in the absence of any- 
 thing to lead to the inference that it would be 
 removed within a reasonable time. Gripel v. 
 Smith. 41 L. J., Q. B. 153 : L. R. 7 Q.B. 404 ; 2(i 
 L. T. 361 ; 20 W. R. 332 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 268. 
 
 Seizure by agents of British government with- 
 out authority (semble) not within the exception 
 of restraints of princes. Eraas v. Ui/tton, 2 
 Man. & G. 954 ; 5 Scott (N.R.) 670 ; 2 D. P. C. 
 600; 12 L. J., C. P. 17. 
 
 Duration of Exception.] — The plaintiff ancJ 
 the defendants agreed, by charterparty, that 
 a ship then at Liverpool, of which the plaintiff 
 was master, shoukl with all convenient speed b& 
 made i eady, and should, at Liverpool, receive ami 
 load from the charterer's agents a full cargo,, 
 and, being so loaded, should proceed to Stettin 
 and deliver the same, and so entl the voyage, 
 restraint of princes, &c., during the voyage, always 
 excepted, and the ship was to be loaded at Liver- 
 pool without detention ; and the defendant thereby- 
 agreed to load the vessel at Liverpool, as in the 
 charterparty stated, with the cargo at Liverpool r 
 — Held, that the exception was applicable only- 
 after the ship had quitted Liver|)Ool. Crow v. 
 Falk, 8 Q. B. 467 ; 15 L. J., Q. B. 183 ; 10 Jur. 374. 
 
 A vessel, after dischaiging her outward cargck 
 for the owners' benefit, was to proceed to Galatz 
 or Ibraila, as ordered at Constantinople or Suhna 
 by the charterer's agents, and there load a cargo, 
 of corn, and therewith proceed homewards and 
 discharge at a port in the United Kingdom, and 
 so end the voyage ; restraints of princes and 
 rulers, the dangers of the seas, navigation, fire, 
 pirates and enemies during the voyage always, 
 mutually excepted : — Held, that the voyage com- 
 menced from the period of the discharge of the 
 outward cargo, and that the exception as to the
 
 277 
 
 SHIPPING— XI. Charterpartij. 
 
 IIS- 
 
 restraints of princes applied to the loading at 
 Ibraila, where the vessel proceeded ; and, conse- 
 quently, that it was a good plea to an action by 
 the owner against the charterer, for not loading 
 a cargo at ibraila. that he was prevented from 
 loading by the restraint and prohibition of the 
 ruler of the country wherein Ibraila is situate. 
 Bruce v. Mrolopulo, 11 Ex. 129 ; 3 C. L. R. 775 ; 
 24 L. J., Ex. 321 ; 3 W. R. -183. And see Bai-Jwr 
 V. M'A/ulrew, supra, col. 274. 
 
 •'Queens Enemies."] — When a charterparty 
 contains the exception '• Queen's enemies," an 
 apprehension of capture, founded upon circum- 
 stances calculated to affect the mind of a master 
 of ordinary courage, judgment and experience, 
 will justify delay in port during the continuance 
 of the risk ; nor is such delay less justifiable in 
 the case of a ship belonging to a belligerent 
 nation, but carrying a neutral cargo. The S/in 
 Roman, 41 L. J., Adm. 72 : L. R. 3 Adm. 583 : 
 26 L. T. 948 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 346. Affirmed, 42 
 L. J.. Adm. 46 ; L. R. 5 P. C. 301 ; 28 L. T. 381 : 
 21 W. R. 393 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 603. 
 
 Eeading Charterparty with Bill of Lad- 
 ing.] — When a charterparty contains the excep- 
 tions " Queen's enemies, restraints of princes," kc, 
 and a stipulation that the master is to sign bills 
 of lading in puisuance thereof " without preju- 
 dice to this charterparty," and the bills of lading 
 are signed containing no exception but " dangers 
 of the seas only excepted," the cargo being thereby 
 consigned to consignees named therein, who hid 
 notice of the terms of the charterparty at the 
 time it was entered into, the contract is contained 
 in both instruments, and the stipulation in the 
 bills of lading does not supersede the stipulations 
 in the charterparty. lb. 
 
 Prevention from Loading by Accident, &c.] — 
 
 When a charterer by his cliarterparty undertakes 
 to load a ship within certain given lay days, 
 "accidents or causes occurring Ijeyond the con- 
 trol of the shippers or affreighters, which may 
 prevent or delay her loading or discharging, 
 including civil commotion, strikes, riots, stoppage 
 of trains, always excepted," or to pay demurrage, 
 he cannot excuse default in loading within the 
 lay days by giving evidence of general disturb- 
 ance and cessation of work in the district :ihout 
 the time ; but to exempt himself from liability 
 must shew a disturbing cause, actually prevent- 
 ing the loading of ihe particular ship. Thp 
 Villar/e Belle, 30 L. T. 232 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 228. 
 See Cruochcwit v. Fletcher, ante, col. 266. 
 
 Want of Men.] — Where a charterparty pro- 
 viiicd that, ill cfuse of the "inability of the ship 
 to execute f)r procecrl on the service," certain \)cy- 
 sons should be at liberty to make such aVjatenient 
 out of the freight as they should think reason- 
 able : — Held, that an inability of the shi|) to 
 proceed to sea for want of men to navigate her. 
 was within the proviso, although such want of 
 men arose from the ravages of the smalljiox 
 amongst the original crew, the death r)f some, an<l 
 the desertion of others from fear of the distciiijicr, 
 and an impossibility of procuring others on the 
 spot in their room. Beatsuii v. Schank, 3 East, 
 233 ; 7 R. R. 436. 
 
 Lay Days — Demurrage.] — Where it was agreed 
 by charterparty that the charterer should not be 
 liable for delay in loading caused by neaps and 
 
 stoppage of navigation and the lay days were 
 exceeded in consequence of the lighters which 
 were bringing the cargo (one of salt) down the 
 rivers Weaver and Mersey to Birkenhead, the 
 place of loading, being delayed by neaps of excep- 
 tional lowness at the junction of the Mersey 
 and Weaver, and it was proved that it is the 
 invariable practice for all salt intended for foreign 
 exportation to be brouglit to Birkenhead from the 
 Weaver by water ; that there are no storehouses 
 for salt at Birkenhead ; and that it is never kept 
 there to await the arrival of vessels: — The 
 charterer was held to be relieved from liability 
 under the above exceptions, upon the ground that 
 they must be taken to apply to bringing the cargo 
 to Birkenhead for loading purposes. Allerton 
 Sailing Ship Co. v. Falk, 6 Asp. M. C. 287: 
 Distinguishing Grant v. Coverdale, XIV. DEi 
 MUKKAGE, post, col. 479. 
 
 Negligence of Crew " during Voyage."] — 
 Under a charterparty, which providetl that the- 
 shipowners were not to be responsible for •' any 
 act, neglect or default whatsoever of the crew 
 or other servants of the shipowners during the- 
 voyage," the "C. P." proceeded to Newfairvvater" 
 and commenced to load a cargo for Greenock. 
 During the loading the cargo was damaged by 
 water entering the ship through a valve, which' 
 had been nec:ligently left open by one of the 
 engineers belonging to the ship. In an action- 
 brought by the charterers to recover damages in- 
 respect of the loss so occasioned : — Held, that 
 the loss was occasioned during the '"voyage" 
 within the meaning of the charterparty. and 
 that the defendants were not liable : — Held, also 
 (on a counter-claim by the defendants for 
 general average contribution in respect of the 
 Toss), that the defendants were entitled to recover, 
 as the negligence of their own servants which had 
 caused the loss was negligence for which they 
 were not responsible. The Carron Park, 59 
 L. J., Adm. 74 : 15 P. D. 203 ; 63 L. T. 356 ; 3i) 
 W. R. 191 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 543. 
 
 See also cases as to exceptions, infra, XII 
 Bill of Lading. 
 
 4. PROVISION'S AS TO BILLS OF LADIXG AND 
 
 Documents. 
 
 Master bound to sign Bills of Lading.]— It 
 was stipulated by a chartciparfy made hetweeii 
 the plaintiffs and the defendants that the uiiu^ter 
 of the ship should sign bills of lading iis jirc- 
 scnted, or pay a named penalty. He refuse<l to- 
 do so, and sailed from the port of loading 
 without having signed any bills of lading. He 
 l)roceeded to the port of di.scharge, delivered a 
 portion of the cargo to the consigtiees, but cea.sed 
 doing so and warehoused the remainder, as they, 
 acting under instructions from tlie charterers, 
 claimed to deduct from tlic freight an amount 
 equal to llie penalty naincii in tlie charlerjiarty. 
 Ill an action l)y the charterers against the ship- 
 owners for conversion and for i)enaities : — Held, 
 that the plaintiffs could recover nominal damages 
 for the breach of contract in not signing l)iils of 
 ladinf as presented. Jones v. Jloiujh, 49 L. .1., 
 Ex. 211 : 5 Ex. D. 115 ; 42 L. T. lOH ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 248 — (". A. See also Seeger v. Dili hie, H 
 (!. B. (N.s.) 72 : 30 L. J.. C. I'. ti5 ; 7 Jur. (N.S.> 
 239 ; 3 L. T. 47H ; 9 W. K. 166— Kx. ('li. 
 
 On Terms of Sub-charter — Notice of Lien.} 
 
 — A shipper wlui li.as juiided mi tip- terms of :»
 
 279 
 
 SHIPPING— XI. Chaiterparty. 
 
 280 
 
 sub-ehavtev is not affected by notice of a stipu- 
 lation in the original chartcrparty that the 
 owner is to have " a lien on the cargo for arrears 
 of hire." Pie has a right to have bills of lading 
 signed ou the terms of the sub-charter. Tharsis 
 Sulplntr and C<ij>j)cr Mining Co. v. CuUiforcl, 22 
 W. K. 46. 
 
 Obligation to inquire as to Existence 
 
 -of Bills of Lading.] — Tiie goods of a shipper in 
 a general slii|i are not affected by a clause in a 
 ■charter)>arty of which he has no notice or know- 
 ledge, giving the shipowner a lien on all cargo 
 and freight for arrears of hire due under the 
 chartcrparty. Semble, the fact that no bills of 
 lading were given for the goods makes no differ- 
 ence in this respect as to the rights and liabilities 
 ■of the parties. T. hired a ship from M.. and by 
 the chartcrparty gave M. a lien on all cargo and 
 •freight for arrears of hire. T. advertised the 
 ship as a general ship, and gave no notice of the 
 chartcrparty. B. shipped goods and obtained a 
 xeceipt, but no bill of lading. The hire being 
 in arrears, M. detained the goods of B. for the 
 whole of the arrears : — Held, that M. was not 
 ■entitled to detain the goods of B., and that B. 
 ■was entitled to damages for their detention. 
 The Stornmcay, 51 L. J., Adm. 27 ; 46 L. T. 773 ; 
 4 Asp. M. C. 529, 
 
 To obtain Consular Manifest.] — In an action 
 ■by the owners of a vessel against a charterer, 
 the declaration alleged that it was customary at 
 Liverpool for the shippers of goods b,y vessel to 
 make out for the captain a fcorrect copy of eacli 
 'bill of lading, and that the shippers of the cargo 
 ■did make out coj)ies of eight bills of lading for 
 the ca])tain. and did deliver the copies to the 
 ■charterer for the captain, and that it was neces- 
 sary, as the charterer knew, for the purposes of 
 the voyage, that before sailing a consular mani- 
 fest should be made out, and that it was his duty 
 as charterer, and having in his possession the 
 captain's copies of the bills of lading, on request 
 of the owners of the ship, to hand over and give 
 all such copies for the purpose of enabling a 
 complete consular manifest to be made out, and 
 that he was requested to do so, but only handed 
 over six out of the eight bills of lading : — Held, 
 that theie was no such duty as alleged to hand 
 over the copies of the bills of lading, and that, 
 therefoi'c, the declaration was bad, and there 
 was no cause of action. Button v. Poivles, 2 
 B. & S. 174 ; 31 L. J., Q. B. 191 : 8 Jur. (N.s.) 
 i)70 ; 6 L. T. 224 ; 10 W. R. 408— Ex. Ch. 
 
 As to Bill of Health.] — In an action on a 
 chartcrparty. in wliich the shijjowncr covenanted 
 " tliat the vessel should be sulhciently furnished 
 with everytiiing necessary and needful for the 
 voyage in question," which was to Cagliari, in 
 Sardinia : — Held, that it was his duty to have 
 IX bill of health on board ; and, the charterer 
 having been put to great inconvenience and 
 expense on account of the ship not being pro- 
 Tided with such document, that the shipowner 
 -was responsible for the loss occasioned thereby. 
 Levy V. Costerton, Holt, 167 ; 4 Camp. 389 ; 1 
 -Stark. 212 ; 16 E. E. 808. 
 
 As to Passes.] — By a chartcrparty it was 
 agreed between the owners of a vessel and the 
 charterers that the vessel should sail to Callao ; 
 that the vessel being tight, staunch, strong and 
 well conditioned for the voj'age should load a 
 
 cargo of guano at the Chincha Islands, to which 
 place she should at once proceed, calling on her 
 way at Pisco to obtain the necessary pass to 
 load, which should be given to the captain by 
 the charterers' agent free of expense, within 
 twenty-four hours of his application. Breach, 
 that the charterers made default in providing 
 the agreed guano, and only provided an insuffi- 
 cient and a less quantity. Plea, that Callao and 
 the Chincha Islands are a part of the republic 
 of Peru, and that by the laws of that republic, a 
 vessel proceeding from Callao to the Chincha 
 Islands for guano is obliged to procure from the 
 government a written pass so to do, and the 
 vessel could not lawfully have proceeded from 
 Callao to the Chincha Islands without such 
 pass ; that the government refused to give such 
 pass ; and thereupon the vessel was repaired at 
 Callao, and the government did afterwards give 
 a pass, for the vessel to proceed to take in guano, 
 upon the condition that more guano should not 
 be placed on board than would make the 
 vessel draw eighteen and a half feet ; that 
 the vessel did, by virtue of such pass, proceed to 
 the Chincha Islands, and the charterers caused 
 to be loaded on board her sutlicient guano to 
 make her draw eighteen and a half feet, and 
 they could not, without violating the laws of 
 Peru, have loaded a greater quantity, and if 
 they had done so, the vessel and cargo would 
 have been liable to seizure : — Held, that the plea 
 was bad, since the obligation was on the char- 
 terers to procure the proper pass, and it was not 
 alleged that they were prevented from so doing 
 by reason of the vessel not being well condi- 
 tioned. Xirk V. Gibbs, 1 H. & N. 810 ; 26 L, J., 
 Ex. 209. 
 
 5. Performance. 
 a. Nominating- Port. 
 
 Duty of Captain to wait for Orders at Port of 
 
 Call.] — Tlie master of a sliip, under a chartei- 
 party to load a cargo at a foreign port, and 
 thence proceed to a port in Great Britain, as 
 ordered, is not bound, in default of orders, to 
 wait at the foreign port until he has communi- 
 cated with the charterer. Sicrekinq v. Maas. 6 
 El. & Bl. 670 ; 25 L. J., Q. B. 358 ; 2 Jur. (n.s.) 
 515 ; 4 W. E. 606— Ex. Ch. 
 
 To obey Directions as to Place of Dis- 
 charge.] — Under an open chartcrparty to deliver 
 at a certain port it is the duty of the master to 
 obey the directions of the owner of the cargo 
 as to tlie place of discharge in such port. The. 
 Felix, 37 L. .1., Adm. 48 : L. E. 2 A. & E. 273 ; 
 18 L. T. 587 ; 17 W. E. 102. 
 
 At what Time.] — A chartcrparty, by which it 
 is agreed that a ship, after delivering her outward 
 cargo at Malta, shall, with all convenient speed, 
 sail to one of the several ports as shall be 
 ordered at Malta, contains an implied ])romise, 
 on the jiart of the charterer, that the ship shall 
 be ordered at Malta to sail to such port, within 
 a reasonable time after her arrival at Malta. 
 Woolley V. MedcIeJien, 5 Man. & G. 316 ; 6 Scott 
 (N.R.) "l99 ; 12 L. J., C. P. 152 ; 7 Jur. 930. 
 S. P., Whiticell V. Sclieer, 8 A. & E. 301 ; 3 
 N. & P. 398 ; 7 L. J., Q. B. 244. 
 
 "What Port.] — A ship was to proceed to Hon- 
 duias. and there load "at one of the usual and 
 customary ports or places of loading, including
 
 231 
 
 SHIPPING— XI. Charterparty. 
 
 282 
 
 the rivers Ulna and Dulce," a cargo of mahogany 
 and logwood. The freighter by letter directed 
 the captain to proceed to Belize, in the bay of 
 Honduras, and address himself to S., "who will 
 furnish you with a homeward cargo of mahogany 
 and logwood agreeable to charterparty." The 
 captain took the ship to Belize, where S. put a 
 small quantity of logwood on board, and directed 
 the ship to go to Ulna, where about half a cargo 
 was put on board. S. then sent the ship to two 
 other places of loading in Honduras, at which 
 the cargo was completed : — Held, that it was a 
 question for the jury, whether the ship was sent 
 to Belize as her port of loading ; and that, if 
 she was, the freighter was liable for the extra 
 expenses of her going to all the other places for 
 the residue of her cargo ; but that, if Belize was 
 not to be considered her port of loading, Ulna 
 certainly was, and the freighter would, at all 
 events, be liable for the extra expense of her 
 going for cargo to other places after Ulna, as by 
 the charterparty the freighter was to load at one 
 of the usual ports or places of loading in Hon- 
 duras. Broion v. Johnson, Car. & M, 440 ; 10 
 M. At W. 331 ; 11 L. J., Ex. 373. 
 
 Duty to name Port before Voyage begins.] — 
 
 Declaration on a charterparty stated that it was 
 agreed thereby that the ship should sail in ballast 
 to a safe and convenient port near Cape Town, 
 and there load a fuU cargo ; and the plaintiff 
 agreed to load the vessel and pay freight. Aver- 
 ment, that though the plaintiff was ready and 
 willing to appoint and put on board a propei- 
 person as supercargo, who would have indicated 
 a safe and convenient port near Cape Town 
 to receive the cargo, the defendant would not 
 permit the ship to proceed in ballast on the 
 voyage : — Held, bad on general demurrer for not 
 averring that the plaintiff gave notice to the 
 defendant of a safe and convenient port, &c., or 
 anything equivalent in law to such notice ; it 
 being the duty of the charterer to select the 
 port and give notice of it before the commence- 
 ment of the voyage, liac v. Iluchett, 12 M. & 
 W. 724 ; 13 L. J., Ex. 21G ; 8 Jur. 421. 
 
 Naming Place of Discharge at given Port. J 
 
 — .See I'lirkcr v. Winlow and cases, XIV. 
 Demukkage, post, cols. 4G3 seq. 
 
 b. Hostile and Blockaded. Ports. 
 
 Operation of War on Contract.] — The master 
 of a Noith <;ernian slii[i, lying at Constantinople, 
 entered into a charterparty with North German 
 subjects, there resident, to carry a cargo to a 
 port in th(; United Kingilf)ni or on the continent 
 to be deiiv(;red to ^higlish consignees. 'J'lie 
 charterparty and the bill of lading given under 
 it were in the English language, and it was 
 stipulated that the ship should call at one of 
 lliree ports of the United Kingdom for orders. 
 The ship duly called at Falmouth, and was 
 ordered to ])roceed to an English jioit to dis- 
 chaige: — Held, that as the intention of the 
 parties as to what law should govern, was to be 
 gathered from the circumstances of the case, 
 and, as the giving of the orders fixed the seat of 
 the contract in England, the law of P^ngland 
 applied. The Wilhdm Srhwirif, 2') I.. T. 34 ; 
 1 Asp. M. C. 82. And see Boirdin, Ex ptirtc, 
 4 El. & Bl. 963. 
 
 War thin existed between France antl Ger- 
 many. The master sailed from Falmouth, but 
 
 through a reasonable fear of capture, put into 
 Dunkirk. The ship remaineil there for two- 
 months, waiting for a steam tug, which was 
 considered necessary by the charterers' agents to 
 avoid capture, the master expressing himself 
 ready to sail with the fii'st fair wind. The ship 
 was then sent forward by steam power, at the 
 charterers' agents' expense. The cargo was 
 damaged, and the plaintiffs lost profits by the 
 ilelay : — Held, that the master was justified in 
 putting into and remaining in port, and that 
 the shipowners were not liabie for the damage 
 caused by the delay. Ih. 
 
 By a charterparty in the English language 
 entered into at Constantinople between the 
 master of a North German vessel, and North, 
 German merchants there resident, it was agreed 
 that the vessel should load a cargo and proceed 
 therewith to Falmouth, Plymouth or Queens- 
 town, for orders for a safe town in the United 
 Kingdom, or on the continent between Havre 
 and Hamburg, Queen's enemies, &c., excepted. 
 The cargo was laden, and the vessel sailed, but 
 her master learning on his voyage that war 
 existed between France and Germany, put into 
 Gibraltar. During the war there would have 
 been great risk of capture off that port, and off 
 the port of call if the vessel had proceeded on 
 her voyage ; her master in consequence remained 
 there until the end of the war (nine months). 
 He then sailed, and arriving at a port of call 
 was ordered to an English port. The cargo was 
 damaged by the delay. In a claim by the con- 
 signees : — Held, that by both English and North 
 German law the master was justified in putting 
 into and remaining in port, and that the ship- 
 owners were not responsible for the damage 
 caused by the delay. The Express, 41 L. J., 
 Adm. 79 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 597 ; 26 L. T. 956 ; 
 1 Asp. M. C. 3.55. 
 
 A charterparty for a voyage from Liverpool to 
 Lima or Valparaiso provided that the vessel 
 should proceed to the port of discharge, or as 
 near thereto as she could safely get, and there 
 deliver her cargo in the usual and customary 
 manner. A specified number of days was agreed 
 upon for loading the vessel at Liverpool ; but 
 there was no such agreement as to the discharge 
 at her port of destination. The vessel arrived 
 at the port of discharge, and remained there 
 discharging till, owing to the apprehension of a 
 bombardment by a ho.stile fleet, the authorities 
 suspended all landing of goods for seven days, 
 after which she returned and her discharge was 
 completed: — Held, that the discharge of the 
 cargo being an act toibe done by the shi[)owner 
 ami freighter, the shipowner could not maintain 
 an action a!_'ainst the freighter for the loss from 
 the delav. ' Ford v. Colrsirorth. 10 I!. & S. 991 ; 
 39 L. J.,'Q. B. IH.S ; L. 11. 5 Q. B. 544 ; 23 L. T. 
 165 ; 18 W. K. 1169— Ex. Ch. 
 
 A Bru.ssian shij), carrying a cargo of nitrate 
 of soda (contraband of \var), arrived off Dunkirk, 
 to which port she had liecn ordere<i Ity the con- 
 signees (if cargo, and whilst lying there waiting 
 for the tide, her master heard that war had 
 broken oot between Fiance and I'ru.ssia, and 
 he thereupon jmt back to the Downs, where he 
 arrived on .July 17th, to make imiuiries, but 
 hearing nothing more, and being stopped by 
 his owner, he jiut into Dover on the l«th, and 
 there getting intelligence, rcfased to proceed to 
 Dunkirk. The ship was running under chartci- 
 entitling her to he sent to a safe port. War was 
 not actuallv declared till .July 19th, but was
 
 283 
 
 SHIPPING— XL Chartcrparty. 
 
 284 
 
 imminent on July 16tli : — Held, that the ship on 
 .Inly IGth was not bound to go to Dunkirk, as she 
 would have boon Hable to penaUies for trading 
 with the enemies of her country and capture by 
 French cruisers ; that even if war did not 
 notually exist till July 19th the master was jus- 
 titied in pausing for a reasonable time to make 
 inquiries, and that under the circumstances he 
 *lid not exceed that time by staying in Dover 
 till after the declaration of war. The Tevtonia, 
 8 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 411 ; 41 L. J., Adm. 57 ; 
 L. R. 4 P. C. 171 ; 26 L. T. 48 ; 20 W. R. 421. 
 
 Whilst the ship was lying at Dover the con- 
 signees demanded the delivery of cargo without 
 any payment of freight. The master refused to 
 deliver without payment : — Held, that he was 
 entitled to freight. lb. 
 
 A North German vessel shipped goods in the 
 Black Sea for a port in the United Kingdom or 
 on the continent under an English charterparty, 
 by which she was to call at Falmouth or Ply- 
 mouth for orders, such orders to be given by the 
 charterer's agents in London by return of post, 
 on receipt of the master's announcement of his 
 arrival. She arrived at Falmouth on August 9th. 
 Orders were given, but not till September 3rd, 
 to proceed to Leith ; but from that date until 
 the arrest of the ship, on September 21st, nego- 
 tiations were going on for discharge of the 
 ■cargo at Falmouth. Between those dates the 
 ''.vinds were light and variable, and the master 
 remained in port for fear of capture by French 
 ci'uisersin the Channel, war then existing between 
 .France and North. Germany : — Held, that the 
 < lelay was reasonable, and that neither by English 
 nor North German law was the master bound to 
 proceed, and that the negotiations waived the 
 (Dxlers to proceed. The Heinrieh. L. R. 3 A. & E. 
 424 ; 24 L. T. 914 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 79. 
 
 A charterparty between two British subjects 
 p\\\ a voyage to Constantinople and thence to 
 Odessaj there to load a cargo from the agent of 
 *he defendant, contained a stipulation that " in 
 case of war having commenced previously to and 
 continuing on the ship's arrival at Constan- 
 tinople," he was to load the ship there at a 
 reduced rate of freight — Held, that this stipula- 
 tion related to war between Great Britain and 
 •Russia, and ther fore an action could not be 
 maintained for not loading at Constantinople, 
 by reason of war b tween Russia and Turkey 
 having commenced before and continuing on the 
 ship's arrival there. Arery v. Uoicdrn, 6 EL & 
 Bl. 9.53 ; 26 L. J., Q. B. 3 ; 3 Jur. (n.s.) 238 ; 5 
 W. R. 4.5— Ex. Ch. 
 
 A declaration stated that the |)laintiff and 
 the defendant agreed by charterparty that the 
 plaintiff's ship should proceed to Odessa, and 
 there load a cargo from the defendant's agent, a 
 certain number of running days to be allowed 
 for loading ; that the ship proceeded to Odessa ; 
 that the time for loading had elapsed, but the 
 defendant made default in loading. Plea, that 
 before breach of contract war was declared 
 between Great Britain and Russia, by which 
 the contract was rescinded. After the ship had 
 arrived, and before the declaration of war, the 
 defendant's agent repeatedly told the master that 
 he should be unable to procure a cargo for the 
 ship, and he endeavoured to persuade the master 
 to quit Odessa without a cargo upon terms incon- 
 sistent with the charterparty. The master con- 
 tinued to demand a cargo until the declaration 
 of war was known at Odessa ; and on a later day, 
 •but before the expiration of the running days, 
 
 left Odessa in ballast : — Held, that the declara- 
 tions of the defendant's agent did not amount to 
 a breach of contract, and therefore, inasmuch as 
 the defendant had the whole of the running days 
 for performing his contract, the plea was proved. 
 Reid V. Hoshim, 6 El. & Bl'. 953 ; 26 L. J., Q. B. 
 5 ; 3 Jur. (N.S.) 238 ; 5 W. R. 45— Ex. Ch. 
 
 A captain of an Austrian vessel which was 
 chartered prior to the war between France and 
 Sardinia and Austria, but which broke out before 
 the charterparty was terminated, while the war 
 was going on, and being then at Falmouth, 
 was ordered by the charterers to go to Copen- 
 hagen, which he said he could not do then, but 
 must go somewhere else, or wait till the war was 
 over, as he should be captured by the French 
 cruisers ; and he was eventually ordered to go 
 to Plymouth : — Held, that he was justified in 
 thus delaying. Pole v. Ceteovitch, 9 C. B. (n.s.) 
 430 ; 30 L. J.. C. P. 102; 7 Jur. (N.s.) 604 ; 3 
 L. T. 438 ; 9 W. R. 279. S.C, at Nisi Prius, 2 
 F. & F. 104. 
 
 Eefusal to sail for.] — Semble, where 
 
 performance of the charterparty becomes illegal 
 by reason of blockade, the master may refuse to 
 sail. The Ttitela, 6 C. Rob. 180. 
 
 Knowledge of Blockade.] — It is no 
 
 defence for not sailing on a voyage towards a 
 port agreed on that the port was in a state of 
 iilockade, if the defendant knew the fact at the 
 time of entering into the charterparty. Medeiros 
 v. Hill, 8 Ring. 231 ; 1 M. & Sc. 311 ; 5 Car. & P. 
 182 ; 1 L. J., C. P. 77. 
 
 But whether the damages are to be nominal or 
 otherwise must depend upon the opinion of the 
 jury as to whether, if the vessel had gone to the 
 place, she would have been able to get in. li. 
 
 Blockaded Port — Delivery Elsewhere.] — Under 
 a charterparty that a ship should proceed to 
 Taganrog, or " so near thereto as she may safely 
 get," and there deliver cargo : — Held, that this 
 port being under blockade, it was not a fulfil- 
 ment of the contract for the vessel to discharge 
 at Constantinople, even though that might be a 
 reasonable course to adopt. Castel v. T)'ecUman, 
 
 I Cab. & E. 276. 
 
 Trade with Blockaded Port.] — Tt is not a 
 
 municipal offence by the law of nations for a 
 neutral to carry on trade with a blockaded port. 
 The Helen, 35 L. J., Adm. 2 ; L. R. 1 A. & E. 1 ; 
 
 II Jur. (N.S.) 1025 ; 13 L. T. 305 ; 14 W. R. 136. 
 
 Refusal of Foreign Power to allow Ship to 
 Load.] — Plaintiff knowing that the ship " R." was 
 under a contract with the British government 
 to load military stores as dead-weight at Malta, 
 and that with such stores on board she would 
 not, without special permission, be permitted by 
 the Spanish government to load any cargo at a 
 Spanish port, entered into a charterparty with 
 her owners by which it was agreed that the "R.," 
 " after loading dead-weight at Malta for owners' 
 benefit," should proceed to a Spanish port, and 
 there load a cargo of fruit. The ship proceeded 
 with the military stores on board to Valencia to 
 load plaintiff's cargo, but permission could not 
 be obtained from the Spanish government to 
 load. The ship was in all other res])ects ready 
 to load : — Held, that no action could be main- 
 tained by the charterers against the shipowners 
 for not being ready to load, as both parties were
 
 SHIPPING— XI. Chartcrpartij. 
 
 285 
 
 .prevented from performing their contract to be 
 ■ready with a ship and cargo by the action of the 
 superior power. Cnnninghajn v. Dunn, 48 L. J., 
 C. P. 62 ; 3 C. P. D, 443 ; 38 L. T. 631 ; 3 Asp. 
 M. C. 359— C. A. 
 
 Charterers nominating Unsafe Port.] — A ship 
 was chartered to proceed from England to a 
 safe port in Chili, with leave to call at Valpa- 
 raiso. On her arrival at Valparaiso, the charterers' 
 agent named the port of Carrisai Bajo as the port 
 of discharge, and directed the master to proceed 
 thither. At the time Carrisai Bajo was named as 
 the port of discharge, that port was closed by order 
 of the Chilian government, and the ship could 
 not proceed thither without confiscation. The 
 ship was consequently detained for some time at 
 Valparaiso, and, on the port being opened, sailed 
 for Carrisai Bajo, and there discharged her cargo : 
 — Held, that the charterers were liable in damages 
 to the shipovniers for the detention of the ship 
 at Valparaiso, as they had not named a safe port 
 within the meaning of the charterparty. Ogden 
 V. Graham, 1 B. & S. 773 ; 31 L. J., Q. B. 26 ; 8 
 Jur. (N.6.) 613 ; 5 L. T. 396 ; 10 W. R. 77. 
 
 Hostile or Neutral Port — Covenant to get 
 Licence.]— If a vessel is chartered to any ports 
 of an island, part of which is hostile and part 
 neutral, and the freighter covenants to procure 
 a licence ; if the ship trades to a neutral port of 
 the island, it is no breach of the covenant, that 
 the freighter has procured a licence which would 
 not authorise the like trade to a hostile port. 
 Johnson v. Greaves, 2 Taunt. 344. 
 
 Licence — Illegal Contract.] — A. commissioned 
 P). to get a charterjiarty effected on his ship, 
 llussian built and British owned. She was 
 iiccordingly chartered to go to America, and take 
 in there a cargo of permitted goods, rice and 
 cotton being specified, and to sail therewith to 
 €adiz, Lisbon or Gottenburgh, as directed by a 
 (previous agreement ; it ajjpeared to have been 
 in the contemplation of the parties to carry the 
 goods to some port in the United Kingdom, and 
 that the ship should carry no licence :— Held, 
 that this was not an illegal contract, so as to 
 •deprive A. of his right to his commission for 
 l)rocuring the charterjjarty to be effected. Uaines 
 v. Jiusk, 1 Marsh. 101 ; B Taunt. 621. 
 
 Condemnation of Cargo.]— The general, but 
 not univeisal, rule is, that where a ship is con- 
 <lemned for breach of blockade, the cargo follows 
 the same fate. lialtazzl v. llyditr, 12 Moore, 
 P. C. 168. 
 
 The presumption is against a vessel captured 
 in entering a blockaded port, and an imperative 
 and overwhelming necessity for so doing must be 
 established by the owner to exempt from con- 
 demnation. Ih. 
 
 It is not competent to owners of a cargo on 
 board a vessel condemned for breach of bli)ckade. 
 to save the cargo from condemnation by shewing 
 their innocence in the transaction, as the owners 
 of the cargo are concluded by the illegal act of 
 the master, although it was done witiiout tlic 
 privity of the owners of the cargo, and even if it 
 was drme contrary to their wishes. Ih. 
 
 When a blockade is known, or might have 
 been known, to the owners of the cargo, at the 
 time when the shipment was made, and they 
 •might, therefore, by possibility, be i)rivy to an 
 intentiai of violating the blockade, such privity 
 
 286 
 
 will be assumed as an irresistible inference of 
 law, and it is not competent to rebut it by 
 evidence, as in cases of blockade, for the purpose 
 of affecting the cargo with the rights of the 
 belligerent. The master is to be treated as the 
 agent for the cargo, as well as for the ship. lb. 
 
 c. Deviation and Delay. 
 
 Deviation — Implied Contract.] — The law im- 
 plies a contract by the owTier of a vessel whether 
 a general ship, or hired for the special purpose 
 of the voyage, to proceed without unnecessary 
 deviation in the usual and customarv course. 
 Davis V. Garrett, 4 M. & P. 540 ; 6 B'ing. 716 ; 
 8 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 253 ; 31 R. R. 524. 
 
 The plaintiff chartered a ship to the defendant 
 from London to Madeira, and the Cape of Good 
 Hope, and thence to Bombay, and back to 
 London. Instead of proceeding by the direct 
 and usual course from the Cape of Good Hope 
 to Bombay, the captain made a deviation to the 
 Mauritius ; and the defendant's agents at Bombay, 
 in consequence of such deviation, refused to find 
 a cargo. In an action by the owner against the 
 defendant for not loading the ship with a cargo 
 at Bombay, pursuant to the charterparty, it was 
 left to the jur}' to say whether the deviation was 
 of such a nature and description as to deprive 
 the freighter of the benefit of the contract into 
 which he had entered ; and they were told, that, 
 if such was their opinion, the defendant was 
 excused by the act of the plaintiff from furnishing 
 a cargo. The jury having found for the defen- 
 dant, the court refused to grant a new trial, 
 holding the direction right. Freeman v. Taylor^ 
 1 M. & Scott, 182 ; 8 Bing. 124 ; 1 L. J., C. P. 26. 
 
 Justifiable.] — A deviation for the purpose 
 
 of saving life is justifiable, but not a deviation 
 for the mere purpose of saving property. The 
 defendants' ship was chartered by the plaintiffs 
 to carry a cargo of wheat from Cronstadt to the 
 Mediterranean, the usual perils of the sea excepted. 
 Whilst on her voyage she sighted and went to 
 the assistance of a vessel in distress, called the 
 "Arion," and the master in consideration of 
 1,000^. agreed to tow her into the Texel, which 
 was out of his direct course. Wliilst so doing, 
 the defendants' vessel was stranded, and ulii- 
 mately (witli her cargo) was totally lost. In 
 answer to questions put to them by the learned 
 judge, the juiy found that it was not reasonably 
 necessary to tuke the "Arion" to the Te.xel in 
 order to save the lives of those on board her ; 
 but that it was reasonably necessary to do so in 
 order to save her and her cargo : — Held, tliat the 
 <ieviation was unjustifiable, and consequently 
 that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover against 
 the owners the value of the cargo. Scaramaiiga 
 V. Stamp, 49 L. J., C. P. 674 ; 5 C. P. D. 295 ; 42 
 L. T. 840 ; 28 W. R. 691 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 295— 
 C. A. 
 
 Delay— To sail with Convoy.]— Where the 
 plaintiff covenanted, that, on tlic arrival of :i 
 ship at a certain jxirl, he would rcicivc thcd<f<'n- 
 dant's cargo, and sail for England tliercwitli, 
 with the next .lune convoy, provided tlie ship 
 arrived and was ready to load sixty-five running 
 days before the sailing of such convoy ; and the 
 defendant covenanted to provide a cargo of pro- 
 duce in time for her to load the same, and join 
 the .June convoy for Englan<l, provided she 
 arrived out anil was ready to load and a notice
 
 287 
 
 SHIPPING— XL CharterparUj. 
 
 288 
 
 thereof was given to his agents, sixty-five rnniiin;:: 
 days previoush' to the sailing of the convoy, ami 
 on her arrival to receive the cargo and j)ay the 
 current freight : — Held, that it was not a con- 
 dition precedent to the defendant's part of the 
 contract that the ship should so arrive, but he was 
 still buinul to supply a cargo, though not in time 
 to enable the iilaiutilf to sail with that convoy. 
 Dejff'el V. Brocldcbank, i Price, 36 ; 3 Bligh, 5(3"l. 
 
 Freighter Countermanding,] — Where 
 
 the master covenanted with the freighter that 
 the vessel should proceed with the first convoy 
 from England for Spain and Portugal, or either, 
 as he should be directed by the freighter or his 
 atrents ; and there make a right and true delivery 
 of the cargo, agreeably to the bills of lading 
 signed for the same ; and so to take in a home 
 cargo, and return and make a right and true 
 delivery thereof at London, in consideration 
 whereof, and of everything above mentioned, the 
 freighter covenanted to load the vessel out and 
 home, and pay certain freight i^er ton per month, 
 part before, and the remainder on the right and 
 true delivery of the homeward cargo at London : 
 — Held, first, that the freighter, having first 
 ordered the master to proceed to Lisbon, in con- 
 sequence of which the master had taken in goods 
 and signed bills of lading for that port, could not 
 afterwards countermand that order, and order 
 liim to proceetl to Gibraltar, without first recalling 
 the bills of lading, or at least tendering sufficient 
 indemnity to the master against the consequence 
 of his liability thereon : secondly, that, supposing 
 the freighter had such a power, yet his supercargo 
 ,ind agent, who was on board the vessel, had the 
 Lke authority in the absence of his principal, 
 even before the vessel sailed from this country, 
 to alter again the destination to Insbon : thirdly, 
 that the master having proceeded with the out- 
 ward cargo to Lisbon under the first order, and 
 brought home a return cargo and delivered the 
 same to the freighter at London, was entitled to 
 his freight for that voyage, though he had not 
 sailed with the first convoy ; the sailing with 
 the first convoy not being a condition precedent 
 to his recovering freight for the voyage actually 
 performed under the first order, but a distinct 
 covenant for the breach of which he was liable. 
 navidsuii V. Gwynne, 13 East, 381 ; 11 K.. E. 
 420. 
 
 Delay without Damage.] — A declaration stated, 
 
 that it was agreed by a charterparty that the 
 jjlaintiff's ship shouUl load from the agents of 
 the defendant at Nantes a cargo of wheat, and 
 deliver the same at London on being paid 
 freight ; that the ship went to Nantes, and that 
 the defendant refused to load a cargo. I'lea, 
 that the charterparty was entered into at London, 
 while the ship was at London, and that the 
 plaintifl:', without the defendant's consent, sailed 
 fiom London to Newcastle, and thence to other 
 places than Nantes, l^y reason of which the ship 
 did not arrive at Nantes "within a reasonable 
 and proper time in that behalf," but " after a 
 long and unreasonable time, to wit, thirty-eight 
 days, after she would have arrived at Nantes, 
 according to the usual length of the voyage, if 
 she had sailed direct " ; — Held, that the plea 
 was bad, as it did not appear that the defendant 
 had, in consequence of the delay, lost the benefit 
 of the voyage. Clijj.s-Juint v. J'vrtve, D. & M. 
 343 ; 5 Q. B. 265 ; 13 L. J., Q. B. 2 ; 8 Jur. 
 32. 
 
 Port of Refuge — Necessity.] — Wlicre a ship is 
 f(n'ced to put back for repairs, in selecting a port 
 of refuge the master must not make any greater 
 departure from the projier course of the voyage- 
 than is reasonably necessary, having regard to the 
 interests of all parties ; but in detei'uiining what 
 is reasonably necessary, the question of expense- 
 mav be taken into account. Phelps v. Hill, 
 60 L. J., Q. B. 382: [1891] 1 Q. B. 605; 64 
 L. T. 610 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 42— C. A. 
 
 Bringing back Ship — Refusal to Despatch, 
 again.] — In an action upon a charterparty, by 
 which the owner covenanted to take on board at 
 London the freighter's goods, and to proceed' 
 therewith to Monte Video, and there deliver 
 them, and receive another cargo, and proceed 
 therewith to the port of discharge in Great 
 Britain, and there deliver the same and end the 
 voyage ; in consideration of which the freighter 
 covenanted to pay so much per month for freight 
 during the voyage to Monte Video and back tO' 
 her port of discharge ; it is not enough to allege- 
 in the declaration that the ship, after taking in 
 a cargo in Great Britain, and proceeding in part 
 on her outward voyage, was, against the will and 
 without the default of the owner, and through 
 the act of the supercargo, the servant of the- 
 freighter, seized and brought back to London, 
 and detained until restored to the owner, in con- 
 seqitence of which she required repair, and which 
 the plaintiff caused to be done with proper 
 despatch, and was ready and willing to cause the 
 ship to prosecute and comi)lete her voyage, and 
 ofiered her to the defendant for that purpose, 
 and requested him to despatch her ; and upon 
 this to assign a breach that he refused to despatch 
 her and renounced the charterparty and further 
 prosecution of the voyage, and discharged the 
 plaintiff from the same, per quod he was hindered 
 from endeavouring to complete the voyage, and 
 to earn the money stipulated by the charterparty 
 to be paid at her port of discharge ; for the 
 defendant having once despatched the ship, there 
 was no obligation upon him to despatch her a 
 second time. Smith v. Wilson, 6 M. & S. 78 ; 8 
 East, 437. 
 
 Master not signing Bills of Lading — ^Refusal 
 to receive Goods.] — It was stipulated in a 
 charterparty made between the plaintiflis and the 
 defendants that the master of the ship should 
 sign bills of lading as presented, or pay a named 
 penalty. He refused to do so, and sailed from 
 the port of loading without having signed any 
 bills of lading. He proceeded to the port of 
 discharge, delivered a portion of the cargo to 
 the consignees, but ceased doing so, and ware- 
 housed the remainder, as they, acting under 
 instructions from the charterers, claimed to 
 <.leduct from the freight an amount equal to the 
 penalty named in the charterparty. In an 
 action by the charterers against the shipowners 
 for conversion and for penalties : — Held, that the 
 plaintiffs could not recover against the defendants- 
 for conversion of the cargo, as they had carried 
 it for the plaintiffs, had intended to deliver the 
 whole of it to the consignees of the plaintiffs, 
 and had been prevented by the acts of the plain- 
 tiffs from completing the delivery. Jones v. 
 Ilouqh, 49 L. J., Ex. 211 ; 5 Ex. D. 115; 42 
 L. T. 108 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 248— C. A. 
 
 Discharging Cargo, Means for.] — The duty 
 of providing, and making proper use of, sufiicient
 
 289 
 
 SHIPPING— XL Charterjmrhj. 
 
 290 
 
 means for the discharge of a cargo, when a ship. 
 which has been chartered, arrives at its destina- 
 tion, and is ready to discharge, lies upon the 
 charterer. But that general duty may be quali- 
 fied by words in the charterpartj^, and by the 
 circumstances of the case. If, by the terms of 
 the charterparty, the charterer has agreed to 
 discharge the ship within a fixed period of time, 
 that is an absolute and unconditional engage- 
 ment, for the nonperformance of which he is 
 answerable, whatever may be the nature of the 
 impediments which prevent him from performing 
 it. If there is no fixed time, the law im()lies an 
 agreement, on his part, to discharge the cargo 
 within a reasonable time, Postlethwaite v. Free- 
 land, 49 L. J„ Ex. 630 ; 5 App. Cas. o99 ; 42 
 L. T. 84.5 ; 28 W. R. 833 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 302— 
 H. L. (E.) See also Petersen v. Freehodij, infra, 
 col. oSij ; Mltife v. Steamsliij) Winchester Co., 
 supra, col. 26."). 
 
 Per Lord Hatherley : When the covenant 
 merely engages that the merchant shall with all 
 despatch, according to the custom of the port, 
 unload the vessel, he will fulfil his contract if he 
 emploj's all the usual methods of despatch at the 
 port. Ih. 
 
 Expenses of. ] — The contract in the charter- 
 party as to demurrage was this : The cargo was 
 to be supplied as fast as it could be taken on 
 board, " and to be received at port of discharge 
 as fast as steamer can deliver as above . . . 
 and ten days' demurrage over and above the said 
 laying days" (there were no laying days men- 
 tioned in the chartcri)arty) •' at 30/. per day, 
 payable day by day, it being agreed tliat for the 
 payment of all fieight, dead freight and demui'- 
 rage, the owner shall have absolute charge and 
 lien on the said cargo . . ." " The cargo to 
 be brought to and taken from alongside the ship 
 at merchants' risk and expense." The ship did 
 not fulfil an engagement in the chartei'party to 
 proceed to the Surrey Commercial Docks by 
 merely going to the gates of the docks, but when 
 it had fulfilled the alternative to go as near 
 thereto as it could safely get, the charterer was 
 bound to take the cargo from alongside at his 
 risk and expense. The shipowner was not bound 
 to wait for an unreasonable period, until the dock 
 authorities should be able to assign the ship a 
 discharging berth in the docks. When a diffi- 
 culty arose about the ship being admitted into 
 the Surrey Commeicial Docks, and the charterer 
 would not nami: any other docks oi- place where 
 the vessel might be unloaded, the slii])Owiicr gave 
 notice to tl:e charterer of the dischiirge of the 
 cargo by ligliters, and, on taking tin; timber into 
 the docks, gave notice to the dock authorities 
 that it was delivered there subject to the claim 
 foi- freight, demurrage and delivery chaigcs : — 
 Held, that he was warranted in so doing. Dtihl 
 or Bonhiu v. Xclxim, "(0 L. J., (Jh. 411 ; 6 App. 
 Ca.s. 38 ; 44 L. T. 381 ; 29 W. K. 4.-)3 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 392— H. L. 
 
 Duty to perform Voyages within limited 
 Time.) — In an action for a breach of a cliMrtrr- 
 party by the ficighter against the owner of the 
 vessel, the declaration stated that it was agrcerl 
 by the parties that the vessel should proceed with 
 all convenient speed to S. H., and there load a 
 cargo of coals, and therewith pnicecd to L., and 
 deliver the cargo at a safe wharf, at a certain 
 amount of freight being payable per ton ; that 
 the charterparty should be in force for six 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 successive vojages, and that they should be made 
 not later than the last day of February. A 
 breach, that the defendant would not permit the 
 vessel for the fourth successive time, or for any 
 time except three times, after the making of the 
 charterparty, to proceed to S. H., and there to 
 load a cargo of coals on board. Plea, that before 
 breach, the last day of February expired : — 
 Held, that the plea was no answer. WheeJev v. 
 Bai-idfje, 9 Ex. 668 ; 2 C. L. R. 1077 ; 23 L. J., 
 Ex. 221. 
 
 " Full and complete Cargo " — Liberty to call 
 at any Port in Order.] — ISy a charterparty a 
 sailing barge, whose dead weight capacity was 
 stated to be 12.5 tons, was to load a cargo or 
 estimated quantity of 470 quarters of wheat in 
 sacks and (or) other lawful merchandise, and 
 proceed to Gosport within the jwrt of Portsmouth, 
 and she also had liberty to call at any port in any 
 order. Tiie charterer sliip})ed 470 quarters of 
 wheat, which weighed about 102 tons. After the 
 wheat was shiiijied the shipowner loaded fifteen 
 tons of wire-netting belonging to other ship- 
 pers to be delivei'ed at Portsmouth dockyard. 
 Both the dockyard and Gosport are in the port of 
 Portsmouth. The netting was discharged at the 
 dockyard, but the ship, whilst jiroceeding from 
 the (lockj'ard to Gosport, was injured by coming 
 in contact with one of the piles of a pierhead, and 
 the cargo of wheat was damaged by water : — 
 Held, that the charterparty did not bind the 
 shipowner to treat the cargo of wheat as an 
 entire shipload to the exclusion of other cargo, 
 and that there had been no deviation in the 
 voyage to Gosport, Caffin v, AUlridge, 65 L, J., 
 Q. B.'"85 ; [1895] 2 Q. B. 648 ; 73 L.'T. 426 : 44 
 W. R. 129 ; 8 Asp. M.C. 233— C.A. 
 
 Fear of Capture — Delay in Voyage.] — An ap- 
 prehension of capture founded on circumstances 
 calculated to atfect the mind of a master of 
 ordinary courage, judgment and exi)erience, will 
 justify delay in the jjrosccution of a voyage ; and 
 a ship is not answerable in a suit under the 
 Admiralty Court Act, 1S61, s. 6, for damage to 
 cargo caused by such delay. Anderson v. San 
 Roni'in (Oivnrr's), 42 L. J., Adm. 46 : L. K. 5 
 P. C. 3(11 : 21 W. R. 393 ; 28 L. T. 381 ; I A-.p. 
 M. C. 603— P. ('. 
 
 Additional Cargo taken in and discharged at 
 same Port.] — Sec f'ajlin v. A/dri'/</e, supra. 
 
 Master deviating without Cause.] — The ship- 
 owner is not liablr to the charterer for deviation 
 b\' the master without reason and ultra vires. 
 Strickhnid v. Neilsnu, 7 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 
 400. 
 
 Abandonment of Ship — Ship brought by 
 Salvors to Port of Delivery — Right of Cargo 
 Owner to Cargo without Payment of Freight.] — 
 
 Srr The Ai 
 
 itiid C„.y 
 
 .1. ;is:. 
 
 Damage to Cargo Unnecessary Deviation.] 
 
 — i'.y a cliaricrpail y the ship was to ])roceed to 
 
 Marianoplc and there load .a cargo of wheat, 
 
 and being so loaded was to jirocccd therewith 
 
 ; to a safe port in the United Kingdom or on the 
 
 I continent liclween Havre and Hamburg, as 
 
 I ordered at (Jlbraltar. The charterparty also 
 
 j contained the folktwing clause : •' Should frost 
 
 ! ensue . . . after the steamer has arrived at 
 
 I port of loading and the vessel is compelled to 
 
 10
 
 291 
 
 SHIPPING— XL Chavtcrparty. 
 
 292 
 
 leave to avoid hchv^ frozen in, the master is at 
 liberty to leave . . . with part cargo, and to 
 till up for steamer's benefit at any open Black 
 Sea, Azof, or Mediterranean port for United 
 Kingdom, continent, or Mediterranean ; but in 
 case of leaving with part cargo the steamer 
 shall complete" the voyage as if a full cargo 
 had been loaded, or shall forward such part 
 caruo to its destination, provided that no extra 
 expense be thereby caused to the receivers." 
 Frost ensued, and, to avoid being frozen in, the 
 sliip left Marianople with a part cargo of wheat, 
 shipped uniler bills of lading which incorporated 
 all the conditions and exceptions contained in the 
 charterparty, and proceeded to Novorissisk, where 
 she filled up with linseed under bills of lading for 
 delivery at King's Lynn docks. Upon the ship's 
 arrival at Gibraltar she was ordered by the con- 
 siirnees of the wheat to proceed therewith to 
 Cardiff; but instead of going there direct, she 
 went in the first instance to King's Lynn, and 
 there delivered the linseed before proceeding to 
 Cardiff. On the voyage from King's Lynn to 
 Cardiff the wheat was seriously damaged by one 
 of the perils excepted in the bill of lading and 
 charterparty. In an action by the holders of 
 the bill of lading against the shipowners for 
 breach of contract :— Held, that, by proceeding 
 to King's Lynn, the ship had deviated from the 
 voyage, and that her owners were therefore liable. 
 Thr ^Dunhctli, 66 L. J., Adm. 66 ; [1897] P. 133 ; 
 76 L. T. 6.kS ; 8 Asp. M. C. 284. 
 
 Deviation — Light Dues.] — See Keivman v. 
 ZaiiijMirt, sui)ra, col. 239. 
 
 And see furtlier. as to Deviation and Delay, 
 post, XIV. Demurrage— Frost preventing 
 Loading, supra, col. 245. 
 
 d. Enforcing in Equity. 
 
 Parties who have mutually bound themselves, 
 will be restrained from doing any act inconsistent 
 ■with a charterparty which they have entered 
 into bona fide. Lechi v. Desla tides, 30 L. J., Ch. 
 457 ; 7 Jur. (N.S.) 837 ; 3 L. T. 461 ; 9 W. R. 
 218. 
 
 The court has jurisdiction to deal with 
 questions relating to charterparties ; and so 
 when a charterparty has been entered into 
 bona fide, it can, on a sufficient case being made, 
 grant an injunction to restrain the breach of such 
 a contract. Ih. 
 
 The master of an American vessel arriving in 
 England, authorised by the owners to sell or 
 charter the ship, entered into a charterparty 
 with the plaintiff for a voyage to Ceylon and 
 back. A few days afterwards the defendant 
 purchased the ship from a party acting under 
 a power of attorney from one of the owners to 
 sell her. The greater part of the cargo had been 
 put on board under the charterparty. The 
 defendant attempted to stop the sailing of the 
 sliip :_Held, that the master having authority to 
 charter the ship, which he had done, and the 
 defendant knowing of the charterparty, an 
 injunction would lie to restrain the purchasers 
 from interfering with the sailing of the ship, in 
 pursuance of the charterparty. Mess/igeries 
 Imperiales Co. v. Baines, 7 L. T. 763 ; 11 
 W. R. 322. 
 
 A vessel having been chartered to convey a 
 cargo of coals to China and having become 
 damaged, the master was forced to discharge tlie 
 cargo, and the owTier declined to reship it, on 
 
 the ground that, having become wet, it was liable 
 to spontaneous combustion. On a bill by the 
 charterers to restrain the owner from employing 
 the ship in any manner inconsistent with the 
 charterparty, the court directed an inquiry as 
 to the state of the cargo, and granted an injunc- 
 tion pending such inquiry. Jleriot v. Nicholas, 
 12 W. R. 844. 
 
 The court of chancery cannot decree the 
 specific performance of a charterparty, but it 
 can restrain the parties from employing the ship 
 in a manner inconsistent with the rights under a 
 charterparty. Le Blanch v. Granger, 35 Beav. 
 187. 
 
 Although a court of equity cannot enforce the 
 specific performance of a charterparty, yet it 
 will restrain the employment of the vessel in a 
 different manner, whether such employment is 
 expressly or impliedly forbidden. De Mattos v. 
 Gibson, 4 De G. & J. 276; 28 L. J., Ch. 16.5, 
 498 ; 5 Jur. (N.s.) 347, 555 ; 7 W. R. 100, 403, 
 514. 
 
 C. mortgaged a ship to D., with a power of 
 sale. The ship was under contract by charter- 
 party, to carry a cargo from U. to S., of which 
 the mortgagee had notice. On a bill filed by 
 the charterer of the vessel for a specific perform- 
 ance against the mortgagor, and for an injunction 
 to restrain the mortgagee from interfering to 
 interrupt the voyage : — Held, that the contract 
 was not enforceable in a court of equity, and that 
 the charterer was bound to shew that the mort- 
 gagee had done or threatened to do some act 
 which had interfered with the performance of 
 the contract, to entitle him to an injunction. 
 Ih. 
 
 A shipowner entered into a contract to carry a 
 cargo of coals from Birkenhead to Bombay. The 
 charterparty contained the ordinary exception 
 of perils of the sea. The ship, soon after sailing, 
 was overtaken by a storm, and put into Belfast. 
 The master of the ship had the coals unshi})ped, 
 and, being advised that they were in too danger- 
 ous a state to be reshipped, he had them sold. 
 The charterers filed a bill to restrain the ship- 
 owner from using the ship in a manner incon- 
 sistent with the charterparty. The vice-chan- 
 cellor granted an injunction accordingly, with 
 the intention of compelling the shipowner to send 
 the ship back to Birkenhead to take on board a 
 new cargo of coals for Bombay : — Held, upon 
 appeal, that no such injunction could be granted. 
 Adamson v. Gill, 18 L. T. 278 ; 16 W. R. 639. 
 
 6. Liability op Charterer or Agent. 
 
 Indefinite Period of Employment. ] — By a 
 
 charterparty to government for transporting 
 emigrants from this country to the Cape of 
 Good Hope, a shipbroker, on behalf of the 
 owners, let a vessel to the commissioners of the 
 
 navy for the space of calendar months 
 
 certain, and thenceforward until they should 
 give him notice that she was discharged, such 
 notice to be given after her return to Deptford 
 or Portsmouth ; and the commissioners cove- 
 nanted to pay freight at the rate of 14*-. per ton 
 per calendar month for so long time as the vessel 
 should be continued in his majesty's service ; 
 and that after she had been in such service six 
 months, the broker should have a bill of imprest 
 for two months' freight more ; and after ten 
 months a like bill for two months ; and a like 
 bill whenever eight months should be due ; and
 
 293 
 
 SHIPPING— XI. Charterparty. 
 
 294 
 
 the following memorandum was written in the 
 margin : " Notwithstanding, it is herein agreed 
 that the ship shall be discharged at Deptford or 
 Portsmouth, it is hereby covenanted that she 
 shall be discharged at the Cape of Good Hoiie 
 when the service will admit of it": — Held, that 
 under the terms of the charterparty the voyage 
 was general, and that the ship was chartered for 
 an indefinite period ; and that the broker was 
 only entitled to claim commission as for a voyage 
 of that description, and not for a specific voyage 
 outwards. Holl v. Ptncent, 6 Moore, 228. 
 
 Charterers' Duty to Clear SMp.] — Where a 
 ship had been addressed to a consignee, who was 
 not in a position to clear the ship, and the captain 
 was led by the charterers to have recourse to 
 brokers, who cleared the ship and charged com- 
 mission for so doing, which the captain paid on 
 behalf of the owner : — Held, that an action was 
 maintainable bj^ the shipowner against the char- 
 terers, who had agreed that the ship should be 
 consigned to their agents free of commission, and 
 the cargo cleared free of expense to the ship- 
 owner. Russell V. Gn tilth, 2 F. & F. 118. 
 
 Expenses incurred by Reason of additional 
 
 Clause.] — D. chartered a vessel to Puerto Cabello 
 and home from ]Maracaibo at a fixed freight, and 
 an additional clause was subsequently inserted 
 in the charterparty givingthe charterer the option 
 of sending a part of the outward cargo on to 
 Maracaibo, and stipulating that " any and every 
 expense tlie vessel may incur in consequence of 
 this additional clause shall be borne by the 
 chaiterers." The charterer loaded the vessel 
 with a cargo, part for Puerto Cabello and part 
 for Maracaibo, and made out two manifests. On 
 arriving at Puerto CaVjcUo, the custom-house 
 autliorities insisted on seeing both manifests, and 
 prohibited the discharge of the part of the cargo 
 intended for Puerto Cabello on the false ground 
 that there were contiaband goods on board, h\ 
 which the cargo was confiscated, and they also 
 imposed a fine of 500 dollais on the master for 
 having two manifests, and ))rohibitcd the dis- 
 charge of the cargo or the clearing out until the 
 fine was paid. The master appealed to the 
 triVjunal.s of the country and made counter- 
 claims for dehiy. A revolution occurred in 
 Venezuela about the same time, which prevented 
 all commercial and legal {uoceediiigs ; but even- 
 tually the government agreed witli the master to 
 |iay him .">.0()0 dollars as compensation for the 
 detention of the ship, and after a further delay 
 she jirocecded to Maracaibo. The ."),000 dollars 
 were not paid : — Held, that the owner of the 
 vessel was not entitled to recover from the 
 charterer the damages or expenses he had been 
 ]))it to, either in lepairing damage to the vessel 
 (pccasioned by delay or the costs attendant upon 
 the proceeilings or otherwise, such damages not 
 being contemplated by the additional clause. 
 Siillii v. Uiimnty, H H. & C. 27(» ; H3 L. J., 
 Kx. V.I '.I. 
 
 Cesser Clause — Loading in regular Turn. ,— 
 
 I'.y a chart! r|i;uty l)etwccii the (iwnrrs of a sni]) 
 :ind t he agcii t s fort he charteicrs,whti were persons 
 resident in Spain, it was agreed that the shiji 
 sliould proceed to 1., and there load in regidar 
 turn from the agents of the charterers a full and 
 Cdmplete cargo. It was alsfi agreed tliat all 
 liability of the agents ''in every resitect, and as 
 to all matters and things as well before and 
 
 during as after the shipping of the cargo, shall 
 cease as soon as they have shipped the cargo." 
 A cargo was loaded and shipped, but not in 
 regular tm'n : — Held, that the agents were pro- 
 tected by the clause from liability for not so 
 loading in regular turn, they having loaded and 
 shipped the cargo before the connnencement of 
 the action. JJilrtiin v. Pp/tz, 3 El. & El. 49.5 ; 
 30 L. J., Q. B. yo : 7 Jur. (N.s.) 33(i ; 3 L. T. 736 ; 
 y W. R. 269. 
 
 Sec alfto (iH to cesucr chmscs, post, Xlll. 
 Freight — XIV. Demurrage. 
 
 Loss of Vessel after Expiration — Liability of 
 Charterer— Act of God.] — A vessel was lost, 
 through stress of weather, and without negli- 
 gence, after the expiration of a charterparty : — 
 Held, in an action by the representative of the 
 owner against the charterer, in the absence of 
 express stipulation, that there was no liability 
 implied by law on the part of the person in 
 possession for loss so occasioned. Smith v. 
 Drummond, 1 Cab. & E. 160. 
 
 Liability of Trustee in Bankruptcy.] — Where 
 a charterparty and bill of lading were entered 
 into with the concurrence of the trustee in 
 sequestration, though not expressly authorised 
 by him : — Held, that the trustee was liable there- 
 on. Mueller mrh v. Jlolle.so/i, 13 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 (4th ser.) 445. 
 
 Liability of one signing "as Agent for the 
 
 Charterer."]^ A charterparty was entered into 
 between the [)laintiffs, shipowners and defen- 
 dants " as agents for charterers." It was signed 
 by the defendants without (jualification, but 
 contained a clause that the ship was to load 
 " from the agents of the said freighters," and a 
 cesser clause, that the charter being entered into 
 on behalf of others, the charterer's liability 
 should cease on completion of loading and ])ay- 
 nient of advance. In an action on the charter- 
 party : — Held, on demurrer, that the defendants 
 were personally liable, lluugh v. Mdnzanon, 48 
 L. J., Ex. 398 ; 4 Ex. D. 104; 27 W. R. 536. 
 
 7. Demise oi' Ship. 
 
 Liability of Owner for Negligence of Master 
 and Crew.] — The iihiinlift"s hired from the defen- 
 dant a vessel under a eliarter|)arty, by which the 
 vessel was let to tlie plaintills for a specified 
 time, tind they were to have the whole reach of 
 her holds, except what was reserved to the owner 
 for the crew ; the crew was to assist in loading 
 and dischiirging, and the captain was to sign bills 
 of lading and to furnish to Mie cliarlereis a cojjy 
 iif the log. Tli(! deirndant engaged iind jiaid the 
 master and crew. Whilst the vessel was upon a 
 voyage under tlie charterparty, with a cargo on 
 board belonging to the jilaintiffs, she and iter 
 cargo were lost by tlie negligence of the master 
 ' and crew : — Held, tliat tlie master and crew were 
 the servants of the defendant for tlie purpose of 
 navigating the vessel, and that he was liable to 
 compensate the plaintiffs for the loss sustained 
 i bv them. Omoa anil Clcland Coal and Iron Co. 
 I vl JfuMeii, 2 C. J'. D. 464 ; 37 L. T. 184 ; 25 
 W. R. 675 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 501. 
 
 The owner of a ship who, by a verbal agree- 
 ment, gives up all control over her to the captain, 
 Vjut retains a right to one-third of the net profits, 
 and is.subse(|uently registered as managingowner 
 under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1875, is liable 
 
 10—2
 
 295 
 
 SHIPPING— XL CharUrparUj. 
 
 296 
 
 for the negligent management of the vessel by I of lading, which was different from that due 
 the fiiptain. though occurring under a charter- j upon the charterparjty. Christie v. Lewis, 5 
 
 party of which the owner knew nothing. Steel 
 V. Lrstcr. 47 L. J.. C. 1'. 43 ; 3 C. P. D. 121 ; 37 
 L. T. tU2 : :2t; W. 11. 212 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 537. 
 
 What Amounts to — Lien of Owner.] — By a 
 
 charterparty it was covenanted that the owner 
 should receive on boanl in London all such goods 
 as the freighter thought tit to load, and should 
 proceeil therewith to Madras, and there, after 
 delivering her outward cargo, receive from the 
 freighter's agents a homeward cargo, and deliver 
 thesame in London : and that all the cabins but 
 one. which was reserved for the use of the captain, 
 should be at the ilisposal of the freighter, who 
 was to appoint a supercargo to superintend the 
 stowage-of the goods. Freight to be paid at so 
 much per ton on the register tonnage of the 
 ship. The captain and crew were employed and 
 
 Moore, 211 ; 2 Br. & B. 410 ; 23 R. R. 483. 
 
 Where no Possession by Owner.] — The owner 
 of the shij) has no lien for the liire stipulated by 
 a charterparty for the voyage on goods shipped 
 by the charterer, because the latter is the owner 
 of the ship for the voyage ; and the first owner 
 has no possession of the ship or goods, without 
 which there can be no lien. Ilutton v. Braqg^ 
 7 Taunt. 14 ; 2 Marsh. 339 ; 17 R. R. 431. 
 
 As Transport to Crown.] — Where A. chartered 
 his ship to tlie commissioners of the transport 
 service on behalf of the crown to be employed 
 as a transport, and the ship in the course of such 
 employment made several voyages from Deptford 
 to foreign ports and back : — Held, that by the 
 terms of the charterparty, coupled with the 
 
 paid by the owner : — Held, that there being no ! nature of the service, a temporary ownership 
 express words of demise of the ship itself in the j passed to the crown, so that A., during the time 
 
 charteri)arty, the freighter diil not thereby become 
 the owner for the voyage, but that the possession 
 continued in the owner, and that he, therefore, 
 had a lien upon the cargo for his freight. Sarille 
 V. Camjnon, 2 B. & Aid. .503 ; 21 R. R. 376. 
 
 The owner of a ship entered into a charter- 
 party with the freighter, by which the former 
 granted and let, and the latter hired and took, 
 the ship for a voyage out and home. The owner 
 covenanted that, the vessel being well manned 
 and furnished, the master should receive on board 
 at London goods to be sent alongside by the 
 freighter, and deliver them from alongside at 
 Kewfoundland to the agents of the freighter, 
 according to his bills of lading ; and, such cargo 
 having been discharged there, should receive 
 other goods in like manner and deliver them at 
 Demerara, and, having discharged the same, 
 should receive other goods there and deliver 
 them at London, agreeably to bills of lading. 
 The owner agreed that the ship's boats should 
 assist in unloading and loading the cargoes when 
 required by the freighter, provided no impedi- 
 ment was thereby made in carrying on the exclu- 
 sive duties of the ship ; in consideration whereof 
 the freighter covenanted to send and take the 
 goods from alongside, and to pay for the freight 
 and hire of the vessel for the voyage 2,600Z. with 
 primage, one quarter part on delivery of the 
 cargo at Newfoundland, by good bills at sixty 
 days' sight on London, and the remainder by 
 good bills at two months' date from the day of 
 the ship's report inwards at the jiort of London. 
 The voyage was performed, and goods of third 
 persons brought from Demerara, under bills of 
 lading deliverable to the consignees on payment 
 of certain specified freight therein mentioned, 
 which freight the owner received. Bills of ex- 
 change for one quarter's freight were drawn on 
 the freighter at Newfoundland, which were 
 afterwards accepted and dishonoured by him, 
 and no sum or bill for the remaining three- 
 quarters' freight per charterparty was given or 
 tendered to him on the return of the ship : 
 
 of such service, was not to be considered as owner 
 within the charters granted to the Trinity House, 
 which impose lighthouse duties and for buoyage 
 and beaconage on the owners of ships. Trinity 
 House iCorporatioii) v. Clark, 4 M. & S. 288. 
 
 With Right to Surplus— Presence of Agent.] 
 
 — The owners of a ship by deed appointed A. 
 to the command of the ship on a voyage from 
 London to Calcutta and back. A. was to load the 
 ship out and home, and to secure to the owners a 
 certain amount of freight, retaining the surplus 
 or making good the deficiency. An agent of the 
 owners was to go on board to superintend the 
 management of the stores, with power to displace 
 A. and appoint another commander, in case of 
 his breaking the agreement on his part : — Held, 
 that the deed released the owners from their 
 liability, as such, to make good the loss upon 
 goods sent from Calcutta to London by the ship, 
 and lost or damaged on the voyage, and that A. 
 alone was responsible to the shippers for such 
 nondelivery, he being owner of the vessel pro 
 hac vice. Xciohcrry v. Colrin, 4 M. & P. 876 ; 
 7 Bing. 190 ; 1 C. & J. 192 ; 1 Tyr. 55 ; 9 L. J. (O.S.> 
 Ex. 13 — Ex. Ch. Affirmed in Dom. Proc. nom. 
 Colvin v. Newhcrrij, 1 CI. & F. 283 ; 6 Bligh, 167. 
 
 Hire for Day — Owners' Servants.] — The de- 
 fendants hired a steam vessel for the day to- 
 convey them to R. and back to L. The vessel 
 was navigated by the master, engineer and crew 
 of the owners, at their expense : — Held, that the 
 defendants had not such exclusive possession of 
 the vessel as to entitle them forcibly to expel 
 the plaintiff, who had come on board with the 
 master's permission for the purpose of being 
 conveyed to R. Dean v. Hoqq, 4 M. & Scott, 
 188 ; 10 Bing. 345 ; 3 L. J., C. P. 113. 
 
 Possession — Right to maintain Trespass.] — 
 
 An owner of a ship, notwithstanding he has let 
 her out by charterparty for twelve months, con- 
 taining no terms of conveyance of possession, 
 
 Held, that, taking the whole of the charterparty has a sufficient possession of her to maintain 
 into consideration, the possession of the ship did , trespass. Lvcas v. Kochills, 4 Bing. 729 ; 1 
 
 not pass to the freighter, but remained in the 
 ov\Tier ; and that the circumstance of his having 
 agreed with the charterer as to the mode of pay- 
 ment of freight did not divest him of his lien on 
 the cargo for freight ; and that it made no 
 difference that he had delivered the homeward 
 cargo and received the freight due upon the bills 
 
 M. k. P. 783 
 R. R. 721. 
 
 2 Y. & J. 304 ; 1 CI. & F. 438 ; 29- 
 
 Tests of Possession.]— By a charterparty it 
 was agi-eed that A. should let and B. should hire 
 A.'s vessel for six months, (hiring which time B. 
 was to possess the entire and exclusive tise and
 
 297 
 
 SHIPPING— XI. Charterparty. 
 
 298 
 
 disposal of the whole vessel, with the exception pipes of brandy at Havre, and proceed therewith 
 
 of the cabin. \\'ith room for the accommodation 
 of the crew and for the stowage of stores and 
 provisions ; that the master should, as often as 
 B.'s interest should require, take on board and 
 properly stow all such goods, to the extent of a 
 full and complete cargo, as should be tendered 
 to him for that purpose, and proceed therewith 
 upon such voyage or voyages as B. or his agent 
 should direct": and that he shoitld deliver the 
 gowls agreeably to the bills of lading ; that the 
 freight and primage should be payable to B. or 
 his order ; that in the event of the completion of 
 the six months' voyage, or after she had com- 
 menced taking goods on board for a voyage, the 
 term shovxld be prolonged until the discharge of 
 her cargo after her arrival at. or return to, a port 
 in Great Britain ; and that the owners or master 
 should keep the vessel tight and manned, and 
 provisioned and fitted with necessary stores. In 
 consideration whereof, B. agreed to pay to A., 
 at a certain rate per ton per month, to be paid 
 by — one month's pay in advance in cash, — one 
 nionth's pay after the vessel should be entered 
 outwards,— <»ne month's pay that day two months, 
 — and one month's pay at the expiration of each 
 succeeding month till the end of the term she 
 might be employed, and the balance in cash on 
 her final ilischarge, together with port charges : 
 and that B. should have the privilege of putting 
 in a master of his own appointment, he finding 
 the cabin with all stores, and paying his wages. 
 
 to Terceira. where the master was to take on 
 board a full and complete cargo of green fruit, or 
 other goods, as the freighters might think fit to 
 send alongside, and despatch her therewith to 
 London : and the freighters covenanted to pay 
 freight for the fruit at certain terms therein 
 specified, and on the brandy, at a certain rate 
 therein also stipulated, and guaranteed the ship 
 a complete cargo of fruit home. In an action by 
 the owner against the freighters, for not putting 
 a full cargo of fruit on board at Terceira, he 
 averred a general performance of the covenants 
 contained in the charterparty to be fulfilled : — 
 Held, sufficient, as the covenant by the owTier 
 to take the brandy to Terceira was an indepen- 
 dent and distinct covenant, and not to be con- 
 sidered as a condition precedent, as it went only 
 to a part of the consideration of the contract. 
 Fotherg'dl v. Wiilfon, 2 Jloore, 630 ; 8 Taunt. 
 o76 : 20 R. R. r>67. 
 
 Action on a charterparty by a freighter against 
 a shipowner for not receiving cargo. Proof was 
 given of a charterparty expressed to be between 
 the defendant of one part, and G. S. & Co. 
 (agents of the freighters) of the other, containing 
 a memorandum, as follows : — •• This charter being 
 concluded on behalf of another party, it is agreed 
 that all res})onsibility on the part of G. S. & Co. 
 shall cease as soon as the cargo is ship})ed." No 
 notice of this memorandum was taken in the 
 declaration :— Held, that it was not necessary to 
 notice the memorandum. Sehiiialtz or Schmalz 
 B. ().5.-) ; 20 L. J., Q. B. 228 ; 15 
 
 A. allowing the wages paid to his own master 
 
 A. not to be responsible for such master's acts I v. Acery, IG Q 
 and conduct should he deviate from the charter ; Jui-. 291. 
 
 B. to be responsible to A. for the conduct and | In an action for breach of a charterparty by 
 integrity of such master : — Held, that the posses- 1 the freighter against the owner of a ship, for not 
 sion"of"the vessel was given up by A. to B. ! performing the terms of a charterparty, the 
 during the continuance of the contract : that the j declaration alleged that it was agreed by the 
 master so appointed by B. was in i)Ossession of parties that the ship should jn-oceed with all 
 the cargo as his agent, and not as the servant of convenient si)eed to St. Helena, and there load a 
 A. : that personafcredit was given to B. for the cargo, and therewith proceed to Liverpool, and 
 
 mentof the liire of the vessel : and that no ] deliver the cargo at a safe wharf , for a certain 
 
 amoimt of freiglit (the act of God, the Queen's 
 enemies, fire and all other dangers of the seas and 
 navigation during the voyage always excepted) ; 
 that the charterparty should be in force for six 
 voyages, and that they should all be made not 
 later than a certain day specified. The declara- 
 tion averred that the freighter had done all 
 things necessary on his part to entitle him to 
 liave the voyages performed, yet the shii) did not 
 make the voyages as agreed :— Held, that the 
 declaration was good, altliougli it did not contain 
 any averment negativing the fact of the owner 
 being within any of the exceptions contained in 
 the cliarteri)arty. and that if lie relie<l upon such 
 fact, he was i)ouiid to ])Icad it. W/irrlt'r v. 
 Ji(iridi/fl, !t Kx. titIS ; 2:i L. J., Ex. 221. 
 
 A <l'eclaration stated that by a charteri)arty 
 between the defendant, the shipowner ami the 
 plainliflF, it was agreed that the sliip should pro- 
 cee<l to two i)orts in Sicily, or usual jjlace of 
 loading, on and after the delivery of her outward 
 cargo, anil there load from the iilaintiffs factors 
 a full cargo, and thence i)roceed to Bristol, and 
 that the ves-sel should have her orders before 
 leaving Messina. The <lcclaration alleged that 
 the sh?ii arrivetl at Messina, atid laid as a breach, 
 that the defendant within a re:isonablc time 
 after the delivery of her outward cargo, and 
 before the plaintiff coul<l have given onlers for 
 the ship to proceed to the i>ort,s, made a contract 
 with a third i)arty for the conveyance of good8 
 
 ])ayment 
 
 lien upon or right of stoppage of the goods was 
 reserved to the owners as a security for the pay- 
 ment of such hire. JMchcr v. Capper, 4 Man. &: 
 G. .502 ; :> Scott (N.u.) 2.57 : 11 L. .1., C. P. 274. 
 
 Liability of Owner to Shipper— Bill of Lading 
 — Master and Servant.] — A person who is regis- 
 tered as the owner of a ship, and also registered 
 as the managing owner under the Merchant 
 Shiiiping Act. 187f; (:W & 40 Vict. c. «i)), is not 
 liable to shippers under bills of hiding signed by 
 the ina-ster or ship's agent, for loss of cargo 
 alleged to have arisen fi-oni the unseaworthiness 
 of the ship, if he has divested himself by the 
 charteri)arty of all control and possession of the 
 vessel for the time being in favour of the char- 
 terers, wlio have all the use and benefit thereof, 
 even if the shippers have no notice of the con- 
 tents of the charterparty. Fnizcr v. Murith, (13 
 East. 2.SH. ante. col. «.")"). followed. Jidiiniwoll 
 ManiifiKiiir niii Curl Srlir'ihlrr v. Fiirnrxx, k\2 
 L. .J..' Q. P.. 201 ; [IH'IH] A. C H ; (iK L. T. 1 : 
 1 R. :,'.) : 7 Asp. M. C. 2(;H— IL L. (E.) 
 
 s. rLi:.\DTxt;s, Evidence and Damages. 
 
 Declarations.] — As to allowing several counts 
 on a charterpartv. varving its .statements, sec 
 Ilrriiod V. Willi'ln. 11 Q. B.I. See //o;/f/r(t v. 
 E.rlr,i, R Bing. (N.c.) 207 ; 8 Scott. 480. 
 
 The owner of a ship covenanted by a charter- 
 
 ine owner or a sni p coveuiimcM ij.> <i «.ii<wiv.i- ............... ,.— ^ . ..r .• „„,.u 
 
 party with the freighters to take on board six I from Messina, and therewith and within such
 
 299 
 
 SHIPPING— XL Charterparty. 
 
 300 
 
 reasonable time as aforesaid, and before sueh 
 reasonable time had elapsed, loaded his ship, and 
 aftenvards i)iocceded to London, without taking 
 on board the cargo agreed to be taken from 
 the plaintiii' and thereby wholly incapacitated 
 anil deprived himself of the power of fulfilling 
 the charterparty. although the plaintiff within 
 such reasonable time as aforesaid provided mer- 
 chandise, and was ready and willing to load on 
 board the ship the merchandise, and although 
 the plaintiff would have been ready and willing 
 to have named and appointed and given orders 
 to the defendant to proceed to two ports and to 
 have there loaded a full cargo : — Held, that the 
 declaration was bad, as it did not shew that the 
 vessel had sailed before the lapse of a reasonable 
 time for the performance by the plaintiff of his 
 part of the contract, and so did not shew that 
 the defendant had incapacitated himself from 
 performing his part of the contract, and that it 
 ought to have contained an averment that the 
 plaintiff had |)erformed his part by giving orders, 
 naming a port, &c., and by tendering a caigo 
 within such reasonable time. Mafthcivs v. 
 Loictlier, .5 Ex. 574 ; 19 L. J., Ex. 364. 
 
 Action on a charterparty, not under seal, 
 varied by a subsequent agreement. The declara- 
 tion stated, that, by a charterparty between 
 G. L. J. & Sons, on behalf of the owners (not stating 
 the plaintiffs to be the owners) of a ship at Pem- 
 broke, and the defendant described as the char- 
 terer, it was mutually agreed that the ship 
 should, with all convenient speed, proceed to 
 Cardiff, and there load a cargo of iron and coals 
 at certain freight, and deliver the same at 
 Alexandria ; forty running days to be allowed 
 the charterer for loading at Cardiff and unload- 
 ing. That the ship, with the consent of the 
 plaintiffs, and at the request of the defendant, 
 remained at Pembroke to receive coals, part of 
 the cargo, instead of being loaded therewith at 
 Cardiff, and that she there received coals on board. 
 That the defendant did dispense with, and dis- 
 charge the plaintiff's from, performing that part 
 of the charterparty which related to the sailing 
 of the ship with all convenient speed from Pem- 
 broke to Cardiff up to and until the time of the 
 completing the loading of coals at Pembroke. 
 That the ship sailed to Cardiff. Breach, that the 
 defendant detained the ship there in loading for 
 twenty days over and above the lay days and 
 ten days of demurrage. It then stated, that the 
 ship, being fully laden, proceeded to Alexandria ; 
 assigning, as a second breach, that the defendant 
 detained the ship there in iinloading f or a further 
 time, viz. thirty days over ami above the lay days 
 and days of demuirage. There were two more 
 breaches, one the noni^ayment of freight for the 
 cargo, which the plaintiffs duly delivered at 
 Alexandria, and the other the nonpayment of 
 demurrage : — Held, that the declaration was 
 defective for not shewing by distinct averment 
 or necessarj^ imjjlication that the plaintiffs were 
 parties contracting by the charterparty as owners 
 of the ship, and that such defect could not be 
 cured by any admission in the pleas, whether 
 found for or against the defendant. Galloxcny v. 
 Jachson, 3 Man. & G. 960 ; 3 Scott (N.R.) 753 : 
 12 L. J., Ex. .502— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Pleas.] — In a declaration on a charterparty, 
 by which the ship was to sail from Hamburg, 
 being tight, staunch, strong and every way fitted 
 for the voyage, in the course of the next Novem- 
 ber, and proceed to Lima, and having discharged 
 
 her outward carg:o, forthwith to be made ready 
 and proceed to Costa Rica, and there take on 
 board a cargo, and then proceed to Liverpool ; — 
 breaches were alleged as follows :. that the vessel 
 was not, in November or afterwards, until or 
 when she saileil on the 20th December, tight, 
 staunch, strong, or in any way fitted for the 
 voyage : and that, though she did then sail from 
 Hamburg, yet by reason of her not being tight, 
 &c., when she so sailed, she was obliged to, and 
 did, i)Ut back into Altona, and was detained 
 there for a long time ; though she did then again 
 set sail on her voyage from Altona, she did not 
 proceed on the voyage according to its due 
 course, or with proper tlespatch, but was unneces- 
 sarily delayed and deviated ; by means of which 
 premises, the vessel did not arrive at Lima, and 
 the plaintiff lost the benefit of a homeward cargo 
 from Costa Rica. The defendant pleaded, as to 
 so much of the declaration as related to the 
 vessel not being fitted for the voyage, and by 
 reason thereof being obliged to put back into 
 Altona, and being detained there for such time 
 as was necessary to i)ut further ballast on board, 
 payment into court of \s. and no damages ultra ; 
 and as to so much as related to her being detained 
 at Altona beyond the time necessary to put the 
 ballast on board, that she was not detained there 
 by reason of her not being tight, staunch, &c. : — 
 Held, that the latter plea was bad, as answering 
 only a part of the 'breach to which it applied, 
 viz. the detention at Altona, and the subse- 
 quent delay and deviation, even if that was a 
 breach, anil was not merely a statement of 
 special damage. Porter v. Izat, 1 M. & W. 381 ; 
 1 Tyr. & G. 639. 
 
 Deviation.] — In an action upon a cove- 
 nant to sail and not to deviate directly or 
 indirectly, a plea of general performance is bad. 
 Latlurell v. F\xhn\ \ Keb. 334. 
 
 Sail with next Wind — Traverse.] — 
 
 Action on freight on charterparty containing 
 covenant to sail with next wind ; special plea 
 and traverse, absque hoc, that plaintiff did not 
 sail with next wind : — Held that the traverse is 
 not well, for the voyage is the substance of the 
 contract, and not sailing with the next wind. 
 Condahle v. Clolmnj^or Clorery,'Soj, 75 ; Latch. 
 12. 
 
 Loss by Perils of Sea — Seaworthiness.] — 
 
 Chai'tcrer covenants that the ship shall return 
 within twelve months, perils of sea excepted : 
 the master warranting her seaworthy and well 
 manned. Breach, that she did not return, not 
 being delayed by perils of sea. Plea, that she 
 was detained at Jamaica through seamen desert- 
 ing and that the master did not provide others. 
 Plea bad. Wi/nne v. Fellowes, Holt, 446. 
 
 Certainty— Average.] — Action of debt in 
 
 charterparty. P.i'cach assigned, nonpayment of 
 freight, 2ml. with average, not stating amount. 
 Exception, uncertainty of average. Held, cer- 
 tain enough. Duihl v. Atlunson. Sec Cas. t. 
 Hardw. 342. 
 
 Evidence— Letters as to Agency.] — A captain 
 was instructed to apply for a cai'go to A., and in 
 the event of A. not being on the spot, then to 
 apply to B. (both being agents of the charterers) 
 for the same purpose. He applied to both accord- 
 ingly, and was refused a cargo by both. An
 
 301 
 
 SHIPPING— XL Charterpartij. 
 
 302 
 
 action was brought hy the owners to recover the 
 freisrht : and in order to do away with the effect 
 of the proof as to B.'s refusal, a letter from B. to 
 the charterers was tendered to shew that, prior 
 to such refusal, B. had renounced their agency : 
 — Held, to be inadmissible. Hassell v. Watson, 
 2 Car. & K. 141. 
 
 Held, also, that A. having been on the spot, 
 what passed bet-ween B. and the captain was 
 important only in so far as it was confirmed and 
 adopted by A. Ih. 
 
 Notarial Copy of Charterparty made 
 
 Abroad.] — In Batavia, parties about to make a 
 contract go before a notary, who writes in his book 
 the contract, which is then signed by them. 
 Copies of this contract may be obtained by either 
 party in the absence of the other. A notarial 
 copy of a charterparty was entered into at 
 Batavia : — Held, not to be evidence either of the 
 original contract, nor properly secondary evidence 
 of it. Brown v. Thornton, 1 X. & P. 339 ; 6 
 A. & E. 185. 
 
 Of Kestraint of Princes.] — On an issue 
 
 joined on a pica by the charterer that he was pre- 
 vented from loading by restraint of princes, it was 
 proved no corn was exported from Ibraila during 
 the vessel's stay ; and evidence was given that 
 Wallachia, in which Ibraila is situate, was invaded 
 by the Russians, and at the time in question was 
 undei' the command of Prince Gortschakoff, a 
 Russian general, who, while at Ibraila, being 
 applied to, to allow grain to be exported, refused, 
 and desired the applicant to petition the commis- 
 sary at Bucharest. Evideirce was also tendered 
 of copies of placards, in tlie name of Gortscha- 
 koff, posted on the walls of Ibraila, at the period 
 of the ship's arrival, prohibiting the exportation 
 of grain : — Held, that such evidence was admis- 
 sible, and, coupled with the other evidence, 
 proved the plea. Brnre v. yicolopnlo, 11 Ex. 
 121i ; 3 C. L. R. 775 : 24 L. J., Ex. 321 : 3 W. R. 
 483. 
 
 Nature of Trade.] — When by a charter- 
 party the ow?ier agreed that the ship then bound 
 for Havre should jnoceed with all convenient 
 speed to tiie iS'orth of England for coals, thence 
 to Limerick, and there load a cargo of grain or 
 other merchandise for the charterer, and the 
 ship having been delayed by bad weatlier did 
 not arrive at Limerick (ill long after the time 
 expected :— Held, in an action by the owner on 
 the charterparty that evidence on behalf of the 
 charterer that the Limerick export grain trade 
 is carried on oidy at a certain season, whicii had 
 expired before the ship arrived, was inadmis- 
 sible. //«/■«/ v. L'xhorn, l.H ('. P.. Ill : 25 L. .1.. 
 C. P. 20'J ; 4 W. R. 458. 
 
 Custom to control Contract.] — Si-c ('(ixcx 
 
 ante, cols. 252. 253. 
 
 Charterparty to date from Condemnation of 
 Ship — Averment of Condemnation.] — Jn an 
 action on a <'liarterpaity, whereby it was agreed 
 to emjiloy a ship of whicli the plaintiff was the 
 capt<jr, as soon as sentence of condemnation 
 shoukl have passed, the .sentence nuist be taken 
 to mean a legal sentence ; and the i)arty who 
 sues for tlie freight nuist aver that the ship wjw 
 condemned by a court having competent jurisdic- 
 tion. Unwin v. Wohelry, 1 Term Rei). 074. 
 
 Arbitration Clause — Jurisdiction.] — Arbitra- 
 tion clause in a charterparty lield not to oust the 
 jitrisdiction of the court. y'lioii/jMin v. Charnurk, 
 8 Term Rep. 139. 
 
 Pratique — Stipulation as to — No Authority to 
 grant Pratique — Proof.] — By charterparty a 
 vessel was to have ninety running days and ten 
 days on tlemurrage, to commence from her arrival 
 at Whidah, she being ready to unload and having 
 received pratique. Declaration for breach of 
 charterparty stated that the vessel arrived at 
 Whidah, and being ready to unload, and having 
 received pratique, i:c., which allegation was 
 traversed by plea. The plaintiff proved that the 
 ship arrived anil was ready to unload, and did 
 unload, but did not procure a written document 
 of praticjue, there being no authority at Whidah 
 to give the same : — Held, that the plaintiff had 
 proved the issue ujjon him, and that the ship must 
 be taken to have received jiratique. BuUpi/ v. 
 Be Arroi/tirp, 7 A. & E. '.»1!» ; 3 N. & P. 114 ; 7 
 L. J., Q. 15. ;»]. 
 
 Damages — Penalty and Profits.] — A ship was 
 chartered to go to New Zealand, where the 
 charterers were to load her, or by an agent there 
 to give the owner notice that they abandoned 
 the adventure ; in which case they were to pay 
 him 500Z. The ship went to New Zealand, but 
 found neither agent nor cargo there, and the 
 captain made a circuitous voyage home by way 
 of Batavia. This voyage, after making every 
 allowance for increased expenses and loss of 
 time, was more profitable than the original ad- 
 venture to New Zealand would have been. The 
 owner sued the charterer on the charterparty 
 for breach of covenant : — Held, that he coidd 
 not recover the 500?. penalty in adilition to the 
 profit of the homeward voyage. Stuniforfh v, 
 Lijall, 7 Bing. Ki'J ; 4 M. i: P. 82'J ; 9 L. J. (o.s.) 
 C. P. 23. 
 
 In an action against a charterer of a ship for 
 not landing a cargo, the measure of damage is 
 the amount of freight which woukl have Leen 
 earned after deducting the expenses, and also 
 any profit which the ship may have earned dur- 
 ing the period over which the charter extended. 
 Smith V. M-Giiire, 3 H. &: N. 554 : 27 L. J., Ex. 
 4()5 ; (J W. R. 726. S. <"., Nisi Prius, 1 F. ct F, 
 199. 
 
 Scmblc, that a shipowner is not bound to lake 
 a new cargo for the most he can get, in order to 
 leducc the damages to be paid by the charterer. 
 Ih. 
 
 Unliquidated Penalty.]— More than the jien- 
 alty of a charterparty may be recovered in an 
 action in the covenants. Wintrr v. Trimmer, 
 1 W. I'.l. 395. S. P., Iftirrison v. Wright, 13 flast, 
 313 : 12 K. 11. HC'.i. 
 
 Ship not ready to Sail -Natural Result of 
 Breach — Notice of Special Circumstances.] — 
 l!y llie terms of the cuiilrael the del'.iidants 
 agreed with the plaintiffs to have a certain ship 
 ready on a certain ilatc, in (he .south West India 
 Docks, to receive a <;argo of tiles for shipment to 
 Australia. Theshi|> was nut ready on the agreed 
 .lay, and t he tiles being kejit waiting in the trucks 
 inwhich the plaintiffs had had them brought into 
 the (incks, the jilaintifTs were obliged to pay the 
 railway company, the owners of the trucks, a 
 certain sum for the detention, which sum they 
 now sought to recover from the defendants as 
 damages for their breach of contract. if tJie
 
 303 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Ladiiuj. 
 
 304 
 
 |ilaintiffs had fullowod the ordinary course of 
 business at tlie docks, they would have emplo.yed 
 the dock conii)any to bring the t iles into the docks 
 nil to the ship's side, and the dock company's 
 scale of charges, which were slightly higher than 
 the railway company's, would have mcluded 
 storage of the tiles at the docks for three weeks 
 without further charge. The time during which 
 the trucks were actually detained was less tlian 
 tln-ee weeks : — Held, that the defendants had no 
 right to assume that the i)laiutitfs would follow 
 the ordinary course of business in the mode of 
 bringing their goods into the docks, and that the 
 plaintift's were entitled to deliver the tiles in any 
 manner they pleased, and that the detention of 
 the trucks was the natitral and ordinary conse- 
 quence of the defendants' breach of contract. 
 Wdch V. Andemm, 61 L. J., Q. B. 167 ; 66 L. T. 
 442 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 177— C. A. 
 
 Legality of Voyage.] — The charterer of a ship 
 from L. to B. and back, cannot plead to an 
 action brought against him by the owner on the 
 charterparty for not providing a cargo at B. that 
 the ship sailed without convoy contrary to law, 
 and that the plaintiff was privy thereto ; it not 
 being in the contemplation of the parties, when 
 the contract was entered into, to violate the law. 
 W'llsun V. Fodei'ingham, 1 M. & S. 469. 
 
 Amendment — Orders as to Port of Loading — 
 Seasonable Time for giving Notice.] — Uiider 
 8 e^ 4 Will. 4, e. 42, s. 2S. the judge has power to 
 give leave to amend a declaration in an action on 
 a charterparty by inserting a statement of its 
 legal effect with reference to the duty of the 
 charterer to exercise his option of naming the 
 port of loading within reasonable time. Whit- 
 wdl V. Scheo; 8 A. & E. 301 ; 3 N. & P. 391 ; 7 
 L. .J., Q. B. 244. 
 
 Condition precedent — Loss of Ship — Finding 
 of Court Martial.] — Covenant in a charterparty 
 of a government transport, whereby if the ship 
 should be lost, burnt, or taken, and it should 
 appear to a court martial that the master and 
 crew had made the best defence they could, the 
 freighters covenanted to pay the value of the 
 ship : — Held, that the holding of the court 
 martial is a condition precedent. Darisun v. 
 Mure, 3 Dougl. 28. 
 
 Seaworthiness.] — See Bvnliar v. Smurth watte, 
 supra, ciil. 2(!0. 
 
 Adding Parties— Ord. XVI. rr. 11, 48— Party 
 out of Jurisdiction.] — ?^ee Wilmn v. KiUick, 
 supra, col. 23.^. 
 
 Admiralty Jurisdiction.] — See Watsonx. War- 
 
 ilir. and Caxrx post, XXVI. ADMIRALTY LAW 
 
 AND Practice. 
 
 XII. BILL OF LADING. 
 
 1. Stanqjinr/, .304. 
 
 2. Form and Xature of. 
 
 a. Form. 304. 
 
 }). Duration and Currency, 30.^. 
 
 c. Revocability, 30.5. 
 
 d. Construction, 306. 
 
 e. Presentation, 313. 
 
 3. Effect of. 
 
 a. Signature by Master, 314. 
 h. Mate's Receipt. 318. 
 
 c. As to Quality, Quantity, and Date of 
 Shipment, 319. 
 
 4. Exemption.^ from Llahility. 
 
 a. Seawoithiness — Warranty, 32.5. 
 
 h. Lial_)ility to (ieneral Average, 327. 
 
 f. Statutory Limitations, 328. 
 
 d. Perils of the Sea, 328. 
 
 ('. Negligence or Fault of Master and Crew, 
 
 333. 
 /. Other Exceptions, 338. 
 
 5. Indorse me lit, Assignment and Transfer. 
 
 a. Generally, 343. 
 h. Passing Property, 350. 
 c. Conditionally — Drawn against Bills of 
 Exchange, 359. 
 
 6. Pled(iing, 36.5. 
 
 7. Lieit of Shippiny Agent, 366. 
 
 8. Forged, 366. 
 
 See also IV. Owners — As to Liability 
 TO Passengers ; XL Charterparty ; XII. 
 Freight ; XV. Cargo. 
 
 1. Stamping. 
 
 See 54 & 55 Vict. c. 39. 
 
 The indorsement and deposit of a bill of lading, 
 as a security, did not require a stamp within 55 
 Geo. 3, c. 184, Sched. tit. " Mortgage." Harris 
 V. Blreh, 1 D. (n.s.) 899 ; 9 M. i: W. 591 ; 11 
 L. J.. Ex. 219. 
 
 2. Form and Nature op. 
 
 a. Form. 
 
 North German Code does not exclude Special 
 Form.] — By the laws of England and of the 
 North German confederation, a bill of lading is 
 decisive as between shipowner and consignee, 
 and the North German code, although providing 
 a form of bill of lading, does not prevent a 
 special form of contract. The Patria, 41 L. J., 
 Adm. 23 ; L. R. 3 A. cV: E. 436 ; 24 L. T. 849 ; 1 
 Asp. M. C. 71. 
 
 Payment of Freight — Omission of usual 
 'Words.] — A bill of lading in mentioning the 
 freight payable for a cai'go, did not use the 
 ordinary words " he or they paying freight for 
 the same," but, after giving the names of the 
 consignees to whose order the cargo was to be 
 delivered, employed the words "freight for the 
 goods U. OS. per ton of twenty cwt. uett, delivered, 
 with pi'image and average accustomed " : — Held, 
 that the two forms of expression were in effect 
 the same, and constituted the ordinary condition 
 that the goods were to be deliverable only on 
 paying freight. We/jiieliii v. Cellicr, 42 L. J., 
 Ch. 758 ; L. R. 6 H. L. 286 ; 22 W. R. 26. 
 
 Negotiability — " Or Order or Assigns."] — 
 
 Sendjle, that a bill of lading, in which the words 
 "or order or assigns" are omitted, is not a 
 negotiable Instrument. Henderson v. Comptolr 
 d'Escompte de Paris, 42 L. .J., P. C. 60 : L. R. 5 
 P. C. 253 ; 29 L. T. 192 ; 21 W. R. 873 ; 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 98— P. C. 
 
 When goods have been delivered to the person 
 to whom the bill of latling was matle out, and 
 they have then been delivered to indorsees of the 
 bill of lading, so that the indorsees unite in 
 themselves a legal and equitable title to the 
 goods, the omission of the words " or order or 
 iissigns" in the bill of lading is not sufficient to 
 give the indorsees constructive notice of some 
 equitable arrangement between the person to 
 whom the bill of lading was made out and the
 
 305 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 306 
 
 consignors. Ih. And sec, as to negotiability, 
 Ei:am v. Marlctt, and Cases infra, col. 3.51. 
 
 Letters of Advice.] — Letters to a party who 
 has accepted bills of exchange on the faith of a 
 consignment, which gave him advice of the fact, 
 are not equivalent to bills of lading indorsed. 
 yiclioJsw. Clenf. H Price, .547. 
 
 Clean Bill of Lading.] — See Arrompe v. Barr, 
 infra, col. 317. 
 
 b. Duration and Currency. 
 
 Conunencement. ] — The liability of a ship- 
 owner for goods, the receipt of which is acknow- 
 ledged by the master's signature to a bill of 
 lacUng, commences from the time of delivery to 
 the .servants of the owner, although the goods are 
 not put on board the ship. British Cubimhia 
 ■and Vancoi/rer Island Sjjar, Lumher and Saw 
 Mill Co. V. Xettleship, 37 L. J., C. P. 235 ; L. R. 
 v5 C. P. 4'J'J : 18 L. T. 291 ; 1(J W. II. 1046. 
 
 Termination.] — A bill of lading remains in 
 force until there has been a complete delivery of 
 the goods thereunder to a person having a right 
 to receive them. Barhcr v. Mei/erstein, 39 
 L. J., C. P. 1S7 : L. R. 4 H. L. 317 ; 22 L. T. 808 ; 
 18 W. R. 1041— H. L. 
 
 A. was indorsee of a bill of lading for cotton, 
 <h-awn in a set of three, making the cotton 
 <leliverable in London on payment of freight. 
 The cotton had been recently landed under an 
 entry made by A., and carried to a sufferance i 
 wharf in the pnrt of London, where it remained i 
 with a stop thereon for freight. On the 4th of j 
 March, 18(Jo, A. obtained from P>. an advance of ( 
 2.5()(t/'. on the deposit of two copies of the bill 
 •of lading ; A. fraudulently retaining the third 
 <;o[)y, which B. supposed to be in the hands of 
 the cajitain. On the (Ith and 7th of March (the 
 •stop for freiglit Ijeiiig then removed). A., who 
 had in February instructed cotton brokers to 
 take samples of the cotton and to offer it for 
 sale, obtained from them advances to the amount 
 of 2,0O0L on the deposit of the third copy of the 
 1)111 of lading; and on the 11th, being then 
 informed of the prior advance by B.. they sent 
 -such third copy of the bill of lading to the 
 wharfinger, and procured the cotton to be trans- 
 ferre<l into their names, and afterwards sold il 
 i\ud received the proceeds : — Held, that the bill 
 of lading, when deposited with B., retaincil Its 
 full force and effect, and conseiiucntly that 
 (here was a valid pledge of the cotton to B. 
 licfore the advances made to A. by the brokers. 
 /h. 
 
 c. Revocability. 
 
 In what Cases.]— A bill of lading, by which 
 goods are inadi^ deliverable to A., Is revocable 
 until the goods are or tlie bill of lading Is 
 ■delivered to A. The .shlp))er of tlie goo<ls, there- 
 foi'c, may change his purpose, and make the 
 gdods dellvcralile to anyone else. Mitchrl v. 
 i:dr, 3 P. iV: D. 513 ; 11 A. .t K. S88 ; 9 L. .1., Q. P.. 
 187. 
 
 Where a freighter of a ship to such ports as 
 the master sliould be directed by himself or his 
 agents, first ordered the master to i)rocee<l to one 
 of them. In (consequence of wliicli he had taken 
 in goo<is, and signed bills of lading for that jiort, 
 he coidd not afterwards countermand that order, 
 and order liini to jn-oeeed to another jiort, with- 
 out fiist recalling the bills of lading, or at least 
 
 tendering a sufficient indemnity to the master, 
 against the consequences of his liabilitv thereon. 
 Davidson v. Gwijnnc, 12 East, 381 ; 11 K. K. 420. 
 When goods have been put on board a ship to 
 be conveyed on freight, and bills of lading have 
 been signed by the master, the owner of the 
 goods cannot before the sailing of the ship, 
 insist on their being redelivered to him without 
 paying the freight that would become ilue for 
 their carriage, and indemnifying the master 
 against the consequences of his signing the bills 
 of lading. Tindall v. Taylur, 4 El. & Bl. 219 ; 
 3 C. L. R. 199 ; 24 L. J., Q. B. 12 : 1 Jur. (N.s.) 
 112. 
 
 Of Indorsement.] — See Mitch d v. Edc, infra, 
 col. 348. 
 
 d. Construction. 
 
 Intention.] — In construing bills of lading the 
 intention of the parties as expressed in the con- 
 tract is to be looked at, for no exception, of a 
 private nature at least, which is not contained 
 ill the contract itself, or arising therefrom by 
 implication of law, can be engrafted upon it. 
 Atkinson v. Bitch ie, 10 East, 533 ; 10 R. R. 372. 
 S. P., Si)ence v. ChadioicJi., 10 Q. B. 517 ; 16 L. J., 
 Q. B. 313; 11 Jur. 872. 
 
 Contract created by — As to Goods to be 
 carried.] — When a bill of lading described tlie 
 goods shipped as '' Thirteen packages books, 
 woodwork, whalebones, Dutch clocks, shoes and 
 linen goods," and was also stamped by the master 
 with the words, "value, weight and contents 
 unknown " : — Held, that tlie proper construction 
 of the conti-aet was, that tiie shipowners con- 
 tracted to carry whatever goods were contained 
 in the packages, and that they were therefore 
 bound to cari'y silk stuff's contained in one of the 
 l)ackages, there being no evidence of wilful or 
 fraudulent misstatement on the part of the 
 shippers. Lrhciin v. (Icneral Steam Xariciatioii 
 Co., 42 L. J.. C. P. 1 : L. R. 8 ('. P. 8S ; 27 L. T. 
 447 : 21 W. R. 14(1 ; 1 Asj). M. C. 435. 
 
 Held, also, that, although the freight charged 
 for linen goods was lower than that for silk stuffs, 
 the shippers were not estopped from proving the 
 delivery of silk stuffs to tlie .sliipowners. Ih. 
 
 As to Ships.] — (Joods were shipped on boanl a 
 vessel, under a bill of lading, "Siilpi)ed on board 
 tlie steamship • llibernia' . . . from Singapore 
 to London . . . with liberty to call at any 
 ports, in or out of the route, to receive and dis- 
 charge coals . . . Aic, and to transjilp tlie 
 goods ])y any other steamer": — Held, that the 
 cunt fact" of "the sliipowner was tiiat the goods 
 shoulil l)e carried on Ixianl a ship in which the 
 principal motive jiower during the voyage should 
 be steam. Fraser v. Tclctfra/ih Constrnrtion and, 
 Maintenanre Co.. II I-.. I. ,'(,>. I'.. 219 : I,. K. 7(.). B. 
 .5(;(; ; 27 L. T. 373 : L'n W.!!. 721 ; 1 A^|.. M.C 121. 
 
 Construction according to Foreign or English 
 
 Law.] — A (iiTinan in;islcr ul' a (icvman sliip, 
 I chartered by (ieriiian charterers, signc(| bills of 
 lading which were In the English language, and 
 stipulated for payment of freight in English 
 I money by English consignees of goods to be 
 j carrieil to" a (ierman jiorl : — Held, that the con- 
 It ract must be construed by reference to the fol- 
 lowing niles : Klrst— that the rights and obliga- 
 tions of the parties are to be determined by the law 
 which they have declared themselves to Intend ;
 
 307 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. niJl of Lading. 
 
 308 
 
 secoiuUy — that where there is no express declara- 
 tion of inteiitioii. tlie presumption as to the law 
 contemplated nutst be gathered from the circnni- 
 stanccs of the case ; thirdly — that where the 
 contract is plain in its language, that language 
 must receive the ordinar}- and natural construc- 
 tion, and does not admit the introduction of a 
 law dehors the contract ; fourthly — that the 
 contract must be executed according to its terms, 
 or abandoned, with due compensation to the 
 party injured, unless supervening unforeseen 
 circumstances have rendered the execution 
 legally impossible ; and, fifthlj-— that the hap- 
 pening of such circumstance maj' justify" a 
 reasonable delay in the execution of the contract, 
 thouafhnot an abandonment of it. The Patrin, 41 
 L. J.'; Adm. 23 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 436 ; 24 L. T. 841). 
 
 The ship arrived at Falmouth on the 23rd of 
 August, during the war between France and 
 Germany. Hamburg was blockaded till the 18th 
 of September. The consignees ofEered to take 
 their cargo at Falmouth, and pay full freight, but 
 were refused. The suit was commenced on the 
 1st of November :■ — ^Held, that whether the 
 contract should be construed according to the 
 general maritime law, or English or German law, 
 the master was bound to have delivered the cargo 
 at Hamburg or at Falmouth. lb. 
 
 A bill of lading made in England is a contract 
 to be governed and interpreted by English law, 
 and therefore no substantive defence arising 
 from delay in making the claim can be made 
 apart from the express condition contained 
 therein. Moore v. Harris, 4.5 L. J., P. C. n'> ; 1 
 App. Gas. 318 ; 34 L. T. 519 ; 24 W. R. 887 ; 3 
 Asp. M. G. 173— P. G. 
 
 Parol Evidence — Usage — Rate of Freight.] — 
 By a bill of lading of wool from Odessa, freight 
 was to be paid in liOndon, on delivery. " at the 
 rate of 8<),v. per cwt., gross weight, tallow, and 
 other goods, grain, or seed, in proportion, as per 
 London Baltic printed rates " : — Held, that ex- 
 trinsic evidence was admissible to shew, that, by 
 usage of the trade, the meaning of the bill of 
 lading was, that 80.s-. per cwt. of tallow was to be 
 taken as the standard by which the rate of freight 
 on all other goods was to be measured. Russ'uih 
 Steam Xariqufioii Co. v. Silva. 13 G. B. (N.S.) 
 610. 
 
 Discount.] — A bill of lading provided that the 
 goods s})ecitied therein should be deliverable to 
 the order of the consignee or his assigns at 
 Liverpool, he or they paying freight for the goods 
 five-eighths of a jicnny sterling per pound, with 
 primage and average accustomed : — Held, in an 
 action by the shij)0wner against an indorsee of 
 the bill of lading who had accepted the goods to 
 recover the freight and primage, that the latter 
 might give evidence of a mercantile custom 
 existing at Liverpool, by which he was entitled 
 to a deduction of three months" discount from the 
 freight, inasmuch as the custom was binding, and 
 was not inconsistent with the terms of the bill of 
 ladinir. Bnncn v. Byrne, 3 El. ct Bl. 703 : 2 
 C. L. R. LV.)y ; 23 L. J., Q. B. 313 : IS .Jur. 700 ; 
 2 A\'. R. 471. See Hall v. .Jaimm, 4 El. & Bl. .")00. 
 
 The custom existing in Liverpool of allowing 
 discount upon freights payable on bills of lading 
 of ships from ports in North America, is appli- 
 cable to freights from ports in California since 
 its annexation to the United States. Falltner 
 V. Earle. 3 B. & S. 360 : 32 L. J.. Q. B. 124 ; 9 
 Jur. (N.S.) 847 ; 7 L. T. 672 : 11 W. R. 307. 
 
 Commission.] — The holder of a bill of lading 
 comprising the whole cargo, has by custom a. 
 right to deduct " address commission " from the 
 freight. The Xonoay, Br. & Lush. 404 ; 3 Moore^ 
 P. C. (N.S.) 246: 11 Jur. (n.s.) 892: 13 L. T. 
 50 ; 13 W. R. 1085. On demurrer, Br. & Lush. 
 226. 
 
 Primage.] — By a charterparty the charterer- 
 engaged to ship in Australia a full cargo for a. 
 port in England at a freight of 60.v. per ton in 
 full ; ship paying all port-charges, pilotages and 
 towages : the freight to be paid in cash on right 
 delivery of cargo at port of discharge, less- 
 advances, exchange and commission : the captain 
 to sign bills of lading for cargo as presented, at 
 any rate of freight required by charterer ; but,, 
 should the total freight by bills of lading amount 
 to less than the total chartered freight, the dif- 
 ference to be paid the master in cash before 
 sailing. The master (who was paid a fixed 
 salary, " to include all charges and allowances ")• 
 signed a bill of lading for the whole cargo, 
 making the goods deliverable to " order or 
 assigns, freight to be paid in cash at port of dis- 
 charge, the rate of discharge, rate of freight, and 
 other conditions as per charterparty, with 5 per 
 cent, primage in cash on delivery as customary." 
 The cargo was received at the port of discharge 
 by the indorsees of the bill of lading, as agents, 
 of the charterer, and the freight paid : — Held,. 
 that they were not liable for primage. Cauglieii 
 V. Gordon, 3 C. P. D. 419 ; 27 W. R. 50. Ami see- 
 V. Master, ante, col. 92. 
 
 Incorporation of Conditions of Charterparty^ 
 "Baltic Clause."] — The charterers of a vessel 
 shipped a cargo on board her under a bill of 
 lading by which the cargo was to be delivered 
 at a port therein named " (the act of God, the 
 ([ueen's enemies, fire and all and every other 
 danger and accidents of the seas, rivers and 
 navigation of whatever nature and kind soever 
 excef)ted) unto order or to assigns, they paying 
 freight for the said coals, and all other condi- 
 tions as per charter." One of the provisions of 
 the charterparty was " Negligence clause as per 
 Baltic Bill of Lading, 1885 " : — Held, in an action 
 by the indorsees of the bill of lading against the 
 shipowners to recover damages for the non- 
 delivery of the cargo, that the words " all other 
 conditions as per charter" only incorporated inta 
 the bill of lading those provisions of the charter- 
 party which, from their nature, were to be per- 
 formed by the consignee, and did not incorporate 
 the " negligence clause as per Baltic Bill of 
 Lading, 1885." Itussell y. Xieviami (17 C. B. 
 (N.S.) 163) and Gray v. Curr (L. R. 6 Q. B. 522) 
 discussed. Serraino v. Campbell. 60 L. J., Q. B. 
 303 ; [1891] 1 Q. B. 283 ; 64 L. T. 615 ; 39 W. R. 
 356 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 48— C. A. 
 
 Cesser Clause — Liability for Freight.] ^ A 
 
 vessel was chartered tn carry a cargo of coals 
 from C'ardifE to Rouen. The charterparty pro- 
 vided that the liability of the charterers should 
 cease " when the ship is loaded and advance of 
 freight with demurrage at Cardiii paid." •' Ship, 
 to have a lien on cargo for freight, deatl freight 
 and demurrage." The bill of lading contained 
 no restriction on the liability of the charterers. 
 In an action for balance of freight : — Held,, 
 that the charterparty and bill of lading must 
 be read together, and construed according to- 
 the plain meaning on the face of them, and
 
 309 
 
 SHIP PIXG— XII. BUI of Lading. 
 
 310 
 
 that the charterers' liability ceased on perform- 
 ance of the conditions in the charterpartv. litir- 
 wicli V. Burnyeat, 36 L. T. 250 ; 25 W. K. 395 ; 3 
 Asp. M. C. 376. And see Benzon v. Ktnneth. \>o?,t, 
 col. 384. 
 
 — — Demurrage — Liability of Charterers.] — 
 A charterpartv contained stipulations for pay- 
 ment of freight and demurrage, and also a 
 stipulation that "as this charterparty is entered 
 into by the charterers on account of another 
 party, their liability ceases as soon as the cargo 
 is on board, the vessel holding a lien upon the 
 cargo for freight and demurrage." The char- 
 terer having placed the cargo on board at the 
 port of loading, a bill of lading was signed 
 whereby the goods were matle deliverable to 
 themselves at the port of discharge, "they pay- 
 ing freight, and all other conditions as per 
 charterpaity." In an action by the shipowner 
 against them as consignees of the cargo, for 
 demurrage in respect of delay at the port of 
 discharge : — Held, that the cesser clause in the 
 charterparty must be rejected as inapplicable in 
 reading the bill of lading, which incorporated 
 all the conditions of the charterparty applicable 
 to the reception of the goods at the port of dis- 
 charge, and, therefore, that the plaintiff was 
 entitled to maintain the action. (ruUisehen v. 
 Stewart. 53 L. -J., Q. B. 173: 13 Q. B. D. 317 ; 
 50 L. T. 47 : 32 W. R. 763 : 5 Asp. M. C. 200— 
 C. A. See also Brydcn v. Xiehuhr, ante, 
 col. 252 : and post, col. 460. 
 
 Exceptions and Perils — Conflict between 
 Specific and General Provisions.] — L'nder a 
 charterparty tlie appellants contracted to pro- 
 vide steamers for the purpose of bringing frozen 
 meat to this country, and to ti.x anfl work proper 
 refrigerating machinerj', subject to the terms 
 and conditions of a bill of lading of an agreed 
 form, except as alteied by the said charterparty. 
 The bill of lading contained a wide exception 
 clause. The refrigerating machinery proved 
 defective, and the meat was damaged. In an 
 action to recover damages from the apjicllaiits : 
 — Hel<l. that the general terms of the bill of lading 
 were not incorporatc<l into the agreement under 
 the charterparty so as in any way to affect the 
 express anil specific stijiulations of sucli agree- 
 ment, and that if the said stipulations cf)uld mt 
 have full effect given to them in conjunction 
 with the bill of lading, ithe bill of lading must 
 be reganled as being to that extent altereil by it. 
 Ifinixton V. Saiixlnena, 1 K. 203 ; fiS ],. T. 567 ; 
 7 Asp. M. C. 311— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Deviation Clause — Perishable Cargo— Docu- 
 ment partly consisting of Printed Common 
 Form.^^A cargo of oranges ci^nsignud to I.iver- 
 pnol was shippL'iI at Malaga under a l)ill of lading 
 which described the ship a.s " bound for Liver- 
 jiool," and contained a printed deviation clause 
 whereby liberty was given " to proceed fo ami 
 stay at any port or ])orts in any i-otatifin in the 
 Mediterranean, Levant, Black Sea or Adriatic, 
 or on the coa.sts of Africa, Spain. Portugal, 
 France, Great Britain and Ireland, for llie 
 purpose of delivering coals, cargo or passengeis, 
 or for any other purpose whatsoever." By 
 another clause the shi|)pers agreed to all the 
 stipulations of the bill of lading whether written 
 or printed. After leaving Malaga the ship pro- 
 ceeded to a port in Spain in the contrary 
 direction to Liverpool, and returned thence to 
 
 Liverpool. By reason of the delay so caused, the 
 oranges were damaged. The shippers sued the 
 o\%Tiers of the ship for damages for breach of 
 contract : — Held, that the main object of the 
 contract being the carriage of the oranges to 
 Liverpool, the liberty given by the general 
 printed words must be limited so as to make it 
 a liberty consistent with the main object, and 
 that, upon the true construction of the bill of 
 lading, the liberty to deviate was confined to 
 ports which were in the course of the voyage 
 from Malaga to Liverpool ; consequently, that 
 the deviation in a contraiy direction to Liver- 
 pool was not justified, and that the shipowaiers 
 were liable. Glynn v. Jlarr/et.son, 62 L. J.. Q. B. 
 466 : [1893] A. C. 351 ; 1 R. 193 : 69 L. T. 1 ; 
 7 Asp. M. C. 366— H. L. (E.) 
 
 And .see further as to construction of bill of 
 lading with reference to charterparty, ante, 
 XI. Charterpakty, cols. 236, seq. 
 
 Evidence to Vary — Deviation — Loss by Perils 
 of the Sea.] — The j)laintiffs having i)urcha-ed 
 goods to be shipped from a foreign pint ou the 
 terms that payment of the price was to be made 
 in exchange for sliipping documents, the bill of 
 lading signed upon the shipment of the goods 
 was, upon payment of the price, indorsed to 
 them. The bill of lading, which contained the 
 usual exception of sea perils, stated that the 
 goods were shipped fur ilelivery at Dunkirk on 
 board a vessel lying at Fiume and bound for 
 Dunkirk, with liberty to call at any ports in any 
 order. The ship, instead of i)roceeding direct 
 for Dunkirk, sailed for Glasgow, and was lost, 
 with her cargo, off the mouth of the Clyde, by 
 perils of the sea. In an action bi-ought by the 
 plaintiffs against the shipowners for non-delivery 
 of the goods, evidence was given to shew that 
 the shipjjers of the goods, at the time when the 
 bill of lading was given, knew that the vessel 
 was intended to proceed via Glasgow : — Held, 
 that such evidence was not admissible to vary 
 the terms of the bill of lading, whicli imported 
 a voj-age direct from Fiume to Dunkirk, subject 
 to the liberty to call at any ports of call sub- 
 stantially within the course of such voyage ; 
 that Gla.sgow, being altogether out of the course 
 of such voyage, was not such a port ; and that 
 the vessel was therefore lost while deviating 
 from the voyage contracted for, and excepted 
 perils clause did not exonerate the defendants 
 from liability in respect of non-flcliverv of the 
 goods. Inline v. Ward, 57 L. J., Q. B. 379 : 20 
 Q. B. D. 475 ; 58 L. T. 908 ; 36 W. R. 537 : 6 
 Asp. M. C. 290— C. A. 
 
 Freight — Delivery without Payment.] — The 
 
 words, " he or they paying freight for the said 
 gf«)tls," in a bill of lading, are for the benefit of 
 the master and shipowner and not of the 
 the consignor. 'J'he master, therefore, may 
 deliver goods to the consignee or his assigns, 
 whether freight be paid or not. without infur- 
 rinu' anv liability to the consignor. Sliepard v. 
 J)r Jirriiiihx. 13'East. 505 : 12 R. R. 4J2. 
 
 "Shipped on Board" — Goods floated to Ship.] 
 — Timber sleejiers were flo;ilcd alongside a vessel 
 on rafts and there delivere<l to the mate, who 
 gave a recei])t for them : — Held, tliat the goods 
 were not "shipped on board " within the mean- 
 ing of a bill of lading. Tlinniinii v. Burt, 
 1 Cab. k E. 596: 54 L. T. 3J9 : 5 Asp. M. C. 
 503.
 
 Sll 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 312 
 
 Quay Rates — Custom inconsistent with Bill 
 of Lading.] — A bill of lading stipulated that 
 •• the inercluuulise shipped thereundei' was to be 
 received on the quay at London and tlelivered 
 therefrom by the person apiwinteil by the 
 steamship's agents, kc, the merchandise to be 
 received and delivered according to the custom 
 and usages of the respective ports." A custom 
 was proved as to grain cargoes coming to 
 London, that if the merchant does not demand 
 delivery of the grain- within twenty-four hov;rs 
 after the ship'si arrival, the ship is entitled to 
 ■discharge on the (juay. The merchant did not 
 demand delivery, and the grain was discharged 
 on the quay : — Held, that the custom was not 
 inconsistent with the bill of lading ; and that the 
 merchant was liable for quay rates. Aste v. 
 Stiimovp, 1 Cab. & E. 321, n. Reversing S. C, 
 1 Cab. & E. 219. 
 
 Right of Shipowner to land Goods at risk of 
 Consignee.] — See ]]'iIson\. London. Italutn and 
 Adriatic Steam Navigation Co., infra, col. 534. 
 
 Liberty to Tow.] — The plaintiffs shipped goods 
 at Liverpool on board the " Liberia," a steam 
 vessel belonging to a steamship company, to be 
 ■carried for freight, payable by the i)laintifi:s to 
 the company, to Benin, on the coast of Africa, 
 which goods, on the arrival of the " Liberia" at 
 Bonny, were, in the usual course of the business 
 ■of the company, and according to the terms of 
 the bill of lading, transhipped on board the 
 '•Kwara," a small branch steamer belonging to the 
 company, to be forwarded thereby to their desti- 
 nation at Benin. The " Kwara," with the plaintiffs' 
 goods on board, left Bonny, and proceeded on 
 her voj'age to Benin, calling on her way at Brass, 
 where she had both to discharge and take in 
 cargo. Whilst lying in the harbour at Brass, 
 and after having discharged and taken in cargo, 
 and within two or three hours of being ready to 
 proceed on her onward voyage to Benin, the 
 '• Kwara" was taken by her captain, at the request 
 •of the captain and owners of another vessel, to 
 the mouth of the Brass river, some three miles 
 f ttim the harbour, for the purpose of towing off 
 such other vessel which had got stranded on the 
 breakers in attempting to cross the bar at the 
 entrance of the river, and in her efforts to tow 
 that vessel off, the -'Kwara " herself, in consequence 
 of her sci'ew getting fouled with a rope, was 
 wrecked, and the plaintiffs' goods were lost. It 
 ■<lid not appear that human life was in any 
 imminent danger, or that the assistance of the 
 -• Kwara '" was sought for, except to save property. 
 The bill of lading, given by the company on 
 receiving the goods at Liverpool, contained a 
 clause giving to their vessels " liberty to tow and 
 assist vessels in all situations " ; and also a memo- 
 randum in the margin as follows : " The within 
 goods to be transhipped at Bonny, and forwarded 
 to destination by branch steamer at ship's expense 
 but shipper's risk." In an action by the plaintiffs 
 to recover the value of their goods : — Held, first, 
 that, under the express words of the clause in the 
 bill of lading giving liberty " to tow and assist 
 vessels,'" «S:c., the "Kwara" was justified and pro- 
 tected in going to the assistance of the other 
 vessel in the manner and under the circumstances 
 stated. Stuart v. British and Africa it Steam. 
 yarigaUon Co., 32 L. T. 2.57 : 2 Asp. M. C. -197. 
 And see Drain v. Henderson, infra, col. 342. 
 
 Transhipment "at Shipper's Risk"— Ships 
 
 Expense.] — Held, secondly, that the words in 
 
 the margin of the bill of lading " at shipper's 
 risk," applied, as did also the words " at ship's 
 expense," to the transhipment only of the goods 
 from the one vessel to the other at Bonny, and not 
 to the " forwarding of them from Bonny to Benin." 
 Ih. 
 
 No Claim unless before Removal of Goods.] — 
 
 By a bill of lading made in England by the 
 master of an English ship certain packages of tea 
 were " to be delivered from the ship's deck, where 
 the ship's responsibility shall cease, at the poi't of 
 Montreal . . . unto the Grand Trunk Rail- 
 way Company, and by them to be forwarded 
 thence per railway to the station nearest to 
 Toronto, and at the aforesaid station delivered to 
 the consignees or to their assigns." The instru- 
 ment contained, in addition to a long list of 
 excepted special risks, whether arising from negli- 
 gence or otherwise, the following condition : 
 " No damage that can be insured against will be 
 paid for, nor will any claim whatever be admitted 
 unless made before the goods are removed." In 
 an action in Lower Canada against the shipowner 
 for the value of damage done to the packages 
 during the voyage, it appeared that they were 
 landed, placed in shipping sheds, removed there- 
 from to railway freight-sheds in Montreal, and 
 finally delivered to the consignees in Toronto. 
 No notice of damages was given until thirteen 
 days after the delivery was completed : — Held, 
 that the condition, though in its first clause 
 limited to insurable damage, clearly applied as 
 regards its second clause to all damage, whether 
 apparent or latent, which could by examination 
 of the packages conducted with reasonable care 
 and skill at the place of removal have been dis- 
 covered. Moore v. Harris. 45 L. J., P. C. 55 ; 1 
 App. Cas. 318 ; 34 L. T. .519 ; 24 W. R. 887 ; 3 
 Asp. M. C. 173— P. C. 
 
 Excluding Merchant Shipping Act.] — A con- 
 dition in a bill of lading provided, in effect, that, 
 on the arrival of the vessel in dock, the con- 
 signee of a portion of the cargo should be ready 
 to receive the goods, and that, in default, the 
 master or agent of the ship should be at liberty 
 to land the goods and warehouse them at the 
 consignee's risk and expense. The vessel arrived, 
 and the agent of the consignee made an imme- 
 diate application for the goods, but was toldthat 
 it was not known in what part of the ship they 
 were. On receiving the same answer on the 
 following day, the agent withdrew, handing to 
 the mate a notice desiring him to give twenty- 
 four hours' notice of his readiness to deliver the 
 goods, in accordance, as the notice alleged, with 
 25 ct 26 Vict. c. 63, ss. 66, 67. No such notice of 
 readiness was given, and, there being no one to 
 receive the goods, they were placed in a ware- 
 house by the master of the ship, a charge of 
 5Z. \ls. 'id. being thereby incurred. The con- 
 signee having threatened to charge his agent 
 with the value of the goods unless he obtained 
 delivery of the same, the agent paid the said sum 
 under protest, and brought this action against 
 the shipowner to lecover such sum : — Held, that 
 the special contract in the bill of lading excluded 
 the ojjeration of the Merchant Shipjjing Act 
 Amendment Act ; and that the act did not 
 apply to a case where the shipowner was in bonS, 
 ride ignorance of the position of the goods, regard 
 being had to the premature demand of the 
 au^ent of the consignee. Olirer v. Colcen, 27 
 W. R. »22.
 
 313 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 314 
 
 IntroductionofNovelClause.]— If a shipowner law- did not essentially differ from the English 
 wishes to introduce into his bill of lading so law, that the defendants were liable for wrongful 
 novel a clause as one exempting him from delivery of the goods. The Sfcttiti, oSL. J., Adm. 
 general average contribution, he ought not only SI ; 14 P. D. 142 ; 61 L. T. 200 ; 38 W. R. 96 : 
 to make it clear in words, but also to make it 6 Asp. M. C. 811.5. 
 
 conspicuous by inserting it in such type and in i The master after waiting a reasonable time at a 
 such a part of "the document as that a person of foreign port, and no person having produced the 
 ordinary capacity and care could not fail to see billof lading, may deliver the goods to some person 
 
 it Per'Lush J. Croohes v. Allen, 49 L. J., Q. B. , to keep till the bill of lading is produced. Howard 
 
 201 : 5 Q. B. D. 38 ; 41 L. T. 800 ; 28 W. R. v. ShephrnL 9 C. B. 297 ; 19 L. J., C. P. 249. 
 
 " '~^'' ' ■ ■ - • Delivery in Absence of Bill of Lading is 
 
 Noticeof Alteration of Destination —Advertise- Wrongful.] — Pirir v. Warden, infra, col. 347. 
 
 ment of Voyage.] — Where a general ship has been . .T>--i.^ 
 
 advertised for a particular vovage. if her destina- ' Presentation for Signature-Advanced Freight 
 
 tion is in any respect altered,"the owner is bound —Loss of Ship.j— See Onuntal ,^tca,n.shq) Co. v. 
 
 to give specific notice of the alteration to every 'J'ylu^', infra, col. 411. 
 person who has shipped goods on board. Peel v. 
 Price, 4 Camp. 243 ; 16 R. R. 785. 
 
 Liability of Indorsee.] — The indorsee of a bill 
 of lading is only liable to be sued on so much of 
 the contract in the charterparty as incoiporates 
 the bill of lading. Ollrer v. Muggcridge, 7 
 W. R. 164. And .-see. as to effect of indorsement, 
 infra, cols. 343, seq. 
 
 3. Effect of. 
 Sig-nature by Master. 
 
 Foreign Bill of Lading — Foreign Law— Short 
 
 Delivery." — '>ec Ininidiiupl {Oicnrr.s') x. Dcnliol m, 
 infra, col. 425. 
 
 e. Presentation. 
 
 For what Goods.] — The master has no power 
 to charge his owner by signing bills of lading 
 for a greater (piaiitity of goods than is on board. 
 IhiUeraij V. Ward, 8 Ex. 330 ; 22 L. J., Ex. 
 113. 
 
 He has no general authority from the owner 
 to sign bills of lading for goods not received on 
 buard, and all persons taking a bill of lading by 
 indorsement or otherwise have notice that his 
 authority is limited to signing bills of lading for 
 Time for.] — A bill of lading should be delivered ; goods actually received on board.^ Grant v. 
 as soon after its arrival as possible, without Sorwaij (10 C. B. 665 ; 20 L. J., C. P. 93 ; 15 
 reference to the arrival or unloading of the Jur. 296) followed, fo.c v. 7i;v/r^, infra, col. 323. 
 carc-o. Barher v. Taylor, 5 M. i: W. 527 : 9 L. J., ; The captain of a merchant ship borrowed, in a 
 Exr21. ' foreign port, a certain sum for tlie ship's use, in 
 
 consideration of which he took home goods for 
 
 Custom.]— A. sold goods to B., to be delivered ^^^ lenders, and signed bills of lading, making 
 
 free on board at Liverpool, for Trieste. The ^.j^^ fi-eiirht pavable to them or their assigns at 
 
 goods were placed by A. on l>oard a steamer to be ^j^^ port'^of discharge :— Held, that he exceeded 
 
 delivered to the order of B. By the custom of j^j^ authority as improperly interfering with tlie 
 
 the trade, where goods are sold, to be delivered 
 free on board, the jjrice is not jjayable until pro- 
 duction of a bill of lading, or some other docu- 
 ment, giving evidence of their being on board. 
 The owners of the steamer refusing to give out 
 the bill of lading until a greatly increased 
 amount of freight was paid, and P.., when 
 informed f)f that fact, declining to have anything 
 todowith the matter, A. (who had not contracted 
 to pay the freight) was imable to comply with | Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) .521 
 the custom V^y producing the bill of lading : — 
 Held, that P>.,"by his conduct, dispensed with the 
 strict compliance with the custom, and that con- 
 sequently A. was entitled to maintain an action 
 ff)r the price of tlie iron, without jn'ochicing a 
 bill f.f lading. Green v. S'lehel, 7 C. P.. (N.S.) 
 747 ; 29 L. J., C. P. 213 ; 6 Jur. (N.s.) 827 : 2 
 L. T. 745 : 8 W. R. 663. 
 
 shipowner's' lien on the unpaid freight. Be;/- 
 nold.1 V. Jex, 7 B. .V: S. S(i ; 34 L. J., Q. B. 251 ; 
 13 W. R. 908. 
 
 Goods never on Board— Bill of Lading given.] 
 
 — Where a master gives a l)ill<it' hiding for izoods 
 not on board, whctlirr fiaiKlulciitly or not, the 
 shipowner is not liable for damage thereby 
 caused to an indorsee. Grieve v. Kiiniij, 7 Ct. of 
 
 Rate of Freight.] — A master has no authority 
 to sign hills of lading for a lower rate of freight 
 than that for which the owner has contracted. 
 Pichernell v. Jauberry, 3 ¥. ic V. 217. 
 
 Duty of Shipmaster— Delivery without Pro- 
 
 Binding on whom.]— When a master i)uts up 
 a ship as n ;_'. mini ship, and the shijipcrs liave 
 MO knowledge of the existence of a ciiarterparty, 
 the contract in the bill of lading is between the 
 duction of Bill. j-Where by the terms Jf"a bilf of shipj.ers an.l the owner an.l not the shippe.^a.id 
 lading the good's are to be delivered to a named the charterer Jhe J^^.//.,/ 1/././///'''^, 37 L. J., 
 consignee or his a.ssigns, the master is not entitled Adm. 52 ; L. U. 2 A A: K. 1 •.. ; 1« \.. I. .^M. 
 to .leliver the goods to such consignee without F. & Co. requested the , etendants ^^\V^^^^;^ 
 theproductionofoneof the parts of the billof through their branch h-mse >" < ,^^"\f ' .'J 
 la.ling. The plaintiffs shipped goods in London quantity of cotton on t leir behalf, and t,. sh .it 
 on boTinl a (ierman vessel belonging to the .lefcn- for Liver|.ool on board two of Y. &c Co.s sl.ips 
 
 dants, under a bill of lading, drawn in two parts, 
 by which the goods were to be delivered at a 
 German port to the con.signcc named in the bill 
 of lading, or to his assigns. The master delivered 
 the goods at the port of discharge to the consignee 
 
 By arrangement goods shijipcd on account of 
 F. & Co. by the house at Calcutta were to be 
 shippe<l at a nominal rate of fieight. One of 
 the ships was ad(lressc<l to the defendants' 
 Calcutta house, as agents for F.&Co., and haviii< 
 
 wUhourthe produVtion'oTeU arrived at Calcutta a '|uantity of cotton in 
 
 of lading :— Held, upon proof that the German pursuance of the order of h . k Co., was shipped
 
 315 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 316 
 
 ill her. for which the cnptain sifjned bills of lading 
 niakiiisj; tlie cotton deliverable to order of the 
 Calcutta house, and stating it to be " freight free 
 on owners' account." The ship, while on her 
 voyage to Calcutta, was sold by F. & Co., and 
 becaine the property of the plaintiffs. No notice 
 of this had rcachedthe captain or the defendants 
 when the shipment was effected. When the ship 
 arrived at Liverpool, F. & Co. having become 
 bankrupt, the defendants, to whom the house at 
 Calcutta had indorsed the bill of lading, claimed 
 to receive the cotton without paying any freight 
 to the plaintiffs, in accordance with the terms of 
 the bill of lading :— Hekl. that the terms of the 
 bill of lading, "under which the goods were 
 shipped, were binding on the plaintiffs, and 
 that no freight was payable by the defendants. 
 Mercantile a/td Exchanqe Banli v. Gladstone, 
 37 L. J., Ex. 130 ; L. R. 3 Ex. 233 ; 18 L. T. 
 041 : 17\V. R. 11. 
 
 A master signed bills of lading to deliver at 
 Hamburg. " dangers of the seas only excepted ": 
 — Held, that though the charterparty contained 
 other exceptions, the master was the agent of 
 the owner as well as the charterer, and that, 
 therefore, the terms of the bill of lading were 
 bindine. The Patria, 41 L. J., Adm. 23 ; L. R. 3 
 A. & E'T 436 ; 24 L. T. 849 : 1 Asp. M. C. 71. 
 
 Without Production of Receipt for Goods.] — 
 
 Where the master gives a receipt for goods put 
 on board, it behoves him not to sign a bill of 
 lading till that receipt is given up. Thomjjson v. 
 Trad, 2 Car. & P. 334 ; 6 B. & C. 36 ; 6 D. & R. 
 31 : 5 L. J. (as.) K. B. 34 ; 30 R. R. 242. 
 
 Where the master receives goods on board, and 
 gives a receipt for them, he is bound not to 
 deliver the bill of lading, except to the person 
 who can produce the receipt in exchange for it. 
 Craven v. Ryder, 2 Marsh. 127 ; 6 Taunt. 433; 
 Holt. 100 : 16 R. R. 644. And see Mitchell v. 
 Scaife, 4 Camp. 298 ; 16 R. R. 79.o. 
 
 "When Goods on Board.] — The master of a 
 vessel may properly sign bills of lading in 
 favour of the shipper of goods, without produc- 
 tion of the mate's receipts for the goods, if he is 
 satisfied otherwise that the goods are on board 
 the vessel and has no notice that anyone but 
 the shipper claims any interest in them. Ilathe- 
 .sinq V. Laing, 43 L. J., Ch. 233 ; L. R. 17 Eq. 92 : 
 29 L. T. 734 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 170. 
 
 The holder for value of bills of lading so given 
 has a better title than an indorsee of the mate's 
 receipts. Ih. 
 
 When Signature Fraudulently obtained — 
 Property in Goods.] — The plaintiffs, merchants 
 in London, purchased for C, but on their own 
 credit, goods abroad, debiting C. with the price 
 and a commission. The goods were warehoused 
 in London in the plaintiffs' name. C, in his 
 own name, engaged room for the goods in the 
 ship " E.," which had been put up as a general 
 ship for Calcutta. The plaintiffs, at C.'s request, 
 delivered the goods to a lighterman, but with a 
 view to preserve their lien, took the lighterman's 
 engagement to give them the mate's receipt. 
 The goods were shipped in the " E. " ; the mate's 
 receijit in blank was handed to the lighterman, 
 who gave it to the plaintiffs. C. promised the 
 ])laintiffs to redeem the mate's receipt, but never 
 did so, and fraudulently induced the ship brokers 
 to get bills of lading to C.'s order, to be signed 
 by the master, though the mate's receipt was 
 
 not produced. C. fraudulently indorsed these 
 bills of lading for value to a bona fide indorsee. 
 The plaintiffs had no communication with the 
 shii) brokers or captain till after the ship had 
 sailed, when, the facts being discovered, they 
 demanded the goods, both in this country and 
 on the arrival "of the ship at Calcutta. The 
 goods were delivered l)y the captain at Calcutta 
 to the holders of the bills of lading. An action 
 was brought for this conversion against the ship- 
 owner and the captain. The captain and crew 
 were appointed by the shipowner, but the ship 
 was chartered for a lump sum to third parties, 
 who put up the ship as a general ship. The 
 refusal of the captain to deliver the goods at 
 Calcutta was by the orders of the shipowners. 
 The only question left to the jury was, whether 
 the master was justified in signing the bills of 
 lading without the production of the mate's 
 receipt. The jury finding in the negative, the 
 plaintiffs had the verdict against both defendants, 
 on the pleas of not guilty and not possessed : — 
 Held, that the property in the goods remained 
 the property of the plaintiffs, there never having 
 been any delivery aninio transferendi to C. ; and 
 that the misdelivery at Calcutta was a conversion, 
 and that the question, whether the plaintiffs 
 were precluded from relying on their property or 
 complaining of this conversion, was in effect 
 properly left to the jury, and properly found by 
 them. Schuster v. iWKellar, 7 El. & Bl. 704 ; 
 26 L. J., Q. B. 281 ; 3 Jur. (N.s.) 1320; 5 W. R. 6.56. 
 Held, also, that the shipowner having autho- 
 rised the detention at Calcutta, the verdict was 
 proper. Ih. 
 
 Goods never on Board — Bills of Lading Act — 
 Signature of Master's Agent.] — To an action for 
 freight by a shiiiowner against the indorsees of 
 the bill of lading, the defendants counterclaimed 
 in respect of short delivery. All the goods that 
 were actually put on board had been delivered 
 to them ; but the bill of lading acknowledged 
 the receipt of a larger quantity. All the goods 
 mentioned in the bill of lading had been floated 
 alongside the ship in rafts, and mate's receipts 
 given for them ; but some of them were lost 
 before they were shipped. The bill of lading 
 was signed, " By authority of the captain. Wilh. 
 Ganswindtj as agent." Ganswindt was the ship's 
 broker at the siaipping port :— Held, that apart 
 from the Bills of Lading Act, a bill of lading is 
 not conclusive against a shipowner, and he is 
 not liable in respect of any goods not actually 
 shii)ped : and that in the present case he was 
 not liable under that act, as the bill of lading 
 was not signed by or for him. Thorman v. Burt, 
 ,54 L. T. 349 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 563— C. A. 
 
 Refusal to sign — Penalty or Liquidated 
 Damages.] — A charterparty contained the 
 clause, "The captain shall sign charterers' bills 
 of lading as presented without qualification . . . 
 within twenty-four hours after being loaded, 
 or i>ay \Ql. for every day's delay as and for 
 liquidated damages until the ship is totally lost 
 or the cargo delivered." The captain wrongfully 
 refused to sign the bills of lading as presented ; 
 but the charterers were unable to shew that they 
 had sustained any damage by his conduct : — 
 Held, that the clause imposed a penalty and not 
 liquidated damages, and that the plaintiffs were 
 only entitled to nominal damages. Jones v. 
 IhuKjh (supra, col. 288) commented on. Rayner 
 v. itederiaMieholaget Condor, 64 L. J., Q. B.
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 15 R. 542: 7B L. T. 
 
 317 
 
 540; [189.-.] 2 Q. B. 289 : 
 96 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 43. 
 
 Refusal to sign, at Freight Lower than Agreed.] 
 
 — Se ■ II>/(h- V. ]r/7/;.v. 3 Camp. 2(i2 ; 13 I!. R. 
 791. infra, col. 423. 
 
 Except subject to Charterparty. ] — A 
 
 person who, without notice of any charterparty, 
 has placed goods on board a vessel which has 
 been advertised as a general ship, is entitled to 
 have his goods returned to him if the captain 
 refuses to sign bills of lading except subject to a 
 charterparty containing objectionable provisions. 
 I'pi-h v. Lur'sen, 40 L. J.rCh. 763 ; L. R. 12 Eq. 378 : 
 2.") L. T. 580 : ]'.) W. R. 1045 : 1 Asp. M. C. 163. 
 
 Clean Bill of Lading.] — By charterparty 
 
 the master and charterer agreed that the ship 
 should load a full and complete cargo to be 
 <lelivered on payment of a specified freight — 
 " the captain to sign bills of lading as presented 
 at any rate of freight without prejudice to this 
 charterparty." A lien was given on cargo for 
 freight, dead freight and demurrage. At the 
 emfof the lay days the ship was short of a full 
 cargo by thirty-five tons. The master claimed dead 
 freight and demurrage, and refused to sign bills 
 of lading, unless qualified by reference to the 
 charterparty. It was afterwards agreed that 
 tlie charterer should fill up the ship, and that 
 the master should sign " clean bills of lading, but 
 under protest for three days' demurrage incurred 
 here, to be settled at the port of discharge." The 
 master still refused to sign bills of lading, except 
 with a reference to the charterparty inserted : — 
 Held, that he was bound to sign clean bills, i.e. 
 such as contained no reference to the charter- 
 party or to the matters previously in dispute. 
 Arrompe v. Barr, 8 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 602. 
 
 Signed in Blank— Negotiability.] — The vali- 
 
 <lity (if a Ijill nf Lidiiig asa negotiable instrument 
 is not alfecteil by, its having been signed by the 
 master in blank as to the amount of cargo, which 
 was afterwards tilled in by the shipper. Coicdeit- 
 hrnth Coal f'o.v. Clydesdale Bniih, 22 Ct. of Sess. 
 Cas. (4th ser.) 682. 
 
 Power of Master to fill in— Days available for 
 Unloading. J — A charterparty foi- carriage nf grain 
 from the Black «ea provided that there should 
 be '• eleven running days, Sundays excepted, 
 for loading and unloading, and ten days on 
 <lemurrage over and above tlie said lays at i'ul. 
 per ton running day. The 1885 bill of lading 
 to be used under this charter, and its terms to be 
 considered as part thereof." The printed bill of 
 lading as filled up by the master at the loading 
 port, stated '\firr and it half (.5.^) laying days 
 icmain for discharging cargft" ; the words and 
 figures in italics being in the master's haii<l- 
 writing :— Held, tliat the bill of lading, as fille<l 
 in. was binditig on the shipowners ; and that the 
 lialf day was available for the indorsees of the 
 bill of lading for unloading. Allan v. Joli luttone, 
 19 Ct. of Kess. Cas. (4th ser.) 364. 
 
 Duty to present for Signature— Advanced 
 
 Freight— Loss of Ship. —See Orhnlnl Striunship 
 
 Co. V. '////.'/•, pu-,t, c<j1. in. 
 
 As to Quality, Quantity and State of Ship- 
 ment.] — Si'C Caws infra, col. 319. 
 
 Penalty for Delay in Signing.]— See The 
 
 I'rincrx.\-, supra, col. 251. 
 
 318 
 
 Provision in Charterparty as to Non-Lia- 
 bility of Shipowner— Bill of Lading signed by 
 Master not referring to Charterparty.]— See 
 Ma/ickf-ste)- Truxt v. Fia-nexx, Wltltij t)- Co.. ante, 
 col. 238. 
 
 Master's Gratuity — Liability of Consignee.] 
 
 —See Hrw'ttf v. Paul, infra, ol. 4O0. 
 
 See also further, as to bills of lading, XI. 
 Charterparty. 
 
 b. Mate's Receipt. 
 
 Effect of.] — M. chartered a vessel with a cargo 
 of salt, therewith to proceed to Calcutta ; the 
 freight to be paid on unloading, one third by 
 freighter's acceptance at four months from the 
 final sailing of the vessel, remainder on the right 
 delivery of the cargo, agreeably to bills of lading. 
 The captain to apply to F. for cargo and custom 
 house business. F. proceeded to load the vessel, 
 but before the whole cargo was on board M. 
 stopped i)ayment. and thereupon F. stopped the 
 loading. F. presented bills of lading made out 
 in his own name, which the owners of the ship 
 refused to sign. M. presented none, and the 
 ship sailed. On her arrival, F.'s agents tendered 
 to the owners' agents the mate's receipt, and 
 offered to pay freight, but they declined to 
 deliver the salt. In an action for the conver- 
 sion of the salt, the jury found that F. did not 
 l)art with the control over the goods in putting 
 them on board, and that the property did not 
 ))ass to M. : — Held, that the sailing away with 
 the goods was ample evidence of conversion, and 
 thatthe conversion commenced from the time of 
 sailing. Fall: v. Flctrhrr, 18 C. B. (N.S.) 403 ; 
 34 L.'J., C. r. 146 ; 11 Jur. (x.S.) 176 ; 13 W. R. 
 346. 
 
 A manufacturer at Newcastle consigned goods 
 to E. & Co., his factors in London, specifically, 
 to meet a bill of exchange drawn upon them, 
 transmitting to them a receijjt, signed by the 
 mate of the vessel, acknowledging the goods to 
 have been received on board to be tlelivered to 
 E. & Co. : — Held, that E. A: Co. had a sulticieut 
 property in the goods and right to the possession 
 to entitle them to maintain trover against a 
 wrongdoer, the consignor not having repudiated 
 the contract upon which they were sent. Enaius 
 V. yichol. 4 Sci.tl (,N.it.) 13 ; 3 Man. .V: (i. 614 ; 
 
 1 1 L. J., c. r. <;. 
 
 Meaning of " Connaissements."] — Tlie 
 
 plaintiffs wrote to their agents, the defendants, 
 regarding goods which S. had proj.osed to pur- 
 chase : " fics informations sur S. sont telles (jue 
 Tious no pouvons lui livrer les 2,500 caisscs (pie 
 (•out re connaissement. Si vous voulez, nous vous 
 enverrons les connaissements, et vous ne les lui 
 delivrcrez ((uccontrepaycment." The jjlaintiffs, 
 who carried on business in Holland, consigned 
 the goods to the defendants, with the bill of 
 lading of a Dutcli shi)), an<l the defendants put 
 tiieiii on liDard of a ship ninneil by S., aii<l they 
 rcceivetl and kept, the mate's receipt, but no bills 
 of lading of export ship w.'is made up, nor was 
 the price paid by S. when the ship sailed. In 
 an action for delivering the goods without 
 obtaining the price :— Held, that the instruc- 
 tions to the defendants were not carried out by 
 olitaining the mates rccciiit ; that "connaisse- 
 ment" meant a bill of lading ; and that, as the 
 control over the goods had been lust without
 
 319 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Ladimj. 
 
 320 
 
 payment of the price, the defendants were liable. 
 Stcnrliw Co. v. Hehdzmami, 17 C. B. (N.s.) 56 ; 
 10 Jur. (N.S.) 881 ; 11 L. T. 272. 
 
 Evidence — Short Delivery.] — The pLiintiflE 
 haviti.L;- verbally t'liartcroil a ship to carry iron 
 from Glas.^ow "to Swansea, the ship was loaded 
 with iron bnu.dit by the i)laintiif from W. & Co. 
 The iron was weighed by the agents of W. & Co., 
 to whom the mate gave a receipt signed by 
 him for 330 tons, but there was no bill of lading. 
 On delivery at Swansea, the quantity of iron 
 was discovered to be 326^ tons only, but the 
 mate deposed, and was not contradicted, to the 
 delivery of all that had been shipped. The 
 plaintiil having paid on the full amount of 330 
 tons to W. & Co., who refused to repay him the 
 difference, sued the shipowner for short delivery : 
 — Held, that there was no evidence of negligence 
 in the shipo\\mer, and that if there had been, it 
 would not be negligence causing loss to the 
 plaintiff. Bidduljih v. Bin/jham, 30 L. T. 30 : 
 2 Asp. M. C. 22.5. 
 
 Custom as to.] — A local custom of trade was 
 alleged to exist at Bombay by virtue of which 
 the mate's receipts for goods shipped on board a 
 vessel are negotiable instruments, and pass the 
 property in the goods in the same manner as 
 bills of lading, and that masters of ships are 
 bound to have the mate's receipt returned to 
 them before signing any bill of lading for the 
 goods mentioned in that receii)t ; and that if a 
 captain signed a bill of lading without produc- 
 tion and delivery to him of the mate's receipt 
 for the goods, he will be bound, on the pro- 
 duction of that receipt, to sign a fresh bill of 
 lading, and to deliver the same to the person 
 producing the mate's receipt, and that the gooils 
 mentioned in the receipt ought to be delivered 
 to the person who produced the second bill of 
 lading : — Held, that such a custom, if proved to 
 exist, would be inoperative as against the cap- 
 tain and the shipowners. HathcKinri v. Lainq, 
 43 L. J., Ch. 233 ; L. K. 17 Eq. 92 ; 29 L. T. 734 ; 
 2 Asp. M. C. 170. 
 
 Evidence of Quantity — Timber Cargo lost 
 Alongside.] — See Pijiiiaii v. Burt, 1 Cat). & E. 
 207, col. 322. 
 
 c. As to Quality, Q,nantity and Date of 
 Shipment. 
 
 Under 18 & 19 Vict. c. Ill, s. 3.]— This pro- 
 vision only applies to persons who have actually 
 signed bills of lading ; therefore, the owners of a 
 ship are not estopped from shewing that a state- 
 ment of weight contained in a bill of lading of 
 goods shipped, signed by the ship's agent, is 
 incorrect. .7e*.srZ v. Bath, 36 L. J., Ex. 149; 
 L. R. 2 Ex. 267 ; 1.5 W. E. 1041. 
 
 The above section does not make a bill of lading 
 conclusive evidence against the owner that the 
 goods were put on board. Meyer v. JJrex/<er, 16 
 C. B. (N.s.) 646 ; 33 L. J., C. P. 289 ; 10 L. T. 
 612 : 12 W. E. 983. 
 
 The statute operates where a bill of lading is 
 signed by the master, who is part owner, and 
 who sues on behalf of himself and his co-owners. 
 Ih. 
 
 Liability of Master.]— A flour company abroad 
 •shipped on board a vessel 1,676 bags of rye-meal, 
 some of which weighed twelve stone each, and 
 some eight stone each. They were shipped from 
 
 lighters, all mixed together, and the master knew 
 nothing of their relative capacity. The master 
 signedtwo bills of lading, one for 1,200 bags and 
 the other for 467 bags deliverable to order. The 
 latter bill of lading was for 467 bags rye-meal, 
 gross 3.5 tons 9 cwt., and at the foot of it was 
 '■contents unknown and not responsible for 
 weight." The bags were all marked alike, and 
 no means were taken to identify by marks in the 
 bills of lading any iiarticular bags, and there 
 was nothing on the face of the bills of lading 
 from which the master could see that they were 
 intended for different consignees. When the 
 ship arrived, the master, by mistake, delivered 
 to the consignee of the 467 bags of twelve stone 
 each, several bags which weighed only eight 
 stone : — Held, that the master was responsible 
 for the non-delivery of 467 bags of the proper 
 weight. Bradley v. Dunqyace, 1 H. & C. 521 ; 32 
 L. J., Ex. 22— Ex. Ch. 
 
 The master having been sued to judgment on 
 a bill of lading, the owner cannot be sued, 
 although the judgment is unsatisfied. Priestly 
 V. Fernlc, 3 H. & C. 977 ; 34 L. J., Ex. 172 ; 11 
 Jur. (N.s.) 813 ; 13 L. T. 208 ; 13 W. R. 1089. 
 
 Weights — Mistake and Misdescription as to.] 
 — In an action for freight, the master is at 
 liberty, notwithstanding the terms of the 18 & 19 
 Vict. c. Ill, s. 3 (the Bills of Lading Act), to 
 shew that the cargo actually received by him 
 differs in weight from that signed for in the bill 
 of lading ; at all events where the weight men- 
 tioned in the bill of lading is a mere matter of 
 measurement. Blanrhet v. PoweJVs Llantirit 
 Collieries Co., 43 L. J., Ex. .50 ; L. R. 9 Ex. 74 ; 
 30 L. T. 28 ; 22 W. R. 490 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 224. 
 
 Signature of Master not Conclusive.] — 
 
 Bills of lading signed by the master are primi 
 facie evidence that the quantities named therein 
 were received on board by him ; the onus of 
 rebutting this presumption, and of shewing that 
 a less quantity than that specified was received, 
 lies on the shipowner. M'Lean v. Flemiiiy, 
 L. R. 2 H. L. Sc. 128 ; 25 L. T. 317 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 160. 
 
 A shipowner is not estopped by the signature 
 of the bill of lading by the master from shewing 
 that the goods or some of them were never 
 actually put on board. Brmvn v. Potvell Dufryii 
 Steam Coal Co., 44 L. J., C. P. 289 ; L. R. 10 C. P. 
 562 ; 32 L. T. 621 ; 23 W. R. 549 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 578. 
 
 By a charterparty for the conveyance of a 
 cargo of coal from Cardiff to Buenos Ayres, it 
 was stipulated that the master should "sign bills 
 of lading for the cargo put on Ijoard as presented 
 to him by the charterers, without prejudice to the 
 terms of the charterparty." On arrival at the 
 port of discharge, it was fountl that the coal 
 delivered to theconsignees was less by thirty-two 
 tons than the quantity mentioned in the bills of 
 lading, and the owners were called upon to pay, 
 and paid, the difference of value to the con- 
 signees. In an action by the owners against the 
 charterers to recover the amount so paid : — Held, 
 that, inasmuch as the owners were luider no legal 
 liability, either at common law or under the Bills 
 of Lad'ing Act, to pay for such deficiency, the 
 action was not maintainable. 1 h. 
 
 In an aqtion by consignees against a ship- 
 owner for the loss of one out of several boxes of 
 machinery, which had been delivered on the 
 quay to the people of the ship and the receipt
 
 321 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 of which had been acknowledged by the sisna- 
 rures of the mate and captain on the bill of 
 lading : — Held, that the o^\'ner was responsible. 
 although there was no proof that the missing 
 box was ever on board the ship. JBritisk 
 Culuvihia and Vancouver Island Co.v.Kettli'sMp, 
 37 L. J., C. P. 2.3.5 : L. E. 3 C. P. 499 ; IS L. T. 
 291 ; 16 W. R. 1046. 
 
 "Weight, Value and Contents Unknown" — 
 Effect of Words.] — "When, on a closed package 
 being shipped for can-iage, a bill of lading, 
 containing an innocent misdescription of its 
 contents, is presented to the master of the ship, 
 and he, without asking questions or examination, 
 stamps thereon " weight, value and contents 
 unknown," there is a contract to carry the pack- 
 age whatever its contents may be. Lebeau v. 
 General Steam Xaviqation Co., 42 L. J., C. P. 1 ; 
 L. R. 8 C. P. 88 : 27 L. T. 447 ; 21 W. R. 146 ; 
 1 Asp. M. C. 435. 
 
 The plaintiffs delivered to the defendants, for 
 carriage on board their ship, a closed case con- 
 taining silk goods. The bill of lading, as ten- 
 dered by the plaintiffs for signature, described 
 the contents of the case as linen goods ; but 
 Vjefore signing it the cajitain impressed upon it 
 with a stamp the words " weight, value and 
 contents unknown." The freight charged for 
 silk was higher than that for linen goods, and 
 the freight paid for the goods so dehvered was 
 that for linen goods ; but the plaintiffs repre- 
 sented the goods to be linen inadvertently, and 
 without fraudulent intention. On the ship's 
 arrival at her destination it was found that two 
 pieces of silk had been abstracted from the case. 
 In an action by the plaintiffs against the defen- 
 dants as common carriers for non-delivery of 
 the silk goods so lost : — Held, that the addition 
 of the words " weight, value and contents 
 unknown " to the bill of lading completely did 
 away with the effect of the description of the 
 goods as linen, and that consequently the con- 
 tract was to carry the case and its contents, 
 whatever they might be ; and the plaintiffs were 
 entitled to maintain the action. Ih. 
 
 The master of a Russian ship received on board 
 goods under a bill of lading in the ordinary 
 form : — " Shipped in good order and condition, 
 to be delivered in the like good order and con- 
 dition at the port of London;" certain perils 
 Ijeing excepted ; and in the margin were the 
 words, " Weight, contents and value unknown." 
 The ship arrived and the goods were delivenii, 
 Init a great numVjer of them were tound to be 
 damaged both externally and internally, and 
 the damage was recent, and not traceable to any 
 inherent vice in them : — Held, that in the absence 
 of proof on the part of the shipowners that tlie 
 gowis were in a bad condition when shipped, it 
 was not incumbent on the consignees, in order 
 to establish their case to prove where or liow the 
 goods Ijecame damaged. The Peter dcr (rronse, 
 34 L. T. 749 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 195— C. A. Afhnning 
 1 P. D. 414. 
 
 Held, also, that the bill of lading afforded 
 evidence tliat externally, and so far as met the 
 eye, the goods hafl been shipped in good order 
 and condition. Ih. 
 
 A bill of lading for manganese shipped on 
 board stated the weight in writing, but contained 
 a jirintcd clause, " weights, contents and value 
 unknown " : — Semble, that the per.son signing 
 the bill of lathng would not be concluded from 
 showing that the written statement of weight 
 
 VOL. XIII. « 
 
 322 
 
 was erroneous. Je-isel v. Baf/i. 36 L. J., Ex. 149 • 
 L. R. 2 Ex. 267 ; 15 W. R. 1041. 
 
 A bill of lading, signed by a master since 
 deceased, for goods to be delivered to a consignee 
 or his assigns, he paying freight, is admissible as 
 evidence of the consignee having an insurable 
 iiiterest in the goods ; but if the master guards 
 his acknowledgment by saying, '• contends un- 
 known," so that he does not charge himself with 
 the receipt of any goods in particular, the bill of 
 lading alone is not evidence either of the quan- 
 tity of the goods or of property in the consisrnee. 
 Tladdow v. Parry, 3 Taunt. 303 ; 12 R. R. 666. 
 
 Whether conclusive as to Amount 
 
 Shipped.] — A charterparty provided that the bill 
 of lading should be conclusive evidence against 
 the owners of the quantity of cargo received. 
 The cargo (timber) was floated alongside the 
 vessel, and receipts by the mate were then given 
 for the same. Part of the cargo was lost by 
 perils of the sea before shipment. The loss was 
 notified by the master to the agent of the 
 charterer, but, at the latter's request, the master 
 was induced to sign bills of lading for the whole 
 quantity received alongside : — Held, that the 
 charterer had no claim against the shipowners 
 in respect of tlie difference between the amount 
 of cargo received alongside, and the amount 
 shipped on board. Pyman v. Burt, 1 Cab. k. E. 
 207. 
 
 The defendants chartered the plaintiff's ship 
 for the carriage of a cargo of timber from Memel. 
 The charterparty provided that the ship should 
 there load from the agents of the said affrcighters 
 as customary a full cargo of fir sleepers, that 
 the cargo should be brought to and taken from 
 alongside the ship at merchants' risk and expense, 
 and that the bill of lading should be conclusive 
 evidence against the owners of the quantity of 
 cargo received as stated therein. Tliere was a 
 custom at Jlemel, which, however, did not a|)ply 
 to charterparties in the form of the above- 
 mentioned charterparty, that the captain should 
 take delivery of the timber to be shipped at 
 timber ponds up the river at some dislance froni 
 the ship, the timber being then rafted down by 
 fishermen to the sliip, but being at the ship- 
 owner's risk during the process. The captain of 
 the i)laintiff 's shij), on her arrival at Memel, not 
 being aware of tlie provisions of the charter- 
 party, allowed tlie mate to give receipts for the 
 cargo at flic timber ponds. Part of the timber 
 incluiled in such receii>ts was lost during the 
 process of rafting the timber down to the ship, 
 owing to the force of tlie current. The captain, 
 having become aware of sucii loss and of the 
 provisions of the charterparty, staled to the 
 agent at Memel of tlic shippers, who had sold 
 the timber to the defendants, that he did not .see 
 his way to signing clean IjIIIs of l.-uling for the 
 full (|uantity mentioned in (lie mate's receipt, 
 a pr)rtion of tlie timber having been lost ; but, 
 on being fold by such agent and a clerk of the 
 ship's l>r()kers that he was bound to sign clean 
 bills of lading for the full quantity, he did so. 
 The bills of lading stated that such <iuantity was 
 shipped in good order and well conditioned to 
 be delivered on payment of freight and all other 
 conditions as per charterparty. In an action 
 for balance of chartered freight the defendants 
 countcrclaimed in respect of short delivery of 
 cargo : — Held, that the bills of lading estopped 
 the plaintiff from denying that the full amount 
 of cargo stated therein was shipped. Linhman v. 
 
 11
 
 B23 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 324 
 
 Christie, 56 L. J., Q. B. 538 ; 19 Q. B. D. 333 ; | 
 57 L. T. 552 ; 35 W. R. 744 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 186— 
 C. A. 
 
 The master by signing the bill of lading does 
 'not bind the owner for more goods than were 
 shipped. McLean v. Muncli, 5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 (3rd ser.) 893. 
 
 Quality Marks— Estoppel.] — A bill of lading 
 signed by the captain of a ship in respect of a 
 shipment of bales of jute contained the foUowing 
 provision: — "If quality marks are used, they 
 are to be of the same size as the leadipg marks 
 and contiguous thereto, and, if such quality 
 marks are inserted in the shipping notes and 
 the goods are accepted by the mate, bills of 
 lading in conformity therewith shall be signed 
 by the captain, and the ship shall be responsible 
 for the correct delivery of the goods." The bill 
 of lading described the bales as marked in pro- 
 portions" specified with different quality marks 
 indicating diiierent qualities of jute, which 
 marks corresponded with those inserted in the 
 shipping notes made out by the shippers. When 
 the ship was discharged, however, it was found 
 that there had in fact been shipped fewer bales 
 marked with one of such quality marks and 
 more marked with another of such marks indi- 
 cating an inferior quality than stated in the bill 
 of lading : — Held, that an indorsee of the bill of 
 lading for value without notice of the incorrect- 
 ness of the description of the marks therein, had 
 no right of action against the shipowners either 
 for breach of contract or upon the ground that 
 they were estopped by the representation con- 
 tained in the bill of lading. Grant v. Norway, 
 (10 C. B. G65), followed. Cox v. Bruce, 56 L. J., 
 Q. B. 121 ; 18 Q. B. D. 1-17 ; 57 L. T. 128; 35 
 W. E. 207 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 152— C. A. 
 
 "Quantity and Quality unknown" — Effect 
 
 of.] — A bill of lading stating that goods were 
 shipped in good order and condition, but also 
 containing an indorsement by the master, 
 '• quantity and quality unknown," does not admit, 
 as against the shipowners, that the goods were 
 shipped in good order and condition. The 
 Prospei-ino Palasso, 29 L. T. 622 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 158. 
 
 Evidence of the condition of goods on delivery 
 tending to shew that the damage sustained could 
 not be accounted for by any damage existing at 
 the time of shipment, and that such damage, 
 had it existed, must have been noticed by the 
 master or officer in charge of the ship at the 
 time of shipment, will not, where goods are 
 shipped under a bill of lading indorsed "quantity 
 and quality unknown," satisfy the onus cast 
 upon the plaintiff seeking to recover against 
 shipowners for damage to the goods. Positive 
 evidence of the condition of Ihe goods when 
 shipped must be given. Ih. See 7iext case. 
 
 A bill of lading, stating goods to have been 
 shipped in good order and condition, but indorsed 
 by the master with the words " quality and 
 quantity unknown," does not admit as against 
 the shi|)Owner that the goods were shipped in 
 good order and condition. The Ida, 32 L. T. 
 541 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 551 — P. C. See 2>recedi7ig 
 case. 
 
 There is no rule of law by which the consignee 
 of goods under a bill of lading, stating goods to 
 have been shipped in good order and condition, 
 but containing the words " quantity and quality 
 tmknown," is bound to show that the goods were 
 
 shipped in good order and condition, or fail in 
 his suit against the shipowner for damage done 
 to the cargo ; but failing proof of the conditioa 
 of the cargo when shipped, the consignee is 
 bound to show that the damage which it sustained 
 is traceable to causes for which the shipowner is- 
 responsible. Ibt 
 
 Amount of Freight Payable.] — A charter- 
 party under which a ship was chartered for a 
 grain cargo from the Danube to the United! 
 Kingdom, for freight " per imperial quarter 
 delivered," contained a provision that, in the 
 event of the cargo or any part being delivered in 
 a damaged or heated condition, the freight should 
 be payable on the invoice qviantity taken on, 
 board as per bill of lading, or half freight upon 
 the damaged or heated portion at the captain's 
 option. The bill of lading stated that 1,021 
 kilos were shipped on board ; but the master 
 added at the end of the bill of lading, before 
 signing it, the words " quantity and quality 
 unknown." The cargo having become heated 
 on the voyage, the master claimed to exercise his 
 option, and to be paid freight upon the invoice 
 quantity, as per bill of lading : — Held, that the 
 addition of the words, quantity and quality un- 
 known " to the bill of lading by the master did 
 not take away his right to be paid freight upoa 
 the invoice quantity in the bill of lading, and 
 that the object and effect of that memorandumi 
 were merely to protect the captain against any 
 mistake which might occur in the invoice 
 quantity in the bill of lading, in case of alleged 
 short delivery or deterioration not caused by his 
 default. Tiilly v. Tern/, 42 L. J., C. P. 240 ;. 
 L. II. 8 C. P, 679 ; 29 L. T. 36 ; 2 Asp. M. C, 
 51. 
 
 Liability of Joint Owner — Custom to Weigh.] — 
 
 Bark was shipped (green) at Penang, under a bill 
 of lading describing it to be of a certain weight, 
 and making it deliverable to the consignees in 
 London on payment of freight at a certain rate 
 per ton of 20 cwt. nett weight delivced. On 
 arrival in London, the agent appointed by the 
 managing owner demanded freight on the weight 
 mentioned in the bill of lading, and refused to 
 deliver the bark unless the consignees would pay 
 according to that weight, or (under an alleged 
 custom) incur the expense of weighing over the 
 ship's side or at a legal quay. The consignees- 
 paid the money under protest, and brought an 
 action against one of the joint owners to recover 
 back the excess. The jury having negatived the 
 alleged custom : — Held, that he was liable, not- 
 withstanding that he had not interfered or in any 
 way assented to the appointment of the agent 
 by the managing owner, and that no part of the 
 money had come to his hands. Coulthurst v. 
 Siceet, L. R. 1 C. P. 649. 
 
 Where Fraud.] — A bill of lading is not con- 
 clusive between the shippers of the goods and 
 the owners of the ship, but the owners may show 
 that less goods than specified in the bill of lading 
 were shipped, the master who signed the bill of 
 lading having been misled by the fraud of the 
 agent of the shippers. Bates v. Todd, 1 M. & 
 Rob. 106. 
 
 A bill of lading represented a larger number of 
 bales to have been shipped on board a vessel than 
 was really shipped. This arose from the mistake 
 of the mate, which, there was some evidence to- 
 show, was caused by the fraud of the person who-
 
 325 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill oj Lading. 
 
 put the bales on board. The latter was either 
 agent of the person named as shipper in the bill 
 of lading, or of his vendor : — Held, that there 
 was evidence that the misrepresentation was 
 caused wholly by the fraud of the shipper, or of 
 the holder, or some person imder whom the 
 holder claimed. Valieri v. Boyland, 35 L. J., 
 C. P. 215 ; L. R. 1 C. P. 382 ; 12 Jur. (N.s.) 566 ; 
 14 L. T. 362; U W. R. 637. 
 
 A capias is not grantable to hold the defendant 
 to bail in an action by the indorsee of a bill of 
 lading against the master of the ship for deceit 
 in the representation in the bill of lading, signed 
 by him, that the goods were " shipped in good 
 order and well conditioned." Gadsden v. 
 McLean, 9 C. B. 283. 
 
 Date of Shipment wrongly stated — Liability 
 of Master — Authority of Ship's Brokers.] — 
 Ship's brokers at a foreign port have not, as 
 such, authority to relieve the captain from the 
 duty of seeing to the accuracy of statements 
 contained in bills of lading which they present 
 to him for signature. Stumore v. Brcen, 56 
 L. J., Q. B. 401 ; 12 App. Cas. 698— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Short Delivery — Quantity stated in Bill of 
 Lading — Burden of Proof.] — See Jlor.sdcy v. 
 GriiHoiid, post, col. 556. 
 
 Cargo Signed for in Bags — Non-delivery of 
 
 ] — Shanhland v. Af/ii/<i, post, col. 556. 
 
 Sale of Cargo — Quantity stated in Bill of 
 Lading.] — See Cocas v. Jilnghuni, jwst, col. 
 547. 
 
 4. Exemptions from Liabiuty. 
 a. Seaworthiness, Warranty. 
 
 Not excluded.] — When special clauses in a bill 
 of lading c.xoiiciatc the shipowner from the lia- 
 bility of even the perils induced by the negligence 
 of his servants, it is necessary that the jury 
 should find whether the vessel was or was not 
 seaworthy when starting on the voyage. Steel v. 
 Stttte Line Steamifhip Co., 3 App. Cas. 72 ; 37 
 L. T. 333 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 516. 
 
 A cargo of wheat was shipped at the port of 
 New York for conveyance to Glasgow, and a 
 specially-worded bill of lading contained clauses 
 excepting " peril of the seas of whatever nature 
 or kind soever and howsoever cau.sed," including 
 negligence of the crew. On the voy.agc the sea 
 burst through an insufficiently-fastened port- 
 hole, damaging the cargo. A jury found by 
 special verdict that this port-hole had been in- 
 sufficiently fastened, but did not find whether 
 this hapjiened before starting on the voyage : — 
 Held, that there was an implied engagement to 
 supply a seaworthy shi[i. Ih. 
 
 Held, also, that the jury not having found 
 whether the vessel started on her voyage in a 
 seaworthy condition, there was no finding iijion 
 which judgment could be entered ; therefore the 
 case must be reheard. Ih. 
 
 There is in the bill of lading an engagement 
 that the ship shall be seaworthy. Ih. 
 
 Exceptions limiting Implied Warranty of Sea- 
 worthiness.] — A steamshiii which liad broken 
 her main shaft was salved by another steamship 
 belonging to the same line. The breakdown was 
 
 326 
 
 caused by a latent defect in the shaft without 
 negligence on the part of the owners or their 
 servants. In a salvage action brought by the 
 owners, masters, and crew of the salving ship 
 against the owners of cargo on board thesalved 
 ship : — Held, first, that the ship was unseaworthy 
 when she started on the voyage. Secondly, that 
 the implied warranty of seaworthiness in the 
 bill of lading was an absolute warranty that the 
 ship should be reasonably fit to perform the 
 voyage, and not merely that the shipowner would 
 do his best to make her so. Thirdly, that the 
 exceptions in the bill of lading, " all and every 
 the dangers and accidents of the seas, rivers, and 
 canal, and of navigation of whatever nature or 
 kind," had not the effect of limiting the warranty 
 of seaworthiness, but that such exceptions only 
 protected the shipowner from liability to the 
 owners of cargo for loss cr damage sustained by 
 the latter through "danger or accidents" happen- 
 ing to a seaworthy vessel. The Glenfrnln, 54 
 L. J.. P. 49 ; 10 P. D. 103 : 52 L. T. 769 ; 33 
 W. E. 826; 5 Asp. M. C. 413. 
 
 A steamship became disabled at sea owing to 
 the breaking of her fly-wheel shaft, through a 
 flaw in the welding existing at the commence- 
 ment of the voyage, but not discoverable by the 
 exercise of any reasonable care. The cargo on 
 board her was shipped under three bills of lading, 
 the first of which contained, amongst other ex- 
 cepted perils, the clause : — " warranted seaworthy 
 only so far as ordinary care can ])rovide " ; the 
 second : " warranted seaworthy only as far as 
 due care in the appointment or selection of 
 agents, superintendents, pilots, masters, officers, 
 engineers, and crew can lensure it " ; and the 
 third, " owners not to be liable for loss, deten- 
 tion, or damage ... if arising directly or in- 
 directly . . . from latent defects in boilers, 
 machinery, or any part of the vessel in which 
 steam is used, even existing at the time of ship- 
 ment, provided all reasonable means have been 
 taken to secure efiiciency." A vessel ibelonging 
 to the same ownei-s towed the disabled vessel to 
 a place of safety. In an action of salvage brought 
 by the owners, muster antl crew of the salving 
 ve-isel against the owners of cargo in the salved 
 vessel : — Held, that the owners of the cargo had 
 no remedy for breach of the contract of carriage, 
 for the exceptions in the bills of lading were 
 such as to constitute a limited warranty of sea- 
 worthiness at the cominencement of the voyage, 
 which limited warranty had been complied with 
 by the shipowners. Ldcrtcx, Carqo ex, 56 L. .]., 
 P. 108 ; 12 P. D. 187 ; 57 L. T. 502 ; 36 W. 11. 
 Ill ; 6 Asp. M. C. 174. 
 
 Cattle — Limit of Value— Unfitness of Ship.] — 
 Tiie ]ilainlill' >liipp((l mtuiii catth' on board tlio 
 defeudiiut's ship for carriage from London to New 
 York under a i)ill of lading which provided as 
 follows : — " Tiiese animals being in sole charge of 
 shipper's servants, it is hereby expressly agreed 
 that the shipowners, or their agents or servants, 
 are, asrespectstiicseanimals, in noway responsible 
 either for their escape from the steamer or for 
 accidents, disease, or mortality, and that under 
 no circumstancas shall they be held lial)le for 
 more than 5^ for each of the animals." The 
 ship had on her j)rcvious voyage carried cattle 
 suffering from foot and inoutli diseii.sc. Some of 
 the cattle shipped under the bill of lading were 
 during the voyage infected with that ciisease, 
 owing to the negligence of the defendants' 
 servants in not cleansing and disinfecting the 
 
 11—2
 
 327 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 328 
 
 ship before receiving the plaintifFs cattle ou 
 board and signing the bill of lading, and the 
 plaintiff iu consequence suffered damage amount- 
 ing to more than 'd. for each of the said cattle : 
 — -Held, that the in-ovision in the bill of lading 
 limiting liability to 5Z. for each of the cattle did 
 not apply to damage occasioned by the defen- 
 dants not providing a ship reasonably fit for the 
 purposes of the carriage of the cattle which they 
 had contracted to carry. Tattersall v. National 
 Steamslnp Co. 53 L. J., Q. B. 332 ; 12 Q. B. D. 
 297 ; 50 L. T, 299 ; 32 W. E. 566 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 206. 
 
 Special Appliances necessary — Ship of Pecu- 
 liar Construction— Stowage.] —The warranty of 
 seaworthiness iu a bill of lading is a warranty 
 that the ship is seaworthy at the time and reason- 
 ably likely to continue so during the voyage. If 
 special appliances are necessary for the preserva- 
 tion of the cargo by reason of the ship's peculiar 
 construction, the shipowner is liable to provide 
 them. The Marathon, 40 L. T. 163 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 75. 
 
 Implied Warranty that Ship is fit to carry 
 Cargo— Breakdown of Refrigerating Machinery.] 
 
 — Exceptions iu a bill of lading that a steamer 
 shall not be accountable for a breakdown of 
 machinery, nor for accidents to or defects in 
 machinery, nor for neglect of engineers, do not 
 abrogate the implied warranty that the vessel is 
 fit to carry the particular cargo iu accordance 
 with the contract contained in the bill of lading. 
 Such exceptions apply only to matters which 
 may occur during the voyage, and not to the 
 fitness of the vessel at the ti ^ae when the goods 
 were shipped. Under such a bill of lading the 
 ■owners of a cargo of frozen meat are entitled to 
 claim that there shall be refrigerating machinery 
 on board the ship fit to preservethe cargo during 
 the voyage, llaori Kinrj v. Jiuqhes, 65 L. J., 
 Q. B. 168 ; [1895] 2 Q. B. 550 ; 14 R. 646 ; 73 
 L. T. 141 ; 44 W. R. 2 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 65— C. A. 
 
 Charterparty — Warranty of Seaworthiness 
 in.] — See ante, XI. Chartekparty. 
 
 b. liiability to General Average. 
 
 Injury to Goods hy Water employed to extin- 
 guish Fire.] — When a bill of lading contained 
 an exception of " fire on board," and the goods 
 carried under it were injured in consequence of 
 the water used to extinguish a fire occurring 
 during the voyage: — Held, that the exception 
 did not exempt the shipowners from liability to 
 contribution in genei-al average towards the loss 
 sustained by the owner of the goods so injured. 
 Nor were they exempted by virtue of the Mer- 
 chant Shipping Act, 1854, s. 503. Schmidt v. 
 Royal Mail Steamship Co., 45 L. J., Q. B. 646 ; 4 
 Asp. M. C. 217, n. 
 
 The exception in the bill of lading and the 
 above section of the act had reference only to the 
 obligation on the contract to deliver the goods, 
 and did not take away the ordinary liability of 
 the shipowner to contribute in general average, 
 as owner, when a fixe had occurred and a sacrifice 
 had been properly made to save the whole adven- 
 ture, lb. 
 
 A bill of lading, by which the shipowner un- 
 dertook to deliver the goods at a port to a 
 railway company, to be by them carried inland 
 
 and delivered to the consignees, contained an 
 exception, "that the shipowner or railway com- 
 pany are not to be liable for any damage to any 
 goods which is capable of being covered by 
 insui-ance, or for auy claim, notice of which is 
 not given before the removal of the goods." On 
 the voyage a fire broke out, and the cargo was 
 damaged by the admission of water to extinguish 
 the fire. The ship put back, and the shipowners 
 delivered the cargo up, witliout taking security 
 from any of the cargo owners, or taking any 
 step for procuring an adjustment of general 
 average : — Held, following Schmidt v. Roi/al 
 3fail SteamshijJ Co. (45 L. J., Q. B. 646), that 
 the shipowners were not exempted from contri- 
 bution to general average by the clauses in the 
 bill of lading. Croohm v. Allan, 49 L. J., Q. B. 
 201 : 5 Q. B. D. 38 : 41 L. T. 800 ; 28 W. R. 304 ; 
 4 Asp. M. C. 216. 
 
 If a shipowner wishes to introduce into his 
 bill of lading so novel a clause as one exempting 
 him from general average contribution, he ought 
 not only to make it clear iu words, but also to 
 make it conspicuous by inserting it in such type 
 and in such a part of the document as that a 
 person of ordinary capacity ai;d care could not 
 fail to see it. /5.— Per Liish, .i. (5 Q. B. D.) at 
 p. 40. 
 
 c. Statutory Limitation. 
 
 Robbery.] — The owner of a ship was not liable 
 beyond the value of the ship and freight, under 
 7 Geo. 2. c. 15, s. 1, in case of a robbery, in which 
 one of the mariners was concerned, by giving 
 intelligence and afterwards sharing the spoil. 
 Siittoib V. Mitchell, 1 Term Rep. 18. "Sce 26 Geo. 3, 
 c. 86, s. 1, and 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 503. 
 
 Fire.]— The 26 Geo. 3, c. 86, s. 2, did not apply 
 to goods on board a lighter employed in carrying 
 goods from the shore to be loaded on board ship. 
 Morewood v. Polloh, 1 El. & Bl. 743 ; 1 C. L. R. 
 78 ; 22 L. J., Q. B. 250 ; 17 Jur. 881 ; 1 W. R. 304. 
 
 A gabbert (Anglice, a lighter) was not a ship, 
 or vessel, within 26 Geo. 3, c. 86, s. 2, and if 
 goods on freight were shipped on board such 
 vessel, and destroyed by fire accidentally or 
 through the negligence of the master, the owners 
 were not protected by that statute, but were re- 
 sponsible as at common law. Hunter v. i)/' Gown, 
 1 Bligh, 573 ; 20 R. R. 198. 
 
 Declaration of Value.] — A bill of lading, de- 
 scribing goods as " one box, containing about 
 248 ounces of gold dust," is not a declaration of 
 the ''true nature and value of such articles," 
 within the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, s. 503, 
 Williams v. African Steamshij) Co., 1 H. & N. 
 300 : 26 L. J., Ex. 69 ; 2 Jur. (N.s.) 693. ;' 
 
 Ou a shipment of a cargo from Valparaiso to 
 England, a biU of lading described the property 
 as " 1,338 hard dollars," which was a coin current 
 at Valparaiso at the time : — Held, that this was 
 a sufficient compliance with 26 Geo. 3, c. 86, s. 3, 
 it being the current coin of the place where the 
 shipment was made. GUIs v. Potter, 10 M. & W. 
 70 : 11 L. J., Ex. 376 ; 6 Jur. 586. A7id see 17 &. 
 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 503. 
 
 See also XX. COLLISION, Limitation op 
 Liability. 
 
 d. Perils of the Sea. 
 
 Collision.] — Collision is a peril of the sea, 
 semble. Martiii v. Crokett, 14 East, 465 ; 13 
 R. R. 281.
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 329 
 
 Collision caused by Negligence.] — ^n excep- 
 tion of " accidents or damage of the seas, rivers, 
 and steam navigation of whatever nature or kind 
 soever," does not exempt a .shipowner from 
 responsibility for loss of goods by reason of a 
 collision caused by the gross negligence of the 
 master or crew. 'ZIoi/d v. General Iron Screio 
 Collier Co., 3 H. & C'. 284 ; 33 L. J., Ex. 269 ; 
 10 Jut. (n.s.) 661 ; 10 L. T. 586 ; 12 W. R. 
 882. 
 
 A collision between two vessels brought about 
 by the negligence of either of them, without the 
 waves or "wind or difficulty of navigation con- 
 tributing to the accident, is not " peril of the 
 sea" within the term of that exception in a bill 
 of lading. Woodley v. Mlclu-U, .52 L. J., Q. B. 
 325 ; 11 Q. B. D. -17 ; 48 L. T. 599 ; 31 W. E. 
 651 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 71— C. A. 
 
 Goods were shipped on board a vessel, which 
 was called the " Black Prince," under a bill of 
 lading which contained an exception of barratry 
 of the master and mariners, and accidents or 
 damage of the seas. In the course of the voyage 
 the " Black Prince," meeting a vessel called the 
 " Araxes" under circumstances which rendered it 
 the duty of the " Black Prince " to port her helm, 
 neglected to do so, and the result was that the 
 " Black Prince," with the goods on board, was run 
 down and totally lost :— Held, that the conduct 
 of the master, though a wilful default by the 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, s. 299, did not 
 amount to barratry, nor was the loss a loss by 
 accidents or damage of the seas within the 
 exception. Grill v. General Iron Screw Collier 
 Co., 35 L. J., C. P. 321 ; L. R. 1 C. P. 600 ; 12 
 Jur. (N.s.) 727 ; 14 W. B. 893. Affirmed, 37 
 L. J., C. P. 205 : L. R. 3 C. P. 476 ; 18 L. T. 
 485 ; 16 W, R. 796— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Question for Jury.] — The judge left it 
 
 to the jury to say whether the collision was 
 caused by the negligence of the crew, and 
 whether there was any want of ordinary care 
 on the part of the "Araxes" by the exercise of 
 which the collision might have been avoided : — 
 Held, a proper direction, and that he was not 
 bound to leave it to them to say whether the 
 persons in charge of the "Araxes " might not have 
 mitigated the calamity by stopping or backing 
 when they found a collision inevitable. Ih. 
 
 Where no Fault of either Ship.] — Goods 
 
 were laden on board a ship, the bill of lading 
 containing an exception of the perils of the 
 sea ; the ship ran foul of another ship without 
 any fault in the master of cither : — Held, to be 
 an injury by the perils of the sea within the 
 exception. Butler v. Fisher, Peake's Add. Cas. 
 183 ; 4 R. R. 902. 
 
 Foundering caused by collision with another 
 vessel is within the exception " dangers and 
 accidents of the sea" in a bill of latling ; ami 
 excuses the shipowner for non-delivery of the 
 goods if it occurs without fault in the carrying 
 ship. Woudlry v. Mirhrll (11 Q. B. D. 47) 
 overruled. Wilson v. The Xa/itho, 56 L. J., 
 Adm. 116 ; 12 App. Ca.s. 503 ; 57 L. T. 701 ; 36 
 W. E. 353 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 207—11. L. (E.) 
 
 Carrying awpy of Tackle— Amount of Care 
 necessary — Discharging.] — A vessel laii'ii with 
 gooils arrived in the [lort of London, and was 
 taken into the Commercial Dock to discharge her 
 cargo. For this purpose she was fastened by 
 tackle, on the one side to a loaded lighter lying 
 
 330 
 
 outside her, and on the other to a barge lying 
 between her and the wharf. The crew was 
 discharged, except the mate, and lumpers were 
 being employed in unloading her, when the 
 tackle broke whereby she was fastened to the 
 lighter, and in consequence she canted over, 
 water got in through her ports, and the goods 
 still on board were damaged: — Held, that this 
 was a loss within the exception in the biU of 
 lading of " all and every the dangers and acci- 
 dents of the seas and navigation." Laurie v. 
 Douglas, 15M. &;W. 74G. 
 
 Held, also in an action by the freighters 
 against the shipowners to recover damages for 
 this loss), that the jury was properly directed, 
 that the owners were only bound to take the 
 same care of the goods as a person would of his- 
 own goods, that is, an ordinary and a reasonable 
 care. lb. 
 
 Barratry of Crew.] — A shipowner carrying 
 goods under a bill of lading, by which he con- 
 tracts to deliver in good order and condition, 
 certain perils excepted, is bound to deliver in 
 that condition, unless prevented by those perils, 
 and is responsible for any damage to goods 
 occasioned otherwise than by those perils. The 
 Chasca. 44 L. J., Adm. 17 ; L. R. 4 A. & E. 446 ; 
 32 L. T. 838 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 600. 
 
 Injury to cargo damaged by sea water during 
 a voyage, in consequence of the barratrous act of 
 the crew in boring holes through the sides of the 
 ship for the purpose of scuttling her, is not a loss 
 by perils of the seas, within the meaning of the 
 exception in a bill of lading, such as will exempt 
 the shipowner from his liability for the damage 
 under his contract to deliver in good order and 
 condition. li. 
 
 Even if such a loss would come within the 
 meaning of the words, " perils of the seas," in a 
 policy of insurance, it is not included in those 
 words as used in a bill of lading. lb. 
 
 Stowage — Due Ventilation.] — A cause of dam- 
 age to cargo, instituted under 24 Vict. c. 10, s. 6, 
 by the consignees, who were also assignees of 
 the bills of lading to recover damages on account 
 of breaches of contract and duty with rcsjicct to 
 certain parcels of oilcake, which in the bills of 
 lading were agreed to be delivered in the like 
 good "order and condition as when shipped, the 
 dangers of the seas only excepted. The oik-akc, 
 wlien delivered, was in a greatly damaged and 
 deteriorated condition. occasioned by the packing 
 and stowage : — Held, that as the proximate cause 
 of danger arose from the nature and collocation 
 of the cargo, consisting of animal, vegetable, and 
 to some extent putresciblc matter, and the waiU 
 of due ventilation, it was not brought within the 
 legal exception of "dangers of the seas." The 
 Freedom, L. R. 3 P. C. 594 ; 24 L. T. 452 ; 1 
 As)). M. C. 136— P. C. 
 
 Held, also, that it was enough for the con- 
 signees to have established that the shipowners 
 had not performed their contract, since they liad 
 failed to produce .sufficient evidence of due pro- 
 vision for ventiliition of the .ship's hold, so as to 
 throw the onus on the consignees of proving that 
 the damage might have been prevented by 
 reasonable care and skill on the part of the 
 shipowners. lb. 
 
 Insufficient Fastening of Port.] — A ship 
 sailed from America for Scotland with a cargo 
 of wheat, and in the bill of lading perils of the
 
 331 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 332 
 
 sea, however caused, were excepted. During 
 the Yoy.ige the wheat was daniage<l by sea water. 
 In an "action by the indorsees of the bill of lading 
 against the o^Tiers, the jury found that the water 
 obtained access to the cargo in consequence of 
 one of the ports being insufficiently fastened, 
 and on this finding the court of session entered 
 a verdict for the shipowners, on the ground 
 that the loss was covered by the exception in 
 the bill of lading : — Held, that, as in order to 
 bring the loss within the exception it must be 
 found that the ship sailed from the port in a 
 seaworthy state, and the jury had not done so, a 
 new trial must be had. Steel v. State Line 
 ^eamsliip Co., 3 App. Cas. 72; 37 L. T. 333; 
 3 Asp. M. C. 516. 
 
 Loss by Perils during Deviation.] — The plain- 
 tiffs having purchased goods to be shipped from 
 a foreign port on the terms that payment of 
 the price was to be made in exchange for 
 shipping documents, the biU of lading signed 
 upon the shipment of the goods was, upon 
 pajTnent of the price, indorsed to them. The 
 bill of lading, which contained the usual excep- 
 tion of sea perils, stated that the goods were 
 shipped for delivery at Dunkirk on board a 
 vessel lying at Fiume and bound for Dunkirk, 
 ■with liberty to call at any ports in any order. 
 The ship, instead of proceeding direct for 
 Dunkirk, sailed for Glasgow, and was lost, with 
 lier cargo, off the mouth of the Clyde, by perils 
 of the sea. In an action brought by the plaintiffs 
 against the shipowners for non-delivery of the 
 goods, evidence was given to show that the 
 shippers of the goods, at the time when the bill 
 of lading was given, knew that the vessel was 
 intended to proceed via Glasgow : — -Held, that 
 such evidence was not admissible to vary the 
 terms of the bill of lading, which imported a 
 voyage direct from Fiume to Dunkirk, subject 
 to the liberty to call at any ports of call sub- 
 stantially within the course of such voyage ; 
 that Glasgow, being altogether out of the course 
 of such voyage, was not such a port ; and that 
 the vessel was therefore lost while deviating 
 from the voyage contracted for, and the excepted 
 perils clause did not exonerate the defendants 
 from liability in respect of non-dehvery of the 
 goods. LeduG v. Ward, 57 L. J., Q. B. 379 ; 
 20 Q. B. D. 475 ; 58 L. T. 908 ; 36 W. K. 537 ; 
 6 Asp. M. G. 290— C. A. 
 
 Piracy.] — Piracy is a peril of the sea within 
 the meaning of those words in a bill of lading. 
 Barton v. Wolliford, Comb. 50. Picltering v. 
 Sarelay, 2 Eoll. Abr. 248. 
 
 Danger of War — Foreign Contract.] — The 
 
 master of a Nortli German vessel, under a North 
 German charterparty, gave a bill of lading for 
 goods shipped on board his vessel, in South 
 America, as part of a general cargo to be delivered 
 in North Germany to English consignees. The 
 English language, money and weight were used 
 in the bill of lading, which contained the pro- 
 viso, "the dangers of the sea only excepted." 
 The master of the vessel, on her arrival at Fal- 
 mouth, refused to proceed on account of the out- 
 break of war between France and Germany : — 
 Held, that, whether the contract was governed 
 by English, general maritime, or North German 
 law, the master was bound to proceed, as the bill 
 of lading was precise in its terms, and contem- 
 plating the happening of certain events, exempted 
 
 him in onlv one event. The Patrla, 41 L. J., Adm- 
 23 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 436 ; 24 L. T. 849. 
 
 Confiscation.] — To an action by a shipper of 
 goods under a bill of lading for carrying goods 
 to be shipped on board a ship lying at Gibraltar, 
 and bound for London, calling at Cadiz, from 
 Gibraltar to London, " the act of God, aU and 
 every other dangers and accidents of the seas, 
 rivers and navigation, of what nature and kind 
 soever excepted," a plea, that the ship, in the 
 course of her voyage to London, called at Cadiz, 
 and that the goods were within the jurisdiction 
 of the officers of customs of Cadiz, and within 
 the jurisdiction of a court held at Cadiz, and that 
 tlie goods were, by the authorities having juris- 
 diction in that behalf, and according to the law 
 of Spain, lawfully taken out of the ship and 
 detained, without the default of the shipowner, 
 on a charge which was duly preferred in the 
 court ; and, by a decree of the court, made 
 according to the law of Spain, were confiscated : 
 — Held, that the loss was not within any of the 
 exceptions in the bill of lading, but was occa- 
 sioned by inevitable necessity, against which the 
 shipowner ought to have provided by his con- 
 tract ; and that the plea afforded no answer, 
 inasmuch as it did not allege any wrongful act 
 or default by the shipper, or knowledge by him 
 that the goods were contraband at Cadiz, nor 
 that they were taken to Cadiz by his desire. 
 Sjwnce V. Chadivieh, 10 Q. B. 517 ; 10 L. J., Q. B. 
 313 ; 11 Jur. 872. 
 
 Risk of Boats.] — Goods were shipped in Lon- 
 don, to be conveyed to Jamaica. The goods 
 were then sent on shore, according to the custom 
 of tlie West India trade, in a shallop belonging 
 to the ship, and lost by perils of the sea. The 
 clause of exception in the bill of lading was in 
 the following terms : " The act of God, and all 
 and every other dangers and accidents of the 
 seas, rivers and navigations, of whatever nature 
 and kind soever, save risk of boats, so far as ships 
 are liable thereto, excepted" : — Held, that, the 
 shipowner was not liable for such loss under the 
 bill of lading as the saving clause only extended 
 to the same risk as if the goods had been on 
 board the ship. Jolniston v. Benson, 4 Moore, 
 90 ; 1 Br. & B. 454. 
 
 Detention by Bottomry Suit.] — The non- 
 delivery of goods occasioned by a suit instituted 
 in the admiralty court on a bottomry bond, was 
 not an exception, within the meaning of " perils 
 of the seas," in the bill of lading. Benson v. Bun- 
 can, 3 Ex. 644 ; 18 L. J., Ex. 169 ; 14 Jur, 218. 
 
 Burden of Proof of Loss by.] — Action for non- 
 delivery of goods shipped under bill of lading ; 
 the burden of proof of loss by perils of the sea is 
 on the defendant. Becliford v. Clerke, 1 Keb. 
 830. See also The Xantho, post, col. 553. 
 
 Timber Cargo — Loss by Perils of Sea wMlst 
 alongside.] — See Pyman v. Burt, ante, col. 275. 
 
 "Accidents of the Seas " — Damage caused by 
 Heating — Ventilators closed.] — -A cargo of maize 
 and oats shipped on the defendants' steamship 
 was damaged by heat proceeding from the bulk- 
 heads enclosing the engine and boiler space, 
 which was unable to escape owing to the neces- 
 sary closing of the ventilators for a period of 
 seven days during a storm of exceptional severity
 
 333 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 334 
 
 and duration : — Held, that the loss was occa- 
 sioned by '• accidents of the seas." The Thruns- 
 coe, 66 L. J., Adm. 172 ; [1897J P. 301 ; 77 L. T. 
 407. 
 
 Perils caused by Negligence of Crew.] — See 
 infi-a, e. Negligen'Ce or Fault of Mastee 
 AND Ckew. 
 
 Charterparty — Exception of Perils of Sea, in.] 
 
 See XI. CUAETEEPARTY. 
 
 e. Negrlig-ence or Fault of Master and Crew. 
 
 Generally.] — When a bill of lading exempted 
 a shipowner from liability for the negligence of 
 his master and crew, and a suit was instituted 
 for damages to the cargo sustained in conse- 
 quence of their negligence: — Held, that the 
 shipowner was not liable for the damage. Tlie 
 Duero, 38 L. J., Adm. 69 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 393 ; 
 22 L. T. 37. 
 
 Collision between two Ships belonging to 
 same Owner.] — The plaintilis shipped goods 
 on board the defendants' vessel, the '• Crown 
 Prince," under a bill of lading, which contained 
 exceptions of, among other things, "collision," 
 and •' accidents, loss, or damage from any act, 
 neglect, or default whatsoever of the pilots, 
 master, or mariners, or other servants of the 
 company in navigating the ship." In the course 
 of the voyage the " Crowa Prince " came into 
 collision with another vessel of the defendants, 
 the " Atjeh." The plaintiffs' goods were in 
 consequence lost. The collision was due to 
 negligence, for which the "Atjeh" was mainly 
 in fault; but the "Crown Prince" also was in 
 some degree to blame : — Held, that the defcn- 
 fendants had not committed a breach of the 
 ■contract created by the bill of lading, and that 
 no action could be maintained against them on 
 the ground of failure to perform the undertaking 
 therein contained to carry the goods safely upon 
 the voyage. Per Brett, L.J. : No stipulation 
 on the part of the defendants could be im])licil 
 as to the conduct of those on board the "Atjeh," 
 anfl although the negligence of the "Atjeh" 
 was not within the exceptions, nevertheless it 
 was not within the contract created by the bill 
 of lading. Per Baggallay and Lindley, L.J J. : 
 The exception "collision," althougli it did not 
 ■cover the negligence of the " Ciown Prince," 
 covered the negligence of the "Atjeh," and the 
 <lefendants were ex[)ressly relieved from liability 
 for the negligence of the " Crown Prince " by 
 the other exceptions in the bill of lading. 
 Chartered Mcrrantile Hank of India v. Nrlher- 
 landit India Steam j\'avif/ation Co., Tj2 L. J.. 
 •Q. B. 220 ; 10 Q. B. D. Ml ; 48 L. T. ',46 ; 31 
 W. R. 44»; 5 Asp. M, C. 6.j ; 47 J. P. 260— 
 €. A. 
 
 Held, further, that the defen<lants were liable 
 in tort for the negligence of tiiose engaged in 
 navi<:ating the "Atjeli," but that the amount 
 payable \>y the defendants must be liiniteil to 
 one-half of the loss sustained by tiie plainlifis, 
 pursuant to the supreme court of judicature 
 Act, 1873, s. 2.-J, sub-a. 9. lb. 
 
 Damage by Seawater through Uncased Pipe 
 — Seaworthiness.] — A cargo was shipped on a 
 vessel under a bill of lafHng which contained an 
 exemption from liability in respect of defaults 
 of master and crew in the navigation in the 
 
 ordinary course of the voyage. The pipe of a 
 water closet which had been left uncased at 
 the sailing of the vessel was broken dm-ing the 
 voyage by the pressure on it of the cargo ; sea 
 water was in consequence admitted, to the 
 damage of the cargo. It was found as a fact 
 that it was usual to case such a pipe before a 
 ship was loaded, and that after loading the pipe 
 was not accessible without the removal of some 
 part of the cargo : — Held, in an action by the 
 indorsers of the bill of lading against the ship- 
 owners to recover damages for tlie injury to the 
 cargo upon the above facts, that the ship was 
 not seaworthy when it started on the voyage, 
 and that therefore the exception in the bill of 
 lading did not protect the shipowners from 
 liabilitv. Steel v. State Line Steamship Co. (3 
 App. Cas. 72), followed. aUroy v. Price, [1893] 
 A. C. m ; 1 R. 76 ; 68 L. T. 302 ; 7 Asp.,"M. C. 
 314— H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 "Management" of the Ship — Stevedore's 
 Negligence.] — A bill of lading exonerated the 
 shipowners from liability for damage to the 
 cargo shipped " from any act, neglect or default 
 of the pilot, master or mariners in the naviga- 
 tion or management of the ship." The goods 
 were damaged by the negligence of the stevedore 
 in stowing the cargo : — Held, that the defen- 
 dants were liable, as a stevedore was not included 
 in the clause, and improper stowage did not fall 
 within the words, " management of the ship." 
 ThcFerro, 62 L. J., Adm. 48 ; [1803] P. 38 ; 1 R. 
 .562 ; 68 L. T. 418 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 309. 
 
 Thieves — Theft by Servants of Shipowners.] 
 
 — The list of exceptions in a bill of lading con- 
 tained the words " thieves of whatever kind, 
 whether on board or not, or by land or sea " : — 
 Held, that these words did not protect the ship- 
 owner from liability for thefts committed by 
 persons in the service of the ship, and, therefore, 
 that he was responsible for a theft committed 
 by stevedore's men employed to store the cargo, 
 the stevedore, though a{)pointcd bj' the charterer, 
 being paid by and in the service of the ship- 
 owner. Steinman v. Angier Line, 60 L. J., Q. B. 
 42.-) ; [1891] 1 Q. B. 619 ; 64 L.T. 613 ; 39 W. R. 
 392 ; 7 Asp. 11. C. 46 — C. A. And see canes 
 infra, col. 341. 
 
 Perils of Sea occasioned by Master's Negli- 
 gence — Insufficient Dunnage.] — A cargo of 
 grain, shipped on board the " C," was, in tlic 
 course of the vcjyage, damaged by sea-water, 
 wliich cntereil the vessel's hold through a rivet- 
 hole at the foot of one of the stanchions sup- 
 porting the main rail, the rivet liaviiig become 
 loose (jwiii.i,' to the working of the ship (lining 
 Ijad weather. The bill of lading uiKler which 
 the cargo was shippcil contained tlie following 
 exceptions : "Perils of the sea — collisions, strand- 
 ing, and otlier accidents of navigation excepted, 
 even when occa.sioned bj' the negligence, de- 
 fault or error of judgment of tlie pilot, master, 
 mariners, or other servants of tlie shiijowners." 
 After discovering the leakage, the master neg- 
 lected to take proper measures to prevent its 
 continuance : — Held, that the shipowners were 
 piotected by tlie exceptions in the bill of lading 
 from liability for the damage consequent on the 
 master's neglect to take proper measures to stop 
 the leak. The Cressinfjton., 60 L. J., Adm. 2.5 ; 
 [1891] P. 152 ; 64 L. T. 329 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 27. 
 And see cases supra, d. Pekils ov tue .Sea.
 
 335 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 33G 
 
 "Accidents of Navigation."] — AVhilst the 
 defendant's stoaniship was lying at her moorings 
 loading the ]ihiintiffs' cargo of grain, under 
 chartcrparty and bill of lading in the ordinary 
 form, the circulating piimp delivery valve in the 
 side of the ship was reasonably and properly 
 opened by the defendants' engineer, but was 
 negligently and improperly left open, whereby a 
 quantity of sea water entered the ship and 
 damaged the plaintiff's cargo. To prevent the 
 vessel foundering at her moorings, where the 
 water was deep, the master had her towed into 
 shallower water, where she settled on the ground, 
 and the water was subsequently pumped out. 
 For the loss so sustained the plaintiffs sued the 
 defendants : — Held, that the defendants were 
 not liable, as the negligence clause applied to 
 "dangers and accidents of the sea or other 
 waters," as well as to " accidents of navigation," 
 and the words " unless stranded, sunk or burnt," 
 constituted a condition preventing liability 
 attaching to the shipowner for the damage 
 occasioned by the valve being improperly open. 
 Semble, that the defendants were also protected 
 because the damage resulting from the incursion 
 of water into the ship — caused by the use of the 
 valve, whilst she had cargo in her, though she 
 was still at her moorings and not in motion — 
 was an " accident of navigation " within the 
 meaning of the exception in the first part of the 
 clause in question. The Soiitligate, [1893] P. 
 329. 
 
 Act, Neglect or Default "in the Navigation" 
 of the Ship.] — Goods were shipped under a 
 chartcrparty, in which one of the excepted 
 perils was " any act, neglect or default whatso- 
 ever of master or ci-ew in the navigation of the 
 ship and in the ordinary course of the voyage." 
 After the ship had arrived at the docks at the 
 port of discharge, and the discharge had pro- 
 ceeded for some days, the chief engineer, with 
 a view of stiffening the ship so as to allow the 
 discharge to be continued, negligently opened 
 the sea-valve for the purpose of filling the 
 ballast tanks. The ballast-filling pipe had pre- 
 viously been disconnected by the workmen of 
 contractors employed to do repairs in the ship, 
 and in consequence the sea water, instead of 
 passing through the pipe into the ballast tanks, 
 escaped and damaged the goods : — Held, that the 
 damage was not due to an excepted peril, for the 
 negligence of the chief engineer was not negli- 
 gence " in the navigation " of the ship. Laurie 
 v. Douglas (ante, col. 330), considered. The 
 Accomac, .^9 L. J.. Adm. 91 ; 15 P. D. 208 ; 
 63 L. T. 737; 39 W. R. 133 ; 6 Asp., M. C. 
 579 — C. A. And see The Carron Parh, supra, 
 col. 278. 
 
 Negligence in Navigating Ship "or other- 
 wise ■' — Damage from Eain or Contact with 
 other Goods.] — Cotton-seed cake was shipped 
 and carried in the defendants' ship under a 
 bill of lading of which the plaintiffs were 
 indorsees. The exceptions in the bill of lading 
 were " the act of God," &c., negligence or 
 default of pilot, master mariners, engineers, or 
 other persons in the service of the ship, whether 
 in navigating the ship "or otherwise." and 
 exempted the shipowner from loss or damage 
 to cargo from rain and from contact with other 
 goods. The plaintiffs' goods were loaded in the 
 bold of the ship at the port of G. It became 
 necessary to complete the loading outside a bar 
 
 in the outer roads, and the ship, with the cotton 
 seed cake on board, proceeded there and 
 anchored. Cotton bales not the plaintiffs' were 
 then brought alongside in lighters and loaded, 
 and the cotton seed cake was damaged either by 
 rain water or by wet bales of cotton being 
 placed upon it : — Held, that under the bill of 
 lading the defendants, the shipowners, were 
 exempted from liability for damage by rain or 
 contact with other goods, after the goods had 
 been shipped, whether the ship had started on 
 her voyage or not ; and that the words " whether 
 in navigating the ship or otherwise" absolved 
 the defendants from liability to damage whether 
 in negligently navigating the ship, or in negli- 
 gently bringing about those other losses or 
 damages from which they had exempted them- 
 selves in the bill of lading. Noi-viaii v. Bin- 
 nin/jtoti, 59 L. J., Q. B. 490 ; 25 Q. B. D. 475 ; 
 63 L. T. 108 ; 38 W. E. 702 ; 6 Asp. M, C, 
 528. 
 
 Damage by Leakage, &c. — Negligence — 
 Verdict of Jury.] — A bill of lading provided 
 that the shipowner should not be liable for 
 damage by leakage, lighterage, corruption, torn 
 wrappers, &c. The jury found that the cargo, 
 sugar, was damaged by leakage, but there was 
 no proof of the cause : — Held, that the verdict 
 was a verdict in favour of the shipowner. Moes 
 V. Leith and Aberdeen Shipping Co., 5 Ct. of 
 Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 988. 
 
 Barratry of Crew.] — See The Cresnngton, 
 supra, col. 334. Taylor v. Liverpool and Great 
 Western Steamship) Co., infra, col. 341. 
 
 Negligent Stowage.] — Bags of sugar shipped 
 by the plaintiffs were carried in the defendants' 
 steamship from H. to L. at an agreed freight. 
 The vessel was chartered for the voyage by P. & 
 K., who signed the bill of lading as agents. It 
 contained a clause that the owners of the ship 
 should not be liable for the default of the pilot, 
 master, or mariners in navigating the ship, and a 
 further clause that the captain, officers and crew 
 in the transmission of the goods should be con- 
 sidered the servants of the shipper, owner, or 
 consignee. The sugar was negligently stowed 
 under oxide of zinc and was consequently^ dam- 
 aged. It did not appear how the sugar came to 
 be shipped, nor with whom the plaintiff's made 
 the contract of carriage : — Held, that the defen- 
 dants were liable to compensate the plaintiffs 
 for the damage done to the sugar ; for either the 
 defendants had contracted to carry the sugar 
 upon the terms set out in the bill of lading, 
 which did not relieve them from responsibility 
 for negligent stowage ; or if they had not con- 
 tracted with the plaintiffs, they were liable for 
 misfeasance, that is, for stowing the goods in 
 such a manner as to come into contact with a 
 mischievous substance. Hayn v. CulUford, 48 
 L. J., C. P. 372 ; 4 C. P. D. 182 ; 40 L. T. 
 536 ; 27 "W. R. 541 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 128— C. A. 
 
 Negligence Clause — Shipment by 'Wharfinger 
 — Adoption of Contract by Goods Owner.] — A. 
 
 purchased goods from B. to be sent from London 
 to Dublin by sea. B. employed C, a wharfinger, 
 to ship the goods on the defendant's vessel. C. 
 shipped the goods upon the terms that the defen- 
 dants were not to be liable for negligence of 
 officers or crew. It was not proved that B. knew 
 that the goods were shipped upon these terms.
 
 337 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 338 
 
 The goods were lost by negligence of officers and 
 crew. A. bad paid B. for the goods, not knowing 
 the tei-ms of shipment : — Held, that A. could net 
 recover against the defendants for loss of the 
 goods ; the condition being valid and knowledge 
 of B. immaterial. Alexaiulcr v. Malcolnison, 
 Ir. Eep. 2 C. L. 621. 
 
 Negligence of Carpenter — Unseaworthiness.] 
 — Owing to the negligence of a carpenter em- 
 ployed by the shipowners to see that a ship started 
 on her voyage in a seaworthy condition, the 
 ship started on her voyage in an nnseaworthy 
 condition, and her cargo was damaged in conse- 
 quence of her unseaworthiness. The bill of lading 
 exempted the shipowners from liability for 
 damage resulting from faults or errors in navi- 
 gation, or in management of the ship provided 
 due diligence had been exercised by her owners 
 to make her seaworthy : — Held, that the owners 
 were hable for the negligence of the carpenter, 
 and that it was no answer for them to prove that 
 they personally had not been guilty of negli- 
 gence, and in selecting him had used due dili- 
 gence to secure a fit and efficient servant. Dohdl 
 v. S. S. Rossmore Co., 6i L. J.. Q. B. 777 ; [1895] 
 2 Q. B. 408 ; 14 R. 558 ; 73 L. T. 74 ; 44 W. E. 
 37 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 83— C. A. 
 
 Negligence of Stevedore.] — A clause in a bill 
 of hiding exempting the shipowner from liability 
 " for any consequences, or any accident of navi- 
 gation, or for any act, negligence, default or 
 error in judgment of the pilot, master, mariners 
 or other servants of the shii)Owners, in navi- 
 gating the ship or otherwise," covers an injury to 
 the cargo resulting from careless stowage by a 
 stevedore employed by the shipowner. Jiaemcl- 
 man v. Bailey, 64 L. J., Q. B. 707 ; [1895] 2 Q. B. 
 301 ; 14 R. 481 ; 72 L. T. 677 ; 43 W. R. 593 ; 8 
 Asp. M. C. 4— C. A. 
 
 "Ship Damage" — East India Company's 
 Charter.] — Freighters of ships under charter- 
 parties with the East India Co. : — Held, not 
 answerable for damage or loss occasioned by the 
 act of CJod. " Ship damage " in those charter- 
 parties meaning damage from negligence, in- 
 sufficient or bad stowage. Ilotham v. East India 
 Co. (1 Dougl. 272) disapproved. Thompsun v. 
 Brovon, 7 Taunt. 656. 
 
 Burden of Proof— Sweating of Cargo— Negli- 
 gence.] — x\. bill of lading of julc cxciptcd ''act 
 of God, perils of the sea, fire, &c.," and con- 
 tinued — "'but nothing herein contained shall 
 exempt the sliipowuer from liability to pay for 
 damage to cargo occasioned by bad stowage, by 
 improper or insufficient dunnage or ventilation, 
 or by improper opening of valves, sluices and 
 porta, or by causes other than those above 
 excepted." . . . "The ship to be liable for 
 . . . sweat" : — Held, that the sliipowner was 
 not liable for damage to cargo by sweat, unless it 
 was proved that the sweat arose from fault of the 
 ship. Muen v. Leith and Aberdmii Sliippi>i{l Co. 
 (supra) followed. Ilomeley v. Jia.cter Brutherg, 
 20 Ct. of Sess. Caa. (4th ser.) 333. 
 
 Loss by excepted Peril, but preventable — 
 Negligence.] — Sec Laurie v. Duinjia-i, ante, col. 
 330. 
 
 Incorporation of Harter Act — " Management" 
 of Ship.] — During the discharge of a cargo of 
 
 oil-cake, carried under a bill of lading which 
 incorporated the provisions of the Harter Act, 
 water was admitted into one of the water-ballast 
 tanks of the vessel in order to stiffen her, but 
 owing to straining during exceptionally heavy 
 weather on the voyage, a sounding-pipe com- 
 municating with the tank had been broken, and 
 the water forcing its way up the sounding-pipe, 
 escaped into the hold, and damaged the cargo. 
 The fact that the sounding-pipe was broken 
 might have been ascertained by means of the 
 sounding-rod before the water was admitted to 
 the tank, but the engineer had negligently omitted 
 to use the sounding-rod or to take any measures 
 to inform himself of the condition of the sound- 
 ing-pipe : — Held, that the damage was caused by 
 negligence in the '• management " of the ship 
 within the meaning of s. 3 of the Harter Act, 
 and that the shipowner was not liable. The 
 Glenochil, 65 L. J., Adm. 1 ; [1896] P. 10 ; 73 
 L. T. 416 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 219. 
 
 Charterparty — Exception of Negligence in.] — 
 See ante, XI. Charterparty. 
 
 Notice — Limitation of Liability by — Negli- 
 gence.] — See Ecans v. Sjide, ante, col. 74. 
 
 f. Other Exceptions. 
 
 King's Enemies.] — A bill of lading for goods 
 shipticd in a Russian port, on board a Mecklcn- 
 burgh ship, for a port in this country, contained 
 an exception of the king's enemies : — Held, that 
 " the king's enemies " meant, or at all events 
 included, the enemies of the sovereign of the per- 
 son who made the bill of lading, viz., the Duke of 
 Jlecklenburgh ; and, conse([Ucntly, that the excep- 
 tion protected the captain against the conse- 
 quences of a hpstilc seizure by the Danes, then at 
 war with Mecklenburgh. Bu.ssell v. yicmann. 1 7 
 C. B. (N.s.) 103 ; 34 L. J., C. P. 10 ; 10 L. T. 780 ; 
 13 W. R. 93. 
 
 By a bill of lading the goods were made 
 deliverable to order or assigns, " paying freight 
 for the goods, and all other conditions as 
 per charterparty " : — Held, that this did not 
 incorporate an exception in the charteri)arty as 
 to '"acts of enemies"' and "restraints of princes." 
 Ih. 
 
 Acts of Princes.] — The acts or restraints of 
 princes and rulers provided against in a bill of 
 lading refer to the forcible interference of a state 
 [ or the government of a country taking possession 
 of the goods manu fcrti, and do not extend to 
 legal proceedings in foreign courts, nor, in an 
 action founded on contract, can the act of any 
 court of law, or judicial tribunal, deciding that 
 the siiipowners should hold possession of tlie 
 goods to the order of the true owner, relieve 
 them from performing tlieir contract, such act 
 or decision not liaving been expressly excepted 
 against in the bill of lading. Finlay v. Lirrr- 
 pool and Great Western Steamship Co., 23 I.. T. 
 251. 
 
 Contraband of War — Reasonable Fear of 
 Seizure — Cargo discharged short of Destina- 
 tion —Justification. ] — The exception — rest raint 
 f)f princ<'s— in a hill of hiding under which the 
 owner of a general ship contracts to carry goods 
 contraband of war, entitles him upon war being 
 declared to break his contract, although executed 
 and not merely executory, and discharge the
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 339 
 
 goods before reaching the port of destination, 
 without any direct or specific act of interference 
 by sovereign authority. Nobrr.s' E.vplosivcx Co. 
 w. Jenhins, 65 L. J., Q. B. (;3S ; [IS'JB] 2 Q. B. 
 526 ; 75 L. T. 163 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 181. 
 
 An exception — that in case of blockade or 
 interdict of the port of discharge, or if the 
 •entering of or discharging in the port be con- 
 sidered by the master unsafe by reason of war 
 disturbances, he may laml the goods at the 
 nearest safe and convenient port at the expense 
 ■of the owners — operates as soon as the captain. 
 having a reasonable and well-grounded fear of 
 seizure, considers the limit of safety has been 
 reached, and justifies him in landing goods con- 
 traband of war at a port neither near nor 
 ■convenient to the port of destination. Ih. 
 
 Goods confiscated for Breach of Spanish 
 Revenue Laws.] — Where the exceptions in the 
 bill of lading were " the act of God, the queen's 
 enemies, lire and dangers of the seas, rivers and 
 ■navigation (save risk of boats)" the shipowner 
 was held liable for non-delivery of goods shipped 
 for Spain and there confiscated for breach of 
 Spanish revenue laws. Spenee v. Chadwich, 10 
 Q. B. 517 ; 16 L. J., Q. B. 313. 
 
 Sust, Leakage, or Breakage.] — The clause in 
 a bill of lading by which the shipowner is "not 
 iiccountable for rust, leakage or breakage," is 
 limited to the rust, leakage or breakage of the 
 goods themselves, and does not protect the ship- 
 owner from liability for damage done to other 
 goods in consequence of such rust, leakage or 
 breakage. Thrift v. Youlc, 46 L. J., C. P. 402 ; 
 2 C. P. D. 432; 36 L. T. 114 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 357. 
 
 The defendants caused to be shipped on board 
 a vessel bales of palm-baskets and barrels of oil, 
 under a bill of lading containing the clause, 
 '' Not accountable for rust, leakage or breakage." 
 During the voyage some of the oil escaped from 
 the barrels, and damaged the palm-baskets : — 
 Held, that the clause in the bill of lading 
 exempting the plaintiff from responsibility for 
 leakage, did not extend to damage caused by 
 the oil which had escaped from the barrels, and 
 that the plaintiff was liable to compensate the 
 defendants for the injury done to the palm- 
 baskets. Ih. 
 
 Where Gross Negligence.] — A stipula- 
 tion in a bill of lading, that the shipowner is 
 "not to be accountable for leakage or break- 
 age," does not exempt him from responsibility for 
 a, loss by these means, arising from the gross 
 ne"-lio-ence of himself and his servants. Fldl- 
 Ups V. ClarU, 2 C. B. (n.s.) 156 ; 26 L. J., C. P. 
 168 ; 3 Jur. (N.s.) 467 ; 5 W. R. 582. S. C, 5 Jur. 
 <N.S.) 1081. And see Cralri v. Ddar/jy, col. 343. 
 
 A bill of lading containing the following 
 memorandum : "Weights, measurement and con- 
 tents unknown, and not accountable for leakage," 
 protects the shipowner as to all leakage, whether 
 •ordinary or extraordinary, except that caused by 
 neo-lio-ence. Ohrloff v. 'Brifrall, 4 Moore, P. C. 
 (N.s.) 70 ; 35 L. J.. P. C. 63 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 231 ; 
 12 Jur. (N.s.) 675 ; 14 L. T. 873 ; 15 W. R. 202. 
 S. a, nom. The Hclene, Br. & Lush. 429. 
 
 A bill of lading of forty -seven casks of oil con- 
 tained a memorandum in the margin, " not 
 accountable for leakage." The casks of oil were, 
 at the desire of the charterers, stowed in the same 
 hold with rags and wool (being part of the cargo), 
 
 340 
 
 w'nereby tlie casks became heated and leaked : — 
 Held, that the condition that theshipownershould 
 not be accountable for leakage was not limited to 
 the quantity of leakage, and that such memoran- 
 dum protected the shipowner as to all leakage, 
 unless caused by the negligence of the shipowner, 
 and that ignorance that casks so packed would 
 become heated and leak did not amount to negli- 
 gence. Ih. 
 
 A bill of lading for a quantity of sugar con- 
 tained a memorandum in the margin that the 
 shipowner was "not liable for leakage." The 
 sugar, in consequence of improper stowage, was 
 damaged during the voyage by the drainage from 
 other sugar stowed above, which caused it to 
 heat : — Held, that this was not damage by leak- 
 age within the meaning of the memorandum. 
 The lYepofer. 38 L. J., Adm. 63 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 
 375 ; 22 L. T. 177 ; 18 W. R. 49. 
 
 Onus of Proof.] — Goods were shipped on board 
 a steamer under a bill of lading which contained 
 an exception from liability for breakage, leakage 
 or damage. The goods were found at the end of 
 the voyage to be injured by oil. It was proved 
 that there was no oil in the cargo, but that there 
 were two donkey engines on deck, near the place 
 where the goods were stowed, in lubricating 
 which oil was used ; there was no direct evidence 
 of how the injury to the goods occurred : — Held, 
 that the exception did not protect the shipowners 
 from liability for damage accruing through the 
 negligence of their servants, but that it did shift 
 the onus of proof, and that it was incumbent 
 upon the shipper to prove affirmatively the 
 negligence of the shipowners' servants. C'zeeh v. 
 General Steam. Navigation Co., 37 L. J., C. P. 3 ; 
 L. R. 3 C. P. 14 ; 17 L. T. 246 ; 16 W. R. 130. 
 And see The Niirway, infra. 
 
 Held, also that the above facts were evidence 
 upon which a jury was justified in finding the 
 existence of negligence. Ih. 
 
 In an action upon such a bill of lading to 
 recover damages for loss by leakage of any 
 kind, the burthen of proof is on the plaintiff to 
 show that the leakage was caused by negligence. 
 The Helene, Ohrloff v. Briscall, supra. 
 
 Damage hy Rats.] — Under a bill of lading, 
 whereby the shipowner undertakes to deliver 
 goods •• in good order, and well conditioned (the 
 act of God, the Queen's enemies, fire, all and 
 every other dangers and accidents of the seas, 
 rivers and navigation, of whatsoever nature or 
 kind soever excepted)," he is lial^le for damage 
 done to the goods on board his ship by rats, 
 though he has taken every precaution against 
 them. Kay v. Wheeler, 36 L. J., G. P. 180 ; 
 L. R. 2 C. P. 302 ; 16 L. T. 66 ; 15 W. R. 495— 
 Ex. Ch. S. P., Laveroni v. Drury, 8 Ex. 166 ; 
 22 L. J., Ex. 2 ; 16 Jur. 1024 ; 1 W. R. 55. 
 
 By Stranding.] — In an action upon a bill of 
 lading against the shipowner for loss of part of 
 cargo alleged to have been jettisoned and sold in 
 consequence of the ship stranding, the plaintiff 
 is not entitled to recover, unless he proves affir- 
 matively that the stranding was occasioned 
 by the 'negligent navigation of the ship. The 
 Norway, B'r. & Lush. 404 ; 3 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 
 245 ; 13 W. R. 1085. 
 
 «< Thieves."] — A box of diamonds was shipped 
 at Liverpool, on board a ship for Xew York, 
 under a bill of lading by which were excepted
 
 341 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 342 
 
 " pirates, robbers, thieves, vermin, barratry of 
 master and mariners . . ." The box was stolen 
 tluring the voyage or on the ship's arrival in 
 port, before the time for delivery ; but there was 
 no evidence to show whether it was stolen by one 
 of the crew or by a passenger, or, after her 
 arrival, by some person from the shore : — Held, 
 ■first, that " thieves " must be interpreted as in a 
 policy of insurance, and only applied to thieves 
 external to the ship. Taiilor v. Liverpool and 
 Great Wester )i SteamMp Co., 43 I/. J.. Q. B. 205 ; 
 L. 11. y Q. B. 546 ; 30 L. T. 714 : 22 W. R. 752 ; 
 2 Asp. M. C. 275. And see Steinman v. Joigier 
 Line, supra, col. 334. 
 
 Held, secondly assuming theft by one of the 
 crew to be barratry, that it lay on the shipowners 
 to bring the loss within one of the exceptions, by 
 showing by whom the theft had been committed ; 
 and that the shippers of the diamonds were there- 
 fore entitled to recover for the loss. Ih. 
 
 A company received at Panama goods to be 
 delivered in London, '■ the act of God, the queen's 
 enemies, pirates, robbers, fire, accidents from 
 machinery, boilers and steam, the dangers of the 
 seas, roads and rivers, of what nature or kind 
 soever excepted." The goods were carried by the 
 company across the isthmus of Panama to Chagres, 
 where they were shipped to Southampton, and 
 there ydaced in a railwaj' truck, whence they were 
 secretly stolen in the course of their transit to 
 London : — Held, that this was not within the 
 exception a loss by robbers, or by dangers of the 
 roads, since the word "robbers" meant, not 
 ^' thieves," but robbere by violence ; and " dangers 
 of the roads " meant dangers of marine roads ; or 
 if of land roads, such dangers as are immediately 
 caused by roads, as tlie overturning of carriages 
 in rough and precijjitous i)laces. Be Roth-schild 
 V. Jloifnl Mail Steam Packet Co.. 7 Ex. 734 ; 21 
 L. J.," Ex. 273. 
 
 Suffocation of Animals — Loss arising from 
 "Want of Ballast.]— A bill of lading of cattle to be 
 carried from Rotterdam to London contained an 
 exemption in the following terms: '-JSliip free 
 in case of mortality, and from all damages arising 
 from act of God, the queen's enemies, fire, 
 accidents from machinerj% or boiler, steam, or 
 other dangers of the seas, rivers, roadsteatls, or 
 steam navigation whatsoever. The owners of 
 the vessel will not be liable for the loss of or 
 injury done to any horses, cattle, or other animals, 
 except as to 50Z. for horses, and I'd. \)(iv head 
 of neat cattle, and 21. per head as to shcc]), 
 j)igs and dogs. 1'he owners will not l>e liable 
 for any loss arising from suffocation or otlier 
 cause occurring to horses, dogs, cattle, or otlier 
 animals ; or from kicking, plunging or vicious- 
 ncs-s of the same in transit, nor for any damagi; 
 nrising from shipiiing or landing. or while in tlie 
 j)Osscssion of tlie owners or their agents before 
 or after the voyage, from wliatevcr cause tiiey 
 may remain in such possession." Several of the 
 cattle were suffocated and killed from the vessel 
 overturning, it having been sent to sea without 
 j)roper ballast. Tlie injury having been occa- 
 sioned by the negligence of the owners of the 
 vessel :— Held, that the owner of tiie cattle was 
 entitled to recover notwithstanding tlie i;xcep- 
 tion in the bill of lading. Leinn v. JJudqeon, 37 
 L. J., C. P. 5, n. ; L. R. 3 C. P. 17, n. ; 17 L. T. 
 )45; K; W. R. 81). 
 
 "Damage" — Construction — Does not include 
 
 Theft.] — A bill of lading contained a clause : 
 
 " The shipowner is not to be liable for any damage 
 to any goods which is capable of being covered 
 by insurance " : — Held, that " damage " would 
 include damage to the goods amounting to a 
 total loss or destruction of them, but did not 
 apply to the case of the abstraction of the goods. 
 Taylor v. Liverpool and Great Western Steam- 
 ship Co., supra. 
 
 Fruit Cargo — "Act of God Clause "—Shipped 
 "Wet.]— A bill of lading provided that freight 
 should be payable as follows : " One-third in 
 cash on arrival, and the remaining two-thirds 
 on right delivery of cargo, less value of cargo 
 short delivered or damaged (if any) not covered 
 by the preceding ' act of God' clause." The cargo 
 was shipped wet, but in other respects in sound 
 condition, and the master signed bills of lading 
 describing it as shipped " in good order and well 
 conditioned." On arrival the cargo, which had 
 been carried in the hold, was found, owing to the 
 wet condition in which it had been shipped, to be 
 damaged by sweating. This damage was not 
 covered by the " act of God " clause : — Held, that 
 the consignee was only entitled to make a deduc- 
 tion from the freight where the cargo was 
 delivered in a damaged condition consequent 
 upon a breach of contract by the shipowner. 
 The Barcore, 65 L. J., Adm. O/; [1896] P. 21)4 ; 
 75 L. T. 168 : 8 Asp. M. 0. 189. 
 
 "Inherent Deterioration" — Fault of 
 
 Shipowner.] — By charter])arty the ship had 
 liberty before loading fruit to load other cargo. 
 By agreement between the master and the char- 
 ter agent at the shipping port the fruit was 
 loaded first and discharged last. Bills of lading 
 for the fruit were signed, and expressed that the 
 fruit was shipped " in good order and well con- 
 ditioned," and were to be so ilelivercd, except for 
 '• inherent deterioration." The fruit was delivered 
 damaged, by reason, as alleged, of its being in the 
 hold longer than if it had been shipped after the 
 otlier cargo : — Held, that the shipowner was 
 liable. Lindsay v. Schojield, 24 Ct. of Sess. Gas. 
 (4th scr.) 530. 
 
 Liberty to tow 'Vessels — Liability to Goods 
 Owner for Delay.] — Tiie plaintiff, a cattle dealer, 
 siiipjied cattle on a steamer Jilying from Belfast 
 to Fleetwiwd. The ticket delivered to the i)lain- 
 tiff contained a clause giving liberty to tow ami 
 assist vessels. The steamer fell in v/ith a vessel 
 in distress, wiiich she towed to Carrickfcrgus ; 
 after which slie returned to Belfast anil sailed 
 again for Fleetwood where she arrivi'd some hours 
 after her usual time, wliercl)y the plaiiitilT (;ould 
 not send his cattle to the i'air. Carrickfcrgus 
 was the nearest safi; port for her to take the dis- 
 tressed ship to; and owing to the state of the tide 
 at Fleetwood, slie was not delayed in fact by her 
 return to and slay at ]?clfast : — Held, tliat tiie 
 shiiiowner was not liable for the loss of market 
 for the cattle. Brainy. Henderson, 11 Ir. C. L. R. 
 497. 
 
 Loss by Excepted Peril, but Preventable — 
 Absence of Negligence. ] — Where the damage was 
 caiiM'd hyoiH' of I lie excepted perils, but it would 
 not have ha|ipcni'd if the hIiI)) iiad been more 
 securely moored whilst unloading, it was held 
 that the shijiowner was not liable to the cargo 
 owner it he had exercised onlinary and reasonaVjle 
 care. Laurie v. Boiu/las, 15 INI. A: W. 716. And 
 nee e. Neglioknck or Fault of Master and 
 Crkw, supra.
 
 343 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 344 
 
 Leakage — Liability of Shipowner — Bill of 
 Lading Act. 1855, s. 1.] — The purchasers of an 
 oil cargo n';'civcJ from the shipper's agent the 
 bill ofladiiig stating that SGt) casks had been 
 '■shipped ii\ good order and well conditioned" ; 
 the m;\sterhad added in writing, "not responsible 
 for weight, quality, breakage or leakage." The 
 shippers guaranteed against leakage above 1 per 
 cent. ' About fifteen tons of oil were lost on the 
 voyage by leakage of bad casks. The purchaser, at 
 the shipper's suggestion, sued the shipowners for 
 non-delivery according to bill of lading : — Held, 
 that the purchaser had no higher right than the 
 shipper, whose fault caused the loss. Held, also, 
 I hat the shipowners were not liable upon the bill 
 of lading for leakage not proved to have been 
 caused by their fault. Craif) v. Delargy, 6 Ct. of 
 Sess. Cas" (4th ser.) 1269. And see cases, col. 339. 
 
 Excepted Perils — Loss during the Loading of 
 Cargo at Ship's Eisk.] — See JVottedohn v. Riclder, 
 infra, col. 506. 
 
 Conflict between Specific and General Exemp- 
 tions.] — See Uouston v. Sanslnena, supra, col. 
 309. 
 
 Damage by Excepted Perils — Duty of Master 
 to Minimise.] — iSce Adam v. Morris, post, col. 
 521. 
 
 Damage by "Sweat."] — See Ilorscley v. Baxter 
 Brothers, supraj col. 337. 
 
 Act of God.] — See Nugent v. Smith, supra, 
 col. 75. 
 
 5. iNDOESEMENT, ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER. 
 a. Generally. 
 
 Delivery or Indorsement.] — A bill of lading is 
 the usual document entered into upon a contract 
 for the carriage and delivery of goods by sea for 
 freight. Licliharrow v. Mason, 4 Bro. P. C. 57 ; 
 1 H. Bl. 360 ; 5 Term Rep. 683 ; 6 Term Eep. 131 ; 
 1 E. K. 425. 
 
 There is no distinction between a bill of lading 
 indorsed in blank and an indorsement to a par- 
 ticular person. li. 
 
 A bill of lading is not a necessary instrument 
 in the transfer of property of goods consigned to 
 the owner. Meyer v. Sharye, 5 Taunt. 74 ; 2 
 Rose, 124. 
 
 The property in a cargo, for which the master 
 has signed bills of lading, may be transferred by 
 delivery, without indorsement of the bill of 
 lading. And the transfer will be good against 
 all the world, except subsequent indorsees of the 
 bill of ladingfor a valuable consideration. Nutha.'i 
 V. Giles, 5 Taunt. 558 ; 1 Marsh. 226 ; 15 It. E. 
 581. 
 
 By Shipper.] — Bills of lading, made out to the 
 order of the shipper or his assigns, are negotiated 
 and transferred by the shipper's indorsement. 
 Ilaille V. Smith, 1 Bos. & P. 564. 
 
 Liability after Indorsement.]— Merchants in 
 
 London received from a mere stranger residing 
 abroad a bill of ladingof goods, in a letter request- 
 ing them to effect insurance ; they declined to 
 do the business for the consignor, but acting bona 
 fide with a view to his interest, indorsed the bill 
 of lading to a friend of his, who received the 
 
 goods, and afterwards failed witli the pi'oceeds in 
 his hands : — Held, that the merchants, by in- 
 dorsing the bill of lading, were liable to the 
 consignor for the amount, Corlctt v. Gordon, 3 
 Camp. 472 ; 14 E. E. 813. 
 
 Effect of 18 & 19 Vict. c. Ill, s. 11.]— Before this 
 enactment a bill of lading was not negotiable 
 like a bill of exchange, so as to enable an indorsee 
 to maintain an action upon it in his own name ; 
 the effect of the indorsement being only to 
 transfer the right of property in the goods, but 
 not the contract itself. Thompson v. Dominy, 14 
 M. & W. 403 ; 14 L. J., Ex. 320. S. P., Howard 
 V. Shepherd, 9 C. B. 297 ; 19 L. J., C. P. 249. 
 
 Under the above statute the rights and liabili- 
 ties of the consignee or indorsee of a bill of 
 lading pass from him by indorsement over to a 
 third person. Smurtlncaitc y. Wdhins,\\ C. B. 
 (N.s.) 842 ; 31 L. J., C. P. 214 ; 5 L. T. 842 ; 10 
 W. R. 386. S. a, 7 L. T. 65. 
 
 A bare assignee to whom the property in the 
 goods has not passed, and who cannot therefore 
 sue at common law, is not entitled to sue in the 
 admiralty court. The St. Cloud, Br. & Lush. 4 ; 
 8 L. T. 54. 
 
 By 18 & 19 Vict. c. Ill, s. 1, the consignee or 
 indorsee of goods named in a laill of lading, and 
 the indorsee of a bill of lading, to whom the 
 property in the goods mentioned shall have passed 
 by such indorsement, has transferred to and 
 vested in him all rights of suit, and he is subject 
 to the same liabilities, in respect of such goods, 
 as if the contract in the bill of lading had been 
 made with himself. The Freedom., L. E. 3 P. C. 
 594 ; 24 L. T. 452 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 136— P. C. 
 
 The right of suing upon a contract, under a 
 bill of lading, follows the property in the goods 
 therein specified ; that is, the legal title to the 
 goods as against the indorsee. 1 b. 
 
 In a suit for damage to cargo and for improper 
 delivery by the consignees, who were also 
 assignees of the bills of lading : — Held, that they 
 had a locus standi both as to negligence and 
 breach of contract. li. 
 
 To entitle the indorsee of a bill of lading to 
 have transferred to and vested in him a right of 
 suit under 18 & 19 Vict. c. Ill, the circumstances 
 under which a bill of lading shall have been 
 indorsed must be such that the property in the 
 goods shall have passed to the indorsee by reason 
 of the indorsement. Fox v. Nott, 6 H. & N, 
 637 ; 30 L. J., Ex. 259 ; 7 Jur. (N.S.) 663. 
 
 The plaintiff, who was the charterer, had taken 
 an assignment of the bill of lading upon the 
 terms that the freight should be paid : — Held, 
 that he had not lost his right against the shipper 
 for the freight. Ih. 
 
 The consignees named in a bill of lading are 
 entitled to sue in the admiralty court for negli- 
 gence in the carriage of the goods, or for a 
 breach of the contract contained in the bill of 
 lading, although the property in the goods has 
 not passed to the consignees. The NejJoter, 38 
 L. J.. Ad. 63 ; L. E. 2 A. & E. 375 ; 22 L. T, 177 ; 
 18 W. E. 49. 
 
 C, M. & Co. were in the habit of consigning 
 goods to the plaintiffs for sale, and the plaintiffs 
 from time to time accepted their bills and 
 accredited them with the proceeds of sale of the 
 goods. C, M. & Co. being at the time indebted 
 to the plaintiffs upon the account current between 
 them, consigned a cargo of sugar to the plaintiffs 
 which was delivered in a damaged state : — Held, 
 that as consignees of the cargo and creditors of
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 345 
 
 C, M. & Co., they were entitled to sue in the 
 admiralty court for damage by reason of negli- 
 gence or breach of duty. lb. 
 
 The indorsees of a bill of lading of a cargo 
 agreed to sell the cargo to B. & Co., but the 
 purchase-money had not been paid, nor had the 
 bill of lading been indorsed to B. & Co. In a suit 
 in the court of admiralty for breach of contract 
 for non-delivery of the cargo : — Held, that they 
 were entitled to sue in the court under 24 & 25 
 Vict. c. 10, s. G, when construed with the Bills of 
 Lading Act (IS & 19 Vict. c. 111). The Felix, 
 37 L. J., Adm. 48 ; L. E. 2 A. & E. 273 ; 18 L. T. 
 587 ; 17 W. K. 102. 
 
 The plaintiils were assignees for valuable con- 
 sideration of bills of lading for 1,000 barrels of 
 oil-cake shipped on board the " Figlia Maggiore," 
 at New York, and which the master had agreed 
 " to deliver in like good order and condition at 
 the port of London." The vessel was at the time 
 under a charterparty, of which the shippers were 
 ignorant, the master having put up the ship as a 
 general ship. The oil-cake was stowed with hogs- 
 heads of tobacco, oaken staves being placed 
 between them. A suit having been brought by 
 the assignees of thebillsof lading against theship- 
 owner for damage suffered by the oil-cake on the 
 voyage : — Held, that as the vessel had been put 
 up as a general ship, and as they had no know- 
 ledge of the charterparty, the owner was the 
 proper person to be sued. The Figlia JLif/(jioTC, 
 37 L. J., Adm. 52 ; L. E. 2 A. & E. lOG ; 18 L. T. 
 532. 
 
 Held, also, that the property in the oil-cake had 
 so vested in them as to entitle them to sue for 
 breach of contract under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 10, s. 10, 
 construed with s. 1 of 18 & 19 Vict. c. Ill, and 
 that, in any case, they were entitled to sue under 
 the former section on the ground of negligence, 
 and that the onus of proving negligence lay on 
 them. lb. 
 
 The rights and liabilities which the assignee of 
 a bill of lading under 18 & 19 Vict. c. Ill, s. 1, 
 has transferred to him, arc the same rights and 
 liabilities in respect of such goods as if the con- 
 tract contained in the bill of lading had been 
 made with him. In these are not included the 
 right and liaVjilities as between the shipper and 
 the master dehors that contract in respect of 
 other goods or of the charterparty. The Jfelcrw, 
 Br. & Lush. 415. S. <7., nom. Ohrloffy. Bruoall, 
 4 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 70 ; 35 L. J., P. C. G3 ; L. U. 
 1 P. C. 231 ; 12 Jur. (N.S.) G75 ; 14 L. T. 873 ; 
 15 W. 11. 202. 
 
 Danger of War— Refusal of Master to deliver.] 
 — The ni:i-.t<T of a North Gerinau vessel under a 
 North German charterparty gave a bill of lading 
 for goods shipped on board his vessel in South 
 America as part of a general cargo to bedeUvcrcd 
 in North Germany to English consignees. The 
 master of the vessel, on her arrival al F.-dmoulh, 
 refused to proceed on account of tlie outbreak of 
 war between France and Germany. The goods 
 were stowed at the bottom of the hold under 
 those of the other shippers, and as the charterers 
 refused to consent to the unloading of the cargo 
 at Falmouth, the master would not deliver to the 
 consignees there, even on the offer of full freight : 
 — Held, that the master was bound to deliver at 
 Falmouth. The Patri.a, 41 L. J., Adm. 23 ; L. II. 
 3 A. & E. 436 ; 24 L. T. 849. 
 
 Consideration.] — The property of goods passes 
 by the imlorsement and delivery of the bill of 
 
 346 
 
 lading by the consignee to another, if bona fide 
 for a valuable consideration, and without collu- 
 sion, although the indorsee knew at the time 
 that the consignor had not received money pay- 
 ment for his goods, but had taken the consignee's 
 acceptances payable at a future day not then 
 arrived ; and after such assignment of the bill of 
 lading the consignor cannot stop the goods in 
 transitu upon the insolvency of the original con- ■ 
 signee. Cuming v. Brown,Si East, 506 ; 1 Camp.' 
 104 ; 9 R. K. 603. 
 
 The forbearance or release of a pre-existing 
 claim is not a sufficient consideration for the 
 indorsement of a bill of lading so as to defeat an , 
 unpaid vendor's right of stoppage in transitu. 
 Itodiier V. Comptoir d'E.icoiiiptc de Paris, 5 
 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 538 : 38 L. J., P. C. 30 ; L. E. 
 2 P. C. 393 ; 21 L. T. 33 ; 17 W. E. 468. 
 
 L. & Co., merchants carrying on business at 
 Hong Kong, purchased goods of a merchant in 
 Manchester, to be shipped to their firm at Hong 
 Kong, to be paid for at certain credit. The goods 
 were shipped deliverable to the order of L. & Co., 
 and bills of lading signed. Before the goods 
 arrived at Hong Kong, L. & Co. being insolvent, 
 and being indebted to R. & Co., the agent of 
 L. & Co., at Hong Kong, agreed to assign to 
 R. & Co. all the estate of L. k, Co., including the 
 bills of lading in respect of the goods, and such 
 bills of lading were in pursuance of the agree- 
 ment indorsed (o E. k. Co. At the time the bills 
 of lading were so transferred, no money was 
 advanced or benefit conferred on L. & Co. by 
 K. &; Co. : — Hold, that there was no sitfficient 
 transfer of the bills of lading for a valuable 
 consideration so as to defeat the right of an 
 unpaid vendor to stop the goods in transitu. lb. 
 
 A., a merchant in London and in Hong Kong, 
 purchased goods for sliipmcnt from B., and paid 
 for them by his acceptance of B.'s draft against 
 the shipment on the terms that A. should send 
 them to his firm at Hong Kong, and that the 
 proceeds should be remitted to A. in bills specially 
 to meet such acceptance. A.'s firm at Hong 
 Kong owed a large sum to C, and were under 
 engagement to secure the debt by depositing 
 shipping documents with him. Being threatened 
 by C. with immediate legal proceedings, tliey 
 promised him that if he would forbear to take 
 such proceedings, and would release them from 
 their obligation to deposit shipping documents, 
 they would deposit with him a bill of lading for 
 goods of a certain value, upon the understanding 
 that the bill of lading, or the godds represented 
 therein, sliould be returned to them uiKui ])ay- 
 meiit of a sum ecjuivalent to the value thereof. 
 The bill of lading of the goods purchased from 
 B. was accordingly imlorscd to C, who had no 
 knowledge of the terms made wi(li B., and it 
 was returned by C. according to agreement, on 
 rec(;ipt of an cfpiivalent sum : — Held, that C.,by 
 sucli furbeanuice and rclea-se, gave valuable con- 
 sideration ; that the legal interest in the goods 
 l>assed by the indorsement of the bill of lading, 
 and that B. could not enforce his claim against 
 the proceeds of sale received by C. in respect 
 thereof. Chartered Bank of Iiulia, Amtralid 
 and China v. Uendcmon, L, R. 5 P. C. 501 ; 30 
 L. T. 578. 
 
 Indorsement to Third Party— Act of Bank- 
 ruptcy — Title of Trustee in Bankruptcy.] — 
 Plaintiff consigned to iv F. certain goods under 
 a bill of lading. E. F. on receiving the bill of 
 lading, and before he had taken physical posses-
 
 847 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 348 
 
 sion of the goods, indorsed it to G., his clerk, and 
 directed him to sell the goods and account for 
 the proceeds to the plaintiff ; he then executed 
 a deed of assignment to G. for the benefit of his 
 creditors, and was subsequently adjudged bank- 
 rupt. Plaintiff and the trustee in bankruptcy, 
 the defendant in the action, both claimed the 
 proceeds of the sale, and an interpleader issue 
 was directed. At the trial the jury found that 
 the property in the goods had passed to E. F., 
 and that he had acted as he had done because he 
 believed the goods were the plaintiff's, and not 
 because he wished to prefer the latter : — Held, 
 that the transaction was not fraudulent, and 
 -void within s. 48 (1) of the Bankruptcy Act 
 of 1883, because the jury negatived a fraudu- 
 lent preference, but that the indorsement of the 
 bill of lading to G. did not pass the property to 
 G. as agent for the plaintiff or otherwise, and 
 that the goods were still part of E. F.'s estate 
 at the moment of executing the deed of assign- 
 ment, and that, therefore, under s. 43 the trustee 
 in bankruptcy was entitled to recover the pro- 
 ceeds of the sale. Lavritzen v. Carr, 72 L. T. 
 56. 
 
 Delivery in Absence of Bill of Lading — In- 
 dorsee — Right to Sue.] — In an action for damages 
 against the master and shipowners : — Held, that 
 delivery of the cargo by the master in absence 
 of a bill of lading being -WTongful, did not pre- 
 clude the pursuers, who were subsequent in- 
 dorsees, from acquiring right to the cargo ; and 
 that they could sue for damages. Ph'ie v. 
 Warden, 9 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 523. 
 
 Past Consideration.] — The vendee of goods 
 may, by assignment of the bills of lading to a 
 bona fide transferee, defeat the vendor's right 
 to stop them in transitu in case of the vendee's 
 insolvency, although the consideration for which 
 the assignment is made is a past one, and has 
 not been got by means of the bills of lading. 
 ZeasJi V. Scoft, 46 L. J., Q. B. 576 ; 2 Q. B. D. 
 376 ; 36 L. T. 784 ; 25 W. E. 654 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 469— C. A. 
 
 G. & Co., the consignees of certain goods from 
 the defendant from abroad, for which they had 
 accepted a biU of exchange at three months, 
 being already indebted to the plaintiff, obtained 
 a further loan on the condition of giving security. 
 They delivered to him the bill of lading of the 
 goods, together with other securities to the 
 amount required. After this and before the 
 arrival of the goods G. & Co. became insolvent : 
 — Held, that the defendant was not entitled to 
 stop the goods in transitu, for that it was not 
 necessary that the consideration for the assign- 
 ment of the bill of lading should be obtained by 
 means of the bill of lading, and that there is in 
 such case no difference between a past and pre- 
 sent consideration. Jb. 
 
 A bill of lading assigned in part payment of 
 a debt already due from the assignor to the 
 assignee, is assigned for valuable consideration. 
 The Emilieii Marie, 44 L. J., Adm. 9 ; 32 L. T. 
 435 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 514. And see S.C., infra, col. 
 349. 
 
 Restriction on Eight of Indorsement.] — If a 
 consignee, under a bill of lading, while the goods 
 are yet in transitu, indorses the bill and gives 
 notice thereof to the party entitled to the freight, 
 and upon the indorsement he states in express 
 terms that the owner of the freight, the party 
 
 who may hz ultimately entitled thereto, is to 
 look to other persons for payment of it, and that 
 indorsement is accepted and acted upon without 
 objection or qualification on the jiart of the 
 owner of the freight, that of itself, in point of 
 law, constitutes a transfer of the liability, and a 
 defence to any subsequent action. Lewis v. 
 M'Kee, 38 L. J., Ex. 62 ; L. R. 4 Ex. 58 ; 19 L. T. 
 522 ; 17 W. R. 325— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Re-indorsement.] — Goods were shipped for 
 Bombay under a bill of lading, making them 
 deliverable to order or assigns. The consignor 
 indorsed the bill of lading in blank, and deposited) 
 it with a banker as security for an advance of 
 money, and on his repaying the sum advanced, 
 the bill of lading was re-indorsed and re-delivered 
 to him : — Held, that such re-indorsement of the 
 bill of lading to him remitted the consignor to 
 all his rights as against the shipowners under 
 the original contract ; and consequently that he 
 was entitled to sue them for a breach, whether 
 occurring before or after such re-indorsement. 
 Short T. Simvson, 1 H. & R. 181 ; 35 L. J., C. P. 
 147 : L. R. 1 C. P. 248 ; 12 Jur. (N.s.) 258 ; 13 
 L. T. 674 ; 14 W. R. 307. 
 
 Proof of Indorsement.] — In an action upon 
 a biU of lading by an indorsee against the ship- 
 owners, for not delivering the goods, he put in a 
 bill of lading, and proved that the consignors 
 indorsed and delivered it to A., and that A. 
 indorsed and delivered it to him for value : — 
 Held, evidence of such an Indorsement and 
 delivery of the bill of lading as to vest the 
 property in the goods in him, and so to transfer 
 to him the right of action under 18 & 19 Vict, 
 c. Ill, s. 1. Dracachi v. Anglo-Eqyptiati Navi- 
 (jaiion Co., 37 L. J., C. P. 71 ; L. R. 3 C. P. 190; 
 17 L. T. 472 ; 16 W. R. 277. 
 
 Indorsement after Loss — Insurable Interest.] 
 — An indorsement made after loss of the cargo, 
 in pursuance of a contract for sale made after 
 the loss, does not give an insurable interest. 
 Seagrave v. Union Marine Insurance Co., 1 
 H. & R. 302 ; 35 L. J., C. P. 172 ; 12 Jur. (n.P.) 
 358 ; 14 L. T. 479 ; 14 W. R. 690. 
 
 Right where no Indorsement.] — Where, from 
 all the facts, it may fairly be inferred that it 
 was the intention of a seller to pass the property 
 in goods shipped to order, the mere circumstance 
 of the bill of lading being taken in the name of 
 the seller, and remaining unindorsed, will not 
 prevent its passing. Joyce v. SwaJin, 17 C. B. 
 (N.s.) 84. 
 
 Indorsement to Agent.] — But the mere indorse- 
 ment of a bill of lading by the consignor ta 
 an agent, to authorise him to stop the goods in 
 transitu on account of his principal, will not 
 enable such agent to maintain an action for the 
 goods in his own name. Wari7ig v. Cox, 1 Camp. 
 369. 
 
 Revocation of Indorsement.] — The shipper of 
 goods, who has indorsed a bill of lading, may, 
 before the goods or the bill are dehvered to the 
 indorsee, revoke the indorsement. Mitchel v. Ede, 
 11 A. & E. 888 ; 3 P. & D. 513 ; 9 L. J., Q. B. 187. 
 
 Right of Equitable Assignee to Sue for Deten- 
 tion of Bill of Lading.] — The plaintiff was in the 
 habit of receiving goods consigned to him by L. 
 for sale upon commission, and in order to place
 
 349 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 35(> 
 
 L. in funds for the purchase of the goods, agreed 
 to allow him to draw upon him. The documents 
 of title of the goods were hypothecated to the 
 plaintiff to enable him to provide funds to meet 
 the bills so drawn by L. The plaintiff accord- 
 ingly, and at the request of L., arranged for the 
 safe of a parcel of goods, to be shipped by a 
 vessel chartered by the buyers, and L. having 
 drawn upon the plaintiff for that purpose, pur- 
 chased and shipped the goods. The bill of lading 
 was handed to L., but never forwarded to the 
 plaintiff, and L.'s affairs being put in liquidation, 
 the liquidator placed the bill of lading in the 
 hands of the defendants with instructions not 
 to part with it until they were paid the value of 
 the goods, and they accordingly refused to give 
 it up to the plaintiff :— Held, that the plaintiff' 
 had an equitable right to the bill of lading, and 
 was entitled to sue the defendants for the wrong- 
 ful detention of it. Lutscher v. C'omj)toir d'En- 
 compte de Paris, 1 Q. B. D. 709 ; 34 L. T. 798 ; 
 3 Asp. M. C. 209. 
 
 Extent of Right of Assignees to Cargo.]— An 
 assignee of a biU of lading may have a better 
 right against the shipowner to recover for breach 
 of the contract of carriage than the assignor. 
 The Emilien Marie, 44 L. J., Adm. 9 : 32 L. T. 435 ; 
 2 Asp. M. C. 504. And nee S. C, supra, col. 347. 
 An assignee of a bill of lading, who has given 
 valuable consideration, without notice of any 
 arrangement between the shipper and the various 
 consignees giving priority to the holders of the 
 other bills of lading in the case of short ship- 
 ment, may claim from the shipowner full delivery 
 of the cargo specified in his bill of lading, even 
 though the arrangement has been made without 
 the privity of the shipowner, and the master 
 has indorsed the bill of lading, with the words 
 "weight unknown." Ih. 
 
 A letter written by an assignor of a bill of 
 lading to his assignee, informing the latter that 
 the bankru|)tcy of the shipper and consignor 
 fwho has indorsed to the assi.!mor) may possibly 
 interfere with the proceeds of the shipment, so 
 far as the assignor is concerned, and that he 
 thinks it best to prevent the po'^sibility of a hitch 
 to send the bill of lading for the assignee to deal 
 with, the latter having advanced money thereon, 
 is not such a notice as will oblige the assignee to 
 make inquiries as to the ciuantity of and the 
 various rights to the cargo, so as to bind the 
 assignee with constructive notice of any arrange- 
 ment between the shipper and different con- 
 8i+:nees, giving priority to the holders of other 
 bills of lading in the case of short shipment. Ih. 
 The rights of an innocent holder of a bill of 
 lading are not affected by the fact that the 
 master signed as agent for the charterers, unless 
 the holder has notice of the charterparty,or that 
 the master signed in that capacity. Ih. 
 
 An assignee of S bill of lading is entitled to 
 the goods therein named, if he is a bonil fide 
 assignee for value, without notice of fraud or of 
 insolvency on the part of the jicrson to whom 
 the goods were consigncfl. The Aff/entina, L. R. 
 1 A. & E. 370 ; 16 L. T. 743. 
 
 Set-oflf by Holders against Assignees of 
 Freight.]— The holders of a bill of lading can- 
 not, as against the assignees of the freight, set 
 off a debt due to them from the original owner 
 of the "00<ls. who was also the assignor of the 
 frei"ht.° Wr'ji/rli/i v. Cellier. 42 L. J., Ch. 758 ; 
 L. K. C H. L. 2StJ ; 22 W. K. 20. 
 
 Liability of Consignee to take Delivery of 
 Cargo.]— When there is no express stipulation iu 
 a bill o'f lading it is an implied term of the con- 
 tract contained in it, that the consignee named 
 in the bill of lading, or his assigns, will take 
 delivery of the goods %vithin a reasonable time ; 
 and the person to whom the property in the 
 goods has passed, by reason of such consignment, 
 is by virtue of the Bills of Lading Act, 1855 
 (18 & 19 Vict. c. Ill), s. 1, subject to the liability 
 so to take them. Fnwler v. Knuop. 47 L. J., 
 Q. B. 473. Affirmed, 48 L. .J.. Q. B. 333 ; 4 
 Q. r.. D. 299 ; 40 L. T. 180 ; 27 W. R. 299— C. A.. 
 
 Where the charterers and the shippei-s are the 
 same persons, such contract will still be implied 
 in the biU of lading, notwithstanding the exist- 
 ence of an express stipulation in the charter- 
 party, between the charterers and tnt; shipowner,, 
 in reference to the same matter. lb. 
 
 Liability of Indorsee.] — See Oliver v. Mug- 
 geriJfje, supra, col. 313. 
 
 b. Passing: Property. 
 
 Absolutely.] — Though the consignee named in 
 the bill of lading should become insolvent, with- 
 out having paid for the goods, yet his assignment 
 made for a valuable consideration, and without 
 notice to the assignee that the goods were not 
 paitl for, or that they were paid for by bills sure 
 to be dishonoured : — Held, to pass them abso- 
 lutely to his assignee, and to deprive the con- 
 signor of his right to stop in transitu, which, as 
 against the original consignee, he might have 
 exercised. Lichbarrow v. Mason, 2 Term Kep. 
 63 ; 4 Bro. P. C. 57 ; 1 H. Bl. 360 ; 5 Term Kep. 
 683 : 6 Term Eep. 63 ; 2 H. Bl. 21i ; 1 K. R. 425. 
 When goods are at sea, the parting with the 
 bill of lading, which is the symbol of the goods, 
 is parting with the ownership of the goods them- 
 selves Barber v. M/i/crstei?!, 39 L. J., C. P. 187 ; 
 L. R. 4 H. L. 317: 22 L. T. 808 ; 18 W. R. 1041. 
 
 The same principle applies to goods which, for 
 the convenience of parties, have been landed at 
 a sufferance wharf. Ih. 
 
 As long as the engagement of the shipowner 
 has not been completely fulfilled, the bill of 
 lading is a living instrument, and the transfer of 
 it fo" value passes the absolute property in the 
 goods. lb. 
 
 It has not been fulfilled when the goods, 
 tliough actually landed at a wharf, are subject 
 to a stop-order. lb. 
 
 The person who first gets the bill of lading 
 (though only one of a set of three) gets the pro- 
 perty which it represents ; he need not do any 
 act to a.s.sert his title, which the transfer of the 
 bill of lading of itself renders conii)lcte, and 
 any subsequent dealings with the others of the 
 set are subordinate to the rights passed by that 
 
 one. Ih. , ^ . ■ 
 
 Though the shipowner or wharfinger, havnng 
 no notice of the transfer of one bill of lading, 
 may be excused for delivering the goods to a 
 tierson who pro<luces to him another bill of Lading, 
 which has in reality been subsequently taken, 
 that does not affect the legal ownership of the 
 goods as between the holders of the two bills of 
 lading. //'. 
 
 As Security.] — The shipper of goo<l3 
 
 indorsed the bill of lading in blank, and 
 delivered it to the defendants' bankers, by way 
 of security for money advanced by them. The
 
 SHIPPING— XII. BUI of Lading. 
 
 352 
 
 •roods, upon their arrival at the port of destina- 
 tion, were sold for an amount insufficient to pay 
 the freight :— Held, that the property in the 
 goods had not passed to the defendants within 
 the meaning of the Bills of Lading Act (18 & 19 
 Vict. c. Ill), s. 1, so as to make them liable in an 
 action by the shipowner for the freight. Scwcll 
 V. Jhnufh'k, 5-1 L. J., Q. B. 15G ; 10 App. Cas. 74 ; 
 52 L. T. 4i5 ; 33 W. R. 461 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 376 
 — H. L. 
 
 Bill of Lading a Negotiable Instrument.] — A 
 
 bill of lading is a negotiable instrument, and the 
 property in the goods is transferred by indorse- 
 ment or delivery of the bill. Ecans v. Marlett, 
 1 Ld. Raym. 271. WritjJit v. Camplell, 4 Burr. 
 2051 ; 1 H. Bl. 628. CaldivcU v. Ball, 1 Term 
 Rep. 250. infra ; 1 R. R. 187. Hlhlert v. Carter, 
 1 Term Rep. 745 ; 1 R. R. 388. 
 
 Goods not expressed to be delivered to 
 
 Assignee.] — Indorsement of bill of lading is not 
 a valid assignment, unless goods are directed to 
 be delivered to assignee. Brown v. Heathcote, 
 1 Atk. 160. 
 
 Where the bill of lading provides for delivery 
 to the order of the shipper who has sold the 
 goods, the property is not transferred to the 
 purchaser. The Packet de Bilhoa, 2 0. Rob. 133, 
 136. 
 
 Delivery to Holder of Second Part of Bill of 
 Lading— Goods Pledged to Holder of First Part 
 — Liability of Warehouseman.] — Goods shipped 
 to C, as owner, were, before arrival, pledged by 
 him to the plaintiffs as secui'ity for an advance. 
 The bill of lading was, as is customary, in three 
 sets, " the one being accomplished, the rest to 
 stand void," and made the goods deliverable to 
 " C. or assigns," freight payable in London. C. 
 indorsed one copy of the bill of lading marked 
 "first" to the plaintiffs, and also gave them a 
 letter of charge, making the bill of lading a col- 
 lateral security for the advance, and empowering 
 them to sell the goods represented by the bill of 
 lading should default be made in the repayment 
 of the advance. The vessel went on arrival into 
 the dock of the defendants. C. duly entered the 
 goods at the custom house, and they were after- 
 wards, at the request of C, landed and deposited 
 with the defendants, the freight being unpaid. 
 The manifest, a copy of which the captain lodged 
 with the defendants, authorised the defendants 
 to deliver the goods to the holders of the bill of 
 lading. On the following day the captain lodged 
 with the defendants a stop-order for freight, 
 pursuant to the Merchant Shipping Act, 1862. 
 C. then produced and gave to the defendants, 
 unindorsed, the second part of the bill of lading ; 
 the defendants then entered C. as the proprietor 
 of the goods. C. paid the freight, the stop was 
 taken oif, and the defendants delivered the goods 
 to W., on the production by him of a delivery 
 order from C. C. shortly after went into liqui- 
 dation, when the plaintifis, producing the 
 indorsed bill of lading, in vain demanded the 
 goods of the defendant. In an action for con- 
 version : — Held, that the dock company had not 
 been guilty of conversion, and that the bank 
 could not maintain an action against them. 
 Fcaron v. Bowers (1 H. Bl. 364) commented on. 
 Glyn. Mills 4" Co. v. East and West India Dock 
 Co., 52 L. J., Q. B. 146 ; 7 App. Cas. 591 ; 47 
 L. T. 309 ; 31 ^Y. R. 206 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 580— 
 H. L. (E.) 
 
 In Three Parts.] — One part of a set of three 
 bills of lading was indorsed to the partner of the 
 vendor, and another to the vendee. The vendee 
 made default in payment, and the vendor 
 obtained delivery of the goods. In an action of 
 detinue against the master, brought by an 
 indorsee from the vendee, it appearing that by 
 usage of trade the captain was not concerned to 
 examine into the rights of different holders, the 
 jury were directed to find a verdict for the 
 defendant. Fearon v. Bowers, 1 H. Bl. 364. 
 
 Bona fide Assignment of Bill of Lading trans- 
 fers the Property.] — "If the goods are bona fide 
 sold by the factor at sea (as they may be where 
 no delivery is given), the sale will be pood ; the 
 vendee shall hold them by virtue of the bill of 
 sale, though no actual possession is delivered ; 
 •and the owner can never dispute with the vendee 
 because the goods were sold bona fide and with 
 the owner's own authority" — Per Lord Mans- 
 field. Wright V. Camphell, 4 Burr. 2046, 2051 ; 
 1 H. BL 628. 
 
 But new trial ordered, that the jury might 
 determine whether the sale was fraudulent. Ih. 
 
 Priorities between different Holders.] — K., a 
 miller in England, agreed with F. & Co., a firm 
 in California, that they should send him cargoes 
 of wheat, he accepting bills of exchange against 
 the bills of lading. A cargo was sent, and a bill 
 of lading, with a biU of exchange annexed, was 
 sent to the agents in England of F. & Co., and 
 by them the acceptance of K. to the bill of 
 exchange was obtained. The bill of exchange 
 was subsequently negotiated, and a bill of lading 
 deposited by F. & Co. Six bills of lading were 
 drawn, and one of them was inadvertently, as 
 F. & ; Co. alleged, sent to K., who deposited it 
 with a bank at Exeter by way of security. K. 
 failed, and a bill was filed by the bank claiming 
 the cargo as against the holders of the other bill 
 of lading :— Held, that F. & Co. had full right to 
 negotiate the biU of exchange with the bill of 
 lading annexed, and that the bank must, at the 
 time when they made an advance on the bill of 
 lading, have known that there would be several 
 bids of lading, and that one could not be nego- 
 tiated without the other. The English bank had, 
 therefore, no priority. Gilbert v. Guiqnon, L. R. 
 S Ch. 16 ; 27 L. T. 733 ; 21 W. R. 281 ; 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 498. 
 
 Where several bills of lading have been signed 
 of different imports, no reference is to be had to 
 the time when they were signed by the captain, 
 but the person who first gets one of them, by a 
 legal title from the owner or shipper, has a right 
 to the consignment. Caldwell v. Ball, 1 Term 
 Rep. 205 ; i"R. R. 87. 
 
 And where such bills of lading, though dif- 
 ferent upon the face of them, are constructively 
 the same, and the captain has acted bona fide, a 
 delivery according to such legal title will dis- 
 charge him from them all. Ih. 
 
 A master is justified in delivering goods to the 
 holder of the first bill of lading presented. The 
 Tiqress, Br. & Lush. 38 ; 32 L. J., Adm. 97 ; 9 Jur. 
 (N.s.) 361 ; 8 L. T. 117 ; 11 W. R. 538. 
 
 The indorsement or delivery of one of a tri- 
 plicate set of bills of lading does not necessarily 
 operate as an indorsement or a delivery of all. 
 
 The mere indorsement and delivery of one of 
 a triplicate set of bills of lading is not neces- 
 sarily such a negotiation as to preclude a vendor
 
 353 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 from exercising his right of stoppage in transitu. 
 lb. 
 
 A. bought coal of B., to be shipped in a ship 
 chartered by A., payment in cash against bill of 
 lading in the hands of B.'s agent. Before ship- 
 ment A. sold to C, and at the time of both sales 
 the coal was unascertained. The coal was 
 shipped, and three bills of lading signed for 
 delivery to A. or order ; one onlj- was stamped 
 and retained by B., another was sent to A. Not 
 being paid, B. sent the stamped bill of lading to 
 D., and the captain delivered the coal to him : — 
 Held, that C. had no right of action against D. 
 MoaJiesY. Mcolsim. 19 C. B. (N.S.) 290 ; 34 L. J., 
 C. P. 273 ; 12 L. T. 573. 
 
 "Where the consignor of goods abroad advised 
 the consignee by letter that he had chartered a 
 ship on his account, and inclosed him an invoice 
 of the goods laden on board, which were therein 
 expressed to be for account and risk of the con- 
 signee, and also a bill of lading, expressing the 
 delivery to be made to order, ice, he paying 
 freight for the goods according to charterparty ; 
 and the letter of advice also informed the con- 
 signee that the consignor had drawn bills on him 
 at three months for the value of the cargo : — 
 Held, that the invoice and bill of lading sent to 
 the consignee, and the delivery of the goods to 
 the captain, vested the property in the consignee, 
 subject only to be divested by the consignor's 
 right to stop the goods in transitu in case of the 
 insolvency of the other. Walley v. Montgomery, 
 3 East, 585 ; 7 K. E. 526. 
 
 The consignor's agent having obtained posses- 
 sion of the cargo under another bill of lading, 
 and having refused to deliver it up unless the 
 consignee would make immediate payment, 
 which he declined doing, but offered his accept- 
 ances at three months in the manner before 
 stipulated : — Held, that the consignee might 
 maintain trover against such agent without 
 having tendered payment of the freight either to 
 him or the captain, the agent having possessed 
 himself of the goods wrongfully. Ih. 
 
 Jus disponendi Eeserved.] — B. sold to A. 
 wheat, the price to Vjc jiaid by bankers' draft on 
 London at two months, to be remitted on receipt 
 of invoice and bill of lading, which B. shipped by 
 order of A., to be carried to M., for the account 
 and at the risk of A., there to be delivered to A.; 
 B. delivered the wheat to the master of the vessel, 
 who took y)Ossession of it ; the master signed a 
 Vjill of lading to deliver the wheat to the order of 
 B., who indorsed such bill of lading to A., and 
 made an invoice, and sent the invoice and bill of 
 lading to A. in a letter, requiring A. to remit in 
 course, which letter, with tlie invoice and bill of 
 lading. wa.s received by A. A. having received 
 the bill of lading and invoice, and having failed 
 to remit the hankers' draft, B. assumed to revoke 
 and rescind the sale, and caused the wheat to be 
 stopped in its passage to A. : — Held, that, by the 
 delivery of the wheat to the master of the vessel, 
 for the account and at the risk of A., and the 
 transmission of the indorsed bill of lading, B. 
 had so parted with the property and right of 
 possession as not to be entitled to intercept the 
 deliveiy. Wiltnhurst v. JioivJcer, 7 Man. & G. 882 ; 
 8 Hcott (N.R.) 571 ; 12 L. J., Ex. 475— Ex. Ch. 
 
 The plaintiff, a merchant at Leeds, contracted 
 with the London partner of a firm carrying on 
 business as merchants at Londrm and Odessa for 
 the purcha.se of linseed, to be i)aid for half by 
 drafts on the buyer, at three months from the 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 354 
 
 time of advice of the sale reaching Odessa, and 
 the remainder at three months from the date of 
 shipment. The London partner forwarded the 
 contract to the Odessa partner, and the latter 
 drew upon the plaintiff two bills of exchange on 
 account of the linseed, which were accepted and 
 paid when due. In order to fetch the linseed the 
 plaintiff chartered a vessel, which was to proceed 
 with an outward cargo to Odessa, and there take 
 on board, from the agents of the freighter, the 
 linseed, and, being loaded, proceed to HuU, and 
 deliver the same to the order of the freighter on 
 being paid freight. The vessel having arrived at 
 Odessa, the master applied for the linseed, and 
 produced a copy of the charterparty, when he 
 was informed that the cargo should be shipped 
 in time. A letter was also sent by the Odessa 
 partner to the London partner, informing him of 
 the arrival of the vessel, and stating that a por- 
 tion of the linseed was ready for her. The- 
 Odessa house commenced loading the vessel, but 
 not being able to procure the entire quantity of 
 linseed, the master consented to receive wheat 
 in substitution, which was accordingly shipped. 
 When the loading of the linseed was completed, 
 the Odessa partner wrote to the London partner, 
 stating that he should have the bill of lading by 
 the next post. The Odessa partner afterwards 
 procured the master to sign bills, making the 
 goods deliverable " unto order or to assigns," 
 and indorsed the bills of lading for value to a 
 third person, who transferred them to the defen- 
 dant : — Held, that there was no such delivery of 
 the goods as to vest the right of property or 
 possession in the plaintiff. MlersJiaw v. Magniac, 
 6 Ex. 570. 
 
 B. «fc Co., merchants at Liverpool, sent orders 
 to M. & Co., merchants of Charleston, to ship on 
 account of B. k. Co. cotton for the homeward 
 voyage of their ship the " Charlotte." M. k, Co. 
 accordingly' made considerable purchases of 
 cotton, and shipped it on board the vessel of 
 B. & Co. The master signed the bill of lading 
 of the cotton to be delivered at Liverpool, '• to 
 order, or to our assigns, paying for freight for 
 the cotton nothing, being owners' property," and 
 M. & Co. indorsed the bill of lading, '• Deliver the 
 within to the baidc of Liver[)()ol, or order." 
 M. & Co. informed B. & Co. that they had drawn 
 bills upon them for the cargo on their account, 
 by the " Charlotte," and desired them to insure 
 the cotton. M. (Si Co. also sent to B. & Co. an 
 abstract invoice, which stated that the cotton was 
 shipped by M. & Co. on board the " Charlotte " 
 for Liverpool, " by order ami for account of 
 B. & Co. there, and addressed to order." M. & Co. 
 afterwards sent a full invoice, stating that the 
 cotton was shipped for Liverpool " by order and 
 for account of B. k Co. there, and to them con- 
 signed." M. & Co. not having suflicicnt funds 
 of B. k Co. to pay for the cotton, sold the bills to 
 a bank at Charleston, and delivered to the bank 
 the bill of lading so indorsed, a-s a security for 
 payment of the bills, which were dishonoured 
 anil taken up by JL & Co. B. k Co. became 
 bankrupts before the arrival of the vessel, and on 
 its arrival M. k Co. by their agent claimed to 
 stop the cargo in transitu, and it was afterwards 
 stowed in the warehou.sc of the defendants : — 
 Held, first, that the property in the cotton did 
 not vest absolutely in B. k Co., notwithstanding 
 the delivery on board their ship, for by the terms 
 of the bill of lading M. & Co. reserved to them- 
 selves a jus disponendi of the goods which the 
 master acknowledged by signing the bill of 
 
 12
 
 355 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 356 
 
 lading, maldn"; the cotton deliverable to their 
 orderor assigns, although by so doing the master 
 might have "exceeded his authority. Turnrrx. 
 Liverpool Docks, 6 Ex. 543 ; 20 L. J., Ex. 31)3— 
 Ex. Ch. 
 
 Held, secondly, that M. & Co. did not by their 
 indorsement and delivery of the bill of lading to 
 the bank, divest themselves of their property in 
 or possession of the goods. Jb. 
 
 When by a bill of lading goods are made 
 deliverable to the shipper, or his order, and 'not 
 to the consignee, the jus disponendi, or control 
 over the property in the goods shipped, remains 
 with the shippers, although the invoice states 
 that the goods were shipped " on account of and 
 at the risk of " the consignee ; such statement 
 being not conclusive, of itself, that the right to 
 the possession of, as vs^ell as the property in, the 
 goods was intended to be unconditionally passed 
 to the consignee. Shepherd v. Harrison, 40 
 L. J., Q. B. 148 ; L. R. 5 H. L. 116 ; 24 L. T. 
 857 ; 20 W. R. 1 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 60. 
 
 The burthen of showing the existence of a 
 diilerent state of things lies on the person who 
 contradicts what would be the ordinary legal 
 ^conclusion from the transaction. Ih. 
 
 When a vendor for his own protection takes 
 and keeps a bill of lading making the goods sold 
 deliverable to his own order, and the goods are 
 deliverable by the contract of sale on certain 
 conditions, the vendor thereby preserves a hold 
 over the goods until the conditions are fulfilled 
 ■and the bill of lading handed over, or until the 
 vendee ofEers to fulfil the conditions ; and such 
 a hold confers, not only a right to the possession 
 of the goods, but also a power to dispose of 
 them, at least so long as the vendee continues in 
 default. Ogg v. Shuter, 45 L. J., C. P. 44 ; 1 
 G. P. D. 47 • 33 L. T. 492 ; 24 W. E. 100 ; 3 
 Asp. M. C. 77— C. A. 
 
 Imperfect Assignment by Indorsee.] — The 
 
 delivery of a bill of lading indorsed puts it 
 .in the power of the indorsee to transfer the 
 ..property to a bona fide purchaser for a valuable 
 . consideration, and deprives the original owner of 
 . any right of stoppage in transitu ; but, as 
 between the original parties, the consignor and 
 . consignee, the question, whether the property 
 passed, will depend upon what the real contract 
 -.was. Jenhyns v. Ushorne, 8 Scott (N.R.) 505 ; 7 
 JVIan. & Or. 678 ; 13 L. J., C. P. 196. 
 
 A., of London, had ordered beans of B. & C, 
 .of Leghorn, through D., their agent. B. & C. 
 -.^hipped more than the quantity ordered, and 
 .drew two bills on A. — one for the quantity 
 ordered, and the other for the residue : and they 
 transmitted those bills to A. through D., with a 
 letter of advice and an indorsed bill of lading for 
 the whole cargo. A. accepted the bill for the 
 beans ordered, but declined to take the residue 
 or to accept the bill drawn against them. D. 
 consented to take the residue, and A. thereupon 
 wrote a letter to him acknowledging such residue 
 to be his, and inclosed an order to the captain to 
 deliver them to D. D. thereupon handed over 
 the bill of lading to A. D. accepted the bill 
 drawn against the residue of the cargo, and paid 
 it at maturity. Before the arrival of the ship 
 D. sold the residue to E., who accepted a bill for 
 the amount di-awn by B., who happened to be in 
 London, and handed'to E. A.'s letter and delivery 
 order. E. afterwards applied to E. for an 
 advance of cash, and handed over to him such 
 letter and delivery order ; and F. gave his 
 
 acceptance to E.for the amount of cash required. 
 Before E.'s acceptance became due, and before 
 the arrival of the ship, E. stopped payment : — 
 Held, that D. might stop the residue not taken 
 by A. in transitu, and that the delivery order 
 given by A. was not equivalent to a bill of 
 lading. Ih. 
 
 Where no Property in Indorser.] — Unless the 
 indorser of a bill of lading really and bona fide 
 has property in the goods at the time of indorse- 
 ing it, the Bills of Lading Act (18 & 19 Vict, 
 c. Ill) passes no property to the indorsee, and 
 upon the intervention of the true owner the 
 latter is entitled to receive the goods from the 
 shipowner, who is thereupon relieved from the 
 liability of delivering them according to the bill 
 of lading. Finlay v. Liverpool and Great 
 Western Steamship Co., 23 L. T. 251. 
 
 Knowledge of Assignee of previous Transfer.] 
 
 — If A. has an equitable title to goods on board 
 a ship, and B., knowing of such a title, gets an 
 indorsement of the bill of lading, he cannot 
 recover such goods in an action of trover, but the 
 captain will be justified in delivering the goods 
 to A. Bicli v. Lnmsden, Peake, 251. 
 
 Wrongful Delivery under, by Captain.] — The 
 
 consignor of goods abroad, upon a receipt of 
 orders from a correspondent here, shipped goods 
 on account and at the risk of the consignee, and 
 took bills of lading from the captain making the 
 goods deliverable to the consignor's own order, 
 and transmitted one of such bills unindorsed with 
 the invoice to the consignee, inclosed in a letter, 
 informing him that he had drawn upon him for 
 the amount, which he doubted not would meet 
 due honour, and close the account, and the con- 
 si.gnor, by way of precaution, also sent another 
 bill of lading "indorsed to his own agent : — Held, 
 that upon the shipment, on accoimt and at the 
 risk of the consignee, the property in the goods 
 vested in him, subject only to be divested by the 
 consignor's stopping them while in transitu, and 
 that upon the arrival of the goods, the consignee 
 having obtained possession of them from the 
 captain by the production of his indorsed bill of 
 lading, the property became absolute in the con- 
 signee, however wrongfully parted with by the 
 captain without authority from the shipper, and 
 however liable the captain might be to him on 
 that account. Co-re v. Harden, 4 East, 211 ; 1 
 Smith, 20 ; 7 E. R. 570. 
 
 London Dock Company— Delivery of Wine — 
 Legal Owner or Holder of Bill of Lading.] — By 
 
 a printed regulation of the London Dock Com- 
 pany orders for deliver}' cannot be acted upon 
 miless signed by the party in whose name the 
 goods stand in the company's books, or by a 
 person duly authorised, in writing under the hand 
 of the principal, to sign them. Wine was entered 
 in the books of the company in the name of S., 
 clerk to W.. but the bills of lading were in the 
 hands of H.. the consignee of the wine. The 
 wine not having been approved by W., H. agreed 
 to take it back, and apphed to W. to return a 
 part of it ; but W. refused to do so until his 
 acceptance for the wine should be returned to 
 him. H. then exhibited the bills of lading to 
 the company, which informed W. that it would 
 deliver the* wine to H. unless it shoukl be 
 restrained from so doing. W. and S. thereupon 
 filed a bill against the company and H. for an
 
 357 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 358 
 
 injunction to restrain the com})anT from deliver- 
 ing the wine to H. without the written order of 
 W. and S., or one of them, and praying that the 
 company and H. might be ordered to pay the 
 costs of 'the suit :— Held, that as the legal title 
 to ithe wine was in H. by virtue of the bill of 
 lading, the company was entitled to its costs, 
 which, under the circumstances of the case, were 
 ordered to be paid equally by W. and S. and H., 
 W. and S. and H. also bearing their own costs 
 equally. Wrlqht v. London Dock Co., 5 Jur. 
 (N.s.) 1411— L JJ. 
 
 " Passing of Property " in Goods — Indorse- 
 ment by Way of Pledge.] — The mere indorse- 
 ment and delivery of a bill of lading by way of 
 pledge for a loan does not pass " the property in 
 the goods"' to the indorsee, so as to transfer to 
 liim all liabilities in respect of the goods within 
 the meaning of the Bills of Lading Act (18 & 
 19 Vict. c. Ill), s. 1. Sewcll v. Buvdich, 51 
 L. J., Q. B. 156 ; 10 App. Cas. 74 ; 52 L. T. 445 ; 
 33 W. K. 461 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 376— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Goods were shipped to a foreign port under 
 bills of lading making the goods deliverable to 
 the shipper or assigns. After the goods had 
 arrived, and been warehoused, the shipper 
 indorsed the bills of lading in blank, and 
 ■deposited them with the indorsees as security for 
 a loan. The indorsees never took possession of 
 or dealt with the goods -.—Held, that "the pro- 
 perty " in the goods did not " pass " to the 
 indorsees within the meaning of the Bills of 
 Lading Act so as to make them liable in an 
 action by the shipowner for the freight. Ih. 
 
 Liability for demurrage under a bill of lading 
 is imposed on the holder by way of security only 
 who presented the bill and demanded the delivery. 
 Allen V. Coltart, 52 L. J., Q. B. 686 ; 11 Q. B. U. 
 782 ; 48 L. T. 944 ; 31 W. R. 841 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 104. 
 
 Adverse Claimants to Goods— Interpleader.] — 
 
 •Captain of ship may iil'; inicrpleadrr where 
 parties claim adversely uu<ler bill of lading ; but 
 otherwise where paramount to it. Loioe v. 
 Jtlchardnon, 3 Madd. 277. 
 
 Hypothecation Note— Delivery Order— Pro- 
 j)erty in Goods — Trover — Pledge.] — In an action 
 
 fur wrungfiilly depriving tlie jilaintift's of goods, 
 it ai)pcared that the goods had been consigned 
 to England from a colony. The bills of lading 
 provided that the goods were to be delivered to 
 the order of the consignor or his assigns. Tlie 
 Cf>nsignor drew bills of cxchaugc on the con- 
 signee against the consignment, and sold the 
 bills of exchange, with the bills of lading 
 annexed, which he had indorsed in blank, to 
 a colonial bank, who sent them to a ))ank in 
 London, with a hj'pothecation note empowering 
 tlie Lfjndon bank to sell the goods if the bills of 
 exchange were not accepted or not paid at 
 maturity. The goods arrived in England, and 
 weie delivered to the defendants, who were a 
 railway comi>any, to be delivered to the order of 
 the .shipowners. The consignee paid the freight 
 and other shipjiing charges ami accepted the 
 IjilLs of exchange, but before the bills became 
 due, he induced the defendants wrongfully to 
 deliver the goods to him without producing a 
 delivery order from the shipowners. When the 
 bills became due the consignee requested the 
 plaintiffs to advance the money and take up the 
 bills. They did so, and received the bills of 
 exchange and the bills of lading from the 
 
 London bank, and ultimately obtained delivery 
 orders from the shipowners in exchange for the 
 bills of lading. When they presented the 
 delivery orders to the defendants they found 
 that the goods had already been given up to the 
 consignee, and they thereupon commenced the 
 present action : — Held, first, that the plaintlflEs 
 must be taken to be pledgees of the goods, and 
 had therefore a property sufficient to entitle 
 them to maintain the action independently of 
 the Bills of Lading Act. Secondly, that the 
 plaintiffs' right of action was not afEected by 
 the fact that at the date of the wrongful delivery 
 they had not acquired their title to the goods. 
 Bristol Bank v. Jlidland Hallway, 61 L. J., 
 Q. B. 115 ; [1891] 2 Q. B. 653 ; 65 L. T. 234 ; 40 
 W. R. 148 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 69— C. A. 
 
 "Contents Unknown" — No Evidence of Pro- 
 perty in Consignee.] — If the bill of lading con- 
 tains the words " contents unknown," so that it 
 does not amount to a receipt for any goods in 
 particular, it is not by itself evidence either of 
 the quantity of the goods or of property in the 
 consignee. Haddow v. Parry, 3 Taunt. 305 ; 12 
 R. R. 666. 
 
 Bill of Lading sent with Bill of Exchange — 
 Conversion of Goods — Measure of Damages.]— 
 A shipload of timber having been consigned to 
 the defendants, the shipper sent the bill of 
 lading and other shipping documents, and also 
 a bill of exchange, to the plaintiffs in the usual 
 comse of business, to cover advances made by 
 them to him. The ]daintiffs handed the shipping 
 documents and bill of exchange to agents who 
 acted for them and for the tlefendants. The 
 agents, at the plaintiffs' request, forwarded the 
 bill of exchange to the defendants to be accepted 
 by them. Shortly afterwards the defendants 
 informed the agents that the cargo was out of 
 condition, and that they could not accept it as 
 it then was. The agents replied that the defen- 
 dants should either return the bill accepted or 
 the shipping documents. This the defendants 
 refused to do, as they had paid part of the 
 freight and intended to take i>ossession of the 
 cargo. Subsequently they stated that they had 
 been compelled by the <lock conipanj' to remove 
 the cargo, but that, if the agents would repay 
 them the freight and certain charges, and their 
 profits on part of the cargo which they had sold, 
 they would return the shii)i)ing documents. The 
 agents replied that tlie matter must be left in 
 the hands of tiie plaintiffs, the owners of the 
 cargo. The defemlants then returned to the 
 agents the bill of exchange unaccepted, but 
 retained the bill of l.ading as security against 
 the freight and ciiargcs ; offering to give it up 
 upon payment of the freight and charges. 
 Thereupon the plaintiffs brought an action 
 against the defendants, claiming that they 
 shouM be ordered to accept and deliver up tlie 
 bill of exchange; and a declaration that until 
 such acceptance and delivery they were not 
 entitled to retain the bill of Lading ; and asking 
 for a receiver, an injunction and damages. The 
 action, owing to the delay of both parties, did not 
 come on for hearing for four years : — Held, that 
 the defendants, having refused to accejjt the bill 
 of exchange, were bound to return the shipping 
 documents; and tlial their taking possession 
 of and dealing with tli'' cargo was wrongful ; and 
 that the plaintiffs v.<'rc entitled to damages, 
 namely, the value of lii'' cargo, less freight and 
 
 12—2
 
 559 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 360 
 
 ohar,£;cs of selling part of the cargo ; and to 
 further damages in the nature of interest for 
 being kept out of possession of the cargo, at the 
 rate, under the circumstances of delay in the 
 action, of 2^ per cent. Jiew v. Payne, 53 L. T. 
 982 ; 5 Asp? M. C. 515. 
 
 c. Conditionally — Drawn against Bills of 
 Exchange. 
 
 Effect of.] — P. shipped 600 tons of umber upon 
 a vessel chartered for the plaintiff. The bill of 
 lading made the umber deliverable to the order 
 of P. or assigns. The plaintiff insured the umber. 
 A bill of exchange drawn by P. on the plaintiff, 
 which had been discounted by the defendants, to 
 whom the bills of lading had been transferred, 
 having been refused acceptance, a second bill was 
 drawn by P. to the order of C. on the plaintiff, 
 and was given to the defendants in exchange for 
 the first bill, upon the terms that the plaintiff 
 should accept and pay the second bill against the 
 delivery of the bill of lading. The umber and 
 the bill of exchange reached their destination at 
 the same time, but the plaintiff declined to 
 accept the bill. The umber was, therefore, 
 entered at the custom house in the defendants' 
 name. Subsequently the plaintiff tendered the 
 amount of the bill of exchange and demanded 
 the bill of lading, but the defendants refused to 
 give up the bill of lading ; the plaintiff offered a 
 guarantee for the freight, which offer Avas not 
 accepted by the defendants, and they sold the 
 cargo : — Held, in an action by the plaintiff for 
 the value of the umber so sold by the defendants, 
 that the property in the umber passed to the 
 plaintiff, and therefore that the plaintiff was 
 entitled to recover. Mirahita v. Imperial Otto- 
 man Bank, 47 L. J., Ex. 418 ; 3 Ex. D. 164 ; 
 38 L. T. 597 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 591. 
 
 K. & Co., merchants in New Orleans, purchased 
 with their own money corn, as agents for the 
 plaintiff in England, for the price of which they 
 di'ew bills of exchange upon the plaintiff, which 
 he accepted. The corn was shipped under bills 
 of lading, making it deliverable to K. & Co. or 
 their order, and invoices and a letter of advice 
 were forwarded to the plaintiff, stating that the 
 corn was shipped on his account. The bills of 
 exchange drawn upon the plaintiff were pur- 
 chased for their full amount by the defendant, 
 of K. & Co., who indorsed and delivered to them 
 the bills of lading as a security for the due pay- 
 ment of the bills of exchange, with a power of 
 sale in case of non-payment. On the day when 
 the bills of exchange feU due, the plaintiff offered 
 payment to the holder of them, but the bills 
 being accidentally mislaid, the money was not 
 then received, but he was desired to pay the 
 following morning, which he was unable to do : 
 and the bills had never, in fact, been paid. The 
 defendant having sold the corn under the power, 
 the plaintiff brought trover : — Held, that he 
 could not recover, as by the indorsement of the 
 bills of lading to the defendant a special property 
 passed to him in the corn, subject to which the 
 plaintiff had a general property by the invoice 
 and letter of advice, and that the offer of pay- 
 ment by the plaintiff did not discharge the 
 plaintiff from his' duty to pay the bills before 
 the right to the possession of the corn attached. 
 Jenliijns v. Bruwn, 14 Q. B. 496 ; 19 L. J., Q. B. 
 286 ; 14 Jur. 505. 
 
 The plaintiffs, merchants at New York, by 
 direction and on account of B., forwarded to the 
 
 defendant, a commission agent at Hull, employca 
 by B., the invoices and bills of lading of two 
 cargoes, against which they drew upon the 
 defendant bills which he accepted and paid. 
 The defendant sold the cargoes, which did not 
 realise enough to cover his acceptances. The 
 plaintiffs afterwards, and by direction of B., 
 forwarded to the defendant the invoice and bill 
 of lading of another cargo which had been pur- 
 chased by B. with money supplied by the 
 plaintiffs, and the bills of lading of which had 
 been specially indorsed to them as a security, 
 and were by them specially indorsed to the 
 defendant ; the plaintiffs at the same time stating 
 that they had, by direction of B., drawn upon 
 the defendant for part of the price. The defen- 
 dant, without knowing that the plaintiffs had 
 made advances to B., took the bill of lading, 
 disposed of the cargo, and placed the proceeds 
 to the credit of B. : — Held, that the defendant 
 was not bound as between himself and the 
 plaintiffs to accept the bills drawn against the 
 last cargo, because no privity could arise 
 between the plaintiffs and the defendant except 
 by express contract, and the indoi'sement of 
 the bill of lading by the plaintiffs to the defen- 
 dant, and his receiving it and disposing of the 
 cargo, did not, under the circumstances, create 
 such a contract. Bejyperma^i v. Huhiersty, 17 
 Q. B. 767. 
 
 A. consigned goods to B. abroad, and ordered 
 a cargo in return, for which he sent his own 
 ship. The return cargo was delivered to A.'s 
 captain, B. stating it to be " on A.'s account, as 
 A.'s own goods, and to be delivered to A." The 
 return cargo consisting of more goods than the 
 proceeds of those consigned to B., B. drew bills 
 on A. for the difference, which he sent to his 
 agent with a bill of lading drawn in blank, and 
 desiring the agent, in case of A.'s refusal to 
 accept the bills, to indorse the bill of lading to 
 C. ; A. refused to accept the bills, and the bill of 
 lading was accordingly indorsed to C. The ship 
 arrived, and C. demanded the cargo, as indorsee 
 of the bill of lading ; the captain, however, 
 refused, and delivered them to A., who deposited 
 them with D. as his warehouseman ; D. then 
 received notice from B. to hold the goods for B. 
 as his property ; in consequence of which D. 
 refused to redeliver them to A. In an action of 
 trover by A. against D. : — Held, that D. was not 
 estopped by having received the goods as ware- 
 houseman of A. from setting up the claim of a 
 third person as a defence, supposing that claim 
 to be a good one, and that though the goods 
 might have been delivered to the captain, on 
 condition of A.'s accepting the bills, yet, as no 
 such condition was imposed at the time of the 
 delivery, that the delivery was complete, and 
 vested the property absolutely in A. Ogle v. 
 Atkinson, 1 Marsh. 323 ; 5 Taunt. 759 ; 15 K.K. 
 647. 
 
 A continental bank, having contracted to sell 
 and ship 1,400 quarters of rye, to be paid for by 
 an acceptance at three months, put the rye on 
 board the "Agatha." The vessel proved to be 
 capable of containing from 200 to 300 quarters! 
 more grain than the quantity shipped, and there- 
 fore the bauk filled up the vacant space with 
 maize. One biU of lading only was given for 
 the cargo, and the bank wrote on the 24th April 
 to the purchasers, with the invoices and drafts : 
 " The maize is on the same bill of lading 'as the 
 rye ... as there would, no doubt, be a loss on 
 the maize, we presume you will wish to leave it
 
 361 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 3G2 
 
 for account of shippers ; but if you will accept 
 the bill we will get an undertaking from the 
 bank to hold you harmless for so doing." The 
 purchasers, who had made a sub-sale of the 
 cargo, replied : " The drafts and invoices o£ this 
 cargo are to hand, and we observe that the bills 
 of lading are in the hands of the . . . bank. 
 We think ... we are entitled to ask a guarantee 
 from the bank that the 'Agatha' shall deliver 
 the weight specified in the invoice. Would you 
 have the kindness to ask the bank for this, and 
 telegraph to us . . . their acquiescence, or the 
 contrary. We would be obliged also by a copy, 
 or the original, of the charterparty, and copy of 
 the bill of lading for our government. We leave, 
 as you suggest, the maize to the shippers ; the 
 transaction in rye is a very bad one. We return 
 you inclosed draft invoices of maize." On the 
 8th May the purchasers refused to accept the 
 bill of exchange for the rye, upon the ground 
 that the bank had not given them a proper bill 
 of lading. In an action for such non-accept- 
 ance : — Held, that the purchasers had, by a new 
 agreement, waived any objection to the bill of 
 lading in respect of the maize being included 
 therein, and were therefore liable. Imperial 
 Ottoman Banlt, v. Coioati, 31 L. T. 336— Ex. Ch. 
 In 1845 the defendants, commission agents in 
 London, wrote to the plaintifEs, merchants at 
 Madras, as follows : " At the request of K. and L. 
 of Glasgow, we beg to open a credit in your 
 favour to the extent of 1,500^., to be applied to 
 the execution of an order they have given you 
 for Madras handkerchiefs, and for costs of which, 
 as produced, you draw on us at the customary 
 date, on forwarding bills of lading to our order." 
 In consequence of this letter, two orders given 
 by K. and L. were executed by the plaintiffs, 
 who forwarded the goods and bills of lading to 
 the defendants, and they accepted and paid bills 
 drawn on them in accordance with the letter. 
 In February, 1S47, K. and L. \%Tote to the plain- 
 tiffs, inclosing patterns for a third order, and 
 saying, " You will draw for cost, and consign 
 goods as before." The plaintiffs executed this 
 order, and on the 21st of August shipped llie 
 goods on account of K. audi L., and sent to the 
 defendants the invoice and bill of lading inclosed 
 in a letter, saying, " We have, as usual, drawn 
 upon you at six months for the equivalent of 
 the amount of invoice." The bill of lading 
 stated the goods to have been "shipped by tiie 
 plaintiffs, and to be deliverable to the defcTuiants 
 or their assigns, on payment of freight." The 
 invoice stated that the goo<ls were consigned to 
 the defendants on account and risk of K. and L. 
 The letter containing the bill of lading and 
 invoice was received by the defendants on the 
 26th of August, and the goods arrived in Loudon 
 on the 21st of October. On the same day the 
 plaintiffs' agent received a bill drawn against 
 the poods, and presented it to the defendants for 
 accei)tancc, but they refused to accept it. On 
 the 27lh of October K. and L. stopped i)aymcnt. 
 The goods were received Vjy tlic (h.'fendants 
 under the bill of lading, and sold, and tin; pro- 
 ceeds retained by them. On the 4th of March, 
 1848, the plaintiffs gave the defendants notice 
 that tlicy claimed to stop the goods in transitu, 
 the dofcuflants having refuse<l to accni)t the 
 bills; and the plaintiffs subsequently brought 
 an action to recover the proceeds of the sale : — 
 Held, first, that it was a question for the judge. 
 
 vested absolutely in K. and L., or merely condi- 
 tionally on the acceptance of the bill by the 
 defendants. Key v. Cotesworth, 7 Ex. 595 ; 22 
 L. J., Ex. 4. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the contract was not 
 subject to the condition, either precedent or 
 subsequent, that the defendants should accept 
 the bill, but that the property in the goods 
 vested absolutely in K. and L. upon the delivery 
 on board the ship, and transmission of the bill 
 of lading to the defendants. Ih. 
 
 Held, also, that if the plaintiffs had intended 
 to preserve their right of property in the goods 
 until the bill was accepted, they should have 
 transmitted the bill of lading indorsed in blank 
 to an agent, to be delivered over only in case 
 the bill was accepted. Ih. 
 
 Representation that Bills would be Accepted 
 — Right to Bills of Lading.] — An agent and 
 manager of a London linn, who resided in 
 Sweden, assured a merchant tliere about to draw 
 bills on that firm that the bills would be accepted ; 
 whereupon bills of lading for timber were sent to 
 the London firm and bills were drawn against 
 them : — Held, that this assurance, though acted 
 on, was not to be treated as equivalent to an 
 acceptance of the bills, so as to vest in the London 
 firm legal rights as from the time of the assur- 
 ance given. Hoare v. Dresser, 7 H. L. Cas. 290 ; 
 28 L. J., Ch. 611 ; 5 Jur.(N.S.)371; 7 W. K.374. 
 
 Part of the timber did not arrive ; the agent 
 having obtained the shipping documents from a 
 purchaser to w-hom he had sold it, and who had 
 accepted the bills, by stating that he would 
 return them, which he did not do : — Held, not 
 entitled to retain them, he having misled the 
 purchaser into accepting the bills. Ih. 
 
 Carrier Setting up Jus tertii.]— A., who re- 
 sided at Manchester, contracted to buy of B. at 
 Dumfries a quantity of oak-bark, to be shipped 
 for delivery at Liverpool. B. accordingly shipped 
 the bark, "to be delivered at Liverpool to the 
 defendants, who were wharlingers and carriers 
 there, to be by them forwarded to A. at 
 Manchester. The bark was to be paid for in 
 cash, and B. sent a bill of lading, making it 
 deliverable to A. or his assigns, together witii 
 a bill of exchange payable on domaiid, through 
 his bankers, to the i\laiichcster and Salford Bank, 
 with instructions to present the bill for accept- 
 ance. The bank at Manchester was unable to 
 find A., and accordingly they returned the bill of 
 lading and draft to B. Before the bill of lading 
 had been so leturncd. ?>., who was at Liverpool 
 when the bark arrived there, belicviiig, from the 
 representations of an agent of the plaintiff (who 
 had bougiil llie bark of A.), that the bill of 
 lading had been dulyiuinded over to A., assented 
 to the bark being delivered to the defendants for 
 the puri)ose of its being carried to Manchester 
 for the plaintiff; but, upon Kuljsequcnily dis- 
 covering that A. had not got the bill of lading or 
 paid for the bark, B. claimed and received it 
 from the defendants :— HcM, that, under the 
 circumstances, the property in the bark never 
 passed to A., and consequently that B. had a 
 right to countermand the delivery ; and that it 
 was competent to the defendants, notwithstand- 
 ing that they h.ad received the bark, to be carried 
 for the plaintiff, to set up the title of B. in an 
 action brought against tlicm by the plaintiff. 
 
 and not for the jurj-, to decide whether, under .SAmrfa/t v. AVw Quay Co., 4 C. B. (n.s.) 618; 
 the circumstances, the property in the goods! 28 L. J., C. P. 58 ; 5 Jur. (N.S.) 248.
 
 363 
 
 SHIPPING— XII. BUI of Ladhifi. 
 
 364 
 
 Accompanying Bills of Exchange.]— "When a ' 
 
 l)in of la.linu-. and a bill of exchange to cover 
 the s^'oods indiuled in the bill of lading, are sent 
 in a'lctter to a vendee of the goods, it is a well- 
 understood rule that the bill of exchange must 
 be accepted, or the bill of lading cannot be 
 retained. Shepherd v. Harrison, 40 L. J., Q. B. 
 148 ; L. E. 5 H. L. 116 ; 24 L. T. 857 ; 20 W. K. 
 1 : 1 Asp. 11. 0. 6(3— H. L. (E.) 
 
 When the bill of exchange is not accepted, but 
 the bill of lading is retained, the bill of lading, 
 acquired in that manner, gives no right of 
 property to the person so acquiring it. lb. 
 
 It is not necessary for the shipper to advise 
 the consignee expressly that he is not to use the 
 bill of lading imless he accepts the bill of 
 exchange. lb. 
 
 Where A. having sent orders to his correspon- 
 dents abroad to ship cargoes of wheat, afterwards 
 withdrew his orders, but his correspondents, 
 nevertheless, shipped a cargo of wheat on his 
 account and at his risk, sending with it an 
 indorsed bill of lading enclosed to A., informing 
 him of their having drawn bills on their agents 
 in town for the amount, and requesting him to 
 furnish funds for their acceptance, which bills 
 were afterwards dishonoured, A. giving orders 
 not to accept them :— Held, that no property 
 vested in A. to enable him to receive the goods, 
 he not having accepted the hills drawn upon 
 the agents in town. Brandt v. Howlby, 2 B. & Ad. 
 <J32 ; 1 L. J., K. B. 14. 
 
 Proof in Bankruptcy— Amount Due on Bills.] 
 —A party accepted bills to meet goods consigned 
 to him. The acceptances were made payable 
 " on dehvery of the bills of lading." The bills 
 of lading remained, with the bills of exchange, in 
 the possession of the bank who had discotmted 
 the latter for the drawers : — Held, on the bank- 
 ruptcy of the acceptor, that the goods were 
 part of his estate, which the bank held as 
 security for their debt, and therefore that the 
 bank could only prove for the amount due on 
 the bills of exchange after deducting the value 
 of the goods. JJrctt, Ex jjarte, Howe, In re, 
 40 L. J., Bk. 54 ; L. II. 6 Ch. 838 ; 25 L. T.252 ; 
 19 W. R. 1101. 
 
 Eight on Transfer.] — Corn merchants in 
 Crdifornia agreed to send cargoes of wheat to a 
 miller in England, the reimbursement to be by 
 his acceptance against bill of lading. The corn 
 merchants shipped a cargo, and made out the 
 bill of lading in six parts. Three parts, with 
 corresponding bills of exchange drawn on the 
 miller for the price of the cargo, were indorsed 
 by the corn merchants, and transferred to a 
 Californian bank for valuable consideration. 
 These bills of exchange were, with the bills of 
 lading annexed, accepted by the miller. One 
 indorsed part of the bill of lading was inad- 
 vertently sent by the corn dealers to the miller, 
 and by "him transferred to an English bank for 
 valuable consideration. The bills of exchange 
 -were not met by the miller :— Held, that the 
 corn merchants were entitled to deal as they did 
 with the cargo by transferring the bills of lading ; 
 that the English bank could not, under the cir- 
 cumstances, claim as holders of the bill of lading 
 without notice ; and that the English bank 
 had no priority. Gilbert v. Guigmn, L. R. 8 
 Ch. 10 : 27 L. T. 733 ; 21 W. R. 281 ; 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 498. 
 
 Stoppage in transitu^Bill of Lading, to what 
 Extent Negotiable.] — B., a Dantzic merchant, 
 sold wheat to W., an Amsterdam merchant, tO' 
 be paid for by drafts, to be drawn by B. on C, a 
 London merchant, against bills of lading. W. 
 was in fact, though that was not disclosed to B.,. 
 acting for P., another London merchant. W. 
 wrote to C, opening a credit on account of P., in 
 favour of B., to be drawn on against bills of 
 lading, P. to be debited with the amount. B. 
 forwarded a bill of lading, indorsed by him in 
 blank to C, in a letter, stating that, '• according 
 to instructions from W., we hand you bill of 
 lading, and request you to follow his instructions- 
 respecting the document, by whose order and for 
 whose account we draw on you ; which draft we 
 recommend to your kind protection." On the 
 day after C.'s receipt of this letter, the draft was. 
 left with C. for acceptance ; P. on the same day, 
 being in actual possession of the bill of lading,, 
 pledged it with G., who bona fide gave value for- 
 it. On the evening of the same day P. was- 
 arrested on a criminal charge, and he afterwards- 
 became bankrupt. W. also failed. B. stopped 
 the cargo in transitu. G. brought trover against 
 him for the cargo :— Held, that B., prima facie, 
 had the right to stop in transitu, and that G., 
 though a bona fide transferee for value of the 
 indorsed bill of lading from P., was not entitled' 
 to the cargo, unless P. had not merely possession 
 of the bill of lading, but a right to transfer it,, 
 inasmuch as bills of lading are not negotiable tO' 
 the same extent as bills of exchange. Giirneyy. 
 Behrend, 3 El. & Bl. 622 ; 23 L. J., Q. B. 265 ; 
 IS Jur. 856 ; 2 W. R. 425. 
 
 But held, that C. was entitled to hand over 
 the bill of lading to P., the letter from B. not 
 imposing any condition to prevent C. from doing' 
 so. lb. 
 
 By a bill of lading, goods were deliverable to 
 S. if he should accept and pay a bill of exchange ; 
 if not, to the holder of the bill of exchange ; S. 
 accepted the bill, and indorsed the bill of lading- 
 for a valuable consideration, but did not pay the- 
 bill when due :— Held, that upon its dishonour 
 the property in the goods vested in the holder of 
 it, and that he might maintain trover for the 
 goods against the indorser of the bill of lading, 
 Barroivy. Coles, 3 Camp. 92 ; 13 R. R. 763. 
 
 Appropriation of Policy Moneys.]— Bills were 
 
 drawn against cotton consigned to England. 
 The cotton was hypothecated, by means of a 
 letter in favour of a bank which bought the 
 bills : at the same time bills of lading and a 
 policy were handed to the bank. The letter con- 
 tained a power to keep insured, and a power to 
 sell the cotton in case of non-payment, and to 
 apply any balance, after satisfaction of the bills, 
 towards other debts due from the consignor to 
 the bank : — Held, that money received on the 
 policy could not be applied in payment of any- 
 thing beyond what was due on the bills. Latham 
 v. Chartered Banh of India, 43 L. J., Ch. 612 ; 
 L. R. 17 Eq. 206 ; 29 L. T. 795 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 178. 
 
 Other Conditions— Authority of Captain.] — 
 
 The plaintifls were indorsees for value of bills of 
 lading indorsed to them for vahie by M. under 
 the following circumstances : — The defendants 
 had agreed to buy of M. all the ore of a certain* 
 mine, the ore to be shipped at a Spanish port by 
 him, f. o. b., on vessels chartered by the defen- 
 dants or by him, and to be paid for by bills of
 
 36( 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Frcuiht. 
 
 366 
 
 exchange againsb bills of lading on the execution 
 of a charter, and on a certiticate that there was 
 enough iron in dock to load the vessel chartered. 
 On being so paid for, the ore was to be the 
 property of the defendants. Some cargoes of the 
 ore having been taken, and all of it paid for, the 
 "Trowbridge," a vessel chartered by the defen- 
 dants, was loaded with ore by M., who had, 
 however, no intention to ship it for them, and 
 previously informed them thereof. He then pre- 
 sented to the captain the bills of lading, which 
 stated that the shipment was by S., and made the 
 cargo deliverable to the order of S. ; but no such 
 person as S. existed. The captain, being bound 
 by the charter to sign bills of lading as presented, 
 signed the bills. M. indorsed the name of S. 
 and his own name on the bills of lading, and 
 then pledged them to the plaintiffs : — Held, that 
 they were entitled to the ore represented by such 
 bills. Gaharrow v. Kreeft, U L. J., Ex. 238 ; 
 L. R. 10 Ex. 27i ; 33 L. T. 365 ; 2i W. R. 146 ; 
 3 Asp. M. C. 36. 
 
 Another vessel, the " Macedonia," having been 
 also sent by the purchasers of the ore, under a 
 charterparty, by which the shipowner agreed to 
 deliver the cargo to the freighters or assignees, 
 but which did not authorise the captain to sign 
 bills of lading as pjresented, she was loaded by 
 M., who at the commencement of the loading 
 intended that it should be in fulfilment of his 
 contract. He, however, obtained bills of lading 
 as in the former case, and indorsed them to a 
 third person, to whom the cargo was delivered. 
 In an action by the purchasers of the ore against 
 the shipowner for non-delivery of the cargo to 
 them, according to the charterparty : — Held, 
 that as the cargo had been delivered according to 
 the bills of lading, the defendant was not liable. 
 Ih. 
 
 6. PLEDGIXa. 
 
 By Owners of Ship and Cargo.] — The owner of 
 a vessel, and part owner of the cargo, sanctioning 
 a pledge by his partners of the bills of lading, 
 which were signed for the delivery of the goods 
 on payment of freight, pledges the goods and the 
 freight of them together, unless the freight is 
 expressed to be excepted. Grote v. Milne, i 
 Taunt. 133. 
 
 Effect of, on Stoppage in transitu.]— &c cai>cs 
 post, col. 570. 
 
 Pledge by Holder of Bill of Lading of Goods 
 belonging to Third Party.] — 1'.., liuving sold 500 
 sacks (if flour to H., consigned them to him by sea, 
 with 500more to sell on commission. Thecaptain 
 of the vessel executed and handed to B. two 
 duplicate bills of lading, expressed to be " to order 
 or aasigna" ; and one of them having been for- 
 warded by B. to H. unindorsed, the latter, on 
 the Itth February. 1878, deposited it with a dis- 
 count company (who carried on business in the 
 same town as himself) to secure an advance of 
 600Z. then made to him. On the 11th February 
 H., who, in thcmeantime, and without infonning 
 B. of the transaction of the 'Jth, had obtained 
 from him the duplicate bill of lading duly 
 indorsed, deprisitcd it also with the company, at 
 whose instance he, on the 13th, further executed 
 to them a letter of lien, antedated the itili. u|ion 
 the whole cargo, in respect both of the (JOO/. 
 advance and of about KOO/., the amount of certain 
 bills of exchange previously discounted for him 
 by the company, and just reaching maturity. 
 
 The vessel arrived shortly afterwards, and the 
 company discovered that H. was ownei of only 
 half the flour, whereupon B.. having brought an 
 action to have his own half relieved from the 
 company's lien : — Held, that the plaintiff was 
 entitled to the relief sought. Blake v. Belfast 
 Discount Co., 5 L. R., Ir.^410. 
 
 See also Gh/n, Jlills <5' Co. v. East and West 
 India Docks Co., col. 351. 
 
 7. Lien of Shipping Agent. 
 
 A shipping agent, having a lien on the bill of 
 lading of goods which he has shipped, may, if the 
 lien is not satisfied before they have reached their 
 destination, have the goods brought home in order 
 to retain his lien on them, and is not liable to an 
 action for so doing. Edwards v. Southgate, 10 
 W. R. 528. 
 
 8. Forged. 
 
 Bills of Exchange Accepted in Respect of — 
 Rights of Acceptor.] — A cotton broker of New 
 Orleans was in the habit of sending cotton over 
 to England, and the plaintiff was in the habit 
 of accepting his bills, in consideration of the 
 assignment to him of bills of lading for the cotton. 
 In 1870, in the course of this business, a bank, to 
 whom two bills of the cotton broker on tlie plain- 
 tiff were indorsed, sent them for the plaintiff's 
 acceptance, and with the bills they sent a memo- 
 randum, "The bank holds bills of lading for 504 
 bales of cotton." The plaintiff' thereupon accepted 
 the bills, and retiring them before they became 
 due received the bills of lading, and went to the 
 captain of the ship on his nnival and presented 
 the bills of lading, which turned out to be 
 forgeries : — Hekl, that, notwithstanding the repre- 
 sentation contained in the memorandum sent by 
 the bank, the plaintiff could not call on the bank 
 to repay him the value of the bills.- Leather v. 
 Simpson, 40 L. J., Ch. 177 ; L. R. 11 Kq.3'J8 ; 24 
 L. T. 286 ; I'J W. R. 431 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 5. 
 
 A bank j)resented a bill of exchange to the 
 drawees for their acceptance, accompanied by a 
 ticket representing that the bank hehl bills of 
 lading to cover it. The drawees thereupon 
 accepted the bill, relying on the statement that 
 the bank held bills of lading, which both parties, 
 thought to be genuine. The bills of Luling had 
 been forged by the drawer of the bill of 
 exchange : — Held, that the drawees were not 
 entitled to demand from the baidv genuine bills 
 of lading before paying the amount of the bill 
 of exchanirc. Jiu.tlrr\. Chapman, 2'J L. T. G42 ; 
 2 Asp. M.C. 170. 
 
 XIII. FREIGHT. 
 
 1. Nature of, 367. 
 
 2. When Paij((lde. 
 
 a. (ienerally, 368. 
 
 h. On Transhipment, 371. 
 
 c. Pro ratiV ilineris, 373. 
 
 d. Capture, 375. 
 
 c. Restraint of Princes — Prohibited Cargo, 
 
 377. 
 /. Damage to Cargo — Short Delivery, 380. 
 (/. Abandonment, Loss, or Detention of Sliip, 
 
 3K4. 
 
 3. Paynirnf. 
 
 a. To Whom. 
 
 i. fienerally, 388. 
 ii. On Assit^nment, 392. 
 iii. On Moitgage, 395.
 
 867 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Frelriht. 
 
 368 
 
 b. By AVhom. 
 
 i. Consignor or Consignee, 397. 
 ii. Assent. Factor, Broker, or Charterer, 
 
 iii. Assignee, Appointee, Indorsee, 402. 
 e. Time, 406. 
 
 d. Manner. 
 
 i. Advance Freight, 408. 
 ii. Bill of Exchange, 413. 
 iii. Other Cases, 414. 
 
 e. Rate and Amount, 415. 
 
 f. Overpayment, Recovery of, 426. 
 ff. Tender* 426. 
 
 h. Payment Guaranteed, 427. 
 i. Pleading, 427. 
 
 4. Lien on Carqo. 
 
 a. Creation of, 428. 
 
 T). Against Charterer or Agent with Notice, 
 436. 
 
 c. Against Indorsee or Assignee of Bill of 
 
 Lading, 440. 
 
 d. Waived, Suspended or Lost, 443. 
 
 5. Assignment, 443. 
 
 See also XI. ChARTEEPAETY ; XII. BiLL OF 
 Lading. 
 
 1. Natuee of. 
 
 Admissibility of Evidence to Explain.] — Evi- 
 -ilence is not admissible to explain the meaning 
 of the word " freight," which is not an ambiguous 
 term. Krall v. Burnett, 25 W. R. 305. 
 
 What it is.]^Freight is the reward payable to 
 a carrier for the safe carriage and delivery of 
 goods. It is payable only on safe carriage and 
 delivery. If the goods are safely carried, the 
 master has a lien on the goods for the amount of 
 the freight due for such carriage, and cannot be 
 compelled to part with the goods till such freight 
 is paid. Kircliner v. Venua, 12 Moore, P. C.361 ; 
 5 Jur. (N.S.) 395 ; 7 W. R. 455. 
 
 Freight, for many purposes, is considered as 
 part of the ship, inseparably appurtenant thereto. 
 Willis v. Palmer, 7 C. B. (N.S.) 340 ; 29 L. J., C. P. 
 194 ; 6 Jur. (N.S.) 732 ; 2 L. T. 626 ; 8 W. R. 
 295. 
 
 The term " freight," in common parlance, is 
 ambiguous, and may mean a sum of money to 
 be paid at all events upon the taking of goods on 
 board to be carried on a voyage, in lieu of the 
 ■expectation of earning freight upon the contin- 
 gency of the ship's arrival. Andrew v. Moor- 
 'Jiouse, 5 Taunt. 435 ; 1 Marsh. 122 ; 15 R. R. 544. 
 
 On Shipowner's Own Goods.] — "Where the owner 
 of a ship is also the owner of the cargo on board, 
 no freight can be earned by the voyage, and 
 therefore where an owner of a ship and cargo had 
 bills of lading drawn reserving a nominal freight, 
 on the security of which he obtained certain bills 
 of exchange : — Held, that the acceptors of the 
 bills had no claim against the produce of the 
 sale of the cargo. Cellier v. Ulnde, 17 L. T. 341 ; 
 16 W. R. 184. 
 
 Though freight may not be payable in respect 
 of a man's ovra goods conveyed in his own 
 ship, it becomes so if he makes third persons, who 
 have advanced him money, the consignees of those 
 goods, and the goods are by the bill of lading 
 deliverable to their order. Wequelin v. CelUrr, 
 42 L. J., Ch. 758 ; L. R. 6 H. L. 286 ; 22 W. R. 26. 
 
 Nominal.] — Goods, which by the terms of the 
 bUl of lading have been carried upon a nominal 
 
 amount of freight, can 1)0 lawfully demanded by 
 the holder of the bill of lading, on payment of 
 that amount. Keith v. Burrows, 46 L. J., C. P. 
 801 ; 2 App. Cas. 636 ; 37 L. T. 291 ; 25 W. R. 831 ; 
 3 Asp. M. C. 481— H. L. (E.) 
 
 The owner of a ship cannot, by his subsequent 
 acts, give to his mortgagees, as against the holder 
 of a biU. of lading, rights different from those 
 possessed by himself under it. Ih. 
 
 2. When Payable. 
 
 a. Generally. 
 
 Legality.] — A vessel freighted from Dantzic 
 to London was, on her arrival, and after a de- 
 livery of part of her cargo, seized by the revenue 
 officers on suspicion that she was not Prussian 
 built ; the treasury on petition ordered the ship 
 to be restored on condition that the cargo should 
 be exported, and on payment of 50Z. as a satis- 
 faction to the seizing officers : — Held, that this 
 was sufficient to show that the vo,yage was illegal 
 without condemnation ; and that, although the 
 freighters afterwards accepted and exported the 
 cargo according to the terms of the order, the 
 master was precluded from recovering freight. 
 Blanch v. Sully, 1 Moore, 531 ; Holt, 554 ; 19 
 R. R. 469. 
 
 Payable on Completion of Voyage.] — Freight 
 cannot be recovered on a charterparty, unless 
 the stipulated voyage has been actually per- 
 formed ; and there is no implied promise to pay 
 a compensation for carrying goods a part of the 
 vogage, imless they are voluntarily accepted at 
 a place short of the port of destination. Osgood 
 V. Groning, 2 Camp. 466 ; 11 R. R. 765. 
 
 Although freight should be made payable by 
 the shipper on the shipment of the gootls, it is 
 not merely on that account earned without a 
 performance of the voyage. 3fashiter v. Buller, 
 
 1 Camp. 84. S. P., Clark v. Bruisina, 1 Marsh. 
 123. 
 
 The freight upon a charterparty is not earned 
 until the unloading and delivery of the whole 
 cargo has been completed. By-own v. Tanner, 
 37 L. J., Ch. 923 ; L. R. 3 Ch. 597 ; 18 L. T. 
 624 ; 16 W. R. 882. See also Metcalfe v. 
 Britannia Ironworks Co., post, col. 375. 
 
 The shipowner gets no freight unless the ship 
 delivers her cargo. Ajwn., Sidcrf., pt. 1, 236. 
 
 Where Cargo-owner prevents Completion of 
 Voyage.] — The master is entitled to recover his 
 freight, if he has either carried his cargo to its 
 destination, or if he has been precluded from 
 carrying it by the act or default of the owner. 
 Cargo ex Galam, 3 N. R. 254 ; Br. & Lush. 167 ; 
 
 2 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 216 : 33 L. .J., Adm. 97 ; 10 
 Jur. (N.S.) 477 ; 9 L. T. 550 ; 12 W. R. 495. 
 
 The whole freight is payable if the owner of 
 the cargo prevents the master of the ship from 
 forwarding the goods from an intermediate port 
 to their destination. 'The Sohloinsten, 36 L. J., 
 Adm. 5 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 293 ; 15 L. T. 393 : 15 
 W. R. 591. S. P., Christy v. B.ow, 1 Taunt. 300 ; 
 9 R. R. 776. 
 
 Special Contract — Freight Payable though 
 Ship Lost.] — Fieight held to be (hie from the 
 last port of unlading to the time the ship was 
 cast away, upon the words of the charterparty. 
 Cidlen v. Mico, 1 Keb. 831.
 
 3G9 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Frelijht. 
 
 370 
 
 A ship was lost on a voyage from London 
 to the Cape. The bill of lading contained the 
 words "freight for the said goods being paid." 
 The jury found that the shipper had a choice of 
 paying a higher rate on delivery of the goods at 
 the Cape, or a lower rate on shipping the goods 
 in London, and that he had elected to pay the 
 lower rate. In an action for fi-eight at the 
 lower rate, judgment for the plaintiff. Andrew 
 V. Jloorhouse, 5 Taunt. 435 ; 1 Marsh. 123 ; 15 
 E. R. 544. 
 
 Additional Freight — Agreement between Char- 
 terers' Agent and Master.] — Cliarterer held liable 
 on an agreement between his agent and the 
 master for additional freight for taking the ship 
 to a loading port other than that for which she 
 was chartered. Shtiey v. Peter, 3 Ct. of Sess. 
 Cas. (3rd ser.) 883. 
 
 Condition of Cargo preventing Delivery.] — 
 
 Uliere cargo cannot be carried to its destina- 
 tion by reason of its condition alone, the shipper 
 cannot refuse payment of freight on the ground 
 that the contract is not performed. The Fortuna, 
 Edwards, 57. 
 
 Cargo not allowed to be Landed — Freight back 
 to Port of Loading.] — A ship with a general 
 cargo sailed from London for Havre with some 
 petroleum on board. Under the bill of lading 
 the shipowner was to deliver the petroleum at 
 Havre, and it was to be taken out by the defen- 
 dant within twenty-four hours after arriving at 
 Havre, or ten guineas a day was to be paid for 
 <iemurragc. On the ship's arriving at Havre, 
 the authorities of the port made the captain 
 take her away in consequence of the petroleum 
 being on board. Thereupon he went to neigh- 
 bouring ports, but was not allowed to stay 
 there. Returning to Havre, he discharged his 
 general cargo, and no bill of lading having been 
 presented to him, and iioai)plication having been 
 made to him for the delivery of the petroleum, 
 he brought it back to London. On the ship- 
 owner claiming freight, liack freight, demurrage, 
 and expenses: — Held, that he was entitled to 
 freight, back freight, and expenses. Freight is 
 earned by the carriage and arrival of the goods 
 ready to be delivered to the merchant, so that, 
 although the petroleum could not be landed at 
 Havre, it was in the port a reasonable time, 
 <luring which tlie owner might have received it ; 
 and tiie freight was accordingly earned. Argos, 
 (Jarqo ex, (lavdrt v. BroiDu, L. K. 5 P. C. 134 ; 
 28 L. T. 74.-, : 21 W. II. 707. Aflirming, 42 L. J., 
 Adm. 49. See also cases, infra, col. 377. 
 
 Special Contract — Freight not Payable unless 
 Ship Return — Ship abandoned as Unseaworthy 
 — Payment for Use of Ship. |— Wiicrc llicchar- 
 ter[)arfy (to tin; Jia.sl, Jiidia (>).) \v;is so worded 
 that no JFrcight was pay.'iblc urdcss tlie ship 
 returned and discliarged her lading : and after 
 being u.sed for two years under the charterparty, 
 .she was condemned at Bombay as unfit to return 
 to England: — Held, in chancery, that the com- 
 pany were bound to account for what they 
 li.'ul made of tlie ship, and to pay freight and 
 <lomurrage. Edwin v. East India Co., 2 Vem. 
 210. 
 
 Mahogany Cargo — Delivery of Freight — 
 Measurement — Condition Precedent.] — by char- 
 terparty it was agreed that the shipowner .should 
 
 ship a cargo of mahogany at Honduras, and 
 carry it to Norfolk, in Virginia, and there make 
 a delivery of the same according to bills of 
 lading, the freighter covenanting to pay freight 
 on such true delivery at the rate of 3^. 8s. per 
 ton of 400 superficial feet freight measurement. 
 In an action for non-payment of freight, the 
 defendant pleaded that by usage of the Honduras 
 trade an account for the freight of the cargo, 
 called a freight measurement, should be produced 
 to the freighter by the master or owner on 
 receiving the cargo before freight is payable ; 
 and that no such account was delivered by the 
 plaintiff to the defendant. Also, secondly, that 
 it was the duty of the plaintiff to deliver a 
 freight measurement of the cargo, and that he 
 had not done so : — Held, that both pleas were 
 bad, one because evidence of usage could have 
 been admitted at the trial to explain the terms 
 of measurement, and the other because the 
 alleged condition precedent of delivery of an 
 account could not be added to the charterparty. 
 Gibbon V. Young, 2 Moore, 224 ; 19 R. R. 510. 
 
 Non-payment of Freight — Demurrage.] — See 
 
 Mueller v. Young, infra, col. 488. 
 
 Hire of Ship for Six Months certain— Ship 
 Captured before Six Months expired.] — A master 
 and part owner of a ship lying at Liverpool by 
 charterparty let the ship to freight for a voyage 
 to Madeira, and thence to Barbados and back to 
 Liverpool, Greenock, or Bristol, with liberty for 
 the freighters to order the ship from Barbados to 
 any other West Indian island except Jamaica, 
 they paying port charges and pilotage dues ; the 
 ship to be loaded by the freighters with a cargo 
 for Madeira, to be delivered there according to 
 the freighters' orders, and to take on board there 
 such cargo as the freighters should direct, and 
 to deliver such cargo in Barbados ; and to load 
 cargo at Barbados to be carried to Liverpool, 
 Greenock, or Bristol, and so end the intended 
 voyage ; the freighters to pay for hire of the 
 ship 136Z. \()s. per month for six months certain, 
 to commence eight days after she was ready to 
 receive cargo at Liverpool, and to continue until 
 she was discharged at Liverpool, Gr(>cnock, or 
 Bristol, together witli two-thirds of all i)iliitage, 
 &c., charges; payment thereof to be mu<le as 
 follows : 13C^. 10«. to be advanced before sailing 
 from Liverpool by three months' bill nnd port 
 charges anil disbursements at Madeira and 
 Barbados to be paid in part of freight ; and the 
 remainder of the freight to be paid on discharge 
 at Liverpool, &c. The ship sailed and delivered 
 cargo and took in more at Madeira, and saile<l 
 from thence for Barbados on the Dili October. 
 On 10th November she was captured. Partof the 
 freight for the first month had bcrn paid, and 
 till' shipowner claimed fuither freight for gunds' 
 delivereii at Madeira, or for the hire of the ship 
 u]) to the date of her capture: — Held, that no 
 freight could be recovered. Jfyrne v. Patthmm, 
 Abbot on Shipping, 13th cd. <11'.». 
 
 Hire of Ship so long as Efficient — Break- 
 down of Machinery.] — See Jfngnrth v. Miller, 
 infra, col. 3.SS. 
 
 Delivery of Goods without receivijig Freight- 
 Liability for Freight continues.] i'he bills of 
 huling were for drjlvcry to the dcfend.ant (the 
 charterer) or his assigns, he or they paying 
 freight. The defendant indorsed them to K.
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freight. 
 
 372 
 
 iS: Co. specially, upon condition that they would 
 accept, or promise to accept, certain bills of 
 exchange, and -would also promise to account 
 with k! & Co.. to whom half the cargo belonged, 
 for a moiety of the proceeds, and on their refusal 
 to do so, then to deliver to D. & Co., first obtain- 
 ing from them a similar promise to accept the 
 bills, and account to the defendant for a moiety 
 of the prc<:eeds. K. & Co. refused, and the cargo 
 was delivered to D. & Co., but no promise was 
 obtained from them. They did, however, pay the 
 bills and account for the defendant's moiety, and 
 gave him credit for the freight ; but, notwith- 
 standing, he was still in their debt : — Held, that 
 the defend.ant was liable to the shipowner for the 
 freight. Penrose v. WiUies, stated, 13 East, 570. 
 In indebitatus assumpsit for freight, it appeared 
 that goods were laden in Jamaica on board the 
 plaintifE's ship, according to a bill of lading which 
 stated them to have been shipped by W. J. on a 
 vessel bound for London on account of the defen- 
 dant, and that they were to be delivered in 
 London to the consignees, they paying freight for 
 the same at the rate therein mentioned. The 
 goods, &c., shipped were the property of the 
 defendant. The captain having delivered the 
 goods to the consignees without receiving the 
 freight, it was held that the defendant was liable 
 by law to pay the freight to the shipowners, and 
 that independent of any contract by the charter- 
 party. Domett V. Becl-ford, 5 B. & Ad. 521 ; 2 
 N. & M. 374 ; 3 L. J., K. B. 10. 
 
 Substituted Voyage— Action on Charterparty.] 
 
 — The plaintiff covenanted that his ship would 
 receive from the freighter's agent at Gibraltar or 
 elsewhere as specifiecl as should be directed by 
 the agent, a cargo, and therewith proceed to 
 London, and there deliver it ; and the freighter 
 covenanted to pay freight for the ship for the 
 voyage out and home 550?. — 200Z. on clearing 
 outwards, 100/. at Gibraltar, a moiety of the re.st 
 in cash on delivery of the cargo in London, and 
 the other moiety by a bill at two months from 
 the completion of the delivery. The plaintiff, by 
 direction of the plaintiff's agent, sailed for 
 Cadiz, and from Cadiz to Seville, and there loaded 
 a cargo which, by direction of the plaintiff's 
 agent, he carried to and delivered at Liverpool : 
 — Held, that the plaintiff could not, in an action 
 upon the charterparty, recover the freight 
 covenanted to be paid on delivery in London. 
 Thompson v. Brown, 1 Moore, 358 ; 7 Taunt. 656. 
 
 Condition precedent or Separate Covenant — 
 Ship "having unloaded at T."] — See Ohlsen v. 
 Drummond, supra, col. 270. Shower y. Cudmore, 
 supra, col. 270. 
 
 Action for Freight — Money in Court in Foreign 
 
 Action.] — The freight having been paid into 
 court in Spain by the Spanish consignee of cargo, 
 at the suit of the charterer, qujere, whether the 
 shipowner can sue the charterer for freight in 
 England. Newldnd v. Horseman, Cas. in Ch., 
 pt. 2, 74. 
 
 b. On Transhipment. 
 
 "Whole Freight Payable.] — The freighter of 
 gootls on whicli freight was to be paid on 
 delivery at the port of destination, is bound to 
 pay the whole freight originally contracted for, 
 where transhipment has been found necessary, 
 and the goods have been delivered at the port of 
 destination, although the master consigned the 
 goods under fresh bills of hiding in the second 
 
 vessel to his own agent, and the freight was at a 
 much lower rate than that originally contracted 
 for. Shipton v. Thornton, 1 P. & D. 216 ; 9 
 A. & E. 314 ; 8 L. J., Q. B. 73. 
 
 If a vessel during her voyage is injured, and 
 is compelled to put into a port of refuge, then, 
 by English law, the master is not bound to tran- 
 ship. He is allowed a reasonable time, either to 
 repair and carry on or to tranship. If he declines 
 to do either, he may be called upon to deliver 
 without payment of freight ; but before a reason- 
 able time has elapsed he cannot be required to 
 deliver, except on payment of full freight and 
 waiver thereof. The Bahia, Br. & Lush. 292 ; 
 11 Jur. (N.s.) 90 ; 12 L. T. 145. 
 
 Where a vessel is disabled at an intermediate 
 port, the master is allowed a reasonable time to 
 reship and tranship so as to earn his freight. 
 TJte Soblomsten, 36 L. J., Adm. 5 ; L. R. 1 A. 
 & E. 293 ; 15 L. T. 393 ; 15 W. R. 591. 
 
 German Law — Vessel Liable to Capture.] — By 
 
 German law, if a vessel is liable to risk of capture, 
 either party may withdraw from the contract of 
 affreightment ; but the master is not obliged to 
 part with the cargo or to tranship it, unless 
 distance freight, as well as all other claims of the 
 shipowner and the contributions due from the 
 cargo for general average, have been paid or 
 secured : — Held, that a demand upon the master 
 to tranship at his own risk and expense was not 
 such a compliance with the German law as 
 obliged him to tranship. The Bxpress, 41 L. J., 
 Adm. 79 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 597 ; 26 L. T. 956 ; 1 
 Asp. M. C. 355. 
 
 Fraudulent Contract by Master.] — Merchants 
 in London chartered the " Planter " to bring a 
 cargo of guano to this country at a freight of 70*. 
 a ton. Advances to a considerable amount on 
 account of freight were made by the agents of 
 the charterers to the captain of the " Planter " in 
 South America. After the guano had been 
 shipped, the " Planter," in consequence of sea 
 damage, became incapable of proceeding on her 
 voyage ; and the agents of the charterers declin- 
 ing to take upon themselves the transhipment of 
 the cargo to any other vessel for the purpose of 
 its being conveyed to its destination, C, the 
 master of the " Planter," chartered the "Alarm " 
 for that purpose in his own name, and took a bill 
 of lading from the plaintiff, who was the captain, 
 which was made out to him as the shipper, the 
 charterers being named therein as the consignees 
 to whom the guano was to be delivered in this 
 country. In that charterparty C. agreed to pay 
 the same amount of freight as his owners had 
 stipulated for in the original charterparty ; but, 
 by a private agreement between himself and the 
 plaintiff he stipulated, that while the 70.s\ per 
 ton should be required of the consignees on the 
 delivery of the cargo, the plaintiff was to keep 
 only 40*. per ton as the rate of freight as between 
 him and C. and was to hand the difference to C. 
 The guano having arrived in the "Alarm," the 
 charterers demanded to have the cargo, offering 
 to pay the difference between the amount of 
 freight at the rate which they had contracted to 
 payby the original charterparty, and the advances 
 which their agents in South America had made 
 to the captain of the " Planter." The plaintiff 
 insisted on the payment of the full freight, viz., 
 lOs. per ton After some discussion, the guano 
 was delivered to the charterers, without prejudice 
 to the lien of the plaintiff, if any, for freight : —
 
 373 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Frciqht. 
 
 dl4l- 
 
 Held, first, that the contract made by C. when he 
 chartered the "Alarm" must be considered as a 
 contract entered into by him on behalf of his 
 owners, and not on behalf of the charterers. 
 Matthews v. Gihhs, 30 L. J.. Q. B. 55 ; 7 Jur. 
 (N.S.) 186 ; 3 L. T. 551 ; 9 W. E. 200. 
 
 Held, secondly, that if the contract was entered 
 into by C. as agent of the charterers, it was bad 
 on two grounds ; first, as being fraudulent, and 
 fraudulent to the knowledge of the plaintiff ; 
 and. secondly, as being beyond the limits of any 
 authority which C. could exercise in the position 
 in which he was placed, and therefore the char- 
 terers were not bound by it. li. 
 
 c. Pro Rata Itineris. 
 
 Goods accepted at Intermediate Port.] — A 
 
 shipowner has no claim to freight pro rata 
 itineris peracti, except there is an acceptance of 
 the goods by the shipper at the shorter destina- 
 tion, such that the law will imply a new agree- 
 ment for freight pro rata. The J\'cwj)ort, Swabey, 
 335 ; 6 W. R. 310— P. C. And see Ogguod v. 
 Groninrf, ante, col. 36H. 
 
 No freight is payable if the owner of the cargo 
 is compelled against his will to take the cargo 
 at an intermediate port. The Sohlomsten, 36 
 L. J., Adm 5 ; L. K. 1 A. & E. 293 ; 15 L. T. 
 393 ; 15 W- K. 591. 
 
 To sustain a claim for pro rata freight, there 
 must be such a voluntary acceptance of the goods 
 by their owner at an intermediate port, as to 
 raise a fair inference that further carriage of the 
 goods was dispensed with. lb. 
 
 In an action on a charterparty, in which the 
 defendant covenanted to pay so much for freight 
 for "goods delivered at A.," freight cannot be 
 recovered pro rata itineris if the ship is wrecked 
 at B. before her arrival at A., though the defen- 
 dant accepted his goods at B. Cooh v. Jennings, 
 7 Term Rep. 381 ; -1 R. E. 468. 
 
 Goods Sold at Intermediate Port.] — Freight 
 was payable by the terms of a charterparty upon 
 delivery of cargo at the port of destination. The 
 ship meeting with sea damage from heavy 
 weather, the captain at an intermediate port 
 justifiably sold part of the cargo shipped by the 
 charterer, in onler to raise funds for the necessary 
 repairs. The cargo so sf)ld realised more than it 
 would have tlone if carried to the jiort of destina- 
 tion. The ship, having completed her repairs, 
 proceeded to the port of destination with the 
 remainder of the cargo. A general average 
 statement was afterwards made uj), under which 
 the charterer received from the shipowner the 
 amount realised by the cargo sol<l at the inter- 
 mediate port. The sliipowner rlainied from the 
 charterer freiglit pro ratA itineris an the cargo so 
 sold : — Held, that he was not entitled to such 
 freight. Hopper v. Burvess, 45 L. J., C. P. 377 ; 
 1 C. P. D. 137 ; 34 L. T. 528 : 24 W. R. 612 ; 
 3Asp. M. C. 149. 
 
 Where goods damaged on the voyage are 
 landed at an intermediate port and sold without 
 the assent of their owner, theshij)owners are not 
 entitled to freiglit pro ratA, itineris. Avatos v. 
 Bnrnx, 47 L. J., Ex. 566; 3 Ex, D. 282; 26 
 W. R. 624— C. A. 
 
 To entitle a shipowner, in the absence of a 
 special contract, to demand pro rata freight, 
 ■where the goods have been sold at an inter- 
 mediate port (being so much damaged as not to 
 be worth forwarding), it must be shown that the 
 
 owner of the goods had an option of having them 
 sent on or of accepting them at such interme- 
 diate port, mil V. Whson, 48 L. J., C. P. 764 ;. 
 4 C. P. D. 329 ; 41 L. T. 412 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 198. 
 
 A cargo of rice shipped at Batavia, was by the 
 bill of lading to be delivered at Rotterdam to- 
 the plaintiff, he paying freight for the same. 
 The vessel, having encountered a hurricane, was 
 compelled to put into the Mauritius, where the 
 rice, having been found to be damaged and in a 
 state of rapid putrefaction, was, of necessity, sold 
 by the master, who acted bona fide, but without 
 the knowledge of either the shipper or ship- 
 owner ; — Held, that no freight was due, either 
 for the whole voyage or pro rata itineris. Vller- 
 booin V. Chapman, 13 M. & W. 230 ; 13 L. J., Ex. 
 384: 8 Jur. 811. 
 
 Where freight was to be paid at so much per 
 ton, on a right and true delivery of the home- 
 ward-bound cargo, from Honduras Bay to Lon- 
 don, and the ship and cargo, after capture and 
 re-capture, having been wrecked at bt. Kitt's, 
 into which they were carried by the re-captors, 
 a sale of the cargo was directed by the vice- 
 admiralty courts there, on the application of the 
 master, acting bona fide for the benefit of ali 
 concerned, but without orders from any ; and 
 the proceeds of the sale were remitted to the 
 shipowners : — Held, that the freighter might 
 recover such proceeds in an action for money 
 had and received, without allowing freight prcv 
 rata itineris ; for such form of action is only a 
 waiver of any claim for damages for the tortious 
 act, taking the actual proceeds of the sale as the 
 value of the goods (subject to the legal conse- 
 quences of considering the demand as a debt, 
 which admits of a set-off), but does not recognise 
 the right of the vendor so to convert the goods. 
 And here, the act of conversion (for such it must 
 be taken to be) being made by the master, who is 
 the general agent of the shipowners (and not, as in 
 Baillie v. Modigliani, 6 Term Rep. 421, by the 
 act of a court of competent jurisdiction), was 
 unlawful, and discharged the claim of the ship- 
 owners for freight jiro rata itineris. Hunter v. 
 Prhuiep, 10 East, 378 ; 10 R. R. 328. And see 
 MorrlHV. Bnbinson, 5 D. & R. 35 ; 3 B. & C. 196 ; 
 27 R. R. 322. 
 
 Delivery at Port as near as Ship could safely 
 get. J — A cargd of railway Ijars was shipped under 
 a charterparty to be carried fruin a jiort in 
 England to Taganrog, in the Sea of Azof, or so 
 near thereto as tlie ship could safely get, freight 
 to be jiaid in London against certificate of right 
 delivery of cargo. On the jirrival ot the ship, on 
 the 17th of December, at Kertch, which was as 
 near as she could then get to Taganrog, the 
 captain found the sea blocked with ice till the 
 ensuing spring ; and he i)roccc(icd to discharge 
 the cargo, notwithstanding the opposition of the 
 charterers' agent. By the bill of lading the 
 cargo was deliverable at Taganrog to a Russian 
 railway compatiy "freiglit ami other conditions 
 as per charterparty." As no bill of lading wa.s 
 produced at Kertch, the captain placed the cargo 
 in charge of the custom-house authorities; and 
 they on the 27th of December delivered it to the 
 agent of the railway company on his producing 
 a written authority from the comjiany, together 
 with copies of the charterparty and bill of lading, 
 notwithstanding the captain's claim to retain it 
 until the claim was paid. The agent of the 
 company gave a written acknowledgment that 
 he had received the cargo on the power of the
 
 375 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freight. 
 
 376 
 
 charterparty ntid hill of ladins' passed to him by 
 t he railway' company. The ship then sailed from 
 Kertch. The shipowner having sued the char- 
 terers for freight :— Held, first, that he was not 
 entitled to full freight, as the delivery at Kertch 
 was not a delivery within the charterparty. 
 Metcalfe v. Jivltunnia Ironworlis Co., 46 L. J., 
 Q. B. 443 ; 2 Q. B. D. 423 ; 36 L. T. 451 ; 25 
 W. R. 720 : 3 Asp. M. C. 407— C. A. 
 
 Held, secondly, that he was not entitled to 
 freight pro rata, as no new contract for such 
 freight had been made. Ih. 
 
 See also cases umlcr 7iext siih-hcads. 
 
 Abandonment— Salvage.] — Where a salving 
 ship takes a crew off a vessel in distress and puts 
 men on board of her, refusing to allow her own 
 crew to return, and the two vessels are in com- 
 pany navigated into port, there is no such 
 abandonment of the ship as to put an end to the 
 contract of carriage, and consequently there will 
 be freight due upon the consignees requiring 
 delivery of the cargo, such freight being pro 
 rata, assuming the port not to be the port to 
 which the cargo ought to have been taken under 
 the contract of carriage. The Leptir, 52 L. T. 
 768 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 411. 
 
 Blockade of Port of Loading— Delivery else- 
 where.] — Under a charteri)arty that a ship 
 f^hould proceed to Taganrog, or "so near thereto 
 lis she may safely get," and there deliver cargo : 
 — Held, that this "port being under blockade, it 
 was not a fulfilment of the contract for the vessel 
 to discharge at Constantinople, even though that 
 might be a reasonable course to adopt, and that 
 no contract to pay freight pro rata could be 
 implied, and that the charterers having paid the 
 freight at Constantinople, under protest, were 
 entitled to recover it back. Castel v. Trechman, 
 1 Cab. & E. 276. 
 
 Ship Lost during Voyage — Goods taken 
 possession of by Owner,] — Where the goods 
 were to have been carried to Glasgow and the 
 ship was lost near Glasgow, the owners of part 
 of the goods abandoned them to the assurers, 
 who carried them to Bristol. As to these goods 
 the master offered to carry them on in another 
 ship to Glasgow, but delivery having been taken 
 at Bristol, it was held that the whole freight was 
 payable. As to other goods which the master 
 declined to carry on to Glasgow, and which were 
 taken possession of and carried on by the owners, 
 it was held that pro rata freight was payable. 
 Zutividf/e V. Grei/. cited in Lvke v. Lj/cle, 4 Burr. 
 886, 887 ; stated Abbot on Shipping, i3thed. 591. 
 See Jjuke v. Lyde, infra, col. 382. 
 
 d. Capture. 
 
 Advances for Disbursements.] — Covenant by 
 charterparty made between the master of the 
 ship and the freighter, upon a voyage from 
 Liverpool to Maranham, and thence back to L., 
 that the freighter should pay for the freight 
 from L. to M. 120/., and from M. to L. at the 
 rate of 2^d. per lb. for cotton, which should be 
 delivered' at L., such freight to be paid as 
 follows, viz. 120/. for freight of the outward 
 cargo, to M., and as much cash as might be 
 found necessary for the vessel's disbursements 
 in M., to be advanced by the freighter, his 
 agents or assigns, to the master when required, 
 free from interest and commission, at the current 
 exchange of the place, and the residue of such 
 
 freight to be paid on delivery of the cargo in L. 
 The ship arrived at M., where the 120/. outward 
 freight, and also 192/. for the necessary disburse- 
 ments of the ship, were paid or advanced by the 
 freighter to the master ; and the ship received 
 her homeward cargo and sailed for L., but was 
 lost by capture :— Held, that the freighter was 
 not eutitleil to recover back the 1 92/. Be Silvale 
 V. Kendall, 4 M. & S. 37 ; IG R. R. 373. 
 
 Freight Payable to Captor.] — Where the captor 
 brings the cargo to its port of destination he is 
 entitled to freight, but not otherwise ; pro rata 
 freight not given, even where the goods are 
 nearly at their destination and sold beneficially. 
 T/ie Vroiv Anna Catliarina, 6 C. Rob. 271. 
 
 Freight is not earned by the ship being 
 brought by captors to Plymouth, the ship being 
 bound to London. The Wilhelmina Eleonora, 3 
 C. Rob. 234. 
 
 Freight allowed to captors in respect of neutral 
 goods carried to the claimants' own country, 
 though not to their port of destination, the 
 voyage under special circumstances having been 
 substantially performed. The Vrouio Henrietta, 
 5 C. Rob. 75, n. 
 
 Freight on Enemy Goods in Neutral Ship.] — A 
 
 neutral ship carrying enemy goods is entitled, on 
 condemnation of the goods, to the whole freight ; 
 capture being equivalent to delivery. The 
 Copenhagen, 1 C. Rob. 289, infra ; Tlie Pros2)er, 
 Edwards, 76. 
 
 The freight payable upon enemy goods in 
 neutral ships is not necessarily the chartered 
 freight, as raised by war risk. The TwiUimj 
 Eiget, 5 C. Rob. 85. 
 
 The captor of enemy goods in neutral ship 
 takes them with the liability to pay freight — 
 per Lord Stowell. The Tohago, 5 C. Rob. 218, 222. 
 
 Contraband,] — Freight is not allowed to the 
 owner of a neutral ship carrying contraband of 
 war. The Oster Bisoer, 4 C. Rob. 199. 
 
 Capture and Eestitution— Pro rata Freight.] 
 
 — A ship put into an English port in distress, 
 the greater part of the voyage having been per- 
 formed. The cargo was discharged m order to 
 repair the ship. The ship and cargo were seized 
 as prize, but afterwards restored. The ship and 
 part of the cargo were afterwards sent to Lon- 
 don, and the rest of the cargo forwarded to its 
 destination : — Held, that the owners were entitled 
 to pro rata freight. The Copenhagen, 1 C. Rob. 
 289. S. C, supra. 
 
 Ship captured and restored with freight : — 
 Held, that the whole freight was a charge on the 
 caro-o, though not carried to its destination. 
 The Martha, 3 C. Rob. 106, n. 
 
 A ship and cargo having been condemned and 
 sold by a French court, and the sentence after- 
 wards reversed, freight pro rata, held payable, 
 the shipo-nmers having been prevented from 
 carrying the cargo to the port of delivery by no 
 fault of their own. Baillie v. Movdigliani, Park 
 on Insurance, 8th ed. 116. See The Fortuna, 
 Edwards, 57. 
 
 Capture and Recapture.] — A British ship, 
 freighted from Liverpool in ballast to Lisbon, 
 there took in a cargo for Ireland, and was 
 captured off Falmouth ; afterwards recaptm-ed 
 and taken into Falmouth : — Held, that the whole 
 of the freight was due to the shipowners from 
 the cargo owners. Tlie Racehorse, 3 C. Rob. 101.
 
 377 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freight. 
 
 878 
 
 Sale for Salvage — Common Incapacity to per- 
 form Voyage — Half Freight Decreed.]— A ship 
 bouQd for Lisbon reached the Tagiis, but was 
 unable to get in by reason of blockade. She was 
 blown off the coast, captured, recaptured and 
 sold at Madeira by the recaptors for salvage : — 
 Held, that upon principles of equity the loss 
 arising from the common incapacity of the 
 parties to the charterparty should be divided, 
 and half the freight decreed to be paid. The 
 Friends, Edwards, 246. 
 
 Pro rata, Freight.] — Freight pro rata on cap- 
 ture and recapture not given to a ship brought 
 back to the port or quasi port of her departure. 
 The Hiram, 3 C. Rob. 180. 
 
 A ship bound for London, after taking in her 
 cargo, but before breaking ground, was cut out 
 of her port of lading in Jamaica by a French 
 privateer ; but was afterwards recaptured and 
 carried into another port in the same island, 
 where the cargo was sold by order of the Court 
 of Admiralty for the benefit of the freighters : — 
 Held, that the owners of the ship ^vere not 
 entitled to any part of the freight, though by 
 the usage of the trade the ship was loaded at 
 their expense. Curling v. Long, 1 Bos. & P. G34 ; 
 4 K. K. 747. 
 
 e. Restraint of Princes— Prohibited Cargro. 
 
 Eestraint.] — If a ship freighted to H. is pre- 
 vented by restraint of princes from arriving, and 
 the consignees direct the master to deliver the 
 cargo at G., and accept it there, he may maintain 
 an action upon an implied contract to pay freight 
 pro rata itincris. Christy v. Jlow, 1 Taunt. 300 ; 
 9 R. R. 776. 
 
 And if the master is prevented by the default 
 of the consignees, or restraints of princes, from 
 delivering the whole cargo there, he will be 
 entitled to freight pro rata for the part delivered. 
 Ih. 
 
 Delay — Safe Port.] — A charterparty 
 
 made between English merchants at Vali)araiso, 
 and the owners of a Prussian ship, provided that 
 the ship shoukl proceed and deliver cargo at a 
 port to be named by the charterers in Great 
 Britain, or on the continent between Havre and 
 Hamburg. The charterer named Dunkiik. On 
 the arrival of the shiij off Dunkirk, the master 
 was informed by a pilot that war had commenced 
 between Prussia and France. The master there- 
 upon took the ship into Dover, ami refused to 
 deliver the cargo without i)ayment of full freight. 
 War was not in fact declared until three days 
 afterwards : — Held, that as the i)ort named by 
 the charterer wa.s an unsafe jiort, and Dover 
 being a port which might have been named 
 within tlic terms of the charter) >arly, tlic owners 
 were entitled to full freight. 'The Tciitimid, Dun- 
 can V. Kustr^r, H Moore, P. C. (x.s.) Ill ; 11 L..I., 
 Adm. 57 ; L. R. 4 P. C. 171 ; 26 L. T. 48 ; 20 
 W. R. 421 ; 1 Asp. M, C. 214— P. C. 
 
 Detention.] — A ship let to freight by the 
 month, in attempting to enter a blockaded jiort 
 by order of the freighters, was seized, and her 
 cargo condemned ; but, being afterwards released, 
 took in other goods, and delivered them to the 
 freighters, according to the charterjiarty : — Held, 
 that there was no suspension of the freight during 
 the detention of the ship. Moomum v. Greaves, 
 2 Camp. 627 ; 12 R. R. 763. 
 
 Convoy Recalled — Cargo Sold.] — Under an 
 agreement in the natiue of a charterparty, 
 whereby the plaintiff let his ship to freight to 
 the defendant on a voyage from Shields to Lisbon, 
 with convoy, the freight to be paid on right 
 delivery of the cargo ; the ship having sailed 
 from Shields with her cargo, and joined convoy 
 at Portsmouth ; and, after being detained near 
 a month off Lymington, her sailing orders being 
 recalled by the convoy, in consequence of the 
 occupation of Portugal by the enemy ; and the 
 defendant having refused to accept the cargo at 
 Portsmouth, to which the ship retm-ned, it was 
 unloaded by the plaintiff, after notice to the 
 defendant, and then was sold by consent of both 
 parties, without prejudice : — Held, that he could 
 not recover freight pro rata, or demurrage. Lid- 
 dard v. Lojyes, 10 East, 526 ; 10 R. R. 368. 
 
 Embargo taken off— Continuing Voyage,] — If 
 
 a British merchant charters a Swedish ship on 
 a voyage to St. Michael's for a cargo of fruit, and 
 the charterparty contains the usual exception 
 against the restraint of princes, and the ship i* 
 prevented from reaching St. Michael's within 
 the fruit season by an embargo laid on Swedish 
 vessels by the British government, the Swedish 
 owner cannot, by proceeding on the voyage after 
 the embargo is taken off, entitle himself to 
 recover the freight against the British merchant. 
 Touteng v. Hubbard, 3 Bos. ic P. 291 ; 6 R. R. 71)1. 
 
 Position of Blockading Squadron.] — A blockad- 
 ing squadron may lawfully be at any distance 
 convenient for shutting up the port blockaded, 
 provided it does not obstruct any other ; and a 
 ship will be considered as guilty of a wilful 
 breach of the blockade which actually comes 
 within reach of capture by the squadron, if the 
 circumstances were such that a prudent man 
 would have inquired whether that were the 
 blockading squadron, although the captain was 
 actually ignorant of its being so, not having 
 inquired. Xaylor v. Taylor, M. & M. 205; i> 
 B. k. C. 718 ; 4 M. ct Ry. 526 ; 31 R. R. 731. 
 
 Prohibition.] — A ship was let to freight for a 
 voyage, to take out a small cargo of lead, and 
 to bring home a return cargo, for which freight 
 was to be paid at eleven guineas per ton for the 
 whole ship's admeasurement. If, from political 
 circumstances, she should be unaV)le to discharge 
 her cargo, and conseciuently to obtain a return 
 cargo, the freighters agreed to pay a gross sum, 
 less than the amount of the freight per ton ; the 
 .shij) being prevented from discharging, and the 
 freighter sujiplying no homeward cargo, the 
 master took in goods on freight, and brought 
 them home togetiier with the leatl :— Held, that 
 he was entitled to receive the gross sum stipu- 
 lated, and also to retain the freight which the 
 ship had earned. JSrll v. Puller, 2 Taunt. 285 ; 
 12 Ea.st, 4%, n. ; 11 R. R. 574. 
 
 Upon a contract to fetch a cargo of corn from 
 a particular place, where, on arriving, it is found 
 that the government hits prohibited the exporta- 
 tion of corn, frei.i,'ht is payable though the ship 
 returns in ballast, after staying out her days of 
 demurrage, lili/fht v. I'dgc, 3 Bos. & P. 2'J5, n. ; 
 6 R. R. 7'J5, n. 
 
 Embargo.] — A ship was brought in under an 
 embargo, with cargo on V)oard not under the 
 embargo. A claim by the ship for freight against 
 the cargo, which was unloaded and sent on by
 
 379 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Frci^iht 
 
 380 
 
 another conveyance, dismissed. T/ic WevhJ.s- 
 horganni. 4 C. Kob. 17. 
 
 A car<jo belonging to Englishmen on board a 
 Swedish ship bound to Venice was detained under 
 an embargo on Swedish ships at Falmouth, where 
 the ship put in for shelter : — Held, that the cargo 
 owners were bound to j^ay expenses incurred by 
 the ship on account of cargo, but not freight. 
 IsaheUa Jacohtna, 4 C. Rob. 77. 
 
 Knowledge of.] — Where the plaintiff by 
 
 charterparty, dated the 1st March, let to the 
 defendant a ship to freight, and by its terms the 
 plaintiff was to carry an outward-bound cargo 
 of goods (not prohibited by restraint of princes) 
 from Liverpool to Carolina in America, and to 
 bring back a cargo of rice for the defendant, he 
 paying freight for the same ; and the plaintiff 
 cleared out on the 22nd March from Liverpool 
 with a cargo of salt, and on the 22nd May follow- 
 ing arrived at Carolina, where the importation 
 of British goods was prohibited by an order 
 issued on the 1st March, the day the charter- 
 party was dated ; and also a further order pro- 
 iiibiting the exportation of goods to England, so 
 that the plaintiff could not unload the salt nor 
 bring back a cargo of rice : — Held, that the 
 plaintiff' could not recover for freight homewards, 
 if it could be established that he knew of the 
 prohibition at the time of the ship's clearance 
 from Liverpool. Hesloj) v. Jones, 2 Chit. 550. 
 
 Back Freight.] — A ship with a general 
 «argo sailed from London for Havre with some 
 petroleum on board. Under the bill of lading 
 the shipowner was to deliver the petroleum at 
 Havre, and it was to be taken out by the defen- 
 dant within twenty-four hours after arriving at 
 Havre, or ten guineas a day was to be paid for 
 ■demurrage. On the ship's arriving at Havre, the 
 authorities of the port made the captain take 
 her away in consequence of the petroleum being 
 •on board. Thereupon he went to neighbouring 
 ports, but was not allowed to stay there. Return- 
 ing to Havre, he discharged his general cargo, 
 and no bill of lading having been presented to 
 liim, and no application having been made to 
 him for the delivery of the petroleum, he brought 
 it back to London. On the shipowner claiming 
 freight, back freight, demurrage and expenses : — 
 Held, that he was entitled to freight, back 
 freight and expenses. Freight is earned by the 
 carriage and arrival of the goods ready to be 
 ■delivered to the merchant. And although the 
 petrolen.m could not be landed at Havre, it was 
 in the port a reasonable time, during which the 
 owner might have received it ; and the freight 
 w^as accordingly earned. Argos. Cavf/oex, Gandet 
 V. Broivti, L. R. 5 P. C. 1.34 ; 28 L. T. 745 ; 21 
 W. R. 707. Affirming 42 L. .J., Adm. 49. 
 
 Where no application for delivery is made, the 
 ■captain may land and warehouse the cargo at 
 the expense of the merchant ; and where that is 
 forbidden by the authorities of the peat, he is 
 not justified in destroying the cargo ; but, in the 
 absence of advices, he may take it to such a place 
 as in his judgment is most convenient for the 
 merchant, and may charge to the merchant all 
 expenses properly incurred ; consequently, here 
 the shipowner was entitled to back freight and 
 expenses. The demurrage and the expenses 
 incurred in the ineffectual attempt to land at the 
 neighbouring ports were not allowed, but were 
 looked on as part of the expenses of the voyage. 
 
 Arrest of Cargo before reaching destination.] 
 
 — See Giilam, dutujo c;r, sujjva, col. 219. 
 
 See also caaes as to RESTRAINT OF Princes, 
 ante, Charterparty, Bill of Lading. 
 
 f. Damag'e to Carg-o — Short Delivery. 
 
 Consignee Accepting.] — If the consignee of 
 goods accepts any benefit by the carriage, he 
 cannot defend himself fi'om the payment of 
 freight, on the ground that the goods have been 
 damaged by the master in carrying them, though 
 the damage exceeds the amount of the freight. 
 Shields v. Davis, 6 Taunt. 65 ; 4 Camp. 119. 
 
 Effect of, in Action for Freight by Ship- 
 owner.] — Freight is recoverable as upon a right 
 and true delivery of the cargo agreeably to the 
 bills of lading, upon proof of having delivered 
 the entire number of chests, for which bills of 
 lading had been signed ; though it appeared that 
 the contents of the chests were damaged by the 
 negligence of the master and crew on board, in 
 not ventilating them suSiciently ; the party 
 injured having his counter-remedy by action for 
 such negligence. Davidson v. Gwynne, 12 East, 
 381 ; 11 R. R. 420. 
 
 Where the master and freighter of a vessel of 
 400 tons mutually agreed in writing, that the 
 ship, being every way fitted for the voyage, 
 should with all convenient speed proceed to 
 St. Petersburg, and there load from the freighter's 
 factors a complete cargo of hemp and iron, and 
 proceed therewith to London, and deliver the 
 same on being paid freight for hemp 5Z. per ton, 
 for iron 5s. a ton, one-half to be paid on right 
 delivery the other at three months : — Held, that 
 the delivery of a complete cargo was not a 
 condition precedent ; and that the master might 
 recover freight for a short cargo at the stipulated 
 rates per ton, the freighter having his remedy in 
 damages for such short delivery. Ritchie v. 
 Atkinson, 10 East, 295 ; 10 R. R. 307. 
 
 If a shipper of goods sustains a loss by reason 
 of the misconduct or negligence of the ship- 
 owner or his agents, his remedy is by action, and 
 he cannot resist payment of freight on the ground 
 that the goods were unfit for use when they 
 arrived at the port of destination. Garrett v. 
 Melhuish, 4 Jur. (N.s.) 943 ; 6 W. R. 491. 
 
 In cases of short delivery under a bill of 
 lading, a deduction may be made from the 
 freight of such proportion of the freight as would 
 have been payable if the goods had been 
 delivered, and this, even though the freight is 
 lump freight ; but the value of the goods not 
 brought to destination may not be deducted 
 from freight, but must, if necessary, be the sub- 
 ject of a separate action. The Noncay, 12 L. T. 
 57 ; 13 W. R. 296. 
 
 A consignee of goods under a bill of lading 
 has no right to deduct from the freight payable 
 on delivery of goods the value of articles which, 
 though mentioned in the bill of lading, turn out 
 not to have been put on board. Meyer v. Dresser, 
 16 C. B. (N.s.) 646 ; 33 L. J., C. P. 289 ; 10 L. T, 
 612 ; 12 W. R. 983. 
 
 The whole freight named in a bill of lading is 
 payable to the shipowner carrying under it, 
 although a less quantity of goods than the 
 quantity named in the bill of lading is delivered, 
 if the quantity delivered is no less than the 
 quantity received by the shipowner. Blanchet 
 V. PowelVs Llantivit Collieries Co., 43 L. J., Ex.
 
 381 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freight. 
 
 60 ; L. R. 9 Ex. 7i ; 30 L. T. 28 ; 22 W. E. 490 ; 
 2 Asp. M. C. 224. 
 
 Castom.] — This being the general law, it 
 
 cannot be altered by a universal practice of mer- 
 chants, which is not confined to any particular 
 place or trade, to have the value of such goods 
 deducted from the freight. Meyer v. Dresser, 
 supra. 
 
 Foreign taw.] — By French law, the 
 
 whole freight is payable whether the whole 
 quantity named in the biU of lading is carried 
 or not, and therefore, in the case of a bill of 
 lading executed in France, it is immaterial 
 whether or not the shipowner received the whole 
 quantity named in the bill of lading. Blanchet 
 V. PowtlVs Llantivit Collieries Co., supra. 
 
 The law of a foreign country, entitling a con- 
 signee to reduce the claim against him for 
 freight by the value of goods put on board and 
 lost, but which amounts to an allowance by way 
 of set-off, and not to an extinguishment of the 
 claim for freight, is matter of procedure only, 
 and therefore does not applj' to an action for 
 freight brought in this country against the con- 
 signee. Meyer v. Dresser, supra. 
 
 Charterer cannot Abandon Goods when 
 
 Damaged,] — A charterer, whose cargo has been 
 damaged by the fault of the master and crew, 
 so as, upon arrival at the ]:)ort of discharge, to 
 be worth less than the freight, is not entitled to 
 excuse himself from payment of freight by 
 abandoning the cargo to the shipowner. Daluii 
 V. Oxley, 15 C. B. (N.S.) 646 ; 38 L. J., C. P. 
 11.5 ; 10 Jur. (N.s.) 655 ; 10 L. T. 268 ; 12 W. R. 
 
 Lump Freight— Part of Cargo Lost by Perils 
 
 of Sea.] — A charterparty fri)ni Kiga to London 
 provided that the ship should load a full and 
 complete cargo of lath-wood, and deliver the 
 same on being jiaid freight as follows : a lump 
 sum of 315^. There was the usual exception of 
 •sea risks, and the freight was to be paid half on 
 arrival and the remainder on unloading and 
 right delivery of cargo. Part of the cargo, 
 loaded in accordance with the charterparty, was 
 lost by perils of the sea, without any default of 
 the master or crew :— Held, that the shipowner 
 was, on delivery of the remainder of the cargo, 
 entitled to the full sum. Ituhiuson v. Kniyhts 
 or Knight, 42 L. J., C. P. 211 ; L. 11. 8 C. P. 465 ; 
 28 L. i. 820 ; 21 W. R. 683 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 10. 
 
 Loss by Pirates,] — Covenant to pay freight 
 •on delivery. Cargo fiartly spoiled by pirates : — 
 Held, freight not payable. Bright v. Cou:per 
 lirownl. & G. pt. 1, 21. 
 
 Loss by Fire.] — By a charterparty a ship 
 was to load at Colombo or Cochin, from the 
 cliartcrers' agents, a full and complete lading, 
 and proceed to London, and discharge there, 
 fire and other dangers of the sea excepted, a 
 lumj) sum freight of 5,000Z., to be paid after 
 entire discharge and right delivery of the cargo 
 in cash two months after the date of the 8hi|)'s 
 report inwards at the custom house. Part of tlie 
 cargo loaded in accordance with the charterparty 
 was lost by fire, without any default of the 
 master or crew, and the remaiiuler was delivered 
 in London : — Held, that the shipowner was 
 entitled under the charterparty to the full sum 
 of 5,000Z. Merchant Shipping Co. v. Armitage, 
 
 382 
 
 43 L. J., Q. B. 24; L. R. 9 Q. B. 99 ; 29 L. T. 
 809 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 185— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Loss of Cargo before Delivery,] — Cement 
 was shipped under a bill of lading which stipu- 
 lated that freight should be paid " within three 
 days after arrival of ship, and before delivery of 
 any portion of the goods." The ship arrived in 
 port with the cement on board, but was within 
 the three days, in consequence of an accidental 
 fire, scuttled with a view to the saving of ship 
 and cargo ; and on her being raised the cement 
 was found to be useless, having ceased to exist 
 as cement, and the consignees refused to accept 
 it or to pay freight : — Held, that the shipowners, 
 not being ready to perform their part of the 
 contract, were not entitled to sue for freight. 
 Dufhie V. Hilton. 38 L. J., C. P, 93 ; L. R. 4 
 C. P. 138 ; 19 L. T. 285 ; 17 W. R. 55. 
 
 When Payable Pro rata.] — In case of a loss 
 at sea, freight must be paid only in proportion 
 to the goods saved, and the part of the voyage 
 which has been performed. Zvhe v. Lyde, 2 
 Bmr. 882 ; 1 W. Bl. 190. 
 
 Memorandum of Charter — Consideration.] 
 
 — A., owner of a vessel, took in a cargo at 
 Calcutta, to be carried thence to St. Petersburg, 
 which was purchased by his supercargo on his 
 account ; but B. & Co. advanced 26,000L towards 
 such purchase, and bills of lading were made 
 out by the captain, stating the cargo to be 
 shipped by B. & Co. on account of A., to be 
 delivered at St. Petersburg to B. & Co.'s order 
 or their assigns. The words, " he or they paying 
 freight," were struck out of the bills of lading, 
 which were indorsed by B. & Co. and trans- 
 mitted to the defendants, their correspondents 
 in London. Before the ship sailed, a memoran- 
 dum for charter was entered into at Calcutta, 
 between A.'s supercargo and the captain, whereby 
 it was agreed that the ship should be despatched 
 with a cargo for St. Petersburg, to be there 
 delivered to the order of the freighter, on being 
 paid freight at a certain rate therein stipulated. 
 The ship, in ju'oceeding on the voj'age, was lost, 
 but part of the cargo was saved, and sold with 
 the consent of the captain for 13,O0OZ. The 
 defendants, as indorsees of the bills of lading, 
 !ipl)lied for the i)roceeds of the salvage, which 
 had been ])reviously claimed by the plaintiffs, 
 as agents on the jtart of A. ; and the capt.ain also 
 claimed a lien thereon for pro rata freight ; on 
 which the defendants agreed by letter (if the 
 plaintiffs would cause the claims of A. and the 
 captain to be withdrawn) to be accountable to 
 them, as the agents of A., for whatever might 
 appear to be due for the pro ratA freight the ship 
 was entitled to, agreeably to the charterparty 
 entered into by A.'s supercargo and the captain. 
 In pursu.ance of this agreement these claims 
 were withdrawn, and the defendants received 
 the amount of the salvage, and then refused to 
 pay the pro rata freight, as the instrument 
 entered into at Calcutta was merely a memoran- 
 dum for charter ; and insisted that there was no 
 consideration for the defend:ints' promise. But, 
 in an action for nonp.ayment of the jiro ratil 
 freight under the agreement: — IIcW, that the 
 plaintiffs were entitled to recover, as the defen- 
 dants were .aware of the circumstances which 
 had happened before the agreement was entered 
 into. Thornton v. Fairlie, 2 Moore, 397 ; 8 
 1 Taunt. 354.
 
 383 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freight. 
 
 884 
 
 Reloading and Continuing Voyage.] — A ship 
 was chartered from London to B., there to 
 deliver her cargo, reload, and proceed to a port 
 between G. & A. ; freight for voyage out and 
 home, 1,800/.. if delivered at G., in S., London or 
 Liverpool ; 200Z. to be paid in London on the 
 vessel's departure, the remainder on final delivery 
 of the homeward cargo. The ship proceeded to 
 B., delivered her cargo there, and sailed again 
 with a cargo of hides, which the charterers con- 
 signed to G. At F. the ship and about one- third 
 of" the hides were lost. The vice-consul of F., 
 acting on behalf of the charterers, at the request 
 of the captain of the ship, transmitted the 
 residue of the hides, by another vessel, to the 
 consignees of the charterers at G., where they 
 were accepted, and the freight from F. to G. 
 paid by the charterers : — Held, that the plaintiff 
 was not entitled to the 1,300/. freight ; that he 
 was not entitled pro rata itineris for freight to 
 B., or from F. to G., but that he was entitled to 
 freight, pro rata, from B. to F. 3Iitchcll v. 
 Barthez, 2 Scott, 771 ; 2 Bing. (N.c.) 555 ; 
 1 Hodges, 418 ; 5 L. J., C. P. 154. 
 
 Short Cargo — Charterparty and BUI of Lading 
 Freight — Cargo Shipped by Shipowner in place 
 of Part Burnt — Amount of Freight Due.] — See 
 
 AitJicn V. Urnstkausen, post, col. 500. 
 
 Full Cargo not taken,] — Covenant to carry 
 180 men to Jamaica at 5/. per head ; 160 carried, 
 and alleged by plaintiff to be all that were 
 offered ; defendant alleging that 180 were offered. 
 Judgment for plaintiff. (Anon.') v. JVucll, 1 Kcb. 
 100. 
 
 Freight Payable on 240 tons whether Shipped 
 or not— Refusal to ship 240 tons tendered.] — 
 
 Plaintiff, by charterparty, agreed with defendants 
 to carry a cargo from B. to L. at 15^. per ton ; 
 the defendants agreeing to pay for 240 tons 
 whether that weight were shipped or not, freight 
 to be paid on right delivery. The plaintiff 
 alleged right delivery, and 'that the freight 
 amo'unted to 180/. ; that the defendants paid 
 146/. only, and claimed the difference. The 
 defendants pleaded that they tendered 240 tons 
 for shipment, and that the plaintiff refused to 
 carry more than a part of the 240 tons, and that 
 the ship might reasonably have carried the 
 whole. Held, on demurrer, that the plea was a 
 good defence. Clements v. Russell, 4 Ir. Ch. li. 
 318. 
 
 Commission on Freight — Ship Lost before 
 loading.] — "Commission" on freight expressed 
 to be payable to charterers " on completion of the 
 loading or should the vessel be lost." The vessel 
 was lost before arriving at the loading port :— 
 Held, commission not payable. Slbson v. Shij} 
 Barcrauj Co., 2 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 91. 
 
 Dates Damaged — Not Merchantable as Dates, 
 hut of value for Distillation.] — A vessel with 
 dates on board was sunk and afterwards raised. 
 The dates, which were shipped under bill of 
 lading making freight payable on right delivery, 
 were not merchantable as dates, but were of 
 considerable value for purposes of distillation. 
 Held, that no freight was payable. Asfar v. 
 Blundell, 65 L. J., Q. B. 138 ; [1895] 2 Q. B. 
 196 ; 15 R. 481 : 73 L. T. 648 ; 44 W. R. 130 ; 
 8 Asp. M. C. 106— C. A. 
 
 Charterparty— Ceaser Clause— Bill of Lading 
 
 —Short Delivery.] — A ship was chartered for a 
 
 voyage from Greenock to Monte Video for a 
 lump freight of 550/., of which 150/. was to be 
 paid on clearing at Greenock, and " bills of 
 lading for the balance payable abroad to be 
 taken (sic) by the captain, on receipt of which 
 documents all responsibility in charterer to 
 cease." The cargo was chiefly coal. The char- 
 terer divided the 550/. freight amongst the 
 various items of cargo, and presented bills of 
 lading together making up that sum for the 
 master's signature, the charterer being consignee. 
 The bill of lading for the coal was for 453J tons 
 at 22.?. ad. per ton freight. The master signed 
 this, with a note " weight and contents unknown." 
 The coal was discharged at Monte Video, turning 
 out 398 tons only, the master waiving his lieu 
 for freight. The charterer's agents, in settling 
 for the balance of freight, retained for coal short 
 delivered 24/., and 62/. freight thereon. The 
 owners sued the charterers for the balance of the 
 chartered freight : — Held, that the biUs of Jading 
 having been granted put an end to the charterer's 
 liability on the charterparty ; that the ship- 
 owners could recover freight on 308 tons only ; 
 that, in absence of proof that any of the coal 
 shipped had not been delivered, the charterer 
 could not retain the 24/. Benyon v. Kenneth, 
 8 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 594. 
 
 g-. Abandonment, Loss, or Detention of 
 Ship. 
 
 Loss of Ship — Freight Payable at fixed 
 Periods.] — A ship employed by a charterparty 
 on both an outward and a homeward voyage at 
 so much per month, and which was lost in the 
 homeward voyage was held to have earned tlic 
 freight due for the outward voyage. Mackrdl 
 V. iSimofid, 2 Chit. 666. 
 
 The freight, being reserved at so much per 
 month, was earned at the end of each month, 
 although the stipulated time of payment ^^'T\s 
 from four months to four months, and the ship 
 was lost at the end of fourteen months. Havc- 
 loch V. Geddes, 10 East, 555 ; 10 R. R. 380. 
 
 By a charterparty the freighter covenanted to 
 pay to the owner freight at and after the rate of 
 so much per ton per month, for the term of six 
 months at least, and so in proportion for less 
 than a month, or for such further time than six 
 months as the ship might be detained in the 
 service of the freighter, until her final discharge, 
 or until the day of her being lost, captured, or 
 last seen or heard of ; such freight to be paid to 
 the commander of the ship in manner following, 
 viz., so much as might be earned at the time of 
 the arrival of the ship at her first destined port 
 abroad, to be paid within ten days next after 
 her arrival there, and the remainder of the 
 freight at specified periods: — Held, that this 
 constituted one entire covenant, and that the 
 arrival of the ship at her first destined port 
 abroad was a condition precedent to the owner's 
 right to recover any freight ; and that the ship, 
 having been lost on her outward voyage, the 
 owner was not entitled to recover freight at so 
 much per calendar month to the day of the loss. 
 Gihhon V. Mendez, 2 B. & Aid. 17 ; 20 R. R. 337. 
 By charterparty freight was payable one 
 month after the ship sailed ; the voyage, Glasgow 
 to Deraerara, usually lasting six weeks. The 
 ship was lost three days after sailing :— Held, 
 that freight was payable. Lcitch v. Wilson, 
 7 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 150.
 
 S-Si 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freight. 
 
 Abandonment — Effect of on Freight.] — By 
 the abanddiiment of a ship by the erew during a 
 voyage, without any intention to retake posses- 
 sion, a right is given to the owner of cargo on 
 board to treat the contract of affreightment as at 
 an end. A ship witla a cargo of resin in barrels, on 
 a voyage from America to Kotterdam, was, owing 
 to the perils of the sea, abandoned by her crew 
 oflE the American coast. She was afterwards 
 saved by another vessel, and brought with her 
 cargo by the salvors into a port in England, 
 and there arrested in an action for salvage by 
 her salvors. Before the shipowner had released 
 the ship or cargo, the owners of the cargo 
 a|)plied for and obtained from the admiralty 
 court an order for the release of the cargo to 
 them without pa\-ment of any freight, upon 
 their giving bail to the salvors : — Held, that the 
 cargo owners were entitled to treat the contract 
 of affreightment as at an end, and that therefore 
 the order of the admiralty court was rightly 
 made. T/te Cito, 51 L. J., Adm. 1 ; 7 P. 1). 5 ; 
 4.5 L. T. 663 ; 30 W. K. 836 ; i Asp. M. C. 468 
 — C. A. 
 
 Derelict — Recovery by Shipowner at Port 
 
 of Discharge — Cargo Owner's Eight to Cargo 
 without Payment of Freight.] — If a ship is aban- 
 doned by her master and crew during a voyage, 
 and the cargo owner exercises his right of treat- 
 ing the abandonment as a determination of the 
 contract of affreiglatment, the subsequent re- 
 covery c)f the vessel by the shipowner from salvors 
 at the port of discharge will not revive the con- 
 tract, and the owner of the carg>o will be entitled 
 to have it returned to him without payment of 
 freight. The Anw, 72 L. T. 621 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 5 
 — C. A. 
 
 Cargo Eescaed by Salvors.] — A barque 
 
 bound fnjm Charleston with a cargo of cotton, 
 whipped under bills of lading for Bi-emen, the 
 <langers of tlie seas excepted, was abandoned in 
 the English Channel in consequence of damage 
 received in a collision, and was taken possession 
 of as a derelict by salvors, who towed her into 
 an English port, and there placed her in safety. 
 To recover salvage reward for their services the 
 ■sal vol's promoted causes of salvage in the high 
 <;ourt of admiralty against the barque, her cargo 
 and freight, and caused hei- and her cargo to be 
 arrested at the port to which they had so towed 
 Ihcr. Under an order of unlivery obtained in 
 one of these causes the cargo was unhiden and 
 ifountl to be nmch damaged by sea water, and on 
 the a))i)licatioM of some of tlie salvors, and with 
 l.he (consent of the cargo owners, but contrary to 
 the wislies of tlic owners of the sliip, wlio dlTered 
 ito give bail and carry the cargo on to JJremen, 
 the court, cf)nsideriiig that a sale would be for 
 •the benefit of all interested, decreed that tlie 
 ■cargo should be sold, but reserved all quest iuiis 
 <ji freight, ['leadings as to freight were aflcr- 
 Avards entered into, and the shipowners claimed 
 to be paid, out of the proceeds of the cargo in 
 •the registry, the full amount of the freiglit 
 .stiimlated to be jjaid on delivery of the caigo at 
 I'remcn : — Meld, that under the circumstances 
 the shi|M>wners were not entitle<l to anv freight. 
 The luithlrrn, 43 L. J., Adm. 39 ; L. 11. 4 A. in E. 
 269 ; 31 L. T. 2i»t ; 23 AV. II. 350 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 367. 
 
 Ship Abandoned as Unseaworthy,] — 
 
 iFreight lieM to tie payable though the ship was 
 abamloned abioatl as unfit to come home. Edwin 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 386 
 
 V. East India Co., 2 Vem. 210. Citing Wcstland 
 V. Rohinson, not reported. 
 
 Right of Underwriters.] — When on the 
 
 abandonment of a ship on the voyage the cargo 
 is taken to its destination in another vessel hired 
 by the captain, the underwriters of the ship are 
 not entitled to the freight due on the delivery of 
 the cargo. Ilicltie v. Roducanachi, 4 H. & N. 
 455 ; 28 L. J., Ex. 273 ; 5 Jur. (n.s.) 550 : 
 
 7 W. R. 545. 
 
 A shipowner loaded his ship, which was bound 
 for Liverpool, with goods on his own account, 
 and he insured the ship and the freight of the 
 goods by distinct insurances. The ship was 
 stranded at S., on the English coast, twenty 
 miles from Liverpool. The shipowner abandoned 
 the ship to the insurers on the ship. After the 
 abandonment the shipowner, at his own expense, 
 had a part of his goods taken out and conveyed by 
 lighters to Liverpool, and he, at his own expense, 
 procured assistance, by which the ship, with the 
 remainder of his goods on board, was brought to 
 Liverpool. Afterwards the assurers accepted the 
 abandonment. On the assured claiming for the 
 loss of the ship from the assurer, the assurer 
 claimed credit for the freight of the goods of the 
 shipowner : — Held, that nothing in the nature of 
 freight for the carriage of the shipowners goods 
 to S. passed to the abandonees ; but that they 
 were entitled to an allowance for the carriage of 
 the part of the goods from S. to Liverpool in the 
 ship, after the abandonment, to be estimated at 
 the current rate of freight, as if brought from 
 Liverpool by another ship. Millrr y. M'ondfdll, 
 
 8 El. & Bl. 493 : 27 L. J., Q. B. 120 ; 4 Jur. (x.s.) 
 302. 
 
 Guarantee of Freight — Ship Lost.] — The 
 charterer of a ship, being unulilo to provide a 
 cargo, agreed with the slii|ni\vner for the can- 
 cellation of the charterparty ujion thetei-ms that 
 he should guarantee a freight of 900/. The ship 
 sailed with a cargo of which the freight was 
 556/. 14.V., and was lost : — Held, that the charterer 
 was liable at least for the difference between 
 900/. and 556/. 14#. (\irr v. WallarJiiiiu Prfro- 
 leu III. Co., 36 L. J., C. P. 236 ; L. II. 2 C. P. 468 ; 
 16 L. T. 460 ; 15 AV. 11. 871. 
 
 Contract with several Companies.] — The 
 
 plain! ills shij)pe(l gouds at Iiiver|)ii()l on board 
 the defendant's ship, to be carried, as staled by 
 the bill of lading, '-via Colon (Aspinwall) anil 
 I'anama to San Erancisco ; that is to say, ity 
 arrangement between the West India and J'acilic 
 Steamship Company, the Panama llailway Com- 
 I)any, and (he I'.'u-ific Mail Sti^amship ('(inipany, 
 to be carried (o Colon (Aspinwall) by the packets 
 of the West India :ind I'acilic Stcanisliip Com- 
 pany, from Colon (Aspinwall) to Panama l)y the 
 Panama Railroad (Company, niid thence to llio 
 j)ort of destination liy the Pacific Mail Steamshiii 
 Company , . . freight and primage to be con- 
 sidered as earned, ship lost or not lost " ; the 
 freight V)eing 11/. 5.v. per ton payaldein Liverpool. 
 The whole freight at (Ik; aforesaid rate was pai>l 
 to the defendants' agent at Liverpool, and the bill 
 
 I of lading wa.s signed by him " for the service 
 from London to Colon (Aspinwall),'' ami by the 
 
 I agent of the two other companies " for the 
 service from Colon (Aspinwall) to San Francisco." 
 The private arrang<'nn/nt entered into Ijctwcen 
 the three companies for the division of the freight 
 
 , between themselves was set forth in the case, to 
 
 13
 
 387 
 
 ■SHIPPING— XIII. Freight. 
 
 which was added also a copy of tlic handbook 
 p\\blished by the defendants containing the rates 
 of freight charged for the carriage of goods from 
 Liverpool to Colon (Aspinwall), to Panama, and 
 to San Francisco, but not the charges for con- 
 veyance from one to another of the three last- 
 montionod jilaccs. The ship, having sailed from 
 Liverpool, was lost witli all her cargo before 
 reaching Colon (Aspinwall), and the defendants, 
 after receiving notice of the loss, paid over to 
 the two other companies their proportion of the 
 freight, which had been paid by the plaintiffs. 
 The plaintiffs liaving brought an action against 
 the defendants for money had and received to 
 recover the proportion of freight so paid over to 
 the two other companies, viz. for the carriage 
 of the goods from Colon (Aspinwall) to Panama, 
 and from Panama to San Francisco : — Held, 
 that the bill of lading formed one contract 
 between the plaintiffs andtlie defendants for the 
 conveyance of the goods from Liverpool to San 
 Francisco, for one entire consideration, viz. the 
 amount of freight paid, and not several contracts 
 between the plaintiffs and each of the companies ; 
 and therefore, as the consideration for which the 
 freight was paid had not wholly failed, the 
 jilaintiffs could not maintain the action against 
 the defendants. Grecces v. West India and 
 Pacific Steamshij) Co., 22 L. T. G15— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Charterers Absolved from Loading — Insu- 
 rance.] — By a charterparty, which contained the 
 exceptions of dangers and accidents of naviga- 
 tion, the vessel was to proceed with all convenient 
 f*peed from Liverpool to Newport, and there load 
 a cargo of iron rails for San Francisco, and the 
 f leight was to be paid on right delivery of the 
 cargo. The vessel duly proceeded on her voyage 
 from Liverpool to Newport, but before arriving 
 tliere she took the rocks at Carnarvon Bay. She 
 was ultimately got off the rocks, and though the 
 damage she sustained was not such as to consti- 
 tute a total loss, either actual or constructive, the 
 time necessary for getting her off and repairing 
 her so as to be a cargo-carrying ship, was so long 
 as to put an end, in a commercial sense, to the 
 commercial speculation entered upon by the 
 shipowner and the cliarterers, and the latter 
 accordingly abandoned the contract, and hired 
 another vessel, by which they forwarded the 
 rails to San Francisco : — Held, by a majority of 
 the court, that under these circumstances theie 
 was a total loss of chartered freight by perils of 
 the sea within the meaning of a policy of insu- 
 rance on chartered freight on the voyage. Jacli- 
 aon V. Union Marine Insurance Co., 44 L. J., 
 C. P. 27 : L. K. 10 C. P. 125 ; 31 L. T. 789 ; 
 23 W. 11. 169 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 435— Ex. Ch. 
 
 « Cesser of Payment of Hire.] — In a charier- 
 party it v.^as stipulated that tlie upiiellauts should 
 provide and pay for the provisions and wages of 
 the captain and crew, and maintain the ship in 
 a tlioroughly eihcient state in hull and machinery 
 for the service : and that "in the event of Joss 
 (if time from deficiency of men or stores, break- 
 down of machinery, want of repairs, or damage 
 whereby the working of tlie vessel was stopped 
 f.ir more than forty -eight consecutive hours, tlie 
 jiayment of hire should cease until she should be 
 again in an efficient state to resume her service." 
 When the vessel was on a voyage under the 
 charterparty, her high-pressure engine broke 
 down, and it was found necessary to employ a 
 tug in aid of the ship's low-pressure engine, to 
 
 388 
 
 tow the ship to her destination : — Held (Lord 
 Bramwell dissenting), that the appellants had) 
 no claim for hire for the voyage on which the 
 tug's assistance was required, the ship not being 
 independently efficient for that purpose. Hogarth 
 V. Miller, 60 L. J., P. C. 1 ; [1891] App. Cas. 
 48 ; 64 L. T. 205 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 1— H. L. (Sc). 
 And see cases as to Cesser Clause, cols. 309^ 
 447, seq. 
 
 Hire during Discharge of Cargo.] — On the 
 
 ship's arrival in port, she discharged her cargo, 
 for which her steam winches were available : — 
 Held (Lord Morris dissenting), that the appel- 
 lants were entitled to payment of hire for the- 
 full time actually occupied in discharging the- 
 cargo, the ship being in an efficient state for that 
 particular employment. lb. 
 
 During Repairs.] — Where a vessel was char- 
 tered for six months certain, the freighter to pay 
 200Z. per month, and so in proportion for any- 
 longer time she might be employed, the owner 
 to keep the ship in repair during the voyage ; and, 
 in consequence of perils of the sea, the vessel 
 was obliged to be repaired twice in the course of 
 the voyage, which detained her uselessly to the- 
 freighter for twenty-eight daj's : — Held, that he 
 was still liable for freight during such detention. 
 Itijiley V. Scaife, 7 D.""& R. Sls''; 5 B. & C. 167 ; 
 2 Car. & P. 132. 
 
 A covenant in a charterpartj', that the owner 
 shall at his expense forthwith make the ship 
 tight and strong for a voyage for twelve months,, 
 and keep her so, is not a condition precedent tO' 
 the recovery of freight after the freighter has- 
 taken the ship into his service, and used her for 
 a certain period ; Init if the freighter is after- 
 wards delayed or injured by the necessity of re- 
 pairing her, he has his remedy in damages ; but 
 if the owner's neglect to repair in the first 
 instance precluded the freighter from making- 
 any use of the vessel, that would have gone tc» 
 the whole consideration, and might have heen 
 insisted on as a bar to the action. IlavelocJi v. 
 Gedde.i, 10 East, 555 ; 10 R. R. 380. 
 
 For non constat, but that, after she had been 
 used by the freighter, she wanted repair, without 
 any default of the owner ; or that he was guilty 
 of any delay in making the repairs ; and the 
 freight would still run on during the time of 
 repair. lb. 
 
 Contract to Indemnify against Loss on Ee- 
 charter — Agent to Re-charter — Shipping own 
 Cargo — Ship Lost — Meaning of Contract. | — See 
 Yeames v. Lindsay, 3 L. T. 855 ; 9 W. R. 313 ; 
 infra, col. 918. 
 
 3. Payment, 
 a. To whom. 
 
 i. Generally. 
 
 Master.] — The master has a special property 
 in the vessel, and may declare for the freight of 
 goods as carried in his vessel, though he is not 
 owner. Shields v. Davis, 6 Taunt. 65 ; 4 Camp. 
 119. 
 
 A captain with whom a contract is made in 
 his own name mav sue for freight under it. 
 Secficr V. Dvthie, 8 C. B. (N.s.) ^72 ; 30 L. J., 
 C. P. 65 ; 7 Jur. (N.s.) 239 ; 3 L. T. 478 ; 9 W. R. 
 166— Ex. Ch. 
 
 AVhere the master covenanted to proceed with 
 goods frc«n London to Tangiers, " there to apply
 
 389 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freight. 
 
 to the correspondents, factors or agents of the 
 charterer for orders, whether he was to proceed 
 to !5t. Lucar or Cadiz ; and that, pursuant to the 
 orders, he would make a right and true deliver}^ 
 to the correspondents, factors or agents of the 
 charterer agreeably to bills of lading " ; and the 
 charterer covenanted that he would pay to the 
 master immediately on a right and true delivery 
 of the cargo, in full for the freight of the ship, 
 at a certain rate in sterling money ; and after- 
 wards bills of lading were signed and delivered, 
 making the cargo deliverable at Tangiers and 
 St. Lucar. to P. (the charterer's agent at Tangiers), 
 or his assigns, he or they paying freight for the 
 goods so much in sterling money, at the current 
 exchange at Cadiz on London ; and the master 
 was ordered by P. at Tangiers to deliver the 
 cargo at Cadiz (by which it was averred that the 
 master was prevented from delivering the same 
 to any of the correspondents, factors or agents 
 of the charterer at Tangiers or St. Lucar agree- 
 ably to the bills of lading), and did deliver it at 
 Cadiz, to the agent of the defendant in that 
 behalf, according to the charterparty ; the 
 master, who had received the freight from the 
 agent, on delivery of the cargo to him, was held 
 entitled to recover it from the charterer. S/iejjard 
 V. Uc Bernales, 13 East, 565 ; 12 E. E.442. 
 
 Obligee of Bottomry Bond.] — The receipt of 
 freight by the obligee of a bottomry bond is, in 
 law, a receipt of it by the shipowner, whose 
 master has given that bond in discharge of 
 expenses incurred in the necessary repairs of the 
 ship. Benson v. Chapman, 2 H. L. Cas. 696 : 
 « C. B. 950 ; 13 Jur. '.tO'J. 
 
 Master or Shipowner.] — Where a master 
 entered into a contract of affreiglitment, not 
 under seal, and the shipper agreed to paj-- the 
 freight at the end of the vo^-age by a bill at two 
 months, without saying to whom : — Held, that 
 the owner was entitled to receive the freight, 
 without the intervention of the master, and that 
 the freighter was not liable to the captain upon 
 the contiact, after he had jiaid the owner. Atkln- 
 K-n v. CotcHWorth, 5 D. & K. 552 ; 3 B. &; C. 
 6(7 : 1 Car. & P. 339 ; 3 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 104 ; 
 :il It. K. 450. 
 
 Agent of Ship's Husband.] — Freight to be 
 laincd by a ship on a liunieward voj'agc belongs 
 to tli(; shipowner, so that an agent employed by 
 a sliip's liusband to obtain a charterparty has 
 no autiiority to cause it to lie i)aid to himself, 
 for the pur|)osc of setting it off against a debt 
 ihie to liini from the sliip's husband. WalxJie v. 
 J'niian, H Ex. 843 ; I C. L. 11. 823 ; 22 L. J., 
 Ex. 355. 
 
 Third Party.]— Where the bill of lading pro- 
 vides that freight sliall be payable to a third 
 party, M., and not to the shipowner, payment for 
 fiiiight to the master or shipowner ailords no 
 miswer to an action by M. in the name nf the 
 diipovvner for non|iayment of freight. K'lvrh- 
 HIT v. Ye mix, 12 Moore, P. C. 361 ; 5 Jur. (N.s.) 
 W5 ; 7 W. it. 455. 
 
 Agreement as to Joint Adventure — Assign- 
 ment. ! — 'i'lii; pl.'iiiititrs, wlio Wire shipowners, 
 having offered their vessel for hire to the 
 lefendants, the latter objected to take it, on 
 the ground of its being too large, whereupon 
 I he jilaintiffs offered to take half the ship, as 
 adventurers, in partnership with the defendants. 
 
 390 
 
 It was then arranged that a charterparty should 
 be executed by the plaintiflEs and the defendants. 
 and that an agreement as to the adventure 
 should be signed by A., the plaintiffs' clerk, as 
 their agent, and a memorandum of guarantee 
 should be signed by the plaintiffs, the same to I 
 be one transaction. The agreement stated that '■ 
 the trading cargo should be upon the joint 
 account and risk of the defendants and A., and 
 that, after payment or deduction of the freight, 
 the profit or loss should be borne and received, 
 or paid by the parties in equal moieties. The 
 plaintiffs, by the memorandum of guarantee, 
 guaranteed A. from all losses and expenses hap- 
 pening in the course of such trading. The plain- 
 tiffs being indebted to D. & Co., subsequentlv 
 deposited the charterparty with them as a 
 security, with an indorsement upon it directed to 
 the defendants, and requiring them to pay the 
 amount of what was due to D. &; Co. Notice 
 of this was afterwards given to the defendants. 
 The action was brought by D. & Co. to recover 
 the freight due under the charterparty : — 
 Held, that the defendants were bound to jiay 
 freight to the shipowners, and that the partii-s 
 were then to bear and icecive equally the loss 
 and profit of the adventure. Bitijd v. Manqlcx, 
 3 Ex. 387 ; 18 L. J., Ex. 273. See Mangles v. 
 Dixon, 3 H. L. Cas. 702. 
 
 Privity of Contract.]— Messrs. G., merchants 
 in Spain, entered into a charterparty with the 
 master of a vessel, at a port in Spain, and by 
 the charterparty it was agreed that the vessel 
 should load a complete cargo of flour, thecaj^tain 
 to sign bills of lading at more or less freight 
 without prejudice to the agreement; and the 
 vessel was to proceed with her cargo to Liver- 
 pool, and deliver the same on payment of the 
 freight in a lump sum of lOOZ. Messrs. G. 
 loaded the vessel with 1,350 sacks of flour, and 
 consigned the .same to L. de B., in P^nglaiid. 
 P. put on board 500 sacks, for which the master 
 gave a bill of lading, i)rovi(ling for the delivery 
 of the same in the name of P. to the defendants. 
 " paying him freight according to contract with 
 Messrs. G." These 500 sacks were shijjped on 
 the joint account of P. and the defendants, and 
 the latter, whilst the flour was in transit, became 
 the sole owners thereof, by ]>urchase from P. of 
 his interest therein. P. sent the bill of lading (<> 
 the defendants, inclosed in a letter, stating that. 
 the bill of lading did not express the ficight. but 
 that he had given a letter or order in favour of 
 Messrs. G., that, on good delivery, the defen- 
 dants would pay Messrs. G. the freight on the 
 500 sacks. The amount of freight menlii)nc(l in 
 this letter exceeded that s])eeilicd in the charter- 
 pa: ty. In this letter or order there was a request 
 to the defendants to deliver the amount of tiio 
 freigiit to L. dc H. On the delivery of the cargn 
 li. de B. jtaid the wliole amount of the freight to 
 the master, and afterwards apidicd In llied^'feii- 
 dants for payment of lln' freight of I lie 500 sacks, 
 but tliey refused to p:iy the full amount of the 
 freight claimed, on the giouiid that the (lour had 
 been damaged in the carriage. In an action by 
 the master against the defendants for the freight 
 of the 500 sacks of finur : — Ilehl, that I here was 
 no evidence of any contract between the dcfen- 
 d.ants and the master with respect to this ]iortion 
 of the cargo ; but that the defeud.ants, if liable, 
 were only liable to Messrs. G., upon a sub-contract 
 with them. Zu-ilrhenhurt v, Jlimdcrmn, 9 Ex, 
 722 ; 23 L, J., Ex, 234. 
 
 13—2
 
 891 
 
 SHIPPING— XIIL Freight. 
 
 392 
 
 Owners or Charterers — Exceptions.] — By a 
 charterpiirty it was " no-recil that (the cabin and 
 state-rooms, and sufficient room, ship's stores, 
 provisions, water, and crew throughout this 
 charterparty being excepted, reserving, however, 
 every such room only for that purpose as the 
 owners would, were the ship to be loaded for 
 their exclusive benefit) the vessel shall imme- 
 diately be ready, and take on board from the 
 charterers (who were to have the full reach of 
 the vessel's hold from bulkhead to bulkhead, 
 including the deck) a fitU and complete cargo," 
 and thereupon proceed to Halifax : — Held, that 
 the owners of the vessel, and not the charterers, 
 were entitled to the freight for goods loaded on 
 the deck of the vessel. jVeiU v. Itidley, 9 Ex. 
 677; 2 C. L. R. 1018. 
 
 Authority of Master.] — By a charter- 
 party between the captain, for the owners of a 
 ship, and the charterers, the charterers agreed to 
 pay a lump sum of freight, part to be received 
 by the captain abroad, and the balance to be 
 paid by the charterers' acceptance, payable in 
 London at three months' date from the day of 
 sailing. The charterers were to have the option 
 of naming the lumpers and stevedores, and such 
 goods only as they might direct were to be re- 
 ceived on 'board. It was also agreed that the 
 master should, at the charterers' request, sign 
 bills of lading in the ttsual manner, and at any 
 rate of freight that might be filled in, and made 
 pa3'able in any manner the charterers might 
 choose, without prejudice to the charter. The 
 vessel was loaded by the charterers as a general 
 ship, and the master signed bills of lading pre- 
 sented by the charterers, at such rates and 
 payable in such manner as they requested. The 
 bills of lading did not specify to whom the 
 freight was to be paid : — Held, that the master 
 signed the bills of lading as agent of the char- 
 terers, and therefore tJie shipowner was not 
 entitled to claim from the shippers the freight 
 which remained due from them when the char- 
 terers stopped payment. Marquand v. Jiannc>\ 
 fi El. k, Bl. 232 : 25 L. J.. Q. B. 313 ; 2 Jur. (n.s.) 
 708. 
 
 Under Bill of Lading.] — A defendant shipped 
 at Liverpool on board the plaintiffs" vessel goods, 
 and the master signed a bill of lading which 
 stated that the goods were shipped by the defen- 
 
 . dant " as agent,"' and were to be delivered at the 
 port of Colombo, " unto order or assigns, he or 
 they paying freight for the goods." Before the 
 
 ; shipment, the plaintiffs advanced to E., on 
 whose account the goods were shipped, 400Z., 
 upon an undertaking by him that he would 
 indorse to them, as a security, a bill of lading of 
 the goods, wherein the freight should be payable 
 by E. in this country. The defendant indorsed 
 the bill of lading to E., who indorsed it to the 
 plaintiffs as a security for the advance, and a 
 further advance made upon an estimate between 
 the plaintiifs and E., of the value of the goods, 
 freight free. E. not having paid the freight : — 
 Held, that the defendant was liable under the 
 bill of lading to pay the freight to the plaintiffs. 
 Fox v. Aott, 6 H. & N. C30 ; 30 L. J., Ex. 259 ; 
 7 Jur. (N.s.) 663. 
 
 Bankruptcy of Shipowner — Notice by Assignees 
 to Charterer.] — Wheie ihc ir.aster of a shij) on 
 behalf of the o\^'ner lets the ship on chartei'partj- 
 'to A., and the o'vner becomes bankrupt, and his 
 assignees give notice to A. not to pay any 
 
 further sums of money on account thereof to 
 the master ; this notice will affect A. as to all 
 srims paid afterwards by him to the master, 
 beyond what the master had actually paid or 
 stood engaged for on account of the ship, at the 
 time of the notice ; but will not defeat payments 
 made to that extent. Wilkins v. Mure, 1 Cox, 
 1.^0. 
 
 Receiver Appointed in Chancery — Arrest of 
 Freight in Admiralty.] — The Jiloomei\ 11 L. T. 
 46 ; infra, XXVL Admiralty Law and 
 Practice, col. 920. 
 
 Payment to Ship's Hushand — Disbursements.] 
 
 — A shi[)"s husband is entitled to receive freight, 
 and to deduct his disbursements therefrom. 
 Harris v. Reymlds, 4 W. R. 278. 
 
 Part Owner may Sue for.] — An actionfor freight 
 may l)e brought by a part owner on behalf of 
 himself and the other part owners. De Hart v. 
 Stephenson, 45 L. J., Q. B. 575 ; 1 Q. B. D. 313 ; 
 24 W. R. 367. 
 
 Dissenting Part Owner.] — A part owner is not 
 entitled to any part of the freight earned upon a 
 voyage from the setting out of which he dissents. 
 Boson V. Sandford, Carth. 63 ; Levinz, pp. 3, 258. 
 
 Shipowner or Charterer.] — Shipowners char- 
 tered their ship to carry coals from England to 
 Jamaica as ordered, and bring home a cargo of 
 sugar at specified rates of freight — " master to 
 sign bills of lading as required, without prejudice 
 to this charterparty, and if the draft for payment 
 of coal freight is drawn to his order, to indorse 
 the same payable to charterers' order." The 
 charterers afterwards contracted with various 
 shippers for carriage of their goods, and bills of 
 lading were given to them by the master, at the 
 request of the charterers : — Held, that the ship- 
 owners had no direct right of action against the 
 shippers for freight, and that it cotild not be 
 arrested in the hands of the shipper, so as to 
 found jurisdiction against the shipowners. 
 Mitchell v. Burn, 2 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 
 900. 
 
 Sub-Freight paid to Shipowner — Prepaid by 
 Shipper — Eepayment.] — A shipmastei-, appointed 
 by the owners of a ship itnder charterparty. has 
 a lien on cargo put on board by a sub-freighter 
 to the extent of the sub-freight. Therefore a 
 person to whom cargo was consigned, who had 
 paid the master full freight in ignorance that the 
 shipper had paid part of the freight to the 
 charterer, cannot get inpayment of it from the 
 shipowners. Youle v. Cka])vian, 6 Ct. of Sess. i 
 Cas. (3rd ser.) 427. 
 
 ii. On Assignment. 
 
 Of Ship.] — If the owner of a ship, having 
 chartered her for a voyage, assigns her before its 
 completion, and afterwards assigns the charter- 
 party to another, if she earns freight, the as- 
 signee of the ship is entitled to the freight as 
 incident to the ship. Morrison v. Parsons, 2 
 Taunt. 407 ; 11 R. R. 622. 
 
 But he cannot sue on the charterparty other- 
 wise than in the name of the assignor. Ih. 
 
 A covenant in a charterixarty to pay freight to 
 the owner for the hire of the vessel is not trans- 
 ferred to the vendee by a bill of sale of the ship 
 made during the voyage ; and such owner after- 
 wards becoming bankrupt, his assignees, and not
 
 393 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Frehiht. 
 
 894 
 
 the oil at the time of assignment, and the vovnge 
 was not then coutemplated. Rohimton v. Hac- 
 donnclL 5 M. & S. 228 : 5 B. & Aid. 13i. 
 
 An assignment to a third party of freight, or a 
 
 fixed sum out of freight, passes, as between part 
 
 Ee-Transfer of Ship by Way of Security— ( owners, only net freight, but a mortgagee, not in 
 
 the vendee of the ship, have the legal right to 
 receive the freight and demurrage due from the 
 freighter upon the chart^rparty. Splldb v. 
 Bowles, 10 East, 279 ; 10 R. 11. 296. 
 
 possession when the freight was received, has no 
 locus standi afterwards to insist on such a cou- 
 struction. The Edmund. Lush. 58 ; 29 L. J., 
 Adm. 78; 2 L. T. 192. 
 
 A., in consideration of money advanced and 
 
 to be advanced by B. & Co., assigned all the 
 
 freight to arise from a ship, under any existing 
 
 or future charterparty or other contract, for or 
 
 ' in respect of her intended voyage to India and 
 
 ' back to England. After the freight had been 
 
 Where Agreement for Partnership.] — The | eained and ascertained, A. became bankrupt : 
 
 plaintitfs, who were shipowners, offered their " '' " ' ' '- 
 
 vessel for hire to the defendants, and the latter 
 
 objected to take it, on the ground that it was too 
 
 Possession.] — A re-transft-rof a ship to a vendor, 
 absolute in "terms, but intended as a security for 
 the payment of the purchase-money, the ship 
 then being on a voyage, and the transfer not 
 mentioning freight, does not pass the freight to 
 the transferee until, at all events, he has claimed 
 it, and done some act tantamount to taking 
 possession. Gardner ■v. Cazenove, 1 H. & X. 423 ; 
 26 L. J.. Ex. 17; 5 \\. K, IW. 
 
 large, whereupon an arrangement was entered 
 into for a partnership adventure in the vessel. 
 The plaintiffs being indebted to D. & Co., subse- 
 quently deposited the charter-party with them as 
 a security with an indorsement upon it, directed 
 to the defendants, requiring them to pay the 
 amount of what was due to D. & Co., and notice 
 was given to the defendants. In an action 
 by 1). & Co. to recover the freight due under 
 the charterparty : — Held, that the transaction 
 amounted to an absolute assignment to D. & Co. 
 Boyd V. Mangiest, 3 Ex. 387 ; 18 L. J., Ex. 273. 
 
 Of Freight— After Vessel Sold.]— Tlie right to 
 freight is incidental to the ownership of the vessel 
 which earns it, and therefore a transfer of a share 
 in a ship passes the corresponding share in the 
 freight, under an existing charterparty. without 
 the mention of the word "freight." Lind.sdij v. 
 Gibhs, 22 Beav.522 ; 2 Jur. (K.s.) 1039 ; 4 W. E. 
 788. 
 
 A ship was chartered by her owner. After- 
 wards, in June, l.S">4, he sold twcnty-fiiur shares 
 of the ship to A., and the remaining forty .sliares 
 to B., and in December he assigned the freight 
 to C. A. registered before, and B. after, C.'s 
 assignment ; but C. gave the first notice to the 
 charterers : — Held, that C.'s right to the freight 
 had priority over B., but not over A. Ih. 
 
 Freight to be Earned.] — An assignment by the 
 owntrs of a shii) of freigiit to be earned, is good. 
 Bouiilns V, llussell, 4 Sim. 524. Aiiirmed, 1 
 Myl'. A: K. 488. 
 
 A., a shii>owner, a.ssigned to B. the freight 
 earned and to be earned by one of his sliips. and 
 afterward.s chartered her to C. for a voyage tu 
 S. The outward freight was jtaid before the 
 ship sailed. The charteri)arty afterwards was 
 delivered to B. by A.'sdirection, and B. gave notice 
 of the assignment to C. Afterwards, but liefore 
 the ship returned, A. became bankrupt : — IIclil. 
 that tlie homeward freight was not in A.'s order 
 and disposition at hisbankruptcy, and, therefore, 
 that B. was entitlcil to it. Ih. 
 
 An assignment of the freight and profits rtf a 
 ship does not extend to profits not in existence, 
 actual or potential, at the time of the assignment ; 
 therefore, where C. assigned by deed to S. tlic 
 freight, earnings and profits of a sliip, which 
 ship afterwards, in a voyage to tlie South Seas, 
 obtained a quantity of oil, the produce of wiiales 
 
 Held, that such assignment was good, and that 
 I his assignees were not entitled to sue for the 
 j freight. Leslie v. Guthrie, 1 Scott. 683 ; 1 Bing. 
 
 (N.c.) 697 ; 4 L. J., C. P. 227. 
 
 Notice of Assignment given before Payment.] 
 — Action upon a charterparty iw freight. Plea, 
 discharge. Replication, on equitable grounds, 
 that before the discharge the plaintiff assigned 
 his interest in the charterparty to S., of which 
 the defendant had notice, and that the discharge 
 was given in fraud of S., and that the action was 
 brought by S. in the name of the plaintiff for 
 the sole benefit of S. : — Held, a good replication. 
 Be Pothoiiier v. Bo Mattos, El. Bl."& El. 461 ; 
 27 L. J., Q, B. 260 ; 4 Jur. (N.S.) 1034 ; 6 W. R. 
 628. 
 
 Set-off' — Notice of Assignment,] — In an actioii 
 for freight the defendant pleaded a set-oft', to 
 which the plaintiff replied, on equitable grounds, 
 that while the freight was in the course of being 
 earned, he assigncil it for value to A., of whicli 
 the defendant, before the debt became due ami 
 before the action was brought, had notice ; and 
 that the plaintiff" was suing only as trustee for 
 A. : — Held, no answer to the plea. Wihun v. 
 Gabriel, 4 B. & S. 243 ; 8 L. T. 502 ; 11 W. R. 
 803. 
 
 By Holders of Bill of Lading.]— The 
 
 holders <f a bill of hiding tannol, as against the 
 assignees of the freight, set off a debt rlue to 
 them fioin the original owner of the goods who 
 was also the assignor of the freight. Wetjiielin 
 V. Collier, 42 L. J., Ch. 758 ; L. 11. 6 H. L. 2K6 ; 
 22 W. R. 26. 
 
 Fraud — Eelease by Shipowner before Sale of 
 Ship.]— A<;t ion by a shipown<r njioii a charter- 
 party fornoniiaymint (A freight by I lie charterer, 
 and for money payable for freight, and on an 
 account stated. Pleas, a discharge before breach ; 
 payment, and (on oiuit.-iblc grounds) a jiarol 
 ielea.se of the jilaintill by the defiiniant after 
 tlie cause of action accrued. A replication, 
 that, iK'foie action accrued, atul liefore release 
 or discharge or i)ayment, all the right, title ami 
 interest of the ]»laiiitiff in the ship, and in thr 
 charterpaitv, were assigned to S., and then 
 became, and are vcstrd in him, of which th.; 
 defcuflant had notice before the release or dis- 
 charge or payment; that the plaintiff relea.se<l 
 and discharged the defendant, and m.ade the 
 payment without the authority, knowledge or 
 consent of S. ; that th<; relea.se and dischaige 
 
 taken in the said'voyage :-Held, that this oil Were given by the l-ln.ntiff to the defendant 
 did not pass to S. by the assignment, for the and obtained by the defeiidan from the plaintiff 
 assignor had no property, actual or potential, in 1 and the payment made fraudulently, and witn
 
 395 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. FreigliL 
 
 396 
 
 the intent to defraud S., and prevent him from 
 recovering in respect of the causes of action, 
 and that the action was brought by S., in the 
 name of the plaintiff, on behalf of S. ; that the 
 plaintiff had no interest in the action, and that 
 It had been commenced and carried on for the 
 sole use and benefit, and at the sole expense and 
 cost of S. — is a good replication, on equitable 
 grounds. Do Pothon ler v. Be Mattos, E 1. BL & El. 
 461 ; 27 L. J., Q. B. 260 ; 4 Jur. (N.s.) 1034. 
 
 iii. On Mortgage. 
 
 Extent of Eight of Mortgagees.] — A mort- 
 gagee of a ship does not, ordinarily speaking, 
 obtain by the mortgage alone a transfer, by way 
 of contract or assignment, of the right to freight. 
 The mortgagor remains dominus of the ship, 
 with regard to everything relating to its employ- 
 ment or non-employment, or to any rate of 
 freight to be earned by its emj'loyment, until the 
 mortgagee takes possession. The mortgagee on 
 taking possession becomes the owner, and it is 
 lay virtue of that ownership, and not by virtue 
 of any antecedent contract or right, that he is 
 ■entitled to receive the freight which, by con- 
 tract or otherwise, is lawfuUv payable. Keith v. 
 Burrows, 46 L. J., C. P. 801 : 2 App. Cas. 636 ; 
 :37 L. T. 291 ; 25 VV. E. 831 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 481— 
 H. L. (E.) 
 
 A mortgage of a vessel carries with it the 
 freight, and the mortgagee intervening by taking 
 possession, or by an act equivalent to taking 
 possession, before the freight becomes payable, 
 is entitled as against the mortgagor, or his 
 ■assignees in bankruptcy, to receive it. Uusden 
 V PojJp, 37 L. J., Ex. 137; L. E,. 3 Ex. 269; 
 18 L. T. 651 ; 16 W. E. 1122. 
 
 By the mortgage of a ship, accruing freight 
 passes to the mortgagee as incident to the ship, 
 notwithstanding 6 Geo. 4, c. 110, s. 45, which 
 ■enacted that the mortgagee should not be deemed 
 owner, except for the purpose of making a 
 transfer. Denny. 31'' Ghee, 4 Bing. 45 : 2 Car. 
 .& P. 387 ; 12 Moore, 185 : 5 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 44. 
 S. P., Kcrsicell v. Dishoj), 2 C. & J. 529 ; 2 Tyr. 
 '602 ; 1 L. J., Ex. 227. 
 
 Freight Already Paid to Mortgagor.] — The 
 
 mortgage of a sliip carries with it the I'ight to 
 receive the freight earned by the sliip ; and 
 although the mortgagee cannot recover back from 
 the mortgagor freight which he has allowed the 
 mortgagor to receive, yet he may at any time 
 intercept the freight by giving notice to the 
 mortgagor, consignee or charterer, that he intends 
 to exercise his right of property, and to require 
 the freight to be paid to him. Wilson v. Wilson. 
 41 L. J., Ch. 423 ; L. E. 14 Eq. 32 ; 26 L. T. 346 ; 
 20 W. E. 436 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 265. 
 
 A mere mortgage of a ship does not give a 
 mortgagee a right t6 the earnings of a ship 
 received by the mortgagor after the execution of 
 the mortgage, but before the mortgagee takes 
 possession. ^Willi.'i v. Palmer, 7 C. B. (n.s.) 340 ; 
 29 L. J., C. P. 194 ; 6 Jur, (N.s.) 732 ; 2 L. T. 
 626 ; 8 W. E. 295. 
 
 At what Time Eight Accrues.] — When an 
 entire ship is in mortgage, in order to defeat the 
 right of fhe mortgagor to receive the freight, the 
 mortgagee must take possession of her before 
 the completion of the voyage ; but where the 
 mortgagor of certain sliares is ship's husband, if 
 the mortgagees join vrith the owners of the other 
 
 shares in the appointment of a new ship's husband 
 before the completion of the voyage, the mort- 
 gagor loses all right as ship's husband to receive 
 the freight. Be>jnon v. Godden, 3 Ex. D. 263 ; 
 39 L. T. 82 ; 26 W. E. 672 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 10— 
 C. A. 
 
 Deductions — Advances by Charterers.] — By 
 
 the terms of a charterparty it was provided that 
 the charterers should advance necessary funds 
 for the ship's disbursements, not exceeding a 
 specified amount, at the port of lading. Pre- 
 viously to entering into the charterparty the 
 owner had mortgaged the ship and freight. The 
 charterers made advances for the ship's disburse- 
 ments, considerably in excess of the amount 
 specified in the charterparty. Before the freight 
 became due the mortgagee took possession of the 
 ship, and stopped the cargo for freight : — Held, 
 that the charterers were not entitled to deduct 
 from the amount due for freight the advances 
 made by them in excess of the sum provided 
 by the chartei'party. Tanner v. Phillips, 42 
 L. J., Ch. 125 ; 27 L. T. 717 ; 21 W. E. 68 ; 
 1 Asp. M. C. 448. 
 
 Payment of Wages.] — If the brokers of the 
 mortgagee of a ship, who has taken possession, 
 receive the freight, it is not recoverable from 
 them by the assignees of the mortgagor (he 
 having become bankrupt), if a sum equal in 
 amount has been applied by the mortgagee to 
 the payment of the seamen's wages. Dean v. 
 J/' Ghee, supra. 
 
 Priorities— Claim for Necessaries.] — A claim- 
 ant for necessaries has no maritime lien and no 
 equity to precede the mortgagee. The Two 
 Ellens, Johnson v. Blaclt, 8 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 
 398 ; 41 L. J., Adm. 33 ; L. E. 4 P. C. 161 ; 26 
 L. T. 1 ; 20 W. E. 592. 
 
 • Between Mortgagees.] — The first regis- 
 tered mortgagee of a ship, by taking possession 
 of her before the freight is completely earned, 
 obtains a legal right to receive the freight, and 
 to retain thereout not only what is due on his 
 first mortgage, but also the amount of any sub- 
 sequent charge which he may have acquired on 
 the freight, in priority to every equitable charge 
 of which he had no notice ; and it makes no 
 difference that a subsequent ^ucnmbrancer was 
 the first to give notice to the charterers of his 
 charge on the freight. Liverpool Marine Credit 
 Co. V. Wilson, 41 L. J., Ch. 798 ; L. E. 7 Ch. 507 ; 
 26 L. T. 717 ; 20 W. E. 665. 
 
 Mortgagee and Assignee of Freight.] — 
 
 A vessel was chartered to proceed to A., there 
 take in a cargo to be shipped by the charterers, 
 and return direct to London. After the ship's 
 arrival in the port of London, and whilst the 
 cargo was in coiuse of delivery, a mortgagee, 
 under an ordinary statutory mortgage made 
 prior to the date of the charterparty, took 
 possession : — Hekl, that he thereby acquired a 
 right to the freight in priority to an assignee of 
 the freight by a deed executed subsequently to 
 the charterparty, notice of which had been given 
 to the charterers. Brcwn v. Tanner, 37 L. J., Ch. 
 923 ; L. E. 3 Ch. 567 ; 18 L. T. 624 ; 16 W. E. 
 882 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 208. 
 
 Mortgagee Suing in his own Name ] — It was 
 
 formerly held that the mortgagee of a ship could 
 not sue in his own name for the freight accruing
 
 397 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freiyht. 
 
 39S 
 
 after the mortpnfro. and before he took possession. 
 (Mnnery v. Hlackhvrue. 1 H. Bl. 117, n. ; 3 
 Dousl. 391 ; 2 R. R. 731. And see Briggs v. 
 WillilHJson. 9 D. i: R. 871 ; 7 B. & C. 30 ; 5L. J. 
 (O.s.) K. B. 319. 
 
 Title to Goods.] — S. & F., owners of a ship) 
 mortgaged her to the plaintiff, and also assigned 
 to him all the freight to be earned by the ship. 
 S. & F. retained possession of the ship, and sent 
 her to Cuba, expecting to find there a return 
 cargo ; but none was ready. The captain, there- 
 fore, determined to buy for his owners a return 
 ■cargo for an English port, and he obtained a cargo 
 of wood from t. & Co., who supplied it to him, 
 and took a bill of lading for the wood from the 
 captain, who by the bill of lading bound himself 
 "to deliver it in the like good order in the said 
 port, or in such other my manifest may appoint, 
 
 to order , who, on faithful delivery being 
 
 shewn, shall pay me for freight and con- 
 veyance." A black line was drawn through the 
 space in the bill of lading usually filled up with 
 the amount of the freight. T. & Co. sent to 
 M. & Co., of Havannah, the bill of lading and 
 the invoice of the goods, stating them to be 
 *' shipped by order of M. & Co., of Havannah, and 
 for account of risk of whom it may concern." 
 M. & Co. paid T. & Co. for the goods, and drew 
 bills for the price on an English merchant, who 
 refu-sed to accept them. The defendant there- 
 upon accepted the bills for the honour of the 
 ■drawer, and ]iaid them when due. He also 
 received the bills of lading indorsed in blank to 
 T. &; Co. S. & F. became bankrupt. The 
 plaintiff took possession of the ship on its arrival 
 in England, and claimed freight for the cargo :— 
 Held, that he was so entitled, as the goods 
 remained the property of T. & Co. under the bill 
 of lading. Gumm v. Tyric, B. & S. 299 ; 34 
 L. J., Q. B. 121 ; 13 W. R. 436— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Right of Mortgagees to Freight.] — See Keith 
 V. Jiarnncn, and Cases supra, cols. 178-182. 
 
 See also Lindsay v. Gibbs, and Cases infra, 
 coL 444. 
 
 b. By Whom. 
 i. Coimgnor or Conxignir. 
 
 Goods deliverable to Order under Bill of Lading 
 — Assignment of Freight._| — 'I'hiniL'h freight may 
 2iot be payable in jcspccl of a man's own goods 
 conveyc<l in his own ship, it becomes so if he 
 makes third pcr.sons, who have advanced iiim 
 money, the consignees of those goods, and the 
 goods arc by the bill of lading deliverable to 
 their order. Wrquflin v. rrllirr, 42 L. J., Ch. 
 758 ; L. R. OIL L. 2Ht; ; 22 \V. R. 2f\. 
 
 T. & Co., who acted as the London bankers for 
 Holm of Stockholm, con.sented to open a credit 
 -in his favour with merchants at Akyab for the 
 purchase of " rice for the English market sliippefl 
 by vcs.seLs of my own, the 'Java,' ice, at, Kc, 
 f. o. b." The rice was purchased and shipped 
 on board t!ic " Java," and made deliverable to the 
 order of T. & Co., who accepted bills t<j cover 
 the purchase. The bill of lading was indoised 
 to them ; it described the goods " to be delivered 
 in like gOfKl order, &c., unto T. & Co. or their 
 assigns ; freiglit for the goods 41. '>g. per ton of 
 20 cwt. net, delivered with primage and average 
 accustomed." While the "Java" was on its voyage. 
 Holm obtained advances from C. & Co., to whom 
 tie assigned the freight as security :— Held, that, 
 
 under these circumstances, C. & Co. were entitleil 
 to the freight, and T. & Co. were, like all other 
 consignees of a cargo, liable to pay it under the 
 terms of the bill of lading, although the cargo 
 was in fact brought to England in Holm's own 
 vessel, the ■' Java." lb. 
 
 Implied Contract.] — On a bill of lading of 
 goods " shipped by A. to be delivered to B. or his 
 assigns, he or they paying freight," if rhe goods 
 are delivered without receiving the freight, the 
 shipper is not liable for the freight, there being 
 no chartcrparty. Drew v. Bird, M. &; M. l.")6. 
 
 Unless he has made a subsequent promise to 
 pay such freight. lb. 
 
 A chartcrparty was entered into in Lon<lon 
 on the 17th of June, 1872, between the master 
 of a ship lying at London, and L., a shipbroker, 
 to carry 407 tons of iron from H. toG., at freiglit 
 of 7*. 3rZ. per ton. Freight to be paid in Louhou 
 on signing bills of lading, the owner or master 
 to have an absolute lien for freight. On the 
 following day L. chartered the ship to the 
 defendant at 8*'. per ton for the same amount of 
 iron. The charter contained similar clauses as 
 to freight and lien, nnd the following clause at 
 the end : " The brokerage of 5 per cent, is due 
 on the execution of this charter to L., by whom 
 the vessel is to be entered and cleared at the 
 port of loading." Though the defendant thought 
 he was treating with L. as broker for the ship, 
 L. had no autliority in fact to act as broker 
 for the plaintiff, or to receive the freight ; and 
 neither the plaintiff nor the defendant knew of 
 the charter entered into by the other. The cargo 
 having been put on board by the defendant, the 
 master signed bills of lading making it deliver- 
 able to consignees or assigns, '• they paying 
 freight for the goods as per chartcrparty." The 
 plaintiff did not demand the freight on signing 
 the bills of lading. The cargo was duly dcliveretl 
 at the port of discharge, and in the meantime L. 
 obtained jiayment of the freight of 8*\ per ton 
 from the defendant and afterwaids stopjied pay- 
 ment, leaving the 7.v. 'M. per ton unpaid to tlie 
 plaintiff. The plaintiff having sued the defendant 
 for the 7,«. M. per ton for the carriage of the 
 iron : — Held, that he could not recover, for that 
 he and the defendant never were ad idem, and 
 consequently there was no express contract 
 between them ; and that, under the cireuni- 
 st.-inces, no contract to pay reasonable freight 
 for the carriage could V)e implied on the ship- 
 ment of the goods. iSi'hmidt V. Tidcn, 43 L. J., 
 Q. B. 199 ; L. R. 9 Q. B. 44G ; 30 L. T. 891 ; 2? 
 W. R. 913; 2 Asp. M. C. 307. 
 
 Goods were lad(,'n in Jamaica on board a shiii, 
 according to a bill of lading, which stated them 
 to have been ship])cd by J., on a ves.scl bound for 
 London, on account of the defendant, and that 
 they were to be delivered in London to the con- 
 signees, paying freiglit for the same at the rate 
 therein mentioned: the goods so shipped were 
 the imijicrty of tlie defciKJaut. The captain 
 having delivered the goods to the consignees 
 witiiout receiving the freight: — Held, that the 
 defendant was liable by law to i)ay tiie freight; 
 to tiie shipowners, ind(i)enile!itly of any express 
 contract by chaiterparty. Dumrtt v. Jlcrhford, 
 5 B. & Ad.'r.21 ; 2 N.ic M.374 ; 3 L.J., K. B. 10. 
 Where the master, as agent for liis owneis, 
 entered into a charteriiarty with a partner in the 
 house of M. & Co.. for tiie delivery of goods upon 
 a stipulated freight, and the goods were delivered 
 to JL & Co.. wlio were the consignees named in
 
 899 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Fvi'Miht. 
 
 40O 
 
 the bill of lading : — Held, that the owners could 
 not maintain an action against that partner 
 for the freight. Schacli v. Anthony, 1 M. & S. 
 573. 
 
 Eights against Both.] — If the master signs a 
 bill of hiding, expressing that npon the delivery 
 of the cargo freight is to be paid by the con- 
 signees, he does not thereby renounce his claim 
 for freieht against the consignor. Chrlstij v. 
 Row, 1 Taunt. 300 ; 'J K. K. 776. 
 
 Entry of Name at Custom House — Custom to 
 Charge.] — AVhcre gnods arc shipjictl to tlic orders 
 of the shipper, the custom of chai'ging the person 
 in whose name the goods are entered at the 
 custom house with freight, can only exist where 
 the same person is consignee, or where the con- 
 signee is i;nknown. Artaza v. SmaUj>icce, 1 
 Esp. 23. See Cock v. Taylor, infra, col. 403. 
 
 Evidence to Charge Consignee.] — The consignee 
 of goods, where there is no bill of lading, is not 
 in general liable for the freight ; but prior 
 dealings with him, and payments by him of the 
 freight on former occasions of the same kind, are 
 evidence to shew that in the particular case he 
 contracted on the receipt of the goods to pay the 
 freight. Coleman v. Lumhert, 5 M. & W. 502 ; 
 9 L. J., Ex. 43. 
 
 Effect of Clause "He or they Paying Freight."] 
 
 — The usual clause in a bill of lading, engaging 
 the master of the ship to deliver the goods to 
 the consignee or his assigns, " he or they paying 
 freight for the said goods," is introduced for the 
 benefit of the master only, and not for the benefit 
 of the consignor ; and therefore the master is 
 not bound to the consignor to withhold the 
 delivery of the goods, unless the consignee or 
 his assigns pay the freight. Nor does it vary 
 the case that the consignor was also the charterer 
 of the ship. Shepard v. De Bernales, 13 East, 
 565 ; 12 E. K. 442. 
 
 What Deductions.] — A. consigns goods to B., 
 with directions to pay over the net proceeds to 
 C. ; B. employs D. to dispose of them. In an 
 action by C. to recover the proceeds from D., 
 D. is entitled to make the same deductions for 
 freight as B. (who was the owner of the ship in 
 which the goods were brought) might have made. 
 BlacliJjurn v. Kymer, 1 Marsh. 223,278 ; 5 Taunt. 
 584, 672. 
 
 Expenses to which charterers have been sub- 
 jected by the master's refusal for a time to 
 receive parts of the cargo on board could not be 
 set off against a claim for freight by the ship- 
 ONvner, nor deducted from damages. Seeqer v. 
 JJutMe, 8 C. B. (N.S.) 72 ; 30 L. J., C. P. 65 ; 
 7 Jur. (N.s.) 239 ; 3 L. T. 478 ; 9 W. E. IGO— 
 Ex. Ch. 
 
 Mortgagees of Cargo— Consignees.]— The con- 
 signees in the bills of lading were the bankers of 
 the owner of the ship, at whose request the con- 
 signment was made. The consignors drew bills 
 upon them for the price of the cargo, which they 
 paid at maturity : — Held, that they did not 
 thereby become owners for the })urpose of freight, 
 and were entitled to the first chaige on the ])io- 
 
 , ceeds of the cargo. Collier v. Hlnde, 17 L. T. 341 ; 
 
 I 16 W. E. 1184. And see, supra, IX. Mortgage. 
 
 Chancery Jurisdiction.] — The court will not 
 entertain a bill by a shipowner against a 
 
 freighter for an account of what is due in respect 
 of freight, though the charterparty expresscfll 
 that the freight was to be paid according to ther 
 quantity of the cargo, and it was charged that,, 
 in the bill of lading that quantity was stated. 
 untruly. Lony v. Young, 2 L. J. (O.S.) Ch. 131». 
 
 The court will entertain a suit for an account 
 of the freight of a ship grounded on a contract 
 which also contains stipulations affecting to give- 
 an ultimate right of property in the ship, and 
 which may not be capable of being recognised' 
 or enforced as a whole, for want of being regis- 
 tered ; provided the title to the freight is distinct 
 fiom, and does not necessarily depend upon, a. 
 title to the ship claimed under such contracts 
 Dai-enjwrt v. Whltmore, 2 Myl. & C. 177 ; ff- 
 L. J., Ch. 58. 
 
 T., by instrument under seal, chartered N.'s- 
 vessel to convey merchandise to the port of 
 London, and consigned the merchandise to L. anct 
 H., who were to pay the freight within ten days, 
 after delivery to them. The merchandise was- 
 delivered to L. and H., pursuant to the bill of. 
 lading. N. held to have no right against L. and. 
 H., and N.'s bill dismi.ssed against the present 
 representatives of H., L. having become bank- 
 rupt. NocheUs V. Lingliam, 2 Jur. 438. 
 
 Liability for— Bill of Lading.]— See Sewdl v.. 
 Burdich, ante, col. 357. 
 
 Consignee for Sale — Liability for Freight. — 
 Deposit of Freight with Wharfinger] — 25 & 26- 
 Vict. c. 63, ss. 66-72.] — Where a shipowner has,, 
 under s. 67 of the Merchant Shipping Acts- 
 Amendment Act, 1862, deposited goods with a 
 warehouseman, and the consignee for sale in this 
 countrj^ has deposited the amount of freight 
 under s. 70 of the same act, the shipowner's lierk 
 is discharged, and the consignee may obtairi. 
 delivery of the goods ex warehouse without a. 
 contract being implied on his part to undertake- 
 any personal liability for the amount of th& 
 freight. White v. Furness, Withy J)- Co., Tlio- 
 Inckulva, 64 L. J., Q. B. 161 ; [1895] A. C. 40 ; 
 11 E. 53 ; 72 L. T. 157 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 574— H. L.. 
 (E.) 
 
 Master's Gratuity — Liability of Consignee.] — 
 
 By charterparty cargo was to be delivered upons 
 jiayment of freight at a stated rate, and 1.5. per 
 ton gi-atuity for the captain on good delivery of 
 the cargo. One of the bills of lading for part of 
 the cargo stated that the goods shipped were to- 
 be delivered, " assigns paying freight for the said' 
 goods as per charterparty": — Held, that the con- 
 signees were liable for the master's gratuity : — - 
 Held, also, that though part of the goods were- 
 damaged by sea perils, the gratuity was payable.. 
 Iluwitt V. Panl, 5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 32L. 
 
 ii. Ayent, Factor, Broher, or Charterer. 
 
 Liability of — Payment XJnauthorised.] — The 
 
 brokers employed by the assignees of a bill of 
 lading sold the goods, but when called upon for 
 deliveiy, found them to be stopped for freight^ 
 which, to obtain possession of the property, they 
 paid, although their principals had formerly 
 directed them not to do so, as the freight had 
 been paid in Bengal : — Held, that this advance 
 by the brokers was made in their own wrongs 
 though the freight had not in fact been paid irb 
 Bengal, as the principals supposed. Howard v^ 
 Tvckcr, 1 B. kAd. 712.
 
 401 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freight. 
 
 402 
 
 Receipt of Cargo — Practice.] — Where the 
 
 consignees of a West India cargo, deliverable by 
 bill of lading to them or their assigns, he or they 
 paying the freight for the same, indorsed it on 
 their brokers, for advances made by them, and 
 the cargo on its arrival was landed at the West 
 India Docks in the names of the consignees, but 
 was entered at the custom-house by the brokers 
 in their own names, and afterwards they obtained 
 delivery from the West India Docks under an 
 order from the consignees for that purpose, and 
 not under the bill of lading : — Held, that tlie 
 receipt of the cargo by the brokers under the 
 order of the consignees was not a sufficient 
 ground to raise an implied assumpsit on their 
 part to pay the freight, and the entry at the 
 custom-house made no difference ; but as it 
 appeared from previous dealings that they had 
 been in the habit of receiving goods in the same 
 manner, and paying the freight for them, that 
 was considered sufficient to raise such an implied 
 promise. Wil.wii v. Ki/mer, 1 M. & S. 157. Sec 
 Cock T. Taylor, infra, col. i03. 
 
 Acceptance.] — A. and B., merchants 
 
 abroad, shipped tobacco for Liverpool, consigned 
 to A. himself there, to whose order the bills of 
 lading were made ; one of these bills was sent 
 inclosed in a letter from the shippers to C. at 
 Liverpool, advising him of such consignment to 
 A., and that A. intended to proceed to Liverpool, 
 but in case he should not arrive in time, desiring 
 C. to do the best for them. The tobacco having 
 arrived in a damaged state before A., was required 
 to be landed, and was deposited in the king's 
 warehouse pursuant to the statute, and after- 
 wards C, acting as agent for A. within tlie 
 knowledge of the captain, made an entry of it in 
 his own name in the custom-house to avoid 
 seizure : — Held, that this was not such an acccjjt- 
 ance of the cargo by C. as would make him 
 liable to the captain for the freiglit. ^V<l)■d v. 
 FfKon, 1 East, 507. 
 
 Signing as Agent.] — A party received on 
 Ijuard his ship coals from the Burntisland Com- 
 pany, to be carricil to London ; and the captain 
 signed a bill of lading, by which the coals were 
 made deliverable unto "N. T. for the London 
 Gas Com{)any, or to his assigns, he or they paying 
 freight for the goods 10.*. jjcr ton in cash of true 
 delivery." On the arrival of tlie sliip in London 
 N. T. produced the bill of lading and received 
 tiic goods under it, and afterwards offered tojiay 
 the freiglit by a bill at two months : — Held, that 
 lie was not peisoiially liable, inasmuch as on the 
 face of the bill of lading he wa.s a mere agent to 
 receive the goods for the company, the jiroiierty 
 
 , vesting in the company. Anion v. 'Jhnpcrln/. H 
 
 ' M. & \V. TJH ; 11 L. J., Ex. 183. And see Fox 
 V. yott, supra, col. iJOl. 
 
 Wiiere the consignee and agent of a vessel 
 charterctl for a sjiccific voyage entered into an 
 
 'agreement with the captain, describing himself 
 as "consignee and agent of tlie brigand cargo on 
 
 j behalf ot H., merchant of L.," the agreement 
 Btating that " it was witnessed that tlic parties 
 
 j agi'ced that the vessel should go to another port, 
 there discliarge the remainder of her cargo, and 
 receive a full and complete homcwaid cargo at 
 the .same freight as she would have got h.ad she 
 proceeded on tlie voyagestipulated in thecharter- 
 jiarty," and tlie consignee signed the agreement 
 in his own name, witliout desciibing himself as 
 agent : — Held, tliat he thereby made himself 
 
 personally liable to pay theamountof the freight 
 of the homeward voyage. Kenucdij v. Gouveia, 
 3 D. &;R. 503; 26 R. R. 616. 
 
 Evidence of Usage.] — The manager of a stone 
 quarry signed a shipping note, expressing that 
 stone was shipped on board the ])laintif['s vessel 
 to be carried for the owner of the quarry, who, 
 however, never appeared. In reality it was 
 shipped for the purchaser of the stone, the reaB 
 consignee. In an action for freight antl demur- 
 rage, evidence of usage that the quarry ownes 
 never paid freight or demurrage, was admitted, 
 and the question whether the stone was shippeci 
 for the manager of the quarry was left to the 
 iury upon all the circumstances. Jjichenson v. 
 Lam, 2 F. & F. 188. 
 
 Indorsing Bills of Lading.] — See infra. 
 
 Liability of Charterer — Cesser Clause.] — Not- 
 witlistaiiding that a charterparty provides that 
 the liabilities of the charterer are to cease on the 
 vessel being loaded, '• the master and owner 
 having a lien on the cargo for all freight and) 
 demurrage under this charterparty," the liability 
 of the charterer to pay the charterparty freight 
 will continue after the vessel is loaded, if the- 
 charterparty enables bills of lading to be pre- 
 sented in such a form as to make the owner's 
 lien not commensurate with the liability whicb 
 is to cease. Clhih v. iZ«^//«/vZ ([18'J1] 1 Q. B. 
 (525), followed, llansot, v. Ilarvold, 63 L. J., 
 Q. B. 744 ; [18i)4] 1 Q. B. 612 ; 9 E. 315 ; 70- 
 L. T. 475 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 464— C. A. 
 
 Charterers' Agent collecting Freiglit — Lia- 
 bility to Shipowner.] — On the ship's arrival the- 
 charterers' agent , to whom the ship was addressed,, 
 collected the freiglit from consignees on delivery 
 of the goods, and without authority from master 
 or owner compromised a claim for damage to a 
 hutt of wine by a money jiayment : — Held, that 
 he must account for the full freight to the ship- 
 owner. Bvoadhcad v. Yule, D Ct. of Sess. Gas. 
 (3rdser.) 921. 
 
 iii. A.ss\(jnf(\ Appointee, or Indorsee. 
 
 Effect of Indorsing Bills of Lading.] — Gooda- 
 
 sliippcd at Bombay, on board a ship, were, by the 
 1)111 of lading, to be delivered unto oi'der or to his- 
 and their assigns, on paying freiglit for the same. 
 The shipper indorsed the bill of lading and for- 
 warded it to East India agents in London, who 
 indorsed it in blank to their factors in Liverpool. 
 On the arrival of I lie goods at Liverjiool the 
 factors prcsenled the bill of lading to the ship- 
 owner .and received the goods, ami he debited 
 them with the freight. The f.-iclors, without 
 having paid the freight, became bankrupt, and 
 thereupon the shipowner claimed from them and 
 took possession of the goods : — Meld, that the- 
 ICast India agents were not li.'iljle fur the freight. 
 Tohin v. Crawford, 5 JI. & W. 235. Affirmed, »• 
 M. A: W. 716 ; 12 L. J., Ex. 490— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Goods were consigned to I. C. & Co. or their 
 assigns, "he or they paying freight for the- 
 same " ; I. C. & Co. inrloiseil the bill of lading to 
 K., their broker, and tlien bcfamc bankrupt ;- the 
 ship()Wiiers, in ignorance of the circumstances, 
 apjilicd to I. C. iV Co. for the freight, ami theni 
 sued K. for it : — Held, that he was liable. Doiifjal 
 v. Knnhle, 11 Moore. 251 ; 3 Bing. 383 ; 4 L. J. 
 (O.S.) C. r. 103 ; 28 U. U. 618.
 
 403 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freight. 
 
 404 
 
 The indorsee of a bill of lading', wliieli directs 
 the goods to be delivered to order or to assigns, 
 paying freight, is liable for the freight, though 
 ho is only acting as broker for the consignee ; 
 and though twelve months have elapsed since the 
 lauding of the goods without any demand of 
 freight, he is bound not to deliver the goods till 
 he knows that freight has been paid. Bell v. 
 Xymer. 1 Marsh. 146 ; 5 Taunt. 477 ; 3 Camp. 
 545. See 1.5 E. E. 261. 
 
 But an indorsee of a bill of lading, who has 
 indorsed the same over before the arrival of the 
 vessel and delivery of the cargo, does not, under 
 18 cfc 19 Vict. c. 111. s. 1, remain liable for the 
 freight. Sinurthicaite v. WilUbis, 11 C.B. (n.s.) 
 S42 ; 31 L. J., C. P. 214 ; 5 L. T. 842 ; 7 L. T. 65 ; 
 10 W. R. 386. 
 
 Eeceiving Goods — Evidence of Promise to 
 
 Pay.] — The master having contracted by the bill 
 of lading with the shippers to deliver goods to 
 certain persons or their assigns, he or they paying 
 freight for the same, the demanding and taking 
 •of such goods from the master by a purchaser and 
 assignee of the bill of lading, without the freight 
 having been paid, is evidence of a new contract 
 and promise on the part of such purchaser, as 
 the ultimate appointee of the shippers for the 
 purpose of delivery, to pay the freight. Coch v. 
 Taylor, 13 East, '399 ; 2 Camp. 587 ; 12 II. E. 
 378. 
 
 Where a ship was chartered on a voyage out 
 and home for a specified time, at a certain rate 
 of payment on the homeward cargo, in full for 
 the hire of the ship for the time, to be paid in 
 part by an advance on tlie ship's clearing for the 
 outward voyage, and the rest on her return, by 
 bills payable at a future day ; and, on the loading 
 the homeward cargo, a bill of lading was signed 
 to deliver the goods to the charterers or their 
 assigns, he or they paying freight for the goods, 
 as per charterparty : — Held, that the indorsees of 
 the bill of lading tor valuable consideration were 
 not liable to the shipowner upon an implied 
 assumpsit to pay the freight arising out of the 
 receipt of the goods under the bill of lading. 
 Moorsom v. Kymei\ 2 M. & S. 303 ; 3 Camp. 549, n. ; 
 15 R. E. 261. 
 
 Goods being shipped in India for London on 
 account of a person there, the bill of lading was 
 forwarded to him, and he indorsed it over for 
 value. The bill of lading, signed by the captain, 
 stated the freight to have been paid in Bengal, 
 but it was found after the above transfer that 
 the freight never had been paid, through default 
 of the shipper : — Held, that the shipowners, who 
 detained the goods, could not claim payment of 
 the freight from the assignees of the bill of lading. 
 Howard v. Tvcher, 1 B. & Ad. 712. 
 
 An implied assumpsit for freight, upon the 
 delivery of goods without first receiving the 
 freight, will not lie against three persons for 
 whose use the cargo was purchased, but who are 
 not the consignees, or holders of the bills of 
 lading, and who have assigned all their effects to 
 a trustee for the benefit of their creditors and 
 themselves, two of them only, without the third, 
 receiving the goods as agents for that trustee. 
 Plnder v. Wilks, 5 Taunt. 612 ; 1 Marsh. 248. 
 
 Under Spanish Bill of Lading — "As- 
 signs."] — An indiirsceof a Spanisli bill of lading, 
 to whom the goods have been delivered under 
 it. is liable for the freight, although the bill of 
 lading is for delivery to the consignees, without 
 
 saying " or their assigns," such bills of lading 
 appearing by evidence to be usually passed by 
 indorsement. Itenteria v. Ruding, M. & M. 511. 
 
 Evidence of New Contract.] — A special 
 
 verdict was found, in an action for the E-5covery 
 of freight, that, by a memorandum of charter- 
 party, the ship was chartered for a voyage from 
 a foreign port to London, to load at the foreign 
 port a cargo, and to deliver the same at London, 
 on payment of a specified freight ; that the ship 
 received on board a cargo under a bill of lading, 
 by which the goods were deliverable to tiie 
 shipper or his assigns, he or they paying freight 
 for the same as per chartei'party : — Held, first, 
 that, from an acceptance of the goods by an 
 assignee of the bill of lading, the law could not 
 imply a contract by him to pay freight ; and that 
 no such contract could have been implied, even 
 if the bill of lading had made no reference to the 
 charterparty, but had merely specified a sum to be 
 paid for freight, though, in the latter case, at all 
 events, the facts might be evidence from which 
 a jury might find such a contract. Sanders v. 
 Van-ellcr, 3 G. & D. 580 ; 4 Q. B. 260 ; 2 G. & D, 
 244 ; 12 L. J., Ex. 497— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the court could not infer 
 a contract by the defendant to pay freight. Ih. 
 
 Where an indorsee of a bill of lading, or a 
 consignee, other than the original chartei'cr, 
 becomes liable for freight, such liability residts 
 not from the original contract of affreightment, 
 but from a new contract, the consideration for 
 which is the delivery of the goods. Kemp v. 
 Clarli, 12 Q. B. 647 ; 17 L. J., Q. B. 305 ; 12 Jur. 
 676. 
 
 No contract to accept the cargo, or any part of 
 it, within a reasonable time, and to pay the 
 freight, can be inferred from the mere fact of the 
 assignee of the bill of lading presenting it to 
 the captain and demanding the delivery of the 
 cargo. Moller v. Younq, 5 El. & Bl. 755 ; 25 
 L. J., Q. B. 94 ; 3 Jur. (if.s.) 393 ; 4 W. R. 149— 
 Ex. Ch. 
 
 Where, after such a demand by the assignee of 
 a bill of lading, the captain delivered a portion 
 of the cargo, and then refused to deliver the 
 remainder until paid freight for the portion 
 already delivered, and the assignee then refused 
 to pay any freight until the whole cargo should 
 be delivered :— Held, that there was not evidence 
 from which a jury might infer a promise on the 
 part of the assignee to pay at once for the portion 
 of the cargo delivered. Ih. 
 
 An assignee of a bill of lading, who claims and 
 receives goods under it, is bound by the terms 
 of the bill of lading, not only as to the amount 
 of freight, but also for demurrage, if he does 
 not unload the ship within the time limited by 
 the bill of lading, according to its terms, and 
 there is a sufficient consideration arising on the 
 claim of the goods by the consignee, from whicli 
 the law will infer a promise by the consignee to 
 pay such demurrage as well as the freight. Stindt. 
 V. Roberts, 5 D. & L. 460 ; 2 B. C. Rep. 212 ; 17 
 L. J., Q. B. 166; 12 Jur. 518. 
 
 As against Mortgagee.] — S.. a partner in a firm 
 at Liverpool, and sole owner of the ship "Ellen," 
 entered into an arrangement, by which she was, 
 in 1850 and 1851, consigned, during several 
 voyages, to H., a partner in the firm of H. & 
 C. PL, at New Orleans, with general instructions 
 to do the best he could, cither in loading the 
 vessel on freight, or shipping cotton, on the joint
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freight 
 
 405 
 
 account of S. and H. On these occasions, as is 
 usual when cotton is shipped on account of the 
 shipo-mier, a nominal freight, or " no freight, 
 being owners' property," was inserted in the bills 
 of lading ; but in stating the partnership accounts 
 in respect of the sale of the cotton, the current 
 rate of freight was charged in favour of S., and 
 to the debit of the joint adventure. On the 4th 
 of April. 1851, S. wrote to H.:—" We hope you 
 have brought cotton, and that the ' Ellen ' has 
 arrived. What you do we will confirm." Again, 
 on the 26th of April, "Whatever you do for the 
 ' Ellen ' will be confirmed by us." On the 8th of 
 May, 1851. H. & C. H. shipped on board the 
 *' Ellen " 4-17 Vjales of cotton, and the master signed 
 a bill of lading, by which the cotton was " to be 
 delivered unto order or to assigns, he or they 
 paving freight for the said cotton l,v. per bale, 
 beingowncrs' property, when draft against same 
 i3 paid, say 3,590^. 9*. Sd., with primage and 
 average accustomed." On the 15th of May, H. 
 & C. IT. again shipped 381 bales of cotton, and 
 a similar bill of lading was signed by the master. 
 The draft for 3,590?. 9.t. 8^/., dated 8th of May. 
 1851. was for the invoice price of the cotton, and 
 was on the firm of which S. was a partner, and 
 was purchased, on the day of its date, by the 
 plaintiffs, merchants at New Orleans, who took, 
 at the same time, from the shippers, an indorse- 
 ment in blank of the first bill of lading, as a 
 securitv for the due payment of the draft. A bill 
 of exchange, dated loth of May, 1851, for 
 3,169Z. 19.y. 3(1., was in like manner drawn for the 
 Y^rice of the cotton in the second bill of lading ; 
 and that bill of exchange was also purciiascd by 
 the jjlaintilts, the second bill of larling being also 
 indorsed to them. In both cases the cotton was 
 purchased of third parties, and not of the plain- 
 tiff.s. Tlicse bills, when due, were dislionoured 
 bv S., and taken up by the plaintifl:'s. On the 
 10th of May, 1851, S.. being indelited to the defen- 
 dants, assigned to them tlie "Ellen" by way of 
 mortgage, with all hei freight and earnings, witli 
 l)0wer of sale and authority to receive freight. 
 The " Ellen " arrived at Liverpool on tlic 28tli of 
 July, 1851, when the defendants took possession 
 of her and her cargo, and claimed from the ])laiii- 
 tiffs, as indorsees of the bills of lading, payment 
 of the current rate of freight. The plaintiii's 
 tendered ihe amount of freight reserved by the 
 bills of lading, which being refused they ])aid the 
 amount cbiinied under protest, and brought an 
 action for money received to their use : — Held, 
 that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, since 
 the circumstances shewed a clear autlmrity from 
 »S. to H. to ship the cotton upon the terms of the 
 bills of lading ; and altliough the .second of these 
 bills was signed after the mortgage, yet it did 
 not invalidate the transaction as against the 
 plaintilTs, who took the bills bona fide, and with- 
 out notice. Brown v. North, 8 Ex. 1 ; 22 L. J., 
 Ex. 49. 
 
 Custom as to Discount.] — A bill of lading 
 expressed that goods shijiped at Newcastle were 
 <lelivcrable at Liverpool to order or assigns, " he 
 or they paying freight for the goods five-eighths 
 of a penny sterling peri^und, with 5 per cent, 
 primage and average accustomed." I5y the usual 
 custom of the trade at Liverpool, three months' 
 interest or discount is deducted from freights 
 payable under bills of lading on goods coining 
 from certain ports, incluiling Newcastle. An 
 assignee of a bill of lading having received the 
 goods, the shipowner claimed the freight without 
 
 406 
 
 any deduction, contending that the custom was 
 not binding in law, as contradicting the written 
 contract. The assignee paid the freight, less the 
 discount : — Held, that the custom was hiudiug, 
 and explained the bill of lading. Brown v. 
 Byrne, 3 El. & Bl. 703 ; 2 G. L. R, 1599 ; 23 L. J., 
 Q. B. 313 ; 18 Jur. 700 ; 2 W. R. 471. 
 
 Assignee of Freight or Consignee of Goods.] 
 
 — Where, by a bill of lading, goods were to be 
 delivered " to A., net proceeds paid to T. or to 
 his assigns, he or they paying freight for the 
 goods as per charterparty " : — Held, that the 
 freight was to be paid bj' A., and that the nett 
 proceeds to be paid to T. were what remaiue I 
 after such freight and other charges had been 
 satisfied. Thomwn v. Adam, 6 Moore, 280 ; 2 
 Br. k. B. 450. 
 
 c. Time. 
 
 Freight Payable in London.] — The words 
 "freight payable in London" in a bill of lading 
 define the place only, not the time, of payment. 
 Krall v. Burnett, 25 W. E. 305. 
 
 Goods were put on board a ship consigned for 
 Calcutta, at 39.y. per ton, " payable in London '' : 
 — Held, that it was for the jury to say from the 
 surrounding circumstances whether the contract 
 was a contract for freight, contingently on the 
 ship's arrival at her tlestination, or for a .sum 
 paj-able on the receipt of the goods on board of 
 her. Lidgettx.Perrin, Al C. B. (N.s.) 302; 2 
 F. & F. 763. 
 
 Delivery of Cargo and Payment — Concurrent 
 
 Acts.] — By the terms of a bill of lading, freight 
 was to be paid "one-third in cash on arrival at 
 B., and two-thirds on right delivery of the cargo, 
 by good and approved bills payable in London at. 
 four months, or casli, deducting usual interest, at 
 the option of the shi|)pers." The vessel arrived at 
 B. The one-third freight waspaiil, and the con- 
 signee of the cargo declared his election to pay 
 the remaining two-thirds in cash, less interest : 
 —Held, that the delivery of the cargo an<l 
 payment of the bahincc of the freight were to )>e 
 concurrent acts, and that the master was not 
 bound to deliver the cargo uidess the consignee 
 ])aiil or was ready and willii.ig at the same time 
 to jiay the balance of the freight. Pdijnter v. 
 Jtimeii, 18 L. T. 449 ; 10 W. 11. 768— Ex. CTi. 
 Afiirming L. R. 2 C. P. 348. 
 
 Delivery of Bill of Lading.]— A declaration 
 staled that, in consideration that the plaintilT 
 had taken the defendant's goods on board his 
 ship to be carried to A., he promi.scd to jiay the 
 money due for freight and carriage of the sann.' 
 on the delivery of the bill of lading, and that Ihr 
 bill of lading was delivered, by reason whereof 
 he Ijccaine lia»)le to pay a large sum for freight 
 and carriage of the gooils ;— Heltl, bad, becniise 
 it did not a])pear that anything became due for 
 freight on the delivery of the bill of lailing. 
 Blaheij V. ])i.iou. 2 Bos. & P. 321. 
 
 Unloading or Right Delivery of Cargo.]— 
 A charteri)arty provided that freights should 
 become ))ayal)lc on the unloading or right 
 delivery of'a cargo, one-third in cash and the 
 remainder by approved acci'iitances at three 
 months, or cash (•<iual thereto, but under certain 
 circumstances the ves,scl was to be takoi on hire 
 at a certain rale, payment to be made in cash on 
 account of three months" hire and the balance on
 
 407 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freight. 
 
 408 
 
 the ship's return, Tlie ship having loaded a carjro 
 of guano at Saldrftiha I'>ay, proceeded therewith to 
 England, and, under the chartei'er's instructions, 
 went to Soutliampton to discharge her cargo. The 
 "iharterers wrote to the captain there, stating that 
 without prejudice to the charterparty, or any 
 disunite connected with the ship, their wishes 
 were that it should be landed and warehoused in 
 the Southampton docks in bulk, which was ac- 
 cordingly done : — Held, that, upon such landing 
 of the cargo, the balance of the freight became 
 payable. Feninch v. Boyd, 15 M. & W. 632. 
 
 Final Loading.] — The term "final loading of 
 a vessel from the port of loading," stated in a 
 charterparty as the period for payment of freight 
 or a part of it, means the final departure from 
 the port, and being at sea ready to proceed on 
 her voyage, and not merely having the clearances 
 on board and being ready to sail. Roelandts v. 
 Harrison, 9 Ex. i41 ; 2 C. L. R. 995 ; 23 L. J., 
 Ex. 1G9. 
 
 Months,] — Where a ship is freighted by the 
 month, the months are calendar, not lunar ones. 
 Jolly V. Young, 1 Esp. 186. 
 
 Monthly Freight Payable in Advance — Lia- 
 bility — Termination of Hiring,] — By a charter- 
 party it was provided that the charterer should 
 pay freight " at the rate of 709Z. per calendar 
 month . . . and at and after the same rate 
 for any part of a month, hire to continue until 
 her re-delivery to the owner, payment for the 
 said hire to be made in cash monthly in advance." 
 It was also provided that the owner should have 
 a lien upon cargoes and sub-freight for any 
 amount due to him under the charter, and that 
 the charterer should have a lien on the ship lor 
 all moneys paid in advance and not earned : — 
 Held (reversing the judgment of Mathew, J., 
 dissentiente Smith, L.J.), that the charterer was 
 bound to pay the full freight in advance at the 
 beginning of each month, although it might be 
 probable that the hire would not continue for 
 the whole month. Tonnelier v. Smith, 77 L. T. 
 277— C. A. 
 
 "Port" — Final Sailing of Ship from last 
 Port.] — By the terms of a charterparty tlie 
 owners were entitled to an advance of one-third 
 of the freight within eight days "from final 
 sailing of the vessel from her last port in United 
 Kingdom." The vessel was loaded at Penarth 
 dock, and was towed by a steam-tug seven or 
 eight miles, bringing her out about three miles 
 into the Bristol Chaunel. She there cast anchor, 
 as the weather was threatening. While she was 
 lying at anchor a storm broke her cables, and 
 she ultimately ran ashore on Penarth beach, and 
 the cargo was spoiled. The vessel had never 
 been beyond the limits of the port of Cardiff as 
 defined for fiscal purposes, but she had left what, 
 for commercial purposes, is considered the port, 
 and had been out at sea. She went ashore within 
 the limits of the port in its commercial sense. 
 The owners sued for one-third of the freight, and 
 ' the charterers resisted the claim on the ground 
 that the vessel had never sailed from her last 
 port in the United Kingdom : — Held, that the 
 word " port " must be taken in its ordinary 
 commercial sense, and that as the vessel had got 
 out to sea without any intention of returning, 
 she must be taken to have finally sailed from her 
 last port, that her being driven back into it l)y 
 
 the weather made no difference, and that the 
 one-third of the freight was payable. Price v. 
 Lidnqstone, 53 L. J.| Q. B. 118 ; 9 Q. B. D. 679 ; 
 47 L.'T. 629 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 13— C. A. 
 
 The word " port " in a charterparty is to be 
 understood in its popular, or business, or com- 
 meicial sense ; it does not in such a document 
 necessarily mean the port as defined for revenue 
 or pilotage purposes. Tests for determining the 
 business meaning of the word " port " considered. 
 Garston SaHinq-tihij) Co. v. IlicMe, 15 Q. B. D. 
 580 ; 53 L. T. 795 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 499— C. A. 
 
 A charterparty provided that a ship should 
 load a cargo of coals at Cardiff, and then proceed 
 to Bombay, the freight to be paid two-thirds in 
 cash " ten days after the final sailing of the 
 vessel from her last port in Great Britain," and 
 the remainder in cash on delivery of the cargo. 
 The ship loaded the coals in the Bute docks, at 
 Cardiff, and, having cleared at the custom- 
 house, started on her voj'age to Bombay. She 
 proceeded down the artificial channel leading 
 from the docks to the river Taff, and, when 
 about 300 yards beyond the junction of the 
 channel with the river, she came into collision 
 with a steamer, and was so much injured that 
 she was compelled to return the next day to the 
 docks for repairs : — Held, that at the time of 
 the collision the ship was not outside the limits 
 of the port, in the popular, business, or com- 
 mercial sense of the word ; that, consequently, 
 she had not finally sailed from her last port \ 
 and that no freight was payable. lb. 
 
 And see Cases cols. 368 seq., tit. 2. When 
 Payable. 
 
 d. Blanner. 
 
 i. Adrance of Freight. 
 
 Condition Precedent — Failure of Voyage — 
 Repayment.] — A ship was chartered for a home- 
 ward voyage from Calcutta, with an option to- 
 the charterers to send her on an intermediate 
 voyage, "freight to be paid as follows : 1,200Z. 
 to be advanced to the master, and to be de- 
 ducted, together with \\ per cent, commission 
 on the amount advanced and cost of insurance, 
 from freight and settlement thereof, and the 
 remainder on right delivery at port of discharge," 
 The master was also " to sign bills of lading 
 at any current rate of freight required, with- 
 out prejudice to the charterparty, but not under 
 the chartered rates, unless the difference be paid 
 in cash." The charterers elected to send the 
 vessel on an intermediate voyage, and paid the 
 1,200?., and required the master to sign bills of 
 lading below the chartered rates. The differ- 
 ence, amounting to 737Z., was demanded from 
 them by the master, but they refused to pay it, 
 claiming to set off against it the advances made 
 on account of the vessel. The vessel was lost on 
 her way to the intermediate port : — Held, that a 
 payment in advance on account of freight can- 
 not be recovered, even though the voyage fails ; 
 and that according to the terms of the charter- 
 party the paj-ment of the difference was to be a 
 payment in the nature of freight, so that if the 
 charterers had paid the difference in advance, 
 they would not have been entitled to recover it ; 
 and that therefore the shipowner w.as entitled 
 to recover the amount from them, notwith- 
 standing the failure of the vovage. Hume v. 
 Schiller, 40 L. J., Ex. 177 ; L. li. 6 Ex. 3l9 : 2.> 
 L. T. 211 ; 19 W. R. 1114 ; 1 Asp. M. C. Ill- 
 Ex. Ch. See Wafsoii v. ShimhhnuL infra.
 
 409 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freight. 
 
 410 
 
 Prsight or Loan.] — A cliartcrparty fov a 
 
 voyage to B., to load there a cargo of rice, and 
 l')roceed therewith to London, contained the fol- 
 lowing stipulations : — -'Cash for sliip's disburse- 
 ments to be advanced to the extent of 300/., free 
 of interest, but subject to insurance and com- 
 mission ; the freight to be paid on unloading and 
 right delivery of the cargo." Whilst the ship 
 was at B., the charterer's agent advanced to the 
 captain cash for the ship's disbursements, and 
 the captain drew a bill of exchange for the 
 amount upon the owners. On her voyage home- 
 ward the ship was lost, and the owners refused 
 to accept the bill. In an action by the charterer 
 against the shipowners to recover the amount: — 
 Held, that the advance was in part payment 
 of freight, and not a loan, and therefore not 
 recoverable. Micljs v. Shield, 7 El. & BI. 633 : 
 2G L. J., Q. B. 205 ; 3 Jur. (N.S.) 715 ; 5 W. E. 
 536. 
 
 Loading and Sailing.] — A debtor gave 
 
 to his creditors the following order, addressed to 
 
 ^ B. :— " Please to pay H. &. P. (on the • Royal Oak' 
 * being loaded and sailed), out of the advance, 
 73Z. " ; and B. signed it, " We agree to the above, 
 B. &; Co." The ship having loaded, crossed the 
 bar of Sunderland harbour, when the captain 
 left her and went ashore to get the ship's papers 
 and sign the bills of lading ; the ship in the 
 meantime stood off and on under easy sail, wait- 
 ing forthecajjtain's return : — Held, first, that the 
 loading and s.iiliiig of tlie ship were conditions 
 precedent to the pavmcnt of the money. IL/tl- 
 son V. Bilton, 6 El. & Bl. 565 ; 26 L. J., Q. B. 27 ; 
 2 Jur. (N.s.) 784. 
 
 Held, secondlv, that the ship had not sailed. 
 11). 
 
 Seaworthiness.] — A declaration for 
 
 freight on a charter[)arty, whereby the ship, 
 being tight and every way litted for the voyage, 
 should, at Sunderland, load a cargo of coals, and 
 proceed to Constantinople, being paid freiglit on 
 the quantity delivered, "onc-fourth of the freight 
 to be advanced to the owners' agent in London, 
 on the ship having sailed, less five per cent, 
 thereon for assurance, interest and commission," 
 averred that the defendant caused the ship to be 
 loaded witli a cargo of coals, and that she, being 
 «o loaded, sailed for C, pursuant to the charter- 
 party. Plea, that the ship was not, at tlie 
 ■commencement of the voyage, tight and every 
 way fitted for the voyage, and that by i-eason 
 thereof the ship and cargo were lost : — Held, 
 that the plea was not a good plea in avoidance 
 of circuity of action, as the damage sustained by 
 the df'fondant was not necessarily identical in 
 amount with the sum claimed by (he plaintiff ; 
 l)Ut that it was si bar to the action, on the 
 ground that the advance of the freight had 
 iicvei' become pavablc. 'J'hniii))siiii v. (rlllc.ij)!/, 5 
 El. & Bl. 2()'.» ; 24 L. J., Q. B. 340 ; 1 Jur. (N.rt.) 
 779 ; 3 W. K. 505. 
 
 Readiness of Ship — Captain's Attend- 
 ance.] — A cliarlerparty contained slipidations, 
 that the captain should attend daily at tlie 
 brokers' oflice to sign bills of lading ; that the 
 ship should take on board all such lawful goods 
 as the charterers might require ; and then pro- 
 ccrdel:— "In consideration wliereof the char- 
 Icicrs acrree to pay freight for the use and hire 
 of the ship 1,400/., with a gratuity of 25 guineas 
 ■to the master payable before leaving Loudon." 
 
 Then followed this clause : — " The ownui agices, 
 that the ship shall be ready to sail at the expira- 
 tion of the laying days, or sooner if required by 
 the charterers. If the ship is not readj^, either 
 on the owner's or the charterer's part, at the 
 above-named dates, then demurrage to bs paid 
 by the party in default at the rate of 71. ])er 
 diem. The ship to be ready on or before the 10th 
 November, or the charterer's to have the option 
 of cancelling this agreement." The freight was 
 stipulated to be paid, partly by bills of lading, 
 at the port of destination, to the extent of 800/., 
 and balance of 600/. in cash, less seventy days' 
 discount from the day of clearing from London : 
 — Held, that the stipulations, on the part of the 
 owner, were not conditions precedent to his 
 right to sue for the 600/. as soon as the ship 
 should have cleared from London. Sceger v. 
 nuthic, 8 C. B. (N.s.) 72 ; 30 L. J., C. P. 65 ; 7 
 Jur. (N.s.) 239; 3 L. T. 478; 9 W. R. KiG— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Ship Lost — Advance Freight to be Paid " if 
 required."] — A cliartcrparty provided that 
 freight should be paid on unloading and right 
 delivery of cargo, "one-third freight, if required, 
 to be advanced, less three per cent, for interest 
 and insurance." The ship was lost on the day 
 of sailing, and shortly after the loss the ship- 
 owners demanded the advance freight : — Held, 
 in an action by the shipowners to recover the 
 advance freight, that the charterers were not 
 liable. Smith v. Pijman, 60 L. J., Q. B. 621 ; 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 742 ; 64 L. T.436 ; 39 W. K. 466 ; 
 7 Asp. il. C. 7— C. A. 
 
 " Vessel lost or not lost "—Damages for 
 
 Loss of Ship.] — A stiiiulation in a cliarlerparty 
 that four-Hfths of the freight should be jiaid in 
 advance— •■ vessel lost or not lost" — does not 
 prevent the charterer from recovering that 
 amount as damages from the shipowner upon n, 
 loss of the vessel owing to negligence. Great 
 Indian Peninsular llif. v. Turuhtdl, 1 Cab. &; E. 
 595 ; 53 L. T. 325 ; 33 W. R. 874 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 465. 
 
 Date of Loss — Return of Freight.] — By 
 
 a cliartcrparty for a voyage from the pori, of 
 London to Calcutta and V)ack on the usiiid terms, 
 it was further agreed th.at the freighter, if lie 
 thought proper, might hire the vessel for an 
 intcnnediate voyage within certain limits, for 
 not less than six months; that, in that event, 
 the master should relit the vessel for such voyage, 
 and the complement of men should l)e ke|)t u]), 
 and all necessaries provided ; in consiilcratioii of 
 which the freighter agreed to p.ay the owner of 
 such voyage at the rate of 1/. a ton per mouth 
 on tiie ship's tonnage, and to pay four months 
 of such hire in advance ; and at the end of six 
 months two further months' pay, and so in 
 every succeeding two months; and tlie balance 
 due at the termination of such hiring in c.asli or 
 approveil bills. It was further stipulatcil, that, 
 if the vessel .should l)e lost or cai)tured, the 
 freiglit by time should be payable up to the 
 |)criod when she should be so lost or captured, 
 or last heard of :— Held, that, under the former 
 clauses of this agreement, the freiglit er could nob 
 claim a return of any part of tlie four months' 
 advance, on the vessel being lost within that 
 perioil ; but that the advance, being in respect 
 of freight, was absolute ; and that the stipula- 
 tion on this hcail wa.s not qualified by the subse- 
 quent clause. Saunders y. Drew, 3 B. & Ad. 445.
 
 411 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freight. 
 
 412 
 
 Presentation of Bills of Lading.] — By a 
 
 charterparty it was agrceil that the ship should 
 load a cargo and deliver the same at the port of 
 destination on being paid freight on bill of 
 lading quantity, one-third of the freight to be 
 paid on signing bills of lading, and the re- 
 maider on unloading, in cash ; the captain or 
 agent to sign bills of lading for weight put on 
 board, according to the railway or dock com- 
 jjany's weight, within twenty-four hours. Shortly 
 after the ship had sailed she sank with her cargo : 
 — Held, that the charterers were bound, notwith- 
 standing the loss of ship, to present bills of lading 
 for signature by the captain or agent so as to 
 entitle the shipowners to be paid the advance 
 freight ; and that therefore the shipowners could 
 recover the amount of the advance freight as 
 damages for breach of the contract to present bills 
 of lading. Smith v. Pijman (supra, col. 410) dis- 
 tinguished. Oriental Steamship Co. \.Tylur, 63 
 L.J.,Q.B.128; [1893] 2 Q. B. 518 ; 4R.554;69 
 L. T. 577 ; 42 W. K. 89 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 377— C. A. 
 
 Advances at Port of Loading — Deductions from 
 
 Freight.] — See The Red Sea, infra. Marine 
 Insurance, IX. Losses (5). 
 
 Freight paid in full — Repayment of Advances 
 — Money had and received.] — Where the mort- 
 gagee of a ship had received payment of freight 
 from tlie charterer, under protest from the 
 charterer that there was a sum to be deducted 
 on account of advances to the captain pursuant 
 to a stipulation in the charterparty, and the 
 mortgagee gave an undertaking to refund such 
 sum as might appear in the charterer's account, 
 to be due by reason of such advances and after- 
 wards to be at liberty to dis])ute any items of the 
 account : — Held, that the charterer was entitled 
 to recover the sum in an action for money had 
 and received, it appearing that the sum had been 
 bona fide advanced to the captain ; the mortgagee 
 to be at liberty to raise the question of the ship- 
 owners' liability for the advances in a separate 
 action. Gibhs v. Churldun, 26 L. J., Ex. 321. 
 
 Advances to Captain by Charterers' Agent.] — 
 A ship was chartered on a voyage from London 
 to San Francisco, and Victoria, Vancouver's 
 Island. By the terms of the charter, the cai'go 
 was " to be brought to and taken from alongside 
 at merchant's risk and expense. The freight 
 was to be a lump sum of 1,650/!., which was to be 
 paid, 1,000L on sailing, and the remainder on 
 right ilelivery of the cargo ; say, if the captain 
 should so require, a moiety at each of the 
 ports of discharge." The ship was to be con- 
 signed to charterers' agents at the port of dis- 
 charge, paying a commission of not exceeding 21. 
 l)er cent, on amount of freight of 1,650Z. ; and 
 the stevedore recommended by the charterers 
 was " to be employed at ship's expense on usual 
 charge." Owing to the fault of the stevedore in 
 the stowage of the cargo, an exjiense to the 
 amount of IQl. was incurred in getting at the 
 cargo intended for San Francisco ; this sum was 
 advanced by the charterers' agents to the cap- 
 tain, with other money, as ship's disbursements, 
 and included in an account which they laid 
 before him, and which he signed under protest : 
 — Held, in an action by the owner of the ship 
 against the charterers for freight, that the 70Z. 
 could not bo pleaded either as a set-off or as a 
 pavment. Itohcrts v. Shaw, 4 B. & S. 44 : 32 
 L.J., Q. B. 308 ; 10 Jur. (K-.S.) 147 ; 8 L. T. 634 : 
 11 W. E. 829. 
 
 Insurance of Balance of Freight by Ship- 
 owner.] — Shipowner and charterer may agree, 
 by the terms of a charterparty, that a portion of 
 tlie stipulated freight shall be prepaid ; and such 
 prepayment will not affect its legal character 
 of freight ; the remainder may be the subject of 
 insurance by the shipowner. Allison v. jBristol 
 Marine Insurance Co., 1 App. Gas. 209 ; 34 L. T. 
 800 ; 24 W. E. 1039—11. L. (E.) 
 
 A ship was chartered to sail from Greenock to 
 Bombay, to carry a cargo of coals. Freight 
 was to be paid on unloading and right delivery 
 of the cargo at and after the rate of 42,?. per ton 
 of 20 cwts. on the quantity delivered. It was 
 provided that "such freight is to be paid, say 
 one-half in cash, on signing bills of lading less 
 four months' interest at bank rate, but not less 
 than 5 per cent, per annum, 5 per cent, for 
 insurance, and 2J per cent, on gross amount of 
 freight in lieu of consignment at Bombay, and 
 the remainder on right delivery of the cargo, less 
 cost of coals short delivered, in cash, at current 
 rates of exchange for bills on London at six 
 months' sight." Half of the estimated amount of 
 the freight was paid in London. The shipowner 
 effected two insurances, one for 500Z. on freight 
 valued at 2,000Z., the other for 700/. on freight 
 payable abroad valued at 2,000/. The ship was 
 lost before entering Bombay harbour, but one- 
 half of the cargo was saved and delivered. The 
 master, in the belief that the prepayment had 
 satisfied the freight on this half so delivered, 
 made no demand on the charterer. The ship- 
 owner claimed on his policies as for a total loss of 
 the other half of the freight : — Held, that on the 
 proper construction of the policj' the whole sum 
 agreed upon constituted freight ; that half of tha 
 whole sum of that freight had been paid iu 
 England ; that it was not a prepayment of half 
 the rate of freight calculated as distributed over 
 the whole cargo, but of half the whole gross 
 freight ; that half of the whole remained to be 
 paid abroad on right delivery of the cargo ; that 
 that half had been lost through perils of the sea ; 
 and that the shipowner was entitled on his 
 policies on freight to recover as for the total loss 
 of that half. Ih. 
 
 A ship was chartered to load a full cargo " on 
 being paid freight, payable by charterer's accept- 
 ance on ship clearing the custom-house, subject to 
 insurance." The ship having sailed, was lost, 
 being at that time uninsured. In an action by the 
 shipowner for nonpayment of the agreed freight: 
 — Held, that it was no defence that the shipowner 
 hafl not insured the freight. Jachson v. Isaacson, 
 3 H. & N. 405 ; 27 L. J., Ex. 392. 
 
 Repayment of Freight.] — When the char- 
 terers of a ship stipulate that they shall be entitled 
 to insure their atlvances "against freight," at the 
 owner's expense, and they fail to insure, they 
 have, in the event of the ship perishing, no claim 
 against the owners for repayment. Watson v. 
 ShanUand, L. E. 2 H. L. (Sc.) 304 ; 29 L. T. 349 ; 
 10 Ct. of Sess. Gas. (3rd ser.) 142 ; 2 Asp. M. G. 
 11.5. 
 
 By a charterparty made at Bombay, a ship 
 belonging to merchants at Greenock, was to pro- 
 ceed from Bombay to Calcutta, and there load 
 a cargo to be conveyed to the United Kingdom. 
 A clause in the charterparty was as follows : 
 " Sufilcient cash for ship's ordinary disburse- 
 ments to be advanced the master against freight ; 
 subject to interest, insurance, ii-nd two-and-a-half 
 per cent, commission ; and the master to indorse
 
 413 
 
 SHIPPIXG— XIII. Freioht. 
 
 414 
 
 the amount so advanced i;pon his bills of lading." i circumstances, takes a biU of the agent of the 
 
 ""iVhile the ship was at Calcutta preparing for the 
 voyage, various advances for the ship's ordinary 
 disbursements were made by the indorsees of 
 the charterparty, and the master gave them on 
 account of such advances a bill drawn on the ship- 
 owners. They refused to accept the bill, on the 
 groand that the master had no power to give it, 
 and that under the charterparty the indorsees 
 should have effected an insurance on freight to 
 the amount of their advances. Ko such insur- 
 ance was, however, effected, though they had 
 time to insure after notice of the refusal to 
 accept the bill. The ship having been lost on the 
 vovage to the United Kingdom, the indorsees 
 brought an action to recover the amount of 
 their advances : — Held, that under the charter- 
 party the shipowners had a right to rely on an 
 insurance upon the advances being made by the 
 indorsees, who had stipulated for and received 
 the right to charge the premium ; and that they 
 having chosen not to insure must bear the loss. 
 lb. 
 
 Advance on Account of Freight — Bill— Liability 
 of Owners.] — A charterparty made in Scotland, 
 stipulated that money up to I0t)0l. should be 
 advanced at Calcutta on account of freight. The 
 charterers' agents there advanced 800^. for the 
 ship's disbursements, and took a bill drawn by 
 the master on the charterers for that sum. The 
 charterers accepted the bill, but suspended pay- 
 ments, and the bill was never paid. In an action 
 by an indorsee against the shipowners, as liable in 
 recourse, and as" having received the benefit of 
 the advance, which he alleged was necessary : — 
 Held, that the charterers' agents being con- 
 signees of the cargo, and taking delivery of it, 
 were bound to make the advance on account of 
 freight, and that there was no liability on tlie 
 shipowners. Ko7-th Wextern Bank v. Jijorn.itroin, 
 r, Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd scr.) 24. 
 
 Montlily Freight payable in advance — Termi- 
 nation of Hiring during the Month.] — See 
 'J'uuiuiLier v. Smith, supra, col. -107. 
 
 ii. Bill of Exchavge. 
 
 Not Honoured— No Discharge.] — Where there 
 is a charterparty covenanting for payment of 
 freight on a right and true delivery of the goods 
 at a foreign port, the freighter is not discharged 
 liv tlie master there taking from the freighter's 
 agent, who was furnished with funds to i)ay him 
 tiie freiglit, a bill of exchange upon a third 
 person, by whom it is accepted, if the l)ill is not 
 duly honoured, although the agent fails with the 
 amount of the freight in his hands, unless the 
 master had the offer of a casli jiayment, and pre- 
 ferred the bill for his own convenience. Marsh 
 V. Pidtlrr, \ Camp. 2.">7. 
 
 A., wishing to send goods to B. at X., cm- 
 ployed C. to carry and deliver them to B., and 
 engaged to ])ay C. for the freight : Con deliver- 
 ing them acconling to the order, took a bill 
 of exchange from B., drawn on A., winch bill 
 was never paid : — Held, that A. was liable to 
 j.ay the amount of the freight to C, notwith- 
 standing the bill of exchange. TapU'ij v. Mar- 
 tcnx. .S Term Hep. 451. 
 
 Taken instead of Money — Otherwise.] — 
 
 If. in a case where there is no cliartfriiarty. the 
 captain C)f a ship delivers a cargo, ami, as the 
 
 pei-sons to whom the cargo on board belongs 
 for the amount of the freight, this does not 
 discharge the owners of the cargo, but they are 
 liable for freight if the bill is dishonoured ; 
 but if it appears from the other side that he 
 might have had his money of the agent, and 
 chose to take the bill, it is otherwise. Strong v. 
 Hurt, 6 B. & C. 160 ; 9 D. & R. 189 ; 2 Car. & P. 
 55 ; 5 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 82 ; 30 E. R. 272. See 
 also Marsh v. Pedder, supra. 
 
 To Master.] — A., a broker in London, offered 
 the master of a ship (who was half owner) a 
 cheque for the balance due to the owners for 
 freight received for them by A. This the master 
 refused, but at his request A. opened a credit for 
 part of the amount in favotir of H. with a bank 
 in ]S^ew Brtmswick. H. received the money, and 
 drew a bill for the amount in favour of the bank 
 upon A., who paid it at its maturity : — Held, 
 that this was such a payment of freight, pro 
 tanto, by A. to the master as bound the other 
 owners. Anderson v. HiUics, 12 C. B, 499 ; 21 
 L. J.,C. P. 150; 16 Jur. 819. 
 
 Approved Bills — Negotiation of.] — See Horii' 
 castle v. Farrcn, infra, col. 439. 
 
 iii. Other Cases. 
 
 According to Bill of Lading or Charterparty.) 
 — A charterparty stipulatetl that the shi]) should 
 load a cargo of coal at Cardiff and proceed to 
 Pernambuco, and there deliver the same and 
 afterwards receive a full cargo of sugar and 
 other merchandise, and therewith proceed to a 
 safe port in the United Kingdom, and deliver 
 the same on being paid freight at the rate of GO.?, 
 per ton of twenty cwt. net for sugar, and for 
 other produce at a rate proportionate thereto, 
 being in full for the round. " The freight to be 
 paid in the following manner: 1.50/. on signing 
 bills of lading at Cardiff, cash for the disburse- 
 ments abroad at the current rate of exchange, 
 and the remainder on the delivery of the cargo. 
 The master to sign bills for each cargo at any 
 rate of freight that might be tendered. The 
 owners to have a lien on the homeward cargo 
 for all freight and demurrage that might accrue 
 thereon, to the extent of the bill of lading 
 freight, but the difference, if any, to be paid 
 at the port of loading by captain's draft on 
 charterer's, at usance, which they agreed to 
 accept and pay on consignee at loading port 
 agreeing to the amount": — Held, that the two 
 clauses were not inconsistent, their meaning 
 being, that if the bill of lading freight was less 
 than the charter freight, the diirerence w.is to 
 be paid at the port of loading by the captain's- 
 dnift on the charterers, at usance, if th(3 con- 
 signee settled the amount, otherwise at the port 
 of delivery. Santoii v. 7//-/Vr, 6 H. A: N. 290 ; 30 
 L. .1., Ex.'lOR. 
 
 I'.y a charterparty between the defendant and 
 H.. a ship was chartered to proceed to M.adras, 
 and load a cargo there from the agents of H., 
 and being so loaded, jiroceed to London, and 
 deliver the same, on being paid freight, at 3/. 15.». 
 a ton. the captain to sign bills of lading for his 
 cartro for any rate of freight required ; without 
 prejudice to "this charterparty. S., who acted as 
 agent to H. at Ma<lras, in respect of the charter- 
 party, by his directions purchased sugars and 
 
 caiitain C)t a slnp ilclivers a cargo, an.i, as tne party, uy ii-=> ....<-..-^...-. i- ••- -- ■".-,— ---— 
 
 best thing he can do for aU parties under existing! loaded them on board, an.l the captam, at the
 
 415 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freight. 
 
 416 
 
 request of S., sis^ncd a bill of lading deliveralile | tons, the t.illow and hides not to exceed 80 tons, 
 to the order 'of°S., at 11. per ton freight. H. i and being so loaded, to proceed therewith to 
 ■stopped payment, and never paid for the sugar. London, and deliver the same on being paid 
 The sugar' having arrived in London: — Held, freight as follows : for wool pressed, tvv^elve-eighths 
 ■that S. or the parties in London who represented | of a penny per pound ; unpressed, thirteen- 
 Hiim were entitled to the sugar on payment of , eighths of a penny per pound ; tallow, SI. per 
 the bill of lading freight. Shand v. Sandevson, \ ton ; bark, il. per ton ; hides, 21. per ton ; one- 
 4 H. & N. 381 ; 28 L. J., Ex. 278 ; 7 W. R. 416. 
 
 Paid into Court— Jurisdiction of Admiralty 
 <!ourt.] — In an action by a shipowner against 
 the charterers for freight, they pleaded, that 
 after the freight had been earned, and after the 
 commencement of the action, the obligee of a 
 ibottomry bond, by which the ship and freight 
 were hypothecated, instituted . in the court of 
 iidmiralty a suit against the ship and freight, 
 •wherein " a munition issued, commanding tlie 
 plaintiff to bring into court the proceeds of the 
 •wreck and stores of the ship, and tlie defendants 
 to bring into court the money due for freight, 
 to abide the judgment of the court, and that 
 they had done so : — Held, that, as the court of 
 ^admiralty has jurisdiction to decide all questions 
 :as to freight in such a case, the plea was a good 
 plea in bar of the action. Place v. Potts, 5 
 'H L. Gas. 38.3 ; 24 L. J., Ex. 225 ; 3 W. II. 574 
 — H. L. (E.) 
 
 Hypothecation by Ship's Husband — Bank- 
 ruptcy — Disbursements— Owners' Liability.] — 
 
 The ship's husband employed a broker to collect 
 •freight, without the owner's authority, and 
 ■obtained advances on security thereof. The 
 broker collected the freight and retained it in 
 ■discharge of his advances. The ship's husband 
 ■was afterwards sequestrated, and the trustees of 
 the estate sued the owners for disbursements 
 made by him. The owners pleaded compensa- 
 tion in respect of the freight collected by the 
 •broker. The trustee replied that the advances 
 were iiltra vires :— Held, that the plea of com- 
 pensation was sustained, the trustee having no 
 liigher right than the bankrupt. 3Iaegregor\s 
 Trustee v. Cox, 10 Ct. of Sess. Gas. (ith ser.) 
 1028. 
 
 e. Kate and Amount. 
 
 See/. Damage TO Gaego— Shokt Delivery, 
 supra, col. 380. 
 
 According to •what Eates.] — A charterer was 
 to load at Archangel a full and complete cargo 
 ■ of oats or other lawful merchandise, which the 
 shipowners were to deliver " on being paid freight 
 -at the rate of is. Gd. per 320 lb. for oats, and if 
 any other cargo be shipped in full and fair pro- 
 portion thereto, according to the London Baltic 
 •printed rates." The cargo shipped, consisted of 
 flax and other light articles (all mentioned in 
 the London Baltic rates), as much as the ship 
 could safely carry, which rendered the shipment 
 of 120 tons of ballast necessary : — Held, that 
 the cargo shipped was a full and complete cargo 
 •of articles constituting lawful merchandise within 
 the meaning of the charterparty, and that the 
 charterer was not liable to pay freight as on 
 a full cargo of oats or of other merchandise 
 ejusdem generis. Southam])to?i Steam Collier 
 Co. V. Clarne, 40 L. J., Ex. 8 ; L. E. 6 Ex. 53 ; 
 19 W. R. 214— Ex. Gh. 
 
 By the terms of a charterparty a ship was to 
 proceed to Port Philip, and there load a full and 
 ■complete cargo of wool, tallow, bark, or otlier 
 legal merchandise, the bark not to exceed 180 
 
 third to be paid in cash on unloading, the 
 remainder by bills at two months. The ship 
 took on board a few goods at Port Philip, and 
 obtained leave, without prejudice to the charter, 
 to go to Sydney, where she was loaded full, and 
 returned to London with 61 tons of wool only, 
 and a large quantity of dead weight. In an 
 action for not loading at Port Philip, according 
 to the tenor of the charter : — Held, that the 
 terms of the charterparty meant that the ship- 
 owners should be paid freight for a full home- 
 ward cargo, consisting of 180 tons of bark, 
 tallow, and hides, and the residue of wool, and 
 that damages were to be calculated on that basis. 
 Cochhirn v. AlexaTider, 6 G. B. 791 ; 18 L. J., 
 G. P. 74. 
 
 Held, also, that under the words " other legal 
 merchandise," the charterer was at liberty to 
 ship any lawful article he pleased, due regard 
 being paid to the safety of the vessel, but was 
 bound to pay the same amount of freight as the 
 vessel would have earned if loaded within the 
 terms of the charterparty. li. 
 
 Where a ship is chartered to bring home a 
 cargo of enumerated articles, at rates of freight 
 specified, and such articles are not provided 
 by the charter, the freight must be paid upon 
 average quantities of such articles ; and this, 
 whether the ship returns empty or laden with a 
 cargo of articles of a different nature and quality 
 from those enumerated in the charter. Capper 
 V. Forster, 3 Bing. (N.C.) 938 ; 3 Scott, 129 ; 3 
 Hodges, 177 ; 6 L. J., G. P. 332. 
 
 Charterparty or Bill of Lading Freight.]— A 
 
 factor hired a ship of the plaintiff at 48Z. per 
 month, and by the charterparty goods put on 
 board were made liable to the plaintiff for the 
 ship's hire. Merchants in the West Indies, his 
 principals, put goods on board, paying the factor 
 9Z. per ton fre'ight. The factor became bank- 
 rupt :— Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to 
 be paid freight by the merchants at 9^. per ton 
 in preference to the assignees. Held, also, that 
 the factor had no power to bind the goods by 
 charterparty to answer charterparty freight. 
 Paul V. Birch, 2 Atk. 621. 
 
 Alternative Kate.]— A. undertook to smuggle 
 goods belonging to B. into Russia ; a regular bill 
 of lading was made out of the goods, in which the 
 freight charged -was the usual freight according 
 to the bulk "of the goods ; but a second contract 
 was made between the parties, by which B. 
 undertook to pay A. a larger sum of money if 
 the goods should be safely landed in the foreign 
 port. The goods were lauded, B. paid the freight 
 under the bill of lading, and likewise part of the 
 money under the agreement, but refused to pay 
 the remainder :— Held, that, notwithstanding the 
 bill of lading, he was liable to pay the residue, 
 as extra freight. Hedley v. Lavage, Holt, 392 ; 
 17 R. R. 049. 
 
 The plaintiffs agreed with the defendants to 
 convey a cargo to 0., and if the river was in 
 possession of an enemy, to unload at F., outside 
 tlie harbour. The freight was to be 475?., or if 
 the vessel could enter C, discharge and reload
 
 417 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freight. 
 
 418 
 
 there, 300Z. only ; twenty-five davs were allowed 
 for unloading. The plaintiff arrived at F. June 
 the 2nd, and, an enemy being in possession of 
 the river, commenced unloading there. The 
 vessel was detained at F., partly for the con- 
 venience of the defendants, and jiartly by bad 
 weather, till August 2.5th, and bj' that time had 
 discharged seven-eighths of her cargo. The enemy 
 then having quitted the river, she entered O., 
 where she discharged the remaining eighth of 
 her cargo. In July the defendants' agent at O. 
 gave the plaintiff a bill for the larger freight. 
 In September, the vessel obtained, at 0., a full 
 cargo for England : — Heltl, that the plaintiffs 
 were entitled to the larger freight, and to demur- 
 rage from the 2Sthof June. Gibbensv. Biiisson, 
 1 Bing. (x.c.) 283 ; 1 Scott, 133 ; 4 L. J.. C. P. 11. 
 A charterparty provided that a ship should 
 sail to any safe island or islands on the south- 
 west coast of Africa, agreeably to instructions 
 which were to be given to the captain in due 
 time by the charterers or their agents, and there 
 load from the factors of the charterers a full 
 cargo of guano or other lawful produce, which 
 the charterers bound themselves to provide, and 
 being so loaded, to proceed therewith to a safe 
 port in the United Kingdom, and deliver the 
 same, on being paid freight at 3^. ISs. per ton, 
 the freight to be paid on unloading and riglit 
 delivery of the cargo, one-third in cash on arrival 
 at port of destination, and the remainder by 
 approved acceptances of three months, or cash 
 equal thereto. And it was also agreed, that in 
 case the charterers' agents should be unable to 
 furnish a cargo of guano at the ports or jjlaces 
 therein provided, they should have power to send 
 the ship to any other safe jjort or ports, place or 
 places, for obtaining a cargo of guano in the 
 manner aforesaid, or of other goods, in which 
 case they were to pay for such service as hire for 
 the ship after the rate of iri.v. 6d. per ton per 
 month, such pay or hire to commence from the 
 day of the sliip's clearing outwards at the 
 Custom-house, London, and to terminate upon 
 the ship's return to her port of deliveiy as there- 
 inbefore provided for, and the discharge of the 
 cargo. If the freighters' agents intended so to 
 employ the ship they were to give the master 
 written notice of such their intention, on pro- 
 duction whereof the freighters engaged to pay 
 the owner in cash on account thiee months' pay 
 for the hire of the ship, and the balance to 
 be paid on the ship's return. The charterers 
 instiucted their agent on tlie south-west coast 
 of Africa that the ship should proceed according 
 to his instructions, and that in case she could 
 uot find a cargo, she should procee<l where he 
 deemed it likely to procure one. The shii)saile'1 
 pursuant to the chartercrs'directionsto an island 
 on the south-west coast of Africa, where tlie 
 agent met her, anil informed the captain that 
 there was no guano to be had tlicre, and that slie 
 must procure a carg(j in Saldanha Bay (another 
 place on the .same coast), and must proceed to 
 the Cape for a licence to load a cargo tiicrc. 
 The shi]) accordingly sailed for the Cape, but 
 being there required to enter into an engagement 
 to sign and hand over bills of lathng for the 
 cargo as a security for the chafges of the licence, 
 the captain refused to do so unless the agent 
 would make the freight payable acconling to the 
 time employed, instead of according to the 
 weight of the cargo, and the latter accordingly 
 gave the captain notice that he engaged him 
 upon time, according to the latter clause of the 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 charterparty : — Held, that this clause had come 
 into operation, and that the time freight was 
 recoverable. FciiwlcU v. Baud, 15 M. & W. 
 632, 
 
 Sub-charter at higher Rate.] — The plaintiff 
 by charterparty agreed with G. to convey corn 
 at -Ix. i\d. a quarter ; G. made a sub-charter with 
 8.. who consigned corn to the defendants under 
 bills of lading, by which they were to pay 6»\ a 
 quarter freight, and gave them notice to retain 
 !*■. &d. a quarter for him. The plaintiff having 
 sued for freight at 6.«. per quarter : — Held, that 
 he was entitled to recover only 4.«. &d. Miaheii- 
 son V. Bcr/bie, 6 Bing. 190 ; 3 M. & 1\ 442. 
 
 Alteration.] — A ship was chartered from 
 London to Bombay, adch-cssed to G. & Co., the 
 ! charterer's agents at the latter place ; and it was 
 stii)ulated by another charterparty of the same 
 date, that the ship should discharge her cargo 
 ; at Bombay, and then take in- a homeward 
 j cargo, the charterer agreeing to pay freight, as 
 I to one-half of the cargo at 31. per ton, and as to 
 [ the rest, at the current rate of freight when the 
 I ship should be loading. It was also agreed, that 
 the master of the shi]) and the agents at Bombay 
 j shoidd be at liberty to nialce such alterations in 
 the charterparty as they might mutually think 
 proper, without prejudice to the agreement. 
 ! Shortly after the arrival of the ship at Bombay, 
 j G. & Co. agreed, by a memorandum indorsed on 
 1 tiie charterparty, that, before loading her home- 
 ward cargo, the ship might proceed to Aden with 
 j government coals and stores, and i-eturu to l'>oni- 
 ! bay with all possible despatch. Tlie plaintiff 
 j accordingly entered into a charterparty with 
 ; the East India Company, and tlie ship proceeded 
 I to Aden, and returned thence, having earneil 
 I freight, which was paiil to the plaintiff : — Held, 
 I thatG. &. Co. had authority to permit the voj'age 
 j to Aden, and that the charterer was bound by 
 I the alteration in the charterparty ; and, there- 
 j fore, that he was bouiul to pay the charter late 
 j of 'SI. per ton for half the cargo, although that 
 exceeded the current rate of freight at tlie time 
 of loading, and although the alteration might 
 be prejudicial to hini ; and that he was not 
 entitleii to bring into tlie account the freight 
 earned by the owners of tlu; Aden voyage. 
 Wif/f/inn \. JohuMon, 14 51. ^: W. CU'.) ; 1.") 1.. J., 
 Ex! 202. 
 
 "In full for the Voyage" — Subordinate 
 Cargoes.] — Hy a charterparly it was agreed thai, 
 •A ship sh(jul<l jiroceed to I'ernainbuco, and there 
 loail from the factors of the freighters — having 
 first discharged her cargo, if any — any legal 
 merchandise, to the extent of a full cargo, that, 
 the freighters might have for shipment, an<l 
 should proceed therewith to Valparaiso, a legal 
 port Ijctween Valparaiso and Guayai|uil, and 
 Guayaquil, all or any, and there dischaige tlu^ 
 cargo laden on board <at rernambuco, and at the 
 port Ix'lween Valparaiso and (Juayaqiiil (j.xwX 
 (iuayai|uil) ineliHive; also disehargi- any gooils 
 taken on boai'd at \^•ll|laraiho for that purpose. 
 and at any and all the aforesaid ports should 
 receive and take on board a full and complete 
 cargo of legal merchandise, and therewith pro- 
 ceed to Cork or Falmoulh for orders to discharge, 
 and deliver the same agreeably to bills of la<iing, 
 on being paid freight at and after the rate of 
 T>1. ox. per ton, such freight to be paiil in full for 
 the voyage, the cargo from l'ernand)uco being 
 
 14
 
 419 
 
 freicrht free, as well as those goods shiiiped at 
 Valparaiso, if any, for the ports at which the 
 vessel should load her homeward cargo. The 
 ship took in cargo at Peniainbuco, which was 
 discharged at Valparaiso. At Valparaiso she 
 took on" board goods belonging to the freighters, 
 and also to other merchants, for Paita (a port 
 between Valparaiso and Guayaquil) and Guaya- 
 quil, part of which was to be discharged there 
 and the rest to be carried to England. No part 
 of the homeward cargo was put on board at 
 Paita :— Held, that the stipulated freight of 
 51. 5s. covered the whole voyage, the general 
 words of the charterparty " in full for the 
 voyage " not being controlled by the clause fol- 
 lowing, and that the owner was not entitled to 
 freight for the goods carried from Valparaiso to 
 Paita, although "no part of the homeward cargo 
 was loaded at the last-mentioned place. Swcc-f- 
 hig V. Darthcz, U C. B. 538 ; 23 L. J., C. P. 131 ; 
 IS Jur. 958 ; 2 W. R. 414. 
 
 Passengers taken instead of Goods.] — A., a 
 shipbroker, engaged with B., a shipowner, to 
 have a full cargo for the ship, the rates of 
 freight for which would average 40a\ per ton, 
 and at least nine cabin passengers, passage- 
 money to average 751. The contract was fulfilled 
 as to" the passengers, but the average rate of 
 freight for goods put on board by A. amounted 
 to 325. only per ton. He shipped on board, 
 however, steerage passengers for the voyage, the 
 passage-money paid by whom, after deducting 
 the expenses of their diet, &c., when added to 
 the freight of the cargo properly so called, made 
 the average earnings of the whole ship per ton 
 amount to more than 40.?. : — Held, that this 
 was not a performance of the stipulations of 
 the contract, "cargo" and "freight" being terms 
 applicable to goods only. Lewis v. Marsliall, 7 
 Man. & G. 729 ; 8 Scott (N.E.) 729 ; 13 L. J., 
 C. P. 193 ; 8 Jur. 848. 
 
 "The Highest FreightPaid" on same Voyage.] 
 
 — By a charterparty for a voyage from Sandswall 
 to Southampton, it was stipulated that the owner 
 should receive the highest freight which he 
 could prove by evidence to have been paid 
 for ships on the same voyage or passage by 
 water, when the vessel passed Elsinore, but not 
 less than 90.?. per St. Petersburg standard 
 hundred : — Held, that the charterparty did not 
 contemplate strict legal "proof of the actual 
 agreement of the higher rate of freight, but 
 reasonable evidence tiiat such higher freight had 
 been paid or contracted to be paid ; and that 
 the owner could not entitle himself to a higher 
 rate of freight than 90*. by proving that other 
 "vessels had been chartered at such higher rate 
 for a voyage to Loudon, that not being within 
 the fair intendment of the charterparty for the 
 same voyage. Gctliev v. C(tppei\ 18 C. B. 8(J6 ; 25 
 L. J., C. P. 260 ; 2 Jur. (N.s.) 789 ; 4 W. R. 644 
 —Ex. Ch. 
 
 On Goods Shipped or Delivered — Authority 
 
 of Captain.] — The " Oriente," a vessel from the 
 Chincha islantls, having on board a cargo of 
 guano, chartered to the plaintiffs in London, 
 put into Valparaiso in a disabled state, and dis- 
 charged the cargo into a hulk, and it became 
 necessary to tranship and forward the cargo to 
 its destination by another vessel ; and the 
 captain, on belialf of the owners of the cargo, 
 accordingly entered into a charterparty with the 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. FrdgU. 
 
 420 
 
 master of the defendant's ship "to take on board 
 from the hulk the cargo put on board of her, 
 forming the cargo brought to Valparaiso by the 
 'Oriente,' being 470 tons of guano, more or 
 less." and proceed with the same to its destina- 
 tion, agreeing to pay 51. 2s. (id. freight for every 
 ton delivered. A dispute arose as to the quantity 
 of guano put on board, the defendant's master 
 alleging it was much less than 470 tons, and the 
 captain of the disabled ship saying it was that 
 quantity. Ultimately the latter signed a bill of 
 lading, describing the guano shipped as part of 
 the original cargo, the consignees " paying freight 
 for the guano on 470 tons, as per charterparty." 
 It turned out that only 344 tons of guano had 
 been shipped : — Held, that the captain had no 
 authority to bind the owners of the cargo to pay 
 freight for more than the quantity of guano 
 actually shipped, and consequently that the 
 indorsees of the bill of lading were entitled to 
 have the cargo delivered on payment of the 
 freight of 344 tons. (rU/bs v. Giry, 2 H. & N. 
 22 { 26 L. J., Ex. 286 ; 3 Jur. (N.s.) 543 ; 5 W. R. 
 608. 
 
 Measurement.] — By a charterparty it was 
 
 agreed that a ship should sail to Bombay and 
 there load a full cargo of cotton, and proceed 
 with it to Liverpool and deliver the same on 
 being paid freight at the rate of " 75s. per ton of 
 fifty cubic feet delivered." The ship received 
 at Bombay, and carried to Liverpool, a full cargo 
 of cotton ; the cargo was packed at Bombay, as 
 is customary, in compressed bales, and expanded 
 greatly on being unloaded at Liverpool : — Held, 
 that the freight was payable on the measurement 
 of the goods when shipped, and not when 
 delivered. Biwlde v. IC/iooj}, 36 L. J., Ex. 223 ; 
 L. R. 2 Ex. 333 ; 16 L. T. 571 ; 15 W. R. 999— 
 Ex. Gh. 
 
 By a charterparty it was agreed that " a ship 
 should load a cargo and proceed to a port in 
 Great Britain, and deliver the same on being 
 paid freight at and after the rate of 35*. per 180 
 cubic feet (English) taken on board, as per 
 Gothenburg custom " :— Held, that the freight 
 was to be ascertained by measuring the cargo, 
 according to the method used at Gothenburg, 
 and not according to the method used at the port 
 of discharge. IVie Shaiuliiiav, 51 L. J., Adm. 
 93—0. A. 
 
 By a charterparty made at Liverpool for a 
 voyage from Liverpool to Sydney, the charterer 
 agreed to pay for the hire and use of the ship in 
 respect of the voyage, 1,550Z. in full, on condi- 
 tion of her taking a cargo of not less than 1,000 
 tons weight and measurement : — Held, that 1,000 
 tons of weight and measurement meant 1,000 
 tons of a cargo of goods in the ordinary pro- 
 portion of the port of lading, viz. one-third 
 weight and two-thirds measurement, and not as 
 for the Sydney market, in which the proportion 
 is two-thirds weight and one-third measurement. 
 Pu.'<t V. Dow'ic, 5 B. & S. 20 ; 34 L. J., Q. B, 127 ; 
 13 W. R. 459— Ex. Oh. 
 
 The bill of lading of a cargo, shipped at 
 Dantzic on board a Prussian vessel, expressed it 
 to be 100 lasts in 2,092 bags. The consignee had 
 purchased it for that quantity, English measure, 
 but it did not amount to that quantity by the 
 Dantzic measure, which is larger : — Held, that 
 the master was entitled to freight according to 
 the measure in the bill of lading, although 
 exceeding the freiglit computed by Dantzic 
 measure. Moller v. Llcing, 4 Taunt. 102,
 
 421 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. FiruiJit. 
 
 422 
 
 Goods shipped from abroad, and consigned to 
 a merchant in this country, are to be paid for 
 (upon a demand for freight) according to their 
 net weight, as ascertained at the king's landing 
 scales, and not according to the weiglits expressed 
 in the bill of lading, unless there is a special con- 
 tract so to pav for them. Geraldts v. Donisoji, 
 Holt, 346; 17'R. R. 645. 
 
 Upon a charterparty engaging to pay 4tl. los. 
 per ton fivr goods shipped at Bombay for London, 
 cotton to be calculated at 50 cubic feet per ton : 
 — Held, that evitlence was admissible of a usage 
 to pay according to the measurement taken at 
 Bombay before the goods were loaded : also, 
 that the plaintiff was entitled to shew in reply, 
 that his captain objected to receive the goods at 
 the Bombay measurement, measured them when 
 on board, and delivered an account of that 
 measurement to the ship]iers. JJoftomleij v. 
 Forbes, 5 Bing. (N.C.) 121 ; 6 Scott, 866 ; 8 L. J., 
 C. P. 85. 
 
 Timber was consigned to the Surrey Com- 
 mercial Docks under a charterparty, l)y which 
 freight was made payable "for deals and battens, 
 per St. Petersburg standard hundred " : — Held, 
 that freight was payable only upon the number 
 of such hundreds as ascertained by the customary 
 mode of measurement adopted by the dock com- 
 pany for timber cargoes. Ncihcri v. JS'euiiie, 1 
 Cab. & E. 288. 
 
 "Quantity and Quality Unknown."] — 
 
 A vessel was ehiirtered to carry a cargn of corn 
 from Odessa to Gloucester, for freight payable at 
 a certain rate per quarter. 2,664 quarters were 
 shijiped at Odessa, and the master signed bills of 
 lading in the usual form, and which contained a 
 menioiandum, "quantity and quality unknown." 
 'i'lie vessel arrived at Gloucester with the cargo 
 of corn, when it was measured at the Queen's 
 beam, and found to contain 2,785^ f]uarters, 
 being an increase of 121 quarters. In the course 
 of the voyage a portii>n of the corn, frum .some 
 unknown cause, had become heated and damaged, 
 whereby its bulk was increased : — Held, that 
 freight was payable on the quantity of corn 
 shipped, and not on its measurement at the port 
 of discliaige. Gibmn v. Sturge, 10 E.^. 622 ; 3 
 C. L. K. 421 ; 24 L. J., Ex. 121 ; 1 Jur. (N.S.)25'J ; 
 3 W. K. 165. 
 
 A charterjiarty, under which a ship was 
 chartered fni' a grain cargo from the Danube to 
 the United Kingdom for freight " i)er imperial 
 quarter delivered," contained a provision that 
 in the event of the cargo, or any part, being 
 <lelivered in a damaged or heated condition, the 
 freight should be payable oti the invoice quantity 
 taken on board, as per bill of liwling, or half- 
 freight upon the flamaged or heated portion, at 
 the captain's o])tion. The bill of lading statcjd 
 that 1,021 kilos were shipped on l)oard ; but the 
 ma.stcr added at the end of the bill of lading, 
 before signing it, the words, "quantity and 
 •quality unknown." The cargo having become 
 heatetl on the voyage, the master claimed to 
 exercise his option, and to be jiaifl freight upon 
 the invoice quantity, as per bill of lading: — 
 Held, that the addition of the words "(juantity 
 and quality utdvnown " to the. bill of lading by 
 the master did not take awtvy his right to be 
 l)aid freight upon the invoice quantity in the 
 ijill of lading, and that the object and eflect of 
 that memorandum were merely to protect the 
 captain against any mistake that might occur j 
 in the invoice quantity in the bill of lading, in i 
 
 case of alleged short delivery or deterioration not 
 caused bv his default. TuUii v. Terrij. 42 L. J., 
 C. P. 240; L. R. 8 C. P. 67'j"; 2',) L. T. 36. 
 
 Mistake and Misdescription.] — In an 
 
 action for freight, the master is at liberty, not- 
 withstanding the terms of the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 11 1, 
 s. 3 (the Bills of Lading Act), to shew that the 
 cargo actually received by him differs in weight 
 from that signed in the bill of lading ; at all 
 events where the weight mentioned in the bill 
 of lading is a mere matter of measurement. 
 lihniclict V. PoiceWs Llantirlt Collieries- Co., 43 
 L. J., Ex. 50 ; L. R. 9 Ex. 74 ; 30 L. T. 28 ; 22 
 W. R. 490 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 224. 
 
 A shipowner is not estopped by the signature 
 of the bill of lading by the master from shewing 
 that the goods or some of them were never 
 actually put on board. Brown v. Powell. Daffryn 
 Steam Coal Co., 44 L. J., C. P. 289 ; L. R. 10 C. P. 
 562 ; 32 L. T. 621 ; 23 W. R. 549 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 578. 
 
 Bills of lading signed by the master are prim;1 
 facie evidence that the quantities named therein 
 were received by him ; the onus of rebutting 
 this presumption, and of shewing that a less 
 (juantity than that specified was received, lies on 
 the shipowner. M'Lenii v. Flenilnq, L. R. 2 H. L. 
 (Sc.) 128 ; 25 L. T. 317 ; 1 Asp. M, C. 160. 
 
 Freight Payable " on Intake Measure of 
 Quantity Delivered."] — A cargo of deals and 
 battens consigned to the defendants was shipped 
 on board the plaintiff's vessel under a charter- 
 party by which freight was to be paid on deals, 
 battens, &c., at the rate of 3^. 5.v. per St. I'eteis- 
 burg standard hundred of 1,980 sui)erlicial feet 
 and on deal ends at the rate of 2/. 1a-. \d. ])er 
 the like hundred, eight feet and under. " Freight 
 payable on deals and sawn lumber on the intake 
 measure of (piantity delivered." A bill of lading 
 was signed for a specilied number of pieces, 
 deals, Ijatteus, and scantling, making freight 
 jjayable "as per charteri)arty." The various 
 pieces were, in the ordinary course of business, 
 measured by the shipper at the port of shipment 
 and tiieir dimensions entered in a specitication ; 
 the figures representing such diniensiuns being, 
 before shiiunent, chalUed on each piece respec- 
 tively. During the voyage a nund)er of the 
 pieces were lost. The remainder was delivered 
 at the port of destination, but the nicasurenient 
 figures ])ut on some of the pieces delivered had 
 become obliterated. The dimensions of the 
 pieces lost were unknown; but there was some 
 eviiU'Ufe that they were of average size compared 
 with the rest of the cargo: — Held, that under 
 the charterparty, freight was payable on the 
 measurement figures as ascertained at the port 
 of shipment, and not on the iiuantily deli vcred 
 measured at tlic port of discharge, aceoiding 
 to the intake mode of measurement; and that, 
 having regard to the particular circumstances, 
 the amount might be caleuhited by a.ssuming lliafc 
 the pieces lost were of average size as coTupared 
 with the remainder, and making a proportionate 
 reduction from the sum total of the measure- 
 ments in the speeilication. ,S/itiif//il\. Fiiniirorth, 
 49 L. J., t^ 15. 346 ; 5 Q. 15. 1). 115 ; 42 L.T.296 ; 
 28 W. R. 508 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 251. 
 
 Goods were shii)ped from Wilmington in the 
 United States for Liverpool under acharter|iai ly, 
 which provided that freight was to be paid on 
 the "Wilmington gro.ss intake weight" : — Held, 
 that the freight was to be paid according to the 
 
 14—2
 
 423 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freight. 
 
 424 
 
 method of woiGfhinsr adopted at Wilmington. 
 Fallagsen v. Walford, 1 Cab. & E. 198. 
 
 Dead Freight. ] — Dead freight means not 
 freight, but ai\ unliquidated compensation for 
 thcloss of freight recoverable in the absence 
 and place of freight. M 'Lean v. Fleming, L. R. 2 
 H. L. (Sc.) 128 ; 2.-> L. T. 317. 
 
 The shipowner therefore is entitled to be paid 
 for a deficiency of cargo, not at the rate assigned 
 per ton in the charterparty for actual cargo, 
 but a reasonable sum, deductions being made for 
 charges saved to the shipowner in consequence 
 of the deficiency. li. 
 
 No Covenant to Supply full Cargo.] — If the 
 
 whole ship is hired and the burden stated in 
 the charterparty, and the merchant covenants 
 to pay so much for every ton of goods loaded, but 
 does not covenant to supply a full cargo, freight 
 upon the goods shipped and no more is payable. 
 James {Ladij') v. Fa.if India Co., cited Abbott 
 on Shipping, 13th ed. 553. 
 
 "Full and Complete Cargo" — Failure to 
 load — Cargo improperly stowed.] — By a charter- 
 party made between the plaintiff, the owner of 
 a steamship, and the defendants, her afEreighters, 
 it was provided that the ship should proceed to 
 a specified port, and there load from the factor 
 of the afEreighters a '• full and complete cargo of 
 sugar in hogsheads and (or) bags, or other lawful 
 merchandise," and being loaded should therewith 
 proceed to another port and deliver the same 
 at such place as the consignees might direct on 
 being paid freight at the rates therein mentioned. 
 The cargo of sugar with which the ship was 
 loaded was not, the plaintiff said, a " full and 
 complete " one, inasmuch as the parts of the ship 
 known as the " lazerette " and the " alley- ways," 
 ■were not filled with bags of sugar as they ought 
 to have been. The defence was, that the master 
 of the ship did not stow the cargo properly ; 
 that the defendants tendered more hogsheads of 
 sugar (wdiich were too large to go into the alley- 
 ways) ; and that, if the bags had been pist there, 
 there would have been space for more hogsheads 
 in the hold : — Held, that the defendants were 
 not bound to send the cargo in any particular 
 form ; and that, as they sent part of it in bags 
 and hogsheads, and the master chose to assume 
 that the remainder would be in bags, and to 
 leave stowage which was only suitable for bags, 
 and not for hogsheads, which the defendants had 
 an equal right to send, they could not be made 
 liable for dead freight. Ftimess v. TentMnt, 66 
 L. T. 635 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 179— C. A. 
 
 Refusal of Master to sign Bills of Lading 
 
 at lower Freight.] — Where the charterer of a 
 ship to Jamaica and back covenanted to load 
 her there with a complete cargo of sugar and to 
 pay freight at the rate of \0s. M. per cwt., and 
 hisagent in Jamaica tendered a complete cargo 
 to the captain, but insisted on his signing bills 
 of lading for it at \0s. per cwt., which the 
 captain refused to do : — Held, that the charterer 
 was liable for dead freight. Hyde v. Willi.1, 3 
 Camp. 202. And see Gray y. Carr, infra, col. 429. 
 
 Vacant Space— Cargo putting Ship down 
 
 to her Marks without filling her.] — Ships 
 chartered by the plaintiffs in their trade loaded 
 nickel ore in New Caledonia and proceeded to 
 New Zealand ports to fill up, under sub-charters, 
 
 unoccupied space with cargo of a dry and perish- 
 able kind. It was contemplated that in the 
 ordinary course of business this cargo would be 
 wool. Under a sub-charter with the defendants 
 the s. s. " Strathord " proceeded from New 
 Caledonia to New Zealand to take in cargo for 
 London. The plaintiffs guaranteed some 5,000 
 tons space at a fieight of 30.?. per ton of forty 
 cubic feet. The defendants failed to secure an 
 entire cargo of wool in New Zealand, and loaded 
 grain instead, which brought the ship down to 
 her mark, leaving an unoccupied space in her of 
 901 tons. The defendants denied their liability 
 to pay freight for this space : — Held, that a wool 
 cargo had been contemplated which would have 
 filled the ship without putting her down to her 
 marks ; that it had not been contemplated that 
 she should come home partly empty ; and that 
 the defendants were liable to pay freight for 
 the 901 tons imoccupied space. Potter v. Neio 
 Zealand Shipping Co., 64 L. J., Q. B. 689. 
 
 Goods not Specified — Vacant Space.] — 
 
 A ship was charteretl to bring liome a full cargo 
 of produce, and to deliver the same on being paid 
 freight " at and after the rate of 5g. Gd. per 
 barrel of flour, meal and naval stores, and 11.?. 
 per quarter of 480 lbs. for Indian corn or other 
 grain." The cargo was not to consist of less 
 than 3,000 barrels of flour, meal or naval stores. 
 The ship returned with a short cargo, consisting 
 of only three barrels of flour, and the rest oats, 
 tobacco, bran and staves. Indian corn or wheat 
 weighs 480 lbs. and oats only 272 lbs. per quarter, 
 and the latter were not a usual import from the 
 port of lading : — Held, first, that the charter- 
 party was intended to regulate the amount of 
 freight to be paid on all produce that might be 
 shipped ; and that for produce not specified, and 
 for vacant space, freight was to be calculated at 
 a rate to be deduced from the two rates men- 
 tioned. Warren v. Peahody, 8 C. B. 800 ; 19 
 L. J., C. P.43; 14 Jur. 150. 
 
 "Other Grain."] — Held, secondly, that 
 
 the words "other grain" meant such grain as 
 would weigh about 480 lbs. per quarter, and 
 therefore did not include oats, which were to be 
 treated as produce not specified, and freight to 
 be paid for them accordingly. Ih. 
 
 Hire of Ship so long as Efficient — Break- 
 down — General Average.] — By charterparty the 
 charterer agreed to pay hire for a steamship at 
 a certain rate per month, the owners providing 
 master, crew and stores ; — "in the event of loss- 
 of time from deficiency of men or stores, break- 
 down of machinery, want of repairs, or damage, 
 whereby the working of the vessel is stopped for 
 more than forty-eight consecutive working hours^ 
 the payment of hire shall cease until she be again 
 in an efficient state to resume her service." On 
 September 30th, on a voyage from Africa to. 
 Harburg, one of the engines broke down, and 
 the ship put into Las Palmas, where she was 
 pronounced unfit to continue her voyage. The 
 owners and charterers agreed to send a tug to 
 bring her to Harburg, the cost to be general 
 average. The ship arrived at Harburg with the 
 assistance of the tug and using her own low- 
 pressure engine. The charterer paid 8fi7Z. as 
 his share of general average. In an action by 
 the shipowner against the charterer for hire of 
 the ship from her leaving Las Palmas till she 
 was discharged : — Held, that no hire was payable
 
 425 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freight. 
 
 from the date of the accident to the date of the 
 commencement of her discharge ; but that hire 
 was pavable during the discharge of her cargo. 
 J/of/arth V. Jimi>;'\]0 L. J., P. C. 1 ; [181)1] App. 
 Cas. 48 ; 64 L. T. 205 : 7 Asp. M. C. 1— H. L. (Sc.) 
 In court below, 16 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 
 599. 
 
 Whether Payable for Whole Day.] — A charter- 
 party j)rovided that the hire of a vessel should 
 commence at noon of a certain day, and freight 
 was payable at so much per calendar month ; 
 and " at and after the same rates for any part 
 of the month " until her delivery to owners. 
 On the day the hiring terminated she was 
 <lelivered to her owners at o.3U p.m. : — Held, 
 that the charterers were liable for freight for the 
 whole day, commencing at noon of tbe day of 
 her delivery. A/ujicr v. Stewart, 1 Cab. & E. 3o7. 
 
 East India Company's Ship — Passage Money — 
 Implied Promise to pay Extra.] — There is no 
 implied promise by an officer in the East India 
 Company's service to pay the captain more than 
 the regulation passage money, though it is usual 
 to do so. Adderley v. Coukson, 2 Camp. 15. 
 
 No Freight specified — Chancery Jurisdiction.] 
 
 — Bill in chancery for relief where no freight 
 was mentioned in the charterparty, but freight 
 on silks at bl. per ton was intended, whereas box- 
 wood at 40«. per ton was carried. Application 
 refused ; plaintiff must sue at law. Foot v. 
 iSahvay, Ca. in Ch., pt. 2, 142. 
 
 Deductions from Freight — Receipt of Freight 
 payable under Contract of Doubtful Validity, j — 
 
 Si'Miblc, if the owner receives fivight })ayal)le 
 under a charterparty entered into by the master, 
 containing a provision as to payment to the 
 niiuster of advances of doubtful vali<lity, he can- 
 not object to such provisions as being invalid. 
 {jibhii V. Charldon, 26 L. J., Ex. 321. 
 
 Freight Payable "Subject to Insurance."] — 
 The stipulation in a charterparty that freight 
 shall be paid "subject to insurance," means 
 fr(;ight is to be i)aid suVjject to deductions for 
 ]iremiums, anil not that insurance by the owner 
 is a condition precedent to his i-eciovery of the 
 freight. Jackxon v. Imamon, 3 ii. Ac N. 405 ; 
 ^7 L. J., Ex. 3!)2. 
 
 Disbursements charged against the freight of 
 n vessel, but not expressed in thi; charterparty, 
 •are mere loans and cannot properly be deducted. 
 Tanwr v. PhilUpx, 42 L. J., Ch. 125 ; 27 L. T. 
 480 ; 21 \V. 11. 68 ; 1 Asj). M. C. 448. 
 
 Foreign Bill of Lading— Cargo Sold Short 
 Delivery,] — llie owneis of a Danish shi]) sued 
 the indorsees of a bill of lailing for freight on 
 <'argo delivered to tliem in Scotland. 'Die defen- 
 ilants had bought the cargo at a price to depend 
 on the amount delivered. The cargo delivered 
 ■was short of that specified in the bill of lading, 
 and the dcfcnilants claimed to ret;iin the value 
 of the short cargo from freight, allefjirig that by 
 Diinisli law the bill of lading is conclusive as to 
 the amount of cargo ])Ut on board : — Hidd, that 
 the defendants were liable for the full freight on 
 cargo delivered. Immanvol {^f)>n)cri<) v. Den- 
 holm, 15 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 152. 
 
 Rate Increased by Subsequent Agreement.] — 
 Subsequent agreement with A. by a factor of a 
 
 426 
 
 merchant for freight at 6?. 10^. per ton gooas 
 though A. took no notice he had matle a former 
 agreement with the merchant at 3^. 10-s-. per ton, 
 that agreement having been obstructed by an 
 embargo. Braddy v. Deacun, 2 Vern. 242. 
 
 Charterparty and Bill of Lading Freight 
 
 Differing.] — See Zwilchcnhart v. Htnderson, 
 supra, col. 390. 
 
 Damages for Loss of Freight.] — See Iliclt, v. 
 
 Twccdie, infra, col. 2(;4. 
 
 Cargo heated — Invoice Quantity or Half 
 
 Freight,]— See TuUij v. Ternj, ante, col. 324. 
 
 Bill of Lading Weight — Custom to Weigh.] — 
 
 See Coulthumt v. Sivect, ante, col. 324. 
 
 f. Over-payment, Recovery of. 
 
 In what Cases,] — If the consignee to get his 
 gootls delivered to him paj's more than the net 
 weight amounts to he may recover back the 
 surplus. Geraldes v, Doti'mon, Holt, 346 ; 17 
 II. K. 645. 
 
 When the charterers of a sliip sti])ulate that 
 they shall be entitled to insure their advances 
 "against freight" at the owner's expense, and 
 they fail to insure, they have, in the event of tbe 
 ship perishing, no claim against the owners for 
 repayment. Wataon v. Skan/dund, L. R. 2 H. L. 
 (Sc.) 304 ; 29 L. T. 349. 
 
 Advance Freight,] — See Gibbs v. Charldon, 
 ante, col. 411. 
 
 Freight paid in Advance — 'Voyage in Stages — ■ 
 Part performed,] — The plaintiffs shipped goods 
 at Liveipool on the defendants' slii|) to be carrietl 
 via Colon to San Francisco by ari'angement 
 between the West India and Pacific Steam- 
 ship Co. and the Panama llailway Co., and 
 the Pacific Mail Steamship Co., freight and 
 primage to be considered as earned, shij) lost or 
 not lost ; the freight jiayable in Liverpool. The 
 whole freight was jiaid to the defendants' agent 
 at Liverpool, and the bill of lading was signed 
 by him " for the service from London to C^olon," 
 and by the agent of the other two companies 
 "for the service from Colon to San Francisco." 
 The ship sailed and was lost before airiving at 
 Colon. The ilefend.'ints paid over to tin; other 
 two comi)anies their proportion of the freight. 
 The plaintiffs sued the defendants for the money 
 so paid over to the other two com|)anics : — Held, 
 that the bill of lading formed one contract for 
 flic carriage of the goods from LiviTpool to San 
 Francisco, and tluit since the consideration for 
 which the fieight was paid had not wholly 
 failed, the plaint iiVs coidd not recover. Gricecs 
 v. WikI India and I'ucijic Stcanmhijt Co., 22 
 L. T. 61.5. 
 
 K. Tonrtor. 
 
 What is.] — The cusloni of tli(; Caen stone 
 trade l»eing to pay freight half in cash and half 
 bv a bill at two months, the agent of the owners 
 of Caen stone, which was brought by a vessel to 
 an English port, verbally offered the captain of 
 a vessel wlii<'h bron^dit it lialf the amount of the 
 freight in cash ; and also (jfTeicd to give the 
 captain per jirocuration, the acc('|itance of the 
 principal for the other half, if the captain would
 
 427 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freiijht. 
 
 42S 
 
 draw a l)ill. This the captain refused : — Held, a 
 sufficient tender of the frei-:ht, as it was the 
 duty of the captain to (haw the bill. Luard v. 
 Butcher, 2 Car. c^: K. 2'.). 
 
 Waiver of.] — In an action for non-delivery of 
 a carLTO, it was proved that a larger sum was 
 demanded for freit;ht by the master than was 
 due, and that the demand was so made as to 
 amount to an announcement by the master that 
 it was useless to tender a smaller sum, as it would 
 be refused :— Held, that these facts amounted to 
 a dispensation of a tender. The Xorwuy, 
 Bv. & Lush. 404 ; 3 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 245, noin. 
 Miricn/ (Oirwrx) v. Axlihurncr, 11 Jur. (N.S.) 
 8tt2 ; 13 L. T. .^.0 ; 13 W. R. 10X5— P. C. 
 
 h. Payment Guaranteed. 
 
 The defendants guaranteed to the plaintiff's 
 vessel a sum of HOO/. gross freight, on the under- 
 standing that the vessel should be placed at once 
 on the most profitable charter or trade procur- 
 able, and that the vessel would carry 300 tons of 
 whatever cargo it might take on board, or should 
 it not take 300 tons "that a proportionate reduc- 
 tion of the guarantee should be made for ariy 
 proper quantity of cargo it might take. The 
 plaintiff was not able to procure a gross freight 
 of 900Z. :— Held, that the breach accrued at the 
 place of loading, and that the plaintiff was 
 entitled to recover on the guarantee, though the 
 vessel was lost on the vovage. Ctn'r v. M'al- 
 lachian Petrolenm Co., 36 L. J., C. P. 236 ; I.. E. 
 2 C. P. 408 ; 10 L. T. 460 ; 15 W. E. 874— 
 Ex.Ch. 
 
 i. Pleading's. 
 
 A declaration stated that " the defendants are 
 indebted to the plaintiff for freight, for the con- 
 veyance by the plaintiff for the defendants, at 
 their request of goods in a ship":— Held, that 
 the declaration was bad for omitting the words 
 "for money payable by the defendant to the 
 plaintiff," and for not shewing any debt due in 
 praesenti. Place, v. Potts, 8 Ex. 705 ; 22 L. J., 
 Ex. 269 ; 1 W. R. 337. 
 
 So where a declaration since 15 & 16 Vict. 
 c. 76, stated that " the plaintiff sues the defen- 
 dant for freight, for the conveyance by the 
 plaintiff for the defendant at his request of 
 goods in ships": — Held, bad on demurrer, for 
 not shewing a debt in prajsenti, but that the 
 defect was cured by jdeading over. Wilkiyison 
 V. Sharland. 10 Ex. 724 ; 3 C. L. R. 619 ; 24 
 L. J., Ex. 110 ; 1 Jur. (N.S.) 144 ; 3 W. R. 207. 
 
 Or might be amended after error brought on 
 payment of costs. S. C, 3 C. L. R. 619 ; 11 Ex. 
 33 ; 1 Jur. (n.s.) 405 ; 3 W. R. 418. 
 
 Where a ship was let to freight by a charter- 
 party, a clause in the deed that " it was cove- 
 nanted and agreed by and between the parties, 
 that forty days should be allowed for unloading 
 and loading again" : — Held, to raise an implied 
 covenant on the part of the fi-eigliter not to 
 detain the ship for loading and unloading beyond 
 the forty days ; and if he detains her for any 
 longer time the owner's remedy is covenant and 
 not assumpsit, as upon an implied new contract. 
 Randall v. Lijnrli, 12 East, 179 ; 11 R. R. 340. 
 
 Defence to action for freight that the ship did 
 not, according to charterparty, sail with the 
 next wind : — Held, the traverse bad, because the 
 voyage and not sailing with next wind is the 
 
 substance of the contract. Consfahle v. Clow- 
 hnrys Noy, 75 ; nom. Const ahlc v. Clovenj, 
 Latch. 12. 
 
 Admissions on Pleadings — Counter-claim — 
 Motion for Judgment— Ord. XI. r. 11.] — Where 
 the plaintiff's claim for freight is admitted, but 
 the defendants set up a counter-claim for a larger 
 amount, the j)laiutiff is not entitled to a judg- 
 ment on the claim under Ord. XL r. 11, as upon 
 an admission in the pleadings. Mersey Steam- 
 ship Co. V. ShuttlewoHh, 52 L. J.. Q. B. 522 ; 11 
 Q. B. D. 531 ; 48 L. T. 625 ; 32 W. R. 245 ; 
 5 Asp. M. C. 48. 
 
 Ship not ready to Sail— Condition precedent — 
 Pleading.] — See Shower v. Cud more. Sir Th. 
 Jones, 210. supra, col. 270 ; Ohlseti v. Brummond, 
 supra, col. 270. 
 
 Payment — Assignment in Equity.] — In an 
 
 action for freight the defendant pk-aded set-off ; 
 replication upon eijuitable grounds that while the 
 freight was being earned the plaintiff assigned 
 it for value to A., of which the defendant liad 
 notice before the debt became due and before 
 action brought, and that the plaintiff was suing 
 as trustee for A. ;— Held, no answer to the plea. 
 Wdson V. Gabriel, 4 B. & S. 243 ; 8 L. T. 502 ; 
 11 'W. R. 803. 
 
 4. Lien on Cargo. 
 a. Creation of. 
 
 By Contract.] — ^Where parties, instead of trust- 
 ing to the general rule of law with respect to 
 freight, make a special contract for a payment 
 which is not freight, it must depend upon the 
 terms of that contract whether a lien does or does 
 not exist. When the contract made gives no lien, 
 a court of law will not supply one by implication. 
 Kirchner v. Venus, 12 Moore, P. C. 301 ; 5 Jur. 
 (n.s.) 395 ; 7 W. R. 455. 
 
 D. & Co., of Liverpool, shipped goods for 
 Sydney. The bill of lading stated the goods to 
 be to the shipper's order or assigns, " he or they 
 paying freight for the goods here as per margin." 
 In the margin it was stipulated as follows : 
 " Freight payable in Liverpool to M., one month 
 after sailing, vessel lost or not lost." The bill 
 of lading passed into the hands of K. & Co., as 
 indorsees for value. On the ship's arrival at 
 Sydney, the port of delivery, the master was 
 advised by the shipowner that the sum agreed to- 
 be paid as freight at Liverpool had not been 
 paid ; and he refused to deliver the goods to K. 
 & Co., the assignees of the bill of lading, unless 
 freight was paid, claiming a lien on the goods 
 for the unpaid freight : — Held, first, that the 
 amount agreed to be paid by the shipi)ers at the 
 port of shipment, one month after sailing of the 
 ship, did not acquire the legal incidents of 
 freight, though described under that name in 
 the bill of lading, it being merely money to be 
 paid for taking goods on board and undertaking 
 to carry, and not for carrying the goods ; and 
 that there was no right of lien on the goods by 
 the shipowner in respect of such sum of money 
 being unpaid, lb. 
 
 No consideration of inconvenience can pre- 
 vent a right of lien where a charterparty has 
 expressly created that right. M'Lean v. Flemingy 
 L. R. 2 H. L. (Sc.) 128 ; 25 L. T. 317 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 160.
 
 429 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freight. 
 
 430 
 
 Dead Freight.] — By a charterparty it was 
 agreed between a shipowner and a merchant 
 that his ship should proceed to Sulina, . . . and 
 there load as customary from the factors of 
 the . . . freighter a full and complete cargo of 
 staves. &c., "which the . . . merchant bound 
 himself to ship, . . . and . . . therewith proceed 
 to London, and deliver the same on being paid 
 freight at specified rates. . . . The freight to be 
 paid in cash on . . . right delivery of cargo. . . . 
 Fifty running days ... to be allowed for load- 
 ing . . . and ten days on demurrage, over 
 and above the laying days ... at 81. per day. 
 . . . The o-RTiers to have an absolute lien on the 
 cargo for all freight, dead freight, demurrage, 
 and average ; and the charterers responsibilities 
 to cease on shipment of the cargo, provided it 
 be of sufficient value to cover the freight and 
 charges on arrival at port of discharge. . . .'" 
 The ship proceeded to Sulina and, after a delay 
 of eighteen days beyond the ten demurrage 
 days, loaded a short cargo. A printed bill of 
 lading was then signed by the captain for 283,682 
 staves, to be delivered "at the port of discharge, 
 as per charterparty, unto order or . . . assigns, 
 he or they paying freight and all other conditions 
 (these words "being inserted in writing) or demur- 
 rage (if any should be incurred) for the said goods 
 as per charterparty." Upon the arrival of , the 
 ship in London the shipowner claimed from tlie 
 consignees of the bill of lading a lien on the goods 
 mentioned in the bill of la<ling for cargo short 
 shipped (claimed as dead freight), for demurrage 
 proper, in respect of the ship being detained ten 
 days at the port of loading, and for damages in 
 the nature of demurrage for a detention beyond 
 the demurrage days. The consignees had no 
 notice, until the arrival of the ship in London, of 
 this claim, but they had received a copy of the 
 charterparty with the bill of lading : — Held, that 
 the shipowner had no lien for "dead freight," as 
 the claim was not "dead freight," within the 
 meaning of the chartcri)artY and bill of lading. 
 6V«y/ v. ran: 40 L. .J.. Q. B. 2.57 ; L. R. 6 Q. B. 
 522 ; 25 L. T. 21.5 ; 1!) W. K. 1173— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Where the freighter of a ship covenanted, 
 that, if she should not be fully laden, he would 
 not only pay for the goods on Vjoarcl, but also 
 for so much in addition as the ship would have 
 carried, for which he had Vjefore stipulated to 
 pay freight according to different rates for thiee 
 descripliuns of goods : — Held, that the shipowner 
 had no lien upon the goods actually on board for 
 the amount of dead frciight ; in other words, 
 for the compensation in damages which he was 
 entitled to for the freighter's breach of contiact 
 in not putting a full loading on board, which 
 damages were unliquidated ; there being no lien 
 in such a ca.se, either by usage of trade or the 
 express contract of the part ies. Pkillijjs v. Jtndir, 
 15 Ea.st, 547 ; 13 li. R. .528. 
 
 Waiver of Lien — Retaking Possession.] — If 
 
 the shipowner waives his right to lien as to |)art 
 of the cargo which is landed, he cannot afterwards 
 reclaim possession of it toenforce his lieu. Ilain- 
 munil v. M'Crie, 3 C. L. R. 1198. 
 
 Unpaid Vendor — Amount.] — The plaintiff, 
 being the owner of a ship called the " K.," loaded 
 her with wheat at P. ; as the cargo was taken 
 on the sliii)'3 account, freight at the nominal 
 rate of Ix. per ton was inserted in the bill of 
 lading, wliich contained the usual exceptions of 
 perils of the seas. He sold the cargo whilst 
 
 afloat to H. upon the terms that " freight " 
 should be paid at the rate of 60.y. per ton. H. 
 sold his interest in the cargo, and it ultimatel}' 
 vested in the defendant, who bought the cargo 
 on the same terms on which it hatl been sold to 
 H. The " K." on her arrival was ordered to Y., 
 where she commenced to discharge her cargo ; 
 the defendant received it and paid large sums 
 on account. The quantity delivered was less than 
 that mentioned in the bill of lading by about 
 seventy quarters. The plaintiff claimed " freight " 
 at the rate of 60«. per ton upon all the cargo 
 delivered ; the defendant claimed to deduct \%U. 
 on account of short delivery. At the trial the 
 jury were of opinion that the short delivery arose 
 from the excepted perils, and found for the plain- 
 tiff for the total sum claimed by him : — Held, 
 that although the plaintiff might not have a lien 
 as shipowner, the cargo being taken on ship's 
 account, nevertheless he had a lien as unpaid 
 vendor ; that from the defendant's conduct a con- 
 tract by him might be implied to pay freight at 
 the rate of 60.*. per ton u])on all cargo delivered, 
 and that the finding of the jury for the plaintiff 
 was right. Sioanii v. Bdrhcr, 49 L. J., Ex. 2o3 ; 
 5 Ex. U. 1.30 ; 42 L. T. 490 ; 28 W. R. 563 ; 4: 
 Asp. M. C. 264— C. A. 
 
 Non-performance of Voyage.] — It was provided 
 by a charterparty that 250/., part of the freight, 
 should be advanced in cash on signing bills of 
 lading and clearing at the custom-house, and 
 that for the security and payment of all freight, 
 dead freight, demurrage and other charges, the 
 master or ownei-s should have an absolute lien 
 and charge on the cargo. The ship was loaded 
 and cleared at the custom-house, but the 250^. 
 was not paid, and consequently the captain did 
 not sign bills of lading, and the ship never started 
 on her voyage. The charterer having become 
 insolvent, his trustee in li(iuidation gave notice to 
 the owner that he disclaimed all interest under 
 the charterparty. The owner claimed a lien on 
 the cargo for the 250Z. as freight : — Held, the 
 ship never having earned or commenced to earn 
 freight, no lien arose. Ni/holm, Kx /)/irffl, Child, 
 In re, 43 L. .L, 15 k. 21 ; 29 L. T. 634 ; 22 W. R. 
 174 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 165. 
 
 Incorporation of Conditions of Charterparty.] 
 — A charterparty contained a stipulation in the 
 usual form for payment of freight at the rate of 
 1/. lU. 3rf. per ton; it also contained a dauso 
 that the sliipowner .should have an "absolute 
 lien on the cargo for freight, dead freiglit, demur- 
 rage, lighterage at port of diseliarge and average ; " 
 and a i'urtlier clause that the captain was to sign 
 bills of lading at any rate of freiglit ; " but should 
 the total freight as i>er bills of lading be under 
 the amount estimated to be earned by this charter, 
 the captain to demand payment of .my difference 
 in adviinee." Certain goo<ls were put on board 
 the chartered ship, and were made deliverable to 
 the plaintiffs (who were n«»t the charterers) by a 
 bill of lading, whereby freight was made payable 
 at 22.<. <■>'/. |)er ton ; the bill of lading contained 
 also a clause, whereby it was iirovided that extra 
 expenses should l>e borne by the receivers and 
 "other conditions as per charti^rpartv." Upon 
 the arrival of the ship at tlic port of discharge, 
 the defendant, who was the shipowner, claimed 
 and compelled payment of freight at the rate 
 mentioned in the charterparty. Tlie plaintitfji 
 having sued to recover back the difference 
 between the freight as specified in the charter-
 
 431 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freight. 
 
 432 
 
 party nnd the freight as specified in the bill of 
 lading : — Held, that the bill of lading did not 
 incorporate the stipulation in the charterpart y as 
 to the payment of freight, that no right of lien 
 existed for the freight mentioned in the charter- 
 party, and that tlic plaintiffs were entitled to 
 delivery of the goods upon payment of the freight 
 specified in the bill of lading. Gardner v. Treclt- 
 manii, 54 L. J., Q. B. 515 ; 15 Q. B. D. 154 ; 53 
 L. T. 518 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 558— C. A. 
 
 Collision — Re-shipment.J — The "K.," which 
 was on a voj-age under charter from Cardiff to 
 Bombay with coals, was run into by the " B.," 
 shortly after leaving Penarth Docks. The " K.," 
 which was consitlerably damaged, returned to 
 Cardiff, where her caigo was taken out of her in 
 order that she might be repaired. The owners of 
 the cargo proposed that the coals, which were also 
 damagtd, should be sold and a fresh cargo shipped. 
 The shipowner, however, refused to ship a fresh 
 cargo except " on fresh terms as to freight, &c.," 
 and the charterer, without inquiring what the fresh 
 terms would be, reshipped the damaged cargo, 
 which was carried to Bombay : — Held, that the 
 shipowner, having a lien on the cargo for freight, 
 was entitled to insist on the original cargo being 
 reshipped if it was capable of being carried to its 
 destination, and that the cargo-owner was not en- 
 titled to insist on its delivery without payment of 
 freight. The JJIniheiiii,rA h. J., Adm.Sl; 10 P. I). 
 167 ; 53 L. T. 1)16 ; 34 W. K. 154 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 522. 
 
 Against Shipper without Notice of Charter- 
 party.- — A linn of brokers, having chartered a 
 ship, advertised her as about to sail, and invited 
 shippers to semi their goods by her. Under the 
 charterparty, the cajjtain was to have an absolute 
 lien on the cargo for freight, dead freight, and 
 demurrage. The plaintiff, who had no notice of 
 the charterparty, dealing with the charterers only, 
 sent some tea on board, to be cari'ied at a rate of 
 freight agreed upon between himself and the 
 charterers. Afterwards, the charterers were 
 unable to fill the ship, and so to carry out their 
 contract with the owner, and the ship accord- 
 ingly did not sail. No bills of lading for the tea 
 had been signed, and the captain refused to sign 
 them unless they were expressly made subject to 
 the charterparty. The shipowner claimed a lien 
 on the tea for the expenses incurred by hiin 
 through his dealings with the charterers : — Held, 
 that he had no such lien, the plaintiff having had 
 no notice of the charteri)arty, and there being 
 nothing to put him on inquiry ; and the tea was 
 ordered to be given up to the plaintiff, the intended 
 carriage thereof having failed. J-'erk v. Larsin, 
 40 L. J., Ch. 7G3 ; L. K. 12 Eq. 37S : 25 L. T, 
 580 ; 19 W, R. 1045 ; 1 Asp. M. C. I(i3. 
 
 Freight expressed by Bill of Lading to be 
 Paid.j — Plaintiff, a shipowner, by charterparty, 
 agreed with G. to take a cargo to Calcutta, and 
 deliver a return cargo in London, for a freight of 
 14Z. per ton of the ship's tonnage ; the last pay- 
 ment to be made by bills at four months on 
 arrival of the ship in the Thames. G., by his 
 agent, put goods on board in Calcutta, and con- 
 signed them to the defendant, who knew of the 
 charterparty. The captain signed a bill of lading 
 according to which freight on these goods was 
 expressed to have been paid by bills on London : 
 ■ — Held, that notwithstanding the bill of lading, 
 the plaintiff had, as against the defendant, a lien 
 
 on the goods for the money due under the charter- 
 party. Campion v. Colrin, 3 Bing. (N.C.) 17 ; 3 
 Scott, 338 ; 2 Hodges, 116 ; 5 L. J., C. P. 317. 
 
 Lien on part of Cargo for whole Freight.] — 
 
 Tlie loss of part cargo having been occasioned by 
 jierils of the seas : — Held, that under the bills of 
 lading and charterparty the master's lien on the 
 residue for freight extended to the entire lump 
 freight without deduction. The Norway, 1 
 Br. & Lush. 404 ; 3 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 246 ; 11 
 Jur. (N.s.) 892 ; 13 L. T. 50 ; 13 W. E. 1085. 
 
 A master may detain any part of the mer- 
 chandise for the freight of all that is consigned 
 to the same person. Lodercjrcen v. Fliqht, 6 
 East, 622, n. ; 8 R. R. 578. And see Ward v. 
 Felton, 1 East, 512. 
 
 Though some part has been removed into a 
 lighter alongside of the ship which was sent by 
 the consignee. Il>. 
 
 The shipowner's lien for freight extends to all 
 the cargo belonging to the same person under the 
 same consignment, and is for the whole freight 
 on every part of the cargo. Lodcrqreen v. FVi(jlit, 
 cited, 6 East, 622. See also Lamb v. Kuselack, 
 post, col. 491. 
 
 Priority of Lien for Freight— Respondentia — 
 Eight of Underwriters.] — W., a London mer- 
 chant, shipped on board a French ship (the 
 " Galam ") at Hayti, a cargo of wood, to Europe. 
 The " Galam " became unseaworthy at Terceira, 
 was there condemned, and the cargo discharged 
 and stored, and the captain then raised 1,OOOZ. 
 from M., on a respondentia bond on the cargo, 
 payable on arrival at Falmouth, but did nothing 
 to forward the cargo. W., hearing of the acci- 
 dent, chartered the " Mary Jane " to go to Ter- 
 ceira and bring home the cargo, and to call at 
 Scilly for orders, which was done ; but on reach- 
 ing Scilly she ran ashore, and expenses were 
 incurred in saving ship and cargo. W., in order 
 to defeat the respondentia bond, ordered the cargo 
 to proceed to Hamburg, instead of Falmouth, and 
 discharge the caigo ; but before the '' Mary Jane" 
 started, M., the respondentia bondholder, insti- 
 tuted a suit and arrested the cargo at Scilly, by 
 warrant out of the Admiralty Court. The cargo 
 was afterwards removed to London for sale, and 
 fetched 808/. :— Held, that the master of the 
 " Mary Jane," not having known of the respon- 
 dentia bond, and being prevented by the orders 
 of the court of admiralty, occasioned by the 
 default of the owner of the cargo, fi'om carrying 
 the cargo on to Hamburg, had a lien for freight 
 on such cargo. Galam (^Cargo w). Clear y v. 
 Mucundrew, Br. & Lush. 167; 2 Moore, P'. G. 
 (N.s.) 216 ; 3 N. R. 254 ; 33 L. J.. Adm. 97 ; 10 
 Jur. (N.s.) 477 ; 9 L. T. 550 ; 12 W. R. 49.5. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the master having com- 
 plained and obtained a settlement f I'om his under- 
 writers for a total loss, they vfcre entitled in his 
 right to such lien. lb. 
 
 Held, thirdly, that the master's lien for freight 
 was preferable to the claim on the respondentia 
 bond, for the carrying on of the cargo was essen- 
 tial for making the bond available, and the bond- 
 holder had done nothing towards forwarding the 
 cargo. lb. 
 
 Held, fourthly, that the master's claim for 
 general average was also preferable to the res- 
 pondentia bond, for he had a possessory lien for 
 such average at common law, and the sale at 
 Ix)ndon did not displace this lien. lb.
 
 433 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Frcuiht. 
 
 434 
 
 Payment by Approved Bill — Negotiation of 
 Bill — Lien Discharged.] — Where the shipowner, 
 having a lieu on the cargo for freight until the 
 delivery of good and approved bills in payment, 
 took a "bill which he objected to, but afterwards 
 negotiated : — Held, that by negotiating the biU 
 he approved of it, and his lien was thereupon 
 gone. Horncastle v. Farran, 3 B. & Aid. -197 ; 
 2 Stark. 590 ; 22 R. R. 461. 
 
 Transfer of Lien on Transhipment.] — See 
 Matthews V. Gihbs, supra, col. 373. 
 
 Capture does not determine Lien.] — Master 
 being turned out of possession upon the vessel's 
 being captured does not deprive him of his lien 
 for the freight in case of her re-captui-e. Checs- 
 vian, Ej: parte, 2 Eden, 181. 
 
 Wharfinger — Interpleader — 25 & 26 Vict. c. 
 
 €3.] — A cargo of timber consigned to A. was dis- 
 charged at the wharf of B., and the landing of 
 the goods was completed on the 12th October. 
 On the loth October following, C, who claimed 
 to be owner of the ship, served a notice on B. of 
 his claim for freight, and required him to hold 
 the goods until his claim was discharged. B. 
 having retained the goods in pursuance of that 
 notice, an action of detinue was brought against 
 him by A. On an application by B. for an inter- 
 pleader order, on the ground that he could not 
 proceed under the 2.5 Ac 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 68, as 
 the notice of the l.'jth October was not served in 
 time : — Held, per Ciiristian, J., that as the act 
 imposed on the wharfinger the duty of resorting 
 to prescribed course of procedure in all cases 
 coming within it, the question whether any par- 
 ticular case comes within the act must be decided 
 by tlie wharfinger on his own lespon-ibility, and 
 is' not the proper subject for an interi)lea(ler 
 between the consignee of the goods and the ship- 
 ov/ners. Per Monahan, C.J., that unless the 
 ca.se was one so clearly within the act that the 
 court would on motion stay the action by A. 
 agaiu.st B., the latter was entitled to an inter- 
 pleader or<ler ; and that, as the court was not 
 prepared to do so in the present instance, the 
 order should be granted. Luwthcr v. Belfast 
 JIarhour Co., 16 Ir. Ch. K. 31 ; 17 Ir. Ch. R. 54. 
 
 Does not apply where Owner of Goods 
 
 lands them.] — Whrn an ownei" of a sliip lands 
 g(joils on a wharf in his own name, tlie lien which 
 >ic has on the goods until the freight is paiil is 
 outside any statutory enactment, the lien given 
 to the ship by the 25 ic 2(i Vict. c. 63, on sucii 
 ^oods, nieiely applying where the owner of the 
 g<x)ds takes them himself out of the ship and 
 lands them on the wharf in his own name, and 
 this because the lien for freight would be gf)nc 
 when the owner of the goods landed them if the 
 statute did not make jirovision to preserve it. 
 "■■ • E,lward Cardwell, 16 Ir. Ch. R. 34 ; 12 L. T. 
 677. 
 
 Charterparty construed — Penalty for Non- 
 performance, j — < 'iiii->iruci ic.n ol a clausr in a 
 cliarlei parly, wheieby the pailies "nuitually 
 bound tiicmsclve.s, es|)ecially tlie owners, the ship 
 and tackle, and the freighter, the goods to be 
 taken on board," in a penal sum " to the true 
 and punctual performance of every article therein 
 contained": — Held, not to give to the ship- 
 owners any lien in equity on the goods Ijrouglit 
 home either for dead freight or demurrage. Only 
 one construction of the clause at law and in 
 
 equity. Gladstone v. Birley, 2 Mer. 401 ; 3 
 M. ic S. 205. 
 
 Contract inconsistent with Lien.] — A bill of 
 lading contained this form, '' Freight for the 
 same goods to be paid by the shippers " ; and in 
 the margin of the bill, " Freight payable one 
 month after sailing, ship lost or not lost." The 
 owner of the ship, on the arrival at her destina- 
 tion, claimed a lien on the goods for the freight, 
 and refused to deliver the goods to the consignees 
 until the freight had been paid : — Held, that the 
 shipowner had no lien on the goods consigned, as 
 the sum claimed was not freight, properly so 
 called, and was concluded by the contract which 
 stipulated for a payment to be made in lieu of 
 freight, and to be made at a fixed period, having 
 no reference to the delivery of the goods. 
 Walker or How v. Klrchner, 11 Moore, P. C. 21 ; 
 6W. R. 198. 
 
 When Ship Lost.] — When money for the car- 
 riage of goods by sea is payable at the port of 
 destination, " ship lost or not lost," and the ship 
 is wrecked upon the voyage, the shipowner has 
 no lien upon the goods, although the money to be 
 paid for the carriage is described as freight in the 
 bills of lading. Xelson v. Association for Pro- 
 tection of Wrecked Projjerty, 43 L. J., C. P. 218. 
 
 On Transhipment.] — Where a ve«sel had been 
 sea damaged, and the agents of the charterers 
 refused to undertake the transhipment, the 
 master entered into a fraudulent contract with 
 a shipowner for the transhipment and convey- 
 ance of the cargo. By the contract while the 
 same freight was reserved as had been payable on 
 the original voyage, it was agreed between the 
 master and the owner that a very large portion 
 should be paid over to the master : — Held, that 
 the contract must be taken to have been made on 
 behalf of the owners, and that they had not a 
 lieu which they could transfer to the owner of 
 the second vessel .so as to entitle him to withhold 
 the tcoods until the whole freight was paid. 
 Matthews v. Oihhs. 3() L. .!., Q. U. 55 ; 7 Jur. 
 (N.s.) 186 ; 3 L. T. :>r>\ : 9 W. R. 2(ii). 
 
 Unnecessary Detention — Ascertainment of 
 General Average.] — When, l)y a charieiparty 
 and bill ut' hiding, freight is "to be paid on 
 unloading and right delivery of the cargo," the 
 master having a lien hy c(jmnion law for freight 
 and general average, and a lien l)y contract for 
 demurrage, the payment of the freight and the 
 delivery of the goods are concurrent acts in which 
 all that is re(piired from the owner of the cargo 
 is readiness and willingness to pay at the time of 
 delivery ; and befcu'c paying any sum for gcneml 
 average, the owner of cargo is entitled to bo 
 satisfied tliat (he auKiuiit claimed is the result of 
 a iiroper .■idjustment ; and if the owner of cargo 
 on arrival <>f the ship in port, and before dis- 
 charge, refuses to pay the amount clainieil for 
 freigiit and general average Vxifore the amount 
 duels fin;illy ascertained, but offers to ])ay a large 
 pn>i.<>rtinn "of the freight, and, there being no 
 dnubt as lo his solvency, to sign an avernge bond 
 for the payment of the general average when 
 ascertained, but the master, nevertheless, insists 
 upon retaining the cargo on board .ship until his 
 lien for freight and general average is satisfied. 
 detentif)n by the master is not wrongful. Tlic 
 Kiwrqie, Mirdhrndt v. Fitzximon, 44 L. J., Adm. 
 25 : L. R. G P. C. 306 ; 32 L. T. 679 ; 23 W. 11. 
 932 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 655.
 
 435 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. FreigJtt. 
 
 436 
 
 Discharge against Payments.] — By a charter- 
 jiarty it was iiroviik'il that I'lvi.nht should be jiaid 
 at the rate theroiii spooitied, the eargo to be taken 
 alongside and to be taken from the ship's tackle 
 at the port of discharge, free of risk and expense 
 to the ship. Disi)Utes having arisen during the 
 delivery of the cargo, the master required jiay- 
 meut of the freight for the amount of cargo 
 delivered each day over the ship's side into the 
 consignee's boats, and refused to deliver any 
 more cargo, on the consignees refusing to pay on 
 delivery as required : — Held, that by the terms 
 of the charterparty, it was clear that the inten- 
 tion of these parties was, that the master should, 
 on the arrival at the port of destination, deliver, 
 and the consignees receive, at the ship's side ; 
 and that as on such delivery and receipt the 
 master ceased to be responsible and to have any 
 lien on the goods, he was justified in refusing to 
 discharge the cargo without payment at the ship's 
 side of the freight each day, on the quantity 
 delivered, for his lien would be given up by 
 delivery of the goods. Block v. Bofie, 2 Moore, 
 P. C. (k.s.) 277 ; 10 Jur. (N.S.) 1009 ; 11 L. T. 
 31 ; 12 W. R. 1123. 
 
 Wharfage.] — But the master has no right to 
 detain goods for wharfage, if the consignee tenders 
 the freight, and requires them to be delivered over 
 the ship's side. Blshoj) v. Ware, 3 Camp. 3G0 ; 
 14 E. E. 755. 
 
 Damages for Detention of Ship at Port of 
 Loading.] — By a charterjiarty it was agreed that 
 the ship should go to a certain port and there load 
 from the charterer a cargo " in the customary 
 manner," and proceed with the same to another 
 port and deliver. ... " The cargo to be dis- 
 charged in ten working days, commencing from 
 the day after the ship has got into her proper 
 discharging berth. Demurrage at 21. per 100 tons 
 register per day. . . . The ship to have an abso- 
 lute lien on cargo for freight and demurrage, the 
 charterer's liabihty to any clauses in the charter 
 ceasing when he has delivered the cargo along- 
 side ship " :— HeUl, that the demurrage and the 
 lien and exemption clauses did not apply to 
 damages for undue detention of the vessel at the 
 port of loading. Lucklmrt v. Falk, 41 L. J., Ex. 
 105 ; L. R. K) Ex. 132 ; 33 L. T. 96 ; 23 W. K. 
 753 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 8. S. P., Gray v. Carr, 40 
 L. J., Q. B. 257 ; L. R. 6 Q. B. 522 ; 25 L. T. 215 ; 
 19 W. R. 1173 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 115— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Port Charges. ] — In a charterparty the freighters 
 promised to pay and defray two-thirds of the port 
 charges ; the owner having paid the whole : — 
 Held, that he had no lien on the goods shipped for 
 1 hose charges. Faith v. East India Co., 4 B. & 
 Aid. 430 ; 23 R. R. 423. 
 
 Evidence of Custom of English Port against 
 Foreign Indorsees.] — Evidence was admitted of 
 a custom in Liverpool, that a lien on goods for a 
 sum agreed to be paid there as freight continued : 
 — Held, that as the assignees of the bill of lading 
 were resident in Sydney, in New South Wales, 
 and there was no evidence that they were 
 acquainted with the local usage in Liverpool, 
 such evidence of custom was not admissible for 
 the purpose of explaining the efEect of the memo- 
 i-andum in the bill of lading, or shewing the 
 terms on which the goods were shipped, in the 
 construction of such bill of lading. Kirclincr v. 
 Vemis, 12 Moore, P. C, 3C1 ; 5 Jur. (n.s.) 395 ; 
 7 W. R, 455. 
 
 Payment at Two Months after Inward Report.] 
 — A charterparty stipulated that a ship should 
 proceed from London to Bombay, and being there 
 loaded, should proceed to London, and discharge 
 in any dock the freighters might appoint, and 
 deliver her cargo, on being paid freight, ati and 
 after the rate of 4Z. per ton. By a subsequent 
 claiise it was stipulated that the freight was to 
 be paid on unloading and right delivery of the 
 cargo in cash two months after the ship's inward 
 report at the custom-house : — Held, that upon 
 construction of these stipulations taken together, 
 the freight was not payable until two months 
 after the inward report, and the shipowner had 
 not, after the cargo was discharged, pursuant to 
 the charterparty, any lien thereon for the freight. 
 Alsager v. St. Katharine's Dock Co., 14 M. & W. 
 794 : 15 L. J., Ex. 34. 
 
 Where a charterparty provided for payment of 
 part of the freight, and for " the remainder in 
 cash, two months after the vessel's report 
 inwards": — Held, that no lien was created in 
 respect of the remaindei'. Foster v. Colby, 3 
 H. & N. 705 ; 28 L. J., Ex. 81. 
 
 Passage Money — Lien on Luggage.] — The 
 
 master of a ship has a lien on the luggage of a 
 passenger for his passage-money. Wolf v. Sum- 
 mers, 2 Camp. 631 ; 12 R. R. 764. 
 
 b. Against Charterer or Ag'ent with. Notice. 
 
 Express Stipulations,] — A shipowner may 
 expressly stipulate to retain his lien by the 
 charterparty, and this will be eflfective between 
 him and the charterer or his agent with notice. 
 Kern v. Bcslandes, 10 C. B. (N.S.) 205 ; 30 L. J., 
 C. P. 297 ; 8 Jur. (N.S.) 194 ; 5 L. T. 349. 
 
 A lien on the lading of a ship having been 
 expressly reserved to the owner by a charterparty : 
 — Held that goods which the charterer purchased 
 and Y>x\t on board, and then transferred with a 
 stipulation to convey them to their destination 
 for a certain amount of freight, were, even against 
 an indorsee of the bill of lading, subject not only 
 to that freiglit, but to the shipowner's lien for 
 a balance due to him under the charterparty, 
 whether possession of the ship was by the charter- 
 party, completely out of the shipowner and vested 
 in the charterer or not. Small v, Moates, 9 Bing. 
 579 ; 2 M. & Scott, 674. 
 
 Notice to Agents — Bill of Lading Differing 
 from Charterparty.] — A shipowner having agreed 
 with G. by charterparty to convey a cargo to 
 Calcutta, and to deliver a return cargo at the 
 East India Docks in London, for a freight of 14Z. 
 a ton on the ship's tonnage, the last payment to 
 be made by bills at four months, on the arrival 
 of the ship in the Thames. G-. by his agents 
 put goods on board at Calcutta, and consigned 
 them to the defendants, who were aware of the 
 existence of the charterparty : the captain signed 
 a bill of lading, according to which freight for 
 these goods was expressed to have been paid by 
 bills in London : — Held, that, notwithstanding 
 this bill of lading, the shipowner had, even as 
 against the defendants, a lieu on these goods for 
 the hire of the ship due under the charterparty. 
 Campion V. Colvin, 3 Bing. (n.c.) 17 ; 3 Scott, 
 338 ; 2 Hodges, 116 ; 5 L. J., C. P. 317. 
 
 Failure of Charterers — New Contract.] — The 
 agents of M. & Co., of Porto Rico, chartered a 
 ship for a voyage for the round from Glasgow to 
 Porto Rico, and back to the United Kingdom ;
 
 437 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freight. 
 
 freight il. lOs. per ton npon homeward cargo. 
 The charterer on the vessel's arrival at San 
 Juan, directed the captain to proceed to P., 
 where L. & Co., their agents there, would provide 
 him with homeward cargo, and they accordingly 
 supplied 4i»8 hogsheads of sugar towards the 
 cargo, and for which a bill of lading was given 
 by the captain ; but having heard of M. & Co.'s 
 failure, they refused to provide the remainder, 
 and demanded either a return of the goods already 
 on board, or that the captain should enter into a 
 new charter. The captain, under protest, entered 
 into a new contract at 30.s. a ton, for a voyage 
 from P. to Falmouth, and 180 hogsheads were 
 put on board in addition, and a bill of lading was 
 signed for the whole quantity at that rate : — 
 Held, that the 4'J8 hogsheads were virtually 
 shipped by the charterers themselves, and that 
 the captain had no authority to vary the contract 
 as to the goods actually on board when the failure 
 of the charterers was heard of, and that the ship- 
 owner was therefore entitled to a lien on those 
 goods for freight at the rate of il. 10s. per ton ; 
 but that with respect to the ISO hogsheads after- 
 wards shipped, the captain was entitled to enter 
 into the new contract, the agents of the charterers 
 having refused to com])lete the loading on the ori- 
 ginal charterparty. and for these goods the owners 
 were entitled to a lien at the rate of 30.?. Pearaon 
 V. Goscht-n, 17 C. B. (N.S.) 3.i2 ; 33 L. J., C. P. 2<;.t : 
 10 Jur. (N.S.) 903 ; 10 L. T. 758 ; 12 W. Pt. 1116. 
 
 Where Goods Re-landed.] — Where by a charter- 
 party the shipowners covenanted to receive a 
 full cargo, and the freighter to load the same, 
 and to pay so much for every ton of flax which 
 should be delivered at the king's beams at L., 
 and so much per diem for demurrage, and the 
 ])arties mutually bound themselves, especiallj" 
 the shipowners, the ship, her tackle, and appur- 
 tenances, and the freighter, the goods to be 
 laden and put on board, in a penal sum, for the 
 peiformance of every article contained in the 
 charterjiarty : — Held, that the shipowners had 
 not a lien upon the goo<ls actually brought home 
 to L., for a sum of moiic}' claimed to be due in 
 respect of goods which were put on board at the 
 loading port, but afterwards rc-landed,and restored 
 to the agent of the freighter, under |)rocc.ss of the 
 law at tlie loading ])ort ; nor for a sum claimed for 
 dead freight : iKjr for a sum claimed fordenmriage. 
 JUirh-y v. Gludxtone, 3 M. & S. 20.j ; 15 11. K. •1G5. 
 
 When Holders of Bills of Lading are Char- 
 terers' Correspondents. J — l!y a charterparty it 
 was stipulated that the ship should proceed to 
 Penarig, and thi.-re load a full and complete 
 cargo of legal merchandise from the charterers' 
 factors, aii(l proceed therewith to London, and 
 there deliver the same on being paid freight, 
 " lump sum of 2,800/., in full of all charges." 
 At the end of the charterparty was the following 
 clause : " The captain to sign bills of lading at 
 any rate of freight, without jjiejudicc to this 
 charter. In the event of a less freight, the bills 
 of lading f)f part of the cargo to be filled up for 
 loss, if any." Unrler this charterparty, the cliar- 
 terere shijipcd at Penang goods of their (»wn, for 
 which the caiitain signed bills of lading at a 
 certain specified rate of freight. The goods so 
 shipped were consigned for sale to the corres|)on- 
 dent of the charterers in London, who was under 
 a general engagement to hiaiour bills drawn upon 
 him by the charterers, upon the faith of consign- 
 ments to be made to meet them, and who were 
 
 438 
 
 largely in advance at the time of the shipment : 
 —Held, that the owners had a lien upon the goods 
 foi th£ entire lump freight. Gledstanes v. Allen. 
 12 C. B. 20i. ' 
 
 Bills of Exchange — Dishonour of.] — By a 
 
 memorandum of charter, made at Liverpool, it 
 was agreed that a ship should load a cargo there, 
 and proceed to China, and there deliver the same 
 agreeably to bills of lading, and afterwards load 
 a full cargo of tea or other lawful merchandise 
 for Liverpool or London, and deliver the same to 
 the charterers or their assigns, they pajing freight 
 for the same at the rate of 11. 10.?.'per ton of 
 fifty cubic feet for tea delivered, for the round 
 out and home : other goods, if shipped, to pay in 
 customary jiroportion ; in consideration wheVeof 
 the outward cargo to be carried freight free ; 
 payment to become due, and to be made as 
 follows : 800Z. on sailing, by charterers" acceptance 
 at three months' date, and the balance on the 
 unloading and delivering of the cargo, by ap- 
 pioved bills on London at two months' date, or 
 cash ; " the master to sign bills of lading at such 
 rates of freight as may be required by tlie agents 
 of the charterers, without prejudice tothis charter- 
 party ; and the owners to have an absolute lien 
 upon the cargo for the recovery of all freight, 
 dead freight, demurrage, kc. due to the shi[> 
 under this charter[)arty." By another memo- 
 randum, indorseil on the above, Singai)ore was 
 substituted for China ; and it was agreed that, on 
 delivery of the cargo in Singapore, the freighters' 
 agent there should have the option of loading the 
 ship for London or Liverpool, or for China ; that, 
 in the event of the vessel leturuing from Singa- 
 pore, the freight for the round should be 3.375/. 
 in full ; that shoukl the vessel proceed to China, 
 the freighters should pay an additional freight of 
 31.y. per ton on the homeward cargo from thence, 
 for the privilege of carrying intermediate freight 
 from Singapore to China, and an acceptance at 
 three months for 900/., on the shi|)'s sailing from 
 Liverpool, was substituted for 80(i/. The ship 
 was laden by the charterers chiefly as a geneial 
 ship, but they shipped on their own account 
 goods for which the master signed bills of lading, 
 making the goods deliverable at Singapore to 
 yi. ix. Co., or assigns, paying freight as per margin. 
 In the margin, the freight (in the aggregate 
 19(5/. 12.«.) was declared to be "payable in Liver- 
 l)Ool one month after sailing of vessel lost or not 
 lost." The vessel sailed fiom Liverpool on the 
 21st of February, 185(1, and the charterers gave 
 their acceptance at three uKJiiths for 900/., which 
 became due on the 23rd f>f May, and was dis- 
 honoured : — Held, that the owners had a lien 
 upon the goods so shipped by the charterers, for 
 the amount of the Ijill of lading freight, as against 
 the consignees (M. & Co.), who h:id advanced 
 money to the consignors upon the shipment, but 
 not for the 9(10/. Gillii.vm v. MiddUton, 2 C. U. 
 (N.S.) 134 ; 2(! L. J., C. P. 209. 
 
 By a charterparty l)etween I)e M. and thcship- 
 own'jr, coals were shipped from a home i)ort to 
 Alexandria, and made delivi.'ialilc to onler or 
 assigns ; and it was stipulateil (hat the freight 
 should be [laid "on loading an<l rigiit delivery of 
 the cargo, less advances in ciish at current rates 
 of exchange; one-half of the freight to be ad- 
 vanced by freighter's acceptance at three months, 
 on signing bills of lading ; owner fo insure the 
 amount, and deposit with the charterer the club 
 policy, and to guarantee the same." The accept- 
 ance having been given, the shipowner's agenfc
 
 489 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. Freight. 
 
 440 
 
 indorsed the bill of Lulinc: thus : " Received on 
 accouut of the within freight, SOU. 17.y. Qd., as 
 per charterpart y." On the ship's arrival at Alex- 
 andria, the purchaser of the coal, and to whom 
 lie M. had indorsed the bills of lading, intimated 
 that he was i)repared to i)aj' the balance of the 
 freight remaining unpaid after deducting 30U. 
 J's^Gd., and applied for delivery of the cargo; 
 but the master 'having heard that De M. had 
 suspended payment, refused. The demand was 
 made on the tith of January, 186t:, but the bill 
 •was not due till the 3rd of February : — Held, 
 that the shipowner had no lien on the cargo in 
 respect of the amount represented by the bill of 
 exchange : and that the damages were the amount 
 of the bills, and such further sum as represented 
 the loss sustained by the detention of the goods. 
 TamvaroY. Sinijison. 1 H. & R. 374 ; 35 L. J., C. P. 
 I'JG ; L. R. 1 C. P. 363 ; 11 Jur. (N.S.) 926 ; 14 
 L. T. 893 ; 14 W. R. 370— Ex. Ch. 
 
 And see cases supra, col. 414, as to dishonoured 
 biUs. 
 
 Approved Bills.] — A shipowner having a 
 
 lien on goods until the tlelivery of approved bills 
 for freight, took a bill of exchange in payment, 
 and objected to it at the time, but afterwards 
 negotiated it : — Held, that such negotiation 
 aniounted to an approval of the bill, and that he 
 thereby lost his lien on the goods. Hurncastle v. 
 Farran, 3 B. & Aid. 497 ; 2 Stark. 590 ; 22 R. R. 
 461. 
 
 Until Delivery of.] — Where the owner of 
 
 a ship covenanted to let her to freight, and 
 deliver the cargo in good oider and condition, 
 and the freighters covenanted to pay freight on 
 safe delivery of the cargo, one-third in cash, and 
 the remaining two-thirds by approved bills of 
 exchange at four months' date : — Held, that the 
 delivery of the cargo and payment of freight 
 were concomitant acts, and that the owner had 
 a lien on the cargo till he was satisfied for the 
 amount of freight remaining due. Yates v. 
 Baihton, 2 Moore, 294 ; 19 R. R. 524. 
 
 And where the owner covenanted to deliver 
 the cargo agreeably to bills of lading, and the 
 freighters covenanted to pay one-third in cash 
 ■on arrival, and the remainder on delivery of the 
 cargo, by good bills of exchange at four months' 
 date ; and the captain landed the goods in his 
 own name, and offered them to the freighter at 
 one delivery, on receiving the stipulated freight : 
 • — Held, that the owner had a lien on them until 
 such bills of exchange were produced by the 
 freighter. Yates v. MenTiell, 2 Moore, 297 ; 19 
 R. R. 527. 
 
 A., as owner of a ship, covenanted with B., the 
 freighter, for a voyage from London to Bahia, 
 there to receive a full cargo, and to proceed to 
 the first port in the English channel, where, 
 on her amval. notice should be given to the 
 freighters, from whom orders should be received, 
 at what port the cargo should be delivered 
 according to bills of lading. B. covenanted to 
 put a full cargo on board, and to pay freight at 
 certain rates per ton, viz. 300^. in cash on the 
 day the vessel should be reported inward at the 
 custom-house, and the remainder by good bills, 
 payable in London, at two months after tlate, 
 from the day on which the delivery should be 
 ■completed. A. bound the vessel and freight, and 
 B. the merchandise to be taken on board her, for 
 due performance. The vessel shipped a cargo 
 for the freighter at Bahia. together with other 
 
 merchandise consigned to other persons in London. 
 By the bill of lading, the freighter's goods were 
 to be delivered, on his paying freight for the 
 same, as per charterparty. The vessel having 
 arrived in London, the owner delivered the goods 
 to the different consignees, on their paying 
 freight reserved by bills of lading, at a less rate 
 than that stipulated by the charterparty. The 
 owner refused to deliver the freighter's cargo, 
 without payment of the freight due under the 
 charterparty :— Held, that he was entitled to 
 detain it for the hire of the vessel, as the delivery 
 of the goods and the payment of fi-eight 
 were concomitant acts, and that if the master 
 unshipped the whole of the cargo, the delivery 
 would be complete, and that the freighter should 
 then pay for and deliver bills for the amount of 
 the freight, as stipulated by the charterparty. 
 Tate V. Meeli, 2 Moore, 278 ; 19 R. R. 518. 
 
 c. Against Indorsee or Assignee of Bill of 
 Lading:. 
 
 Time of Payment.] — Where freight is made 
 payable by a bill of lading, according to the 
 terms of a cliarter]jarty, which stipulates for 
 payment of freight ten days after delivery of the 
 cargo, the owner has no lien on the cargo for the 
 freight. Lucas v. Nockells, 4 Bing. 729 ; 2 Y. & J. 
 304"; 1 M. & P. 783— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Reference to Charterparty — Effect of.] — In a 
 bill of lading, where freight is made payable " as 
 per charterparty," this reference incorporates 
 into the bill of lading all the clauses in the 
 charterparty which relate to the amount of freight, 
 but only for the purpose of computing the amount 
 of freight, not for the purpose of transferring to 
 the holder of the bill of lading the benefit of 
 covenants found in the same clauses of the 
 charterparty, but not affecting the amount of 
 freight. The Nurway, Br. & Lush. 226. See S. C. 
 in P. C, ante, cols. 427, 432. 
 
 Where a charterparty stipulated for lump 
 freight, " the master guaranteeing the ship to 
 carry 3,000 tons on a draught of twenty-six feet 
 water, or to forfeit freight in proi)ortion to the 
 deficiency," and the ship could not, and. in fact, 
 did not, carry a cargo of 3,000 tons : — Held, that 
 an assignee of a bill of lading for such cargo 
 making freight payable as " per charterparty," 
 had no cause of action against the ship in respect 
 of the master fraudulently guaranteeing, &c. Ih. 
 
 By the terms of a charterparty the cargo was 
 made deliverable on freight being paid as follows : 
 '• The ship to have a lien on cargo for freight ; 
 3Z. 10,^. per ton of fifty cubic feet to be paid to 
 captain or his agents on right and true delivery 
 at port of discharge." The charterer shipped a 
 portion of the cargo under a bill of lading, which 
 stated freight to be payable as per charterparty : 
 — Held, that the rate of freight only was, and 
 not the terms as to the lien mentioned in the 
 charterparty were, incorporated in the bill of 
 lading, and that, therefore, the shipowner had no 
 lien as against a bona fide indorsee for value of such 
 bill of lading for the whole chartered freight, but 
 only for the freight due on the goods mentioned 
 in the bill of lading. Fry v. Charferrd Mercan- 
 tile Bank of IiuUa, London, and China, 35 L. J., 
 C. P. 306 ; "L. R. 1 C. P. 689 ; 14 L. T. 709 ; 14 
 W. R. 920. 
 
 Notice of Terms of Charterparty.] — Where 
 freight was agreed to be paid for the use or hii'e
 
 441 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. FrcigJit. 
 
 442 
 
 of the ship at a certain rate per ton foi" a voyage 
 out and home, in manner following, viz. a 
 certain sum in advance on the ship's clearing out- 
 1 wards, and the residue, half in cash, and half in 
 approved bills, iipon the delivery of the homeward 
 cargo ; and the owner appointed a master at the 
 request of the charterer, who executed a bond, 
 conditioned for the faithful performance of the 
 master's duty ; and also instructed the master to 
 be carefid to sign all bills of lading with the 
 clause " freight payable as per chartcrparty " ; 
 and the ship was consigned to C. & Co. in Calcutta, 
 by whom she was put up for her homeward voy- 
 age as a general ship, and different merchants 
 shipped goods by her ; C. ct Co. taking for home- 
 ward freight bills payable sixty days after the 
 delivery of the cargo, and, a new master having 
 been appointed by them, in conjunction with the 
 former master, signed bills of lading with the 
 clause "paying freight agreeably to freight bill" ; 
 and the freight bills were made payable in London 
 to B. & Co., to whom the charterer was indebted 
 for advances on the outward cargo, and who, as 
 well as C. & Co., were cognizant of the terms of 
 the chartcrparty : — Held, that the owner of the 
 ship had a lien on these goods to the extent of 
 the homeward freight. Faith v. Fast India Co., 
 4 B. & Aid. 630 ; 23 R. R. 423. 
 
 C. & Co. also put on board the ship goods pur- 
 chased Vjy them on account of the charterer ; but 
 he being indebted to them and B. & Co., their 
 agents, those goods were, by the bill of lading, 
 consigned to B. & Co. : — Held, that as between 
 the owner of the ship and B. & Co., the goods 
 were to be considered as the goods of the charterer, 
 and liable to the o-wner's lien on them for the 
 fr(;ight due by the chartcrparty. If/. 
 
 Where indorsees of a bill of lading are also the 
 charterers of a ship, they are bound by a stipula- 
 tion as to lien in the chartcrparty. McLean v. 
 Flemina, L. R. 2 H. L. (Sc.) 128 ; 25 L. T. 317 ; 
 1 Asp. M. C. 1(!0. 
 
 The goods of a shipper in a general ship are 
 not aflFected by a clause in a chartcrparty of 
 which he has no notice or knowledge, giving the 
 shipowner lien on all cargo and fieiglit for 
 arrears of hire due under the chartcrparty. TJic 
 Stnrmiwaij, 51 L. J., Adm. 27 ; 40 L. T.'773 ; 4 
 Asp. M. C. 529. 
 
 ]>y a charterjiarty which was negotiated by A., 
 as agent of B., the charterer (B.) engaged to pay 
 a himp freight of 735/. for a voyage to the coast 
 of Africa and back to London, in casli, on tlie 
 correct delivery of tlic return cargo, and the 
 chartcrparty contained the following clause : 
 " The master to sign bills of lading at any rate of 
 fn.'ight, without prejudice to the charter." B. 
 shipped oil on his own account for London, for 
 wliich the master signed a bill of lading making 
 the oil deliverable to A., or assigns, " he or they 
 liaying freight for the goods as usual." 'i'his bill 
 of lading B. indorsed to A. in part payment of 
 advances made by him on the purchase of the 
 outward cargo : — Held, that A., having notice of 
 the terms of the eharteriiarty, the owner was 
 entitled to a lien on the oil for the entire charter 
 frciirlit. A'rni v. Dedandrs, 10 C. B. (N.S.) 205 ; 
 :'.() L. .J., C. V. 297 ; 8 Jur. (N.S.) 194 ; 5 L. T. 
 3J9. 
 
 Complete Delivery.] — Where several goods be- 
 longing to one owner are carried the same voynge, 
 a delivery of part does not defeat the lien upim 
 the remainder for the whole freight. But if 
 there are two contracts to carry with diiferent 
 
 termini to the voyage in each contract, no lien 
 attaches for freight under the one contract upon 
 goods shipped under the other and improperly 
 detained on board by the carrier. Goods are 
 divested of a lien by a complete delivery. Bernat 
 V. Pim, 1 Gale, 17. 
 
 Taking Bills of Exchange.]- 
 cols. 414, 43'J. 
 
 -See cases ante, 
 
 No Notice of Terms of Charterparty— Bill of 
 Lading Freight.] — As against assignees or con- 
 signees, who have purchased or made advances 
 on the faith of the bill of lading without notice, 
 the shipowner can only retain for the freight 
 mentioned in the bill of lading. GUhison v. J//V/- 
 dletoH, 2 C. B. (N.S.) 134 ; 26 L. J., C. P. 209. 
 
 A ship was chartered for a particular voyage 
 for a gross sum, by way of freight. The captain 
 signed bills of lading for the cargo (which was 
 the property of and consigned to a third person), 
 specifying a rate of freight amounting to a less 
 sum than that mentioned in the chartcrparty : — 
 Held, that the shipowner had no lien on the 
 cargo beyond the freight specified in the bills of 
 lading. MUchdl v. Scuife, 4 Camp. 298 ; 16 R. R. 
 795. 
 
 S. and W. chartered a ship from Liverpool to 
 Calcutta and home for 7,000/. " The freight to 
 be paid 1,250/. on vessel clearing from Liverpool, 
 and 1,000/. on delivery of the outward cargo at 
 Calcutta, the remainder in cash two months from 
 the vessel's report inwards, and after right 
 delivery of the cargo, or under discount at 5 per 
 cent, per annum at freigiiter's option. The 
 master to sign bills of lading at any rate of 
 freight required without prejuiliee to this charter- 
 party. The owners of the .shij) to have an absolute 
 lien on the cargo for all freight, dead fi-eight and 
 demurrage." There were provisions for payment 
 of the freight in cash on delivery of the cargo, if 
 the cargo was delivered abroad. S. and C, who 
 were the charterers' agents at Calcutta, having 
 made advances to disburse the vessel, shipped a 
 quantity of linseed, for which the captain signed 
 bills of lading deliverable to theii' order or assigns 
 on (layment of freight at 5.v. ])er ton, the current 
 rate being 5/. lO.v. Against this shii)ment S. and 
 C. drew a bill of exchange, and indorsed and 
 delivered it together with the bill of lading for 
 value : — Held, that assuming the chartcrparty to 
 have created a lien for the chartcrparty freight 
 as against the charterers, a bona li<le indorsee of 
 the bill of hiding, without notice of the cliartcr- 
 ])arty, was entitled to the linseed on payment of 
 the bill of lading freight. Fodcr v. ('ollnj, A 
 H. & N. 705 ; 28 L. J., lOx. 81. 
 
 Freight Payable One Month after Sailing.] — 
 Goods were shipped by S. iV: Co. from (ilasgowto 
 f/ima, under a bill of la<liiig, by which freight 
 was to be paid by the shippers "one month after 
 sailing, sliij) lost or not lost." The goods were 
 consigned Ijy S. & Co. to the defendant for .sale, 
 and tlie bill of lading was handed by S. iV: Co. to 
 him for value. S. iV: Co. made dclaull in paying 
 the freight, and the master, under instruction* 
 from the shipowners, refused to deliver up the 
 goods to the agents of the defendant at Lima 
 without payment of the freight, claiming a lien 
 upon them : — Held, (hat the shijiownitrs had a 
 liin upon tlie goods for the freight ]);iyable by 
 the liill of lading as against thedefeiidant. Nrisit 
 v. (irukiim, H Kl. & Bl. 505 ; 27 L. J., Q. B. 16 
 4 Jur. (N.S.) 49.
 
 443 
 
 SHIPPING— XIII. FrcMiht. 
 
 444 
 
 Custom— Payment at Port of Shipment.] — 
 (loods wore sliipiicd at I.ivt'rpool for Sydney. 
 By a bill of ladiiiti: the i^oods were made deliver- 
 able to the shipper's order or assigns, "he or they 
 |)aying freight for the goods here, as per margin " ; 
 -inil iu the margin the stated amount for freight 
 was made payable in Liverpool to M. (who was 
 not the shipowner) one mouth after the sailing of 
 the vessel : — Held, that, as against an indorsee for 
 value of the bill of hiding the master could not 
 detain the goods at the port of delivery on the 
 ground of nonpayment of the freight, although 
 the jury found that, by the usage of Liverpool, 
 She shipowner does not lose his lien for the freight 
 I)y making it jjayable at the port of shipment. 
 A7;rA«c?'"v. Vi'/ivs, 12 Moore, P. C. 3(31 ; 5 Jur. 
 <x.s.) 395 : 7 W. R. 4.5.5. 
 
 Such a local usasi'; cannot bind a bona fide 
 holder for value without notice. lb. 
 
 d. Waived, Suspended or Lost. 
 
 Delivery — Landing.] — Where consignees do 
 not apjicar to chiini goods at the jiort of discharge 
 iiud there is no suitable warehouse : — Semble, 
 that the master may still land the cargo without 
 losing his possession and control over it (placing 
 the goods in a warehouse belonging to, or hired 
 for, his owners), and so preserve his lien. j)/yr.v- 
 Ic-Blanch v. Wilmii, 42 L. J., C. P. 70 ; L. R. 
 S C. P. 227 ; 28 L. T. 415 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 005. 
 
 Contract at Variance with. ] — A shipowner has 
 a lien upon a cargo for freight (i.e. for the 
 carriage, conveyance and delivery of goods), but 
 such lien is destroyed by his entering into a con- 
 tract at variance with that lien ; as where he, by 
 contract, agrees to be paid after delivery of the 
 cargo, and not at the time of delivery. Wallwr 
 V. Kirclmer, 11 Moore, P. C. 21. 
 
 A bill of lading contained this form, " Freight 
 for the same goods to be paid by the shippers : " 
 and iu the margin of the bill, " Freight payable 
 one month after sailing, ship lost or not lost." 
 The owner of the ship, ou her arrival at her des- 
 tination, claimed a lien on the goods for the 
 freight, and refused to deliver the goods to the 
 consignees until the freight had been paid : — 
 Held, that the shipowner had no lien on the 
 goods consigned, as the sum claimed was not 
 f i-eight, properly so called, and v/as concluded by 
 the contract which stipulated for a payment to 
 be made in lieu of freight, and to be made at a 
 fixed period, having no reference to the delivery 
 of the goods. lb. See also cases, ante, col. 237. 
 
 Part Taken on Part Payment.] — The lien of a 
 
 shipliokler for freight being entire, is not lost or 
 ■waived by allowing part of the goods to be taken 
 away on payment of a portion only of the freight, 
 without some express contract with the express 
 or implied authority of the shipowner. Perez v. 
 Alsop, 3 F. & F. 188. 
 
 5. Assignment. 
 
 Freight to be Earned.] — An assignment by the 
 owners of a ship of freight to be earned is good. 
 Douglas v. Russdl, 1 Myl. & K. 488. 
 
 A shipowner assigned to B. the freight earned 
 and to be earned by one of his ships, and after- 
 wards chartered her to C, for a voyage to S. 
 The outward freight was paid to A., before the 
 ship sailed. The charterparty afterwards was 
 delivered to B., by A.'s direction, and B. gave 
 
 notice of the assignment to C. Afterwards, 
 but before the ship returned, A. became bank- 
 rupt : — Held, that the homeward freight was not 
 in A.'s order and dis])Osition at his bankruptcy ; 
 and, therefore, that B. was entitled to it. lb. 
 
 Order and Disposition.] — Under a charterparty, 
 entered into by a broker, on behalf of the owner 
 (if a vessel, whose name did not appear on the 
 charterparty, the freight was to be paid to the 
 broker, on behalf of the owner. The owner 
 assigned the freight to A., who gave notice of the 
 assignment to the broker, but not to the lords of 
 the treasury, by whom the freight was to be 
 paid :— Held, that after such assignment and 
 notice, the freight was no longer in the order and 
 disposition of the owner, and consequently did 
 not, ou his subsequently becoming bankrupt, pass 
 to his assignees : — Held, that the money due to 
 the charterparty was not in his order and dis- 
 position at his bankruptcy. Gnrdncr v. Lachlan, 
 4 Myl. & C. 129 ; 8 L.' J., Ch. 82 ; 2 Jur. 412, 
 1056. And see S. C, 6 Sim. 407, on motion for 
 au injunction. 
 
 Sub-charter — Notice.] — A shipowner on the 
 2()th March, 1S57, chartered his ship to A. for a 
 voyage to Houg Kong. The freight was payable 
 " by approved bills on London, at three months' 
 date, or cash under discount, following the 
 delivery of a certificate to the charterers, signed 
 by the consignees," of the delivery of the cargo. 
 Ou the 24th March the shipowners assigned the 
 freight to C!., who gave no notice to A. until Novem- 
 ber following. It turned out that on the 23rd 
 March A, had sub-chartered the ship to B., whose 
 agent at Hong Kong had paid the freight to the 
 agent there of the shipowner :— Held, that A. 
 was liable to C. for the freight, and that C.'s 
 laches iu giving notice had not deprived him of 
 his rights. Young v. Lindsay, 27 Beav. 405. 
 
 Priorities — General and Particular Assignee.] 
 
 — The assignee of a particular freight who gives 
 to the charterers notice of his security, is entitled 
 in priority to the general assignee of all freight 
 to be earned by the same ship, who is prior in 
 date, but gives no notice, and takes no steps to 
 enforce his mortgage until after the particular 
 assignee has given notice to the charterers, and 
 the cargo has been in part discharged. Brown v. 
 Tamwr, L. R. 2 Eq. SOr, ; 12 Jur. (N.s.) 791 ; 14 
 L. T. 825; 14 W. R. 911. 
 
 Sale of Ship.] — The right to freight is inci- 
 dental to the ownership of the vessel which earns 
 it, and therefore a transfer of a share iu a ship 
 passes the corresponding share in the freight, 
 under an existing charterparty^, without the men- 
 tion of the word "freight." Lindsay y. Gihbs, 
 22 Beav. 522 ; 2 Jur. (n"[s.) 1039 ; 4 W. R. 788. 
 
 In equity an assignment of freight to be earned 
 is valid. lb. 
 
 A ship was chartered by her owner. After- 
 wards, in June, 1854, he sold twenty-four shares 
 of the ship to A., and the remaining forty shares 
 to B., and in December he assigned the freight to 
 C. A. registered before, and B. after C.'s assign- 
 ment ; but C. gave the first notice to the 
 charterers : — Held, that C.'s right to the freight 
 had priority over B., but not over A. lb. 
 
 One who is interested in the freight alone 
 saved from the ship held liable to contribute his 
 proportion of the expenses incui-red by the ship 
 in earning the freight. lb.
 
 445 
 
 SHIPPING— XIV. Freight. 
 
 446 
 
 Right to Freight earned after Sale.] — See 
 Hill, Ex 2)arte, ante, col. 153. 
 
 Fraud — Partnership — Taking Accounts.] — 
 
 Equitable assignment by A., shijiowner, to C. 
 of charterpartY freight payable by B., the char- 
 terer ; not disclosing an agreement by which A. 
 was a partner with B. for the voyage and liable 
 in account for losses. The adventure turned out 
 a loss. B. claimed, as against C, to balance the 
 accounts of profit and loss, as he would have 
 been entitled to do with A. had the charterparty 
 not been assigned : — Held, that in equity he was 
 entitled to do so. Manglesx.Dixon^'dH. L. Cas. 702. 
 
 By Managing Owner.] — Managing owner has 
 no power to assign freight to secure private debt. 
 Guiu)i V. Trash, supra, col. 57. 
 
 By Master.] — The master has no power to 
 assign freight. The Sir Henry Webb, 13 Jur. 639. 
 
 Co-owners— Assignment of Share of Freight 
 by some— Deduction of Expense of Earning, j — 
 The wages of the captain and seamen of a ship, 
 being the expenses which produce the income 
 thereof, are proper deductions to be made from 
 the gross freight, as between the jjart owners of 
 the ship and the assignees of the freight belonging 
 to the other co-owners. Lindsay v. Gihbs. 28 
 L. J., Ch. 692 ; 5 Jur. (N.s.) 376 ; 7 W. R. 320— 
 L.JJ. 
 
 Direction to Agent to pay out of Freight a 
 Specific Bill— Subsequent Direction to pay other 
 Bills — Priorities.] — Where the purchaser of a 
 iship gave three bills in payment, and instructed 
 "his agent to pay the amount of the first out of 
 the freight of the ship, and afterwards sent a 
 ■written order to satisfy out of the freight the 
 amount of any current bill given in payment for 
 the vessel : — Held, that the latter should not 
 fiupcrsede the former direction, which created a 
 priority over the holders of the other bills. Miln 
 V. Walton, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 354 ; 7 Jur. 892. 
 
 Payment of Freight on Assignment.] — Srr 
 :?. Payment ; ii. Ox A.s.siGXMiiNT, supra, col. 392. 
 
 Payment of Bottomry Debt out of Proceeds of 
 Ship — Freight not being brought in.] — See Tlic 
 Perry, ante, col. 2 IS. 
 
 Hypothecation of Freight.] — (S'eeX.BoTTOiiHV. 
 
 XIV. DEMURRAGE. 
 
 1. Jjinhility vmler Contract. 
 
 a. Charterer — Cesser Clause. 446. 
 
 b. Consignees and Indorsees of Bill of 
 
 Lafliiig, 451. 
 
 c. Other Cases, 45.3. 
 
 2. Aotirr of Arriral, i'lG. 
 
 3. Time and Calculation of Days, 457. 
 
 4. P/af^461. 
 
 5. Loadimi and Digcharging — Rules of I'ort. 
 
 470. 
 
 6. CauKCK of Delay. 
 
 a. Weather, 476. 
 
 h. Kot producing Bill of Lading, 479. 
 
 c. Strikes, 480. 
 
 d. Other Cau.ses, 482. 
 
 7. Ttiite of Payment, 491. 
 
 8. Lion for, 491. 
 
 9. Practice. 
 
 a. Jurisdiction, 492. 
 
 b. Pleading. 493. 
 
 See also XI. Chaeteepakty ; XII. BiLL OP 
 Lading. 
 
 1. Liability under Contract. 
 a. Charterer — Cesser Clause. 
 
 Delay in Loading.] — By a charterparty it was 
 agreed that a ship should, with all convenient 
 speed, proceed to Sunderland, and that the 
 charterer should there load the ship in regular 
 turn with a full cargo of coals, and the ship 
 should proceed with it to Kiel, and deliver to 
 freighter or assigns, on payment of freight ; 
 " and, that the charter being concluded by the 
 charterer on behalf of another party resident 
 abroad, all his liability should cease as soon 
 as he had shipped the cargo": — Held, that 
 this clause only exempted the charterer from 
 liability accruing after the loading of the cargo ; 
 and that he. therefore, remained liable for delay 
 in loading, although he had ultimately loaded a 
 full cargo. Christofferson v. Hansen, 41 L. J., 
 Q. B. 217 ; L. R. 7 Q. B. .509 ; 26 L. T. 547 : 20 
 W. R. 626 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 305. 
 
 By a charterparty' it was agreed that the ship 
 should go to a certain port and there load 
 from the charterer a cargo " in the customary 
 manner," and proceed therewith to another port 
 and deliver the same. ..." The cargo to be 
 discharged in ten working days, commencing 
 from the day after the ship had got into hor 
 l>ro[)er discharging berth. Demurrage at 21. per 
 100 tons register per day. . . . The ship to 
 have an absolute lien on cargo for freight and 
 demurrage, the charterer's liability to any clauses 
 in the charter ceasing when he has delivered the 
 cargo alongside ship " : — Held, that the demui'- 
 rage and the lien and exemption clauses did not 
 ajiply to damages by undue detention of the 
 vessel at the port of loading. Luchhnrt v. Falh, 
 44 L. J., Ex. 105 ; L. R. lOEx. 132 ; 33 L. T.96 ; 
 23 W. R. 753 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 8. 
 
 "Loading Excepted."] — A charterparty con- 
 tained the following clause : "This charter being 
 concluded by the cliarterers on behalf of another 
 party, it is agreed that all liabilit_y of the former 
 shall cease as soon as thecaigo is shipped, loading 
 excepted, the owners and master of the vessel 
 agreeing to rest solly on theii- lien on the cargo 
 for freight, demurrage and all otiier claims, and 
 which lien it is hereby agreed that they shall 
 have" : — Held, that"' loading excei)tcd "extended 
 to delay in loading, and wjis not confiued to the 
 loading a full ;iiid com]ilete cargo ; and the 
 ciiarferers.t her! fore, remained liable for the delay, 
 liiough they hadshii)ped aconiplett; cirgo. Lister 
 V. Van 7faansber//eii.i-> L. J.. Q. B.495 : 1 Q. B. I). 
 2(i9 ; 34 L. T. 446'; 24 W. R. 395 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 145, 
 
 No Orders given as to Port of Discharge— Not 
 safe Port.] — liy a charterimrty the ship was, 
 after loading a full cargo, to proceed to a port of 
 call for orders, to be forwarded within forty- 
 eight hours after notice of arrival given to the 
 charterers, to discharge at a good and safe port. 
 Twelve working lay days to be allowed the 
 frclLchters for loading the ship at the port of 
 loading, and waiting for orders at the port of 
 call, and fifteen days over and al)ove the laying 
 d.ays at 4d. per ton jierday. Ch.arterers' liability 
 to cca.sc when the sliip wiis loaded, the owners of
 
 447 
 
 SHIPPING— XIV. Demuirage. 
 
 448 
 
 the ship to have an absolute lion on the cargo 
 for all freight, dead freight and demurrage. In 
 an action by the shipowners against ,fche cliar- 
 terei-s for not giving orders as to the poiL of 
 discharge, and for giving orders tliat ilie ship 
 should proceed and ciiseharge at a port which was 
 not a safe port within the meaning of the charter- 
 party :— Held, that inasmuch as delay at the 
 port of call was provided for by the stipulation 
 in respect of demurrage, the charterers were 
 discharged, whether the actual damages claimed 
 were covered by the owners' lien or not. French 
 V. Gcrbcr, 46 L. J., C. P. 320 ; 2 C. P. D. 247 ; 
 36 L. T. 350 ; 25 W. R. 355 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 574— 
 C. A. 
 
 Reading Bill of Lading and Charterparty 
 Together.] — A vessel was eluirtered to carry a 
 cargo of coals from CardifE to Itouen. The 
 charterparty provided that the hability of the 
 charterers should cease " when the ship is loaded 
 and advance of freight with demurrage at Cardiff 
 paid." " Ship to have a lien on cargo for freight, 
 dead freight and demurrage." The bill of lading 
 contained no restriction on the liability of the 
 charterers. In an action for balance of freight : 
 — Held, that the charterparty and bill of ladhig 
 must be read together, and construed according 
 to the plain meaning on the face of them, and 
 that the charterers' liability ceased on perform- 
 ance of the conditions in the charterparty. 
 BarwlcJi v. Burnyeat, 36 L. T. 250 ; 25 W. R. 
 395; 3 Asp. M. 0.376. 
 
 Securing Berth.] — Where the charterer refused 
 to name a substituted dock where the ship could 
 lie in safety afloat according to the terms of the 
 charterparty, and delay ensued in dischai-ging 
 the cargo : — Held, that he became liable to 
 demurrage and charges for unloading. Dahl v. 
 Bonliin or Kelson, 50 L. J., Ch. 411 ; 6 App. Cms. 
 38 ; 44 L. T. 381 ; 29 W. R. 543 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 392— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Cesser Clause — Detention at Port of Loading 
 —Lien.] — By a cliartcrparty it was stipulated 
 that the shij) should proceed to a loading-berth 
 at the port of loading, and there receive on board 
 a full and complete cargo, and. being so loaded, 
 should proceed to the port of discharge, " All 
 liability of charterers to cease on completion 
 of loading, provided the value of the cargo is 
 sufficient to satisfy the lien which is hereby 
 given for all freight, dead freiglit, demurrage 
 and average (if any) under this charterparty " 
 — " To be loaded as customary . . . and to be 
 discharged as customary at the average rate of 
 not less than 100 tons per working day from the 
 time the ship is in berth and ready to be dis- 
 charged, and notice thereof has been given by 
 the master in writing. Demurrage to be at the 
 rate of 20Z. per day " : — Held, in an action by 
 the shipowners to recover damages for undue 
 detention of the ship at the port of loading, that 
 the stipulation as to the cesser of the charterers' 
 liability did not apply to liability for damages 
 for detention at the port of loading, for the cesser 
 of the charterers' liability must be taken to be 
 co-extensive with the lien created by the charter- 
 party ; and, upon the true construction of the 
 charterparty, the shipowners had no lien in 
 respect of such damages, "demurrage" under 
 the charterparty not being ap' )licable to the 
 port of loading. Luchhart v. Falh (L. R. 10 
 Ex. 132) followed and approved. Dunlop v. 
 
 Balfovr, 61 L. J., Q. B. 354 ; [1892] 1 Q. B.507; 
 66 L. T. 455 ; 40 W. R. 371 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 181 
 — C. A. 
 
 Charterer Protected.] — A charterparty, by 
 which it was agreed that the cargo should be 
 loaded and discliarged with all despatch, con- 
 tained the following clause : " The charterers' 
 liability on this charter to cease when the cargo 
 is shipped (provided the same is worth the freight 
 on arrival at the port of discharge), the captain 
 having an absolute lien on it for freight, dead 
 freight and demurrage, which he or owners shall 
 be bound to exercise." The charterers having 
 shipped a cargo worth the freight on arrival at 
 the port of discharge : — Held, that they were 
 protected by the clause from liability to the ship- 
 owner for not loading the ship in due time 
 according to the charter. Bannister v. Bredauer, 
 3(5 L. J., C. P. 195 ; L. R. 2 C. P. 497 ; 16 L. T. 
 418 ; 15 W. R. 840. But see CUnU v. Radford, 
 infra. 
 
 By a charterparty it was stipulated that the 
 ship should proceed to a loading-place at the 
 port of loading, and load " in the usual and 
 customary manner " a full and complete cargo, 
 and therewith proceed to a port of discharge, 
 " the cargo to be unloaded at the average rate 
 of not less than 100 tons per working day — or 
 charterers to pay demurrage at the rate of 
 id. per ton register per diem — the charterers' 
 liability under this charterparty to cease on 
 the cargo being loaded, the owners having 
 a lien on the cargo for tlie freight and demur- 
 i-age" : — Held, that the stipulation as to the 
 cesser of the charterers' liability did not apply 
 to liability for damages for undue detention 
 at the port of loading ; for, in the absence 
 of anything in the charterparty to the contrary, 
 the cesser of the charterers' liability must be 
 taken to be co-extensive with the lien created by 
 the charterparty, and upon the true construction 
 of the charterparty, the shipowner had no lien 
 in respect of such damages. Bannister v. Bres- 
 lauer (supra) questioned. Clink v. Radford, 
 m L. J., Q. B. 388; [1891] 1 Q. B. 625; 64 
 L. T. 491 ; 39 W. R. 355 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 10— 
 C. A. 
 
 Delay in Loading — Lien.] — A charter- 
 party contained the following clause : " Char- 
 terers' liability to cease when the ship is loaded, 
 the captain having a lien upon the cargo for 
 freight and demurrage." In an action for 
 demurrage at the port of loading : — Held, first, 
 that the lien extended to demurrage at the port 
 of loading, as well as at the port of discharge. 
 Francesco v. Massey, 42 L. J., Ex. 75 ; L. R. 8 
 Ex. 101 ; 21 W. R. 440. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the ship having been 
 loaded, the charterer could not be sued for 
 demurrage incurred during the loading. 1 b. 
 
 A vessel was chartered to carry a cargo of coals 
 to Callao, to be dehvered to the order of the 
 charterer's agent. The charterparty provided 
 that the ship should be loaded at the rate of 
 seventy-five tons per clear working day, "stif- 
 fening coal to be, if required, supplied at the- 
 expense of the ship, and at the rate of forty ton? 
 per clear working day . . ." but all days on 
 which stiifening coal is to be taken on board, or 
 the ship is detained for the same, are to be 
 excluded from the computation of the working 
 davs allowed for loading ; the vessel to be 
 discharged at the rate of forty tons per clear
 
 449 
 
 SHIPPING— XIV. Demurr 
 
 age. 
 
 450 
 
 working day. . . , Demurrage to be paid for each 
 day beyond the daj-s allowed for loading and 
 discharging respectively at the rate of 3rf. per 
 registered ton per day. The master to have a 
 lien upon the cargo for all freight, dead freight 
 and demurrage. All liability of the charterer 
 under this agreement should cease as soon as the 
 cargo is on board. . . . All questions, whether of 
 short delivery, demurrage or otherwise, are to 
 be settled by the charterer's agent at the port 
 of destination." The vessel arrived at Callao, 
 where the captain, at the request of the char- 
 terer's agent, delivered the cargo to him without 
 insisting on his lien for freight and demurrage. 
 In an action on the charterparty for undue 
 detention of the vessel in putting stiffening coal 
 on board : — Held, that the shi]jowner had no 
 cause of action on the charterparty ; the clause 
 providing for the cesser of the charterer's liabi- 
 lity operating as an absolute discharge, notwith- 
 standing that the charterer and consignee were 
 the same person. Suufftiiiteftl v. Pacijic Steam 
 Navigution Co.. 46 L. J.. Q. B. 105 ; 2 Q. B. D. 
 2.S8 ; 35 L. T. 658 ; 25 W. R. 150 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 300— C. A. 
 
 Held, also, that the demurrage clause extended 
 to detention of the vessel in putting stiffening 
 coal on board, and that damages for such deten- 
 tion were covered by the owner's lien. Ih. 
 
 By a charterparty cargo was to be loaded in 
 thirteen working days, and to be discharged at 
 not less than thirty tons per working day. Ten 
 days' demurrage to be allowed aVjove the said 
 days. The charterer's liability to cease when 
 ship is loaded, the captain or owner having a 
 lien on cargo for freight and demurrage : — Held, 
 that the charterer upon loading the cargo was 
 discharged from liability for denmrrage incurred 
 at the port of loading. Ki.<<h v. Cory, 44 L. J., 
 Q. B. 205 ; L. R. 10 Q. B. 553 ; 32 L. T. 670 ; 
 23 W. R. 880 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 5U3— Ex. Ch. See 
 Petrocochino v. Bott, post, col. 534. 
 
 A charterparty contained stipulations in the 
 usual form for payment of freight and demur- 
 rage, and also a stiindation that "as this 
 charterparty is entered into by the charterers 
 for account of another party, their liability 
 ceases as soon as the cargo is on board, tlie 
 vessel holding a lien upon the cargo for freight 
 and demurrage." The charterers having placed 
 the cargo on board at the port of lading, a bill 
 of lading was signed whereVjy the gootls weie 
 made deliverable to themselves at the poit of 
 di.scharge, "they paying freight and all other 
 conditions as per charterparty." In an action 
 by the sliipowner against them as consignees of 
 the cargo, for demurrage in respect of (Iclay at 
 the port of discharge : — Held, that the cesser 
 clause in the charterparty must be rejected as 
 inapplicable in reading the bill of lading, which 
 incorporated all the conditions of the charter- 
 party applicable to the reception of the goods at 
 the port of discharge, and therefore that the 
 jilaintiff was entitled to maintain the action. 
 <iu\lich.trn v. Strwart, 53 L. J.. Q. B. 173; 13 
 Q. B. I). 317; .-0 L. T. 47; 32 W. II. 763; 5 
 Asp. M. C. 2011 — C. A. See also The San lloman, 
 ante, col. 277. 
 
 A memorandum for a charterparty made 
 between Hlii[)owners and Y., "as agent for the 
 freighter" (no princijial being named), after 
 providing for " doniurragc over and above the 
 laying days at 11. per day," stated that "it is 
 further agreed, that, this charterparty being con- 
 cluded by " Y. "for another party, the liability 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 of the former in every respect, and as to all 
 matters and things, as" well before as after the 
 shipping of the cargo, shall cease as soon as they 
 have shipped the cargo" : — Held, that Y. was 
 not liable upon this memorandum for demurrage 
 at the port of discharge. Oqleshy v. Yglegiax, 
 El. Bl. & El. 930 ; 27 L. J.. Q. B. 356 : 6 W. R 
 61)0. 
 
 Colliery Guarantee — Incorporation.] — A cesser 
 clause in a charterparty applies not merely to 
 liability for demurrage, but to liability incurred 
 through detention in the nature of demurrage. 
 It was agreed by charterparty between the 
 plaintiffs, the owners of a steamship, and tlie 
 defendants, as charterers, that the ship should 
 proceed to C, and there "load in the usual am) 
 customary manner a cargo of coals," and proceed 
 to T. "The vessel to be loaded as customary, 
 but subject in all respects to the colliery 
 guarantee, in 108 colliery working hours." The 
 cargo was to be loaded at a specified rate per 
 day, " or charterers to pay demurrage at the rate 
 of 30*. per hour." The master was to sign 
 " clean biUs of lading without alteration as pre- 
 sented by the charterers." " The charterers' 
 liability to cease on the cargo being landed and 
 the advance freight paid, the owners having a 
 lien on the cargo for the balance of freight and 
 demurrage." By a colliery guarantee, colliery 
 proprietors undertook to load the ship for the 
 defendants in 108 hours. " Demurrage (if any) 
 to be at the rate of 20s. per hour." The ship 
 was not loaded in 108 colliery working hours. 
 In an action for demurrage or for detaining the 
 vessel an unreasonable time : — Held, that the 
 defendants were not liable, as the cesser clause 
 covered the plaintiff's claim. Semble, that the 
 plaintiffs had no right of action against the 
 defendants under the colliery guarantee unle.ss 
 the guarantee was incorporated with the charter- 
 party ; but that, by the custom of the trade, 
 the shipowners have such a right of action 
 against the colliery proprietors. Rest itid hut 
 Steamship Co. v. Pirie, 64 L. T. 491, n. ; 7 Asj.. 
 M. C. 11, n.— C. A. Affirming 61 L. T. 330 ; 6 
 Asp. M. C. 428. 
 
 Demurrage at Port of Shipment or of Dis- 
 charge.] — A cliarterparl y entered into by a 
 broker for a foreign charterer contained the 
 worils " fourteen days for loading in the Tj-ne or 
 the captain to receive 5Z. per day, day by day," 
 and at the port of discharge "denuirrage over and 
 above the said lying da3's at 5Z. per day." " This 
 charter being concluded by N. (the broker) on 
 behalf of another party, it is agreed that all 
 liability of the former shall cease as soon as lie 
 has shipped the cargo, the owners and master 
 agreeing to I'est solely on their lien on the cargo 
 for freight and demurrage" : — Held, that demur- 
 rage in the lust clause meant demurrage at the 
 port of <lischarge, and that the brokers' liability 
 for flemurrag(! at the [)ort of loading did not 
 cc'v^e on shipMient f>f the cargo. Pcdcrsen v. 
 Lofi/if/a, 5 \V. R. 290. 
 
 A charterparty provided : " Charterers' liability 
 to cease as soon as the cargo is shipped in terms 
 of this charter, captain having an absolute lien 
 for all freight, dead freight and demurrage " : — 
 Held, that the charterers were not liaJilc for 
 demurrage incurred before loading completed, 
 the cargo having been all shipped. Salvesen v. 
 Gvy, 13 ("t. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 85. 
 
 A charterparty |)rovidedi : " Charterers' respon- 
 
 15
 
 451 
 
 SHirPING— XIY. Dem avrage. 
 
 nihility to cease on cargo being loaded, provided 
 the cargo is worth the freight at port of dis- 
 charge. To be loaded as customary at Sydney ; 
 to be discharged as custoinavy at . . . at the 
 late of not less than lOl) tons of coals per work- 
 ing day . . . and ten days on demurrage over 
 and above the said laying doys at id. per regis- 
 tered ton per day." In an action brought by 
 the owners against the charterers for detention 
 at the port of loading : — Held, that " demurrage " 
 in the lien clause did not cover detention at the 
 loading port, and that the charterers were liable. 
 (rai-di/u'r \. Macfarlanc, 16 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 (4th ser.) G58. 
 
 Exception of Hindrance beyond Charterers' 
 Control.] — Gardiner v. Mucfarlane, 20 Ct. of 
 Sess. Cas. C4th ser.) 414. 
 
 Salt Cargo — Lighters Beneaped.] — See Aller- 
 ton Sailing Skijj Co. v.Falli., supra, col. 278. 
 
 Effect of Clause empowering Master to Land 
 Cargo if not Applied for in Given Time.] — The 
 
 t'ommon stii)ulatiun lu a bill of lading, that if 
 the goods are not applied for within twenty-four 
 hours of the ship's arrival, the master or agent is 
 to be at liberty to land the same at the risk and 
 expense of tlie owner of the goods, and retain a 
 lien for his charges on that account, gives the 
 shipowner an alternative remedy. It does not 
 supersede his right to have the cargo unloaded 
 by the consignee and hold him liable for delay ; 
 nor does it apply to the case where the goods are 
 applied for in due time, but the unloading by 
 the consignee is afterwards interrupted. Hich 
 V. Rodocanachi, 61 L. J., Q. B. 42; [1891] 2 
 Q. B. 626 ; 40 W. E. 161 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 97 ; .56 
 J. P. 54 — C. A. Affirmed, nom. Hlcli v. Raii- 
 mond. 62 L. J., Q. B. 98 ; [1893] A. C. 22 ; 1 R. 
 125 ; 68 L. T. 175 ; 41 W. R. 384 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 233— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Contract at an End.]— See Hick v. Tweedie, 
 supra, col. 264. 
 
 b. Consig-nee and Indorsee of Bill of 
 Lading. 
 
 See also XII. Bill of Lading. 
 
 Consignees — Memorandum on Bill of Lading.] 
 
 — If a consignee accei)ts goods under a bill of 
 lading, at the bottom of which is a memorandum 
 that the ship is to be cleared in sixteeen days, 
 and 8^. demurrage to Vje paid after that time, the 
 master upon delivery of the goods may recover 
 demurrage against the consignee. Jcssun v. Solly, 
 4 Taunt. 52 ; 13 R. R. 557. 
 
 Implied Contract.] — The master who by a 
 bill of lading has undertaken to deliver goods to 
 the consignee on payment of freight, cannot main- 
 tain an action against the consignee on an imjjlied 
 contract to pay demurrage. Evan-f v. Forster, 
 1 B. & Ad. lis': 8 L. .J. (o.S.) K. P,. :!48. 
 
 "Paying for Goods as per Charterparty " — 
 Effect of,] — The consignee of a bill of lading 
 which makes the goods deliverable to him or 
 assigns, "paying for the goods as per charter- 
 party," does not, by taking the goods at the 
 destination, make himself liable to pay for de- 
 mmrage in the port of loading according to the 
 rate stipulated in the chaiteiparty, though there 
 
 452 
 
 is an ex])rcss stipulation for a lien on the goods 
 for such demurrage. Smith v. Siecching, 5 El. & 
 Bl. 589 ; 1 Jur. (N.s.) 1135 ; 4 W. R. 25— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Consideration.] — Where in an action on an 
 agrccnient for payment of demurrage on delivery 
 of a cargo of coals the defendant pleaded that 
 the plaintiff had previously contracted with 
 another party for the delivery of the coals to the 
 defendant by the plaintiff, aiid that there was 
 no consideration for the pi'omise of the defendant 
 to the plaintiff : — Held, that the plea was bad, 
 and that the performance of an existing contract 
 by one of the parties thereto may be a good con- 
 sideration for a promise to him by a third party. 
 Scotson V. Pegg, 6 H. & N. 295 ; 3*0 L. J., Ex. 225 ; 
 3 L. T. 753 ; 9 W. E. 280. 
 
 Indorsees — Express Stipulation.] — "Where a 
 
 bill of lading stipulates on the face of it for pay- 
 ment of demurrage, an indorsee taking goods 
 under it is liable for demurrage. Stindt v. 
 Roberts, 5 D. & L. 460 ; 2 B. C. Rep. 212 ; 17 
 L. J., Q. B. 166 ; 12 Jur. 518. 
 
 The acceptance of a cargo by the indorsee of 
 a bill of lading, whereby the goods were deliver- 
 able to order against payment of the agreed 
 freight and other conditions, as per charterparty, 
 is a circumstance from which a jury may imply 
 a contract on his part to pay demurrage stipu- 
 lated for by the charterparty, notwithstanding 
 his refusal at the timi; of receiving the goods to 
 pay the demurrage. Weqener v. Smith, 15 C. B. 
 285 ; 24 L. J., C. P. 25 ; 3 C. L. R. 47. 
 
 An assignee of a bill of lading, by the terms of 
 which he is to receive a cargo from a ship, paying 
 freight according to the charterparty, is not liable 
 for demurrage, although that is stipulated for in 
 the charterparty, and although in the margin of 
 the bill there is wi'itten, " There are eight working 
 days for unloading in London," there being no 
 stipulation in the bill for the payment of demur- 
 rage. Cha2)pell v. Comfort, 10 C. B. (N.S.) 802 ; 
 31 L. J., C. P. 58 : 8 Jur. (n.s.) 177 ; 4 L.T. 448 ; 
 9 W. E. 694. 
 
 Holder by Way of Security.] — Liability for 
 demurrage under a bill of lading imposed, byway 
 of security only, on the holiler who presented the 
 bill and demanded the delivery. Allenv, Coltart, 
 52 L. J., Q. B. 686 ; 11 Q. B. D. 782 ; 48 L. T. 
 944 : 31 W. R. 841 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 104. 
 
 Undertaking to Pay for Unreasonable Delay 
 by Receivers of Cargo.] — A charterparty stipu- 
 lated that the agreed freight should be paid on 
 right and true delivery of cargo, and that the 
 discharge at the poit of delivery should be made 
 in accoi'dance with the usage of the discharging 
 port. The defendants were indorsees of the bills 
 of lading, which were expressed to be subject to 
 the conditions of the charterparty, and contained 
 the following clause : " The goods to be taken 
 fiom the shi]) by the consignee immediately ihey 
 come to hand in discharging the ship, otherwise 
 they will be landed or put into craft by the 
 master or ship's agent (at the merchant's risk and 
 expense), and either or both to have a lien on 
 such goods until the payment of all costs and 
 charges so incurred." In an action by the plain- 
 tiff for damages for detention of the ship by 
 default of the defendants, the jury found that the 
 ship was detained for two days beyond a reason- 
 able time for unloading, and that 30/. a day was 
 a fair charge for the detention, and that the
 
 453 
 
 SHIPPING— XIV. Demurrage. 
 
 defendants held themselves out to the plaintiflE 
 as receivers of the cargo under the bill of lading, 
 so as to lead the plaintiff to look to them as such. 
 There was evidence that the defendants told the 
 plaintiff's agent, before the ship arrived, that 
 they had the cargo, and would pay the freight ; 
 and that during the unloading the plaintiff's 
 a,gent complained daily to the defendants of 
 their delay, telling them that there would be a 
 •claim for demurrage, without a repudiation by 
 them of liability : — Held, that there was evidence 
 that the defendants undertook to paj^ for any 
 Tmreasonable delay, and that they took delivery 
 under the provisions of the bill of lading. Palmer 
 V. Ztriji, 37 L. T. 790 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 540. 
 
 No Reference to Demurrage in Bill of Lading.] 
 
 • — Tlie charterpai-ty provided for the payment of 
 freight, and allowed thirty days for loading and 
 unloading ; the bill of lading provided for the 
 payment of freight as per charter, and made no 
 reference to demurrage : — Held, that an indorsee 
 •of the bill of lading was not liable for demurrage. 
 Oliver V. Muggerulge, 7 W. R. 164. Ayid sec 
 post, col. 461. 
 
 Liability of Consignee acting as Agent — Bill 
 of Lading incorporating Charterparty.] — Con- 
 signees uTider a bill of latling which made the 
 ^oods deliverable to them, " paying freight and 
 all other conditions as per charterparty," refused 
 to pay demurrage incurred at the port of loading 
 3ind due under the terms of the charterparty, but 
 •accepted delivery of the goods. The consignees 
 were, and were knowTi to the shipowners to be, 
 acting only as agents. In an action by the ship- 
 owners for demurrage : — Held, that the con- 
 signees were not liable. Coimty of Lancaster 
 Steamship v. Sharpe, 50 L. J., Q. B 22 ; 24 
 •Q. B. D. 158 ; 61 L. T. 6!)2 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 448. 
 
 Power of Master to Fill in— Demur rage.]— 
 
 ^jce Allan v. Jdlntxtoiie, ante, col. 317. 
 
 0. Other Cases. 
 
 Receivers of Goods.] — If a person receives 
 .goods f)om on Ijoaid ship, which arc shipped to 
 the shi))per's order or his assignees, paying 
 freight, with a certain allowance for demurrage, 
 •he makes himself, by acceptance of tlie goods, 
 liable to all the terms of the bill of lachng, andof 
 course to demurrage. Dohhinw. Thornton, 6 Esp. 
 16. And see Palmer v. /irriji, su]>ra. 
 
 Liability of Consignor.] — A bill of lading con- 
 tained these words : " The vessel to take her 
 'regular turn in unloading": — lield, that the 
 •consignor was liable f(jr her detention beyond 
 her regular turn, although there was no cxjjrcss 
 ■contract for demurrage in the bill of lading. 
 Cawtliron v. Trirltett, 15 C. B. (n.S.) 754 ; 33 
 L. J., C. P. 182 ; I) L. T. 60!) ; 12 W. K. 311. 
 
 A party hired sacks from a railway company 
 for the conveyance of grain on their railway 
 subject tocertain regulations, amongst which were 
 the following : "2. The charges for the use of 
 sacks will be a halfpenny per sack per journey 
 when discharged at any of the company's stations 
 on the company's line, or at their warehouses, or 
 at warehouses or mills connected b^- rail with 
 the company's line, and \d,. per sack when sent 
 to foreign stations. 3. Demurrage of a half- 
 , penny per sack per week will be charged after 
 
 454 
 
 the expiration of fourteen days, the time to com- 
 mence from the time the sacks leave the station 
 to be filled ; the time allowed for filling and 
 returning to the station to be seven days. 
 10. None of the company's sacks containing 
 grain will be allowed to leave anv station, local 
 or foreign, unless a guarantee is 'first obtained 
 by the clerk in charge from the consignee, that 
 the grain will be immediately discharged, and 
 the sacks returned the same day, and to the 
 station" :— Held, that the company's claim for 
 demurrage arose at the expiration of fourteen 
 days from the hire of the sacks, and that the 
 only person with whom there was any contract 
 for demurrage was the consignor, by virtue of 
 the third regulation ; but that by the operation 
 of the tenth regulation his liability ceased upon 
 the company's permitting the sacks to get into 
 the hands of the consignee, whether with or 
 without a guarantee. G. N. Rti. v. Wvles, 2 
 C. B. (N.S.) 344. '' 
 
 Agent— Consideration.] — The agent of the 
 consignees of a cargo wrote to " the owner, 
 agreeing to pay freight, demurrage, &;c., and 
 to place himself in every respect in the place 
 of the charterer. The ship was detained 
 beyond the time allowed by the charterparty in 
 loading and unloading, and the demurrage days 
 and several days besides elapsed after the date 
 of the agent's agreement :— Held, that he was 
 liable for the detention beyond the demurrage 
 days, as well as for the demurrage on his agree- 
 ment, as there was a sufficient consideration 
 moving from the owner to the agent, since he 
 could not sell the cai'go without the owner's 
 consent. Benson v. Ilippins, 4 Bing. 455 ; 1 
 M. & P. 246 ; 3 Car. & P. 186 ; 6 K J. (o.s.) 
 C. P. 64. 
 
 Partnership in Part of Agreement between 
 
 Charterer and Freighter.— A. liaviji- eliarlcred 
 a steamer, agreed wilii B. to take out some 
 engines in her to Barcelona, it being known to 
 both parties that the engines could not be shipped 
 unless some alteiations were made in her hatch- 
 ways. The agreement contained the following 
 conditions : — First, that A. should lay the steamer 
 on her berth at Liverpool f(n" Barcelona. 
 Secondly, that she should not Ijc rcquii'ed to lie on 
 her berth longer than ten days. Tiiinlly. that she 
 should make the voyage fi'om thereto Barcelona 
 for the lump sum of 650/., A. to pay all chai'ges. 
 Fourthly, that B. should load in the steamer two 
 engines and tenders com|)lete, for 240/. : freight 
 to be paid at Liverpool on delivery of bills of 
 lading, without any deduction for interest or 
 insurance. Fifthly, that such of these g<jods aa 
 weighed above twenty cwt. should be put in the 
 steamer, stowed, taken out, and landeil at ship- 
 per's risk and expense. Sixthly, tliat the goods 
 should be taken out of I he steamer as soon as I he 
 captain was ready to deliver them, in live (lays, 
 Sunday excepted ; and 2(1/. demurrage to be paid 
 by the .shipper or receiver of the goods, for every 
 day that she was detained over and above five 
 days. Seventhly, that the steamer should be 
 entered in the joint names of A. and B., so that 
 the latter might assist to get caigo. Ki^'hthly, 
 that any surplus of freight above 650/. siiould b(! 
 divided between them, and also any loss which 
 might result. Ninthly, that the steamer should 
 guarantee to carry 480 tons dead weight, besides 
 forty tons of coal in the buidcers. Tenthly, that 
 bills of lading for the whole cargo of tht; steamer 
 
 1 5—2
 
 455 
 
 SHIPPING— XIV. Demurrage. 
 
 45(3' 
 
 should be signed at theofficeof A. And oleveiitlily, 
 that the steamer should be eonsigued at Bai celoua 
 to the friends of B., jiayiug '21. comniissiou on the 
 above freiglit. The steamer was put on her berth 
 at Liver[)uol, and, by consent of her owner, the 
 beams in her hatehways were removed for the 
 stowage of the engines, at the joint expense of A. 
 and B. The engines, which exceeded twenty cwt. 
 in weight, were then brought alongside, and it 
 was found, before ten days had expired, that they 
 would not go down the hatchways, notwith- 
 standing the removal of the beams. The con- 
 sent of the shipowner to the further widening 
 of the hatchways was thereui}()n obtained, on 
 condition that the ship should, before sailing, 
 be made right, to the satisfaction, of Lloyd's 
 surveyor. In consequence of the necessary 
 delay for widening the hatchways and making 
 the ship thus right, she lay on her berth 
 thirteen days beyond the stipulated ten. A. 
 having brought an action on the second clause 
 of the agreement, for the demurrage in respect 
 of the detention of the ship on her berth beyond 
 ten days : — Held, that B. was liable on that 
 clause, it being collateral to, and independent 
 of, any partnership in the freight ; assuming 
 that the agreement constituted a partnership to 
 some extent between the parties in that respect. 
 Birch V. Balleras, 3 El. & El. 203 ; 29 L. J., 
 Q. B. 261 ; 6 Jm-. (N.S.) 1243 ; 2 L. T. 599. 
 
 Contract to Pay — Undertaking to Captain Per- 
 sonally to Load in Limited Time.] — B., W. &Co., 
 
 who had contracted with a colliery company for 
 10,000 tons of coal to be delivered over a period 
 of three months at a spout on the Tyne, " the 
 turn to be mutually agi-eed upon," proposed to 
 charter a foreign ship for the conveyance of 
 I vventy-nine keels to Elsinore, and tendered to 
 the captain a charterpaity which stipulated for 
 demurrage in unloading the ship, but made no 
 provision for detention in loading her. The 
 captain declined to sign such a charter, withoi;t 
 an assurance that there should be no undue 
 detention of his ship : and thereupon B., W. & Co. 
 obtained from the defendant (who was a clerk 
 employed by several colliery companies to arrange 
 the turns for loading) the following undertaking: 
 " I undertake to load the ship ' Der Versuch,' 
 twenty-nine keels, with Bebside coals in ten 
 colliery working days. On account of Bebside 
 Colliery, W. S. Hoggett." This memorandum 
 (which made no mention of the person contracted 
 with) was communicated by the charterers to the 
 captain of the " Der Versuch," who thereupon 
 accepted the charter. The vessel being detained 
 in loading beyond the stipulated ten days, the 
 captain called upon the defendant to pay him 
 45/. for denmrrage. The defendant repudiated all 
 liability, but ultimately offered to pay the captain 
 Wl. The defendant had no notice of the charter. 
 In an action by the captain to recover \'il. for 
 demuirage from the defendant : — Held, that, 
 upcm these facts, a jury was warranted in finding 
 that the undertaking to load within ten days was 
 a contract between the captain and the defen- 
 dant ; that there was a sufficient consideration 
 for it ; and that the contract was with the 
 defendant personallv, and not as agent. Weid/ier 
 T. Huggett, 1 C. P. D. 533 ; 35 L. T. 368. 
 
 Mutual Obligation of Charterer and Shipowner. ] 
 — Where a charterparty contained the following 
 clause : " The owner agrees, that the ship shall 
 be ready to sail at the expiration of the laying 
 
 days, or sooner if required by the charterers. 
 If the ship is not ready either on the owners 
 or the charterer's part at the above-named 
 dates, then demurrage to be paid by the party 
 in default at the rate of 11. per diem " : — Held, 
 that the effect of this stipulation was to make 
 the owner liable for demurrage, at 11. a day, 
 for delay caused by any unreadiness of the 
 ship to sail, due to him ; and the charterers 
 were liable in like manner, for delay caused by 
 unreadiness of the ship, due to their backward- 
 ness as to the cargo, though that might have been) 
 occasioned by the previous default of the owner. 
 Si-eger v. Dikhte, 8 C. B. (x.s.) 72 ; 30 L. J., C. P. 
 G5 ; 7 Jur. (N.S.) 239 ; 3 L. T. 478 ; 9 W. E. 166 
 —Ex. Ch. 
 
 Outward and Homeward Voyages — Time of 
 Payment.] — By a charterparty the vessel was 
 to sail from London with a cargo for Kingston, 
 or any other port in Jamaica, and having 
 discharged the same, receive on board a cargo- 
 from thence, or from a port on the Spanish 
 Main, if lequired, and deliver the same at a port 
 in the United Kingdom ; freight to be paid, 250L 
 in ten days after sailing from Gravesend, 75iiZ. 
 more in two months after a right delivery of the 
 homeward cargo at her port of discharge in 
 the United Kingdom, provided she should be 
 required to proceed to one port only in Jamaica, 
 and 2ol. more should she be required to go tO' 
 two or more ports in that island ; and in case the 
 vessel should be ordered to the Spanish Main, 4/. 
 per day was to be paid for every day after the 
 2."Jth day after her arrival at Jamaica, until des- 
 patched from her loading port ; demurrage 100?. 
 per month, or in proportion for a less period, 
 payable on settlement of the hire of the vessel. 
 The vessel sailed from London, and discharged 
 a portion of her outward cargo at Kingston, and 
 the residue at another port in Jamaica, and sailed 
 thence to a port in the Spanish Main to receive 
 a homeward cargo, and there remained 139 days 
 beyond the stipulated twenty-five days : — Held, 
 that the 4Z. per day was not payable until two 
 months after the delivery of the homeward cargo 
 at the ship's port of discharge in the United 
 Kingdom. Crazier v. Smith, 1 Scott (n.e.) 338 ;. 
 1 Man. & G. 407. 
 
 2. Notice op Akkival. 
 
 Not Necessary.] — Although by a bill of lading 
 the goods are deliverable to merchants in London, 
 whose residence is well known, no notice to 
 them of the ship's arrival is necessary to render 
 them liable for demurrage. Harman v. Mant, 4 
 Camp. 161 ; 16 R. R. 770. 
 
 When a bill of latling of goods by a general 
 ship deliverable to order contains a stipulation 
 that the goods are to be taken out in a certain 
 number of days after arrival, or to pay demur- 
 rage, the indorsee of the bill of lading who takes 
 out the goods is liable for demurrage, from the 
 expiration of the days calculatetl fiom the arrival 
 of the ship, without receiving any notice of that 
 event. IJaniian v. Clarke, 4 Camp. 159 ; 16- 
 R. R. 768. 
 
 Inaccuracy in Entry of Name at Custom. 
 House.] — Where there is sueli a bill of lading, if 
 there is any inaccuracy in the entry of the sliip"s 
 name at the custom house, whereby the owner 
 of the goods, notwithstanding proper inquiries- 
 for that purpose, was deprived of the usual
 
 457 
 
 SHIPPIXG— XIV. Deviiirracje. 
 
 means of being informed of the ship's arrival, 
 demurrage cannot be recovered. lb. 
 
 Unless Special Contract or Custom.] — Apart 
 from custom or special contract, a shipowner is 
 Taot bound to give notice to the consignee of the 
 arrival of the ship, but the consignee is bound, 
 within a reasonable time after the arrival, to be 
 ready to remove and receive his goods, and in 
 default of his so doing the shipowner may land 
 them, and demand wharfage or other proper 
 charges for landing. Uoulder v. General Steam 
 Xaririation Co., 3 F. & F. 170. 
 
 When a ship is by the charter to be addressed. 
 at the port of discharge, to the charterer's agents, 
 the charterer is entitled to recover from the ship- 
 owner excess of freight received by other agents. 
 to whom he has addressed the ship ; and if it 
 appears that the charterer's broker, if allowed to 
 have the ship, would have sent to the consignees 
 to come and take their goods, and thus have 
 prevented delay, the shipowner cannot claim 
 •demurrage for delay caused by the absence of 
 such notice to the consignees. Bradley v. 
 •Goddard, 3 F. & F. 638. 
 
 3. Time akd Calculation op Days. 
 
 Four persons agreed to purchase a cargo of 
 •coals in certain proportions, to be severally 
 taken and received out of the ship by them at 
 the rate of forty chaldrons per day, and to settle 
 *heir turns among themselves ; and in case of 
 any loss or demurrage, by not fixing on their 
 respective turns, or by subsequent detention in 
 "working out the cargo, to hold themselves 
 severally and respectively liable for their several 
 and respective defaults. Had there been no 
 •default, the whole cargo would have been cleared 
 in nine days : but, in consequence of one of the 
 •days being wet, only five chaldrons were taken 
 out on that day, and on the tenth day some coals 
 remained on board belonging to one of the 
 partie,s : — Held, that working days only wcie 
 Tneant by the contract, and that as one day was 
 wet, he was bound to pay demurrage for the 
 tenth day. Harper v. McCarthy, 2 Bos. Sa P. 
 <N.E.) 2.^8. 
 
 B}' a charterparty fifteen days were to be 
 allowed to the freighter of a ship for discharging 
 at hei- destined pert. The freighter ordered the 
 ship to HuH. Bhe was got into the Hull docks 
 •on the 1st of February, and was on that day put 
 in the charge of the docks' oflScers, but from the 
 •crowded state of the docks she was not [mt in 
 Jicr Ijerth, and did not Ijcgin discharging till the 
 4th: — Held, that the fifteen days were to be I 
 computed from the first. Jiroicn v. JolinJtoii, \ 
 •Car. & M. 440 : 10 M. A: W. 331 ; 11 L. J., Ex. ! 
 373. See Xiehen v. Wait, infra. 
 
 In such a ca.se tliedays count from tlic time; 
 of the vessel's arriving in the dock, and being 
 j)ut under f lie management of the dock company's 
 •officers. ///. 
 
 Despatch Money — Day of Twenty-four Hours. 
 
 — A cliarteiparty contained the lollowitig clause : 
 "" Demurrage, if any, at tlie rate of 20.*. per liour, 
 ■except in case of any liands striking work, 
 frosts or floods, revolution or wais, whicli may 
 liinder the loading or tlischajge of tlie vessel. 
 Despatch money 10*. per hour oii any time saved 
 in loading or discharging." Four days were 
 saved in loading and five days in discharging 
 cargo, making together nine days, wliich if | 
 
 458 
 
 calculated at twenty-four hours a day would 
 make 216 hours, or at twelve hours a day 108 
 hours : — Held, that " despatch money " was pay- 
 able under the charterparty at the rate of 10*. 
 per hour per day of twenty-four hours. Laing v. 
 Hallway, 47 L. J., Q. B. 512 ; 3 Q. B. D. 437 ; 
 26 W. K. 769— C. A. 
 
 Meaning of " Days "—Sundays— Holidays.] — 
 
 In reckoning the " fifteen days," the days are to 
 be reckoned consecutively, and the Sundays not 
 deducted, unless there is a custom to that effect ; 
 and in the absence of any custom, the word 
 " days," and the words " running days," mean 
 consecutive days. li. 
 
 A charterparty contained the following clause : 
 " The vessel to be loaded in Liverpool in fourteen 
 days, and to be discharged, weather permitting, 
 at not less than twenty-five tons per working 
 day (holidays excepted), the days to commence 
 on the ship being in turn, and ready to deliver ; 
 all days above the said days to be paid demurrage 
 at the rate of hi. sterling per day." The cargo 
 was to be delivered at Constantinople : — Held, 
 that Sundays were to be included in the calcula- 
 tion of the lay days allowed for loading. Nie- 
 mann V. Musx.^2^ L. J., Q. B. 206 ; 6 Jur. (N.s.) 
 775. 
 
 Under a charterparty from Kiga to London 
 the charterers were to " load and discharge as 
 fast as the ship can work, but a minimum of 
 seven clays to be allowed merchants, and ten 
 days on demurrage over and above the said 
 laying days at 2bl. per day " : — Held, that the 
 laying days from the context meant " working " 
 and not "running" days, and consequently that 
 Sundav was not to be counted. Commercial Steam 
 SJrij} Co. V. Boulton, 44 L. J., Q. B. 219 ; L. R. 
 10 Q. B. 346 ; 33 L. T. 707 ; 23 W. R. 854 ; 3 
 
 Asp. M. cm. 
 
 Fractions of Day count as a Day.] — When by 
 
 a charterparty a specified sum is to be paid for 
 each day over and above Ihe laying days, that 
 sum is payable in respect of a fraction of a day 
 during which the ship is detained. Ih. 
 
 A ship got into dock in London on a Tuesday 
 evening at 5 p.m. She could not get to her 
 berth till 8 a.m. on the Wednesday, when she 
 began unloading, and continued till 8 p.m. She 
 began again at 4 a,m, on Thursday, and finislied 
 at 8 a,m. All tlie lay days had l)een consumed 
 at the port of loading : — Meld, that in the case 
 of demurrage a friiction of a day counted as a 
 <hiy, and consequently that the charterers were 
 liable for two days' demurrage. //'. 
 
 Half-days and less.] — Where a charterparty 
 pr<ivi(hs lor the Imiding of a ship at the rai«- 
 of a siiecificd number of tons " per weather 
 working day," the rule to be observed in leckon- 
 ing portions of days, when used for the pinjKise 
 of loading, is to charge against the diarterer 
 half a day when substantially half a d.ay's work 
 is done, and a wliolc day when sul)stantially a 
 fidl day's work is done. Any smaller fraction 
 than half a day should be disregarded in calcu- 
 lating the nuinber of lay days consumed in 
 loaf ling. Jiraiirhrloin S/rinii.^lii/) Co. v. Lamport, 
 66 L. .J.. Q. li. •^x•l ; [l^^'.'"] 1 Q. B. 570. 
 
 "Working or Bunning Days— Usage.]— Where 
 
 under a bill of lading the cargo was to be dis- 
 charged in London in a certain number of days, 
 it was held, n[>on jiroof of the usage, that working
 
 459 
 
 SHIPPING— XIV. Demurrage. 
 
 ^m 
 
 days, exclusive of Sinulays and holidays, not 
 running days, were intenilcd. Cochran v. 
 Rethvrg, 3 Esp. 121. 
 
 Lay Days — Computed by Days and not by 
 Hours.] — In a chaiterpavty lay days are to be 
 computed as days or parts of days, and not by 
 hours. Hoiifj/h v. At'iijti, G Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th 
 ser.) 961. 
 
 Despatch Money — "Sundays and Fete-days 
 excepted."] — A charterparty contained the 
 followini;- provision : " The steamer to be dis- 
 charged at the rate of 200 tons per day, weather 
 permitting (Sundays and ffite-days excepted), 
 according to the custom of the port of discharge, 
 and, if sooner discharged, to pay at the rate of 
 8.?. -id. for every hour saved " : — Held, that in 
 calculating the amount of despatch money, the 
 charterers were not entitled to include the hours 
 of Sundavs and fete-days. T/ie Olendcvon, 62 
 L. J., Adm. 123 ; [1893] P. 269 ; 1 E. 662 ; 70 
 L. T. 416 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 439. 
 
 Calendar Days.] — Where by a chaiterparty 
 a specified number of running days are pro- 
 vided as lay days, the days mentioned, unless 
 controlled by the context, are calendar days, 
 extending, that is, from midnight to midnight, 
 and not periods of twenty-four hours ; the con- 
 signee is entitled to have as lay days whole days 
 to the number specified in the charterparty, but 
 where the ship is ready to discharge in the 
 middle of a day, it is competent for him to regard 
 the remaining portion as a lay day, and to 
 commence the discharge at once, the portion of 
 the day occupied being counted as one of the 
 lay days to which he is entitled. A ship being 
 ready to discharge her cargo, consisting of givain 
 in bulk, the captain asked the consignee at 
 10.30 a.m. to begin the discharge. The latter 
 refused, but at 1 p.m. reconsidered his decision 
 and began the discharge : — Held, that the court 
 ought to draw the inference of fact that the 
 consignee agreed to regard the day on which the 
 discharge was begun as one of the lay days, 
 although there were only a few hoirrs of it avail- 
 able for work. The Katy, Gordon v. Walmdeii, 
 <;4 L. J., Adm. 49 ; [189.5] P. .56 ; 11 E. 683 ; 71 
 L. T. 709 ; 43 W. E. 290 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 527— 
 C. A. 
 
 Demurrage Ceases when Ship Sails.] — Demur- 
 rage ceases on the day the ship sails ; loss by 
 delay (ice or bad weather) afterwards falls on 
 the shipowner. JamieHon v. Laurie, 6 Bro. P. C. 
 474 ; 3 E. E. 725. 
 
 Convoy.] — Covenant in charterparty to take 
 in cargii and sail from 0. with the first convoy 
 for England fourteen days after the vessel was 
 ready to load ; the freighter covenanting to load 
 within fourteen days after notice that she was 
 ready to load ; the freighter to be at liberty to 
 detain the ship fifteen days on demurrage at 
 four guineas per day. The freighter kept the 
 shi[) fifteen days on demurrage, (hiring which a 
 convoy sailed for England, and completed the 
 loading two days before the next convoy sailed 
 after the expiration of the fifteen days, and thirty- 
 eight days after that date: — Held, thaton paying 
 for the fifteen days' demurrage tlie freighter was 
 in the same position with regard to the ship 
 sailing as he would otherwise have been in at the 
 end of the fourteen days, and that he was liable 
 
 for fifrei'ii days' demurrage, and Hot thirty-eight- 
 atlditional days as claimed. Connor v. Smythe,. 
 5 Taunt. 654. 
 
 "Wait for Convoy" — Meaning,] — Where 
 
 demurrage was to be i)aid for every day beyond; 
 a stated number that the ship should " wjiit for 
 convoy": — Held, that the sading, and not the' 
 arrival, of convoy was intended. Lan/Kn/ v. 
 Wcrry, 4 Bro. P. C. 630. 
 
 Days saved in Loading used for Unloading.] — 
 
 The time occui)iei-l in loading is not, in the 
 absence of agreement, to be lumped with the time- 
 for discharging, so that by extra despatch in one 
 operation tlemurrage incurred for delay in the 
 other may be worked off. Avon Steamship Co. v.. 
 Leask, 18 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 280. 
 
 Construction — "At Expiration of," equivalent 
 to "Within a Eeasonable Time after."] — A decla- 
 ration was for money due in respect of the- 
 demurrage of a ship. The defendant pleaded that 
 the charterparty contained the following stipula- 
 tion : '• That the said merchants (meaning the- 
 defendant) are to be allowed (a certain number)' 
 of clear working days for loading and discharging, 
 the vessel each voyage, and in the event of that 
 number being exceeded, a statement shall be- 
 furnished to the merchants at the expiration of 
 this charter, in which they shall be credited 
 with the above number of clear working days 
 for each voyage performed by the vessel, and 
 debited with those actually occupied in loading 
 and discharging as aforesaid, and all the days so 
 occupied in excess (if any) shall be paid for by 
 the merchants at the rate of 21. per clear working 
 day as demurrage," and that no statement was 
 firrnished to the defendant at the expiration of 
 the charter as required by its terms. The plaintilF 
 replied that a statement was furnished to the- 
 defendant in accordance with the charter within 
 a reasonable time in that behalf and before the- 
 commencement of this suit. To this replication 
 the defendant demurred on the ground that the- 
 replication alleged a performance in terms other 
 than those of the contract set out in the plea : — 
 Held, that the replication was good, for that the 
 words " at the expiration of " were synonymous- 
 with the words " a reasonable time after." 
 Deard v. Ilhodc.i, 2S I>. T. 168 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 537. 
 
 What Days — Right to include whole Time occu- 
 pied in Loading and Unloading.] — By charter- 
 party l)ctwe(;n the [ilaintitf and the defendants- 
 it was agreed tliat the plaintiff's ship should 
 proceed to Bilbao and there load a full and 
 complete, or part, cargo of iron ore, and deliver 
 the same at Middlcsborough. " 400/500 tons per- 
 working day (Sundays and holidays excepted) 
 to be allowed the cliarterers for loading, and 300' 
 discharging, all denmrrage over and above the 
 said days at the rate of 2*-. per hour for every lOO' 
 tons cargo. The lay days to commence day after 
 arrival, and being ready to load or discharge 
 respectively. The captain to have a lien on the 
 cargo for freight or tlemurrage." '' If the ship is 
 loaded at other than Portugidette or Lucana 
 shipping staithes, the loading and dischai-ging to- 
 be at the rate of 300 tons per working day." The 
 vessel having loaded at a place other than those 
 last mentioned at a rate less than 300 tons per 
 working day, proceeded to Middle.sborougli, where 
 she discharged her cargo at a higher rate per 
 day : — Held, that in calculatinu- the demurrage-
 
 461 
 
 SHIPPING— XIV. Demurrage. 
 
 462 
 
 the days for londintr and unloading must be kept 
 separate, and that the charterers hail no right to 
 add together tlie whole number of days occupied 
 in loading and unloading for the purpose of 
 ascertaining the average amount of work done 
 on each dav. Jl/ir.ihall v. Bolckow, 6 Q. B. D. 
 231 ; 29 W. R. 792. 
 
 Where no Time Expressed.] — When a charter- 
 party is silent as to the time within which the 
 cargo is to be unloaded at the port of destination, 
 the law implies that reasonable despatch shall 
 be used bv both merchant and shipowner. Fori! 
 V. Cotesworth, 10 B. & S. 991 : 39 L. J., Q. B. 
 188 ; L. R. .5 Q. B. .544 : 23 L. T. 165 ; 18 W. R. 
 1169 — Ex. Ch. And see Sweeting v. Dartliez, 
 l)0st. col. 469 ; Oliver v. Muggeridge, supra, col. 
 4.53. 
 
 If, hj a bill of lading of a cargo of brandy 
 brought into the London docks, no time is 
 stipulated within which it shall be unloaded, the 
 implied contract on the part of the consignee is 
 to discharge the ship in the usual and customary 
 time for unloading such cargo, which is the time 
 within which the brandies can be unloaded in 
 t he docks into the bonded warehouses. Burmester 
 V. Iludgson, 2 Camp. 488 ; 11 R. R. 776. 
 
 If there is no fixed time, the law implies an 
 agreement, on the part of the charterer, to 
 discharge the careo within a reasonable time. 
 PoKtlethwaite v. Freeland, 49 L. J., Ex. (;30 ; 
 .5 App. Cas. 599 ; 42 L. T. 845 ; 28 W. R. 833 ; 
 4 Asp. M. C. 302— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Fixed Time.] — If, by the terms of the charter- 
 party, the charterer has agreed to discharge the 
 shij) within a fixed period of time, that is an 
 abs(jlute and unconditional engagement, for the 
 non-performance of w'hich he is answerable, 
 whatever may be the nature of the impediments 
 which prevent him from performing it. Ih. 
 
 Cargo not Keady.] — See Little v. Steroisoii, 
 infra, col. 46.">. 
 
 Arrival of Ship.]— -See 4. Place, infra. 
 
 4. Place. 
 
 Entering Docks.] — A chartcrparty for a shij) 
 to sail to •■ \A>\\d()n, Surrey Commercial Docks," 
 is not .satislicd by the ship arriving at the gate of 
 the docks, but not entering the docks. iJahl v. 
 Doiiltin or yrlxdii, 50 L. J., Ch. 411 ; 6 A\)p. Cas. 
 W : 44 I.. T. 381 ; 29 W. R. 543 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 392— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Commencement of Entry into Dock -Turn to 
 Load.] — P>y a cliartcrpaiMy it was agreed tluit the 
 vessel sliould "pro(;eed direct to any Liverpool 
 or Birkuniiead dock as ordered Vjy chaiterers, and 
 there loud in the usual and customaiy manner a 
 full and complete cargo of coals" ; that the 
 vessel should he '• loaded at tlio rate of 100 toii> 
 per working <lay," and that loading shouM i.ol 
 commence before the 1st of July. On the 3nl of 
 .luly the vessel was ready to go to the Wellington 
 Dock, which was the Liverpool dock ordered Ijy 
 tiie charterers, but she was not admitted into 
 such dock until the 11th of .July, because the coal 
 agent em])loyed by the charterers to supply fiie 
 cargo had then three vessels in that tlock and 
 two others booked to come in, and the dock 
 regulations did not allow a coal sujiplicr to hiivc 
 moie tlian three vessels in dock at the same time. 
 Coal agents were usually enii«inyed to supply 
 
 cargoes, and it did not appear that the charterers 
 had made an unreasonable selection of the coal 
 agent they so employed. The vessel entered the 
 dock on the 11th of July, but her turn to go to 
 the spout to receive the coals did not arrive- 
 sooner than the 23rd of July, and her loading- 
 was not begun until after that day. It was the 
 usual practice to load coal at the spout, but it 
 was also not unusual to load from lighters : — 
 Held, that the laj- days did not begin until the 
 vessel had entered the dock to which she had 
 been so ordered by the charterers, but that they 
 began at that time and were not postponed itntil 
 the vessel's turn had arrived to go to the spout. 
 Ta2)scott V. Bdlfour, 42 L. J.. C. P. 16 ; L. R. 8 
 C. P. 46 ; 27 L. T. 710 ; 21 W. R. 245 ; 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 501. 
 
 Arrival at Port of Discharge — Port used in 
 Legal, not Geographical Sense.] — A chartcrparty 
 [irovided for payment of demurrage by the char- 
 terer for every day"s detention of the vessel by 
 his default, and that she should be ordered to a 
 );ort where she could discharge always afloat ; by 
 the bill of lading she was ordered to the port of 
 Newry ; from the weight of the cargo, the depth 
 of water, and the draught of the vessel, it was 
 necessary to discharge part of her cargo at the 
 Pool in Caiiingford Roads, aboitt ten miles from 
 Newry : — Held, that the Pool being within the 
 port of Newry for custom-house purposes, and 
 taking the port of Newry in its legal sense, and 
 not as a a geographical expression, the lay days 
 began to run from the tlate of the commence- 
 ment of the discharge at the Pool. Cuffarini v. 
 Wallier, Ir. R. 10 C. L. 2.50-Ex. Ch. 
 
 Arrival at Place of Discharge.] — The computa- 
 tion of the time during whicli lay tlays are to run 
 begins, in the absence of anything to the con- 
 trary in the contract, with the arrival of the ship 
 at the usual or designated place of discharge in 
 the port of destination. M'lutosh v. Sincltrir, 
 Ir. R. 11 C. L. inc. 
 
 Usage as to Place of Discharge.] — When the 
 place of the removal of tiie cargo is within the 
 ambit of the ])ort,an(l that removal is so common 
 as to be tiie foundation of a binding usage to put 
 out at that place and there deliver into the cus- 
 totly of the merchant so considerable a quantity 
 of the cargo of a particular sliip as upwards of 
 two-thirds of the whole, a jury may, notwith- 
 standing an attempt Ijy merchants to establish 
 an inconsistent usage as to laydays, hold that 
 tiie ojicratiou is in substance a part discharge, 
 and that the place where that operation is usual 
 is a usual place for the connueiicemcnt of the 
 discharge. / /'. 
 
 Mooring of Vessel -Custom of the Port.] — 
 Timl)er was consigned, under a cliarterparly 
 made at Riga, to the Canada Dock in the j)ort of 
 I.iverpool. a given number of days being allowed 
 for ludoading there :— Held, that, by the general 
 law, the lay days connnenced from the time tlio 
 ship arrived in the dock : but tliat it was compe- 
 tent to tlic coiisigcee to shew, nolwit listanding 
 the shipowner was a foreigner, that there was a 
 custom in the \m\t of Liveijiool, that, in the case 
 of timber ships, the lay days conuiienceil only 
 from the mooring of tlie vessel at tlie (piay where 
 bv the regulations of tlic dock she was alone 
 ailowcd to discharge. '■ \oidrn'" SlecDiixhip Co. 
 V. Drmpxrii, 45 L. J., C. 1'. 704 ; 1 C. P. D. 654 ; 
 21 W. U. '.'81.
 
 4(;b 
 
 SHIPPING— XIV. Dcmuyraoc 
 
 464 
 
 The lay days allmveil by a churterparty for 
 iliscliart^iiig a cargo are to be reckoned from the 
 lime of the ship's arrival at the usual place of 
 discharge, and not at the entrance of the port to 
 which she is chartered, and this although part 
 of the cargo was taken out for the purpose of 
 lightening the vessel after she had entered the 
 port, and before her arrival at the quay, which, by 
 the custom of the port, was the usual place of 
 delivery. Brerctoii v. Chapman, 5 M. «fc P. 52C ; 
 7 Bing. 559. 
 
 At or Alongside Wharf,] — On a charterparty, 
 by which a shiji was to unload " at a certain 
 wharf, or as near thereto as she can safely get,'' 
 the ship not being able for some days to get 
 there, owing to the state of the tides : — Held, 
 that "at" meant '"alongside," and that the 
 charterer was not liable to demurrage for the 
 delay, though it was not usual in the particular 
 jiort for shi]3S to be unloaded into lighters. 
 liaxfifell V. Lhuid. 1 H. & C. 388 ; 31 L. J., Ex. 
 413; low. R. 721. 
 
 Agreement to Alter Place.] — Under a charter- 
 party to load coals and iron at C, and proceed 
 with them to A., the running days to commence 
 on the 16th Decendjcr, 1834, the plaintiff having, 
 with the defendant's consent, laden coals at P., 
 in ten days ensuing the 16th December, and not 
 having sailed from G. till the 27th :— Held, that 
 the running days were still to be reckoned from 
 the 16th December, and that no proof of the 
 defendant's consent satisfied an allegation in the 
 declaration that the coals had been laden at P. 
 at his request. Jaclison v. Gallmcay, 5 Bintr. 
 (N.C.) 71 : 6 Scott, 786 ; 8 L. J., C. P. 29. 
 
 Naming Port.] — By a charteriiarty a ship was 
 to proceed '• to Plymouth, not higher than S. or 
 N., or as near thereunto as she can safely get 
 and deliver" her cargo, with certain lay days 
 and demurrage days. The port of Plymouth is 
 a tidal estuar3^ On the ship's arrival in Ply- 
 mouth, the consignee ordered her to discharge at 
 B., an ordinary landing-place in the port of 
 Plymouth, lower down than S. or N. At this 
 time the tides were neap ; the vessel went as 
 near B. as she could in that state of the tide, 
 and lay on the sand for some days, till, the tides 
 being higher, she got to B. : — Held, that the 
 ciiHsignee had the option of naming any ordinary 
 loading place in the port of Plymouth, within 
 the limits assigned, and that the lay days did 
 not commence till the vessel reached the place 
 j^o named, the delay in getting to it being occa- 
 sioned only in the ordinary course of navigation 
 in a tidal harbour. Parker y. ll'iftZww, 7 El. & Bl. 
 942 ; 27 L. J., Q. B. 49 ; 4 Jur. (N.S.) 84. 
 
 Refusal of Freighter to Name.]— A ship was 
 chartered to deliver coals " at a good and safe 
 wharf" at London at a certain freight. She 
 came into collision in the Thames and was sunk 
 with the cargo on board, but was afterwards got 
 up, and arrived at a pier at Wapping. Notice 
 of her arrival was given on the same day to the 
 agents of the freighter, and they were required 
 to name a wharf ; but they declined to do so. 
 Next day the ship and freight were arrested by 
 process out of the admiralty court in a suit 
 instituted by the owners of the vessel with whom 
 she had been in collision : — Held, that the ship- 
 owner was entitled to recover, as damages for 
 the refusal to name a wharf, the amount which 
 
 he Would have I'eceived as fieight if the cargo 
 had been duly delivered, there having been a 
 complete breach before the arrest; but that he 
 was not entitled to demurrage. Stewart v. 
 Ji'iu/rrxoii, L. 11. 6 C. P. 424. 
 
 Neglect by Charterer to Name Keady Quay 
 
 Berth.] — By a charterjiarty it was agreed that 
 the plaintiifs vessel after loading a certain 
 cargo shouki proceed " to London or Tyne Dock 
 to such ready quay berth as ordered by the 
 charterers," " demurrage to be at the rate of 301. 
 \)ev running day," in no case unless in berth 
 before noon were the lay days to count before 
 the day following that on which the vessel was 
 in berth, and the captain or owners were to 
 have an absolute lien on the cargo for all freight 
 and demurrage in respect thereof. The vessel 
 vi'as ordered by the charterers to a certain 
 London dock, but when the vessel arrived at such 
 dock, there was no quay berth ready for her, and 
 she was consequently detained one day beyond 
 the time required for discharging her, had she 
 been able to have got alongside a quay berth on 
 her arrival in the dock : — Held, on the con- 
 struction of this charterparty, that the charterers 
 were bound to name such quay berth as was 
 ready, and that for the detention caused by the 
 charterers neglecting to do so the plaintiffs were 
 entitled to a lien on the cargo for demurrage, 
 the damage for the detention being sufficiently 
 in the nature of demurrage to come within the 
 demm-rage clause. Harris v. Jacobs, 54 L. J., 
 Q. B. 492 ; 15 Q. B. D. 247 ; 54 L. T. 61 ; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 530— C. A. 
 
 Crane Berth or Loading Berth — Lay Days.] — 
 
 A charterparty stipulated that the ship should 
 pi'oceed to " a loading berth in Leith docks, as 
 ordered, and there load, in ten working days, as 
 customary, a full and complete cargo of coals." 
 On April 16th the master gave notice to the char- 
 terers that the ship was ready to load at a loading 
 berth. The charterers had entered her for a 
 crane berth, for which she had to wait until 3rd 
 JVlay : — Held, that the charterers had the choice 
 of a loading berth, but that the lay daj's began 
 to run from April 17. DalV Orso v. Mason, 3 
 Ct. of Sess. Gas. (4th ser.) 419. 
 
 Lay Days — Usual Place of Discharge — Custom 
 to Lighten Vessel.] — By a charterparty it was 
 agreed that the plaintiff's steamship should pro- 
 ceed to Cronstailt and load a cargo of wheat, 
 and therewith proceed to a port in the English 
 or Bristol Chainiel as ordered, "or so near thereto 
 as she may safely get at all times of tide and 
 always afloat, and deliver the same. Eight run- 
 ning days, Sunday excepted, to be allowed the 
 merchants, if the ship be not sooner despatched, 
 for loading and discharging the steamer, ami ten 
 days on demurrage if required over and above 
 the laying days at 2ol. per day." The steamer 
 arrived at Gronstadt, occupied six running days 
 in loading a cargo of 4,325 quarters of wheat, 
 and was ordered to Gloucester. Bristol Ghannel, 
 for dischai ge. She arrived at Sharpness Dock in 
 the Bristol Channel on the 13th of November. 
 Sharpness Dock is within the port of Gloucester, 
 and about seventeen miles from the basin within 
 the city of Gloucester where grain cargoes are 
 usually discharged if the burthen of the ship 
 will admit. The steamer was ready to commence 
 the discharge of her cargo on the 13th, but could 
 not get nearer to Gloucester than Sharpness,
 
 461 
 
 SHIPPING— XIY. Dcmnrrarjc. 
 
 until part of her cargo was first dischargrcil at 
 Sharpness. On the l-tth and lath of Kovember 
 the consignees discharged into lighters 1,585 
 quarters of the cargo, and then recpiired the 
 master to take the steamer through the canal to 
 a. place of discharge within the basin at Glouces- 
 ter. The master proceeded, and arrived in the 
 basin on the 17th. On the ISth the residue of 
 the cargo was discharged and the vessel returned 
 to ."^harpness, where she arrived on the 19th. In 
 an action for demurrage, evidence was given of 
 a custom of the port of Gloucester, according to 
 which the usual place of discharging grain- 
 cargoes was at the basin within the city, and 
 "W'hen vessels with grain-cargoes destined for 
 Gloucester were of too heavy a burthen to come 
 up the canal they were lightened at Sharpness, 
 •and during the discharge at Sharpness of so 
 much of the cargo as it was necessary to dis- 
 •charge in order to enable the vessel to proceed 
 by the canal to Gloucester basin, the lay days 
 counted, but the time occupied by coming uptlie 
 •canal to discharge at Gloucester basin and by 
 returning to Sharpness was not counted : — Held, 
 ■first, that the custom was reasonable ; secondly, 
 that it was not inconsistent with the express 
 provision in the charterparty as to "running 
 ■days," and that the time occupied by the vessel 
 in going from Sharpness to the basin and in 
 reluming to Sharpness ouglit to be excluded from 
 the lay days, and the plaintiffs were entitled to 
 •one day's demurrage only. Uroivu v. Johnson, 
 (supra, col. 281) discussed. JS'idsen v. Wait, 55 
 L. J., Q. B. 87 ; 16 Q. B. D. 67 : 54 L. T. 3-1't ; 34 
 W. R. 33 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 553— C. A. 
 
 Loading Berth not Ready.] — Although a 
 ^shipjicr cr charterer is bound to do whatever is 
 reasonable on his part with a view of getting the 
 ship berthed as soon as possible, it is not his duty 
 in all circumstances to have the caigo read}^ for 
 loading on the bare chance that a berth may be 
 vacant. Little v. Stevenso7i, 65 L. J., P. C. 61) ; 
 [1896] A. 0. 108 ; 74 L. T. 529 ; 8 Asp. M.C. 162 
 — H. L. (So.) 
 
 By a charterparty a ship was to go to a certain 
 port to receive a cargo sujiplied by the charterers 
 ^nd brought alongside within sixty running 
 hours. Demurrage to be paid at a specified late 
 •and "laydays to count from the time the master 
 -has got ship reported, bcrtlicd, and ready to 
 receive cai'go, and given notice of the same in 
 writing to the charterei's." When the ship 
 arrived, of which due notice was given to the 
 ■charterers, the ducks were too crowded to achnit 
 of her entering. Two days afterwards a bei tli 
 became vacant in consequence of the non-arrival 
 of the cargo f)f an earlier vessel, and the appel- 
 lant's shi|( might have entered if lier cargo liiid 
 tjcen ready. She was not in fact docked until 
 iivc days later: — Held, that the appellant was 
 3iot entitled to any damages by way of deinur- 
 ii'agi'. J Ik 
 
 Incorporation of Colliery Guarantee.] — 
 
 By a chartcrpuity niailc liitwicn the ]ilaiiitiff. 
 the owner of the sliij)'- J'".," and tlic defeiidaiits, it 
 was provided tl)at the ship should proceed to "a 
 customary loading jjlace in the Royal Dock, 
 Grimsby," an<l tliere receive on bf)ard from the 
 <lefendants' agents a full cargo of coal, "to Ijc 
 loaded as customary at (irimsby as per collifiy 
 guarantee in fifteen cfdliery working days." The 
 ■coUieiy guarantee referred to, made between a 
 collieiy company and the defendants, provided 
 
 4G6 
 
 that the company should load the ship in fifteen 
 colliery working days after she was ready in 
 dock at Grimsby to receive her cargo, " time to 
 count from the day following that on which 
 notice of- readiness is received." On Septembers 
 the captain of the " F." gave notice that he was 
 ready to load, and the ship was entered in the 
 turn-book as ready. There was only one staith 
 at which she coukl load, and her turn arrived on 
 September 17, but the colliery company did not 
 give notice that they were ready to deliver coal 
 until October 9. The ship then proceeded to the 
 staith, and the loading was completed on October 
 13. In an action by the plaintiff against the 
 defendants to recover demurrage : — Held (Kay, 
 L.J., dissenting), that the colliery guarantee was 
 incorporated in the charterparty ; that the lay 
 days commenced to run from September 4, the 
 day after that on which the notice of readiness 
 was given ; and that the defendants were there- 
 fore liable for demurrage from September 20. 
 Monsen v. Macfarlane, 65 L. J., Q. B. 57 ; 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 562 ; 73 L. T. 548 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 
 93— C. A. 
 
 Commencement of — Receipt of Orders.] 
 
 — A charterparty provided that the vessel should 
 proceed to Malta for orders; which were to be 
 given from London within twenty-four houra 
 after receipt of notice, or lay-days to count : — 
 Held, that orders not having been given within 
 the prescribed time, the lay-(laysdid not begin to 
 count till the expiration of the twenty-four hours. 
 Bryden v. iViehi/hr, 1 Gab. & E. 241. 
 
 Completion of Voyages — Option to order 
 
 Ship to one of several Places in Dock.] — By the 
 terms of a charterparty the slii[) was to load 
 from the charterer's agents at Cardiff a cargo of 
 coals, " and therewith proceed to Dieppe and 
 deliver the same alongside consignee's or railway 
 wharf, or into lighters, or any vessel or wharf 
 where she may safely deliver, as ordered, cargo 
 to be loaded and discharged in forty-eight run- 
 ning hours, kc. Demurrage over antl above the 
 said lying time at 10.*. ])er hour. The ship 
 ai'rived in the dock at Dieppe, and was ordered 
 to discharge at the lailway wharf, but in con.se- 
 quence of all the discharging berths being 
 occupied, she was not berthed at the railway 
 wharf until twenty-four lioiirs after her arrival 
 in tlie dock. In an action Viy shipowner against, 
 charterers for demurrage: — Held, that the 
 voyage was not completed, and the lay-days 
 did not comnK'nce under the charter|)arty until 
 the shij) was berthed at the railway wliarf, an<l 
 therefore that the defendants were not liabh; to 
 pay demurrage for delay in respect of the jxMiod 
 which ela])S(,'d Ijctween the ship's arrivid in the 
 dock at Dieppe and her being bertlied at the 
 railway wharf. Jfhtrjj/iy v. Coftin, 12 Q. B. 1). 
 87 ; 32 'W. R. 616. 
 
 A charterparty provided that the ship should 
 proceed to Odessa, or as near theieto as sln^ could 
 safely get, and there load. Twelve running <lays 
 (Sundays excepted) wereallowed for loading and 
 unloading, and ten days on demurrage. The 
 shij) arrived in Odessa outer harbour on the 22n<l 
 of Decembei-, })Ut was not allowed to go along- 
 side a loading quay berth, as the docks were 
 crowded. it was jKissibh; to load vessels at 
 0<lc.ssa at a loading quay berth cither in the 
 inner or outer liarbour. On the 8th of January 
 she was ordered to a berth in the inner harbour, 
 and proceeded to take in cargo. In arljit ration
 
 467 
 
 SHIPPING— XIV. Dem ii rrage. 
 
 468: 
 
 proceodingrs between the slupowiiers niul eliar- 
 tcrci-s, the arbitrator fouud that the hiy days 
 expired on the "jth of January, and that tlic 
 charterers were liable for demurrage and deten- 
 tion. On motion to set aside the award : — Held, 
 that the arbitrator was right, as the voyage was 
 completed as soon as the ship had arrived in the 
 outer harbour at Odessa, and as near as she could 
 get to a loading (luav berth. P)/nia?i and Dri'i/fvs, 
 In re, 59 L. J.. Q.'B. KS ; 2t'Q. B. D. 152 ; 61 
 L. T. 724 ; 38 W. R. 447 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 444— D. 
 And see Little v. Stevewon, snpra, col. 465. 
 
 Option of Ordering Ship to Discharge in one 
 
 of several Ways.] — iSy the terms of a charter- 
 party it was provided that the " 0." should load at 
 Glasgow a cargo of coals, and "therewith pro- 
 ceed to Odessa, or as near thereto as she may 
 safely get, and deliver the same to the freighters, 
 or assigns alongside any safe wharf, store, craft, 
 steamer, depot, ship, or arsenal, as ordered by 
 receiver. . . . Cargo to be dischargeil at the 
 average rate of not less thnn 300 tons per work- 
 ing day, Sundays and holidays excepted, and ten 
 days on demurrage over and above the said lay 
 days at 16.?. Sd. per hour, except in the case of 
 strikes, lock-outs, kc, or any other causes beyond 
 the control of the charterers or receivers or their 
 respective agents, delaying the due loading and 
 unloading. Time for loading and unloading to 
 commence from the time the steamer is ready 
 and intimation has been given in writing." The 
 " C." arrived inside the mole at Odessa on the 16th 
 of November, and, on the same day, dire notice 
 in writing of the ship's readiness to discharge 
 was given, and she was ordered to proceed along- 
 side the quay to discharge. In consequence of 
 all the berths at the quay being occupied, the "0." 
 could not get alongside the quay till the morn- 
 ing of the 20th, and the discharge of her cargo 
 was not completed until the 25th. In an action 
 brought by owners of the ship against the agents 
 of the charterers for demurrage : — Held, that 
 the plaintiffs were entitled to recover. Murphy v. 
 Ci'ffin (supra), considered. Tlie Car i sin-oak, 59 
 L. J., Adm. 37 : 15 P. D. 98 ; 62 L. T. 843 ; 38 W. R. 
 543 : 6 Asp. M. C. 507. 
 
 Lightening Ship.] — A ship was chartered to 
 '• proceed to a safe port in the United Kingdom 
 or as near thereunto as she may safely get 
 always afloat at any time of the tide." She was 
 ordered to Glasgow, but owing to her draught 
 had to discharge part of her cargo at Greenock. 
 In an action for demurrage : — Held, that the 
 voyage was completed at Greenock, as regards 
 the cargo there discharged, and that the time 
 spent in lightening at (ireenock was to be in- 
 cluded in the lay-days. Dichiiison v. Martini, 1 
 Ct. of Sess. Gas. (4th ser.) 1185. 
 
 Ship Arrived — Customary Place of Dis- 
 charge.] — Under a charterparty reipiiring a ship 
 to proceed to a port named, --and, as usual and 
 customary, to deliver the cargo to the order of 
 the merchants or their agents, alongside any 
 store, wharf, &c.," the ship is not an arrived ship 
 until she reaches the customary place of dis- 
 charge in that jiort, and the lay days will only 
 begin to ran from the time when she is ready to 
 discharge at the customary jjlace of discharge. 
 Sanders v. Jenkins, 66 L. J., Q. B. 40 ; [1897] 1 
 Q. B. 93. 
 
 Delivery at Safe Berth as ordered.] — By a 
 
 charterparty the vessel was to proceed to the 
 
 IMcrsey and deliver her cargo at any safe berth 
 as ordered on arrival in the dock at Garston. On 
 arrival a berth was ordered, but, owing to the 
 crowded state of the dock, delay occurred which 
 prevented the vessel being berthed for some time 
 after arrival. On a claim by the shipowners for 
 demurrage arising from the delay : — Held, that 
 the obligation of the charterers to unload did not 
 commence till the vessel was berthed. Tharsia 
 Sulphur Co. v. Morel, 61 L. J., Q. B. 11 ; [1891] 
 2 Q. B. 647 ; 65 L. T. 659 ; 40 W. R. 58 ; 7 Asp. 
 M. C. 106— C. A. 
 
 Ship admitted into Dock as Special Favour.] 
 
 — By a cliarterparty it was agreed tliat the 
 plaintiff should at L. load on the defendant's 
 vessel, the " P.," a cargo of coal, and that she should 
 proceed therewith to D., " the vessel to be loaded 
 and discharged in nineteen running days, or if 
 longer detained, to pay 4Z. per day demurrage." 
 At the foot of the charterparty was a memo- 
 randum, "Vessel to load in B. M. dock or W. 
 dock, high level." On the day following the 
 execution of the charterparty, the " P." was, as a 
 matter of favour, admitted into the W. dock, 
 and was then ready to receive her cargo, but 
 owing to the regulations of the dock authorities 
 she did not begin to load until about a fortnight 
 later. Upon her arrival at D. disputes arose 
 between her captain and the plaintiff as to the- 
 form of the bill of lading, and in consequence 
 thereof her cargo was not uidoaded until twenty 
 days had elapsed after the expiration of the 
 nineteen running days, if calculated from the 
 time of her admission into the W. dock. In 
 order to obtain delivery of the cargo, the plain- 
 tiff was obliged to pay SOZ. claimed as demurrage 
 in i-espect of the twenty days, which he now 
 sued to recover back : — Held, that the nineteeiii 
 running days were to be calculated from the time- 
 when the " P." was admitted into the W. dock, 
 that the plaintiff was liable for demurrage, an t 
 thattheactiou wouldnotlie. Baviesv. Mc Veri(/k, 
 48 L. J., Ex. 686 ; 4 Ex. D. 265 ; 41 L. T. 308 ;: 
 28 W. R. 143 ; 4 Asp. M. G. 149— C. A. 
 
 At what Ports— Loading and Discharge.] — 
 
 By charteriiarty between the plaintiff and the- 
 defendants it was agreed that the plaintiff's shii> 
 should proceed to Bilbao, and there load a full 
 and complete, or part, cargo of iron ore, and 
 deliver the same at Middles borough. "400/500' 
 tons per working day (Sundays and holidays 
 excepted) to be allowed the charterers for load- 
 ing, and 300 discharging, all demurrage over antl 
 above the said days at the rate of 2.s". per hour 
 for every 100 tons of cargo. The lay days to 
 commence day after arrival, and being ready to 
 load or discharge respectively. The captain to- 
 have a lien for freight or demurrage." " If the 
 ship is loaded at other thmi Portugalettc or 
 Lucana shipping staithcs, the loading and dis- 
 charging to be at the rate of 300 tons per working- 
 tlay." The vessel having loaded at a place other 
 than those last mentioned at a rate less than 300' 
 tons per working day, proceeded to ]\Iiddles- 
 borough, -where she discharged her cargo at a 
 higher rate per day : — Held, that, in calculating 
 the demurrage, the days for loading and unloading- 
 must be kept separate, and that the charterers 
 had no right to add together the whole nund_iei- 
 of days occupied in loading and unloading for the 
 purpose of ascertaining the amount of work done 
 on each day. 3Iarsliall v. Bolrhnc, 6 Q. B. 1>. 
 231 : 29 W. R. 792.
 
 469 
 
 SHIPPING— XIY. Bcmurracjc. 
 
 47(T 
 
 Upon the following clause in a charter] )arty. i sail on or before the 30th Julv, 18o9. to Monic 
 
 "the vessel to lie her regular time for loa<lir_ 
 her cargo, and one day per keel running days, 
 demurrage 3Z. per day for every working day's 
 detention, over and above the days allowed as 
 aforesaid," demurrage can be claimed only in 
 respect of loading, and not of the time spent in 
 the delivery of the cargo. Alcuch v. Taylor. 2 
 H. & W. 58 ; 6 N. & M. 296. 
 
 Intermediate Port.J^In an action for 
 
 demurrage on a charterparty, given "'while wait- 
 ing at Portsmouth for convoy, and dischai'ging 
 her cargo at Barcelona,"' the plaintiff can only 
 claim demurrage at those two places, not for any 
 delays at any other intervening places. Marshal 
 V. Dc la Torre, 1 Esp. 367. 
 
 By a charterparty under seal, the freighter 
 was at liberty " to keep the ship on demurrage. 
 at her loading and delivery ports, ten days each, 
 besides a certain number of days limited for her 
 stay at the same, or as many of them as need 
 should require." The ship laaving been com- 
 pelled to put into an intermediate port between 
 her ports of loading and discharge, and the 
 freighter having detained the vessel ten days 
 there, and also fourteen days more than ten 
 daj-s at the port of delivery : — Held, that the 
 master could not recover on this covenant for 
 more than the ten days' demurrage at bl. per 
 day, at the port of discharge, the covenant not 
 extending to the payment of demurrage beyond 
 ten tlays at each of the ports of loading and dis- 
 charge. Stevenson v. YorJ/, 2 Chit. 570. 
 
 Not at Port of Discharge — Eeasonable 
 
 Time.] — By a charterparty it was agreed that a 
 shi{) should proceed to Pernambuco and there 
 load from the factors of the freighter, having 
 first discharged her cargo, if any, a full cargo, 
 and proceed therewith to Valpai-aiso, a legal port 
 between ^'alpal■aiso and Guaya'iuil, and Guaya- 
 quil, all or any, and there discharge the cargo 
 and gootls taken on board at Valparaiso, and at 
 any and all the aforesaid ports should take on 
 board a full caigo, and therewith proceed to 
 Kngland for orders to discharge. Seventyrunning 
 days were to be allowed the merchant, if the 
 ship was not sooner despatched, for loading, <lis- 
 charging and reloading the ship at the several 
 ports, to Vjc conjputed from the several periods 
 of the Yes.sel being clear and readj'. She took in 
 cargo at Pernambuco, and discliai-god at Valjia- 
 raiso. At Valparaiso, she took in goods belonging 
 to the freighter and also to other merchants for 
 Paita (a port between Valparaiso and (iuayatjuil) 
 and Guayaquil, part of which was to be discharged 
 there and tiie rest to be carried to England. 
 The seventy i-unning days were all consumed at 
 Pernambuco, Valparaiso, Paita, and Guayaquil : 
 plus three days, for which deinunage was paid 
 to the master : — Held, that the seventy running 
 days "for loading, discharging, and reloading," 
 only applied to the ports of loading, intermediate 
 discharge and reloading, such lay days not ajiply- 
 ing to the ultimate discharge at the end of tiie 
 voyage, and, conse<piently. tliat the chartcMcrs 
 were entitled to a rea.sonable time for iinloa(hng 
 the homewarrl cargo in London, without paying 
 demurrage. Sweeting v. Darthcz, 14 C. B. b'M ; 
 2 C. L. II. 1375 ; 23 L. J., C. P. 131 ; 18 Jur.'.)58 ; 
 2 \V. R. 414. 
 
 During Voyage.] — By a charterparty it was 
 agreed that a shi]) then Ij'ing at Genoa should 
 
 Video and Lima (with goods for third parties), 
 and thence proceed with all convenient despatch 
 to Callao, where the master was to report his- 
 arrival to the agents of the charterers, by whom 
 he was to be sent to the Chincha Islands for a 
 cargo of guano, for a port in the United King- 
 dom. Thirty days were to be allowed to the- 
 charterers for loading the ship and to the owners- 
 for taking in certain specitied light freight, and 
 thirty days over and above the lay-days, at 7/.. 
 per day : and then came the following provision :. 
 " Should the vessel be unnecessarily detaineil at 
 any other period of the voj-age. such detention 
 to be paid for by the party delin([uent to the 
 party observant, at the above-named rate of 
 demurrage or compensation.'' The vessel did 
 not leave Genoa until the 8th of September : — 
 Held, that this was not a detention during the 
 voyage within the meaning of tlie penalty clause. 
 Valente v. Gihhs. 6 C. B. (x.s.) 270 ; 28 L. J., 
 C. P. 229 ; 5 Jur. (N.S.) 1213 ; 7 W. E. 500. 
 
 Discharge in Separate Parcels.] — As soon as- 
 the period arrives at which the owner of the 
 cargo is bound to accept part delivery, the voyage- 
 is at an end, and so, where, by the iisage of a, 
 port, a cargo is to be discharged within tiie port 
 in two separate parcels at two different places,, 
 both places taken together constitute the usual 
 place of ilischarge, and the lay-days commence- 
 to run from arrival at the Urst. Mclntoslt v. 
 Sinclair, Ir. R. 11 C. L. 456. 
 
 Different Loading Places — Ship Ordered to 
 Crowded Berth.] — A charlL-rparty stipulated iliat 
 the ship should " proceed to Portugalette or any 
 other usual ore-loading ])lace in the river Nerviou 
 not above Lucana, as ordered by the merchants' 
 agents on arrival" and there load a cargo of iron 
 ore, "after being berthed in turn." There were 
 different loading places for different classes of 
 ore ; and the ship, on arrival, was ordered to a 
 place at whicii. owing to the number of shijjs- 
 arrived before her, she could not be berthed until 
 June 27. At another loading place she would 
 have been berthed on .June 21 : — Held, that the 
 charteiers were liable for four davs' demuiTage,. 
 Stephens v. Macleod. Vd Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th 
 ser.) 38. 
 
 5. LO.VDING AXD DlSCHAKGIXr, ; Hri.i-;.s ^^v 
 rnliT. 
 
 Contract to Load with usual Despatch Delay 
 caused by Rule of Port.] — By a chartcrpaiiy 
 the iiiaslel-of a vessel, the" 1)..'" engaged to receive 
 on board and load a cargo of coal at tiie port of 
 Liverpool, "to be loaded with the usual despatch 
 of the port, or if longer detained to be i)aid 40.v. 
 per day demurrage," and tliedet'eiidaiits engaged 
 to load upon the above terms. The loa<hng was 
 \\) take place at the Bramley Moore docks, and 
 by one of the regiilalions of the docks no coal 
 agent was to be allowed to have nioie Ili:in three 
 vessels in those docks loading ami to load at the 
 cranes at one time. The (iefendanis acted as- 
 their own co.-d agents, and when tlie charter- 
 party was entered into tliey liad lliree ships 
 loading in the docks, am! ten otlier charters iiv 
 their books having priority over tlie plaintiff. In 
 CoiKsequence of these engagements the " D." wa.s 
 not allowed to go into the docks until thirty 
 days after she was ready to rio so : — Held, that 
 the contract by the defendants was absolute to
 
 471 
 
 SHIPPING— XIV. Demurrage. 
 
 472 
 
 load -with the usual tlespatcli of the port of 
 Liverpool ; that the "D." had not been so loaded : 
 ^nd that the defindaiits were therefore liable to 
 pav for the delay. Axhcroft v. Crow Orchard 
 CoUirni Co., 43 L. J.. Q. B."l9-t ; L. R. 9 Q. B. 
 n40 ; 31 L. T. 2f)6 : 22 W. R. 825 ; 2 Asp. M. G. 
 397. 
 
 Ship to Load in Turn — Charterer's Default.] — 
 A shi|> was ehartercd upon the terms that she 
 sliouUl go to a foreign port for a cargo, and 
 "there, in iho usual and accustomed manner, 
 Joad in her regular turn." The ship went to the 
 port, but, owing to the charterer's default, was 
 not ready when her turn came, and was conse- 
 quently detained eleven days. When her turn 
 came round again, she was ready, but the wind 
 •coming on to blow, and the harbour being 
 crowded, the harbour-master refused to allow 
 the ship to go up to load, and she was conse- 
 quently detained three days. The shipowner 
 having sued on the charterparty claiming 
 damages for the detention : — Held, that the 
 detention for the three days was the legal and 
 natural consequence of the charterer's default 
 in not having the ship ready for the first turn, 
 and that tlie shipowner was entitled to damages 
 in respect of the three days as well as the eleven 
 davs. Jones v. Adamson, 45 L. J., Ex. 64 ; 
 1 Ex. D. 60; 35 L. T. 287; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 253. 
 
 Shipowner Ignorant of Custom.] — The 
 
 plaintiff's sailing vessel was chartered by the 
 defendant to proceed to Whitehaven for a 
 cargo of coals. The charterparty provided that 
 " regular turn should be allowed for loading. By 
 "the custom of the port of Whitehaven, steam 
 vessels, though they arrive in port after sailing 
 •vessels, are loaded with coals before the sailing 
 vessels ; but as between sailing vessels them- 
 selves, sailing vessels are loaded in the order of 
 ■their arrival in port. The plaintiff's were ignorant 
 that this was the usage of the port. The plain- 
 tiffs' vessel, though she arrived before several 
 steam vessels, was delayed until they were first 
 loaded, but she was loaded in the order of her 
 •arrival as regarded the other sailing vessels in 
 'harbour. The plaintiffs claimed demurrage : — 
 Held, that the expression, " regular turn," in the 
 •charterparty, should, in the absence of exclusive 
 .words, be constructed as " legular turn " accord- 
 'ing to the usage of the port of Whitehaven ; 
 that it was not material that the plaintiffs were 
 ignorant of such usage, and that, accordingly, 
 "the plaintiffs could not recover. King v. Hinde, 
 12 L. R., Ir. 113. 
 
 Port Crowded — Lighters Engaged.] — The 
 
 •defendants chartered the jjijint ill's vessel, the 
 " C," for a voyage to the port of L. The charter- 
 party provided that the cargo was to be brought 
 'to and taken alongside free of expense and risk 
 to the ship ; but it contained no other clause as 
 "to discharging the cargo. The number of lighters 
 ;at L. was small, and when the '• C." arrived the 
 (lort was crowded with vessels, about half of 
 Avhich belonged to the defendants or had been 
 •consigned to them. Seventy-two days elapsed 
 after the arrival of the "C." before her discharge 
 was completed by the defendants' agents ; but 
 the number of days upon which the cargo was 
 unloaded was only thirty-four. The delay arose 
 from the lighters being engaged in discharging 
 other vessels lying at the port : — Held, that in 
 
 determining whether the terms of the charter- 
 party had been broken by the defendants, the 
 lielay occasioned by the lighters being engaged 
 in discharging other vessels was not to be taken 
 into account. Wright v. New Zealand Shipping 
 Co., 4 Ex. D. 165 ; 40 L. T. 413 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 118— C. A. 
 
 "Cargo to be Discharged with all Despatch, 
 according to Custom of the Port."] — The defen- 
 dants chartered the plaintiff's vessel, the "C," to 
 carry a cargo of rails to the port of L. The 
 charterparty provided that the cargo should be 
 "discharged with all despatch, according to the 
 custom of the port." By the custom of L. vessels 
 were discharged by lighters worked along a warp, 
 and upon the arrival of a vessel she was reported 
 at the port office, and in her turn, with respect 
 to the vessels that had arrived previously, one 
 lighter was sent to her every working day until 
 she was discharged. Upon the arrival of the " C." 
 at L., in consequence of the scarcity of lighters, 
 and the number of vessels lying there, the defen- 
 dants were unable to begin to discharge until 
 twenty-four working days had elapsed. In an 
 action to recover damages for detention, the judge 
 directed the jury that there was no obligation 
 upon the defendants to provide one lighter for 
 unloading the cargo of the " C." for every working 
 day after she was ready to unload, and that if 
 the defendants used the existing appliances at 
 L. with due dispatch, according to the custom 
 of the port, the jury ought to find for them : — 
 Held, that the direction was correct. Posfle- 
 tlrwaite v. Freeland, 49 L. J.. Ex. 630 ; 5 App. 
 Gas. 599 : 42 L. T. 845 ; 28 W. R. 838 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. G. 302— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Obligation where no Custom.] — By a charter- 
 party entered into between the plaintiff and G., 
 it was agreed that the plaintiff's vessel should at 
 the port of dischai-ge be unloaded as fast as the 
 custom of the port would allow. By the bill of 
 lading, signed by the master, the cargo was stated 
 to have been shipped by G-., and was to be 
 delivered to the defendant or his assigns, he or 
 they paying freight for the goods as per charter- 
 party. No time for the discharge of the cargo 
 was mentioned in the bill of lading. At the jiort 
 of discharge there was no custom as to unloading 
 vessels, but a delay occurred in unloading the 
 ship : — Held, in an action for not discharging 
 within a reasonable time, that, as there was no 
 custom of the port of discharge as to unloailing 
 vessels, the charterparty did not, by its terms, 
 vary the implied contract contained in the bill 
 of lading to deliver the cargo within a reasonable 
 time. Fowler v. Knoop, 48 L. J., Q. B. 333 ; 
 4 Q. B. D. 229 ; 40 L. T. 180 ; 27 W. R. 299 ; 
 4 Asp. M. G. 68— C. A. 
 
 "Wrongful Interference with Turn.] — Goods 
 
 were consigned under a bill of lading by which 
 it was stipulated that the vessel should take her 
 regular turn in unloading. The vessel having 
 been prevented from unloading within a reason- 
 able time, in consequence of not being allowed 
 to take her regular turn in unloading : — Held, 
 that the master could sue the consignor for 
 damages for such detention, the above stipula- 
 tion in the bill of lading amounting to a contract 
 by the consignor with the master that the vessel 
 should take her regular turn in unloading. Cato- 
 fhron V. Trirki'ft,'Uy C. B. (N.S.) 754 ; 33 L. J., 
 G. P. 182 ; 9 L. T. 6n9 ; 12 W. li. 311.
 
 473 
 
 SHIPPING— XIV. Demurraric 
 
 474 
 
 ♦'To be Discharged at usual Fruit Berth as 
 fast as Steamer can deliver, as customary,"] — 
 By the teims of a chiiiterijartj', a steamer was 
 to take a cargo to Hamburg "to be dischaigcd at 
 usual fruit berth as fast as steamer can deliver, 
 as customarj'." On the Gth of March she arrived, 
 and was moored at the usual fruit berth, but 
 without the sanction of the authorities, who had 
 her removed till the 8th, when she returned to 
 the berth. Owing to various causes, unloading 
 did not commence till the 11th of March, The 
 shipowners brought an action for demurrage : — 
 Held, that the steamer did not arrive at her place 
 of discharge, so as to impose any obligation on 
 the charterers to unload, until the 8th of March ; 
 that the words "as customary" referred to the 
 speed of delivery as well as to the mode of 
 delivery, so that the cargo had to be unloaded as 
 fast as the custom of the port would allow ; that 
 the delays were caused by the custom of the 
 port ; and that the claim for demurrage ought 
 not to be allowed. Guod v, Isaacs^ 61 L. J., 
 Q. B. 649 ; [1892] 2 Q. B. 55.5 ; 67 L. T. 450 ; 40 
 W. R. C29 ; 7 Asp. M. 0. 212— C. A. 
 
 Customary Mode — Discharge by Dock Com- 
 pany.] — A charterparty provideil that the vessel 
 should proceed to a named dock and should there 
 be dischaiged as fast as she could deliver. On 
 the ship's arrival, the master authorised the 
 dock company to discharge the cargo. The 
 custom at the dock was for the company to dis- 
 charge the cargo, acting for tlie shipowner and 
 the charterer or consignee : — Held, that the 
 customary mode of discharge was implied, and 
 that the charterers were not liable for demur- 
 lage by reason of the dock company's delay in 
 discharging the cargo. 'I'hc Jaedcrcji, 61 L. J., 
 Adm. 89 ; [1892] P. 351 ; 1 It. 545 ; 68 L. T. 266 : 
 7 Asp. M. C. 260. 
 
 Timber Cargo — Delivery in Rafts.] — By a 
 charterinuty, it was agreed that a steamship, 
 after loading with sleepers, should pjcjeed to a 
 named port, or as near thereunto an she may 
 safely get, and that the caigo should be brought 
 to and taken f lom alongside, at tht; merchant's 
 risk and expense. The steamer to be loaded and 
 discharged as fast as she can load and deliver. 
 Dcmurrnge at a rate named, i'he port was a 
 tidal rivei', with a (juay on the bank. The ship 
 could not get a berth at the quay, because they 
 were all occupied : and al«i because she drew 
 too much water. The custom of the port was to 
 tlischargc sleepers on the quay or on rafts. The 
 charterers refused to take delivery on rafts, 
 except of deck cargo, to lighten the ship. The 
 ship was njuoied as ncjif the quay as she could 
 get. La Ciivr v. Donaldson, 1 Ct. of tjcss. Cas. 
 (4th sen) 912. 
 
 Meaning of "Regular Turn."] — By charter- 
 party it was agreeil Iviwccn the i)hiintiif, owner 
 of a ship, anil the (h;f('ndant,that tlieshifi sliould 
 proceed to a ceitain dock and there loiid in the 
 customary manner a cargo of Marley Hill coke, 
 " to be loaded in regular turn." 'i'hc Marley 
 Hill Comjiany kept a book in which they entered 
 ehips to be loaded, and it was their practice to 
 enter ships, not only before they were ready to 
 load, but before their arrival at the dock, or even 
 at the port ; and if a ship was not ie.a<ly to load 
 wh(;n her turn came, the ship next in turn was 
 loaded, and the other took its turn, when ready, 
 
 before others which had been ready before it. 
 On the 29th Xovember the plaintiff's ship 
 arrived at the dock, and on the 8th December 
 his agent told the manager that he was ready to 
 load, but several ships which had not arrived, 
 and were not ready until after the plaintiff's 
 ship, were loaded before it, in consequence of the 
 order in which they were entered in the book ; 
 and the loading of the ship did not commence 
 until the 23rd of January, The judge left it tO' 
 the jury to say what was the meaning of 
 " regular turn," and they found that the ship^ 
 was loaded accordingto the practiceof the Marley 
 Hill Colliery, but that it was not an established', 
 or a known custom, and that " regular turn " 
 was the order of readiness, not the order of entry 
 in the book : — Held, that the defendant was- 
 hable for demurrage. Lawsnn v. Biintpa.s, I 
 H. & C. 396 ; 10 W. R, 733. S. C, at Nisi Prius,. 
 2 F. & F. 793, 
 
 Evidence — Regulations of Foreign 
 
 Government.] — By the terms of a charterparty 
 the charterers agreed to unload the vessel at a 
 certain rate per diem ; and payment for any 
 detention beyond that time was " to reckon from 
 the time of the ves,sel being ready to unload, and 
 in turn to deliver." At the port to which the 
 vessel was bound regulations of the French. 
 Government -swere in force, by which vessels 
 arriving to discharge their cargo might have to 
 wait a certiin number of days before their turn 
 to deliver arrived. In an action brought upouv 
 the ohiifterparty for demurrage: — Held, that 
 evideiiCe was receivable to shew what was the 
 general understood meaning of the words "in. 
 tv'.rn to deliver " amongst shipowners and mer- 
 chants entering into charterparties, with respect 
 to the commerce and business under investiga- 
 tion. Rnhertsoi) v. Jacltsun, 2 C. B.412 ; 15 L. J., 
 C. P. 28 ; 10 Jur. 98. 
 
 Held, also, that the regulation as to the unload- 
 ing for the French marine department was to- 
 be considered one of the regulations of the 
 port, binding upon all vessels entering the port. 
 Ih. 
 
 "Turn-paper" — Evidence as to Place.] — Tlie 
 defendants having purchased a eaigo of coals on 
 board a shij) in the Thames belonging to the 
 plaintiff, signed and sent to a coalmeter a docu- 
 ment called a " turn-pa|)cr," which, after reciting 
 that the}' had bought the cai'go of coals, to l)e 
 worked at the I'ate of forty-nine tons jjcr work- 
 ing day, required him to work the same. The 
 pa|>cr mentioned that tlic coals were to be 
 iiidoaded at Dudman's Dock, in the Thames. 
 The ])laintiff took his ship to the moorings off 
 Dudman's Dock, but a delay of six days occtu'red 
 before the vess<'l could begin to unload at tlie 
 dof^k, owing to the turns of ollici- vessels for 
 unloading coming first : — Held, that if the tuiii- 
 pa|)er was evidence of any contract between the 
 plaintiff and the defenilant, it was evidence only 
 of a contract to unload after the vessel had got 
 into the dock at the jiImcc for uidoading ; con- 
 seijuently th;it the plaintiff was not entitled to 
 {Jainages in the nature of dennnrage for the six 
 (lays' delay from the time the ship was off the- 
 dock ready to unload. Slutdfortk v. Cory, 32 
 L. J., Q. li. 379 ; 8 L, T. 736; 11 W, R. 918— 
 Ex. Ch. 
 
 Different Order — Metage.] — A .shij) was to 
 take in a cargo of coals for Newcastle, and pro»
 
 475 
 
 SHIPPING— XIV. D 
 
 ciiiiiri'diic 
 
 476 
 
 ceed therewith to London, or as near thereto as 
 •she could safely get, and deliver the same to the 
 freighters, or their assigns, to be delivered in five 
 working days ; demnrrage over and above the 
 laying days 21. per day. The ship arrived in the 
 ■port of London off Gravesend, on the 9th March, 
 and on the 10th the cargo was sold, and the 
 <\-essel entered by the freighters for a meter. On 
 the 20th she received an order from the harboiu- 
 ■master to proceed to the Pool. On Monday, the 
 :22nd, she commenced working out her cargo, 
 and was cleared on the 27th. It appeared that, 
 in consequence of the factor's certificate that 
 she was a m<;tered vessel, the harbour-master 
 had detained her at Gravesend till the 20th, 
 when her turn arrived for her to proceed to the 
 Pool and discharge her cargo ; that, if she had 
 mot been on the meter's list, this regulation would 
 not have applied, and she might have proceeded 
 ito the Pool at once ; and that it was occasionally 
 the practice for factors not to enter such vessel 
 in the meter's list, but that it was desirable that 
 the cargo should be sold, subject to metage, by a 
 sworn meter : — Held, that the ship was not to 
 be considered as having arrived at her place of 
 discharge until the 20th, and therefore that the 
 laying days did not begin to count till then, and 
 the owner was not entitled to demurrage. Kell 
 ■V. Anderson. 10 M. & W. 498 ; 12 L. J., Ex. 
 101. 
 
 Customary Time.] — If a freighter of a ship 
 ■employed to bring a cargo of wine into the port 
 ■of London covenants to unload her in the usual 
 and customary time at her port of discharge, he 
 is not liable for the detention of the ship in the 
 'London Docks, if she is there unloaded in her 
 turn. Hodgcrs v. Forre-^tL-rs, 2 Camn. 483 ; 11 
 31. R. 773. 
 
 Express Time.] — But if, by reason of the 
 ■crowded state of the London Docks, a ship is 
 ■detained there before she can be unloaded a 
 longer time than is allowed for that purpose by 
 the terms of the charterparty, the freighter is 
 liable for this detention of the ship. Randall v. 
 LyTuili, 2 Camp. 352; 11 East, 179; 11 E. R. 
 727. 
 
 Delivery of Cargo — Joint Operation — Con- 
 signee and Shipowner — Cargo of Poles.] — See 
 Peterson v. Freebodij, infra, col. 535. 
 
 Ship Arrived — Discharge into Lighters.] — A 
 ship was chartered to load scrap iron and " there- 
 with to proceed to Grangemouth or as near there- 
 unto as she may safely get." The cargo was to 
 be brought to and taken from the ship's side at the 
 merchant's expense. The ship arrived in the 
 roads off the Carron River on September 10th, 
 but she could not get a berth in the docks. On 
 September 12th the ship was moored off one of 
 the docks in the river. Next day the master told 
 the charterers that she was ready to discharge. 
 Ships often discharged into lighters in the river, 
 but there was no custom as to scrap iron 
 cargoes : — Held, that demurrage ran on from 
 September 14th, on which day the discharging 
 should have begun. Bremner v. Burrell, 4 Ct. 
 of Sess. Gas. (4th ser.) 934 ; and see The Ahte 
 Hulme, infra, col. 480. 
 
 Custom to Employ Dock Company to Dis- 
 charge — Strike.] — See Castlctiate SteamsMp Com- 
 2}anu v. BewjJsey, infra, col. 481. 
 
 Discharge of Mixed Cargo — Custom of Port.] — . 
 
 A ship chartered to carry to the United King- 
 dom ash and bones, to be discharged according 
 to the custom of the port of discharge, received 
 from the charterers and loaded 33 tons of ash, 
 397 tons of bones, and 20 tons of horns, hoofs, 
 and piths, i)artly mixed in the bones and partly 
 on the top of them. The master gave bills of 
 lading for 33 tons of ash and 417 tons of bones. 
 The ship was ordered to Aberdeen. The master, 
 at the direction of the consignees, under protest, 
 separated the horns, kc, from the bones before 
 giving delivery ; and sued for demurrage. The 
 bone trade at Aberdeen was only 30 years old, 
 and almost entirely in the defendants' hands : — 
 Held, that no custom to separate the cai'go was 
 proved, and that the defendants were liable. 
 C'nrrridi v. Hiitcliinson., 15 Gt. of Sess. Gas. (4th 
 ser.) 11. 
 
 Lightening Ship.] — A ship was chartered to 
 take a cargo to a safe port in the United 
 Kingdom "or so near thereto as she can safely 
 get and lay afloat at all times of tide, and 
 deliver the same and so end the voyage." She 
 was ordered to Glasgow, and on her arrival at 
 the Tail of the Bank. 22 miles from Glasgow, 
 she had to be lightened to enable her to lie 
 afloat at Glasgow at low water. According to 
 custom the shippers took delivery of part of the 
 cargo discharged to lighten her, and ordered the 
 master to discharge the rest at Glasgow. The 
 shipowners claimed demurrage : — Held, none due, 
 the discharge of cargo being made to enable her 
 to complete the vo^'age. Hlllstrom v. Gibson, 8 
 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 463. 
 
 Ice — River Bar — Dantzic] — A ship was 
 chartered to sail from Liverpool to Dantzic or as 
 near thereto as she could get, and back to Eng- 
 land. Thirty days were allowed for loading and 
 unloading. The ship was compelled by ice to 
 bring rip about four miles from Dantzic. On 
 March lOth, the merchant received notice that 
 she was ready to load, and her cargo having been 
 sent over the ice was all on board by April 5th. 
 It was then found that the ship could not pass 
 the bar, and 60 tons were taken out of her and 
 put on board again by April 14th. Six days 
 were taken in unloading the cargo in England. 
 In an action for demurrage the judge directed 
 the jury that the question whether the days 
 fi'om April 5th to April 14th were to be com- 
 puted or not in reckoning the running days 
 depended upon the custom at Dantzic as to 
 loading part of the cargo inside and part outside 
 the bar : — Held, that the direction was right. 
 Herring v. Ward, 8 L. J., Q. B. 218. 
 
 Ice — Customary Manner of loading.] — See 
 
 Kay v. Field, infra, col. 479. 
 
 6. Causes of Delay. 
 a. Weather. 
 
 Preventing Departure of Ship.] — After a ship 
 has finished her kiading, the freighter is not 
 liable for any delay that may .arise in despatching 
 her, occasioned by the accidental impossibility 
 of her obtaining clearance. Barret v. Button, 
 infra. 
 
 A charterer, for the conveyance of a cargo from 
 a foreign port, is not liable to the owner for the 
 unavoidable detention of the ship by the frost
 
 477 
 
 SHIPPING— XIY. Demurrafje. 
 
 478 
 
 after the completion of the loading. Pringle v. 
 Mollett, 6 M. & W. 80 ; 9 L. J., Ex. 148. 
 
 Preventing Conveyance of Cargo to Ship.] — 
 
 The exception in a charterparty, whereby a certain 
 number of laving days is allowed to the charterer, 
 ■but detention by ice is not to be reckoned as such, 
 applies where the ice not only renders access to 
 the ship impracticable in the port itself, but 
 ]>locks up a river by means of which alone the 
 intended cargo can be conveved to the port. 
 JIudsonv. Ede. 8 B. & S. 640 : 37 L. J. Q. B. 1G6 ; 
 L. R. 3 Q. B. 412 ; 18 L. T. 764 ; 16 W. R. 940— 
 Ex. Ch. Followed in Smith v. Rvsario Nitrate 
 ■Co.. infra, col. 485. 
 
 Where there is a stipulation in a charterparty, 
 that a certain number of running days shall be 
 allowed for loading the ship, the freighter is 
 liable for her subsequent detention for that pur- 
 pose, although the loading of her within the 
 specified time was rendered impossible by ice in 
 the river where she lay. Barret v. Button 4 Camp. 
 333 ; 16 E. R. 798. 
 
 A. by charterparty engaged to load on board 
 B.'s ships a cargo of coals "with due despatch" ; 
 the goods had to be brought by A. along a canal 
 to the dock, and frost prevented the completion 
 ■of the loading : — Held, that A. was responsible 
 for the delav consequent thereon. Kearon v. 
 Prarsun, 7 H. & N. 386 ; 31 L. J., Ex. 1 ; 10 
 W. R. 12. 
 
 By a charterparty the ship was to proceed to 
 Bilbao, and there load in the customary manner 
 in regular steamer turn, where and as ordered by 
 the agent of the freighter, a cargo of iron ore: 
 400 tons per working day, weather permitting, 
 lo be allowed for loading, and all demurrage 
 over and above the said days at the rale of 
 1 2*. &d. per hour, no demurrage to be paid in case 
 •of any hands striking work, frosts, or floods, 
 which might hinder the loading of the vessel. 
 The port of Bilbao was on a river where there 
 were a number of wharves, and the iron ore was 
 •brought down to the wharves by railways from 
 storing jilaces five miles oif, and loaded direct 
 from the railway trucks into the ship by means 
 of shoots, there being no storing-places at the 
 wharves. Ships, however, were sometimes loaded 
 while lying out in the liver from barges which 
 brought the ore from storing places higher 
 up the river. The ship was ordered to San 
 Nicholas wharf to load, and she was there loaded 
 under a shoot with oie brought down by rail as 
 above-mentioned. In consequence of heavy rains 
 At the storing places, and in consequence of the 
 men wlio were loading the ore into the railway 
 trucks there lef using to work from fear of tlie 
 <rholera, delay occurrol. and the ship was detained 
 waiting for her cargo : — Held, witliout flecidiiig 
 whether the refusal of the men to work came 
 within the exception in the demuriage clause 
 «f •• hands striking work," that neither the state 
 •of the w('ather nor the refusal of the men to 
 wo: k hindered the " loading" inasmuch as both 
 those causes of delay operated before the ore 
 airivetl at the |)lace of loading, and the nature of 
 the port was not such that the only possible 
 mode of loading the ship was by bringing the ore 
 by railway fiom the storing-places five miles off, 
 t-o as to bring the case within the decision in 
 Jludxon V. Edf (sujira). Strphem v. Harris, 57 
 ].. J., y. I!. 20:^— C. A. 
 
 "Frost preventing Loading."] — By a chnrter- 
 fiarty a ship was to i»r'fx;eed to Cardiff. East Bute 
 
 dock, and there load in the customary manner 
 from the agents of the freighters a cargo of iron. 
 " Cargo to be supplied as fast as steamer can 
 receive. . . . Time to commence from the vessel 
 being ready to load and unload and ten days, on 
 demunage, over and above the said lay days, at 
 40L per day. (Except in case of hands striking 
 work, or frosts or floods, or any other unavoid- 
 able accidents preventing the loading . . . ; 
 in which case owners to have the option of 
 employing the steamer in some short voyage 
 trade until receipt of ^^Titten notice from 
 charterers that they are ready to resume employ- 
 ment without delay to the ship.) " The ship 
 arrived at the East Bute Dock, and loaded part 
 of her cargo. A frost then set in, and made a 
 canal which communicated with the dock impas- 
 sable, so that the remainder of the cargo which 
 was ready at a wharf on the canal could not for 
 several days be brought in lighters to the dock. 
 The cargo could not have been brought into the 
 dock by carting or otherwise at any reasonable 
 expense. The dock itself was not frozen over, 
 and if the cargo had been in the dock the loading 
 might have proceeded : — Held, that the frost ditl 
 not prevent the "loading" within the meaning 
 of the exception. Allerton Siiiling Ship Co. v. 
 Falk, ante, col. 278, distinguished. Grant v. 
 Covtrdale, 53 L. J., Q. B. 462 ; 9 App. Cas. 470 ; 
 51 L. T. 472 : 32 W. R. 831 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 353 
 — H. L. (E.) 
 
 No Implied Exemption for Bad Weather.] — 
 By a charterparty for a voyage with a cargo of 
 timber from Pensacola to a safe port in the 
 United Kingdom, " sixteen working days were 
 to be allowed the merchants for loading the shi|i 
 at Pensacola, and to be discharged at such wharf 
 or dock as the charterers may direct, always 
 afloat, in fourteen like days, and ten days on 
 demurrage over and above the laying days at 
 lOZ. per day." The ship was ordered to Middles- 
 borough, and arrived at the usual jjlace of dis- 
 charge in the river and began unloading. It was 
 the duty of the master to put the timber over 
 the ship's side, and form it into rafts, and the 
 charterer was to send tugs and take the rafts 
 away. During the unloa<ling bad weather came 
 on, and though the ship did not leave her anchor- 
 age, the rafts could not be foimed, and the 
 charterer therefore could not do his jjart in 
 taking the timber away. The bad weather 
 caused a delay of four days in discharging the 
 ship. An action having been brought by the 
 shipowner against the charterer for the four 
 days' demurrage : — Held. that, where a given 
 number of days is allowed to the charterer for 
 unloading, a contract is implied on liis part that, 
 from tlie time when the ship is at the u-nal place 
 of discliarge, he will take the risk of any ordinary 
 vicissitudes which may occur to prevent his 
 releasing tlie shi|) at the expiration of the lay 
 days; and the charterer, therefore, was liable 
 for the four davs' denmrrage. 7'.;^ or Thiiii, v. 
 Jh/erg, 45 L. /., Q. B. 511 ; 1 Q. B. D. 244 : 
 M L. T. 526 : 21 W. K. 611 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 147. 
 And see lUidijctt v. liinningion, infra, col. 482. 
 
 Customary Manner of Loading — Ice.] — 
 
 By the terms of tlie charterparty the .'^hipwa8lo 
 proceed to Cardiff, East Bute Dock, and there 
 loa<^l in the customary maimer from theagentsof 
 the freighters a cargo of rail iron ; the cargo to 
 be loaf led as fast as steamer could take on board 
 and stow witliin the customary working hours of
 
 479 
 
 SHIPPING— XIV. Demurrage 
 
 480 
 
 the port, commencing when the steamer was in 
 berth and reatly to load ; and if longer detained 
 merchant s to pay 30^. per day demurrage. " Deten- 
 tion by frost, floods, kc, not to be reckoned as 
 lay days." The shipowner, when the charter- 
 party was made, did not know who were the 
 freighter's agents at Cardiff. There were about 
 six shippers of rail iron there, all of them (with 
 the exception of the freighters' agents) having 
 wharves in the West or East Bute Dock. The 
 agents' wharf was at a distance from the docks 
 upon a canal communicating with the West 
 Bute Dock, and their rail iron was loaded on 
 ships berthed in the E]ast Bute Dock by means 
 of lighters passing down this canal through the 
 West Bute Dock, and from thence down a smaller 
 canal connecting the two docks. The other 
 shippers loaded in the East Bute Dock, either 
 from the quay or by lighters coming alongside 
 the ship from the wharves in the East Bute Dock, 
 or by lighters from West Bute Dock, passing 
 down the connecting canal. The ship, on arrival, 
 was berthed in the East Bute Dock, and the 
 loading was commenced, but shortly afterwards 
 was stopped for sixteen days by frost, which 
 covered the canal from the agents' wharf to the 
 West Bute Dock with ice and prevented the 
 passage of the lighters, though the water in the 
 docks was not frozen : — Held' that the exception 
 in the charterparty with respect to detention by 
 frost did not apply to relieve the freighters from 
 liability to demurrage. Kay v. Field., 52 L. J., 
 Q. B. 17 ; 10 Q. B. D. 241 ; 47 L. T. 423 ; 31 W. K. 
 332 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 558— C. A. 
 
 Snowstorm " Accident."] — A charterer agreed 
 to load a ship with coal, in regular and customary 
 turn, " except in cases of riots, strikes, or any 
 other accidents beyond his control" which might 
 prevent or delay her loading. To an action for 
 breach of the above covenant in the charterparty. 
 he pleaded that he was prevented loading the 
 vessel by a snowstorm, which rendered it impos- 
 sible to bring the cargo to the agreed place of 
 shipment: — Held, that a snowstorm was not an 
 *' accident" within the meaning of the exception, 
 and that the plea was bad. FeHivickr. Sehmalz, 
 37 L. J., C. P. 78 ; L. R. 3 C. P. 313 ; 18 L. T. 27 ; 
 16 W. R. 481. 
 
 Ice — Delay after Sailing.] — See Herring v. 
 Ward, supra, col. 476. 
 
 Surf Preventing Loading — Custom— Working 
 Days — Power of Master.] — In an outward and 
 homeward charterparty, a certain number of days 
 were allowed for discharging the outward and 
 loading the homeward cargo. In an action for 
 demurrage : — Held, that days on which the load- 
 ing and discharging could not be carried on at 
 the forei,gn port because of the surf were working 
 days. Hulnian v. Peruviaii, Nitrate Co., 5 Ct. of 
 Scss. Cas. (4th ser.) 657. 
 
 Held, also, that it was within the master's 
 power to grant the charterers additional lay days 
 in consideration of their giving up an o])tion to 
 load at certain by-ports ; but that he had no 
 power to give a discharge of any demurrage 
 money payable to the shipovniers except on pay- 
 ment, lb. 
 
 b. Not Producing: Bill of Lading-. 
 
 Although as a general rule the master has no 
 right to detain the cargo until the bill of lading 
 is produced, yet if the holder of the bill of lading 
 
 does not claim the cargo in a reasonable time 
 after notice of the arrival of the vessel, and the 
 charterer offers to unload on behalf of whom it 
 may concern, and to pay the freight, and the 
 captain refuses, the shipowner cannot claim' 
 demurrage from the charterers if the cargo might 
 have been unshipped within the laying days. 
 jErich.<tn>i v. Barlacorth, 3 H. & N. 601 ; 27 L. J.,. 
 Ex. 472. 
 
 Merchants at Hull chartered a ship to sail to- 
 Bactouche, and there load a cargo of timber, and 
 proceed to Gloucester and deliver the same on 
 being paid freight ; thirty-five running days tO' 
 be allowed for loading and discharging the- 
 cargo, and ten days on demurrage above the 
 laying days at al. per day. The ship arrived at 
 Bactouche, and the loading was completed at the 
 expiration of twenty-seven of the running days. 
 The master signed bills of lading by which the 
 cargo was deliverable " unto order or to assigns, 
 he or they paying freight for the goods as per 
 charterparty." The charterers, to whom the 
 cargo was sold, refused to accept the bill or re- 
 ceive the cargo, on the ground that the shipment 
 was not according to the contract. They offered 
 to land the cargo and take care of it for whom it 
 might concern. The shipper's agent gave notice' 
 to the master not to part with the cargo without 
 production of the bill of lading. The vessel was 
 ready to discharge her cargo, according to the 
 ciiarterparty, on the 5th September. The lay 
 days expired on the 13th September. The vessel 
 might have been discharged in five days. The 
 bill of lading was not produced to the master 
 until the 22nd September, and the delivery was 
 completed on the 30th : — Held, that the char- 
 terers were liable for demurrage and detention 
 of the vessel. S. C, on appeal, 3 H. & N. 894 : 
 28 L. J.. Ex. 95 ; 5 Jur. (n.s.) 517 ; 7 W. R. 97 
 —Ex. Ch. 
 
 c. Strikes. 
 
 Strike Clause — Customary Mode of Discliarg& 
 — Lighters,] — The plaintiffs' ship was chartered 
 to carry a cargo of timber to Sharpness and there 
 deliver the same under a charterparty which 
 provided that the cargo should be discharged 
 " with the customary steamer despatch of the 
 port, any time lost by reason of strikes, lock-outs, 
 or combinations of workmen, whether partial or 
 general, not to count as part of the discharging 
 time," and that if, through any default of the 
 merchants or charterers, who were to observe the 
 usual custom of the wood trade, the vessel be 
 longer detained, demurrage to be paid at the 
 agreed rate. The vessel arrived at Sharpness 
 when there was a strike amongst the labourers 
 in the shipping trade, and owing to the continu- 
 ance of such strike all the timber lighters which, 
 would otherwise have been available to take on. 
 board the cargo were still laden with previous- 
 consignments on board them, so that nothing 
 could have been done to discharge the plaintiffs' 
 ship until the strike had come to an end. The 
 customary mode was by lighters. After the 
 strike had come to an end the discharge of the 
 plaintiffs' ship duly commenced, and was com- 
 pleted with all reasonable despatch : — Held, that 
 the strike clause exempted the charterers from 
 liability. The Alne Holme, 62 L. J., Adm. 51 ; 
 [1893] P. 173 ; 1 R. 607 ; 68 L. T. 862 ; 41 W. R. 
 572 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 344. 
 
 Cargo "to be discharged with all despatch as- 
 customary" — Custom to employ Dock Company
 
 481 
 
 SHIPPING— XIV. Demurrage. 
 
 to discharge.] — By a chartcrparty the plaintiffs' 
 ship was to proceed to a port named with a 
 cargo, and there " be discharged with all des- 
 patch as customary, and ten days on demurrage 
 over and above said lying days at &d. per net 
 register ton per day." The discharge of the 
 cargo was delayed for four days owing to a striiie 
 of dock labourers employed by a dock company, 
 who, by the custom of the port, did the work of 
 discharge both for the shipowners and the char- 
 terers : — Held, that the charterers were not liable 
 for the delay, the words " to be discharged with 
 all despatch as customary" meaning that the 
 cargo was to be discharged with all reasonable 
 despatch, having regard to the actual circum- 
 stances and manner of discharging cargo 
 customary at the port of discharge, and that no 
 definite time was fixed by the chartcrparty 
 within which the cargo was to be discharged. 
 Castlegate Steamship Co. v. Demjysey, 61 L. J., 
 Q. B. 620 ; ri892] 1 Q. B. 854 ; 66 L. T. 742 ; 
 40 W. R. 533 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 186— C. A. 
 
 •' Strike " — " Hands striking work."] — The 
 term " strike " in a chartcrparty must be used in 
 the ordinary sense of strike against employers. 
 The abandonment of their work by miners 
 through dread of cholera does not bring the 
 charter of a ship within the exception in a 
 chartcrparty against " hands striking work " so 
 as to relieve him from payment of demurrage. 
 Stephens v. Harris, 56 L. J., Q. B. 516 ; 57 L. T. 
 618 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 192. Affirmed on other 
 grounds, 57 L. J., Q. B. 203— C. A., supra, col. 477. 
 
 Strike at Colliery.] — See Granite City Steam- 
 ship Co. V. Ireland, infra, col. 490. 
 
 Delay in Unloading by Eeason of Strike — 
 "Keasonable Time." j— Where the terms of a 
 bill of lading contain no stipulation as to the 
 time within which the consignee is to discharge 
 the ship's cargo, the obligation on him is to dis- 
 charge within a reasonable time under the 
 circumstances existing at the time of unloading. 
 Should the existing circumstances be extraor- 
 dinary, owing to a strike preventing the obtaining 
 of necessary labour, the consignee (provided the 
 delay was not due to any act or default on his 
 part) under such a bill of lading is not liable to 
 the shipowner for damages for detention of the 
 ship. Ilich V. Raymond, 62 L. J.. Q. B. 98 ; 
 [1893] A. C. 22; i li. 125 ; 68 L. T. 175; 41 
 W. II. 384 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 233—11. L. (E.) 
 
 Delay occasioned by a Strike — Shipowner 
 unable to perform Ship's part of Unloading.] — 
 
 A cargo was sliipjifil uihIit a Ijill of lading incor- 
 porating a clause in a charterparty wliicii fixed 
 the number of lay days for unloading and allowed 
 Other days for demurrage. Neither the bill of 
 lading nor the chartcrparty contained any excep- 
 tion of strikes. By tlio custom of the port of 
 discharge cargoes were unloaded by the joint act 
 of the shipowner and the consignees. During 
 the lay days a strike took place, both among the 
 labourers employed on behalf of the ship ami tliose 
 employed by the consignees, with the result that 
 the unloading ceased, and could not be resumed 
 till some days after the expiration of the lay 
 days : — Held, that as the number of lay iLays 
 allowed for the discharge was fixed, the con- 
 signees were liable to ])ay demurrage, notwith- 
 standing the inability of the shipowners owing 
 to the strike to do their part in the unloading. 
 Tii^ or Thiix v. Jhjers (supra, col. 478) considered. 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 482 
 
 Bvdyett v. Binmnfjfim, 60 L. J., Q. B. 1 • [1891] 
 1 Q. B. 35 ; 39 W. K. 131 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 592— C. A. 
 
 Port of Discharge at Option of Charterers 
 
 Strike at Place named.] — Where a chartcrparty 
 provides that the ship shall proceed to one o'f 
 certain named places as ordered, and there 
 deliver the cargo to the order of the charterers, 
 the charterers being exempted from liability for 
 delay caused by strikes ; the charterers having 
 named the place of discharge are not bound to 
 alter their orders on obtaining knowledge of a 
 strike at the place named that will interfere with 
 the unloading, in cases where they could have 
 stopped the ship proceeding to the named place. 
 The charterers in such a case are, therefore, not 
 liable for demurrage. Bulman v. Fenwich, 63 
 L. J., Q. B. 123 ; [1894] 1 Q. B. 179 ; 9 R. 227 ; 
 69 L. T. 651 ; 42 W. R. 326 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 388— 
 C. A. 
 
 Demurrage not running during Strike.] — 
 
 Lilly V. Stccen-'ion, infra, col. 4sy. 
 
 Loaded as Customary — Exception of Hin- 
 drances beyond Charterers' Control.] — A charter- 
 party provided that the ship (a sailing ship), 
 should at Sydney load coals to be brought along- 
 side at merchants' risk ; the coals to be loaded 
 as customary at Sydney with an exception of 
 charterers' liability in case of strikes "or any 
 other hindrances of what nature soever beyond 
 the charterers' or their agents' control." There 
 was a strike at another colliery which threw a 
 pressure of work on the loading colliery and the 
 ship was delayed : — Held, that the delay was not 
 due to a ''hindrance," and that the charterers 
 were liable for demurrage. The Lismore, Gar- 
 diner \. Macfarlane, 20 Ct.of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 
 414. 
 
 " Strikes, Lock-outs, Accidents to Eailway " 
 — Discharge of Workmen because of Accident to 
 Roadway.] — See Itichardsons and Samuel c)"' Co., 
 In re, infra, col. 490. 
 
 'Strikes and Lock-outs of Pitmen."] — The 
 defendants chartered the ])lainliirs sliip to pro- 
 ceed to Ardrossan, the cliarterparty providing 
 that the ship should there loail " in the customary 
 manner, say in twelve colliery working days," a 
 cargo of coals, " to be loaded according to the 
 custom of the port," "strikes and lock-outs of 
 pitmen and others" being excepted perils. The 
 following written clause was added : " It is 
 understood that the vessel is to be loaded at once, 
 and lay days to count when vessel ready and 
 notice given." The ship arrived at Ardrossan, 
 and gave notice that she was ready to load : but 
 before twelve working days had elapsed a strike 
 Ijrokc out at f lie pit, in consequfuce of which the 
 ship did not load the cargo of coal till twenty- 
 three ordinary working daj's had elapsed. By 
 the chartcrparty demurrage was to be paid at 
 the rate of id. per registered ton per day. 
 The plaintiff claimed for fifteen days' flcmurrage : 
 — Held, that tli(^ wiittcn clause oidy fixed the 
 time when the lay days began, and that the 
 delay was caused by an excepted peril. Peter- 
 son v. Du7in, 43 W. R. 349. 
 
 d. Other Causes. 
 
 No Time Mentioned — Unavoidable Delay,] — 
 
 Wlicn a chartcrparty is silent as to the time 
 within which the cargo is to be unloaded at the 
 
 16
 
 483 
 
 SHIPPING— XIV. Demurrage. 
 
 484 
 
 port of destination, the law implies that the 
 merchant and the shipowner shall each use 
 reasonable despatch in performing his part of the 
 contract ; and where the landing of the cargo 
 by the merchant is rendered impossible by a 
 cause over which he has no control, he is not 
 liable to pay damages for the delay. I'ord v. 
 Coteswortli, 'lO B. & S. 291 ; 39 L. J., Q. B. 188 ; 
 L. K. 5 Q. B. 544 ; 23 L. T. 165 ; 18 W. E. 1169 
 —Ex. Ch. 
 
 Kefusal of Authorities to allow Unload- 
 ing.] — A ship sailing under a charterparty, 
 which was silent as to the nirmber of days to be 
 allowed for unloading, arrived at a foreign port, 
 and was detained beyond the usual time, owing 
 to the refusal of the authorities to allow the 
 cargo to be landed : — Held, that the merchant 
 was not liable to pay damages for the delay, as 
 he had not contracted that there should be none, 
 and it had happened without fault on his part. 
 
 n. 
 
 Contract not made with Intention to Violate 
 Law.] — By a charterparty made by the char- 
 terer's agent in France, a ship was chartered, 
 and it was stipulated that the ship should load a 
 cargo of pressed hay at Trouville, in France, and 
 proceed direct to London ; and all cargo was to 
 be brought and taken from ship alongside. The 
 agent verbally told the master that the con- 
 signees would require the hay to be delivered at 
 a particular wharf in the port of London, to 
 which the master assented. On arriving in that 
 port the master was unable to land the hay at 
 the wharf by reason of an order in council 
 under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 
 1869, forbidding hay from a French port to be 
 landed in the United Kingdom. The order had 
 been made before the charterparty was entered 
 into, but neither party knew of it. After some 
 delay the charterer received the hay from along- 
 side the ship into another vessel, and exported it. 
 There was no legal obstacle to doing this, but 
 eighteen days were allowed by the charterer to 
 elapse beyond the lay days. The shipowner 
 having brought an action for this detention of 
 his ship, the charterer contended that the con- 
 tract was for an illegal purpose, and therefore 
 void : — Held, that although it was the intention 
 of the parties when the charterparty was entered 
 into, to land the hay at London, yet as the con- 
 tract was not made knowinglywith the intention 
 to violate the law, and as it could be carried out 
 (as it ultimately was) without violating the law, 
 it was not void and the charterer was, therefore, 
 liable for the demurrage. Wavgli v. Morris, 42 
 L. .L, Q. B. 57 ; L. E. 8 Q. B. 202 ; 28 L. T. 265 ; 
 21 W. E. 438 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 573. 
 
 Petroleum — Port Regulations — Cargo not 
 allowed to he Landed.] — A ship with a general 
 cargo sailed from London for Havre with some 
 petroleum on board. Under the bill of lading 
 the shipowner was to deliver the petroleum at 
 Havre, and it was to be taken out by the defen- 
 dant within twenty-four hours after arriving at 
 Havre, or ten guineas a day was to be paid for 
 demurrage. On the ship's arriving at Havre, the 
 authorities of the port made the captain take 
 her away in consequence of the petroleum being 
 on board. Thereupon he went to neighbouring 
 ports, but was not allowed to stay. Eeturning 
 to Havre, he discharging his general cargo, and 
 no bill of lading having been presented to him 
 
 and no application having been made to him for 
 the delivery of the petroleum, he brought it back 
 to London : — Held, that the shipowner was 
 entitled to freight, back freight and expenses. 
 The demurrage and the expenses incurred in the 
 ineffectual attempt to land at the neighbouring 
 ports were not allowed, but were looked on as- 
 part of the expenses of the voyage. Argos (^Cargo 
 ex), Gaudet v. Brown, L. E. 5 P. C. 134 ; 28 
 L. T. 745 ; 21 W. E. 707 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 6— 
 P. C. 
 
 Exportation not Permitted.] — Where there 
 was a contract to fetch corn, and demurrage 
 allowed, and upon the ship's arrival it was found 
 that the government had prohibited the exporta- 
 tion of corn, which fact the captain knew before 
 he entered the port, but still did so, and having 
 stayed his demurrage days, returned in ballast : 
 — Held, that no demurrage was payable. Blight 
 V. Page, 3 Bos. & P. 295, n. ; 6 E. E. 795. 
 
 Unlawful Seizure.] — It is no defence to an 
 action for demurrage, that the delay in unload- 
 ing the ship arose from the act of custom house 
 officers in imlawfuUy seizing a part of the cargo. 
 Bessey v. Ecans, 4 Camp. 131. 
 
 Wrongful Detention by Owner.] — The plain- 
 tiffs, owners of a ship, agreed by charterparty, 
 that the ship should have eighty-five running 
 days for loading and unloading her cargo ; and 
 that the freighter might keep her on demurrage, 
 for fourteen additional running days, at a stipu- 
 lated rate per diem. The ship arrived in port, 
 with five running days due to her. On her 
 arrival, and subsequently on another occasion,, 
 the plaintiffs refused to permit her to be unloaded. 
 Afterwards, but not till after the expirat on of 
 the running days, she was permitted to unload, 
 but the cargo was not discharged until after the 
 expiration of fourteen days beyond the running 
 days. In an action against the freighter on the 
 charterparty, the declaration charged a detention 
 on demurrage for fourteen days, and a general 
 detention beyond. Plea, that he did not keep or 
 detain the ship, and that at the time she was 
 unloading, the plaintiffs wrongfully stopped the 
 unloading, and prevented the defendant from 
 unloading. The jiiry found, that the plaintiffs' 
 refusal was wrongful : — Held, that the plea, 
 denying the detention of the ship, was suffi- 
 ciently made out by the finding of the jury, and 
 that the plaintiffs could not, under this declara- 
 tion of the charterparty, recover for the use of 
 the ship during so much of the actual unloading, 
 as exceeded five days. Benson v. Blunt, 1 G. & 
 D. 449 ; 1 Q. B. 870 ; 10 L. J., Q. B. 333. 
 
 But held, that the last plea was bad, as such 
 an interference by the plaintiffs, to prevent an 
 unloading, as was stated in the general terms 
 of the allegations of that plea, would not put 
 an end to the obligation of the charterparty^ 
 
 n. 
 
 Insufficient Supply of Cargo.] — A charterparty 
 provided that the ship should proceed to a port, 
 and there load from the factors of the charterers 
 a cargo of "coal, taking her tvrm with other 
 steamers," and receive " prompt despatch in 
 loading." The charterers employed the persons 
 at the port of loading, who were employed to load 
 other ships, and the ship was loaded in her turn, 
 but, by reason of an insufficient supply of coal, 
 the ship was delayed : — Held, that the charterers.
 
 :485 
 
 SHIPPING— XIV. Demurrage. 
 
 were responsible for the dclaj'. Elliott v. Lord, 
 52 L. J., P. C. 23 ; 48 L. T. 542 ; 5 Asp. M. C, 
 63— P. C. 
 
 Frocnring Necessary Papers.] — The consignee 
 of a particular parcel of goods bv a general ship 
 is liable to the owner for not taking them from 
 the ship in a reasonable time, although the delay 
 arose from the necessity for an order from the 
 treasury to land these goods, which the con- 
 signee used the utmost diligence to obtain. Hill 
 V. Idle, 4 Camp. 327 ; 16 R. R. 797. 
 
 It is no defence to an action by the owner of a 
 ship for demurrage, that the owner has omitted 
 to procure the necessary papers for the discharge 
 of the cargo, if he omitted to do so at the request 
 of the defendant. Furnell v. Tliomas, 5 Bine. 
 188 ; 30 R. R. 568. S. C, nom. Palmer v. 
 Thomas, 7 L. J. (O.s.) C. P. 73 ; 2 M. & P. 296. 
 And see Barret \. Button, 4 Camp. 333 ; 16 R. R. 
 798, supra, col. 476. 
 
 Exception of 'Political Disturbances" — Delay 
 caused during Transit to Quay — Customary Mode 
 of Loading.] — When a ship is chartered to load 
 at a particular port, the charterparty is to be 
 taken to have reference to the customary mode 
 of loading at that port ; and where, by the 
 custom of the port, the mode of loading minerals 
 is by bringing them from the mines by rail direct 
 to the ship's side, as the bringing of the cargo 
 from the mines is part of the loading, any excep- 
 tion in the charterparty to the charterer's 
 liability for demurrage will commence to be 
 applicable as soon as the cargo has left the 
 mines. Hudson v. Ede (supra, col. 477) followed. 
 Smith V. Rosario Nitrate Co., [1894] 1 Q. B. 
 174 ; 9 R. 776 ; 70 L. T. 68 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 417— 
 C.A. 
 
 Default of Stevedore — "Stevedore to be ap- 
 pointed by Charterers, but employed and paid 
 by Shipowners" — Damaged Cargo.] — A charter- 
 party provided that the plaintiff's ship should 
 load at Leith and London, and proceed to certain 
 ports and there deliver, the '' stevedore to be 
 appointe<l by the charterers in London only, but 
 employed and paid by the shipowners," the cargo 
 to be taken to and from alongside the ship at 
 merchants' risk and expense, but to be taken on 
 board by the shipowners, ten clear working days 
 to be allowed the charterers for loading, and all 
 working days on demurrage over the lay days 
 in port of loading to be paid for at the rate of 
 20^ per working day. Certain cargo was loaded 
 at Leith. In consequence of bad weather on the 
 voyage to London part of the cargo was damaged, 
 and at London part had to be landed and leriui- 
 sitioned, and part had to be shifted in order to 
 stow the London cargo jiroperly. In conse- 
 quence the loading was not completed within 
 the stipulated time. In an action by the ship- 
 owners to recover demurrage : — Held, that the 
 charterers were not liable for the delay, as it 
 arose from the operation of stowing the cargo, 
 which it was the duty of the shij)Owncrs to do, 
 and from the default of the stevedore who. 
 under the provisions of the charterparty, was 
 the servant of the shipowners. Harris v. Best- 
 Ryley, 4 R. 222 ; 68 L. T. 76 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 272 
 —C.A. 
 
 486 
 
 stipulated that fourteen working days were to be 
 allowed for loading and unloading at the port of 
 discharge, and ten days on demurrage at 3oZ. a 
 day. The vessel having been loaded, one of the 
 bills of lading was indorsed to the defendants. 
 The defendants' grain was stowed at the bottom 
 of the mainhold, and that of the other shippers 
 on the top of it. The bill of lading, indorsed to 
 the defendants, contained the words " paying 
 freight for the same goods and all other conditions 
 as per charterparty." Owing to the consignees, 
 whose grain was placed on the top of the defen- 
 dants', having failed to take away their goods 
 within the lay days, the defendants were unable 
 to obtain delivery of their grain, and three days' 
 demurrage was incurred : — Held, that the defen- 
 dants were liable for the demurrage, although 
 they were prevented from getting their goods by 
 the delav of other consignees. Porteus v. Watney, 
 47 L. J.! Q. B. 643 ; 3 Q. B. D. 534 ; 39 L. T. 195 ; 
 27 W. R. 30 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 34— C. A. 
 
 The defendant was indorsee of one of eight 
 bills of lading covering a cargo of wheat, in each 
 of which the following clause occurred : " Three 
 working days to discharge the whole cargo or 
 30^. sterling per day demurrage." The portion 
 of the cargo consigned to the defendant was 
 loaded in the bottom of the ship, and owing to 
 delay in unloading on the part of the other con- 
 signees, and from no default of the defendant, 
 who was ready and willing to receive his portion, 
 as was the master to discharge it, as soon as it 
 could be reached, two days' demurrage was 
 incurred : — Held, that the defendant was liable 
 for demurrage, for that by the stipulation in the 
 bill of lading he contracted to run the risk of 
 incurring demurrage through the default of his 
 fellow-consignees. Straker v. Kidd, 47 L. J., Q. B. 
 365 ; 3 Q. B. D. 223 ; 26 W. R. 511 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 34, n. 
 
 If A. has goods consigned to him, and there is 
 on board the same ship goods consigned to other 
 consignees, and those goods are so placed on 
 board that A., after the ship arrives, cannot 
 obtain his goods within the time limited by the 
 bill of lading, he is not liable for demurrage. 
 Bohson V. Broop, 4 Car. & P. 112 ; M. & M. 
 441. 
 
 If a freighter is to discharge within twelve 
 running days after the vessel's arrival, and he is 
 prevented from discharging at first by reason of 
 other goods being placed above his, he must, 
 when that obstruction is removed, discharge with 
 all reasonable diligence ; and he is not, as matter 
 of right, entitled to the whole original number 
 of days from the time when he is able to com- 
 mence discharging. Itogers v. Hunter, 2 Car. & P. 
 601. 
 
 A general ship took brandies on board under 
 bills of lading, which allowed twenty lay diiyH 
 for delivery of the goods in London, and stii)u- 
 lated for 4Z. per day demurrage ; afterwards, 
 certain of the consignees chf)Osing to have their 
 goods bonded, the vessel could not make her 
 delivery at the London docks until forty-six day.H 
 after the twenty days ; and some of the goods 
 which were undermost could iKit, though de- 
 manded, be taken out till the upper tiers were 
 cleared : — Held, that each of these consignees 
 was liable to pay the 4^. per day for the forty-six 
 Leer v. Yates, 3 Taunt. 3M7 ; 12 R. R. 671. 
 
 days. 
 
 I A general ship took some silk on board to 
 
 Position of Goods in Ship.]— A charterparty carry from Rotterdam to London on the defen- 
 
 entered into between the plaintiffs and B. <k Co., dants account. On the margin of the bdl of 
 
 for the conveyance of grain from C. to L., I lading was written, " The consignee to clear the 
 
 16—2
 
 487 
 
 SHIPPING— XIV. Demurrage. 
 
 488 
 
 snoods in fourteen rimning days after her arrival 
 in port or to pay -U. per diem for domurra.c^e." 
 The vessel was ready to deliver on the ;^rd of 
 October. The defendant applied for and was 
 ready to receive his goods within the running 
 days ; but being undermost in the vessel 
 delivery could not bo made until the 22nd : — 
 Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the 
 demurrage, though he did not deliver the goods 
 within the time allowed, being prevented by 
 other goods, belonging to other consignees, which 
 overlaid them. Harman v. Gandoljjh, Holt, 35 ; 
 17 R. E. 598. 
 
 Eefusal of Master to take Goods on Board.] — 
 
 Demm-rage clause held not applicable in case of 
 delay caused by the master refusing to take on 
 board goods which he erroneously thought he 
 was not bound to take. Sccger v. DvtMe, 8 C. B. 
 (N.S.) 45. 
 
 State of Tides.] — By charterparty B. and L. 
 agreed that B.'s ship " Bebec " should proceed to 
 Llanelly and take on board a cargo of culm, and, 
 being so loaded, should " therewith proceed with 
 all convenient speed to Cole's Wharf, Eochester, 
 or as near thereto as she might safely get, and 
 deliver the same on being paid freight. The 
 regular turn to be allowed for loading, and fifty 
 tons per working day, if required, for delivery 
 at Eochester, and demurrage over and above the 
 said days at the rate of il. per day." The ship 
 arrived with her cargo at Eochester on the 24th 
 October and was moored at the Buoys, about 
 500 yards from and opposite to Cole's Wharf. 
 On the 25th October the master gave L.'s agent 
 notice that the vessel was ready to discharge her 
 cargo, and he desired the master to come along- 
 side Cole's Wharf. At that time there was not 
 sufficient water for the vessel to come alongside 
 the wharf, and the agent refused to send lighters 
 to receive part of the cargo so as to lighten the 
 vessel and enable her to come alongside the 
 wharf. The state of the tide did not allow the 
 vessel to be removed to Cole's Wharf until the 4th 
 November, and on the following day she com- 
 menced discharging her cargo : — Held, that the 
 master was bound to take the vessel alongside 
 Cole's Wharf, unless prevented by some impedi- 
 ment which endangered her safety ; and as the 
 inability to bring the vessel alongside the wharf 
 was occasioned by the ordinary course of navi- 
 gation, the lay days did not commence until the 
 vessel had arrived there. Bastifell v. Lloyd, 
 1 H. & C. 388 ; 31 L. J., Ex. 413 ; 10 W. E. 721. 
 
 Discharge of Cargo.] — By the terms of a 
 
 charterparty a steam vessel was to proceed to H., 
 to be there ready to load by a given day, or so 
 near thereunto as she might safely get, and there 
 load from the factors of the merchant such 
 quantity of oxen, sheep and (or) other lawful 
 produce which the merchant might find it con- 
 venient to ship, not exceeding what she could 
 reasonably stow and carry over and above her 
 tackle, &c., and being so loaded was to proceed 
 therewith to London and deliver the same on 
 being paid freight a lump sum of 450Z. Two 
 working days were allowed for loading and dis- 
 charging and three days on demurrage. The 
 cargo to be taken to and from alongside at the 
 merchant's risk and expense. Arrived at H., the 
 vessel went alongside the jetty and received on 
 board a number of barrels of hams and 300 
 head of live stock, for which the captain signed 
 
 bills of lading. Being thus laden, the vessel was 
 found to draw too much water to get over the 
 bar, and the captain was consequently obliged 
 to take out all the stock. He then proposed to 
 the charterer's agent to stow on board so many 
 of the cattle as would enable him to pass over 
 the bar, and to remain outside and there take in 
 the remainder at the charterer's expense and 
 risk. The agent declined to accede to this, and 
 refused to put any of the cattle again on board 
 unless the captain would take all. Being unable 
 to come to terms the captain proceeded on his 
 voyage with only the hams on board : — Held, 
 that the owners were not entitled either to the 
 stipulated freight or to damages for the refusal 
 to ship the cai-go ; for that although the captain 
 was not obliged to go within the bar at all, j^et, 
 having chosen to do so, and having received the 
 cargo on board and signed bills of lading, he 
 was bound to find his way to his destination. 
 General Steam Nuvigatiun Co. v. Sl'q)per, 11 
 C. B. (N.S.) 493 ; 31 L. J., C. P. 185 ; 8 Jur. 
 (N.S.) 821 ; 5 L. T. 641 ; 10 W. E. 316. 
 
 Whether a partial putting out of the cargo is 
 a part discharge or a mere lightening is to be 
 determined in each case by the jury, having 
 regard to the terms of the contract and the 
 usage of the port. Mcintosh v. Sinclair, Ir. E. 
 11 C. L. 456. 
 
 Neglect of Consignee to pay Harbour Dues.] 
 — Demurrage cannot be claimed for detention of 
 a ship for "harbour dues payable by the con- 
 signee, the master having delayed to pay them ; 
 his duty being to pay them without delay and 
 recover from the consignee. 3Iollcr v. JecliS, 
 10 C. B. (N.S.) 332. 
 
 Quarantine.]— See The Austen Friars, col. 265 ; 
 Whites V. Steamshij) Winchester Co., col. 265. 
 
 Dispute between Brokers as to Right to 
 collect Freight.] — A dispute arose between the 
 shipowner's broker abroad and the charterer's 
 broker as to who was entitled to collect freight. 
 The former, contrary to the provisions of the 
 charterparty, insisted upon his claim and put a 
 stop upon the cargo ; whereby the charterer 
 became liable to the cargo ovmev for demurrage : 
 — Held, that the charterer was entitled to recover 
 damages in respect of the demurrage against the 
 shipowner. Bradley v. Goddard, cited Mac- 
 lachlan on Shipping, 4th ed., p. 197. 
 
 Nonpayment of Freight — Eefusal to deliver 
 Goods.] — By charterparty, the ])laintiff, a ship- 
 owner, agreed with the freighter to deliver cargo 
 on payment of freight as by bills of lading ; 
 certain lay days were allowed and demurrage 
 afterwards at a given rate. The bills of lading 
 provided for delivery to the freighter or his 
 assigns on payment of freight as by charterparty. 
 Defendant, an assignee of the bill of lading, sent 
 his lighters for the goods and received part. 
 Plaintiff demanded payment of freight for the 
 part delivered, and defendant refused it. Plain- 
 tiff refused to deliver more cargo and the running 
 days expired. Soon after the plaintiff delivered 
 the rest of the cargo and was paid freight : — 
 Held, that the defendant was not liable for 
 demuiTage, or for not receiving the goods within a 
 reasonable time by reason of his nonpayment 
 of freight demanded. Moeller v. Young, 5 El. & 
 Bl. 75.5 ; 25 L, J., Q. B. 94 ; 2 Jur. (N.S.) 393— 
 Ex. Ch.
 
 489 
 
 SHIPPING— XIV. Demurrage. 
 
 Convoy Eecalled — Ship brought back to Port 
 of Sailing— Demurrage.] — See Liddard v. Lopes, 
 10 East, 526 ; 10 R. E. 368, ante, col. 378. 
 
 Ship unable to find Berth — Obligation to Dis- 
 charge within Time stipulated.] — The discharge 
 of cargo occupied more than the lay days. The 
 crew worked properly, but could not without 
 assistance discharge within the stipulated time. 
 In an action for demurrage : — Held, that the 
 consignees were liable for two days' delay in 
 finding a quay berth, and that they were not liable 
 for subsequent delay, the master being bound to 
 give delivery in the time stipulated. Hansen v. 
 Donaldson, 1 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 1066. 
 
 Cargo not Eeady — Strike.] — By charterparty 
 a ship was to go to a port as ordered and load 
 coals at a berth to be pointed out by charterers' 
 agents, with a stipulation as to demurrage, 
 " unless detention arises from a strike . . . 
 at any works, mine or mines ... or any 
 cause beyond merchants' control . . ." On 
 November 14th notice was given by the master 
 that the ship was ready to load ; but owing 
 to a dispute between tlie charterers and tlie 
 colliery owners no cargo was ready for her, and 
 in consequence she was refused a berth. On 
 November 22nd she got a berth ; on November 
 23rd a strike began, and no coals were loaded 
 until it ended on December 11th. On December 
 23rd the loading was completed. In an action 
 for demurrage : — Held, that it began to run on 
 November 16th at six p.m., when the lay days 
 expired ; but that it ceased to run during the 
 strike. Lilly v. Stevenson, 22 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 C4th ser.) 278. 
 
 Stopping Discharge to get Security for 
 Freight.] — Freight was by charterparty pay- 
 able partly on arrival and partly on " unloading 
 and right delivery of the cargo," and the ship- 
 owners were to have a lien for all freight, dead 
 freight and demurrage. Whilst delivering the 
 cargo at Glasgow, the master suspended delivery 
 for two days until the consi.gnee should find secu- 
 rity for the freight. In an action for demurrage : 
 — Held, that the shipowners could not recover, 
 because they might have delivered the cargo ami 
 retained their lien. Thorsen v. McDowall, VJ 
 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 743. 
 
 Delay through want of Trucks.] — By charter- 
 party the carg(j was to be discharged "as fast as 
 the steamer can deliver after being V)erthed as 
 customary." Delay was caused in discharging 
 through the railway company not providing 
 sufficient trucks to carry off the cargo of jiig 
 iron, none being allowed to be landed on the 
 quay : — Hold, that the consignees were not liable 
 for demurrage. Wyllic v. JLirrison, 13 Ct. of 
 ScsH. Cits. (Itii ser.; !)2. 
 
 Want of Trucks — Exception of "Detention 
 by Railways."] — A charterparty provided for 
 delivi ry ol:' the coal cargo into trucks, and 
 excepted liability for "detention by railways." 
 There w.as delay in unloading caused by the 
 railway not supplying trucks in consequence 
 of the charterers detaining too many trucks 
 unloaded : — Held, that demurrage was not pay- 
 able. Lcfrirhcux v. Dunlop, 19 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 (4th ser.) 20'J. 
 
 Strike— Failure to Discharge on Quay.] 
 
 — By charterparty the ship was to deliver her 
 
 490 
 
 coal cargo "alongside any safe wharves, crafts 
 or depots," to be taken from alongside at mer- 
 chants' risk and expense "according to the usual 
 custom at loading and discharging ports." A 
 certain time was allowed for discharge, after 
 which demurrage was to be paid, "except in case 
 of strikes . . . detention by railway, or cranes 
 ... or any other cause beyond the control of 
 the charterers which may impede the ordinary 
 lading and discharging of the vessel." On 
 arrival, railway trucks could not be supplied 
 because of a strike of the railway men. There 
 was no rule of the port requiring the coal to be 
 discharged into trucks, or forbidding discharge 
 on the quay : — Held, that the charterers were 
 liable for demurrage. Granite City Steamship 
 Co. V. Ireland, 19 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 124. 
 
 Delivery on Quay.] — Delay in taking 
 
 delivery, caused by the railway company not 
 providing trucks, causes the consignee to be 
 liable for demurrage ; and not the less so because 
 the ship is berthed in a place where by the rules 
 of the port her cargo may not be discharged on 
 the quay. Krunse v. Dry nan, 18 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 (4th ser.) 1110. Distinguishing Wylliev. Harri- 
 son, 13 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 92. 
 
 Towage Contract.] — Tugo^vners agreed to tow 
 a ship from one port to another, demurrage pay- 
 able to them at lOi^. per day unless detainetl by 
 stress of weather — '• no extra charge to be made 
 in case of accident, unless for detention arising 
 therefrom, to be paid for as per rate mentioned 
 above." The tow-rope parted in a gale, and the 
 tug and tow put into a port of refuge, where 
 they were detained seven days by weather. No 
 fault was proved on cither side : — Held, that 
 demitrrage for seven days was payable. JVew 
 Steam 'Ay Co. v. McClew, 7 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd 
 ser.) 733. 
 
 "Strikes, Lock-outs, Accidents to Railway" 
 — "Other Causes beyond Charterers' Control" — 
 Discharge of Workmen in consequence of Acci- 
 dent to Railway.] — By ciiarlt rparty it wa,>i 
 agreed tluit tlie ship shciuld load from charterers' 
 agents a cargo of petroleum in cases, lay days, 
 for loading to commence twenty-four houis after 
 the receipt by the charterers' agents of written 
 notice of steamer's readiness in berth to receive, 
 strikes, lock-outs, ac-cidcnts to railway ... or 
 other causes beyond cliartcreis' control, excepted. 
 The railway wliicli broutrht the oil in tiuiks to 
 the ])ort of loading being partially destroyed by 
 ilof)(is, the charterers' agents dismissed the men 
 employed at tiieir factory in packing the oil in 
 cases. On the re-opening of the railway, sufli- 
 cient supplies of oil were received at the factory, 
 but owing to the absence of men the pioibK-lion 
 of filled cases was delayed. Tlu; charterers' 
 agents also, in accordance with th(! practice of 
 shippers at the ])ort, deferred the loading of the 
 ship until they had loaded other sliips wliicli had 
 arrived previously, and Ijcen delayed in lo.ading 
 by the same causes. The lay days h.aving hcv.n 
 exceeded : — Held, that the lay d.iys commenced 
 to run as soon as sufiicient oil had arrived to 
 enable the work of tilling cases to be resumed ; 
 that the failure to load (he ship within the Lay 
 days was not owing to " strikes, lock-outs, acci- 
 dents to railway ... or other causes beyond 
 the charterers' control," within the meaning of 
 the charterparty ; and that tlie shipowners were 
 entitled to damages for detention. Itichardsoius
 
 491 
 
 SHIPPING— XIV. Demurrage. 
 
 492 
 
 and Samuel S' Co., In re, 66 L. J., Q. B. 868 ; 77 
 L. T. 479— C. A. 
 
 Delay caused partly by Consignees of other 
 Cargo — Lien for Demurrage and Freight.] — 
 
 A charterparty provided that the shipowners 
 should have an absolute lien for the cargo for 
 all freight, dead freight and demurrage ; there 
 being no stipulation for demurrage at the port of 
 discharge. After a partial cargo of guano had 
 been loaded for the charterer, the bills of lading 
 for which, in favour of consignees, referred to 
 the charterparty, the master with the charterers' 
 concurrence shipped other goods for a third 
 party. At the port of discharge no one claimed 
 these goods, which were not worth tlaeir freight, 
 and on this account and also partly by the 
 fault of the consignees of the guano, delay was 
 incurred at the port of discharge : — Held, that 
 the guano was subject to a lien for the whole 
 freight, but not for unliquidated damages in 
 respect of the detention of tlie ship ; and that 
 the consignees were liable for the detention only 
 so far as it was by their fault. Lamb v. Kaselack, 
 9 Ct. of Sess. Gas. (4th ser.) 482. 
 
 7. Eate of Payment. 
 
 Stipulated Sum — Deductions.] — If a ship is 
 detained beyond the days of demurrage allowed 
 by the charterparty, the stipulated demurrage 
 is prima facie the measure of compensation for 
 the further time, but it is competent to the 
 owner or the freighter to sliew that this would 
 be more or less than a fair compensation for the 
 detention. Moorsoin v. Bell, 2 Camp. 616 ; 12 
 R. R. 7.55. 
 
 In fixing the amount of demurrage to be paid 
 r'for detention of a vessel during repairs, a deduc- 
 tion must be made from the gross freight of so 
 much as would in ordinary cases be disbursed on 
 .account of the ship's expenses in the earning of 
 the freight. The Gazelle, 2 W. Rob. 279. 
 
 8. Lien fob. 
 
 What Delays.] — By a charterparty cargo was 
 to be loaded in thirteen working days, and to be 
 discharged at not less than thirty tons per work- 
 ing day. Ten days' demurrage to be allowed 
 above the said days. The charterer's liability 
 to cease when ship is loaded, the captain or 
 owner having a lien on cargo for freight and 
 demurrage : — Held, that the ciiarterer upon 
 loading the cargo was discharged from liability 
 for demurrage incurred at the port of loading. 
 Kish V. Cory, 44 L. J., Q. B. 205 ; L. R. 10 Q. B. 
 .553 ; 32 L. T. 670 ; 23 W. R. 880 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 593— Ex. Ch. 
 
 By a charterparty it was agreed that the ship 
 should go to a certain port and there load 
 from the charterer a cargo "in the customary 
 manner," and proceed therewith to another port 
 and deliver the same. ..." The cargo to be 
 discharged in ten working days, commencing 
 from the day after the ship has got into her 
 proper discharging berth. DemuiTage at 21. per 
 100 tons register per day. . . . The ship to 
 have an absolute lien on cargo for freight and 
 demurrage, the charterer's liability to any clauses 
 in the charter ceasing when he has delivered the 
 cargo alongside ship " : — Held, that the demur- 
 rage and the lien and exemption clauses did not 
 apply to damages by undue detention of the 
 
 vessel at the port of loading. Loehliart v. Falk, 
 44 L. J., Ex. 105 ; L. II. 10 Ex. 132 ; 33 L. T. 96 ; 
 23 W. R. 753 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 8. 
 
 The shipowner has alien for demurrage proper 
 where the lien is given by the charterparty and 
 incorporated in the bill of lading, but not for 
 damages in the nature of demurrage. Gray v. 
 Carr, 40 L. J., Q. B., 257 ; L. R. 6 Q. B. 522 ; 
 25 L. T. 215 ; 19 W. R. 1173 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 115— 
 Ex. Ch. 
 
 Where the charterparty gave the master a 
 lien on the cargo for all freight, dead freight and 
 demurrage : — Held, that the clause extended to 
 detention of the vessel in putting stifEening coal 
 on board and that damages for such detention 
 wei'e covered by the owner's lien. Sangmnettl 
 V. Pacific Steam Navigation Co., 46 L. J., Q. B. 
 105 ; 2 Q. B. D. 238 ; 35 L. T. 658 ; 25 W. R. 
 150 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 300— C. A. 
 
 Under a charterparty containing this clause : 
 " Charterer's liability to cease when the ship is 
 loaded," the captain having a lien on the cargo 
 for freiglit and demurrage : — Held, that the lien 
 extended to demurrage at the port of lading. 
 Francesco v. Ma.^sey, 42 L. J., Ex. 75 ; L. R. 8 
 Ex. 101 ; 21 W. R. 440. 
 
 No Lien in Equity.] — The parties to a charter- 
 party " mutually bound themselves, especially 
 the owners the ship and tackle, and the freighter 
 the goods to be taken on board" — in a penal 
 sum — "to the true and punctual performance of 
 every article therein contained " : — Held, the 
 shipowners had no lien in equity (as they had 
 none at law) on the cargo for dead freight or 
 demurrage. Gladstone v. Birley, 2 Mer. 401 ; 
 15 R. R. 465. And see S. C, 3 M. & S. 205. 
 
 Lien on Goods of A. for Demurrage in respect 
 of Goods of B. — Charterparty and Bill of 
 Lading.] — See Lamb v. Kaselack, ante, col. 491. 
 
 9. Practice. 
 
 a. Jurisdiction. 
 
 Of Admiralty Court,] — The court of admiralty 
 may, by transfer from a county court, acquire 
 jurisdiction in a cause upon a question of 
 demui-rage, as to which tlie court has no original 
 jurisdiction. The Swan, 40 L. J., Adm. 8 ; L. R. 
 3 A. & E. 314 ; 23 L. T. 633 ; 19 W. R. 424. 
 
 Superior Court.] — If in an action in a superior 
 court, on a charterparty, for freight or demur- 
 rage, tlie plaintiff claims and recovers a sum 
 greater than 20Z. and less than 300Z. he is 
 entitled to costs ; for over such causes 31 & 32 
 Vict. c. 71, and 32 & 33 Vict. c. 51, s. 2, confer 
 no jurisdiction on a county court appointed to 
 have admiralty jurisdiction. Gxinnestad v. Price, 
 44 L. J., Ex. 44 ; L. R. 10 Ex. 65 ; 32 L. T. 499 ; 
 23 W. R. 470 r 2 Asp. M. C. 543. Disapproving 
 of Argos, Cargo ex, infra. 
 
 County Court.]— Held, 
 that by 32 & 33 Vict. c. 
 courts have jurisdiction in 
 out of charterparties or 
 the use or hire of ships, 
 admiralty may have no 
 cases. Argos, Cargo ex, 
 L. J.. Adm'. 1 ; L. R. 5 P. 
 21 W. R. 420. 
 
 by the privy council, 
 51, s. 2, the county 
 cases of claims arising 
 other agreements for 
 although the court of 
 jurisdiction in such 
 Gaudct V. Broion, 42 
 C. 134 ; 28 L. T. 77 ;
 
 493 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 This case followed and Gininested v. Price 
 (supra) disapproved in The Alum, 49 L. J., Adm. 
 40 ; 5 Ex. D. 227 ; 42 L. T. 517 ; 29 W. R. 94 ; 4 
 Asp. M. C. 256— C. A. 
 
 b. Pleading-. 
 
 A count on a charterparty for demurrage and 
 detention of a ship, and a count for demurrage, 
 ought not to be allowed. Matliewson v. Rmj, 
 16 M. & W. 329; 16 L. J., Ex. 288. S. P., 
 Teiiqjerley v. £roion, 1 D. (N.S.) 310 ; 6 Jur. 
 150. 
 
 Where a charterparty stipulates for seventy- 
 five running days and twenty days on demur- 
 rage, if the ship is detained for extra days, the 
 remedy is not by a count for demurrage, but by 
 action on the charterparty. Cropton v. Picher- 
 nell, 16 M. & W. 829. 
 
 On a count for demurrage generally, the plain- 
 tiif cannot recover when the demurrage or 
 detention has arisen ex delicto. Ilari-ison v. 
 Wilwn, 2 Esp. 709. 
 
 If there is no contract as to demurrage, a 
 shipowner cannot, on a common count for 
 demurrage, recover for the detaining of the 
 ship for an unreasonable time in loading and 
 unloading, but must declare specially. Horn 
 V. Bensusan, 9 Car. & P. 709 ; 2 M. & Eob. 
 326. 
 
 If a contract of freight and demurrage is 
 entered into by deed, the plaintiff ought to 
 declare upon the deed. Atty v. Parish, 1 Bos. & 
 P. (N.E.) 104. 
 
 Bight of Master to Sue.] — The master cannot 
 maiutain an action in his own name upon an 
 implied promise to pay deaiurrage. Brounclier 
 V. Scott, 4 Taunt. 1. 
 
 Implied Covenant to Pay.] — Where a ship was 
 let to freiglit by chart,eii)arty from the plaintiff 
 to the defendant, a clause — '■ and it is hereby 
 covenanted and agreed by and between the said 
 parties that forty days shall be allowed for 
 mnloading and loading again, &c." — was held to 
 raise an implied covenant by the freighter not to 
 detain the fihif) beyond the forty days ; and if 
 he detain her for longer the owner's remedy is 
 on the covenant and not in assumpsit upon an 
 implied new contract. Jlandull v. Li/nch, 12 
 East, 179 ; 2 Camp. 352 ; 11 K. 11. 340, 727. 
 
 XV. CARGO. 
 
 1. Sufficiency of Caryo. 
 
 a. Meaning of "Cargo," 494. 
 
 h. Full an<l Complete Cargo, 494. 
 
 2. Fitnrux for S/ii/n/ic/it, 501. 
 
 3. Beck Ctjryo,n»2. 
 
 4. Aotice of Arrival of Shij) — Ready to Load, 
 
 504. 
 
 5. Load i 11(1 . 
 
 a. fJenerally, 504. 
 
 h. Custom and Manner, 508. 
 
 c. Lighters, 51(». 
 
 d. Place of, 511. 
 
 c. Return Cargo, 511. 
 
 /. Refusal or Neglect to Load, 513. 
 
 6. Stowaye. 
 
 a. Employment of Stevedore, 515. 
 h. Duty of Master and Owner, 516. 
 c. Damages, 519. 
 
 7. Bemand by Shijipcr of Bedelivery, 519. 
 
 494 
 
 8. Buty of Master to Preserve, Tranship, or Sell. 
 
 a. To Preserve and Reship, 520. 
 
 b. To Tranship, 521. 
 
 c. To Sell— Power of Master, 523. 
 
 9. Belivery and Bischarye. 
 
 a. Time, 527. 
 t. Manner, 535. 
 
 c. Place, 535. 
 
 d. Refusal to Receive, 537. 
 
 e. Warehousing, 538. 
 
 10. Jettison, 541. 
 
 11. Sale, Assiynment,and Mortyaye, 541. 
 
 12. Action for Loss, Betention, Bamaye, or Non- 
 
 Belivery. 
 a. Parties, 550. 
 h. Proof of Receipt, 552, 
 
 c. Proof of Loss or Damage, 553. 
 
 d. Damages, 557. 
 
 13. Lien on Caryo, 561. 
 
 14. Miscellaneous, 564. 
 
 Bottomry — See X. Bottomry ; Bamaye to — 
 See XII. Bill of Lading ; Stoppaye in transitu 
 — See XVI. Stoppage in Transitu ; Admi- 
 ralty Jurisdiction — See XXVI. Admiralty 
 Law and Practice. 
 
 Matters toucliiny Caryo will also he found 
 sub tit. IV. Owners ; XI. Charterparty ; 
 XII. Bill of Lading ; XIII. Freight ; XIV. 
 Demurrage ; XVII. Average. 
 
 1. Sufficiency op Cargo. 
 a. Meaning' of " Cargo." 
 
 Equivalent to Shipload,] — lu a contract to 
 deliver at a port to be named by the purchaser 
 "a small cargo of about sixty fathoms of latli- 
 wood," the word "cargo" means an entire ship- 
 load ; and therefore the purchaser is not bound 
 to accept sixty fathoms, measured and set apart 
 for him by the seller's agent at the port named, 
 out of a shipload containing eighty-three fathoms 
 of lathwood. Krenyer v. Blanck, 39 L. J., Ex. 
 160 ; L. R. 5 Ex. 179 ; 23 L. T. 128 ; 18 W. R. 
 813. 
 
 Where a defendant contracted to buy of the 
 plaintiff " a cargo of from 2,500 to 3,000 barrels 
 (seller's option)" ])etro!euni at one shilling and 
 tiiree farthings per gallon weigheil 8 lbs. 
 delivered, to be shij){)ed from New York, witliin 
 a certain time, and the terms of the coiitrai-l 
 shewed that the defendant was to have complete 
 control over the destination of the vessel : — 
 Held, that "cargo" meant an entire shipload 
 and not a shii)mcnt, and that if was a con- 
 dition preccilent that the 2,500 to 3.(»00 l)arrels 
 tendered sliould be tlie whole cargo of the vessel, 
 jiltliougli the additional quantity sliipi)ed wa,s 
 kept distinct, and the defeiulant was not, in fact, 
 tlc|)rived of the control of the vessel's destination. 
 Borrowman v. Bratjton, 46 L. J.. Ex. 273 ; 2 
 Ex. I). 15; 35 L. t. 727; 25 W'. R. 194; 3 
 Asp. M. C. 303— C. A. 
 
 b. Full and Complete Carg-o. 
 "What is.] — By a charterparty a shij) was 
 descrihi'd to be of the burden of 261 tons, and 
 the freighter coveiuintcd to load a fidl and com- 
 plete caigo : — Ilelil, that the loaihng of goods 
 equal in number of tons to the tonnage described 
 in the charterparty was not a performance of 
 this covenant ; but that the freighter wa.s bound 
 to put on l>3ard as much cargo as the ghip was
 
 495 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 capable of carrying with safety. Hunter v. 
 Fvii, 2 B. & Aid. 421 ; 21 K. R. 340. 
 
 A charteiparty provided that the ship should 
 l>rocced to tlic port of loading and there load " a 
 full and coui]>lete cai'go of iron ore, say about 
 1,100 tons."' The charterer provided a cargo of 
 1.080 tons, the actual capacity of the ship being 
 1.210 tons: — Held, that the words, "say about 
 1,100 tons," were not mere words of expectation, 
 but words of contract, and that the charterer's 
 undertaking was not to load the ship up to her 
 actual capacity ; but that 3 per cent, was a 
 fair amount of excess over 1,100 tons, to allow in 
 estimating what was a full and complete cargo 
 of about 1,100 tons, and consequently that the 
 cargo actually provided fell short of the char- 
 terer's obliiration bv fifty-three tons. Morris v. 
 Lei-ison, 45"L. J., C. P. 409 ; 1 C. P. D. 155 ; 34 
 L. T. 576 ; 24 W. E. 517 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 171. 
 
 And see Coffin v. Alclridge, supra, col. 290. 
 
 Covenant as to Survey.] — A covenant in a 
 
 charterparty, " that no claim shall be admitted 
 or allowance made for short tonnage, unless such 
 short tonnage be found and made to appear on 
 her arrival, on a survey by four shipwrights to 
 be indiiferently chosen by both parties," is not 
 a condition precedent to the right of recovering 
 for short tonnage ; but is a matter of defence to 
 be taken advantage of. Hotliam v. East India 
 Co., 1 Term Eep. 638 ; 1 R. E, 333. 
 
 Accident in Course of Loading.] — By a char- 
 terparty between the owner and the charterer of 
 a ship, it was agreed that the ship should pro- 
 ceed to P., and there load a full and complete 
 cargo of cotton with a certain amount of sugar as 
 ballast. The ship proceeded to P., and after a 
 portion of the cargo had been loaded, and while 
 another portion was in a lighter lying alongside 
 ready for loading, the ship caught fire acci- 
 dentally, and the portion of cargo on board was 
 so injm-ed that the master necessarily sold it. 
 He forwarded the portion alongside to its destina- 
 tion by a different ship. After the ship had been 
 repaired, the shipowner tendered it to the char- 
 terer's agents and requii-ed them to load the 
 residue of the cargo, which they refused to do : — 
 Held, that the charterer was not exonerated by 
 the circumstances from his obligation to com- 
 plete the loading of a full and complete cargo. 
 Jones V. Holme, 36 L. J., Ex. 192 ; L. E. 2 Ex. 
 335 ; 16 L. T. 794 ; 16 W. E. 62. 
 
 Goods Despatched by other Vessels.] — A 
 
 ship was chartered on the 12th of September, 
 1861, for the conveyance of a cargo of wheat 
 from Harwich to St. Malo ; ten days to be 
 allowed for loading. The usual course was to 
 load a portion of the cargo at a quay in the river 
 Orwell, and to proceed lower down the river to 
 take in the residue. The vessel having arrived 
 on the 14th of September, and taken in 900 
 quarters (which were about three-fourths of the 
 whole cargo), was proceeding down the river in 
 charge of a pilot, when she got aground. The 
 master, finding it necessary to take out the cargo 
 in order to examine and repair the ship, gave 
 notice to the charterers' agent, who accordingly, 
 at the request of the master, and at the expense 
 of the charterers, unloaded the 900 quarters, and 
 despatched the whole quantity to its destination 
 by other vessels. On the 4th of October the 
 master gave notice that he was ready to receive 
 the cargo and demanded it. The asent had none 
 
 496 
 
 to ship : — Held, that the owners could not main- 
 tain an action against the charterers for not 
 supplying a cargo. Strugncll v. Friedricliseny 
 12 C. B. (N.S.) 4.^2 ; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 77. 
 
 Unforeseen Cause — Impossibility of supplying 
 Goods.] — An owner of a ship agreed that she 
 should proceed direct to Ichaboe, and there load 
 a full and complete cargo of guano by the ship's 
 boats' tackle, and by the labour of the crew, 
 and being so loaded, should proceed therewith 
 to Cork or Falmouth, and deliver the same, on 
 being paid freight at 4Z. 15*. per ton ; restraint 
 of princes and rulers, the acts of God and the 
 Queen's enemies, fire and perils of navigation, 
 always excepted ; twenty-one working days to 
 be allowed to the charterer if the ship was not 
 sooner discharged at the port of unloading. The 
 charterer to ship bags and other materials requi- 
 site for loading the ship, and to supply the stores 
 for the ship, at cash prices, for the voyage, and 
 to deduct the amount from the balance of freight ; 
 but in the event of the vessel being lost, or any 
 other unforeseen causes preventing the com- 
 pletion of the charterparty, the owner agreed to 
 pay the charterer the amount of his disburse- 
 ments for such stores. To a declaration of this 
 charterparty, alleging as a breach that the ship- 
 owner did not land a full and complete cargo of 
 guano on board the ship at Ichaboe, he pleaded 
 that he was prevented from doing so from an 
 unforeseen cause, namely, that on the arrival of 
 the ship at Ichaboe, and within a reasonable 
 time afterwards, no guano was to be found there, 
 and that he had paid to the charterer the amount 
 of his disbursements for stores for the ship : — 
 Held, that the plea was bad in substance, for 
 that the fact of no guano being to be found was 
 not such an unforeseen cause, preventing the 
 completion of the charterparty, as entitled the 
 shipowner to pay the amount of the disburse- 
 ments, and treat the charterparty as at an end, 
 but that he was nevertheless bound by his 
 positive contract to load a full cargo. Hills v. 
 Suffhrue, 15 M. & W. 253. 
 
 Ballast.] — Where the freighter covenanted to 
 provide for the ship a full and complete cargo, 
 consisting of copper, tallow and hides, or other 
 goods, on which separate rates of freight were to 
 be paid : — Held, that having supplied her with 
 as large a quantity of tallow and hides as the 
 master chose to take on board, he was not bound 
 to provide any copper, although for the want of 
 it the ship was obliged to keep in her ballast, 
 and did not make so advantageous a freight as 
 she might have done. Jloorsom v. Page, 4 Camp. 
 103 ; 15 E. R. 731. 
 
 Merchandise for Ballast.] — A shipowner is 
 entitled to take merchandise on board as ballast, 
 provided it occupies no more space than the 
 ballast would have done, and leaves to the 
 charterer the full space of the vessel for his 
 cargo. Towse v. Henderson, 4 Ex. 890 ; 19 L, J., 
 Ex. 163. 
 
 Light Cargo — Duty of Shipowner to 
 
 provide Ballast.] — A charterer agreed to load at 
 Archangel a full and complete cargo of oats or 
 other lawful merchandise, which the shipowners 
 were to deliver " on being paid freight at the 
 rate of 4*. (Sd. per 320 lbs. for oats, and if any 
 other cargo be shipped, in full and fair proportion 
 thereto, according to London Baltic printed 
 rates." The cargo shipped consisted of flax and
 
 497 
 
 SHIPPING— XY. Cargo. 
 
 other light articles (aU mentioned in the Loudon 
 Baltic rates), i.e. of as much as the ship could 
 safely carry of such light articles, which rendered 
 the shipment of 120 tons of ballast necessary : — 
 Held, that the charterer had a right, in the 
 absence of any stipulation to the contrary 
 expressed or implied, to ship a full and com- 
 plete cargo of any one or more of the articles 
 constituting la-\vful merchandise within the 
 meaning of the charterparty, and that when he 
 had supplied a full and complete cargo, it was 
 the shipowner's duty to procure the ballast 
 necessary for that cargo ; that in this case no 
 stipulation to the contrary was expressed by the 
 words " in full and fair proportion " in the 
 charterparty, nor was any such stipulation 
 implied by law ; so that the shipowner not being 
 protected from the extreme use by the charterer 
 of his privilege, could not recover from him more 
 than the freight payable according to the Lon- 
 don Baltic rates on the quantities of the several 
 articles actually shipped. Suvtltampton Steam 
 Collier Co. v. Clarke, 40 L. J., Ex. 8 ; L. R. 6 Ex. 
 53 ; 19 W. R. 214— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Under an agreement to proceed to the East 
 Indies, and there load a f uU and complete cargo ; 
 the fore-cabin to be filled with light goods ; 
 freight Al. 15*. per ton of twenty cwt. for sugar, 
 coffee, and rice, and for pepper for eighteen cwt. 
 to the ton ; 100 tons of rice or sugar to be 
 shipped, previously to any other part of the 
 loading, to ballast the vessel : — Held, that the 
 owner was obliged to furnish what further ballast 
 was necessary, and that the freighter, after ship- 
 ping the 100 tons of rice or sugar, was at liberty 
 to complete the cargo with light goods. Irvinq 
 V. Clegg, 1 Bing. (N.C.) 53 ; 4'"M. & Scott, 572 ; 3 
 L. J., C. P. 265. 
 
 Broken Stowage.] — By a charterparty the 
 charterer bound himself to load at Havana " a 
 full and complete cargo of sugar and other 
 lawful produce." Certain goods were enumerated, 
 including timber, and certain rates of freight 
 were mentioned ; and the charterparty pro- 
 ceeded ; " other goods, if any should be shipped, 
 to pay in proportion to the foregoing rates, 
 except what might be shipped for broken stow- 
 age, which should pay as customary" (half 
 freight). A full cargo of mahogany logs was 
 shiiiped, but no broken stowage was supplied to 
 fill up the interstices, and the vessel was in con- 
 se<juence oh>liged to retain thirty tons of ballast : 
 — Jleld, that it being impossible to ship a " full 
 and complete cargo" without broken stowage, 
 the charterer was bound by his contract to 
 furnish it. Cole v. Meek, 15 C. B. (N.S.) 795 ; 
 33 L. J., C. P. 183 ; 9 L. T. 653 ; 12 W. R. 
 349. 
 
 . By a charterparty the charterers were to load 
 "a full and complete cargo of sugar in cases or 
 other lawful merchandise, with sufficient bags 
 for stowage," and the freight was to be at a cer- 
 tain rate if the cargo " should he sugar in cases, 
 with sufficient bags for broken stowage," "and 
 for other produce at a rate proportionate to sugar 
 in cases, with sufficient Iwgs for broken stow- 
 age" : — Held, that the obligation on the char- 
 terers to load bags of sugar for broken stowage 
 did not attach to any other cargo than sugar in 
 cases. JJuckclt v. Satterjidd, 37 L. J., C. P. 144 ; 
 L. R. 3 C. P. 227. 
 
 Full and Complete Cargo — Dead Freight.] — 
 
 See I'uriicss v. I'cnnunt, supra, col. l-.''. 
 
 498 
 
 Cargo not Provided.] — See Staniforthy.Lyall, 
 supra, col. o02. 
 
 What Goods.] — A ship was chartered to i)ro- 
 ceed to Port Philhp and there load from the 
 freighter's factors '■ a full and complete cargo of 
 wool, tallow, bark, and other legal merchandise," 
 the quantity of bark not to exceed 100 tons, and 
 the quantity of tallow and hides not to exceed 
 SO tons, and was to proceed therewith to London, 
 and deliver the same " on being paid freight as 
 follows : — For wool, \^d. per lb., pressed, and 
 \hd. and one-eighth of a penny per lb. impressed 
 gross weight ; tallow 3Z. per ton ; bark 4Z. per ton ; 
 and hides 21. per ton ; the latter not to exceed 
 20 tons, without the consent of the captain ; 
 one-third of the freight to be paid in cash, on 
 unloading and right delivery of the cargo, and 
 the remainder in cash or by approved bills at 
 two months following": — Held, that the 
 freighter was entitled to load the ship with an 
 assorted cargo of any legal merchandise, but 
 that the owners were entitled to be paid freight, 
 upon the supposition that the loading consisted 
 of the stipulated quantities of the enumerated 
 goods, viz. 100 tons of bark, GO tons of tallow, 
 and 20 tons of hides, and the residue of wool, 
 pressed or unpressed. Cochbum v. Alexander, 6 
 C. B. 791 ; 18 L. J., C. P. 74. 
 
 By a charterparty it was agreed that the ship 
 should sail to Baltimore, and there load a full 
 cargo of produce, and proceed therewith to the 
 United Kingdom, and deliver the same, on being 
 paid freight, " at and after the rate of 5*. &d. per 
 barrel of flour, meal and naval stores, and 11*. 
 per quarter of 480 lbs. for Indian corn or other 
 grain : that the cargo was not to consist of less 
 than 3.000 barrels of flour, meal, or naval stores, 
 and that not less flour or meal than naval stores, 
 was to be shipped. The vessel arrived with a 
 cargo consisting of 769 cwts.' of tobacco, 6,047 
 bushels of bran, 2,000 bushels of oats, 5,000 oak- 
 staves, and three barrels of flour. The evidence 
 shewed that a quarter of Indian corn or wheat 
 would occupy a space of lOi cubic feet, and that 
 a quarter of American oats, which weighed upon 
 an average 272 lbs., would occupy a space of six- 
 teen cubic feet. It also appeared that oats were 
 not a usual shipment from America : — Hekl, that 
 "other grain " in this charterparty must be taken 
 to mean such description of grain as would 
 average 480 lbs. to the quarter, and therefore to 
 exclude oats ; and that the shipowner was 
 entitled to receive freight, upon the supposition 
 that 3,000 barrels of flour, meal and naval stores 
 had been shipjicd ; and for the rest of the space, 
 at the rate of 11.*. per quarter of Indian corn, or 
 other grain, of the average weight of 4.S0 lbs. to 
 the quarter. Witrroi v. Fciilmdii, 8 C. B. 80(J ; 
 19 L. J., C. P. 43 ; 14 Jur. 150. See also South, 
 amjiton Steam Collier Co. v. Clarke, ante, col. 415. 
 
 Goods in Cabin — Freight.]— The defendant, a 
 merchant in London, chartered a vessel of the 
 plaintiffs, to bring from Bombay a full and 
 complete cargo at Al. os. per ton. The defen- 
 dant's agents at Bombay filled the carrying part 
 of the ve.'^scl, and also the cabin, with their own 
 goods, and consigned them to the defendant, as 
 their factor, for sale. There was contra-iictory 
 evidence as to the terms upon which the cabin 
 was filled. The bill of lading was annexed to a 
 bill of exchange, drawn by the agents u]ion the 
 defendant, which bill of exchange was sold to a 
 third party. On the arrival of the ship in
 
 490 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 500 
 
 Lomlon. the plaintiff claimcil freight for the 
 cabin at the then current rate of 11. per ton. 
 The defendant insisted that he was entitled to 
 the use of the cabin as well as the other part of 
 the ship, at the rate of 3L 5.f. per ton, but he 
 charged his agents for freight at the rate of 11. 
 per ton. and allowed them commission at that 
 rate. The goods were stopped, the bill of 
 exchange not having arrived at maturity, when 
 the action was brought to recover the above rate 
 of freight for the use of the cabin. The defen- 
 dant, after action brought, paid the bill, and 
 obtained possession of the goods : — Held, first, 
 that the defendant was not, under the terms of 
 the charterpartv, entitled to load the cabin. 
 Mitchcson v. Nlcol, 1 Ex. 929 : 21 L. J., Ex. 
 32.S. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the judge properly directed 
 the jury, that, although the defendant's agents 
 at Bombay had no authority from the defendant 
 to put goods in the cabin, yet, as the defendant 
 adopted their act by accepting the goods, and 
 charging his agent freight in respect of them, 
 he was bound to pay the plaintiff the current 
 rate of freight at the time of loading. lb. 
 
 Held, thirdly, that the action was not brought 
 too soon, since the taking to the goods for the 
 purpose of obtaining freight, rendered the defen- 
 dant liable irrespectively of his actual possession 
 after action brought. lb. 
 
 Passengers instead of Goods.] — A., a ship- 
 broker, engaged with B., a shipowner, to have 
 a full cargo for the ship, the rates of freight for 
 which would average 40*. per ton, and at least 
 nine cabin passengers, passage money to average 
 lal. The contract was fulfilled as to the 
 passengers, but the average rate of freight for 
 goods put on board by A. amounted to 32*. only 
 per ton. He shipped on board, however, steerage 
 passengers for the voyage, the passage-money 
 paid by whom, after deducting the expense of 
 their diet, &.C., when added to the freight of the 
 cargo properly so called, made the average earn- 
 ings of the whole ship per ton amount to more 
 than 40.9. : — Held, that this was not a perform- 
 ance of the stipulations of the contract, cargo 
 and freight being terms applicable to goods onlv. 
 Lewh V. 3Iarshall, 7 Man. & G. 729 ; 8 Scott 
 (N.E.) 729 ; 13 L. J., C. P. 193 ; 8 Jur. 848. 
 
 Passengers — Eight to Carry — Custom.] — A 
 
 charterpartv, not amounting to a demise of the 
 ship, provided for the carriage of a full and com- 
 plete cargo of lawful produce and merchandise 
 for payment of a lump freight, but was silent as 
 to the use to which the passengers' cabins might 
 be put : — Held, that the charterers were not 
 entitled to carrv passengers in the cabins. Sliaw 
 v.Aithen, 1 Cab. & E. ho. 
 
 No custom exists entitling the charterer under 
 the above circumstances to carry passengers, or 
 entitling the shipowner to have passengers 
 carried for his benefit. Ih. 
 
 Cargo Procured by Master— Eight of Char- 
 terers.] — A siiip was chartered to proceed tosuch 
 places on the west coast of Africa, as the charterers 
 should direct, and there load from their factor a 
 full cargo of guano, and proceed to a port of the 
 United Kingdom, to be paid at a certain freight 
 per ton. The ship was directed to Ichaboe. 
 The factor there, one of the charterers, en- 
 deavoured to provide a full cargo, but failed to 
 procure more than a small quantity. The master 
 
 of the ship, who was also a part owner, after 
 waiting thirty-one days, seeing no probability of 
 obtaining a full cargo from the factor, applied 
 himself to complete the cargo by his own exer- 
 tions and at his own expense, and finally 
 succeeded in doing so, after having been ninety- 
 three days at Ichaboe : — Held, on motion for an 
 injunction, that the charterers were not entitled 
 to that part of the cargo which had been pro- 
 cured by the exertions of the master without the 
 assistance of the factor, and which the master 
 claimed to hold as the property of the owners, 
 and not of the charterers. Lidgett v. Williams, 
 4 Hare, 464 ; 14 L. J., Ch. 459. 
 
 Eefusal to Load complete Cargo— Ship filled 
 up by Owners — Freight — Damages.] — A charter- 
 ])arty provided that the charterers should load a 
 full cargo at 1/. 17.s. &d. per ton, fire being 
 excepted, and that bills of lading were to be 
 signed at any rate of freight without prejudice 
 to the charterparty, but so that the bills of 
 lading freight in the aggregate should amount to 
 the total "freight due under the charterparty. 
 A fire occurred when part of the cargo had been 
 shipped and a large amount was burnt. On the 
 charterers refusing to load any more cargo : — 
 Held, that the freight on the bales that had 
 been burnt must be taken at the actual bill of 
 lading rate, and that the remainder of the cargo 
 which the defendants had failed to ship must 
 for the purpose of assessing the damages be 
 taken at a rate higher than the charterparty 
 rate by the amount necessary to make the bill of 
 lading freight in the aggregate equal to the total 
 charterparty freight : — Held, also, that the 
 charterers were not entitled to credit for the 
 freight on any bales which had been shipped by 
 the "shipowners in the place of the burnt cargo, 
 but only for freight on the bales which had 
 been shipped to make good the charterers' 
 breach of contract. Althen v. Ern.ithav.ien, 63 
 L. J., Q. B. 559 ; [1894] 1 Q. B. 773 ; 9 R. 758 ; 
 70 L. T. 822 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 462— C. A. 
 
 Full Cargo of Specified Goods — Option of 
 Shipper as to Character of Goods to be Loaded.] 
 
 — "Where by the charterparty a full cargo of 
 copper, tallow, hides or other goods was to be 
 provided by the charterer : — Held, that the 
 freighter was entitled to put on board a full 
 cargo of tallow only, although for want of copper 
 to ballast the ship other ballast had to be pro- 
 vided. M(wr.witi v. Paije, 4 Camp. 103 ; 15 
 R. K. 731. 
 
 Short Cargo — Freight.] — Covenant to carry as 
 many men to Jamaica as the defendant should 
 brmg, not exceeding 180, at 5Z. per head. The 
 plaintiff said he carried 160 and that the defen- 
 dant brought no more ; the defendant said he 
 brought 180 and none were ready to receive them 
 on board. Judgment for jjlaintiff. Anon. v. 
 Noell, 1 Keb. 100. 
 
 Bar Harbour— Waiting for Higher Tide. ] — A 
 
 ship was chartered to load at a foreign port a 
 full cargo of barley in bulk, not exceeding what 
 she could safely carry, and to carry the same to 
 a home port for discharge. The port of loading 
 was known to both parties to have a bar. The 
 charterers had 1,800 quarters of barley for ship- 
 ment, and the shipowners stated that the ship 
 could carry the whole. After shipment of 1,175 
 quarters the master refused to take more, on the
 
 501 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 502 
 
 ground that the ship could not safely cross the 
 bar. By waiting for a higher tide for a few days, 
 more cargo, and perhaps the whole, could have 
 been safely carried : — Held, that the shipowners 
 were liable for damages for not loading the 
 whole. Gifford v. Dishingtun, 9 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 (3rd ser.) 1045. 
 
 Description of Cargo— Weight or Measure- 
 ment.] — By charterparty it was agreed that the 
 ship should load from defendant's factor at Cal- 
 cutta a full cargo of produce, one half to be 
 weight, if linseed not to exceed 100 tons, or if 
 paddy, or linseed and paddy together, not to exceed 
 200 tons ; freight, five guineas per ton delivered ; 
 paddy and linseed 20 cwt. to the ton as usual, 
 and other articles according to the East India 
 Company's scale of tonnage. The jury found 
 that "weight" referred to goods charged per 
 ton weight as distinguished from measurement. 
 The judge ruled that '• one half of which is to be 
 weight," meant that one half the cargo was to 
 be goods charged by weight, and the rest by 
 measurement : — Held, that the case should be 
 sent to a new trial, in order that, if necessary, 
 upon the same ruling, the case might go to a 
 court of error. Itldgway v. Ewhank, 10 L, J., 
 Q. B. 109. 
 
 2. FiTXEss FOR Shipment. 
 
 Where Warranty cannot be Implied.] — When 
 the owner of a vess 4 has an opportunity of 
 examining goods shipped on board of her, no 
 ■warranty on the part of the owner of the goods 
 can be implied that they are fit to be carried on 
 the voyage. Acatosv. Burns, 47 L. J., Ex. 566 ; 
 
 Dangerous Goods.]— Under 17 & 18 Vict, 
 c. 104, s. 329, and 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 38, the 
 shippers of goods in a general ship undertake 
 that they will not deliver, to be carried on the 
 voyage, packages of goods of a dangerous nature, 
 which those employed on behalf of the shipowner 
 may not, on inspection, be reasonably expected 
 to know to be of a dangerous nature, without ex- 
 pressly giving notice that theyai-eof a dangerous 
 nature. By Lord Campbell, C..J., and Wight- 
 man, J. Brass v. 3faUla7id, 6 El. &: Bl. 471 : 26 
 L. J., Q. B. 40 ; 2 Jur. (N.s.) 710 : 4 W. K. 647. 
 
 But, semble, by Crompton, J., the undertaking 
 by the shippers that the goods are safe, and fit to 
 be carried on the voyage, does not extend beyond 
 the cases where they have knowledge, or the 
 means of knowledge, of the dangerous nature of 
 the goods when shipped. lb. 
 
 If a shipper, knowing an article to have corro- 
 sive properties, desires it to be shipped on board 
 a general ship, and stowed in bulk, without com- 
 municating the character of the article to the 
 shipowner, and it is shipped accordingly ; and 
 being placed in the ship, in contact with certain 
 casks, it corrodes their hoops, so that liquids con- 
 tained in them flow out of them, and into the 
 above-mentioned article, and spoil it ; the ship- 
 owner, being unaware of the character of the 
 article, is not liable to the shipper, as for negli- 
 gence in carrying and conveying, althotigh the 
 article is well known in commerce. Hutcliinson 
 V. Guion, 5 C. B. (x.s.) 149 ; 28 L. J., C. P. 63 ; 
 4 Jur. (N.s.) 1149 ; 6 W. E. 757. 
 
 But in such case it is not an answer to the 
 action that the shipper directed the articles to be 
 stowed in bulk. lb. See also 36 k 37 Vict. c. 85, 
 s. 23. 
 r, -a- =r> --.Qo o« w n Di o A A merchant shipped sulphuric acid and cambric 
 3Ex. D. ^8^; ^b vv. K. b-4--o. A. j^ without giving notice required by the 
 In a voyage pobcyon goods there is no implied * ^,__^ ^.. ^i^'I ^t,„° „„, f„;„,„i „„;,i tk„ 
 
 695 ; 12 W. R. 1106 
 
 Goods Unfit for Carriage in ordinary Ship.] — 
 A ship was chartered to sail to Manilla for 
 orders to load there, or at Yloilo, a full and com- 
 plete cargo of sugar in bags, hemp in compressed 
 bales, *"'' measurement goods, and therewith to 
 sail to Cork, &c., the ficight to be at the rate of 
 Al. 2s. e>d. for diy sugar, 4/. 5.«. for wet sugar, and 
 41. 15#. for hemp or nie;t.sureiiicnt goods ; the 
 ma-ster engaging that the vessel before and when 
 receiving cargo should be a good risk for in- 
 surance, and that during tlie voyage he woukl 
 take all proper means of keei)ingthe vessel tight, 
 staunch ami strong, and in every way fitted and 
 provided for the voyage. At Yloilo the charterer 
 provideil a full cargo of wet sugar in bags. In 
 the course of lading it was found that the 
 (juantity of molasses wliich had drained, and 
 which might have been expected to drain, from 
 the wet sugar w;is so gieat as to render the ship 
 unscaworthy unless rcniovod, and that the ship's 
 pumps were unable to remove it. The ship was 
 in all other respects seaworthy, but could not 
 have been rendered seaworthy for that cargo 
 without a delay which would have frustrated the 
 oljjects of the voyage :— Held, that tlie charterer 
 was entitled under the charterparty to supply a 
 full cargo of wet sugar, and to have a shij) pro- 
 vided which was fit for such a cargo. Stanton v. 
 EicliAirdson, 45 L. J., C. P. 78 ; 33 L. T. 193 ; 24 
 W. R. 324 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 23. 
 
 not the absence of notice, was the proximate 
 cause of the damage ; and that there was no 
 defence upon the ground of avoiding circuity 
 of action. Alston v. Ilerrinr], 11 Ex. 822. 
 
 The plaintiff declared that the defendants, who 
 had chartered his ship, put on board a dangerous 
 commodity, whereby a loss happened, witliout 
 due notice to the captain or any other person 
 employed in the navigation: — Held, that it Lay 
 upon the plaintiff to prove such negative aver- 
 ment. Williams V. Bust India Co., 3 East, 192; 
 6 R. R. .'>89. 
 
 Kepresentation as to size of Pieces of Machinery 
 to be carried- Machinery and Coal Cargo.] — Sec 
 
 MackiU V. W'riijld, supra, cul. 273. 
 
 3. Deck Gkv.no. 
 
 "At Merchant's Bisk."] — It w.is stipulated 
 in a chartcriiarly that the "ship should be 
 provided with a deck cargo, if required, at full 
 freiglit, but at merchant's risk " : — Held, that 
 the words, "at merchant's risk," did not exclude 
 the right of the charterers to gencr.al average con- 
 tribution from the shijiowners in respect of deck 
 car"o shipped by the charterers and jettison. 
 B^n-ton V. Kmilish, 53 L. J., Q. B. 133 ; 12 Q. B. D. 
 218 ; 49 L. T. 768 ; 32 W. R. 655 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 187— C. A. 
 
 By a charterparty it was agreed, that the ghip
 
 503 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 504 
 
 should proceed to Quebec, and there load, from 
 the factors of the plaintiffs, a full and complete 
 cargo of pine timber and deals, not exceeding 
 ■what she coulil reasonably stow and carry over 
 and above her tackle. In an action upon this 
 charterparty, the declaration assigned for breach, 
 that the defendants did not nor would load in and 
 on board the sliip a full and complete cargo, not 
 exceeding what she could reasonably stow and 
 cany over and above her tackle, but, on the con- 
 trary, loaded on board the ship a cargo much ex- 
 ceeding what the vessel could reasonably stow 
 and carry over and above her tackle. The judge, 
 in the summing up, told the jury, that, prima 
 facie, the deck was not the proper place for the 
 stowage of the cargo, or any part of it ; that, in 
 some cases, custom might sanction the practice, 
 but that, without reference to any custom, if it 
 increased the perils of the navigation, if it in- 
 creased the danger of the ship, or increased the 
 danger of that part of the cargo, in either case 
 it was an improper stowage : — Held, that this 
 direction was correct, in the absence of any 
 evidence of a general crrstom to load deck cargo 
 at the risk of the shipper. Gould v. Oliver, 
 2 Scott (N.E.) 2il ; 2 Man. & G. 208. 
 
 The proprietor of goods laden on the deck of 
 a ship, according to the custom of a particular 
 trade, is entitled to contribution from the ship- 
 owner for a loss by jettison. S. C, i Bing. (n.c.) 
 134 ; 5 Scott, 445 ; 3 Hodges, 307 ; 7 L. J., C. P. 
 68. 
 
 Deck Cargo carried Illegally — Validity of 
 Policy.] — See Cunard v. Hyde, infra, col. 1207 
 QAs). 
 
 Deck Cargo — Insurable Interest.] — A deck 
 cargo of cotton intended to be carried at the 
 shipper's risk, but for which, by mistake, clean 
 bills of lading were given, was jettisoned. The 
 shipowners having insured it : — Held, that they 
 had an insurable interest. See Stejjhens v. Austra- 
 lasian Insurance Co., infra, col. 1130. 
 
 Excessive Deck Cargo — " Timber" — Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1894, s. 451.] — Pieces of spruce 
 firwood varying from 15 to 27^ feet in length, and 
 with a mean girth of 2 ft. i) in., we "timber" 
 falling within s. 451, sub-s. 3 (a), of the Merchant 
 Shi])ping Act, 1894. Morris v. Thormodsen, 60 
 .J. P. 644. 
 
 Deck Cargo — Jettison of — Proximate Cause 
 of Damage.] — On a ship carrying a general 
 cargo from New Orleans to Liverpool cotton 
 was shipped on deck, under a practice by which 
 owners of vessels trading between those ports 
 were in the habit of stowing goods on deck in 
 violation of their contract with the shipper, the 
 shipowners accepting full responsibility for the 
 consequences. The bills of lading for part of 
 the cotton contained the words " under deck." 
 All the bills of lading contained exceptions 
 (inter alia) in favour of " jettison." On the 
 voyage the ship took ground, and in order to 
 get her off the master properly jettisoned the 
 cotton. The indorsees of the bills of lading 
 having brought an action against the shipowners 
 to recover the value of the cotton : — Held, that 
 (whether the bills of lading did or did not contain 
 the words " under deck ") the cotton was carried 
 in breach of the contract and was not within the 
 exceptions specified in the bills of lading, which 
 had exclusive reference to goods safely stowed 
 
 under hatches ; that the shipowners had there- 
 fore no legal excuse for their failure to deliver ; 
 that the cause of damage was not too remote, and 
 that the shipowners were liable to the indorsees 
 for the value of the cotton. Itoyal Excliange 
 Sktpjjing Co. V. Dixon, 56 L. J., Q. B. 266 ; 12 
 App. Gas. 11 ; 56 L. T. 206 ; 35 W. E. 461 ; 6 
 Asp. M. 0. 92— H. L. (E.) 
 
 4. Notice op Areival op Ship — Ready 
 TO Load. 
 
 Notice of Arrival.] — In an action by a ship- 
 owner against the charterers for not loading a 
 cargo of coals pursuant to a charterparty, by the 
 terms of which the owner engaged that the vessel 
 then in the port of Sunderland, should with all 
 possible despatch proceed direct to the South 
 dock, Sunderland, and there load, in the usual 
 and customary manner, at any one of the col- 
 lieries the freighters might name, a full cargo of 
 coals, which the freighters bound themselves to 
 ship by a given day for Calcutta, they pleaded 
 that they had not any notice of the ship having 
 proceeded to and having arrived at the South 
 dock, and of her being ready to receive cargo, 
 wherefore they did not nor could load : — Held, 
 that the allegation in the plea must be treated 
 as an allegation of fact, meaning that, by reason 
 of want of notice of the ship's arrival at the 
 dock and being ready to load, the charterers 
 were prevented loading her ; and that so read, 
 the plea was an answer to the action. StaTiton 
 V. Austin, 41 L. J., C. P. 218 ; L. E. 7 C. P. 651. 
 
 On Return Voyage.] — Where a ship is to 
 
 proceed to a port, and there to load a full cargo 
 for the agents of the freighter, but the freighter 
 has no interest in the outward cargo, his agents 
 are entitled to notice from the captain that the 
 vessel is ready to receive her homeward cargo ; 
 and if no such notice is given, the freighter is 
 not liable for not providing such cargo. Fair- 
 hridye v. Pace, 1 Car. & K. 317. 
 
 Readiness to Receive.] — Action on a charter- 
 party in these terms: — "It is this day agreed 
 between the agent for the owner of the ' Lydia,' 
 new ship, now on the stocks, of 1,100 tons, or 
 thereabouts, now at Quebec, to be launched and 
 ready to receive cargo in all May, guaranteed to 
 sail in all June, and the charterer, that the ship 
 shall proceed to, &c., and there load a full cargo 
 of timber " : — Held, that the readiness to receive 
 a cargo in all May was a condition precedent to 
 the shipowner's right to recover against the 
 charterer for not loading a full cargo, and that a 
 plea stating the ship was not ready to receive 
 cargo in all May was good. Oliver v. Flelden, 
 4 Ex. 135 ; 18 L. J., Ex. 353. And see ante, col. 
 364. 
 
 5. Loading. 
 a. Generally. 
 
 Light Cargo — Duty of Shipowner to provide 
 
 Ballast.] — A charterer agreed to load at Arch- 
 angel a full and complete cargo of oats or other 
 lawful merchandise, which the shipowners were 
 to deliver " on being paid freight at the rate of 
 is. &d. per 320 lbs. for oats, and if any other 
 cargo be shipped in full and fair proportion 
 thereto, according to the London Baltic printed 
 rates." The cargo shipped consisted of flax and 
 other light articles (all mentioned in the London
 
 505 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 506 
 
 Baltic rates), i.e. of as much as the ship could 
 safeij carry o£ such light articles, which rendered 
 the shipment of 120 tons of ballast necessary : — 
 Held, that the charterer had a right, in the 
 absence of any stipulation to the contrary 
 expressed or implied, to ship a full and complete 
 cargo of any one or more of the articles consti- 
 tuting lawful merchandise within the meaning 
 of the charterparty, and that when he had sup- 
 plied a full and complete cai'go, it was the ship- 
 owner's duty to procure the ballast necessary for 
 that cargo ; that in this case no stipulation to 
 the contrary was expressed by the words " in 
 full and fair proportion " in the charterparty, 
 nor was any such stipulation implied by law, so 
 that the shipowner, not being protected from the 
 extreme use by the charterer of his privilege, 
 could not recover from him more than the freight 
 payable according to the London Baltic rates on 
 the quantities of the several articles actually 
 shipped. Southam2)ton Steam Collier Co. v. 
 Clarke, 40 L. J., Ex. 8 ; L. E. 6 Ex. 53 ; 19 W. R. 
 214— Ex. Ch. 
 
 The shipowner is bound to furnish whatever 
 ballast is necessary, and the freighter, under a 
 contract to ship a full and complete cargo, part 
 heavy goods for ballast, is entitled to complete 
 the cargo with light goods. Irvuig v. Cle/jff, 1 
 "Bing. (N.c.) 53 ; 4 M. & Scott, 572 ; 3 L. J., C. P. 
 265. 
 
 Duty to Load — Delay in Proceeding to Desti- 
 nation "forthwith" — Perils of Sea.] — By a 
 charterparty dated the 28th of December, a ship 
 was to forthwith proceed from England to 
 Barbadoes in the West Indies, and having there 
 loaded a cargo of sugar for the defendants, to 
 return to England. The vessel was to be 
 allowed to take an outward cargo of coals to 
 specified places, and the charterparty contained 
 a clause excusing performance if it could not be 
 complied with owin-g to perils of the sea. Delay 
 on her voyage outwards was occasioned by un- 
 favourable winds, and she was injured by a 
 collision with a steamer, which rendered neces- 
 sary further repairs. She finally sailed for Rio 
 on the 9th of March, and reached Rio on the 
 26th of May. Having there discharged the 
 cargo of coals, she started on the 1st of July, 
 and reached Barbadoes on the 28th of July, too 
 late for the season for exporting sugar thence. 
 The defendants' agent offered to provide a cargo 
 of sugar, if the vessel would go under protest to 
 St. Vincent, an island ninety miles off. The 
 captain refused this offer, and remained at Bar- 
 badoes, insisting upon the performance of the 
 charterparty by the defendants' agent. The 
 plaintiffs having sued for a breach of the charter- 
 party in refusing to load a cargo at Barbadoes, 
 the judge directed the jury that, if the vessel 
 sailed without unrcasonai;le delay, shi; proceeded 
 "forthwith" within the meaning of the charter- 
 party ; that the clau.se excusing performance, on 
 the ground of perils of the sea, applied to the 
 preliminary voyage to Rio, and that the captain 
 might reasonably think that if he shipped a 
 cargo elsewhere than at Barbadoes, he might put 
 an end to the original charterparty: — Held, a 
 right direction. JIvdxon v. Hill, 43 L. J., C. P. 
 273 ; 30 L. T. 555 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 278. 
 
 Cargo to be loaded from Shore "at Ship's 
 Eisk" — Loss after delivery and before loading.] 
 — By a charterparty a vessel was to proceed to a 
 port, and there to load a cargo from the shore 
 
 by the ship's boats and crew , at ship's risk and 
 expense. A part of the cargo was lost, after 
 delivery from the shore and before it was loaded 
 on board, through one of the perils enumerated 
 in the exceptions in the charterparty. In an 
 action by the charterer for the non-delivery of 
 this part of the cargo : — Held, that the expres- 
 sion " at ship's risk" did not mean at the abso- 
 lute risk of the shipowner, but at such risk as 
 would attach if the goods were loaded on board, 
 and that consequently the exceptions applied, 
 and the shipowner was not liable for the non- 
 delivery. Notteiohm v. Richter, 56 L. J., Q. B. 
 33 ; 18 Q. B. D. 63 ; 35 W. R. 300— C. A. 
 
 Prompt Despatch.] — A charterparty provided 
 that the ship should proceed to a port, and there 
 load from the factors of the charterers a cargo of 
 " coal, taking her turn with other steamers," 
 and receive " prompt despatch in loading." The 
 charterers emploj'ed the persons at the port of 
 loading who were employed to load other ships, 
 and the ship was loaded in her turn, but, by 
 reason of an insufficient supply of coal, the ship 
 was delayed : — Held, that the charterers were 
 responsible for the delay. Elliott v. Lord, 52 
 L. J., P. C. 23 ; 48 L. T. 542 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 63. 
 
 Usual Despatch.] — A., by charterparty, en- 
 gaged to load on board B.'s ship a cargo of coals, 
 ■' to be loaded with usual despatch." A. com- 
 menced loading by bringing the coal in boats 
 along a canal to the dock where the ship was ; 
 but before the cargo was completed a severe 
 frost rendered the canal unnavigable, and the 
 ship was detained thirty-four days : — Held, that 
 the expression "usual despatch" meant "usual 
 despatch of persons who have a cargo ready for 
 loading," and that A. was res])onsible for the 
 delay. Kearon v. Pearson, 7 H. & N. 386 ; 31 
 L. J., Ex. 1 ; 10 W. R. 12. See also cases ante, 
 cols. 245, 477. 
 
 Ship Detained as TTnseaworthy.] — A. agreed 
 to charter a ship for twelve months after the 
 completion of her then present voyage. After 
 the completion of her voyage, and when he was 
 ready to load the ship, she was detained as 
 unseaworthy ; and the repairs were not finished 
 until more than two months after the completion 
 of the voyage: — Held, that the charterer was 
 entitled to throw up the cliarterparty. Tulhjy. 
 Howlinq, 46 L. J., Q. B. 388 ; 2 Q. B. D. 182; 
 36 L. T. 163 ; 25 W. R. 290— C. A. 
 
 Loading of Cargo prevented by Superior 
 Force.] — By a charterparty it was agroetl that 
 the ship, the " R.," should, after loading " dead 
 weight" at Malta, proceed to V., a .Si>anish port, 
 and there load a cargo of fruit for the jtluintiff. 
 At the time of entering into Die chart crparty the 
 plaintiff knew that the "dead weight" intended 
 to be put on board the " R." at Malta would consist 
 of military stores, and he knew that by the ordi- 
 nary law of Spain, a vessel with warlike stores 
 on board would not be allowrd (o loa(J at a 
 Spanish port. Upon application being made to 
 the Spanish government to relax the prohibition, 
 permission to load was refused. The "R." arrived 
 at V. with the warlike stores on board, but 
 otherwise ready and fit to load the agreed cargo : 
 she I'ft immediately on learning that permission 
 to load would not be granted : — Held, that the 
 plaintiff could not sue the owners of the ship for
 
 507 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 508 
 
 not having the " K." ready to load, for, through the 
 act of a superior power, the parties were unable 
 to perform their respective duties under the con- 
 tract, the plaintiff being unable to load the cargo 
 and the defendants to receive it. Cu)i)mi{jham 
 V. J>un>t, 48 L. J., C. P. 62 ; 3 C. P. D. 443 ; 38 
 L. T. 631 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 595— C. A. 
 
 Where the master covenanted to go to a port 
 of America, and receive a loading from the 
 freighter alongside the ship, and bring home the 
 same, with an exception of the restraints of 
 rulers, &c. ; but the freighter covenanted abso- 
 lutely to provide the loading without any such 
 exception ; it seems that an embargo in the 
 American port, which prevented the freighter 
 from loading the ship, did not discharge him 
 from his covenant. Sjocrds v. Zuscombe, 16 East, 
 201. 
 
 The master and the freighter of a vessel of 400 
 tons, having actually agreed in writing that the 
 ship, being fitted for the voyage, should proceed 
 to St. Petersburg, and there load from the 
 freighter's factor a complete cargo of hemp and 
 iron, and proceed therewith to London, and 
 deliver the same on being paid freight : — Held 
 that the master, after taking in at St. Petersburg 
 about half a cargo, having sailed away upon a 
 general rumour o"f a hostile embargo being laid 
 on British ships by the Russian government, was 
 liable to the freighter for the short delivery of 
 the cargo, though the jury found that he acted 
 bona fide, and under a reasonable and well- 
 grounded apprehension at the time, and a hostile 
 embargo and seizure were in fact laid on six 
 weeks afterwards. Atkinson v. R/tchie, 10 East, 
 530 ; 10 R. R. 372. 
 
 If goods put on board a ship to be carried from 
 one place to another arewi'ongfully seized by the 
 oificers of government, so that they cannot be 
 delivered to the consignee, the owner of the goods 
 has a right of action for the non-delivery against 
 the owner of the ship, who must seek his remedy 
 against the officers of government. Goslintj v. 
 Biggins, 1 Camp. 451 ; 10 E. R. 726. See also 
 cases, cols. 285, 527. 
 
 Fear of Infection.] — A charterer, who cove- 
 nanted to send a cargo alongside at a foreign 
 port, is not excused from sending it alongside, 
 though, in consequence of the prevalence of an 
 infectious disorder at the port, all public inter- 
 course is prohibited by the law at the port, and 
 though he could not have communication without 
 danger of contracting and communicating the 
 disorder. JSarker v. Hodgson, 3 M. & S. 267 ; 15 
 R. R. 485. 
 
 Conversion of Cargo — Befnsal to give Clean 
 Keceipt.] — N. & Co. agreed with the defendants 
 for the shipment of oil to Montreal, and it was 
 agreed that defendants should give a clean 
 receipt for all goods shipped. A. sold fifty 
 barrels of oil to N. & Co., and delivered them to 
 the defendants, who received them but refused 
 to give a clean receipt. A. demanded redelivery, 
 which the defendants refused. N. &. Co., not 
 getting a mate's receipt for the goods, refused to 
 pay A. for them. A. brought an action against 
 the defendants for conversion, joining N. & Co. 
 as co-plaintifi's by amendment of the writ. The 
 consignees at Montreal, on receiving the oil, paid 
 N. & Co. for it, and they paid A. :— Held, that A. 
 having waived the right of saying that the 
 property in the oil had not passed to N. & Co., 
 could not recover for conversion ; and that he 
 
 could not recover for loss of interest through 
 delay in payment. Armstrong \. Allan, 4 R. 107 ; 
 67 L. T. 417 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 293— C. A. 
 
 b. Custom and Manner. 
 
 Effect of Custom.] — Where freighters cove- 
 nanted to provide for the ship a full cargo, con- 
 sisting of cotton, wool, rice, or other goods, on 
 which separate rates of freight were to be paid : 
 — Held, that it was the duty of such freighters to 
 have shipped goods according to the custom of 
 the country whence they were imported, although 
 the shippers were put to an expense by so doing, 
 and such shipment would exceed the stipula- 
 tions contained in the charterparty. Benson v. 
 Schneider, 1 Moore, 21, 76 ; 7 Taunt. 272 ; Holt, 
 416. 
 
 Where a full cargo was not taken in, in conse- 
 quence of arrangements in the stowage varying 
 from those contemplated by the charterparty : — 
 Held, that the freighters were not entitled to 
 recover, as it appeared that one of them and the 
 broker who managed the business were present 
 from time to time during the loading and cogni- 
 sant of the aiTangements, but did not make any 
 objection. Hovill v. Stephenson, 4 Car. «& P. 469. 
 
 i3y a charterparty the defendant agreed to 
 load on board a vessel at Trinidad " a full and 
 complete cargo of sugar, molasses and other 
 produce " : — Held, first, that evidence was 
 admissible of a custom at Trinidad to load sugar 
 in hogsheads and molasses in puncheons ; and 
 therefore that a full and complete cargo of sugar 
 and molasses so packed was a compliance with 
 the contract. Cidhhert v. Cummimj, 11 Ex. 405 ; 
 24 L. J., Ex. 310 ; 1 Jur. (n.s.) 686 ; 3 W. R. 553 
 —Ex. Ch. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the custom was reasonable 
 and good in law. Ih. 
 
 Evidence of Custom.] — A. agreed by charter- 
 party to load B.'s vessel at Sunderland, with coke, 
 with all possible despatch, in the customary man- 
 ner, in regular turn. In an action for delay in 
 loading according to the terms of the charter- 
 party : — Held, that evidence was not admissible- 
 to shew that, according to the custom of the port 
 of Sunderland, under such a contract, the ship- 
 owner was bound to wait until a manufacturer 
 of coke not named in the contract, had supplied 
 all ships, whose names were put down in a turn- 
 book, kept by the manufacturer, which he had 
 previously contracted to load with coke in the 
 port, provided he used reasonable despatch, and 
 that the manufacturer's name was mentioned at 
 the time the contract was made. Hudson v. 
 Clementson, 18 C. B. 213 ; 25 L. J., C. P. 234, 
 
 Turn for Loading — Evidence of Negligence.] — 
 
 By a charterparty the freighters agreed with the 
 owner that the ship, being fit for the voyage, 
 should proceed to Port Talbot, and there load a 
 cargo, the ship to be loaded in turn, certain 
 working days to be allowed, and a further num- 
 ber of days for demurrage. The owner brought 
 an action on this agreement, alleging that the 
 defendants did not, within a reasonable time 
 after her arrival at Port Talbot, load a cargo : 
 and, secondly, that the defendants did not load 
 the ship in turn. Plea — that the plaintiff was 
 master, and had the care, direction, and manage- 
 ment of the ship ; and that the plaintiff, and the 
 crew, took such bad care of the ship, and 
 governed and navigated her so improperly, that
 
 5C9 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Carqo. 
 
 510 
 
 the ship became damaged and unfit to receive 
 a cargo, and so remained for a long time, by 
 reason whereof the defendants could not load. 
 By a local act, regulating the port, the master of 
 every ship coming in was bound, under a penalty, 
 to moor, anchor, and place the same in such 
 situation as the harbour-master should direct. 
 The ship's master was also bound to take on 
 board a pilot, who, by the by-laws of the port, 
 was to obey the orders of the harbour-master. It 
 was proved on the trial that the ship, with a pilot, 
 arrived at the port, and received directions from 
 the harbour-master as to entering, but the master 
 and crew worked the ship in a manner contrary 
 to his directions, and in consequence she received 
 injury, lost her then turn of loading, and was 
 unable to load till the expiration of some days, 
 when she loaded without further delay : — Held, 
 that the judge rightly directed the jury to find 
 for the plaintiffs, if they thought the accident 
 was the fault of the master and crew. Taylor v. 
 Clay, 9 Q. B. 713 ; 16 L. J., Q. B. 44 ; 11 Jur. 277. 
 
 Ignorance of Contracting Party as to 
 
 the Port Custom.] — The plaintiffs' sailing vessel 
 was chartered by the defendant to proceed to 
 Whitehaven for a cargo of coals. The charter- 
 party provided that "regular turn" should be 
 allowed for loading. By the custom of the port 
 of Whitehaven, steam vessels, though they arrive 
 in port after sailing vessels, are loaded with coals 
 before the sailing vessels ; but as between sailing 
 vessels themselves sailing vessels are loaded in 
 the order of their arrival in port. The plaintiffs 
 were ignorant that this was the usage of the port. 
 The plaintiffs' vessel, though she arrived before 
 several steam vessels, was delayed until they were 
 first loaded, but she was loaded in the order of 
 her arrival as regarded the other sailing vessels 
 in harbour. The plaintiffs claimed demurrage : 
 — Held, that the expression " regular turn " in 
 the charterparty should, in the absence of exclu- 
 sive words, be construed as "regular turn" 
 according to the usage of the port of Whitehaven ; 
 that it was not material that the plaintiffs were 
 ignorant of such usage, and that, accordingly ,the 
 plaintiffs could not recover. King v. Hlnde, 12 
 L. R., Ir. 113. 
 
 The defendant chartered the plaintiff's vessel 
 to proceed to Newcastle-on-Tj-ne, and there be 
 ready forthwith, "in regular turns of loading," 
 to take on board, by spout or keel, as directed, a 
 complete cargo of four keels of coal, and the 
 remainder coke. In an action for not loading 
 the vessel with coke within a reasonable time : — 
 Held, that evidence was admissible to explain the 
 meaning of the expression in the charterparty, 
 •' in regular turns of lf)ading," by shewing that 
 there was a usage at the port of Newcastle that 
 vessels should take in their cargoes of coke in a 
 certain regular order or turn, and that the 
 question whether the vessel was loaded within a 
 reasonable time ought not to be decided without 
 reference to such usage, if proved. Leidcmnim 
 V. Schultz, 14 C. B. 38 ; 2 C. L. K. 87 ; 23 L. J., 
 C. P. 17 ; 18 Jur. 42. 
 
 Delay caused by Negligence of Third 
 
 Party.] — By a charterfiarty, a vessel was to jno- 
 ceed with all convenient speed to Cardiff, and 
 there load from the factors of the freighters a full 
 cargo of coals, in the customary manner, no time 
 being mentioned : — Held, that this meant a 
 loading, according to the usage of the fiort, and 
 within a reasonable time, without reference to 
 
 imforeseen casualties ; and consequently, the 
 loading having been delayed for an unreasonable 
 time, the freighters were not excused by reason 
 of the delay having arisen from difficulties con- 
 nected with the railway and the collieries, which 
 were bevond their control. Adams v. Royal 
 Mail Steam Packet Co., 5 C. B. (N.S.) 492 j 28 
 L. J., C. P. 33 ; 7 W. R. 9. 
 
 By a charterparty the master engaged to pro- 
 ceed with his vessel to a particular colliery, and 
 there take on board for the freighters a cargo 
 of coal. Before the charterparty was signed botli 
 parties knew that the colliery was not at work, 
 an accident having happened to the steam-engine, 
 and both were told it would be repaired in a short 
 time, and that the vessel would be loaded in her 
 turn within a few days after the coUiery got to- 
 work again, according to the practice of the port, 
 which was, that the ships were loaded in their 
 regular turns as they were entered on the colliery 
 books. The freighters had no control over the 
 colliery. The ship was loaded in her turn, but 
 not until several days later than the colliery 
 agents had led the parties to expect : — Held, that 
 if the steam-engine was repaired and the colliery 
 got to work in a reasonable time after the execu- 
 tion of the charterparty, and if the vessel was 
 loaded within a reasonable time after the colliery 
 got to work, the freighters were not liable to 
 compensate the master of the vessel for the delay 
 in the loading. Harris v. Bretsman, 23 L. J., 
 Ex. 210. And see cases infra, 9, Deliveet and 
 DiSCHAKGE OP CAEGO. 
 
 c. Liig-hters. 
 
 The master is not bound by usage in London 
 to take care of a lighter employed in unloading- 
 his ship, after it is fully laden, until the time 
 when it could be properly removed from the ship 
 to the wharf. Robinson v. Turjjin, Peake, 203, n. ; 
 
 3 R. B. 671. 
 
 By the custom of the river Thames, the master 
 is bound to guard goods laden into a lighter sen* 
 for them by the consignee until the loading is 
 complete, and cannot discharge himself from 
 that obligation by teUing the lighterman he has 
 not sufficient hands on board to take care o£ 
 them. Catlcy v. Wintringltam, Peake, 202 ; 3 
 R. R. 670. 
 
 A party executed a charterparty, under which 
 a cargo was to be sent alongside the ship at the 
 merchant's expense ; the captain rendered the 
 usual and customary assistance with his bontu 
 and crew. Some of the cargo lying about thirty 
 yards from the edge of the wharf, the captain 
 applied to the charterer's factoi- for the labourers 
 to remove it into the boats. The factor having 
 refused, saying he would abide by the ch.arter- 
 party, the cafitain liircd labourers for the pur- 
 pose :— Held, that the expense so incurred might, 
 notwithstanding the charterparty, be recovered. 
 Fletcher \. (iiUrspir, 3 Bing. 635 ; 11 Moore, .'547 ; 
 
 4 L. J. (O.s.) C. r. 202. 
 
 On a charter to receive a cargo alongside a 
 ship, at a port where the ship cannot safely load 
 inside a bar, if she is loaded outside, the freighter 
 cannot throw extra expense of lighterage on the 
 shipowner. Trindale v. Levy, 2 F. <Sc F. 441. 
 
 (Joofls were delivered to the owners of a ship 
 to be conveyed by their ship. The gootls were 
 destroyed h'y a ciu^ual fire on board a lighter 
 employed bv the owners to convey them to the 
 ship: — Held, that the 26 Geo. 2, c. 86, s. 2, 
 did not protect the owners. Morcmwd v. Pollok,
 
 511 
 
 1 El. & Bl. 743 ; 
 250; 17 Jur. 881 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 512 
 
 1 C. L. E. 78 
 : 1 W. E. 304. 
 
 22 L. J., Q. B. 
 
 -See Peterson v. Freelody, 
 
 Timber Cargo. ]- 
 
 infra, col. 535. 
 
 Cargo to be taken from alongside at Mer- 
 chants' Expense and Risk — Custom of Port — 
 Construction of Charterparty.] — See AUtieselhah 
 Helios V. Ekman, supra, col. 239. 
 
 d. Place of. 
 Option.] — The plaintifE by charterparty, dated 
 the 26th of May, 1871, agreed with the defendant 
 that his ship should sail to BuUo, and there load 
 from the plaintifEs' factors a cargo of coals and 
 proceed therewith to Highbridge or Dunball and 
 deliver same on being paid freight at the rate of 
 2*. 9d. per ton in cash on unloading and right 
 delivery. The ship was to be loaded and dis- 
 charged with all possible despatch, and to load 
 with G-. or H. till the end of September, at 
 captain's option, but after September with H. : 
 and was to continue at the above rate until 
 March, 1872. In September the captain exercised 
 his option in favour of loading with G., but the 
 plaintifE refused to load him from G. ; whereupon 
 the defendant declined further to perform the 
 charterparty : — Held, that the breach of the 
 charterparty which the plaintiff had committed 
 went to the root of the contract between the 
 parties, and justified the defendant in his refusal. 
 Bradford v. Williams, 41 L. J., Ex. 164 ; L. E. 7 
 Ex. 259 ; 26 L. T. 641 ; 20 W. E. 782. 
 
 Proper loading Berth.] — Direction by judge 
 to jury that, upon the construction of the charter- 
 party, a berth where she could load coals was a 
 proper loading berth. New trial ordered because, 
 under the charterparty, the merchant was entitled 
 to load a general cargo, and the berth was not a 
 proper loading berth for general cargo. Jennett 
 v. 3Ieeh, 3 L. T. 817. 
 
 Always afloat — No Water except at Spring 
 
 Tides.] — See Carlton Steamshii) Co. v. Castle 
 Mail Packets Co., supra, col. 242. 
 
 AtuL see further as to Place of Loading, XIV. 
 Demurrage, supra, cols. 461, seq. 
 
 e. Return Cargo. 
 
 Condition precedent — Discharge of Outward 
 Bound.] — The discharge of an outward-bound 
 cargo at a particular place is not in general a 
 condition precedent to the providing a return 
 cargo ; therefore a freighter, who covenants to 
 load a return cargo, must, if he objects to the 
 ship's delay in proceeding to take it on board, 
 make the objection before he loads the cargo, and 
 within a reasonable time, and must not by any 
 act take to the ship. Olhsen v. Brummond, 2 
 Chit. 705 ; 4 Dougl. 356. 
 
 Seizure of Outward Cargo.] — Where a 
 
 shipowner covenanted to proceed from L. to N., 
 and there make a right and true delivery of the 
 outward cargo, and having so done receive on 
 board a certain cargo, restraint of princes, &c., 
 excepted ; and the freighters covenanted, in con- 
 sideration of the premises, that at N. they would 
 find and provide, as they did warrant and assure 
 to the shipowner, a full and complete return 
 cargo, and that 1,750Z. should be paid on delivery 
 
 of the outward cargo, which should bo con- 
 sidered as earned for outward freight: — Held, 
 that, in an action against the freighters for not 
 providing a return cargo at N., they could not 
 plead in excuse of performance that the outward 
 cargo was seized by the government at N., and 
 never delivered to them ; for the delivery of the 
 outward cargo was not a condition precedent to 
 the providing a return cargo ; but the delivery of 
 the outward cargo was a condition precedent to 
 the payment of the 1,750Z. ; and therefore a 
 breach assigned for nonpayment thereof was 
 under these circumstances not sustainable. Storer 
 V. Gordon, 3 M. & S. 308 ; 15 E. E. 499. 
 
 Non-arrival of Vessel.] — Where, in a 
 
 charterparty on the ship " St. P.," for a voyage 
 from G. to bring home a cargo to Europe, it was 
 provided, that in the event of the non-arrival at 
 the same port of another ship, called the " G." 
 (which had been chartered by the sam e parties, 
 and was then at sea), then the charter on the 
 " G." should be void to all intents and purposes 
 whatsoever : — Held, that the word " non-arrival " 
 could not be construed so as to defeat the pur- 
 poses of the voyage for which the " G." had been 
 chartered ; and her non-arrival for these purposes 
 not being attributable to the fault of the char- 
 terers, the charter on the " St. P." became void, 
 and the charterers were not bound to provide her 
 with a homeward cargo. Soames v. Lonergan, 
 4 D. & E. 74 ; 2 B. & C. 564 ; 2 L. J. (O.S.) K. B. 
 106 ; 26 E. E. 460. 
 
 Delay.] — A charterparty provided that 
 
 the ship " E.," being tight, staunch, and strong, 
 and every way fitted for the voyage, should, with 
 all convenient speed (on being ready) having 
 liberty to take an outward cargo for owners' 
 benefit, direct or on the way, proceed to A. The 
 ship was not completed when the charterparty 
 was made. As soon as she was ready for her trial 
 trip she went to sea, and (in order to avoid the 
 danger of crossing the bar at the mouth of the 
 Tyne a second time) went on to L. Whilst her 
 repairs were being completed in L., she took on 
 board a cargo of goods for C, at which place she 
 stopped to unload her cargo on the voyage to A., 
 arriving at the latter place a few days later than 
 she otherwise would have done. The charterer's 
 agent at A. refused to provide cargo in conse- 
 quence of the delay : — Held, that there was no 
 condition precedent, the non-fulfilment of which 
 by the shipowner would exonerate the charterer 
 from providing a cargo, but that there was 
 merely a stipulation, for the breach of which an 
 action for damages would lie against the ship- 
 owner. Mao Andrew v. Chappie, 35 L. J., C. P. 
 281 ; L. E. 1 C. P. 643 ; 12 Jur. (N.s.) 567 ; 14 
 L. T. 556 ; 14 W. E. 891. 
 
 Obligation to accept.] — A charterparty made 
 between the charterers through the agency of 
 G. & Co. and the captain of the " Elvezia," provided 
 that the ship should proceed with a cargo to San 
 Francisco, "where the ship shall be consigned to 
 charterers' agents inwards and outwards, paying 
 the usual commissions . . . and deliver the same 
 . . . and so end the voyage"; and that "on her 
 return to her port of discharge in the United 
 Kingdom " she should be reported to the custom- 
 house by G. & Co. :— Held, that these provisions 
 did not impose on the captain an obligation to 
 accept a homeward cargo for the United Kir 
 dom from the agents of the charterers at
 
 513 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 Francisco, but merely bound him, if he had deter- 
 mined upon taking; a return cargo on board 
 there, to employ them to procure and ship it. 
 Cross V. Patjliaiw, 40 L. J.. Ex. 18 ; L. E. G Ex. 
 9 ; 23 L. T. 420 ; 19 W. R. 159. 
 
 Under a charterparty a ship was to proceed 
 from London to Bombay, and there discharge her 
 cargo, and then load a cargo, with which she was 
 to proceed direct to Loudon, the merchant to 
 have the privilege of sending the ship to Calcutta 
 from Bombay, upon paying for the extra time 
 occupied. If the ship returned from Bombay 
 direct to London, the merchant was to have the 
 power of sending her to one port on the Malabar 
 coast, to receive cargo, paying for the extra time : 
 — Held, that the shipowner, after discharging at 
 Bombay, was not bound to take on board a 
 cargo there for Calcutta. Coclihurny. WrlqM, 6 
 Bing. (N.C.) 223 ; 8 Scott, 489 ; 9 L. J., "C. P. 
 IGG. 
 
 Notice of Arrival.] — See ante, col. 504. 
 
 f. Kefasal or Neglect to Load. 
 
 Measure of Damages.] — In an action against 
 a charterer of a ship for not loading a cargo, the 
 measure of damage is the amount of freight 
 which would have been earned after deducting 
 the expenses, and also any profit which the 
 ship may have earned during the period over 
 which the charter extended. Smith v. M'Guire, 
 3 H. & N. 54 ; 27 L. J., Ex. 465 ; 6 W. R. 726. 
 iS'. a, nisi prius, 1 F. & F. 199. 
 
 In an action on a charterparty for not loading 
 a cargo, the loading ports being Rangoon or 
 Eassein, and the captain having been to Ran- 
 goon, and there received orders to go to Bas- 
 sein (three days' sail), where no cargo could be 
 obtained, and he was requested to go back to 
 Rangoon or elsewhere, in hopes of obtaining a 
 cargo, which he declined to do, and remained in- 
 active at Rangoon until the time for loading had 
 elapsed, the judge having told the juiy that they 
 were not bound to give the plaintiff the full 
 amount of freight, 3,000Z., but that if they 
 deemed the master's conduct unreasonable they 
 might diminish the damages on that account, and 
 left it to them to say whether the plaintiff should 
 recover the full amount, or any other amount 
 they might deem reasonable ; and they having 
 found for the plaintiff damages 500Z., the court 
 held that there had been no misdirection, but 
 granted a new trial on the ground that the 
 verdict was against the evidence and the amount 
 of damages considerably too low, making it, 
 however, a condition that the plaintiff should 
 relinquish the costs of the first trial. Wilson v. 
 JlicTis, 26 L. J., Ex. 242. 
 
 Duty of Captain.] — By a charterparty it 
 
 was stipulated that a ship should proceed to 
 Limerick with her then present cargo, and there 
 take a cargo of oats for London, at a freiglit of 
 2s. Sd. a quarter ; six days being allowed for 
 loading at Limerick. Before the expiration of 
 the six days, the freighter's agent offered the 
 captain a cargo at 2s. Cxi., and said that the 
 freighters brother would pay the difference. 
 The captain refused to take anything not 
 according to the terms of the charterparty : — 
 Held, that as the contract had not then been 
 broken by the freighter, the captain was not 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 514 
 
 bound to accept this offer ; but that, if the 
 contract had been broken by the freighter not 
 putting any cargo on board within the six days, 
 it would have been the captain's duty to have 
 taken a cargo at the most he could get, so that 
 the damages to be paid by the freighter should 
 be reduced as much as possible. Harries v. 
 Edmond.^f, 1 Car. & K. 686. 
 
 Cargo to be Loaded in Time for Convoy.] — The 
 
 charterer of a ship for a voyage to Tobago and 
 back covenanted to load and despatch her in 
 time to join the convoy home sailing from the 
 West Indies on August 1. The ship arrived at 
 Tobago on July 14, and the convoy passed 
 Tobago on July 22 : — Held, that the charterer 
 was liable for not supplying a cargo by that day. 
 Thompson v. Inglis, 8 Camp. 428. 
 
 Cargo Discharged to Examine Ship — Kefusal of 
 
 Shipper to Reload.] — A ship was chartered on 
 SeptLiiiber 12 to carry wheat from Harwich to 
 !St. Malo ; ten days allowed for loading. The 
 usual course was for the ships to take in part of 
 the cargo at Mistley and the rest lower down the 
 river. The ship took in 900 quarters at Mistley, 
 but got ashore as she was going down the 
 river to take in the rest. The master gave 
 notice to the charterers' agent that the cargo 
 must be unloaded to examine the ship. The 
 agent unloaded it, and sent it on in other ships. 
 On October 4 the master gave notice that he was 
 ready to receive the cargo, and demanded it : — 
 Held, that the owner could not recover against 
 the charterers for not supplying cargo. Strug- 
 ndl V. Frtcdrichsen, 12 C. B. (N.s.) 452 ; 5 Jur. 
 (N.S.) 77. 
 
 Other Cargo taken in — Damages — 
 
 Penalty.] — Ship chiutcred to New Zealand to 
 load there or receive 500Z. She sailed, and found 
 no cargo or charterers' agent there. She sailed 
 to Batavia, and brought home a cargo, earning 
 more than she would have upon her original 
 voyage : — Held, that the owners could not recover 
 500Z. and also retain the profits of the homeward 
 voyage. St ani forth v. Lyoll, 7 Bing. 169 ; 4 
 M. kr. 329 ; 9 L. J. (O.S.j C. P. 23. 
 
 Delay in Loading — Not Sufficient Workmen.] 
 — See liichardsons andSamiiel J^' Co., In 7<', supra, 
 
 col. 490. 
 
 Action for not Providing Cargo — Plea that the 
 Ship was afterwards Lost., — in an acticm on a 
 (•harlrr]):irty whereby I lie defendants eoveiianlcd 
 to uultiad and receive the cargo at Charlestown, 
 aTid there put on board 100 tons of goods, the 
 plaintiffs assigned as a breach that no goods 
 were put on board. The defcndantK pleaded 
 that the vessel never arrived in London on the 
 homeward voyage, and was lost ; the charter- 
 party jirovidcd fnr payment of freight on di'livery 
 in Loudon : — On «leinurrcr, the i)lca held to be 
 bad. St('jjhi:7i.iony. Price, 3 Dougl. 353. 
 
 Faultof Shipowner— Damages.] — A ship's 
 
 husband covenanted lli;il his ship should at A. 
 take in brandy and convey it to B., and there 
 take in fruit, which the freighters covenanled to 
 su]pply. He did not take in the brandy, and the 
 freighters did not furnish a full homeward cargo 
 for which he recovered damages against them. 
 They were prevented from supplying the fruit 
 
 17
 
 515 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 516 
 
 by reason of the neglect of the ship's husband in 
 not shipping the brandy. They afterwards sued 
 his representatives for breach of his covenant : 
 — Held, that they couhl not recover the damages 
 they had paid him, or the costs of defending the 
 previous action. Walton v. Fothergill, 7 Car. &; 
 P. 392. 
 
 Damages— Different Kates of Freight for 
 
 Different Goods.] — In an action for not supply- 
 ing a cargo, where by the charterparty the 
 freighter is to pay different rates of freight for 
 different articles put on board, and is at liberty 
 to supply which articles he pleases, the measure 
 of damages is the average freight calculated for 
 the usual quantity of goods carried in such 
 voyages. Thomas v. Clarke, 2 Stark. 450 ; 20 
 R. R. 714. 
 
 6. Stowage. 
 a. EmployTnent of Stevedore. 
 
 "Who Liable to Pay for Services of.] — The 
 owner of a ship had chartered her to A. for the 
 purpose of being loaded ; the charterparty pro- 
 vided that the stevedore was to be nominated by 
 the charterer, and be under the control of the 
 captain, and was to be paid by the ovnier. A. 
 sub-chartered the ship to B., entering into a 
 charterparty with a similar clause. B. employed 
 the plaintiff, who was a stevedore, to load the 
 ship, and introduced him to the defendant as a 
 person who was to load the ship. The defendant 
 frequently came on board while the ship was 
 being loaded, and superintended and gave 
 instructions relative to the stowage of the 
 cargo. In an action by the plaintiff against 
 the defendant for nonpayment of his charges : — 
 Held, that there was evidence of a contract 
 between the plaintiff and defendant. Eastman 
 y. Harry, 33 L. T. 800 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 117— 
 C.A. 
 
 On completion of the loading the plaintiff sent 
 in his account to B., headed " To captain and 
 owners," and pressed B. for payment. B. had 
 sent in his account to A., and A. had sent in his 
 account to the defendant, with the item " Steve- 
 dore's account " charged. The defendant had 
 paid A.'s account, and A. had paid B.'s account. 
 B. became bankrupt, and did not pay the plain- 
 tiff : — Held, that the defendant was liable to pay 
 his account. Ih. 
 
 Liability for Acts of.] — K., a master stevedore, 
 having contracted to unload a ship, employed D., 
 one of the ship's crew, at the ovimer's request, to 
 assist in the work. K. could have refused to so 
 employ D. if he thought him incompetent ; and 
 during the time K. employed him D. could not 
 have been employed by the master of the ship 
 on the ship's work, and, though D. was paid by 
 the owner, such pay was deducted from what 
 K. received for the unloading. In the course of 
 such employment D. so negligently worked a 
 winch used in the unloading as to injure one of 
 K.'s men, with whom D. was put to work by K.'s 
 foreman : — Held, that the owner was not respon- 
 sible for such injury, as at the time of the 
 accident D. was not working for him but for K. 
 Murray v. Cun-ie, 40 L. J., C. P. 26 ; L. R. 6 
 C. P. 24 ; 23 L. T. 557 ; 19 W. R. 104. 
 
 A stevedore employed to ship iron rails had a 
 foreman whose duty it was (assisted by labourers) 
 
 to carry the rails from the quay to the ship after 
 the carman had brought them to the quay and 
 unloaded them there. The carman not unloading 
 the rails to the foreman's satisfaction, the latter 
 got into the cart and threw out some of them so 
 negligently that one fell upon and injured a 
 person who was passing by : — Held (per Grove 
 and Denman, JJ., Brett, J., dissentiente), that 
 there was evidence for a jury that the foreman 
 was acting within the scope of his employment, 
 so as to render the stevedore responsible for his 
 acts. Burns v. Paulson or Poulsoyi, 42 L. J., 
 C. P. 302 ; L. R. 8 C. P. 563 ; 29 L. T. 329 ; 22 
 W. R. 20. 
 
 When a stevedore is appointed by the shipper, 
 and acts in the stowage, the master is not 
 responsible for damage done to the goods in the 
 course of taking on board or of stowage. Custom 
 or agreement may vary the above rule, but a 
 mere stipulation that a stevedore shall act under 
 the orders of the master, does not throw on the 
 latter the responsibility for acts of the former 
 not shewn to be done under orders from the 
 master. Blaihw v. Steml)ridge, and cases, infra. 
 
 The owner, and not the charterer, is prima 
 facie liable to the consignees for damage to goods 
 by bad stowage ; alitor, if the shipper stows him- 
 self. Swahiston v. Garncli, 2 L. J., Ex. 255. 
 
 b. Duty of Master and Owner. 
 
 Duty of Master as to.] — If a cask is acciden- 
 tally staved in, in letting it down into the hold 
 of a ship, the master must answer for the loss. 
 Goffy. Clinlard, cited 1 Wils. 288. 
 
 By the maritime law it is the duty of the 
 master, on behalf of the owner, to receive and 
 properly stow on board goods delivered to him 
 alongside. For any damage to the goods, arising 
 from his negligence, either in taking them on 
 board or in stowing them, he is responsible to 
 the shipper of the goods. If the damage happens 
 from his misconduct, he is responsible to the 
 owner ; if from the misconduct of the mate 
 or other of the crew, and not from any fault of 
 his own, he is not responsible to the owner. 
 Blaihie v. Stemhridqe, 6 C. B. (N.s.) 911 ; 29 
 L. J., C. P. 212 ; 6 Jur. (N.S.) 825 ; 2 L. T. 570 ; 
 8W. R. 239— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Duty of Owners as to.] — The owners of a 
 general ship are liable to a shipper for damage 
 done to his goods from other goods stowed in the 
 hold without proof of any wilful or negligent 
 default on their part. Gillespy v. Thomj)son, 
 6 El. & Bl. 477, n., 483 ; 2 Jur. (N.s.) 712. 
 
 It is the duty of the owner of a vessel to stow 
 the cargo with as much skill as a competent 
 stevedore can do. Anglo-African Co. v. Lamzed, 
 1 H. & R. 216 ; 35 L. J., C. P. 145 ; L. R. 1 
 C. P. 226 ; 12 Jur. (N.s.) 294 ; 13 L. T. 796 ; 14 
 W. R. 477. 
 
 In an action by charterers against shipowners, 
 for not loading as much as the vessel could 
 reasonably carry, the charterparty containing 
 the words " charterers' stevedore to be employed 
 by ship," it is no answer that the charterers 
 had not appointed a stevedore, and that the 
 cargo was stowed to the best of the master's skill 
 and ability. lb. 
 
 The owner, and not the charterer, of a ship is 
 prima facie liable to the consignees for damage 
 done to goods on the voyage, by reason of 
 improper stowage. Swainston v. Gar rick, 2 
 L. J., Ex. 255.
 
 517 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 518 
 
 The master is prima facie liable for the safe 
 stowage of the cargo, but he is exonerated by the 
 special appointment of his own stower by the 
 freighter ; and if the freighter, by a verbal agree- 
 ment with the owner, undertakes to appoint his 
 own, and he acts as such, the mere silence of a 
 charterparty, subsequently entered into, does not 
 subject the master to his original liability. li. 
 
 Question for Jury.] — In an action by a 
 
 shipper against a shipowner, for nondelivery of 
 goods, not arising from any of the excepted 
 causes, and also for bad stowage ; the evidence 
 was that the good? had been in the course of the 
 voyage, and in bpd weather, stowed in the tank 
 upon coals, and that they arrived damaged by 
 sea water and coal dust. The judge told the 
 jury that they must find for the shipowner, if 
 they thought that, under the circumstances, what 
 had been done was the best that could be done. 
 And the court could not agree to set aside this 
 ■direction. Zq)sey v. Hill, 1 F. & F. 570. 
 
 Exceptions as to Injuries.] —Under a charter- 
 party the shippers put a cargo, consisting of 
 casks of oil, wool and rags, on board the 
 chartered vessel, and personally superintended 
 the stowage of the cargo in the hold of the vessel. 
 In the margin of the bill of lading of the casks 
 of oil there was this memorandum : " Weight, 
 measurement and contents unknown, and not 
 accountable for leakage." The bill of lading was 
 indorsed in blank by the shippers, and assigned 
 to B. & Co. In the course of the voyage the oil 
 casks became heated by the action and contiguity 
 of the wool and rags, and a very large portion of 
 the oil was lost : — Held, first, that ignorance of 
 the shipowners as to the latent effect of heat, in 
 storing the casks of oil with wool and rags, did 
 not, under the circumstances of the shippers 
 superintending the stowage, amount to such 
 negligence as to make them liable to the holders 
 of the bill of lading for the loss occasioned by 
 the leakage of the oil. Ohrlojf v. Briscall, 4 
 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 70 ; 35 L. J., P. C. 63 ; L. E. 1 
 P. C. 231 ; 12 Jur. (N.S.) 675 : 14 L. T. 873 ; 15 
 W. R. 202. S. C, nom. The Helene, Br. & Lush. 
 429. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the limitation by the 
 memorandum in the bill of lading, that the ship- 
 owners were not to be accountable for leakage, 
 was not restricted as to the quantity of leakage, 
 and protected the shipowners, in the absence of 
 proof that the leakage was occasioned by their 
 negligence. Ih. 
 
 A bill of lading excepted liability in respect of 
 "all accidents, loss and damage of whatsoever 
 nature .... occasioned by any act, neglect 
 or default whatsoever of the pilot, master or 
 mariners, in navigating the ship .... it being 
 agreed that the captain, officers and crew of the 
 vessel in the transmission of the goods .... be 
 considered the servants of the shipper, owner or 
 consignee" of the goods : — Held, that the owners 
 were liable for negligent stowage. Uayn v. 
 Culliford, 48 L. J., C. P. 372 ; 4 C. P. D. 182 ; 40 
 L. T. 536 ; 27 W. R. 541 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 128— C. A. 
 
 On an allegation that damage to cargo 
 originated from defective stowage, and heat and 
 fermentation arising from the cargo being stowed 
 in too close conjunction with other cargo, the 
 parties must establish affirmatively that the cargo 
 on its arrival at its port of destination was in a 
 damaged condition ; and the onus then falls on 
 the ship to prove that the original stowage was 
 
 good, and that the perils of the sea subsequently 
 occurring created the damage. The Alexandra, 
 14 L. T. 742 : 14 W. R. 466. 
 
 Damage to cargo caused by the oozing of wine 
 from casks through straining in bad weather is 
 damage occasioned by perils of the sea, and the 
 shipowners are, under the usual exceptions, 
 exempt from liability therefor, where the cargo 
 is properly stowed, or is stowed in such a manner 
 that the master is not responsible for bad stowage. 
 The Catherine Chalvierg, '62 L. T. 847; 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 598. 
 
 Where a charterparty stipulates that a vessel 
 is " to be stowed by charterers' stevedore, at risk 
 and expense of vessel," and a cargo is supplied 
 by the charterers and is stowed by their steve- 
 dore, the shipowner is not responsible for damage 
 occasioned by bad stowage. lb. 
 
 Damage to cargo occasioned by salt water does 
 not come within the excepted perils when hx 
 reason of the place in wliich it is stowed it is 
 exceptionally liable to such damage in severe 
 weather. The Oqnendo, 38 L. T. 151 ; 8 Asp. 
 M. C. 558. 
 
 Where Ship Chartered.] — A ship was chartered 
 for a voyage from Oporto to the United Kingdom 
 to load from the factors of the affreighter a full 
 cargo of wine or other merchandise at 18«. per 
 ton ; the captain to sign bills of lading at any 
 rate of freight without prejudice to the charter ; 
 the ship to be addressed to charterer's agents at 
 Oporto on usual terms. The ship was accord- 
 ingly consigned to the charterers agents at 
 Oporto, and was put up by them as a general 
 ship, without any intimation that she was under 
 charter ; a party shipped some casks of wine, 
 and received bills of lading in the usual form 
 signed by the master. The wine was stowed by 
 a stevedore appointed by the charterer's agents 
 and paid by them, the money being ultimately 
 repaid them by the master. The wine having 
 leaked from improper stowage : — Held, that as 
 the charter did not amount to a demise of the 
 ship, and the owners remained in possession by 
 their servants, the master and crew, the shipper 
 was entitled to look to the owners as responsible 
 for the safe carriage of the wine : inasmuch as 
 he had delivered it to be carried in the ship in 
 ignorance that she was chartered, and had dealt 
 with the master, who was still the owner's 
 master, as clothed with the ordinary authority 
 of a master to receive goods and give bills of 
 lading by which his owners would be bound. 
 Sandeman v. Scurr, 8 B. ic S. 50 ; 36 L. J., Q. B. 
 58 ; L. R. 2 Q. B. 86 ; 15 L. T. 608 ; 15 W. R. 277. 
 
 Held, also, that the employment of the steve- 
 dore made no difference, at all events as regarded 
 the shipper, as he was no party to the employ- 
 ment, and had a right to look to the owners for 
 the safe stowage of the goods, as part of the 
 carriers' duty, in the absence of any special 
 agreement. lb. 
 
 A shipowner who charters his vessel to another, 
 but not so as to give up possession, is liable for a 
 breach of the contract contained in a bill of 
 lading signed by the master, such as injury tf) 
 the goods by improper stowage, if it is not proved 
 that at the time of shipment the shipper had 
 notice of the charter. The St. Cloud, Br. & 
 Lush. 4 ; 8 L. T. 54. 
 
 So, under similar circumstances, the owner not 
 being domiciled in England or Wales, the ship is 
 liable under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 10, ss. 6, 35. lb. 
 
 If a person ships goods on board a vessel, 
 
 17-2
 
 )19 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 520 
 
 knov.iiig that she is chartered, the consignee of 
 the goods can maintain no action against the 
 owner of the ship if the goods are injured by bad 
 stowage. Major v. White, 7 Car. & P. 41. 
 
 If the shipper of goods was warned as to the 
 way in which the goods were to be stowed, the 
 consignee cannot maintain any action for damage 
 occasioned by such stowage, even if the stowage 
 was bad. lb. 
 
 By a chartcrparty an owner agreed to let, and 
 a charterer to hire, a ship for a certain period, 
 the ship being in good and working order, and 
 her master, otiicers and crew being duly shipped, 
 to be placed at the disposal of the charterer in 
 the port of London on a given day, and the hire 
 to commence from and after the time that she 
 should have been placed at the disposal of the 
 charterer, with a clean and clear hold, and ready 
 to load. The owner was to appoint, victual and 
 pay the master, officers and crew, and to provide 
 and pay for the necessary equipment for the 
 working of the ship, and to pay all other charges 
 whatsoever, save and except for coals, pilotages, 
 port charges and labour, which were to be 
 paid by the charterer ; the cargoes were to be 
 taken on board, and discharged by the charterer, 
 the crew of the vessel rendering customary assist- 
 ance, so far as they might be under the orders of 
 the master ; and the charterer was to have liberty 
 to employ stevedores and labourers, to assist in 
 the loading, stowage and discharge thereof ; but 
 such stevedores and labourers being under the 
 control and direction of the master, the charterer 
 was not in any case to be responsible to the 
 owners for damage or improper stowage ; and 
 " the master and owner of the ship should devote 
 the same attention to the cargo, should use the 
 same endeavours to promote despatch, and should 
 in every respect be and remain responsible to all 
 whom it might concern, as if the ship was load- 
 ing and discharging her cargoes and performing 
 her voyages for account of the owner, and 
 independently of that chart erparty " : — Held, 
 that there was nothing in this chartcrparty to 
 exonerate the owner from responsibility for 
 negligent and improper stowage by the steve- 
 dores employed by the charterer, under the above 
 stipulation. Sack v. Ford, 13 C. B. (N.s.) 90 ; 
 32 L. J.. C. P. 12 ; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 750. 
 
 Expenses of Preparing Cargo.] — Where a ship 
 was chartered to proceed to a port and there 
 load from the freighter's factors " a fuU and 
 complete cargo of wool, tallow, bark and other 
 legal merchandise," at a specitied rate of freight 
 for each kind : — Held, that parol evidence was 
 not admissible to shew that by the custom of the 
 place of loading the cost of pressing wool was 
 to be borne by the shipowner. Cochhurn v. 
 Alexander, 6 C. B. 791 ; 18 L. J., C. P. 74. 
 
 c. Damagres. 
 
 Amount Recoverable.] — In the ca of injury 
 to goods by improper stowage, loss upon a con- 
 tract of resale entered into before delivery, and 
 of which the shipowners had no notice at the 
 time of making the original contract, is not to be 
 allowed. The St. Cloud, Br. & Lush. 4 ; 8 L. T. 54. 
 
 7. Demand by Shipper of Kedelivery. 
 
 After Accident.]— An owner of goods shipped 
 to proceed to a foreign port has a right to have 
 them redelivered to liim when the vessel, having 
 
 commenced her voyage, meets with a disaster 
 whereby the goods are damaged so much that 
 they cannot be profitably carried to their destina- 
 tion. Blasco V. Fletcher, 14 C.iB. (n.s.) 147 ; 32 
 L. J., C. P. 284 ; 9 Jur. (n.s.) 1105 ; 9 L. T. 169 ; 
 11 W. K. 997. 
 
 Without Payment of Freight.]— But after 
 goods have been taken on board a general ship to 
 be conveyed on freight, and bills of lading have 
 been signed by the captain, the owner of the 
 goods cannot, before the sailing of the ship, insist 
 on the goods being redelivered to him without 
 paying the freight that might be earned, and 
 indemnifying the master against the consequences 
 of the bills of lading signed bv him. Tindall v. 
 Taylor, 4 EL & Bl. 219 ; 3 C. L. K. 199 ; 24 L. J., 
 Q. B. 12 ; 1 Jur. (N.S.) 112. 
 
 A ship was chartered for a voyage from London 
 to Sydney, the charterer to have the entire use 
 of the ship, and to pay the owner 1,600Z. in 
 London in two months. The ship cleared at the 
 custom-house. The charterer bought goods, to 
 be paid for before the ship left London ; and the 
 vendor delivered the goods on board, and took 
 the mate's receipt for them. Before the ship was 
 ready to sail, the charterer was unable to pay for 
 the goods (though not bankrupt nor taking the 
 benefit of the Insolvent Debtors Act), and the 
 vendor thereupon gave notice to the captain to ■ 
 redeliver them, and, on his refusal, made an 
 arrangement with the charterer, and again 
 applied to the captain in the charterer's name 
 for the redelivery, offering to pay all reasonable 
 charges. The captain having refused toredeliver : 
 — Held, that the shipowner had no lien upon the 
 goods, but that the charterer had a rigiit, as between 
 himself and the shipowner, to take the goods out 
 of the ship, at all events, until the stipulated sum 
 had become due, and that the captain was there- 
 fore liable in trover. TJiompson v. Small, 1 C. B. 
 328 ; 14 L. J., C. P. 157. 
 
 8. Duty of Master to Preserve, Tranship, 
 OR Sell Cargo. 
 
 a. To Preserve and Reship. 
 
 There is a duty on the master, as representing 
 the shipowner, to take reasonable care of the 
 goods intrusted to him, not merely in doing what 
 is necessary to preserve them on board the ship 
 during the ordinary incidents of the voyage, but 
 also in taking active measures, when reasonably 
 practicable under all the circumstances, to check 
 and arrest the loss or deterioration resulting 
 from accidents, for the necessary and immediate 
 consequences of which the shipowner is not 
 liable by reason of exceptions in the bill of lading. 
 And for neglect of this duty by the master the 
 shipowner is responsible to the shipper. Notara, 
 V. Henderson, 41 L. J., Q. B. 158 ; L. K. 7 Q. B. 
 225 ; 26 L. T. 442 ; 20 W. E. 442 ; 1 Asp. M, C. 
 278— Ex. Ch. 
 
 In an action by a shipper against a shipowner 
 it appeared that beans were shipped under a bill 
 of lading, containing the usual exception of perils 
 of the sea (including collision). The vessel sus- 
 tained damage by a collision, and put into a port 
 for repairs. The beans having become wetted 
 by salt water, the shippers, through their agent, 
 offered to receive the cargo and pay pro rata 
 freight. The master refused to deliver the cargo 
 except upon receipt of the whole freight, and 
 proceeded with his vessel to the port of discharge.
 
 5.21 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 Upon its arrival it was found that the damage 
 to the beans by the collision had been materially 
 enhanced by their detention on board after they 
 had been saturated with salt water. The in- 
 creased damage would have been avoided if the 
 beans had been unshipped, dried and resliipped 
 at the port of refuge, the cost of which might 
 have been charged to the cargo as particular 
 average : — Held, that, assuming that the pre- 
 cautions above mentioned would not have 
 unreasonablj' delayed the voyage, the shipowTier 
 was liable for the additional damage. lb. 
 
 Expense of Preserving Perishable Cargo — 
 Liability of Cargo Owner.] — Cargo owner held 
 liable for the expense of unloading cargo for its 
 preservation, he being present and giving no 
 instructions. Garriock v. Walker. 1 Ct. of Sess. 
 Cas. (-tth ser.) 100. 
 
 Damage by Excepted Perils — Duty of Master 
 to Minimise.! — It is the duty of the master to 
 take reasonable precautions that cargo damaged 
 by excepted perils is not greater than necessary. 
 Adam v. Morris, 18 Ct. of iSess. Gas. (dth ser.) 
 153. 
 
 Ajid sec infra, col. 538, 9. Delivery and Dis- 
 CHABGE, e. Warehousing. 
 
 b. To Tranship. 
 
 Duty of Master.] — When a question is raised 
 as to the duty of the master in a port of distress 
 to have transhipped the cargo, it must be con- 
 sidered that his first duty is to carry his cargo to 
 its port of destination in the same laottorn. TJie 
 Hamhurg, 2 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 289 ; Br. \; Lush. 
 253; 33 L. J., Adm. 116 ; lU Jur. (N.S.) 600 ; 10 
 L. T. 206 : 12 W. R. 628. 
 
 Where a master has a reasonable opportunity, 
 according to the circumstances of the case, of 
 communicating from the port of distress with 
 the owners of the cargo and receiving directions 
 from them, it is his first duty to endeavour to 
 obtain such directions. Ih. 
 
 The master only becomes agent for the owners 
 of the cargo ex necessitate rei. Ih. 
 
 Where a sHip is by perils of the sea so much 
 <lamaged as to be incapable of re|)air so as to 
 prosecute the adventure, except at an expense 
 exceeding her value, together with the freight, 
 when lepaired, the master is justified in aVian- 
 <loning the voyage, and is not bound as agent of 
 his owner to send the goods on in another 
 lx»ttom. Dc Cuadra v. Sirdnn, 16 C B. (N.H.) 
 772. 
 
 Ascertained by what Law.] — The duty of 
 
 a master to carry on, transliij) or deliver the 
 cargo at an intermediate port of refuge, implied 
 in a bill of lading given by the master of a 
 foreign vessel, will be ascertained by reference tf) 
 the law of the flag which the vcs.scl carries, not 
 by reference to the lex loci contr.actfis or the lex 
 fori, or the law of the place where the alleged 
 breach of contract by the master is cominilicd. 
 Tlu! linhia, Br. & Liish. 292 ; 11 Jur. (N.s.) 90 ; 
 12 L. T. 14.5. 
 
 If a vessel, during her voyage, is injured, and 
 is compelled to put into a port of refuge, then. 
 by English law, the master is not iKiund to tran- 
 ship. He is allowed a reasonable time, either to 
 repair and carry on or to tranship. If he declines 
 to do either, he may be called upon to deliver, 
 without payment of any freight ; but before a 
 
 522 
 
 reasonable time has elapsed he cannot be required 
 to deliver, except on payment of full freight, or 
 waiver thereof. In estimating what is reasonable 
 time, the court will take aU circumstances into 
 consideration, including any delay caused by the 
 vis major of competent authorities, administra- 
 tive or judicial. lb. 
 
 A bill of lading in English was given hy the 
 master of a French vessel lying in New York, by 
 which the goods were made deliverable in a 
 French port. The vessel during her voyage suf- 
 fered injury, and put into a port in England. 
 The assignees of the bill of lading and owners of 
 the cargo being British subjects, instituted an 
 action in the court of admiralty for a breach of 
 duty by the master in respect of his obligation 
 to carry on, tranship or deliver. The court 
 ascertained the duty of the master by reference 
 to the law of France. Ih. 
 
 Vessel Liable to Capture.! — By German law, 
 if a vessel is liable to risk of capture, either party 
 may withdraw from the contract of affreight- 
 ment, but the master is not obliged to part with 
 the cargo or to tranship it, unless distance freight, 
 as well as all other claims of the shipowner 
 and the contributions due from the cargo for 
 general average, have been paid or secured : — 
 Held, that a demand upon the master to tranship 
 at his own risk and expense was not such a com- 
 pliance with the German law as obliged him to 
 tranship. Tlie E.rprcs.^i. 41 L. J.. Adm. 79 ; L. R. 
 3 A. & E. 597 ; 26 L. T. 956 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 355. 
 
 Kepairing instead of.] — If in the course of a 
 voyage a ship carrying cargo is damaged by 
 perils of the sea, the shipowner intending to 
 carry the cargo to its destination is entitled to a 
 reasonable time for repairing his ship or for 
 transhipping, and for this purjjose to retain the 
 cargo. Galam, Cargo er, Br. & Lush. 167 ; 2 
 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 216 ; 3 N. R. 254 ; 33 L. J., 
 Adm. 97 ; lo Jur. (N.S.) 477 : 9 L. T. 550 ; 12 
 W. R. 495. 
 
 Negligent Reshipping of Cargo by Third 
 Parties — Consent of Captain. j — (iunpDwdcr wiis 
 shipped for Valparaiso on board a vessel char- 
 tered 6n a voyage to that j)ort, with liberty to 
 touch ami stay at the l''alkl;uid Islands. On tlic 
 arrival of the vessel at Port Stanley, where the 
 captain had goods to unload for the ilefendants, 
 it was found that by the regulations of the port 
 it would be necessary to land and store the 
 powder before the vessel could enter the harbour. 
 To avoid tiie inconvenience and ex])ens(' (if this, 
 the captain a<'cej)ted the offer of the agent of the 
 dofcMilants of tii(; use of a vessel belonging to 
 them, called tlie "Fairy," in which to place the. 
 powder during his stay at Port Stanley. The 
 tlefcndants' agent afterwards requiring the 
 "Fairy" for another purjjose, without tin- con- 
 sent of the captain transhipped the jiowdcr to 
 a half-deckod vessel calleil the " Lily," which 
 was an unsafe and improper vessel for the pur- 
 pose. Whilst the " Lily " was anchored ()utsid(! 
 the harbour a storm arose, and she was simk. and 
 the powder lost : — Held, that the defendants 
 were responsible for the value, for that (hey 
 were cither trespassers in removing the jjovvdcr 
 without the ca])tain's consent, or bailees who had 
 been guilty of want of reasonable care. Bonne- 
 brrq V. Ft'iUdand Islands Co., 17 C. B. (N.s.) 1 ; 
 34 L. J., 0. P. 34 : 10 Jur. (N.s.) 940 ; 10 L. T. 
 530; 12 W. R. 914.
 
 523 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 524 
 
 Costs of Unsuccessful Defence.] — On the 
 
 arrival of the ship at- Vali)avaiso, the consignees 
 of the powder demanded it from the captain, 
 and, not obtaining it, took proceedings against 
 the ship, which the captain unsuccessfully 
 resisted, being ultimately compelled to pay the 
 consignees the value of the powder and the 
 costs": — Held, that the owners of the ship could 
 not claim these costs from the defendants, they 
 not being a necessary consequence of their 
 wrongful act. Ih. 
 
 c. To Sell — Power of Master. 
 
 At Intermediate Port without Owner's Con- 
 sent.] — A master of a vessel cannot at an inter- 
 mediate port sell goods which are damaged, and 
 cannot be carried to the port of discharge, with- 
 out communicating with their owner. Acatos 
 T. Burns, 47 L. J., Ex. 566 ; 3 Ex. D. 282 ; 26 
 W. R. 624— C. A. 
 
 Possibility of Communication with Owner.] 
 
 — The possibility of communicating with the 
 owner depends "on the circumstances of each 
 case, involving the consideration of the facts 
 which create the urgency for an early sale, the 
 distance of the port'from the owner, the means 
 of communication which may exist, and the 
 general position of the master in the particular 
 emergency. Australasian Steam Navigation 
 Co. V. Morse, infra, col. -524. 
 
 Such a communication need only be made 
 when an .answer can be obtained, or there is a 
 reasonable expectation that it can be obtained, 
 before the sale. Ih. 
 
 When, however, there is ground for such an 
 expectation, every endeavour, so far as the posi- 
 tion in which he is placed will allow, should be 
 made by the master to obtain the owner's in- 
 structions. Ih. 
 
 The master is bound to employ the telegraph 
 as a means of commimication, where it can use- 
 fully be done ; but the state of the particular 
 telegraph, the way in which it is managed, and 
 the possibility of transmitting explanatory 
 messages, are proper subjects to be considered 
 in determining the question of the practicability 
 of communication. Ih. 
 
 Necessity for Sale must be Shewn.]— On 
 
 the 19th of X\n-\\ an Austrian ship, with a 
 valuable cargo on board, ran ui)on a rock on the 
 eastern side of Algoa Bay, distant fifty miles by 
 sea and about eighty by land from Port Eliza- 
 beth. The Austrian consul at Port Elizabeth 
 came to the spot, and, there being no hope of 
 getting the vessel off, he advised the master to 
 sell her with the cargo. The master accordingly 
 advertised the ship and cargo for sale, and they 
 were sold in one lot by auction on the .SOth 
 of April for 9,.500Z., after a brisk competition. 
 The purchaser got some part of the cargo out of 
 the wreck, but on the 19th of June the ship went 
 to pieces with the rest of the cargo on board. 
 The owners of the cargo having abandoned it to 
 the underwriters as a total loss, the underwriters 
 tiled their bill to have the goods which had been 
 brought to land delivered to them as not having 
 been effectually sold. The master had not gone 
 to Port Elizabeth, nor endeavoured to procure 
 funds to enable him to save the cargo ; nor had 
 he made any effort to induce any persons to 
 undertake the salvage of the cargo. Several 
 witnesses at Port Elizabeth deposed that in their 
 
 opinion no person could have been induced to 
 undertake the salvage ; others gave their opinion 
 that offers to save the cargo could have been 
 obtained if a large percentage of the net pro- 
 ceeds had been offered. There was a good deal 
 of evidence to shew that, in the opinion of 
 persons on the spot, the course which had been 
 adopted of selling the wreck and cargo was the 
 most advisable one in the interest of all parties 
 concerned : — Held, that no such necessity was 
 proved to have existed as would make the 
 master the agent of the owners of the cargo to 
 effect a sale"; that the sale was void ; and that 
 the plaintiffs were entitled to the cargo saved, 
 sixbject to a proper allowance for salvage and 
 other expenses. Atlantic. Mutual Marin£ Insu- 
 rance Co. V. Uvtli, 16 Ch. D. 474 ; 44 L. T. 67 ; 
 29 W. R. 387— C. A. 
 
 The authority of the master to sell the goods 
 of an absent owner is derived from the necessity 
 of the situation in which he is placed ; and, 
 consequently, to justify his selling, he must 
 establish a necessity for the sale ; and an 
 inability to communicate with the owner. 
 Australasian Steam Navigation Co. v. Morse^ 
 8 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 482 ; L. E. 4 P. C. 222 ; 27 
 L. T. 357 ; 20 W. R. 728. 
 
 Under these conditions, and by force of them, 
 the master becomes the agent of the owner, not 
 only with the power, but under the obligation 
 (within certain limits) of acting for him ; but 
 he is not, in any case, entitled to substitute his 
 own judgment for the will of the ovnier, in 
 selling the goods, where it is possible to com- 
 municate with the owner. Ih. 
 
 In cases of necessity affecting the interest of 
 the shipper, and where the sale of the cargo is 
 directly or indirectly for his benefit, the master 
 of the vessel becomes his agent for the purpose 
 of selling the cargo. Duncan v. Benson, 3 Ex. 
 644 ; 18 L. J., Ex. 169 ; 12 Jur. 218— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Sufficiency of Evidence of Authority.] — B. 
 
 chartered a ship warranted tight and seaworthy, 
 and took on board the goods of several persons. 
 The ship proved unseaworthy, the goods were 
 damaged, and the master sold them at a foreign 
 port. The owners brought an action against the 
 charterer for the loss of the cargo ; a correspon- 
 dence then ensued between him and the owner, 
 and it was ultimately settled that a jury should 
 assess damages, which they did at 5,000Z., and 
 costs 1,000Z. The charterer then sued the owner 
 of the vessel for this decree, on the breach of the 
 conditions of the charterparty, and allowed him 
 the amount received by the master for the sale 
 of the sugar : — Held, that very slight evidence 
 woiild be sufficient to prove the master's autho- 
 rity to sell the damaged cargo. Blyth v. Smithy 
 6 Scott (N.R.) 360 ; 5 Man. & G. 405 ; 12, L. J., 
 C. P. 203 ; 7 Jur. 948. 
 
 Mere Deterioration of Cargo.] — A cargo of 
 opium, sliipped at Calcutta, was, by the bill of 
 lading, to be delivered at Hong Kong. The ship 
 came in collision at sea with another vessel, and 
 received so much injury as to compel her to put 
 in at Singapore, where the cargo was found to be 
 partially damaged by the salt water. The master, 
 who acted bona fide, and to the best of his judg- 
 ment, selected the damaged chests of opium, and 
 sold them by auction, and forwarded the re- 
 mainder to Hong Kong. The master might 
 have had the damaged opium redried and 
 repacked while the vessel was refitting, and have
 
 525 
 
 SHIPPING— XY. Cargo. 
 
 526 
 
 forwarded it, though deteriorated in value, with 
 the other opium : — Held, that it was the duty 
 of the master to carry the cargo to its place of 
 destination, as the goods could have been de- 
 livered in a merchantable, although in a damaged 
 state. Troitwn v. Bent, 8 Moore, P. C. 41'J. 
 
 Port of Distress— Law of the Flag."] — The 
 
 plaintiffs, who were British subjects, shipped 
 pepper at Singapore, on board the German ship 
 "August," to be carried with other cargo to 
 London. The ship met with bad weather, and 
 was obliged to put into Cape Town, the ship and 
 portions of her cargo having sustained damage. 
 The master, acting on the advice of surveyors, 
 sold a portion of the plaintiff's pepper, with 
 other cargo. In an action for breach of contract 
 and for conversion : — Held, that the conduct of 
 the master in selling the pepper in question was 
 to be determined by German law, that being the 
 law of the flag. The August, 60 L. J., Adm. 57 : 
 [1891] P. 328 ; 66 L. T. 32 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 110. 
 
 Perishing Cargo — Duty to Sell ] — If a cargo 
 in a pott of distress is in a perishiiig condition, 
 and the ship in need of repairs, the master must 
 decide whether to tranship or sell the cargo ; if 
 he cannot tranship, he is boimd to sell the cargo 
 and not to let it perish ; if acting according to 
 his reasonable judgment he sells for the benefit 
 of all concerned, the purchaser is safe, even 
 though the master acts unwisely. 27ie Gratitu- 
 dine, 3 C. Rob. 2i0, 259. 
 
 Ship Damaged. Cargo Uninjured — Duty of 
 Uaster.j — Where the ship is damaged and unable 
 to proceed, the master is not justified in selling 
 the cargo, it being uninjured, notwithstanding 
 an exception in the bill of lading of "dangers 
 and accidents of the seas and navigation." 
 Cannaii v. Meahurn, 1 Bing. 243, 405 ; 1 L. J. 
 (O.S.) C. P. 84 ; 2 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 60 ; 8 Moore, 
 127. 
 
 Sale of Cargo by Order of Vice-Admiralty 
 Court.] — Sale of cargo by master under order of 
 vice -admiralty court at Mauritius without 
 necessity, treated as void in action by cargo 
 owner against purchaser. Morrix v. Ituhittxon. 
 6 D. & K. 35 ; 3 B. & C. 196 : 27 R. R. 322. 
 S. P., Freeman v. East India Co., 5 B. iSc Aid. 
 621 ; 1 D. & R. 234 ; 24 R. R. 497. 
 
 Master no Authority to Sell.] — A master has 
 no authority Uj sell cargo in a foreign port to 
 which he is driven, although it is impossible 
 for him to carry it to its destination. If he 
 does so, though acting bona fide and for the 
 benefit of aU {)arties, he is guilty of conversion, 
 for which the shipowner is liable. Van Oineron 
 V. Duwick, 2 Camp. 42 ; 11 R. R. 656. 
 
 Sale Abroad— Effect of Foreign Law.] — The 
 
 agent in Russia of an En^'lisll merchant, resident 
 in England, shipped in Russia a cargo of deals 
 on board a Pru-ssian vessel, owned by a Prussian 
 captain, to be carried to Hull, consigned to the 
 English merchant under an ordinary bill of 
 lading. The vessel wa.s wrecked on the coast of 
 Norway, but the cargo was brought safely on 
 shore there, and could have been reshiy>ped and 
 sent on to England. By the law of Norway, a 
 captain of a ve.ssel placed in this jiosition, though 
 responsible to the owners if he sells improperly, 
 has power to sell the cargo so as to convey a 
 
 good title to a bona fide purchaser. The captain, 
 in the exercise of his discretion, and without any 
 absolute necessity, sold the cargo to a bona fide 
 purchaser, who resold the cargo to the defendant, 
 who sent it to England, when the plaintiff, 
 representing the English merchant, the original 
 owner, claimed the cargo and brought an action 
 for it : — Held, that the action could not be 
 maintained, on the ground that the property in 
 the cargo passed to the purchaser by the sale in 
 Norway, according to the law of that country ; 
 that the courts of this countr}- will recognise 
 the Norwegian law in this respect, and that the 
 property could not be divested by the cargo 
 being afterwards brought to England. Caiiimiil 
 V. Sewell, 5 H. & N."72S ; 29"'L. J.. Ex. 350 ; 
 6 Jur. (N.s.) 918 ; 2 L. T. 799 ; 8 W. R. 639— 
 Ex. Ch. 
 
 Liability of Shipowner.] — The plaintiffs wish- 
 ing to send cement and stone from London to 
 Callao, the defendants on the 24th of June wrote 
 offering them "room" for it in the ship " F. K. 
 Dumas," and on the 25th of June the defenilants 
 chartered the ship of the owners for a voyage 
 from London to Callao by a charterparty, pro- 
 viding, inter alia, that the whole ship should be 
 at the disposal of the charterers, except the space 
 necessary for the crew and stores ; that the master 
 and owners should give the same attention to 
 the cargo, and in every respect be responsible to 
 all whom it might concern, as if the ship were 
 loaded in her berth by and for the owners inde- 
 pendenth' of the charter ; that the master was 
 to sign bills of lading at any rate of freight the 
 charterers might lequire without prejudice to the 
 charterparty; that the ship should be addressed 
 to the charterers' nominees at the port of dis- 
 charge : and the charterers' responsibility, except 
 for freight, was to cease on the vessel being 
 loaded. On the 26th of June an agreement wa.s- 
 made between the defendants " acting for the 
 owners" of the ship, and the plaintiffs, that the 
 former should receive on board cement and stone 
 at a certain freight from London to Callao and 
 sail on a certain date ; freight to be paid one- 
 half on signing bills of lading and the remainder 
 on final discharge at Callao. Tlie cement and 
 stone were shijiped, half freight was paid, and 
 the master signed bills of lading making the 
 other half |)ayal)le at Callao, and the ship sailed, 
 but being damaged by bad weather put into an 
 intermeiliate jiort, where she was condemned, 
 and the captain sohl the plaintilTs' goods, believ- 
 ing that he was unable to forward them. The 
 plaintiffs having sued the tlefendants for the 
 value, tlie jury found that the sale wtis not 
 justified : — Held, that the captain, in selling the 
 goods, was not acting as the servant or agent of 
 the defendants, and they were llurcfon! not 
 lialile for the convei-sion. U'ln/xttilf v. AiulrriKm, 
 49 L. J., C. P. 485 ; 5 C. P. D.'HI"; 44 L. T. 720 ; 
 28 W. R. 856— C. A. 
 
 Trover lies against a shipowner for a sale by 
 the master, of g(io<ls at a place short of the port 
 of destination, under circumstances not incon- 
 sistent with the general scope of the authoiity 
 conferred upon the master by the owner. 
 Ewhanh v. yuttimj, 7 C. B. 797. 
 
 A cargo of salt wius shii)pcd at Liverpool for 
 Calcutta, under a bill of lading making the same 
 deliverable to A. & Co. on i)ayment of freight 
 there as per charterparty. 'J'he ship sustained 
 damage in cjuitting the harbour at Liverpool, and 
 ultimately became so leaky, that the master was
 
 527 
 
 SHIPPING— XY. Cargo. 
 
 528 
 
 compelled to run for Bahia, where, finding the 
 state oE the ship such as to render her incapable 
 of continniuaj the voyage, and being unable to 
 forward the salt to its destination, he sold it by 
 l)iiblic auction, remitting the proceeds to his 
 owner, who tendered the amount, after making 
 deductions for general average and expenses, to 
 the shipper of the salt : — Held, that the master 
 and owner were jointly liable for the conversion, 
 that it was not necessary to give the charter- 
 party in evidence, and that the • jury was 
 warranted in estimating the damages at the 
 cost price of the salt, and the sum the shipper 
 liad paid on account of the freight. lb. 
 
 Sale of Part — Measure of Damages.] — Where 
 a master sells part of a shipper's goods at an 
 intermediate port, in order to raise money to 
 provide for the repairs or other expenses of the 
 vessel which are necessary to enable him to 
 prosecute and complete the voyage, and the ship 
 does not arrive at her port of destination, the 
 shipper is not entitled to receive the clear value 
 for which the goods would have sold at that 
 port. Atkimon v. Stejjheiis, 7 Ex. 567 ; 21 L. J., 
 Ex. 329. 
 
 Sale for Repairs.] — Terms on which master 
 restrained from selling for repairs. See Rayne 
 V. Benedict, supra, col. 88. 
 
 See further as to power of master to sell cargo, 
 Cobequid 3Iarine Insurance Co. v. Huth, and 
 •cases, supra, col. 87. 
 
 9. Delivery and Discharge. 
 a. Time. 
 
 Delay caused by Vis Major,] — When a charter- 
 party is silent as to the time within which the 
 cargo is to be unloaded at the port of destination, 
 the contract implied by law is that the ship- 
 owTier and the charterer shall each perform his 
 part, and neither is answerable for delay caused 
 by vis major. Furd v. Cotesioorth, 10 B. & S. 
 991 ; 89 L. J., Q. B. 188 : L. II. 5 Q. B. 544 : 
 23 L. T. 165 ; 18 W. E. 1169— Ex. Ch. 
 
 A charterparty for a voyage from Liverpool to 
 Lima or Valparaiso provided that the vessel 
 should proceed to the port of discharge, or as 
 near thereto as she could safely get, and there 
 deliver her cargo in the usual and customary 
 manner. A specified number of days was agreed 
 upon for loading the vessel at Liverpool, but 
 there was no such agreement as to the discharge 
 at her port of destination. The vessel arrived at 
 the port of discharge, and remained discharging 
 till, ovdng to apprehension of a bombardment by 
 a hostile fleet, the authorities suspended all 
 landing of goods for seven days, after which she 
 returned, and her discharge was completed : — 
 Held, that the discharge of the cargo being an 
 act to be done by the shipowner and freighter, 
 the shipowner could not maintain an action 
 against the freighter for the loss from the delay 
 occasioned by the vis major. lb. See Cunninq- 
 liam V. Bunn, 48 L. J., C. P. 62 : 3 C. P. D. 443 ; 
 38 L. T. 631— C. A. And cases ante, cols. 285, 
 507. 
 
 Refusal of Authorities to allow Cargo to be 
 Landed — Freight.] — A cargo of petroleum 
 belonging to an English owner was shipped on 
 board an English ship in London, under a bill of 
 lading whereby the goods were to be delivered 
 in the port of Havre, subject to the usual excep- 
 
 tions. It was stipulated that demurrage was to 
 be paid if the goods were not taken out within 
 twenty-four hours after arrival. The local 
 authorities refused to allow the petroleum to be 
 landed at Havre, and compelled the ship to leave 
 the port without unloading any of her cargo. 
 The master, having made unsuccessful attempts 
 to land the petroleum at other ports, returned to 
 Havre and transhipped it into a lighter in the 
 roads while he went into dock, unloaded the rest 
 of his cargo, and reloaded for his return voyage. 
 He was then compelled by the authorities to 
 reship the petroleum, and brought it back to 
 London. No bill of lading was presented to 
 him, nor any request made by the consignees for 
 delivery : — Held, first, that the master having 
 been ready and able to give delivery in the 
 harbour, and having kept the goods a reasonable 
 time there for the purpose, the freight had been 
 earned. Argos. Cargo e.v, Gaudet v. Brown, 
 L. Pv. 5 P. C. 134 ; 28 L. T. 745 ; 21 W. E. 707. 
 
 Held, secondly, that all obhgation on the part 
 of a master to act for the merchant does not 
 cease after a reasonable time for the latter to 
 take delivery of the cargo has expired, and that 
 therefore the master was entitled to compensa- 
 tion for bringing the goods back to England, as 
 that was the best way of making them available 
 to the owner, and also for the expenses incurred 
 at Havre. lb. 
 
 Held, thirdly, that he was not entitled to 
 demurrage, ami the expenses of attempting to 
 enter other pores, as they were incurred before 
 the ship was ready to deliver at all in the port 
 of Havre. lb. 
 
 Embargo.] — The defendant contracted to carry 
 the plaintiil's goods from Liverpool to Leghorn ; 
 on the vessel's arriving at Falmouth, in the 
 course of her voyage, an embargo was laid on 
 her "until the further order of council" : — Held, 
 that such embargo only suspended, but did not 
 dissolve the contract between the parties ; and 
 that, even after two years, when the embargo 
 wa,s taken off, the defendant was answerable to 
 the plaintiff in damages for the non-performance 
 of the contract. Hadley v. Clarke, 8 Term Eep. 
 259 ; 4 E. E. 641. 
 
 Obligation to TInload Ship in Reasonable Time.] 
 
 — By a charterparty entered into between the 
 plaintiff and Gr. it was agreed that the plaintiff's 
 vessel should at the port of discharge be unloaded 
 as fast as the custom of the port would allow. 
 By the bill of lading, signed by the master, the 
 cargo was stated to have been shipped by G. and 
 was to be delivered to the defendant or his 
 assigns, he or they paying freight for the goods 
 as per charterparty. No time for the discharge 
 of the cargo was mentioned in the bill of lading. 
 At the port of discharge there was no custom as 
 to unloading vessels, but a delay occurred in un- 
 loading the ship. The defendant never assigned 
 the biil of lading, but before the arrival of the 
 ship he sold the cargo, and the ultimate pur- 
 chaser took delivery of it upon an order signed 
 by the defendant : — Held, in an action for not 
 discharging within a reasonable time, that, as 
 there was no custom of the port of discharge as 
 to unloading vessels, the charterparty did not 
 by its terms vary the implied contract contained 
 in the bill of lading to deliver the cargo within 
 a reasonable time. Fowler v. Kiwoj), 48 L. J., 
 Q. B. 333 ; 4 Q. B. D. 229 ; 40 L. T. 180 ; 27 
 W. E. 299 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 68— C. A.
 
 529 
 
 SHIPPING— XY. Cav<i, 
 
 530 
 
 Delivery— Presentation of Bill of Lading.] — 
 
 See The Stettin, infra, col. oU. 
 
 Deviation in Course of Voyage and Delay in 
 Delivery — Eisk of War.] — The master of a 
 Prussian vessel, a subject of the king of Prussia, 
 having on board a cargo of nitrate of soda (con- 
 traband of war) under a charterparty, and a bill 
 of lading from Pisagua, bound to Cork, Cowes, or 
 Falmouth, for orders to proceed to any safe port 
 in Great Britain or on the continent between 
 Havre and Hamburg, both included, and there 
 deliver the cargo, ■' the act of God, the Queen's 
 enemies, fire, and all and every other risk, 
 dangers, and accidents of the seas, rivers, and 
 navigation of whatever nature and kind soever 
 excepted"' ; arrived at Falmouth on the 10th of 
 July, 1870. and received orders on the 11th of 
 that month to proceed to the French port Dun- 
 kirk, and there deliver her cargo. On the sliip's 
 arrival off Dunkirk on the IGth the master was 
 informed by a French pilot that war had broken 
 out between France and Prussia, whereupon the 
 master put back to the Downs to make inquiries, 
 and anchored there on the 17th, which was 
 Sunday. On the 18th, having telegraphed to 
 the owner of the vessel for instructions, he was 
 ordered not to go to Dunkirk, and on the 19th 
 he put into Dover, where he was informed, as 
 the fact was, that war, which had been immi- 
 nent from the 10th, had been declared between 
 France and the North German Confederation, 
 formal declaration thereof having been given as 
 upon the l'.»th of July :— Held, that the master 
 was justified in putting back to the Downs for the 
 purpose of ascertaining whether war had been 
 declared, and was guilty of no improper devia- 
 tion or delay in not returning to Dunkirk before 
 the I'Jth of July, when war was actually declared. 
 The Teutonin, Duncan v. Kijtsfer, 8 Moore, P. C. 
 (N.s.) 411 ; 41 L. J., Adm. 57 ; L. R. 4 P. C. 171 ; 
 2G L. T. 48; 20 W. K. 421. 
 
 Held, also, that the master committed no 
 breach of contract in refusing to deliver the 
 cargo at Dunkirk, and as the charterparty pro- 
 vided what freight was to be paid if the cargo 
 wa.s delivered, the delivery at Dover was within 
 the terms of the charterparty, and the master 
 was entitled to freight for the cargo from the 
 owners before delivery. Ih. 
 
 When a master receives credible information 
 that if he continues in the direct course of bis 
 voyage his ship will be e.x|)Osed to some immi- 
 nent peril — as from pirates, or icebeigs. or other 
 <langers of navig.ition — he is justified in |)ausing 
 and deviating from the direct course, and taking 
 any step that a prudent man would take for the 
 purpose of avoiding the danger. I h. 
 
 liy a charterparty in the English language 
 entered into at Constantinople between the 
 master of a North (ierman vessel, and North 
 (Jerman merchants there resident, it was agreed 
 that the vessel should load a cargo, and proceed 
 therewith to Falmouth, Plymouth, or Queens- 
 town, for orders for a safe port in tiie United 
 Kingdom, or on the continent V>etwecn Havre 
 and Hamburg, Queen's cnemias, &c., excepted. 
 The cargo was laden. The. vessel sailed, but her 
 ma.ster learning on his voyage that war existed 
 between France and Germany, and fearing caj)- 
 turc by French cruisers, put into Gibraltar. 
 During the war there would have been great 
 risk of capture off that j)ort and off the jiorls of 
 call if the vessel had continued her voyage ; her 
 master in consequence remained there until the 
 
 end of the war (nine months). He then sailed, 
 and arriving at a port of call was ordered to an 
 English port. The cargo was damaged by the 
 delay. In a claim by the consignees : — Held, 
 that' by both English and North German law the 
 master was justified in putting into and remain- 
 ing in port, and that the shipo\s'ner3 were not 
 responsible for the damage caused bv the delav. 
 The Express, 41 L. J., Adm. 79 ; L. R. 3 A. &; E. 
 597 ; 2(3 L. T. 956 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 355. 
 
 Eisk of Capture.] — An apprehension of 
 
 capture founded on circumstances calculated to 
 affect the mind of a master of ordinary courage, 
 judgment, and experience, wiU justify delay in 
 the prosecution of a voyage ; and a ship is not 
 answerable in a suit under the Admiralty Court 
 Act, 18(U, s. 6, for damage to cargo caused by 
 such delay. The San Roman, Anderson v. San 
 Iloman {Owners'), 42 L. J., Adm. 46; L. R. 5 
 P. C. 301 ; 12 W. R. 393 ; 28 L. T. 381 ; 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 603. 
 
 A charterparty was entered into between an 
 English and a German firm, the o\\'ners of a 
 vessel belonging to Hamburg. The charterparty 
 provided that the vessel should proceed to a 
 foreign port, and there load a cargo, and pro- 
 ceedto a port within certain limits mentioned. 
 After the making of the charterparty, and the 
 shii)ment of the goods, war broke out between 
 Germany and France. On the homeward voyage 
 the ship sustained damage, and was compelled 
 to put into a neutral port for repairs ; and find- 
 ing that French cruisers were in the vicinity, she 
 remained tliere for a long time after the repairs 
 were completed, to avoid the risk of capture. 
 The risk was such as to render it reasonable and 
 prudent for the master to remain in port. On 
 the departure of the cruisers the master sailed on 
 his voyage, and delivered the cargo according to 
 orders': — Held, that the delay was justifiable. 
 Ih. 
 
 The master of a North German ship lying at 
 Constantinople entered into a charterparty with 
 North German subjects, there resident, to carry 
 a cargo to a port in the United Kingdom or on 
 the continent, to be delivered to English con- 
 signees. The chartcrj)arty and the bill of lading 
 given under it were in the English language, and 
 it was stipulated that the ship should call at one 
 of three ports in the United Kingdom for orders. 
 The ship duly called at Falmouth, and was 
 ordered to proceed to an English port to dis- 
 charge. War then existed between France and 
 Germany. The master sailed from Falmouth, 
 but, thiough a rea.sonable fear of capture, put 
 into Dunkirk. The cargo wa.s damaged by the 
 (It.ljiy :_Hel<l, that the contract was to be con- 
 strued according to English law, and (hat the 
 master was justified. The Wilkelui Schmidt, 25 
 L. T. 34 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 82. 
 
 A North (Jerman vessel shipped goods in the 
 Black Sea for a i)ort in the United Kingdom or 
 on tlie continent under an English charterparty, 
 by which she was to call at Falmouth or 
 P'lymoulh for orders, such ordi^rs to Ijc given by 
 the ciiartcrcr's agent in London by return of 
 post, on receipt of the master's announcement 
 of iiis arrival. She arrived at Falmouth on 
 August 9th. Orilers were given, but not till 
 SeiTtember 3rd, to proceed to Ecith ; but fiom 
 that d;Ue to the arr<st of the ship, on September 
 21st, negotiations were going on for discharge of 
 the cargo at Falmouth. Between those dates 
 the winds were liglit .and variable, and the
 
 531 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 532 
 
 master remained in port for fear of capture by 
 French cruisers in the channel, war then exist- 
 ing between France and Germany : — Held, that 
 the delay was reasonable, and that neither by 
 English nor German law was the master bound 
 to proceed, and that the negotiations waived the 
 orders to proceed. The Heinrich, L. K. 3 
 A. & E. 42i ; 24 L. T. 9U ; 1 Asp. M. C. 79. 
 
 Loss of Cargo after Deviation.] — The law 
 
 implies a duty on the owner of a vessel, whether 
 a general ship or hired for the special purpose 
 of the voyage, to proceed without unnecessary 
 deviation from the usual course. Davis v. 
 Garrett, 6 Bing. 716 ; 4 M. & P. 540 ; 8 L. J. 
 (O.S.) C. P. 253 ; 31 R. E. 524. 
 
 A. put on board B.'s barge, lime to be con- 
 veyed from the Med way to London. The master 
 of the barge deviated unnecessarily from the 
 usual course, and, during the deviation, a tem- 
 pest wetted the lime, and the barge taking fire 
 thereby, the whole was lost : — Held, that B. was 
 liable, and the cause of loss sufficiently proxi- 
 mate to entitle A. to recover under a declaration 
 alleging B.'s duty to carry the lime without 
 unnecessary deviation, and averring a loss by 
 unnecessary deviation, lb. 
 
 A count, stating that the defendants being 
 owners of a ship at Liverpool bound on a voyage 
 thence toWaterford, the plaintiff shipped goods 
 on board, to be carried upon that voyage by the 
 defendants, and to be delivered at W. to the 
 plaintiff's assigns, and thereupon the plaintiff 
 insured the goods at and from L. to W. ; and 
 then averring that it was the duty of the defen- 
 dants, as such owners, to cause the ship to 
 proceed on the voyage from L. to W. without 
 deviation ; and alleging a breach of such duty 
 by their causing the ship to deviate from the 
 course of that voyage ; after which she was lost 
 with the goods ; and the plaintiff by reason of 
 such deviation lost his goods and the benefit of 
 his policy — cannot be sustained for want of 
 alleging, that the goods were delivered to or 
 received by the defendants for the purpose of 
 carriage, or that they had notice of the ship- 
 ment, whence a promise or a duty founded upon 
 an agreement to carry the goods might be 
 inferred ; and also for want of an allegation, 
 that the defendants undertook to carry the goods 
 directly to VV". from L. ; for, though the ship's 
 ultimate destination might be W., yet she might 
 have been first destined to other places on a 
 coasting voyage. Max v. Eoherts, 12 East, 89; 
 2 Bos. & P. (N.R.) 454. 
 
 The owners of vessels on the navigation 
 between A. and C, having given public notice 
 that they would not be answerable for losses in 
 any case, except the loss was occasioned by the 
 want of care in the master, nor even in such 
 cases beyond \Ql. per cent., unless extra freight 
 was paid, the master of one of the ships took on 
 board goods to be carried from A. to B. (an inter- 
 mediate place between A. and C.) and delivered 
 at B. : the vessel passed by B. without delivering 
 the goods there, and sunk before her arrival at 
 C, without any want of care in the master : — 
 Held, that the owner of the vessel was responsible 
 to the owner of the goods for the whole loss. 
 Ellis V. Turner, 8 Term Eep. 531 ; 5 R. R. 441. 
 
 '•Cargo to he brought to and taken from 
 alongside free of Expense and Risk to the 
 Ship."] — The defendants chartered the plaintiffs' 
 vessel, the " C," for a voyage to the port of L. The 
 
 charterparty provided that the cargo was "to 
 be brought to and taken alongside free of expense 
 and risk of the ship " ; but it contained no other 
 clause as to discharging the cargo. The number 
 of lighters at L. was small, and when the " C. " 
 arrived the port was crowded with vessels, about 
 half of which belonged to the defendants or had 
 been consigned to them. Seventy-two days 
 elapsed after the arrival of the " C." before her 
 discharge was completed by the defendants' 
 agents ; but the number of days upon which 
 the cargo was unloaded was only thirty-four. 
 The delay arose from the lighters being engaged 
 in discharging the other vessels lying at the 
 port : — Held, that in determining whether the 
 terms of the charterparty had been broken by 
 the defendants, the delay occasioned by the 
 lighters being engaged in discharging other 
 vessels was not to be taken into account. 
 Wright v. New Zealand Shippiiig Co., 4 Ex. D. 
 165 ; 40 L. T. 413 ; 4 Asp. M. 0. 118— C. A. 
 
 •'Cargo to be discharged with all Despatch 
 according to the Custom of the Port."] — The 
 
 defendants chartered the plaintiff's vessel, the 
 " C," to carry a cargo of rails to the port of L. 
 The charterparty provided that the cargo should 
 be taken from alongside at merchants' risk and 
 expense, and should be " discharged with all 
 despatch according to the custom of the port." 
 By the custom of the port of L. vessels were dis- 
 charged by lighters worked along a warp, and 
 upon the arrival of a vessel she was reported at 
 the port office, and in her turn, with respect to 
 vessels which had previously arrived, one lighter 
 was sent to her every working day until she was 
 discharged. Upon the arrival of the " C." at 
 L., in consequence of the scarcity of suitable 
 lighters, and the number of vessels lying there, 
 the defendants were unable to begin to discharge 
 until twenty-four working days had elapsed. 
 In an action to recover damages for the detention 
 of the " C." at L. during these twenty-four days, 
 the judge directed the jury that there was no 
 obligation upon the defendants to provide one 
 lighter for unloading the cargo of the " C." for 
 every working day after she was ready to unload, 
 and that if the defendants used the existing 
 appliances at L. with due despatch, according to 
 the custom of the port, the jury ought to find 
 for them : — Held, that the direction was correct. 
 Postlethwaite v. Frceland, 49 L. J., Ex. 630 ; 
 5 App. Gas. 599 ; 42 L. T. 845 ; 28 W. R. 833; 
 4 Asp. M. C. 302— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Delivery of Cargo according to Custom of 
 
 Port.] — A shipowner was sued on a clause in a 
 bill of lading, by which he was bound to forward 
 the goods by steamer from London to a foreign 
 port, the breach of duty being in not using due 
 diligence to do so, whereby the season was 
 lost : — Held, that it was not enough that he 
 had let the discharge and sorting of the cargo 
 take the usual course of business at the docks 
 where the vessel discharged, if he neglected 
 means which might well have been used to 
 hasten the sorting, and to procure vessels for 
 the transhipment. Carali v. Xenos, 2 F. & F. 
 740. 
 
 Delivery prevented by Circumstances beyond 
 Charterer's Control — Implied Contract.] — When, 
 by a charterparty, a given number of days is 
 allowed to the charterer for unloading, a con- 
 tract is implied on his part that, from the time
 
 533 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 534 
 
 when the ship is at the usual place of discharge 
 he vrill take the risk of any ordinary vicissitudes 
 ■which may occur to prevent his releasing the 
 ship at the expiration of the lay days. Tiis or 
 TTiiis V. Byers, 45 L. J., Q. B. 511 ; 1 Q. B. D. 
 244 ; 34 L. T. 526 ; 24 W. E. 611. 
 
 Delayed by Stress of Weather,] — When the 
 shipowner was prevented from unloading and 
 the charterer from receiving by stress of weather 
 after the arrival of the ship : — Held, that the 
 charterer was liable under the above rule. li. 
 
 Delivery and Payment of Freight — Con- 
 current Acts.] — By the terms of a bill of lading 
 freight was to be paid, one-third in cash on 
 arrival at B. and two-thirds on right delivery of 
 cargo, by good and approved bills or cash, at 
 shipper's option. The vessel arrived at B.. the 
 one-third freight was paid, and the consignee 
 elected to pay the two-thirds in cash : — Held, 
 that the delivery of the cargo and payment of 
 the balance of the freight were to be concurrent 
 acts, and that the master was not bound to 
 deliver the cargo unless the consignee paid, or 
 was ready and willing at the same time to pay, 
 the balance of the freight. Paynter v. James, 
 18 L. T. 449 ; 10 W. R. 768— Ex. Ch. 
 
 A master hearing that war had broken out 
 between two powers, to one of which his vessel 
 belonged, stopped at a neutral port for the pur- 
 pose of obtaining intelligence. While he was 
 thus justifiably engaged in inquiries the con- 
 signees demanded delivery of cargo without any 
 payment of freight : — Held, that the master was 
 justified in refusing to deliver the cargo. The 
 Teutonia, 8 Moore, P. C. 411 ; 41 L. J., Adm. 57 ; 
 L. R. 4 P. C. 171 : 26 L. T. 48 ; 20 W. K. 421. 
 
 See also XII. Bill of Lading, Peesenta- 
 TION, cols. 313, 314. 
 
 Sale of Cargo — Purchaser to Discharge — 
 Practice — Third Party Order — Ord. XVI. 
 rr. 17, 18.] — An action was biuught against the 
 defendants for breach of charterparty, by which 
 they had agreed to discharge a cargo of iiitiate 
 of soda as fast as the custom of the port would 
 allow. The defendants had sold, at Liverpool, 
 to a company carrying on Vjusiness in Scotland, 
 the cargo to arrive, and it was shewn that by 
 the custom of the trade, of which the company 
 were aware, on such sale of a cargo the buyers 
 would be bound to discharge in accordance with 
 the custom of the jiort : — Held, that the defen- 
 dants were entitled to a third party order against 
 the company. Swamm Sh'iiip'ihci Co. v. Duncan, 
 Fox 4- Co., 45 L. J., Q. B. 638 ; 1 Q. B. D. 044 ; 
 35 L. T. 879 ; 25 W. R. 233 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 34.5— 
 C. A. 
 
 Delivery — Defects of Ship's Gear.] — Part of 
 a cargo of salt was lost during the discharge by 
 reason of defects in the ship's gear. By the 
 charterparty the cargo was to be "brfnight to 
 and taken from alongside" : — Held, that the 
 shipo^vners were liable. Avon. Steantxhip Co. v. 
 Leoik, 18 Ct. of Sess. Gas. (4th ser.) 280. 
 
 Consignee not ready to Receive — Refusal of 
 Shipowner to deliver Part.^ — Tli'- lull of 
 lading firovided that the consignee of goods 
 should be ready to receive them at the ship's 
 side as soon as she was remly to deliver, and in 
 default that the shipowner was to land them at 
 the consignee's risk and expense. The consignee 
 
 was not ready to receive the goods, and, when 
 part had been landed by the shipowner, he 
 claimed delivery of the rest. The shipowner 
 refused, and landed the rest himself : — Held, 
 that, unless prejudiced by such delivery, the 
 shipowner was bound to deliver to the consignee 
 the part of the goods claimed. Semble, the 
 Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 1862, 
 25 & 20 Vict. c. 63, s. 67, should be similarly 
 construed. Wilson v. London, Italian and 
 Adriatic Steam Xavigation Co., 1 H. & R. 29 ; 
 L. R. 1 C. P. 61 ; 12 Jur. (X.S.) 522 ; 13 L. T. 
 465. 
 
 Landing Goods without Notice to Consignee 
 — Liability for Loss by Fire after Landing.] — 
 A carrier by sea, under a bill of lading of goods, 
 "to be delivered in the like good order, A:c., at 
 the port of, &c., unto A. or his assigns, on paying 
 for the goods, freight and charges, as per margin, 
 with primage and average accustomed," is not 
 entitled, immediately on the arrival of the vessel, 
 and without notice to the owner, to land the 
 goods ; and if he should land them, and they 
 should be destroyed by fire, he will be answerable 
 to the owner for the loss. Bourne v. Gatliff, 11 
 CI. & F. 45 ; 8 Scott (N.R.) 604 ; 7 Man. & G. 850. 
 
 Liability of Shipowner to cease on Delivery 
 from Deck.] — Goods were shi]ipcd under a 
 bill of lading which contained these words, 
 " to be delivered from the ship's deck, where 
 the ship's responsibility is to cease.'' The 
 usage at the port required that the unloading 
 should be done by the dock company, at the 
 expense of the shipowner, on to a quay, and 
 then that the consignee should send lighters into 
 which the goods were delivered also by the dock 
 company, and also, if not within a specific time, 
 at the expense of the shipowner. The usage was 
 followed, but one bale of goods was lost after 
 delivery on to the quay, and before delivery into 
 the lighters : — Held, that the shipowner was not 
 responsible for the loss to the consignee. Prtrct- 
 cochino v. Bi'tt, 43 L. J., C. P. 214 ; L. R. » 
 C. P. 355 ; 30 L. T. 840 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 310. 
 
 Refusal to Deliver without Payment of Freight 
 — Liability for Demurrage.^ — I'.y cliartcriiarty 
 the shipownci :igrrc(l with the fri'ightcT to deliver 
 cargo at a nani<>d jiort on payment of freight 
 according to bills of lading ; lay days allowed, 
 and demurrage afterwards ; the bills of lading 
 stiijulatcd for delivery to the freighter or his 
 assigns [laying freight as l)y charterparty. The 
 defendant, assignee of the bill of lading, demanded 
 and received delivery of part of the goods, but 
 the jilaintitf refused to deliver the rest without 
 payment of freight. The defendant refused to 
 pay freight and the remaining lay days expired 
 and demurrage became payable. The plaint ifi; 
 then delivered the rest of the go<Hls and freight 
 was paid:— Held, that the plaintiff could not 
 recover against the (Ief<'n<!ant for not receiving 
 the goods, whercbv rlmiurrage became payable. 
 Young v. JfocUrr.'r, Ei. A: Bl. 7, 755. 
 
 Delivery on Wharf contrary to Orders — 
 Wharfage Dues— Trover.]— The owner of goods 
 ! on board a sliij" dirc(tc<l the master not to land 
 j them on the wharf against which the ship was 
 I lying, which he promised not to do, but after- 
 I wards did, delivering to the wharfinger for the 
 owner's use, thinking that there was a lien for 
 I wharfage dues :— Held, that the goods owner
 
 585 
 
 SHIPPING— XY. Cargo. 
 
 53G 
 
 could maintain trover against the captain unless 
 the latter could prove the wharfinger's right. 
 Syeds v. Iliif. 4 Term Rep. 260 ; 2 E. R. 377. 
 
 Sufferance Wharfs.] — The acts relating to 
 landing goods at a suti'erance wharf were for the 
 protecdou of the shipowner. Barber \. Mcyer- 
 stein, 39 L. J.. C. P. 187 : L. E. 4 H. L. 317 ; 22 
 L. T. 808 ; 18 W. R. lOil. 
 
 Delivery, when Complete.] — "UTiere goods are 
 shipped for ilelivery at a certain port, the general 
 rule is that delivery of each bale is complete as 
 soon as it passes over the ship's side into the 
 hands of the harbour porters employed by the 
 consisrnees. BritUh Shipoicners Co.\. Grimovd, 
 3 Ct.'of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 968. 
 
 b. Manner. 
 
 Discharge of Cargo ' • into Lighters " — Duties of 
 Shipowner and Consignee.] — The plaintiff's ship 
 was chartered for the carriage of a cargo of spare 
 from Christ iauia to the Surrey Commercial Docks 
 in the port of London. By the charterparty the 
 ship was to discharge " over side in the river or 
 dock into lighters or otherwise if required by 
 consignees." In an action by the plaintiff against 
 the consignees of the cargo for demurrage : — Held, 
 that ttnd^r the charterparty the shipowner was 
 only bound to put the goods within the reach of 
 the' consignees" men in the lighters, and that it 
 was then their duty to take part in the operation ; 
 that the delay had arisen from the fault of the 
 consignees in not having a sufficient number of 
 men upon their lighters for the purposes of taking 
 delivery within the lay days, and that the ship- 
 owner 'was therefore entitled to claim demurrage. 
 Peter.ien v. Freehody. 65 L. J., Q. B. 12 ; [1895] 
 2 Q.B.294: 14R.493; 73L.T.163; 44W.E.5; 
 8 Asp. M. C. 55— C. A. 
 
 Deals — Delivery into the "Water — Acquiescence 
 by Consignees.] — By charterparty a timber cargo 
 was to be delivered as customary at the port of 
 discharge at a wharf or dock to be named by the 
 consignees. The ship was ordered by the con- 
 signees to discharge at Queen's Dock, Glasgow, 
 but the harbour-master refused a berth there and 
 ordered the ship to a berth where the deals had to 
 be discharged into the water. The consignees 
 took discharge there, and sued the shipowner 
 for damage to the deals by water : — Held, that 
 having acquiesced in the mode of discharge, 
 thev could recover nothing. Tliorsen v. JfcDoicall, 
 19 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 743. 
 
 See also as to discharge of timber, Za Cour v. 
 Donaldson, ante, col. 473. 
 
 c. Place. 
 
 See also ante, XIV. Demurrage, col. 461. 
 
 Delivery of Cargo at Safe Port.] — A shipowner 
 entered into a charterparty with the consignor 
 of goods by which he was to deliver them at a 
 good and safe port to be named by the consignor. 
 The consignor named a port at which it was 
 found that'the ship could not safely unload, and 
 the captain proceeded elsewhere and imloaded. 
 The consignee brought an action against the 
 captain for damages for delivering elsewhere : 
 the consignor wrote to the captain, " We would 
 recommend you to settle the matter in the best 
 way you can." The shipowner defended the 
 action, and was ultimately successful ; but he 
 
 incurred considerable costs in excess of those 
 which the unsuccessful party had to pay : — Held, 
 in an action by the shipowner against the con- 
 signor, that, such costs not being damages flowing 
 from the consignor's breach of contract, and the 
 consignor not having given authority to incm* 
 them, the shipowner could not recover them : 
 that the amount recoverable by the shipowner in 
 respect of port dues was only the difference 
 between what he would have paid had the ship 
 unloaded at the port named, and what he actually 
 did pay ; and that insurance on the voyage from 
 the port named to a safe port must be taken to 
 have been included in the claim for demurrage, 
 which had been allowed in full. Evans v. 
 Bulloch 38 L. T. 34 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 552. 
 
 At which Port or Dock.] — The plaintiffs were 
 indorsees of the bill of lading of a cargo which, 
 according to the charterparty, which contained a 
 reference to the bill of lading, was to be unloaded 
 at S., "at the usual place of discharge, and 
 according to the custom of the port."' On the 
 arrival of the vessel at S. the master put into the 
 South Dock, when the indorsees of the biU of 
 lading ordered him to remove her to the GiU 
 Dock, which the master refused to do until he 
 had been paid the expenses incurred by entering 
 the South Dock. Both docks were usual places 
 of delivery for a similar cargo as that in the bill 
 of lading : — Held, that, in default of a custom to 
 the contrary being proved, the master was not 
 bound to lie in the river waiting for instructions, 
 and was justified in mooring in the South Dock, 
 but that, having received directions to deliver 
 his cargo in the Gill Dock, he was bound to obev 
 them. Tfte Felix. 37 L. J., Adm. 48 ; L. R. 2 
 A. & E. 273 ; IS L. T. 587. 
 
 Under an open charterparty to deliver a cargo 
 at a certain port, it is the duty of the master to 
 obey the directions of the owner of the cargo as 
 to the place of discharge in such port. lb. 
 
 If before the directions of the owner of the 
 cargo are received, the master has already incurred 
 expenses by going to another place of discharge, 
 he is not entitled to prepayment of those expenses 
 as a condition of going to the place of discharge 
 directed. lb. See The Bahia. ante, coi. 521. 
 
 Eefusal of Freighter to name "Wharf.] — By a 
 
 charterparty the owner of a ship was to carry a 
 cargo of coals to London, and there deliver the 
 same " at a good and safe wharf " to the freighter 
 or assigns, paying freight 6a\ per ton. One 
 market-day to be allowed for sale or l^d. per ton 
 additional freight for each market-day's deten- 
 tion thereafter. The vessel came into collision 
 with a steam-tug in the Thames, and was sunk 
 with the cargo on board, but was got up, and on 
 the afternoon of the 23rd of April arrived at a 
 pier at "Wapping, whither she was ordered by the 
 harbour-master. Notice of her arrival was on 
 the same day given to the agents of the freighter, 
 and they were required to name a wharf ; but 
 they declined to do so. On the 24th the ship 
 and freight were arrested by process out of the 
 admiralty court in a suit instituted by the 
 owners of the tug : — Held, that the shipowner 
 was entitled to recover, as damages for the refusal 
 to name a wharf, and so refusing to accept the 
 cargo, the amount which he would have received 
 as freight if the cargo had been duly delivered — 
 there having been a complete breach before the 
 arrest ; but that he was not entitled to demurrage. 
 Stewart v. Rogerson, L. R. 6 C. P. 424.
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 Obtaining Pratique or Permission.' — A decla- 
 ration on a charterpartv stated, that •• the vessel 
 was ready to be unloaded on a certain day at W., 
 and batl received pratique," and issue thereon. It 
 was proved that no custom-house existed at W. : 
 that no sanitary regulations vrere adopted ; and 
 that a licence to unload was never granted. The 
 jury found, that the vessel was ready to be 
 unloaded on the said day, but that she had not 
 received pratique, and they found a verdict for 
 the defendant : — Held, that what took place was 
 equivalent to pratique, and that in substance the 
 is.«ue was found for the plaintifE. Bailey v. 
 UArroyate. .3 N. A: P. 114 : 7 A. & E. 919 ; 7 
 L. .J., Q. B. 91. 
 
 Sale of Cargo — Port of Dslivery to be Named 
 by Purchaser — Bill of Lading.' — .See JJateman 
 V. Green, coL 545. 
 
 d. Refusal to Receive. 
 
 Dispensing with Delivery.] — A declaration set 
 forth an executory contract, by which the defen- 
 dant was, on the arrival of a vessel at Belfast, 
 to become the ptirchaser of a third of her cargo, 
 at a stipulated price, which was to be paid by 
 him to the plaintiff, after delivery of the cargo 
 to the defendant, at Belfast, and allegefl that 
 the defendant, before the arrival of the ship at 
 Belfast, discharged the plaintifE from delivering 
 the cargo, and thenceforth wholly refused to 
 perform the contract : — Held, that the defendant 
 was not bound to answer an inquiry made by 
 the plaintiff before the arrival of the ship, as 
 TO whether he intended to fulfil the contract. 
 RipUy V. M'Clure, i Ex. 345 ; 18 L. J., Ex. 419. 
 
 Held, also, that a refusal by the defendant to 
 perform the contract made before the arrival of 
 the ship was not in itself a breach of the con- 
 tract, but that a refusal at any time, unretracted 
 up to the time of the arrival of the vessel, was 
 evidence of a continuing refusal down to and 
 inclusive of the time when he was bound to 
 receive the cargo, and that a continuing refusal 
 was a breach of the contract. lb. 
 
 Held, also, that such a refusal before arrival 
 was a waiver, at the time of the delivery of the 
 cargo, and if unretracted, dispensed with the 
 actual delivery of the cargo after arrivaL lb. 
 
 Held, also, that the defendant, b\' insisting 
 that the cargo should be delivered to him at 
 Belfast, but u[)On terms other than those of the 
 contract, did not withdraw his refusal, or retract 
 his waiver, discharging the plaintiff from deliver- 
 ing the cargo then under the contract. lb. 
 
 It was stipulated by a charterparty, made 
 between the plaintiffs and the defendants, that 
 the master of the ship should sign bills of lading 
 as presented, or pay a named penalty. He 
 refused to sign bills of lading, and .sailed without 
 doing so. He proceeded to the f>ort of discharge, 
 delivered a portion of the cargo to the consignees, 
 but ceased doing so, and warehoused the remain- 
 der, as they, acting under instructions from the 
 charterers, claimed to deduct from the freight 
 an amount equal to the penalty named in the 
 charterparty : — Held, that the charterers were 
 entitled to nominal damages against the owners 
 for not signing the bills as presented, but that 
 they were not entitled to recover for conversion, 
 as the acts of the plaint ifis had prevented the 
 delivery. JoJtes v. Hough, 49 L. .J., Ex. 211 ; 5 
 Ex. D. 115; 43 L.T.I OS; 4 Asp. M. C. 248— C. A. 
 
 538 
 
 See JReyner v. Rederialttiebolaget Condor, supra, 
 coL 317 ; Shiricell v. ShaplocJt, post, coL 554, 
 and cages infra. 
 
 Quay Berth — Eefusal to Discharge tintil 
 Alongside. — A ship was chartered to discharge 
 at •■ Dundalk quay." She arrived at the quay 
 and moored alongside a vessel that occupied the 
 only berth at the quay. The ship was ready and 
 the master ofiered to discharge either into lighters 
 or over the deck of the ship alongside, if the 
 charterer would pay for labotxr and stages. 
 There was evidence that ships usually discharged 
 alongside the quay. The charterer refused to 
 discharge until the ship was alongside the quay ; 
 and she was detained until the other ship had 
 loaded : — Held, that the charterer's obligation to 
 discharge did not begin until the ship was along- 
 side the qtiaj-. Strahan v. Gabrid, 1 Maude 
 & Pollock on Sh., 4th ed. p. 407, note 1i. 
 
 Timber Cargo — Eefusal to Eeceive in Eafts.] 
 — See La Cvur v. JJoiaild-Hin. ante, coL 473. 
 
 I e. Warehousing. 
 
 And gee, supra, 8. DUTT OF Masteb TO Peb- 
 ! SERVE. &c.. col. 520. 
 
 I No Warehouses.] — ^Where consignees do not 
 I appear to claim goods at the port of discharge, 
 I and there is no statutable warehouse, semble, 
 i that the master may still land the cargo without 
 j losing his possession and control over it (placing 
 ] the goods in a warehouse belonging to or hired 
 i for his o\vners), and so preserve his lien. Jfors-le- 
 Blanch v. Wlhon, 42 L. J.. C. P. 70 ; L. E. 8 
 C. P. 227 ; 28 L. T. 415 ; 1 A^p. M. C. 605. 
 
 Where no application for delivery is made, the 
 captain may land and warehouse the cargo at 
 the expense of the merchant ; and where that is 
 forbidden by the authorities of the port, he is 
 not justified in destroying the cargo ; but in the 
 absence of advices, he may take it to such a 
 place as in his judgment is most convenient, and 
 may charge to the merchant all expenses pro- 
 perly incurred. Argvg, Cargo ex, Gaudct v. 
 Brown. L. Pi. 5 P. C. 134 ; 28L. T. 745 ; 21 W. II. 
 707 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 6. 
 
 Late Delivery.] — Under the Merchant Shipping 
 Act Amendment Act. 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 63). 
 6. 67, a shipowner may land goods whenever the 
 deliverj- of them to the owner within the proper 
 time has been prevented by the force of circum- 
 stances, whether the owner is or is not to blame. 
 The Energle, Miedbrodt v. Fitzjtimon, 44 L. J., 
 Adm. 25 : L. R. 6 P. C. 3r,6 ; 32 L. T. 579 ; 23 
 W. K. 932 : 2 Asp. M. C. 555. 
 
 And tee XIII. Fueight, 4. Lien on Cargo. 
 
 Duty of Shipowner — Notice.] — When goods 
 arc landed umicr ;-ui»-s. *>. 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, 
 8. 67, sub-s. 7, does not apply, for the latter refers 
 only to the discharging of cargo overside, and 
 not to the landing of it for the purposes of 
 a.ssortment on the wharf, and the written notice 
 referred to in sub-s. 7 applies, therefore, to cases 
 arising under that sub-section only. It is the 
 duty of the owner of goods who receives either 
 a written or verbal notice that he can have them 
 to take them away within a reasonable time, 
 and that whether sub-s. 6 or 7 applies to the 
 case. Notice to the lighterman employed by the 
 owner of the goods is notice to the owner him- .
 
 539 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 540 
 
 self. A ship arrived in dock with a general 
 Ciirgo on the 12th of December, and betran to 
 unload on the quay on the 13th. The plaintiffs 
 (o\v'ners of some of the goods) sent a lighterman 
 and barge to receive their portion of the cargo 
 on the 13th. It was not then ready. On the 
 14th the lighterman again attended, but could 
 obtain no information. On the 14th the firm of 
 lightermen wrote to the defendants (the ship- 
 owners), stating they had made application for 
 the goods, antl inclosing a notice requiring 
 twenty-four hours' notice of the defendants' 
 readiness to deliver the goods, and stating that 
 they would not be responsible for any landing 
 charges. On the loth the landing of the cargo 
 was completed, and the lighterman was that day 
 verbaUy informed he could have the goods on 
 the morning of the 16th. He did not attend, 
 and the goods were not taken away till the 29th. 
 The plaintiff paid the dock charges under pro- 
 test, and brought an action to recover them 
 back : — Held, that they could not recover them. 
 The ClanMacdonald, 52 L. J., Adm. 89 ; 8 P. D. 
 ] 78 ; 49 L. T. 408 ; 32 W. R. 154 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 118. 
 
 Ability of Owner to take Delivery.] — By 
 
 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 67, where the owner of 
 goods imported fails to make entry thereof, or 
 having made entry, to land the same or take 
 ■delivery thereof within a certain time, the ship- 
 owner may make entry of, and land or unship 
 the goods at the time and in the manner and 
 subject to certain conditions, and, if at any time 
 before the goods are landed or unshipped, the 
 owner has made entry for the landing and ware- 
 bousing thereof at any particular wharf or ware- 
 house other than that at which the ship is 
 discharged, and has offered and been ready to 
 take delivery thereof, and the shipowner has 
 failed to make such delivery, and has also failed 
 .at the time of such offer to give the owner of 
 the goods correct information of the time at 
 which such goods can be delivered, then the 
 shipovmer shall, before landing or unshipping 
 such goods under the power hereby given to him, 
 give to the owner of the goods, or of such wharf 
 •or warehouse as last aforesaid, twenty-four hours' 
 notice in wTiting of his readiness to deliver the 
 goods : — Held, that to entitle himself to notice 
 under this condition, the owner of the goods 
 must at the time of his offer be in a condition 
 .actually to take delivery thereof. Berresford v. 
 Montgomerie, 17 C. B. (N.s.) 379 ; 34 L. J., C. P. 
 41 ; 10 Jut. (n.S.) 823 ; 10 L. T. 814 ; 12 W. R. 
 1060. 
 
 Where the shipowner, at the time of the offer 
 •to take delivery, is not able to make it, he is not 
 excused from the duty of giving twenty-four 
 ihours' notice of his readiness to deliver, because 
 the owner of the goods or his agent does not ask 
 'for correct information of the time at which 
 such can be delivered. 1 b. 
 
 Goods Landed on Wharf instead of Lighter.] — 
 
 A bill of lading provided that "simultaneously 
 with the ship being ready to unload the goods or 
 .any part thereof," the consignee should be ready 
 to receive the same from the ship's side, either 
 on the wharf or quay at which the ship might 
 lie for discharge, or into lighters, and, in default, 
 the master or agent of the ship was authorised 
 to land the goods at the risk and expense of the 
 consignee. Under this bill of lading, sixty-five 
 .pipes of lemon juice were loaded on board a 
 
 steamer trading between the Mediterranean and 
 London, which arrived at London on the 23rd of 
 March, and early on the morning of the 24th 
 was ready to deliver at the wharf, and had landed 
 fifteen of the sixty-five pipes on the wharf before 
 the holders of the bills of lading were ready with 
 their lighter ; they then applied for the delivery 
 of the remainder into their lighter, which the 
 shipowners refused, and landed them on the 
 wharf. In an action to recover wharfage charges 
 and demurrage for detention of the lighter : — 
 Held, that, under the bill of lading, and 25 & 26 
 Vict. c. 63, s. 67 (5), the shipowners assuming 
 that they would incur no loss or expense by 
 unloading the remaining pipes into the lighter, 
 instead of on the wharf, were bound to deliver 
 them to the holders of the bill of lading; and 
 therefore they were entitled to recover. Wilson 
 V. London, Italian and Adi-iatic Steam Navlga- 
 ti07i Co., 1 H. & R. 29 ; 35 L. J., C. P. 9 ; L. R. 1 
 C. P. 61 ; 12 Jur. (n.s.) 52 ; 13 L. T. 435 ; 14 
 W. R. 101. 
 
 Goods Landed — Fire.] — To a declaration on a 
 contract by the master of a steam- vessel, to con- 
 vey goods from Dublin to London, and to deliver 
 the same at the port of London, a plea that, 
 after the arrival of the vessel at London, the 
 defendant caused the goods to be deposited on a 
 wharf, there to remain until they could be 
 delivered to the plaintiff, the wharf being a 
 place where goods from Dublin were accustomed 
 to be landed, and fit and proper for such pur- 
 poses, and that, before a reasonable time for 
 delivery elapsed, they were destroyed by a fire, 
 which broke out there by accident : — Held, ill. 
 Gatliffe v. Bourne, 4 Bing. (N.c.) 314 ; 5 Scott, 
 667 ; 7 L. J., C. P. 172. 
 
 Dock Expenses.] — In an action by con- 
 signees against a shipowner for non-delivery of 
 goods according to bills of lading, in which there 
 was a condition that the goods should be taken 
 from the ship by the consignees immediately the 
 ship was ready for discharge, and that otherwise 
 they would be landed or put into craft at the 
 merchant's risk and expense, and the goods 
 having been landed at a dock the day after the 
 ship was ready for discharge, but after the con- 
 signees were ready to receive on payment of 
 freight, and the goods having been detained for 
 some time for dock charges, payment of which 
 was refused : — Held, that it was for the jury 
 whether the consignees had complied with the 
 condition, or whether, if not, the shipowner had 
 gone beyond it in landing the goods, but that, 
 even if the consignees were entitled to recover, 
 yet, since they might have received the goods on 
 payment of a small sum under protest, they 
 would not be entitled to recover full damages for 
 the delay, as their proper course was to have 
 paid the disputed sum, under protest. Alexiadi 
 v. BoUmon, 2 F. & F. 679. 
 
 Custom of Port of London — Landing on the 
 Quay.] — A bill of lading stipulated (inter alia) 
 that "the merchandise shipped thereunder was 
 to be received on the quay at Loudon, and 
 delivered therefrom by the person appointed by 
 the steamship's agent, kc, the merchandise to be 
 received and delivered according to the customs 
 and usages of the respective ports." A custom 
 was proved with regard to grain cargoes coming 
 to London, that if the merchant does not demand 
 delivery of the grain within twenty-four houre
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 after the ship's arrival, the ship is entitled to 
 discharge the goods on the quay. The merchant 
 did not demand delivery of the cargo within the 
 twenty-four hours, and it was landed on the 
 quay : — Held, that the custom was not incon- 
 sistent with the terms of the bill of lading, and 
 that therefore the merchant was bound to pay 
 the expenses incurred in weighing out the cargo 
 and the quay rates. Aste v. Stumore, 1 Cab. & 
 E. 321, n. Reversing S. C, 1 Cab. & E. .319. 
 
 Goods were shipped under a bill of landing at 
 Calcutta to be delivered in like good order and 
 condition from the ship's tackles at the port of 
 London. On arrival in the port of London the 
 consignee demanded overside delivery into 
 lighters immediately from the ship's tackles. 
 The shipowner landed them on the dock wharf, 
 and was ready to deliver them thence into the 
 consignee's lighters, but the consignee carted 
 them away, thereby becoming liable to certain 
 dock charges, which he paid. In an action by 
 the consignee to recover the amount so paid, the 
 jury found that there was a custom for steam- 
 ships having a general cargo (the defendant's 
 ship being such) coming into the port of London 
 and using the docks, to discharge the goods on 
 to the quay, and thence into lighters : — Held, 
 that the custom found was not inconsistent 
 with the terms of the bill of lading, and that 
 the shipowner was entitled to discharge the 
 goods on to the quay, and was not liable for the 
 charge sought to be recovered. Marzetti v. Smith, 
 49 L. T. .580 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 166— C. A. Affirming 
 1 Cab. & E. 6. 
 
 10. Jettison. 
 
 See also XYII. Average. 
 
 Safety of Life — Passengers throwing Cargo 
 Overboard.] — Passengers, for the safety of their 
 lives, may cast cargo overboard without being 
 liable to the owners of it. Mouse's Case, 12 
 Co. Hep. 6.3. 
 
 Cargo — Jettison — Eights of Cargo Owner.] — 
 
 Where a ship is stranded by the negligence of 
 her master, and a jettison of cargo is properly 
 made : — Held, that the cargo owners are entitled 
 to general average contribution ; secus as to the 
 fihij)o\vncr. Strang, Steel J^' Co. v. Scott, .59 
 L. J., P. C. 1 ; 14 App. Cas. 601 ; 61 L. T. 597 ; 
 38 W. R. 452 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 419— P. C. 
 
 Bights and Remedies of Cargo Owner in case 
 of Jettison considered.] — Ibid. 
 
 11. Sale, AssirjNMENx, and MonxoAOE. 
 
 Sale on the Hypothesis of its Existence.] — 
 Merchiints at Hmyma chartered a vessel, and 
 loaded it at Salonica with a cargo of Indian 
 com. The bill of lading was indorsed by them, 
 and sent, together with the charterparty, to B., 
 their agent in London, with instructions to sell 
 the cargo on their account. They also, througli 
 B., insured the cargo "at and from Salonica to 
 the port of discharge in the United Kingdom," 
 "corn warranted free from average, unless 
 general, or the ship be stranded." Corn factors 
 in London were accordingly, on the 1st May, 
 IS 48, employed by B. to sell the cargo, and they 
 sold it to C. on the 15th May. Tlie bought note 
 stated that C. had bought of them '• a cargo of 
 about 1,180 quarters of Salonica Indian com," 
 
 542 
 
 (fee, "of a fair average quality when shipped," 
 &c., " 275. per quarter free on board, and mclud- 
 ing freight and insurance to a safe port in the 
 United Kingdom ; " " payment at two months 
 from this date, or in cash, less discount," &c., 
 "upon handing shipping documents." The 
 vessel sailed from Salonica with a cargo de- 
 scribed in the bought note, and was obliged to 
 put into Tunis in distress. It was there found 
 that from the heated and damaged state of the 
 com it was unfit to be carried farther, and it 
 was consequently unshipped, and sold by the 
 captain on the 24th April. The parties interested 
 in the cargo were ignorant of these facts till 
 after the sale to C. : — Held, that the contract 
 was for the sale of a cargo supposed to exist and 
 to be capable of transfer, and that, as it had 
 been sold and delivered to others before the 
 sale to C, the corn factors were not liable. 
 Couturier v. Hastis, 5 H. L. Cas. 673 ; 25 L. J., 
 Ex. 253 ; 2 Jur. (N.s.) 1241— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Assignment — " Appnrtenances."] — B., being 
 entitled to a moiety of a ship engaged in the 
 whale fishery, executed a bill of sale of such 
 moiety, together with a moiety of the tackle of 
 the ship and the appurtenances to the ship 
 belonging to H., for the purpose of indemnifying 
 him against certain bills accepted by H. to 
 accommodate B. : — Held, that the cargo did not 
 pass under the word " appurtenance?." Lnnqton 
 V. JSorton, 5 Beav. 9 ; 6 Jur. 357. S. C. on 
 another point, infra. 
 
 Bankruptcy, Order and Disposition.] — 
 
 A. was the owner of a shi[) which, in March, 
 1857, sailed for the coast of Africa, and in May 
 and July she was supposed by him to be upon 
 that coast, completing her cargo of palm-oil, and 
 it was also expected that she would be home 
 again about October. On the 11th of November, 
 1857, the shij) had not arrived, and A. assigned 
 the cargo to B. ; and on the 23rd of January, 
 18.58, B. sent by post, to the captain, notice of 
 such assignment. This notice never reached the 
 captain. The sliip remained on the coast of 
 Africa till the 12th of February, 1858, when she 
 set sail and arrived at Bristol on the 14th of 
 April. A. had become baidcrupt on the 1st of 
 March, 185S, and wlien the shi]i arrived his 
 assignees claimed the cargo :— Meld, that they 
 were not entitled to it, as there had been no 
 <lefault upon the part of B., and as, therefore, 
 the cargo coidd not be said to be in tlie posses- 
 sion of A. at the time of his bankruptcy, as 
 reputed owner, by the consent and permission of 
 the true owner. Acraman v. Ihiti's, 2 El. <fe El. 
 456 ; 29 L. J., Q. B. 78 ; C Jur. (N.s.) 294 ; 1 
 L. T. 322. 
 
 A., by deed, assigns the cargo of two ships to 
 
 B. and C, but has no charterparty or bill of 
 lading to deliver to them. On the arrival of 
 one <jf thi; Hhi[)S, he assigns to another person, 
 and afterwanls conmiits an act of bankruptcy : 
 — Held, that B. and C, not having been ready 
 to take pos.se.ssion of the ship on her arrival, had 
 thereby permitted A. to cf)ntinuc reputed owner 
 under the statute 21 Jao. 1. Philpott v. 
 Williams, 2 Eden, 231. 
 
 Advance on Cargo — Consignee for Sale — Lien 
 of Vendor.] — A. being iMten'st(;d in a moiety of a 
 cargo, and having entered into a contract with 
 B. to let him have half his share, wrote to C.
 
 543 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 544 
 
 and D., the consignees, informing them and 
 authorising them to sell the cargo, and carry the 
 jiroceeds to their separate accounts. The con- 
 signees acted upon this, and made advances to 
 B., and B. also charged his interest in favour of 
 E. It had been agreed between A. and B. that 
 they should pay for the cargo by tvro bills' 
 each to be paid by one of them. B. did not pay 
 his bill. It did not appear whether A. har- paid 
 it or not : — Held, that A. had no lien on tlie 
 proceeds of B.'s share, either as against him or 
 as against C. and D.. or against E. Holroyd v. 
 Griffiths, 3 Drew. 428. 
 
 Consignee — Bills drawn against Cargo — 
 Lien.] — The general lien of a consignee cannot 
 be set up in opposition to a positive appropria- 
 tion by the consignor of cargo to the payment of 
 specified bills of exchange. Frith v. Forbes, 32 
 L. J., Ch. 10 ; 8 Jur. (N.S.) 1111 ; 7 L. T. 2G1 ; 
 11 W. K. 4— L.J J. 
 
 Direction to pay out of Proceeds — Lien.] — A. 
 
 consigns a cargo to B., with a direction to pay 
 to C, out of the proceeds, a sum of money, 
 and writes C. to that effect ; C. has no lien on 
 the proceeds. Heywood, Fx2^arte, 2 Kose, 355. 
 
 Of future Cargo — Lien for Purchase-money 
 supplied.] — Under an assignment of a ship and 
 her present and future cargo, freight and earn- 
 ings, by the owner, for securing to the assignees 
 all moneys which they had advanced, or might 
 become liable to pay, on account of the vessel 
 and her cargo, which they had furnished the 
 means of purchasing : — Held, that the assignees, 
 who were also the ship's agents, were entitled to 
 retain a bill which was given for the purchase of 
 part of the homeward cargo, and was remitted 
 but not indorsed to them by the owner ; not- 
 withstanding he denied that it was remitted in 
 payment, and stated that they had not paid, 
 and, contrary to an express understanding, had 
 left him personally liable to some of the debts 
 incurred in fitting out the vessel ; and an injunc- 
 tion which had been obtained by the assignees, 
 restraining an action of trover for the bill, was 
 contini;ed until the hearing. Curtis v. Aubcr, 
 1 Jac. & Walk. 526. 
 
 Execution Creditor.] — Equitable assignment 
 of a future cargo (whales to be caught), per- 
 fected by possession taken on the ship's arrival, 
 held good as against an execution creditor. 
 Langton v. Horton, 1 Hare, 549 ; 11 L. J., Ch. 
 209. S. C, on another point, supra. 
 
 Fraud — Bills accepted against Cargo — Sub- 
 sequent Sale.] — A. chartered a ship in his own 
 name, and consigned it to B. in Cuba, under 
 an agreement that B. should ship goods and 
 consign them to A., and that A. should accept 
 B.'s bills for their value. After A. had accepted 
 bills on the faith of the agreement, B. sold the 
 cargo to C, who had notice of the terms of the 
 charterparty, and that it was consigned to 
 another person : — Held, that assuming that the 
 fact of A.'s appearing principal on the charter- 
 party made it incumbent on C. to ascertain the 
 relations between A. and B., yet that, as B. was 
 actually the principal, and not the agent of A., 
 C. could safely deal with him for the cargo, 
 and that the circumstances that B. had com- 
 mitted a fraud on A. did not prevent C. from 
 obtaining a good title to the goods. Zxihietay. 
 Tyrie, 16 Bcav. 577. 
 
 A merchant in Cuba sold part of a cargo 
 shipped by him to B., and C. (who was A.'s 
 correspondent in England), being informed 
 thereof by B., made no claim until four months 
 afterwards, when he insisted on a paramount 
 right over B. to the cargo : — Held, that even 
 assuming he had originally such right, his con- 
 duct had been such, that a court of equity 
 would not allow Mm to enforce it against B. 
 Ih. 
 
 Sale by Consignor — Property in Consignor or 
 
 Consignee.] — When by a bill of lading goods are 
 made deliverable to the shipper, or his order, 
 and not to the consignee, the jus disponendi, or 
 control over the property in the goods shipped, 
 remains with the shippers, although the invoice 
 states that the goods were shipped " on account 
 of and at the risk of " the consignee ; such state- 
 ment being not conclusive, of itself, that the 
 right to the possession of, as well as the property 
 in, the goods was intended to be unconditionally 
 passed to the consignee. Shepherd v. Harrison, 
 40 L. J., Q. B. 148 ; L. K. 5 H. L. 116 ; 24 L. T. 
 857 ; 20 W. R. 1 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 66— H. L. (E.) 
 
 The burden of shewing the existence of a 
 different state of things lies with the person who 
 contradicts what would be the ordinary legal 
 conclusion from the transaction. li. 
 
 Purchaser* taking Eisk of Voyage.] — C. agreed 
 with P. to ship on board a vessel a cargo of fresh- 
 water ice, and to despatch the vessel with all 
 speed to any ordered port in the United Kingdom,. 
 "the vendor forwarding bills of lading to the 
 purchaser, and upon receipt the purchaser takes 
 upon himself all risks and dangers of the seas " ; 
 and purchaser agreed to buy and receive the ice 
 on its arrival, and pay for it in cash on delivery, 
 at the rate of 20.?. a ton of 20 cwt., weighed on 
 board during delivery. The vessel was losl 
 during the voyage by risks and dangers of the 
 seas within the meaning of the agreement, and 
 after the receipt by the purchaser of the bills of 
 lading. The vendor having brought an action 
 against the purchaser to recover the value of the 
 cargo : — Held, that he was entitled to recover. 
 Castle V. Playford, 41 L. J., Ex. 44 ; L. E. 7 Ex. 
 98 ; 26 L. T.'315 ; 20 W. R. 440 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 255— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Delivery of Clean Bill of Lading — Non- 
 acceptance of Bill of Exchange by Purchaser.] 
 
 — In January, 1868, C. & Co. contracted to pur- 
 chase 1,400 quarters of rye, then at Salonica, 
 from the plaintiffs, at 41*. per quarter, free on' 
 board, March shipment, the plaintiffs finding the 
 vessel. The plaintiffs having chartered the 
 " Agatha," the captain on loading her informed 
 thebank that she would take from 200 to 300 
 quarters of rye beyond that ordered by the defen- 
 dants. The plaintiffs, being unable to obtain 
 any rye, purchased seventy quarters of maize to 
 make up the cargo. The rye and maize were 
 shipped on board, and one bill of lading was made 
 out for both rye and maize and sent to the plain- 
 tiffs. The maize was then offered to the defen- 
 dants, and two invoices and two bills of exchange 
 were made out, one for the rye, the other for the 
 maize. The defendants, who refused to have 
 anything to do with the maize, had in the mean- 
 time sold the rye to C, but C, on finding there 
 was not a clean bill of lading, refused to accept 
 either it or the bill of exchange. The plaintiffs on 
 being informed of this informed the defendants,
 
 545 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo, 
 
 that they would discharge the maize from the 
 •ship at their own expense, and shortly after- 
 wards indorsed the bill of lading as follows : 
 ■" Deliver the rye to Messrs. C. A; Co. or their 
 order, and the within-mentioned maize to us or 
 •our order. The delivery of the maize, and the 
 Jfreight, and all charges thereon to be at our 
 ■expense, and the maize to be delivered so as not 
 to interfere with the working and delivery of the 
 rye " : — Held, that the delivery of a clean bill of 
 lading was not a necessarj- condition of the con- 
 tract, the plaintiffs having been ready to pay all 
 Jthe expenses incident to the maize being included 
 in the bill of la<^ling, and also absolutely and 
 unconditionally to deliver the rye in time ; and 
 also that there was a sulHcicnt delivery to entitle 
 •the plaintiffs to recover for non-acceptance. 
 Imperial Ottoiiuin Bank v. Cowan. 31 L. T. 336 ; 
 :2 Asp. M. C. il8— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Naming Port — Right of Purchaser of Cargo — 
 .Bill of Lading.] — Where a grain cargo was sold 
 upon terms that the purchaser should have the 
 a-ight to name a port in the United Kingdom to 
 which it was to be brought, and bills of lading 
 ■were taken by the vendors without consulting 
 the purchasers as to the port of delivery : — Held, 
 ■that the vendors could not recover against the 
 (purchasers for not accepting the cargo. Knox v. 
 Mayne, Ir. R. 7 C. L, 557 ; Bateman v. Green, 
 ar. R. 2 C. L. 166. 
 
 Retaining Bill of Lading.]— "When an unpaid 
 'vendor shipping gfX)cLs under a contract of sale 
 ■takes a bill of lading making the goods deliver- 
 .able to his order, and retains such bill of lading 
 •in his own or his agent's hands for his own pro- 
 tection, he docs not reserve the vendor's lieu only, 
 .in case of the purchaser's making default in pay- 
 iment of the price, but reserves a right of disposing 
 •of the goods so long at least as the purchaser 
 continues in default. Oqg v. Sh ufer, 15 L. .J., C. 1'. 
 44 ; 1 C. P. D. 47 ; 33 L. T. 4'J2 ; 24 W. R. lUO ; 
 3 Asp. M. C. 77— C. A. 
 
 Custom of Vendors to hold Bills of Lading.]— 
 A. having ordered goods from 1)., a firm at 
 Calcutta, through C, their agent in this country, 
 a'eccivod an invoice of the goods, with a notice 
 that B. had drawn upon him for the price at six 
 -months. On calling at C.'s office, A. was met by 
 ■C.'s messenger, who handed to him for his accep- 
 tance the bill of exchange drawn upon him in 
 (respect of the gootis, ami the I>illof lading, which 
 was |)inned to the bill of exchange. A. accepted 
 1hc bill of exchange, and afterward.s deposited the 
 'Tjill of lading with E. asa security for an advance, 
 together with a policy of insurance upon Uic 
 goods effected by himself in his own name, C. 
 Jiaving dedincYl to ]iart with the original policy 
 •on the ground that it included other goods besides 
 <ho,se purchased by A. A. having become bank- 
 rupt, and unable to take up his acceptance, the 
 goods were claimed by 15. and C., on the ground 
 that the bill of lading had been improperly 
 g)ledged, having come into A. 's hands irregularly, 
 and without tlieir knowledge. and contrary to a"n 
 .allege<l custom amongst East India merchants not 
 to i>art with the bill of lading of gooels until the 
 ■vendee lias taken up his accii>tances on account 
 thereof :— Held, that the alleged custom of trade 
 vas merely exceptional, and was not estabbMied 
 as being the usual course of business ; and that 
 the title of E., as bon;\ fide assignee for value, 
 anust prevailover any claim by the unj)aid vendors. 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 546 
 
 Coventry v. Gladshme, 37 L. J., Ch. ."0 ; L E 4 
 Eq. 493 ; 16 W. E. 304. 
 
 Sale of Cargo to include Cost Freight and 
 Insurance — Bill of Lading indorsed to Purchaser 
 — Transfer of Property — Charterparty.]— See 
 Bt'laurier v. Wyllic, XI. Charteuparty, supra, 
 col. 237. 
 
 "War Risk — Agreement to Insure.] — An agree- 
 ment for purchase of a cargo of oats to be 
 shipped by the - Ems," a German ship, at Arch- 
 angel, stipulated that the seller should pay '"cost 
 freight and insurance to London or the east 
 coast of Great Britain according to charter- 
 party, . . . payment to be made in London on 
 handing invoice and in exchange for shipping 
 documents." After the agreement was made war 
 between France and Germany was declared : — 
 Held, that the seller was bound to insure against 
 war risk ; and that having refused to do so, the 
 purchaser was entitled to rescind the contract. 
 Birhett v. Enghohn, 10 Ct.of Sess. Cas. C4th ser.) 
 170. 
 
 Delivery Order of Cargo to arrive — Bankruptcy 
 —Lien.]— On the 20ih of August, 1S57, B., the 
 senior partner of a firm of Bristol merchants 
 and .shipowners, being then in London, delivered 
 to the plaintiff, for valuable consideration, a 
 delivery order, directing D., one of the partners 
 of B., then at Bristol, in whose name the wharf- 
 age business of B.'s firm at Bristol was carried 
 on, to deliver to the order of the plaintiff '' fifty 
 tons of palm oil out of the first of our ships 
 which shall arrive, whether it be the ' Glenelg,' 
 ' Arab,' ' Mary Ann B.,' or 'Victory.'" On tlie 
 following day the Bristol firm suspended jiay- 
 ment, and their affairs were wound up, under 
 the provisions of the arrangement clauses of the 
 bankrupt act, by deed of assignment, dated 
 the 8th of September, 1857, of which the defen- 
 dants were trustees. The deeil provided that 
 no creditor having a specific lien or security for 
 his debt, who executecl the deed, should be pre- 
 judiced as to his security. Notice of delivery 
 order was given to the defendants at latest on the 
 5th of September. The first of the ships named 
 in the order wiiich came to portai'i'ive<l at Bristol 
 on the 23rd of October, 1S57 ; but of her cargo 
 oidy twenty-seven tons of palm oil remained 
 unaffected by contracts for sale, entered into by 
 B.'s firm before the date of tlie delivery oider : — 
 Held, that the delivery order was an assignment 
 of and a valid security upon fifty Ions of palm 
 oil, the first thatshoulil arrive l)clonging to the 
 firm of B. iSc Co., in the ships named in I lie order. 
 lluiinrr v. Hdrforil, 27 L. J., Ch. 70S ; 4 Jiir. 
 (N.s.) 703 ; G W. II. 743. 
 
 Quantity Stated in Bill of Lading.] — Upon a 
 purchase and sale of corn alloal, made before the 
 arrival in England of the .'<hipi)ing documents, 
 the written contract was in form '-for the pur- 
 chase of the cargo |)er 'Prima Donna,' from 
 Ibraila, now at Queeiisl own, as it stands, consisting 
 of about l,:{00(|uarters Ibraila Indian corn, at the 
 price of 3<).«. per imperial rpiarter, free on board, 
 including freight and in.-urance to a safe jxnt in 
 the United Kin>,'dom ; the quantity to be taken 
 from the bill of lading, and measure calculated 
 at 220 quarters = 100 kilos. Payment, cash on 
 handing shipping documents." Upon the arrival, 
 of the bill of lading, it was found to be expressed 
 as for a shipment at Ibraila of " 1,G()7 (piarlers ; 
 quantity and quality unknown to the master." 
 
 18
 
 )47 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 548; 
 
 Whereupon the vendee pnid to the vendor as for 
 1,(1);7 quarters, deductiuLT freight on that number 
 of (juarters ; but on delivery it was found that 
 the cargo really contained only 1,614 quarters : — 
 Held, tliat the construction of the contract was, 
 that it was a sale of the cargo, whatever it might 
 be, at a price which was to depend upon the 
 amount which should be found stated in the 
 bill of lailing when it should come to hand, and 
 no: upon the real amount of corn ; that the pur- 
 chaser took the chance of the cargo really turning 
 out more or less than mentioned in the bill of 
 lading ; and that he could not recover fora short 
 delivery. Corns v. Binqhdni. 2 El. & Y>\. 83G : 2 
 0. L. li. 212 : 23 L. J.,'Q. B. 20 ; IS Jur. 596. 
 And see XIII. Fueight, Inimamid {Owners of) 
 V. (rlenliolin, ante, col. 425, 
 
 Adverse Claimants to Cargo.] — See XII. Bill 
 OP Lading ; 5, Ixdoksement, Assignment 
 AND Transfer, ante, cols. 313, seq. 
 
 Payment — Tender by Vendor of One of a Set 
 of Bills of Lading.] — Where by tlie terms of the 
 contract for sale of goods to be shipped, payment 
 is to be made in exchange for bills of lading 
 of each shipment, the purchaser is bound to pay 
 when a duly indorsed bill of lading, effectual to 
 pass the property in the goods, is tendered to him, 
 although the others of the set of three bills of 
 lading are not tendered or accounted for. If he 
 refuses to pay he does so at his own risk as to the 
 bill of lading tendered behig effectual or not. 
 Sanders v. Maclean, 52 L. J., Q. B. 481 ; 11 Q. B. D. 
 S27 ; 49 L. T. 462 ; 31 W. R. 698 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 IGO— C. A. 
 
 Contract to Deliver f. o. b.] — Sembic, a char- 
 terer who Ijuys goods f. o. b. is liable for the cost 
 of putting them on board. Glenqarroch Iron <^' 
 StL'd Co. V. Cooper, 22 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th scr.) 672. 
 
 Successive Mortgages of Whaler's Oil Cargo 
 — Pr orities — Oil Transhipped.] — The owner of 
 a vessel made a mortgage of it and of the cargo 
 in London to A., whilst the vessel was on a 
 whaling voyage to the South Seas, suljject to two 
 ]irio;' mortgages thereof, and the thiixl mortgagee 
 forthwith gave notice of his mortgage to the two 
 prior incumbrancers. The master of the vessel 
 afterwards putting into Sydney transhipped the 
 oil taken in the voyage to another vessel, con- 
 signed to consignees in London, who honoured 
 Ins bill of exchange on them upon having a lien 
 on the consignment. The mortgagor induced B. 
 to advance him 1,000Z. on a mortgage of the cargo 
 so transhipped, and consigned without notice of 
 any other charge thereon except the lien of the 
 consignee. B. gave notice of his mortgage to the 
 consignee. A., as soon as he knew of the con- 
 signment (but subsequent to B.'s notice), gave 
 notice to the consignee of the mortgage to him ; 
 and after such notice the consignee, after satis- 
 fying his own lien, paid over the balance of the 
 ] Proceeds of the oil to B. : — Held, that A., having 
 done all he could do towards possession, was 
 entitled to lu-iority over B. Fdtluim v. Clark, 1 
 De G. & Sm. 307. 
 
 OTitward Bound Cargo — Assignment of.] — 
 
 Where there is an assignment of an outward 
 bound cargo, it is a complete contract, though 
 the cargo is not delivered to the assignee. Brown 
 V. lleathcote, 1 Atk. 160. 
 
 Sale of Corn shipped in good Condition.] — 
 Indian corn, shipped at Orfano for Cork, sold 
 
 under an agreement that it "had been shippcfl in 
 good aiul merchantable condition " : — Held, the' 
 sale good, though the corn ship[)cd was not iiu 
 good and merchantable condition for a foreign, 
 voyage. Dicltson v. Zizinia, 10 C. B. 602. 
 
 Sale of Cargo— Passing of Property.] — B. at 
 
 Bristol sent to L. at Plymouth, asking for samples 
 of barley and for an offer of a cargo. L. sent 
 samjiles offering to sell 400 or 500 quarters at a 
 specified price, f. o. b., at Ivingsbridge. B. 
 accepted L.'s offer, and L. wrote for particulars- 
 of the vessel to be sent, in order to insure. L. 
 sent a charterparty of the vessel made out in L.'s. 
 name. The vessel was loaded, and L. received from 
 the master a bill of lading by which the barley was- 
 deliverable at Bristol to order of L. or assigns on 
 payment of freight. Subsequently L. left the bill 
 of lading unindorsed and invoice at B.'s counting- 
 house. A dispute arose as to the quality of the- 
 barley, but B. did not refuse to accept it. 1>. 
 tendered the price of the barley to L., but L. 
 refused to accept it, took away tlie bill of ladings 
 and endorsed it to the plaintiffs. B., on the- 
 shiij's arrival, claimed and obtained })art of the- 
 barley ; but the plaintiffs claimed and obtained 
 the rest, paying freight : — Held, in trover, that 
 no propei'ty in the barley passed to the defendant,, 
 and that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover^ 
 Walt V. Balicr, 2 Ex. 1. 
 
 Mistaken Shipment — Eefusal to accept.] — Thc- 
 plaintiff's, at New York, contracted to sell andl 
 dclivei- 1,000 quarters of wheat to the defendants^ 
 at Bristol upon the terms "cost, freight, ancS 
 insurance." By mistake they sliipped, by sailing,- 
 vessel, a cargo of 2,000 quarters of wheat to K. at 
 Bristol. They also forwarded by steamer to K. 
 at Bristol a bill of lading and policy of insurance 
 of the whole cargo of wheat. This policy was. 
 "free from particular average." K., at the 
 request of the plaintiffs, accepted a bill of 
 exchange drawn upon him by them for the price- 
 of the 2,000 quarters. The defendants afterwards- 
 refused to accept the 1,000 quarters from K. : — 
 Held, in an action against the defendants for refus- 
 ing to accept the 1,000 quarters, that the jdaintiff* 
 were not ready and willing to deliver the 1,000> 
 quarters to the defendants within the terms of 
 the contract. Ilichox v. Adams, 34 L. T. 404 ; 3 
 Asp. M. C. 142. 
 
 Actions for Possession of Cargoes in England 
 and in France — Election as to Tribunal.] — An, 
 
 actiiin was brought in this coiuitry by an English 
 company against French merchants for the 
 delivery of the cargoes of certain slii})S or, in the 
 alternative, for damages and for an injunction and 
 a leceiver. When the action was brought the 
 ships were in British waters, but they were after- 
 wards removed, by order of the defendants tO' 
 French waters, and the defendants had taker* 
 possession of the cargoes. Proceedings had been 
 instituted by the plaintiffs in a Fi-euc^ court for 
 recovery of the cargoes. The English action 
 comprised a claim for the cargo of one ship which 
 was net claimed in the French action. Motion 
 by the defendants that the plaintiffs should be 
 ordered to elect whether they would proceed in 
 the English or in the French action refused. 
 Peruvian Guano Co. v. BockwolcU, 52 L. J.. Ch. 
 714 : 23 Ch. D. 225 ; 48 L. T. 7 ; 31 W. R. 851 ; 
 5 Asp. M. C. 2'J— C. A. 
 
 Assignment of Cargo — Bankruptcy — Notice 
 of Assignment.] — On November 11, 1857, A.
 
 549 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 assigned to B. the cargo of a ship belonging to 
 him, and then supposed to be about to sail to 
 England from Africa. If B. had sent notice to 
 the master of the assignment, it would have 
 reached him before February 12, 1858, the day 
 on which the ship sailed. B. did noc send notice 
 until January 23, 1858, and the notice never 
 reached the master. On April 14, 1858, the ship 
 arrived, and the master, on receiving notice of 
 the assignment, delivered the cargo to B., notwith- 
 standing notice from A.'s assignees in bankrup>tcy : 
 — Held, that B. was entitled to the cargo. Acra- 
 man v. Bates, 2 El. & El. 456 ; 29 L. J., Q. B. 78 ; 
 6 Jur. (N.S.) 294 ; 1 L. T. 322. 
 
 Mortgage of Cargo— Notice— Reputed Owner- 
 ship.] — London sub-mortgagees of shipments 
 from China sent by the next mail notice of the 
 mortgage to the persons in possession. They 
 became bankrupt before the notice reached its 
 destination. There was another mail route by 
 which the notice might have arrived earlier, but 
 not before the bankruptcy: — Pleld, the notice 
 was sufficient to take the goods out of the mort- 
 gagors' reputed ownership. Kclsall, Ea- rxirte, 1 
 De G. Zo2. 
 
 Bankruptcy of Mortgagor — Order and 
 
 Disposition.] — Mortgagees of a cargo on board a 
 ship on the coast of Africa, sent no notice of their 
 .security to the captain for two months after the 
 date of the mortgage, and the captain received no 
 notice until the mortgagor was bankrupt : — Held, 
 that there was a prima facie case for an applica- 
 tion, ex parte, for a sale of the cargo as being in 
 the order and disposition of the bankrupt. Lucas, 
 Eic jmrte, Gwijer, In re, 3 De G. & J. 113. 
 
 Eight of Holder of Bill of Lading— Mortgage.] 
 — Goods which, by the terms of tlie hill of 
 lading, have been carried upon a nominal 
 freight, can be lawfully demanded, by the holder 
 of the bill of lading, on payment of that amount. 
 Keith v. JJnrrows, 4G L. J., C. P. 801 ; 2 App. 
 Cas. 630 ; 37 L. T. 2'Jl ; 25 W. R. 831 : 3 Asi>. 
 M. C. 481— H. L. (E.) 
 
 The owner of a ship cannot, by his subsequent 
 acts, give to his mortgagees, a« against the holder 
 (if a bill of lading, rights different from those 
 pcis>esseii bj' himself umler it. Ih. 
 
 550 
 
 who is confirmed in his position as master by the 
 owners. On the voyage home, D., being indebted 
 to the owners, authorises them in writing to keep 
 possession of the furniture on the ship's arrival, 
 as security for their debt. The ship arrived on 
 December 5 ; a fiat in bankiuptcv a<?ainst D. 
 issued on December 18 on an act of" bankruptcy 
 committed on December 2 : — Held, that D.'s 
 assignees could not recover in trover against the 
 shipowner for the furnitm-e. Belcher \. Oldficld, 
 8 Scott, 221 : 6 Bing. (x.c.) 102 ; 9 L. J., C. P. 
 34 ; 3 Jur. 1194. == ^ ^ ' ' • 
 
 Sale by Court of Salved Cargo.]- 
 Kathleen, infra, col. G70. 
 
 ■See The 
 
 Bill of Lading — Pledge — Execution Creditor — 
 Ee-delivery of Goods to Pledger— Scotch Law.] — 
 ill the law <if ."^coil.iiiil, as in tiic hiwut Knglaiid, 
 a i)lcdgee m;iy deliver the goods to the jiledgor 
 for a iimile'l jiurpose witlioiit thereby losing his 
 1 ights under the contract of idedgc. The ])le(igees 
 of a bill of lading representing a specific cargo 
 were under contract to sell a larger quantity of 
 good.3 to a third person. The pledgees returned 
 the bill of lading to the pledgors to obtain 
 delivery of tiic goods and .sell on the pledgees' 
 behalf, and account fur the proceeds towards 
 satisfaction of the debt. Held, that the pledgees' 
 security wa.s not affected, and that they were 
 entitled to the i)rocccds of flie cargo, as against 
 the diligence of general creditors of the jiledgors. 
 yurth U'rsfrrn Jlank v. Puipiter, [1895] A. C. 
 f*; : 11 II. 73 ; 22 Ct. of Scss. Cas. (4tli ser.) 1 — 
 Jl. L. (Sc.) 
 
 Eight to Goods on board belonging to Bank- 
 rupt Master — Shipowner or Assignees.] — D., 
 cnjitain of ii ship liMund lo tlic East Indios, and 
 owner of the (;abin furniture, deserts the shij) on 
 the voyage ; the command is taken by the mate, 
 
 12. Action for Loss, Detention, Damagk 
 OR Non-Delivery. 
 
 a. Parties. 
 
 Consignor or Consignee.]— By a bill of ladin?, 
 the captain undertook to deliver goods therein 
 specified for the consignor, and in "his name, to 
 the consignee. At the time of shipment the 
 consignee had no property whatever in the- 
 goods : — Held, that an action against the owner 
 of the ship for damage done to the goods by their 
 being imperfectly stowed must be brought in the 
 name of the consignor, although the consignee 
 had insured the goods, and advanced the pre- 
 miums of insurance before the ship arrived. S(trr- 
 (letit V. Morris, 3 B. & Aid. 277 ; 22 K. K. 382. 
 See also The Marathon, infra, col. 970. 
 
 A consignee of goods has such a right of pro- 
 perty in the goods consigned to him, as to main- 
 tain an action of assumpsit against the shipowner 
 for non-dcliverv of the goods. Tronson v. Bent, 
 8 Moore, P. C. 419. 
 
 A., as captain, by a charterparty between him- 
 self and B., agreed to receive a cargo from the 
 agents and assigns of B., and B. agreed to pro- 
 cure the same ; A., having received a cargo 
 aboard, signed a bill of lading, stating the goods, 
 to have been ship])ed by order of C, and to hv 
 delivered to his order, and freight to be jiaiit 
 according to tlie charterparty. In an action for 
 negligence in stowing the goods, brouglit by C. 
 against A., held that C. was only an agent, and 
 tiiat the action sliould have been brought in the 
 name of B. Moores v. Hopper, 2 Bos. <fc P. (X.R.). 
 411. 
 
 Amount of Interest.]— A., a resident at Naples, 
 sent an oidur to M. & Co., hardwaremen at l!ir- 
 mingham, to de^iiateh to him certain goods, on 
 int^urance being effected. Terms, three months' 
 credit from the time of arrival. JI. & Co. having 
 marked the jiackage with A.'s initial-;, despatched 
 the goods by the canal to Liverpool, and effected 
 an insurance declaring the interest to be in A. 
 At I>iverpool the goods were delivered by the 
 agent of M. A: Co, lo the owner of a vessel bmiiKj 
 to Naples, through whose negligence they wer(! 
 damaged : — Meld, that thejiroperty in the goods 
 vested in A. as soon as they were despatched 
 from Birrningiiain, and that the terms of the 
 order did not make the arrival of the goods at 
 Najiles a condition precedent to A.'s liability to 
 pay for them, an<l that he might therefore main- 
 tain an action for an injury done to the goods 
 through tlic negligence of the slii|)Owner. Fra- 
 qano v. Lotuj, 4 B. & C. 219 ; 6 D. &; K. 283 ; 3 
 L. J. (o.s.) g. B. 1 77 
 
 Where S. had been in the habit of making 
 consignments of good.s to the plaintiff, to be sold 
 
 18—2
 
 551 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Canjo. 
 
 552 
 
 cii account of the former, and of frcqucntlj^ 
 drawing bills of exchange on the plaintiff, in 
 anticipation of future consignments ; and on 
 the nth of .lannary there was a balance due to 
 the plaintilf of \Xiy.H. ; and on the 6th, S. 
 shipped goods on board the defendant's vessel 
 to the amoiuit of 5.'J2G/., consigned to the plain- 
 tiff, sending him the bill of lading and invoice, 
 and at the same time drew a bill on him for 
 500^., which the plaintifE having refused to accept, 
 S. indemnified the defendant, who thereupon 
 relanded the goods, and redelivered them to S. : — 
 Held, that the plaintifE might sue the defendant 
 for the non-delivery of the goods, as he had at all 
 events a sufficient qualified interest in them to 
 enable him to maintain such an action. Anderson 
 v. Clarke, 2 Bing. 20. 
 
 Parties to be Sued — Negligence of Third 
 
 Party.] — An action will lie by the owners of goods 
 in a ship against the owners for a loss occasioned 
 by the ship's striking against an anchor lying 
 nnder water in the river Trent, without a buoy. 
 Trent and Mersey Kavigation\. Wood, 3 Esp. 127 ; 
 4 Dougl. 287 ; 1 TermKep. 28, n. 
 
 Master or Owner.] — A separate action 
 
 cannot be maintained against the master and 
 the owner of a ship for the same identical cause 
 of action. The creditor has an election to sue 
 either the one or the other ; but he cannot, after 
 he has sued the one to judgment, maintain another 
 -action against the other. Priestleii v. Fernie, 3 
 H. & C. 977 ; 34 L. J.. Ex. 172 : 11 Jur. (N.s.) 
 
 . 813 : 13 L. T. 208 : 13 W. R. 1089. 
 
 Where a cargo consisting of oranges had been 
 materially damaged through the improper con- 
 -eluct of the captain, who was also a part owner 
 of the vessel, and the freighters brought an 
 action against him and his co-partners, for negli- 
 -gence in the conveyance of the goods : — Held, 
 that such action was well brought, although the 
 
 . captain had entered into a charterparty under 
 seal with the freighters, by which he engaged to 
 convey the cargo to its port of destination ; it 
 not appearing from that instrument that he 
 possessed any other character or interest than 
 that of commander or master. LcsTtey. Wilson, 
 
 ■ 6 Moore, 415 ; 3 Br. & B. 171 ; 23 E. R. 605. 
 
 Liability of Owner or Charterer for Loss of 
 Cargo.] — See Jliiuinicoll Jlanii/ucfur von Curl 
 Scheihler v. Furncss, supra, col. 21.t7. 
 
 Liability of Shipowner for Detention of Cargo 
 by Arrest of Bottomry Bondholder.] — Sec Ander- 
 ston Foundry Co. v. Law, ante, col. 210. 
 
 Collision — Authority of Master to Sue on 
 Behalf of Cargo Owner.] — The master of a ship 
 that has been in cullision abroad has authority on 
 behalf of the cargo owTiers to institute a suit in 
 a foreign court on behalf of ship and cargo owners 
 against the other ship. The Reinheeh, 60 L. T. 
 209 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 366. 
 
 Owner of Ships Prima Facie Owner of Goods 
 on Board.] — As against a wrongdoer, the owner 
 of a ship is prima facie owner of the goods on 
 board. Branclier v. Molyneux, 8 Scott (N.R.) 
 332 ; 3 Man. & G. 84 ; 10 L. J., C. P. 310. 
 
 Non-Delivery — Property in Consignee — Action 
 l)y Shipowner.] — If a consignor of goods makes a 
 special contract with the sliij)Owncr as to tlic 
 carriage of the goods, the consignor may maintain 
 
 an action for their loss, though the goods be the 
 property of the consignee. Bnnlop v. Lamhert, 
 6 CI. &'F. 600. 
 
 Shipowner Estopped from Denying that Con- 
 tract made with him.] — A company owned a line 
 of steamers called the " Monarch Line," running 
 between New York a:id London. A. was in the 
 habit of shipping goods on steamers running on 
 this line. A. shipped goods on a steamer at New 
 York and received a bill of lading made out in 
 the ordinary form given by the company for goods 
 shipped on their steamers, save that it had the 
 words " extra steamer " added after the words 
 " Monarch Line of Steamships." At London an 
 ovei'side release for the goods was signed and 
 given by the company's agent to A., and the 
 freight received by them from A. : — Held, in an 
 action by A. against the company for non-delivery 
 of the goods that the company were estopped 
 from saying that the contract of shipment was 
 not made with them. Her man v. Royal Ej;ehange 
 Shipping Co., 1 Cab. & E. 413. Affirmed in C. A. 
 
 Ship Demised — Supplementary Action.] — 
 
 Action for loss of goods carried in defendant's 
 ship ; defence, ship demisetl to another ; supple- 
 mentary action against the latter ; conjoinder of 
 actions ; issues directed in both actions. London 
 and Caledonian Marine Lnsurance Co. '^. London 
 and Edlnhnrqh Sliipjnng Co., 5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 (3rd ser.) 982. 
 
 Charterer or Shipowner — Third Party Order.] 
 
 — A cargo owner sued the charterers of the ship 
 for damage to cargo. Defendants applied for 
 leave to serve a third party notice on the ship- 
 owner, alleging that the damage was caused by 
 the tmseaworthiness of the ship. Speller v. 
 Bristol Steam. Kavination Co., 50 L. T. 419 ; 32 
 W. R. 670 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 228. 
 
 b. Proof of Receipt. 
 
 What is Sufficient.] — -If a ship is chartered for 
 a particular voyage, and put up as a general ship 
 by the charterer, it is not enough, to make the 
 owners liable for the non-delivery of goods, to 
 shew that they were put on board the ship to be 
 carried on this voyage, utdess it is proved that 
 they were received on board by some person 
 appointed or authorised by the owners. 3Iac- 
 kenzie v. Rowe, 2 Camp. 482. 
 
 It is not necessary, in order to render a ship- 
 owner liable for the loss of the goods of a 
 shipper, that the goods should have been actually 
 delivered on board the ship. British Columbia 
 and Va7icouver's Island Spar, L/iimher and Saw 
 Mill Co. V. Nettleship, 37 L. J., C. P. 235 ; L. R. 
 3 C. P. 499 ; 18 L. T. 291 ; IG W. R. 1046. 
 
 Where goods are to be carried coastwise, and 
 the usage of the wharf is to deliver them on 
 the wharf to the mate of the ship by which they 
 are to be carried ; if they are delivered to the 
 mate, the wharfinger's responsi'oility is at an end, 
 and he is not liable, though the goods are lost 
 from the wharf before they are shipi^ed. Cohhan 
 V. Bowne, 5 Esp. 41 ; 8 R. R. 825. 
 
 Shipowner Estopped from Denying Receipt.] 
 
 — Sliipowner undfr special circumstances not 
 estopped from proving non-shipment of cargo 
 declared by bill of lading signed by the master 
 to have been shipped. Berhcli'i/ v. Watling, 7 
 A. & E. 29 ; 2 N. & P. 178 ; 6 L. J., K. B.i^o.
 
 553 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Carqo. 
 
 c. Proof cf lioss or Neglig-ence. 
 
 In Unloading.] — Where goods were landed 
 according to the custom of the port of London, 
 on one of the quays of the Victoria Dock, ami 
 the dock company loaded the lighter, and it was 
 proved that although aU the bales were landed 
 on the quay one of them was lost and was never 
 put upon the lighter : — Held, that by the terms 
 of the bill of lading, " goods to be delivered from 
 the ship's deck, where the ship's responsibility 
 shall cease," the shipowner's liability was over, 
 and that he was therefore not liable for the non- 
 deli verv of the missing bale. Pctrocochino v. 
 Jiott. 4:5 I.. J., C. P. 2U ; L. R. 9 C. P. 355 ; 30 
 L. T. 810. 
 
 Prima facie Evidence.] — In an action aj^iust 
 the owner of a chartered vessel for negligence, in 
 consequence of which the plaintiffs goods were 
 lost, the non-arrival of the vessel at her destined 
 port is not even prima facie evidence of negli- 
 gence, lioyson V. Wilson, 1 Stark. 236. 
 
 Burden of Proof.] — See Bechford v. 
 
 Clcrlce, 1 Keb. 830, supra, col. 332, and Cases, 
 infi'a, cols. 555, 556. 
 
 Loss by Perils of the Sea — Negligence — 
 
 Onus of Proof.] — [nan action brought byashipper 
 against a shipowner for damage to the goods 
 shipped under a bill of lading, containing the 
 usual exception of damage or loss by perils of 
 the sea, upon the shipowner showing that the 
 loss was within the exception, the onus of proving 
 that the loss was occasioned by the negligence 
 of the shipowner's servants is on the shipper of 
 the goods. Wilson v. The Xantho, supra, col. 
 329, discussed. The GlendaiToch, 63 L. J., Adm. 
 89 ; [1894] P. 226 ; 6 H. 686 ; 70 L. T. 344 ; 7 
 Asp. M. C. 420— C. A. 
 
 Interrogatories.] — In an action for non- 
 delivery of cargo the defendant admitted non- 
 delivery, alleging that delivery was prevented 
 
 , by excepted perils. The plaintiff delivered inter- 
 rogatories for the purpose of shewing that tlic 
 ship sank in consequence of a sea cock being 
 negligently left open: — Held, that such inter- 
 rogatories were not admissible. Grvmhrccht v. 
 I'urry, 32 \V. K. 558— C. A. Aflirming 49 L. T. 
 570; 5 Asp. M. C. 176. 
 
 As to Condition of Goods.] — In a suit against 
 phi|i<»wncrs lur damage to caigo, the onus is upon 
 the sliip|)er to shew in the first instance that (he 
 goods were sliip])'jd in good order and condition 
 before he can call upon the shipowners to sliew 
 excuse for the injury done to the goods. The 
 I'ro.y;erino Pulusso, 29 L. T. 622 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 158. 
 
 There is no rule of law by which tlic consignee 
 of goods unrler a bill f)f lacling stating the goods 
 to have been ship|)ed in good order and condi- 
 tion, but continuing the words "quantity and 
 quality unknown," is bound to shew that the 
 gootls were shipped in good order anrl comlition, 
 or fail in his suit against the sliipowiii/r fur 
 damage dene to the cargo ; but failing prfiof fif 
 the condition of the cargo when shipped, the 
 consignee is bound to shew that the diiniiige 
 which it sustained is traceable to causes for 
 which the shiijowncr is responsible. The Ida, 
 32 L. T. 541 ; 2 Asp. 'Si. C. 551— P. C. And see 
 Cases, ante, col. 319 et seq. 
 
 554 
 
 stowing.] — In an action against the proprie- 
 tors of a steam-vessel to recover compensation 
 for damage done to goods sent by them as 
 carriers, if, on the whole, it is left in doubt what 
 the cause of the injury was, or, if it may as well 
 be attributable to perils of the sea as to negli- 
 gence, the plaintifE cannot recover ; — but if the 
 perils of the sea require that more care should 
 be used in the stowing of the goods on board 
 than was bestowed on them, that will be negli- 
 gence for which the owners of the vessel will be 
 answerable. Muddle v. Stride, 9 Car. ct P. 380. 
 
 Management of Boiler.]— Where damage was 
 done to the t'argo of a steam- vessel, by water 
 escaping through the pi]ie of a steam boiler, in 
 consequence of the pipe having been cracked by 
 frost : — Held, that this was not an act of God, 
 but negligence in the captain in filling his boiler 
 before the time of heating it, although it was the 
 practice to fill over-night when tlie vessel started 
 in the morning. Siordet v. ILiU, 4 Bine. 607 ; 
 1 M. & P. 561 ; 6 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 137 ; 29 R. R. 
 651. 
 
 Delay in Taking in Stores.] — The master, 
 whilst waiting for cargo, omitted to take in 
 sutficient stores and provisions for his voyage, 
 and whilst subsequently taking in such provi- 
 sions and stores the frost set in, and the ship 
 was frozen in port, and detained from the 
 beginning of October until the breaking up of 
 the ice in the ensuing year : — Held, that the 
 owners of the ship were responsible to the owners 
 of the cargo for any loss accruing from such 
 detention ; it being, by maritime law, the duty 
 of the master to convey the cargo to its port of 
 delivery with all expedition ; and if by neglect- 
 ing to avail himself of all fair opportunity the 
 voyage is delayed, and damage accrues to the 
 owners of the "cargo, the owners of the ship arc 
 liable to make good the loss. 'Tlie Wilhelm. 14 
 L. T. (;3(;. 
 
 Incorrect Entry at the Excise.] — Where a 
 consignee was not ready to receive a cargo con- 
 sisting of rums, and the owncrsof the ship, being 
 desirous to get hei- cleared, uuloatled the cargo, 
 and incorrectly entered it at the excise, in con- 
 sequence of which tlic cargo was seized : — Held,, 
 that the shipowners were not liable to the con- 
 signees for the non-delivory of the cargo, as the 
 bill of lading diil not jji-operlv describe the same. 
 ShinrcU v. Shuplocli, 2 Ciiit." 397. 
 
 Seizure of Goods and Acknowledgment of 
 Master.] — In an action against the master for 
 not safely conveying goods consigned to the 
 l)laintill's at a foreign port agreeably to l)ills of 
 lading, evidence tiiat tlic goods were seized in 
 another foreign ]i<>r1, coupled with a letter nf 
 the master, in whi<'li he ackmiwledgcd that In- 
 was accountable fnr the goods, agrei'alily to the 
 tenor of the bills of lading, is sullicient to 
 warrant (he jury in finding for the plaint i)T-<. 
 Culle/i V. MiicAljiine, 2 Stark. 552. 
 
 Mate's Receipts.] — The ])lainti]I having \ 
 bally chartered a shii) (o carry iron from Gl 
 
 ver- 
 bally chartered a ship (o carry iron from Glas- 
 gow' to Swansea, (lie shiji was loaded wi(h iron 
 brought by tlie plaintiff from W. & Co. The 
 iron was weighed by the agen(s of W. & Co., to 
 whom the mate gave a receii>t signed by him for 
 330 tons, but there was jk) bill of l.uiing. On 
 d'bvrv ,'it Swansea, the quantity of iron was
 
 555 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 556 
 
 discovered to be 326§ tons only, but the mate 
 doposed, and was not contradicted, to the delivery 
 of all that had befn shipped. The plaintiff 
 having paid on the full amount of 330 tons to 
 W. &;"Co., who refused to repay them the differ- 
 ence, sued the shipowner for short delivery : — 
 Held, that there was no evidence of negligence 
 in the shipowner, and that if there had been, it 
 would not be negligence causing loss to the 
 plaintiff. Bidduljjh v. Bhujham, 30 L. T. 30. 
 
 Short Delivery of Cargo by Porters in the 
 
 Mersey Docks.] — The Mersey Docks Acts Con- 
 solidation Act, 1858, s. 36, making the master 
 porters, appointed under that act to discharge 
 cargoes in the Mersey Docks, responsible for any 
 loss^ damage, or injury sustained by the cargoes 
 discharged by them during the receiving, weigh- 
 ing, and loading off by the master porters or 
 their servants, does not in any way discharge 
 the shipowner from his liability existing before 
 he delivers to the master porter, and his respon- 
 sibility for short delivery remains unaffected by 
 the act. The Uniilien Marie, 44 L. J.. Adm. 9 ; 
 32 L. T. 435. 
 
 Defence— Ship and Goods Arrested for Bot- 
 tomry — Master Carrying on Goods without 
 Authority.]- — Held, that to a count upon a bill of 
 lading for non-delivery, a plea, alleging that the 
 injury and damage could not be repaired, so as 
 to enable the ship to proceed to its destination, 
 except at a cost exceeding what would be the 
 value of the shij), after her repair, on her arrival, 
 and that no prudent owner would have incurred 
 the expense ; and that the master acted impru- 
 dently, and without authority from the defen- 
 dant ; and that the defendant never had the 
 control of the goods after the arrival of the vessel 
 at the port of its destination, was bad after ver- 
 dict. Benson v. Duncan, 3 Ex. 644 ; IS L. J., 
 Ex. 169 ; 14 Jur. 218. 
 
 Admiralty Action — Damage to Cargo — Tort or 
 
 Contract,] — Oil-cake, which tlie master had agreed 
 to deliver in good order and condition, was 
 stowed with hogsheads of tobacco, oaken staves 
 being placed between them, and the oil-cake 
 was damaged on the voyage : — Held, that the 
 damage, however caused, was occasioned by the 
 negligence or misconduct, as well as by the 
 breach of contract, of the shipowner and his 
 servants. Tlie Fiql'm Maqgiore, 37 L. J., Adm. 
 52 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 106 ; 18 L. T. 532. 
 
 Damage to Cargo by Sea Water — Onus of 
 
 Proof.] — Wliere cargo shipjied in good cundi- 
 lion is delivered damaged by sea water, the 
 burden of proof is in the first instance on the 
 shipowner to shew that he met with weather 
 sufticient to cause the damage ; the burden then 
 shifts to the cargo owner to shew that the 
 damage was by fault of the shipowner or his 
 servants and not by weather. Williams v. 
 Buhbie, 10 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 982. 
 
 Short Delivery — Burden of Proof.] — The 
 
 master of a ship has no authority to grant bills of 
 lading for goods which were not put on board his 
 vessel ; but when he signs a bill acknowledging 
 the receipt of a specific quantity of goods, the 
 shipowner is bound to deliver the full amount 
 specified unless he can show that the whole or 
 some ))art of it was in fact not shipped. Smith 
 V. Bfduvin Steam Nar'Kjation Co., 65 L. J., P. C. 
 8 ; [1896] A. C. 70— H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 Where the quantity of goods delivered is less 
 than that stated in the bill of lading, the burden 
 of proving that the quantity stated in the bill of 
 lading was not in fact shipped is on the ship- 
 owner. Horslcij V. Grimond, 21 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 (4th ser.) 410 ; and see Cases supra, cols. 552, 553, 
 as to burden of proof. 
 
 Negligence of Crew — Burden of Proof.] — An 
 organ was shijJiied under a bill of lading, 
 marked, " At owner's risk," and under printed 
 sailing bills which exempted the shipowner from 
 liability for loss or damage on board ship, or at 
 or after landing, or by negligence, default, or error 
 in judgment of the crew. The organ was 
 destroyed by falling into the hold whilst being 
 landed ; and the facts proved were consistent 
 with negligence in the crew or accident : — Held, 
 that the shipowners wei-e not liable for the loss. 
 Wood V. Burns, 20 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 602. 
 
 Cargo in Bags — Duty to Deliver in Bags as 
 signed for in Bill of Lading.] — By signing bills 
 of lading for cargo in bags, the shipmaster 
 becomes bound to deliver the same bags with 
 their contents ; and, if not, the burden is on him 
 to shew that he has delivered the contents, and 
 that the bags were rotten without negligence on 
 his part. Shnnkland v. Athya, 3 Ct. of Sess. Gas. 
 (3rd ser.) 810. 
 
 Cargo incapable of Indentification — Non- 
 delivery.] — Semble, per Lord Russell of Killowen, 
 that where in the shipment of cotton some of the 
 bales become unidentifiable, the several owners 
 of the cotton become, in point of law, owners in 
 common of the bales in proportion to their 
 respective interests, and in an action by a 
 single owner the shipowner can only attribute 
 such proportion in answer to a claim for non- 
 delivery. Sniiirthwaite v. Ilannay, 63 L. J., 
 Q. B. 737 ; [1894] A. C. 494 ; 6 R. 299 ; 71 L. T. 
 157; 43W. R.113; 7 Asp.M. C.485— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Foreign Bill of Lading— Proof as to Quantity 
 of Cargo.]— XIII. Freight; 3. Payment; e. 
 Kate and Amount, Immamiel (^Owners') v. 
 Benliolm, supra, col. 425. 
 
 Extent of Liability when Ship Sold — Value 
 of Ship and Freight.] — In an action against an 
 owner to recover damages, in consequence of 
 the loss of goods laden on board his ship, the 
 extent to which he is liable, where the com- 
 pletion of the voyage was prevented by the 
 improper sale of the ship, is her value at the 
 time of such sale, and the amount of freight she 
 would have earned had she completed her voyage, 
 and not the amount of freight as calculated at 
 the time of its commencement. Cannan v. 
 3Ieahvrn, 2 Moore, 633 ; 1 Bing. 465 ; 1 L. J. 
 (O.S.) C. P. 84. 
 
 Loss of Part of Goods — Deterioration of Eest.] 
 — In the absence of notice of the consequences 
 which will ensue from a part of goods shipped 
 being lost, and of any contract express or implied 
 to be answerable for such consequences, the 
 shipper of such goods, on a part being lost, is, 
 over and beyond the sum necessary to rejflace it, 
 only entitled as for the delay to receive interest 
 on the said sum till payment, even though the 
 rest of the goods has been rendered useless till 
 the portion lost was replaced. British Colnmhia 
 and Vancourer's Island Spar, Lumher and Saw 
 Mill Co. V. Kettleship, 37 L. J., C. P. 235 : L. R. 
 3 C. P. 499 ; 18 L. T. 291, 601 ; 16 W. R. 1046,
 
 557 
 
 SHIPPING— XT. Cargo. 
 
 558 
 
 Insurance Policy.] — '\\'hcrc goods destined to 
 a foreign port are captured in consequence of a 
 deviation, the owners of the goods are entitled to 
 recover from the owners of the ship only the 
 prime cost of the goods, together with the ship- 
 ping charges, and not the expense of effecting a 
 poUcy of insurance upon them, without direct 
 proof that the goods, at the time of the loss, 
 ■were enhanced in value beyond their first price, 
 to the amount sought to be recovered for insur- 
 ance. Parker v. Jaines, 4 Camp. 112. 
 
 Neglect to obtain Possession.] — Through the 
 negligence of a pilot, not compulsorily taken, a 
 vessel got aground in the course of the voyage, 
 and part of the cargo (rice) was thereby damaged, 
 and other parts it became necessary to throw 
 -overboard. The vessel subsequently put into 
 the Mauritius for repairs, where the damaged 
 portion was sold. On the arrival of the vessel 
 at her port of discharge, the master, who was 
 under the circumstances entitled to land and 
 warehouse the cargo, neglected to cause it to be 
 assorted, and also wrongfully refused delivery to 
 the consignee : — Held, that the consignee was 
 entitled to damages for the goods jettisoned ; 
 for the goods sold at the Mauritius ; for the non- 
 assortment of the cargo at Liverpool ; and for 
 the loss of interest occasioned by the wrongful 
 -withholding of the cargo. In estimating the 
 •damages for non-delivery of cargo, the court will 
 not take into account that the consignee might 
 have prevented some damage if he had availed 
 himself of 25 & 26 Yict. c. 63, ss. 70, 71, to 
 obtain possession of his cargo ; that privilege 
 being conditional upon the consignee depositing 
 with the wharfinger the full amount claimed by 
 the master. The Kurway, 12 L. T. 57 ; 13 
 W. R. 296. 
 
 Wrongful Detention of Cargoes— Hight of 
 Wrongdoer to be reimbursed Freight and Landing 
 charges.] — In an action by the plaintiffs claiming 
 iis consignees named in a bill of lading of certain 
 •cargoes and damages for detention, the defen- 
 ^lants, who claimed the goods under a contract 
 with the consignor, were allowed to receive and 
 hold the goods pending trial, under a consent 
 order, without prejudice. Ten mouths later a 
 receiver was apprnnted. The court subsequently 
 held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the 
 oargoes, and directed an inquiry as to damiiges, 
 refusing to allow the defendants freight and 
 landing charges paid by them. On api)eal to the 
 /iiousc of lords the freight and landing charges 
 were allowed to the defendants, no order heiiig 
 made as to the terms of the inquiry. The chief 
 •clerk awarded damages as for wrongful detention 
 from the arrival of the cargoes until the decree 
 of the court. Upon summons to vary the ccrtili- 
 ■cate it was held that the wrongful detention was 
 from the arrival of each cargo to tlie ajipoiut- 
 mcntof the receiver ; per Lords Watson .'iihI Mac- 
 naghten — on general principles, notwithstanding 
 the wrongful detention by them, the defendants 
 -were entitled to be reimbursed freight and lami- 
 dng charges. Peri/rian Gmnw Co. v. Drpyfux, (Jl 
 L. J., Ch. 74'J ; [18!t2] A. 0. 160 ; 60 L. T. 530 ; 
 •3 Asp. M. C. 22.5— K. L. (E.) 
 
 d. Damagres. 
 
 "Market Value— Price. 1— The defendnnts, by 
 charterparty, agreed with the jdaintitf tliat their 
 chip should, Ma specified time, load l,3tJ0 tons 
 
 of coal in the river Tyne, to be carried to Ha-, re 
 for the plaintiff. They broke their contract, 
 and the plaintiff had, in consequence, first, to 
 hire other vessels at an advanced freight, and, 
 secondly, to buy 1,300 tons of coal at an enhanced 
 price. He was unable, according to the custom 
 of the colliery trade in the Tyne, to secure a 
 cargo until he had chartered vessels to carry it. 
 The plaintiffs having sued the defendants in 
 respect of both these heads of damage, they 
 admitted their liability to pay the advanced 
 freight, but denied that they were liable for the 
 enhanced price of the coal. At the trial the rise 
 in price at the pit's mouth was not disputed ; 
 but it was not directly proved that there had 
 been an equivalent rise at Havre : — Held, that 
 the fact of the plaintiffs having paid the addi- 
 tional price was prima facie evidence of damage 
 to that extent, and entitled him, in the absence 
 of evidence to the contrary, to recover. Feather- 
 don V. Wilkinson. 42 L. .!., Ex. 78 ; L. R. 8 Ex. 
 122 ; 28 L. T. 118 ; 21 W. R. 122 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 31. 
 
 Loss of Market.] — The carriage of goods 
 by ship on a long voyage is entirely different 
 from the carriage of goods by railway, wlien 
 they may be expected to arrive on a particular 
 day or for a particular market, and loss of 
 market on sucli a voyage cannot (in the 
 absence of express stipulation) be said to have 
 been within the contemplation of both parlies 
 at the time of making the contract so as to be 
 recoverable as damages in case of delay in the 
 carriage. The Parana, 2 P. D. 118 ; 3(5 L. T. 
 388 ; 25 W. R. 590 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 399—0. A. 
 
 The assignee of a cargo of hemp and other 
 goods instituted a cause under s. of the Ad- 
 miralty Court Act, 1801 (24 Viet. c. 10), against 
 a British ship, and claimed to recover damage 
 for a breach of contract resulting from unreason- 
 able delay in the carriage of the goods. The 
 shipowner admitted his liability, and the amount 
 of damage was referred to the registrar, assisted 
 bv merchants, to report upon. The registrar 
 found that there had been a fall in the market 
 value of the hemp between the date when the 
 ship ought to have delivered her cargo and the 
 date wlien the delivery actually took jilace, ajid 
 reported that the plaiiitiff was entitled as com- 
 pensation for tlie dehiy to interest at 5/. per cent, 
 on the invoice value of the hemp, but not to any 
 further compensation for loss of market. On 
 appeal to the judge of the admiralty division : 
 — Held, tliat the registrar w.as wrong, ami that 
 tiie pro])er measure of damage was tlie difference 
 between the market value of tin; hemp when it 
 was delivered and when it ought to have been 
 delivered ; but, on appeal to the court of appeal : 
 —Held, that the registrar's decision nni>( be 
 restored, am It hat the i)lainliff was not <iilili'd 
 to any claim for loss of market. Ih. 
 
 Tlie defendant, the master of (lie steamer 
 " Carbis l'>ay," lying at "Wilmington, signed bills 
 of lading for 4(J0 bales of cottim " shipped on 
 board the ' Carbis liay ' " for Liverpool. In con- 
 sequence of iiisuflicieiit room only 105 bah'S eoidd 
 be shipped, .and the defenilant directed the 
 remaining 235 bales to be shipped on board the 
 steamer " Wylo," then lying in the same port, 
 bound for Liverpool. Tlie '• Carbis J'.ay " arrived 
 at Liverpool on the 20th of October, and the 
 " Wvlo '■ on the 29lh of October, and both cargoes 
 were delivcied to the plaint iiTs, who were indor- 
 sees of the bills of lading. Between the 2Glh autl
 
 559 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 560 
 
 the 29th of Ocfobor a fall in the i)ricc of cotton 
 took ]>hice. ami tlic plaintiffs sued tlic defendant 
 for the loss thereby occasioned : — Held, that on 
 ,the 2lJlh of October the plaintiflfs had a right of 
 I action against the defentlant for non-delivery, 
 'that the measure of damages was the market 
 price of cotton on that day, and that the subse- 
 quent delivery of the cotton ex "Wjdo" could 
 only be taken into account in reduction of 
 damages. SmifJi v. Tri'/jtirthm, 56 L. J., Q. B. 
 437 ; '57 L. T. 58 ; 35 W. R. GG5 ; G Asp. M. C. 
 137. 
 
 Cargo damaged by TJnssaworthiness of Ship 
 — Limitation of Liability.] — A ship loadetl 
 with beans, whilst iu tluck before sailing, was 
 damaged in a gale, started a plank and wetted 
 some of the beans ; and there was delay in 
 carying the rest of the beans to their destination. 
 The market for the beans was lost and they were 
 sold at a lower rate. The jury found that the 
 ship was tmseaworthy, and gave damages for the 
 wetting of the beans and for loss of market. 
 New trial applied for and refused. Eule nisi to 
 reduce the damages to the amount limited by 
 53 Geo. 3, c. 159, s. 1. Chnstlew. Trvtt, 2 W. R. 15. 
 
 Advanced Freight insured — Subrogation of 
 Insurer to Eights of Assured.] — Goods were 
 shipped by the jjlaintilfs on the defendants' ship 
 imtler a charterparty, which provided that if 
 jejuired the whole freight should be advanced 
 subject to a dcditction for interest and insurance. 
 The freight was paid in advance, and the amount 
 was insured. The charterers sold the goods to 
 the plaintiffs at a price covering cost, freight, 
 and insurance. The cargo was lost by the negli- 
 gence of the defendants. In an action for the 
 loss of the goods : — Held, that the plaintiffs 
 were entitled to recover as part of the damages 
 sustained by them the amount of the advanced 
 freight, which was included in the price paid b}- 
 them for the goods, for the insurers of the freight 
 who had indemnified the plaintiffs were entitled 
 to be subrogated to the rights of the plaintiffs 
 in respect of the advanced freight, and to have 
 the action maintained for their benefit for 
 the amount insured, as it would, but for the 
 insurance, have formed part of the damages to 
 which the plaintiffs would have been entitled. 
 Bufourcet v. Bialioj', 50 L. J., Q. B. 497 ; 18 
 Q. B. D. 373 : 5G L. T. G33 ; G Asp. M. C. 109. 
 
 Right of Owner of Cargo to recover Salvage 
 Expenses from Shipowner.] — The plaintiff's 
 under a cliarterparty shi[iped a large quantity of 
 aye on board one of the defendants' ships, to be 
 carried from the port of T. to the port of A. 
 Owing to the negligent navigation of the defen- 
 <lants' servants the ship was cast ashore, and a 
 large quantity of the rye was lost ; but a con- 
 siderable quantity was saved by the salvage 
 association, ■ who were employed by the under- 
 writers of the cargo with the assent of the defen- 
 dants. The average statement was prepared, 
 and the sum assessed was agreed to by the plain- 
 tiffs, and the salvage association were paid by 
 the underwriters the expenses claimed by them. 
 The plaintiffs brought their action to recover the 
 amount of the salvage expenses so paid by the 
 underwriters. The plaintiffs recovered a verdict 
 for an amount to be settled out of court. The 
 question of law involved in the case was reserved 
 for further consideration. The defendants con- 
 touded that they were not liable because the 
 
 plaintiffs themselves had not paid the expenses, 
 and the payment under the circumstances was- 
 voluntary : — Held, that the plantiffs were' 
 entitled to recover the amount of the salvage- 
 expenses, as, without their being incurred, the- 
 remainder of the cargo could not have beei» sent 
 to it destination, which was for the benefit of 
 the defendants, and that the payment under the 
 circumstances was not voluntary. Scaranianga 
 V. Marquand, 53 L. T. 810 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 50G — 
 C. A. Affirming 1 Cab. & E. 500. 
 
 Circumstances peculiar to PlaiutifF — Advancedi 
 Freight " subject to Insurance."] — The plaintiffs- 
 having sold the cargo " to arrive," at a price les* 
 than the market value of the goods at the jjortof; 
 discharge at the time when the cargo-should have 
 arrived : — Held, that in estimatirkg the damagef 
 such market value must be looked to. and not thi 
 price at which the plaintiffs had sold the cargo.. 
 The charterparty provided that sufficient cash for 
 ship's disbursements should be advanced, if 
 required, to the captain by the charterers ort; 
 account of freight, subject to insurance only. 
 The plaintiffs having advanced sums for ship's- 
 disbursements on account of freight as provided 
 for in the charterparty : — Held, that, in estimating- 
 the damages for non-delivery of the cargo, only 
 the unpaid freight must be deducted from the- 
 market value of the goods, not the advanced* 
 freight as well. E.od,ocanachi v. Milbnrn, 5&- 
 L. J., Q. B. 202 ; 18 Q. B. D. 67 ; 56 L. T. 594 ;. 
 35 W. R. 241 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 100— 0. A. 
 
 Collision — Both Ships to Blame — Damage 
 to Cargo.] — The admiralty court rule that in>. 
 cases of collision the damages are to be equally 
 divided where both ships are to blame, does not 
 apply to actions for breach of contract of carriage- 
 brought by owners of cargo against the carrying; 
 ship to recover damages for loss of, or injury to,, 
 their goods, and hence the plaintiffs in stich* 
 actions are entitled to recover their full damages- 
 from the owners of the carrying ship. Th&- 
 Bioshlre, 52 L. T. 740 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 416. 
 
 Transhipment — - Loss by Perils not- 
 
 previously excepted — Limitation Action.] — A 
 
 cargo was shijiped by the plaintiff on the 
 defendants' vessel under a charterparty and bill 
 of lading, not excepting the negligence of the- 
 master and crew. During the voyage, audi 
 through the negligence of the masters and crews- 
 of both ships, the vessel came into collision witli 
 another, and was so much damaged as to render- 
 it necessary to discharge lier cargo at a port of 
 refuge, and, after temporary repairs, to complete 
 the voyage in ballast. The master transhipped 
 the cargo with the knowledge, btit without t he- 
 assent or dissent of the ])laintiff, into three other 
 vessels, under bills of lading excepting the negli- 
 gence of the masters and crews. Two of these- 
 vessels with their cargoes were, through the: 
 negligence of their masters and crews, lost before 
 reaching the port of discharge. The defendants- 
 obtained a decree limiting their liability arising 
 out of the collision to 8/. per ton, and the pro- 
 ceeds were distributed to the claimants, of whom, 
 the, plaintiff was not one. In an action fw non- . 
 delivery of the portion of the cargo lost :— Held,. 
 that .the defendants were liable ; for the loss- 
 did not arise from an excepted peril, and the 
 transhipment, though justifiable, was for the 
 puriiose of earning the freight under the charter- 
 party ; and that the judgment in tlu^ limitation.
 
 561 
 
 SHIPPIXG— XY. Cargo. 
 
 action was no bar to the present claim, as the 
 loss of the portion of the cargo, the subject of 
 this action, was not caused by the collision in 
 respect of which the defendants had limited 
 their liability. The Bcrnina, 56 L. J.. Adm. 38 ; 
 12 P. D. 3G ; 56 L. T. 450 ; 35 W. E. 214 ; 6 Asp. 
 il. C. 112. 
 
 Ship Bound for Performance of Charterparty 
 — Extent of Owners' Liability.] — See Anon., 
 Cases ill CIt., pt. 2, 238 ; supra, col. 207. 
 
 13. LiEX ox Cargo. 
 
 By Indorsees of Bill drawn against Cargo.] — 
 B. consigned a cargo of maize to 0. i: Co., for 
 sale by them on a joint speculation of himself 
 and them, and he drew upon them against the 
 cargo six bills of exchange for sums amounting 
 to 1.500/. Rewrote them a letter advising them 
 of the bills and sent them the biU of lading of 
 the cargo, and asked them to protect the bills on 
 presentation. They replied that they would do 
 so. The bills of exchange were on tlie face of 
 them expressed to be on account of the cargo. B. 
 afterwards indorsed three of the bills to R. & Co. 
 Before the bills were presented to 0. & Co. for 
 acceptance they had heard that B. had stopped 
 payment, and when the bills were presented 
 they declined to accept them : — Held, that R. & Co. 
 were not entitled to any lien upon the cargo 
 as against 0. k. Co. in respect of the three bills 
 indorsed to them. Rohey <i- Co.'s Perseverance 
 IroniciirUs v. Oilier, L. R. 7 Ch. 695 ; 27 L. T. 
 302 ; 20 W. R. 956 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 413. 
 
 Of Agent for Expenses.] — A vessel having 
 gone ashore with a cargo on board, a ship 
 agent was put in possession of the ship and 
 cargo by the captain, with authority from the 
 captain to do, as his agent, what was for the 
 benefit of all concerned. The agent did work 
 and expended money in discharging the cargo, 
 and brought it to a place of safety, where he 
 took possession of it. The hull broke up and 
 became a wreck. The expenditure by the agent 
 was not for the jjurpose of enabling the sliip- 
 owner to perform his contract and to earn 
 freight, but was an extraordinary expenditure 
 for the purpose of saving the property at lisk, 
 namely, the cargo :— Held, that the agent had 
 a lien on the cargo for his charges as against 
 tlie owner, fhoiigli such charges were incurred 
 without authority from the owner, the claim 
 being analogous to that for general average or 
 Kalvage. Ilinqxton v. Wendt, 45 L. J., Q. B. 
 440; 1 Q. B. D. 367; 34 L. T. 181 ; 24 W. R. 
 664 ; 3 A.sp. M. C. 126. 
 
 Authority of Agent to pay Charges on Cargo.] 
 
 — Held, .mNu, (li.ii ;ui ag.iit lo whom l^ilis of 
 lading arc liaiided for tlie purpose of obtaining 
 possession of the cargo of a stranded vessel, is 
 imjiliedl}' authorised to bind the owner by an 
 ' agieement to pay, on condition of tlic cargo 
 I being given up, charges for which there is a lien 
 on the cargo. lb. 
 
 Goods Loaded under Agreement with Broker 
 , — Notice of Charterparty. — .V linn dl l)r(ikcis, 
 having cliai tend a >lii|>, advertised lier as alxiut 
 to sail, and invited shippers to send their goods 
 by her. L'nih^r the charterparty, the captain was 
 to have an absolute lien on tlie cargo for freight, 
 dead freight and tlcmurrage. The plaintiff, who 
 
 562: 
 
 had no notice of the charterpartj', dealing with 
 the charterers only, sent some tea on board, to- 
 be carried at a rate of freight agreed uponi 
 between himself and the charterers. Af terwards- 
 the charterers were unable to fill the ship and so- 
 to carry out their contract with the owner, and 
 the ship accordingly did not sail. No bills of 
 lading for the tea had been signed, and the- 
 captain refused to sign them unless they were 
 expressly made subject to the charterparty. The- 
 shipowner claimed a lien on the tea, for the 
 expenses incurred by him through his dealings- 
 with the charterers : — Held, that he had no such 
 lien, the plaintifE having had no notice of the- 
 charterparty, and there being nothing to put 
 him on inquiry ; and the tea was ordered to be 
 given up to the plaintiff, the intended carriage- 
 thereof having failed. Peek v. Larsen, 40 L. J., 
 Ch. 763 ; L. R. 12 Eq. 378 ; 25 L. T. 580 ; 19- 
 W. R. 1045. 
 
 The goods of a shipper in a general ship are 
 not affected by a clause in a charterparty of 
 which he has no notice or knowledge, giving, 
 the shipowner a lien on all cargo and freight 
 for arrears of hire due under the charterparty. 
 Semble, the fact that no bills of lading were- 
 given for the goods makes no difference in this- 
 respect as to the rights and liabilities of the- 
 parties. T. hired a ship from M., and by the- 
 charterparty gave M. a lien on all cargo andl 
 freight for arrears of hire. T. advertised the 
 ship as a general ship, and gave no notice of the- 
 charterparty. B. shipped goods and obtained a 
 receipt, but no bill of lading. The liire being in 
 arrears, M. detained the goods of B. for the- 
 whole of the arrears : — Held, that M. was not 
 entitled to detain the goods of B., and that B> 
 was entitled to damages for their detention.. 
 The Stovnowfiy, 51 L. J., Adm. 27 ; 46 L, T. 773 ;. 
 4 Asp. j\I. C. 529. 
 
 Default of Owner of Goods.] — If a shipowner 
 is prevented from carrying the cargo to its- 
 destination by the act or default of the owner, 
 he has a possessory lien on the cargo for the- 
 entire frei.ght and for contribution to any general 
 average expenses incurred, (uilaiii, Cari/o c.r, 
 Br. ic Lush. 167 ; 2 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 216 : 33- 
 L. J., Adm. 97 ; 10 Jur. (N.S.) 477 ; 9 L. T. 550 ; 
 12 W. R. 495. 
 
 Landing and Warehousing Cargo — Excessive 
 Claim.] — Under the .Mcreliant Shipping Act 
 Amendment Act, 1862 (25 ,Jc 26 Viet. c. 63), s. 67, 
 a shipowner may land goods wiieiiever the 
 delivery of them to the owner witliin tlie proper 
 time has been prevented by tlie force of cii'cum- 
 stances, whether the owner of the goods is or is- 
 not to blame. Tht^ L'/irrt/ic, Mirdbrodt v. Fitz- 
 Himon, 44 L. J., Adm. 25 ; L. R. 6 P. C. 300 ;. 
 32 L. T. 579 ; 23 VV. R, 932 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 555. 
 
 If, on landing the goods, the shipowner ware- 
 houses Ihcm under a stop-order for a sun*, 
 manifestly, and to his knowledge, in excess of the 
 amount of his lien, such condurt is equivalent, 
 to a wrongful detention of the goods, for which 
 the owner of them may bring an action. Jh. 
 
 A fortiori an action will lie against the ship- 
 owner if, on payment of a sum due for average 
 by the owner of the goods, he refuses to reduce 
 the stop-order to the amount for which he then, 
 has, or can reasonably claim, a lien. lb. 
 
 Where no Statutable Warehouses.] — Semble, 
 
 that the master iiiav still land the cargo without
 
 563 
 
 losing his iw&scssion and control over it (placing 
 the goods in a warehouse belonging to or hired 
 for his owners), and so preserve his lien. Mors- 
 le-Blanch v. WUs(m, 42 L. J., C. P. 70 ; L. R. 8 
 C. P. 227 ; 28 L. T. 415 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 605. 
 
 Lien of Consignee Charterer.] — A. B. chartered 
 nine vessels in England, to fetch C. D.'s timber 
 from Nova Scotia, nnder an agreement between 
 theni, that he, A. B., was to be the consignee. 
 C D., in breach of the contract, consigned the 
 cargoes to other persons, but A. B. arrested the 
 produce of one of them in the hands of the con- 
 bignee, hy means of an injunction : — Held, that 
 A. B. could maintain a bill against C. D. and 
 the consignee to enforce his lieu on the produce 
 of that cargo, and that such lien extended to all 
 sums properly expended by hiui in respect of 
 the nine ships, and to all pecuniary losses and 
 liabilities, but not to commission, consignee's 
 profits, or damages for breach of the contract. 
 Ymmq v. N'eill, 32 Beav. 529 ; 2 N. Pv,. 212 ; 9 
 Jur. (N.S.) 976 ; 9 L, T. 9 ; 11 W. R. 1052. 
 
 Advances on Cargo— Lien — Foreign Attach- 
 ment.] — The plaintiffs advanced several sums of 
 money to S. M. & W. on the security of shipments 
 coming to them as return remittances from their 
 correspondents in Hayti, which shipments they 
 directed tlie Haj'tian house to consign to the 
 plaintiffs. The Haytian house was informed of 
 the contracts, and promised the plaintiffs to 
 make the remittances accordingly'. In .June, 1842, 
 a, cargo of goods was prepared by the Haytian 
 house as return remittances, and they directed 
 the plaintiffs to insure a part of the cargo on the 
 account of S., and informed W. that a part of the 
 cargo was intended for him, which W. communi- 
 cated to the plaintiffs. The resident partner in 
 the Haytian house died in June, 1842, after the 
 cargo had been shipped but before it was con- 
 signed, and his administratrix consigned the 
 cargo to B. in London, under whose orders it was 
 sold, and by whom the proceeds were received in 
 December, 1842. S.& Co., creditors of the Haytian 
 house, on the 29th August, 1842, attached by 
 foreign attachment, according to the custom of 
 London, the goods of the Haytian house in B.'s 
 iiands. By a letter dated the 7th September, 
 1842, the surviving partner in the Haytian house 
 directed B. to hold the cargo for S. M. & W. in 
 certain parts. On a bill and motion to restrain 
 the proceedings of S. & Co. against B., in the 
 lord mayor's court : — Held, that the right of 
 the plaintiffs, if any, was an equitable and not a 
 legal right ; that the plaintiffs were entitled to 
 the aid of the court in the trial of the right ; and 
 that the proceedings in the lord mayor's court 
 should be restrained by injunction. Cuteswortlt 
 V. Stej)ke/is, 4 Hare, 185. 
 
 Passenger's Luggage.] — The master has a lien 
 upon the luggage of a passenger for his passage 
 money. Wolf v. Summers, 2 Camp. 631 ; 12 
 E. E. 764. 
 
 Money borrowed by Master to buy Cargo — 
 Xien of Lender.] — The master without authority 
 borrowed money abroad to buy cargo to bring 
 home. The shipowners having taken the benefit 
 of the advance are liable to the lender for 
 repayment ; but the lender has no lien on the 
 cargo. Ashmall v. Wood, 3 Jur. (N.s.) 232 ; 5 
 W. R. 397. And see S. C, 2 Jur. (N.S.) 837 ; 4 
 W. E. 094. 
 
 SHIPPING— XV. Cargo. 
 
 564 
 
 Warehouse Owners' Lien— Custom.] — A custom 
 for warehouse owners in London to have a general 
 lien on goods for moneys due from the merchants 
 employing them in respect of goods consigned to 
 them from abroad, is bad, because unreasonable. 
 Leuclihart v. Cooper, 3 Bing. (n.C.) 99 ; 3 Scott, 
 521 ; 6 L. J., C. P. 131. 
 
 Money Awarded as Compensation for Seizure 
 of Cargo — Lien of Consignee.] — A consignee in 
 Denmark paid charges for freight, &c., upon a 
 cargo, the property of the consignor, who after- 
 wards became bankrupt. The cargo was seized 
 by the Danish government in consequence of war 
 having broken out with England. At the end of 
 the war a sum of money was awarded by the 
 British government to the assignee of the bank- 
 rupt as compensation for the cargo : — Held, tliafc 
 the consignee had a lien on the compensation 
 money for the charges paid by him. Good, 
 Ex jmrte, Atkinson, In re, 3 Mont. & Ayr. 
 246 ; 2 Deac. 389 ; 7 L. J., Bk. 7 ; 1 Jur. 456. 
 
 Bill of Exchange — Appropriation of Cargo to 
 
 Meet.] — B. & Co. consigned a cargo to tlie 
 defendants, and sent them a bill of lading in 
 a letter as follows : " The present serves to cover 
 bill of lading for timber, &;c., shipped per ' China,' 
 against which we have valued on you at sis 
 months in favour of F. S. & Co. for 1,200Z., which 
 kindly protect." On the same day B. & Co. sent 
 to F. S. ifc Co. the bill of exchange, which wag 
 drawn on the defendants to the order of F. S, 
 & Co., and concluded : " Place the same with or 
 without advice to account consignment i)ei 
 'China.'" After the cargo arrived F. S. & Co. 
 presented the bill for acceptance, but the de- 
 fendants refused to accept it. Shortly after 
 B. «Sc Co. stopped payment, and the cargo 
 arrived : — Held, that it was appropriated to 
 meet the bill, and that F. S. & Co. had a lien 
 prior to that of the defendants for their general 
 balance. Frith v. Forles, 4 De G. F. & J. 409 ; 
 32 L. J., Ch. 10 ; 10 Jur. (n.s.) 1113 ; 10 W. R. 
 291. 
 
 Lien for Freight.] — See XIIL Freigkt, 
 supra, cols. 428, seq. 
 
 14. MiSCELLiNEOTTS. 
 
 Breach of Blockade — Condemnation of Cargo.] 
 
 — The cargo of a ship condemned for breach of 
 blockade, though not belonging to the shi})- 
 o\^Tier, is subject to condemnation. The Alex- 
 ander, 4 C. Rob. 93. S. P., The Adonis, 5 C. Rob. 
 250. 
 
 Cattle Cargo — Cleansing and Disinfecting 
 Ship.] — Clause 100 of the Animals Order in 
 Council of 1886, made under s. 32, sub-s. 21, of 
 tlie Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1873, 
 requires that a vessel used for carrying animals 
 by sea should, after landing animals therefrom, 
 and before takii:g on board any other animal or 
 other cargo, be cleansed and disinfected by 
 having all parts of the vessel with which 
 animals or their droppings had come in contact 
 scraped and swept : — Held, that this ordi i 
 requires that before any new cargo can be put 
 on board any part of the vessel, even those jiarts 
 which had not been used for carrying cattle, 
 must be cleansed and disinfected as mentioneil 
 above. Ismay v. JJlahe, (SG L. T. 530 ; 7 Asp. M. C, 
 189 ; 50 J. P. 486.
 
 565 
 
 SHIPPING— XYI. Stoppage in Transitu. 
 
 566 
 
 Perishing Cargo Salved— Sale by Court.] — 
 A barque laden with a cargo shipped at 
 Charleston under bills of lading whei-eby the 
 cargo was to be delivered on payment of freight 
 at Bremen, whilst prosecuting her voyage to 
 Bremen was run into in the English Channel 
 and damaged by another vessel, which was alone 
 to blame for the collision. The master and crew 
 of the barque abandoned her, and in her aban- 
 doned state she was taken possession of by 
 salvors, who brought the barque and her cargo 
 into Dover. The cargo was damaged by sea- 
 water, and was alleged to be deteriorating. In a 
 suit instituted by some of the salvors against the 
 barque, her cargo and freight, the court, on an 
 application made on their behalf, without notice 
 to the owners of the barque, ordered the cargo to 
 be sold. The owners of the barque afterwards 
 hearing of the order, and wishing to have the 
 cargo transhipped and carried on to its destina- 
 tion, applied to rescind the order, and offered to 
 give bail for the cargo. The court, being of 
 opinion that it was for the benefit of all parties 
 that the cargo should be sold, refirsed to prevent 
 the sale, but reserved all questions of freight. 
 Afterwards the cargo was sold and the proceeds 
 brought into court, and the owners of the barque 
 then applied for an order for payment out of the 
 proceeds in court of a sum of money in respect 
 of freight : — Held, that, by the abandonment of 
 the barque, the contract to pay freight had been 
 dissolved, and that the owners of the barque were 
 not entitled to any payment in respect of frcitrht. 
 The Kathleen, 43 L. J., Adm. 39 ; L. II. 4 
 A. & E. 2i)<i ; 31 L. T. 204 ; 23 W, E. 350 ; 2 Asp. 
 M. C. -Mil. 
 
 XVI. STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU. 
 
 1. Generally, '>("}'>. 
 
 2. Transfer of Bill of Lading, 508. 
 
 3. Trannifiig not at an End, 571. 
 
 4. Part Delirery, 574. 
 
 i). Goods in Hands of Mliarfingers, 575. 
 C Transit us at an End, 570. 
 
 1. G EXE RALLY. 
 
 Who may Stop — Surety for the Price.] — One 
 
 who is merely surety for the price of the goods 
 cannot stop them in transitu. Sijf'kcn v. Wraij, 
 
 East, 371 ; 2 Smith, 480. 
 
 Alien Enemy — Licence to Trade.] — A 
 
 licence to a Jiiitish merchant to l)iiiig a cargo 
 from an enemy's port legalises the sale of the 
 cargo by the enemy ami enables him to stop it 
 in transitu. Fenton v. Pearson, 15 East, 411). 
 
 Foreign Purchaser.] — A trader abroa<l 
 
 who, on his nwn cre<lit, buys goods, and ships 
 them to a merchant in Engl.'iiid upon the older 
 of the latter, cli;irgirig a commission, may, upon 
 the bankruiitcy of the merchant in England, 
 iitop the goods in transitu ; and that although 
 the merchant had before hi.s bankruptcy accepted 
 bills for the cost of the goods. Fcisc v. Wray, 
 3 East, 03 ; II. 11. 551. 
 
 Agent.] — M. & Co., merchants, of 
 
 .Tamaica, oidercd of P. & G., merchants, of 
 Baltimore, goods to be shipped to .Jamaica at the 
 
 1 isk and expense of M. k Co. The goods were 
 shipped under bills of lading making them 
 deliverable to M. & Co. ou payment of freight. 
 
 The goods were not paid for. During the voyage 
 M. & Co. became bankrupt. On the arrival of 
 the ship at Jamaica the agents of P. & G. went 
 on board and demanded a package of the cargo, 
 in the name of the whole, on behalf of P. & G. 
 Before the ship's arrival P. k. G. had written to 
 their agents, saying, " In disposing of the cargo 
 use your own judgment," forwarding a power of 
 attorney ; but the letter did not arrive until 
 after the agents had taken possession of the 
 cargo : — Held, that the agents had authorit}^ to 
 stop the cargo on behalf of P. k G.; and that 
 there had been a valid stoppage in transitu. 
 Hutchings v. Nttnes, 1 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 243 ; 
 10 Jut. (n.s.) luy : 9 L. T. 125. See also JBird 
 V. Broicn, infra, col. 579. 
 
 Policy Moneys not subject to Right of Stoppage 
 
 in Transitu.] — The right of stoppage in transitu 
 does not extend over policy moneys paid in 
 respect of insurances effected upon the goods by 
 the vendee. Berndtsoyi v. Strang, 37 L. J., Ch. 
 005 : L. K. 3 Ch. 588 ; 19 L. T. 40 ; 10 W. R. 
 1025. 
 
 Sub-sale does not put an End to Eight of 
 Stoppage.] — Where the master of a ship is still 
 a carrier and retains a lien for freight, a sub-sale 
 of the cargo and handing over of a delivery order 
 to the sub-purchaser, and actual receipt by him 
 of part, do not put an end to the transitus, and 
 the unpaid vendor has, upon giving notice to the 
 master, the right to stop the surplus proceeds 
 payable by the sub-purchaser after discharging 
 intermediate etiuitics. Falk, Ex parte, Kiel), 
 In re, 14 Ch. D. 440 ; 42 L. T. 780 ; 28 W. R. 
 785 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 280— C. A. 
 
 The mere fact that the puichascr has resold 
 the goods, and that the bill of lading has been 
 made out in the name of the sub-purchaser, does 
 not put an end to the transitus, or destroy the 
 vendor's right to stop the goods in transitu. 
 Goldinq, Davis (*|- Co., Ex ])arte. Knight, In re, 
 13 Ch. b. 028 ; 42 L. T. 270 ; 48 W. R. 481— C. A. 
 
 Mutual Dealings — Right to Stop though 
 Accounts not Adjusted, j — A merchant in I'.ng- 
 land sent gO(ds of a given value to a merchant 
 at Quebec for sale on his account. Before the 
 goods were sold the latter shiiiped three cargoes 
 of timber to the former to crcilit on his account. 
 Two of them ari'ived ; against the third the 
 consignor diew a bill foi- the amount whilst it 
 was in transitu. The consignee dishonoured the 
 bill, and became baidcruj)t :— Held, that the con- 
 signor was entitled to stop the cargo in transitu, 
 and was not bound to wait until their mutual 
 accounts were adjusted. Wood v. Jones, 7 
 D.k R. 120. 
 
 Transitus not Began— Right to hold Posses- 
 sion.] — It follows from the right of the vendor 
 to stop in transitu, if he hears of the bankruptcy 
 of the vendee before delivery, that lie has a for- 
 tiori a right to nluse to part with possession 
 of the goods, if he has notice of bankruptcy 
 whilst the goods arc in his possession. Gibson v. 
 Carruthers, 8 M. k W. 321 ; 11 L. J., Ex. 138. 
 
 Provisional Stoppage — Insolvency Expected.] 
 — The right of stoppage in transitu may bo 
 exercised [(rovisionally without actual insolvency 
 of the consignee : but if insolvency docs not take 
 place, the right docs not arise, and the act is a 
 nullity. Tliv Condaidia, C. Hob. 321.
 
 667 
 
 SHIPPING— XYI. Stojtpage in Transitu. 
 
 568 
 
 Foreign Law.] — Goods were delivered on 
 board a ship cliartored by the consiijs'nec, and by 
 the law o£ llussia the owner of such goods may 
 
 , by process of law retake possession of them iintil 
 
 I payment, in case of the bankruptcy of the vendee. 
 
 I The master of the ship, upon the application of 
 the owner of the goods, who had heard of the 
 bankruptcy of the vendee, signed bills of lading 
 for the goods, making them deliverable to their 
 order:— Held, that this was a substantial com- 
 pliance with the Russian law, and that the master 
 was bound to deliver the goods on arrival to the 
 
 ' vendor, and not to the assignees of the vendee. 
 
 I InglisY.Usht'ricooJ. 1 East, 51.5. And see Foivler 
 y.'McTaggart. 1 East, 522, n. ; 7 Term Rep. 
 U2, n. ; 4 R. R. 485. 
 
 General Principle— No Relief in Equity.]— 
 A. beyond seas consigns goods to B. in London. 
 Before the goods arrive B. becomes bankrupt. 
 If A. can by any means prevent the goods coming 
 to the hands of B. or his assignees, he may do 
 so, and equity will not relieve. Wiseman v. 
 Vandejndt, 2 Vern. 203. 
 
 Whetlier Contract rescinded by.] — A vendor 
 of cotton in America, by direction of purchasers 
 in England, shipped the cotton on board a 
 vessel "belonging to the purchaser, who became 
 bankrupt before Its arrival. A mortgagee of the 
 ship, who was an agent of the vendor, took 
 possession of the ship under his mortgage, and 
 sold the cotton under a supposed right of his 
 principal to stop it in transitu ; and the prin- 
 cipal in account with his agent gave credit for 
 the proceeds of the cotton. The assignees of the 
 purchaser then brought an action against the 
 mortgagee for the seizure, and he paid them, 
 under a compromise, the amount for which the 
 cotton sold : — Held, that the contract was not 
 rescinded by the seizure of the cotton, and that 
 the vendor could prove for the purchase-money. 
 Humlerston, In re, De G. 262 ; 8 Jur. 675. 
 
 What Amounts to— Notice to hold Proceeds of 
 Goods — Notice to Consignees and not to Carrier.] 
 — J. P. & Co., merchants at Pernambuco, having 
 received orders to purchase goods at New York 
 for customers, instructed S. J. & Co., their agents 
 at Liverpool, to purchase and ship the goods, and 
 have them shipped to J. P. & Co. ; S. J. & Co. 
 thereupon instructed R. B. B., the agent at 
 New York of J. P. & Co. and S. J. & Co., to 
 purchase the goods. R. B. B. purchased the goods 
 and shipped them to J. P. & Co., sending the 
 invoices and bills of lading. To provide himself 
 i -nith funds to purchase the goods, R. B. B. drew 
 j bills of exchange on S. J. & Co., in which were 
 the words : " And charged to account as advised." 
 Attached to each bill was a counterfoil headed 
 "Advice of draft." This was addressed to 
 S. J. & Co., mentioning the particulars of the 
 bill, and concluded with these (or similar) words : 
 " Against shipments per steamship ' Glen- 
 sannox,' No. 6, N. Y. to Brazil via Baltimore. 
 ' Please protect the drafts as advised above, and 
 *, oblige drawer. R. B. B., New York, May 9th. 
 1879." These bills were sold in New York, and 
 E. B. B. advised S. J. & Co. of the bills, and at 
 the same time forwarded a statement of account. 
 On presentation of the bills for acceptance, 
 S. J. & Co. detached the counterfoils and kept 
 possession of them. On June 10th, 1879, while 
 the plaintiffs, P. S. & Co., were holders of these 
 bills, drawn according to their course of business 
 
 in respect of a shipment to J. P. k, Co., to whom 
 the bills of lading were at the same time sent^ 
 S. J. & Co. suspended payment. The same day 
 the failure was known in New York, and R. B. B., 
 under pressure from P. S. & Co., telegraphed ta 
 J. P. & Co. :" Having pledged documents and' 
 shipments ' Glensannox,' hold proceeds subject 
 order P. S. & Co." The next day, June 11th, 
 the " Glensannox " arrived at Pernambuco, andl 
 the goods were delivered to the customers of 
 J. P. & Co., who received from them the purchase- 
 money. The bills of lading had been deliveredl 
 to the customers before the telegram was re- 
 ceived. The bills of exchange were dishonoured! 
 by S. J. & Co. J. P. & Co. claimed to be entitled 
 to retain the purchase-money against sums- 
 alleged to be due to them from S. J. & Co. : — 
 Held, that even if the telegram had been 
 addressed to the owner or master of the ship, 
 or had been received before the bills of lading 
 had been delivered to the customers, it woukl 
 not have operated to stop them in transitu. 
 Phelps V. Comber, 54 L. J., Ch. 1017 ; 29 Ch. D. 
 813 ; 52 L. T. 873 ; 33 W. R, 829 ; 5 Asp. M.C. 
 428— C. A. 
 
 2. Transfer op Bill of Lading. 
 
 Effect of — Assignment for Value,] — The con- 
 signor may stop goods in transitu before they 
 get into the hands of the consignee, in case of 
 the insolvency of the consignee ; but if the con- 
 signee assigns the bills of lading to a third person- 
 for a valuable consideration, the right of the 
 consignor as against such assignee is at an end. 
 LicJibavTOio v. Mason (in error), 4 Bro. P. C. 57 ^ 
 2 Term Rep. 63 ; 5 Term Rep. 367, 683 ; 6 Term 
 Rep. 131 ; 1 H. BL 357 ; 2 H. Bl. 211. And see 
 6 East, 20, n. 3 ; 1 R. R. 425. 
 
 L. & S., carrying on business at Hong Kong 
 and London, bought goods of L. and others,. 
 Manchester merchants, to be shipped to their 
 firms at Hong Kong. The goods were on a 
 ten months' credit, and it was agreed that remit- 
 tances of the proceeds of the goods should be 
 made from Hong Kong, to asset the accept- 
 ances of L. & S. for the price of the goods, 
 on receipt of the bill of lading. L. & S. shipped 
 the goods in a vessel engaged by them for 
 the purpose, and bills of lading, making the 
 goods deliverable to their firm in Hong Kong, or 
 their assigns, were signed by the master, and* 
 delivered to L. & S., who accepted the vendors' 
 draft for the price of the goods. Before the 
 goods or bills of lading reached Hong Kong. 
 L. & S., being insolvent, in consideration of debts- 
 to two banks at Hong Kong, assigned all their 
 property to the banks, and indorsed the bills of 
 lading to them, the banks knowing of the in- 
 solvency of L. & S. : — Held, that there was no 
 sufficient consideration for the assignment of the 
 bills of lading, so as to defeat the right of the 
 unpaid vendors to stop in transitu, and that the 
 transitus continued until the goods were delivered; 
 at Hong Kong, llodqcr v. Comftoir D'Escompte 
 de Paris, 6 Moore, P.'C. (n.s.) 538 ; 38 L. J., P. C, 
 30 ; L. R. 2 P. C. 393 ; 21 L. T. 33 ; 17 W. R. 
 468. 
 
 Assignee of Bill of Lading becoming Partner 
 with Consignee.] — If the consignee of goods, to 
 whom the bill of lading was indorsed in blank, 
 assigns it over as a security for acceptances 
 given by the assignee, not amounting to the 
 value of the goods, and afterwards by an agree- 
 ment between them they become partners in the
 
 569 
 
 SHIPPING— XVI. Stoppage in Transitu. 
 
 goods, by which agreement it appears that the 
 consignor has not been paid for them, the assignee 
 of the bill of lading cannot maintain trover 
 against the consignor if he stops the goods in 
 transitu upon the insolvency of the consignee. 
 Salomons v. Nissen, 2 Term Rep. 674 ; 1 R. R. 592. 
 
 Sub-Vendee taking Bill of Lading.] — If the 
 ehippcr of goods takes a receipt from the captain, 
 who executes a biU of lading in favour of a sub- 
 vendee, the former mav stop the goods in transitu. 
 rraven v. Ryder, 2 Jlarsh. 127 ; 6 Taunt. 433 ; 
 Holt, 100 ; 16 R. R. 644. 
 
 Indorsement bona fide.] — A bill of lading for 
 the delivL-ry of goods to order and assigns is a 
 negotiable instrument, which by indorsement 
 and delivery passes the property in the goods to 
 the indorsee, subject only to the right of the 
 unpaid vendor to stop them in transitu. Pease v. 
 Gloahec, 3 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) .->o6 ; 35 L. J., 
 P. C. 66 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 219 ; 12 Jur. (N.S.) 677 ; 
 15 L. T. 6 ; 15 W. R. 201. S. C, nom. The 
 Marie Joseph, Br. & Lush. 449. 
 
 The indorsee may deprive the vendor of this 
 light by indorsing the bill of lading for a valu- 
 able consideration, although the goods are not 
 paid for, even if bills had been given which are 
 certain to be dishonoured, provided the indorsee 
 for value has acted bona fide, and without notice. 
 Ih. 
 
 If the vendee of goods having received from 
 the vendor an indoi-sed bill of lading, making 
 the goods deliverable to order or assigns, indorses 
 and delivers it to a banker as a security for past 
 and future advances, the banker's claim upon 
 the goods for all such advances will prevail 
 against a claim of the unpaid vendor to stop the 
 goods in transitu. Ih. 
 
 The vendee of goods having received from the 
 vendor an indorsed bill of lading, making the 
 goods deliverable to order or assigns, and having 
 given an acceptance for the price, returned a bill 
 ■of lading to the vendor, to hold as security 
 against the acceptance until the goods were sold 
 or the vessel arrived, and afterwards by fraudu- 
 lent representation again obtained possession of 
 the bill of lading from the vendor, and negotiated 
 it by indorsement and delivery to a third person, 
 -who took it without notice of the fraud : — Held, 
 that the vendee's fraud did not vitiate his power 
 to pass a good title hy indorsement, and that the 
 right of such third person under the indorsement 
 should prevail against the claim of tlic unpaid 
 vendor to stop the goods in transitu. III. 
 
 Of One of Set of Three.] — The mere 
 
 indorsement and deliv(;ry of ont; of a triplicate 
 set of \>\\\a of latling is not necessarilj'' such a 
 negotiation as to i)recliidc a ven<lor from exer- 
 cising his right of stoppage in transitu. The 
 'Tlfirrss, Hr. A: Lush. .38 ; 32 L. .1., A<lm. 97 ; 9 Jur. 
 (x.s.) 361 ; 8 L. T. 117 ; 11 W. R. 538. 
 
 Without Notice of Consignee's Insol- 
 vency. I — Tlie consignor Ifiscs liis riLrhl of sto]i|)age 
 in transitu ufion the insolvency of tlu^ consignc-e, 
 wiicn, jirior to the insolvency, the bill of lading 
 lias been transfcrrcfl, by indorsement, to a jiur- 
 <;haser for value bonA fide, and witliout notice 
 of the consignee's insolvency, under 18 & 19 
 Vif't. c. 111. Kemp v. Canavan, 15 Ir. C. L. R. 
 216. 
 
 The right of an unpaid consignor to stop in 
 ^transitu is not taken away by an assignment of 
 
 570 
 
 the bill of lading, for a valuable consideration, to, 
 a third person, with notice of the insolvency of 
 the consignee. Vcrtue v. Jewell, 4 Camp. 31. 
 
 Mare Delivery to Consignee.] — The delivery by 
 the consignor of a bill of lading to the consignee 
 is not such a transfer of the property as will 
 preclude him from stopping the goods in transitu. 
 Tucker v. Ilumjjhreij, 4 Bins. 516 ; 1 M. & P. 
 378, n. ; 6 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 92. 
 
 The unpaid vendor may stop goods in transitu 
 before they come to the hands of the vendee's 
 factor ; although such factor has the bill of lading 
 indorsed to order in his hands, and is uuder an 
 acceptance to the vendee on a general account. 
 Putten V. T/iomj'soii, 5 M. & S. 350 ; 17 R. R. 
 350. See 5 & 6 Vict. c. 39. 
 
 Purchase on Account of Third Person.] — a 
 
 merchant who purchases goods on his own credit 
 for another, to whom he indorses a bill of lading 
 of the goods, stands for the purpose of stoppage 
 in transitu in the position of a vendor, and the 
 indorsement by him of one bill of lading to the 
 vendee does not of itself defeat his right to stop 
 in transitu. lb. 
 
 The vendor claiming to stop need not repre- 
 sent to the master that the bill of lading is still 
 in the hands of the vendee. 2b. 
 
 When Goods Pledged.] — The purchaser of goods 
 (shippcil by tlie vendor) consigned them abroad, 
 and indorsed the bill of lading to a bank as 
 security for an advance. Afterwards, and before 
 the arrival of the ship, the consignees sold the 
 goods "to arrive" to sub-purchasers, to whom 
 they were delivered. The purchaser having 
 become bankrupt, the unpaid vendor gave notice 
 to the master, after tlie sub-sales, but before 
 delivery and before payment of the freight, to 
 stop the goods in transitu. The consignees 
 remitted the jiroceeds of the sub-sales to the 
 bank, who, after rei)aying tliemselves their 
 advance, handed to the trustee of the bankrupt 
 the balance, which was less than the original 
 purchase-money : — Held, that the iirincipies 
 established by Westzinthns, In re (infra), and 
 Spaldinij V. Ruding (infra), were applicable ; 
 that the right of stoppage in transitu was not at 
 an end when the notice was given ; and that the 
 vendor was entitled to the balance after satis- 
 faction of the bank's claim. Kemp v. Falh, 52 
 L. J., Ch. 167 ; 7 App. Cius. 573 ; 47 L. T. 454 ; 
 31 W. R. 125 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 1— H. L. (K.) 
 
 In equity the vendor may, when goods under 
 a bill of lading have been pledged, by giving 
 notice to the pledgee, resume his former interest 
 in the goods, subject to the pledgee's claim, and 
 will be entitled to the residue of their proceeds 
 after the pledgee's demand has been satisfied out 
 of them, or to the goods themselves if it be satis- 
 fied aliunde, notwithstaiKJing the pledgee may 
 have otherdemandsau'ainst till! coiisji^nee. West- 
 zinthvs, In re, 5 1!. & Ad. H17 ; 2 X. A: M. 614 ; 
 3 \,. J., K. I?. 56. 
 
 In equity a transfer of goods for valuable con- 
 sideration by a consignee for a limited puriiose, 
 does not destroy the consignor's right of stoppage 
 in transitu, ultra the particular lien of tho 
 tiansfcrce. Spalding v. Ruduuj, 12 \j. J., Ch. 503; 
 6 I'.eav. 376. 
 
 A. consigned goods to the value of l.OOOZ. to B., 
 who transferred the bill of lading to C. to sccnro 
 1,0(>(»/. B. having become bankrupt, C, a.s B.'s 
 factor, claimed, as against A.'s title to stop in
 
 571 
 
 SHIPPING— XVI. Stoppage in Transitu. 
 
 572 
 
 transitu, a right to retain the whole in satisfac- 
 tion of a general balance due to him from B. : — 
 Held, that lie was entitled to retain the goods, 
 but only against the advance of 1,000Z. lb. 
 
 3. Transitus not at an End. 
 
 Termination of Transitus — Not until Goods in 
 Possession of Consignee.] — M. bought lead of 
 the plaiutill at Newcastle, and some time after 
 directed that it should be sent to him in London. 
 I'laintiff gave his agent at Newcastle a delivery 
 oi'der, which the agent indorsed to akeelman, who 
 put the lead on board a ship bound to London. 
 The ship arrived in London on 21st of June, 
 and the defendants, as wharfingers, undertook to 
 deliver the lead. M. failed upon the same day. On 
 tiie 23rd and 21th June M. demanded delivery 
 of the lead from the master of the ship, who 
 I'efused to deliver it, alleging that the defendants 
 had stopped it because of his failure. On the 
 28th June the plaintiff wrote ordering the lead, 
 which was then in the defendants' lighter, to be 
 stopped : — Held, that the transitus was not at an 
 end. Jackson v. Nichol, 5 Bing. (N.c.) 508 ; 7 
 Scott, 677 ; 8 L. J., C. P. 294. 
 
 Delivery to Carrier named by Purchaser.] — 
 
 The transit continues until the goods are in the 
 ])ossession of the buyers, and it makes no dif- 
 ference that their idtimate destination has not 
 been communicated to the vendor. Delivery by 
 the vendor to the carrier is not delivery to the 
 purchaser, although the carrier be named and 
 jjaidby the purchaser. Rusevear China Clay Co., 
 Kc parte, Cuch, In re, 48 L. J., Bk. 100 : 11 
 (~:h. D. 5fi0 ; 40 L. T. 730 ; 27 W. R. 591 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 144. 
 
 Delivery to Forwarding Agent.] — A., in Guern- 
 sey, emiilnyed his agent at Southampton to ship 
 all goods arriving there addressed to him. The 
 agent paid carriage and wharfage dues, and 
 selected the ship to carry the goods on : — Held, 
 that the vendor could stop the goods after ship- 
 ment from Southampton. JS'ichulls v. Le Feurre, 
 2 Bing. (N.c.) 81 ; 1 Hodges, 255 ; 2 Scott, 14G ; 
 7 Car. & P. 91 ; 4 L. J., C. P. 281. 
 
 Goods in King's Stores — Nonpayment of 
 Duties.] — Where goods are consigned, but, on 
 account of the duty not being paid, are lodged in 
 the king's stor&s, the consignor may stop them 
 in transitu, if he claims them before they are 
 actually sold for the payment of duties ; or, if 
 sold, he is entitled to the proceeds. Nortlwij v. 
 Field, 2 Esp. 613. 
 
 Delivery of Bill of Lading "to Order or 
 
 Assigns."] — F. ordered wine of A. of Oporto, 
 who loaded the wine and took from the master 
 bills of lading for delivery to order or assigns. 
 Oneof these bills they sent to F. in a letter advis- 
 ing him of the shipment on his account, and 
 stating that they had drawn upon him for the 
 jirice. F. accepted the bill, payable nine months 
 after date. Before the bill was due the wine 
 arrived, and, F. not being able to pay the duties, 
 it was sent to the king's warehouse. F. being 
 indebted to N., and called upon to pay, sold the 
 wine whilst in the warehouse to N. for his debt and 
 40/. F. soon after became bankrupt. A., having 
 jiaid the duties, obtained possession of the wine ; 
 whereupon N. sued him for its value : — Held, 
 ihat the right of the consignor to stop in transitu 
 
 was not at an end. Nix v. Olive, Abbott oa 
 Shipping, 13th ed. 707. 
 
 Notice to Master of Consignee's Ship.] — A 
 
 timberinereliant in Sweden sold timber to L.&K. 
 By the original contract the goods were to be 
 delivered " free on board, payable by buyers' 
 acceptance at six months from date of bills of 
 lading, shipment to London, &c. " ; the seller 
 was to provide ships at rates specified. After- 
 wards it was agreed that the buyers should 
 charter a ship to bring the timber, and this was 
 done. The ship put into Copenhagen, and the 
 buyers having stopped payment before the accept- 
 ance became payable, the vendor caused a notice 
 of stoppage in transitu to be served on the 
 master : — Held, a good stoppaee. Berndtson v. 
 Strang, 37 L. J., Ch. 665 ; L. E. 3 Ch. 588 ; 19 
 L. T. 40 ; 16 W. R. 1025. 
 
 Demand of Bills of Lading — Lien.] — An agree- 
 ment was entered into between li.in London and 
 W. in Yorkshire, that W. should supply L. with 
 goods, W. drawing on L., who was to accept bills 
 for the price of the goods. L. was to ship the 
 goods to Shanghai for sale on W.'s account. On 
 receipt of the bills of lading L. was to send them 
 to R., to whose order they were to be made out. 
 W. was to have a lien on the bills of lading and 
 each shipment on transit outwards or in the 
 hands of consignee or other person, Avhich lien 
 was to cease on payment of the bills of exchange 
 in respect of each shipment. No notice of this 
 agreement was given to R. W.'s packer for- 
 warded a parcel of goods to London, marked for 
 Shanghai and per a ship, the " Gordon Castle." 
 named by L. W. paid the freight. The packer 
 advised L. of the despatch of the goods, and told 
 him that they were at his disposal. L. accepted 
 a six months' bill drawn on him by W. for the 
 price of the goods. The railway company 
 advised L. of the arrival of the goods at the 
 docks, and told him that they remained at his 
 risk for shipment by the " Gordon Castle." The 
 goods were shiiijied and the bills ol: lading made 
 out to order of L. or his assigns, by his direc- 
 tions ; but they were never delivered to him, as 
 he paid no freight. The ship sailed with the 
 goods on board. A few days before, L. stojjped 
 payment, and shortly after she sailed he com- 
 mitted an act of bankruptcy and became a 
 bankrupt. W. and the trustee in bankruptcy 
 both claimed the bills of lading in the hands of 
 the shipowners. It was arranged that the goods 
 should be sold by the agent of the shipowners at 
 Shanghai, and the proceeds paid to the person 
 entitled : — Held, that the agreement did not 
 prevent W. from exercising his right to stop the 
 goods in transitu ; and that the transit did notend 
 until the goods were at Shanghai ; and that the 
 demand by W. of the bills of lading in the hands 
 of the shipowners was an exercise of the right to 
 stop ; and that W. was entitled to have the bill of 
 exchange satisfied out of the iiroceeds of the 
 goods. Watsun, Ex jiarte. Lore, In re. 46 L. J., 
 Bk. 97 ; 5 Oh. D. 35 ; 36 L. T. 75 ; 25 W. R. 
 489 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 396— C. A. 
 
 Goods Shipped hut not Arrived.] — The pur- 
 chaser of goods directed the vendor, who carried 
 on business at Wolverhampton, to coirsign goods 
 to a vessel then loading in the East India Docks 
 for Melbourne. The vendor delivered the 
 goods to a railway company to be forwarded 
 and shipped. Afterwards the vendoi-, on the
 
 573 
 
 SHIPPING — XYI. Stopiiagc in. Transitu. 
 
 574 
 
 purchaser becoming insolvent, gave notice to the 
 railway company to stop the goods, but too late 
 to prevent shipment. The ship sailed with the 
 goods on board, but before arriving at Melbourne 
 the vendors claimed the goods from the ship- 
 owners as their property : — Held, that the transit 
 was not at an end until the goods reached Mel- 
 bourne, and that the vendors were entitled to the 
 goods. Brfhell v. ClarJi, 57 L. J., Q. B. 302 ; 20 
 Q. B. D. 615 ; 59 L. T. SOS ; 36 W. R. 611 ; 6 
 Asp. M. C. 346— C. A. 
 
 Ship chartered by Shipper — Bill of Lading to 
 his Order — Indorsement — Ship calling for 
 Orders,] — W. at Bahia sold goods to A. at 
 Glasgow. Under the contract W. shipped the 
 goods on board a vessel chartered by himself to 
 proceed either direct or via Falmouth, Cowes or 
 Queenstown, for orders to any port in the United 
 Kingdom or the continent as sijecified. The bill 
 of lading was made out to AV.'s order or assigns, 
 signed by the master, and indorsed in blank by 
 AW, who forwarded it with the charterparty and 
 invoice, which expressed the goods to be shipped 
 on the account and at the risk of and to A. The 
 bill of lading, charterparty and invoice were 
 received by A. On the ship's arrival at Fal- 
 mouth, W.'s agents applied to A. for instructions 
 as to the destination, and before receiving them 
 they heard of A.'s insolvency : — Held, that W.'s 
 agents had a risht to stop in transitu. Fraser 
 V. Witt, L. R. 7 Eq. 64 ; 19 L. T. 440 ; 17 W.R. 92. 
 
 Ship chartered by Vendee.] — Delivery on ship 
 chartered by vendee does not necessarily end the 
 transitus. Buthliiujli v. Inqlls, 3 East, 3S1 ; 7 
 R. R. 4'JO. 
 
 Goods delivered on Board — Receipts taken — 
 Purchaser Passenger in same Ship.j — Tlie pur- 
 chaser of goods directed tlic vendors to deliver 
 the goods at a wharf, to be forwarded by a speci- 
 fied ship to the purchaser abroad. The vendors 
 delivered the goods, and toolc receipts from the 
 shipowners, which they delivered to the pur- 
 chaser, wlio cxclianged them for the bills of 
 lading, and himself sailed as a passenger in the 
 ship : — Held, that the goods were liable to be 
 stopped in transitu. Lyons v. Il(i[r)utnq, 59 L. J., 
 I'. C. 79 ; 15 App. Ca's. 391 ; (;:', L. T. 293 ; 39 
 W. R. 390 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 551—1'. C. 
 
 Rejection of Goods by Purchaser — Contract 
 Rescinded, J — \ ship's cirgo was bmiLrlil. .'uid 
 al'UT it was uiilo.ided Ijy the purcliaser he became 
 insolvent. I'art of the cargo was afterwards, at 
 Iho request of the dock jjcople, removed from the 
 <|uay to tlic purclia.ser"s house for the jiurpose of 
 safe custody. The cargo was, in fact, rejected by 
 llic pnrchiiser as not acconling to the conti.act ; 
 whcrenpriii tlie seller lia<l rescinded tlic contnict : 
 — Held, that the seller was entitled to the cargo 
 a« against tlie trustee in bankruptcy. Booker v. 
 MilKf, 9 Ct. of Sess. Gas. (4tli ser.) 314. 
 
 Voyage not Completed because of Quarantine.] 
 — Where before the shijj's arrival the consignee 
 of cargo becomes bankrupt, the arrival of the 
 ship in the port, where she is taken i)osscssion of 
 by the assignees, but from whence she is ordered 
 to perform (piarantinc. is not such a completion 
 of the voyage as shall vest the ))roperty in the 
 assignees ; but the consignor may sto]) them as 
 in tinnsitn whilst the vessel is performing qua- 
 rantine. JloUt V. Powtial, 1 Esp, 240. Sec 5 R. R. 
 058, n. 
 
 Mate's Receipt.] — Goods were sold f.o.b., and 
 on shipment the vendor's agent tendered a 
 receipt to the mate by which the goods were 
 acknowledged to be shipped on account of the 
 vendor. Tiie mate kept, but did not sign, the 
 receipt ; and on the next day signed bills of 
 lading, making the goods deliverable to the order 
 of the vendee : — Held, that the vendor could stop 
 the goods on the vendee's insolvencv. llucli v. 
 Hatfield, 5 B. & Aid. 632 ; 24 R. R. ,507. 
 
 Overside Order.] — Goods were shipped by A., 
 a firm in Calcutta, to the order of B. in England. 
 B. pledged the bill of lading to C.. and afterwards, 
 became bankrupt. On the ship's arrival C. 
 obtained from the brokers, on payment of freight, 
 an overside order for delivery of the goods. Oa 
 presenting this order to the officer on board the' 
 ship, the lighterman employed by C. was told 
 that he should have the goods as soon as fh'jy 
 could be got at. Before they could be got at, or 
 the ship broke bulk, A.'s agents served notice 
 on the master and ship's agents of stoppage iu 
 transitu : — Held, that the notice was good, antJ 
 that A. was entitled to the goods, after satisfying 
 C.'s charge. CuventryY. Gladstone, 37 L. J., Clu 
 492 ; L. R. 6 Eq. 44 ; 16 W. R,S37. 
 
 Goods in Hands of Forwarding Railway Com- 
 pany,] — A. & Co., of Moscow and Birmingham, 
 bought goods from B. & Co., of Glasgow, to be 
 shipped by C. 's" first steamer fromLeith to Riga, to 
 A. & Co.'s orders." By the bills of lading, whieln 
 stated that the goods were shijiped by A. & Co., 
 they were to be delivered at Riga to the agent of 
 a railway company, to be forwarded to A. & Co. at 
 Moscow. A. & Co. became insolvent, and B. & Co. 
 stopped the goods at Riga in the hands of the 
 railway company : — Held, that the transitus wa* 
 not at an end. McLeod v. IIarri.so)i, S Ct, of 
 Sess, Gas. (4th ser.) 227. 
 
 4. Part Delivery. 
 
 Freight Lien Existing.] — A cargo of 114 tons 
 of iron castings was consigned from Scotland to 
 London on board a ship cliartered by the vendor, 
 the bill of lading being made out in favour of the 
 purchaser or his assigns, he or they paying freight. 
 After thirty tons were delivered to the purcha.scr 
 the vendor' gave notice to stoj) the unloading. At 
 this time part only of the freight h.ad been paiiF 
 to the master. Soon after the purchaser liecaine 
 insolvent, an<l a receiver was appointed. The 
 bahince of the freight was ])aid by the receiver, 
 and the rest of the cargo was placed in medio : — 
 Held, that, inasniuch as it could not be supposed 
 that the master intended to abandon his lien for 
 the unpaid freight, the delivery of the thirty tons- 
 did not operate as a constructive delivery of the 
 whole, and that the tnuisitus w.as not at an end. . 
 Coonp.t', K.r, iKU-lr, MrLnrrii, In re. 4S I^. ,1., Hk. | 
 49 : 11 CMi. D. 6S ; 10 L, T. 105 ; 27 \V. 11, 51.S ;. 
 4 Asp. M, C. (i3— C. A, 
 
 Eeshipment.] — A, consigned iron to 1).,. 
 
 and sent it lo a carrier, who delivered jiart on jv 
 wharf of B, ; on di.scovery that 15, was insolvent 
 the carriiu' reshipp(!d the part delivered, and liehli 
 the whole to satisfy his lien for freight and for a. 
 general account between him and B, : — Held,, 
 that A.'s right of stoppage in transitu was not; 
 gone ; and that he could maintain trover for the 
 iron against the carrier. Crawshuy v. Eades, 2
 
 S75 
 
 SHIPPING— XVI. Stoppage in Transitu. 
 
 576 
 
 D. & R. 288 ; 1 B. & C. 181 ; 1 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 
 DO ; 25 11. R. 348. 
 
 Constructive Delivery of Whole.]— A. at a 
 
 'foreii^ai imrt ships goods by order and on account 
 of B.'j^ to be paid for at a future day, and bills of 
 .lading accordingly are signed by the master. 
 One of the bills is sent to B., who before the ship 
 .arrives sells the goods and hands the bill of 
 Hading to C. After the ship's arrival and delivery 
 ■of part of the goods to C.'s agent, B. becomes 
 ■bankrupt :— Held, that there having been con- 
 •structive delivery of the whole of the goods, the 
 •vendor's risht to stop in transitu was at an end. 
 Slnhey v. Ilcyward, 2 H. Bl. 501 ; 3 E. R. 48(j. 
 
 Part delivc'ry by carrier to consignee held to be 
 •constructive delivery of the whole, so as to put 
 an end to the transitus. Betts v. Gihhlns, 4 
 2^. & M. 64 ; 2 A. & E. 57 ; 4 L. J., K. B. 1. 
 
 Sampling and Selling Part of Cargo.]— Wheat 
 'vvas shipped in London under bill of lading 
 making it deliverable at Barmouth or Tremadoc 
 to T. or his assigns, on payment of freight. The 
 ■cargo was paid for partly by cash and partly by 
 .acceptance. Before the acceptance became due 
 T. assigned his property to the plaintiff, A., in 
 'trust for his creditors ; being at the time insol- 
 vent, to the plaintiff's knowledge. T. indorsed 
 ■the bill of lading to the plaintiff. On the ship's 
 .arrival at Barmouth the plaintiff went on board, 
 took samples, and sold seventy of the eighty 
 quarters on board to purchasers, having paid the 
 •freight. The remaining ten quarters he ordered 
 to be carried on to Tremadoc. On the ship's 
 ^arrival at Tremadoc, T.'s acceptance having been 
 dishonoured, the vendor claimed the remaining 
 ten quarters, tendering freight : — Held, that the 
 transitus was determined by the acts done by the 
 plaintiff at Barmouth. Jones v. Jones, 8 M. & W. 
 431 ; 10 L. J., Ex. 481. 
 
 5. Goods in Hands of Whakfinger. 
 
 Consignee not in Possession.] — Goods were 
 •consigned to A. deliverable in the Thames. A., 
 .being pressed by the master of the ship to have 
 them landed, sent his son to tell the master to 
 Hand them at the wharf where goods usually were 
 landed for him. At the same time, being insol- 
 vent, he told his son that he should not meddle 
 with them : — Held, that the transitus was not at 
 .an end ; A.'s statement to his son, which was 
 .admitted in evidence, shewing that he had not 
 taken possession of the goods as owner. James 
 >v. Griffin, 2 M. & W. 622 ; 6 L. J., Ex. 241. 
 
 Before Shipment.] — Goods at a wharfinger's in 
 London on their way to be shipped to the vendee 
 at Newcastle are subject to the vendors right to 
 stop in tran.situ ; and that although they have 
 been attached by process out of the mayor's 
 court at the suit of a creditor of the vendee. 
 Smith V. Goss, 1 Camp. 282 ; 10 R. R. 684. 
 
 After "Weighing for Purchaser.] — Bale goods 
 ■were forwarded by ship to London deliverable to 
 B. & Co. or their'assigns, being factors for sale, 
 and were landed at the defendant's wharf. 
 B. & Co. ordered the defendant to weigh and 
 "deliver to M., a purchaser from B. & Co. They 
 ■were weighed, and an account of weight sent to 
 .B. & Co., who sent invoices accordingly to M. 
 Is}.. resold some bales, and they were delivered 
 ■aipcn his order by the defendants to his vendees. 
 
 The rest remained on the wharf until stopped by 
 B. & Co. as unpaid vendors. The goods were 
 never transferred in the wliarf books from the 
 names of B. & Co. to that of M., and no ware- 
 house rent was ever paid by M. : — Held, that the 
 defendants never held the goods as wharfingers 
 for M. ; and that the right of stoppage in 
 transitu was not determined by part delivery to 
 his vendees. Tanner v. Scocell, 14 M. & W. 28 ; 
 14 L. J., Ex. 321. 
 
 Order to Weigh.] — An order by the 
 
 vendor to the wharfinger to weigh and deliver 
 the goods to the vendee does not defeat the right 
 of stoppage in transitu : — Aliter, where the order 
 is for delivery forthwith. Withers v. Lys, Holt 
 N. P. 18; 16 R. R. 781. 
 
 In Vendor's Name — Order not to Deliver.] — G. 
 
 at North Tawton ordered goods to be sent to him 
 from London, not specifying any particular ship, 
 by way of Exeter. They were shipped and carried 
 to Exeter, where they were put into the hands of 
 a wharfinger to be forwarded to North Tawton. 
 In the wharfinger's books they were put into the 
 name of G. The vendor receiveil a letter from 
 G. that he would not receive the goods, and that 
 the vendor might take them back. The vendor 
 ordered the wharfinger not to deliver them, and 
 the wharfinger promised not to do so until he 
 could with safety, but afterwards delivered them 
 to G.'s assignees in bankruptcy : — Held, that C.'s 
 right to stop in transitu was not at an end, and 
 that he cotild maintain trover against the whar- 
 finger. Mills V. Ball, 2 Bos. & P. 457 ; 5 R. R. 
 653. 
 
 Goods were landed and entered in the whar- 
 finger's book, with freight and charges set 
 opposite to them, not in the name of anyone as 
 consignee. The master of the ship had landed 
 them at the instance of the clerk of the con- 
 signee, who was away from home : — Held, that 
 the transitus had not ended. Edwa rds v. Brewer, 
 2 M. & W. 375 ; 6 L. J., Ex. 135. 
 
 Delivery Order by Consignee — Goods not 
 
 Arrived.] — A consignee of goods delivering over 
 to a third person the shipping note of such goods, 
 and a delivery order on the wharfinger to deliver 
 such goods when they arrive, does not pass the 
 property in them, so as to prevent a stoppage in 
 transitu by the consignor. Akerman v. Hum- 
 phrey, 1 Car. & P. 53. 
 
 Goods Warehoused for Vendee,] — Goods con- 
 veyed by a barge on the Thames were deposited 
 in the carrier's warehouse for the convenience of 
 the vendee, to be delivered as he should want 
 them : — Held, that the vendor's right to stop in 
 transitu was gone. Allen v. Gripper, 2 C. & J. 
 218 ; 2 Tyr. 217 ; 1 L. J., Ex. 71. 
 
 Transfer in Warehouseman's Books to Name of 
 
 Purchaser.] — Where tlie purchaser of goods has 
 Icjdged with the wharfinger an order to deliver 
 them, and the wharfinger has transferred them 
 in his books into the name of the purchaser, the 
 vendor's right to stop in transitu is at an end. 
 Harman v. Anderson, 2 Camp. 242 ; 11 R. R. 
 706. 
 
 6. Transitus at an End. 
 
 Corporal Touch of Purchaser — Delivery to 
 Third Person.] — The riglit to stop in transitu
 
 577 
 
 SHIPPING— XVI. Stoppage in Transitu. 
 
 <;xists until the goods come to the " corporal 
 touch " of the Tcndee ; delivery to a third person, 
 to convey to the vendee, does not determine the 
 transitus. Huiter v, Beale, cited, 3 Term Eep. 
 466. 
 
 Bills of Lading indorsed, and Goods delivered 
 to Railway Company.] — Bills of lading for cotton 
 sent to the vendors agent at Liverpool provided 
 for delivery at Liverpool to order or assigns. The 
 purchaser at Liverpool sent to the vendors agent 
 liis acceptance for the price of the cotton, and 
 the bills of lading were sent to the purchaser, 
 "\vho indorsed them to a railway company, to 
 "^•hom the cotton was delivered for carriage to 
 the purchaser in Yorkshire : — Held, that the 
 vendor had no right to stop the cotton after deli- 
 A-ery to the railwaj' company. Gilhcs, Ex parte, 
 Wftilivoiih, In re. io L. J., Bk. 10 ; 1 Ch. D. 101 ; 
 33 L. T. 479 ; 24 W. E. 298. 
 
 Delivery on Board Ship of Furchaser.] — 
 H. (k Co. were in possession of a ship let to them 
 tfor three years at 521. 10s. per mouth, they tind- 
 dng stock and provisions for the ship, paying the 
 master, and to have complete control of the ship. 
 The ship went a voj\ige to Alexandria, and had 
 .rgoods on board her which tliey were sending 
 «pon an adventure : — Held, that the unpaid 
 vendor of the goods could not stop the goods, 
 the delivery having been complete. Fuivlcf v. 
 M'Taggart or Rymer, cited, 1 East, 522 ; 7 Term 
 Eep. 442 ; 3 East, 396. 
 
 Delivery on lx)ard a ship belonging to the 
 vendee under bills of lading making the goods 
 tleliverable to the vendee or his assigns ends the 
 transitus. Schutunians v. Lancasliire and York- 
 .shire III/., 36 L. J., Ch. 361 ; L. U. 2 Ch. 332 ; 16 
 L.T. 189; 15 W. E. .534. 
 
 Shipment by Vendee.] — Goods delivered to the 
 vendee at tlie wliarf and shipped by him cannot 
 afterwards be stopped. Nnhlc v. Adam.s, 7 
 Taunt. 59; 2 Marsh. 366; Holt, 248; 17 E. E. 
 445. 
 
 Goods taken to Purchaser's Premises against 
 his Wish.] — (iorids were cnnsigncd from I.oikImii 
 U) A. ill .Suiid<;i]aiid, the invoice and Ijill of lading 
 being forwarded to A. on the arrival of the goods 
 at Sunderland. The goods were, against the wish 
 of A., who was in ditlicnlties, taken from the 
 wharf to A.'s premises. A. wrote to the vendor 
 titating tliat a stoppage of his business had been 
 <locided on. and expressing his regret tiiat lie 
 ■could not return tlic goods to the wharf. After- 
 wards he delivered tlic key of his wareiiouse in 
 which the goods lay to a trustee for his creditors : 
 — Ilekl, that the transitus was at an end, and 
 that tlic creditors were entitled to the goods as 
 against the vendor, wlio claimed a rigiit of stop- 
 |>age in transitu. ITi-inrhri/ v. F.tirlr, 8 El. it Bl. 
 410 : 2.S L. J., Q. B. 79; '4 Jur. (N.s.) 848; 6 
 
 Av. 11. <;s7. 
 
 Goods delivered on Board to be carried at 
 Purchaser's Ribk.]— I'ollVu w;is shipp.-d in -a 
 -ship of iliir purcliriser's under bills of hiding 
 jnaking it deliverable to the order or assigns of 
 the vendors " freight free." An invoice was 
 made out, stating tlie coffee to have bet.'n shipped 
 by order, and on account, and at risk of the pur- 
 chasers. A bill of lading indorsed in Ijlaiik was 
 sent to the purchasers, but afterwanls, and after 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 578 
 
 the bankruptcy of the purchasers, placed in the 
 hands of a third person, at the request of the 
 vendors, to secure bills drawn for the price of 
 the coffee : — Held, that it M-as a question for the 
 jury whether the coffee was delivered on board 
 on account of, and to be carried at the risk of, 
 the purchasers ; if so, the right of stoppage in 
 transitu was at an end. Van Casteel v. Boolier, 
 2 Ex. 691. 
 
 Bill of Lading indorsed to Purchaser.] — B. 
 
 sold wheat to A., the price to be paid by banker's 
 draft on London at two months, to be remitted 
 on receipt of invoice and bill of lading. B. 
 shipped the wheat by order of A. to be carricel 
 to M. for the account, and at risk, of A. The 
 master signed a bill of lading, making the wheat 
 deliverable to B. ; B. indorsed the bill of lading 
 to A., and sent it to A. with an invoice, asking 
 for payment ; A. failed to remit the banker's 
 draft :— Held, t4iat B.'s right of stoppage in 
 transitu was at an end. Wilmsliurst v. Bowhn; 
 7 Man. &; G. 882 ; 12 L. J., Ex. 475— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Delivery Order of Whisky handed to Excise 
 Officer by Consignee.]— A. in .Scotland consigned 
 ten puncheons of whisky to B. at N. in Ireland, 
 sending to B. an invoice and delivery order 
 directed to the collector of excise at N., instruct- 
 ing him to receive the duty and deliver to B. 
 B. lodged the delivery order with the excise and 
 the keeper, and removed six of the puncheons, 
 paying the duty ; 'out no transfer of the whisky 
 was made in the excise books. B. afterwards 
 became bankrupt, and A. transferred the other 
 four puncheons to C. The assignees of B. brought 
 trover for the four puncheons : — Held, that the 
 right of stoppage in transitu M-as at an end 
 when the delivery order was lodged, and that 
 the transfer in the excise books was immaterial. 
 Orr V. Murdoch, 2 Ir. C. L. E. 9. 
 
 Receipt given for Goods— Shipment.] — Goods 
 were ordered from E. i: ("o. hy G. antl were 
 delivered at the docks marked, according to G.'s 
 order, "J. H. A., Trinidad." With the gooda 
 were forwarded shipjiing instructions from G., 
 dii-ecting the goods to lie ])Ut on boaxl the ship 
 "M." A receipt signetl by the dock superintendent 
 was given for them to E. & Co. as follows : 
 "Bought of E. & Co., J. H. A., 500 boxes, ss. ' M.' 
 on account G. Trini^iad." Uuring the passage 
 of the goods to Trinidad G. became l)ankiu])t, 
 and E. & Co. gave Tiotice to stop tlie gooils. 
 Under aTi oidei- of tli<! Tiinidad court the goods 
 were delivered to J. J I. A., who paid the trustee 
 in bankruptcj' for them. E, & Co. claimed 
 the money so paid : — Held, that tlic transit was 
 determined wlien the rcceijit was given, and 
 that E. & Co. were not entitled to the money. 
 (turneij, In re, Huqhix, Ex parte, 67 J>. 'i'. 
 598 ; 7 A.sp. M. C. 249 ; 9 Morrcll, 291. 
 
 Bill of Lading to Consignor or Order Goods 
 delivered to Purchaser. — (mkmU wirr kliippcd for 
 the use and at the risk of the consignee, the con- 
 signor taking bills of lading making tlicin deliver- 
 able tohisfirder. Tlicnia'-terdelivercd thegoods to 
 the consignee, in whom the pif)pci't y in the goods 
 was held to have vested : — Held, that the con- 
 signor's right to slop in transitu was gone : but 
 scmblc, jierLortl Ellenlj<jrfiugli, the master might 
 be liable in an action by the consignor for not 
 delivering according to the bill of lading. Coha 
 
 19
 
 579 
 
 SHIPPING— XYII. Average. 
 
 580) 
 
 V. Harden, i East, 211, 217 ; 1 Smith, 20 ; 7 R. R. 
 570. 
 
 Mate's Receipts.]— The vendor's hghtcrman 
 took mate's receipts for goods contracted to be 
 sold and delivered f. o. b., to be paid for by cash 
 or bills at the imrchaser's option. The goods 
 were paid for by bills, the vendors retaining the 
 mate's receipts. During the currency of the 
 bills the purchaser became insolvent : — Held, 
 that the trausitus and the vendor's right to stop 
 were at an end. Cowayee v. Thompson, 5 Moore, 
 P. C. 165 ; 3 Moore, Ind. App. 422. 
 
 Stoppage by Agent— Ratification.]— C. and T., 
 merchants at Liverpool, sent orders to T., a mer- 
 chant at New York, to purchase goods for them, 
 which were shipped in five vessels for Liverpool, 
 and consigned to C. and T., who, after receipt of 
 the goods'in one of the vessels, stopped payment 
 on April 7th. I. had drawn bills for the goods, 
 partlv on C. and T., and partly on B. & Co., with 
 whom C. and T. had dealings. B. & Co., who 
 were merchants at Liverpool, having a house at 
 New York, purchased there several of the bills, 
 which were drawn at sixty days' sight and were 
 dated, some on March 2Sth, and some on March 
 30th. On May 8th a fiat in banlu'uptcy issued 
 asainst C. and T. The four other vessels arrived 
 on May 3rd, 5th, 6th and 9th respectively, and 
 immediately on the arrival of each ship B. & Co., 
 on behalf of I., before the trausitus was ended, 
 gave notice to the masters and consignees to 
 stop the goods. B. & Co. were not the general 
 agents of L, nor had they received from him 
 authority to make the stoppage. On May 11th 
 the assignees of C. and T. demanded the goods 
 from the masters and consignees, tendering the 
 freight. The latter r. fused to deliver them, and 
 on fhe same day delivered them to B. & Co. The 
 assignees claimed them from B. & Co., who re- 
 fused to deliver them up. On ■28th April I. 
 heard at New York of C. and T. having stopped 
 jiayment, and executed a power of attorney to 
 H. at Liverpool to stop the goods in transitu. 
 On May 13th H. received the power of attorney 
 and confirmed the stoppage by B. & Co. I. 
 afterwards adopted and ratified all that had been 
 done by H. and B. & Co. :— Held, that after the 
 demand by the assignees there couM be no 
 stoppage in transitu, and that the pretended 
 ratification by I. of H.'s anJ B. & Co.'s acts had 
 no effect. li/rd v. Brown, 4 Ex. 786 ; 19 L. J., 
 Ex. 154 ; 14 Jur. 132. 
 
 Possession of Consignee.] — The transitus is at 
 an end when the consignee has taken possession 
 of the goods and exercised an act of ownership 
 over them. Wrifjltt v. Lawes, 4 Esp. 82. 
 
 XYII. AVERAGE. 
 
 1. Generally — Average Aet, 580. 
 
 2. Sparx.St'e., Sicrificed, 581. 
 
 3. ('arfjo Sold for JJepair-f. 5S2. 
 
 4. Foncardhui and Salvim/ Cargo, 582. 
 
 5. Port of Refuge E.r2>enses, 583. 
 fi. Fire, 585. 
 
 7. Jetthon, 586. 
 
 8. Contribvtion, ly what Law, 588. 
 
 9. Who and toJiat Contribute ; Iniuhat 3Iamier, 
 
 588. 
 
 10. Average Statement, bSiQ. 
 
 11. Average Bond, 590. 
 
 12. Action for — Practice, 591. 
 
 13. Jurisdiction, Admiralty, 59 
 
 1. Geneually — Average Act. 
 
 Loss must be voluntarily Incurred.] — To 
 found a claim for average contribution the loss, 
 must be voluntarily incurred — per Lord Stowell. 
 The Copenhagen, 1 C. Rob. 289, 293. S. P.^ 
 llallett V. Wigram, infra. 
 
 What Necessary to establish Claim to.]— Irt' 
 
 order to establish a claim to general average- 
 against the owner of cargo, the shipowner must 
 shew a common risk existing, and a voluntary 
 sacrifice or an extraordinary expenditure in- 
 curred for the joint benefit of both ship and 
 cargo. If, therefore, goods are landed from a 
 stranded ship, and deposited in a place of safety,, 
 whence they may be shipped again in another 
 vessel and carried to their destination, without 
 greater expense to the owner of the goods, or 
 deterioration to the goods themselves, so that it- 
 is indifferent to him by what ship they go for- 
 ward, extraordinary expenses subsequently in- 
 curred in floating the stranded vessel do not- 
 constitute general average to which the cargo is- 
 bound to contribute. Walthew v. Mavrojani, 39^ 
 L.J., Ex.81; L.R.5EX.116; 22L.T.310— Ex.Ch.. 
 
 Not within Suing and Labouring Clause of 
 Policy.] — General average ami salvage do not 
 come within cither the words or the object of 
 the suing and labouring clause of a policy of 
 marine assurance. Aitchison v. Lohre, 49 L. J., 
 Q. B. 123 ; 4 App. Cas. 755 ; 41 L. T. 323 ; 2&- 
 AV. R. 1 ; 4 Asp. M. C. IGS— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Lien.] — There is alien for general contributiorn 
 to individual loss by property thrown overboard 
 for tl e snfety of the ship. Hallett v. Bonsjield,., 
 18 Y'S 187 ; 11 R. R. 184. 
 
 A ri lit to general average contribution from' 
 a si ip after adjustment made gives the owners of 
 the c i:go no lien on the ship by the law mari- 
 time. The North Star, Lush. 45 ; 29 L. J., Adm. 73. 
 
 When a person has been employed by the- 
 master of a stranded vessel to do various acts 
 for the purpose of saving the cargo, such person, 
 has a lien on the cargo for his charges, the 
 services being in the nature of salvage, and th& 
 charges payable by yiarticular average. Hinqs- 
 ton\. Wendt, 45 L. J., Q. B. 440 ; 1 Q. B. D. 367;. 
 34 L. T. 664 : 24 W. R. 664 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 126. 
 
 Silk put Ashore to save Capture.] — A ship, 
 with oils and silk on board A\'as surprised by the- 
 enemy. The silk, being valuable and Itght, was. 
 sent ashore in boats and saved. The ship and' 
 oils were captured : — Held, no case for average 
 contribution as between the owner of the ship 
 and oils and the owner of the silk. Shej?pard v^ 
 Wright, Shower P. C. 23 (ed. 1876). 
 
 Goods Stowed on Deck.] — Sec infra, 7. Jetti- 
 son. 
 
 Where Insurance effected.] — The fact of am 
 
 owner having ell'ected an insurance does not 
 affect his right to recover general average 
 Price V. Xobfe, 4 Taunt. 123 ; 13 R. R. 560. 
 
 Ship and Cargo in Peril — Tipping Ship Head, 
 down to repair Propeller — Damage to Cargo.] 
 — A ship, laden with a perishable cai'go which 
 could not by any means be discharged, having.- 
 on her voyage become unnavigable and incapable 
 of moving through damage to her propeller is^ 
 with her cargo, in peril, although the ship be-
 
 581 
 
 SHIPPING— XVII. Average. 
 
 582 
 
 tight and strong and the cargo sound. If tipping 
 the ship head down to repair her propeller be 
 resorted to, and in the course of the operation a 
 portion of the cargo be damaged by salt water, 
 the cargo-owners have a right to a general average 
 contribution. The operation of so tipping the 
 ship is under the circumstances a general average 
 act, and the loss a general average and not a 
 particular averaije loss. J/cCall v. Hindder, 66 
 L. J., Q. B. 408 ^76 L. T. 469. 
 
 See also B. Marine Ixsurance, infra, cols. 
 1240 seq. 
 
 2. Spars, &c., Sacrificed. 
 
 Spars, &c., burnt to keep Donkey-engine at 
 Work.] — A ship sailed well e: |ui[)ped and maiiucd 
 for the" voyage, having a donkey-engine on board 
 and a reasonable supply of coals to work it for 
 pumping purposes. The ship met with very 
 heavy weather and sprang a leak, and in order 
 to keep her afloat it became necessary to use the 
 engine for pumping, and the coals running short, 
 the captain burnt with the coals the ship's spare 
 spars and some of her cargo : — Held, that the 
 sacrifice of the spars and cargo was general 
 average. Ruhln.wn v. Price. 46 L. J., Q. B. .').")1; 
 
 2 Q. B. D. 295 : 36 L. T. 354 ; 25 W. 11. 4(;9 ; 
 
 3 Asp. M. C. 407— C. A. 
 
 Lobs of Tackle.] — An action lies by a ship- 
 o\\aier to recover from the owner of the cargo 
 his proportion of general average loss incurred 
 hy sacrificing the tackle belonging to the ship 
 for an unusual purpose, or on an extraordinary 
 occasion of danger, for the benefit of the whole 
 concern. Birldcy v. Presgravc, 1 East, 220 ; 
 6 K. R. 250. 
 
 If anything on board a ship, which is cut or 
 cast away because it is endangering the whole 
 adventure, is in such a state or condition that it 
 must itself certainly be lost, althougli the rest of 
 the adventure should be saved without the cut- 
 ting or casting away, then the destruction of the 
 thing gives no claim for general average. Shep- 
 herd V. Kottqen, 47 L. J., C. P. 67 ; 2 C. 1'. D. 
 585 ; 37 L. t. 618 ; 26 W. 11. 120 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 544— C. A. 
 
 Mast cut away— Question for Jury.] — A ship 
 being caught in a Ht(jrm, portions of tlie rigging 
 gave way to such an extent that the mainmast 
 began to lurch violently ; whereupon, fearing 
 that the mast would rip up the decks and thereby 
 endanger the safety of the ship, the captain 
 ordered it to be cut away, which was done. In 
 an action Vjy the owner of tlie ship to recover 
 from the owners of the cargo tiieir proportion of 
 general average loss incurred by the sacrifice of 
 the mast, the judge left to the jury the following 
 (jucstions : first. Arc you of opinion tliat the 
 mast was virtually a wreck, and gone at the time 
 it went over? secondly. Ho you find it was ho|ie- 
 lessly lost? The jury answered both questions in 
 the affirmative : — Held, that there had been no 
 misdirection, and that substantially the right 
 questions had been left to the jury. II. 
 
 Mast working through Ship's Bottom.] — Cut- 
 ting away a steamship's iron mast that had 
 worked loose at the keel and was in the master's 
 reasonable opinion, though not in fact, likely to 
 go through the ship's bottom : — Held, general 
 averatre. Curry or Corric v. Cnulthard, cited 
 2 C. I'. D. 583 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 540, n. 
 
 3. Cargo Sold for Repairs. 
 
 Bepairs of Damage by Perils of Sea.] — Xo 
 claim for general average arises when the master 
 has been obliged to sell part of the cargo for the 
 purpose of executing re]>airs rendered necessary 
 by ordinary perils of the sea. The claim for 
 general average arises when part of the cargo is 
 sacrificed to preserve the rest from impending 
 peril. Hallett v. Wigram, 9 C. B. 580 : 19 L. J., 
 C.P. 281. 
 
 Kepairs of General Average Damage.] — Where 
 cargo is sold necessarily Vjy the master to raise 
 money for repairs of injuries which arc the sub- 
 ject of general average, the loss on cargo is also 
 the subject of general average. The Comfnncia, 
 4 Not. of Cas. 677. S. P., The Gratitudhw, 3 
 C. Rob. 240, 264. 
 
 Advantageous Sale of Cargo.] — The master on 
 the voyage s( ild part of the cargo to pay for neces- 
 sary repairs for a higher price than i1> would have 
 fetched at the port of destination. Upon a refer- 
 ence to settle the average loss between shijiowner 
 and charterer, the arbitrator allowed for the 
 actual value of the goods when sold, and not at 
 the port of destination. The court refused to 
 set aside the award. Illchardxo:i v. Xviirse, 3 
 B. & Ad. 237. 
 
 Sale of Cargo to avoid Arrest.] — Where the 
 master of a shii)in a foreign pnrt was arrested by 
 process out of a court ol; justice, at the suit of 
 the agent of the ship, for sums of money the 
 latter had disbursed on his account, and th& 
 master not being able to raise money by other 
 means, that he might procure his liberation ami 
 pursue the voyage, sold a part of the cargo : — 
 Held, that the owner of the gooils so sold had no- 
 right to a contribution in the nuture of general 
 average from the shippers of the other goods on 
 board, which arrived safely at the port of desti- 
 nation. Dohmin v. Wilson, 3 Camp. 480 ; 14 
 R. 11.817. 
 
 4. Forwarding and Salving Cargo. 
 
 Expenses, &c., in transhipping targo and 
 arranging for Sale.] — A ship (hiring liei' vo^'age 
 from India to London was slianded on the coast 
 of France. The shipowner dispatched his 
 manager and other persons to take part in the 
 necessary salvage operations and tiie wiiole of the 
 cargo was saved, traMship|)ed and biuught for- 
 ward to London and the freight earned. Part of 
 the cargo whieii could not be itlentilied was sold 
 by the shipowner by an arrangement with the 
 consignees through a broker, who received his 
 brokc^rage. Tlie sliipowner incurred considerable 
 trouble in chartering sliips to carry on the cargo 
 from FraiiiM; to London, and in sending out 
 lighters and necessary appliances to France, and 
 in the identification of the cargo, preparing for 
 the sale, answering the inquiries of and arranging 
 with the consignees. In the average statement, 
 a remuneration to the shiimwner for "arranging 
 for salvage operations, receiving cargo, meeting 
 and arranging with consignees, and receiving and 
 paying proceeds, and generally conducting tho 
 business," was charged partly to general average, 
 and partly as i)articular average on the several 
 interests ratably, the average stater thinking 
 that the amount was a reasonable remuncratioa 
 
 19—2
 
 )83 
 
 SHIPPING— XVII. Average. 
 
 584 
 
 to the shipowner for his services and for commis- 1 
 sion on the sale of nniilentitied cargo, and on 
 tlisburseinents : — Held, that under the cir»um- 
 stances the amount was improperly charged, and 
 could not be recovered, there being no contract 
 on the part of the owners of the cargo to remu- 
 nerate the shipowner for his services, a great part 
 of which had been rendered with the object of 
 oai-ning his freight. Schuster v. Fletcher, 47 
 L. J.. Q. B. r,30 ; ""3 Q. B. D. 418 ; 38 L. T. r,05 ; 
 2t) W. R. 756 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 577. And see Hose 
 v. Bank of A-ustralasia, infra. 
 
 Payment by Shipowner— Liability of Cargo- 
 owner — Question for Jury.] — When ship and 
 cargo are in peril, the fact that the shipowners 
 have by the act of the master become bound to 
 pay. and have paid, a sum of money for preser- 
 vation of ship and cargo, and that the master in 
 so binding them pursued a reasonable course 
 imder the circumstances, is not conclusive that 
 the whole sum was chargeable to general average, 
 :so as to bind the cargo-owners to pay their pro- 
 portion. A new trial was ordered on the ground 
 that the question of the amount chargeable to 
 ueneral average ought to have been submitted to 
 the jury. Anderson v. Ocean Stenmsliip Co., 
 :A l! J., Q. B. 192 ; 10 App. Cas. 107 : 52 L. T. 
 441 : 33 W. E. 433 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 401—11. L. 
 (E.) 
 
 Extraordinary Expenditure — Sale of Uniden- 
 tified Cargo — Commission.]— Whei'c a ship, which 
 carries a perishable cargo, is thrown away, the 
 siiipowner is bound to convey the goods to a 
 ]ilace of safety. He need not, therefore, make his 
 election as to whether he will earn freight by 
 carrying the goods to their destination at any 
 particular time, but has a reasonable time within 
 which to make up his mind, and expenditure 
 incurred while carrying the goods to a place of 
 safety cannot be regarded as expenditure on 
 account of freight alone. Hose v. Bank of Avs- 
 tralasia, 63 L. J., Q. B. 504 ; [1894] A. C. 687 ; 
 <; R. 121 ; 70 L. T. 422 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 445— H. L. 
 
 The shipowner cannot render owners of cargo 
 liable for the cost of employing assistance to do 
 that which be might himself have done. But 
 where he acts reasonably in incurring extraor- 
 -d .nary expenditure — either bj- employing extrane- 
 uiis aid to salve the cargo, or a commission 
 iiicrcliant to sell unidentified parts of it — for the 
 Lencfit of the adventiwe generally, he is at liberty 
 ro charge such expenditure u})on those who are 
 ^benefited. Schuster v. FletcJier, supra, disap- 
 [jroved. li. 
 
 Cargo forwarded — Expense of getting Ship 
 afloat.] — xV ship got ashoic, and her cargo was 
 i;iiided and forwarded in another ship: — Held, 
 that expenses subseqtrently incurred in getting 
 the ship off were not general average, to which 
 the cargo should oontribute. Joi v. Lanqton, 6 
 El. & Bl. 779. S. P., Oppenhehn v. Fry, 5 B. & S. 
 348 ; Morau v. Jones, 7 El. & Bl. 523. 
 
 5. Poet op Refuge Expenses, 
 
 Expeases of unloading, &c., during Eepairs — 
 Deserters.] — A ship after collision had to cut 
 nway part of her rigging and return to put 
 to repair : — Held, that, the expenses of unloading 
 and repairs to enable the ship to proceed were 
 general average, but not the expenses of the 
 
 master, or of replacing deserters during the 
 repairs, which fell on theshii)owner. PLuniiner v. 
 Wild man, 3 M. & S. 482 ; 16 R. R. 334. 
 
 Expenses during Eepairs— Press of Sail on 
 
 Lee Shore.] — Wages of crew and repairs to ship 
 compelled to put into port of refuge to repair 
 damage caused by bad weather not general 
 average, nor damage to ship caused by carrying 
 press of sail to keep off a lee shore. Power v. 
 Whitmore, 4 M. & S. 141 ; 16 E. R. 416. 
 
 Average Adjustment at a Port of Refuge — Pro 
 
 rata Freight.] — The mere temporary suspension 
 of the voyage by reason of the necessity of repair- 
 ing the ship at a port of refuge does not, as 
 between the shipowner and the owner of cargo, 
 warrant an average adjustment at the inter- 
 mediate port. IFill V. Wilson, 48 L. J., C. P. 
 764 ; 4 C. P. D. 329 ; 41 L. T. 412 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 198. 
 
 A ship sailed from Riga for Hull with a general 
 cargo and was stranded, but was afterwards got 
 off (part of the cargo having been washed out of 
 her, and part jettisoned) and towed into Copen- 
 hagen, where her cargo was discharged, and the 
 ship, having been repaired at considerable expense, 
 was sent on to Hull after a delay of about two 
 months, with some of her cargo on board, other 
 I)art having been sent on by the master in other 
 vessels. The plaintiffs' goods were so much 
 damaged as not to be worth sending on, and were 
 (properly, but without the plaintiffs having an 
 opportunity of exercising an option) sold at 
 Copenhagen, and an average adjustment took 
 place there according to Danish law, under which 
 the plaintiffs were charged with pro rata freight 
 from Riga to Copenhagen. In an action for the 
 price realised by the sale at Copenhagen : — Held, 
 that the shipowners were not entitled to deduct 
 the general average expenses ascertained by the 
 adjustment at Copenhagen, nor pro rata freight. 
 lb. 
 
 Expense of Warehousing;, Seamen's Wages and 
 
 Repairs.] — Where a ship has for the benefit of all 
 concerned to put into a port of refuge for repairs, 
 the charges for unloading for repairs, warehousing 
 cargo and seamen's wages during repairs are 
 general average. Da Costa v. JVewnham, 2 Burr. 
 407 ; 2 Term Rep. 413. 
 
 Where a ship is compelled to put into port to 
 repair damage occasioned by a general average 
 sacrifice, the expenses of war^ ho isingand reship- 
 ping cargo, necessarily uidoddcd in order to 
 repair, and the port and pilotage charges and 
 other expenses on leaving the port, are the sub- 
 ject of a general average contribution. Attwoud 
 v. Sellar, 49 L. J., Q. ^B. 515 ; 5 Q. B. D. 286 ; 
 42 L. T. 644 ; 28 W. R. 604 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 283— 
 C. A. 
 
 Expenses of resMpping Cargo and of Ship 
 leaving Pert of Refuge.] — A sliip on a voyage 
 having sprung a dangerous leak, the captain, 
 acting justifiably for the safety of the whole 
 adventure, put into a port of refuge to repair. 
 In port the cargo was reasonably, and with a 
 view to the common safety of the ship, cargo and 
 freight, landed in order to repair the ship. The 
 ship was repaired, the cargo reloaded, and the 
 voyage completed : — Held, that the cargo-owners 
 were not chatgeable with a general average con- 
 tribution in respect of the expenses of reshipping 
 the cargo. Attwood v. Scllur, supra, discussed.
 
 585 
 
 SHIPPING— XYII. Average. 
 
 586 
 
 Srcmden v. Wallace, 54 L. J., Q. B. 497; 10 
 App. Cas. 404 ; 52 L. T. 901 ; 34 W. E. 3G9 ; 5 
 Asp. M. C. 453— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Port of Eefnge — Refitting.] — If A. let his ship 
 to B. for a voyage, engaging to keep it in repair 
 during the whole time, for which he is to receive 
 freight on the return of the ship ; and, for the 
 safety of the ship, it becomes necessary during 
 the voyage to put into a port to refit, the expense 
 of refitting must be borne entirely by A ; and B. 
 is not liable to contribute to it in proportion to 
 his interest in the cargo, as for a general average. 
 Jaclison V. Char melt, ti Term Rep. 509 ; 5 R. R. 425. 
 
 Discharge of Part cf Cargo before Commence- 
 ment of extraordinary Measures.] — A steamer. 
 carrying among other cargo a large amount of 
 specie, ran aground, and lay in a dangerous 
 position. The specie was landed by the master 
 soon after the vessel struck. After the landing 
 of the specie, the master jettisoned part of the 
 cargo, and had recourse to other extraordinary 
 measures for getting off the vessel. These mea- 
 sures succeeded, and she completed her voyage 
 with the cargo remaining on board. The specie 
 was conveyed to a neighbouring port, whence it 
 was sent on in another vessel, but for the pur- 
 poses of the case was to be treated as having 
 arrived in the steamer : — Held, that the losses 
 and expenses incurred in getting the steamer off, 
 and the expenses incurred in landing and con- 
 veying the specie, were not general average to 
 which the owners of the specie were liable to 
 contribute, lluijal Mail Steam Pachct Co. v. 
 English Baiik of ll'io de Janeiro. 57 L. J., Q. B. 
 31 ; 19 Q. B. D. 362 ; 36 W. R. 105. 
 
 6. Fire. 
 
 Scuttling Ships to put out Fire.] — Damage to 
 cargf) by scuttling a ship to put out a fire is the 
 subject of general average contribution. Achard 
 V. ilUig, 31 L. T. 647 ; 4 Asp. M. C. ■122. 
 
 Damage hy Water to put out Fire.] — Bark was 
 shipped on board a geiirral ship, under a bill of 
 lading, from Santa Martha to f.ondon, by which 
 average, if any, was to Vje adjusted accDrding to 
 Britisli custom. When the ship was about to 
 sail, a fire broke out in the forehold, and putnping 
 water through the deck of the forecastle not 
 being sufficient to extinguish the fire, a hole was 
 cut in the side of the ship, and her fore compart- 
 ment being thereby filled with water, the fire 
 was extinguished. If this course hail not been 
 adopted tlie cargo on board would in all pniba- 
 bility have been destroyed, and the ship most 
 seriously damaged, if not remlered a total wreck. 
 The bai'k was destroyed by the water pourc<l into 
 the ship. In an action for general average con- 
 tribution in respect of the dcstruct ion of the bark 
 it was found, in aildition to the ahuve fads, that 
 it is the practice of British average adjusters to 
 treat a loss so caused as not a general average 
 loss: — Held, that the loss was, according to tlic 
 general law of England, the subject of general 
 average contribution, as a voluntary and inten- 
 tional sacrifice of the bark mad(> under pressure 
 of imminent danger, and fitrlhc bciictit and with 
 the view to secure the safety of the whole adven- 
 ture then at risk. Stcirart v. Wcxt India and 
 Pacifir Steamship Co., 42 L. J.. Q. B. 191 : L. R. 
 8 Q.'B. 362 ; 28 L. T. 712 ; 21 W. R. 953 ; 1 A^p. 
 M. C. 528— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the shipper, by the terms 
 of the bill of lading, had made the admitted 
 practice of British average adjusters part of the 
 contract ; and he was bound by it, although 
 erroneous. Ih. 
 
 Ship on Fire in Harhour — Water poured upon 
 Cargo — Termination of Maritime Adventure, j — 
 To pour water upon the cargo, pursuant to the 
 masters orders, for the purpose of extinguishing 
 a fire which has broken out in a ship's hold, is a 
 general average act ; and if the cargo is thereby 
 injui-ed, the owner is entitled to a contribution. 
 Whilst the cargo remains on board a ship after 
 her arrival at the port of destination, the mari- 
 time adventure is not terminated so as to absolve 
 the owners of the cargo and the ship from mutual 
 rights and liabilities. The defendants were the 
 owner's of the " H.," which, having arrived at her 
 port of destination at the end of a voyage, un- 
 loaded about 1,300 tons of her cargo ; about lOO 
 tons remained on board. Whilst she was lying 
 at a wharf, a fire broke out in her hold ; and, in 
 order to extinguish it, her master caused water 
 to be poured into her, whereby some goods, 
 forming part of the cargo and belonging to the 
 plaintilfs, were damaged. The " H." might have 
 been scuttled and raised again; but if the fin- 
 had not been extinguished, she would have been 
 in peril of partial destruction : — Held, that the 
 defendants were liable to contriVjute by way of 
 general average for the damage done to the 
 plaintiff's goods. Whiter ro.^i.^ Wire Co. v.Sari/l, 
 51 L. J., Q. B. 426 ; 8 Q. B. D. 653 ; 46 L. T. 643 ; 
 30 W. R. 588 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 531— C. A. 
 
 7. Jettison. 
 
 General Principles as to Jettison.] — Where 
 
 goods are jettiMinod fur the cummon gooil, the 
 loss, as a rule, comes within general average, and 
 must be borne proportionally ''by those inter- 
 ested." To this rule there is an exception, viz., 
 that deck cargo jettisoned is not entitled t<>' 
 general average contribution. To this exception, 
 however, there are two exceptions, viz., that 
 coa.sting vessels are without the exception, and 
 also those cases where In- custom the (leek cargo 
 is one custonuiry in the lra<le, and. perliaps, als(> 
 fiom the port, "it is said that there is a furtluM- 
 exception, viz., where by agreement with tlio 
 shipper the cargo is shipped on deck. We arc 
 of a different opinion. I'er cur., in M'ri;//if v. 
 Maricood, infra. 
 
 Of Deck Cargo— Liability of Shipowner for.] — 
 
 The plaint ill's sliipprd ciTiaiii cattle as a dei-k 
 cargo on board the defendants' vessel : dining 
 the voyage a storm arose, and owing to stress of 
 weather the master jettisoned the deck cargo by 
 throwing t lie cat I le overboard. Tiie act of jet t isoii 
 was proper and necessary on the part of the 
 master for the safely of tliedefeiulnnls' vessel : — 
 Held, that the plaintiffs could not ree<iver from 
 the defendants a general average contriltutioii for 
 the lossof the cattle. Johiinoii v. Chapman, infra, 
 commented on. Wri/jht v. Marinwd, 50 T>. .1.. 
 Q. n. 613 ; 7 g. B. D. 62 ; 45 L. T. 297 ; 29 W. !;. 
 673 ; 4 Asp. M. V,. 451— C. A. 
 
 In consc'inenccof a severe .storm which a vessel 
 encounteie<l. her deck cargo of timber, which was 
 lawfully slowed on deck according to the terms 
 of the charlerparty between the shiiiowncr and 
 the charterer, broke adrift, and knocked against 
 the pumps, so that the captain was compelled, in
 
 587 
 
 SHIPPING— XYII. Average. 
 
 588 
 
 order that the crew mijiht work the pumiis and 
 to prevent damage to the bulwarks and i)unips, 
 and for the safety of the ship and all on boartl, 
 to throw a portion of such cargo overboard : — 
 Held, that such jettison was the subject or a 
 general average contribution, it being botii volun- 
 tary and to save all from the danger caused by 
 the storm, which was common to the whole 
 adventure. Johnson -v. Chapnuin, 1!) C. B. (n.s.) 
 503: 35 L. J., C. P. 23; 15 L. T. 70; U W. E. 2G4. 
 
 The proprietor of goods laden on the deck of a 
 shiji, according to the custom of a particular 
 trade, is entitleil to contribution from the ship- 
 owner for a loss bv jettison. Gould v. Olirer, 
 5 Bing. (N.c.) U-1 ;"5"Scott, 4i5 ; 3 Hodges, 307 ; 
 7 L. J., C. P. 68. 
 
 General average contribution payable in respect 
 of deck cargo (pigs) jettisoned, if there is a 
 custom to carry sucli cargo on deck. Hilward 
 V. HiUert, 3 Q. B. 120 ; 2 G. & D. 142 ; 11 L. J., 
 Q. B. 137 ; 6 Jur. 706. Hoyal Exchange Sh/pjiliig 
 Co. v. Di.v'in. supra, col. 504. 
 
 Gcods stowed on deck have no benefit of 
 general average. 3Ljer v. Van dor Deyl, Abbott, 
 m\ Shipi^ing, 13th ed. 652. 
 
 Deck Cargo " at Merchant's Risk."] — It 
 
 "was stipulated in a charterparty that the ''ship 
 should be provided with a deck cargo, if lequircd, 
 at full freight, but at merchant's risk " : — Held, 
 that the words "at merchant's risk" did not 
 exclude the right of the charterers to general 
 average contribution from the shipowners in 
 respect of deck cargo shipped by the charterers, 
 and necessarily jettisoned to save the ship and 
 the rest of the cargo. Burton v. English, 53 
 L. J., Q. B. 133 ; 12^Q. B. D. 218 ; 49 L. T. 7G8 ; 
 32 W. E. 655 ; 5 Asp. M. G. 187— C. A. 
 
 Right to Contribution — Remedies — Lien on 
 ■Goods salved.] — The right of contribution in 
 respect of jettisoned cargo is based on the danger 
 to slii[) and cargo requiring sacrifice to which all 
 must contribute. Such right does not belong to 
 the wrongdoers whose acts have led to the 
 jettison, or to those who are legally responsible 
 for them. AVhere a ship is stranded through the 
 negligence of her master, and thereby ship and 
 cargo are placed in a position of such imminent 
 danger as to make it prudent and necessary to 
 jettison part of the cargo in order to save the 
 remainder and the ship : — Held, that innocent 
 owners of the jettisoned cargo are entitled to 
 general average ; secus with regard to the owners 
 of the ship unless their ordinary relations to the 
 shippers have been varied hj contract. Stranr/ 
 or Steel v. Scott. 59 L. J.. P. C. 1 ; 14 App. Cai. 
 601 ; 61 L. T. 597 ; 38 W. E. 452 ; 6 Asp. M. G. 
 419— P. e. 
 
 The rules of maritime law relating to the 
 rights and remedies resulting from a proper case 
 of jettison are :^(1) Each owner of jettisoned 
 goods becomes a creditor of ship and cargo saved. 
 (2) He has a direct claim against each of the 
 owners of ship and cargo for a pro rata contri- 
 bution towards his indemnity ; Avhich he can 
 recover (a) by direct action ; (J/) by enforcing 
 through the shipmaster, who is his agent for that 
 ptiri)ose, a lien on each parcel of goods salved to 
 answer its proportionate liability. Ih. 
 
 Master decides what Goods to be jettisoned.] 
 — It is for the master to decide what part of the 
 cargo is to lie sacrificed in case of jettison— per 
 Lord Stowell. The Gratitndine, 3 G. Eob. 240, 258. 
 
 Of Ship's Stores.] — The owners of a ship's 
 cargo are liable to contribution for ship's stores 
 necessarily thrown overboard, after a vessel was 
 captured, and while she was in the hands of au 
 enem}-. Price v. XuUe, 4 Taunt. 123 ; 13 R. R, 
 566. 
 
 Exception of Jettison in Bill of Lading — Cargo 
 carried on Deck in Breach of Bill of Lading — 
 Liability of Shipowner.] — Sec Bogal Exchange 
 Shij/jnng Co. v. JJixon, supra, col. 504. 
 
 Collision — Jettison of Cargo.] — See The Mar- 
 2)essa, post, col. 728. 
 
 See also Butler v. Wildman and cases infra, 
 cols. 1101 seq. 
 
 8. Contribution, by What Law, 
 
 Law of Port of Discharge.] — In the absence of 
 a contract to the contrary, general average as 
 between shipowner and cargo, owner is computed 
 according to the law of the port of discharge. 
 Siinunds v. White, 4 D. & E. 375 ; 2 B. & G. 805 ; 
 2 L. J. (O.S.) K. B. 159 ; 26 E. E. 560. 
 
 Custom excluding, not "Valid.] — There is no 
 valid custom excluding general average. Achard 
 V. Bing, 31 L. T. 647 ; 2 Asp. M. G. 422. 
 
 The plaintiff chartered a ship from the defen- 
 dant, and by the charterparty it was provided : 
 " All questions of general average to be settled 
 according to the custom of the London under- 
 writers at Lloyds'." A fire broke out on board, 
 the ship was scuttled to extinguish it, and the 
 cargo was damaged thereby. The loss was ad j usted 
 as general average, and the plaintiff brought his 
 action to recover from the defendant the ship's 
 contribution. The judge directed the jury that 
 the loss was general average according to law, 
 and the question was whether there was a valid 
 custom excluding such loss fi'om general average. 
 The jury found that no such custom existed, 
 and the verdict was entered for the plaintiff. 
 II. 
 
 "British Custom" — Damage by "Water used 
 to extinguish Fire.] — It became necessary for 
 the safety of the whole adventm-e to extinguish 
 a fire on board a ship by means of water, and tlie 
 water caused damage to part of the cargo. The 
 damaged goods were shipped ptirsuant to a bill 
 of lading, which contained the following clause : 
 " Average, if any, to be adjusted according to 
 British custom.'' The usage among average 
 staters in England is, that goods thus damaged 
 are not brought into account inan average adjust- 
 ment : — Held, that the phrase "British custom " 
 in the bill of lading referred to this usage, and 
 that the goods damaged could not be deemed 
 subject to general average. Stcivart v. West 
 India and Pacijic Steamship Co., 42 L. J., Q. B. 
 191 : L. E. 8 Q. B. 362 ; 28 L. T. 742 ; 21 W. E. 
 953— Ex. Cli. 
 
 To be calculated by Foreign IJsage — Admiralty 
 Jurisdiction.] — See Gold v. Goodwin, post, col. 
 935. 
 
 9. "Who and "W^hat Gontribute ; in what 
 Manner. 
 
 Cargo Owners amongst themselves.] — An 
 
 action may be maintained to recover a contri- 
 bution in the nature of general average by one
 
 >89 
 
 shipper of goods against another. 
 WUmi, 2 Camp. 480 ; 1-1 R. K. 817. 
 
 SHIPPING— XYII. Average. 
 Doison T. 
 
 590 
 
 Consignee not Owner.] — A consignee (not the 
 •owner) of goods, receiving them in pursuance of 
 -a bill of lading, whereby the shipowner agrees 
 ito deliver them to the consignee, by name, he 
 /paying freight, is not liable for general average, 
 ■although he has had notice, before he received 
 'the goods, that they have become subject to that 
 <;harge. Scaife v. Tohin, 3 B. & Ad. 523 : 1 
 ;L. J., K. B. 183. 
 
 Provisions do not contribute.] — Provisions do 
 mot contribute to general average, even where 
 tthe cargo of the ship consists only of passengers. 
 Bnncn v. SfajjJr-ton, 4 Bing. 119; 12 Moore, 
 ■334 ; 5 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 121 ; 29 R. E. 524. 
 
 Eight of Shipowner for Loss of Freight.] — P. 
 ^shipped a cargo of coals upon D.'s ship to be 
 ■carried to S. and there delivered on payment of 
 freight. A fire broke out spontaneously in the 
 •coals, and portions were thrown overboard, and 
 •the remainder so wetted and damaged by water 
 <poured upon them to extinguish the fire, that they 
 were necessarily discharged, and sold at a port of 
 refuge. Owing to no freight being payable there, 
 <they realised nett a larger sum than if they had 
 :safely reached their destination ; but the freight 
 <upon them M-as whollj- lost : — Held, that the ship- 
 owner was entitled to a contribution in general 
 -average for tlie lost freight. Pirie v. Middle 
 Boch Co., 44 L. T. 426 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 388. Sec 
 ^)er cur., in Wright v. Marwoud, supra, col. 586. 
 
 Loss of Cargo.] — Semble, that there was no 
 •claim on account of the cargo ; first, because 
 there was no loss on account of it ; secondly, 
 because the vice in it was the cause of the sacri- 
 ifice. Ih. 
 
 General and Particular — Ship and Cargo — 
 Talue of Ship, how ascertained — "New for Old 
 Allowance."] — l*'(iii he piiriiose of ascertaining the 
 .amount to be contributed to in general average 
 in the case of a shij) which has sutferc<l l^oth par- 
 ticular and general average damage and has been 
 .-sold as a cojistructive total loss, the value of such 
 ■ship is her value at the time immediately in-eced- 
 .iiig the general average sacrifice in respect of 
 ^vhich contribution is to be made, and such value 
 is to be ascertaiiicfl l)y deducting from the value 
 •of the ship at the time slie left jiort the aniouiit 
 which it would have cost to repair the i)articular 
 4iveragc damage, aiul also the amouiit which she 
 fetched wh<,'n sold as a constructive total loss. 
 JlpiidrrwH V. Shanldand, 65 L. J.. Q. B. 310 ; 
 ri8'J6J 1 Q. B. 525 ; 74 L. T. 238; 44 W. 11. 4Ul ; 
 ii Asp. M. C. 136— C.A. 
 
 ^Vherc no repaiis iiavc in fact been done, the 
 .shipown(.'is arc not entitled to the one-tliiid 
 "new for old " allowance in estimating (he value 
 ■of a ship for the purpose of ascertaining the 
 amount to be contributed to in general average 
 as above. lb. 
 
 10. Average Statement. 
 
 Duty of Shipowner to get Average Statement.] 
 — A shipowner, where a general average loss has 
 occurred, may be liable to an action for damages 
 for delivering up the cargo without taking t^he 
 necessary steps for procuring an adjustment of the 
 general average and securing its payment. The 
 plaintiffs shijiped goods at Liverpool on board a 
 steamer belonging to the defendants under a bill 
 of lading, by which the defendants undertook to 
 deliver the goods at the port of Montreal unto the 
 Grand Trunk Kailway, by them to be forwarded 
 (upon the conditions before and after expressed) 
 thence per railway to the station nearest to 
 Toronto, kc, and among the conditions was the 
 following : '• The shipowner or railway company 
 are not to be liable for anj- damage to any goods 
 which is capable of being covered by insurance," 
 &c. In the course of the voyage the plaintiffs' 
 goods sustained damage which came under the 
 heading of general average. The ship returned 
 to Liverpool, and the cargo was discharged and 
 handed over by the defendants to a company to 
 be distributed and disposed of for the benefit of 
 the parties concerned, without giving any assist- 
 ance to the bailees, the underwriters, or the persons 
 whose goods were damaged to get an average 
 statement made out, or taking any steps to enable 
 the plaintiffs to recover contribution : — Held, 
 first, that the bill of lading did not relieve the 
 defendants from contribution to general average ; 
 and, secondly, that they were liable to an action 
 by the plaintiffs for their omission to take the 
 necessary steps to secure an adjustment and pay- 
 ment of the general average. Croolim v. Allen, 
 49 L. J., Q. B. 201 ; 5 Q. b! D. 38 ; 41 L, T. 800 ; 
 28 W, II. 304 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 216. 
 
 At Foreign Port— Expenses.] — An owner of .a 
 British shii) may avail liinisrlf of a statement of 
 average made at the port of delivery in a foreign 
 country, according to the law thereof, so as to 
 charge a British freighter of goods, under a 
 charterparty made in Britain, with the expenses 
 of wages and provisions for the seamen incurred 
 during the nccessarj- detention of tlie ship at an 
 intermediate port, all hough by the law of this 
 country such expenses would not be recoverable 
 as average. Daltjlcink v. JJacidno/i, 5 D. A: 11. 6 ; 
 27 K. II. 519. 
 
 Loss caused by Negligence of Crew —Right of 
 •Shipowner.] — The shipowner is entitji^il to 
 ■average contribution from cargo-owner, although 
 the lo.ss was occasioned by negligence of the 
 ■crew, if by the terms of the charter[)arty the 
 •shipowner is not liable to the cargo-owner for 
 such negligence. T/ir Otrron Purli. 59 T>. A.. .\<iin. 
 74 ; 15 P. D. SaS; 63 L. T. 3.56 ; 29 W. B. 191 : 
 € Asp. M.C. 543. 
 
 Average Stater — Employment of.] — The parties 
 to an average bond a;,M-ied to pay their proper 
 and respective projiort ions of any general average 
 charges to which they might be liable, and forth- 
 with to furnish to the captain or owners of the 
 ship a correct account and ])articular of the value 
 of the goods delivered to them respectively, in 
 order that any such general aveiage charges 
 nnght be ascertained and a<ljusted in the usual 
 manner : — Held, that there was no iin)ilied (;on- 
 dition to cnii)loy an average slater residing at 
 the l)ort of discharge. Wtiirrfrrr Stiiliiifi Shijt 
 Co. v. Zow, 66 L. J., P.O. 77 ; [1897] A. C. 373 ; 
 76 L. T. 576 -P.C. 
 
 There is noobligation on shipowners locnijiloy 
 an iivcrage stater at all for the adjuslment of 
 liabilities. (Simoiuh v. White, 2 L. ,1. (o.s.) 
 K.B. 159 ; 2 B. k. C. 805 ; 26 R. R. 560) explained, 
 lb. 
 
 11. AviniAGK Bo.ND. 
 
 Average Bond — Proportion of Salvage — Duty 
 of Shipowner.] — .^-lee The Iluinlnj, ante, col. 656.
 
 591 
 
 SHIPPING— XVIII. Sahage. 
 
 592 
 
 Security for Payment — Unreasonable Terms 
 —Liverpool Bond. — Where a shiiiowucr in the 
 exercise oi his lieti for general average re(iuires 
 security from the owner of the cargo liable to 
 eontribution without insisting u[)on immediate 
 ]iayment of the amount due, Ihe security so 
 required must be reasonable. The defendants, 
 who had a lien upon goods on board their ship 
 for general average, did not demand payment of 
 liie amount due. but required as security that the 
 consignees should make a deposit of 10 per cent, 
 on the estimated value of the goods in the joint 
 names of the defendants and their average 
 adjuster, or in the names of the defendants, or 
 in the name of the average adjuster, or should 
 execute a bond providing that the deposit should 
 be held as security for the general average and 
 particular charges, and that the parties in whose 
 name it stood might pay thereout such sums as 
 1 hey should from time to time consider ought to 
 be paid to the owners or master on account of 
 money actually disbursed by them or him, or to 
 enable them or him to pay oji and discharge 
 claims which formed part of the general average 
 and other expenses. It also provided that all 
 questions of general average should be referred to 
 the average adjuster of the shipowner, subject to 
 an appeal from the adjustment to arbitrators, 
 whose decision shoidd be final : — Held, that the 
 conditions of the deposit and the form of the bond 
 were both unreasonable, and could not in the 
 circnmstances be imposed upon the consignees. 
 lluth V. Lamport, or Gihhx v. Lamport, 55 L. J., 
 Q. B. 289 ; 16 Q. B. D. 735 ; 54 L. T. 603 ; Si 
 W. E. 386 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 593— C. A. 
 
 Delivery of Cargo — Duty of Master to take 
 Average Bond.] — It is the practice in the case of 
 a general ship, for the master, before delivering 
 cargo, to take security from the merchants for 
 ])ayment of general average. Mycr v. Van der 
 Vcyl, Abbott on Shipping, 13th ed. 446. 
 
 And see 10, Average Statement, supra. 
 
 12. Action for — Practice. 
 
 Inspection of Documents.] — In an action by a 
 fhipovvuer for contribution in respect of general 
 average, the defendant is entitled to an inspec- 
 1 ion of the statement of the general average, but 
 not of the documents from which it is drawn up. 
 Twizzdl V. Alien, 5 M. & W. 337 ; 7 D. P. C. 496 ; 
 8 L. J., Ex. 269. 
 
 Pleading TJnseaworthiness.] — In an action for 
 contribution for an average loss, it is not suffi- 
 cient to allege in a plea that the vessel was unsea- 
 worthy at the time of sailing, but that the average 
 loss was occasioned by her being unseaworthv. 
 SchlosH V. IJcriot, 14 C. B. (N.s.) 59 : 32 L. J.. 
 O. P. 211 ; lU Jur. (X.S.) 76 ; 8 L. T. 246 ; 11 
 W. R. 596. 
 
 Counter-claim before Adjustment.] — Where to 
 a claim for damage to cargo a counter-claim of 
 general average is set up, it is not necessary that 
 such general average should have been adjusted ; 
 but if the evidence supports the fact of a general 
 average loss having been sustained, the amount, 
 together with the amount of loss sustained 
 through damage to the cargo, will be referred 
 to the registrar and merchants to report. Tin- 
 Oguendo. 38 L. T. 151 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 55S. 
 
 13. Jurisdictiox, Admiralty. 
 
 The rule of the court of admiralty as to 
 deciding upon questions of average is this : not 
 that when a possessory right of lien arises inci- 
 dentally before it, such right will l^e treated as a 
 nullity ; but that when the court is called upoii 
 to enforce such a lien not depending irpon pos- 
 session, or to adjust the rights which grow out of 
 it, the court will then refuse to interfere. Galam., 
 Carqo ex, Cleivy v. McAndrvw, 2 Moore, P. C. 
 (N.s.) 216; Br. & Lush. 167; 3 N. E. 2.54; 33- 
 L. J., Adm. 97 ; 10 Jur. (n.s.) 477 ; 9 L. T. 550 ; 
 12 W. E. 49.5. 
 
 The possessory lien of the master for general 
 average will be supported in admiralty when it 
 arises incidentally in the progress of a cause over 
 Avhicli the court jiroperly has jurisdiction. K. 
 court of admiralty will not interfere to enforce a, 
 lien for general average which does not depend' 
 on possession, or to adjust the rights which gro^v 
 out of it. But where a clear legal right of lien, 
 is proved in the court of admiralty to exist, ther 
 court will not dispose of the property without 
 regarding it. As between the ov^nier of the 
 cargo and the holder of a respondentia bond, 
 the latter is not liable to contribute to generaB 
 average, but as between him and those who 
 have a lien for salvage services, he is liable. 75.. 
 
 Semble, the court of admiralty had no juris- 
 diction, except perhaps where the proceeds oS 
 the ship, cargo and freight were in court, tO' 
 enforce general average contribution. The 
 C'onstancia, 4 Not. of Cas. 677. See also Gold v. 
 Goodwin, post, col. 935. 
 
 Semble, since the passing of the judicature 
 acts the admiralty division has acquired a right 
 to entertain a claim lor a general average los& 
 which the high court of admiralty did not pos- 
 sess. The Oqiieiido. supra. 
 
 Ship's Agent has no Lien for.] — Although the- 
 master has a lien upon the ship for averagti- 
 expenses, the ship's agent, if he has paid them^ 
 has no such lien. A claim by ship's agent for 
 disbursements cannot be recognised in the court 
 of admiralty, even against the proceeds of ship. 
 or cargo. The Sjlil'iiiidein, 30 L. J., Adm. 5 ; L. Pw 
 1 A. & E. 203 ; 15 L. T. 393 ; 15 W. E. 591, 
 
 XVIII. SALVAGE. 
 
 1. Generally, 593, 
 
 2. Sin-ce,s-.t. 59ii. 
 
 3. PossexsionofSalrors, 598. 
 
 4. Mifseondiirt or Want of Skill, 599» 
 
 5. Salvage Services. 
 
 a. Supplying Anchor, 603, 
 h. Giving Ailvice, 603. 
 
 c. After Collision, 603. 
 
 d. Mutiny, 605. 
 
 e. \'arious Services, 605. 
 
 6. Life Salraye, 607. 
 
 7. Salvaye or Towage. 
 
 a. Towage, not Salvage, 611, 
 h. Salvage, not Towage, 611. 
 c. Towage converted into Salvage, Gil?. 
 
 8. Salvage or Pilotage, 614. 
 
 9.- Who are entitled to Salvage. 
 
 a. Officers and Crews of H. M. Ships, 617, 
 
 f. Both Ships belonging to same 0wner9> 
 
 619. 
 
 c. Shipowner or Charterer, 620, 
 
 d. Apprentices, 621,
 
 593 
 
 SHIPPIXG— XYIII. Sahage. 
 
 594 
 
 e. Agents, 621. 
 
 /. O^NTier of Salving Ship, 622. 
 
 g. Coastguard and Lightship Men, 622. 
 
 '/*. Other Persons, 623. 
 
 10. M7io (ire Liable to Paij Salvage, 626. 
 
 11. Contribution to Salvage, 626. 
 
 12. Derelict and Wreck, 629. 
 
 13. Award. 
 
 a. Generally, 631. 
 
 b. Amounts Awarded, 638. 
 
 c. Derelict, 611. 
 
 d. Appeal— Reviewing Award, 644, 
 
 14. Apjjortionment, 647. 
 l.j. Agreements to Apportion, 651. 
 1(5. Axsignnient of Right to Salvage, 653. 
 17. Salvage Agreements, 653. 
 
 15. Jurisdiction. 
 
 a. High Court, 660. 
 
 b. Justices, G02. 
 
 c. County Court, 664. 
 
 19. Salvage Lien, 665. 
 
 20. Practice. 
 
 a. Generally. 666. 
 
 b. Parties, 667. 
 
 c. Consolidation, 668. 
 
 d. Tender, 669. 
 
 e. Arrest, Sale, and Bail, 670. 
 /. Pleadings, 671. 
 g. Evidence, 673. 
 h. Costs, 674. 
 
 1. Generally. 
 
 Ingredients of Salvage Service.] — The ingre- 
 dients of salvage service are (1) enterprise in the 
 salvors and risk incurred ; (2) rislc of loss to the 
 l)ropcrty salved ; (3) the sliill and labour shewn 
 and incurred by the salvors ; (4) the value of 
 the salved property. Where all these circum- 
 stances concur a large and liberal reward is 
 given ; where none or only in a small degree, it 
 is little more than remuneration for work and 
 Labour. The Clifton, 3 Hag. Adm. 117. 
 
 Origin and Principles of.] — Origin and prin- 
 ciple of salvage reward discussed by Sir Christo- 
 pher Kobinson. T/ie Calypso, 3 Hag. Adm. 
 209, 217. 
 
 Acceptance of Service.] — An express demand 
 or an expri-s acceptance of salvage services 
 a(;tually perfi)rmcd is not necessary to entitle to 
 salvage reward ; but for services rendered witli- 
 out demand or acceptance, and indirectly ordy 
 no salv.'igc is due. The Ainitijwlis and The 
 (liiUlen Liiiht and II. M.S. Ifagen, Lush. 355 ; 
 5 L. T. 37 ;' f-.llowed in The Vundgrlt., 7 P. D. 42 ; 
 allirmed, 47 L. T. 695 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 17. 
 
 Salvage Service under Contract with Insurers.] 
 
 — See 7 III' Sii/iiii 1/ J'ri/icc, infra, col. 626. 
 
 Vessels Sailing as Consorts.] — Where vessels 
 sail as consorts, under ati agreement to rentier 
 each otlier assistance, salvage will not be given 
 for services rendered Vjy one to the other. The 
 Xe/)hgr, 2 Hag. Adm. 43. See The Margaret, 2 
 Hag. Adm. 48, n. 
 
 In a cause of salvage of a vessel engaged in the 
 South Sea fishery, the dcfcnilaiitsallegcd a custom 
 for vessels iu that fishery to assist each other 
 giatuitouslv. Is>ue flirectcd to the common pleas 
 under 3 aiid 4 Vict. c. 5, s. 11, to try the exist- 
 ence of the custom ; verdict for the custom. 
 Motion for now trial rejected. The Harriot, 1 
 W. Rob. 439. 
 
 Eescue from Ice — Custom of Whalers.] — A 
 
 Greenland whaler that sailed to rescue another 
 that was fast in the ice : — field, not to be pre- 
 vented by custom from claiming salvage. T?ie 
 Swan, I W. Eob. 68. 
 
 River and Sea Salvage.] — There is no dis- 
 tinction between river salvage and sea salvage, 
 the danger and meritorious nature of the services- 
 in either case being the ground on which the 
 quantum of compensation is awarded. The 
 Carrier Dove, Trti.sk v. Maddox, 2 Moore, P. C, 
 (x.s.) 243 ; 19 L. T. 768. 
 
 Notice to Receiver of Wreck— Salvage.] — The 
 
 provisions of s. 450 of the ^ierchant Shipping^ 
 Act, 1854, requiring a person who finds or takes 
 possession of a wreck to give notice to the 
 receiver are not applicable to the case of a person 
 who takes possession of a stranded vessel imder 
 the belief that he is the purchaser thereof, and ia 
 such a case these provisions do not operate to 
 deprive him of his right to recover salvage. Tlie 
 Liffey, 58 L. T. 351 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 255. 
 
 Receiver of Droits— 9 & 10 Vict. c. 99— Liea 
 of Receiver.] — A ship having been stramled near 
 D., A. as receiver of droits and also acting as- 
 Lloyds' agent, assisted in getting the ship off 
 the bank and employed tugs and men for that 
 purpose. Part of the ship's cargo was taken out, 
 in order to lighten her, and was taken to D. A. 
 detained the cargo on itsarrivalat D.clainiingsal- 
 vage, also fees payable to him as receiver of droits.. 
 B., agent for the shippers, i)aid the fees under pro- 
 test ? — Held, that 15. could recover from A. tiie 
 money paid for fees, which were payable to B. 
 oidy whilst salving property and were payable 
 by the owners only, ami that there was no liea 
 for them ; also, that A. couM set off his claim 
 for salvage under 9 & 10 Vict. c. 99. Cuates- 
 wortJi v. Walsh, 3 Jr. C. L. II. 93. 
 
 Derelict Must be Brought in.] — A derelict, 
 ship and cargo ])icked up at sea must be brought 
 into the admiralty — to be restored to the owner 
 on payment of salvage — or subject to salvage to 
 be condemned as a droit of the admiralty. The 
 King v. Property Derelirt, 1 Hag. Adm. 383, n. ; 
 and" see 12. Dek'elict and Wreck, infra. 
 
 Custom that Salvor shall have best Anchor 
 and Cable. ,— Senil)le, a eustom thai ilie h)iil ol" 
 the manor shall liave the liest anclior and cabKr 
 from a ship cast upon the shore of tlic inannr. iik 
 consideration of his burying the dead and caring 
 for llie living ]ier.sons and the goods coming 
 ashore from tlie siiip, is good. Simpson v. liifh- 
 wood, 3 Lev. :i()7 ; 2 Danv. 429. But sec aliter, 
 Geere v. Unrhensham, 3 Lev. 85 ; 2 Danv. 42i> 
 (where no consider.ilion was jilcaded). 
 
 Civil Salvage awarded to Military Salvors.] — 
 Civil salvage awarded in addition to military 
 salvage to a ship of war that took in tow a shii> 
 recaptured from the enemy, she l)eing in a dis- 
 tressed stutc. The Louisa, 1 Dotls. 317. ti. P., 
 The Franklin, 4 C. Hob. M7. 
 
 Services asked for, but not allowed to b© 
 rendered.]— Where a vessel has rendered neces- 
 sary services to another, and is in a position to 
 render further services of a valuable kind, but 
 her assi.stancc is dispensed with, she has a right 
 to have the furtncr services which she was ready
 
 S95 
 
 SHIPPING— XYIII. Salvage. 
 
 596 
 
 £iud able to render taken into account in a salvase 
 iiwarcl. The Maasdam, 6 R. 716 ; G9 L. T. G5'J ; 
 .7 Asp. M C. 400. 
 
 Services rendered by Request — No actual 
 Benefit resulting therefrom.] — Where a vessel 
 •stands by or renders services to another upon 
 request, even though no benefit results from her 
 ••so doing, she is entitled to salvage remuneration. 
 The Ctiinhria/i, 76 L. T. 50i. 
 
 Salvors not required to take Ship to Foreign 
 Tort.] — Salvors are not bound to take the salved 
 ship to a foreign port at the request of her 
 »mast€r. Their duty is to take her to a place of 
 safety ; the onus is on the objectors to show that 
 at was not a proper place. The Iloidhandel, 1 
 •Spinks, 25. 
 
 Tug and Tow — Tug not entitled to Salvage 
 •where Danger caused by her own Fault.] — See 
 
 Tlie Rohcrt JJU-on, infra, coL G07. 
 
 Protest— Duty of Salved Ship to make.] — The 
 Barnes McQueen, 4 W. R. 91. 
 
 Eoyal Fish.] — Salvage is payable to those who 
 bring in roval fish, being admiralty droits, lie.i- 
 V. Cinqvc Ports (^Lord^Warden), 2 Hag. Adm., 
 •438. 
 
 Agreement to refer— Jurisdiction.] — An agree- 
 ment to refer to arbitration does not prevent the 
 ■«alvor from arresting the sliip in a cause of 
 .salvage. La Purissima Cu)icej}cio)i, 13 Jur. 545. 
 
 Salvage at Common Law.] — A seaman was 
 -ordered by liis captaiu to go on board a ship that 
 was stranded and in distress, and to put himself 
 oinder the orders of her captain. He did so and 
 iielped to get the ship afloat. He sued the owners 
 of the stranded ship for salvage at common law : 
 — Held, witliout deciding whether an action for 
 rsalvage would lie at common law, that the owner 
 -was not liable, there being no contract. Lipson 
 'v. Harrimn. 2 W. E. lU. Sen also, per Lord 
 Mansfield, Cor)iu v. Blaclihunw, 2 Dougl. 641, 
 <649. 
 
 Salvage Actions at Common Law.] — The Ooster 
 JEeiiis, 1 C. Hob. 284, n. ; Hay and Mar. Pref. 
 xxvii. ; cited. 3 C. Eob. 357. The Trite Briton, 
 "Cited, 3 C. Ivob. 360. 
 
 A. found on the towpath timber that had got 
 -adrift from a dock in the Thames and secured it. 
 He refased to deliver it up until the owner paid 
 diim for his trouble : — Held, that lie was liable in 
 •trover. JMcholson v. Chcqjvian, 2 H. Bl. 254. 
 .See also Viciaii v. Mersey Docks and Harhour 
 Board. 39 L. J., C. P. 3 ; L. R. 5 C. P. 19 ; 21 
 IL. T. 362. 
 
 Subject-matter of Salvage Services — Gas 
 Float. ! — Salvage (apart from life salvage) is by 
 the maritime law of England confined to ship, 
 .apparel, and cargo, or what has formed part of 
 these, and to freight earned by carriage of cargo, 
 ;and is not applicable to a gas float used as a 
 floating beacon, which, though capable of being 
 moved'' on the face of the water, is not "a ship or 
 n^essel" in the sense in which the merchant 
 shipping act uses these terms, or in any fair 
 -sense of the words. Gas Float Whitton (No. 2), 
 «6 L. J., Adm. 99 ; [1897] A. C. 337 ; 76 L. T. 
 ^G3— H. L. (E.) Affirming 44 W. R. 263 ; 8 
 J^sp. M. C. ] 10— C. A. 
 
 — " Ship or Boat Stranded or in Distress."] 
 
 — Justices awarded salvage in icspect of ser- 
 vices rendered to a hopper barge which had been 
 found adrift without any person on board of her 
 in the Wash, about three miles from Boston. 
 The barge was not furnished with any means by 
 which she could be propelled, and was used for 
 dredging purposes : — Held, that the barge was 
 " a ship in distress " on the shore of a sea or tidal 
 water within the meaning of the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1854, s. 458. The Leda (Swabey 
 40) followed. Tlie Mae or Macadam v. Saucn 
 Polly, 51 L. J., Adm. 81 ; 7 P. D. 126 ; 46 L. T. 
 907 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 555— C. A. 
 
 2. Success. 
 
 Attempt to render Assistance.] — A steam-tug 
 attempting to render assistance to a ship exhibit- 
 ing signals of distress may, in a case where 
 such ship is afterwards salved by means of other 
 assistance, be entitled to salvage reward, even 
 though her efforts have been practically un- 
 availing. Tlie jVefj)oi)ie7ie, 42 L. J., Adm. 45 ; 
 L. R. 4 A. & E. 129 ; 29 L. T. 405 ; 21 W. R. 956. 
 
 When a ship makes a signal of distress, and 
 another goes out with the bona fide intention of 
 assisting'that distress, and as far as she can does 
 so, but an accident occurs which prevents her 
 services being as efiiectual as she intended them 
 to be, and no blame attaches to her, the court, 
 will not allow her to go entirely unrewarded, 
 but for the interests of commerce and of naviga- 
 tion, and as an encouragement to perform salvage 
 services, will give some reward if the property 
 is salved by other means. lb. 
 
 When Service Unsuccessful.] — When salvors 
 enter into an agreement to take a disabled vessel 
 into harbour for a specific sum, and do all in 
 their power to perform their engagement ; but 
 in consequence of an adverse change of wind 
 fail to fulfil it, they are nevertheless entitled to 
 salvage reward. The A:tecs, 21 L. T. 797. And 
 see The Cumhrlan, infra, col. 657. 
 
 Efforts to give assistance under an engagement 
 to a ship in distress will, although the ship 
 leceives no benefit from them, be rewarded as 
 being in the nature of salvage services, if the 
 shipis otherwise saved. The Undaunted, Lush. 
 90 ; 29 L. J., Adm. 176 ; 2 L. T. 520. 
 
 Attempted services performed under an agree- 
 ment of salvage are entitled to be rewarded 
 where the performance of them is rendered im- 
 possible by the act of God. Ih. 
 
 Salvage is a reward for services actually 
 conferred, and not for services attempted to be 
 rendered. The Chetak, 5 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 
 278 ; 38 L. J.. Adm. 1 ; L. R. 2 P. C. 205 ; 19 
 L. T. 621 ; 17 W. R. 233. S. P., The Elntracht, 
 29 L. T. 851 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 198. 
 
 A steamer employed under an agreement for 
 a specific sum to tow a partially-disabled steam 
 vessel to a specific destination, towed the vessel 
 for some hours, but in consequence of a gale 
 causing the breaking of the hawser, left the vessel 
 in a position of considerable danger, from which 
 she was only saved by her own exertions : — Held, 
 that as it did not appear that the towing had 
 contributed to her safety, the steamer was not 
 entitled to towage, as she had not performed 
 her contract ; nor to salvage, as no attempt was 
 made by her to save the vessel. The Edicard 
 Tlaichms, 15 Moore, P. C. 486 ; Lush. 515 ; 31 
 L. J., Adm. 46.
 
 597 
 
 SHIPPING— XYIII. Salvage. 
 
 598 
 
 Unsuccessful salvage services does not entitle 1 
 those rendering them to reward. The Zcphyrus. I 
 1 W. Rob. 329. I 
 
 "Where salvors found a derelict, but were I 
 unable to take her into safety-, and a second set 
 of salvors dispossessed the first set and brought 
 her into safety, the firet set were awarded a sum I 
 to cover their expenses. The ^hujdalcn, 31 L. J.. ' 
 Adm. 22 : 5 L. T. 807. | 
 
 Salvage Agreement — Service impossible.] — 
 See The Ilestiu, infra, col. G.5.5. | 
 
 The time occupied in endeavouring to rentier 
 unsuccessful salvage services will be taken into I 
 consideration in awarding compensation for 
 subsequent successful services, if it appear that 
 the original services were rendered at the I 
 request of the defendants. The Avenir, Ir. R. 
 ■2 Eq. 111. 
 
 Agreement to attempt to Tow — Payment for 
 "Work done.] — In an action of salvage it ap- 
 peared that the master of the defendants' ship 
 requested the master of the plaintiffs' ship to 
 tow his vessel to Gibraltar, which ihe latter 
 agreed to attempt to do. The value of the defen- 
 dants" ship, her cargo and freight, was 78,000/., 
 and at the time this request was made she was 
 in a disabled slate. The jilaintiffs' ship, after 
 towing the defendants' ship for 1 30 miles towards 
 Gibraltar, left her, the hawsers having parted 
 owing to severe weather, in a more dangerous 
 position than she was in when she was taken in 
 tow. The defendants' ship was afterwards towed 
 into Gihraltar by another vessel : — Held, that 
 the plaintiffs were not entitled to a salvage 
 reward, but were entitled to adequate remunera- 
 tion for what they had done in fulfilment of 
 their contract. The court awarded them 400/. 
 The licnlarig, .58 L. J., P. 24 ; 14 P. D. 3 ; GO 
 L. T. 238 ; 6 Asd. M. C. 3t;0. 
 
 The " C." broke down in the English Channel 
 ten miles from Anvil Point, and was then in a 
 position of risk, but not of iiiiminent danger. 
 T'he " H." at her request took the " C." in tow ; 
 near the Shambles the hawsers parted, and the 
 ■" C." then anchored and was in a [josition of 
 considerable danger, greater than when the " H." 
 took her in tow. The " H. ' was unable to make 
 fast a hawser again, and in trying to do so came 
 into collision with the " C." The "H." then 
 left the " C," which was soon after taken in tow 
 liy two tngs and brought in safety to Poitlantl : 
 — Held, that the " H." was not entitled to 
 salvage. The India (1 W. Kol). 400) followed. 
 The Cheerful. :,:, L. J., Adm. 5 ; 11 P. D. 3 ; 'A 
 L. T. r,r, ■ 34 W. U. 307 ; n Asp. M. C. 52.5. 
 
 Agreement to Pay for Unsuccessful Service.] 
 
 — Sec 7'he Mfrrd, W'l// field {On/irr.s') \. Adii m- 
 jion, infra, col. (j8l. 
 
 Salvors contributing to but not alone effecting 
 Salvage. — Salvors whose services, tlioujj-Ji cn- 
 triliinuiL' to the ultimate salvage of the pi'nperty, 
 r/ould not by themselves have cjlected the sal- 
 vage, are entitled to salvage reward. 'The E. U., 
 I Spiiiks, (;:i. 
 
 Salvors abandoning Ship on a Sand.] — ^Vherc 
 snlvois abpiidoned the shi[) on a sand from which 
 she was afterwards salved by others, the fir>t 
 salvors were awarded nothing, 'The India, 1 
 W\ Hob. 406. 
 
 First Salvors Negligent — Second Salvors 
 Successful.] — One set of salvors negligently put 
 the vessel on the Long Sand ; a second set got 
 her off. Salvage awarded to the second set and 
 none to the first set of salvors. 'The Neptune, 
 1 W. Eob. 297. 
 
 Second salvors not prejudiced by joining with 
 first salvors in salvage suit. Ihid. 
 
 Ship extricated before Salvors arrive.] — 
 
 "Where lhe ship in distress extricates herself 
 before the intended salvors come up, no salvage 
 awarded, though risk incurred. The Itaiifjei; 
 3 Xot. of Cas. 589 ; 9 Jur. 119. 
 
 A vessel ashore on the rocks off Folkestone 
 was boarded by boats, who could not get her off. 
 A steamship towed her off, but the tow rope 
 parting she drove ashore and was lost. Her 
 cargo was saved. Salvage was awarded to the 
 boats and to the steamship. 'The Santipore, 1 
 Spinks, 231. 
 
 3. Possession ob" Salvoes. 
 
 Legal Interest of Salvors.] — Salvors in posses- 
 sion have a legal interest, which cannot be 
 divested except by adjudication. Salvors, who 
 have dispossessed other salvors must show an 
 actual or apparent necessity for their inter- 
 ference. 'The BlendcnhuU, 1 Dods. 414 ; and 
 see 'The Fleece, 3 W. Rob. 278. 
 
 Salvors have a common law lien on the salved 
 propertj^ Having v. Bay, 8 East, 57. 
 
 A ship that has been taken into a roadstead 
 by salvors is not to be removed without the 
 salvors' consent. The Kicolai Ueinrich, 17 Jur. 
 329. 
 
 Eight to retain Possession against Owners.] — 
 Where salvors have brought a vessel into a 
 position of safety they are bound on demand by 
 the owners, to deliver up ])ossession of thcsalveil 
 property, and have no right to retain it for the 
 alleged purjiose of comi)leting (he repairs. If 
 the vessel is at the time of the demand in such 
 a critical position that there may be risLs of loss 
 or damage to her unless the salvors are allowed 
 to complete their operations, send:)le that the 
 salvors may retain possession pemling their com- 
 pletion, the I'innag, 59 L. T. 52G ; G Asp. M. (J. 
 313. 
 
 A salvor has a right to retain possession of 
 the salved jjrojierty until payment of salvage. 
 Hart fort v. Jones, 1 Ld. Raym. 393. 
 
 Subsequent Salvors — Unnecessary Interference 
 by.] — Two siiiack>< picked up an alcmdoned 
 vessel in the North Sea and were lowing her to 
 Harwich, when a gun brig came up and insisted 
 upon taking the vessel in tow. Eventually slie 
 ordered the smacks to cast off, and took the 
 vessel to Hover: — Held, that the claim of the 
 gun l;rig to salvage was of the weakest kind ; 
 her assistance Ijcing unnecessary. r.O/. awarded 
 to her and two-lift lis of the salved property to 
 the smacks. The Maria, Edwards, 175. 
 
 Where salvors are in possession, and arc able 
 to perfortn the service, no others may interfere. 
 The Qiiren Mali. 3 Hag. Adm. 242. S, P., The 
 (Horn, 1 ' -J'""- •''"''■ 
 
 Second Salvors wrongfully dispossessing 
 First.] — If first .salvors lawftdly in possession of 
 a derelict ship arc wrongfully and violently
 
 m 
 
 SHIPPING— XYIII. Salvage. 
 
 600 
 
 dispossessed by second salvors, who succeed in 
 bringing the ship into safety, the second salvors 
 will receive no benefit from the service they 
 may render, but tlie wliole reward will go to the 
 benefit of the original salvors. 2'hc Ju/tJilfrn, 
 43 L. J., Adm. SdV 31 L. T. 20-t. See also The 
 Mondalen, 31 L. J., Adm. 22 ; 5 L. T. 807. 
 
 Two fishing smaclts fell in with a derelict 
 vessel twenty miles from the English coast, and 
 took her in tow after great I'isk, and two days 
 afterwards brought her close to Yarmouth, when 
 the smacksmen to expedite the completion of the 
 salvage engaged a steam tug to take her in tow, 
 but through the mistake or misconduct of those 
 on board the tug the vessel got aground, where- 
 upon the tug left the smacksmen and went in 
 search of assistance. In their temporary absence 
 a number of beachmen took possession of the 
 vessel and brought her safely into harbour. A 
 liberal salvage was allowed to the smacksmen on 
 appeal, leversing the decision of the admiralty 
 court, which had decreed salvage to the beach- 
 men only. The Atla.i, Ilcwett v. Aylan. 15 
 Moore, P. C. 329 ; 31 L. J.. Adm. 210; 8 Jur. 
 (x.s.) 753 ; 6 L. T. 737 ; 10 W. R. 850. 
 
 The court jealously maintains the right of 
 original salvors ; subsequent salvors acquire a 
 right to salvage only where their assistance is 
 necessary to preserve the property. The Charlotta^ 
 -2 Hag. Adm. 361. 
 
 The burden is upon subsequent salvors to 
 prove that previous salvors in possession were 
 unable to effect the service, or engaged or adopted 
 their assistance. The Eugene, 3 Hag. Adm. 156, 
 160. 
 
 Jurisdiction does not depend on Salvors' 
 
 Possession.] — The Lady Kathcrliw JJarhavi, 
 Lush. 404. 
 
 Salvors do not impair their right to salvage 
 by quitting possession of the salved ship. 21ie 
 Eleanora Charlotta, 1 Hag. Adm. 156. 
 
 Possession of Derelict.] — Salvors of a derelict 
 have a right to I'etain possession until they are 
 ilivcsted by law. The Tritonia, 5 Not. of Cas. 
 Supp. 1. 
 
 Salvors in possession of a ship abandoned by 
 all her crew who could get away are under no 
 obligation to wait to take the crew on board 
 again. The Orhuna, 1 Spinks, 161. 
 
 Semble, a salvor of derelict has a right of 
 exclusive possession. He takes possession on 
 behalf of the crown. The Danizic Pachet. 3 
 Hag. Adm. 383. 
 
 Seizure of Salved Property by Colonial 
 Governor.] — A governor of an island near which 
 a ship was cast away, on pretence of recovering 
 the cargo for the seamen, seized it all to his own 
 use as wreck-fishing. On his return to England 
 he was decreed to account for the whole. Trott 
 V. Le CU, CoUes' P. C. 219; Pre. Ch. 239. 
 
 4. Misconduct or AVant of Skill. 
 
 Forfeits Eiglit to Salvage. J^The right to 
 
 salvage is forfeited by misconduct of the salvors 
 in retaining possession of and improperly dealing 
 with the salved property. The Lady Wur.iley, 
 2 Spinks, 253. 
 
 Misconduct of salvors punished by forfeiture 
 of salvage and liability to costs of salvage suit. 
 The Bare/oof, 14 Jur. 841. 
 
 Misconduct of salvors punished by diminished 
 
 award. The ClariMr, Swabey, 129, 133 ; nom. 
 Cra)i./i, V. Brun, 12 Moore, P. U. 340. 
 
 Salvors may forfeit, partially or totally, by 
 various degrees of misconduct, their right to 
 salvage reward ; but the evidence to establish 
 their misconduct must be conclusive. The 
 Charles Adolphc, Swabey, 153. 
 
 Forcibly retaining Possession.] — A salvage 
 claim tlisniissetl in part because of the mis- 
 conduct in the salvors in obtrmling their services 
 after being formally discharged by the owners 
 of sunken vessel. The Glatsyoio Pachet, 2 W. Eob. 
 306. 
 
 Not taking Necessary Assistance.] — Salvage 
 award diminished by reason of the salvors not 
 placing the shi[j in a position of safety, as they 
 might have done, if they had taken further 
 assistance which was offered. The Dosseltci, 
 10 Jur. 865. 
 
 Prior salvors have no right, whilst the master 
 is in command, to exclude subsequent salvors. 
 The iJautzic Pachet, 3 Hag. Adm. 383. S. P., 
 The Glory, 14 Jur. 676. 
 
 Resisting Employment of Tug.]— Boat- 
 men who resisted the employment of a steamship 
 to get the vessel off a sand held to have forfeited 
 all claim to salvage. The Martha, Swabey, 489; 
 and see Tlce Maydalen, infra, col. 601. 
 
 Associated Salvors — Misconduct of Some.] — • 
 
 In cases of associated salvage service all the 
 salvors may be prejudiced by the misconduct of 
 one of their number. The Cherulilni, Ir. E. 
 2 Eq. 172. 
 
 Robbing Wreck — Conviction.] — Persons who 
 have been convicted under 9 & 10 Vict. c. 99, for 
 improper interference with a wreck cannot claimi 
 as salvors. Tlte Wear Pachet, 2 Spinks, 256. 
 
 Inflated Claim.] — Salvors setting up an inflated 
 and exaggerated ease dismissed with costs. 2'he 
 Tuwa/i, 2V. Eob. 259. 
 
 Effect of Mere Mistake.] — Where salvage is 
 finally effected, those who meritoriously con- 
 tribute to that result are entitled to a share in. 
 the reward, although the part taken by them 
 would not of itself have produced the result. 
 The Atlas, Heicctt v. Aylan, 15 Moore, P. C. 
 329 ; 31 L. J., Adm. 2J.0 ; 8 Jur. (N.s.) 753 ; G 
 L. T. 737 ; 10 W. E. 850. See The Jtosali/id, 
 12 L. T. 553. 
 
 If success is finally obtained, no mere mistake 
 or error of judgment in the manner of procuring 
 it, nor misconduct short of that which is wilful 
 and may be considered criminal on the part of 
 the salvors (which must be proved by those who 
 impute it), will work an entire forfeiture of the 
 salvage. lb. 
 
 Mistake or misconduct, other than criminal, 
 which diminishes the value of the property 
 salved, or occasions expense to the owners, ia 
 properly to be considered in the amount of com- 
 pensation to be awarded. Tb. 
 
 Damage by Negligence equal to Probable Loss 
 from Peril.] — The master and crew of the " Y.," 
 a vessel in distress, got on board the '• K.," a 
 steamer standing by her. The mate and two of 
 the crew of the " K." afterwards went on board the 
 " Y." but refused to take her master back witb
 
 601 
 
 SHIPPING— XYIII. Salvage. 
 
 them. The mate subsequently also refused the 
 services of a steam-tug, and finally having from 
 want of local knowledge anchored the ■' Y." in an 
 insecure place, she began to drift, was forsaken 
 by the salvors, and sank. She was subsequently 
 raised by her owners at considerable expense. 
 In an action for salvage the owners of the '• Y." 
 denied that a reward was due and counter- 
 claimed for damages : — Held, that the mate was 
 guilty of misconduct in refusing to take the 
 master of the " Y." on board of her, and to engage 
 the services of the tug ; but that if the " Y." had 
 been ultimately saved such misconduct would 
 have worked a partial forfeiture of the reward 
 only : — Held, further, that as the loss arising 
 from the misconduct of the salvors was probably 
 •equal to that from which the " Y." was first 
 rescued, no salvage reward was due. The Yan- 
 Yean, 52 L. J., Adm. 67 ; 8 P. D. 147 ; 49 L. T. 
 186 ; 31 W. B. 950 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 135. 
 
 Damage by Negligence — Deduction from 
 Award.] — Where a wreck hatl been greatly 
 damaged by the erroneous conduct of the salvors 
 in their treatment of it, the court awarded them 
 a smaller sum, deducting from the reward which 
 it would have otherwise held that they had 
 earned, a certain amount as compensation for 
 the additional damage thus done to the property, 
 and the court proportioned the amount that 
 it deducted to the want of skill shewn. The 
 Jl,if/(hilrn, 31 L. J., Adm. 22 ; 5 L. T. 807. 
 
 In rendering salvage services, want of skill on 
 the part of the salvors — not amounting to negli- 
 ^'ence — which occasions damage to the salved 
 Ijroperty is a ground for reducing the amount of 
 the award, though it will not support a counter- 
 claim by the owners of the salved property to 
 ]-ecover damages from the salvors in respect of 
 the injury so occasioned to their property. The 
 Dwina, (;i L. J., Adm. 71 ; [1892] P. 58 ; 66 L.T. 
 *62 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 173. 
 
 Collision by Salvors' Negligence.]— A 
 
 ficrew steamer fell in with a disabled barcjue in 
 the English Channel, and in answer to signals 
 of distress approached her to render assistance. 
 In rendering salvage services to the barque 
 <lamagc was caused to that vessel by the neg- 
 ligent navigation of the screw steamer, tlie two 
 vessels coming into collision on three occasions. 
 To rccovci- for the damages sustained in tliese 
 ■collisions, the owners of the barque promoted a 
 cause of damage against the steamer, and subse- 
 quently an action fur the recovery of salvage 
 remuneration was brought by the owners of the 
 steamer against tlie barque. On the two causes 
 coming on to be heard together : — Held, that the 
 •owners of the barciuc were entitled to recover 
 in the damage cause, and that tlie owners of the 
 steamer were entitled to recover in the salvage 
 cause. Thr C. S. lUitler, The lialtic, 43 
 T.. J., Adm. 17 : L. K. 4 A. & K. 178 ; 30 L. T. 
 475 ; 22 W. II. 759 : 2 Asp. M. C. 237. 
 
 A salvor whose ship succeeds in bringing an 
 injured ship into safety, but in so doing iiillicts 
 ■damage upon her by coming into collision througli 
 jiegligence and want of proper navigation, which 
 is gross >mt not wilful, is not thereby deprived 
 of his right to a reward which ha.s been agreed 
 upon between the masteis of the respective 
 vessels. lb. 
 
 Negligence of Pilot employed by Salvors.] — 
 Salvors having broirght a veB»el in diatress to 
 
 602 
 
 a situation of safety from ordinary peril, but not 
 to anchor, and having given up the charge to a 
 licensed pilot, are not prejudiced as to their 
 claim by injttry subsequently happening to the 
 ship from the negligence of such pilot. The 
 Somarsuncl, Lush. 77. 
 
 Misconduct of Tug— Towage Contract — Sub- 
 sequent Salvage.] — See Tito Minnehaha, infra, 
 col. 607, Tlie Itohcrt Dixon, infra, col. 607. 
 
 Misconduct of Boatmen — Eefusal of Sum 
 Tendered.] — Claim of boatmen for salvage dis- 
 missed ; miscontluct of boatmen, refusal of sum 
 tendered for work done. The Slack Boy, 3 
 Hag. Adm. 386, n. 
 
 Violence.] — Violent and overbearing conduct 
 on the part of salvors, although it may not 
 amount to such wilful misconduct as to cause 
 an entire forfeiture of salvage reward, will yet 
 operate to induce the cotirt to diminish the 
 amount of the reward. The Marie, 7 P. D. 203 ; 
 47 L. T. 737 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 27. 
 
 Eefusal to give up Clothes taken.] — Salvors 
 of a (lurelict took and used the clothes found on 
 board and refused to give them up. 20/. was 
 deducted from the award, to be paid to the 
 master and crew of the derelict in respect of 
 their clothes. Tlie Louisa, 7 Jur. 182. 
 
 Negligently putting Ship Ashore.] — A claim 
 for salvage dismissetl because the salvor, a 
 steam tug, negligently got the ship on Sandwich 
 Flats, when towing her off the Goodwins ; the 
 fact that the salved ship had a pilot on board, 
 not excusing the salvors. The Dulie of Man- 
 chester, 2 W. Hob. 470 ; 4 Not. of Cas. 582 ; 6 
 Moore, P. C. 90 ; 10 Jur. 863. 
 
 Deduction fiom salvage award made because 
 the salvors in performing the service by their 
 want of skill had brought the ship into danger 
 and injured her. The Cajye Packet, 3 W. Hob. 
 122. 
 
 Salvors attempted to tow ship into harbour 
 when there was not enough water for her, and 
 got her ashoie and damaged her. A smaller 
 award of salvage niaile in consequence. The 
 Ferla, Swabcy, 230; and see The Yan-Ycan, 
 supra. 
 
 A revenue cutter i)ut some men aboard u 
 vessel that had lost lier masts in a collision to 
 take her to Penzance. She drew too much water, 
 took the ground, anil leceived much ilaniage : — 
 Held, no salvage to be awarded. The Lockwoodn, 
 9 Jur. 1017. 
 
 Forcibly Dispossessing other Salvors.] — Sal- 
 vors who foicilily dispossessed other salvors 
 engaged by the master of tin; shii) in <listress 
 allowed no sliare of the Kulvage award. The 
 Fierce, 3 W. Kob. 278. See The JJlendcii Hall, 
 1 Uods. 414. 
 
 If first salvors lawfully in iiosscssion of ii 
 derelict are wrongfully dispossessed hy second 
 salvors who succeed in bringing the shi]) intci 
 safety, the second salvors will receive no benefit 
 from the service they may lender, but the wliole 
 reward will go io the original salvors. The 
 Kathleen, 43 L. J., Adm. 39 ; L. II. 4 A. & K. 
 269 ; 31 L. T. 284 ; 23 W. R. 350 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 3(i7. 
 
 Excluding Crew from Possession.] — Mis- 
 conduct of salvors, who took possession of a
 
 603 
 
 SHIPPING— XVIII. Salvage. 
 
 GO-I 
 
 vessel, -whose crew they knew were in distress on 
 sliore waitins^ to return to her, punished by a 
 small award. The Liithiui, Ir. E. 1 Eq. 144:. 
 And sec The Cleopatra, infra, col. 641. 
 
 Where salvors having taken possession of a 
 vessel which had got ashore and been temporarily 
 abandoned by her master and crew in order to 
 get tug assistance, refused to allow her master 
 and crew on board, and remained in possession 
 on board whilst the tugs provided by the master 
 towed the ship into a place of safety : — The 
 court held that there had been such misconduct 
 as to work a total forfeiture of award, although 
 the plaintiffs had in the absence of the master 
 and crew laid out two anchors which contributed 
 to the vessel's ultimate safety. Tlte Capdla, 
 [1892J P. 70 ; 66 L. T. 388 ; 7 Asp. M. C, 158. 
 
 5. Salvage Services. 
 a. Supplying Anchor. 
 
 Taking out Anchor and Chain in Bad Weather.] 
 
 — Taking out during bad weather an anchor and 
 a chain to a vessel, which is compelled to slip 
 her cable to get away from a dangerous position 
 and run for a place of safety, is, although the 
 anchor and chain in the result are not needed, a 
 salvage service ; 2S0Z. awarded to two luggers 
 and their crew on a value of 40,000^. The 
 ^olus, 42 L. J., Adm. 14 ; L. K. 4 A. & E. 29 ; 
 28 L. T. 41 ; 21 W. R. 704 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 516. 
 
 Supplying an anchor and a cable to a vessel in 
 the Gulls that had slipped her own is salvage 
 service. The Prince of Wales, 6 Not. of Cas. 39. 
 
 b. Giving Advice. 
 
 "Warning Ship of Danger — Frauds.] — Claims 
 for salvage in warning foreign ships of danger, 
 dismissed as fraudulent or not proved. The 
 Giacomo, 3 Hag. Adm. 344 ; The Henrietta, 3 
 Hag. Adm. 345, n. 
 
 Advice Given — Salvors not on Board.] — Advice 
 given as to the proper steps to be taken to get a 
 ship off a sand, the salvors not being able to go 
 on board because of the sea, remunerated by 
 salvage award. Tlie Eliza, Lush. 536. 
 
 Giving Information.] — The mere giving infor- 
 mation as to the locality, even to a foreign ship, 
 will not constitute a salvage service. The Little 
 Joe, Lush. 88 ; 6 Jur. (n.s.) 783 ; 2 L. T. 473. 
 
 c. After Collision. 
 
 Service to One of Two Ships in Collision — 
 
 Tugs.] — A collision having occurred between 
 two ships, the "Woburn Abbey" and the 
 " British Trident," two steam-tugs, the " Superb " 
 and the " Conqueror," went to their assistance. 
 In order to extricate the " Woburn Abbey," it 
 was necessary that the " British Trident " should 
 be towed away from her, and the pilot of the 
 " Woburn Abbey " requested the captain of 
 the "Superb" to perform this service. The 
 "Superb" then towed the "British Trident," 
 but the ships still dragged. The " Conqueror" 
 arrived about half-an-hour after the " Superb," 
 and the two tugs together held the " British 
 Trident" and the "Woburn Abbey," and pre- 
 ■ vented the ships from dragging further : — Held, 
 that the benefit received by the "Woburn 
 Abbey " from the services of the " Superb " was 
 
 a direct and not an indirect benefit ; that there 
 was no substantial difference between the merits- 
 of the " Superb " and the " Conqueror," anri 
 therefore that they were entitled to ecjual 
 amounts of salvage. The Wohurn Abbey, 21 
 L. T. 707— P. C. 
 
 Towing Vessels Clear — Eights of Tug.] — 
 Where two vessels are in collision and are 
 entangled together in a position dangerous to 
 both, salvors who, by towing one of the vessel* 
 clear, free both vessels from danger, are entitled 
 to recover salvage reward from the owners of 
 both vessels, A screw steamship drifted, during- 
 a gale of wind, across the bows of a ship at 
 anchor in the Mersey, and with her propeller- 
 caught the anchor chains of the ship, and the- 
 two vessels were held together in a position 
 dangerous to both. A steam-tug went to the 
 assistance of the ship, and held her whilst her 
 chains were slipped and towed her clear of the 
 steamship : — Held, that the owners, master, and 
 crew of the tug were entitled to recover salvage- 
 reward from the owners of the steamship. The 
 Vandych, 47 L. T. 695 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 17— C. A. 
 Affirming, 7 P. D. 42. 
 
 Tug assisting her Tow after Collision.] — A col- 
 lision occurred between two vessels, "A." and "B." 
 "A." was in tow of a steam-tug ; the tug after- 
 wards rendered assistance to " B." "B." was; 
 found solely to blame for the collision : — Held, 
 that the tug"s right of salvage remuneration was 
 not affected by 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 33, which 
 makes it the duty of ships mutually to assist 
 each other after a collision, Tlte Hannibal v. 
 The Queen, 37 L. J,, Adm, 12 ; L, R. 2 A, & E. 53. 
 
 The 25 & 26 Vict, c. 63, s, 33, does not debar 
 the innocent sufferer in a collision from salvage- 
 reward for services subsequently rendered to the 
 other party to the collision. The Retriever v.. 
 The Queen, 17 L. T, 329, 
 
 The case of a towing ship is not a casus 
 omissus from the statute. The tug of the vessel 
 declared not to blame in a collision, rendered 
 salvage services to the wrongdoer : — Held, that 
 this section did not affect the right of the tug to> 
 salvage reward. lb. 
 
 Services by Ship in Fault for Collision.] — A 
 
 vessel rendering assistance to another which she 
 has injured in collision cannot claim salvage 
 reward if the collision takes place by her default. 
 The Glenqa.ber, 41 L. J., Adm. 84 ; L. R. » 
 A. & E. 534 ; 27 L. T. 386 ; 21 W. R, 168 ; 1 
 Asp. M, C, 401, 
 
 The o-wTiers, master, and crew of a vessel 
 which renders assistance to a vessel injured by 
 collision are not deprived of their right to salvage 
 reward by the fact that some of the owners are 
 also owners of another vessel by whose mis- 
 conduct the collision takes place, lb. 
 
 A vessel rendering salvage assistance is not, 
 deprived of her right to reward by the fact that 
 she is employed by a vessel whose misconduct 
 renders her employment necessary. lb. 
 
 A collision occurred between two vessels. 
 Both were found to blame, A cause of salvage 
 was instituted by the master and crew of one of 
 the vessels for having saved a quantity of specie 
 laden on board the other vessel : — Held, that the 
 salvors were not entitled to reward for saving 
 property which they had by their own wrongful 
 acts contributed to place in jeopardy, Capella,, 
 Canjo ex, L. R. 1 A. & E. 356 ; 16 L. T. 800.
 
 605 
 
 SHIPPING— XYIII. Saharje. 
 
 GOG 
 
 d. Mutiny. 
 
 Eesctie of Ship from Mutineers.] — Salvaee is 
 n-'it due to a crew for rescuinc^ the ship from 
 iL. utineers. The Governor Ruffles, 2 Dods. 14. 
 
 By Government Ship.] — A government 
 
 phip acting under directions of a vice-consul 
 rescued a convict ship from the crew of mutinous 
 cnn\ lets : — Held, no salvage payable. The 
 I'ra.ncis and Eliza, 2 Dods. 165. 
 
 Rescue from Mutinous Slaves.] — Rescue of a 
 slave ship from insurgent slaves by another ship. 
 One-tenth of the value awarded. TJie Trelawney, 
 4 C. Bob. 223. 
 
 e. Various Services. 
 
 Sending Seamen on board Vessel in Distress.] 
 • — A ship fell in on the high seas, in the winter 
 season, with a brig in distress for want of 
 sufficient hands to work her. The master of the 
 ship sent two of his crew, who had volunteered 
 to go, on board the brig, and by their assistance 
 the brig was navigated safely into a British port. 
 In consequence of the absence of the two men, 
 the ship was exposed to risk, and the remainder 
 of her crew had to undergo extra labour : — Held, 
 that not only the two men who went on board 
 the brig, but the master and owners of the ship 
 and the rest of the crew of the ship, were entitled 
 to salvage reward for the services rendered. The 
 Charles, L. R. ?> A. & E. 530 ; 2G L. T. 594 ; 21 
 W. R. 13 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 296. 
 
 Where a ship is in distress, and accepts the 
 services of strange hands, the services are in the 
 nature of salvage, although the work done may 
 be of no great difficulty or importance. The 
 Biimarsund, Lush. 77. 
 
 Where the crew of a vessel is much reduced by 
 death or sickness, another vessel supplying the 
 deficiency on the high seas from among her own 
 crew, is entitled to salvage. The lloe, Swabey, 
 84. 
 
 Loan of Navigator to Infected Vessel.] — The 
 loan of a navigator to a vessel in distress, by 
 reason of her own navigators being incapacitated 
 by an infectious disease, is a salvage service on 
 the part of the ship lending the navigator. The 
 Sklhludner, 47 L. .T., Adni. 84 ; 3 1'. D. 24 ; 38 
 L. T. 150 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 556. 
 
 It is a .salvage .service of a very higli order on 
 the part of a navigator to go on board an iufected 
 vessel an<l navigate her. Ih. 
 
 Detaining Seamen of Salved Vessel.] — The 
 court will not lay d(jwn any general rule, but 
 will be guided )jy the circumstances of each case, 
 in determining whether or not the master of the 
 salvors' vessel is justified in refusing to allow 
 the crew of the salved vessel to return to their 
 own ship before the completion of the salvage. 
 The CUupatra, 37 L. J., Adm. 31. 
 
 Starting a Ship ashore off the Ground.] — A 
 trofipsliip ashore was assiste<l in getting olt the 
 baidc hy another ship anchoring near and 
 heaving on the ship ashore ; thereby loosening 
 lier hold on the bank ; when got off she was not 
 attached to the salvor and got off by her own 
 crew. Salvage (2,000Z.) awarded. The Ilinni- 
 laya, Swabey, 515. 
 
 Vessel in Distress making ambiguous Signal.]. 
 — "When a vessel makes an ambiguous signal it 
 will be construed by the court accortling to the- 
 condition of the vessel when boarded : if she is 
 damaged, and is in need of assistance, the signal 
 will be treated as a signal for assistance, and' 
 those answering it as salvors ; if she is not 
 damaged and wants only a pilot, the signal wilf 
 be treated as a sismal for a pilot only. The- 
 Racer, 30 L. T. 904"; 2 Asp. il. C. 317. 
 
 Salvors, induced by an ambiguous signal to put 
 off from the shore to the assistance of a ship, are- 
 not entitled to salvage reward, if the actual con- 
 dition of the ship shews that the signal was for a. 
 pilot onlv. The Little Joe, Lush. 88 ; 6 Jur. 
 (K.s.) 783 ; 2 L. T. 473 ; The Otto Hermann, 3S> 
 L. J., Adm. 189. 
 
 Vessel going out of her Course.] — A steam- 
 tug, having a vessel in tow, saw a ship ashore,. 
 and went out of her way to inform, and informed,, 
 another steam-ttig of what she had seen. The 
 other steam-tug thereupon proceeded to the- 
 stranded ship and towed her into safety. In an. 
 action of salvage instituted on behalf of both- 
 steam-tugs against the ship : — Held, that the 
 owners, masters, and crews of both steam-tugs 
 were entitled to salvage remuneration. Thu 
 Sarah, 3 P. D. 39 ; 37 L. T. 831 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 542. 
 
 Barge Ashore.] — A barge ashore on the Grain) 
 Spit, and full of water, brought to Sheerness : — 
 Held, no salvage, because barges commonly- 
 grounded there. The TIpnor, 2 Hag. Adm. 3. 
 
 Expedition to Punish Pirates.] — A ship, 
 whose master and crew had been captured by 
 pirates, was retaken by salvors and afterwards- 
 ransomed. Subsequently the salvors organised 
 an expedition for the purpose of ])unishing the 
 pirates : — Held, that the expedition was not a 
 salvage service. 'J/>e Mar;/, 1 W. Rob. 448. 
 
 Ship engaged to render Service— Other Ship, 
 employed for less Sum. J — When a ship is engaged 
 to lender a-sistimee to atiother ship in distress,, 
 without any fixed sum being agreed upon, and! 
 does remain by ready to give assistance, she 
 cannot be deprived of her right to reward by 
 reason of another vessel offering and being 
 engaged to tow for a less sum than the former 
 shif) is willing to accept, and she will be cntitlecT 
 to recover a fair sum which will leimineratc lier 
 for the .services rendered, and comjionsatc her 
 for the loss she has sustained. 'J'he Maude, 3G- 
 L. T. 26 ; 3 Asp. II. C. 33S. 
 
 Lying alongside Vessel after taking her ta 
 Anchorage. J — When a steam-tug is engaged to- 
 i-cndcr :is^i--ianee to a ship jiground in ilie iiigiit- 
 tinie, and Micceeds in getting lirr off. anil takes 
 her to a safe .inchor.age for the night and lies- 
 alongsjfic of her till morning, the salvage service 
 does not enrl on the siiip being anehored. but the 
 steam-tug is entitled to reward for the time she 
 lies aloiigsirle the ship re.ady to render further 
 assistance if r(.'<|uired. The Philotaxe, 29 L. T. 
 515 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 141. 
 
 Salvor leaving Ship in Distress under Belief 
 that Service no longer wanted. J — Whin a sieani- 
 vhili ha^ liciii en^'aged to tender assistance to- 
 another in distress by towing her to her port of 
 destination, and after several hours' towing, the
 
 607 
 
 SHIPPING— XVIII. Salvage, 
 
 G08 
 
 ships arc parted by no default of the salvor, and 
 the conduct of the ship in distress leads the 
 salvor to the honest belief that his services are 
 ■no lonfjer required, and thereupon the latter pro- 
 ceeds to her own destination, he is not thereby 
 ■deprived of liis right to salvage reward, but upon 
 the other vessel arriving safely in port by her 
 •own exertions, may proceed against her In respect 
 •of the services actually rendered. The Nellie, 
 21 L. T. 516 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 142. 
 
 Transhipping Cargo.] — Cargo transhipped 
 from a stranded vessel in order to be taken to a 
 place of safety : — Held a salvage service. Tlic 
 'Westminster, 1 W. Kob. 22 i). 
 
 Misconduct of Tug rendering Service Neces- 
 
 :sary.] — A tug under a contract to tow, which by 
 Biiscouduct or negligence or want of reasonable 
 equipments, occasions or materally causes danger 
 to the ship in tow, is not entitled to salvage 
 jreward for rescuing the ship from such danger. 
 TJie Jlinncltnha, Ward v. Me Co rh ill, Lush. H3.j ; 
 15 Moore. P. C. 133 ; 30 L. J., Adm. 211 ; 7 Jur. 
 <]S-.S.) 1257 ; 4 L. T. 810 ; 9 W. 11. 925. 
 
 A tug agreed to tow a ship from Liverpool 
 xound the Skerries for a lixed sum. The tug 
 negligently towed the ship in bad weather too 
 aiear a lea shore, and the weather becoming 
 •worse, the hawser parted, and the ship being in 
 -a, position of danger was compelled to let go her 
 .-anchors to avoid being driven on shore. From 
 ihis position she was rescued by the tug after 
 lieing compelled to slip her anchors and chains, 
 which were lost : — Held, that the tug was not 
 •entitled to claim salvage remuneration, and that 
 lier owners were liable to ])ay for her anchors 
 and chains. The livhert Di.run, 5 P. D. 54 ; 42 
 L. T. 334 ; 28 W. K. 716 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 240— 
 <C. A. 
 
 Eecapture from Enemy.] — A master and a 
 boy rescuing their ship from French captors : — 
 Held, entitled to salvage. TheBcaver, 3 C. Piob. 
 292. 
 
 Eecapture of Foreign Ship.] — Foreign ship 
 rescued from the enemy (France) : — Held, that 
 the admii'alty court had jurisdiction if any 
 iBritish subject engaged in the rescue claimed 
 salvage. The Two Frie7ids, 1 C. Iloli. 271. 
 
 Eansoming Captured Ship and Eestoring to 
 •Owner, j — ^^^aivagc awardeil to one wlio raiisuuicd 
 a prize from her captor autl brought her to 
 England. The Henry, Edwards, 192. 
 
 Carrying News of Ship in Distress.] — Carry- 
 ing news of a vessel in distress, so that a tug 
 should go to her, rewarded as a salvage service. 
 Tlie Ocean, 2 W. Eob. 91. 
 
 Fire Ashore — Towing away from.] — Salvage 
 awarded for towing a vessel in dock away from 
 burning warehouses. The Tees, The Pentuehet, 
 Lush. 505. 
 
 Extinguishing in Dock.] — Sec The City 
 
 vf Kewcastlc, infra, ool. G90. 
 
 6. Life Salvage. ^ ■L\ i^ 
 
 Formerly no Power to Award.] — The admi- 
 ralty Couit formerly had no power to award 
 salvage for savi<ng of life, if no property was 
 saved ; 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 75, did not enable 
 justices or the Cinque Ports commissioners to 
 
 award life salvage. The Zephyrus, 1 AV. Piob. 
 329. 
 
 Under 9 & 10 Vict. c. 99.] — Salvage awarded 
 for saving bullion and life under 9 & 10 Vict. 
 c. 99. Silver Bvllion, 2 Spinks, 70. 
 
 Saving Life Enhances Award.] — Saving of 
 life adds to the value of salvage services and 
 leads to a liberal award. The Ardineaple, 3 
 Hag. Adm. 151. 
 
 A liberal award is to be given for the saving 
 of human life, consideration being had to the 
 degree of peril to which the salvors and the 
 persons saved are exposed. The Eastern 
 Monarch, Lush. 81. 
 
 The court will always take into its special 
 consideration the salvation of human life, and 
 give a corresponding reward. Tlie Bartley, 
 Swabey, 198. 
 
 In estimating salvage services the court will 
 be guided above all by the consideration whether 
 there was danger to human life. The Thomas 
 Ficlden, 32 L. .L, Adm. 61. 
 
 Passengers end Crew.] — The words " persons 
 belonging to suclr ship," in the 17 & 18 Vict. 
 c. 104, s. 458, include passengers on board the 
 ship as well as the master and crew ; and who in 
 respect to remuneration for life salvage, stand ou 
 the same footing as the master and crew. The 
 Fusilier, Bliyh v. Simpson, 3 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 
 51 ; 34 L. J.', Adm. 25 : 11 Jur. (N.S.) 289 ; 12 
 L. T. 186; 13 W. 11. 592. 
 
 Liability of Cargo Owners to Contribute.] — 
 
 The ownci's of the cargo are liable to contri- 
 bute to that portion of tlie claim of salvors 
 which arises from saving the lives of passengers, 
 although the salvors may have rendered no direct 
 benefit to the cargo, as the benefit to property is 
 not a criterion of remuneration for life salvage. 
 lb. 
 
 The remuneration of service in life salvage 
 does not rest upon a consideration of any direct 
 benefit conferred upon those upon whom there 
 falls the liability to pay, but rather upon the 
 interest which the community has in encouraging 
 the efforts of salvors ; and upon this ground the 
 owners of cargo on board a salved vessel are 
 liable to a share of the payment of life salvage 
 for the rescue of those on board. Ih. 
 
 Amount.] — The accident of the amount of 
 salvage awarded exceeding the amount of the 
 salvage vessels is wholly immaterial, as the value 
 of such vessel is not an element to detract from 
 the value of the salvage vessel. Ih. 
 
 Twenty-five men, the crews of four boats, 
 saved the lives of ten men, and gave information 
 to a steamboat which rescued others. The ser- 
 vices lasted about four hours and were attended 
 with much danger. Part of the cargo worth 
 40,000Z. having been afterwards recovered, the 
 court awarded the salvors of life 500Z. Schiller, 
 Cargo ex, 2 P. D. 145 ; 36 L. T. 714 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 439— C. A. Affirming 46 L. J., Adm. 9. 
 
 In a case of salvage the court, having out of 
 the proceeds of ship and cargo, amounting to 
 608?., awarded one-half to salvors of property, 
 awarded 150Z. to life salvors taking off the crew, 
 together with costs to both plaintiiSs. The Anna 
 Helena, 49 L. T. 204 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 142. 
 
 Priority.] — Preservation of hum-d,n life is made. 
 by 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 459, a distinct ground
 
 609 
 
 SHIPPING— XVIII. Salvage. 
 
 610 
 
 •of salvage reward, with priority over all other 
 •claims for salvage where the property is insufH- 
 •cient. The Coromandel, Swabey, 205. 
 
 Claim against Specie subsequently Saved by 
 Divers.] — A German steauishi]; was wrecked in 
 British waters, and the lives of ten passengers 
 and some of her crew were saved by certain 
 boats. Subsequently, divers employed by the 
 ■owners of cargo in the steamship succeeded in 
 recovering from the wreck a large amount of 
 specie. A cause of salvage was instituted on 
 fcehalf of the o^vners, masters and crews of the 
 boats against the owneis of the specie : — Held, 
 ithat the plaintiifs were entitled to be paid salvage 
 remuTieration out of the proceeds of the specie. 
 Schiller, Cargo ex, 2 P. D. l-io ; 36 L. T. 7H— 
 C. A. Affirming 46 L. J,, Adm. 9. 
 
 When Salvor, after towing Vessel, abandons 
 ier and Saves Crew.] — When a steamship, 
 having taken in tow a vessel in distress, after 
 towing her for some hours, on the weather gettin^ 
 •worse and the lives of her crew becoming 
 •endangered, takes the crew out of her and finally 
 abandons her in a place where she is afterwards 
 picked up by another vessel and taken into port, 
 the owners, master, and crew of the steamship 
 are entitled to salvage reward in respect of the 
 lives so saved, but not in respect of ship and 
 •cargo. The Eintraclit, 29 L. T. 851 ; 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 198. 
 
 Saving Boats' Crew who left Ship contrary to 
 •Orders. ] — A steam- vessel incurred serious (.[amage 
 by a collision, and her master ordered her boats 
 to be got out. Some of her crew without leave 
 from the master, got into one of the boats and 
 rowed away. The boat's crew was afterwards 
 picked up at sea, and rescued from a pf)sition of 
 <langer, by a smack. In a salvage suit instituted 
 on behalf of the owners and crews of the smack, 
 against the steamship : — Held, that they were 
 •entitled to recover for the service they had 
 rendered. The Cairn, 43 L. J., Adm. 33 ; L. li. 
 4 A. & E. 184 ; 30 L. T. 535 ; 22 W. E. 742 ; 2 
 A.sp. M. C. 257. 
 
 Taking Shipwrecked Persons off Island.]— A 
 ship was wrecked in the Ked Sea oif an island 
 •which was uninhabited and without water. A 
 *hip took the passengers and crew on Ixiard 
 and brouglit them to England : — Held, that the 
 service was not life-salvage. The sum of 200/. 
 wa.s awarded to the ship for services. Wno-su/i//. 
 Oirgo ex, 44 L. J., Achn. 45 ; 33 L. T. 3'.»i ; 
 3 Asp. M. C. 50. 
 
 Ship wholly Lost.]— AVIien lives n?ul cargo 
 have been salved from a ship, but tlic slii|) has 
 J)ecn totally lost, the owners of the cargo are 
 liable to pay salvage in respect of the lives, and 
 the owners of the lost ship are not lial)le tf> con- 
 tribute to such payment. iSurpedon. Curqo ex, 
 'A P. D. 28 ; 37 L. T. 505 ; 26 W. R. 374 ; 3 Asi). 
 
 M. c. m\). 
 
 Award only allowed out of res Salved, j — 
 Life salvage awards can only be made out of the 
 res salved, aTid not against owners of a ship 
 personally. Ih. 
 
 No res Saved — Validity of Agreement.] — A Passengers forwarded from Wreck — Liability 
 steamship was rcrpiested by another steamship I of Shipowner. — Sec The Marhwm, pu|)ra, <jo1. 
 in di.strcss to stand by her. An agreement was i 87. 
 
 VOL. XIII. 20 
 
 accordingly made between thstwo masters for 
 a fixed sum that the sound vessel would remaiu 
 by the damaged one until she was in a snfe 
 position to get to port. The sound vessel 
 remained by the damaged one until the lattei 
 was about to sink, when she took her crew on 
 board, and the damaged steamer immediately 
 afterwards sank. The owners, master and crew 
 of the salving ship brought an action for life 
 salvage : — Held, that as no res was saved the 
 action would not lie either as a salvage action 
 simply or on the agreement. The Renpor, 52 
 L. J., Adm. 49 ; 8 P. D. 115 ; 48 L. T. 887 ; 31 
 W. E. 640 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 98— C. A. 
 
 Not rendered in British Waters.]— A Dutch 
 vessel took fire on the high seas, and some of her 
 crew and some passengers who were on board 
 her escaped in boats, and were picked up by a 
 French schooner. The schooner afterwards fell 
 in with a British steam-vessel, and the persons 
 wlio had been picked up by the schooner were, 
 at their own request, jjut on board the steam 
 vessel, and were carried by her into an Englisli 
 port. The schooner was not within Britisli 
 waters during any portion of the time when the 
 services were rendered : — Held, that the schooner 
 had not rendered services such as to entitle her 
 to claim salvage reward by virtue of the pro- 
 visions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 18,")4, or 
 the Admiralty Court Act, 1861. The Willem. 
 III., L. E. 3 A. & E. 487 ; 25 L. T. 386 ; 20 
 W. E. 216; 1 Asp. M. C. 129. 
 
 Tlie court of admiralty has no original juris- 
 diction to award salvage for the saving of life 
 only: and the 17 ct 18 Vict. c. 104, docs not 
 give the court jurisdiction over salvage of life 
 onl\' performed on the high seas, at a distance of 
 more than three miles from the shores of tlie 
 United Kingdom, at least, if the shii) from whicii 
 the lives are saved is a fnix'ii,'!! shij). It is imma- 
 terial to this (piestion that before action the 
 ship has been brought b_y other salvors into a 
 British port. T/ir Johtninm, Lush. 182 ; 30 
 L. J., Adm. 91 ; 3 L. T. 7:. 7. 
 
 Ship Sunkby Collision— Expense of Raising — 
 Liability of Damages recovered. )— Tiic ihlcn- 
 ilants' vessel having been sunk in the Thames 
 by a collision occasioned by the faidt of another 
 vessel, the conservators, acting uniler 20 & 21 
 Vict. c. cxlvii. 8. 86, caused it to be raised and 
 sold, and tlic jirocccds of the sale being insnlli- 
 cicnt to defray the expenses of raising it. (licy 
 recovered, under s. 86, the amount of thcdcli- 
 ciency from the dcfeiiilants. The defendants on 
 their part recovered the full value of their vessel 
 from the owners of the vessel which was to 
 blame for the collision. In an action for salvage 
 in respect of the ])reservation of the lives of the 
 crew of the tlefendants' vessel at the time of 
 the collision : — Held, that the salvors could 
 not recf)ver ; that the defendants' vessel not 
 having been saved there was nothing to which 
 the claim for life salvage could attach ; and 
 that it would not be preferred against the defen- 
 dants in respc'ct of the amount recovered as 
 damages from the vessel to blame for the 
 collision. The Annie, 56 L. J., Adm. 70 ; lis 
 P. D. 50 ; 56 L. T. •^OO : 35 W. R. 366 ; 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 1 1 7.
 
 611 
 
 SHIPPING— XVIII. Salvage. 
 
 612 
 
 7. Salvage or Towage. 
 a. Towage, not Salvage, 
 
 Where no Danger.]— In a salvage suit pro- 
 moted in resix'cl of certain services wliereby 
 the defcndanfs vessel, which at the time such 
 services were rendered was in neither actual nor 
 imminent proMblc danger, had been safely towed 
 into port :— Held, that such services must be 
 regarded as towage, and not as salvage services. 
 No tender of the amount thereof having been 
 made, such amount could not be recovered in a 
 salva"-e suit. The Stmthnarer, 1 App. Cas. 58 ; 
 3i L.\. 148 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 113— P. C. 
 
 The services of a tug were accepted by a vessel 
 in no danger to carry her into port. A tender of 
 a sum for'towage upheld, there having been no 
 salvage performed. The Jlarlingo; 16 Jur. 729. 
 
 A ship whilst docking in the Mersey got ashore 
 on Pluekington bank, but was pulled ofE by her 
 tugs in a few minutes :— Held, that they were 
 not entitled to salvage. The Lady Egidia, Lush. 
 
 513. 
 
 Towage, as distinguished from salvage, is where 
 the ship has received no injury and encountered 
 no accident. The licward, I W. Rob. 174 ; and 
 see The Princess Alice, 3 W. Eob. 138. 
 
 Contract to Endeavour to Tow into Safety — 
 Failure.] — PlaintifEs in a salvage action had left 
 a vessel ultimately saved by other salvors in a 
 worse position than that in which they picked 
 her up. The court having found that there was 
 an agreement that the plaintiff should endeavour 
 to tow her to a place of safety for a remuneration 
 to be fixed on shore :— Held, that the plaintiffs, 
 having performed the agreement, although not 
 entitled to salvage, were entitled to remuneration 
 for what they had done. The Lepanto, [1892] P. 
 122 ; 66 L. T. 623 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 192. 
 
 Towage Agreement — Alleged Concealment.]— 
 
 The owners and crew of a tug sued for salvage 
 services, alleging that an agreement entered into 
 for towage service was invalid, by reason of the 
 fact of the illness of a great part of the crew of 
 the vessel salved having been withheld. No 
 danger to property was proved : — Held, that 
 there was no salvage service, and the court pro- 
 nounced for the agreement with costs. The 
 Canova, L. R. 1 A. & E. 54 ; 12 Jur. (N.S.) 528. 
 
 b. Salvage, not Towage. 
 
 Steamer's Shaft broken.]— Where a steamship 
 carrying fore and aft sails only, and not rigged 
 for proceeding under sail alone, breaks the main 
 shaft of her propeller and is compelled to take 
 assistance from another ship which tows her 
 forty miles into a port, the service is of a salvage 
 character, although the service is not attended 
 with any danger to the salvors. The Jubilee, 42 
 L. T. 594 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 275. 
 
 Where a steamship, disabled by the breaking 
 of her crank-shaft, was towed a distance of about 
 thirty miles without danger or risk by another 
 steamship belonging to the same owners as the 
 disabled vessel, and fifteen of the crew of the 
 towing vessel instituted a salvage action in the 
 sum of 5,000Z. against the vessel towed, and 
 arrested the vessel, cargo, and freight therem, 
 the court held such services to be salvage services, 
 but of so slight a character that on a value of 
 105,500Z,it awarded lol, and ordered the salvors 
 
 to pay all the costs of the action, expressing dis- 
 approbation both at the institution of the action; 
 in the high court, and at the arrest of the vessel 
 for such an amount. The Agamemnon, 48' L. T.. 
 880 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 92. 
 
 The "V." fell in with the " C," showing signals- 
 of distress, with her propeller shaft broken, about 
 thirty miles out of her usual course from America- 
 to England, and took her in tow. After the " V." 
 had towed the " C." from 8.10 p.m. to 7.45 the 
 hawser broke, and owing to the danger to the- 
 cattle on board, the " V." would not take the " C." 
 again in tow. By the services of the " V." the- 
 " C." was brought ten to fourteen miles nearer hei- 
 proper track, and towed eighty-five miles on her 
 course, and thus brought into greater compara- 
 tive safety. The " C." subsequently arrived safelj 
 at Queenstown : — Held, that the " V." was entitled 
 to some salvage reward, and she was accordingly- 
 awarded 200Z. The Camellia, 53 L. J., Adm. 12 ;, 
 9 P. D. 27 ; 50 L. T, 126 ; 32 W. E. 495 ; 5 Asp. 
 M. 0. 197. 
 
 Towing Disabled Ship.] — Service performed 
 by a steamer to a disabled vessel can never be 
 considered as mere towage. The Charles^ 
 Adolphe, Swabey, 153. 
 
 Tug Engaged in Towing — Service to Third 
 
 Ship.] — A tug with a ship in tow cast her off ia 
 order to pull a steamship off a bank of mud and 
 stones at a harbour mouth, it being then high 
 tide. 50Z. awarded for salvage. Laioson v. 
 Grangemouth Dockyard Co., 15 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 (4th ser.) 753. 
 
 c. Towage converted into Salvage. 
 
 Towage may be Converted into Salvage.] — A 
 
 towage service may, if exceptional circumstances- 
 arise, develop into a salvage service. The Isabella^ 
 3 Hag. Adm. 428. 
 
 An agreement for towage, when from imavoid- 
 able circumstances salvage service becomes neces- 
 sary, does not preclude the tug rendering such 
 service from claiming as salvor. The William 
 Brandt, cited, 2 W. Rob. 172 ; 2 Not. of Cas. 
 Suppl. 67 ; and sec infra, 16. Salvage Agkee- 
 
 MENTS. 
 
 Circumstances under which Towage may 
 I become Salvage.]— In order to entitle a steam-tug: 
 engaged to tow a vessel to successfully claim 
 salvage remuneration for services rendered to 
 such vessel, it must be shown not only that the 
 tow was in danger when the services in respect 
 of which salvage remuneration is claimed were 
 rendered, but that at such time something was 
 done either in the nature of risk run or extra 
 services performed by the tug beyond what was 
 included in the contemplation of the parties of 
 the towage agreement. The Liverjnwl, [1893] 
 P. 154 ; 1 R. 601 ; 68 L. T. 719 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 
 340. , ^. 
 
 A contract to tow embraces the risk of ordinary 
 bad weather, but is put an end to by weather 
 rendering the completion of the undertaking 
 impossible ; and in that case subsequent services 
 may be in the nature of salvage. The Galatea, 
 Swabey, 349 ; 4 Jur. (n.s.) 1004 ; 7 W. E. 21. 
 
 A contract to tow in law implies an engage- 
 ment that each party to the contract will perform 
 his duty in completing it ; that proper skill and 
 diligence will be used on board both the vessel 
 and tug ; and that neither party, by neglect or
 
 613 
 
 SHIPPING— XYIIL Salvage. 
 
 014 
 
 mismanagement, will create unnecessary risk to 
 the other, or increase any risk which might be 
 incidental to the service undertaken. The Julia, 
 14 Moore, P. C. 210 ; Lush. 224. 
 
 If in the course of the performance of the 
 contract, anj' iiievitable accident happens to 
 the one, without any default on the part of the 
 other, no cause of action arises, as sucli accident 
 is one of the necessary risks of the engagement 
 to which each party was subject. But on the 
 other hand, if tlie wrongful act of either occasions 
 any damage to the other, such wrongful act 
 creates a responsibility on the party committing 
 it, if the other party has not by any misconduct, 
 or unskilfulness on his part, contributed to the 
 accident. Ih. 
 
 A contract to tow is not a warranty to tow 
 to destination, but an engagement to use best 
 endeavours and competent skill for that purpose, 
 with a vessel properly equipped. The Minne- 
 haha, Lush. 335 ; 15 Moore. P. C. 133 ; 30 L. J., 
 Adm. 211 ; 7 Jur. (n.S.) 1257 ; 4 L. T. 810 ; 9 
 W. R. 925. 
 
 If performance of the stipulated service is ren- 
 dered impossible by a vis major, the obligation is 
 terminated. Ih. 
 
 If unforeseen danger unavoidable by the steam- 
 tug supervenes to the ship in tow, as by breaking 
 of the hawser, the steam-tug is bound to complete 
 the service, if possible ; and the steam-tug, if 
 thereby incurring risk and performing duties 
 not within the scope of the original engagement, 
 is entitled to salvage reward. Ih. S. P., The 
 Julia, Lush. 224 ; 14 Moore, P. C. 210 ; The I. C. 
 Potter, infra. 
 
 If, in the performance of a contract to tow, an 
 unforeseen and extraordinary peril arises to the 
 vessel towed, the steam-tug is not at liberty to 
 abandon the vessel, but is bound to render to her 
 the necessary assistance, and thereupon becomes 
 entitled to salvage reward. The Saratoga, Lush. 
 318. 
 
 A steam-tug under contract to tow into dock 
 was lashed alongside a vassel ; in rounding to 
 enter the dock basin the tide forced the vessel 
 and the steam-tug close to a landing-stage, the 
 8team-tug next to the stage ; the pilot of the 
 vessel hailed the tug to hold on and go ahead, 
 which the tug did, but was forced against the 
 stage, and injured : — Held, that the steara-tug 
 was bound to endeavour to save the vessel from 
 the im[)ending peril, especially upon the order 
 of the pilot, and so doing was entitled to salvage 
 reward, including repayment of all ihunagcs and 
 losses thereby incurred. Ih. 
 
 When the master of a steamer engages to tow 
 a vessel, it is upon the supposition that tlic wind 
 and weather and the time of perforniing the 
 service will be what are ordinary at the lime of 
 year ; but if an unexpected change of weather 
 or other unforeseen accident occurs, he is bound 
 to adhere to the vessel, and to do all in his power 
 to rescue her from danger ; and he will be 
 entitled to reasonable extra remuneration for the 
 extra service. Th^ White Star, L. K. 1 A. ic E. 
 68. 
 
 A steamer engaged to tow is bound, notwith- 
 standing a merely temporary accident interrupt- 
 ing the service, and endangering the ves-scl 
 towed, to complete the Hti])ulated service with 
 all reasonable skill ami promptitude, and for so 
 doing the steamer, if incurring no risk, is not 
 entitlctl to salvage reward. 7'he Ainwjwlis, The 
 Golden Light, Lush. 355 ; 5 L. T. 37— P. C. 
 
 In order to entitle a steam-tug engaged to tow 
 
 a vessel to successfully claim salvage I'cmunera- 
 tion for services rendered to such vessel, it must 
 be sho^Ti not only that the tow was in danger 
 when the services in respect of which salvage 
 remuneration is claimed were rendered, but that 
 at such time something was done either in the 
 nature of risk run or extra services performed by 
 the tug beyond what was included in the con- 
 templation of the parties in the towasre agree- 
 ment. The Lirerjniol, [1893] P. 154 ; 1 R. 601 ; 
 68 L. T. 719 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 340. 
 
 A steam-tug entered into a contract to tow 
 a ship at sea into the port of Liverpool for 45Z. 
 Dui-ing the performance of the service a hurri- 
 cane arose and the vessels were in serious danger. 
 The tug, at great peril to herself, continued to 
 tow the ship during the hurricane, and by so 
 doing prevented the ship drifting upon a lee- 
 shore. The wind soon afterwards moderated, and 
 the tug, still continuing to tow the ship, brouglit 
 her into the port of Liverpool in safety : — Held, 
 that the tug was entitled to salvage reward. The 
 I. C. Potter, 40 L. J.. Adm. 9 : L. R. 3 A. & E. 
 292 ; 23 L. T. 603 ; 19 W. R. 335. 
 
 Though a towing vessel may be justified in 
 abandoning her contract, it is still her duty tO' 
 remain by the towed vessel to render assistance ; 
 but for sucli assistance she may claim salvage- 
 reward, lb. 
 
 A tug under contract to tow a ship into port 
 may he entitled to salvage reward for bringing 
 the ship into port, although nothing has occurred 
 to occasion an actual interruption to the towage 
 lb. 
 
 Towage of a ship near the land in unsettled 
 weather, if her ground tackle is disabled, is in 
 the nature of salvage. The Albion, Lush. 282. - 
 
 A tug engaged mider th.e ordinary contract to 
 tow, may, by the performance of substantial 
 salvage service in saving the ship towed from 
 supervening danger, earn .salvage reward, though 
 not hei-sclf incurring risk. The Pericles, 13r. i: 
 Lush. 80. 
 
 Fog — Stranding.] — A tug, which had 
 
 been engaged to attend a vessel into harbour, 
 accompanied her to the entrance, when, a fog 
 coming on and before the tug had made fast, the 
 vessel went ashore, and was in a position of 
 danger. The tug assisted to get her off : — Held, 
 that such service was outside the scope of her 
 engagemcnt, and that she was entitled to salvage. 
 Semble, the existence of such an engagement has 
 no practical effect in diminishing the amount of 
 the award. The We.sthiirn, 71 \.. T. 200 ; 8 Asp. 
 M. C. 130. 
 
 Salvage Reward in Addition to Towage.] — 
 Semlili', where owing to an accidfnt to llie tow 
 the tug is tlelayed in tlie performance of the 
 towage contract, tlie tug may, in an action for 
 salvage, be entitled to remuneration beyond the 
 charge for towage. 'J'he Jfjimmett, 49 L. .J., Adm. 
 66 ; 5 P. D. 227 ; 42 L. T.'nU ; 1 As[). M. C. 14. 
 
 8. Salvage ok Pilotage. 
 
 Test.] — The test is, whether the risk attending 
 the services to the vessel was sucli, (hat the pilot 
 could not be reasonably exjiectcfl to ])erfr)rra them 
 for the ordinary pilot's fees, or even for extra- 
 ordinary pilotage reward. A vessel was, during 
 a heavy storm, being driven to leeward towards 
 dangerous sands : her captain was ignorant of the 
 locality, and her loss ajipeared almost inevitable : 
 
 20—2
 
 611 
 
 SHIPPING— XVIII. Salvage. 
 
 616 
 
 some pilots, seeino; her cLanger, put off to sea at 
 the peril of their iivcs in order to assist her ; they 
 were unable to board her by reason of the height 
 of the sea : but by preceding her and signalling 
 to her, thev guided her to a safe anchorage. The 
 vessel had^siistained no damage :— Held, that the 
 idiots were entitled to be remunerated for salvage 
 services. Ahcrhlom v. Price, 50 L. J., Q. B. 029 : 
 7 Q. r.. D. 121) ; 44 L. T. 837 ; 20 W. R. 797 ; 4 
 Asp. M. C. 441— C. A. 
 
 Ship in Distress.] — A fishing-smack fell in near 
 the Long Sand buoy with a foreign steamship. 
 The steamship had been on the sands near the 
 Kentish Knock lightship, but had got off with 
 some damage to her rudder, and had a signal for 
 a pilot hoisted. The master of the smack boarded 
 the steamship and piloted her to the entrance of 
 Harwich harbour :— Held, that the owners, master 
 and crew of the fishing-smack were entitled to 
 salvage remuneration. When a person goes on 
 board of a vessel in distress, and pilots her into 
 harbour, he is entitled to salvage remuneration, 
 unless it is established that he has contracted to 
 render the services for pilotage remuneration 
 only. The Anders Knajie, 48 L. J., Adm. 53 ; 
 4 P, D. 213 ; 40 L. T. 684 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 142. 
 
 Smack engaged to Sail Ahead.] — A foreign 
 vessel fifty miles off the Dutch coast being in 
 difficulty, in consequence of the boisterous state of 
 the weather, and being leaky, called in the assist- 
 ance of an English fishing-smack, and engaged the 
 captain by a written agreement " to pilot and to 
 ('.sail ahead for 50Z." After four days' boisterous 
 weather, during which the captain of the smack 
 •worked at the pumps, the vessel was got into 
 port. In an action for salvage services : — Held, 
 that nothing had been done to convert pilotage 
 service into a salvage service, and that the sum 
 specified in the agreement was a sufficient com- 
 pensation. The Jongc Andvies^iiyNahQY/iQ'd; 11 
 Moore, P. C. 313 ; 6'W. R. 198— P. C. 
 
 Pilotage may, by circumstances of extreme 
 danger and personal exertion, be converted into 
 salvage. The Josej)h Harvey, 1 C. Eob. 306. 
 
 Waterman acting as Pilot.] — A Dutch barque 
 was riding at anchor off Deal, and waiting to 
 proceed down channel, and a waterman who, 
 though not a licensed pilot, was in the habit of 
 piloting vessels, was taken on board her,_under 
 an arrangement whereby he was to receive Is. 
 a-day, with ol. in addition, for navigating the 
 vessel as pilot until she arrived off Beachy Head. 
 The day after the waterman came on board, and 
 whilst the barque was still at anchor, a gale came 
 on, and the tempestuous state of the weather 
 caused the vessel to drive, and rendered it neces- 
 sary to slip the chain, when, under the direction 
 of the waterman, the vessel was taken through 
 the Gull Stream and brought up in safety in 
 Margate Eoads. In a salvage suit instituted on 
 behalf of the waterman and other persons who 
 had rendered services to the vessel : — Held, that 
 the services rendered by the waterman were 
 ■within the scope of his contract, and that he was 
 not entitled to claim as a salvor. The Mollis, 42 
 L. J., Adm. 14 ; L. R. 4 A. & E. 29 ; 28 L. T. 
 41 ; 21 W. R. 704. 
 
 A pilot entering into an engagement to pilot 
 a vessel undertakes to supply local knowledge 
 and the peculiar skill of his class, and will not 
 be allowed, even though he contributes to the 
 safety of the vessel, to change the character of 
 
 his service from pilotage to salvage, except where 
 the vessel was in distress before he went on board 
 to render the service, or where such circum- 
 stances of extreme danger and personal exertion 
 supervene, which exalt his service into a salvage 
 service. Ih. S. P., The Columbus, 2 Hag. Adm. 
 178, n. 
 
 Pilot assisting to Pump.]— Pilots going on 
 board a leaky ship and assisting to pump held to 
 be salvors. The Hehe, 2 W. Rob. 246 ; and see 
 The Joncje Andries, supra. 
 
 Pilot doing Seaman's Duty.] — A pilot on a 
 salveil ship who rendered trifling assistance by 
 helping at the wheel and windlass : — Held, not 
 entitled to salvage. The Monarch, 56 L. J., Adm. 
 114 ; 12 P. D. 5 ; 56 L. T. 204 ; 35 W. R. 292 ; 
 6 Asp. M. C. 90. 
 
 Pilotage by Persons not Pilots.]— Pilotage 
 service by persons who are not licensed pilots in 
 a place where there are no such pilots is salvage 
 service. The Rosehaugh, 1 Spinks, 261. 
 
 Pilot Boat Towing.] — Formerly, pilots were 
 bound to give the use of their boats for towing, 
 if necessary, being paid for damage to the boat 
 and for extra labour. Tender of hOl. for towing 
 a dismasted vessel into Portsmouth upheld. The 
 General Palmer, 2 Hag. Adm. 176 ; The Enter- 
 'prise, infra. 
 
 Pilots waiting for Fine Weather to Board.] — 
 
 Pilots waiting for fair weather to go off to a ship 
 ashore in distress only allowed pilotage, and not 
 salvage, for getting her into harbour. The City 
 of Edlnhuryli, 2 Hag. Adm. 333. 
 
 Pilotage of Ship with Rudder gone.] — Double 
 
 pilotage given to a pilot taking a steamship that 
 had lost her rudder ; semble, the pilot boat towing. 
 The Enterprise, 2 Hag. Adm. 178, n. 
 
 Incompetent Persons acting as Pilots.] — 
 Fishermen who assume to act as salvors to the 
 exclusion of pilots and more competent persons 
 will get no reward if they do no good. The 
 Bygdcn, 1 Not. of Cas. 115. 
 
 Ship that has Lost her Reckoning.]— A foreign 
 ship bound to St. Petersburg from Malaga was 
 boarded in the Bristol Channel by fishermen. 
 Her master did not know where he was. Salvage 
 awarded. The Evgenie, 3 Not. of Cas. 430. 
 
 Ship Put Back to stop Leak.] — An outward 
 bound ship \)\\i back in the English Channel, 
 finding herself making some water ; she put into 
 Dover and the leak was stopped for a trifling 
 expense : — Held, that the pilot who took her 
 into Dover was to be paid for a salvage and not 
 a pilotage service. The Elizaheth, 8 Jur. 363. 
 
 Beachman undertaking Pilotage.] — A Deal 
 man who boarded a ship in the Gull Stream 
 and undertook to pilot her into the Downs, but 
 ultimately put her ashore on Sandwich Flats, 
 from whence she was with difficulty salved : — 
 Held, not entitled to salvage. The Branhen 
 Moor, 3 Hag. Adm. 373. 
 
 Signalling for Pilot or Salvor.]— A vessel in 
 a damaged condition out of pilotage waters 
 signalling for a pilot :— Held, to be signalling for 
 salvage assistance. The Fdix, 1 Spinks, 23, n.
 
 G17 
 
 SHIPPING— XYIII. Salvage. 
 
 618 
 
 SMp out of Pilotage Water.] — Assistance j 
 given to a ship out of pilotage waters to bring 
 her to a place of safety is salvage, not pilotage. 
 The Hcdwig, 1 Spinks,'l9. 
 
 False Claim by Pilot — Costs.] — Pilot wrong- 
 fuU^' claiming salvage condenmed in costs. The 
 Johannes, 6 Not. of Cas. 288, n. 
 
 A steamship put two men on board a foreign 
 galliot brought up between the Needles and 
 Hurst Castle, and she was taken by them to 
 Cowes, the wind being fair but strong : — Held, 
 no salvage service. The WUhelmina,\ Not. of 
 Cas. 37G. 
 
 Ship in Distress — Pilot awarded Salvage.] — 
 A pilot engaged by a foreign ship as such 
 awarded salvage, the ship being daniagcd and 
 the weather bad. The King Oscar, 6 Not. of 
 Cas. 285. 
 
 In an action for salvage it appeared that on 
 March 20, about 11 A.M., the plaintiffs' tishing- 
 smacii fell in with the defendants' vessel which 
 was showing an English Jack flag in her rigging, 
 in the North Sea, forty miles from Lowestoft. 
 The crew of the vessel were suffering from frost- 
 bite, the helmsman in consequence steering with 
 one hand. They were also short of provisions. 
 They told the master of the smack that they 
 wished to be juloted to the nearest port, the 
 vessel being at this time out of pilotage waters, 
 and he agreed to take and took the vessel to 
 Great Yarmouth : — Held, that even assuming 
 that the signal exhibited by the defendants' 
 vessel was ambiguous, the assistance rendered 
 to her was in the circumstances a salvage 
 service, and that tlie jjlaintiffs were entitled to 
 remuneration accordingly. The Aqlaia, .57 
 L. J., Adm. 106 ; 13 P. D. 160 : 59 L. T. 528 ; 37 
 W. K. 255 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 337. 
 
 A pilot is not bound to go on board a vessel in 
 distress for mere jiilotage reward ; but if he go 
 on board as pilot he will not be entitled to 
 salvage rewartl for trifling assistance given to 
 the crew. The Chemhim, Ir. 11. 2 Eq. 172 ; 
 S. P., The Fi-cderich, 1 W. llob. 16. 
 
 9. Who are entiti.kd to. 
 a. Officers and Crews of H. M. Ships. 
 
 General Eule.] — Olliccrs and crews of her 
 majesty's ships are entitled to the same salvage 
 as other salvors ; Vjut the award is diminished Ijy 
 ]-eason of the shij) not being private ])r(>pcrty. 
 The Karl of l^iWnton, Kwabey, 7 ; The Judhtr, 
 3 Not. of Cas.' HO; The IJirell Grorr,:i Hag. 
 A<lm. 2f)0 ; The Wilsonx, 1 W. Hob. 172 ; The 
 Mary Anne, 1 Hag. Adm. 1.58; The Jtnjiid, 
 3 Hag. Adm. 419 ; 'Jhr Jlomlir, 1 Spinks, 188. 
 
 A fiueen's steamsliip assisted a merchant ship 
 in distress under an agreerneni with the admiral 
 at Portsmouth, tliat the latter slmidd pay for 
 all damage and loss of stores to the steamship : 
 — Held, that this did not prevent the otHcers 
 atul crew of the steamship from claiming .salvage. 
 The Lnxtre, 3 Hag. Adm. 154. 
 
 Tlie commander and crew f)f a queen's ship, or 
 of a ship of the Bombay government, have thcsame 
 rights to lemuneration for salvage as th(! master 
 aTid crew of a merchant sliip. The U'onsunr/, 
 Carqo e.v, 1 P. D. 260 ; 35 L. T. 8 ; 25 W. K. 1 : 
 3 Asp. M. C. 239— C. A. Reversing 44 L. J., 
 Adm. 45. 
 
 The commander of a queen's ship, sent to 
 render help to a WTeckcd ship, cannot impose 
 
 terms and refuse to give salvage services unless 
 those terms are accepted. lb. 
 
 Officers and crews of her majesty's ships, on 
 receiving the consent of the admiralty, as 
 required by 17 &; 18 Yict. c. 104, s. 485, may 
 recover. salvage from the owners of the ship and 
 cargo for services rendered thereto, and for 
 salvage services rendered to passengers belonging 
 to the ship. 'The Alma, Lush. 378. 
 
 Whole Ship's Company entitled.] — The officers 
 and crew of a queen's ship who remain on board 
 are entitled to salvage, as well as those who 
 actually perform the service. The Charlotte 
 Wylie, 2 W. Eob. 495. 
 
 Arduous Service — Lightening Ship — Preserva- 
 tion from Eobbery.] — A vessel with a valuable 
 cargo on board, struck on a reef on an unin- 
 habited island in the Eed Sea near the mainland ; 
 and the crew began to jettison part of the cargo, 
 which they threw into shallow water. Armed 
 Arabs then crossed over from the mainland and 
 began to plunder the jettisoned cargo. A 
 queen's ship having come up, her commander 
 anchored near the wrecked vessel, and sent a 
 number of his crew to act as sentinels on the 
 beach of the mainland, who were posted for 
 about a mile along the beach, and were exposed 
 to severe heat. Others of the crew were 
 employed in discharging the cargo, working up 
 to their waists in water in the hold, which was 
 greatly fouled. They threw out the cargo and 
 hauled it across the reef to the mainland, where 
 it was collected by the sentinels and labourers. 
 In an action of salvage by the commander and' 
 crew of the queen's ship : — Held, that the ser- 
 vices rendered by them being beyond the scope 
 of their public duty were salvage services, and 
 that they were entitled to renumcration accord- 
 ingly. Ulyitses, Cargo ex, 58 L. J., Adm. 11 ; 
 13 P. D. 2i)5 ; GO L. T. Ill ; 37 W. 11. 270 ; 6 
 Asp. M. C. 354. 
 
 Ship belonging to or hired by Government.] — 
 A transport shi|), hired by government, and 
 performing by orders of the officer of a (pieen's 
 ship, .salvage services not within the terms of the 
 charteri)arty, is entitled to a share of the amount 
 awarded as salvage. The Nile, 44 L. J., Adm. 
 38; L. U. 4 A. A: E. 449; 33 L. T. CC ; 3 Asp. 
 M. C. 11. 
 
 A ship l)elonging to the PomV)ay government 
 with a hired commander and crew is, with 
 respect to the provisions of tiie Merchant Ship- 
 jiing Act, 1854, s. 4H4, in tlie same jjosition as a 
 (jueun's ship willi commi.ssioned officers. Woo- 
 sung, Cargo r.r, siqira 
 
 Government Transport— Government Stores.] 
 — The owners, nuuster, and crew of a steamship 
 chartered to the government as a t.raii'^port 
 under the ordinary form of government cliaiter, 
 incorporating tlie transport regulations (by 
 wliicli it is provided that "when necessary, 
 steam transports will be rc<iuired to tow other 
 vessels") are entitled to recover for salvage 
 services rendered to a sliip and licr freight, even 
 thougli the services be rendered with the assist- 
 ance of a naval officer and naval seamen, and 
 the salved vessel be laden (inter alia) with 
 government stores. The Jlcrtir, 55 L. T. 520 ; 
 6 A.sp. M. C. 26. 
 
 Board of Trade's "Vessels.]— The P.oard of 
 Trade, as owners of a ste:\m-tug aii<l lifeboat 
 belonging to Piamsgate harbour, may sue for an
 
 619 
 
 SHIPPING— XYIII. Salrarje. 
 
 620 
 
 aAvard of salvage in respect of service rendered 
 bv the steam-tug and lifeboat. The Cyhelc, 47 
 L. J., Adm. 86"; 3 P. D. 8 ; 37 L. T. 773; 20 
 W. R. 345 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 352— C. A. 
 
 Eescue from Enemy.]— Salvage not due to a 
 kings sliip for rescuing from the enemy a hired 
 transport engaged in the same expedition. The 
 Jh'lle, Edwards, 66. 
 
 Service by Queen's Ship to Ship in Service of 
 Foreign Government.] — Salvage awarded where 
 the service was to ship and cargo, and the shi}> 
 alone was arrested and brought before the court. 
 The service was by a queen's ship to a ship^ in 
 I he service of the Fiench government. The 
 Mary Pleasants, Swabey, 224. 
 
 Military Salvors.] — Military salvors awarded 
 civil salvage. The Sii- Francis Burton, 2 Hag. 
 Adm. 156. 
 
 Queen's Ship.] — The officers and crew of the 
 " Dalhousie," a ship in the service of the Bombay 
 Government awarded 4,500Z. out of 22,400/., 
 being the value of cargo salved with difficulty 
 from a ship oshore in the Red Sea and in danger 
 from Arabs. The Dalhovsk, 1 P. D. 271, n. 
 
 Td. Both Ships belong-ingr to same Owners. 
 
 General Kule.] — When salvage services are 
 performed by one ship to another, both ships 
 belonging to the same owners, the master and 
 crew of the ship which has performed the salvage 
 services are entitled to salvage remuneration, 
 provided the services performed are not within 
 the contract which they originally entered into 
 with the owners, and which they would be paid 
 for by their ordinary wages. The Saj/pho, 
 Sappho (Oioners) v. i)<?wf ow, 8 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 
 66 ; 40 L. J., Adm. 47 ; L. R. 3 P. C. 690 ; 24 
 L. T. 795. Affirming 19 W. R. 24. 
 
 The crews of two ships belonging to .J. L., 
 gave some assistance to a third ship chartered by 
 j. L. upon the terms that he should pay the 
 master and crew ; the cargo belonging to J. L. : 
 — Held, that no salvage could be claimed against 
 the third ship. The Maria Jane, 14 Jur. 857. 
 
 A steam vessel laden with a general cargo, 
 became disabled at sea in consequence of her 
 machinery breaking down. Her cargo had been 
 shipped under bills of lading, which contained 
 among the excepted perils "accidents from 
 machinery." Another steam vessel belonging 
 to the same owners fell in with the disabled 
 vessel, and towed her into safety : — Held, that 
 the owners of the vessel rendering the service 
 were entitled to recover salvage remuneration 
 against the cargo laden on board the disabled 
 vessel, and that the master and crew of the 
 vessel rendering the service were entitled to 
 recover salvage remuneration against the dis- 
 abled vessel, her freight and cargo. The Miranda, 
 41 L. J., Adm. 82 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 561 ; 27 L. T. 
 389 ; 21 W. R. 84 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 440. 
 
 Part Owners of Salving and Salved Ship the 
 
 same.]— When a part owner has an interest in 
 the vessel salved, his co-owners and the master 
 and crew of the salving vessel may sue for 
 salvage ; the sum to which they are entitled 
 being computed by deducting, from the value of 
 the entire service, the share which would have 
 been due to such part owner, if he could have 
 joined. The Caroline, Lush. 334 ; 5 L. T. 89. 
 
 Chartered Ship Salving another belonging to 
 the Charterers. J — A sliip chartered by the East 
 India Co. rendered salvage service to a ship 
 owned by the comiiany : — Held salvage was pay- 
 able to the owners of the chartered ship. The 
 Waterloo, 2 Dods. 433. 
 
 Master and Crew entitled, Owners not.] — A 
 
 steamship laden with cargo became disabled at 
 sea in consequence of the breaking of her crank 
 shaft. Such breakage was caused by a latent 
 defect in the shaft, arising from a flaw in the 
 welding, which it was impossible to discover. 
 Her cargo was shipped under bills of lading 
 which contained among the excepted perils " all 
 and every the dangers and accidents of the seas 
 and of navigation of whatsoever nature or kind." 
 Another vessel belonging to the same owners 
 towed the disabled vessel to a place of safety. 
 In an action of salvage brought by |the owners, 
 masters, and crew of the salving vessel against 
 the owners of cargo on the salved ship : — Held, 
 that the master and crew were entitled to salvage, 
 but that the owners were not, for that there was 
 an implied warranty by them that the vessel was 
 seaworthy at the beginning of the voyage. 'The 
 Olenfruin, 54 L. J., Adm. 49 ; 10 P. D. 103 ; 
 52 L. T. 769 ; 33 W. R. 826 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 413. 
 
 Salvage of Cargo — Owners entitled.] — A 
 steamship became disabled at sea owing to the 
 breaking of her fly-wheel shaft, through a flaw 
 in the welding existing at the commencement 
 of the voyage, but not discoverable by the exer- 
 cise of any reasonable care. The cargo on board 
 her was shipped under three bills of lading, the 
 first of which contained, amongst other excepted 
 perils, the clause : — " warranted seaworthy only 
 so far as ordinary care can provide " ; the 
 second : " warranted seaworthy only as far as 
 due care in the appointment or selection of 
 agents, superintendents, pilots, masters, officers, 
 engineers, and crew can ensure it" ; and the 
 third : " owners not to be liable for loss, deten- 
 tion, or damage ... if arising directly or 
 indirectly . . . from latent defects in boilers, 
 machinery, or any part of the vessel in which 
 steam is iised, even existing at time of shipment, 
 provided all reasonable means have been taken 
 to secure efficiency." A vessel belonging to the 
 same owners towed the disabled vessel to a place 
 of safety. In an action of salvage brought by 
 the owners, master and crew of the salving vessel 
 against the owners of cargo in the salved vessel : 
 —Held, that the owners of the salving vessel 
 (though at the same time owners of the salved 
 vessel) were entitled to salvage, and that the 
 owners of the cargo had no remedy for breach 
 of the contract of carriage, for the exceptions in 
 the bills of lading were such as to constitute a 
 limited warranty of seaworthiness at the com- 
 mencement of the voj^age, which limited warranty 
 had been complied with by the ship-owners. 
 Laertes, Carqo ex, 56 L. J., Adm. 108 ; 12 
 P. D. 187 ; 57 L. T. 502 ; 36 W . R. Ill ; 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 174. See also The Agamemnon, .ante, 
 coL 012. 
 
 c. Shipowner or Charterer. 
 
 By agreement between the owner of a steamer 
 and C, he agreed to charter the steamer for the 
 purpose of ranning between certain named ports, 
 and to pay a sum weekly for the use of the
 
 C21 
 
 SHIPPING— XVIII. Salvage. 
 
 622 
 
 «teamer until the agreement was determined in 
 manner therein provided. The agreement pro- 
 Tided that C. should pay all expenses of the 
 crew and other expenses incidental to the 
 running of the steamer, excepting only marine 
 insurance, which was to be defrayed by the 
 owner ; that the steamer should be delivered up 
 by C. on the termination of the agreement in as 
 good condition as at the time of making the 
 agreement, reasonable wear and tear excepted ; 
 that the master should not, except in the event 
 of his misconduct, be removed by C. without 
 oonsent of the owner. The steamer, while 
 running under this agreement, fell in with a 
 •disabled vessel and towed her into safety : — 
 Held, that C. was entitled to salvage reward, in 
 respect of the service rendered by the steamer, 
 and that the owner was not entitled to salvage 
 reward. 2'he Scout, 41 L. J., Adm. 42 ; L. K. 
 3 A. <t E. 512 ; 26 L. T. 371 ; 20 W. R. 617 ; 1 
 Asp. M. C. 258. 
 
 The charterers of a vessel are not, except 
 under very special circumstances, entitled to the 
 salvage earned by that vessel. The Al/ert,. 
 Swal^y, 180. 
 
 The owners rendering salvage services, being 
 also the charterers of the vessel receiving the 
 services, are not, thereby debarred from claim- 
 ing salvage reward, unless the effect of the 
 <;harterparty has been to divest the owners of 
 *>-" possession and control of the salved vessel, 
 and to transfer the same for the time to the 
 <;hartercrs. The Collier, L. R. 1 A. <Sc E. 83 ; 
 12 .Jur. (N.s.) 78!) ; IG L. T. 155. 
 
 The claim of an owner to a share in a salvage 
 reward beyond compensation for damage in- 
 ourrerl by his vessel, is of feeble character, and 
 he has no claim to the custody of such money. 
 The Prinee,i.s JTrhrna, Lush. 190 ; 30 L. J., Adm. 
 137 ; 4 L. T. 8f31i. 
 
 In the absence of special provision in the 
 ■charterparty to the contiary, the owner and not 
 the chartctcr is entitled to salvage ; but the 
 salvage may give rise to claims by the charterer 
 against the owner. The Alfen, Swabcy, 18t). 
 
 Hemble. Salvage performed by a ship (icmised 
 to an<l wholly in the possession of a charterer 
 «nures to the benefit of the charterer. The 
 Marin Jane., 14 Jur. 857. 
 
 The owner of a shij) under charter awarded 
 two-thirds of a prize captured by her. Thunjar 
 •V. Morhy, 3 Mer. 20. 
 
 d. Apprentices. 
 
 Master of Apprentice Salvor.] — Thcma-stcrof 
 an apprentice is not entitled to salvage awarded 
 for the wjrvices of the aijprenticc. The Two 
 Fr'ieiiiU, 2 W. Rob. 349 ; 8 Jur. 1011. 
 
 Ap](renli(x;s are entitled to share in salvage, 
 and a contract that their nia.sters slxiuld fake 
 their shares is, semble, invalid. The Coiuiiihine, 
 ■2 \\\ Rob. 186, 
 
 e. Agrents. 
 
 Authority of Agent to Incur Expenses — 
 ^Principle upon which Award based.] — An ag<.iit 
 is iKif pn.'ludol from claiming as a salvor : but 
 ■Nvhcre the owners of the property in danger liave 
 requesfcod him to render assistance, and thereby 
 have given him a right to some remuneration, 
 though the operations prove unsuccessful, the 
 assessment of the award, for successful salv!ig(; 
 services, will be based upon the principle tliat 
 the agent did not, like an independent aalvor, 
 
 run the risk of the loss of the entire expenditure 
 if his efforts had proved unsuccessful. The Kate 
 B. JoneK, [1892] P. 366 ; 69 L. T. 197 ; 7 Asp., 
 M. C. 332. 
 
 Agent to Salve Cargo.] — One who is appointed 
 agent by the master to save cargo wrecked may, 
 nevertheless, claim as salvor in admiralty. The 
 Uappy lieturn, 2 Hag. Adm. 207. 
 
 Lloyds' Agent Hiring Men to Salve.] — Lloyds' 
 agent hiring men to assist a vessel in distress is 
 not entitled to claim as a salvor. The Lively, 
 3 W. Rob. 64. 
 
 A Lloyds' agent, who had undertaken the 
 salvage of a vessel, and had employed men for 
 the purpose, without incurring risk himself, 
 allowed to claim as salvor. La Purissima Coiu 
 eej)cio)i, 3 W. Rob. 181. 
 
 A valuable ship went ashore off Beachy Head. 
 Two persons, Lloyds' agent and another, as 
 agents, were employed bj' the master to salve the 
 ship and cargo. They employed a large number 
 of men at an expense of over 1 ,000^. : — Held, 
 that they were entitled to salvage. The Lady 
 Cra/iJstoiv/i, cited 2 Hag. Adm. 207. 
 
 Extraordinary Services.] — ^Where ship agents 
 render extraordinary services in saving property, 
 the court will, under particular circumstances, 
 allow a claim as agent and a claim as salvor to 
 be united and combined. Honor, Cargo ex, 35 
 L. J., Adm. 113; L. R. 1 A. & E. 87 ; 12 Jur. 
 (N.S.) 773 ; 15 L. T. 677 ; 15 W. R. 10. 
 
 Repayment of Advance to Salvors.] — ^^loney 
 paid by the ship's agent to salvoi-s, in anticipa- 
 tion of an award, will not be rejjaid out of the 
 fund in court to those who .advance it. 2'he 
 Louisa, 3 W. Rob. 99. 
 
 f. Owner of Salving Ship. 
 
 Ship supplying Seamen — Owners entitled to 
 Salvage.] — Tiie owners, master ami cicw of a 
 ship that supplies seamen in mid-ocian to 
 another that is short handed are entitled to 
 salvage, as well .as the seamen who are trans- 
 ferred. The Roe, Svvabey, 85. 
 
 Owner of Smack Salvor.] — Where services of 
 smackMiiiii arc ai'ci'i.led, the smackowiier is 
 entitled to share in the awartl. The \orden, 
 
 1 Spinlis, 185. 
 
 Owners of Boats used by Salvors.] — Tho 
 
 f)wni;is (if l)ii;its u.-rd in a >;dv;igi" service: — 
 Held, not entitled to .salvage, not iiaving been 
 peisoiiall5' engageil in the service; but to 
 remuneration for the use of their Iwati. Tho 
 Charlotte, 3 \V. Hob. 6H ; 6 Not. of ("as. 279. 
 
 g-. Coastguard and Llg-htship Men. 
 
 Coastguardmen.]— Co.istguar.lniciiare<!ntillcd 
 to salvage, thoni^'h it is their duty to do such 
 work. Silver Jhillion, 2 Spinks, 70. 
 
 Coastguard Officer.]— Claim for salvage of a 
 coastguani otli'-'T who sent his men antl boat, 
 but did nothing himself, rejected. The Vine, 
 
 2 Hag. Adm. 1. 
 
 Lightship Crew.] — Some of the crew of a< 
 lightsliip reiidrrc'l salvage services: — Held, that 
 those wiio remained on board couM not share in 
 the award. The Emma, 3 W. Rob. 151,
 
 623 
 
 SHIPPING— XVIII. Salvage. 
 
 624 
 
 h. Other Persons. 
 
 Lifeboat Crew in Employment of Harbour 
 Authority.] — The Mersey Ducks aiul Harbour 
 J>o;u(l a!J:reoil with a tug owner that the latter 
 slioukl. by day or night, tow their lifeboat to sea 
 at fifteen guineas for each trip. The tug, in 
 pursuance of this agreement, towed out the 
 lifeboat, which rescued the crew of a ship in 
 distress ; afterwards she returned and brought 
 in the ship and cargo : — Held, that the owners, 
 master and crew of the tug were entitled, not- 
 withstanding the agreement with dock company, 
 to claim for life salvage. The Poisacola, Br. 
 & Lush. 307. 
 
 Passenger — Naval Officer.] — A naval officer, 
 being a passenger on board a brig that got into 
 distress, contributed his assistance : — Held, that 
 he could not claim as a salvor. The Bramtori, 
 2 Hag. Adm. 3, n. 
 
 Whole Crews of Boats employed entitled to 
 Share.] — Where two luggers rendered salvage 
 service, all the crews of both were held entitled 
 to share, though some only were employed. The 
 Monntaineer, 2 W. Eob. 7. 
 
 Wrecked Crew on Board Salved Ship.] — A 
 wi'ecked crew on boartl the salved ship awarded 
 salvage for their exertions in salving the ship. 
 The Salaoia, 2 Hag. Adm. 2G2. 
 
 Ship's Company adrift Picking up an Aban- 
 doned Ship.] — A vessel ashore and abandonetl on 
 a reef ofE Cuba was picked up by the crew of 
 another vessel also ashore and abandoned in the 
 neighbourhood and brought to England. Salvage 
 awarded to the crew, but not to the owners, of 
 the other ship. The Twu Friends, 2 W. Eob. 
 349: 8 Jur. 1011. 
 
 Representatives of Deceased Salvors.] — -Share 
 of the salvage awarded to the representatives of 
 salvors who were drowned in the service. Tlie 
 Marquis of Huntly, 3 Hag. Adm. 246. 
 
 Salvors abandoning Ship afterwards Salved by 
 
 others.] — Salvors made great eiforts to save a 
 ship, but were at last compelled to abandon her ; 
 it was uncertain what eifect their action had on 
 the saving of the ship. Afterwards she was 
 picked up derelict and brought in by other 
 salvors : — Held, that the original salvors were 
 entitled to salvage. The E. U., 1 Spinks, 63. 
 
 Crew Returning to Abandoned Ship.] — A ship 
 was, by her master's order, abandoned at sea. 
 The next day her crew, by order of the consul 
 at Vigo, were put on board a steamship, which 
 fell in with the abandoned ship. Part of the 
 crew volunteered to go on board her, without 
 the master : and they did so, and with some 
 assistance from boats, carried her to Corunna : — 
 Held, that they were entitled to salvage. The 
 Florence, 16 Jur. 572. 
 
 Lords of Manors.] — A lord of a manor is not 
 entitled to salvage for taking, against the consent 
 of the owner, and preserving part of a ship 
 thrown on his manor, when the servants of the 
 owner are there to take care of it for him. 
 Sutton V. Buch, 2 Taunt. 302 ; 11 R. R. 585. See 
 also Geere v. lim-kensham, supra, col. 594. 
 
 Beachmen.] — Two fishing smacks fell in with 
 a dereUct vessel, about seventy miles from the 
 
 English coast, and took her in tow after great 
 risk, and two daj'S afterwards brought her close 
 to Yarmouth, when the smacksmen, to expedite^ 
 the completion of the salvage, engaged a steam- 
 tug to take her in tow, but through the mistake- 
 or misconduct of those on board the tug the vessell 
 got aground, whereupon the tug left the smacks- 
 men, went in search of assistance, and, in their 
 temporary absence, a number of beachmen took, 
 possession of the vessel and brought her safely 
 into harbour. The admiralty court held, that,, 
 owing to the misconduct of the tug, the smacks- 
 men's efforts, however meritorious, did not suc- 
 cessfully salve the vessel, and that they were nc/t 
 entitled to share in the salvage, and decreed^ 
 salvage to the beachmen only. Upon appeal, the 
 judgment was reversed, and a liberal salvage.- 
 allowed to the smacksmen. The Atlas, 15 Moore,. 
 P. C. 329 ; 31 L. .J., Adm. 210 ; 8 Jur. (N.s.) 753 ; 
 6 L. T. 737 ; 10 W. R. 850. 
 
 Anchors of Salved Ship Recovered.] — "VVliere- 
 salvors, in getting a ship ofE a sand slipped botlii 
 her anchors, and after getting the ship ofE the 
 sand called in another boat to recover the 
 anchors : — Held, that the people who got the- 
 anchors were not entitled to share in the salvage- 
 award for ship and cargo. The Endeavour, 
 Colley V. Watson, 6 Moore, P. C. 334 ; 6 Not. of 
 Cas. 57. 
 
 Schooner Salvor Superseded by Steamship.] — 
 
 A ship abandoned at sea was taken possession of 
 Vjy a small schooner, and after being towed hj 
 her for some time was boarded and taken to- 
 Liverpool by the steamship. The steamship hadl 
 been hired for the purpose by underwriters of 
 the abandoned ship and cargo. In a salvage- 
 action by these persons : — Held, that the- 
 schooner was entitled to claim as first salvor ;. 
 also, that the hirers of the steamship were 
 entitled to salvage, being justified in taking.- 
 possession, as against the schooner, she being toO' 
 small to accomplish the service. Tlie Pichwieh,. 
 16 Jur. 669. 
 
 Both Ships British.] — It is no answer to a. 
 claim for salvage abroad that both ships v,'ere.- 
 British. The Portia, 9 Jur. 167. 
 
 Civil Salvage awarded to Military Salvors.] — 
 
 Civil salvage awarded to one claiming military- 
 salvage, the ship being in distress at the time. 
 The 'Franklin, 4 C. Rob. 147. S. P., The Louisa^ 
 1 Dods, 317. 
 
 Intention of Salvor — Mistake of Fact.] — 
 
 Where a person renders services in a nature of 
 salvage to a vessel which he at the time bona, 
 fide believes to be his own by purchase or other- 
 wise, he is not precluded from recovering salvage- 
 reward in respect of such services because it 
 turns out in fact that the vessel was not bis. 
 jiroperty. The Lijfey, 58 L. T, 351 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 
 Whole Crew of Salving Ship entitled to Share.] 
 — Those of a ship's crew who go on board the- 
 ship in distress have not an exclusive claim tO' 
 salvage. The rest of the crew, being ready to- 
 assist, are entitled to share. The Baltiniore,. 
 2 Dods. 132. 
 
 Passengers— Cattle-men.] — The "B.," whiLer 
 on a voyage from Boston to Liverpool with live-
 
 G2t 
 
 SHIPPING— XYIII. Salvage. 
 
 626 
 
 cattle, fell in with a derelict ship, and towed her 
 to Queenstown. In an action by the owners, 
 master and crew of the "'B." for salvage, the cattle- 
 men claimed to participate in the award : — Held, 
 that they were not entitled to any share in the 
 salvage award. The Corlolanns, 59 L. J.. Adm. 59 ; 
 15 P. D. 103 ; 62 L. T. 844 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 514. 
 
 Passengers rendering seiwices to ship, where 
 there is a common danger, are not entitled to 
 salvage reward. The Yrede (Lush. 322 ; 30 L. J., 
 Adm. 209), infra. 
 
 Passengers voluntarily remaining on board a 
 vessel injured by a collision, and working at the 
 pumps, are not entitled to salvage. Ih. 
 
 A ship being in danger, and the captain and 
 part of the crew having made their escape, a 
 passenger, at the request of the rest of the crew, 
 took the command, and brought the ship safe to 
 port. The merits of the passenger in saving the 
 ship were acknowledged by the owner in a letter 
 to one of the underwriters, wherein he expressed 
 a desire to make him a compensation : — Held, 
 that the passenger was entitled to sue the owner 
 for the salvage. Newman v. Walters, 3 Bos. & P. 
 612 ; 7 R. R. 886. 
 
 Mate remaining on Vessel abandoned by Crew. ] 
 — Two Vessels came into collision on the high 
 seas. One of the vessels (a barque) received 
 damage, and all her crew, except her mate, 
 escaped on board the other vessel. The mate of 
 the barque remained on board her, and navigated 
 her until he obtained assistance from a steam 
 vessel. The steam vessel then took the barque 
 in tow and brought her into port in safety, the 
 mate still assisting in her navigation : — Held, 
 that, in awarding salvage to the owners, master 
 and crew of the steam vessel, the right of the 
 mate of the damaged ship to claim salvage 
 reward for his services should be taken into con- 
 sideration, and that the mate, upon his claim 
 being brought before the court, was entitled to 
 rank as a salvor. 'The Le Jonet, 41 L. J., Adm. 
 95 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 556 ; 27 L. T. 387 ; 21 W. R. 
 63 ; 1 Asp. M. G. 48S. 
 
 Seamen of Salving Ship.] — Salvage service 
 may be performed by the seamen of the ship 
 salved when an abandonment of her has put an 
 end to their original contract. 'The Vredc 
 (Lush. 322 ; 30 L. J., Adm. 209), supra. 
 
 If, upon a ship being wrecked, the master, 
 improperly disregarding the interests of the 
 owners of ship and cargo, discharges the sea- 
 men, the discharge is nevertlieless valid, unless 
 the seamen are proved to have frau(hdeiitly 
 accepted their discharge ; and suVjseipient services 
 rendered by them to ship and cargo are salvage 
 services. 'The Wai-rinr, Lush. 476 ; 6 L. T. 13:5. 
 
 In order to deprive a seaman of his right to 
 share in salvage, neither the agreement fur tlie 
 vessel to be employed in salvage service, nor the 
 stipulation that he shall waive his claim for 
 salvage, need be in writing to satisfy 25 A: 26 
 Vict. c. 63, H. 18, but both must be clearly proved 
 by those who dispute his right. 'Thi' I'r'ule of 
 Canada, Br. & Lush. 208 ; 9 L. T, 546. 
 
 Contract with Underwriters — Work and 
 Labour — Failure of Underwriters -Liability of 
 Owners.] — Persons rendoiing services in theni- 
 selves of a salvage nature (indcr a cfmtract for 
 work and labour, are excluded from subsequently 
 claiming against the property as salvors in 
 respect of those services, whether the contract 
 
 under which the services are performed be made 
 with the owners of the property- or with third 
 persons, llie Solicay Prince. 65 L. J., Adm. 
 45: [1896] P. 120; 74 L. T. 32 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 
 128. 
 
 See also 5, SALVAGE Services, supra. 
 
 10. Who are Liable to Pay Salvage. 
 
 Ship indirectly Benefited.] — Salvage is not 
 due from the owners of a vessel that only 
 indirectly receives a benefit from salvage services 
 rendered to another vessel driving in her neigh- 
 bourhood. 'The Annaj}olis, The Golden Light, 
 and 'The H. M. Hayes, Lush. 355 ; 5 L. T. 37— 
 P.O. 
 
 Liability of Persons not the actual Owners 
 of Property saved.] — The liability to paj"" 
 salvage is not confined to the actual legal owners- 
 of the property saved, but extends to those who 
 have an interest in that property, which interest 
 has been saved by the placing of the property 
 itself in a position of security. Five Steel 
 Barges, 59 L. J., Adm. 77 ; 15 P. D. 142 ; 6^ 
 L. T. 499 ; 39 W. R. 127 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 580. 
 
 Bail Insufficient — Liability of Appealers.] — 
 
 See 'The Dictator, infra, col. 851. 
 
 Salvage payable by cargo owners in conse- 
 quence of the negligence of the master is- 
 recoverable against the ship, under 24 Vict. 
 c. 10. The rrincess Itoijal, 39 L. J., Adm. 43 j 
 L. R. 3 A. & E. 41 ; 22 L. T. 39. 
 
 Salvage by Ship of same Owners.] — See The 
 
 Waterloo, supra, col. 620. 
 
 Foreign Ship of War.] — Salvage services 
 having been rendered to a Dutch ship of war 
 brought into Mount's Bay, she was arrested in a 
 salvage suit, and 800^ awarded to the salvors. 
 The 'Priiiz Frederik, 2 Dods. 451. N.B.— No 
 application for release of tlie ship was made, and 
 a protest to the jurisdiction having been put in, 
 the case was decided by Sir W. Scott at the 
 request of the Netherlands government. 
 
 Life Salvage— Passengers taken from Wreck.] 
 
 — The owners of a passenger vessel ashore, fron» 
 which, at her master's re(|uest, a passing vessel 
 took the passengers, there being no risk of life, 
 arc not liable for salviigc. 'The Mariposa, 65 
 L. J.. Adm. 104 ; [1896] P. 273 ; 75 L. T. 54 ; 
 45 \V. II. 191 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 159. 
 
 Action in personam— Lies in Admiralty for 
 Salvage.] — 7'/(r Fnc Sfcrl /{argci, siijira. And 
 see 'The JIojic, ami cases infra, col. 60 T. 
 
 11. CONTUIBUTION TO SALVAGE. 
 
 Shipowners.]— The " C," a Spanish steam.ship,. 
 fell in ai sea with the "S.," an Kn;.'lisli sleainshii), 
 with signals of distress flying, and helpless from 
 injuries sustained in a collision. The passengers 
 of the " S." and specie, which had formed part of 
 her cargo, having been tnken on board the " C," 
 attcmprs were made by the " C." to tow the "S." 
 into safely. These attempts were incfl"ectu.al,anfl 
 ultimately, after the master and crew of the " S." 
 had gone on l>oard the '•('.," the "S." wa,s abandoned 
 and her iia.ssciigcrs, master and crew were landed 
 in safety at an English port. Afterwards the
 
 627 
 
 SHIPPING— XVIII. Salvage. 
 
 628 
 
 specie was arrested in an action for salvage 
 instituted at the suit of the owners, master and 
 crew of the •' C," who claimed to recover for life 
 salvage and for salvage services rendered to the 
 ■" S." and the specie. The owners of the specie 
 appeared as defendants, and served a notice on 
 the owners of the " S." to contribute to the remu- 
 neration claimed by the plaintiffs. Thereupon 
 the owners of the " S." appeared. At the hearing 
 the court awarded salvage to the plaintiffs for 
 the services rendered, but reserved all questions 
 as to the liability of the owners of the " S." The 
 ownei-s of the specie then moved the court to 
 declare that such portion of the sum awarded as 
 svas awarded for life salvage ought to be 
 recouped to the owners of the specie. The court 
 refused the motion, on the ground that no pro- 
 perty belonging to the owners of the " S." having 
 been salved, they could not be held personally 
 liable to pay any portion of the sum awarded. 
 The. Sarpcdon, Cargo ex, 3 P. D. 28 ; 37 L. T. 505 ; 
 26 W. 11. 374 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 509. 
 
 Shipowner and Owner of Cargo.]— The pay- 
 ment into court of 8L a ton under 25 & 26 Vict. 
 c. 63, s. 5Jr, does not place the shipowner in the 
 position of a person who has not done wrong. 
 The owner of a ship sunk by a collision in the 
 Thames admitted it to be his fault, and paid 
 into court 8Z. a ton in a suit to limit his liability. 
 The Thames conservators having powers under 
 the Eemoval of Wrecks Act, 1877, and the 
 Thames Conservancy Acts, raised the ship and 
 delivered the-, ship and cargo to the owner, he 
 undertaking to pay the expenses of raising. 
 Part of the cargo was some wool, which was 
 damaged by being sunk : — Held, that the ship- 
 owner was bound to deliver the wool to the 
 owner of the wool without claiming from him 
 by way of contribution to salvage any part of 
 the expenses of raising the ship and cargo. The 
 Ettrick or Pn-lin v. Bailey, 6 P. D. 127 ; 45 L. T. 
 S'J'J ; -i Asp. M. C. 465 — C. A. Affirming 50 L. J., 
 Adm. 65. 
 
 Ship and cargo must each pay its own share 
 of salvage ; neither can be made liable for the 
 salvage due from the other, whether the salvors 
 proceed in the admiralty court or before the local 
 magistrates. The I'yrennee, Br. & Lush. 189. 
 
 The owners of goods on board a ship are bound 
 to contribute to the general salvage of the ship 
 and cargo as in a case of general salvage. -Brif/ys 
 V. Mercliant Traders'' Ship, Loan and Assurance 
 ^Society, 13 Q. B. 167 ; 18 L. J., Q. B. 178 ; 13 
 Jur. 787. 
 
 Negligent Navigation — Eight of Owner of 
 <3argo against Shipowner.] — The plaintiffs under 
 a chartcrparty shipped a large quantity of rye 
 on board one of the defendants' ships, to be 
 carried from the port of T. to the port of A. 
 Owing to the negligent navigation of the defen- 
 dants' servants the ship was cast ashore, and a 
 large quantity of the rye was lost ; but a con- 
 siderable quantity was saved by the Salvage 
 Association, who were employed by the under- 
 writers of the cargo with the assent of the 
 •defendants. The average statement was pre- 
 pared, and the sum assessed was agreed to by 
 tthe plaintiffs, and the Salvage Association were 
 paid by the underwriters the expenses claimed 
 by them. The plaintiffs brought their action to 
 recover the amount of the salvage expenses so paid 
 
 The question of law involved in the case was 
 reserved for further consiileration. The defen- 
 dants contended that they were not liable 
 because the plaintiffs themselves had not paid 
 the expenses, and the payment under the cir- 
 cumstances was voluntary : — Held, on further 
 consideration, that the iilaintiffs were entitled to 
 recover the amount of the salvage expenses, as 
 without their being incurred, the remainder of 
 the cargo could not have been sent to its 
 destination, which was for the benefit of the 
 defendants, and that the payment under the 
 circumstances was not voluntary. Searamanya 
 V. Marrpunul, 53 L. T. 810 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 506— 
 C. A. Affirming 1 Cab. & E. 500. 
 
 Shipowner and Charterer.] — Where a ship 
 was chartered on the voyage out and home, 
 at 11. 10*-. per ton, register measurement, per 
 month, 2,500Z. to be paid on clearing outwards, 
 the like sum at the end of twelve months, and 
 the remainder three months after being reported 
 at the custom-house on her return : and the 
 ship delivered her outward cargo, and sailed 
 with her homeward cargo, and was captured and 
 I'ecaptured on the homeward voyage ; and the 
 ship and cargo were sold by consent of all parties, 
 the owners and charterers having respectively 
 made claim in the admiralty court to ship and 
 goods, where restitution was decreed to them 
 upon payment of salvage : — Held, that the char- 
 terers (having paid the two sums of 2,500Z.) 
 were not liable to contribute to the shipowner 
 for salvage in respect of their goods, where the 
 proceeds of the goods fell short of the sum due 
 for the residue of the freight ; but that the 
 shipowner, in respect of the freight, was liable 
 for the whole salvage ; and the charterers 
 having paid such contribution out of the pro- 
 ceeds of the goods, under a security given by 
 them for payment of the salvage, with the assent 
 of the shipowner as far as his liability was con- 
 cerned : — Held, that they might set it off in an 
 action by the owner for the residue of the 
 freight. Secus, as to the charges of establishing 
 the claim to the cargo, and procuring the decree 
 for its restitution : for the charterers alone were 
 liable to them. Cox v. May, 4 M. & S. 152 ; 16 
 R. R. 422. 
 
 Ships in Collision.] — Two vessels came into 
 collision. The court pronounced them both in 
 fault. One vessel was subsequently abandoned, 
 but salved by other parties : — Held, that the 
 owners of the abandoned vessel could not 
 recover the salvage awarded against them from 
 the other vessel. ^ The Linda, 4 Jur. (N.s.) 146 ; 
 6 W. R. 196. 
 
 Bnllion — Liability to Contribute.] — Where 
 
 steam-tugs rendered salvage services by towing a 
 sinking ship with passengers, cargo and bullion 
 on board into safety, it was held, that the bullion 
 was liable to contribute to the salvage reward in 
 proportion to its value rateably with the other 
 property salved. The Longford, 50 L. J.. Adm. 
 28 ; 6 P. D. 60 ; 44 L. T. 254 ; 29 W. R. 491 ; 4 
 Asp. M. C. 385. But see The Emma, infra. 
 
 Smacksmen warped a derelict off a rock and 
 put her in a position where part of some bullion 
 on board could be, and was, taken away by her 
 master. She afterwards sank, and was subse- 
 luently weighed and taken to Harwich by other 
 
 by the underwriters. The plaintiffs recovered a I salvors :— Held, that all the salvors should share 
 verdict for an amount to be settled out of court, lalike, and that the bullion taken off by the
 
 629 
 
 SHIPPIXG— XYIII. Salvage. 
 
 630 
 
 master must contribute. Tlie Jongc Bastiaan, 
 5 C. Kob. 322. 
 
 Cargo-owners not before Court. J — A sum of 
 40uZ. was decreed in pursuance of an agreement 
 for salvage to ship, cargo and freight ; the values 
 of ship and freight only being then kno\ATi, and 
 the cargo-owners not before the court. Separate 
 proceedings were afterwards taken against the 
 cargo-owners, who oifered to pay their share of 
 the" 400Z. upon the nett proceeds of the cargo : — 
 Held, that in ascertaining the nett proceeds, dis- 
 count and other accustomed charges might be 
 deducted, and that the costs of the original pro- 
 ceedings must be borne rateably by the cargo- 
 owners, though not then before the court. The 
 J'eace, Swabey, 115. 
 
 Ship and Cargo salved Assessed together.] — 
 The court assesses the salvage award upon the 
 ship and cargo as a whole, and each pays its 
 rateable share of the sum awarded, without 
 reference to the fact that the services were of 
 greater value to the one property than to the 
 other : except onlv in case of bullion saved. 
 The Emma, 2 W. llob. 315 ; 3 Not. of Cas. 114. 
 l?ot followed in The Longford, supra. 
 
 Agreement by Shipowner to pay Salvage — 
 
 Xiability for Salvage of Cargo.] — See The Frin: 
 llcaiv'ich. intra, cul. G5-1. 
 
 Amount awarded paid to Shipowners — 
 ^Enforcing Payment to Seamen.] — No action is 
 maintainable by a .seaman for his share of salvage 
 awarded by two justices, under 17 & 18 Vict. 
 c. 104, s. 4(;b, and paid to the owner of the salvor 
 vessel. AtlmiHDn v. Wondall, 1 H. i: C. 170; 
 31 L. J., Ex. 352 ; 8 Jur. (N.s.) 720 ; 6 L. T. 3G1 ; 
 low. II. C71. 
 
 Lender on Bottomry.] — Not liable to con- 
 tribute Ui salvage. Walpule v. Ewer, Park, 
 Marine Insurance (8th ed.) 898 ; Juijce v. 
 Williamson, 3 Dougl. 162. 
 
 12. Derkmct axd Wreck. 
 
 Derelict — What is.] — A laden barge acci- 
 dentally breaking loose from her moorings in the 
 Thames, and drifting aVjout with no one on board, 
 is not derelict, and consc'iuently not wreck within 
 the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 
 (17 ic 18 Vict. c. 104), and persons finding her 
 and mooring her in safety are not jirecluiledfrom 
 recovering salvage for so doing Ity reason of 
 their neglecting to comply with the provisions 
 of a. 4.50, and Ui deliver the barge to tlie receiver 
 of wreck. The Xeta, 44 L. J., Adm. 22 ; L. 11. 
 4 A. & E. 400 ; 33 L. T. 477 ; 24 W. 11. 180 ; 3 
 As]). M. C. 73. 
 
 When on the alarm attending a collision the 
 crew of oik; vessel jumjjS on board the other, such 
 abandonment does not of itself constitute a case 
 of derelict. The Fcnix, Swabey, 13. 
 
 In the case of a derelict the salvors have a 
 right to exclusive possession of the vessel ; 
 unless it has been utterly abandoned, and is in 
 contem])lation of law a derelict, the occupying 
 salvors arc bound to give up charge to the 
 master on his appearing and claiming charge, 
 and the master may then refuse to coutimie 
 to employ them, and may employ others, and 
 may take what measures he thinks fit for the 
 preservation of the vessel. The Chanijnon, 
 Br. i; Lush. 69. 
 
 Where a vessel was picked up with four to five 
 feet water in the hold, her compasses and the 
 seamen's clothes having been taken off, the 
 court pronounced against her as a derelict, 
 though it did not appear that her crew had left 
 sine spe recuperandi. 2'he Gertrude, 30 L. J., 
 Adm. 130. 
 
 A vessel having run ashore on the coast of 
 Essex, was assisted by the owner of a smack, 
 who put down an anchor and a hawser attached 
 to the vessel for the purpose of securing her. 
 The smack then left her, for the pm-pose of 
 carrying away some of her stores, with the 
 intention, however, of returning. The owner 
 of another smack came to her afterwards, and 
 finding no one in or near the vessel, and her 
 deck under water, took away the anchor and 
 hawser, and delivered them up to the deputy 
 vice-admiral of Essex : — Held, that the anchor 
 and hawser were not parted with, or left and 
 abandoned, within 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 75, s. 1, and 
 that the deputy vice-admiral was not justified in 
 detaining them until salvage was paid or security 
 given for its payment. Clark v. Chamberlain, 
 2 M. & W. 78 ; 2 Gale, 217. 
 
 Abandonment of, by Salvors — Eight to 
 
 Eemuneration.] — The barque "N."fell in with 
 the ■• K.," a derelict barque, in the Atlantic, and 
 ))ut five hands on board of her, who navigated 
 her for three days. The " K." then fell in with 
 the barque " B.," and the five hands on board of the 
 " K." were, at their own request, taken on board 
 the " B, " The " B." then sent some of her own crew 
 on board the " K.," and took her in tow, and 
 towed her till the tow-rope broke, when the vessels 
 parted company, and the hands on board the "'K.," 
 with the assistance of the "L.," a steamship which 
 they afterwards fell in with, brought the "K."into 
 Falmouth. In suits instituted on behalf of the 
 masters, owners and crews of the " N.," the "B." 
 and the " L.," the court helil, that the master, 
 owners and crew of the " N." were not cntitleil to 
 salvage reward, but awarded salvage to the 
 remaining plaintiffs. The Killeena, 51 L. J., 
 A.lm. 11 ; G 1". D. U»3 ; 45 L. T. 621 ; 30 \V. li. 
 33y ; 4 Asp. M. C. 472. 
 
 Wreck.] — Timber which has been moored on 
 a river (some miles above a harl)our) opposite to 
 the owners' premises, and has drifted therefrom 
 to the sea, in consequence of an accidental 
 loosening of the fastenings, is not a wreck 
 within 17 A: IS Vict. c. 101, s. 458, entitling the 
 justices to make an award for salvage, and the 
 salvors, obligees of a bond given by the owner 
 to al)idc this award, are not entitled to sue on 
 sucli bond. Palmer v. Rinmr, 3 il. ic N. 505 ; 
 27 L. J., Ex. 437 ; (! W. U. 674. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the admiralty subsists as 
 long as the shore is covered witli water, and the 
 rights of lonls of manors can exist only as long 
 as the land is left dry. Therefore a ship cannot 
 l>e considered "wrccicum maris," nor the claim 
 of a lord of the manor to wreck sustained, unless 
 .it the time of taking jjossessitm she is either on 
 the shore itself or left high and dry on land. 
 The Pauline, 2 W. Kob. 35H ; U .Jur. 2.H0. Sco 
 also Stackj>ole v. Jlri/., Ir. U. 9 Eq. OIU— C. A. 
 
 641 
 
 Award in case of.] — See 13, Awaud, cols. 632, 
 
 Ship abandoned by Captors.— A ship that had 
 been capture<l and afterwards abandoned by tho
 
 G31 
 
 SHIPPING— XVIII. Salvage. 
 
 632 
 
 enemy ^Yas picked up at sea by suh-ors : — Held, 
 tliat she was not derelict. The John and Jane, 
 4 C. Eob. 216. 
 
 A ship captured by the enemy and abandoned 
 Ity the captors was picked up and brought into 
 safety. A moiety of her .value awarded for 
 salvage, as for a derelict. The Lord Nelson, 
 Edwards, 79. 
 
 13. Award. 
 
 a. Generally. 
 
 Principles discussed.] — Principles governing 
 amount of award discussed. The Salacia, 2 Hag. 
 Adm. 2G2. 
 
 Not Assessed on quantum meruit Principle.] 
 
 — Salvage expenses are not assessed upon the 
 quantum meruit principle, but on the general 
 principle of maritime law, rewarding persons 
 who by great, and perhaps dangerous, exertions 
 bring in a ship, for which exertions, if not suc- 
 cessful, nothing would have been paid. Aitehi- 
 son V. Lohre, 49 L. J., Q. B. 123 ; 4 App. Cas. 
 7.55 ; 41 L. T. 323 ; 28 W. E. 1 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 IfiS— H. L. (E.) See also The Be Bay, infra, 
 col. 636. 
 
 Salvage is not to be calculated merely at the 
 rate of work, labour, or by the number of hours 
 occupied ; risk, value and public policy are also 
 to be considered. The Bidustry, 3 Hag. Adm. 
 203. Cf. The Hector, 3 Hag. Adni. 90 ; Nicholson 
 V. Chajjman, 2 H. Bl. 254. 
 
 Short Time Occupied in Rendering Service.] — 
 
 Wliere salvage services are rendered by steam- 
 ships, the amount of salvage which the court 
 will award is not necessarily affected by the fact 
 of the services performed occupying only a short 
 time. The Northumherland v. The Andalusia, 
 12 L. T. 584. And see The Strathgarry, infra, 
 col. 657. 
 
 Amount for wMch Action entered not neces- 
 sarily the Limit. ]^The sum for which the action 
 is entered is not necessarily the limit of what 
 may be awarded. The Jonge Bastiaan, 5 C. Rob. 
 .323. And see The Bictator, infra, col. 976. 
 
 Value — Effect on Award.] — Although the 
 quantum of remuneration to salvors is to some 
 extent to be affected by the value of the property 
 salved, it must not ho. raised to an amount 
 altogether out of proportion to the services 
 actually rendered. The Amcrique, L. R. 6 P. C. 
 468 ; 31 L. T. 854 ; 23 W. R. 488 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 460. 
 
 Large value of the property salved is con- 
 sidered chiefly with reference to the adequacy of 
 the fund out of which the award is made. The 
 James Bixon, 2 L. T. 696. And see The Werra, 
 infra, col. 637. 
 
 Where the property salved is small a large 
 proportion of its value is awarded ; where it is 
 large, a smaUer proportion ; in derelict (formerly) 
 half the value was given to salvors, Tlie Blenden 
 Hall, 1 Dods. 414. 
 
 Value, how Calculated.] — Salvors are entitled 
 upon a value calculated at the place where their 
 services terminated. The Norma, Lush. 124 ; 
 5 L. T. 340. 
 
 The value of freight salved is to be reckoned 
 pro rata itineris peracti, and the other equities 
 of the case. lb. 
 
 A ship bound from Honduras to England was 
 disabled on the voyage, and towed into Bermuda^ 
 where expenses nearly equal to the whole freight 
 were incurred to refit ; the voyage home was 
 afterwards completed, and the cargo delivered. 
 The court allowed salvage upon one-half of the 
 total gross freight. Ih. 
 
 The value stated by the owners of salved! 
 property in proceedings before commissioners is- 
 not conclusive upon the salvor, even though 
 assented to at the time. The Hope, 14 W. R. 
 467. 
 
 The value of the salved property is to be takcii 
 at the place to which it is taken by the salvors ; 
 when carried away and sold elsewhere, the cost 
 of carriage and other charges being deducted 
 from the proceeds of sale and a further per- 
 centage if the market is a better one. The 
 George Bean, Swabey, 290. 
 
 Salvors took itp money upon bottomry of ther 
 salved ship : — Held, that the amount of the bond 
 and wages earned subsequently to the service ; 
 but (semble) not wages earned before, were to 
 be deducted from the value of the property, out 
 of which the award was to be made. The SelinUy 
 2 Not. of Cas. 18. 
 
 Expenses of Pumping, &c.] — Expenses in- 
 curred in salving a vessel, such as pumping, 
 watching, &c., which strictly ought to be paid by 
 the marshal, will, if paid by the salvors, be 
 deducted by the court from the value of the 
 salved vessel in assessing the salvage reward. 
 The Le Jonet, 41 L. J., Adm. 95 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 
 556 ; 27 L. T. 387 ; 21 W. E. 83 ; 3 Asp. M. C, 
 438. 
 
 Wages, Deduction of.] — "Wages earned after 
 the salved ship has been brought into port are 
 not to be deducted from the freight upon which 
 salvage is earned. The Emma, 4 W. R. 91. 
 
 Suit entered against Vessel alone.] — Her 
 majesty's steamship "Leopard" rendered a sal- 
 vage service to an English vessel then in the ser- 
 vice of the French government, and laden with a 
 valuable cargo. The suit was entered against 
 the vessel alone, her value being 4,247Z. The 
 court, adverting to the difficulty of apportioning- 
 salvage where the cargo was not before it, 
 awarded 600Z. on the value of the vessel. The- 
 Mary Pleasants, Swabey, 224. 
 
 Eule as to a Moiety.] — A moiety of the value 
 of the salved property awarded in a case of very 
 great merit in the salvors, who had to contend 
 with weather, armed resistance on shore and 
 danger of infection. The Elliotta, 2 Dods. 75. 
 
 No precedent of more than a moiety being 
 given for salvage of a derelict being forthcoming, 
 a moiety awarded and costs out of the other 
 moiety. The Frances Mary, 2 Hag. Adm. 89. 
 
 Except in very special cases no more than- 
 half the value of the ]iroperty salved will be 
 awarded as salvage. The Inca, Gore v. Bethel, 
 12 Moore P. C. 189 ; Swabey, 370. But see The- 
 Basche, and cases, post, col. 641. 
 
 In Case of Derelict.]— See c. Derelict, 
 
 infra, coL 641. 
 
 Appraisement — Fresh Appraisement oa 
 Appeal.] —Upon appeal from justices in a salvage 
 case a fresh api)raisemcnt was made at the ship- 
 owners' request, although they had made no
 
 633 
 
 SHIPPING— XVIII. Salvacje. 
 
 634 
 
 objection to the appraisement in the court below. 
 Tlie Oscar, 2 Hag. Adm. 257. 
 
 Decree Altered or Amended in conse- 
 quence of Mistake in Value of Cargo.]— Salvage 
 services having been renderetl to a ship laden 
 ■with cargo, a salvage suit was instituted against 
 ship, freight and cargo. Separate appearances 
 were entered on behalf of the owner of the ship 
 and the o^sTier of the cargo. The owner of the 
 cargo filed an affidavit of value stating the value 
 •of the cargo, and the owner of the ship filed an 
 affidavit of value stating the value of the ship 
 and freight. At the hearing, the court, taking 
 these values as accurate, by its decree awarded 
 to the salvore a certain sum as salvage. Some 
 time afterwards, the o%vner of the cargo dis- 
 covered that he had by mistake included in his 
 valuation of the cargo the value of the freight, 
 and that the freight was of more value than 
 appeared by the affidavit of value filed on behalf 
 of the o^vner of the ship, and he made applica- 
 tion to reduce the value of the cargo, and to 
 reduce the amount it had previously decreed as 
 salvage. On the mistake being proved : — Held, 
 that the court had power to correct the mistake 
 and to make the necessary alterations in the 
 decree. I'he James Armstrong, L. R. 4 A. & E. 
 380 ; 33 L. T. 39U. 
 
 Appraisement is Binding.] — An appraise- 
 ment by order of the court liinds both parties 
 to a salvage action ; the court will not after 
 appraisement, at the instance of the owner, 
 order the property to be sokl in order to ascertain 
 its value. The R. M. Mills, 3 L. T. 513 ; Venus, 
 Cargo ex, L. R. 1 A. & E. 50 ; 12 Jur. (n.s.) 
 379 ; 14 W. R. 460. 
 
 Awards to Salvors absorbing whole 
 
 Proceeds — Application to vary Decree.] — In an 
 action of salvage the plaintiifs obtained an 
 award of 1,500/. upon an appraised value of the 
 defendants' ship of 1,250Z., and of her cargo of 
 5,004^. ; total, 0,254/. The ship was subsequently 
 sold by the marshal for 713/., the cargo, which 
 was of a nature not readily saleable in this 
 country, for 1,640/., and the total, 2,362/., was 
 reduced bj' fees and disbursements to 1,625/. An 
 award of 130/. obtained by the pilot and lUO/. Ijy 
 boatmen in sejiaratc actions in I'espect of the 
 same salvage operations brought the total salvage 
 claims up to 1,730/., which more than absorbed 
 the whole proceeds. On motion by the defen- 
 dants to vary the decree by reducing tlie award 
 of 1,500/. : — Held, tliat the application nmst be 
 refused, a.s the defendants had allowed the court 
 to proceed to award salvage upon the basis of 
 the appraisement without taking any exception 
 at the time, and, beyond the dillerencc between 
 the appraised value and the sum realised by the 
 sale, there was nothing to indicate that the 
 appraisement did not fairly represent the value 
 at the tin)c and place when the property was 
 brought into safety. The (leorg, [1894] P. 330 ; 
 71 L. T. 22 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 476. 
 
 Valuation of Salved Property made Abroad — 
 ■Court unwilling to open.] — I'he court is un- 
 willing to disturb a valuation of the salved 
 ])roi)erty made by arbitration abroad by agree- 
 ment between the foreign consignees and the 
 ealvors. Tlie Sir Francis Burton, 2 Hag. Adm. 
 156. 
 
 Whore no application is made in the court 
 
 below for a commission of appraisement, the 
 court of appeal will not admit affidavits directed 
 to shew that the value of the salved property 
 was greater than supposed in the court below. 
 The Endcavovr, Colhy v. Watson, 6 Moore, P. C. 
 334 ; 6 Not. of Gas. 27— P. C. 
 
 Consideration of Risk.] — In awarding the 
 amount for salvage services well performed, the 
 court holds the shortness of the duration of such 
 services as an element of meritoriousness ; and 
 where the amount of projierty salved is ver}- 
 large, the court will not talce advantage of the 
 extent of such amount further than to give a 
 liberal reward, according to meritoriousness of 
 the services actually performed. Tlic United 
 Kingdom v. The Syrian, 14 L. T. 833. And see 
 The Werra, infra, col. 637. 
 
 In estimating the value of salvage services, 
 circumstances, among others, to be considered 
 by the court are, the degree of danger to which 
 the vessel was exposed, and from which she was 
 rescued by the salvors, the mode in which the 
 services of the salvors were applied, and the risk 
 incurred hy the salvors in rendering those ser- 
 vices. The Chetah. 38 L. J., Adra.^1 ; L. R. 2 
 P. C. 205 ; 5 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 278 ; 19 L. T. 621. 
 —P.O. 
 
 In estimating salvage reward to the owners of 
 the salving vessels, the circumstances that the 
 salving vessel deviating from her course might 
 have vitiated the insurance, the possibility of 
 being answerable to the owners of the cargo for 
 such deviation, and the exposure to danger of 
 the salving ship, in rendering salvage services, 
 are elements to be taken into consideration. 
 The Sir Ralph Ahercromhie, 4 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 
 374 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 454. 
 
 Where no special risk has been incurred by 
 the salvors, salvage reward is allotted upon a 
 calculation of a fair remuneration for time and 
 trouble to the owners of the salving vessel and 
 to each hand engaged. The Otto Ilerinann, 33 
 L. J., Adm. 189. 
 
 Where tlierc is danger to the salvors, the risk 
 of life receives the greatest remuneration. ///. 
 
 A lower scale of remuneration is given where 
 the vessel salved is not one of present danger, 
 but a case of urgency. lb. 
 
 The lowest where, a vessel being disabled from 
 ])roceeding, as in the case of a steam vessel in 
 want of fuel, there is a possible contingency of 
 serious conse(iuences. Ih. 
 
 In all cases, the value of the vessel salving is 
 regarded, and to whatever remuneration is given 
 must be added a sum to meet any damage she 
 sustains. lb. 
 
 Great Danger incurred by Salvors.] — 
 
 Salvage services of a highly meritorious character 
 liaving been performed by salvors, in saving the 
 lives of the crew, an<l the shiji and cargo having 
 been valued at KiiitOO/., tlie admiralty court 
 awai'ded l.OOf)/. as salvage for such services: — 
 Held, that tlie sum was insufficient, and the 
 remuneration increased to 2,000/., in consi<lera- 
 tion of the great danger the salvors incurred, and 
 of the fact of saving of lives, and the value of the 
 ship and cargo. The Glenduror, Arwdd v. C'owir, 
 L. R. 3 P. C. 589 ; 24 L. T. 499 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 31. 
 
 Steamships— Time and Expense.] — Where a 
 
 steamshi]) gncs out of port for the jiurposc of 
 rendering salvage service to the vessel in distress, 
 the time and expense incurred in reaching her ia
 
 635 
 
 SHIPPING— XVIII. Salvage. 
 
 63(> 
 
 to be taken into account in fixing the award. 
 The Graces, 2 W. Kob. 294. 
 
 Steamships — Liberal Awards to.] — Steam 
 vessels are iniiiortaul agents in salvage services, 
 and their owners will be adctiuately rewarded. 
 The Spirit of the Aqe, Swabey, 286. Cf., The 
 Jiaihes:, 1 Hag. Adm. 246 ; The Earl Grey, 3 Hag. 
 Achn. 363 ; The Martin Lvther, Swabey, 287 ; 
 The London Merchant, 3 Hag. Adm. 394 ; The 
 Ella Constance, IT) L. J., Adm. 191 ; The Santi- 
 pore, 1 Spinks, 231 ; The Medora, 5 Not. of Cas. 
 156 ; The General Palmer, o Not. of Cas. 159, n. 
 
 The capability of steamers to perform services 
 with greater rapidity and certainty entitles them 
 as salvors to a higher scale of reward. The Otto 
 Hermann, 33 L.' J., Adm. 189. See also The 
 Palmyra, 25 L. T. 884 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 182. 
 
 Liberal Awards generally— Public Policy 
 
 of.] — The interests of commerce and public policy 
 require that liberal rewards should be given to 
 salvors. The Sarah, 1 C. Rob. 313, n. S. P., 
 The William Beehford, 3 C. Rob. 355. 
 
 Against Passenger Ships.] — Liberal 
 
 awards are given against great passenger and 
 mail steamship companies. The London Mer- 
 chant, 3 Hag. Adm. 394 ; The ArdincajJle, 3 Hag. 
 Adm. 151. 
 
 Nautical Skill.] — Salvage award is estimated 
 upon the consideration that nautical skill en- 
 hances the value of manual labour. The Duhe 
 of Clarence, 1 W. Rob. 346. 
 
 Loss of possible Earnings.] — The loss of pos- 
 sible profit of fishing boats is not to be included 
 in an award of salvage for services rendered by 
 them. The Nicolai Heinrich, 17 Jur. 329. S. P., 
 The Louisa, 3 W. Rob. 99. And see The Sunni- 
 side, infra. 
 
 A specific sum (1,000Z.) awarded for loss of a 
 sealing voyage incurred by the salvors. The 
 Salacia, 2 Hag. Adm. 262. 
 
 Salving and Salved Ships associated.] — Where 
 the salving and salved ships are associated in a 
 voyage in a common interest, a lesser amount of 
 salvage is awarded than where the ships are 
 wholly independent of each other and the salvage 
 accidental. The Trelawney, 4 C. Rob. 223, 228. 
 
 Sum accepted by other Salvors immaterial.] — 
 
 The amount at which other salvors have esti- 
 mated their services is immaterial. The Antelope, 
 27 L. T. 663 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 477. 
 
 Damage to Salvor. — If a vessel rendering 
 salvage services is damaged without negligence 
 on her own part, she is entitled to recover the 
 damage and demurrage during repairs from the 
 salved vessel. The Mud Hopper, 40 L. T. 462 ; 
 4 Asp. M. C. 403. 
 
 Where the salvors' vessel is injured or lost 
 whilst engaged in the salvage service, the pre- 
 sumption is that the injury or loss was caused 
 by the necessities of the servi«e, and the burden 
 of proof is on the parties alleging that the loss 
 was caused by the default of the salvors. The 
 Thomas Blyth, Lush. 16. 
 
 Where the property saved is ample, losses 
 voluntarily incurred by the salvor should be 
 transferred to the owner of the property saved, 
 and in addition the salvor should receive a com- 
 
 pensation for his exertions and for the risk he 
 runs of not receiving any compensation in the 
 event of his services proving ineft'ectual. The 
 De Bay. Bird v. Gihh, 52 L. J., P. C. 57 ; 8 App, 
 Cas. 599; 49 L. T. 414 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 156— P. C 
 The losses should be ascertained with preeisio'/ 
 where practicable, but in that case the salvagts. 
 remuneration added thereto should be fixed on 
 a more moderate scale than where the losses, 
 cannot be fixed with precision. lb. 
 
 In an action for salvage, evidence of the loss 
 of earnings by and of the costs of repairing: 
 damage done to the salving vessel in consequence 
 of rendering salvage services is admissible. These 
 sums are only to be regarded as elements for con- 
 siderationin estimating the amount of the salvage 
 reward, and are not to be considered as fixed 
 amounts to be awarded to the salvors in respect 
 of these matters. The Stinniside. 52 L. J., Adm. 76 ; 
 8 P. D. 137 ; 49 L. T. 401 ; 31 W. R. 859 ; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 140. 
 
 In an action of salvage, in which the value of 
 the salving steamer was 85,000/., and of he> 
 cargo and freight 104,047Z., and of the salvec' 
 steamer 90,000L, and of her cargo and freight 
 89,535Z., the court awarded 4,500Z. to the owners, 
 500Z. to the master, and 1,500Z. to the crew, 
 During the hearing the owners tendered evi- 
 dence of the particular injuries to their steamer 
 caused by the performance of the services, of 
 the costs of the repairs, and of the pecuniary 
 loss caused by the detention of their steamei 
 whilst such repairs were being executed : the. 
 com't refused to receive this evidence, or to 
 refer it to the registrar and merchants to assess 
 the amount of such costs and losses : — Held, on 
 appeal, that the judge of the admiralty court; 
 is not bound ex debito justitiee to admit such 
 evidence or to decree in terms that a specific and 
 ascertained amount shall be paid to salvors in 
 respect of damages or costs caused by rendering 
 salvage services, for he is not bound always to- 
 award a sum sufficient to indemnify a salvor. 
 But the judge may, in his discretion, receive 
 siich evidence, and may, if it be proper, under 
 the circumstances, include an amount in respect 
 of damages in his award. Having regard to the 
 large value in the present case, the decree should 
 be varied by awarding l.OOOZ. to the shipowners 
 for the actual services rendered, and by referring 
 the costs of repairs to, and of the detention of 
 the salvor's steamer, to be ascertained by the 
 registrar and merchants, unless the appellants, 
 were willing that the decree of the court below 
 should stand. The City of Chester, 53 L. J., Adm. 
 90 ; 9 P. D. 182 ; 51 L. T. 485 ; 33 W. R. 104 ; 
 5 Asp. M. C. 311.— C. A. 
 
 Loss of Information leading to Profitable 
 Employment.] — A paragraph in a statement of 
 claim for salvage, stating that by rendering the 
 salvage service, the salving vessel had been pre- 
 vented from obtaining information which would 
 have resulted in profitable employment, ordered 
 to be struck out, as relating to matters which 
 the court could not take into consideration in 
 estimating the value of the services. The Cylele, 
 47 L. J., Adm. 86 ; 3 P. D. 8 ; 37 L. T. 773 ; 26. 
 W. R. 345 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 532— C. A. 
 
 Excessive Claim.] — Where a steamship, dis- 
 abled by the breaking of her crank-shaft, was 
 towed a distance of about thirty miles without 
 danger or risk by another steamship belonging to- 
 the same owners as the disabled vessel, and
 
 637 
 
 SHIPPING— XYIII. Salvage. 
 
 638 
 
 fifteen of the crew of the towing vessel instituted 
 a salvage action in the sum of 5,000/. against the 
 vessel towed, and arrested the vessel, cargo and 
 freight therein, the court held such services to 
 be salvage services, but of so slight a character 
 that on a value of 105,500/. it awarded 15Z., and 
 ordered the salvors to pay all the costs of the 
 action, expressing disapprobation both at the 
 institution of the action in the high court, and 
 at the arrest of the vessel for such an amount. 
 TJie Afjameimion, 48 L. T. 880 ; 5 Asp. M. C. t>2. 
 
 8,006Z. claimed, GOOZ. awarded. Evil conse- 
 quences of excessive demands insisted upon. 
 The Kimrod, 14 Jur. 942. 
 
 5,00OZ. claimed, 15/. awarded. See The A(ja- 
 memnon, supra. 
 
 Value of Property — Perils of Salving Ship — 
 Possibility of Assistance — Character of Service.] 
 — In estimating the amount of a salvage remu- 
 neration the court takes into consideration, first, 
 the value of the property saved, and next the 
 actual perils from which it has been saved. In 
 considering the perils, the possibility of assist- 
 ance being rendered to the vessel in peril must 
 be taken to lessen the amount to be awarded. 
 The value of the salving ship will not substan- 
 tially affect the amount of the reward, but the 
 length of time to which she is exposed to addi- 
 tional risks is a material element for considera- 
 tion. The M'cnri. 5G L. J., Adm. 53 ; 12 P. D. 52 ; 
 56 L. T. 580 ; 35 W. R. 552 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 115. 
 
 Loss to Salvors.] — Where salvage services have 
 occasioned the salvors serious pecuniary loss, and 
 where the value of the ship and cargo saved is 
 ample not only to defray loss sustained by a 
 salvor, in addition to a proper sum for the master 
 and crew, but also to leave a substantial surplus 
 for the owner of the property saved, the salvor 
 should be remunerated where possible with a sum 
 sufficient to reward him for the risk and labour, 
 and to cover damages and expenses incurred 
 through rendering the service, and evidence of 
 the damages and expenses ought to be received 
 by the judge, so that they may be ascertained 
 vrith precision. Per Baggallay and Lindley, 
 L.J J. The City of Chester, infra. 
 
 Where the property saved is ample, losses 
 voluntarily incurred by the salvor should be 
 transferred to the owner of the property saved, 
 and in addition the salvor should receive a com- 
 pensation for his exertions and for the risk he 
 runs of not receiving any compcnsatioTi in the 
 event of his services proving ineffectual. The 
 I)e nay, Jiird v. Gihh, 52 L. J., P. C. 57 ; 8 App. 
 Cas. oS'y ; 49 L. T. 414 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 15G— P. C. 
 
 The losses should be ascertained with precision 
 where practicaljlc, but in that case the sidvage 
 remuneration added thereto should be fixed on a 
 more moderate scale than where the losses cannot 
 be fixed with jirecision. Ih. 
 
 Eepairs Ordered by Salvors.] — Repairs to a 
 Halved vessel, ordered by tlie salvors, for which 
 the shijiwright has a lien, will not be dealt with 
 by the court in a sulvaL'c suit. The Ruinijer, 2 
 Hag. Adm. 42. 
 
 DiiFerent Rates of Salvage for Ship and 
 Cargo — Specific Parts of Cargo.] — An awanl of 
 <lifi'urent rates of salvage for ship and different 
 jiarts of the cargo is unusual and inconvenient, 
 mxl will not be made ; nor is it now the practice 
 10 award specific parts of the cargo. Tlie Vesta, 
 2 Hag. Adm. 189. 
 
 Saving of Life enhances Award.] — In esti- 
 mating the value cf salvage services the court 
 will be guided above all by the consideration of 
 whether there was danger to life. The Thomas 
 Fielden, .32 L. J., Adm. 61. And see 6, Life 
 Salvage, supra. 
 
 Award Affected by Misconduct.]— &(? 4, Mis- 
 conduct, OR Want of .Skill, supra, cols. 
 599 et seq. 
 
 b. Amounts Awarded. 
 
 Amounts Awarded.] — A sum of 400/. was 
 decreed, in pursuance of an agreement for that 
 sum, for salvage service to ship, cargo and freight. 
 The value of ship and freight only were then 
 known. Afterwards the owners of the cargo were 
 proceeded against, and offered to pay their pro- 
 portion of the 400/. upon the net proceeds of cargo ; 
 — Held, in ascertaining nett value of the cargo, 
 that 2 J per cent, discount, and certain other items 
 sworn to be accustomed charges, might be 
 deducted, but not a gratuity of 5/. ^s. to the 
 master, and that costs of the original proceedings 
 must be borne by the owners of the cargo pro- 
 portionably with the owners of the ship, though 
 the former were not before the court when the 
 decree was made. The Peace, Swabey, 115 ; 4 
 W. K. 635. 
 
 A collier steamer of the value of 5,000/., bound 
 from Newcastle to Seville with a cargo, fell in, 
 in the English Channel, with a large American 
 ship, totally disabled by tempest. A boat, at 
 great peril, was sent on boanl, and the vessel 
 taken in tow, and brought safely into Portland. 
 The value of the property saved was 52,000/. 
 The court awarded to the salvors 2,800/. — 1,500/. 
 to the owners, 500/. to the master, 800/. to the 
 crew, and double shares to the seamen who 
 boarded in the boat. The St. Nicholas, Lush. 
 29. 
 
 The " Grenada," 684 tons register, bound from 
 Singapore to Liverpool, with a general cargo, fell 
 in, when about four days' sail from Chili, with 
 the barque " Golondrina," 475 tons register, laden 
 with a cargo of copper rcgulus, bound from 
 Chanaval, in Chili, for Swansea, and in distress, 
 her first and sccoikI mate having deserted her 
 previously to her departure from Chanaval, and 
 her ma-ster having jumped overboard in a 
 deranged state of mind from drinking. At th(! 
 request of the crew of the banpie, the master of 
 the "Grenada" put on board her his second mate, 
 who, after great dilHculty, brought the baniue 
 safely into Swansea. The value of the proi)erly 
 saved amounted to 2G,(l(H)/. The court awarded 
 to the salvors 1,800/.— l,Oii(»/. to the owners. 3(I0/. 
 to the second mate, 200/. to the master, and 3()(t/. 
 to the crew, to be distributed according to their 
 ratings. The (inlondrina, L. U. 1 A. i^ 10. 331. 
 
 Salvage services were rendered by fourst earners ; 
 one had come into collision witli the vessel salved, 
 and was found to blame, and she rendered the 
 principal services. The value of the property 
 salved was 22,200/. :— IleM, that the three vessels 
 not to blame were entitled to reward. And the 
 court awarded 310/. The (ileiujahrr, 41 L. J., 
 Adm. 84 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 534 ; 27 L. T. 386 ; 21 
 W. R. 168. , , 
 
 Twenty-five men, thecrcwsof four boats, saved 
 the lives of ten men, and gave information to a 
 steamboat, which rescued others. The services 
 lasted .aVjout four hours, and were atten<led with 
 much danger. Part of the cargo, of the value ot
 
 639 
 
 SHIPPING— XVIII. Sahcuje. 
 
 640 
 
 40,000?., liavinof been aftorwavds recovered, the 
 court awarded the salvors of life .500^. So/iiUrr, 
 Cargo ex, 2 P. 1). Uo ; 36 L. T, 714 ; 3 Asp. M. G. 
 226'; 3 Asp. M. C. 439— C. A. 
 
 In a most meritorious case of salvage, where a 
 stearashi]) which had got aground on the shore 
 of the lied Sea, ninety -five miles from Suez, in 
 such a position that without help she must before 
 many hours had elapsed have been lost with all 
 hands on board her, was towed off the shore and 
 to within a few miles of Suez by another steam- 
 ship, the court, on a valire of 62,000Z., awarded 
 to the salvors 6,000Z. The. Lancaster, 9 P. D. 14 ; 
 49 L. T. 705 ; 36 W. E. 608 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 58— C. A. 
 
 In case of a salvage, where the services mainly 
 consisted in towing a large steamer, disabled in 
 her machinery, in the Atlantic Ocean, in the 
 winter, for six and a half days into safety at 
 Halifax, the value of the salved vessel, her cargo 
 and freight being 90,000Z., and the owners of the 
 salving vessel having incurred expenses in conse- 
 quence of deviation and delay, the court made a 
 salvage award of 5,o50Z., awarding to the owners 
 of the salving vessel 4,225Z., to her master 375/., and 
 to her crew 750Z. The Edenmore, [1893] P. 79 ; 
 1 R. 574 ; 69 L. T. 230 ; 41 W. R. 654 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 334. 
 
 A vessel having got ashore on the Parkin rock, 
 in the Red Sea, her master and part of the crew 
 proceeded to Aden tor assistance. During their 
 absence the crew left on board were driven away 
 hj Arab wreckers, but the vessel was never per- 
 manently abandoned. Three steamers rendered 
 valuable services to the vessel, and finally suc- 
 ceeded in getting her off the rocks and saving 
 part of her cargo. The value of the vessel for the 
 purposes of the action was taken to be 3,750?. 
 The court awarded 2,000Z. as salvage. The Erato, 
 57 L. J., P. 107 ; 13 P. D. 163 ; 59 L. T. 840 ; 6 
 Asp. M. C. 334. 
 
 The value of the property salved was 12,663?., 
 and the total award made by the court for salvage 
 was 4,200?. The Killeena, supra, col. 630. 
 
 A mail steamer lost her propeller. 1,200?. 
 awarded for towing her to Malta. The Ullora, 
 Lush. 550. 
 
 A ship worth, with cargo, 13,400?.. struck on 
 the Goodwins and came off leaking badly. She 
 was assisted to Sheerness by two luggers, fourteen 
 men pumping, and arrived with nine feet of water 
 in her. 400?. awarded and the hire of two tugs. 
 The Jan Henclrich, 1 Spinks, 181. 
 
 500?. awarded for towing property worth 
 40,000?. off a mud bank off Sumatra ; no risk. 
 The Rajasthan, Swabey, 171. 
 
 A vessel was sunk at the mouth of the Thames 
 with brandy on board. After great expense 
 (2,300?.) and labour she was partly raised, and 
 brandy worth 14,352?. recovered. 9,000?. was 
 awarded to the salvors. The Jubilee, 3 Hag. Adm. 
 43, n. 
 
 A steamship bound to England fell in with 
 another disabled in the Bay of Biscay. She towed 
 the latter into Plymouth. The value salved was 
 4,060?. Tender of 800? upheld with costs. The 
 Paris, 1 Spinks, 289. 
 
 400?. awarded for getting a ship and cargo 
 worth 17,337?. off the rocks, near Holyhead, by 
 thirty-four hands and a pilot laying out anchors. 
 The Persia, 1 Spinks, 166. 
 
 Tender of 50?. to three smacks for piloting a 
 ship out of the sands at the mouth of the Thames 
 to the Nore upheld. The Funchal, 3 Hag. Adm. 
 886, n. 
 
 A smack awarded 100?. for salvage, though she 
 
 did little or no good, the real salvage being per- 
 fomied by others. Tlte Albion, 3 Hag. Adm. 
 234. 
 
 A salvage service by smacks towing for five 
 days : about one-fourth (1,100?.) of the value 
 (4,600?.) awarded. The Albion, 3 Hag. Adm. 
 254. 
 
 A vessel supplying her mate to another in 
 distress, her master having been drowned, awarded 
 1,000?. ; the mate having been satisfied. Tlie 
 Janet Mitchell, Swabey, 111. 
 
 Salvage of a steamship worth 75,000?., with her 
 shaft broken in the Red Sea, by towing her for 
 ten days. 4,000?. awarded ; 3,000?. of which was 
 awarded to the owners of the salving steamship. 
 The Kenmure Castle, 7 P. D. 47 ; 47 L. T. 661 ; 
 30 W. R. 708 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 27. 
 
 Towing a dismasted vessel from off Ushant to 
 Plymouth, value 12,000?. 1,500?. awarded— 600?. 
 to owners, 400?. to master, 500?. to crew. The 
 Martin Luther, Swabey, 287. 
 
 Tender of twenty guineas to a pilot and six men 
 for taking a ship ashore off Haslar into Portsmouth 
 overruled, and eighty guineas awarded. The 
 Kicvlas Witzcn, 3 Hag. Adm. 369. 
 
 Treasure to the amountof 150,000?. salved with 
 difficulty by a king's ship from another king's 
 ship sunk and abandoned. Award, 29,000?. for 
 salvage and the expenses of the salving ship 
 during the service. The Thetis, 2 Knapp, 390 — 
 P. C. See S. C, 3 Hag. Adm. 14, 98, 228. 
 
 Ship ashore on the coast of Ireland worth, with 
 cargo, 3,960?. Award to coastguard officer and 
 boat's crew who boarded the ship with some peril, 
 120?. ; to owners and crew of steamship that 
 towed her to Cork, 330?. The Hebe, 7 Not. of 
 Gas. Suppl. i. 
 
 A steamship towing another (value 21,000?.) 
 with propeller broken, without much risk or 
 difficulty, into safety, awarded 500?. for salvage. 
 The Vulcan v. The Belin, 9 Ct. of Sess. Gas. 
 (4th ser.) 1057. 
 
 Capture from Enemy by Non-commissioned 
 
 Captors.] — See The Haase, infra, col. 950. 
 
 10?. awarded to a boat for helping to pass a 
 hawser from a ship ashore on a rock to a steam- 
 tug. Walker v. North of Scotland Steam Kavi- 
 gation Co., 19 Gt. of Sess. Gas. (4th ser.) 386. 
 
 A fire broke out on board a vessel which was 
 lying alongside a jetty at the entrance to a dock. 
 The vessel was under repairs, with no steam up, 
 and had no one but her master and a watchman 
 on board. At the request of her master a steam- 
 ship, which had just arrived, hove alongside, and, 
 getting her hose on board the burning vessel, 
 extinguished the fire, which, if it had remained 
 unchecked, would have caused very serious 
 damage. The services were such as might have 
 been rendered by a fire engine on shore. The 
 value of the salved vessel was 9,500?. The defen- 
 dants tendered 200?. The court upheld the 
 tender, being of opinion that the services were 
 not of such a character as to require that the 
 award should be assessed upon the same liberal 
 principles as obtain in the ordinary cases of sea 
 salvage rendered by one ship to another. The 
 City (rf Newcastle, 71 L. T. 848 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 546. 
 
 A ship and cargo worth 12,000?,, towed from a 
 dangerous position on the East Hoyle bank to 
 Hoylake in three hours by a tug or salving steam- 
 ship worth 4,000?., awarded 1,000?. Tlw Tra rellcr, 
 3 Hag. Adm. 370. 
 
 A steamship awarded 5,000?. for pulling another, 
 worth 40,000?., off a mud-bank (Sumatra Bank)
 
 641 
 
 SHIPPING— XVIII. Salvage. 
 
 in a position of danger, but with no danger, and 
 <lelay of a few houi-s, to herself. The Rajasthan, 
 iiwalwy, 171. 
 
 A moiety allotted to the master and sole owner. 
 Ih. 
 
 The master and a boafs crew, at great rislj to 
 themselves, rowed to a dismasted vessel with 
 some of her crew sick. They rigged a jury-mast, 
 iind, with their ship, a whaler, towed her for six 
 <lays to Plymouth. Value, 7,000/. Award, 1,200L ; 
 lOhl. to owners, 200Z. to master, 2UZ. to each boat- 
 man, and the rest to the crew according to their 
 shares in the voyage. The Jane, 2 Hag. Adm. oBS. 
 
 Two-thirds of the property awarded where the 
 vessel sank after being got ofi the rocks by one 
 «et of salvors, and was afterwards weighed and 
 brought into Harwich, and bulHon on board 
 saved. The Jonge Bastiaan, 5 C. Rob. 322. And see 
 The Lon/)ford. supra, col. 628 ; The Peace, supra, 
 •col. 629. 
 
 A tubular craft, constructed for the purpose of 
 bringing to England Cleopatra's Needle, was aban- 
 <loned in the Bay of Biscay, and next day picked 
 Ti[) and brought to England. Her value being 
 -iioMOl., 2,006Z. was awarded for salvage ; 1,200Z. 
 to owners, 2nOZ. to master, and the rest to the 
 ■crew. The Cleopatra, 47 L. J., Adm. 72 ; 3 P. D. 
 144. 
 
 c. Derelict. 
 
 Rule as to Moiety.] — Derelict, being sine spe 
 iecu[)eraudi, is distinguishable from salvage in 
 the amount awarded. The Inca. Gore v. Bethel. 
 12 Moore, P. C. 18'J ; Swabey, 370. 
 
 A moiety of the value of the vessel and cargo, 
 in a case of the salvage of a derelict, was formerly 
 the amount awarded, but the maritime courts now 
 :give only such amount a.s is fit and proper with 
 reference to all the circumstances of the case, 
 having regard esi)ccially to the value of the 
 }(roperty salved. The h-indiu, 4 IMoore. P. C. 
 <N.s.) 84 ; L. 11. 1 P. C. 241 ; 12 Jur. (x.s.) .534. 
 S. P., The Splenrlid, 12 L. T. 585. The Mincrra, 
 \V. 11. 81— P. C. 
 
 A ship on a voyage from Melbourne to London 
 fell in with a derelict brigantiiie 220 miles to 
 the westward of the Lizard, in tlie month of 
 February, anil i)ut an officer and tliree hands on 
 hoard her, who, under circumstances of great 
 ■•lifiiculty and danger, and after much hardsliip, 
 brought her in .safety to Liverpool. In a salvage 
 ftuit instituted on behalf of the owners, master 
 iinil crew of the ship, the com-t, after directing 
 <;.\pense8 incurred liy the salvors to be paid to 
 •them out of the i)rocee(ls of the salved property, 
 awardc<l more than a moiety of the residue as 
 salvage reward. The Buxrhe, 42 L. .L, A(hn. 71 ; 
 L. Pt. 4 A. A: E. 127 ; 22 W. 11. 240. 
 
 Two-fifths, and some additional sums to sub- 
 isequcnt .salvors, awarded. The Queen Mah, 3 
 Hag. Adm. 242. 
 
 A moiety of a derelict, brought in with great 
 li-k and courage, awarded. 'J'he ]}, .1/. J/zV/.v, 
 3 L. T. 513. 
 
 A moiety of tlic value awarded for salvage of a 
 derelict. In no case where a claim has been 
 ^iven for a private owner has more than a moiety 
 been awarded for salvage. V Esvcrancc, 1 Dods. 
 46. 
 
 The ancient rule of awarding salvors of dere- 
 lict half the value of the pioiierty is no longer 
 observed ; the amount of salvage in such cases 
 is now in the discretion of the court. The 
 Af/itila, 1 C. liob, 37. 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 642 
 
 A moiety of the value of a derelict, after deduc- 
 tion of expenses of salvors for a tug and men to 
 bring her in, awarded to salvors. A person who 
 hired labourers to unload the stranded ship held 
 not entitled to salvage award, but to remuneration 
 for his services. The Watt, 2 W. Piob. 70. 
 
 A moiety of the value of a ship picked up 
 derelict awarded for salvage ; expense of appraise- 
 ment paid out of the other moiety. The Britannia, 
 3 Hag. Adm. 153. Cf. The Effort, 3 Hag. Adm. 
 165. 
 
 Derelict Boiler.] — Where five men having 
 found a derelict marine boiler floating in the sea, 
 pulled it ashore and hauled it beyond high water, 
 the court, in a default salvage action, out of 58Z., the 
 net proceeds of the said boiler, awarded 'M. and 
 costs. Elephant, Boiler ex, 64 L. T. 543. 
 
 See The Mark Lane, infra. 
 
 What is Derelict.]— A ship from which the 
 crew and bullion were taken, she being in a sink- 
 ing state, and her crew refusing to stay by her, 
 treated as a derelict for salvage purposes. A 
 moiety of the value of the bullion awarded. The 
 Cohimiia, 3 Hag. Adm. 428. 
 
 Ship left Ashore.] — A ship and cargo are 
 
 not necessarily derelict because they have been 
 left on the Shipwash, an off-lying sand. Tho 
 Barefoot, 14 Jur. 841. 
 
 Recapture.] — A British ship, recaptured 
 
 by a man and boy from her French captors, 
 claimed as derelict by a frigate that had rendered 
 salvage service. One-sixth, 1,000/., awarded to 
 man and boy ; 500/. to the king's ship : — Held, 
 no derelict. The Bearer, 3 C. liob. 2'J2. 
 
 Spes Recuperandi.] — A vessel abandoned by 
 her master and crew on the Hasborough Sands, 
 in fear of their lives, is a derelict. The Sarah 
 Bell, 4 Not. of Cas. 144. 
 
 For salvage purposes a ship may be derelict, 
 t hough expectation of recovering lier is entertained 
 by her people. The Genexxee, 12 Jur. 401. 
 
 A ship in great peril, and with women ou 
 board, w;us assisted by smacks, but the essentiiJ 
 part of the salvage service was performed by a 
 steamship that towed iier clear of the sands: — 
 Held, that the smacks were nevertheless entitled 
 to a large iiward. //'. 
 
 Ship Abandoned, and afterwards Returned 
 
 to.] — .\ ship with four and a-h.ill lerl of wateiin 
 her, and compasses antl seamen's eloliics taken 
 away, held to be derelict. Though the master 
 and seamen returned to her, tlie salvors were 
 entitled to keep possession. The Gertrude, 30 
 L. J., Adm. 130. 
 
 Where the crew of a shij) that had been in 
 Cf)llision, at the moment of collision climlicil on 
 the other ship, tiiinking their own was sinking, 
 and the master of the other ship rcfuse<l to lend 
 his boat for them to return to their own ship : — 
 field, not to be a case of flerelict. The CoKmo- 
 politan, 6 Not. of Cas., Suppl. 17. 
 
 Where during the performanct! of salvage 
 services the master and crew of the salved ship 
 went and remained on Uiard the salving shi]>, 
 which put men on the salved ship to steer her, 
 the court refu.scd to treat the salved ship as a 
 ilerelict and award salvage on that basis. The 
 Lipanto, [1802] P. 122 ; 66 L. T. 623; 7 Asp. 
 M. C. 192. 
 
 21
 
 643 
 
 SHIPPING- XVIII. Salvage. 
 
 641 
 
 Whole of Proceeds Awarded,] — The whole of 
 the proceeds of ;i deiehet of f:mall vahie .awarded 
 to the salvors, no ovvnei's a])peariiig. The Willtain. 
 
 1 1,1 milt on, :■} Hag. Adm, 168. 
 
 Proceeds of a derelict brought into the Mersey 
 by salvors, and sold as perishable, paid out upon 
 first decree to the salvors. The CoHccptkm, 
 
 2 Hag. Adm. 175. And see The Britarmla, 
 supra, col. G42. 
 
 Amount of Award.] — The value of the property 
 salved was 12,()(J3/., and the total award made 
 by the court for salvage was 4,200^. The Anna 
 Helena, 49 L. T. 201 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 142. 
 
 A derelict vessel was found in the North 
 Atlantic Ocean, 800 miles from land, in a 
 seriously damaged condition, and was navigated 
 into Queenstown by salvors, who incurred great 
 risk and hard-hip in rendering the service. The 
 value of the derelict was 5,100Z. The couit 
 awarded 2.300Z. as salvage reward. The Craigs. 
 h P. D. 186 : 29 W. R. 44G, 
 
 Where a derelict vessel and cargo of the value 
 of 1,4.52/. were salved by a steamer, which, with 
 her cargo, was of the value of 3O,OO0Z., the vice- 
 admiralty court awarded 300/, for salvage : — 
 Held, that, under the circumstances, that sum 
 was not sufficient, and the same increased to 
 450/. The Trve Blue, Pjpctyanni v. Hocquard, 
 4 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 96 ; L. 11. 1 P. C. 250. 
 
 Salvors having by meritorious services, ren- 
 dered at the risk of their lives, salved a derelict 
 vessel, her cargo and freight, valued together at 
 750/,, the court awarded 'M\()l. as salvage remu- 
 neration. The Ilehe, 4 P. D. 217. 
 
 A steamer laden with a valuable cargo, and 
 having passengers on board, fell in with a dere- 
 lict brig in the Bristol Channel, and with great 
 difficulty, in spite of a strong wind and heavy 
 sea, succeeded in towing her into port. The 
 value of the brig, together with her cargo and 
 freight, amounted to nearly 2,800/. The court 
 awarded 900/. to the salvors. The Andrina. 
 L. R. 3 A. & E, 286 ; 22 L. T. 488. 
 
 Derelict ship and cargo worth 15,000/. picked 
 up by small schooner in the Irish Sea ; 1,800/. 
 salvage awarded : 600/. to owners of schooner, 
 400/, to master, 250/, to mate, and rest to the 
 crew. The Caroline, 2 W. Piob, 124, 
 
 Although there is no rule fixing the amount 
 to be awarded in cases of salvage of derelict 
 vessels, the increased risk of loss to the salved 
 property, the difiiculty of boarding a derelict 
 vessel without assistance from her crew, and the 
 extra labour thrown upon those remaining on 
 board of the salving ship by placing some hands 
 on board the deielict, are elements tending to 
 augment the award in such cases. The Janet 
 Court, 66 L, J., Adm. 34 ; [1897] P. 59 ; 76 L. T. 
 172 : 8 Asp. M. C. 223. 
 
 W here a tug was engaged by the crew of two 
 smacks to tow a derelict into port, but through 
 the mistake of the tug the vessel got aground, 
 whereupon the tug went in search of assistance, 
 and some beachmen took possession of the vessel 
 and brought her into harbour, a liberal salvage 
 was awarded to the smacksmen. The Atlas, 
 15 Moore, P. C. 329 ; 31 L, J,, Adm. 210 ; 8 Jur. 
 (N.S.) 753 ; 6 L, T. 737 ; 10 W, R, 850, 
 
 A derelict was found at sea by salvors, who 
 were incapable of performing the attempted 
 service, but remained by the wreck until a 
 second set of salvors came up, who dispossessed 
 these first and brought it into port. The court 
 allotted to the first set a sufficient sum to cover 
 
 the expenses to which they had been put. 'The 
 Magdalen, 31 L. J,, Adm, 22 ; 5 L, T. 807. 
 
 Abandonmant of Derelict by Salvors — Right- 
 to Eemuneration.]— The barque "N," fell in withi 
 the " K,," a derelict barque, in the Atlantic, and 
 put five hands on board of her, who navigated 
 her for three days. The " K." then fell in with. 
 tlie barque '• B.," and the five hands on board of 
 the " K." were, at their own request, taken on 
 board the ■' B." The " B." then sent some of her 
 own crew on board the " K. ," and took her in tow,, 
 and towed her till the tow-rope broke, when the: 
 vessels parted company, and the hands on board 
 tlni " K,," with the assistance of the "L,," a, 
 steamship which they afterwards fell in with, 
 brought the " K," into Falmouth, In suits, 
 instituted on behalf of the masters, owners and 
 crews of tne "N.," the " B.," and the " L.," the 
 court held, that the masters, owners and crew of 
 thj "N." were not entitled to salvage reward,, 
 buc awarded salvage to the remaining plaintiffs.. 
 The Killeena, 51 L, .J., Adm. 11 : 6 P. D. 193 •, 
 45 L. T. 621 ; 30 W, R, 339 ; 4 Asp, M. C. 
 472. 
 
 Wrongful Dispossession of First Salvors.] — 
 See Tlw Katldecn, supra, col, 602. 
 
 Derelict must be Brought into the Admiralty.} 
 
 — See Tlie Kiiuj v. Propevtij dereliet, supra,, 
 col, 594. 
 
 Apportionment in Case of Derelict.] — See The: 
 Livletta, infra, col, 649, 
 
 d. Appeal — Reviewing' Award. 
 
 Insufficient Award.] — The court of appeal 
 will increase the amount of a salvage award, if 
 in its opinion, considering the value of the- 
 property salved, and of the salving vessel, the 
 award of the court below is insufficient. The' 
 City of Berlin, 47 L. J., Adm. 2 ; 2 P. D. 187 ;. 
 37 L. T. 307 ; 25 W, R, 793 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 491 
 — C, A, See also The True Blue, supra. 
 
 Excessive Award.] — When the court of 
 admiralty had awarded an exceptional and 
 excessive amount of remuneration solely froiu 
 regard to the value of property salved, th& 
 judicial committee, notwithstanding their general 
 rule of non-interference upon a question of mere 
 discretion, reduced the amount by two-fifths. 
 The Amerique, L, R, 6 P, C, 468 ; 31 L. T. 854 ;. 
 23 W. R, 488 ; 2 Asp, M. C. 460. 
 
 An award of 30,000/. on a value of 190,000/. 
 in the case of a derelict ship reduced to 18,000/.,. 
 on the ground that the award was out of propor- 
 tion to the services rendered. Ih. 
 
 Where a judge had awarded 3,500/, for losses 
 and 5,000/, for remuneration (the property saved 
 being 67,000/.) :— Held, that a total of 6,000/. 
 was sufficient. The Be Bay, Bird v. Gibb^ 
 52 L. J,. P. C, 57 ; 8 App. Cas, 559 ; 49 L. T. 
 414— P. C. 
 
 The court of appeal is unwilling to interfere 
 with the judicial discretion in cases of salvage, 
 where the quantum awarded is alone the subject 
 of appeal. Though there is no precedent for the 
 reduction of an amount awarded, yet in principle 
 there can be no difference between increasing- 
 and reducing such amounts, both being equally 
 an interference with judicial discretion. And 
 the amount must be reduced on appeal wheri
 
 645 
 
 SHIPPING— XVm. Salvage. 
 
 the sum awarded is exorbitant or manifestly 
 excessive. The ChetaJi, 5 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 
 278 ; 38 L. J., Adm. 1 ; L. K. 2 P. C. 205 ; 19 
 L. T. G21 ; 17 W. R. 233. 
 
 Therefore, where the judge of the admiralty 
 court, acting upon his own unassisted judgment, 
 greatly overrated the value of the services ren- 1 
 dered by the salvors : — Held, that the amount of 
 his award must be reduced. Ih. 
 
 Deviation of Vessel.] — The court of appeal 
 will alter an award of salvage made by the court 
 below, where there is reason to believe that the 
 court below has not taken into consideration the 
 circumstance that rendering a salvage service to 
 property alone constitutes a deviation in point 
 of law, however small the deviation mav be in 
 point of fact. The Farnlcij Ilall, 46 L. T. 216 ; 
 4 Asp. M. C. 499— C. A. 
 
 Discretion.] — In appeals as to the quantum of 
 salvage allowed, the court will not interfere with 
 or moflerate the amount awarded by the admi- 
 ralty court, unless that amount was exorbitant 
 or excessive, though the court of appeal may be 
 unable to aifirm the principle on which the 
 amount was assessed, or would have awarded a 
 less amount than that awarded by the admiralty 
 court. The Wohuni Ahhinj. 21 L. T. 707— P. C. 
 
 In appeals as to the quantum awarded, the 
 difference ought to be very considerable (to the 
 extent of one-third at least) in order to induce 
 the court to interfere upon a question of mere 
 discretion. The Glenduror, A7-7wlcl v. Cowie, 
 L. R. 3 P. C. 589 ; 24 L. T. 499 ; 1 Asp. M, C. 
 31. 
 
 The court of appeal will hesitate to interfere 
 with the decision of local authorities on a ques- 
 tion of salvage, but nevertheless is bound to act 
 upon its own judgment if it should be of opinion 
 that the award is wholly inadequate. The Mes- 
 scwjer, Swabey, 191. 
 
 The afjpellate court will not disturb an award 
 of salvage on the ground of the court below 
 having awarded too large a sum, unless satisfied, 
 beyond all doubt, that the judge has made an 
 exorbitant octimate of the salvage services. The 
 Fuxilier, 7iUr/h v. Simpxon, 3 Jloorc, P. C. (N.s.) 
 51 ; 34 L. J.', Adm. 25 ; 11 Jur. (N.S.) 289; 12 
 L. T. 186; 13 W. R. 592. 
 
 The judicial committee is always reluctant to 
 review cases of salvage, which involve the exer- 
 cise of the discretion of the judge of the couit, 
 but being a final court of appeal, will, if the 
 justice of the case requires it, increase tiie 
 amount. 7'hc Sciiidia, 4 Moure, P. C!. (N.s.) 84 ; 
 35 L. J., P. C. 53; L. R. 1 P. C. 241 ; 12 Jur. 
 (N.S.) 534— P. C. 
 
 The court of appeal in a disputed question 
 respecting the amount of remuneration awarded 
 for a salvage service, is indisposed, except it 
 appears that tlie ju<lgment is dearly erroneous, 
 to interfere with the compensation which the 
 court in its discref ion ha,9 awarded. 'The Clarissc, 
 12 Moore, P. C. 340. 
 
 The amount of compensation to be awarded is 
 in the discretion of the judge; of the crnirt of 
 admiralty, and the judicial committee will not 
 interfere with the manner in which that discre- 
 tion has been exercised, either by diminishiTig or 
 increasing the amount awarded, excefit in a case 
 of very extraordinary character. The jVej)tuiie, 
 Green v. liaileii, 12 Moore, P. C. 3ir,. | 
 
 The court of appeal is very unwilling to ' 
 interfere with the judicial discretion exercised | 
 
 646 
 
 by the judge below with regard to the amount 
 awarded for salvage services, and will not do so 
 unless the sum awarded is other than a reason- 
 able remuneration for the services rendered, and 
 unless the difference is very considerable. The 
 England, 5 Jloore, P. C. (N.S.) 344 ; 38 L. J., 
 Adm. 9 ; L. R. 2 P. C. 253 ; 20 L. T. 46. 
 
 From the Cinque Ports.] — An appeal to the 
 court of admiralty under 1 &; 2 Geo. 4, c. 76, 
 from an award of the commissioners of the 
 cinque ports in a salvage case, is in the nature of 
 a rehearing rather than of an appeal, and it is 
 obligatory on the court to allow a restatement 
 of the case and to admit fresh evidence. The 
 court will, however, in the exercise of its dis- 
 cretion as to costs, discourage the giving of fresh 
 evidence unvvarrantabl}\ The Caledunia, L. R. 
 
 4 A. & E. 11, n. ; 17 W. R. 626. 
 
 Rule of Court of Appeal.] — Where a salvage 
 award is appealed against, the court of appeal 
 adheres to the rule laid down in the privy 
 council, and will not alter the sum unless it has 
 been given on wrong principles, or with a 
 misapprehension of the facts, or it is exorbitant 
 and out of reason. 6,000^. was awarded for 
 services rendered to a steamer which had run 
 aground on a reef in the Red Sea, nearly five 
 miles from Suez, and which, owing to the heavy 
 sea, and the nature of her position, was in 
 imminent peril. The services were rendered at 
 much peril to the .salving ship. The court of 
 appeal refused to alter this award. The Lan- 
 caster, 9 P. D. 14 ; 49 L. T. 705 ; 36 W. R. 608 ; 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 174— C. A. 
 The court of appeal will, in a salvage action, 
 
 where it apjiears that the judge below has mis- 
 apprehended the evidence, and consequently 
 given a wrong award, increase or diminish the 
 award as the justice of the case may require. 
 The Star of Persia, 57 L. T. 839 ; 6 A.sp. M. C. 
 220— C. A. 
 
 The barque " Star of Persia," having taken 
 up a foul berth in bad weather in the Downs, 
 collided with anot her barque. The tug " C." towed 
 her clear after an hour's towing, during which 
 time her aiu'hor and chain were slipped. After 
 she had been got clear the tug continued to tow 
 ahe.'id until another anchor had been brought 
 off fiom the shore by other salvors, and she was 
 ultimately saved. Her value and that of her 
 cargo and freight amounted in all to 23,0(10/. 
 The court, in a salvage action against the "Star 
 of Persia," having .awarded 150/., the court of 
 appeal held that the evidence as to liic danger 
 from which the "Star of IVi'sia" had been saved 
 had been nn'sapjirehended, and incre.a,scd the 
 award to 300/. Jb. 
 
 Salvage remuneration was reduced from 
 ^12,000 to ^7,500, their lonlsliijis being of 
 opinion that the ilitTerenee l)elween the sum 
 awarded and thai which would he lilxral was so 
 large as to require correction. The (Jlenduror, 
 supra, col. 645, approved and followed. Tha 
 Thomax AUen, 12 Aj.p. Gas. 118 ; 56 L. T. 285 ; 
 
 6 As|,. M. ( ;. 99— P. C. 
 Where a judge liad awanled 3,f:00/. for losses 
 
 and 5,000/. for remuneration (the, property saved 
 being fi7,0(tO/.) :— l[eld. that a total of 6,(i00/. 
 was sufficient.. The De Jlmj, Jt'ird v. Gihh, 
 ante, col. 636. Atid see The ('ifij of Chextcr, 
 ante, col. 636. 
 
 Where the appeal is a.s to the amount awarded, 
 the rule of the privy council is similar to that 
 
 21—2
 
 647 
 
 SHIPPING— XVIII. Salvaqe. 
 
 648 
 
 of ccmmon law courts in dealing with a verdict j 
 as to damages, wliere the jury have attendeil to 
 the judszc's direction. The Carricv Dove, 2 
 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 2i3 ; Br. & Lush. 113. 
 
 There is no essential distinction between river 
 and sea salvage, lb. 
 
 In salvage cases there is no rule binding a 
 court of appeal not to interfere with an award 
 unless the amount is so large, or so small, that 
 no reasonable person could fairly arrive at that 
 sum ; but the amount awarded will be diminished 
 or increased if, after a careful consideration of 
 the facts, and after giving every possible weight 
 to the view of the judge, the court is of opinion 
 that the amount is so large as to be unjust to 
 the owners of the ship which has been in distress, 
 or so small as to be unjust to the salvors, lite 
 Aceomac, [1891] P. 319 ; 66 L. T. 335 ; 7 Asp. 
 M. C. 153— C. A. 
 
 The privy council will not interfere with an 
 award in a salvage case except where the differ- 
 ence between what has been and what ought to 
 have been awarded is very considerable. The 
 Clarlise, Swabey, 129, 134; 12 Moore, P. C. 
 ,•340. 
 
 Award reduced.] — Salvage award reduced on 
 •appeal from 1,0001. to 600Z. The General 
 Pnlmer, 2 Hag. Adm. 323. 
 
 Award of Justices.] — An award of justices for 
 r salvage will not be altered upon appeal unless 
 . excessive. The Cuba, Lush. 14 ; 6 Jur. (n.s.) 
 152. 
 
 The court is unwilling to disturb an award of 
 justices on the mere ground of amount or wrong 
 apportionment. The Vesta, 2 Hag. Adm. 189. 
 Magistrates' award of Ibl. for getting a barge 
 . ashore on the Nore Sand afloat, and taking her 
 to Sheerness, increased on appeal to 40Z. The 
 Harriett, Swabey, 218. 
 
 An agreement to pay 8s. Qd. for salvage 
 . services, there being real danger to the salvors, 
 • set aside as futile. The Phantom, L. E,. 1 A. & E. 
 ^8 ; 12 Jur. (K.s.) 529 ; 14 W. E. 774. 
 
 14. Apportionment. 
 
 In what Shares.]— A ship built on purpose to ^ 
 ■ convey the obelisk known as Cleopatra's Needle, 
 was, whilst laden with the obelisk, abandoned 
 about ninety miles N.E. of Ferrol, on the 
 coast of Spain. A steamship discovered her and 
 lay by her for a night, and the next day 
 four of her crew volunteered and went to the 
 ship, and 'after much difficulty and at consider- 
 able risk succeeded in getting the rudder clear 
 and a hawser attached. The steamship, after 
 towing her for fifty-two hours, brought her into 
 port. The court appraised the ship and obelisk 
 at 25,O0OZ.. and awarded 2,000Z., and apportioned 
 the latter' sum as follows, viz. 1,200L to the 
 owners of the steamship, 250Z. to her master, and 
 the rest among the officers and crew according 
 to their ratings', as follows, viz. double shares to 
 the chief officer, second engineer and other 
 volunteers, and three shares to the seamen 
 immersed in water while clearing the shackles 
 and towline ; the rest among the others of the 
 crew. Tlie Cleopatra, 47 L. J., Adm. 72 ; 3 P. D. 
 145. 
 
 After deducting from the award the costs of 
 repairs and detention during repairs, one half of 
 the balance apportioned to the owner of the 
 salvins steamship, the other half to the master 
 
 and crew. The Spirit of the Aqe, Swabey, 280. 
 Cf. The Howard, 3 Hag.' Adm. 356, n. 
 
 A brig was driven out to sea short-handed, and 
 after she had been eighty days at sea and much 
 damaged, with only four men on board, two of 
 them disabled, a ship placed on board of her two 
 hands, who assisted in working her till she was 
 brought, after twelve days, into port. The brig 
 and her cargo were of the value of 8,174Z. : — 
 Held, that this was a salvage service. An award 
 was made of 400Z., and it was apportioned — to 
 the owners, 50Z. ; to the master, 50Z. ; to the 
 crew, lOOZ. ; to the men placed on board the 
 brig, 2001. The Charle.% L. E. 3 A. & B. 536 ; 
 26 L. T. 594 ; 21 W. R. 13. 
 
 In apportioning 1,500Z., where the services 
 were mainly the personal exertions of the 
 master and crew of a sailing vessel, the court 
 awarded 500Z. to the owners, 650Z. to the crew, 
 and 350Z. to the master. The Palmyra, 25 L. T. 
 804 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 278. 
 
 Special Eeward to Mate.] — Two Norwegian 
 barques, both bound to England, fell in with 
 each other on the high seas, about 3,000 miles 
 from Liverpool ; one of the barques was in dis- 
 tress, her first mate having died, and her master, 
 her second mate and one of the crew being sick 
 with yellow fever. The other barque was short- 
 handed, but her mate, with the consent of her 
 master, went on board the distressed vessel and 
 succeeded in navigating her to Liverpool. During 
 the voyage the master, the second mate and two 
 of the crew died. On the arrival of the vessel at 
 Liverpool an action of salvage was instituted 
 against her. At the hearing of the action, the 
 value of the salved property was taken at 
 5,1 35Z. 13s. 2d. The court awarded 600Z. to the 
 mate who had gone on board the distressed vessel, 
 lOOZ. to the owners of the salving vessel, 50Z. to 
 her master, and 150Z. amongst the remaining 
 plaintiffs. The ShiUadner, 47 L. J., Adm. 84 ; 
 3 P. D. 24 : 38 L. T. 150 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 556. 
 
 Special Eeward to Master.] — Where 3,500Z. had 
 been awarded for salvage services rendered by a 
 steamship, 2,000Z. was awarded to the owners 
 and 700Z. to the master for his skilful navigation 
 in dangerous circumstances, the order of the 
 vice-admiralty court of Bermuda being varied. 
 The Castlewood, 42 L. T. 702 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 278— P. C. 
 
 Where the master undertakes the responsi- 
 bility of deviating from his course, and so 
 imperilling his insurance, for the purpose of 
 rendering salvage service, he is entitled to con- 
 siderable reward. The fact that a considerable 
 sum has been awarded to the owners of the 
 salving vessel does not diminish the amount to 
 which the master and crew are entitled. The 
 Aletheia, 13 W. R. 279. 
 
 Amount to Owners.] — In a suit instituted to 
 recover salvage reward in respect of services 
 rendered in towing a disabled vessel into safety, 
 the court awarded a total sum of 4,000Z., of 
 which 3,000Z. was apportioned to the owners. 
 The Kenmure Castle, 7 P. D. 47 ; 47 L. T. 061 ; 
 30 W. E. 708 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 27. 
 
 Sailing Vessel or Steamship.]— In ap- 
 portioning salvage reward among the owners, 
 master and crew of a sailing vessel which has 
 rendered salvage services, the court will not 
 allot to the owners the same proportion of the
 
 649 
 
 SHIPPING— XYIII. Salvage. 
 
 650 
 
 reward as in the case of services rendered by a | absence the crew left on board were driven 
 steamship (usually one-half), unless the circum- 1 away by Arab wreckers, but the vessel was 
 stances shew that the vessel itself, as where the never permanently abandoned. Three steamei's 
 services are effected by steam power, was the | rendered valuable services to the vessel, and 
 
 chief agent in effecting the salvage. The j 
 Palmyra, 25 L. T. 884 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 182. j 
 
 The capability of steamers to perform services 
 with greater rapidity and certainty entitles them 
 as salvors to a higher scale of reward. The Otto 
 Hervian, 33 L. J., Adm. 189. 
 
 On Deviation having been Occasioned.] — 
 
 In a service mainly rendered by the steam power 
 of the salving ship, and which had occasioned a 
 deviation in point of law, and in rendering 
 which the crew were exposed to some peril, an 
 apportionment of two-thirds to the shipowners 
 and one-third to the master and crew, altered to 
 five-ninths to the shipowners and four-ninths to 
 the master and crew, and the total award 
 increased from 600Z. to 900Z. ; owner's share 
 increased from 400Z. to 500/. ; master's share 
 increased from 80Z. to lOOZ. ; crew's share 
 increased from 120?. to 300Z. TheFarnleij Hall, 
 46 L. T. 216 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 499— C, A. 
 
 Custom to Share Salvage— Disproportionate j 
 Eisks.] — "Where there is a custom to sliare in 
 salvage awards in a particular manner according 
 to the ratings of the salvors on board their ship, 
 yet if some of the salving crew have exposed 
 themselves to much greater risk than the rest, 
 the court will eive them a larger share on equit- 
 able principlesT The Sarah, 3 P. D. 39 ; 37 L. T. 
 831. 
 
 Derelict.] — The master of a Norwegian brig 
 bound to Cardiff, with a crew of nine men, fell 
 in, in the North Sea between Heligoland and the 
 Dogger Bank, with a derelict vessel in a very 
 crippled condition, and put his mate and two of 
 his crew on board her. The mate anil the two 
 men on board the derelict, shortly after they had 
 boarded her, fearing that she was about to 
 founder, endeavoured to leave her, but their 
 boat was swamped, and one of the men drifted 
 astern, and was picked up by a fishing smack. 
 The mate and the other hand succeeded in 
 bringing the derelict safely into the English 
 Channel, and within three miles of Dungcness ; 
 ehe was then taken in tow by a steamship and 
 towed to the entrance of Dover Harbour, within 
 which she was subsequently ])laced in safety. 
 Actions of salvage were instituted by the owners, 
 master and crew of the brig, and by the owners, 
 master and crew of the steam.ship, against the 
 derelict vessel and her cargo, and the court 
 awarded a moiety of the value of the i)roperty 
 
 finally succeeded in getting her off the rocks and 
 saving part of her cargo. The value of the vessel 
 for the purposes of the action was taken to be 
 3.750/. The court awarded 2.000/. as salvage. 
 The Erato, 57 L. J., Adm. 107 ; 13 P. D. 163 ; \59 
 L. T. 840 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 334. See also The City 
 of Chester, ante, cols. 636, 637 ; The Agamemnon, 
 ante, col. 637 ; and The Anna Helena, ante, col. 
 608. 
 
 No Fixed Rule.] — There is not any fixed rule 
 as to apportioning a salvage award. 2he Gipsy 
 Queen, 64 L. J., Adm. 86 ^[1895] P. 176 ; 11 li. 
 766 ; 72 L. T. 454 ; 43 W. K. 359 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 586. 
 
 Half-Shares to Non-navigating Part of Crew — 
 Discretion.] — A large passenger steamship ren- 
 dered salvage services to another passenger steam- 
 ship, the amount being agreed at 12,000/. The 
 court apportioned 9,200/. to the owners, 800/. to 
 her master, and the remainder amongst the 
 officers and crew according to their ratings, half- 
 shares to be allotted to the surgeon, stewards, 
 cooks and other non-navigating members of the 
 crew. The Spree. [1893] P. 147 ; 1 P. 584 ; 6i> 
 L. T. 628 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 397. 
 
 Between Owners aad Salvors.] — Apportion- 
 ment of salvage, the seamen being dissatisfied 
 with their shares. The Beulah, 1 W. Kob. 477. 
 
 Life and Property Salvors.] — Out of 1,660/. 
 awarded for salvage of life and property, 980/. 
 apportioned to life and 480/. to property salvors. 
 The Easti'rn Monarch, Lush. 81. 
 
 Share of Shipowners — Policy Vitiated.] — The 
 possible vitiating vi a poliey <i[ insurance upon 
 the .salving vessel : — Hekl, not a reason for 
 increasing the share of the shipowner as against 
 the share of the crew in apportioning a sum 
 tendered to and accepted by salvors (not now 
 followed). The Uerrron, 1 W. Hob. 180. 
 
 Expenses of Salvors.] — In apportioning the 
 amount awarded as salvage, the court will not 
 allow the owners of the vessel iteilurming the 
 service to deduct any expenses except those 
 claimed in the iietition in the salvage suit. The 
 Wiijtowiishirr, 36 L. J., Adm. 11. 
 
 Distribution of Salvage paid to Master — 
 Remedy of Shipowner.; — \ m.isler receiving, 
 under an award, salvage nioney fmin the owners 
 
 proccc.led a"ainst, and apportioned threc-lifths , of property to which he, the ship and crew, have 
 SX amount to'thc ow'r.'ers. n.astcr and erew rendc.-ed salvage --'-s •« "„t -""'I j' '- ''^ 
 of the brig The Liiietta, 8 P. D. 24 ; 48 L. T. over to his owner the portion he b nA fide con- 
 799 'IIW R 643 • 5 Asn M C 132. ceives to be hisown i.roper share ; the reme.ly of 
 
 799 , 31 W. ii. hid , o Asp. M. K.. la^. I ^^^^ ^^^^^^^ .^ to apply to the court under h. 49S for 
 
 rendered salvage I a distribution of salvage. The Prinrrits Jlrlena, 
 
 In General.] — Two tugs 
 services to a shit) driven from her moorings in 
 the Bristol Channel, by lowing her, in a very 
 heavy gale, into the river Usk. The services 
 lasted for about three hours. The value of the 
 salved ship was 4,000/., of her cargo 900?., 
 and of her freight 288/. ; 450/. was awarded. The 
 Monarch, 56 L. J., Adm. 114 ; 12 P. D. 5 ; 56 
 L. T, 204 ; 35 W. R. 292 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 90. 
 
 A vessel having got ashore on the Parkin Rock 
 in the Red Sea. her master and jjart of the crew 
 proceeded to Aden for assistance. During their 
 
 Lusli. 190 ; 30 L. J., Adm. 137 ; 4 L. T. 869. 
 
 An owner of a ship refuse. ! to pay wages due 
 to a master for a voyage, unless credited with 
 salvage money reeeived by the master un<ler an 
 award, and kej)! by him for his own share ; the 
 master refusing to account for a subsequent 
 voyage, cxcej't on comlit ion of a sett lenient for the 
 former'voyage. without reference to the mlvage 
 jnouey :_'Held. that the payment of wag(!s was 
 improperly withheld, and that the master was 
 entitled to ten days' double pay. 1 h.
 
 651 
 
 SHIPPING— XVIII. Salcagc. 
 
 652 
 
 Where an owner thinks that a proper share of I 
 the salvage re\Yard has not been paid to him, his 
 proper course is to bring the share so paid to him 
 into court, to pray for a monition to the master 
 to do the same, and to apply for an order of 
 distribution. Ih. 
 
 Agreement to Apportion.] — Sec infra. 
 
 15. Agreements to Apportion. 
 
 Agreement for Apportionment of Salvage.] — 
 The 182nd section of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 18.i4, does not prevent seamen who are 
 entitled to recover salvage remuneration from 
 entering into an arrangement, through their 
 solicitor, for the apportionment of the amount 
 due to them. "Where the owners of a ship have 
 received a lump sum in respect of services ren- 
 dered by their ship, master and crew, and have 
 paid over to the crew a portion of such sum, 
 which the crew, acting under the advice of their 
 own solicitor, have accepted in settlement of 
 their claims for salvage, the court will not, where 
 the portion so paid over is not extravagantly 
 small, disturb the settlement in the absence of 
 fiaud or concealment. T/ie Afrik/i, -19 L. .J., 
 Adm. 63 ; 5 P. D. 192 ; 42 L. T. 403 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 266. 
 
 Under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 408, the court 
 will decree an equitable apportionment, unless 
 an equitable agreement is proved or any equit- 
 <i])le tender has been made. The Enchantress, 
 Lush. 93 ; 30 L. J., Adm. 15 ; 2 L. T. 574. 
 
 When salvors have entered into an agreement 
 as to the ajiportionment of salvage, which in the 
 ■opinion of the court is equitable, and not 
 obtained by coercion, the court will uphold the 
 agreement, and apportion the salvage awarded 
 in accordance theiewith. The James Armstrong, 
 L. E. 4 A. & E. 380 ; 33 L. T. 390 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 4G. 
 
 When persons agree to render a salvage service 
 <ind to apportion the salvage in a particular way, 
 and further salvage services are rendered not 
 ■contemplated by the agreement, the whole body 
 ■of salvors is entitled to share in the reward, and 
 not only those actually engaged in the further 
 salvage operations. The Cadiz and The Boyne, 
 35 L. T. 602 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 332. 
 
 Costs of all parties were ordered to be paid 
 out of fund in court, except a defendant's, in 
 consequence of his misconduct to the co-salvors. 
 lb. 
 
 By 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 182, every stipula- 
 tion by which any seaman consents to abandon 
 any right which he may have or obtain in the 
 nature" of salvage shall be wholly inoperative. 
 By 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 18, this section "does 
 not apply to the case of any stipulation made by 
 the seamen belonging to any ship which, accord- 
 ing to the terms of the agreement, is to be 
 employed on salvage service, with respect to the 
 remuneration to be paid to them for salvage 
 services to be rendered by such ship to any other 
 ship " : — Held, that these sections do not fetter 
 the discretion of the court upon the subject of 
 these agreements, but that their effect is to 
 render such agreements not illegal, and to place 
 them on the same footing on which they stood 
 before anv legislation on the subject. TJie 
 Ganges, 38 L. J., Adm. 61 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 370 ; 
 22 L. T. 72 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 317. 
 
 The plaintiff was temporary master of a steam 
 tug in the place of B., and without any extra- 
 
 ordinary exertion or peril rendered salvage 
 services to a vessel in distress. The steam tug 
 belonged to a company whose business it was to 
 render towage and salvage services to vessels in 
 distress. The seamen employed by the company 
 were paid, according to a special agreement, 
 certain fixed wages, and a fixed rate of poundage 
 on all towage antl salvage money earned by the 
 tug. The plaintiff knew that B. was employed 
 under this agreement. The plaintiff claimed 
 salvage remuneration independently of the 
 agreement : — Held, that the t.,greement, as it did 
 not appear to be inequitable, was valid, and the 
 plaintiff was bound by it, and therefore could 
 not maintain his claim for salvage. lb. 
 
 By the ancient law of the court of admiralty, 
 as well as by statute law prior to 25 & 26 Vict. 
 c. 63, s. 18, any stipulation by which a seaman 
 agreed to abandon a claim for salvage was invalid. 
 The Pride of Canada, 9 L. T. 546 ; Br. & Lush. 
 208. 
 
 The burden of proof is upon those who assert 
 such an agreement to shew, not merely the 
 existence of the agreement, but that the seamen 
 were fully aware of all its consequences. lb. 
 
 A steam trawler is not a vessel " to be employed 
 on salvage service" wathin s. 18 of the Merchant 
 Shipping Act Amendment Act, 1862, though the 
 agreement between the owners and seamen pro- 
 vides for an apportionment of any salvage earned. 
 Sect. 182 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, 
 does not invalidate an equitable agreement 
 between the shipowner and seamen as to the 
 apportionment of any salvage earned. The 
 Wllhehn Tell, 61 L. J.. Adm. 127 ; [1892] P. 337 ; 
 1 R. 551 ; 69 L. T. 199 ; 41 W. R. 205 ; 7 Asp. 
 M. C. 329. 
 
 By articles of agreement in the form sanc- 
 tioned by the board of trade under the above 
 act, "... every member of the crew, including 
 apprentices, shall be regarded as entitled to 
 participate in any sum or sums of money arising 
 from any salvage or salvage services performed 
 for any ship in distress or otherwise, in the pro- 
 portion set forth opposite to their respective 
 names in this agreement." The master and 
 mate were paid wages on the footing of a share 
 of the fishing profits, but the boatswain received 
 so much per week ; and the owners of the 
 trawler, in arriving at the net sum to be appor- 
 tioned, claimed to deduct the cost of repairs for 
 damage sustained by the vessel in rendering the 
 salvage services, and as against the boatswain, 
 certain other sums for loss of profits, time, &;c. : 
 ■ — Held, that these deductions could not be 
 allowed, as the agreement for a certain share of 
 the salvage meant a share of the sum awarded, 
 less any unrecovered costs in obtaining the 
 award. lb. 
 
 Semble, the provisions of s. 182 of the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1854, and of s. 18 of the amending 
 act of 1862, do not apply to a master. lb. 
 
 Power to Set Aside.] — The admiralty court 
 has power to set aside agreements entered into 
 by seamen as to sharing salvage earned by the 
 ship, notwithstanding 17 & 18 Vict.c. 104, s. 214, 
 and 25 & 26 Vict. 0^63, s. 18. The Pensacola, 
 Br. & Lush. 306. And see The Pride of Canada, 
 and cases supra, col. 625. 
 
 An agreement between the owners of a steam 
 tug and her master and crew as to the giving up 
 by the latter of their claims to salvage, in con- 
 sideration of a higher rate of wages, held invalid. 
 The Mavij Anne,\\ L. T. 8^^.
 
 €53 
 
 SHIPPING— XYIII. Salvage. 
 
 654 
 
 Beceipt for Salvage given in Ignorance.] — An ( 
 ignorant salvor who has signed a receipt in full I 
 of all demands for salvage, will be relieved in j 
 admiralty. Sliver Bullion, 2 Spinks, 70. 
 
 Set Aside as Unfair.] — An agreement for 
 apportionment, entered into previoiasly to the 
 :serTice performed, set aside as unfair. The 
 Lnuim. 2 W. Eob. 22 ; 2 Not. of Cas. 149. 
 
 Agreement between Shipowners and Crew 
 £8 to Deductions — Validity.] — An agreement 
 3Det\veen shipowners and crew that before appor- 
 tionment of salvage the shipowners shall be 
 •entitled to deduct from the sum awarded for 
 salvage the amount of any damages sustained by 
 the ship or her gear in the performance of the 
 salvage service, and by reason of her loss of 
 fishing, is inoperative. The Saltbnvji, 6 R. 702 ; 
 71 L. T. 19; 7 Asp. M. C. 474. 
 
 16. ASSIGSMKN'T OF PiIGHT TO SALVAGE. 
 
 An assignment by a seaman of his right to 
 salvage reward already acquired is wholh' void 
 and inoperative by the Merchant Shipping Act. 
 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104), s. 182, although such 
 assignment is for valuable consideration, and in 
 an action for distribution of salvage a defence 
 setting up such an assignment is bad. The 
 Jiosarw, 46 L. J.. Adm. 52 ; 2 P. D. 41 ; 35 L. T. 
 :816 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 334. 
 
 Sixteen of the crew of a steamship sued her 
 ■owners for distribution of salvage. The owners 
 answered that after the date of the salvage 
 services, but before the distribution of the sal- 
 vage money, fourteen had assigned to the defen- 
 ■dants for good consideration all their shares : — 
 Held, that the fourteen were nevertheless entitled 
 ito sue. lb. 
 
 17. Salvage Ageeements. 
 
 Inequitable Agreements.] — The master of the 
 •" London " agreed for 400Z. to tow the " Wavcrley " 
 into Lisbon, about twenty-five miles. The 
 -"A-cathcr, which was bad at the time of the agrec- 
 ment, subsequently became worse, and much 
 •difficulty wa.s experienced in performing the 
 •salvage. In a suit for salvage the owners of the 
 •" Wavcrley " tendered 400/., the amount agreed 
 xipon for salvage, and 123/. ll.v. Hd. for quaran- 
 tine expenses and consequent detention of the 
 ■*' London " : — Held, that the agreement was equit- 
 able at the time when it w.-is made, and was 
 -therefore valid notwithstanding the subsequent 
 •circumstances. The Wanrley, 40 L. J., Adm. 42 ; 
 L. R. 3 A. & E. 369 ; 24 L. T. 713 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 47. 
 
 Held, also, that the agreement was not afEectcd 
 by the tender of the amount of the extra ex- 
 ■pcnscs. Tender pronounced for, with costs from 
 the time of making the tender. Ih. 
 
 An English steamship, Ixmiifl from Sumatra to 
 Jcdda, havine on Vioard as passengers 550 pil- 
 grims, was wrecked in the Red Sea. The pilgrims 
 took rcfnge on a rock where, if bad weathir liad 
 set in, they would have been exposed to immi- 
 nent danger. In answer to signals of distress a 
 steamship came up, and her master refused to 
 rescue the pilgrims for a loss sum than 4,0(tO/., 
 •which was the amount of the passage-money to 
 be paid to the owners of the wreckcfl vessel fur 
 •carrj'ing the jiilgrims from Sumatra to Jedda. 
 Ultimately the master of the wrecked vessel 
 
 signed an agreement to pay 4,000Z. to the master 
 of the steamship to take the pilgrims to Jedda, 
 and the pilgrims were taken in his ship to Jedda 
 in safety. In an action to enforce the agreement : 
 — Held, that it must be set aside as inequitable, 
 and the court awarded 1,800/. as salvage remune- 
 ration. The Jfedim, 2 P. D. 5 ; 35 L. T. 779 ; 25 
 W. R. 156 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 219— C. A. Affirming 
 45 L. J., Adm. 81. 
 
 Where, in the opinion of the court, a salvage 
 agreement is exorbitant, the court will refuse to 
 enforce it. In a case where the master of a 
 disabled ship at sea about 340 miles from Queens- 
 town, requested assistance from a mail steamer, 
 and agreed in writing to make his owners respon- 
 sible to the extent of 15,000/., provided the 
 master of the mail steamer would tow the dis- 
 abled ship to Queenstown, and the service was 
 performed, the court declined to enforce the 
 agreement, and awarded to the salvors by way 
 of salvage reward 7,000/., in addition to a sum 
 sufficient to cover penalties which had become 
 payable by the owners of the mail steamer by 
 reason of the vessel deviating to perform the 
 service. The Silcna, 5 P. D. 177 ; 43 L. T. 319 ; 
 29 W. R. 156 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 338. 
 
 An agreement between salvors and the agent 
 of the salving ship to leave the amount of their 
 reward to his determination is inequitable and 
 void. The Enchantress, Lush. 93 ; 30 L. J., Adm. 
 15 ; 2 L. T. 574. 
 
 Fair Agreements TTpheld.] — Where an agree- 
 ment is clearly established, the court will uphold 
 it unless wholly inequitable, and will not set it 
 aside on the ground that it is a hard bargain. 
 The Fireffy, Swabey, 240. S. P., The Mulgrure, 
 2 Hag. Adm. 78. 
 
 An agreement dishonestly made by the master 
 to secure, to so-calleil salvors, an excessive reward, 
 is not valid against the owner of the ship. Tlie 
 Theodiire, SwaVjcy, 351. 
 
 An agreement will be upheld, uidass proved to 
 be very exorbitant, or to have been obtaineil by 
 compulsion or fraud. The Helen and George, 
 Swabey, 3()8. 
 
 It is competent to the master to make an agree- 
 ment with salvors as to the reniuneration for 
 their services, and if the agreement is fair, it will 
 bind the owners. The Arthur, 6 L. T. 556. 
 
 The Ijurden of proof is upon the parties alleg- 
 ing the agreement. Ih. 
 
 It is no reason for setting aside a salvage 
 agreement that tlie salvors were not aware of 
 the exact value of the cargo. The Ileurij, 15 
 Jur. 183. 
 
 Agreement for Particular Sum— Liability of 
 Shipowners for Salvage of Cargo.]— .\ ves>el, the 
 value oi" wlii<-h was ;{.5()(l/., aiul the cargo of 
 which was wort ii M,<hm)/., having been for three 
 days on rocks in Castraes Bay. in the (Julf of 
 Tartary, the master entere<l into an agreement 
 with the salvors to pay them 2(Ht/. for each day of 
 service, and a furtlicr sum of 2.nuo/. in the event 
 of the vessel being got or coming off the rocks 
 during the continuance of tlie attendance of the 
 salvors : — Held, tliat the agreement was fair and 
 reasonable and binding on the ownci-s of the 
 vessel, and that the owners of the vessel were 
 liable for the wliole amount agreed ujion without 
 any dc<luction in respect of the salvage of the 
 cargo. 'Hie Ilahhy (infra) distinguished. Tlie 
 Prhiz Jleinrieh. 57 L. J.. Adm. 17 ; 13 P. D. 31 ; 
 58 L. T. 593 ; 30 W. R. 511 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 273.
 
 655 
 
 SHIPPING— XVIII. Salvage. 
 
 656 
 
 Where Sum too Small.]— An agreement for a 
 sum of 8.V. li(/. ovcTiuktl as utterly f utile, where 
 it appeared that there was clanger incurred by 
 the salvors in rendering the service. T7te 
 Fhantom. L. R. 1 A. & E. 58 ; 12 Jur. (N.s.) 529 ; 
 14 AV. R. 77-1. 
 
 Execution more Difficult than Expected,] — 
 "When an agreement to fix the amount of the 
 remuneration to be paid for salvage services has 
 been deliberately entered into at the time of the 
 commencement of the danger between perfectly 
 competent parties, the court will not allow the 
 agreement to be set aside merely because the 
 execution of it has turned out more difficult than 
 was anticipated at the time of making the con- 
 tract. The Waverlcy, 40 L. J., Adm. 42 ; L. R. 
 3 A. & E. 369 ; 24 L. T. 713 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 47. 
 
 A foreign vessel, fifty miles off the Dutch coast, 
 being in "difficulty, in consequence of the bois- 
 terous state of the weather, and being leaky, called 
 in the assistance of an Enghsh fishing smack, and 
 engaged the captain, by a written agreement, 
 " to pilot and to sail ahead for 50Z." After four 
 days' boisterous weather, during which the cap- 
 tain of the smack worked at the pumps, the 
 vessel was got into port. The owners of the 
 smack refused the tender of 50Z., and brought an 
 action for salvage services rendered to the vessel. 
 The court was of opinion that the agreement 
 being to perform a service for a specific sum, was 
 not to be set aside because the weather became 
 tempestuous, and by reason thereof, that the 
 vessel was longer in arriving at a port of safety 
 than might reasonably be anticipated ; and held, 
 that salvage w^as barred by the agi-eement, as 
 nothing was done to convert pilotage service into 
 a salvage service, and that the sum specified in 
 the agreement was a sufficient compensation. 
 The Jmcjc Andr'ies, Swabey, 303 ; 11 Moore, P. C. 
 313 (nom. AUey v. Alhcrtuszoi) ; 6 W. R. 198— 
 P. C. 
 
 Agreement not to Claim.] — An agreement 
 entered into between the master of a salving 
 ship and the officer commanding the distressed 
 vessel, by which the latter acknowledges the 
 receipt of the men, and undertakes " to pay all 
 expenses attached thereby, as my vessel is in 
 distress for want of men, and 1 cannot bring her 
 in without help," is not such an agreement as will 
 oust the right of the salvors to reward, but is 
 an agreement to pay expenses in all events. The 
 Charles, L. R. 3 A. ic E. 536 ; 26 L. T. 594 ; 21 
 W. R. 13. 
 
 Agreement "Unperformed — Eight to Salvage.] 
 
 — A ship that performs a salvage service is entitletl 
 to salvage reward ; and not the less so because her 
 master has entered into an agreement to take the 
 ship in distress to a place of safety, which, owing 
 to no fault of his own, he does not do. The 
 Ilestla, 64 L. J., Adm. 82 ; [1895] P. 193 ; 11 R. 
 808 ; 72 L. T. 364 ; 43 W. R. 669 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 599. And see The Samnel, infra, col. 657. 
 
 Agreement — Supervening Circumstances.] — 
 
 The plaintiffs' steamer fell in with the defen- 
 dants' steamer, which was disabled, about 260 
 miles from Gibraltar, and sixty miles from 
 Carthagena. The weather at the time was de- 
 scribed as " moderately " bad. An agreement 
 was entered into between the captains of the 
 two vessels by which it was agreed that the 
 defendants' steamer should be towed to Gibraltar 
 for the sum of 600L, and that she should provide 
 
 ropes and hawsers. The next day the weather 
 became much worse, the wind blowing like a. 
 hurricane. The hawsers were seveial times 
 broken, and, at length, one sound rope only was. 
 left. The plaintiffs' steamer, therefore, towed 
 the disabled vessel to Carthagena instead of to 
 Gibraltar. In an action of salvage the court- 
 held that the contract had been put an end to 
 by supervening circumstances, and awarded thes- 
 salvors 900Z. The defendants appealed : — Held, 
 that the circumstances had made the service^ 
 wholly different fiom that contemplated by th& 
 parties ; that the court had authority to deal with 
 the question as though no contract had been 
 made ; and that the decision was therefore right. 
 The Wesfhouriie, 58 L. J., Adm. 78 ; 14 P. D. 132 ; 
 61 L. T. 156 ; 38 W. R. 56 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 405— C. A_ 
 
 Average Bond.] — The " G." fell in with the- 
 
 "R.," which was in distress. The following agree- 
 ment was signed by the two captains : " At my 
 request the captain of the 'G.' will tow my ship,, 
 the 'R.' to St. Nazaire, that being the nearest- 
 port, for repairs. The matter of compensation to 
 be left to arbitrators at home." The " G." towed 
 the " R." safely to St. Nazaire. The " R." discharged 
 her cargo at Dunkirk, and an average bond im 
 the usual form was taken from the consignees of 
 the cargo. The owners of the " G." brought aih 
 action for salvage of the ship and freight against, 
 the " R.," and were awarded salvage. They also- 
 brought an action in France for the salvage of 
 the cargo against the cargo owners, bnt tailed in. 
 it. They then brought this action in personam 
 against the owners of the " R." to recover salvage 
 in respect of the services to the cargo, or, in the 
 alternative, damages from the defendants, for 
 not taking a proper bond to secure salvage fromi 
 the cargo owners : — Held, that the defendants- 
 were not primarily liable to pay salvage ins. 
 respect of the cargo, that they had not bound 
 themselves by the above agreement to do so, and 
 that it was not their duty to obtain a bond from, 
 the cargo owners for the proportion of any 
 salvage which might be due. The Ruitshij or 
 Cardiff Steamsht]) Co. v. Barivich, 54 L. J., Adm. 
 65 ; 10 P. D. 114 ; 53 L. T. 56 ; 33 W. R. 938 ; 5- 
 Asp. M. C. 473. 
 
 Implied Authority of Master.] — Ofoservations- 
 as to the implied authority of shipmasters tcn 
 enter into salvage agreements. The Renjyor^ 
 52 L. J., Adm. 49 ; 8 P. D. 115,; 48 L. T. 887 ;. 
 31 W. R. 640 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 98. 
 
 Validity — Action hy Seamen.] — An agreement 
 
 was made between the masters of the " W^" and 
 the "N.,"which was in need of assistance, that the 
 •' W." should tow the " N." to Queenstown for the 
 sum of 200Z. There was no evidenceat the trial to^ 
 shew that the master of the -'W." consulted the 
 officers and crew as to the terms of the agree- 
 ment. The service was duly performed, ancB 
 subsequently thirteen of the officers and ciew of 
 the " W." brought an action of salvage against the 
 "N." The defendants pleaded, inter alia, that- 
 they had tendered 200Z. to the owners of the "W.,"" 
 but this sum was not paid into court : — Held,. 
 that the agreement must be upheld, and the 
 200Z. apportioned amongst the owner and crew 
 of the " W." Held, also, that when a fair salvage 
 agreement has been made in a bona fide manner 
 by the masters of the salving and the salved 
 vessels the officers and seamen of the salving; 
 ship ought not to bring an action of salvage, and
 
 657 
 
 SHIPPING— XYIII. Salvage. 
 
 658 
 
 that the plaintiffs must therefore pay the costs of j 
 the action. The Xasmyth, 5-1 L. J., Adm, 63 ; 
 10 P. D. 41 ; L2 L. T. 392 ; 83 W. R. 786 ; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 864. 
 
 Liability of Shipowner for Value of Ship, 
 Freight and Cargo.] — An agreement made by 
 the master of a vessel in distress to paj' salvors a 
 fixed sum is an agreement made on behalf of 
 and pledging the credit of the shipowners, so as 
 to make them liable to the salvors for the whole 
 amount so agreed upon, and not merely for such 
 proportion of such amount as the value of the 
 ship and freight bears to the value of the cargo. 
 The liaixhy, supra, distineuished. The Cum- 
 hrian, 57 L. T. 205 ; 6 Asp.^M. C. 151. 
 
 £500 for half-an-hour's Towage — Enforcement.] 
 — An agreement by the master of a valuable 
 steamship in the South Atlantic to pay 500^. for 
 half-an-hour's towage by a large mail steamship 
 in order to get his engines, which were partially 
 disabled and would not turn over the centres, 
 under way : — Held, to be fair and reasonable. 
 and enforced by the court. The Strathqarni 
 [1895] P. 264 ; 11 R. 7S3 ; 72 L. T. 900; 8 Asp. 
 M. C. 19. 
 
 Owners Cited — Agreement to Pay Salvage.] — 
 Owners cited to show cause why salvage awarded 
 by arbitrators abroad by arrangement between 
 consignees and salvors should not be awarded. 
 The air Fruncu Bnrton, 2 Hag. Adm. 156. 
 
 Agnreement Binding on Salvors.] — An agree- 
 ment to render salvage sei-vices for a named sum 
 is h)inding, and ordinarily prevents further sal- 
 vage being claimed. The Musgrave, 2 Hag. Adm. 
 77. 
 
 Salvage agreement upheld. The True Blue. 
 2 W. Rob. 176 ; 2 Not. of Cas. 413. 
 
 Agreement to stand by — Ship lost.] — The 
 steamship ■' W." having found llic "A." on 
 February 12th off Finisterre in a disabled state, 
 took her in tow until February 14th, when, owing 
 to the condition of the "A.," the master of the 
 " W." proposed to abandon her. The master of 
 tlie "A." pei-suaded the master of the '■ W." to 
 enter into an agreement in writing to "stand by 
 the 'A.' as long as possible, and that the 'W.' 
 and owners are to be paid for the time and towing 
 already done iiml to \ni done from the 12th Febru- 
 ary, 1KS8." The " W." tiien tuok the " A." again 
 in tow, but on February 16th, owing to the 
 weather, it was found necessary to abandon lier. 
 and she was totally lost. In an action for towage 
 against the owners of the "A." it was held that 
 the 'agreement was reasonable, and f)ne wliicli the 
 master had auttiority to make, and tOOZ. was 
 awarded for the towage. The Alfred, The Well- 
 Jield {Oirjwm') v. Adamson, 60 L, T. 511; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 211. 
 
 Unsuccessful Attempt — Agreement — Subse- 
 quent Salvors.] — Two agreements were made 
 with salvors, both of which, after some services 
 renderefl, hatl to be .abandoned ; other .salvois 
 then came up, but the owners gave notice to two 
 of them that no assistance was required : — Held, 
 that the first salvors were entitled to salvage, 
 apart from the agreements ; that the subsequent 
 salvors not having had notice that their services 
 were not needed, were also entitled to salvage. 
 Tfui Samuel, 15 Jur. 407. 
 
 Concealment of Damage — Towage Agreement^ 
 Salvage Awarded.] — The master of a brig which 
 had suffered some damage to her compass and 
 lost an anchor, agreed with a tug to tow him to 
 London for iOl., without disclosing the damage. 
 On discovering the damage, the tug owners 
 brought a suit for salvage : — Held, that salvage 
 cannot be engrafted on extraordinary, though it 
 may be on oidinary towage ; distinction between 
 towage services and agreements : — Held, also, 
 that the concealment of the damage to the brig 
 vitiated the towage contract. Salvage awarded. 
 The Kuujaloch, 1 Spinks, 267. 
 
 Power of Salving Owners to Bind their Crew 
 by Agreement with Salved Ship.j — The master 
 of a salving vessel, a part owner, agreed with the 
 owners of the salved vessel in the presence of the 
 other j)art owners to accept 800Z. for the salvage 
 services ; and that sum was paid to him. The 
 crew of another vessel engaged in the salvage 
 service being dissatisfied with the share of the 
 SOOZ. offered to them, brought an action for 
 salvage : — Held, that neither the master nor the 
 owners have power to bind the crew of the salvor 
 without their consent, and further salvage 
 awarded. The Sarah Jane, 2 W. Rob. 110. 
 
 An agreement between the owner of the .salving^ 
 ship and the owner of the ship in distress does 
 not preclude the master and crew of the salving 
 ship from suing for salvage. The William Lunh- 
 ingtuii, 7 Not. of Cas. 361. 
 
 Burden on those who set up Agreement to 
 Prove it.] — The burden of proving an agreement 
 in a salvage action is on those who rely upon it. 
 An agreement pronounced against as not proved, 
 the court not coming to any decision as to whether 
 as alleged, it was a forgery. The liessultatet, 17 
 I Jur. 353. 
 
 i And to Prove that it was Fair.] — It lies 
 
 I upon the shiijowner setting up an agreement with 
 the salvor that he should accept a stipulatL-d sum 
 to ])rove that it was just. The British Bmjiire, 
 6 Jur. 60S. 
 
 Agreement Cancelled by Consent.] — An agree- 
 ment was made lx'tW(M'n the masters of two 
 steamships that one should assist the other, which 
 was aground, and the service com] ileted under tiiat 
 agreement. It was subsequently cancelled by 
 mutual consent of the two masters. The agree- 
 ment canniit be set \i[) as a bar to a salvage 
 action. The Africa, 1 Spinks, 299. 
 
 No Duty to make Agreement.] — Salvors arc 
 
 'enlitl'd Id the judgment of IIk,' court as to the 
 j amount of tlieir icmuneiation, ami arc not under 
 I anv obligation to negotiate. The Tritonia, 2 
 j W.' Rob. 529. 
 
 Masterof Salvor can bind Owner but not Crew.] 
 
 I — The master of a salving vessel can liy agiee- 
 
 ' ment, as to the amount of salvage, with those on, 
 
 ! board the salved Hhi|), bind his own interest a-s- 
 
 salvor and that of his owners, but not those of 
 
 the crew, except with tlieir concurrence. Tho 
 
 Britain, 1 W. Rob. 4<>. 
 
 An agreement to tow a ship in distress from the 
 I Queen's Channel to I/mdon for 50Z. attempt c<l to 
 Vje set aside )>y persons claiming as salvors upoi% 
 the ground tll.at it had been cancelled either by 
 mutual consent or by supervening bad weatlicr, 
 but upheld. Danger of Belting aside towage or
 
 659 
 
 SHIPPING— XVIII. Salvage. 
 
 660 
 
 salvasTO contracts except for exceptional circiim- 
 stances. The Betsey, 2 W. Rob. 1G7 ; 2 Not. of 
 Cas. 409. 
 
 An agreement between .a Thames tug and a 
 ship ashore oflE Shoebury that the tug should get 
 her artoat and take her to Gravesend for 80/. 
 upheld ; although the ship had to be lightened 
 and another tug employed, and the service was 
 longer than expected. The Cato, 35 L. J., Adm. 
 11 G. 
 
 Unfair Agreements set aside.] — The court will 
 set aside an agreement for salvage services where 
 it is satisfied, lirst, that the parties were not con- 
 tracting upon equal terms : and secondly, that the 
 sum demanded and insisted on by the salvors is 
 exorbitant. The Euilto, GO L. J., Adm. 71 ; 
 [1891] P. 175 ; 64 L. T. 540 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 85. 
 
 A steamer fell in with another steamer in the 
 Atlantic, which had lost part of her propeller, 
 was leaking, and could not use her engines. The 
 vessel in distress was towed by the other vessel 
 to Halifax, a distance of about 350 miles. Before 
 the service was begun the masters of the salving 
 and salved vessels signed an agreement that the 
 owners of the salved vessel should pay 5,000Z. for 
 the service or a sum for work done if it was 
 unsuccessful. The master of the salving vessel 
 would not take a less sum, and the master of the 
 salved vessel had reasonable grounds for believing, 
 and believed, that his vessel would be abandoned 
 if he did not sign the agreement. The sum of 
 5.000Z. was more than one-fifth of the total value 
 •of the salved vessel, her cargo and freight : — 
 Held, that the agreement must be taken to have 
 been made under compulsion, and could not be 
 enforced, having regard to the fact that the sum 
 stipulated for was exorbitant. The court, treating 
 the agreement as inoperative, awarded the salvors 
 3.000Z. as a fair remuneration for the services, and 
 allowed them their costs of the action. The Mark 
 Lane, 15 P. D. 135 ; 63 L. T. 468 ; 39 W. R. 47 ; 
 € Asp. M. C. 540. 
 
 The commander of a Queen's ship sent to assist 
 a ship in distress cannot impose terms and refuse 
 to give salvage assistance unless his terms are 
 accepted. Woo.mng. Carqo ex, 1 P. D. 260 ; 35 
 L. T. 8 ; 25 W. R. 1 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 239— C. A. 
 
 Grounds for Setting Aside Agreement.] — 
 
 Contract to stand by and see the distressed vessel 
 into safety for 500Z. upheld. Fraud or cancella- 
 tion by consent are the only grounds for avoid- 
 ing contracts to salve. The Repulse. 2 W. Rob. 
 396. 
 
 Corrupt Agreement by Vice-Consul.] — An 
 
 agreement to render salvage service to a Portu- 
 guese ship ashore at Dungeness, made by the 
 agent of the Portuguese vice-consul upon the 
 terms that he should receive 50Z. out of the 600?. 
 agreed to be paid for salvage, set aside as corrupt. 
 The Crus V, Lush. 583. 
 
 Agreement to Salve Ship and not Cargo.] — 
 
 Agreement for salvage of the ship apart from the 
 cargo on board not allowed by the court. The 
 Westminster, 1 W. Rob. 229. 
 
 Arrest not superseded — Alleged Agreement.] 
 
 — A warrant of arrest in a salvage suit will not 
 be superseded upon an allegation of an agi'eement 
 between the salvor and shipmaster to refer the 
 claim to arbitration. La Purisslma Concepcion, 
 13 Jur. 545. 
 
 Salvage for Sum fixed — Issue Directed.] — In an 
 
 action for salvage claiming 2,000/. the defence 
 was that the service was rendered under a contract 
 for 50/. made between the masters of the ships, 
 which was a fair contract. Issue directed to try 
 the case. Buchanan v. Ban; 5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 (3rd ser.) 973. 
 
 18. Jurisdiction. 
 a. High Court. 
 
 Locality.] — Semblc, salvage on the Leigh 
 Middle Sand in the Thames is not within the 
 ancient jurisdiction of the admiralty. The 
 Eleanor, 6 C. Rob. 39. 
 
 Or salvage on the Black Tail Spit on the Essex 
 coast. See The Hercules, Baxter v. Beecler, 
 6 C. Rob. 39, n. 
 
 Services where Rendered.] — Defendants 
 
 in a cause of salvage, instituted against the cargo 
 of a foreign ship to recover for salvage services 
 rendered in saving the lives of a number of the 
 crew and passengers on board such ship, alleged 
 in their statement of defence that the vessel in 
 which the cargo proceeded against had been 
 laden was not, at the time the salvage services 
 were rendered, stranded or in distress on the 
 shore of any sea or tidal water within the limits 
 of the United Kingdom. The jjlaintiffs demurred, 
 on the ground that the facts therein stated were 
 not suiiicient to exclude the jurisdiction of the 
 court. The coiu't sustained the demurrer. The 
 Deutschland, 25 W. R. 755. 
 
 The admiralty court had jurisdiction in a 
 salvage case where part of the services were per- 
 formed on shore, as unloading cargo after the 
 ship has been brought in. The Rosalie, 1 Spinks, 
 188. 
 
 Onus of Proof of Distance.] — To oust the 
 
 court of its municipal jurisdiction, it lies upon 
 the defendant to prove that the vessel was at a 
 distance from shore to which the powers of the 
 court do not extend. The Gertrude, 30 L. J., 
 Adm. 130. 
 
 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65.] — Monition to owner of 
 
 timber picked up adrift in Yarmouth harbour 
 to shew cause why he should not pay salvage 
 rejected, on the ground that the court had no 
 jurisdiction under 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65, s. 6. Raft 
 of Tiviher, 2 W. Rob. 251. 
 
 Agreement made on Land.] — A ship sunk at 
 the Nore was raised by divers, and a salvage suit 
 brought against her. The owners appeared under 
 protest to the jurisdiction, alleging that the 
 services were performed under an agreement 
 made on land : — Protest overruled. The Cathe- 
 rine, 12 Jur. 682 ; 6 Not. of Cas. Suppl. xliii. 
 
 Cinque Ports.]— The 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. s. 460, 
 does not alter the jurisdiction of the court of 
 admiralty and the cinque ports in cases of 
 salvage services performed within the limits of 
 the cinque ports. The Maria Luisa, Swabcv, 
 67 ; 2 Jur. (N.s.) 264 ; 4 W. R. 376. 
 
 Salvage of a Whale.] — Royal fish taken within 
 the jurisdiction of the cinque ports belong to the 
 warden. Cinque Ports (^Lurd Warden) v. Rex, 
 2 Hag. Adm. 438. 
 
 Extent of — Value.] — The court of admiralty 
 i and the admiralty court of the cinque ports
 
 661 
 
 SHIPPING— X^Tttl. Salvage. 
 
 662 
 
 have both jurisdiction OTcr claims for salvage 1 
 •where the value of the property salved does not I 
 exceed 1,000Z. The Jtune Paul. 3t) L. J., Adm. ' 
 11 ; L. R. 1 A. & E. 336 ; 16 L. T. 125 ; 15 W. R. 
 776. 
 
 The words in 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 49, deter- 
 mining the jurisdiction of the court of admiralty 
 by the value of the property saved, mean the 
 Talue of the property when first brought into 
 safety by the salvors, and not its value at any 
 subse'quent period. The Stella, 36 L. J.. Adm. 1 3 : 
 L. R. 1 A. & E. 340: 16 L. T. 335; 15 W. R. 936. 
 
 A salvage suit was instituted in the court of | 
 admiralty, in a sum exceeding 900Z. ; the value ; 
 <jf the property saved was less than 1,000/.: — 
 Held, that the court had jurisdiction to entertain 
 The suit. The Empress. 41 L. J.. Adm. 32 ; L. R. 
 3 A. & E. 4.52 ; 25 L. T. 885 ; 20 W. R. 553 ; 1 
 Asp. M. C. 183. 
 
 By 1 7 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 460, and 25 & 26 Vict. 
 c. 63, ss. 49, 50, the court of admiralty has not 
 jurisdiction to determine and award the amount 
 of salvage due if the value of the property saved 
 is proved not to exceed 1,000Z., but nevertheless 
 it retains jurisdiction to condemn in costs and 
 •damages salvors so v^-rongf ully arresting property, 
 and for other collateral purposes. The Kate, 
 Br. & Lush. 218 : 33 L. J., Adm. 122 ; 10 Jur. 
 <X.S.) 444 ; 9 L. T. 782. 
 
 A claim for less than the sum of 200Z. was 
 made for salvage service rendered within the 
 limits of the United Kingdom, i.e. within three 
 miles from the shore : — Held, that, under 17 A: 18 
 Vict. c. 101, s. 460, the court of admiralty had 
 not jurisdiction to adjudicate on the claim. The 
 Leda, Swabey, 40 ; 2 Jur. (x.s.) 119 ; 4 W. R. 322. 
 
 Where the value of the property saved does not 
 exceed 1,000Z., the court of admiralty will, not- 
 withstanding an absolute appearance is given by 
 the defendant, refuse to proceed in the salvage 
 suit, on the ground that 17i: 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 460, 
 and the 25 i: 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 49, prohibit the 
 ^•ourt from exercising jurisdiction. The Lou'im, 
 Br. A: Lush. 59 ; 9 Jur. (X.S.) 676 ; 11 W. R.614. 
 Jiee also The William and John, post, col. 663. 
 
 Owner.] — It is immaterial to this question 
 
 that tlio party defending is the mortgagee, not 
 ilie owner of the ship. The word "owners" in 
 M in 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 460, if necessary, extends 
 to all persons interested in the property. Ih. 
 
 Estoppel.] — In a salvage suit the defen- 
 dants cnterc'l an absolute appearance. The vessel 
 being arrested, was released on tlie 1 1th January, 
 on an undertaking by the proctors of tlie f)wnors 
 to file an affidavit of value within a week. On 
 the 15th they filed an affidavit stating the value 
 of the ves.sel, freiglit and cargo to 1x3 over 1,000/. 
 On the 19th a receiver of wreck made an affidavit 
 that the value was under 1,000/. On the let 
 February the defendants ai)plie(l to dismiss the 
 suit with costs, on the ground that the court had 
 no jurisfliction, which in such a case lay with the 
 justices, under 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 49 :— Held, 
 that, under the circumstances, the defendants had 
 e'itoppwl themselves from objecting to the juris- 
 <liction, and the application was dismis-scd witli 
 costs. The DaH, 21 L. T. 765. 
 
 Agreement giving.] — Two causes of salvage 
 .r_'aih-t a ve,-^ol were consolidated upon motion by 
 tlie defendant.s,and with the consent of all parties. 
 On a petition being subsequently filed, the defen- 
 dants moved for its dismissal, with costs and 
 
 damages, on the ground that the value of the 
 property salved was under 1,000/. : — Held, that 
 the proceedings in reference to the consohdation 
 must be construed as an agreement which gave 
 the court jurisdiction under 31 & 32 Vict. c. 71, 
 s. 9. The Herman Wedel, 39 L. J., Adm. 30 ; 23 
 L. T. 876. 
 
 Damages against Salvors for Arresting.] — The 
 comt will not decree for damages unless the cir- 
 cumstances shew mala fides or crassa negligentia 
 on the part of the salvors in arresting, whereof 
 the fact that salvors ariested without first obtain- 
 ing a valuation of the property from the receiver 
 of wreck (as provided for by 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, 
 s. 5u) is not conclusive evidence. Tlie Kate, 
 Br. & Lush. 218 ; 33 L. J., Adm. 122 ; 10 Jur. 
 (X.S.) 444 ; 9 L. T. 782. 
 
 Objection, when taken.] — The objection to the 
 jurisdiction of the court on the ground that the 
 property is under 1,000/., should be alleged 
 when the appearance is entered ; but where a 
 defendant appeared absolutelj', and raised the 
 objection after the petition was filed, the court 
 entertained it, but refused costs. The Louisa, 
 Br. & Lush. 59 ; 9 Jur. (N.s.) 676 ; 11 W. R. 
 614. 
 
 Release by Keceiver ofWreck.] — After release 
 by the receiver of wreck of salved property upon 
 security given by the owner under 17 & 18 A'ict. 
 c. 104, s. 468, the salvors have no right to detain 
 the property or to arrest it by admiralty warrant. 
 The Lady Katherine liarham, Lush. 404 ; 5 L. T. 
 693. 
 
 Jurisdiction does net depend on Salvors" Pos- 
 session.] — The rights of the admiralty court to 
 enforce salvage did not depend upon the salvors 
 retaining possession. The Elconora Charlotta, 
 1 Hag. Adm. 156. 
 
 Proceedings before Justices — Subsequent Pro- 
 ceedings in High Court, j — The muster uf a vessel 
 agreed to pay 140/. for salvage services to be 
 rendered to his ship. The salvors took proceetl- 
 ings before justices to enforce jiaynient ; the 
 justices held the agreement invalid and reduced 
 the sum to be i)aid to 70/. A cause of salvage 
 was then instituted in the high court of 
 admiralty : — Held, under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, 
 s. 460, and 25 & 26 Vict. e. (i3,s. 49, that the suit 
 be dismissed, the sum claimeil being under 200/. 
 The William and John, Br. & Lusli. 49 ; 32 L. J., 
 Adm. 102 ; 9 Jur. (x.s.) 284 ; 8 L. T. 50 ; 11 
 \V. R. 535. 
 
 Award of Commissioners— Subsequent Action.] 
 
 — See The Klixe, su|iia, col. 6<ll. 
 
 Capture— Eansom — Hostage.] — The master of 
 a ship captuied by a French orivateer ransomed 
 the ship and cargo and went himself as hostage. 
 On the ship's arrival in England he arrested 
 the cargo for payment of the ransom bill. Pro- 
 hibition to the a<lmiralty before appenrance of 
 the cargo-owner, refused. Tranter v. Watson, 6 
 Mod. n. 
 
 b. Justices. 
 
 "Ship or Boat Stranded or otherwise in Dis- 
 tress."] — lust ices awai<lcd salvage in respect of 
 I ser^'ices rendered to a hoiiper barge, which had 
 \ been found adrift without any person on board
 
 G63 
 
 SHIPPING— XYIII. Salvage. 
 
 664 
 
 of her in the Wash, about three miles from 
 Boston. The barj^e was not furnished with any 
 means by which she could be propelled, and was 
 used for dredging purposes : — Held, that the 
 barge was a " ship in distress on the shore of a 
 sea or tidal water," within the meaning of the 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, s. 458, and that 
 the justices had jurisdiction to award salvage. 
 The 'Ltda (Swabey, 40) followed. The Mao or 
 Macadam v. Saucy Polly, 51 L. J., Adm. 81 ; 
 7 P. D. 126 ; 46 L. T. 907 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 555— 
 C. A. 
 
 " Sum Claimed."]— The 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, 
 s. 460, and 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 49, being read 
 together, enact, that all disputes as to the amount 
 of salvage, where either the sum claimed does 
 not exceed 2001. or the value of the property 
 saved does not exceed 1,000L, shall be referred 
 to justices of the peace, and thereby in those 
 cases exclude the jurisdiction of the court of 
 admiralty. Tlic William and John, Br. & Lush. 
 49 : 32 L. J., Adm. 102 ; 9 Jur. (N.s.) 284 ; 8 
 L. T. 56 ; 11 W. K. 535. 
 
 By "the sum claimed" is meant the sum 
 claimed by the salvors before the dispute is 
 referred. IT). 
 
 The words " disputes as to the amount of 
 salvage" extend to cases where an agreement 
 stipulating for a fixed amount has been made. 
 lb. 
 
 The existence of an agreement does not confer 
 jurisdiction upon the court of admiralty, but 
 where that jurisdiction exists, and has been pro- 
 perly set in motion, it may induce the court to 
 give costs to the salvors, although they recover a 
 sum less than 2001. See also Cases ante, cols. 
 653, seq. 
 
 "Sum in Dispute."] — The words " sum in dis- 
 pute " in 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 464, do not mean 
 the sum awarded by the justices and appealed 
 against ; and where the only evidence of the 
 sum in dispute is, that the salvors claimed before 
 the justices a certain amount of salvage, not 
 exceeding 200Z., an appeal from the award of 
 the justices lies in the admiralty court. Tlw 
 Andrew Wilson, Br. & Lush. 56 ; 32 L. J., Adm. 
 104 ; 9 Jur. (n.s.) 474 ; 8 L. T. 177. 
 
 Salvors, having sent in a formal demand in 
 writing for 40^., afterwards, before the justices, 
 claimed a sum not exceeding 200?. The justices 
 found that no salvage was due, and from that 
 decision the salvors appealed : — Held, that the 
 sum in dispute was the sum formally demanded, 
 and that as that was under 50Z., an appeal did 
 not lie. The Mary Amie, 34 L. J., Adm. 73 ; 12 
 L. T. 238. 
 
 When the sum in dispute exceeds 50Z., the 
 court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, 
 even though the value of the property salved is 
 under l,o6oZ. The Generovs, 37 L. J., Adm. 37 ; 
 L. E. 2 A. & E. 57 ; 17 L. T. 552 ; 16 W. E. 519. 
 
 Appeal — Varying Order.] — The court will not 
 entertain an appeal from the salvage award of 
 justices upon the mere question of amount, unless 
 jilainly exorbitant. The CxCba, Lush. 14 ; 6 Jur. 
 (x.s.) 152. 
 
 The salvors brought a barge off a dangerous 
 position near the Nore sand, and claimed ^01. 
 The magistrates at Maidstone awarded 15Z. : — 
 Held, that the latter sum was quite inadequate, 
 and the court gave 40Z. The Ilarriett, Swabey, 
 218. 
 
 Unless the amount awarded is wholly inade- 
 quate, the court will not disturb the award, even 
 though it is of opinion that the magistrate.? 
 should have given a somewhat larger sum, Thi» 
 Jeune Louise, 37 L. J., Adm. 32. 
 
 Practice.] — The court rarely admits new 
 
 evidence on the hearing of an appeal from an 
 award of magistrates. The Generous, supra. 
 
 Estoppel.] — The valire stated by the owners of 
 salved property in proceedings before commis- 
 sioners is not conclusive upon the salvor though 
 assented to at the time. The Hope, 14 W. E. 
 467. And see The EUse, Swabey, 436. 
 
 Appeal from Justices— Sum in Dispute.] — 
 
 There was no appeal from justices in salvage 
 cases under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 464, unless 
 " the sum in dispute " was over 50Z. The salvors 
 claimed 40/. in substance, but formally a sum 
 not exceeding 200Z. The justices awarded 
 nothing : — Held, that there was no appeal. The 
 Mary Anne, Br. & Lush. 334. 
 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 460.]— The words " at 
 or near the place where such ship or boat is- 
 lying" in the above section refer to justices- 
 residing at or near the place to which the ship 
 is brought immediately after the salvage service. 
 Summers v. JJuchan, 18 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th 
 ser.) 879. 
 
 c. County Court. 
 
 Extent of.]— By 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, ss. 458, 
 460, and 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 49, where certaia 
 services are rendered to a ship or a boat in dis- 
 tress on the seashore, there shall be payable to 
 the parties by whom the service is rendered a 
 reasonable amount of salvage, the amount, iu 
 case of dispute, where the sum claimed does not 
 exceed 200Z., or the value of the property saved 
 does not exceed 1,000Z., to be referred to the 
 arbitration of two jttstices or a county court 
 judge : — Held, that a county court judge may 
 exercise this jurisdiction where there has been a 
 salvage agreement for a fixed sum, and that a 
 rule by which such proceedings are to be com- 
 menced in the county court by plaint and sum- 
 mons is valid. Beadnell v. Beeson, 9 B. & S. 
 315 ; 37 L. J., Q. B. 171 ; L. E. 3 Q. B. 439 ^ 
 18 L. T. 401 ; 16 W. E. 1008. 
 
 Distribution of Salvage.] — A county court, 
 having admiralty jurisdiction, has jurisdiction tO' 
 entertain a suit of distribution of salvage where 
 the amount which the court is asked to appor- 
 tion does not exceed 300Z., notwithstanding that 
 the value of the property saved exceeds 1,000Z. 
 The Glannibarda, Elemore v. Trim; 46 L. J., 
 Adm. 75 ; 2 P. D. 45 ; 36 L. T. 27 ; 25 W.E. 513. 
 
 The admiralty jurisdiction of the county courts; 
 extends to the distribution of salvage, although 
 there has been no original claim in the county- 
 court for salvage. I b. 
 
 Enforcing Bonds given to Receivers of Wreck.} 
 
 — As it is a matter of doubt whether the county 
 courts having admiralty jurisdiction have power 
 to enforce salvage bonds given to receivers of 
 wreck under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 
 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104), s. 468, the court of admi- 
 ralty will, on the application of a salvor in 
 respect of whose services such a bond has been
 
 661 
 
 SHIPPING— X^^II. Salvage. 
 
 666 
 
 given, erant leave to proceed in the high court 
 under the County Coui-ts Admiralty Jurisdiction 
 Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71). s. 9. The John 
 Evans, 43 L. J., Adm. 9 ; 30 L. T. 308 ; 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 23i. 
 
 19. Salvage Lien. 
 
 Sum paid to release Ship.] — A shipowner who 
 has paid a sum of inonoy, under 9 & 10 Vict. c. 99, 
 in order to release the ship and cargo from a 
 claim for salvage, has a lien on the cargo for the 
 {proportion of those expenses payable to him by 
 the owners of the goods, and an insurable interest 
 in the cargo in respect of such lien. Bri//;/.s v. 
 Merchant Tradirs' Ship Lonn and Assiiranci' 
 Association, 13 Q. B. 167 ; 18 L. J., Q. B. 178 ; 13 
 Jur. 787. 
 
 Of Finder.] — The deputj^ vice-admiral, who 
 received an anchor and a hawser, alleged to have 
 been left at sea, from the finder, refused on 
 application by the real owner to deliver them 
 up, until the salvage was paid, or security given 
 for the payment of it : — Held, that this was a 
 conversion, but that if he had merely refused to 
 deliver them up until it was ascertained whether 
 salvage was due or not, it would not have 
 iimountcd to a conversion. Clarh v. Cliamher- 
 lain, 2 M. & W. 78 ; 2 Gale, 217. 
 
 Solicitors' Costs — Expenses of Crew — Pri- 
 ority.] — Solicitors for dclerulants in a salvage 
 action against a foreign ship, who are entitled 
 to a charge upon the ship, or the proceeds 
 thereof, for their costs and expenses incurred 
 in the preservation of the property, do not take 
 priority of the claim of the foreign government, 
 who. on the abandonment of the ship by her 
 owners, arc entitled, by the provisions of their 
 code, to a lien upon the ship, or the proceeds, for 
 the expenses of sending back the ship's crew to 
 their own country. An Italian ship was brought 
 into a British port by salvors. A salvage action 
 having been instituted, the ship was sold by 
 order of the court, and a sum was awaided out 
 of the proceeds to the salvors. After pay- 
 ment of that sum, and the costs of the plain- 
 tiffs, a balance of 60Z. 10.?. 'M. remained in 
 court. The defendants' solicitors had incurred 
 expen-ses in pumping the ship, paying the mar- 
 shal's possessif)n fees, &c., and claimed a cliarging 
 order upon the balance in court for such 
 expenses, and sought payment out of such 
 balance to them. The Italian government, 
 through their consul in this country, had sent 
 home the crew of the shij), and had incurred 
 expenses by so doing. By Italian law such last- 
 mentioned expenses arc a lien upon the ship. 
 The Italian consul opposed payment out to the 
 defendants' solicitors, and claimed priority' for 
 the lien of the Italian government : — Held, that 
 the Italian government was entitled to such 
 priority. The Liri/fta, 52 L. J., Adm. 81 ; 8 
 r. D. 209 ; 19 L. T. 411 ; 5 Asp. M, C. 167. 
 
 Cargo raised from Wreck.] — H. & Co., owners 
 of copper ore, employed T. to convey it in his 
 barge from Liverpool to Birkenhead, and to 
 deliver it there to L., to be crusherl in his mills, 
 L. having agiecd to indcmnifj' H. & Co. against 
 all risk of such transit. The barge with the ore 
 on board, having afterwards, without anj' fault 
 of T., .sunk in the Mersey, he ififormcd H. & Co. 
 of the accident, and requested to be employed to 
 raise the ore, when he was told that H. & Co. 
 
 had nothing to do with it, and that he should 
 see L., who had the management of it. li., when 
 applied to by T. as to getting the ore ui>. 
 said that he was insured with S., and that T. 
 must therefore go to S. for orders. T. having 
 accordingly obtained from S. directions to do 
 the work, raised the ore, and afterwards con- 
 veyed it to Birkenhead, and then claimed a 
 lien on it as against H. & Co. for the expenses of 
 raising it : — Held, that he had no right to such 
 lien, on the ground either of any contract with 
 H. & Co., or of general average loss or of salvage. 
 Custcllain V. T/ionijmin, 13 C. B. (x.S.) 105 ; "32 
 L. J., C. P. 79 ; 7 L. T. 424 ; 11 W. R. 147. 
 
 Priority.] — Salvage lien precedes a wages lieu. 
 The Sdhina, 7 Jur. 182. As to damage lien, see 
 The Selina, supra, col. 632 ; Att.-Gen. v. Norstedt, 
 supra, col. 164. 
 
 Cargo Sold— Following Proceeds.] — Where a 
 
 suit for salvage of life is instituted against a 
 cargo a part of which had been sold before action 
 brought, the court perhaps has power to follow 
 the proceeds. The General Maclean, 13 W. li. 
 728. 
 
 Judgment for Salvage — Action for Amount 
 Paid for Salvage against Underwriter — Salvage 
 not caused by Perils insured against.] — See 
 Ballantync v. Machinmni, post, col. 1321. 
 
 20. Practice. 
 
 a. Generally. 
 
 See also XXVI. Admiralty Law and 
 Practice, infra. 
 
 Trinity Masters.] — In salvage actions the 
 presence of Trinity masters is desirable. The 
 Jantes Dixon, 2 L. T. 696. 
 
 Compromise — Mistake of Fact.] — A compro- 
 mise of a salvage action agreed to Ijy the salvors 
 under a mistake of factisnf)t binding u[)ontheni. 
 The Monarch, 56 L. J., Adm. 114 f 12 P. D. 5 ; 
 56 L. T. 201 ; 35 W. 11. 292 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 90. 
 
 Several Salvors — Cross-e 
 
 salvors have a right to 
 
 witnesses, but only on a point at which they arc 
 
 at issue. Ih. 
 
 In a suit by rival salvors ])eing lieard together 
 the witnes.ses called on behalf of one set of 
 salvors will be liable to cross-cxaniinati()n ; first 
 on behalf of the rival plaintiffs, and then on 
 behalf of the defendants. The Philadelphia, 
 Br. ii. Lush. 28. 
 
 Bight to begin.] — The right to begin docs not 
 shift with the burden of proof, but is almost 
 universally with the claimant. 2'hc Magdalen, 
 31 L. J., Adm. 22 ; 5 L. T. 807. 
 
 Where there arc rival .salvors, the salvor who 
 first enters his suit has the right to begin, unless 
 special circumstances are shewn. 'The Morocco, 
 24 L. T. 578 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 46. 
 
 Service of Writ on Solicitors for Party not 
 appearing.] — AnnKlciniail"' fur leave to serve tlic 
 writ in a collision action upon solicitors who had 
 acted for the owners of the other ship in an 
 action for the same collision, which action had 
 been discontinued, and upon evidence that the 
 solicitors no longer acted for the owner.?, set 
 aside. TJie Pommerania, 48 L. J., Adm. 55 ; 4 
 P. D. 195 ; 39 L. T. 642. 
 
 roBS-examination.l — llival 
 
 orcjss-exaniine cadi other's
 
 667 
 
 SHIPPING— XVIII. Salvage. 
 
 608 
 
 Service of Notice of Writ.] — Where in ini 
 action in iKTsouani for alleged salvage services 
 rendered to ship, freight and cargo, the plaintiffs, 
 the owners, master and crew of the salving 
 vessel, had served the writ npon the owners of 
 the salved ship resident within the jurisdiction : 
 —Held, that under R. S. C. 1883, Ord. XI. r. 1, 
 leave might be obtained to serve the cargo- 
 owners, out of the jurisdiction, with notice of 
 the writ. The Elton, 60 L. J., Adm. 69 ; [1801 ] 
 V. 265 ; 65 L. T. 232 ; 39 W. R. 703 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 66. 
 
 Salvage after Collision— Owner of wrongdoing 
 Ship intervening.] — Where a ship has been 
 found to blame in a collision suit and a salvage 
 suit has been instituted against " B.," the other 
 i-hip, " B." has a right to intervene in the salvage 
 suit ; and if they put in bail to answer the 
 salvor's claim in lieu of the bail given by the 
 owners of " B.." the court will give them the con- 
 duct of the defence of the salvage suit. Tim 
 Diana. 31 L. T. 202 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 366. And see 
 The Kathleen, infra, col. 672. 
 
 Action in personam.] — Monition decreed 
 against the owner of ship and cargo salved, to 
 shew cause why salvage should not be pro- 
 nounced for ; the salved property being at sea. 
 The Meg Merrilies, 3 Hag. Adm. 346. S. P., The 
 Trelaio'ney, 3 C. Rob. 216, n. S. C, -1 C. Rob. 
 223. Duncan v. Dundee, Perth and London 
 Shijjjjmg Co., 5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 742. 
 The Hope, 3 C. Rob. 215. Fire Steel Barges, 
 supra, col. 626. 
 
 The court refused to allow proceedings in per- 
 sonam to be commenced against the owners of a 
 ship that had received salvage assistance from 
 a Queen's ship, and had on a subsequent voyage 
 been lost. The Chieftain, 4 Not. of Cas. 459. 
 
 Effect of Judgment in rem in Salvage 
 
 Action.]— See Bullantijne v, Machinnon, post, 
 coL 1321. 
 
 Court of Passage— Distribution of Salvag3 
 by High Court.] — See The Theresa, infra, col. 
 943. 
 
 Salvage paid to Master— Recovery by Ship- 
 owner.] — See The Princess Helena, supra, col. 
 
 650, 
 
 b. Parties. 
 
 Several Salvors.] — The court will protect 
 owners where the expenses have been increased 
 by separate suits having been brought by two 
 sets of salvors, and the interest of the one set has 
 been denied by the other. The Bartley, Swabey, 
 198. 
 
 Who to Sue.] — Two suits afterwards consoli- 
 dated were brought, one by the owner and the 
 other by the charterer of the salving ship, for 
 salvage to a ship also chartered to the same 
 charterer :— Held, that as under the terms of the 
 charterparty the charterer of the salving ship 
 was for the time being the owner, he, and not 
 the owner, was entitled to institute the suit. The 
 Scout, 41 L, J., Adm. 42 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 512 ; 
 26 L, T, 371 ; 20 W, R. 617 ; 1 Asp, -M, C. 
 258. 
 
 Third Party— Procedure.] — In an action for 
 damage by collision brought by a vessel at 
 
 anchor against a vessel in tow of a tug, the 
 owners of the tug were made third parties under 
 Ord. XVI. r. 18, "as the defendants claimed to be 
 indemnified by the owners of the tug against 
 the plaintiffs' claim, on the ground that the 
 improper navigation, if any, was that of the tug. 
 An application for directions under Ord. XVI. 
 r. 21, was subsequently made, and the plaintiffs 
 thereupon asked that the third parties should 
 be dismissed from the action on the ground 
 that the plaintiffs would be embarrassed by the 
 proceedings between the defendants and the 
 third parties :— Held, that the third parties 
 must be dismissed, as under the circumstances 
 questions would probably arise between them 
 and the defendants by which the plaintiffs 
 might be embarrassed, as they were different 
 from those upon which the action between 
 the plaintiffs and defendants would turn. The 
 Bianca, 52 L. J., Adm. 56 ; 8 P. D, 91 ; 48 
 L, T. 440 ; 31 W, R. 954 ; 5 Asp. M, C. 60, 
 
 Shipowners — Cargo-owners.] — Salvors of a ship 
 engaged as a common carrier between Dundee 
 and London, sued the shipowners for salvage 
 of ship and cargo, the cargo being the property 
 of various owners. The salvors averred that the 
 salvage was rendered necessary by the negligence 
 of the master : — Held that the action was rightly 
 brought against the shipowners. Demean v. 
 Dundee, Perth, and London Shipping Co., 5 Ct, of 
 Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 742. 
 
 Joinder of Plaintiffs- R. S. C. 1883, Ord. XVI 
 r. 1; Ord. XVIII. r. 1.]— The plaintiffs, owners, 
 masters and crews of four tugs issued a writ of 
 summons, claiming salvage for services rendered 
 to a ship, her cargo and freight. The owners of 
 the ship and cargo appeared under protest, and 
 moved to set aside the writ, or in the alternative 
 to strike out all the plaintiffs but one set, upon 
 the ground that the causes of action were sepa- 
 i.^te : — Held, that the motion be dismissed ; and 
 that the above rules of the supreme court, as 
 interpreted by Snmrthwaite v. Hannay, [1894] 
 A. C. 494, do not apply to admiralty practice. 
 The Marcchal Suchet, 65 L. J., Adm. 94 ; [1896] 
 V. 233 ; 74 L, T, 789 ; 45 W. R, 141 ; 8 Asp, M, C. 
 108, 
 
 c. Consolidation. 
 
 When allowed.] — Salvage suits may be consoli- 
 dated on the motion of the plaintiffs and without 
 the consent of the defendants. The Melpomene^ 
 42 L. J., Adm, 45 ; L. R. 4 A. & E. 129 ; 28 L. T. 
 76 ; 21 W. R. 956 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 575. S. P., The 
 Jacob Landstrom, 4 P. D. 191 ; 40 L. T. 36 ; 4 
 Asp. M. C. 58 (not followed in The Strathgarryy 
 infra). 
 
 Wherever it appears to the court convenient 
 to do so, salvage actions brought by different 
 salvors against the same property in respect of 
 services rendered upon the same occasion will be 
 consolidated without regard to the consent of the 
 parties. The Jacob Landstrom, supra, not fol- 
 lowed ; The William Hutt (Lush. 25) and The 
 3Iclpomene (L, R. 4 A. & E. 129) followed. The 
 Strathgarry, 64 L. J., Adm. 59; [1895] P. 
 264 ; 11 R. 732 : 72 L. T. 202 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 573. 
 
 A salvor who saves life in addition to rendering 
 other salvage services is not bound to consolidate 
 an-ainst his will. The Morocco, 24 L. T, 598 ; 1 
 A^sp. M. C. 46.
 
 669 
 
 SHIPPING— XYIII. Sahaae. 
 
 670 
 
 Motion to dismiss after Consolidation.] — When 
 
 a vessel Ijiid been arresteil in two causes of sal- 
 vage, which upon motion by consent of all parties 
 had been consolidated, and a petition was after- 
 wards filed, a motion to dismiss the suit with 
 costs and damages, as the value of the property 
 saved was under l.OOOZ., was rejected with costs. 
 The Herman Wedel, 39 L. J., Adm. 30 ; 23 L. T. 
 876. 
 
 Counsel.] — "When the interests of one of the 
 parties in a consolidated salvage suit are adverse 
 to the interests of the others, separate counsel on 
 his belialf may be heard at the hearing of the 
 consolidated cause. The Scout, 41 L. J., Adm. 
 12 ; L. K. 3 A. & E. .512 ; 26 L. T. 371 ; 20 W. R. 
 617; 1 Asp. M. C. 258. 
 
 d. Tender. 
 
 Tender.] — In a case where two actions of sal- 
 vage were instituted against the same vessel, on 
 behalf of plaintiffs having adverse interests, to 
 recover salvage reward in respect of services 
 rendered on the same occasion, the court on the 
 plaintiffs refusing to consent to a consolidation 
 order, allowed the defendants to make a single 
 tender in respect of the claims in both actions. 
 The Jucub Landstrom, 4 P. D. 191 ; 40 L. T. 38 ; 
 4 Asp. M. C. 58. 
 
 A defendant may, by act in court, tender a 
 sum of money in satisfaction of the plaintiff's 
 claim, and reserve the question whether he is 
 liable to pay costs. The IliekiiNiii. 39 L. J., Adm. 
 7 : L. R. 3 A. & E. 15 ; 21 L. T. 472 ; 18 W. R. 
 151. 
 
 Where no tender has been made in a salvage 
 suit for services which were actually towage, the 
 amount of claim could not be recovered. 'The 
 Strathnaver, 1 App. Gas. 58 ; 34 L. T. 148 ; 3 Asp. 
 M. C. 113— P. C. 
 
 Effect on Costs.] — See post, cols. 674, seq. 
 
 On Appeal against Award.'] —The sum of 800?. 
 had been awarded by the cinque port commis- 
 sioners to salvors for services rendered to a brig 
 and her cargo. The owners of the brig and cargo, 
 pursuant to 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 76, instituted an appeal 
 against this award in the court of admiralty, 
 aiul afterwards tendered lOOZ. by act in court : — 
 Held, on motion to direct the notice of tender to 
 be taken off the file, that the appellants were 
 entitled to make such tender by act in court, 
 notwithstanding that no tender had been made 
 l)rior to the institution of the appeal. 2'he 
 Annette, 42 L. .J., Adm. 13 ; L. R. 4 A. & E. 9 ; 
 28 L. T. 372 ; 21 W. R. 552 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 577. 
 
 Tender upheld.] — Tender upheld, though the 
 Balvors tdok cmt a commission (jf appraisement, 
 and the salved .shi[) wa.s apjiraised fur consider- 
 ably more than her stated value. Costs oi^ 
 a])ijraisement allowed. The Jintavier, 1 Spinks, 
 169. 
 
 Salvage claims by smacksmen and boatsmcn 
 rendering trivial services to n\\\\in in distress, 
 offers of 30Z. and 50/. having been niside for the 
 services, dismissed. The Black IJoy, 3 Hag. Adm. 
 386, n. ; The Funchal, 3 Hag. Adm. 386, n. 
 
 Tender without Payment into Court.] — See 
 
 T/ir \iittiiiijtli^ infia, cul. (;?:>. 
 
 Taxation of Costs after Tender pronounced 
 for. J— A tender in respect of salvage services 
 
 was made and pronounced for by the court, 
 nothing being said as to costs. Upon a sub- 
 sequent day the plaintiffs moved for an order for 
 taxation and payment of their costs up to tender : 
 — Held, that the defendants and their bail having 
 been dismissed from the suit, no order could be 
 made. The Couiitcss of Levin and Melville, 5 
 L. T. 290. 
 
 Tender admits Salvage.] — A tender in a sal- 
 vage suit is an admission that salvage services 
 were rendered. The Portia, 9 Jur. 167. 
 
 e. Arrest and Sale — Bail. 
 
 Bail.] — When a ship has been found to blame 
 in a cause of collision, and a cause of salvage has 
 been instituted against the other (the injured) 
 ship, the owners of the ship found to blame have 
 a right to intervene in the salvage cause to protect 
 their own interest ; and if they choose to jjut in 
 bail to answer the claim of the salvors in lieu of 
 the bail given by the owners of the injured 
 vessel, the court will give them the conduct of 
 the defence of the salvage suit ; under such cir- 
 cumstances the owners of the injured vessel are 
 entitled to have their bail releasetl, and to be 
 paid their costs up to the time when the new bail 
 is put in. The Diaiia, 31 L. T. 203 ; 2 Asp, M. C. 
 366. 
 
 What Liable to Arrest.] — Services were ren- 
 dered, by means of which a vessel and the goods 
 on board were saved from total loss, and the lives 
 of a number of passengers also were saved. Suits 
 were instituted on behalf of the persons who 
 rendered the services, against the vessel and her 
 cargo, to recover salvage reward : — Held, that 
 the wearing apparel of tlie passengers, and other 
 things belonging to them cjusdem generis, on 
 board the vessel, were privileged from arrest. 
 The Willeni III., L. R. 3 A. & E. 487 ; 25 L. T. 
 386 ; 20 W. R. 216 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 129. 
 
 Release of Property.] — A vessel which liad 
 been saved was valued by a receiver of wreck at 
 less than l,Ono/. TIk' salvdrs obtained aTi oi-der 
 for a commission of appraisement, but did not 
 execute it, and after three weeks gave notice that 
 they ])roceeded no further in the suit:— Held, 
 that they might, williin four days of obtaining 
 the oi'dei', have ascertained the value, and tliat 
 therefore they nuist be condemned in damages 
 for detention of the vessel during the rest of the 
 three weeks. The Margaret and Jane, 38 L. J., 
 Adm. 38 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 345 ; 20 L. T. 1017 ; 
 17 W. R. 1064. 
 
 After release of salved property by the receiver 
 of wreck upon security to his satisfaction, salvors 
 have no right to detain the pro|)erty, or to arrest 
 it. The Ladij Kathirlne Jiarham, Lush. 404 ; 6 
 L. T. 693. 
 
 Perishing Cargo— Order for Sale.] — When a 
 
 slii]! and cargo are brought into port by salvors, 
 and a suit is instituted in the court of admiralty 
 to recover salvage reward, that court will, on the 
 application of the salvors, acting with the assent 
 of the owners of the cargo, order a sale of the 
 cargo to prevent deterioration from damage done, 
 although the shipowner, desirous of carrying on 
 the cargo so as to earn freight, ojiposes the sale 
 and offers to give substantial bail for both ship 
 and cargo ; but such sale will be ordered subject 
 to all questions of right to freight. The Kathleen^
 
 G71 
 
 •IS L. J, 
 
 204 ; 2: 
 
 SHIPPING— XVIII. Salvage. 
 
 672 
 
 , Mm. 39 ; L. E. 4 A. & E. 269 
 W. K. 350. 
 
 31 L. T. 
 
 Derelict— Default Action.] — Where in a 
 
 salvage action, in which no appearance had been 
 entered, it was alleged upon affidavit that the 
 ship and cargo were daily deteriorating in value, 
 and that large expenses were being incurred in 
 respect of the charge of the property, and that 
 the plaintiffs had been in communication with 
 the owners as to a sale, the court, on motion by 
 the plaintiffs prior to decree, ordered an appraise- 
 ment and sale of the property. The Anna Helena. 
 48 L. T. 681 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 61. 
 
 Bringing in Account of Freight.]— A ship was 
 arrested, after discharge of cargo, in a suit for 
 salvage ; bail was given for ship and freight : — 
 Held, that the owners of the vessel proceeded 
 against were bound to bring in an account of 
 freight on oath, and to set forth when, and the 
 names of the parties by whom, such freight had 
 been paid. The Peace, Swabey, 85. 
 
 Action in rem — Judgment for an Amount in 
 Excess of Bail— Liability for Balance.] — Owners 
 who have appeared as defendants in an action in 
 rem, and have given bail, are still personally 
 liable. for any amount which the judgment of the 
 court may find to be due to the plaintifEs in excess 
 of the amount for which bail has been given, and 
 execution may be issued against them for such 
 balance and costs. The Dictator, 61 L. J., Adm. 
 73 ; [1892] P. 304 ; 67 L. T. 563 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 251. 
 
 Monition to bring in Freiglit— Foreign Law.] 
 — In a salvage suit a foreign ship was sold, no 
 appearance being entered for lier. The proceeds 
 were insufficient to meet all the claims. The 
 master applied for a monition to the consignees 
 of cargo to bring in the freight, upon which by 
 the foreign law the master had a lien for wages 
 and primage ; enforcement of the monition 
 refused, upon the ground that under the circum- 
 stances application of the foreign law would be 
 unjust. The Johannes Christoj^h, 2 Spinks, 93. 
 
 Appraisement.] — See The i?. M. Mills, Venus, 
 Cargo ex, supra, col. 633. 
 
 Excessive Bail.] — Disapprobation of court 
 where excessive bail demanded. The Eurl Grey, 
 1 Spinks, 180. And see The George Gordon, 
 infra, col. 1023. 
 
 f. Pleadings. 
 
 Agreement witli Shipowner — Suit against 
 Cargo.] — In a cause of salvage against ship, 
 freight and cargo, the shipowner, after the 
 institution of the cause, paid a sum in settlement 
 of the claim against him, which was accepted 
 by the plaintifEs. The plaintifEs proceeded 
 against the cargo, and pleaded in their petition 
 the payment of this sum by the shipowner, and 
 stated the amount :— Held, that they were not 
 entitled to plead the amount so accepted by them, 
 although they might plead the fact that they 
 had so settled with the shipowner. The Due 
 CheecM, L. K. 4 A. & E. 35, n. ; 26 L. T. 593 ; 20 
 W. E. 686 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 294. 
 
 Amount Paid to Third Parties.] — In a 
 
 suit institvited on behalf of the owners, master 
 and crew of a steam-tug, to recover salvage 
 
 reward for salving a disabled vessel and her cargo, 
 it appeared by the petition that persons other 
 than the plaintiffs in the cause had assisted in 
 the service, and in an article in the answer filed 
 on behalf of the owners of the salved vessel 
 and her cargo, the defendants alleged that they 
 had been ordered by a court of competent juris- 
 diction to pay to such other persons 240Z. in 
 respect of the assistance so rendered by them. The 
 plaintiffs moved to strike out this article. The 
 court, holding that the article was relevant to 
 the matters in issue in the suit, rejected the 
 motion. The Antelope, 42 L. J., Adm. 42 ; L. E. 
 4 A. & E. 33 ; 28 L. T. 74 ; 21 W. R. 464 ; 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 511. S. P., The Dm Cheeehi, supra. 
 
 Specific Expenses.] — When in a salvage cause 
 the petition states expenses to have been incurred 
 in rendering the services without stating their 
 amount and the answer admits all the allegations 
 of the petition, the court of admiralty will not 
 allow evidence to be called by the plaintiff to 
 shew the amount of the expenses. If specific 
 amounts are claimed they miist be pleaded so as 
 to give the defendant the opportunity of admit- 
 ting or denying them. The Eintracht, 29 L. T. 
 851 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 198. 
 
 Inferences.] — When in a salvage suit the 
 defendants admit all the allegations of fact in 
 the petition, but deny the inferences of fact 
 made therefrom in the petition, the plaintiffs 
 may call evidence to establish those inferences. 
 
 n. 
 
 Separate Petitions— Repeating Allegations.] 
 
 — Where in a cause of salvage against a derelict 
 ship, rival salvors institute separate causes and 
 file separate petitions, alleging misconduct 
 against one another, the court of admiralty will 
 not allow the defendants, in their answer to the 
 jjctition of one set of salvors, to plead that in 
 the petition of the other set there are allega- 
 tions of misconduct, and that they, for the pur- 
 pose of the cause, and not otherwise, adopt 
 those allegations ; they must either make the 
 allegations of raisconcluct as their own state- 
 ments, or omit them. The Kathleen, 43 L. J., 
 Adm. 39 ; L. II. 4 A. & E. 209 ; 31 L. T. 204 ; 2 
 Asp. M. C. 367. 
 
 When rival salvors file separate petitions, 
 alleging misconduct against each other, and the 
 defendants in their separate answers repeat the 
 charges of misconduct made by each salvor 
 against the other, so that the answers are contra- 
 dictory, the defendants will not be allowed, on 
 the hearing of both causes at the same time, to 
 cross-examine one set of salvors to shew that they 
 and not the other set had been guilty of miscon- 
 duct. Ih. 
 
 Negligence.] — Negligence, though not speci- 
 fically pleaded in the answer, may be proved to 
 negative a claim to salvage upon a simple tra- 
 verse of salvage services ; but if the defendants 
 mean to charge the claimants with purposely 
 having brought the ship in danger, such defence 
 must be specifically pleaded in the answer. Tlw 
 Minnehalia, Ward v. MeCorhill, Lush. 335 ; 15 
 Moore, P. C. 133; 30 L. J., Adm. 211 ; 7 Jur. 
 (N.s.) 1257 ; 4 L. T. 810 ; 9 W. R. 925. 
 
 General Denial that Salvage Due.] — On a 
 
 motion by salvors, on objection to certain articles 
 of the defendants' answer, which averred,
 
 673 
 
 SHIPPIXG— X^'III. Salvage. 
 
 674 
 
 that though the services rendered might be of 
 the nature of salvage service, yet that because 
 the owners of the salving and the charterers 
 of the salved vessel were the same persons, no 
 salvage was due : the court ordered the article 
 denying that any salvage was due to be struck 
 out, but not the other articles detailing the facts, 
 which, if proved, might not bar the claim for 
 salvage, but might affect the quantum. The 
 CuUier, L. R. 1 A. & E. 83 ; 12 Jur. (N.s.) 789 ; 16 
 L. T. 155. 
 
 Amending and Adding.] — The court refused 
 to allow defendants to add to their pleas an alle- 
 gation that the salvors, since the commencement 
 of the suit, had assaulted some of the witnesses 
 who were going to give evidence on behalf of the 
 owners. The Fielden, 11 W. R. 156. 
 
 Statement of Claim.] — A statement of claim 
 in a salvage action was drawn in the Form No. G 
 of Appendix C. to the Rules of the Supreme 
 Court, 1883 ; on motion by the defendants under 
 Ord. XIX. r. 7, for a further and better statement 
 of claim or particulars : — Held, that the plaintiffs 
 must deliver a fuller statement of claim, and 
 that in salvage actions a fuller form than that 
 given in Appendix C. Xo. 6. should generallv be 
 followed. The Isis. 53 L. J., Adm. 11 ; 8 P. D. 
 227 ; 49 L. T. 444 : 32 W. R. 171 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 155. 
 
 Plea of Tender — Payment into Court.] — A plea 
 of tender without pavment into court is bad. 
 Tlie Kasmyth, .04 L. J.. Adm. 63 ; 10 P. D. 41 : 
 52 L. T. 392 ; 33 W. R. 736 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 364. 
 
 g. Evidence. 
 
 Amount— Different Suit.] — In a salvage suit 
 evidence of the aiiKnint in which another suit has 
 been instituted in another court for services ren- 
 dered at the same time is not admissible. The 
 Antelope, 27 L. T. 063 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 477. 
 
 Agreed Value.] — When, in a salvage action, 
 the defendants filed affidavits of value of their 
 ship, freight and cargo, which values have been 
 acceptc<l and agreed to by the plaintiff, the defen- 
 dants will not he alloweil at the hearing to give 
 evidence to decrease the values. The JIanna, 
 37 L. T. 364 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 503. 
 
 Deposition before Receivers of Wreck.] — A 
 receiver of wi«ik, in laJ^iiiLr di|)Osiliiins under 
 the Merchant Sliii.i.ing Act, 1854 (17 ii. 18 Vict. 
 c. 104), H. 4 J.S, should put down the facts <lc|)osed 
 to as given by the deponent, and should not 
 correct any statement ma<le by the deponent 
 which, within the personal knowledge of the 
 receiver, is erroneous. The Lancanhire, L. R. 4 
 A. & E. 198 : 29 L. T. 927 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 202. 
 
 The examination of the crew of a salved 
 vessel taken bj* the receiver of wreck under the 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, 8.448, is not admis- 
 sible a.s evidence in a salvage suit for the purpose 
 of proving the facts stated in the examination. 
 The Little Lizzie, L. R. 3 A. & E. 56 ; 23 L. T. 
 84 ; 18 W. R. 960. 
 
 Contradictory.] — When the evidence is dircctlj' 
 contra<li<:t(pry. the court considers only on whom 
 the onus of proof lies, and whether that party has 
 discharged it. The court seldom, if ever, attriijutes 
 perjury to either side. The Nymphf, 5 L. T. 365. 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 Protest.] — In salvage suits the protest should 
 always be brought in. The Emma, 2 W. Rob. 
 315. 
 
 On Appeal ftom Justices.] — Appeals from 
 justices in salvage cases proceeded upon act on 
 petition; further evidence admissible in admiralty 
 on appeal. The Thomas Wood, 1 W. Rob. 18. 
 
 Facts Admitted.] — See The Hard wick, infra, 
 col. 1000. 
 
 h. Costs. 
 
 Tender — Costs of Proceedings subsequent to.] 
 — A salvage suit was brought, anil a sura less by 
 18Z. than the limit of 300Z. of the county courl^s 
 jurisdiction was recovered. The agreed value of 
 the property saved was 2,200/. ; the claim was 
 for 700Z. ; there was considerable conflict of 
 evidence as to the degree of meritoriousness of 
 the services, and questions of some difficulty 
 arose : — Held, having regard especially, though 
 not solely, to the smallness of the 'difference 
 between the sum awarded and the limit of the 
 jurisdiction of the county court, that the case 
 was proper for a certilicatc to entitle the 
 plaintiffs to costs. The Hickman, 39 L. J., 
 Adm. 7 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 15 ; 21 L. T. 472 ; 18 
 W. R. 151. 
 
 When a tender is made in a salvage suit, it 
 should state that it is a tender for salvage and 
 costs, or should specify the ground upon which 
 costs are not tendered, and refer the question of 
 costs to the consideration of the court. lb. 
 
 The master of the " London " agreed for 400Z. 
 to tow the "Waverley" into Lisbon, about 
 twenty-five miles. The weather, which was bad 
 at the time of the agreement, subsequently 
 became worse, and much difficulty was experi- 
 enced in performing the salvage. In a suit for 
 salvage the owners of the " Waverley " tendered 
 400/., the amount agreed upon for salvage, and 
 123Z. Ms. 8d. for expenses and detention : — Held, 
 that the agreement was equitable and must be 
 upheld, with costs from the time of making the 
 tender. The M'arrrlei/, 40 L. J., Adm. 12 ; 
 L. R. 3 A. & E. 369 ; 24 L. T. 713 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 47. 
 
 See also XXVI. Admiralty Law and 
 Practice, infra, col. 1019. 
 
 Sufficiency of Tender,] — If in an action for 
 salviiLfe services rendered in the United Kingdom 
 a tender uTider 200/., '• with such costs (if any) 
 as may be due by law," for the services rendered, 
 is accepted, the court will not certify for costs, 
 except for special cause shown. The John, Lush. 
 11 ; I L. T. 495. 
 
 Where a tender in <a salvage suit is pronounced 
 for, the usual practice is to condemn the |)laint ids 
 in the costs irKriirred since the time fif lender, 
 but this practice is not inv!ui:d)le, and where 
 the court is of opinion that the tender is not a 
 liberal one, it will in its discretion make no order 
 with regard to such costs. 'The Ijotvs, 7 P. D. 
 19'.» ; 47 L. T. 417 ; 30 W. R. 892 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 595. 
 
 One of several salvors sued for salvage services 
 rendered in the United Kingdom. The defen- 
 dants tendered, by act of court, 40/., "with costs 
 up to time of tender," which the plaintiff refused. 
 The defendants then resisted the claim, jiartly on 
 the question of amount, and partly on the ground 
 (which they failed to suppoit) that the plaintiff 
 had been partv to a sett lement of the whole claim 
 
 22
 
 675 
 
 SHIPPING— XVIII. Sahcui 
 
 676 
 
 with one of the co-salvors. The coiirt overruled 
 the tender, and gave 100?. :— Held, that, not- 
 withstanding the question of agreement, the case 
 was not a tit one to be tried in the superior 
 court, and accordingly refused to certify for 
 costs, under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 460. The 
 Comte Xesselnwd, Lush. 454 ; 31 L. J., Adm. 77 ; 
 6 L. T. 57. 
 
 Held, also, that thereby, notwithstanding the 
 form of tender, the plaintifE was not entitled to 
 his costs up to the time of tender. li. 
 
 Whenever defendants intend to rely upon 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 460, as governing the ques- 
 tion of costs, the facts material for that purpose 
 should be distinctly pleaded and proved. When 
 a tender is pronounced sufficient, costs do not, as 
 a rule, follow the decision. The Favourite, 5 
 L. T. 773. 
 
 Although the ordinary practice of the court is 
 to recognise only such tenders as are made in 
 acts of court, provided they are of a fixed sum 
 with costs, and without any condition, still if it 
 should appear in any case tlaat the salvors, before 
 action brought, have, with a full knowledge of 
 all the circumstances, rejected a liberal offer of 
 remuneration, an actual tender of money, and a 
 smaller sum is awarded, they will lose the costs 
 of the suit. Tlie Soverelcjn, Lush. 85 ; 29 L. J., 
 Adm. 113 ; 6 Jur. (N.s.) 832 : 2 L. T. 669. 
 
 When a tender of 200/. for the services has 
 been made and accepted, the plaintiff is entitled 
 to costs, notwithstanding the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, 
 s. 460. The Germ, 15 W. R. 937. 
 
 Where in a salvage action the defendants 
 with their defence tender and pay into court 
 a sum of money in satisfaction of the plaintiff's 
 claim, and plead such payment into court, and 
 the sum paid in is held to be sufficient, the 
 court will order the defendants to pay the plain- 
 tiff's costs up to the date of the delivery of the 
 defence, unless the circumstances of the case 
 render it just and expedient to order otherwise. 
 The William Symington, 54 L. J., Adm. 4 ; 10 
 P. D. 1 ; 51 L. T. 461 ; 33 W. E. 371 ; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 293. 
 
 In a salvage action it is not necessary that a 
 tender should be accompanied with an offer to 
 pay the plaintiff's costs up to the date of tender. 
 lb. 
 
 Salvors rejected a tender which was afterwards 
 pronounced for : — Held, that the salvors were 
 entitled to no costs. The John and Thomas, 
 1 Hag. Adm. 157, n. 
 
 In order to escape paying salvors' costs, a 
 tender in a salvage suit should be in regular 
 form, as early as possible, by act of court. The 
 Vroviu Margaretha, 4 C. Rob. 103. 
 
 Where a tender in a salvage action is upheld 
 costs will be given. The Emu, 1 W. Rob. 15. 
 
 Costs of Appraisement.] — A salved vessel was 
 valued by a receiver of wreck at 746Z. on the 
 3rd of December. On the 8th the salvors insti- 
 tuted a suit in 2,500Z. ; on the 18th they applied 
 for an appraisement of the vessel ; on the 14th 
 of January following they gave notice that they 
 proceeded no further in the suit : — Held, that 
 the salvors must have been aware within a short 
 time of taking out the appraisement that the 
 value fixed by the receiver was substantially 
 correct, and that they must therefore be con- 
 demned in costs, and in damages from the 22nd 
 of December to the 14th of January. The Mar- 
 (jaret and Jane, 38 L. J., Adm. 38 ; L. R. 2 
 A. & E. 345 ; 20 L. T. 1017 ; 17 W. R. 1064. 
 
 Salvors are entitled to the costs of a commis- 
 sion of appraisement when it appears that there 
 is a substantial difference between the appraised 
 value and that alleged bv the defendants. The 
 Paul, 35 L. J., Adiii. 16 "; L. R. 1 A. & E. 57 ; 
 14 L. T. 192. 
 
 The value of ship, as appraised by the officer 
 of the court, was less, and of the cargo more, than 
 the values tendered by the defendant. The 
 court condemned the defendant in the costs 
 of the appraisement. The Magdalen, 5 L. T. 
 692. 
 
 The owner alleged the value of a ship to be 
 one-fifteenth less than it afterwards was found 
 to be ; the amount claimed was less than the 
 sum for which the owners were willing to give 
 security, but the costs of the suit woukl extend 
 the claim beyond that sum : — Held, that the 
 costs of the appraisement should be costs in the 
 cause. The Bafid, 18 W. R. 150. 
 
 If salvors take out a commission of appraise- 
 ment without cause, they will have to pay the 
 costs ; as where the owners put the value at 
 865Z., and upon appraisement it was found to 
 be 880Z. The Cmnmodove, 1 Spinks, 175, n. ; 
 The Wllhchnina, 1 Not. of Cas. 376. 
 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, SB. 458, 460— Salvage 
 within Three Miles of Shore.] — Where the ancient 
 jurisdiction of the admiralty is limited by statute, 
 it is for those who deny the jurisdiction to prove 
 the circumstances which limit it. Owners of a 
 vessel salved claimed that no costs were due to 
 the salvors, on the ground that the service was 
 within three miles of the shore, and that under 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, ss. 458, 460, the justices 
 alone had jurisdiction. The locality of the sal- 
 vage service not being proved, costs were allowed. 
 The Argo, Swabey, 112. 
 
 Consolidated Actions.] — Where three separate 
 salvage suits were instituted for services rendered 
 on the same occasion, and not consolidated, full 
 costs were not allowed to the third claimant. 
 The Belle of Lagos, 20 L. T. 1019 ; 17 W. R. 
 899. 
 
 Where separate salvage actions against the 
 same ship were consolidated, leave being given 
 to the various plaintiffs to appear separately at 
 the hearing, as their interests were conflicting, 
 and the defendants with their defence tendered 
 and paid into court a sum of money as being 
 sufficient to satisfy all claims, but did not appor- 
 tion it to the separate plaintiffs, the court, having 
 upheld the tender, ordered all parties to pay 
 their own costs incurred subsequently to the 
 tender, the defendants paving the costs previous 
 to the tender. The Lee", 60 L. T. 939; 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 395. 
 
 Damages and Costs for Arresting in High 
 
 Court.] — No general rule as to damages and 
 costs for arresting property of less value than 
 1,000/. for salvage in the 'high court, contrary 
 to 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 49. The Eleonorc, 
 Br. & Lush. 185 ; 33 L. J., Adm. 19 ; 9 L. T. 397 : 
 12 W. R. 218. 
 
 Salvage out of United Kingdom.] — Salvage 
 services were rendered to a vessel beyond three 
 miles from the shore of the United Kingdom. 
 The sum of 100/. only was awarded : — Held, that 
 since the salvage was not in the United King- 
 dom, the provision in 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 4(;0, 
 did not apply so as to bar the salvors of their
 
 677 
 
 SHIPPING— XYIII. Salvage. 
 
 (578 
 
 costs. The Acfif, Swabev. 237 : 3 Jwc. (N.s.) 
 893 ; 5 W. R. 547. 
 
 Proceedings througli Default of other Side.] 
 
 — The costs of salvors, incurred in taking affi- 
 davits before issue joined, are allowed when the 
 defendants have not unreservedly admitted the 
 facts pleaded in the petition, and supported by 
 the affidavits. The Faivlhm, 14 W. R. 869. 
 
 Where a master refuses to go on shore and 
 refer to the local justices the amount of salvage 
 <lue for services rendered in the United Kingdom, 
 and removes the vessel from the local juris- 
 diction, and an action is thereon brought in the 
 court of admiralty, the court, awarding only 
 oO^., will certify for the salvor's costs under 
 17 & 18 Vict. c.'l04, s. 460. The Aljjha, Lush. 
 .S9 ; 2 L. T. .521. 
 
 Interest.] — Although execution has not issued, 
 interest upon a salvage award is recoverable from 
 the date of the judgment, and interest on the 
 solicitor's taxed bill of costs from the date of 
 the allocatur of the taxing-master. The Joiu-x 
 Brothers, 46 L. J., Adm. 75 ; 37 L. T. 164 ; 3 
 Asp. M. C. 478. 
 
 The court has no power to refuse interest 
 Ix'cause the judgment recovered is for salvage. 
 Ih. 
 
 Costs of Parties against whom no Claim made 
 out.] — When parties have been summoned to 
 appear against whom no claim to contribution is 
 made out, the parties so summoned are entitled 
 to their costs. SarjK'flon, Carqo ex, 3 P. D. 
 28 ; 37 L. T. oO.^ ; 26 W. R. 374 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 r,m. 
 
 Award Beduced on Appeal.] — A ward of Cinqno 
 I'orts commissioners reduced ; costs of appeal to 
 be h)orne by the party incurring them. The 
 Ifrnry of Philadelphia, I Hag. Adm. 264. 
 
 Costs of Appeal.] — Where in an action of 
 -alvage the amount awarded is reduced on 
 appeal, the general practice is to give no costs 
 of the appeal, l>ut this is not a hard-and-fast rule 
 so as to deprive the court of all discretion in 
 the matter. The Gipsy Queen, (!4 L. J., Adm. 
 ««; [189.5] P. 176; 11 R. 766; 72 L. T. 454: 
 43 W. R. 359 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 586— C. A. 
 
 Amount.] — Although tlic sum awarded by 
 
 the appellate court for sidvage services is umler 
 200^., costs will be allowed if the case is a fit one 
 to be brought >x;fore the appellate court. The 
 Minnehaha, Lush. 335; 15 Moore, P. C. 133; 
 30 L. J.. Adm. 211 ; 7 Jur. (N.S.) 1257 ; 4 L. T. 
 810 ; 9 W. R. 925. 
 
 General Rule.] — Tliough in a])peals as to 
 
 the amount of salvage the privy council generally 
 did not give a successful appellant his costs of 
 the appeal, such api)eals under the Judicature 
 Act form no e.\cc[)tioii to tlie general rul(; that ;i 
 successful appellant is entitled to his costs. 'J'he 
 r'ity of Berlin, 47 L. J., Adm. 2 ; 2 P. I). 187; 
 37 L. T. 307 ; 25 W. R. 793 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 491 — 
 €. A. 
 
 Misconduct of Salvors.] — Punished by order 
 Id pav costs. The Cadiz and The Hoyne, 35 
 J>. T. 602 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 332. 
 
 Separate Appearances.] — Where in a salvage 
 
 suit, where the mate appeared separately from | 
 
 the owners and rest of the crew, half costs only 
 given to each. The Xicolinu, 2 W. Rob. 175. 
 
 Two Actions for Salvage against the same 
 Property.] — In a case where the defendants, in 
 two actions of salvage instituted against the 
 same property, were ordered to pay only one set 
 of costs, to be apportioned between the plaintiffs 
 in the two actions, the court directed that the 
 apportionment should be made according to the 
 amount of the plaintiff's respective bills of costs. 
 The Pasithea, 5 P. D. 5. 
 
 Where separate salvage suits have been un- 
 necessarily prosecuted, the court will only allow 
 one set of costs, and direct the amount allowed 
 to be distributed ratably amongst the plaintiffs 
 in the separate suits. The Sarah, 3 P. D. 39 ; 
 37 L. T. 831 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 542. 
 
 Allowance and Taxation of Costs and Charges.] 
 
 — The practice of bringing in on taxation in 
 salvage suits two separate bills of costs — one 
 containing the expenses incident to the employ- 
 ment of an agent at the out-port, and the other 
 the remaining charges incurred in respect of the 
 conduct of the suit — though formerly prevailing 
 among the ju-octors of the court of admiralty, 
 is no longer to be followed, and in future one 
 bill only, containing all charges, whether out- 
 port or otherwise, is to be delivered into the 
 registry. The Citi/ of Brusttels, 42 L. J.. Adm. 
 72 ; L. R. 4 A. & K. 194 ; 29 L. T. 312 : 22 W. R. 
 71 : 2 Asp. M. C. 192. 
 
 A proctor retained to conduct a salvage suit 
 may legally employ a person who is not a 
 solicitor or proctor as his agent at the out-port, 
 but for the performance of other than proctoiial 
 acts only; and charges for work done and dis- 
 bursements made by such agent in the capacity 
 of a clerk will, if unobjectionable in ot Ian- 
 respects, be allowed to the proctor on taxation. 
 lb. 
 
 A charge of 107. lO.v. for agency allowed in 
 such a case. ///. 
 
 Apportionment — Ship and Cargo.] — In ajijior- 
 tidiiing the cn-ts of the salvor, {layablc by the 
 owners of the salved ship and cargo respectively. 
 The Peace (Swabey, 115) followed. 'J'he Elton, 
 [1891] P. 265 ; 65 L. T. 232 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 6(5. 
 
 Apportionment — Parties not Interested.] — On 
 appeal against apportionment of salvage reward, 
 the owners of the salved vessel were cited and 
 asked for an indemnity for their costs, which the 
 api)ellants refused, and gave notice that no relief 
 would be a|)iilied for against the owners. The 
 owners were licid to lie entitled to their costs uj) 
 to the time of sucii notice. The f'asfleirnod, 42 
 I>. T. 702; 4 Asp. M. C. 278. 
 
 Paid out of Fund in Court.] — Costs of all 
 parlies were oriicncl lo 1k' paid outof fund in 
 court, excejit a ([(.t'cndanl's, in consequence of 
 his misconduct to the salvors. The Cadiz, 35 
 l>. T. 6(12 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 332. 
 
 Certificate for Costs.] — Although a suit for 
 salvage might have been tried in a county court, 
 the judge of the court of admiralty will certify 
 for costs if it is less expensive to try there than 
 in the county court. The JJeau maris Castle, 
 40 L. J., Adm. 41 ; 24 L. T. 448 ; 1 Asp. M. C, 
 19. 
 
 To enable a salvor who does not recover more 
 
 22—2
 
 679 
 
 SHIPPING— XVIII. Salvage. 
 
 680 
 
 than 2007. to get his costs of suit in the court of 
 admiralty, the court must certify that the case 
 was proper to be brought there. Certificate 
 granted where the claim was resisted by charges 
 of misconduct or negligence in the salvors. The 
 Cherubim, It. R. 2 Eq. 172. S. P., The Aveuir, 
 Ir. E. 2 Eq. Ill ; 1 L. T. 495. 
 
 Certiticate for costs refused where the matter 
 (salva£;e) misxht have been decided by justices 
 under"l7 & IS Vict. c. 104, s. 460. The John, 
 Lush. 11. 
 
 Where the master of a ship to which salvage 
 services had been given refused to go on shore 
 and refer the case to the justices under 17 & 18 
 Yict. c. 104, s. 460, and carried his ship out of 
 the jurisdiction, and it is brought into the 
 admiralty court, the costs will be certified for. 
 The Alpha, Lush. 89 ; 2 L. T. 521. 
 
 Excessive Claim. ] — Costs given against salvors 
 where ship arrested for 5,0007. and 157. awarded. 
 The Agamemnon, 48 L. T. 383 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 92. 
 
 Inflated and exaggerated claims dismissed 
 with costs. The Towan, 2 W. Rob. 259. 
 
 Trivial Claims.] — A trivial case of salvage 
 brought in admiralty ; 57. and no costs awarded. 
 The'^Red Mover, 3 W. Rob. 150. 
 
 Fraudulent Claim.] — Fraudulent salvage case 
 dismissed with costs. The Susannah, 3 Hag. 
 Adm. 345, n. 
 
 Several Issues.] — The plaintiffs having towed 
 a vessel into greater comparative safety, the 
 hawser then broke, and it was dangerous to take 
 her again in tow. In an action for salvage : — 
 Held, that the plaintiffs were entitled to the 
 general costs of the action, but not to those of 
 a special issue as to damage to machinery on 
 which they had failed. The Camellia, 53 L. J., 
 Adm. 12 : 9 P. D. 27 ; 50 L. T. 126 ; 32 W. R. 
 495 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 197. 
 
 XIX. TOWAGE. -^X-yi,^ 
 
 The Contract— Fitness of Tug.]— The plain- 
 tiff, a master mariner, contracted with the defen- 
 dants for a lump sum to be paid him by the 
 defendants, to take a certain specified steam 
 tug of the defendants', towing six sailing barges, 
 from HuU to the Brazils, the plaintiff paying the 
 crew and providing provisions for all on board 
 for seventy days. The engines of the steamtug 
 were damaged and out of repair at the time of 
 the contract, but neither the plaintiff nor defen- 
 dants were then aware of this. The consequence, 
 however, of the engines being so defective was 
 that the time occupied in the voyage was 
 increased, and the plaintiff's gain in performing 
 liis contract was much less than it would other- 
 wise have been : — Held, by Brett and Cotton, 
 L.JJ., that as the contract related to a specified 
 vessel, there was no implied undertaking by the 
 defendants that it should be reasonably efficient 
 for the purposes of the voyage, and that there- 
 fore the defective state of the engines gave the 
 plaintiff no cause of action, it not appearing 
 that the engines were in a worse state when the 
 plaintiff took possession of the vessel than they 
 were at the time of the contract. Rohertsoii v. 
 Amazon Tug and Lighterage Co., 51 L. J., Q. B. 
 68 ; 7 Q. B. D. .598 ; 46 L. T. 146 ; 30 W. R. 308 ; 
 4 Asp. M. C. 496— C. A. 
 
 Held, contra, by Bramwell, L.J., that the 
 
 defective state of the engines gave the plaintiff 
 a cause of action, as there was an implied imder- 
 taking by the defendants that the engines were 
 not so defective. Ih. 
 
 There is an implied obligation in a contract of 
 towage, that the tug shall be efficient and pro- 
 perly equipped for the service, and a proviso in 
 the contract that the owners will not be respon- 
 sible for the default of the master, does not 
 release them from such implied obligation. 1 he 
 Undaunted, 55 L. J., Adm. 24 ; 11 P. D. 46 ; 54 
 L. T. 542 ; 34 W. R. 686 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 580. 
 
 Validity — Commission to Master.] — The 
 
 master agreed with a tug for towage from Sea 
 Reach, in the Thames, to a London wharf, and 
 agreed to pay 67. and give an order upon the 
 owner of the wharf for the amount usually 
 allowed by him (under the name of " towage ") 
 as a premium to vessels of the kind coming to 
 his wharf. The service was performed by the 
 tug, and the master paid the money, but refused 
 to give the order on the owner of the wharf. 
 The amount actually paid by the owner of the 
 wharf, according to his practice, was proved ; 
 and it was also proved that if an order, signed 
 by the master of the vessel towed, was presented 
 by the master of the tug, the money would be 
 (as a matter of practice) paid to him : — Held, 
 that the master of the vessel had no authority 
 to agree to transfer to the master of the tug an 
 uncertain sum payable to the owners of the 
 vessel ; and that the court had no authority to 
 enforce such a contract or give damages for the 
 breach of it. The 3Iartha, Lush. 314. 
 
 Evidence of Making.] — A master of a steam 
 tug, of which the defendant was owner, was 
 employed by the plaintiff to tow his smack out 
 of a harbour. In so doing the smack was 
 stranded, through the negligence of the master. 
 The plaintiff had on previous occasions hired 
 the defendant's steam tug, and on paying the 
 charge had received a receipt, upon the back of 
 which was printed a notice that the defendant 
 would not be answerable for damage occasioned 
 by any supposed negligence of his servants : — 
 Held, that it was a question for the jury whether 
 the contract was made on the terms printed on 
 the back of the receipts. Sgmonds v. Fain, 6 
 H. & N. 709 ; 30 L. J., Ex. 256. 
 
 Concealment of Damage— Fraudulent Engage- 
 ment of Ship to Tow.] — See TAe Kingalock, 
 supra, col. 658. 
 
 Performance — Delay— Extra Pay.] — When a 
 contract is entered into to tow a vessel from one 
 point to another for a fixed sum, the tug cannot 
 claim extra remuneration in the nature of pay- 
 ment for towage in respect of a delay which 
 occurs during the transit without any fault on 
 the part of the tug or the tow. The Hjemmett, 
 49 L. J., Adm. 66 ; 5 P. D. 227 ; 42 L. T. 514 ; 
 4 Asp. M. C. 274. 
 
 Towage Completed by another Tug.] — An 
 
 agreement to tow from Dover to Gravesend : 
 the tug broke down, and the towage completed 
 by another tug of the same owners : — Held, that 
 the original agreement was performed. The 
 Lady Flora Hastings, 3 W. Rob. 118. 
 
 Agreement to Tow — Unsuccessful Attempt.] — 
 
 See The Berdarig, supra, col. 597.
 
 681 
 
 SHIPPING— XIX. Towage. 
 
 682 
 
 Indemnity to Hirer — Kecovery against Under- 
 writers — Insurance against Collision.] — The 
 owner of a Thames tug agreed with the hirer of 
 the tug to insure against damage she, or barges 
 in tow of her, might suffer or do to other ships, 
 and to indemnify the hirer in respect of any 
 such damage to the extent of all moneys received 
 by him under such insurance. The tug was 
 sued for damage done to a steamship at anchor 
 by a barge alleged to be in tow of the tug. The 
 hirer admitted liability, and paid to the steam- 
 ship owner the amount of the damage. He then 
 applied to the tug-o^^•ner for the moneys payable 
 under a policy which had been effected by the 
 tug-owner in pursuance of the agreement. The 
 tug-owner applied to the under^vTiters for the 
 policy moneys, but they declined to paj', alleging 
 that the damage was not done by a barge in tow 
 of the tug. The tug-owner, having received 
 nothing under the policy, refused to pay any- 
 thing to the hirer. Thereupon the hirer sued 
 the tug-owner for breach of the contract to 
 indemnify : — Held, that as the burden of com- 
 pelling the underwriters to pay did not rest on 
 the tug-owner, the contract had not been broken. 
 The Lord of the Ides, 64 L. J., Adm. 15 ; [1894] 
 P. .342 ; 11 R. 736 ; 71 L. T. 92 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 500. 
 
 Agreement by Salving Steamship to Stand 
 by — Pa3rment for Unsuccessful Salvage Service 
 — Authority of Master.] — The steamship •• W."' 
 having found the steamship ''A.," on the 12th 
 February, off Cape Finisterre, in a disabled 
 condition, towed her off in heavy weather until 
 the 14th February, when, in consequence of the 
 condition of the " A.," the master of the " W." 
 proposed to abandon her. However, at the 
 request of the master of the " A.," it was agreed 
 in writing that the " W." should " stand by the 
 ' A.' as long as possible, and that the ' W.' and 
 owTiers are to be paid for the time and towing 
 already done and to be done from the 12th 
 February, 1883." The " W." therefore again 
 took the "A." in tow, but on the 16th February, 
 owing to stress of weather, it was found necessary 
 to abandon her, after which .she was totally lost. 
 In an action for towage against the owners of tlie 
 " A.," the court held that the agreement entered 
 into by the master of the " A." was a reasonable 
 one, and one which in his position of agent ex 
 necessitate for his owners, he had an authority 
 to enter into ; and awarded the plaintiffs the 
 sum of 400^. in respect of the services rendered 
 prior to and after the agreement. The Alfred, 
 Well field (Ou-nerg) v. AdaMM/i, 50 L. T. 511; 
 5 Asj). M. C. 214. 
 
 Condition Exempting from Liability — Negli- 
 gence of Tug Owners or Servants.] — The master 
 of a steatji tug. who h.id contracted to tow a 
 fishing smack out of the hartx)ur of Great Yar- 
 mouth to sea on the terms that his owners should 
 not Vx; liable for damage arising from any negli- 
 gence or defjiult of themselves or their servants, 
 after the towage had been in ]inTt jierformcd, 
 took in tow, in addition to the smack, six other 
 vessels, and in consequence was unable to keep 
 the fishing smack in her course, so tliat she went 
 aground anfl was lost. I'y having more tlian 
 six vessels in tow at once, the master of the tug 
 disobeyed a regulation made by the harlx)ur- 
 master of Great Yarmouth under statutory 
 authority. The owners of the fishing smack 
 brought an action against the owners of the 
 
 steam tug to recover damages : — Held, that the 
 loss of the smack was occasioned by the negli- 
 gence of the master of the tug ; that the defen- 
 dants were protected from liability by the terms 
 of the towage contract, and that the action must 
 be dismissed. The United Service or Cole v. 
 Great Yarmouth Steam Tug Co., 53 L. J., Adm. 1 ; 
 9 P. D. 3 : 49 L. T. 701 ; 32 W. R. 565 ; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 170— C. A. 
 
 Collision — Implied Agreement as to Liability.] 
 
 — A tug while towing the plaintiff's vessel came 
 into collision with and sank her. The tug was 
 chartered by the defendants, a company, to work 
 with their own tugs, and one of the terms on 
 which the company towed vessels was that they 
 would not be answerable for loss or damage to 
 any vessel in tow of their tugs (which were 
 specified by name) whether occasioned by the 
 negligence of their servants or otherwise. The 
 tug in question was not one of those specified, 
 but the plaintiff was a director of the defendant 
 company, and was aware of the chartering of 
 the tug : — Held, that the plaintiff must be taken 
 to have impliedly agreed to employ the tug on 
 the same terms as the other tugs of the company, 
 and that his claim was therefore barred by tlie 
 condition. The Tasmania, 57 L. J., Adm. 49 ; 
 13 P. D. 110; 59 L. T. 263; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 305. 
 
 Liability for Collision — Compulsory Pilot.] — 
 
 Where a steam tug towing a vessel under a towage 
 contract is so negligently navigated as to come 
 into collision with a vessel belonging to third 
 parties, the owners of the steam tug are liable for 
 the damage done, even if at the time of the 
 collision the vessel in tow was in charge of a 
 duly-licensed pilot by compulsion of law, whose 
 default solely occasioned the collision. The 
 Mary, 48 L. J., Adm. 66 ; 5 P. D. 14 ; 41 L. T. 
 351 ; 28 W. R. 95 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 183. 
 
 Liability of Vessel in Tow.] — A tug with 
 
 a ves.sel in tow came into collision with another 
 vessel, whicli was seriously injured by the tug, 
 but not injured by the vessel in tow. The 
 collision might have been avoided had there 
 been a goo<l look-out on tiie vessel in tow, and 
 hail she warned the tug that the latter was in 
 danger of collision by continuing on her coui-se : 
 — ileld, that the owners of the vessel in tow 
 were liable. The j\'iol/e, 57 L. .J., Adm. 33 ; 13 
 v. D. 55 ; .59 L. T. 257 ; 36 W. R. 812 ; 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 300. 
 
 Under an ordinary contract of towage, the 
 vessel in tow has control over the tug, and is 
 therefore liable for the wrongful .nets of the 
 latter, unless they are done so suddenly as to 
 [irevcut the vessel in tow from controlling them. 
 lb. 
 
 See aho XX. Coi.i.l.siON, post, cols. 754 seq. 
 
 Admiralty Jurisdiction.] — The court lias juris- 
 diction to entertain a suit instituted by the 
 owners of a ve>sel against a steam tug engaged to 
 tow the vessel, for negligently towing the ves,sel 
 so a-s to cau.se her to come into collision with and 
 do damage to another vessel. The Enerr/y, 39 
 l>. .!., Adm. 25 ; L. U. 3 A. & E. 48 ; 23 L. T. 601 ; 
 18\V. R. 1009. 
 
 A damage to a vessel whilst being towed, 
 cau.sed by the improper navigation of the tug 
 which was towing it, is within the Merchant 
 Shipping Act Amendment Act, 18C2 (25 & 2(>
 
 SHIPPING— XIX. Toirarie. 
 
 083 
 
 Vict. c. G3), s. 5-t, si;b-s. 4. not with-;tanain- such 
 .lamage occurred also tlirou-h a breach of the 
 towint' contract, an.l the owner ot the tng^> 
 therefore entitled to the hnutation of liabditj 
 -nven by that section if such damage occurred 
 ; ithout-his actualfault or privity " f'"f/J- 
 Ynumj, 45 L. J., C. Y. 783 ; 24 W . R. 84b ; 4 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 27, n. 1 e , 
 
 Semble, that if the damage occurred from ci 
 mere breach of the contract to tow. the owner of 
 the tug would not be entitled to the benetit of 
 such section, lb. 
 
 Claim for Salvage— Negligence.]— A tug under 
 contract to tow a ship is not entitled to salvage 
 remuneration for rescuing the ship from danger 
 brou-ht about by the tugs negligent perform- 
 ance of her towage contract. A tug agreed to 
 tow a ship from Liverpool to the fekerries for a 
 tixed sum. The tug imprudently towed the ship 
 in bad weather too near a lee shore and the 
 weather becoming worse during the performance 
 of the a<rreed towage service, the hawser parted 
 and the ship was placed in a position of danger 
 and was compelled to let go her anchors to avoid 
 bein<- driven on shore. From this position she 
 was rescued by the tug. having been compelled 
 to slip her anchors and chains, which were lost : 
 —Held that the tug was not entitled to claim 
 salva-e' remuneration, and that her owners were 
 liable' to pay for the loss of the anchors and 
 chains. Tlie Robert Dixon, 5 P. D. o4 ; 4- 1.. i. | 3 
 344 : 2S W. E. 716— C. A. 
 
 Tug tound to follow Directions, and not Liable 
 
 for Consequent Danger.]— Semble, if a tug re- 
 ceives VK.siiive directions from the ship she is 
 towino- as to the course she is to steer, she is 
 bound to obev them ; and if the ship gets into 
 danger in consequence of such directions the tug 
 is not liable. lb. 
 
 Damage by Tug— Jurisdiction.]— The words of 
 3 & 4 Vict. c. G5, s. «, -claim in the nature of 
 towage," do not include a claimby a towed vessel 
 against her tug for misconduct. The damage 
 referred to by that section and by 24 & 2o \ ict. 
 c 10 s 7 is that which results from a col- 
 lision' The Robert Row, Br. & Lush. 99 ; 32 
 L. J., Adm. 164; 9 L. T. 237. 
 
 Stranding of Tow— Responsibility for Course 
 Set— Contributory Negligence.]— In a ease of 
 towage, where no directions are given by those on 
 boartl the tow. the tug is responsible for the 
 direction of the course ; but the master or other 
 person in charcre of the tow is not justified in 
 allowin"- the tug to continue unchecked upon a 
 course which will lead the vessels into danger. 
 The Altair, 66 L. J.. Adm. 42 : [1897] P. 1U.5 ; 
 76 L. T. 263 ; 4.5 W. E. 622 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 224. 
 
 Contract to Tow— Demurrage of Tug.]— iN'iii) 
 Steam Tmi Co. v. M-Clew, XlV. DEMURRAGE, 
 supra, col. \'M. 
 
 Duty to supply Efficient Tug— Harbour Au- 
 thority. ]— See The Ratata, intra ; XXIV. Pouxr^, 
 Piers, &c., col. 896. 
 
 Liberty to Tow— Effect of, inCharterparty.]— 
 i^ec Potter v. Rurrell, supra, XI. Chaetek- 
 PARTY. col. 239. 
 
 684 
 
 Maritime Lien.]— Mere towage services are not 
 the subject of a maritime lien. We.'<trup\. Great 
 Yarmouth Steam Carrying Co., 59 L J. Ch. Ill •- 
 43 Ch. D. 241 ; 61 L. T. 714 ; 38 ^^ . E. uU.. : *► 
 Asp. M. C. 443. 
 
 XX. COLLISION. 
 
 Xcr/liffenee. 
 a. Generally, 685. 
 h. In Particular Cases. 
 
 i. Sufficiency of Crew, 689. 
 ii. Speed, 690. 
 iii. Look-out, 691. 
 iv. Coming to an Anchor, 692. 
 V. Anchor ready to let go, 693. 
 vi. Foul Berth, 694. 
 vii. When at Anchor or Moored, 69.). 
 viii. Getting under Way, 696. 
 ix. At a Launch, 696. 
 X. Going About, 697. 
 xi. Wrong Act of other Ship, 698. 
 xii. Various Cases, 698. 
 
 c. Proof of Negligence, 701. 
 
 d. Inevitable Accident, 703. 
 Prvguviptioii of Fault. 
 
 a Infringement of the Regulations. 
 
 i Under 14 k 15 Vict. c. 79, 707. 
 ii. Under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, 708. 
 iii. Under 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, 708. 
 iv. Under 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, 708. 
 b. Not Standing by after Collision, 712. 
 . Liahilitj/. „ 
 
 a. Personal Liability of Shipo^\-ner. a4. 
 
 b. Liability of Ship in Admiralty— Maritime 
 
 Lien, 717. 
 c Damage by Sunken Ship, 721. 
 
 d. Liability of Pilotage and Harbour Autho- 
 
 rities, 722. 
 
 e. Damage by Queen's Ship, 723. 
 
 /. Damage by Ship of Foreign Sovereign, 
 724. 
 [. PersoiLs Entitled to Reeorer, 72a. 
 ). Pamage.'i. 
 
 tf. Generally, 726. ^, „. . r-.,,. 
 
 h. plaiiitiS's Negligence after Collision, t60. 
 
 c. Salvage Expenses, 730. 
 
 d. Demurrage, 731. 
 
 e. Loss of Freight, Profits or Charterparty, 
 
 732. 
 1;. Birifiion of Loks, 735. 
 
 7. Limitation of Li nbilitij. _ 
 
 a. By General Law, no Limitation, /3». 
 b Under 53 Geo. 3, c. 159. 738. 
 
 c. Under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, 739 
 
 d. Under subsequent Acts, and Generally, 
 
 740. 
 
 c. Measurement of Tonnage, 747. 
 
 /. Limitation Actions— Practice, 749. 
 
 8. Tug and Tow, 754. 
 
 9. Foreign Ships— Foreign Law, 7oS. 
 
 10. Compulsory Pilotage. 
 
 a. Generally, 763. 
 
 b. Ship in Tow, 769. 
 
 e. Proof of Pilot's Fault, 770. 
 
 d. Duties of Pilot, 771. 
 
 e. Duties of Shipowner, Master and Crew, 
 
 774. 
 
 f. When Compulsory. 
 
 i. Generally, 776. 
 ii. Under 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, 776. 
 iii. At Various Places, 777. 
 
 11. Tlie Regulation.^. 
 
 a. (Generally. 785, _ 
 
 h. Caves on the Regulations, ,b.— 82*.
 
 68i 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. CoUision. 
 
 686 
 
 12. Local Rules. 
 
 a. Danube, 827. 
 h. Humber, 828. 
 
 c. Mersey. 829. 
 cc. Newport. 830. 
 
 d. Thames, 830. 
 
 e. Tees, 835. 
 /. TyaQ. 836. 
 
 13. Juried let Ion and Practice. 
 a. Jurisfliction, 837. 
 
 h. Parties. 840. 
 
 c. Default of Appearance. 841. 
 
 d. Cross Actions — Bail — Security, 841. 
 
 e. Preliminarr Act. 842. 
 /. Pleadings. 843. 
 
 g. Interrogatories, 846. 
 
 h. Inspection, 846. 
 
 i. Evidence, 847. 
 
 j. Res or Bail Insufficient. 8.50. 
 
 h. Generally, 851. 
 
 I. Costs. 
 
 i. Generally, 855. 
 ii. Compulsory Pilot. 856. 
 iii. Inevitable Accident, 858. 
 iv. Both Vessels in Fault. 859. 
 V. Appeal. 860. 
 
 vi. High Court or County Court, 861. 
 vii. Reference, 862. 
 viii. Security for Costs, 864. 
 
 1, Negligence. 
 a. Generally. 
 
 Contributory Negligence at Common Law.] — 
 In an action fi^r ruiuiiug duwii a ^hiii neither 
 party can recover when both are in the wTong ; 
 iDut the plaintiff may recover, although he might 
 have prevented the collision, provided that he 
 was in no degree in fault in not endeavouring to 
 prevent it. Vennall v. Garner. 1 Car. & M. 21 ; 
 3 Tyr. 85. 
 
 A plaintiff cannot recover unless the injury is 
 attributable entirely to the fault of the defen- 
 dant : if he was partly in fault, but the plaintiff 
 might with care have prevented the accident, he 
 cannot maintain his action. yunder2)laHl{ v. 
 Miller. M. ic M. HI'J. 
 
 The question is. whether the pLiintiff by his 
 negligence or improper conduct suljstantially 
 CODtributed to the occurrence of the injury of 
 which he compLiins ; not to the amount of it. 
 but to its occurrence. SUh v. Jirown. 9 Car. A: P. 
 60 1. S. P.. The iMdy Anm: 15 .lur. 18, 
 
 If in an action for the negligence of the defen- 
 dant's senaiits in managinu' a barge, so that the 
 plaintiffs barge was run down, it appears that 
 the accident happcne*! from circumstances which 
 persons of competent skill could not guard 
 against, the plaintiff will not be eiititleil to 
 recover : nor will he if his men ha<l jiut his 
 barge in such a place that |)crsons using ordinary 
 care would run ajrainst it : iK>r if the aocident 
 could have been avoided but for the negligence 
 of the plaintiff's own men, in not being alx>anl 
 his barge at the time when it wa.s lying in a 
 dangerous jdace. Lvrk v. Seirnrd. 4 Car. A: P. ln6. 
 
 Before a [ilaintiff in a coUisinn cause can lx> 
 deprived of liis right fif recovery against a negli- 
 gent defen<laiit by reason of an act done by the 
 plaintiff, without which the collision woulil not 
 have occuiTed.it must be shown that such an act 
 of the plaintiff was negligent. The Sinter*. 45 
 L. J„ Adm. 3y ; 1 P, 1), 117 ; .34 L. T. 3:^8 : 24 
 AV. R. 412 : 3 Asp. M. C. 122— C. A. S. P., The 
 Hornet, infra. 
 
 Negligence of Plaintiff — Question for Jury.^ 
 — lu an action to recover damages for an injury 
 occasionetl by a collision between two vessels, 
 the proper question for the jury is whether the 
 damage was occasioned entirely by the negli- 
 gence or improper conduct of the defendant, or 
 whether the plaintiff himself so far contributed 
 to the misfortune by his own negligence or want 
 of ordinary and common care and caution, that, 
 but for such negligence or want of ordinary care 
 and caution on his part, the misfortime would 
 not have happened ; in the first case the plaintiff 
 would be entitled to recover : in the latter not, 
 as, but for his own fault, the misfortune could 
 not have happened, Tutf v, Wurman. 5 C. B. 
 (y.S.) 573 : 27 L. J.. C. V. 322 : 5 .Jur. (X.S.) 222 ; 
 6 W. R. 693— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Verdict for Reduced Damages.] — A jury 
 
 found that the iilaintilfs' barge was sunk partly 
 by swell caused by the defendants' steamship 
 navigating at too high a rate of speed, and 
 partly because she was not properly trimmed, 
 and gave damages for less than the total loss : — 
 Held, that the verdict was properly entere<l for 
 the plaintiffs, and new trial refused. Smith v. 
 Dolxon, 3 Man. A: G, 59 ; 3 Scott (X.R.) 336, 
 
 Overloading — Swell from Steamer.] — In 
 
 an action against tlie captain of a ?team vessel 
 for swamping a loaded wherry on the river, by a 
 swell protluced by a too rajiid rate of passage, 
 the jury, to find for the pLiintiff, must be satisfied 
 that the mischief was occasioned by the swell 
 alone ; and if they think it doubtful whether it 
 was or not, or think that the plaintiff contributed 
 to the injury he sustained by his own improper 
 conduct, either in mismanaging or overloading 
 the boat, they must find their verdict for the 
 defendant. Luj-ford v. Large, 5 Car. & P. 421. 
 See aL<o The liatarier. Xetherland* Steamboat 
 Co. V. Stylcx. post. col. 691. 
 
 New Trial.]— If a vessel is damaged by another 
 running foul of it, and the jury nnds a vei-dict 
 for the plaintiff, the couit will not send the case 
 for a new trial, because there may lie some 
 ground to believe tliat the plaintiff was negligent 
 in navigating his vessel as well as the defcmiant. 
 ('olliiison V, Larking. 3 Taunt, 1, 
 
 Passenger— Whether he may Recover where 
 his own Ship in Fault. — Oin' who sustains an 
 injiiiy li'-iii a i.<'lli>i«'n witli a vessel cannot 
 maintain an action against the owners of such 
 ves,sel. if negligence either on his own part or 
 on the part of those having the guidance of the 
 vessel in which he is a passenger conduced to the 
 accident, and such injury niiglit have l)een 
 avoided by the exercise <>f reasonable care on his 
 part or their i>art. Thorogmd v. Jfrijnn, 8 C, H. 
 115; IS L, .1 ., C, P. 336. Overruled. I'he JJernina, 
 infra, col. 6H7, 
 
 One who sustains an injury in a collision can- 
 not maintain an action ngjiinst the owners of the 
 vessel if negligence on his part or on the i>art of 
 those in charge of the ship in which he is a 
 jiansenger contributed to tiie collision. Cattlin 
 V. Ifilh.xV. H. 115, 
 
 A passenger on lx»ard a steamlxiat was injured 
 by an anchor falling upon him in a collision 
 cause<l by the fault of the other ship: — Held, 
 that thc'|>assenger could recover, although the 
 injury was ca»i-<e<i in part by his own negligence 
 ill b-'iiiL' whi-ic lie was, or by the netrliuence of
 
 687 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 688 
 
 the people of his own ship in stowing the anchor 
 where it was. Grccuhind v. Chaplm, 5 Ex. 243 ; 
 li) L. J., Ex. 293. 
 
 A passenger and an engineer on board the 
 •'Bnshire" were killed in a collision between 
 the "Bernina" and the " Bushire," caused by 
 fault in both ships, but without fault on the 
 part of the deceased : — Held, that their repre- 
 sentatives could recover full damages against the 
 owners of the " Bernina." Thorogood v. Brnan, 
 supra, overruled. The Bernina, Milln v. Arm- 
 strong, 57 L. J., Adm. 65 ; 13 App. Gas. 1 ; 58 
 L. T.'423 : 36 W. R. 870 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 257 ; 52 
 J. P. 212— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Remoteness of Plaintiff's Negligence.] — A 
 
 plaiutiti' cainidt recover fur mischief done to his 
 ship by its being struck by the defendant's ship 
 in consequence of the latter being improperly 
 managed, if it appears that the plaintiff's ship 
 ■was improjierly managed, and that such improper 
 management directly contributed in any degree 
 to the accident, however much the defendant 
 may also be in fault : though, if there is negli- 
 gence on the part of the plaintiff only remotely 
 connected with the accident, the question is, 
 whether the defendant by ordinary care and 
 .skill might have avoided the accident. Doicell 
 V. General Steam Nav'igation Co., 5 El. & Bl. 195 : 
 26 L. J., Q. B. 59 ; 1 Jur. (n.s.) 800 ; 3 W. E. 
 492. And see General Steam Karigation Co. v. 
 Morrison, 13 C. B. 581 ; 22 L. .J., C. P. 178 ; 17 
 Jur. 673 ; 1 W. R. 330. 'J7ie Jane Bueoii, 27 
 ^Y. E. 35. 
 
 Negligence where both Ships in Fault.] — As 
 to whether such negligence would be negligence 
 at common law, see The Margaret, 50 L. J., Adm. 
 67 ; 6 P. D. 76 ; 44 L. T. 29i ; 29 W. E. 533 ; 4 
 Asp. M. C. 375 ; The Margaret, CayzerY. Curron 
 Co., 9 App. Gas. 873, infra ; The Fenliam, 6 
 Moore, P. G. (N.s.) 501 ; L. R. 3 P. C. 212 ; 23 
 L. T. 329 : The Friends, infra ; The Meteor. 
 Ir. E. 9 Eq. 507. 
 
 Negligence — No Difference between Rules of 
 Common Law and Admiralty as to.] — See. per 
 Campbell, G., TJie F/-iend.i, General Steam Xari- 
 gation Co. v. Tonkin, 4 Moore, P. G. 314. Per 
 Lord Blackburn, 2'lie Marqaret, Cayzer v. 
 Carron Co., 9 App. Gas. 873, 880 ; 54 L. j., Adm. 
 18 ; .52 L. T. 361 ; 33 W. E. 281 ; 5 Asp. M. G. 
 371. 
 
 Vessel Disabled by Prior Collision.] — When 
 a ship seeks to excuse her failure to comply with 
 the sailing regulations and with a seamanlike 
 precaution, by showing that such a failure was 
 in consequence of her being disabled in a prior 
 collision, it is material to inquire whether the 
 l)rior collision was due to her default or was the 
 result of inevitable accident. The Kjohenhavn. 
 30 L. T. 136 ; 2 Asp. M. G. 213— P. G.' 
 
 Semble, that if the prior collision was due to 
 the default of the ship so seeking excuse, and if 
 her subsequent failure to comply as aforesaid 
 contribute to the collision proceeded for, she will 
 be to blame. Ih. 
 
 The owners of a disabled vessel are answer- 
 able for damage done by its accidentally drift- 
 ing, when so disabled, against another vessel. 
 Seeeomhe v. Wood, 2 M. & Rob. 290. 
 
 When it is the duty of a ship to keep out of 
 the way of another, but she is unable to do so 
 by reason of being disabled in a former collision. 
 
 and the other ship being unaware of her disabled 
 condition continues her course, a collision ensu- 
 ing is the result of inevitable accident, lite 
 Almo and The Amelia, 29 L. T. 118 ; 21 W. E. 
 707 ; 2 Asp. M. G. 96— P. C. 
 
 Not taking a Tug.] — A vessel getting her 
 anchors in Dover bay in bad weather neglected to 
 employ a tug, until too late, when the tow rope 
 parted, and she damaged some sewage works : — 
 Held, that she was liable. The Gertor, 70 L. T. 
 703 ; 7 Asp. M. G. 47. 
 
 Dolphin Damaged owing to its own Weak- 
 ness.] — A steamshij), about to make fast along- 
 side a pier, ovei'turned a mooring dolphin. The 
 dolphin ought to have been stronger : — Held, 
 that the steamship was not liable. Tlie Albert 
 Edward, 44 L. .J., Adm. 49 ; 24 W. R. 179. 
 
 Collision caused by Want of Look-out — Im- 
 proper Position of other Craft Immaterial.] — In 
 
 an action for damages brought by the widow of 
 a man in a boat killed in a collision with a steam- 
 ship, the jury found that the man had acted 
 rashly in anchoring the boat where he did, and 
 (2) that if a proper look-oat had been kept on 
 the steamship the boat might have been seen. 
 Verdict for plaintiff. Motion for new trial on 
 the ground that the deceased contributed by his 
 negligence to the collision : — Held, that the 
 verdict was not inconsistent with the findings 
 of fact, the want of look-out being the cause 
 of collision, and the earlier negligence of the 
 deceased immaterial. Carse v. North British 
 Steam Packet Co., 22 Gt. of Sess. Gas. C4th ser.) 
 475. 
 
 Sudden Peril caused by Wrongful Act of the 
 other Ship,] — Where one ship has by wrong 
 manoeuvres placed another ship in a j)Ositioii of 
 extreme danger, that other ship will not be held 
 to blame if she has done something wrong, and 
 has not been manoeuvred with perfect skill and 
 presence of mind. Tlie Bywell Castle, 4 P. D. 
 219 : 41 L. T. 747 : 28 W. R. 293 ; 4 Asp. M. G. 
 207_G. A. The Xor, 30 L. T. 576 ; 22 W. R. 30 ; 
 2 Asp. M. G. 264 ; Bine Brothers v. Clyde 
 Trustees, 15 Gt. of Sess. Gas. (4th ser.) 498 ; The 
 Meamxtchy, infra, col. 696. 
 
 Negligence by Salving Vessels.] — When 
 damnge is inflicted upon a ship by another 
 engaged in rendering salvage services to the 
 former, the court regards the negligence of the 
 salvor less severely than it does the negligence of 
 a vessel wholly unconnected with the injured 
 vessel, but will condemn the salvor in the damage 
 where he has been guilty of gross negligence and 
 w.ant of proper navigation. The C. S. Butler, 
 The Baltic. 43 L. J., Adm. 17 ; L. R. 4 A. & E. 
 178 ; 30 L. T. 475 ; 22 W. R. 759. 
 
 What Amounts to Negligence of Master.] — 
 When the master of a ship takes all such pre- 
 cautions as a man of ordinary prudence and 
 skill, exercising reasonable foresight, would use 
 to avert danger, his owners are not held respon- 
 sible because he may have omitted some possible 
 precaution which the event suggests that he 
 might have resorted to. The William Lindsay, 
 Doivard v. Lindsay, L. R. 5 P. G. 338 ; 29 L. T. 
 355 ; 22 W. R. 6 ; 2 Asp. M. G. 118— P. C. 
 
 The master of a ship is bound to take all such 
 precautions as a man of ordinary prudence and
 
 689 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. ColUsion. 
 
 690 
 
 skill, exercising a reasonable foresight, would use 
 to avert danger in the circumstances in which he 
 may happen to be placed. Ih. 
 
 Duty of Harbour-master — Damage caused by 
 Sunken Vessel.] — The D., in consequence of the 
 sole default of her master and crew, had sunk in 
 the Thames, and had become a wreck obstructing 
 the navigation of the river. Her mate sent a 
 message to the harbour-master at G. to inform 
 him of the accident, who said that he would 
 cause the wreck to be lighted. A few hours 
 afterwards, the wreck not having been lighted, a 
 vessel, without any fault on the part of those on 
 board her, came into collision with the wreck and 
 sustained damage. An action of damage having 
 been instituted on behalf of the owner of the 
 damaged vessel against the owners of the D., the 
 judge at the trial, refused to admit the evidence 
 showing that the mate of the D. had sent a 
 message to the harbour-master, and that the 
 latter had promised to light the wieck : — Held, 
 that the evidence was wrongly rejected, that the 
 collision had not been caused by the negligence 
 of the owners of the wreck, and that they were 
 not liable for the damage done. Tlie Dour/lax. 
 51 L. J., Adra. 89 ; 7 P. D. 151 ; 47 L. T.' 15 ; 
 5 Asp. M. C. 15 — C. A. 
 
 Negligence Causing Loss but not Collision.] — 
 A Vjumb barge in the Thames by her own fault 
 struck a schooner fast to a buo\'. The schooner, 
 contrary to the Thames Pailes, had her anchor 
 hanging from her hawse pipe in such a position 
 that it pierced the barge, which filled and sank. 
 But for the improper position of the anchor the 
 barge would not have been injured: — Held, that 
 both vessels were in fault. T/ie J/an/aret, oO 
 L. J., Adm. 07 : 6 P. D. 76 ; 44 L. T.' 291 ; 29 
 W. 11. 58:5 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 375— C. A. 
 
 A barge in the Thames came into collision 
 with a brig, carrying away her anchor, in a 
 position forbiildcn hy by-laws, and in conse- 
 quence of the anchor being in that position the 
 barge was injured : — Held, that, notwithstanding 
 the improper i)Osition of the anchor, the brig 
 owners were not liable, if the barge suljstantially 
 contributed to the collision, as distinguished 
 from the amount of the loss. Sills v. Brown. 
 9 Car. i5c V. COl. And sec The (lipxij King. 2 
 W. Kob. :>-M. 
 
 b. In Particular Cases, 
 i. Svfficienry of Crew. 
 
 For a sailing barge in the Thames two hands 
 are enough. Thr Minnii. L. R. 2 A. & E. 97. 
 
 In rlock or harbour it is enough to have 
 sufficient hands on board to tend her under 
 ordinary f-f(nilitif)ns of weather, 'fhr E.rcehior, 
 37 L. J., Adm. :>\ ; L. R. 2 A. A: E. 2().S ; 19 L. T. 
 87 ; The Put ri otto and The llivfil, 2 L. T. 301. 
 
 A vessel on her trial trip is not required to 
 have on board her full complement of officers 
 aiifl nicTi, provi<led she has a crew sufficient to 
 work lier safely, ('lydr \ari(jation f'o. v. Jiar- 
 rlay. 1 App. Cas. 790 ; 'M\ h. T. 379 ; 3 Asp. 
 M. C. 390. 
 
 A new steamer, not yet out of the Vjuilders' 
 hands, was sent on a trial trip, manned by a 
 sufficient numhier of men to work the ship, but 
 they were not regularly constituted officers and 
 crew : — Held, not to amount to contributory 
 negligence. lb. 
 
 Duty of master or officer to be on board in bad 
 weather though the ship is at moorinss in the 
 river. The Kepler, 2 P. D. 40, n. 
 
 And to take charge when a ship is approach- 
 ing with risk of collision. The Independence., 
 Maddox v. Fi>iher, 14 Moore, P. C. 108 ; Lush. 
 270 : 4 L. T. 553 ; 9 W. R. 587 ; The Khedive, 
 Stoomvart Maat.whappy JVetherland v. P. ^- 0. 
 Co.. 52 L. J.. Adm. 1 ; o App. Cas. 876 : 42 L.T. 
 (310 : 29 W. R. 178 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 567— H. L. (E.) 
 
 In fog there must be sufficient strength at the 
 wheel to put it hard over at once. The Eiiropa, 
 14 Jur. 627. 
 
 Whilst a barge was by night lying astern of a 
 steamship, in a dock, the latter moved her pro- 
 peller and cut a hole in the bai'ge. It appeared 
 that there was no one on board the barge at the 
 time of the accident. In a collision action : — 
 Held, that although the steamer was to blame, 
 the barge was also to blame for not having any- 
 one on board of her, as, had there been, the 
 collision might have been avoided, and in any 
 event the barge might have been beached before 
 she sank : the plaintiffs therefore could only 
 recover half their damages. The Scotia, 68 L. T. 
 824 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 541. 
 
 In an action for the negligence of the defen- 
 dant's servants in managing a barge so that the 
 plaintiff's barge was run down, the plaintifE 
 will not be entitled to recover if the accident 
 could have been avoided, but for the negligence 
 of the plaintiffs own men in not being aboard 
 his bai'ge at the time when it was lying in a 
 dangerous place. Leech v. Seward, 4 Car. & P. 
 106. 
 
 A collision occiu-red in a dock between a tug 
 and a barge that was moored head and stern 
 alongside the dock wall. It was contended, on 
 behalf of the tug. that the barge was guilty of 
 negligence in not having any person on board : — 
 Held, that, whetlier that was so or not, the 
 presence of a person on board would not have 
 prevented the collision or minimized its effects, 
 and that the tug was therefore liable. The 
 Scotia (supra), distinguished. The Hornet, 
 [18921 P. 861 ; 1 R. 549 ; 68 L. T. 236 ; 7 Asp. 
 M. C. 202. 
 
 It is the duty of a sailing smack during the 
 day to have more than one hand on deck, and 
 where a collision occurs between her and another 
 smack, the primary cause of which is the wrong- 
 ful niameuvre of the other smack, she will also 
 be held to blanio if it appears that had she had 
 two hands on deck they might have taken means 
 to have obviated the other's wrongful manoeuvre. 
 The General Cordon. 6« L. T. 469 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 817— H. L. (K.) 
 
 ii. Speed. 
 
 Coast of Ireland.] — An Atlantic steamship 
 proceeding at full speed on a dark night thirty- 
 five miles off the coast of Ireland, came into 
 collision with and sank a barcjue, which was 
 sailing in the same course with itself. In an 
 action for damages Ijrought by the owners of the 
 banpic :— Held, that, having legard to the state 
 of the night, and the piobability of there Ixjing 
 other vessels in the way, the steamship was pro- 
 ceeding at an unjustifiable rate of speed. The 
 Citri of JirooUUin. 1 P. I). 27(! ; 84 L. T. 982 ; 24 
 W.R. 10.->6— C". A. 
 
 Mersey.] — A steamer going ten knots an hour 
 on a dark night up the Horse Channel, at the
 
 691 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 692; 
 
 entrance of the Mersey, saw a sail three points 
 on her port bow. less than hall' a mile distant. 
 tShe ported her helm, but did not ease her engines : 
 — Held, that the steamer was in fault for the 
 collision which ensued, fornot having stopped or 
 eased her engines when she made out the other 
 vessel, and that maintaining such speed was 
 unwarrantable. T/ic Despatch, Swabey, 138. 
 
 Excuse — Carrying Mails.] — It is no excuse for 
 a vessel steaming at the rate of twelve knots, on 
 a tlark night, through a fair way, where vessels 
 are accustomed to anchor, that she was under 
 contract to carry government mails at the rate 
 of thirteen knots" Thfi Vivid. Swabey, 88 ; l 
 W. R. 504. S. a in P. C, 10 Moore, P. C. 472 ; 
 4 W. R. 7.55. 
 
 General Rule.]— Those who navigate a public 
 river at too great a speed, or negligently, are as 
 much liable as if the death were caused by 
 uedigence on a highway on land. Beg. v. Taloi; 
 9 Car. & P. 672. 
 
 Swell raised by Excessive Speed.] — A steam- 
 ship held in fault tov raising a swell by going too 
 fast in the river and thereljy sinking a barge. 
 Till' Batarier, Kctlwrlunds Stnimship Co. v. 
 Styles, 1 Spinks, 378 : 9 Moore, P. C. 286. S.P., 
 L'U,rford v. Large, infra, col. 7()1. 
 
 Crowded Channel.] — A steamship, proceeding 
 at an improper rate in a channel crowded with 
 ships, incurs the responsibility of damage occa- 
 sioned by her being unable to keep out of the 
 way of the sailing vessel. The Geniiania, 21 
 L. T. 44— P. C. Aftirming. 37 L. J., Adm. 59. 
 
 Fishing Ground. ] — In the case of a cutter with 
 her ti-awl down, and a ship under sail, the pre- 
 sumption is against the latter sailing at six and a 
 half knots ona very dark night, and aware that 
 she was crossing a fishing-ground. Tlie Pepperell, 
 Swabey, 12. 
 
 Clear Weather— North Sea.] — A steamer being 
 
 in the Kortli Sea, and the weather fine and 
 clear, though the night was dark, was proceeding 
 at the rate of eight to nine knots an hour : — 
 Held, that she was not, under the circumstances, 
 going at too high a rate of speed. T//r Pacific, 
 53 L. J., Adm. 67 ; 9 P. D. 124 : 51 L. T. 127 ; 
 33 W. R. 124 : 5 Asp. M. C. 263. 
 
 Steamship.] — A steamship going ten knots 
 held in fault for not having seen a barque in time 
 to avoid her. TJie Brir.s.s-o?i, Swabey, 38. 
 
 Speed in Fog.] — Sec 11. The Regulations, 
 infra, cols. 799 seq. 
 
 iii. Looli-out. 
 
 The greater the darkness or thickness of 
 weather, the more vigilant must be the look-out. 
 The Mellona, 3 W. Rob. 7. 
 
 The look-out should be in the bows. The 
 Diana, Stuart v. Iroiionger, 4 Moore, P. C. 11 ; 
 The Batavier, supra : The Ghanithnntn, 1 P. D. 
 283 ; 34 L. T. 934 ; 24 W. R. 1033 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 339— C. A. 
 
 Or on the bridge, in case of ferrv boats. The 
 Wirral, 3 W. Rob. 56. 
 
 An anchor watch should be kept in frequented 
 roadsteads, or in bad weather. See Luch v. 
 
 Seward, 4 Car. & P. 106 : randerplanh\. Miller^ 
 M. & M. 169 ; The Pladda, 46 L. J., Adm. 61 ; 
 2 P. D. 34. 
 
 One hand not sufficient look-out for a steam- 
 ship in thick weather off Dungeness. The Ger- 
 m a Ilia, supra. 
 
 Aliter. in the Clyde in daylight. Clyde Navi- 
 qatiun Co. v. Barclay, 1 App. Cas. 790 ; 36 L. T. 
 379 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 390. 
 
 It is the duty of a ship dropping up the Thames 
 in the neighbourhood of the docks at night tO' 
 have a look-out astern, and to warn an approach- 
 ing vessel bound down of her presence. The- 
 Juno, 11 R. 679; 71 L. T. 341 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 506. 
 
 Unless there is apparent dairger, it is not the 
 duty of a vessel ahead to look out for, or show a 
 light to, vessels following in her wake, so as tO' 
 make her guilty of contributory negligence in 
 the event of a collision between her and one of 
 such vessels. The Citi/ of Brooklyn, 1 P. D. 276; 
 34 L. T. 932 ; 24 W. R. 1056 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 230- 
 — C. A. 
 
 A tug with ship in tow must keep a look-out 
 for her tow as well as for herself. 2'he Jane- 
 Bacon, 27 W. R. 35. 
 
 It is not necessarily negligence for the look- 
 out of a vessel up the river not to report a vessel 
 coming out of dock. The Calabar, Moss v. 
 African Steumshij) Co., L. R. 2 P. C. 238 ; 19 
 L. T. 768. 
 
 Before going about a ship must see that she can 
 do so without damage to other ships. The Allan 
 and The Flora, 14 L. T. 860. 
 
 The master is not criminally responsible for a 
 collision caused by want of look-out. Rex v.. 
 Allen, 7 Car. & P. 153. 
 
 Heavy responsibility of steamship going twelve- 
 or fourteen knots in frequented waters at night 
 as to look out. The Londonderry, 4 Not. of Cas.. 
 Sup pi. xxxi. 
 
 iv. Coining to an Anchor. 
 
 It is the duty of a ship before rounding to to> 
 bring up to see that she does not endanger ships 
 under way in her neighbourhood. 'The Ceres, 
 Swabey, 250 ; The Shannon, 1 W. Rob. 463 ; The- 
 Philotaxe, 37 L. T. 540 : 3 Asp. M. C. 512. 
 
 A ship was held in fault for attempting to- 
 bring up in the Downs in heavy weather without 
 the assistance of a tug which she might have- 
 taken ; she having only one anchor available,^ 
 from which she parted. Tlie Annot Lyle, 55 
 L. J., Adm. 62 ; 11 P. D. 114 ; 55 L. T. 576 ; 34 
 W. R. 647 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 50. 
 
 Duty to shorten sail in time before bringing 
 up in "a ci'owded roadstead. The Neptune the 
 Second, 1 Dods. 467 ; The Secret, 26 L. T. 670 ; 
 1 Asp. M. C. 318 ; The Earl Spencer, L. R. 4 
 A. & E. 431 ; 32 L. T. 370 ; 23 W. R. 661 ; 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 523. 
 
 A ship delaying to bring up until night time 
 when she might have brought up in the day time- 
 in safety, held in fault. The Egyptirin, 1 Moore, 
 P. C.(N.S.) 373 ; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 1159 ; 8 L. T. 776.. 
 
 A ship held in fault for attempting to bring up 
 with one anchor chain unshackled, where, if the 
 second anchor had been ready to let go, the 
 collision would have been avoided. The City of 
 Pekiiiq, 58 L. J., P. C. 64 ; 14 App. Cas. 40 ; 61 
 L. T. 136 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 396— P. C. 
 
 Ship under way must keep clear of Ship at 
 Anchor.]— The Batnricr. 2 W. Rob. 407; 10 Jur.
 
 G93 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 694 
 
 19 ; TJie Secret, 26 L. T. 670 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 318 ; 
 The Kjohenhacn, 30 L. T. 136 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 213 — P. C. And see cases infra, cols. 703, 704. 
 
 Bringing up in a Fairway.] — A ship will not 
 necessarily be held in fault for a collision caused 
 by her ha^•ing improperly brought up in a fair- 
 way, if fog or other reasonable cause compelled 
 her to do so. The Kjobenhavn, 30 L. T. 136 ; 2 
 Asp. M. C. 213 — P. C. The Agitadillana (fog), 
 60 L. T. 897 : 6 Asp. M. C. 390. 
 
 It is not negligence to bring up in the Mersey 
 directly in the track of the ferry steamers. The 
 Lancashire, L. R. 4 A. & E. 198 ; 29 L. T. 927 ; 
 2 Asp. M. C. 202. 
 
 In Exposed Position.] — A barge in the 
 
 Thames brought uj) in a jilace where she was 
 exposed to the swell of steamships, and was 
 thereby sunk : — Held, that she was alone in 
 fault. The Duhe of Curnwall, 1 Pritch. Ad. 
 Digest, 301. 
 
 A ship brought up in an exposed position does 
 not thereby contribute to a collision caused by 
 another ship driyinaf in to her. The Despaicli, 
 14 Moore, P. C. 83 ^Lush. 98 ; 3 L. T. 219. 
 
 Stopping in Fairway — Whistle.] — Where a 
 steamship under way at night in the Firth of 
 Clyde stops her way and puts herself across the 
 line of nayigation for the purpose of coming to 
 an anchor, she is to lilame for not warning 
 yessels coming up behintl her of her manoeuvres. 
 The Queen Victoria, 64 L. T. 520 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 9— C. A, 
 
 V. Anchor rradij to let f/o. 
 
 During a very violent gale a brig adrift in the 
 Tyne drove down on a steamer which was lying 
 properly moored to mooring-buoys placeil there 
 by the harbour authorities. On the brig striking 
 the steamer, the ring of one of the buoys was 
 carried away, and the steatner got adrift and 
 ilrove down the river, and ultimately came in 
 contact with and did damage to a barque, whose 
 fjwners instituted a cause of damage against the 
 steamer in the county court, to recover for the 
 damage done to their vessel l)y the steamer. At 
 the lieaiing it was ])roved tliat the chain cables 
 of the steamer had been unbent at the time she 
 got adrift, and that no look-out had previously 
 been kept on deck, though it was known that 
 t he vvcatlier was getting worse : — Held, that a 
 defence of inevitable accident, set up by the 
 owners of the steamer, was not sustained, antl 
 tliat the steamer was alone to blame for the 
 coUision. The Pladda, 46 L. J., Adm. 61 ; 2 
 I'. D. 34. 
 
 When tlie captain f>f a steamer, ujjon a vessel 
 being reported ahead, immediately gives orck'rs 
 to sto]) and reverse, but is unable to stop the 
 way of his ship in time to prevent a collision, he 
 is not proved to have been guilty of negligence 
 Ijccause lie did not immediately drop his anchor. 
 The ('. M. Palmer and, Liirnar, Tyne Steam 
 Shippinq Co. V. Smith, 29 L. T. 120 '; 21 \V. K. 
 702 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 94— P. C. 
 
 Where a ship, having been moored to a buoy, 
 under the sanction of the authorities in the port 
 where she was, broke loose in conseriuence of a 
 latent defect in the buoy, and, being prevented 
 by an inevitable accident from letting go her 
 anchor, came into collision with another ship : — 
 Held, that no negligence could be imputed to 
 
 the master. The William Lindsay, L. R. 5 P. C. 
 388 ; 29 L. T. 355 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 118— P. C. 
 
 Where collision was attributable to the eilect 
 of an exceptional current, known to be a possible 
 though improbable contingency, but it was shown 
 that the port anchor of the steamer was not in 
 readiness, and that delay arose in dropping the 
 starboard anchor : — Held, that the steamer had 
 neglected ordinary precautions and could not be 
 absolved from blame. The City of Peking, 58 
 L. J., P. C. 64 : 14 App. Gas. 40 • 61 L. T. 136 ; 
 6 Asp. M. C. 396— P. C. 
 
 In the absence of any regulation or custom, 
 there is no duty on the part of a keel or barge 
 drifting up river to keep out of the deep water 
 navigation and navigate in the shallow water, 
 even though by remaining in the deep water she 
 obstructs the passage of steamships which can 
 only navigate in the deep water. A keel with 
 her mast lowered may drive up on a flood tide in 
 any part of a river lashed to another keel, but it is 
 her duty in such circumstances to go up dredging 
 with her anchor down, in order that she may 
 thereby have the means in an emergency of 
 bringing herself up if necessary ; and whilst two 
 keels may drive up lashed together there is no 
 less duty imposed on them to dredge. I'he 
 Ralph Creyhe, 55 L. T. 155 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 19. 
 
 A steamship in the Thames at night passed a 
 schooner, and when three hundred yards ahead 
 of her ran ashore ; the schooner ran into her : 
 — Held, that the schooner was not in fault for 
 not having dropped her anchor to avoid the 
 collision. T'he Elizabeth and The Adalia, 22 
 L. T. 74. S. P., The C. M. Palmer and The- 
 Larna.c, supra. 
 
 Duty to have Chains bent and Anchor ready to 
 letgo.]— 77/r Kepler, 2 P. D. 40, n. 
 
 vi. Foul Perth. 
 
 If one ship has given another a foul berth, the 
 owneis of the ship giving the foul berth have no 
 right to demand that extraordinary precaution 
 should be taken on boaid the other ship to avoid 
 a collision. The Vivid, 42 L. J., Adm. 57 ; 28 
 L. T. 375 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 601. 
 
 The "Victor" gave the "Vivid" a foul berth, 
 and the "Vivid," in swinging, came into collision 
 with and damaged the " Victor." The usual and 
 ordinary precautions hatl been taken on board 
 the " Vivid " : — Held, that the " Vivid " was not 
 answerable for the collision. Ih. 
 
 The " W. A." in charge of a pilot came to 
 anchor in the Mersey, and gave the "15. T." a 
 foul berth. Various remonstrances were from 
 time to time made by those on board the " B. T.," 
 and after a few tiays the vessels, in swinging to 
 the tide, came into collision : — Held, that the 
 owners of the " W. A." w^re liable. The Wohwni 
 Ahhey, 38 L. J., Adm. 28 : 20 L. T. 621. 
 
 One ship brought up during a gale in a fair 
 berth in the Downs, .and anoliier ship coming up, 
 anchored within a cable's length of her, riding at 
 one anchor. The gale incn-asing, drove both 
 ships from their anchors, whiiu the last ship 
 came into collision with the first ship, so that 
 the first ship had to be taken to the roads in a 
 sinking state and beached : — Held, that the ship 
 last coming up was solely lialile for the collision, 
 from having given the first ship a foul berth in 
 riding so close to her at single anchor. The 
 Muiigic Arm-stromi v. The Blue Bell, 14 L. T. 
 340'.
 
 G95 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 696 
 
 " B." took lip a berth in (lie Tyne, with the 
 view of discharying' cargo. " C." took up a berth 
 close alongsiile, and, as the tide fell, heeled over 
 upon "B.," and damaged her : — Held, that "C." 
 was responsible for the damage so received by 
 '•B." The Lidxltjalf, Swabey, 117. 
 
 The proximate cause of collision was the part- 
 ing of a steamer's cable while anchoring : — 
 Held, that the steamer was to blame, for if she 
 had not delayed taking measures for anchoring 
 till so late at night, the collision would not have 
 been inevitable. The Erjyptian, 1 Moore, P. C. 
 (N.S.) 373 ; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 1159 ; 8 L. T. 776. 
 
 A vessel gave another a foul berth, bvrt got into 
 collision with her because of a hurricane, that 
 caused her to drive : — Held, inevitable accident. 
 The Innisfail and The Secret, 35 L. T. 819 ; 3 
 Asp. M. C. 337. 
 
 A vessel that groundsalongside another against 
 which she falls over and so injures her : — Held, 
 in fault. The Indian and The Jessie, 12 L. T. 
 .")86 ; The Lidshjnlf, Swabey, 117 ; The Pafriutto 
 and The Rival, 2 L. T. 301 ; and see The Vivid, 
 supra. 
 
 A vessel bringing up so as not to swing clear 
 of another will be held in fault for fouling her. 
 llie Korthamjyton, 1 Spinks, 152 ; The Vivid, 12 
 L. J., Adm. 57 ; 29 L. T. 375 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 601. 
 
 In the Mersey a cable's length is a clear berth. 
 The Priticeton, 47 L. J., Adm. 33 ; 3 P. D. 90 ; 
 38 L. T. 260; 3 Asp. M. C. 562. 
 
 A ship should not, without necessity, bring up 
 directly ahead of another, so that if she parts or 
 drives she cannot clear the latter. See The 
 Utjyptia7i, supra ; The Volcano, 2 W. Rob. 337 ; 
 The Mafigie Arinstroiiq and The Blue Bell, 1-1 
 L. T. 340." 
 
 A ship brought up too near another, and with 
 one anchor only, held in fault for a collision with 
 the other to leeward. The Volcano, 2 W. Rob. 
 337. 
 
 vii. When at Anchor or Moored. 
 
 In Heavy Weather.] — A ship that drives when 
 at anchor because her yards have not been sent 
 down, or because she was not properly tended, 
 will be held in fault for a collision so caused. 
 The Excelsior, 37 L. J., Adm. 54 ; L. R. 2 
 A. & E. 268 ; 19 L. T. 87 ; The Christiana, 7 
 :\Ioore, P. C. 160 ; The Peerless, Lush. 30 ; The 
 Iluhy Qveen, Lush. 266. 
 
 Or where the collision is caused by her not 
 having moored, when she ought to have done so. 
 The Gipsy King, 2 W. Rob. 537. 
 
 Insufficient Ground Tackle.] — A ship will be 
 held in fault for a collision so caused. The 
 Massachusetts, 1 W. Rob. 371 ; The Despatch, 
 Lush. 98 ; 14 Moore, P. C. 83 ; 3 L. T. 219 ; The 
 Volcano, 2 W. Rob. 337 ; Allen v. Quebec Ware- 
 house Co., 56 L. J.. P. C. 6 ; 12 App. Cas. 101 ; 
 56 L. T. 30 ; The William Tell, 13 L. T. 13. 
 
 Duty to Shift Berth where another Ship 
 Endangered. ] — See The Wohurn Ahhey, 38 L. J., 
 Adm. 28 ; 20 L. T. 621 ; The Despatch, supra. 
 
 Duty to Avoid Collision, if possible — Duty of 
 Colliding Vessel.] — When a vessel under way 
 comes into collision with a vessel at anchor 
 exhibiting a proper light, the onus is on her to 
 justify her conduct. She cannot be excused 
 when it is shown that she had not a sufficient 
 look-out. The vessel at anchor is also bound to 
 
 keep a competent person on watch, whose duty 
 it is to see that the anchor light or lights are 
 properly exhibited, and to do everything in his 
 power to avert or minimise a collision. If that 
 person acts in error of judgment, when placed 
 by the colliding vessel in a position of difficulty 
 calling for instant decision, he is entitled to 
 favourable consideration and it must be shown 
 that any alternative course would have prevented 
 or mitigated the collision. The Mcanatchy, 
 66 L. J., P. C. 92 ; [1897] A. C. 351— A. C. 
 
 Slipping to avoid Collision.] — A vessel drove 
 against the breakwater at Falmouth and damaged 
 it. She might have avoided the damage by 
 slipping from her anchor in time : — Held, that 
 she was in fault. The Uhla, 37 L. J., Adm. 10, n. ; 
 L. R. 2 A. & B. 29 ; 19 L. T. 89. 
 
 viii. Getting under Way. 
 
 Coming out of Dock.] — A ship coming out of 
 dock improperly allowed herself to be caught by 
 the tide and carried against another proceeding 
 down the river. She was held in fault for not 
 having her jib to keep her head straight. The 
 Ulster, 1 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 31 ; 6 L.''T. 736. 
 
 Hauling Out of Tier.] — A vessel coming into 
 a tier at Constantinople, and not hauling out 
 when bad weather came on, by which means 
 alone damage to the vessel alongside could be 
 prevented : — Held, in fault for damage done in 
 collision with her. The Patriotto and The Rival, 
 2 L. T. 301. 
 
 A vessel casting ofE from her moorings at night 
 held in fault for not exhibiting a light to an 
 approaching vessel. The John Fenwich, i\ L. J.. 
 Adm. 38 : L. R. 4 A. & E. 500 ; 26 L. T. 322 ; 1 
 Asp. M. C. 249. 
 
 In Bad Weather.] — A vessel getting underway 
 unnecessarily in bad weather or darkness and 
 thereby doing damage, will be held in fault. 
 The Carrier Dove, Br. & Lush. 113 ; 2 Moore, 
 P. C. (N.S.) 260 ; 19 L. T. 768 ; The Borussia, 
 Swabey, 94. 
 
 Obstruction by Ship at Wharf.] — A. was pos- 
 sessed of a wharf and of a ship lying there, 
 whose mast projected over the river. B. moored 
 his ship at an adjoining wharf with her bowsprit 
 overhanging A.'s wharf. On the tide falling, B.'s 
 bowsprit struck A.'s mast, and carried it away : 
 Held, that B. was not liable. Dalton v. Denton, 
 1 C. B. (N.S.) 672. 
 
 ix. At a Launch. 
 
 Where a launch is about to take place, reason- 
 able notice must be given to vessels navigating 
 the river. The Blenheim, 2 W. Rob. 421 ; 4 
 Not. of Cas. 393 ; The Vianna, Swabey, 405. 
 
 Persons in charge of a launch are bound to 
 take the utmost precautions to avoid injury to 
 passing vessels, such precautions being in the 
 circumstances, no more than reasonable. It is 
 their duty to have a tug in attendance on a launch 
 in the Mersey, decorated so as to indicate that a 
 launch is imminent, and, if necessary, to warn 
 approaching vessels. The George Roper or Ben- 
 tinck Steamship Co. v. Potter, 52 L. J.. Adm. 69 ; 
 8 P. D. 119 ; 49 L. T. 185 ; 31 W. R. 953 ; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 134.
 
 697 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 698 
 
 In the river Mersey, to give notice of a launch 
 taking place, it is customary to have the ship 
 dressed in flags for an hour or more before high 
 water (about which time the launch takes place) ; 
 to have tugs, one at least also dressed in flags, 
 plyingabout some time before the launch in front 
 of the yai'd where the ship is lying. When in 
 launching a vessel the usual precautions and the 
 usual general notice have been given, the persons 
 in charge of the launch have done all they are 
 required to do bv law. T/w Glentiarrij, 43 L. J., 
 Adm. 37 ; 2 P. D. 23.5 ; 30 L. T. 341 ; 23 W. E. 
 110 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 230. 
 
 When a vessel is launched in a river, the law 
 casts upon the persons in charge of the launch 
 the obligation of conducting the launching opera- 
 tions with the utmost precautions, and of giving 
 such notice as is reasonable and sufficient to 
 prevent any injury to passing vessels. The 
 Aridabman, 46 L. J., Adm. 77 ; 2 P. D. 231. 
 
 The " Angerona," proceeding down the river in 
 tow of a tug, came into collision with the " Anda- 
 lusian," which was being launched from a ship- 
 building yard. The yard had not been in use 
 for some time. The " Andalusian " was properly 
 decorated, but gave no other warning to vessels 
 passing during the launch : — Held, that the 
 " Andalusian " was alone to blame. Ih. 
 
 Where a launch was about to take place in the 
 river Mersey at high water, and the usual general 
 notice had been given, and the launch was dressed 
 with flags and all usual precautions taken, and 
 in due time before the launch a tug proceeded 
 to a vessel Ij'ing at anchor off the place where the 
 launch was about to take place and warned her 
 thereof, and subsequently in sufficient time 
 (ifl'ered to tow her out of the way ; but, owing to 
 the conduct of those on board the vessel at 
 anchor, whose pilot was aware before she anchored 
 that the launch was about to take place, that 
 vessel was still in the way, when the launch, 
 which was delayed as long as it was prudent to 
 do so, took place, and the launch struck the 
 vessel and saidc her : — Held, that the owners of 
 tiie launch had taken every possible precaution 
 and were not to blame for the collision, and that 
 1 he vessel at anchor was alone to blame. The 
 Ciirhapool, 7 P. D. 217 ; 4(5 L. T. 171 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 502. 
 
 Semble, a vessel at anchor in the track of a 
 vessel about to be launched is bound to get out 
 of the way of the launch if she has had warning 
 of the launch in due time and facilities for 
 moving out of the way in time (such as a tug 
 offering and being ready to tow her) are afforded 
 by those in charge of tlie launch. Ih. 
 
 A tug steamer, when being launched in the 
 river Tyne, ran stem foremost into the starboard 
 side of a steamer passing down the river, and 
 negligently being at that |>lace : — Held, notwith- 
 standing the steamer's negligence, the tug might, 
 by ordinary care, such as giving a signal bi.'fore 
 launching, have avoided the consequences of such 
 negligence, and therefore, both Ixjing to blame, 
 half the damage onlv was payable by the tug. 
 The United States, 12 L. T. 33— P. C. 
 
 X. Gobuj Ahout. 
 
 Duty of a ship not to go about so as to embarrass 
 or damage other ships. See The Sea Ai/injjh, 
 Lush. 23 ; 1.5 L. T. 103 ; The Allanand The Flora, 
 14 L. T. 860. But see T he Palatine, 27 L. T. 631 ; 
 1 Asp. M. C. 468. 
 
 And to stay rather than wear, if possible. 
 
 The FaUdtind and The Karigator, 1 Moore, P. C. 
 (x.s.) 379 ; Br. & Lush. 204 : 9 Jur. (n.s.) 113— 
 P. C. 
 
 If she misses stays it is the duty of those on 
 board to get her under command as soon as 
 possible. The Kiiigstun-bij-the-Sea, 3 W. Eob. 
 152; The Lahe St. Clair and The Underwriter. 
 2 App. Cas. 389 ; 36 L. T, 155 : 3 Asp. M. C. 361 
 —P. C. 
 
 A ship whose duty it is to keep out of the way 
 must not stand so close to the other before going 
 about that, if she misses stays, a collision is 
 inevitable. The Kingston-hy-the-Sea, 3 W. Eob. 
 152 ; The Mohile, Swabey, 69, 127; 10 Moore, P. C. 
 467 ; nom. Bates v. Dun Pablo Sora, 4 W. E. 
 708. 
 
 As to the duty of a ship working to windward, 
 in company with another, to watch for the other 
 going about, so as to be ready to go about at the 
 same time. The Priscilla, L. E. 3 A. & E. 125 ; 
 23 L. T. 566 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 468. And see The 
 Lahe St. Clair and The Underwriter, supra. 
 
 xi. Wrong Act of other Ship. 
 
 When one ship is, by the improper navigation 
 of a second ship compelled to alter her course, 
 and so does damage to a third ship, the ship 
 which compelled the alteration of course is 
 liable for the damage ; and that liability remains 
 if the damaged ship was not actually negligent, 
 even though by taking another course she might 
 have avoided the collision. The Sisters, 45 L. J., 
 Adm. 39 ; 1 P. D. 117 ; 34 L. T. 338 ; 24 W. E. 
 412. 
 
 A steamship meeting three barges was com- 
 pelled by the negligent management of the fore- 
 most barge to take a course which brought her 
 into collision with the other two barges : — Held, 
 that the owners of the first barge were liable to 
 those of the other two barges for the damage 
 done by the collision. Ih. 
 
 A vessel wliich, having performed her own 
 duty, is thrown into immediate danger of collision 
 by the wrongful act of another, is not to be held 
 liable if at that moment she adopts a wrong 
 manoeuvre. The Nor, 30 L. T. 576 ; 22 W. E. 30 ; 
 2 Asp. M. C. 264— P. C. The liywcll Castle, 
 4 P. D. 219 ; 41 L. T. 747 ; 28 W. E. 293 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 207— C. A. 
 
 Does not Excuse.]— One who can avoid a 
 
 collision made imminent by the fault of another 
 is bound to do so. The Jane Bacon, 27 W. E. 
 35. 
 
 Other Ship crossing Bows.] — A steamship 
 striking a hai'ge held not to blame, her manoeuvre 
 having been caused by a third ship wrongly 
 crossing her bows. The Thames, 32 L. T. 343 ; 
 2 Asp. M. C. 512. S. P., The Schn-an and The 
 Alhano, infra, col. 706. 
 
 xii. Various Cases. 
 
 Small Craft and Heavy Ships.] — Heavy ships 
 
 have no right in hiw to require small craft to 
 keep out of th(;ir way. See The La Plata, 
 Swabey, 220, 298 : The Independence, Lush. 270 ; 
 14 Moore, P. C. 103 ; 4 L. T. 563 ; 9 W. E. 582. 
 
 Moving Propeller in Dock,] — A steamship was 
 held in fault tor damaging a barge improperly
 
 699 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 700 
 
 moored astern of her by niovinji her propeller. 
 The Scotia, 63 L. T. 324 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 541. 
 
 On Fishing Grounds.] — Extra precautions arc 
 riHinirecl when passing over. Mvrphy v. Pal- 
 4jran\ 21 L. T. 20i) ; The jVair/airf and The 
 'Tiisrtn; 15 L. T. 86. See also Th£ Pacific, .53 
 L .J.. Adm. 67 ; 9 P. D. 124 ; 51 L. T. 127 ; 33 
 W. K. 124 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 263. 
 
 Warping down the Thames against the Flood.] 
 
 —Sec The Hope, 2 W. Kob. 8 ; The Tvhlcid, 1 
 Spinks, 217. 
 
 Dredging with Anchor.] — Duty as to under 
 certain circumstances. The Aqnadillana, dO 
 L. T. 897 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 390 ; The Raljih Creyhe, 
 55 L. T. 155 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 19. 
 
 Duty to show a light astern when dredging. 
 The Indian Chief, 58 L. J., Adm. 25 ; 14 P. D. 
 •2\ ; 60 L. T. 240 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 363. 
 
 Duty to wait under the Point when Navigat- 
 ing a winding iliver against Tide or Stream.] 
 — In an action for collision between two vessels 
 under steam in the river Scheldt, it appeared 
 that the vessels were proceeding in opposite 
 directions, the one up and the other down the 
 river, and that the vessel going up the river had 
 the tide against her. The colHsion took place at 
 a strong Taend of the river. It did not appear 
 that any positive rule had been printed and cir- 
 culated with regard to the navigation of the 
 river ; but, by the practice of navigation there, 
 it was the duty of a vessel navigating against the 
 tide to wait rmtil a vessel coming in the opposite 
 direction had cleared her at the bend : — Held, 
 upon proof that the vessel navigating against the 
 tide had disregarded this practice, that she must 
 be taken to have been to blame for the collision. 
 The Talnhot, 15 P. D. 194 ; 63 L. T. 812 ; 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 602. S. P., The Smyrna, 2 Moore. P. C. 
 .(N.s.) 447 ; 10 Jur. (x.s.) 977 ; 11 L. T. 74. 
 
 Assisting Helm with Sail.] — A ship held in 
 fault for not setting an outer jib to assist in 
 turning. The Ulster, 1 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 31 ; 
 6 L. T. 736. 
 
 Where the helm alone will not take a ship clear 
 of the other it must be assisted by handling 
 sheets and braces. The Lady Anne, 15 Jur. 18 ; 
 The Stranger, 6 Not. of Cas. 36 ; The Marjjesia. 
 8 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 468 : L. R. 4 P. C. 212 ; 26 
 L. T. 338 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 261 ; The Zadok, 53 
 L. J., Adm. 72 ; 9 P. D. 114 ; .50 L. T. 695 ; 32 
 W. R. 1003 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 252 ; The James, 
 Swabcy, 55, 60 ; 4 W. R. 353— P. C. 
 
 Two Vessels making for same Port — Danger- 
 ous Manoeuvre by Foremost Vessel — Liability.] 
 — When two vessels are making for the same 
 port, and that which is in front, regardless of the 
 position of that which is behind, executes a 
 manoeuvre which is under the circumstances 
 dangerous, the result of which is a collision, she 
 is not free from liability, although if the hinder- 
 most vessel had reversed her engines at once on 
 seeing the object of the manoeuvre the collision 
 would probably have been avoided. S8. " JSurd 
 Kap " V. SS. " Sandhill;' [1894] A. C. 646 ; 11 R. 
 144— P. C. 
 
 Coming Alongside to Speak.] — A trader under- 
 taking to sjieak a fishing coble, both being under 
 i;ail in the North Sea, held in fault for attempting 
 
 to do so without heaving to. The Thames, 5 
 C. Rob. 345. 
 
 A ship approaching anotlier for the purpose of 
 speaking her, or for other purposes, does so at 
 her own risk. The Bellerophon, 44 L. J., Adm. 
 7 ; 33 L. T. 412 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 58. 
 
 Where Eisk of Smelling the Ground.] — Where 
 a steamer is navigating a reach in which there i-^ 
 a risk of her smelling the ground, it is her duty 
 to be under such control by occasionally stopping 
 her engines or otherwise, so that she may be able 
 to avoid collisiou'with other craft in case she docs 
 smell the ground and fails to answer her helm. 
 The Ralph Creipte, 55 L. T. 155; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 19. 
 
 Unusual Mode of Navigating— Warping down 
 River.] — A vessel navigating in an unusual 
 manner — warping down a river against tide — 
 does so at her own risk in case of collision. Tlte 
 Hope, 2 W. Rob. 8. 
 
 Ship ashore in a fairway — Duty to warn 
 
 others.] — Those in charge of a vessel ashore at 
 night in a fairway are bound to warn others 
 approaching her. The hidustrie, 40 L. J.. Adm. 
 26 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 303 : 19 W. R. 728 ; 1 Asi). 
 M. C. 17. 
 
 Standing too close to other Craft.] — A ship 
 held in faidt for approaching another so close 
 that she could not see a third ship in time to 
 avoid her. Tlie Zollverein, Swabey, 96 ; 2 Jur. 
 (N.s.) 429. 
 
 So close in squally weather that, on being 
 struck by a squall, a collision was inevitable. 
 The Glohe, 6 Not. of Cas. 275. 
 
 A steamer met at night in the river Thames, 
 two brigs advancing in parallel courses from 
 iifty to sixty fathoms apart from each other. 
 The steamer, instead of porting her helm, at- 
 tempted to pass between them, and thereby 
 caused a collision, by which one of the brigs 
 was lost. The steamer held to blame. The 
 Schwalbe, 14 Moore, P. C. 241 ; Lush. 239 ; 4 
 L. T. 160. 
 
 Duty to bring up or lie fast in thick weather.] 
 In weather so thick that other ships cannot be 
 seen in time to avoid them a ship should bring 
 up or lie fast. Tlte Lancashire, L. R. 4 A. & E. 
 198; 29 L. T. 927; 2 Asp. M. C. 202; The 
 Otter, L. R. 4 A. & E. 203 ; 30 L. T. 43 ; 22 
 W. R. 557 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 208 ; The Affvadillana, 
 30 L. T. 897 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 390. But'as to dumb 
 barges, see The Rose of Engl and, infra. And see 
 11. The Regulations, infra, col. 804. 
 
 Eddy Tide.] — Must be kno\vn and guarded 
 aoainst. The La Plata, Swabey 220, 298 ; The 
 City of Pehiny, 58 L. J., P. C. 64 : 14 App. Cas. 
 40 ;■ 61 L. T. 136 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 396— P. C. But 
 see The Rhondda, 8 App. Cas. 549 ; 49 L. T. 210 : 
 5 Asp. M. C. 114, where it is unexpected and 
 unusual. 
 
 Dumb Barges.] — In the Thames have a right 
 to navigate all over the river in the deep water 
 channel as well as elsewhere. 21ie Ralph Creyhe, 
 55 L. T. 155 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 19. 
 
 And in fog are not necessarily in fault because, 
 not having anchors, they cannot at once bring 
 up. The Rose of England, 59 L. T. 262 ; 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 304.
 
 701 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 702 
 
 Swell raised by Excessive Speed,] — A ship 
 that by going too fast in narrow waters raises a 
 swell that damages other craft will be held liable 
 for the damage. The Batavier, 1 Spinks, 378. 
 ,S'. C. on App., 9 Moore, P. C. 286 : Smith v. 
 Dobson, 3 Man. & G. 59 ; 3 Scott. (N.R.) 336. 
 But see Luxford v. Large, .5 Car. & P. 421, as 
 to the other craft being overladen. 
 
 Fog — Alteration of Helm.] — There is no general 
 rule that a vessel when proceeding in a fog is not 
 entitled to act with her helm, but each case must 
 depend upon the special circumstances. The 
 Vindomura, [1891] A. C. 1 ; 63 L. T. 749; 6 
 Asp. M. C. .569— H. L. (E.) 
 
 The plaintiffs' vessel while proceeding in a 
 <lense fog heard the whistle of the defendants' 
 vessel about 3J points on her starboard bow, and 
 thereupon starboarded her helm. A collision, 
 however, occurred, as the defendants' vessel struck 
 her on her starboard quarter : — Held, that, under 
 the circumstances, tlie plaintiffs' vessel was not 
 to blame for starboarding her helm. lb. 
 
 Vessel Dangerous to Others.] — A ship of war 
 with a projecting ram under water, held in fault 
 for not warning another approaching her to 
 speak of the danger. 'The Bcllcrophon, supra ; 
 and see The Butaiier, 1 Spinks, 378 ; 9 Moore. 
 P. C. 286 ; 28 L. T. 429 ; The Underivriter. 2 
 App. Cas. 389 ; 36 L. T. 155 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 361. 
 
 c. Proof of Neg-ligence. 
 
 The burden of proof lies on a party seeking 
 to recover compensation for damage occasioned 
 by a collision, and that partly must establish that 
 the loss was attributable to the neglect or default 
 of the other party. I'he London or City of 
 London, Morgan v. Sim. 11 Moore, P. C. 307 ; 
 Swabey, 300 ; 5 W. II. 678. 
 
 The plaintiff in a collision cannot recover 
 where the defendant was not negligent, or where 
 there is doubt as to the cause of collision — Per 
 Lord Stowell. The Catherine of Dover, 2 Hag. 
 Adm. 145. 
 
 If the evidence does not satisfy the court that 
 one or both vessels are in fault for the collision, the 
 suit will be dismissed. 2'he 3Iaid of AuJdand, 6 
 Not. of Cas. 240. 
 
 A vessel, whilst being towed into a harbour by 
 a steam-tug, got aground, and the defendant's 
 vessel, which was being towed in at the same 
 time by fhe same tug, astern of the jdaintiff's 
 vessel, without any active default on the defen- 
 dant's part, struck and damaged the plaintiff's 
 vessel : — Held, no evidence of negligence for 
 which the defendant was liable. Harris v. 
 Avdcrmn, 14 C. P. (N.S.) 49!^ 
 
 The owners of a sliif) that has been damaged 
 by collision arc not entitled to lecovcfr in ;i(liiii- 
 lalty damages against the owners of the other 
 ship unless the collision is proved to have Vjcen 
 caused by the fault of the other ship. The Ligo, 
 2 Hag. Adm. 356. S. P., The Itinerant, 2 W. 
 Jtob. 236. 
 
 Burden of Proof.] — In an action of damage by 
 (•(illi>inn, the plaintiffs, in their statement of 
 claim, in substance allegcfl that their vessel was 
 at anchor when the defendants' steamer ran into 
 her in broad daylight. The defendants, in their 
 ]ileading, made no charge of negligence against 
 the plaintiffs, but alleged that the collision was 
 
 caused by the steering gear of their vessel not 
 acting in consequence of some latent defect or 
 obstruction, which could not have been ascer- 
 tained or prevented by the exercise of any 
 reasonable care or skill on their part, and that 
 the collision and damage were caused by inevit- 
 able accident : — Held, that the onus to disprove 
 negligence lay on the defendants, and, therefore, 
 that tliev must begin. The Merchant Prince, 
 [1892] P. 9 ; 67 L. T. 251 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 208— 
 C. A. 
 
 Where the issue is, whether a collision was 
 caused by defective look-out or insufiicient moor- 
 ings, the burden of proving the sufficiency of 
 the look-out or moorings is upon the vessel, 
 wliich alone can do so. The John Ilarley and 
 The William Tell, 13 L. T. 413. 
 
 In a damage cause, brought by the owners of a 
 sail i ng vessel against a steam vessel, it is not incum- 
 bent upon them to plead that the sailing vessel, 
 after observing the steam vessel, kept her original 
 course. Tlie burden of proof, and therefore of plea, 
 is in this respect upon the defendant, to show that 
 the course of the sailing vessel was altered, and the 
 collision caused thereby. 27ie West of England, 
 36 L. J. Adm. 4 ; L. E. 1 A. & E. 308. 
 
 Plea, that a steamer overtaking a sailing vessel 
 could not comply with the 17th Art. in con- 
 sequence of the state of the weather, and the 
 neglect on the part of those on board the sailing 
 vessel to take iiroper precautions to avoid a col- 
 lision : — Held, that the proof of such a plea was 
 entirely on the steamer, who must make out in 
 her defence that it was impracticable for her, in 
 consequence of the state of the weather, to have 
 seen the sailing sliip in time to avoid her ; and 
 that the steamer was pursuing her course at 
 a reasonable speed, such weather considered. 
 The Hannah Park a?id The Lena, 14 L. T. 
 675. 
 
 The onus of proving negligence in the ship 
 proceeded against is on the plaintiff ; if the 
 defendant alleges "inevitable accident" the 
 onus still rests on the plaintiff ; it is not shifted 
 until he shews a primii facie case of negligence 
 in the defendant. The Bolina, 3 Not. of Cas. ' 
 208. 
 
 Where the plaintiff proves facts which would 
 lead to the conclusion that the other ship is in 
 fault, the burden of proof is shifted, and it lies 
 on the defendant to show that his ship was not 
 in fault. This applies in the case of a collision 
 between a ship under way and another at 
 anchor. The Secret, 26 L. T. 670 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 318. 
 
 Failure of Proof — Cross Actions,] — Where 
 there were cross actions and each party failed 
 to i;)rove negligence against the other, both 
 actions were dismissed with costs. The Gabriel, 
 4 W. R. 91. 
 
 Lights — Infringement of Rules as to.] — 
 
 A vessel that has infringed a rule as to lights 
 m.adc by competent authority must show that 
 the infringement did not contribute to the 
 collision. 'The Suxtnsca and The ('ondor, 48 
 L. ,1., Adm. 33; 4 P. 1). 115 ; 40 L. T. 442 ; 27 
 W. 11. 748; 4 Asp. M. C. 115. 
 
 Ship at Anchor,] — In an action, a collision 
 
 between a vessel at anchor and one in motion, 
 the burden of proof is upon the owners of the 
 latter to ])rove that the collision was not occa- 
 sioned Vjy any negligence on their part. The
 
 ro3 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 704 
 
 Aiinot Li/le. 55 L. J., Adm. 62; 11 P. D. 114; 
 55 L. T.'57G ; 34 W. R. 647 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 50— 
 C. A. 
 
 In an action for damage by collision it appeared 
 that the defendants' vessel while in motion came 
 into collision with the plaintiffs' vessel which 
 was at anchor : — Held, that the fact that the 
 plaintiffs' vessel at the time of the collision was at 
 anchor and could be seen was prima facie evidence 
 of negligence on the part of the defendants, and 
 that the burden of proof was then upon them to 
 rebut the presumption of liability, by showing 
 cither that the collision was occasioned by no 
 fault on their part, or that it was due to inevitable 
 accident, or that it was solely the fault of a pilot 
 who was on board their vessel by compulsion of 
 law. Clyde Xa rigation Co. v. Barclay (1 App. Cas. 
 700) considered. The Indus, 56 L. J., Adm. 88 ; 
 12 P. D. 46 ; 56 L. T. 376 ; 35 W. R. 490 ; 6 
 Asp. M. C. 105— C. A. 
 
 A plaintiff, whose vessel has been run down at 
 anchor, may charge negligence generally, and 
 the burden of proof, the collision proved, is thrown 
 upon the defendant to establish his defence. 
 The Bothnia, Lush. 52. 
 
 Vessels A. and B. coming into collision while 
 B. is at anchor, the burden of proof is upon A. 
 to account for the collision, and the burden is 
 not shifted by the fact that at such time A. 
 was drifting in consequence of a prior collision. 
 The Annapolis, 5 L. T. 326. S. P., The (ieorye 
 ArMe, 5 L. T. 290. 
 
 Where a vessel under steam runs down a ship 
 at her moorings in broad daylight, that fact is 
 by itself prima facie evidence of fault, although 
 such steamer is well equipped, and both officers 
 and men are show-n to have been at their posts 
 and on the outlook. The City of PeMny, 58 
 L J., P. C. 64 ; 14 App. Cas. 40 ; 61 L. T. 136 ; 
 6 Asp. M. C. 396— P. C. 
 
 The burden is upon a ship that is under way 
 to prove that she was not negligent for a collision 
 with another at anchor. The George, 2 W. Rob. 
 386 ; 9 Jur. 670. 
 
 Collision at night between ship under way and 
 ship at anchor. Upon proof that the latter was 
 brought up in a proper place and had a proper 
 light up. the burden shifts to the other ship to 
 show that she was not negligent. The Telegraph, 
 1 Spinks, 427. 
 
 A collision occurred between a ship under way 
 and another at anchor. The latter was carrying 
 a bull's eye lantern showing a light only in one 
 direction :— Held, under 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 29, 
 that the burden was upon her to show that the 
 collision was not caused by the infringement of 
 the statute. She discharged this burden and 
 recovered full damages. The Palestine, 13 W. R. 
 111. 
 
 On Part of Ship at Anchor.] — See The 
 
 Meanatchy, supra, col. 696. 
 
 Semble.' In the absence of a charge of negli- 
 gence against a ship at anchor (plaintiff), run 
 down by a ship under way (defendant), the 
 latter is entitled to begin. The Bottle Imp, 
 42 L. J., Adm. 48 ; 28 L. T. 286 ; 21 W. R. 600 ; 
 1 Asp. M. C. 571. 
 
 d. Inevitable Accident. 
 
 Definition of.] — Inevitable accident is where 
 the collision could not possibly have been pre- 
 vented by proper care and seamanship. So that 
 where the defence of inevitable accident is set 
 
 up on behalf of a vessel prima facie to blame for 
 a collision, the defence, to succeed, must be sup- 
 ported by proof that everything was done which 
 could and ought to have been done to avoid the 
 collision ; and this, though the vessel is in some 
 degree disabled, and so less manageable than she 
 would otherwise have been. The Calcutta, 21 
 L. T. 768— P. C. 
 
 Inevitable accident is that which the party 
 charged with the damage could not possibly 
 prevent by the exercise of ordinary care, caution, 
 and maritime skill. The Marpesia, 8 Moore, P. C. 
 (N.s.) 468 ; L. R. 4 P. C. 212 ; 26 L. T. 333 ; 
 1 Asp. M. C. 261. 
 
 When in a cause of collision the defence of 
 inevitable accident is raised, the onus of proof 
 lies, in the first instance, on those who bring the 
 suit against:the vessel and seek to be indemnified 
 for damage ; and does not attach to the vessel 
 proceeded against until a prima facie case of 
 negligence and want of due seamanship is shown. 
 li. 
 
 Two sailing vessels approaching stem on in 
 such a manner as that, under the sailing rules, 
 each would be bound to port, being in a dense 
 fog, only sighted each other at a distance of 
 about two hundred yards. The defendant's 
 vessel, having been close-hauled on the port tack, 
 was then preparing to go about, and had eased 
 off her head sheets. Both vessels immediately 
 ported, but came into collision. Only one minute 
 elapsed between the time of sighting and the 
 coUision. The plaintiff's petition alleged, that 
 the defendant's vessel neglected to port, and it 
 was stated, in answer to a question by the judge 
 of the admiralty court, that the head sheets of 
 the defendant's vessel were not again hauled aft. 
 On this evidence that vessel was held to blame 
 by the admiralty court, on the ground that she 
 had not executed all the proper manoeuvres 
 which she might have executed after sighting 
 the other vessel : — Held, that the collision was 
 the result of an inevitable accident, the defen- 
 dant's vessel having done all that could be 
 effected by ordinary care, caution, or maritime 
 skill in the short space of time that elapsed ; 
 and that the plaintiff, if he meant to rely upon 
 the fact that the head sheets had not been again 
 hauled back, ought to have alleged that fact in 
 his petition as to the case of the collision ; the 
 allegation of neglect to port not sufficiently 
 indicating the nature of such omission. li. 
 
 Inevitable accident is where the collision could 
 not have been prevented by proper care and sea- 
 manship in the particular circumstances of the 
 case. The Secret, 26 L. T. 670 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 318. 
 
 A defendant, in order to support a defence of 
 inevitable accident, is bound to show that every- 
 thing was done which could and ought to have 
 been done to avoid a collision. Ih. 
 
 Inevitable accident is that which a party could 
 not possibly prevent by the exercise of ordinary 
 care, caution, and maritime skill. It is not 
 enough to show that the accident could not be 
 prevented by the party at the very moment it 
 occurred, but the question is, what previous 
 measures have been adopted to render the occur- 
 rence of it less probable. The Vhla, 37 L. J., Adm. 
 16, n. ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 29, n. ; 19 L. T. 89. 
 
 Where damage might have been avoided by 
 shipping cable and setting sail : — Held, that it 
 was not an inevitable accident, but the result 
 either of negligence or the absence of proper 
 nautical skill. Ih.
 
 705 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 706 
 
 Tempestuous weather is an excuse for the 
 failure to exercise proper nautical skill which 
 should be received with the greatest possible 
 caution. lb. 
 
 A schooner ran foul of a ship, whereby the 
 latter became unmanageable. Her anchor was 
 let go, when she swung round upon and came in 
 collision with a brig lying at anchor : — Held, 
 that the collision was inevitable, those on board 
 the ship having done what they could to avoid 
 it. The Hihernia, 4 Jur. (X.S.) 1244. 
 
 An inevitable accident is such as could not 
 have been prevented by the exercise of ordinary 
 care, caution and maritime skill. TJie Pladdu, 
 46 L. J., Adm. 61 ; 2 P. D. 34. 
 
 Latent Defect.] — The owners of a vessel are 
 not liable for damage caused to another vessel in 
 a collision occasioned by the sudden breakinu: 
 down of an apparatus in which there was au 
 inherent latent defect, in the absence of anj' 
 negligence in the user of the apparatus. The 
 Virgu, 35 L. T. 519 ; 25 W. E. 397 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 2S5. 
 
 Disabled Vessel.] — When a ship seeks to 
 excuse her failure to comply with the sailing 
 regulations, and with a seamanlike precaution, 
 by shewing that such a failure was in consequence 
 of her being disabled in a prior collision, it is 
 material to inquire whether the prior collision 
 was due to her default or was the result of 
 inevitable accident. 'The Kjobenhacn, 30 L. T. 
 136 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 213— P. C. 
 
 \\'hen it is tho duty of a ship to keep out of the 
 way of another ship, but she is unable to do so by 
 reason of being disabled in a former collision, and 
 the other ship being unaware of her disabled 
 condition continues her course, a collision ensuing 
 is the result of inevitable accident. The Aimo. 
 The Amelia, 29 L. T. 118; 21 W. R. 707; 2 
 Asp. M. C. 96 — P. C. And cp. Scccumhe v. Wuud, 
 2 M. & Rob. 290. 
 
 Eing of Buoy Carrying Away.] — A vessel in 
 poi't was inooied to a buny. the u>ie of which was 
 sanctioned by tlie authorities and. a storm being 
 expected, she also had her anchor ready to drop. 
 The mooring buoy bioke and the vessel drifted. 
 She attempted to cast anchor, but was prevented 
 )jy inevitable accident. She came into collision 
 with another vessel which was properly mooied : 
 — Held, that the first vessel had not conti-iljuted 
 by negligence to the collision. The Wiiliani 
 JAnAmij, Dmvard v. LindHuy, L. R. 5 P. C. 338 ; 
 2» L. T. 3.15; 22 W. R. 6; 2 Asp. M. C. 118. 
 »S. P., The Tiiiriird and The Turh'txtan, 13 Ct. of 
 Sess. Cas. (4th .ser.) 342. 
 
 Jamming of Wheel Chains.] — In an action of 
 damage hy collision, it a|)peared that the plain- 
 tiff's vessel wa-i at anchor in the Mersey when 
 the defendant's steamer ran into her in broad 
 daylight. The defence wa.s that the steam steer- 
 ing gear of flie defendants' vessel failed to act in 
 coiise'|uence of some latent defect, or obstruction, 
 whicli could not have been a.scertaincd or pre- 
 vented liv the exercise of any reasonable care or 
 skill on the part of the defendants, and that the 
 cf)llision anci damage were caused by inevitable 
 accident. The steam steering gear in question 
 was good of its kind ; it had never previously 
 failed to act, and the cause of tiie defect in the 
 machine, or of the obstruction in the working, 
 could not lie discovered by competent persons. 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 Part of the gear, including some portion of the 
 chain running between the wheel and the rudder, 
 had been recently renewed, and it was admitted 
 that new chain is liable to stretch, but it was 
 proved that before the vessel left her anchorage 
 to proceed on her voyage, the whole of the gear 
 had been tested and found in good order, and 
 that the chain had been tightened up as occasion 
 seemed to require : — Held, that the defendants 
 were liable, as they had not satisfied the burden 
 of proof, for, in order to support the defence of 
 inevitable accident, and disprove the prima 
 facie evidence of negligence, it was necessary 
 for them to shew that the cause of the accident 
 was one not produced by them, and the result 
 of which they could not avoid, but the defen- 
 dants knew of the tendency of new chain to 
 stretch, and therefore that an accumulation of 
 links at the leading wheels might possibly cause 
 jamming, and considering the crowded condition 
 of the river where the accident occurred, the u*e 
 — or readiness for immediate use — of hand, 
 instead of steam, steering gear, was a means by 
 which the result could have been avoided. — 
 Per Fry, L.J. : The defendants had failed to 
 sustain the plea of inevitable accident, as it was 
 necessary for them either to shew what was the 
 cause of the accident, and that, though exercising 
 ordinary care, caution and maritime skill, the 
 result of that cause was unavoidaVjle, or to enu- 
 merateallthe possiblecauses,oneor other of which 
 might have produced the effect, and shew with 
 regard to every one, that the result was unavoid- 
 able. The definition of inevitable accident in 
 I'he Marpena, supra, col. 704, approved. The 
 Merchant Prince, [1892] P. 179 ; 67 L. T. 251 ; 
 7 Asp. M. C. 208— C. A. 
 
 The jamming of the cable on the windlass may 
 occur without negligence, llie Peerless, Lush. 
 30. S. P., The William Lindsay, L. E. 5 P. C. 
 338 ; 29 L. T. 355 ; 22 W. R. 6 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 118. 
 
 Third Ship crossing Defendants' Bows.] — P.y 
 
 reason of the improper navigation of the •' S." in 
 crossing the bows of the " A.," the latter sustained 
 damage by coming into collision with the "M." 
 In an action by the " M." against the " A." it was 
 held that the collision was au inevitable acci- 
 dent ; by Esher (Lord), M.R., because it had 
 been proved that something happened over which 
 those in charge < if t he " A." had no control, ami the 
 effect of which could not be avoided by the 
 •' greatest " care and skill ; by Fry ami Lopes, 
 L..J.J., because the accident being one which 
 those in charge of the " A." could not possibly pre- 
 vent by the exercise of "ordinary" care, caution 
 ami maritime skill, it was inevitable with the defi- 
 nition given in The Marpexia, sujjra, col. 701. 
 The Srhiran, The A/haiui, [1892] P. 419; 69 
 L. T. 34 : 7 Asp. AI. C. 347— C. A. 
 
 Steam Steering Gear Breaking Down.] — A 
 steamship fitted with a patent steam steering 
 gear ran into a vessel at anchor in the Thames, 
 owing to the steering gear suddenly not acting ; 
 every effort was unavailingly made to avoid the 
 collision. A few daj's before, on the previous 
 voyage of the same steamship, the same appara- 
 tus had similarly refused to act, but no cause 
 for it so doing could be seen on examination. 
 Large numbers of the gears were in use on 
 steamers. Jn an action of damage : — Held, 
 first, that the defendants were not liable for 
 damage caused by the use of this apparatus 
 
 23
 
 707 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 708 
 
 without ncsligence. Secondly, that the use of 
 this apparatus" on the Thames after it had acted 
 wrongly on a previous occasion, was evidence of 
 ne,>;lii;e"nce, and that the defendants were liable 
 for the damage caused therebv. 'f/in Ihtyiipran, 
 54 L. J., Adm. (il ; 10 P. D/S)9 ; 52 L. T. 868 ; 
 33 W. K. S)37 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 417. 
 
 If the defence of inevitable accident is relied 
 on, and the allegation is that the shi))'s steam 
 steering gear failed to act and she failed to 
 answer" her helm and so came into collision, 
 without negligence on the part of those on board, 
 the shipowner is liable. The, In/lux, 50 L. J., 
 Adm. 88 ; 12 P. D. 4() ; 5G L. T. 37(5 : 35 W. 11. 
 490 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 105. And see TJit> Warkworth, 
 53 L. J., Adm. 65 ; 9 P. D. 145 ; 51 L. T. 558 : 
 33 W. K. 112 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 326— C. A. 
 
 Whistle not Heard.] — It was proved at the 
 trial that a fog-horn was blown on the " Z." but 
 not heard on the " I. ":— Held, that this was not 
 prima facie evidence of negligence of those on 
 the " I." The Eh/.na, 46 L. T. 840 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 540. 
 
 The fact of a steam-whistle alleged to have 
 been blown in a fdg not being heard by those on 
 an approaching ship is not necessarily proof that 
 there was a bad look-out on the approaching 
 ship, as the direction in which and the distance 
 from which the sound would be heard is uncertain. 
 Tlie Rosetta, 59 L. T. 342 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 310. 
 
 Vessel Disabled by prior Collision.] — Where 
 a vessel whose duty it is under the regulations to 
 keep out of the way is unable to do so by reason 
 of damage received in a prior collision, and a 
 collision occurs with a third ship, it is inevitable 
 accident. Tlie Aimo and The Amelia, 29 L. T. 
 118 ; 21 W. R. 707 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 96. And see 
 The Kjohenhavn, supra. 
 
 Darkness of Night.] — A collision between a 
 sailing ship rounding to before anchoring and a 
 steimship : — Held, an inevitable accident "from 
 the darkness of the night alone." Both actions 
 dismissed, each party paying his own costs. Tlie 
 Shannon, 1 W. Eob. 463. 
 
 Vessel Forging over Sand.] — A collision 
 between a vessel that had been ashore on the 
 Nore Sand and having forged over it with the 
 flood tide struck another at anchor in the 
 channel just clear of the sand : — Held, an 
 inevitable accident. The llwrnley, 7 Jur. 659. 
 
 2. Presumption of Fault. 
 
 a. Infring-ement of the Regulations. 
 
 i. Under 14 4'- 15 Vict. c. 79. 
 
 Collision between ship under way and another 
 at anchor. The latter had not the statutory light 
 exhibited. Tlie jury found that the absence of 
 the light contributed to the collision : — Held 
 (under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 79, s. 28), that the 
 owners of the ship at anchor could not recover. 
 Murrisun v. General Steam ]\'ari//atio/i Co., 8 Ex. 
 733 ; 22 L. J., Ex. 233— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 79, s. 28, neither ship 
 could recover if the statutory rules for pievent- 
 ing collisions were not observed ; and although 
 neither ship alleged in her pleading against the 
 other that she had no lights, it being proved that 
 neither ship had lights :— Held, that neither 
 could recover anything. The Aliwal, 18 Jur. 
 296. 
 
 Under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 79, if a ship failed to 
 comply with the admiralty regulations as to 
 lights, she was not held in fault for collision 
 uidess it was caused by her non-compliance. 
 Tlie Tele<jvuph, 1 S[)inks, 427. 
 
 Under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 79, if a collision occurred 
 by the fault of both ships, and the fault of one 
 was the not having the statutory lights, she could 
 recover half her loss, but no more, although the 
 delicient lights did not contribute to the collision. 
 'Lite Samnland, 2 Spinks, 107. 
 
 If there was in fact risk of collision, a ship was 
 in fault, under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 79, for not porting 
 her helm, even if the master did not "perceive" 
 the risk and ought to have perceived it. General 
 Steam Navigation Co. v. Mann, 14 C. B. 127. 
 
 In summing-up in a case of collision between 
 a barque and a brig at anchor, the judge told the 
 jury that if the collision was caused wholly or in 
 part by the brig not having a light at the mast- 
 head in accordance with the atlmiralty regula- 
 tions, the defendants, the owners of the barque, 
 were not liable ; and that the substantial 
 question was, whether the brig had a light 
 exhibited or not. V^ertlict for the plaintiff, the 
 owner of the brig. Upon an application for a 
 new trial : — Held, that the judge's direction was 
 right. Whittel V. Crawford, 4 W. K. 654— 
 Ex. Ch. 
 
 ii. Under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. 
 
 A ship, " A.," was held in fault for a collision 
 caused partly by her infringement of the law as to 
 lights ; the other shi]), " B.," was held in fault for 
 bad look-out :— Held, under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, 
 ss. 295, 298, that "A." could recover nothing, and 
 that " B." could recover half her loss. Tlie Hubert 
 Infirant, Lush. 327. 
 
 A vessel infringing the regulati(ms a;s to lights 
 could under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, recover nothing 
 for a collision, though the other ship was also in 
 fault. The Urania, Swabey, 253. 
 
 The penal consequences of not porting the 
 helm in accordance with 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, 
 s. 269, do not follow where the master was not 
 able to make out the course of the other ship. 
 The Infiexihle, 6 Jur. (N.S.) 782. 
 
 The effect of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 298, was 
 to prevent either of two ships, both being in fault 
 for the collision, from recovering anything. 
 The James. Lawson v. Cirr, 10 Moore, P. C. 162 ; 
 Swabey, 60 ; 4 W. R. 563. S. P., The City oj 
 CarH.de, Br. & Lush. 363 ; 11 L. T. 33. 
 
 A vessel not carrying the lights required by 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, held in fault for the collision. 
 The LivinydoQie, Swabey, 519. 
 
 iii. Under 25 ^- 26 Vict. c. 63. 
 
 Where there has been a breach of the regula- 
 tions, and a collision ensues, the presumption is 
 that it was occasioned thereby ; and it lies on 
 the ship that infringed the law to shew that it 
 (lid not in fact occasion the damage. The Pales- 
 tine, 13 W. E. Ill ; 1 Asp. M. C. 468. 
 
 iv. Under 36 S,- 37 Vict. c. 85. 
 
 Materiality of Regulation Infringed.] — The 
 infringement must be one having some possible 
 connection with the collision ; or, in other words, 
 the presumption of culpability may be met by 
 proof that the infringement could not by any
 
 709 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 710 
 
 possibility have contributed to the collision ; 
 and the burden of shewing this lies on the party 
 guilty of the infringement ; proof that the 
 infringement did not in fact contribute to the 
 collision being excluded. The Funny M. Carvill 
 (infra) approved. The Bulie of Bucclench 
 [1891] A. C. 310; 65 L. T. 422; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 68— H. L. (E.) 
 
 The presumption of fault created by s. 17 of 
 the Merchant Shipping Act, 1873, does not 
 arise where the infringement could not by possi- 
 bihty have contributed to the collision. Thus : 
 Where a ship infringed art. 3 of the sailing 
 regulations by carrying her side-lights with 
 screens shorter than the length prescribed 
 thereby, but it was proved that such breach of 
 the regulation could not possibly have contri- 
 buted to the collision : — Held, that the ship could 
 not be deemed to be in fault. The Fanny 
 ^f. Carvill, U L. J., Adm. 34 : 13 App. Cas. 
 4.5.5, n. ; 32 L. T. 646 ; 24 W. R. 62 ; 2 Asp. M. G. 
 .569 — P. C. Approved, 21ic Hochung and The 
 Lapwhtff, 51 L. J., P. C. 92 ; 7 App. Cas. 512 ; 
 47 L. T.' 485 ; 31 W. R. 303. 
 
 Where the regulation infringed could by no 
 possibility have contributed to the collision, the 
 ship will not be held in fault under 36 & 37 
 Vict. c. 85, s. 17. The Duhe of Sutherland, L. R. 
 4 A. & E. 422 ; 32 L. T. 129 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 47S. 
 
 Presumption of Fault, not of being Alone in 
 Fault.] — Although a ship must be deemed to be 
 in fault for an infringement of the regulations 
 pieceding but not occasioning the collision under 
 the Merchant Shipping Act, 1873, s. 17, she is 
 not necessarily wholly in fault ; but if the other 
 ship has been guilty of negligence or a breach of 
 the regulations, the latter will also be held to 
 blame and the damages divided between them. 
 7hfi Illbernia, 31 L. T. 803 ; 24 W. R. 60 ; 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 454— P. C. 
 
 Vessel Towing deemed in Fault for Infringe- 
 ment by Vessel in Tow.] — A pilot boat in towot 
 a bri.L'antine had a masthead light and no side 
 liglits up: — Held, that the brigantine was 
 in fault under 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 17, for the 
 infringement of the law as to lights by the pilot 
 boat. The Man/ Ihmmell, 48 L. J., Adm. 54 ; 
 4 P. D. 204 ; 40 L. T. 368 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 101. 
 
 Wrong Lights — No Look-out on other Ship.] 
 — Where there was no look-out on tin; other ship : 
 — Held, that the absence of si'le-liglits in tlie 
 1 laiiififF's ship could not have contributed to the 
 iollision, and that 30 & 37 Vict. c. H5, s. 17, did 
 not ap[>lv. Thr EiufVisliman, 47 L. J., Adm. 9 ; 
 :< I'. 1). f81 ; 37 L. t. 412 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 506. 
 
 Stern Light.]— See 77(e PaVdiurux, 37 W. R. 
 iTpi;- (J. A. 
 
 There must be an opportunity of applying the 
 Hegulations.] — A ship failing to obey one of the 
 ii'.'iilations for preventing collisions whereby a 
 <-ollislon occurs, is not to be deemed to be in 
 fault within the Merchant Shipping Act, 1H73 
 (36 I't 37 Vict. c. 85), s. 17, if the circumstances 
 were such that a competent seaman exercising 
 reasonable care could not have discovered that 
 I'll' regulation was in fact api)licah)le. The 
 'rhetidiire II. Hand, Baker v. The Theodore II. 
 Itaiid. 56 L. J., Adm. 66 ; 12 App. Cas. 247 ; 56 
 L. T. 343 ; 35 W. R. 781 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 122— 
 •H. L. (E.) 
 
 Of two sailing ships approaching one another, 
 the " S." was running free, and the " T." was close- 
 hauled on the port tack. It was therefore the 
 duty of the " T." to keep her course in accordance 
 with arts. 14, 22, of the Regulations for Pre- 
 venting Collisions at Sea (1884), but those navi- 
 gating the " T.," in the belief that the " S." was 
 close-hauled on the starboard tack, ported, 
 whereby' a collision occurred : — Held, that since 
 with ordinary skill and by the exercise of reason- 
 able cai-e those navigating the " T." could not 
 have ascertained that the " S." was running free, 
 the " T." was not to be deemed to be in fault 
 within the Merchant Shipping Act, 1873 (36&37 
 Vict. c. 85), s. 17. Ih. 
 
 Short Screens.] — See The Fanny M. Carvill, 
 
 sujira. 
 
 Light Intercepted by Sails.] — Where a ship's 
 sitle-light was fixed in the rigging, but was not 
 proved to have been intercepted by the foresail 
 or otherwise : — Held, that there was no infringe- 
 ment of art. 3 (b) of the regulations, and no 
 presumption of fault. The Glamorqanslnre, 13 
 App. Cas. 454 ; 59 L. T. 572 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 344 
 — P. C. 
 
 Lights not Burning.] — Where there has been a 
 departure from an important rule of navigation, 
 if the absence of due observance of the rule can 
 by any possibility have contributed to the acci- 
 dent, then the party in default cannot be excused. 
 Where the lights of the complaining vessel were 
 not properly burning, and were not visible on 
 board the other vessel : — Held, that in the 
 absence of proof that this latter was also to blame, 
 the suit must be dismissed. The Arhlow, Emcrii 
 V. Clchero. 53 L. J., P. C. 9 ; 9 App. Cas. 136; 
 .50 L. T. 305 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 219— P. C. 
 
 Wrong Light of Trawler not seen by other 
 Ship.] — Where a steamship having come into 
 collision with a trawler, which, in violation of 
 the regulations for preventing collisions at sea, 
 was carrying a white masthead light in addition 
 to side-lights, and it appeared that those on 
 board the steamship had not seen the white 
 light, the court refused to hold the trawler to 
 blame for the breach of the regulations, on the 
 ground that it could not possibly have contributed 
 to the collision. The Chnmn, 53 L. T. 00 ; 5 
 Asp. M. C. 476. 
 
 Slight Obscuration of Light.] — The starboard 
 light of the plaint ill's' vessel was obscured by 
 the cathead to an extent of from two-and-a- 
 half to three degrees ; but with this exception 
 her side lights shewed an unbroken light over 
 ten points of the horizon : — Held, tiiat there 
 was no such infringement of art. 3 of the Regu- 
 lations for Preventing Collisions at Sea as to 
 oblige the court, under the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1873, s. 17, to hold the vessel to blame for 
 t he collision. The Fire Qneen, 56 L. J., Adm. 
 90 ; 12 P. D. 147 ; 57 L. T. 312 ; .30 AV. R. 15 ; 6 
 Asp. M. C. 146. 
 
 Only Chance of avoiding Collision.] — A steam- 
 ship, api)roacl)ing another vessel, so as to involve 
 risk of collision, may be jiistilied in keeping her 
 engines going full speed .ahead, where she is 
 placed in a position of danger by the neglect of 
 the other vessel to exhibit one of her lights 
 whilst shewing the other and there is no other 
 
 23—2
 
 711 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. ColUsion. 
 
 712 
 
 chance of escapinsr collision. Tlie Benare.t, 53 1 
 L. J., A.Ira. 2 : 9 P. D. Ifi ; 41) L. T. 702 ; 32 
 W. 11. 20S : 5 A'^p. M. C. 171— G. A. 
 
 Presumption of Fault though no Negligence 
 in Fact. J — The llegulations for Preventiug 
 ('iillisimis at Sea, made under the authority of 
 the :\[erchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1873, must 
 under the 17th section of the 36 &; 37 Vict. c. 85, 
 be strictly followed. Actual necessity, not 
 considerations of discretion and expediency, even 
 thoujrh skilfully acted on, can alone excuse their 
 non-observance. The Khedive, Stuumvart Maut- 
 schippy Xiderlandy. P. and 0. Steam Kiirh/ii- 
 fioii Co., 52 L. J., Adm. 1 ; 5 App. Cas. 876 : 43 
 L. T. 610 ; 2'J W. R. 173 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 567— 
 H. L. (E.) 
 
 The Court must Decide whether the Infringe- 
 ment could have caused Collision.] — In con- 
 sidering whether a breach of the regulations 
 for preventing collisions could possibly have 
 contributed to a collision, the court must take 
 into consideration the whole of the evidence, 
 even where there is a conflict, subject to the 
 qualification that the onus of proof lies on those 
 infringing the regulations ; and if upon such 
 evidence the court comes to the conclusion that 
 the breach could not possibly have contributed 
 to the collision, the ship committing it is not to 
 be deemed to blame in respect thereof. The 
 mi mod, 62 L. T. 670 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 509. 
 
 In an action of collision it was proved that the 
 lights carried by one of the vessels were so fixed 
 as to be partially obscured, and that there was 
 therefore an infringement of art. 6 of the legula- 
 tions : — Held, by the court below, that, under 
 the Merchant Shipping Act, 1873, s. 17, the 
 vessel whose lights were thus obscured must be 
 held to have been in fault, without any inquiry 
 as to whether such obscirration could possibly 
 have been a cause of the collision :— But held, 
 by the court of appeal, that, in the cii'cum- 
 stances, it was the duty of the court to inquire 
 into the facts in order to ascertain whether the 
 infringement of the regulations could possibly 
 have contributed to the collision, and that inas- 
 much as it appeared from inquiry into the 
 relative positions of the two vessels that the 
 obscuration of the lights could not possibly have 
 caused the accident, the vessel carrying such 
 lights was not to blame. The JJiihe of Bvrcleurh . 
 [is91] A. 0. 310 ; 65 L. T. 422 ; 7 Asp. M. 0.(58 
 — H. L. (E.) 
 
 Reckless Negligence by one Ship — Slight 
 Infringement of Kegulations by other Ship.j — 
 
 Where in a collision it appeared that one ve.-sel 
 had been navigated with reckless negligence, and 
 the other had committed a comparatively' venial 
 error in not slackening speed in good time : — 
 Held, that a regulation for preventing collisiuiis 
 at sea having been infi'inged by the latter vessel 
 without necessity, it could not be absolved from 
 the consequences prescribed \>^ statute, and must 
 be held to be liable. The Arratoon Apcar, 
 Orean Steamxh'ij) Co. v. Apcar, 59 L. J., P. C. 49 : 
 15 App. Cas. 37 ; 62 L. T. 331 ; 38 W. R. 481 ; 6 
 Asp. M. C. 491— P. C. 
 
 Infringement of Mersey Rules.] — An infringe- 
 ment of the rules in force in the Mersey sea 
 channels, under 37 & 38 Vict. c. 52, is within 
 the penalty of 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 17. The 
 Lady Downxhire, 48 L. J., Adm. 41 ; 4 P. D. 26 ; 
 iJ9 L. T. 236 ; 27 W. R. 648 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 25. 
 
 Obscuration of Lights.] — A biig was carrying 
 lici' lights aft in a jjosition in which they were 
 obscured to the extent of a point in a point and 
 a half on either bows. She came into collision 
 with a barque on the other tack. The brig was in 
 fault, under 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 17. The 
 Tlrzah, 48 L. J., Adm. 15 ; 4 P. D. 33 ; 39 L. T. 
 547 ; 27 W. R. 584 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 55. 
 
 Foreign Ships.] — A foreign ship held in fault 
 for a collision on the high seas, her lights having 
 been partially obscured, under 36 & 37 Vict. 
 c. 85, s. 17. The Magnet, L. R. 4 A. & E. 417 ^ 
 32 L. T. 129 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 478. 
 
 b. Not standing- by, after Collision. 
 
 Failure to render Assistance.] — The Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 85), s. 16v 
 having imposed ujion the master of every ship, 
 in case of collision with another ship, a duty, 
 " if and so far as he can do so without danger 
 to his own vessel, crew and passengers (if any), 
 to stay by the other vessel until he has ascer- 
 tained that she has no need of further assistf nee, 
 and to render to the other vessel, her master, 
 crew and passengers (if any), such assistance as 
 may be practicable and as may be necessary to 
 save them from any danger caused by such 
 collision " ; this duty is not discharged by a 
 steamship where, it being practicable and safe 
 to lower a boat to render assistance, although 
 possibly dangerous to stay by the injured slup, 
 she continues her voyage without lowering hci- 
 boat, and merely hails and signals for other 
 vessels to go to the assistance of the injured 
 ship. The Adriatic, 33 L. T. 102 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 16. 
 A ship failing to render assistance to another 
 with which she has been in collision, and shew- 
 ing no reasonable cause for such failure, will be 
 held to blame for the collision, unless proof is 
 given to the contrary on her behalf. Ih. 
 
 When a collision takes place which might prob- 
 ably endanger life, it is the duty of the vessel to 
 stav by until the extent of the damage is ascer- 
 tained. The Queen of the Orwell, 7 L. T. 839 ; 
 11 W. R. 499. 
 
 If it does not stay by, the burden of pi oof that 
 the collision did not take place by its default is- 
 thrown upon the owners. lb. 
 
 The first duty of any vessel that by collision 
 injuies another vessel, is to wait to ascertain 
 the extent of that injury, and to render what, 
 assistance it may be able to protect life and pro- 
 perty. The Germania, 21 L. T. 44— P. C. 
 
 When Risk of Capture Imminent.] — 
 
 Although it is the duty of every vessel, whether 
 British or foreign, to render assistance to another 
 which she has injured in collision, the rule will 
 not compel a ship toiemain along-;i('e another so 
 injured so as to run risk of capture by an enemy's 
 fleet, ne Thurinfjia, 41 L. J., Adm. 44 ; 26 L. T. 
 446 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 283. 
 
 Compulsory Pilotage.] — Under 25 & 26 Vict. 
 c. 63, s. 33, in the cast' of collisi.m between two 
 shiijs it was declared to be the duty of the person 
 in charge of each ship to render assistance to the 
 other, and in case he failed to do so without 
 reasonable excuse, the collision in absence of 
 proof to the contrary was to be deemed to have 
 been caused by his wrongful act. Two steam- 
 shii)S, the " Queen " and " Lord John RusseU," 
 each under the charge of a compulsory pilot, 
 came into collision in the Thames. The "Queen'
 
 713 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 714 
 
 was solely to blame, and after the collision she 
 lenderecl no assistance to the other vessel, and 
 shewed no excuse for having failed to do so : — 
 Held, that the mere fact of her having a pilot on 
 boaiddid not exempt her from liability. The 
 <^ueen, 38 L. J., Adm. 39 ; L. E. 2 A. & E. 354 ; 
 ■2U L. T. 855. 
 
 The person in charge intended by that section 
 is the master. Ih. 
 
 Salvage." — A vessel which has caused a col- 
 lision is not entitled to salvage services for assist- 
 ance rendered after such collision. ITu' Glen- 
 gaher, 41 L. J., Adm. 84 ; L. E. 3 A. & E. 
 534; 27 L. T. 386; 21 W. R. 168; 1 Asp. M. C. 401. 
 
 Standing-by Eule applies to Collision with 
 Open Sea-going Boat— What is a "Ship."] — A 
 collision took ijlace between a steamship and a 
 fishing coble. The coble sank, and three men on 
 board were lost. The coble was of ten tons 
 burden, twenty-four feet in length, decked for- 
 ward only, with two movable masts and a sail 
 for each. She was accustomed to go twenty 
 miles out to sea, and to remain out for some hours 
 at a time, and was usually under sail, but was 
 sometimes propelled by oars when convenient. 
 An inquest was held on the body of one of the 
 men who were lost, and a solicitor appointed 
 by the board of trade took notes of the evidence, 
 and forwaidetl tliem to the board, who applied 
 to two justices to hold an inquiry into the colli- 
 sion. The justices held the inquiry, decided that 
 the coble was a sea-going ship, that there was a 
 collision between two ships, and that the master 
 and mate of the steamer did not duly render 
 assistance to save life, and ordeied that the cer- 
 tificates of the master and mate of the steamer 
 should be suspendeil for three months : — Held, 
 first, that if the coble was a ship, one ship had 
 caased loss to another: and even if she was not, 
 there was a casualty to tlie steamsiiip, and there- 
 fore there was a case for investigation by the 
 justices under 17 &; 18 Vict. c. 104 (the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1854), s. 433. Fcrgvsun or Ilut- 
 /■hlnxoH, Ex parte, 40 L. J., Q. B. 105 ; L. E. (3 
 <j. B. 280 ; 24 L. T. 96 ; 19 W. E. 746 ; 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 8. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the word " ship " applied 
 to all craft which substantially went to sea, and 
 only used oars as an auxiliary power, and that 
 there had been a collision between two ships 
 within the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 33, and that 
 therefore the order was good. lb. 
 
 Not answering Blue Lights of other Ship.] — 
 The '■ E. II..'" afier a coiiiMoii witli tlie " M.." 
 burnt rockets and blue lights as signals of dis- 
 tress, but tlie " M." did not, as she might have 
 <lone, reply to these signals : — Held, a bieach of 
 tlie statutory duty of reiideriiig assistance under 
 36 iV: 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 16, and tliat the " M." was 
 therefore to be deemed to Vjlanie. The Emmy 
 Jfaaxo, 53 L. J., Adm. 43 ; 9 P. D. 81 ; 50 L. T. 372': 
 32 W. It. HSO : 5 As].. M. C. 210. 
 
 Application to Foreign Ships.] — The rule con- 
 tained in the Merchant Shipping Amendment 
 Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 63). s. 33, that the 
 omission by any ship, after a collision, tfi render 
 all practicable assistance to another, shall be pre- 
 sumptive evidence against the foimer that she is 
 in fault, does not apply to United States ships, 
 because that rule has not been adopted by the 
 United States. TheKcva(ht,2', L. T. 720; 1 Asp. 
 M, C. 477. 
 
 3. Liability. 
 
 a. Personal Liability of Shipowner. 
 
 Ship must be in Fault.] — The shipowner is not 
 liable unless his ship is in fault for the collision. 
 Tlte Githerinc of Boter, 2 Hag. Adm. 154. Ami 
 ■ur, 1. Negligence, supra, cols. 685 seq. 
 
 Owner not Liable qua Owner.] — Owner not 
 
 liable qua owner : only as emijloyer of wrong- 
 doer or as w-rongdoer himself. Per Lord Cairns. 
 Wear River Commissionerst v. Adanison, 47 L. J., 
 Q. B. 193 ; 2 App. Cas. 743. 751 ; 37 L. T. 543 • 
 26 W. E. 217 : 3 Asp. M. C. 521— H. L. (E.) 
 
 And see Simjj.so/i v. Thompson, 3 App. Cas 
 279 ; 38 L. T. 1 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 567. mhbs v. 
 Ross, 9 B. & S. 655 ; 35 L. J., Q. B. 193 ; L. E. 
 
 1 Q. B. 534 ; 12 Jur. (n.s.) 812 ; 15 L. T. 07. 
 
 Ship or Owner may be sued in Admiralty.] — 
 — In admiralty the shipowner may be sued 
 personally, or the ship in rem. Per Dr. Lushing- 
 ton. The- Grififswald, Swabey, 430, 435. 
 
 Master Towing Ship without Authority.] — 
 
 Where a master without express authority from 
 his owners took a disabled ship in tow and 
 damaged her by collision :— Held, that his owners 
 were liable. The Thetis. 38 L. J., Adm. 42 ; L. E. 
 
 2 A. k E. 365 ; 22 L. T. 276. 
 
 Malicious Act of Master.] — Owners are not 
 liable for collision caused bv malicious act of the 
 master. The Drnid, 1 W.^Eob. 391. The Ida^ 
 Lush. 6. See also McGhre v. Anderson, supra, 
 col. 72. The Dunlossit, Currie v. McKnight^ 
 infra, col. 924. 
 
 Of Crew.] — If one of a ship's crew does 
 
 a wilful act of injury to another ship, without 
 any direction from or privity of the master, an 
 action cannot be maintained against the master, 
 although he was on board at the time. Eowcher 
 V. Noid.'ftrow. 1 Taunt. 508 ; 10 E. E. 608. 
 
 Infringement of the Regulations by Master — 
 Owners Liable.] — The owner is liable for a 
 Ijieach of tiie regulations by his servants. Grill 
 V. General Iron Screio Collier Co., 37 L. J., C. P. 
 205 ; L. E. 3 C. P. 476 ; 18 L. T. 485 ; 16 W. E. 
 7'.t6. The Franeonia, 2 P. D. 8 ; 35 L. T. 721 ; 2.5 
 W. E. 197 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 29.i— C. A. The Seine, 
 Swabey, 411. 
 
 Damage by Tug hired by Harbour Authority.] 
 
 — Action against a harbour authority by owner 
 of ship injured by the fault of her tug, whose 
 owners had contracted with the harbour authoii- 
 lies to tow vessels in at a reduced rate : — Held, 
 that the harbour authorities were not liable. 
 Cuthhertson v. Parsons, 12 C. B. 304 ; 21 L. J., 
 C. P. 165. 
 
 Lessee of Ferry.] — The lessee of a ferry hired 
 a tug to woik the ferry, and a pa,ssenger was 
 injured by the negligence of the tug's crew: — 
 Held, that although the ferryman paid the tug's 
 crew, they were the servants of her owner, and 
 that he was liable, Dulyiil v. Tyrcr, El. Bl. & El. 
 899. 
 
 Barge Lent to One who Navigates her by his 
 own Servants.] — Ihe owners of a barge lent to 
 one who navigates her by his own servants are
 
 ■15 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collmon. 
 
 71G 
 
 not liable for damage done bv her. Per Best, J. 
 Scott V. Scott, 2 Stark. 43S ; 20 U. 11. 711. 
 
 Ship Damaging Harbour Works.] — Notwith- 
 staiulinu' the llaib. lui'.s, Dneks and Piers Act, 
 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 27, s. 74), the owners 
 of a ship that damages harbour works without 
 negligence of those on board are not liable. 
 Wear River Cuminlasionerg v. Arlamson, 46 L. J., 
 Q. B. S3 ; 2 App. Cas. 743 ; 37 L. T. .543 ; 24 
 W. R. 872 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 521— H. L. (E.) Over- 
 ruling The J/crle, 31 L. T. 447, and Dennis v. 
 Torell, 42 L. J., M. C. 33 ; L. R. 8 Q. B. 10 ; 27 
 L. T. 482 ; 21 W. R. 170 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 402. 
 
 Ship worked by Skipper — Owner sharing 
 Profits.] — Where tiie ship was worlvcd entirely 
 by the skipper, under an agreement with the 
 owner that the latter should take one-third of 
 the profits, the owner held liable for damage 
 done by the ship. Steel v. Let^ter, 47 L. J., C. P. 
 43 ; 3 C. P. D. 121 ; 37 L. T. G42 ; 26 W. R. 212 ; 
 3 Asp, M. C. 537. And see McGlwe v. Andeemn, 
 22 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 274. 
 
 Towage Contract — Condition exempting from 
 Liability for Negligence of Servants.] — The 
 master of a steam tug, who hud contracted to tow 
 a fisliing smack out of the harljour of Great Yar- 
 mouth to sea on the terms that his owners should 
 not be liable for damage arising from any negli- 
 gence or default of themselves or their servants. 
 after the towage had been in part performed, took 
 in tow in addition to the smack six other vessils. 
 and in consequence was unable to keep the 
 fishing smack in her course, so that she went 
 aground and was lost. By having more than six 
 vessels in tow at once the master of the tug 
 disobeyed a regulation made by the harbour- 
 master of Great Yarmouth under statutory 
 authority. The owners of the fishing smack 
 brought an action against the owners of the 
 steam tug to recover damages : — Held, that the 
 loss of the smack was occasioned by the negli- 
 gence of the master of the tug; but that the 
 defendants were protected from liability by the 
 terms of the towage contract, and that the action 
 must be dismissed. The United Service (pv Cule) 
 V. Great Yarmmth Steam Txiq Co., 53 L. J., 
 Adm. 1 ; 9 P. D. 3 ; 49 L. T. 701 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 170— C. A. 
 
 Personal Eemedy where Res Insufficient.] — 
 
 If the value of the defendant's vessel and freight 
 is not equal to the damage done, the plainiiff 
 may, after judgment, obtain a monition against 
 the deft'udant personally to satisfy the deficiency. 
 The Zephyr, 11 L. T. 351. 
 
 Liability for Fault of Waterman.] — Tlie 
 ()\\ ner of a Vjarge employed M., a freeman of the 
 Waterman's Company, and W., an apprentice of 
 a freeman, to navigate it from the Pool to 
 Lambeth and back, and they were to receive 7s. 
 each for the voyage. By the Waterman's Act, 
 none but freemen and apprentices of freemen or 
 of the widows of freemen are allowed to act as 
 watermen or lightermen on the river Thames 
 within certain limits. While under the care 
 and management of M. and W., and by their 
 misconduct, the barge injured another barge : — 
 Held, that the owner was liable, M. and W. 
 being in point of law his servants ; and that 
 he was not protected from his prima facie 
 liability in respect of the injur}' occasioned by 
 
 their misconduct, by the Waterman's Act restrain- 
 ing him to selec't his servants in the particular 
 trade from a privileged class. Martin v. Teni- 
 perley, 4 Q. B. 298 ^3 G. & D. 497 ; 12 L. J., 
 Q. B. 129 ; 7 Jur. 150. 
 
 Harbour-Master.] — Where a master and crew 
 are bound by statute to obey the directions of a 
 harbour-master in going into dock, and a collision 
 is occasioned by the ship being conducted accord- 
 ing to the harbour-master's directions, the ship 
 is not liable. The Bilbao, Lush. 149 ; 3 L. T. 
 338. 
 
 Shipowner liable though his Ship is sunk.] — 
 The slii[)0\vner is not tlischarged of liability by 
 the sinking of his ship. The Normandy, 31> 
 L. J., Adm. 48 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 152 ; 23 L. T. 
 631 ; 18 W. R. 903. 
 
 Ship under Charter.] — A steam vessel was- 
 under charterparty for six months, the owners te 
 keep it in order, for the conveyance of goods- 
 from Newcastle and Goole, or such other coasting 
 station as the charterer might from time to time 
 employ it in. The crew was ajjpointed by the 
 owners, but paid by the charterer, who was also' 
 to pay all disbursements. The chartei-er did not 
 interfere with the navigation of the vessel ; but 
 while he was on board, through the negligence off 
 the crew, it ran against and injured the plain- 
 tiff's keel : — Held, that the owners were liable. 
 Fenton v. Duhlin Steam Packet Co., 1 P. & D. 
 103 ; 8 A. & E. 835 ; 8 L. J., Q. B. 28. 
 
 "Vessel Chartered to the Navy Commissioners.] 
 
 — If a ship is chartered to the commissioneis of 
 the navy as an armed vessel, and an injury is- 
 done to another vessel by the misconduct of the 
 persons on board the former, while a commanilcr 
 of the navy and a king's pilot are on board, inu 
 action for the injuiy m.ay be sustained against 
 the owners of the ihirtered ship. Fletcher v. 
 Braddielt, 2 I'.os. & P. (N.R.) 182 ; 9 R. R. 633. 
 
 - — Master Obeying Orders.] — A. and B. 
 were resjjcctively owners of vessels which, with 
 many others, were taken up by government f'lr 
 the conveyance of troops upon an expedition of 
 war in the Black Sea. The transports were- 
 towed by steamers to their destination, each 
 steamer having attached to her two transpoi'ts, 
 the masters of which were under her immediate 
 order and control. The commander of the 
 steamer to which B.'s vessel and another were 
 attached, on reaching the anchoring ground in 
 the evening, having diopped his anchor, desired 
 the masters of his tows to hold on by their warps 
 or hawsers ; but, in the course of the night, a 
 storm arose, which caused B.'s vessel to swing 
 with violence against A.'s vessel, whereby it was 
 considerably damaged. In an action for the 
 damage so caused, the judge told the jury that 
 B. would not be responsible if the injury com- 
 plained of resulted from a strict obedience on the 
 part of the master to the orders of the officer in 
 command of the steamer ; but that, assuming 
 that the master was justified by the orders he 
 received in abstaining from anchoring in the 
 first instance, it was for them to consider whether 
 he had not been guilty of negligence and want 
 of good seamanship in continuing to hold on 
 by his warp under the altered state of circum- 
 stances, there being some evidence to shew that 
 the accident mis;ht have been averted if he had
 
 717 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 718 
 
 dropped his anchor when the storm came on : — 
 Held, no misdirection. Uix/f/ftinson v. Feritii', 2 
 C. B. (N.S.) 415 ; 26 L. J., C. P. 217 ; 3 Jur. 
 (N.s.) 818. 
 
 Shipowner Liable by Maritime Law.] — A 
 
 British and a Spanish ship were in collision on 
 the hieh seas. The British owners sued the 
 Spanish owners, who had an office in England. 
 The Spanish owners jdeaded that by Spanish 
 law shipowners are not personally liable in such 
 case :—" Held, that the plea was bad, as by the 
 general maritime law, which was the law appli- 
 cable, the shipo\\'ners are liable. The Leon, .')0 
 L. J., Adm. 59 ; 6 P. D. 148 ; 44 L. T. 613 ; 29 
 W. R. 916 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 404. 
 
 Ship in Charge of Compulsory Pilot.] — See 
 10. Compulsory Pilotage, infra. 
 
 b. Liability of Ship in Admiralty — 
 Maritime Lien. 
 
 Damage Lien.] — AU civilised.nations recognise 
 the validity of maritime lien, and will enforce it 
 when it has been declai-ed by a foreign court ; 
 but it is essential that it should appear from the 
 pioceedings of the foreign court that the object 
 of the suit was the sale of the ship, and not a 
 personal remedy against the captain or owmrs. 
 The Jitihl Buccleiiqh (infra) considered. The 
 City of Mecca. 50 L. J.. Adm. 53 : 6 P. D. 106 ; 
 44 L.T. 750 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 412— C. A. 
 
 Damage creates a lien on the ship causing the 
 collision. The Bold BucclciKjh, Hanncr v. Bell, 
 7 Moore, P. C. 267. 
 
 A Scotch steamer ran down an English vessel 
 in the Humber. An action was commenced in 
 the court of admiralty in Phigland by the 
 owners of the English vessel against the owners 
 of the steamer, and a warrant of arrest issued 
 against the ship ; but before the ship could be 
 arrested she had sailed for Scotland. A suit was 
 then commenced by the owners of the English 
 vessel against the owner of the steamer, in the 
 court of session in Scotland, for the damage, 
 and the steamer was arrested under process of 
 that court, but subsequently released upon b^il. 
 Afterwards, and pending these proceedings, the 
 steamer was sold, without notice to the jmr- 
 chaser of this unsatisfied claim against her. The 
 proceedings in the couit of .session were still 
 pending, when tlie steamer, having come within 
 the jurisdiction of England, was again arrested 
 under f)rocess of the high court of admiralty 
 in England, and an action foidamage commenced 
 in that court for the same cause; of action as was 
 Ktill pending in Scotl nd, instructions being sent 
 to Scothmd to abandon the pioceedings in the 
 court of session. The owner of the steamer 
 appeared under protest in the admiralty couit, 
 and pleaded, first, lis alibi pendens ; and, secondly, 
 that he was a purchaser for value without notice : 
 — Held, first, that the plea of lis alibi ])cii(lens 
 was bad, as the suit in Scotland was, in the lir>t 
 instance, in personam, the proceedings being 
 commenced by process against the persons of 
 the owners of the vessel, and the arrest of tlie 
 steamer only collateral to secure the debt, while 
 the proceedings in the admiralty court in Eng- 
 Land were, in the first instance, in rem, against 
 the vessel, and therefore the two suits being in 
 their nature different, the ])en<lency of one suit 
 could not be pleaded in suspension of the other. 
 
 Secondly, that as, by the civil law, a maritime 
 lieu does not include or require possession, but 
 being the foundation of proceedings in rem (a 
 process requisite only to perfect a right inchoate 
 from the moment the lien attaches), such lien 
 travels with the thing into whosesoever iiossessioii 
 it may come, and when carried into effect by a 
 proceeding in rem, relates back to the period when 
 it first attached ; the steamer was liable for the 
 damage committed by her, thougli in the hands 
 of a purchaser without notice of the damage, or 
 the proceedings instituted against her. Ih. 
 
 Scotch Law — Semble. ] — The maritime 
 
 law of Scotland is the .same as that of England 
 as regards lien for damage. The Bold Buccleiigh 
 (supra) approved. 'The Dunlofislt, Carrie v. 
 McKnight, 66 L. J., P. C. 19 : [1897] App. Cas. 
 97 ; 75 L. T. 457 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 193— H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 Cutting the other Ship Adrift— Wilful Act of 
 
 Crew.] — In order to render the ship liable, she 
 must herself be the instrument with which the 
 damage is done. Thus, where the crew of one 
 ship, in order to facilitate her getting under way, 
 wilfully cut the moorings of another, whereby 
 the latter subsequently went ashore and was 
 damaged, it was held that no damage lien 
 attached to the former. Ih. 
 
 Lien follows Ship.] — A maritime lien for 
 damage caused by a collision follows the ship 
 causing the damage, into whosesoever hands she 
 may go, and can be enforced at any time, pro- 
 vided there has been no improper delay, or 
 laches, in enforcing such lien. The Europa, Dean 
 V. Richards, 2 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 1 : Br. & Lush. 
 89: 32 L. J., Adm. 188; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 690: 8 
 L. T. 3(;s. The Mellona, 3 W. Rob. 16. The 
 Xyniph. Swabt'v. 86. 
 
 Lien Attaches on Collision.] — The damage 
 lien attaches at the instant of collision ; per Dr. 
 Lushington. Tlui Man/ Anne or Ann, 35 L. .1., 
 Adm. 6 ; L. R. 1 A. & E. 8, 11 ; 12 Jur. (N.S.) 31 ; 
 13 L. T. 384 ; 14 W. R. 136. 
 
 Laches in Enforcing Lien.] — A delay of three 
 years to arrc>l tlie sliii) was hehl not to be an 
 unreasonable delay, the owners of the damaged 
 vessel having used reasonable diligeiu-e to dis- 
 cover her whereabouts. 'The Eiiropa, supra. 
 
 Reasonable diligence means not doing every- 
 thing jiossible, but doing that which, under 
 ordinary circuin-^tances, and having regard to 
 expense and difficulty, could be reasonably 
 required. Ih. 
 
 A collision having occurred between a foreign 
 vessel and an English vessel, the master of the 
 foreign vessel admitted his liability, aiul gave, in 
 satisifaction of the damage, a bill of exchange, 
 payable on the arrival of his vessel at her port 
 of destination in Scotland. Her master, how- 
 ever, took her to Krancc, where, her owner 
 tjccoming bankrupt, she was sold by the assignees 
 of his estate to the defendants, who brought her 
 to England, where she was arrested by the 
 owners of the English vessel in respect of (he 
 collision, the bill of exchange never having been 
 paid :— Held, that the owners of the English 
 vessel had not lost their lien for damage by 
 reason of laches, or by the subsequent .sale of 
 the vessel. 'The Chnrlex Amelia, 'M L. J., Adm. 
 17 ; L. R. 2 A.& E. 330 ; 19 L. T. 429 ; 17 W. R. 
 624. And see Tlie Europa, 8upra.
 
 719 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 720 
 
 111 a collisiiiu action in rem the plaintiiTs are 
 not liinitctl to any specilied time during wliich 
 thev nnisf institute tlieir action, but where there 
 has been a long lapse of time between the collision 
 and the ins-titution of the action, and the defen- 
 dants seek to have the action dismissed on the 
 ground of laches and delay, the question for the 
 court in each case is whether it is inequitable to 
 allow the action to proceed, and in determining 
 this question, the court will consider the oppor- 
 tunities the plaintiffs have had of arresting the 
 defendants' ship, the availability of the defen- 
 dants' witnesses, and all other circumstances 
 atfecting the possibility of securing a fair trial, 
 and should the action be allowed to proceed, 
 every reasonable presumption will be made at 
 the healing in favour of the defendants. T/ic 
 Kong Maqnus, [1891] P. 223 ; 63 L. T. 715 ; 6 
 Asp! M. C. 583. 
 
 Damage, but no Collision.] — The damage lien 
 attaches, though there is no collision with the 
 ship arrested, \t she causes damage to another. 
 Semble. The Si.siers, 45 L. J., Adm. 39 ; IP. D. 
 117 ; 34 L. T. 338 ; 24 W. K. 412 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 583. But see The Dunlvsslt, supra. 
 
 Damage by Fault of Third Ship.]— The 
 
 " Intrepide," entering Sunderland harbour under 
 sail, was overtaking the " Wheatsheaf," in tow 
 of a tug. The " Intrepide " struck the tow-rope, 
 and the tug to save herself cast off the " Wheat- 
 sheaf," which went ashore and was damaged : 
 — Held, that the "Intrepide" was liable in 
 admiralty in rem. The Whcataheaf and The 
 Intrepide, 13 L. T. 612. And see The Indn.strie, 
 40 L. J., Adm. 26 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 303 ; 24 L. T. 
 446 ; 19 W. R. 728 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 17. 
 
 Damage to Harbour Works.] — To a ship that 
 damages harbour works the damage lien attaches 
 by virtue of 10 & 11 Vict. c. 27. The Merle, 
 31 L. T. 447 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 402. 
 
 Order of Damage Claimants.] — Claimants for 
 damage rank in the order of their judgments. 
 The Clara, Swabey, 1. S. P., The Union, Lush. 
 128 ; 30 L. J., Adm. 17 ; 3 L. T. 280. 
 
 Ship Liable in rem where Owners not 
 
 Liable at Liw.J — A slii[) ciiartered by her owners 
 to anotiier peison who lias, under the charter, 
 the sole control and management of the ship 
 and crew, whom he employs and pays, is liable 
 in a proceeding in rem for damage done to 
 another ship by collision caused by the fault of 
 the crew. The Lewini/tuH, 32 L. T. 69 ; 23 W. R. 
 421 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 475. See also, per Selwyn, L.J., 
 The Halle ij, 5 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 263 ; 37 L. J., 
 Adm. 33 ; L. R. 2 P. C. 193, 2ul ; 18 L. T. 879 ; 
 16 W. R. 998. And per Brett, M.R., T/ie Parle- 
 ment Beige, 5 P. D. 197, 218 ; 42 L. T. 273 ; 28 
 W. R. 642 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 234. 
 
 Yacht in Hands of Agent for Sale.] — A 
 
 yacht was intrusted to yachting agents for sale, 
 and, by their servants, moored in the winter 
 season without striking her top gear, whereby, 
 on a gale occurrint;-, the yacht drifted and fouled 
 another yacht : — Held, tliat she was liable in a 
 proceeding in rem in the court of admiralty. 
 The Ruhg Queen, Lush. 266. 
 
 Ship under Charter.] — The " Ticonde- 
 
 roga," under charterparty to the French govern- 
 ment, was towed by a steamer athwart the 
 hawse of the " Melampus." The " Ticonderoga" 
 alleged that she was not liable for the damage 
 done, as her charterparty obliged her to obey 
 orders and put herself in tow of the steamer : — 
 Held, that such obligation was no compulsion, so 
 as to lay the ground for exemption from liability 
 for damage done, as it arose from a voluntary 
 stipulation entered into by the owners them- 
 selves. The Ticonderoga, Swabey, 215. 
 
 Damage by Tug to Tow — Ship not Liable 
 
 where her Owners are not.] — A tug damag. d 
 the ship in tow by the negligence of the master 
 of the tug. It was a term of the towage contract 
 that the owners (charterers) of the tug were not 
 to be liable for damage to ships in tow, whether 
 caused by the negligence of the servants of the 
 tug owners or not : — Held, that the tug was not 
 liable in rem. The Ticonderoga (supra) ex- 
 plained. The Tasmania, hi L. J., Adm. 49 ; 13 
 P. D. 110 ; 59 L. T. 263 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 305. 
 
 Damage Lien — Priority over Wages.] — The 
 
 owners of a vessel, who have recovered judgment 
 against another ship in an action for damage by 
 collision, have a prior right against the procee is 
 of such ship to seamen who have recovered judg- 
 ment against the same ship for wages earned 
 before and after the collision. The Elin, 52 
 L. J., Adm. 55 ; 8 P. D. 129 ; 49 L. T. 87 ; 31 
 W. R. 736 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 120— C. A. S. P., The 
 Benares, 7 Not. of Cas. Sui)pl. 50. The Linda 
 Flor, Swabey, 309 ; 4 Jur. (N.S.) 172 ; 6 W. R. 197. 
 Tlie Buna, 5 L. T. 217. The C'himara, cited, 4 
 Jur. (N.S.) 172 ; 8 P. D. 46, 131. 
 
 Priority over Mortgage, Bottomry and 
 
 Eepairs.] — The lien for damage has priority over 
 the claim of a mortgagee or bondholder under 
 an Instrument of prior date to the collision. 
 But a lender in good faith has a prior lien to 
 the extent of the increased value of the ship 
 effected after the collision. The Aline, 1 W. Rob. 
 111. 
 
 As to increase of value by repairs, see The 
 St. Olaf, 38 L. J., Adm. 41 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 360 ; 
 20L. T. 758: 17 W. R. 743. 
 
 To what the Lien attaches.] — The lien attaches 
 to the ship's apparel, furniture and tishing geixr. 
 The Lundee, 1 Hag. Adm. 109. 
 
 And to the fragments of the ship, if wrecked. 
 The Neptune, 1 Hag. Adm. 227, 238. 
 
 To what Craft.] — The lien does not attach 
 
 to a Thames ligliter for cnUisioii in the body of a 
 county. Krerard v. Kendall, ci^l. 941. 
 
 But it attaches to all craft for damage at sea. 
 The Sarah, Lush. 549. See Purkis v. Flower, 
 43 L. J., Q. B. 33 ; L. R. 9 Q. B. 114 ; 30 L. T. 
 90 ; 22 W. R. 239 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 226. 
 
 It attaches to Freight, but not to 
 
 Cargo.] — A cargo laden on board a vessel at 
 tiie time of collision is in no case liable to be 
 sued for the damage. The V/ctur, Lush. 72 ; 
 29L. J., Adm. 110; 2 L. T. 331. 
 
 A cargo arrested for freight will be released 
 upon payment of the freight into court, with an 
 athilavit of value. Il>. 
 
 Where a cargo is improperly detained under 
 arrest, the owner is entitled to costs and damages. 
 lb. 
 
 The owner of cargo on board a ship sued for
 
 721 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 722 
 
 collision is only compellable to pay into court 
 the freight due from him to the shipowner. The 
 Leo. Lush. 444 ; 31 L. J., Aclm. 78 ; 6 L. T. 58. 
 And see The Flora, 35 L. J., Adm. 15 ; L. R. 1 
 A. & E. 45 ; 14 L. T. i;t2. 
 
 Deductions, as by charter, from gross freight 
 will be allowed : and if the cargo is delivered at 
 a place short of destination by reason of the 
 collision, such reasonable deduction as may have 
 been agreed upon between the shipowner and the 
 owner of cargo. lb. 
 
 Costs of paying freight into court may also be 
 deducted. lb. 
 
 Collision on Outward Voyage — Freight 
 
 for Homeward Voyage Liable.] — A vessel under 
 charterparty as to buth her outward and home- 
 ward cargo, whilst on the outward voyage came 
 into collision with another vessel : — Hel<l, that 
 the freight for the homeward voyage was liable 
 to arrest for the damage. The Orphei/s, 40 L. J., 
 Adm. 24 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 308 ; 23 L. T. 855. 
 
 Part of Cargo Discharged when Arrested,] 
 
 — All the cargo on board a vessel at the time of 
 a collision belonged to the same owner, but only 
 a part of the cargo was on board when the vessel 
 was arrested : — Held, that the lien for the whole 
 freight extended to every part of the cargo on 
 board at the time of the collision. The Rucclitf', 
 38 L. J., Adm. 56 ; L. R. 2 F. 363 ; 20 L. T. 586 ; 
 17 W. R. 745. 
 
 Sale of Cargo to pay Marshal's Fees.] — The 
 cargo will be detained by the court as security 
 for payment of freight, and. if necessary, sold to 
 realise the amount of freight. T]Le Gettysburg, 
 52 L. T. 60 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 347. 
 
 0. Damage by Sunken Ship. 
 
 Damage by Vessel Sunk by her own fault — 
 Duty to Light — Warning to Harbour-master.] — 
 The "1).,'' inconse'iuenceof the sole default of her 
 master and crew, had sunk in the Thames, and 
 had become a wreck obstructing the navigation 
 of the river. Her mate sent a message to the 
 harbour-master at G. to inform him of the acci- 
 <lent, who said that he would cause the wreck to 
 be lighted. A few hours afterwards, the wreck 
 not having Vjcen lighted, a vessel, without any 
 fault fill the part of those on board her, came 
 into collision with the wreck, and sustained 
 tlaniage. An action of damage having been 
 instituted on behalf of the owner of the damaged 
 vessel against the owners of the " D," the judge 
 jit the trial lefu.sed to admit the evidence sliewing 
 that the mate f)f the '• D.'" had sent a message to 
 the harbdur-master, and that the latter had pro- 
 mise<l to light the wreck : — HeM, that the 
 evidence was wrongly lejectcd, that the collision 
 had not been caused by the negligence of the 
 owners of the wreck, and that they were not 
 lialile for the damage done. The DouqJdx. 51 
 I.. .J., Adm. 81) ; 7 P. D. 151 ; 47 L. T.' 5ii2 ; 5 
 Asp. M. ('. 1.-.— C. A. Reversing 30 W. R. 692. 
 
 Maritime Lien.] — In order to fix the owners of 
 
 a wreck witli lialnlity, two tilings must be shewn : 
 first, that in regaid to the jiarticular matters in 
 lespuct of which default is alleged, the control of 
 the vessel is in them ; and .secondly, that tJK'v 
 hiive, in the discharge of their legd <luty, been 
 guilty of wilful misconduct or neglect. The 
 Utopia (^OwiKVx) V. The Primula (^Owtwrs^, 62 
 
 L. J., P. C. 118 ; [1893] A. C. 492 ; 1 R. 394 ; 70 
 L. T. 47 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 408— P. C. 
 
 Where the owners of a wreck had not aban- 
 doned possession, but had properly transferred 
 the control of the lighting thereof to the harbour 
 authority, and, by reason of imperfect lighting, 
 a ship entering the harbour had collided with 
 the wreck : — Held, (i.) that the owners of the 
 wreck were not guilty of negligence, and there- 
 fore not to blame ; and further, no negligence at 
 the time of the collision having been proved 
 against the owners or their servants, no maritime 
 lien arose ; (ii.) the colliding ship having been 
 navigated with reasonable care and skill in cir- 
 cumstances of instant peril, was also not to 
 blame. lb. 
 
 See also Parnaby v. Lancaster Canal Co., post, 
 col. 893. 
 
 See also as to the duty of an owner of a ship 
 sunk to mark her position. Brown v. MaHpt, 5 
 C. B. 599. White v. Crisp, lo Ex. 312. Rex v. 
 Watts, 2 Esp. 675. White v. Phillips, 15 C. B. 
 (N.s.) 245 : 33 L, J., C. P. 33. Dimes v. Petley, 
 15 Q. B. 276. 
 
 Liability of Harbour Authority.] — A harbour 
 authority having power to remove wrecks, and 
 taking tolls for the use of their harbour, is liable 
 for damage done by a sunken ship which they 
 have neclected to remove or mark. Dormant v. 
 Fiirness'Pi/., 52 L. J., Q. B. 331 : 11 Q. B. U. 
 496 ; 49 L.'T. 134 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 127. 
 
 Damage by Grounding.] — See TJte Moorcock 
 and cases, post, col. 880. The Rhosina and 
 cases, post, cols. 910, seq. 
 
 d. Liability of Pilotage and Harbour 
 Authorities. 
 
 Negligence of Pilot — Liability of Pilotage 
 Authority.] — A pilotage authority is not liable 
 for a collision caused by the fault of a pilot 
 licensed but not employed by them. Dudman 
 V. Drown and Dublin Port and Docks Board, Ir. 
 Rep. 7 C. L. 518. 
 
 The Harbours Act, 1878, by s. 49, empowers 
 the harbour board to appoint a harbour-master, 
 pilots, and other officers to assist in the execution 
 of the act. Sect. 76 empowers the board to 
 appoint or license i)ilots to act withiti the dis- 
 tiicts attached to the harbour. The appellants 
 emiiloyed a licensed pilot, who was also dc](Uty 
 harbour-master, to navigate their ship, which 
 was suidv through want of due care in navi- 
 gating : — Held, tir.st, that the sole duty of the 
 board as constituted by the statute in respect of 
 pilots was to license pilots ; secondly, that the 
 board had no power to enter into pilotage con- 
 tracts, and was not responsible for the default 
 of their ofHcer in respect of pilotage. Shaw, 
 Sarill <5' Co. V. Timarti Harbour Board, 59 
 L. J., P. C. 77 ; 15 App. Cas. 429 ; 62 L. T. 913 ; 
 6 Asp. M. C. 521— P. C. 
 
 Harbour ant liority held liable for damage by 
 boatman em])loyed by them to pilot ship. 
 JfohiKtn V. Jrri/ic Harbour Trustees, 4 Ct. of 
 Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 406. 
 
 Vessel under Orders of Dock or Harbour- 
 master.] — When a vessel enters docks with the 
 pcrnii>sion and under the general directions of 
 the dock-master, and within the space over 
 which his authority by statute extends, they who 
 are on board of her are bound to use diligence
 
 723 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 724 
 
 vm\ care to carry out the directions of the dock- 
 111 vster in such a manner as to avuitl doing 
 daniaf'e to other vessels. T/ie Ciiuthin, 46 L. J., 
 A(hn. 58 : 2 P. D. r,2 ; 3(5 L. T. 184 ; 3 Asp. 
 M. C. 378. 
 
 A steamship under the directions of the dock- 
 master, and within the limits of his jurisdiction 
 when entering the St. Ivatharine docks, came 
 into collision with two barges, and drove them 
 against a steamship lying alongside the wharf, 
 which steamship crossed a skiil and sunk it. In 
 the City of London court, where a cause of 
 damage was instituted, it was found by the 
 judge as a fact that the steamship was not liable 
 for "the damage to the skiff, because she was 
 bound by statute to obey the dock-master, and 
 could not do anything but under his orders. The 
 owner of the skiff appealed, and the court held 
 that the master contributed to the damage by 
 negligence in carrying out the orders of the dock- 
 master, and therefore that the steamship was 
 liable for the damages proceeded for. Ih. 
 
 A vessel leaving dock with a pilot on board 
 and within the space over which the dock- 
 master's authority extends by statute, is respon- 
 sible for damage resulting from the use of a tug 
 of insufficient power by her master, even when 
 such tug is in the general employment of the 
 dock company, there being no obligation on the 
 dock company to supply a tug. The Belgic, 2 
 V. D. 57. n. ; 35 L. T. i>29 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 348. 
 See also The Ehosina, and cases infra, col. 910. 
 
 e. Dam.ag-e by Queen's Ship. 
 
 Actual "Wrongdoer alone Liable.] — Where a 
 Queen's ship is in collision the actual wrongdoer 
 is alone liable. The JJIrkcnhc/id. 3 W. Kob. 75. 
 
 Commander and Officers.] — Commander of a 
 Queen's ship condemned in a collision cause. 
 The Volcano, 2 W. Hob. 337. 
 
 The captain of a sloop of war is not answer- 
 able for damage done by her to another vessel ; 
 the mischief appearing to have been done during 
 the watch of the lieutenant, who was upon deck, 
 and had the actual direction and management of 
 the steering and navigating of the sloop at the 
 time, and when the captain was not upon deck, 
 nor was called by his duty to be there. Nichol- 
 son V. Mouncey, 15 East, 384; 13 K. R. 501. 
 And see Huggett v. 3Io7itgo))iei-y, 2 Bos. & P. 
 (N.R.) 446 : Mose v. lliles, 4 M. & S. 101 ; 16 
 E. R. 405. ■ 
 
 Lords of the Admiralty.] —The lords of the 
 admiralty cannot be sued for a collision by the 
 owners of a merchant vessel that has been in 
 collision with one of H.M. ships. The Athol, 1 
 W. Rob. 374. 
 
 Government Transport.] — No action is main- 
 tainaVjle against an owner of a transitort vessel 
 employed by the government for damage done 
 in the execution of positive oiders of an otticer of 
 the royal navy under whose command she was. 
 Hodghinnon v. Ferine. 2 C. B. (N.S.) 415 ; 26 
 L. .j'., C. P. 217 ; 3 Jun (N.S.) 818. 
 
 Where a vessel of the royal navy towing two 
 transports, anchored by the order of the admiral, 
 and the captain ordered the vessels in tow to 
 hold on by their warps, and afterwards a breeze 
 spiang up, and one of the ti'ansports, swinging 
 to it, came into collision with another transport 
 
 in another column ; and the captain stated, that 
 after the order to hold on by the warps, it 
 would have been projiei- for the master of the 
 transport to let go his anchor if anything 
 occuired which would have made it dangerous 
 to his own ship if he did not do so : — Held, that 
 in an action against the owner of the transports 
 for damage done by the collision, the judge was 
 right in leaving it to the jury to say whether 
 the master was not guilty of negligence in not 
 dropping his anchor on the wind changing. Ih. 
 And see Fletcher v. Braddicli, supra, col. 716. 
 
 Pilot.] — The pilot of a king's ship is liable for 
 a collision caused by his fault, although he is 
 subject to the orders of a superior officer. Sluj-t 
 V. Clements; Peake, 144. 
 
 f. Damage by Ship of Foreig-n Sovereign. 
 
 Jurisdiction of Court of Admiralty.] — A steam 
 vessel belonging to the Khedive of Egypt had 
 come to England to be repaiietl, with a cargo on 
 board. She was not a man-of-war. Upon her 
 trial trip she came into collision with and sunk 
 the " Batavier " ; the owners of the " Batavier " 
 caused her to be arrested by a warrant of tha 
 court of admiralty. An application having 
 been made for a prohibition : — Held, that the 
 court of admiralty was the proper tribunal to 
 determine whether the steam vessel was entitled 
 to the immunity allowed to the vessels of a sove- 
 reign state, and that a prohibition ought not to 
 issue. Charhieh, In re, 42 L. J., Q. B. 75 ; L. E. 
 8 Q. B. 197 ; 28 L. T. 190 : 21 W. E. 437. 
 
 The " Charkieh " belonging to the Khedive of 
 Egypt, and usually employed in carrying mails 
 ami passengers, came to England with merchan- 
 dise and for repairs. Having completed her 
 repairs, and whilst on a trial trip down the 
 Thames, she came into collision with the 
 " Batavier." On arrest bv the owners of the 
 •' Batavier " : — Held, lirst, that his highness the 
 Khedive is net entitled to the privileges of a 
 sovereign prince. The Charhieh, 42 L. J., Adm. 
 17 : L.^R. 4 A. .V: E. 59 ; 28 L. T. 513. 
 
 Held, secondly, that even the privileges of a 
 sovereign princ: would nor extend to immunity 
 from arrest in a suit for damage by collision. 
 Ih. 
 
 Held, thirdly, that if the privileges did exten(f 
 to such an immunity, they would have been 
 waived in this case by the employment of the 
 ship at the time as a trader. Ih. 
 
 Exemption from Arrest.] — A vessel of 
 
 war commissioned by the government of a 
 foreign state, and engaged iir the national 
 service of her government was stranded on the 
 coast of England. She had a cargo of 
 machinery on -board her alleged to belong to 
 ]nivate individuals of which her government 
 had for public purposes charged itself with the 
 care and protection. Important and ethcient 
 salvage services were rendered to the shij) am! 
 cargo. A suit was instituted on behalf of certain 
 of Ihe salvors against the shij) anJ. her cargo. 
 The court refused to order a warrant to issue lor 
 the arrest of the ship or cargo, and held that it 
 had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The 
 CoiLstitiition. 48 L. J., Adm. 13 ; 4 P. D. 39 ; 40 
 L. T. 219 ; 27 W. R. 739 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 79. 
 
 A steam packet conveying mails and carrying 
 on commerce, and which belongs to the sovereign 
 of a foreign state, anil is officered by officers
 
 725 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 725 
 
 commissioned bj' him, comes within the category 
 of vessels which aie exempt from process of law, 
 and cannot therefore be arrested so as to give 
 a British subject a right to proceed against her. 
 The Parlcnwnt Belfje, 5 P. D. 197 ; 42 L. T. 273 ; 
 28 W. R. 642 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 234— C. A. 
 
 4. Persons Entitled to Recover. 
 
 Shipowners.] — 0\\Tiers of the injured ship, 
 whether registered as owners or not. The 2los, 
 Swabey, 100. 
 
 Passengers and Crew.] — Passengers or crew 
 in resiiect of baggage or clothes lost. T!ie 
 C'umhcrla»d, 5 L. T. 4',)G. 
 
 Posthumous Child.] — A posthumous child for 
 the loss of his father lost in the collision. The 
 George unci Richard, L. R. 3 A. & E. 460 ; 24 
 L. T.' 717 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 50. 
 
 For Personal Injury.] — .Seamen hurt in the 
 collision. The Burodino, 5 L. T. 291 ; Tmjlor v. 
 Bewar, 2 B. & S. 58. And nee infra, col. 925. 
 
 Indorsee of Bill of Lading.] — Indorsee of bill 
 of lading of cargo. Tlie J/urafhon, 40 L. T. 
 163 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 75. 
 
 Loss of Life.]— &e infra, cols. 87G, 925. 
 
 Bailees of Injured Barge.] — In a cause of 
 cc.llisioii instituted by the bailees of a barge 
 against a steamshii*, tliey were competent to sue 
 in lem in the admiralty court ; but in order to 
 protect the defendants from the possibility of 
 another suit by other parties on the same sul)ject, 
 the court directed that the money awarded as 
 compensation for the damage should not be paid 
 until it should be satisfact(jrily established that 
 Buch payment would release tlie defendants from 
 all claims by the owners of the barge in respect 
 of the collision. The Minna, L. R. 2 A. & E. 97. 
 
 Cargo Owners.] — Can recover half their loss 
 althouLdi the carrying ship is also in fault. The 
 Milan,' Lush. 388 ; 31 L. J., Adm. 105 ; 5 1.. T. 
 590 ; The City of Manche.ifer, 49 L. J., Adm. 
 81 ; 5 P. D. 221 ; 42 L. T. 521 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 412 
 — C. A. 
 
 Underwriters.] — Can sue in the name of the 
 owner of the injured shij) after payment of the 
 insurancf, but not in tlieir own names. Siviimon 
 V. ThumjiKon, 3 App. Cas. 279 ; 38 L. T. 1 ; 3 
 Asp. M. C. 567. 
 
 In the case of a collision between two ships 
 belonging to the same owner, by which one was 
 totally lost through the exclusive fault of tlu- 
 other : — Held, that the underwriters could make 
 no claim against the sum paid into coiiit, under 
 the Merchant Shipping Act, 18(12 (25 & 26 Vict. 
 C. 63, s. 54), the insured being himself the person 
 who had caused the damage. Ih. 
 
 Passengers and Others on Board Wrongdoing 
 Ship.] — A jiassenger on board the "liu>iiire" 
 and one of the crew lost their lives by drowning 
 in consequence of a collision with 1 he "Bcinina." 
 Both vessels were to blame, but neither of the 
 deceased had anything to do with the negligent 
 navigation of the " Bushire " : — Held, that their 
 representatives could maintain actions under 
 Lord Campbell's Act against the owners of the 
 
 " Bernina," and could recover the whole of the 
 damages ; s. 25, sub-s. 9, of the Judicature Act, 
 1873, not being applicable to such actions. 
 Tliorogood v. Bryan (8 C. B. 115), and Ann- 
 strong V. Lancashire and Yorkshire My. (L. R. 
 10 Ex. 47) overruled. The Bernina, Mills v. 
 Arnixti-anq, 57 L. J., Adm. 65 : 13 App. Cas. 1 ;. 
 58 L. T. 423 ; 36 W. R. 870 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 257 ; 
 52 J. P. 212— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Collision between two Ships belonging wholly 
 or in part to same Owners.] — See Chartered 
 Mereantile Bank of India. China and London 
 V. London and. yrtJierland-f India Steam ^a li- 
 gation Co., infra, col. 737; Simpson v. Thompson, 
 supra. 
 
 Master.] — The master of a ship that has been 
 damaged by collision abroad has power to insti- 
 tute an action in a foreign court for recovery of 
 damages on behalf of ship and cargo owners. 
 The Reinheeh, 60 L. T. 209 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 366— 
 C. A. 
 
 Damage by Tug.] — See 8. TuG and Tow, 
 
 infra, cols. 754, seq. 
 
 Common Employment.] — A compulsory pilot 
 is not fellow servant of crew, and may recover 
 against the shipowner for injury sufEered iiv 
 collision through fault oi crew. Smith v. Steele, 
 44 L. J., Q. B. 60 ; L. R. 10 Q. B. 125 ; 32 L. T. 
 195 : 23 W. R. 388 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 487. 
 
 Where the captain is the wrongdoer. See 
 Uedley v. Pinhney and Suns'' Steamshij) Co., 
 ante, col. 73 ; Ranisny v. QiCnin, ante, col. 73. 
 
 Purchase of Ship — Damage done before Pur-^ 
 chase.] — A., the purchaser of a ship from B., 
 sued C. in his own name and as assignee from B. 
 for damage done to the ship before the purchase. 
 The day after the summons was served, B. 
 assigned to A. all his claims against C. : — Held^ 
 that the action would not lie. Synrin//ton v.. 
 Campbell, 21 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 434. 
 
 5. Dajiages. 
 
 a. Generally. 
 
 Full Compensation.] — The sufferer by collision, 
 is entiilcil to full couipcnsiition. Mode of esti- 
 mating the value of the injured vessel. The 
 Ironmaster, Swabey, 441. 
 
 Increased Value by Repairs.] — The owners of 
 a ship damaged liy collision are entitled to tiic 
 full ex[)enses of repairing her and fitting her for 
 sea, though such repairs may make her more 
 valuable than she was before the collision. The 
 Pactolus, Swabey, 173 ; 5 \V. W. 167. 
 
 No Deduction of "One-third New for 
 
 Old."]— There is no deduction of -'one-third new 
 for old" in tlie cost of repairs of damage by 
 collision, as in the case of insurance. The 
 wrongdoer pays in full. The Gazelle, 2 W. Rob. 
 279. 
 
 In assessing the value of seamen's clothes lost 
 in collision, one-thiid deilueled ulf cost price. 
 Tlie Ctimherland, 5 L. T. 49(i. 
 
 Oljjection to registrar's report in respect of 
 amount allowed for repairs. The Alfred. 3 W. 
 Rob. 232. 
 
 Cost of Repairs— Restitution in integrum— 
 Lloyd's Survey.] — A successful iilaintitt in a
 
 •27 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 728 
 
 collision action is entitled to have his ship put 
 into the same condition in which it was previous 
 to the collision at the cost of the wrongdoer, 
 irres]icctive of the fact that some of the repairs 
 necessitated bj^ the collision would shortly have 
 been necessary to enable the ship to pass her 
 classification "survey, and in estimating the 
 amount of the wrongdoer's liability, no deduc- 
 tion can be maile on this account. The Bernina, 
 55 L. T. 781 ; fi Asp. M. C. f.."). 
 
 Consequential Damage — Rotten Wood.] — 
 
 Where a ship is damaged by collision, and on 
 opening her up to effect the repairs rendered 
 necessary by the collision, certain parts of her 
 not injured' by the collision are found to be 
 rotten, and to require renewing, the cost of such 
 renewal cannot be charged to the collision 
 damage, although such parts but for such open- 
 ing up woull have lasted for some years. The 
 Princess, 52 L. T. 932 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 451. 
 
 Condition of Injured Vessel.] — If a portion 
 ■only of the damage is clearly attributable to the 
 wrongdoer, and "that portion cannot be dis- 
 tinguished from the rest, the wrongdoer is 
 responsible for the whole damage. The Eyyjj- 
 tiun, 10 L. T. 910. 
 
 Even though the injured vessel may have been 
 iit the time of collision in such a condition that 
 the collision occasioned an unusual amount of 
 damage, a wrongdoer is nevertheless responsible 
 for all the consequences. Ih. 
 
 Ship Sunk— TotalLoss— No further Damages.] 
 
 — Where a vessel is suidi in collision, and damages 
 are awarded upon the footing of a total loss, 
 nothing further by way of demurrage or loss of 
 •wages will be allowed as damages. The Coluiii- 
 hus, 3 W. Rob. 158. 
 
 Damage to Reputation of Ship.]— A yacht 
 belonging to the plaintiff having been sunk 
 in a collision, and evidence having been given 
 that her marketable value was depreciated : — 
 Held, that, in addition to the claims made for 
 repairs, the plaintiff was entitled to be paid such 
 ■sum as would compensate for the impaired value. 
 The Gcorgiana v. The Aiu/lieun, 21 W. R. 2S0. 
 
 snip sunK and Raised.] — Where a ship carry- 
 jng cargo was sunk in a collision, and afterwards 
 raised and repaired, and the costs of re]>airs 
 exceeded the original value of the ship, which 
 might have been ascertained before the repairs 
 were commenced : — Held, that the owner could 
 not recover upon a principle of partial loss, but 
 that the measure of damages was the value of 
 the ship before the collision, with interest from 
 the date when the cargo would, in ordinary 
 course, have been delivered, together with ihe 
 <;osts of raising, and the cost of placing the ship 
 in dock fnr inspection, less the value of the 
 wreck as raised. The luiijiress Unf/hiir, Lush. 
 138. See also 7'he EmeraUl, The Greta Holme. 
 ^nfra, cols. 735, 89'1. 
 
 Improper Abandonment.] — Where, in a col- 
 lision action for which the defendants were held 
 to blame, the court found that, after the collision, 
 
 the plaintiff's vessel had been improperly aban- 
 donefl, and it appeared that, in consequence 
 
 thcr-^of. she sank and was afterwards raisetl by 
 ihe plaintiffs, whereas slie -.pieht have been 
 
 beached, the court directed the registrar in 
 assessing the damages, that, as the only ascei- 
 tainable extra cost arising from the abandon, 
 ment was the cost of raising, he was to disallow 
 that amount. The Haiisa, 58 L. T. 530 ; 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 268. 
 
 When a collision takes place between two 
 vessels by the negligence of the crew of the 
 defendant's vessel, whereby the plaintiff's vessel 
 is injured, and afterwards and before any effoit 
 has been made to save the plaintiff's vessel her 
 master and crew unjustifiably abandon her, and 
 she is consequently totally lost, the defendant 
 will not be liable for such total loss of the plain- 
 tiff's ship, but only for the expense which would 
 have been incurred in making good the actual 
 damage occasioned by the collision. The Thu- 
 rhiqi'i, 41 L. J., Adm. 44 ; 26 L. T. 446 ; 1 Asp. 
 M."C. 283. 
 
 The master and crew of a vessel injured by 
 collision are bound to shew ordinary courage and 
 nautical skill in endeavouring to save their vessel 
 from total loss, and the defendant will not, on a 
 reference to the registrar and merchants to assesa 
 the damages, be held liable for any loss which 
 might have been avoided by the exercise of such 
 ordinary skill and courage. lb. 
 
 The wrongdoer in a collision is liable for loss 
 arising from the abandoiunent of the injured 
 ship, under reasonable fear of danger. Tha 
 Blenheim, 1 Spinks, 285. 
 
 If, in consequence of the collision, the crew of 
 the injured ship abandon her under a reasonable 
 fear of their lives, and she is totally lost, the 
 owners of the wrongdoing ship are liable foi 
 damage and salvage expenses. The Pensher, 
 Swabey, 211. 
 
 A vessel, after collision, was abandoned by her 
 crew, under reasonable fear of their lives, and 
 lost ; the wrongdoing ship doing nothing to assist : 
 — Held, that damages for the total loss could be 
 recovered aL'^ainst the other ship. The Lindxay, 
 Ir. R. 1 Eq.' 259. 
 
 Where the injured ship was abandoned by hei 
 crew, after the collision, unjustifiably, and she 
 was afterwards salved, the salvage cannot be 
 recovered as damages in the collision action. 
 The Linda, 4 Jur. (N.S.) 146 ; 6 W. R. 196. 
 
 Jettison of Cargo— Claim for General Average.] 
 
 — In a collision between a Dutch and an English 
 steamer, the former was sunk, and the latter so 
 injured that she had to jettison cargo to keep 
 the part of the ship damaged out of the water 
 whilst making for a port of refuge. In an action 
 in rem for damage by collision brought by the 
 owners of the Dutch steamer against the Enizlish 
 steamer, to which the owners of the latter 
 appeared and counter-claimed, the Dutch steamer 
 was found alone to blame. On the reference as 
 to damages, the owners of the English steamer 
 claimed (inter alia) to recover against the owners 
 of the Dutch steamer the balance due in general 
 average contribution from ship to cargo in 
 respect of the jettison, after deducting the 
 amount due from cargo to ship, in respect of the 
 damage to the ship :— Held, that the claim must 
 be disallowed, as the loss sustained by the ship 
 in having to make the general average contribu- 
 tion was not directly due to the collision, but 
 arose from the obligation to contribute, resulting 
 from the relation between ship and cargo. The 
 Marpe.xsn. 61 L. J., Adm. 9; [1891] P. 403; 
 66 L. T. 356 ; 40 W. R. 239 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 155.
 
 729 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 730 
 
 Insurance does not Affect.] — The defendants 
 condemned in damages in a collision action are 
 not entitled to deduct from such damages the 
 amount received by the ])laintiff in respect of 
 such damage, under a jiolicy. Tatfis v. Whyte, 
 4 Bing. (N^c.) 272 ; 5 Scott, 640 ; 7 L. J., C. P. 
 116. 
 
 Plaintiff paid by Insurers.] — The injured 
 
 party is entitled to full compensation, although 
 the jury find that he has been paid by insurers 
 for part of the damage : the insurers having 
 assigned to him their rights against the defen- 
 dants. Morrhun v. Bartolumeo, 5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 (3rd ser.) 848. 
 
 Expense of Detaining Witnesses.] — Costs of 
 detaining witnesses until the trial, agency and 
 interpretfation, are allowed to the successful 
 party in a collision suit. The Karla, Br. & Lush. 
 367 ; 13 W. R. 295. 
 
 Lien for Cost of Repairs — Bankruptcy of Ship- 
 owner.] — Where, in the registrar's leport in a 
 collision action, it appears that the claimant 
 claims (inter alia) as part of his damages the 
 cost of repairing his ship, but has not paid the 
 shipwright, and has, since the repairs were 
 effected, become insolvent, and the registrar 
 allows such item, the court has no power to do 
 anything to ensure the money being paid over by 
 the claimant to the shipwright, and will not 
 retain the money in the registry until the 
 claimant has given satisfactory evidence that 
 he has paid the shipwright. The Endeavour, 02 
 L. T. 840; 6 Asp. M. C. 511. 
 
 Specific Agreement for Liquidation of Damages,] 
 
 — 'I'he ship ••(;..'■ having come into c'nllision 
 with the ship •' \V.,"' the owner of the ship '• W." 
 caused the ship "G." to be arrested, but, in con- 
 sideration of the insurers agiceing to pay to the 
 owners the amount of damage which the ship 
 '■ W." had received by the collision, her owners 
 released the ship '• G." from arrest : — Held, that 
 the word "damage" included not only the 
 damage to the ship itself, but consequential 
 damage, such as loss of freight and costs in the 
 admiralty court. Heard v. J/olmrm, 19 C. 15. 
 f N.H.) 1 ; 34 L. .]., C. P. 239 ; II Jur. (N.S.) 544 : 
 12 L. T. 455 ; 13 W. K. 745. 
 
 Interest on Damages.]— In a collision action 
 in rem not in-^tituteil till twelve years after the 
 CDllision, the court allowed interest for twelve 
 \i;ai-son lhedam«;ge.sawaicled. The Kaiiii .Vnf/iiiix, 
 [1891] P. 223 , 65 L. T. 231 : 7 Asp. M. (J. \U. 
 
 Interest upon money paid for repairs of the 
 injured bhip allowed from the date of i)aynient. 
 not only from the date of decree. 2'/ie Ilrhr. 
 2 W. Hob. 530; 5 Not. of Cas. 176. And Krr 
 ctiHPX infra, col. 742. 
 
 Loss of Cargo after Transhipment, in conse- 
 quence of Collision.] — ^^ee The licniiiui^ supra, 
 o.l. 5til. 
 
 Loss of Life and Personal Injury.] — 8ee The 
 Beta and cases, infra, col. 925. 
 
 Assessment of Damages — Lord Campbell's 
 Act. J — .See The Orivell, infra, col. 989. 
 
 Limit of Damages.]— -SWa 7. Limitation of 
 LiAiiiHTV, infra, cols. 738, et seq. 
 
 b. Plaintiff's Neg-lig'ence after Collision. 
 
 Loss by Plaintiffs Negligence after Collision.] 
 
 — If a collision takes [ihice between two vessels 
 by the negligence of the crew of the defendant's- 
 vessel, whereby the plaintiff's ve>sel suffers 
 damage and is necessarily run agiound, and 
 afterwards and before any exi)euses are incurred, 
 by the negligence of the plaintiff's servants, a 
 total loss of his ship ensues, the defendant is not 
 liable for such total loss of the ship, but is liable 
 for the expense which would have been iucuired 
 in making good the partial damage. II.M.S. 
 Filling Fhh, 2 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 77 ; P.r. A: 
 Lush. 436 ; 34 L. J., Adm. 113 ; 12 L. T. 619. 
 
 Cargo not Unloaded.] — Damage to cargo on 
 board a shij) run ashore after collision : — Held. 
 not recoverable from the wrongdoing ship, 
 because it might have been avoided by uidoad- 
 ing the cargo sooner. The Uoliden, 3 Hag. Adm. 
 3(J7. 
 
 Subsequent Stranding — Remoteness.] — The 
 defendants" shi]), which was admitted to have 
 been solely to blame, collided with the plaintiffs' 
 barque, cutting off her starboard quarter, the 
 captain of the barque losing his usual means of 
 navigating his ship — namely, his steering com- 
 pass, log-line and charts — and being left with an 
 inefficient compass and chart. The captain, in 
 order to save his ship, made for the Thames, and, 
 without any want of care or skill in navigating 
 his ship, mistook a certain lightship which he 
 saw, and, the course of his sliip being altered, 
 she almost immediately afterwanls stranded : — 
 Held, that the defendants were liable for the 
 ultimate loss of the plaintiiTs' ship, and that the 
 damages claimed in respect thereof were not too. 
 remote, as the stranding was the natural and 
 reasonable result of the defendants' wrongful 
 act, and was such a consequence as, in the 
 ordinary couise of things, would flow from their 
 act. the City of Liiu-oln, 59 L. J., Adm. 1 ; 
 15 P. D. 15; 62 L. T. 49; 38 W, K, 345: 6 
 Asp, M. C. 47.5— C. A. 
 
 Where a ship, after receiving damage in a 
 collision, goes ashore, the loss is prima facie to- 
 be attrilmtcd to the collision. The Mellona, 
 3 W. Kob. 7. 
 
 Loss of Life.] — A brig, by the negligence of 
 those on board her, came into collision with a 
 bar(|ue in .lanuaiy, about 5 a.m. off the Lizard.. 
 In the collision tlic main rigtring of the barque 
 was carried away, and shortly afterwaids her 
 fore and main masts went by the board. Towards, 
 evening the wind inci cased in violence, and 
 abdUt two the next morning the barijue was 
 diivcn on shore, and some of her crew were 
 drowned :— Held, that the loss of life was- 
 occasioned by the collision. The Geovye and 
 Itirhurd, L. il. 3 A. k E. 466 ; 24 L. T. 717; 20' 
 W. K. 2-l(; ; 1 Asp. M. C. 50. 
 
 c. Salvage Expenses. 
 
 Salvage Expenses.] — Salvage expenses in- 
 
 currcil, liv rr.asiin nf the collisicm, arc recoverable 
 as damages against the wrongdoer. The rennhcr, 
 Swabey, 211. 
 
 Costs of Action for Salvage.] — In an action- 
 for running iinwn a vessel, it appeared that the
 
 731 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Conision. 
 
 732 
 
 plaintiff had been compelled to employ a steam- 
 tug. the owners of which demanded 150?. for 
 salvage, and commenced a suit in the admiralty 
 •court" for its recovery, in which suit the plaintiff 
 paid 20/. into court, and a decree was ultimately 
 made, awarding 45/. and costs. The question of 
 tlie liability of" the defendant to jiay these costs, 
 and also the costs of the plaintiff in defending 
 that suit, having been reserved upon these facts 
 for the opinion of the court : — Held, that the 
 plaintiff was not entitled to recover them. Tiii- 
 ilall V. Bell, 11 M. & W. 228 ; 12 L. J., Ex. 160. 
 The vessels "C." and "L." came into collision, 
 "In consequence of which salvage services were 
 rendered to the " C." The salvors brought a suit, 
 and recovered 50Z. The " L." was condemned in 
 a suit for damage brought by the " C," and on 
 reference to the registrar and merchants as to the 
 amount, they struck out the costs of the salvage 
 suit incurred by the "C," because her owners 
 liad made no tender to the salvors : — Held, that 
 such costs are, by the practice of the court, a 
 proper item in the amount to be accorded in a 
 ■suit for damage, and that there is no general 
 principle laid down (in Tiiulull v. Bell, supra, 
 which had been relied upon to induce the court 
 to depart from its usual jiractice. Tlie LegaUis, 
 Swabey. 1(58 : 5 W. E. 151. 
 
 Commission on Bail — Salvage Action.] — Com- 
 mission paid for Viail in a salvage action will not 
 be allowed as part of the damages recoverable 
 liy the salved vessel in an action of damage. 
 The British Commerce, 53 L. J.. Adm. 72 ; 9 P. D. 
 128 ; 51 L. T. 604 ; 33 W. R. 200 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 4J35. 
 
 d. Demurrage. 
 
 Demurrage is allowed to the owners of a ship 
 <lamaged by collision during the time that she 
 ihas been necessarily delayed for the purpose of 
 •effecting the repairs rendered requisite by the 
 ■collision, and of transacting business unquestion- 
 ably connected with the collision. The City of 
 Buenos Ayres, 25 L. T. 672 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 169. " 
 
 As the master has, in some circumstances, the 
 <luty cast iipon him of acting as agent for the 
 cargo as well as the ship, the making a protest 
 ■and obtaining the necessary official documents 
 -in a foreign port relating to the damage done to 
 •both ship and cargo is business unquestionably 
 connected with the collision. Delay in their 
 ])reparation caused by the dilatoriness of the 
 foreign authorities, and by no default of the 
 anaster, is chargeable to the collision. Ih. 
 
 The rate of demurrage allowed to steam vessels 
 ■of the ordinary class, carrying cargo, is 6d. per 
 ton on the gross tonnage, or '.id. per ton on the 
 mett tonnage, per day. This estimate is arrived 
 at by doubling the amount of the wages of the 
 crew and of the cost of their provisions, so as to 
 dnclude both expenditure and loss of trade. lb. 
 
 To entitle the owners of a ship injured in 
 collision to damages for detention tluring repairs, 
 ir must be shewn that actual, not probable, loss 
 of freight or earnings occurred. The Clarence, 
 ■3 W. Rob. 283. 
 
 Demurrage or payment for detention of the 
 ship during repairs and loss of probable earnings ; 
 towage to London in consequence of collision ; 
 detention of Lascar crew of ship engaged in 
 East India trade ; all allowed as damages for 
 •collision. H.M.S. Inflexlhle, Swabey, 200. 
 
 In the case of a steamship that was one of a 
 •cla^s sailing at -fixed intervals, damages for 
 
 demurrage was allowed during the time she was 
 detained by the repairs beyond the date for her 
 sailing in regular course. 'The Black Prince. 
 Lush." 568. 
 
 The appellant ship being found to blame for a 
 collision with the respondents' ship, the respon- 
 dents claimed demurrage in respect of the time 
 their ship was under repair. It appeared that 
 during repair the respondents substituted another 
 ship of the comj)any in the place of the damaged 
 ship, and that the company sustained no actual 
 loss by demurrage :— Held, that the respondents 
 were not entitled to demurrage, there being no 
 actual loss. The BlacU Prince, supra, considered 
 and approved. The Cltif of Pehing, 59 L. J., 
 P. C. 88 ; 15 App. Cas. 438 ; 63 L. T. 722 ; 39 
 W. R. 177 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 572— P. C. 
 
 e. Loss of Freig-lit, Profits, or Charterparty. 
 
 Hire of another Ship.] — Hire of another vessel 
 in the place of the injured ship, which was 
 engaged to perform a contract to bring lobsters, 
 allowed. The Torlti^hireman, 2 Hag. Adm. 30, n, 
 
 Increased Freight.] — The " K.," which 
 
 was on a voyage under charter from Cardiff to 
 Bombay with coals, was run into by the " B." 
 shortly after leaving Penarth Docks. The " K.," 
 which was considerably damaged, returned to 
 Cardiff, where her cargo was taken out of her in 
 order that she might be repaired. The owners of 
 the cargo proposed that the coals, which were 
 also damaged, should be sold and a fresh cargo 
 shipped. The shipowner, however, refused to 
 ship a fresh cargo except " on fresh terms as to 
 freight, &c.," and the charterer, without inquiring 
 what the fresh terms would be, reshipped the 
 damaged cargo, which was carried to Bombay : — 
 Held,"that the shipowner, having a lien on the 
 cargo for freight, was entitled to insist on the 
 original cargo being reshipped if it was capable 
 of being carried to its destination, and that the 
 cargo-owner was not entitled to insist on its 
 delivery without payment of freight : — Held, 
 further, that in order to ascertain the amount to 
 be paid by the owners of the wrongdoing ship, 
 it was necessary to estimate what the increased 
 freight would have been, before comparing the 
 loss on the damaged cargo at Bombay with the 
 loss which would have arisen on the sale of the 
 cargo at Cardiff and shipping a fresh one. The 
 Blenheim, 54 L. J., Adm. 81 ; 10 P. D. 167 ; 53 
 L. T. 916 ; 34 W. R. 154 ; 5 Asp. 51. C. 522. 
 
 Measure of Damages as to Loss of Freight.] 
 
 — Where the shiii and freight are lost, the 
 measure of damages, in respect of freight, is the 
 amount of the freight, less the cost of earning it 
 saved to the shipowner by the collision. 'The 
 Canada, Lush. 585. 
 
 Loss of Market.] — A ship having been damaged 
 by a collision with anothei- ship, the owners ot 
 cargo on the former claimed damages from the 
 owners of the latter ship. The cargo-owners 
 claimed, inter alia, for damages in respect of the 
 loss of market in consequence of a portion of 
 the cargo having been delayed in its arrival at 
 the port of destination : — Held, that loss of 
 market was too remote a consequence to be con- 
 sidered as an element of damage, and that there 
 was no difference in the principles which regulate 
 the measure of damages in an action of collision, 
 and an action for a breach of duty under a
 
 733 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 734 
 
 shipping contract. The Notting Hill, 53 L. J., 
 Adm. 56 ; 9 P. D. 105 ; 51 L. T. 66 ; 32 W. R. 
 764 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 241— C. A. 
 
 Fishing Interrupted.] — A French fishing brig 
 of 142 tons. empliivL'd in the cod fishery ofE the 
 banks of Newfoundland, cune into collision on 
 the 6th of July, 188], with an Italian barque, 
 aii<l in consequence of the collision was com- 
 l-elled to put into port for repairs, but her repairs 
 having been completed, returned to the fishing 
 ground before the close of the fishing season. In 
 an action for damages instituted on behalf of the 
 owners of the brig against the barque, the court 
 pronounced the barque solely to blame for the 
 collision, and referred the question of damages 
 to the registrar and merchants. At the reference 
 the plaintiffs claimed 1,2U0Z. for demurrage of 
 their vessel from the date of the collision to the 
 2()th August, 1881, the date of her return to the 
 fishing ground ; and of the amount so claimed. 
 the registrar, by his report, allowed the plaintiffs 
 S80Z. as the loss sustained by the interruption of 
 their fishing. The defendants moved the court 
 in objection to the report : — Held, that the 
 motion must be dismissed. Tlie Risoluto, 52 
 L. J., Adm. 46 ; 8 P. D. 109 : 48 L. T. 909 ; 31 
 W. R. 657 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 93. 
 
 A claim for loss of fishing by a fishing boat 
 whose fishing year was lost in the collision. 
 uplield. The "Gleaner, 38 L. T. 650 ; 3 Asp. 
 M. C. 582. 
 
 Loss of Salvage.] — Loss of salvage, the injured 
 vessel was engaged in earning, allowed as 
 damages. The Betsey Caines, 2 Hag. Adm. 28. 
 
 Loss of Charterparty.] — In estimating the loss 
 sustained by a ship in a collision, a charterparty 
 entered into contingently on the arrival of the 
 ftliip at a fixed date at another place should be 
 taken into consideration, the amount recoverable 
 il)eing the freight that would have been earned 
 under the charterparty, less any expenses which 
 \v<juld naturally be incurred in the ijerformance 
 <.f it. The Star of India, 45 L. J., Adm. 102 : 
 1 P. D. 466 ; 35 L." T. 407 ; 25 W. R. 377 ; 3 Asp. 
 M. C. 261. 
 
 The ''Star of India" and the " Cheviot" came 
 into collision on the 1st of May, by which the 
 latter vessel was unable to load cargo Ijy the time 
 sli|)ulated for in the charterparty, whicli wu'^ 
 accordingly cancelled. She was not sufficiently 
 repaired to obtain another charterparty until tiie 
 4th of July. The collision was the fault of the 
 " Star of Itidia" : — Held, first, that the owners 
 of the " Cheviot" were entitled tosomecompen- 
 satif)n for loss of the charter[)arty. Ih. 
 
 Held, secondly, that such compensation was 
 not included in the usual allowance of fourpence 
 (ler ton a diiy for demurrage. Ih. 
 
 Damages for loss of a beneficial charterparty 
 )nav be recovered in a collision action. The 
 ^liitrhleHH, 10 Jur. 1017. 
 
 I'lie vessel, " C "which wasprocccdingin ballast 
 ■"> Montreal to load a cargo of grain for the 
 United Kingdom, pursuant to charterparty, was 
 injured by collision with another vessel, and 
 comi)elled to jjut into ])ort to repair. The repairs 
 nccissarily occupied so long atime that it was not 
 reasonably jiossible for the "C." to have arrived 
 flt Montieal in time to fulfil her charter before 
 tlie navigation of the St. Lawrence was st/ipped 
 by ice for the winter. In these circumstances 
 <he owners of the "C." abandoned the charter, and 
 
 it was found that they acted prudently in so 
 doing: — Held, that the loss arising from the 
 abandonment of the charter was a loss caused 
 by the collision. The Consett, 5 P. D. 229 ; 5 
 Asp. M. C. 34, n. 
 
 Claim for Loan on Security for Freight.] — 
 Themasterof the ship "C," bouiidfrom Philadel- 
 phia to Antwerp, obtained at Philadelphia from 
 M. a loan of money on freight upon the security 
 of an instrument signed by him, h\ which it was 
 stipulated that the loan should be repaid after arri- 
 val of the"C." at Antwerp or other intermediate 
 port at which the voyage shoukl end, and that if 
 there should be no payment of freight the loan 
 should not be paid back. The " C," whilst on the 
 course of her voyage to Antwerp, came into 
 collision with another ship and sank, and her 
 cargo was lost. The collision was occasioned by 
 the negligence of those in chars^e of the other 
 ship, and her owners instituted an action for 
 limitation of tiieir liability. In such action a 
 sum of money was awarded out of the proceeds 
 paid into coui-t to the owners of the " C." for loss 
 of freight. M. claimed a portion of this sum in 
 respect of his loan : — Held, that his claim was 
 well founded. Semble, where, in an action for 
 limitation of liability a sum of mone}' is awarded 
 as compensation for loss of freight to the owners 
 of a vessel run down by the plaintiffs ship, the 
 holder of a bottomry bond on the freight of the 
 vessel run down, is entitled to claim, in respect 
 of the loan of bottomry, a portion of the sum 
 awarded for loss of freight. 'The Emjnisa, 48 
 L. J., Adm. 36 ; 5 P. D. 6 : 41 L. T. 383 ; 28 
 W. R. 263 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 185. 
 
 Loss of Profits — Agreement to provide Vessel 
 for particular Voyage — Remotenes?.] — A col- 
 lision occurred between two vessels, the "A." and 
 the " G.," shortly after a contract had been made 
 by the ownei's of the " A." that upon the comple- 
 tion of her then voyage she should proceed upon 
 another voyage. The repairs to the "A." made 
 necessary by the collision could not be completed 
 in time to enable her to fulfil the contract. In 
 an action by the owners of the "A." against the 
 owners of the ''G.," the former clainietl damages 
 in respect of the loss of the earnings which would 
 have been derived from the employment con- 
 tracted for: — Held, that the damages claimed 
 were not too remote, but flowed directly and 
 naturally from the collision, and that sucli 
 damages should be allowed as would repre- 
 sent the loss of ordinary and fair earnings of 
 such a ship as the "A.," having regard to the fact 
 that the contract had been entered into. The 
 Argentina, The (Iracie (^Ownerii) v. The Argeu- 
 tim (^Ownerx), 59 L. J., Adm. 17 ; 14 App. Cas. 
 519 ; 61 L. T. 706 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 433— H. L. (E.) 
 Affirming 37 W. R. 210— C. A. 
 
 Advanced Freight— Security on Cargo.] — A 
 
 ship, " A.," and her carLjd, bi'lungcd to the same 
 owners, and the plaint ill's iidvanced 1,000/. as a 
 loan to such owners, and received as security the 
 bill of lading, on which the master indorsed the 
 receipt for 1,000/. as advanced freight, and also a 
 policy of insurance on advanced freight. Ship 
 "A." Wius lost through a collision with the defen- 
 dant's vessel, whose negligence was adniitted. 
 It was proved that the difference between the 
 value of the cargo at the port of destination and 
 at the port of loading would have considerably 
 exceefle<l 1,000/. In an action by the holders of 
 the bill of lading for 1,000/. against the defer-
 
 735 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 786 
 
 dant's ship : — Held, that the plaintiffs were 
 entitled to recover the sum, thouoh it was not, 
 strictly spealving, advanced freight, but a pro- 
 spective increase in the value of the cargo, aud 
 that the insurers were suijrogated to the rights of 
 the plaintiffs. The lliyatira, 52 L. J., Adm. 85 ; 
 8 P. D. 155 ; 49 L. T. 406 ; 32 W. R. 276 ; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 147. 
 
 Freight in Captain's hands,] — Freight in the 
 captain's hands, lost in the collision, allowed as 
 damages. 2'lie Camherland, 5 L. T. 496. 
 
 Cost of Raising Wreck — Public Body.] — A 
 
 l)ulilic body, with statutory public duties to dis- 
 cliarge and (lower to levy rates for the purpose of 
 tlischarging those duties, is entitled, though it is 
 not a protit-earning body, to substantial damages 
 in respect of the loss of the use of property 
 injured by the negligence of another ; and for the 
 recovery of such damages it is not necessary to 
 jjTOve direct pecuniary loss, llie Grvta Holme, 
 66 L. J., Adm. 166 ; [1897] A. C. 596 ; 77 L. T. 
 23 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 317— C. A. 
 
 A dredger, the property of the Mersey docks 
 and harbour board, the conservancy authority 
 of the port of Liverpool, was sunk by the negli- 
 gence of those in charge of the '' Greta Holme." 
 The wreck was raised, and in addition to other 
 items the board claimed 1,500'. damages for the 
 loss of the use of the dredger during the fifteen 
 weeks she was under repair. There was evidence 
 that the dredger might have been let at the rate 
 of lOOZ. a week, and that during its disablement 
 the work of deepening the river had been re- 
 tarded : — Held (l.ovtl Morris dissenting), that 
 the board were entitled to substantial damages, 
 which the house of lords assessed at 500Z. Ih. 
 
 Wreck-raising Plant.] — See The Crystal and 
 cases, post. col. 893. 
 
 6. Division of Loss. 
 
 Statement of the Rule.] — Statement of 
 admiralty law as to the four cases of collision. 
 by fault of one ship, both ships, or neither 
 ship, an! the liability for damages in each case. 
 Loss is divided where both ships in fault. The 
 Lord Mel rille, cited, 2 Shaw's Sc. App. 395. 
 The Woodroj), 2 Dods. 83. 
 
 Its Justice questioned.] — The justice of the 
 rule questii)neil. See i)er Denman, C.J., De 
 Vuiw V. Saint dor, 4 A. & E. 42(» ; 6 N. & M. 
 713 ; 5 L. J., K. B. 134. Per Selborne, C, The 
 Khedive, infra. 
 
 Reason for the Rule.] — The reason for the 
 rule is to avoid interminal)le litigation. See per 
 Lord Blackburn, The Khedice, infra. 
 
 Equal Division — One Ship more in Fault 
 than the Other.] — Rule of equal division of 
 loss apfilied. The Petersjield and The Judith 
 llandolph, cited in Hay v. Le Neve, 2 Shaw's Sc. 
 App. 395. 
 
 The rule of admiralty is that if there is blame 
 causing the accident on both sides, they are to 
 divide the loss e(jually . . . however small the 
 blame may be on one side. Per Lortl Black- 
 Vjurn, The Margaret, Cayzer v. Carron. Co., 54 
 L. .L, Adm. 18 :' 9 App. Gas. 873, 881 ; 52 L. T. 
 361 : 33 W. R. 281 ; 5 Asp. M. G. 371— H. L. (E.) 
 Haij V. Le Neve, supra. The Woodroj), supra. 
 
 Principle of the Rule.] — The principle of the 
 rule is ei(uality of participation in a loss arising 
 from a common fault. See per Lord Stowell, 
 The Woadrop, supra. Cf. per Selborne, G., The 
 Khedive, infra. 
 
 The Common Fault.] — May be partly on shore 
 and pai'tly afloat ; as where one ship was negli- 
 gently launched and the other negligently placed 
 in her way. 2' he Cn/ted States, 12 L. T. 33. 
 
 The common fault need not conduce to the 
 collision if it conduces to the damage ; as where 
 one ship was negligently navigated and the other 
 holed her with her anchor, which was a cock-bill. 
 The Margaret, 50 L. J., Adm. 67 ; 6 P. D. 76 ; 44 
 L. T. 291 ; 29 W. R. 533 ; 4 Asp. M. G. 375— 
 G. A. 
 
 Whilst a barge was by night lying astern of a 
 steamship, in a dock, the latter moved her pro- 
 peller and cut a hole in the barge. It appeared 
 that there was no one on board the barge at the 
 time of the accident. In a collision action : — 
 Held, that although the steamer was to blame, 
 the bai'ge was also to blame for not having any 
 one on board of her, as, had there been, the 
 collision might have been avoided, and in any 
 event the barge might have been beached before 
 she sank ; the plaintiffs therefore could only 
 recover half tlieir damages. The Scotia, 63 L. T. 
 324 ; 6 Asp. M. G. 541. 
 
 Difficulty of applying Common Law Definitioa 
 
 of Negligence. J — See The Monte Rosa, 62 L. J., 
 Adm. 20 ; [1893] P. 23 ; 68 L. T. 299 ; 41 W. R. 
 304 ; 7 Asp. M. G. 326. 
 
 Fault of not standing by.]— The rule formerly 
 did not apply where one ship was in fault for 
 the collision and the other for not standing by 
 to assist. The Celt, 3 Hag. Adm. 321. But see, 
 as to present law, 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 422. 
 
 Both or one Ship Foreign.] — The rule applies 
 where one or both shii)S are foreign. The Aorth 
 American and The Teela Carmen, Swabey, 358 ; 
 Lush. 79. Chartered Mercantile Bank of India 
 V. Netherlands India Steam Navigation Co., 52 
 L. J., Q. B. 220 ; 10 Q. B. D. 521 ;'48 L. T. .546 ; 
 31 W. R. 445 ; 5 Asp. M. G. 65 ; 47 J. P. 260— 
 G. A. The Washinqton, 5 Jur. 1067. The Mon- 
 arch, 1 W. Rob. 21. The Khedive, Stoomvaart 
 Maatschappii Nederland v. Peniiisnlar and 
 Oriental Steam Naviqatlon Co.,r>2 L. .J., Adm. 1 •,. 
 7 App. Gas. 795 ; 47 L. T. 198 ; 31 W. R. 249 ; 5 
 Asp. M. C. 360, 567. The Serinyapatam, 3 \V. 
 Rob. 38. Chapman v. Royal Netherlands Steam 
 Navigation Co., 49 L. J., Ch. 449 : 4 P. D. 157 : 
 40 L. T. 433 ; 27 W. R. 554 ; 4 Asp. M. C. lOr 
 — G. A. 
 
 Cargo-owner suing Owner of carrying Ship.] 
 
 — Rule of division of loss where both shi[)S in 
 fault does not apply to an action by the owner of 
 cargo against the owner of the carrying ship 
 upon the contract to carry. The Bushire, 52 
 L. T. 740 ; 5 Asp. M. G. 416. 
 
 The Rule applied.] — Both vessels being in 
 fault for a coUisinn. a moiety of the damage 
 suffered by each pronoiinced for. The Iinma- 
 gaiida Sara Clasina, Vaux v. Shrfer, 8 Moore, 
 P. C. 75. The Independence, 14" Moore, P. C.. 
 103 ; Lush. 270 ; 4 L. T. 503 : 9 W. R. 582. 
 
 Insurance — Running Down Clause.] — Liability 
 of underwriters where both ships in fault. See-
 
 '37 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 738 
 
 London Steamsliip Assoclnt'um v. Gramjj'ian 
 StcamsMj} Co., post, col. 108i. 
 
 Fault of one Ship that of her Compulsory 
 Pilot.] — The "'A."' and the "H." were in collision 
 by the fault of the ciew of the •' A.'' and the com- 
 pulsory pilot of the ■• H." : — Held, that the rule of 
 division of loss applied ; but that the "A." owners 
 could recover 4,000/. (half her loss being S.OOOZ.), 
 and not only 2,.o00/., the balance between 4.000/. 
 and 1,500L (half the loss of the "A."). The Hector, 
 52 L. J., Adm. 51 : 8 P. D. 218 : 48 L. T. 890 : 
 31 W. R. 881 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 101— C. A. See also 
 The Demetrius, 41 L. J.. Adm. 69 ; L. E. 3 A. & 
 E. 523 ; 26 L. T 329 ; 20 W. R. 761 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 251. 
 
 Both Ships in Fault by Agreement of Ship- 
 owners — Cargo Owners not bound by Agree- 
 ment.] — An agreement between the shipo\\Tiers 
 that both ships were in fault does not prevent 
 the owner of cargo on board one ship from 
 asserting in an action by the owner of the other 
 ship to limit his liability that the last-mentioned 
 ship was alone in fault. The Karo, 57 L. J. 
 Adm. 8 ; 13 P. D. 24 ; 58 L. T. 188 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 245. 
 
 Collision between Ships of same Owners — 
 Rights of Cargo Owners.] —Where a collision 
 occurred between ships belonging to the same 
 owners, and the shipowner was protected by bill 
 of lading against collision, and also against negli- 
 gence of those navigating the carrying ship : — 
 Held, that he was liable in tort for the negli- 
 gence of those on board the other ship to the 
 extent of half the loss of the cargo owner ; and 
 that he was protected by the bill of lading from 
 further liability. Churfprrd Mrrcuntile Jianli of 
 Jmlia v. A'etherla/id-1 India Steam J\'avif/ation 
 Co., .52 L. J., Q. B. 220 ; lO Q. B. D. 521 ; 48 L. T. 
 546 ; 31 W. R. 445 ; 47 J. P. 260 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 65 
 — C. A. 
 
 Collision between Tug and Third Ship — Lia- 
 bility of Owners of Tug and Tow.j — A tug 
 with a ship in tow stiudc and injured a third 
 ship, the ship in tow not touching her. All 
 three vessels were found to blame for proceeding 
 at an impro|)crs'pee(l : — Held, that the owners of 
 the tug and of the tow were jointly and severally 
 liable to the owners of the third vessel for one- 
 half of the damage that vessel had sustained, 
 less one-half of the tug's damage : — Hedd, also, 
 that the total liability of tug and tow was not 
 limited to the statutory amount on the tonnage 
 of the tug. The KiKiVmhman and. The An.stralia, 
 63 L. .!.. Adm. 133 ;'[1K91] I'. 23'J ; 6 K. 743 ; 70 
 I-. T. 846; 13 \V. I{. 62 : 7 Asp. M. C. 603. 
 
 Cargo Owner can recover only Half his 
 Loss— Both Ships in Fault.]— In admiralty the 
 owner of cargo on b^aid one of two shijis both 
 of which are in fault for the collision could 
 recover onlv half his loss. The Milan. Lush 
 388 ; 31 L. .1., Adm. 105 : 5 L. T. 590. But see 
 The Jicrniiia, 57 L. J., Adm. 65 ; 13 App. Cas. 
 1 : 58 L. T. 423 : 36 W. R. 870 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 257 ; 
 52 .J. P. 212— H.L. (E.) 
 
 One Ship deemed in Fault for Infringement 
 of Kegulations.]— The rule of divihion of loss 
 applies where fault is jiresumcd under 36 A: 37 
 Vict. c. 85, 8. 17, by rea,son of infringement of 
 the regulations. The JChedive, aupra; CluLrtemd 
 VOL. xin. 
 
 Mercantile Banh of India y. Netherlands India 
 Steam jyavigation Ty., supra ; The Hochung and 
 The Lapwing, 51 L. J., P. C. 92 ; 7 App. Cas. 
 512 : 47 L. T. 455 ; 31 W. R. 803 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 39— P. C. 
 
 Action under Lord Campbell's Act.] — The 
 rule does not apply to actions under Lord 
 Campbell's Act. The Bernina, Mills \. Arm- 
 strong, sui)ra. 
 
 Division of Loss where Liability Limited.]^ 
 See The Khedive, Stoomvaart Maatschappy 
 Nederland v. Peniimdar and Oriental Steam, 
 Navigation Co., infra, col. 743. See also Chap- 
 man V. Iloyal Netherlands Steam Navigation 
 Co., infra, col. 743. Overruling The Khedive, 
 supra. 
 
 7. Limitation of Liability. 
 a. By General Law, no Limitation. 
 Liability Unlimited by General Law.] — By the 
 maritime law the shipowner was liable to the full 
 extent of damage done by the negligence of his 
 servants. The Wild Banger, Lush. 553 : 32 
 L. J., Adm. 49 ; 7 L. T.724. See also The Dundee, 
 1 Hag. Adm. 109, 120 : The Aline, 1 W. Rob. Ill; 
 The Volant, 1 W. Rob. 283 ; The Mellona, 3 
 W. Rob. 16, 20 ; Gale v. Laurie. 5 B. & C 156, 
 164 ; 7 D. & R. 711 ; 4 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 149 : 
 The. Khedive, 7 App. Cas. 795, 814; infra, coL 
 743. 
 
 b. TJnder 53 Geo. 3, c. 159. 
 
 Under 53 Geo. 3, c. 159, the owners of a ship 
 that sank after wrongfully damaging another 
 were not exemijt from liability. Brulvn v. Wilkin- 
 son, 15 M. ic W. 391 ; 16 L. J., Ex. 34. 
 
 The harpoons and fishinggear of a whaler went 
 to augment the sum to which shipowners' liability 
 was limited by 53 Geo. 3, c. 159. Galev. Laurie, 
 5 B. & C. 157 ; 7 D. i; R. 71 1 ; 4 L. J. (O.S.) K. B. 
 149. S. P., The Dundee, 1 Hag. Adm. 109. 
 
 The shipowner was liable for costs of a collision 
 suit beyond the value of his ship. Bayne, E.c 
 parte, 1 G. &; D. 374 ; 10 L. J., Q. B. 354 ; 1 Q. B. 
 982. S. P., T/u! Dundee, 2 Hag. Adm. 137. 
 
 A ship having been wrongfully sold by the 
 master so that the voyage was not completed, the 
 liability of the shii)owner was held to be the value 
 of the ship when sold, together with the freight 
 she would have earned. Caiman v. Meahurn, 1 
 Bing. 465 ; 8 Moore, 127 ; 2 L. J. (o..s.) C. P. 60. 
 
 Tlie liability of shipowners for collision was the 
 value of the ship before, not after, collision. The 
 Mary Caroline, 3 W. Rob. 101. 
 
 As to tlie form and date of affidavits required 
 to be filed by tlie above act, .see WaUier v. 
 Fletcher, 1 Ph. 115; 12 Sim. 420; 11 L. J., 
 Ch. 103 ; 6 Jur. 4. 
 
 The value of the ship to which by the above 
 act and by 14 A: 15 Vict. c. 104, the 'shipowner's 
 liability is limited is the price at which she could 
 be sold ; and that price must be ascertained, not 
 by making deductions from her cost price, pro- 
 portioned to her age, but by a valuation and 
 appraisement, and sucli v;iluc must be ascertained 
 as at the time of the accident. Dohree v. Schroder, 
 2 Myl. & Cr. 489. Aliiniiing 6 Sim. 291. 
 
 As to the mode of calculating the ship's value, 
 prepaid freight, and the liability, where the 
 master, one of the part owners, caused the loss. 
 See Wilson v. Dichson, 2 B. & Aid. 2 ; 20 R. R. 
 331. 
 
 24
 
 739 
 
 SHIPPIXG— XX. Collision. 
 
 740 
 
 c. TJnder 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. 
 
 When (luniage is doiu; by a ship both to persons 
 and goods, the ship is to be estimated at not less 
 than lol. per tou, for the purpose of adjusting the 
 compeusatiou to be paid to claimants iu respect 
 of loss of life or personal injury. J\'i.co/t, v. 
 R„herts, 1 J. & H. 739 ; 30 L. J., Ch. 844 ; 7 
 Jur. (N.S.) 820 ; 4 L. T. C79 ; 9 W. R. 890. 
 
 But where all demands in respect of personal 
 injury or loss of life have been settled, and the 
 only claimants against the ship are the owners 
 of property which has been damaged, the ship 
 is not to be estimated at more than her actual 
 value, notwithstanding the fact that loss of life 
 or personal injury has occurred. lb. 
 
 Where claimants of both kinds appear, the 
 owners of property are entitled to have the com- 
 pensation for loss of life and personal injury 
 marshalled, so as to throw it primarily on the 
 excess (if any) of the value of 15Z. per ton over 
 the actual value of the ship. Ih. 
 
 The 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, did not repeal, but 
 only modified, the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 93 (Lord 
 Campbell's Act), so far as the latter created 
 liability for the loss of life by collision at sea. 
 Glaholm v. Barkn; 35 L. J., Ch. 259 : L. R. 1 Ch. 
 223 ; 12 Jur. (N.S.) 82 ; 13 L. T. 653 ; 14 W. R. 
 296— C. A. 
 
 By the joint operation of the 9 &; 10 Vict. c. 93, 
 and the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 54, the liability of 
 the owner of a sailing vessel for loss of life occa- 
 sioned by collision with another vessel at sea is 
 limited to 15^. per ton of the registered tonnage 
 of his vessel. lb. 
 
 The liability of a shipowner in respect of loss 
 of life to the seamen of a vessel run down by 
 his ship is not limited to 30Z. for damages pay- 
 able in each case of death ; and this rule applies 
 to all cases, whether the board of trade does or 
 does not institute proceedings in respect of such 
 loss of life. Glaholm v. Barker, 35 L. J., Ch. 657 : 
 L. R. 2 Etp 598 ; 12 Jur. (N.S.) 764 ; 14 L. T. 880 ; 
 14 W. R. 1006. 
 
 The amount of damages being paid by order 
 of the court into the registry, the party finally 
 adjudged to receive the same was not allowed 
 interest from the date of such payment into 
 •court. The North American and the Tcela Car- 
 vie.n, Lush. 79 ; 5 Jur. (N.S.) 659. 
 
 The owners of a ship causing a collision are 
 liable, in chancery as well as in admiralty, to pay 
 interest upon the sum payable as damages, 
 although sucli damages may amount to the maxi- 
 nmm sum limited by 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 54, 
 and if the ship injured is in ballast at the time of 
 tlie accident, such interest will be calculated from 
 the date of the collision. Strahcr v. Hartland, 
 •2 H. & M. 570 : 34 L. J., Ch. 122 ; 10 Jur. (N.S.) 
 1143 ; 11 L. T. 622. 
 
 Where a sum is awarded as damages for col- 
 lision, the liability to have paid such sum dates 
 from the time at which the loss is considered to 
 have arisen, and the sum awarded bears interest 
 from that date. The Amalia. 34 L. J., Adm. 21 ; 
 13 W. R. 11] ; 5N. R. 164, n. 
 
 The value of a ship within the meaning of 
 the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 504, was what'she 
 would have fetched if sold immediately before 
 the collision, without deduction in respect of 
 •costs of sale. Lcycister v. Logan, 4 K. & J. 725 ; 
 tiW. R. 849. S. P., African Stcamshij) Co. v. 
 Swanzy, 2 K. & J. 660 ; 25 L. J., Ch. 870 ; 4 
 W. R. 210, 692; The Uiirojja, Br. & Lush. 
 210 ; 9 L. T. 781. 
 
 The ])rovisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104), s. 5()3, limiting ship- 
 owners' liability, did not apply to foreign ships. 
 General Iron Screw Collier Co. v. Schurmanns, 
 29 L. J., Ch. 877 : 6 Jur. (N.S.) 883 ; 8 W.R. 732. 
 S. P., The Wild Ranqer, infra, col. 747 ; Cope v. 
 Dohertii, 2 De G. & J. 614 ; 27 L, J., Ch. 600 ; 
 4 Jur. (N.S.) 699 ; 6 W. R. 695. 
 
 In a bill filed under the provisions of the Mer- 
 chant Shipping Act, 1854, to stay actions in 
 other courts for damages occasioned by a collision 
 with the plaintiff's ship, and to have the alleged 
 damage ascertained, the plaintiff must aver that 
 he has incurred liability. Hill v. Andvs, 1 
 K. & J. 263 ; 3 Eq. R. 422 ; 24 L. J., Ch. 229 ; 
 3 W. R. 230 ; aliter 3HUer v. Poioell, 2 Ct. 
 of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 976. And see Tlis 
 Amalia., Br. &; Lush. 151 ; The Slatei's, infra, 
 col. 749. 
 
 Form of order made on motion for injunction 
 in a suit by shipowner to restrain actions for 
 damage occasioned by loss of the ship and cargo 
 under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1854, part 9. African Steamshij} Co., In re, 
 1 K. & J. 326 ; 3 W. R. 316. 
 
 In a suit instituted by a shipowner, under the 
 514th section of the Merchant Shipping Act, to 
 determine the amount of his liability in respect 
 of the losses there mentioned, to have such amount 
 distributed ratably amongst the several claimants, 
 and to stop actions at law in relation to the same 
 subject-matter, there being no adverse litigation 
 amongst the claimants themselves, nor any other 
 special circumstance occasioning an increase of 
 costs, and over which the plaintiff has no control, 
 the shipowner, as the party eased by the proceed- 
 ings, must pay all the costs of all claimants whose 
 claims are established, including the costs of 
 actions at law commenced by any of such claim- 
 ants, but stayed by injunction in the suit. 
 African Steani.ship Co. v. Swanzy, supva. 
 
 In such a suit, the court has no power to give 
 interest upon money ordered to be paid into 
 court. Ih. 
 
 The provisions of the 504th section of the 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, limiting the liability of a 
 shipowner to the value of his ship and freight, 
 and the provisions cf the 514th section, giving 
 the court of chancery jurisdiction to stop actions 
 and suits pending in any other court in relation 
 to the same subject-matter, are applicable not- 
 withstanding the circumstance that the adverse 
 claimant has obtained a (ietinitive sentence or 
 judgment of the court of admiralty condemning 
 the ship : and the utmost to which the latter is 
 entitled under such a judgment, in respect of the 
 loss he has .sustained, is to share ratably with the 
 other claim:ints in the value of the ship and 
 freight. Lcyecster v. Lor/an, 3 K. & J. 416 ; 26 
 L. J., Ch. 306 ; 5 W. R. 334, 
 
 d. Under subsequent Acts, and Generally. 
 
 To what Damages Limitation extends — Loss of 
 Goods — Delay.] — A railway company, known to 
 be also shipowners, contracted to carry passen- 
 gers and goods from London to Guernsey. The 
 passengei's and goods were taken by railway from 
 London to Southampton, and were there put on 
 board a ship \\'hich belonn-^d to the company. 
 The ship, on her way to Guernsej^, came into 
 collision with another ship and sank with several 
 of the passengers and all the goods. Actions 
 were brought against the company by sui'viviug
 
 741 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 742 
 
 passengers for loss of luggage and for delay, by 
 ■shippers of goods for loss of goods, and by the 
 administrators of lost passengers for damages : — 
 Held, that, as to all the damages (except those 
 for delay), the liability of the company was, by 
 the Merchant Shipping Acts, limited to the 
 amount of 151. per ton on the tonnage of the 
 ship ; that the amount so payable should be 
 distributed by the court of chancery, and that 
 all the actions against the railway company 
 (except those for delay) should be restrained. 
 TJie Anddhisian. 47 L. J.. Adm. 65 ; 3 P. D. 182 ; 
 39 L. T. 204 ; 27 W. K. 172 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 22. 
 
 Two Vessels Injured by same Act.] — By reason 
 of the innn-uper navigaticpn of a steamship she 
 ran into and damaged a ship, and immediately 
 afterwards ran into and sank a steam-tug which 
 was near the ship, and about to take the ship in 
 tow. In a suit for limitation of liabilitj-. insti- 
 tuted on behalf of the owner of the steamship, it 
 was held that the whole of the damage so caused 
 by such improper navigation as afoi-esaid to the 
 ship and steam-tug and goods on board the ship 
 and steam-tug was caused substantially at the 
 same time and on the same occasion, and that 
 the plaintiff, who was entitled to have his liability 
 limited according to s. 54 of the Merchant Ship- 
 ping Act Amendment Act, 1862, was entitled to 
 Lave his lialiilitj- in respect of the whole of such 
 <lamagc limited to an amount not exceetling 8/. 
 per ton for each ton of his steamships tonnage. 
 The Ilujuh, 41 L. J., Adm. 97 ; L. E. 3 A. &'E. 
 .539; 27 L. T. 102 ; 21 W. R. 14. 
 
 Damage "arising on distinct occasions."] — 
 
 By iiiiinoper navigation the '• S.," in starboaidiiig 
 across the bows of the "A.," caused the "A." to 
 come into collision with the " M.," and by reason 
 of the '• S." continuing under a starboard helm, 
 i-he came in'^o collision with the " D." In an 
 action by the " D." against the " S.," the latter 
 was fountl to blame, and her owners obtained a 
 decree limiting their liability for damage. The 
 owners of the "A." commenced an action against 
 the •' S." for the damage caused by the collision 
 between the " A." and the " M. ; " the ownei s of 
 the " S." contended that the only remedy of the 
 *• A." was against the fund paid into couit under 
 the decree limiting their liability : — Held, that 
 the onus was on the '• S." to shew that it was the 
 **ame act of improper navigation ; that the 
 evidence established that there was time and 
 opportunity to have corrected the starboarding, 
 and by the use of ordinary caie and skill to have 
 avoided the collision with the " D.," and that 
 therefore the damage to the '•!)." was caused on 
 a "distinct occasion" from the starboarding 
 across the bows of the "A.," and that the " S." 
 was liable to the "A." to the same extent as if 
 no other damage had arisen. The Schicun, The 
 Al/unio, [1892] P. 419; 09 L. T. 34 ; 7 Asp. M. ( :. 
 347— C. A. 
 
 Collision with Two Ships.] — Where a 
 
 ship comes into collision with two vessels one 
 after the other, there being a short interval 
 between the two collisions, the shipowner will 
 be entitled to limit his liability to 81. per ton 
 (there being no loss of life) if the first collision 
 is the substantial cause of the second, and there 
 is no sepaiate act of negligence on the jjart of 
 those in charge of the plaintiffs ship in respect 
 of the second collision. 2'he Ci-eadon, 54 L. T. 
 •880 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 585. 
 
 Ssttled Claims — Whether to he taken as sub- 
 sisting.]— The owner of the wrongdoing sluj) 
 settled out of court his liability to tlie owners of 
 the other ship, and then petitioned to limit his 
 liability. The other claimants, owners of cargo 
 in the innocent ship, claimed to be entitled to the 
 whole amount of the statutory liability, on the 
 ground that the claim of the owner of the injured 
 ship was no longer subsisting : — Held, that for 
 the purpose of calculating the amount of the 
 petitioner's liability the settled claim must be 
 taken as subsisting. Ravkine v. Hasclien, 4 Ct. 
 of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 725. 
 
 Interest on Statutory Amount.] — The owTiers 
 of a shiji, though their liability to damages iu 
 respect of the loss of goods owing to a collision is 
 confined, by the Merchant Shipping Act Amend- 
 ment Act, 1862, s. 54, to an aggregate amount 
 not exceeding 81. per ton of the ship's tonnage, 
 are liable to pay interest on that amount from, 
 the date of the collision. Smith v. Kirhy, 1 
 Q. B. D. 131 ; 24 W. E. 207 ; and see cases, 
 col. 729. 
 
 The owners of a ship claiming in the court of 
 admiralty to have their liability limited, under 
 25 k, 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 54, iu respect of damages 
 occasioned by collision, to an aggregate amount 
 not exceeding 81. for each ton of the ship's ton- 
 nage, are liable to pay interest on such aggregate 
 amount from the date of the collision. The 
 Northumbrian 39 L. J., Adm. 3 ; L. E. 3 A. & E. 
 6 ; 21 L. T. 681 ; 18 W. R. 188. 
 
 Under 17 Ac 18 Vict. c. 104, interest and costs 
 payable in addition to statutory amount. African 
 Steaiiighip Co. v. Sicanzij, supra, col. 740. 
 
 Claims in respect of Loss of Life.] — In actions 
 for limitation of liability for a collision where 
 loss of life has occurred, the wrongdoer is liable, 
 in addition to the 11. per ton jiayable in resiect 
 of such loss of life, to pay interest t liereon from the 
 date of the collision until pavnient into court. 
 The Crathir, GiS L. J., Adm. 93 ; [1897] P. 178 ; 
 76 L. T. 534 ; 45 W. E. 631. 
 
 Compulsory Pilotage.]— Sect. 54 of the Mer- 
 chant Shipping Amendment Act, 1862, which 
 limits the liability of a shipowner to a certain 
 amount per ton, does not apjjly to a case where 
 two ships are to blame for a collision, and where 
 the owners of one ship are relieved from all 
 liability by the owners of the other, under s. 388 
 of the Mei-cliant Shijiping Act, 1854, on the 
 ground that the damage done to the other ship 
 was caused by the fault of a compulsory pilot ; 
 but under the admiralty rules, inasmuch as both 
 ships arc to blame, the owners of the shi[) so 
 relievctl from liability are only entitled to bo 
 
 I ]iaid by the owners of the other ship a moiety ( f 
 the damage caused to their shij). The Jlrcfor, 
 
 I 52 L. J.. Adm. 51 ; 8 P. 1). 2I.S: 48 L. T. 890 ; 
 31 W. K. SSI : 5 Asp. M. ('. KH— C. A. 
 
 Mode of Distribution — Rule of Division of 
 Loss, J — Two sliips, •• \'." and " K.," having come 
 into oillision, the owners of tin; " V." brought an 
 actif)n in rem in the admiralty division against 
 the owners of the " K.," who counter-claimed, 
 and both ships were held to blame. The owners 
 of the ■' K." brought an action in the admiralty 
 division tolimittheirliability under the Merchant 
 Shipping Amendment Act, 1862 (25 k 26 Vict, 
 c. 63), 8. 54, and paid the amount of their liability 
 into court. The damage to the "V." was greater 
 than that to the " K.," and the fund in court was 
 
 24—2
 
 743 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 744 
 
 not sufficient to satisfy all the claims for which 
 the owners of the '" K." were answerable in 
 damages : — Held (Lord Bramwell doubting), that 
 the owners of the "V." were entitled to prove 
 against the fund for a moiety of their damage, 
 less a moiety of the damage sustained by the 
 " K.," and to be paid in respect of the balance 
 due to them after such deduction pari passu with 
 the otlier claimants out of such fund. Chapm<in 
 T. lli>iial Xrtlicrl(t>ul>> Steam- A^uv if/at ion Co. 
 (infra) overruled. T/ie Xhedire, Stoomraart 
 Miiatschappjj Xcdciiand v. P. r^' 0. Steam. Nari- 
 gnthm Co., 52 L. J., Adm. 1 ; 7 App. Cas. 795 ; 
 47 L. T. 198 ; 31 W. K. 249 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 567 
 — H. L. (E.) 
 
 In an action of collision in the admiralty 
 division, where both ships have been injured 
 and both ships have been held to blame, and 
 have accordingly been condemned to pay the 
 moiety of each other's damage, and either of the 
 parties to the collision has applied to have his 
 liability limited under the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1862, s. 54, no set-ofE is allowed between the 
 two amounts for which they are liable in damages 
 until the limitation of liability imposed by that 
 statute has been applied. The "S." and " V." 
 came into collision, both ships were damaged, 
 but the "V." was sunk with her cargo and lost. 
 In an action by the owners of the " V.," and 
 counter-claim by the owners of the " S.," both 
 ships were held to blame, and condemned to pay 
 the moiety of each other's damage. Under this 
 judgment the damage payable by the " S." was 
 14,000^., and that payable by the "V." was 2,000^. 
 The owners of the " S." then brought an action 
 in the chancery division for limitation of their 
 liability, and paid into court 5,212Z., the aggregate 
 amount of 8Z. a ton on her registered tonnage : — 
 Held (Brett, L.J., dissenting), that the owners 
 of the " V." must prove for 14,000Z. against the 
 fund in court, and must pay the 2,000?. in full to 
 the owners of the " S." Chapman v. Boijal 
 -Vethcrlands Steam Navifjation Co., 48 L. J., Ch. 
 449 ; 4 P. D. 157 ; 40 L. T. 433 ; 27 W, E. 554 ; 
 4 Asp. M. C. 107— C. A. 
 
 Mode of Distribution.] — Where the damage 
 sustained by all the claimants exceeds in the 
 aggregate the whole amount for which the 
 shipowner is liable (viz. at the rate of 15?. per 
 registered ton of his ship), the fund must be 
 distributed ratably amongst all the claimants 
 in proportion to the damages sustained by them 
 respectively ; but where the whole amount of 
 damages is less than the whole amount for which 
 the shipowner is liable, the amount of damages 
 sustained by each claimant is to be paid in full. 
 Glahohn v. Barlter, 35 L. J., Ch. 657 ; L. K. 2 Ecj. 
 598 ; 12 Jur. (N.S.) 764 ; 14 L. T. 880 ; 14 W. K. 
 1006. See Leyccster v. Logan, infra, col. 745. 
 
 "Improper Navigation."] — The words "im- 
 proper navigation " in 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 54, 
 sub-s. 4, are not to be restricted to the negligent 
 navigation of a vessel by her master and crew, 
 for the statute includes all damage wrongfully 
 <lone by a ship to another whilst it is being 
 navigated where the wrongful action is due to 
 the negligence of a person for whom the owner 
 is responsible. Therefore, when a vessel, owing 
 to the negligence of a person on shore in over- 
 looking the machinery, steered so badly that she 
 came into collision with another vessel, in an 
 action for limitation of liability the court gave 
 a decree in her favour on the ground that the 
 
 statute applied to such a case. The Warhworth, 
 53 L. J., Adm. 65 ; 9 P. D. 145 ; 51 L. T. 558 ; 33 
 W. K. 112 : 5 Asp. M. C. 326— C. A, 
 
 Expenses of Salvage of Cargo.]— The payment 
 into court of 8?. a ton under 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, 
 s. 54, does not place the shipowner in the position 
 of a person who has not done wrong. The owner 
 of a ship sunk by a collision in the Thames 
 admitted it to be his fault, and paid into court 
 9>l. a ton in a suit to limit his liability. The 
 Thames conservators having powers under the 
 Removal of Wrecks Act, 1877, and the Thames 
 conservancy acts, raised the ship and delivered 
 the ship and cargo to the owner, he undertaking 
 to pay the expenses of raising. Part of the cargo 
 was some wool, which was damaged by being 
 sunk : — Held, that the shipowner was bound to 
 deliver the wool to the owner of the wool without 
 claiming from him by way of contribution to 
 salvage any part of the expenses of raising the 
 ship and cargo. The Ettrick, Prehn v. Bailey, 
 6 P. D. 127 : 45 L. T. .399 : 4 Asp. M. C. 465— 
 C. A. Affirming 50 L. J., Adm. 65. 
 
 Parties — Master — Part Owner.] — In a cause 
 of limitation of liability, one of the owners of 
 the vessel sued, being master as well as part 
 owner, but not having been on deck at the time 
 of the collision : — Held, that there was no obli- 
 gation upon the master to be upon deck ; that 
 the fact of the master being part owner was 
 no reason for charging the other owners witli 
 blame ; and that there was no evidence to shew 
 that the collision took place by the fault or with 
 the privity of the master. Tlie Obey, L. E. 1 
 A. & E. 102 ; 12 Jur. (N.S.) 817. 
 
 The ground of forfeiture of the statutory 
 exemption from unlimited liability is personal 
 blame ; the fault of one owner does not, there- 
 fore, involve in its consequences a forfeiture hj 
 his co-owners. The Spirit of the Ocean, 34 L. J.,. 
 Adm. 74 ; 12 L. T. 239. 
 
 The owners of a ship, who are entitled to the 
 privilege of limited liability, are not necessarily 
 those whose names appear ujDon the ship's- 
 register. lb. 
 
 A master, also part owner of a ship, sold his- 
 shares, but before the transfer had been regis- 
 tered the ship, through his default, came into- 
 collision with and damaged another vessel : — 
 Held, that the master was not an owner so as to 
 affect the privilege of limited liability. lb. 
 
 In an action by shipowners to limit their 
 liability in respect of a collision with their vessel, 
 and where it appears that the master, who was 
 on board at the time of the collision, was a part 
 owner, and the collision occurred without the 
 negligence or privity of the remainder of the 
 owners, they have a right to have their liabilitr 
 limited, with a reservation of any right of action 
 there may be against the master personally in 
 respect of his negligence. The Cricket, The 
 Endeavour, 48 L. T. 535 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 53. 
 
 Where in a collision suit it was sought to make 
 the part owner personally liable be.yond the 
 amount to which the shipowner's liability was 
 limited by statute upon the ground that he was 
 in charge of the vessel at the time of collision : — 
 Held, that to fix him with such liability he must 
 be sued personally as master in the first instance. 
 The Volant, 1 W. Rob. 383. 
 
 Monition against master who was part owner 
 of a ship that had negligently damaged another 
 in collision, the proceeds of the wrongdoing ship
 
 745 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 74G 
 
 and her freight being insufficient to satisfy the 
 damages ; the habihty of the master, by whose 
 fault the collision occuiTed, not being limited by 
 the statute then in force. The Triune, 3 Hag. 
 Adm. 114. 
 
 Damage Claimants Paid Pari Passu.] — After 
 a judgment fm- limitation of liability, the injured 
 party is entitled, after payment out of the fund 
 of the costs of a collision action in which he has 
 obtained judgment, to share the residue of the 
 fund ratably with other claimants for damage. 
 Leicester v. Loqan^ 3 K. & J. 446 ; 26 L. J., Ch. 
 :-;0G ; 5 W. E. 334. S. P., Glahulni \. Barker, 
 supra, col. 743. 
 
 Life Claimants and Damage Claimants — 
 Priorities.^ — Claimants in respect of loss of life 
 or personal injury are entitled to the 71. per ton, 
 and other claimants to the SI. per ton, subject as 
 to the latter to the right of the former claimants 
 to have recourse ratably to the 81. per ton. 
 .Xixun V. Rubrrts, 1 J. & H. 739 ; 30 L. J.. 
 Ch. 844 ; 7 Jui-. (N.S.) 820 ; 4 L. T. 679 ; t) 
 W. R. 870 (a decision on 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, 
 s. .504). 
 
 The plaintiffs in an action to limit their liability 
 paid into court the sum of 7,862Z. Qs. \0d., being 
 the amount of their statutory liability at the rate 
 of I'd. per ton. The amount so paid into court 
 being insufficient to satisfy in full claims against 
 the plaintiffs in respect of loss of life and loss of 
 |roo(is, the registrar, by his report, found that the 
 claimants in respect of loss of life were eiititled 
 to be paid out of the sum in court an amount 
 equal to 11. per ton, and that they and the 
 claimants in respect of loss of goods should rank 
 pari passu against the balance representing 8/. 
 |jer ton. On objection to the report : — Held, 
 that the report was right, as the court had power 
 to mai'shal the assets, and that the claimants in 
 lespect of loss of goods had no right in priority 
 to the claimants in respect of loss of life against 
 the sum representing 81. per ton. The Vlcturia. 
 .57 L. J., Adm. 103 ; 13 P. D. 125 ; 59 L. T. 728 ; 
 37 W, R. 62 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 335. 
 
 Claims for Loss of Life Settled.] — In an action 
 for limitation of liability, wheie it appeared that 
 iill the claims in respect of loss of life iiad been 
 settled, the court ordered that upon payment in 
 of 81. per ton all persons having any claim 
 either in respect of loss of life or damage to slu[), 
 goods, or merchandise, should be restrained from 
 bringing any action in respect of the collision. 
 The Fogcolhio, ry2 L. T. 866 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 420. 
 
 Life Claims^Payment into Court.] — Sec The 
 Ji'iiinr, intra, col. 752. 
 
 Sale of Ship by Foreign Court — Beceipt of 
 Proceeds — Right to claim against Fund in 
 Court.] — W'liiTe in the limilaiidii piocceding-* 
 the fund pai<l into court in respect of loss of 
 ship, goods, i:c., amounts to the full 8/. per ton 
 of the ship's tonnage, persons who have taken 
 |)rocccdings in respect of those matters in a 
 I'oieigii court and received the proceeds of the 
 sale of the wrongdoer's ship in tliose proceedings, 
 but whose claims have not Ijcen thereljy satis- 
 fied, are not debarred from claiming against the 
 fund in court, but will be compelled to give 
 credit for any sums they have received in the 
 |)roceedings abroad. The Crafhie, 6li L. J., 
 Adm. 93; [1897] P. 178; 76 L. T. 534; 45 
 \\ . R. 631. 
 
 Yacht Race — Contract to pay "all damages."] 
 — Where a person enters into a contract embodied 
 in rules by which he agrees to be liable for " all 
 damages " arising from a breach of those rules, 
 he cannot claim the benefit of a statutory limita- 
 tion of liability. In a yacht race sailed subject 
 to rules by which the owner of any yacht infring- 
 ing a rule was to be " liable for all damages 
 arising therefrom," the ap))ellant's yacht, by 
 reason of a breach of the rules, ran down and 
 sank the respondent's yacht : — Held, that the 
 appellant's liability was not limited bj^ s. 
 54 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1862, to 81. 
 per ton, but that he must make good the whole 
 value of the j-acht. The Satanlta, 66 L. J., 
 Adm. 1 : [1897'] A. C. 59 ; 75 L. T. 337 ; 8 Asp. 
 M. C. 190— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Vessel not a Registered British Ship — Vessel 
 newly Launched, ] — A newly-built vessel, exceed- 
 ing tifteen tons burden, on being launched, ran 
 into and damaged a passing ship. The owners 
 of the damaged ship theretipon instituted an 
 action against the newly-built vessel to recover 
 for the damage done to their ship, and the court 
 pronounced the vessel proceeded against solely 
 to blame for the collision. Afterwards an action 
 of limitation of liability was instituted by the 
 owner of the newly-built vessel, a natural- 
 born subject, who therein claimed a declaration 
 that he was entitled to a limitation of liability 
 in respect of the damage occasioned by the 
 collision. At the hearing of the action it 
 appeared that the newly-built vessel, though 
 registered as a British ship at the time of the 
 institution of the action, was not so reaistered 
 at the time of the collision : — Held, that the 
 vessel was not a registered British ship when 
 the collision occurred, and that the owner was 
 not entitled to have his liabilitv limited. The 
 A/ulali/sian, 47 L. J., Adm. 65 ; 3 P. D. 182 ; 39 
 L.T. 204 ; 27 W. R. 172 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 22. 
 
 British Owners of a Dutch Ship.]— See 'The 
 Briniu, infra, col. 747. 
 
 "When Ship Sunk.] — The "Normandy" and 
 "Mary" came into collision, and the " Nor- 
 niantly " was sunk. Cross causes of damages 
 were instituted, but ha<l not been heaid, nor 
 the liability for the collision determined ; but 
 the owners of the " Normandy" paid into court 
 the amount of their liability, as limited by 
 statute: — Held, first, that the court had juris- 
 diction in a suit for limitation of liability, even 
 though the "Normandy" had been suidc, and 
 therefore could not be arrested. 'J'he yoriiii/iidi/, 
 39 L. J., Adm. 48 ; L. R. 3 A.k E. 152 ; 23 L. T. 
 631 ; 18 W. R. 903. 
 
 Railway Company carrying by Sea.] — A 
 railway com]iany carrying )ias-eiigcrs and goods 
 partly by railway and [tartly by its own ships 
 is entitled to the limitation on the liability of 
 shipowners imposed by the mercliant shii)i)ing 
 acts. L. &■ -S'.-ir. llii.y.JamrK, 42 L. J., Ch. 
 337; L. R. 8 Cli. 24l'; 28 L. T. 48; 21 W. R. 
 151 ; 1 .^sp. M. C. 526. 
 
 British and Foreign Vessels.] — Collision in 
 the Mediterranean Sea, beyond British juris<lic- 
 tion, between an Eiiglisli and a Belgian vessel, 
 whereby tlie latter with her cargo was sunk : — 
 Held, that the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 54, with 
 respect to limited liability, applied equally to
 
 747 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. CulUsion. 
 
 748 
 
 British and forci2:n vessels. The Ainalla, 1 
 IMoore, P. C. (N.s.) 471 ; Br. & Lush. 1.51 ; 2 N. R. 
 r)33; 32 L. J., Adm. 191 ; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 1111 ; 
 8 L. T. 805; 12 W. R. 24. 
 
 The 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, ss. 504, 514, did not 
 a,pply to a collision on the hi.L^h seas between 
 foreign ships of ^Yhich the owners were 
 foreigners. Cope v. Doherty, 2 De G. & J. 614 ; 
 27 L. J.. Ch. 600 ; 4 Jur. (N.s.) 699 ; 6 W. R. 695. 
 
 5 P., The Wild Rawe; Lush. 553; 32 L. J., 
 Adm. 49 ; 9 Jur. (n.s.) 134 ; 7 L. T. 725 ; 11 
 W. R. 2.55. 
 
 But wliere a British sliip damaged a foreign 
 ship by a collision within tlie distance of three 
 miles from the shore of the United Kingdom, 
 the provisions of that statute, hmiting the 
 liability of the owner to the value of the ship, 
 applied. General Iron Screw Collier Co. v. 
 Sehurmanns, 1 J. & H. 180 ; 29 L. J., Ch. 877 ; 
 
 6 Jur. (N.s.) 883 ; 4 L. T. 138 ; 8 W. R. 732. 
 Tlie British owners of a Dutch ship held 
 
 entitled to limit their liability. The Brinio, 
 90 L. T. Jour. 249. 
 
 Foreign Ship — Wages Postponed to Damage 
 
 Lien.] — See The Linda Flor, infra, col. 761. 
 
 e. Measurement of Tonnage. 
 
 Crew Spaces.] — The owners of a German 
 steam vessel instituted an action under the 
 Mercliant Shipping Act, 1862, s. 54, to hmit 
 their liability for damages occasioned by a 
 collision. The vessel had three decks, and her 
 crew was berthed below the spar declc. By an 
 order in council, dated the 26th June, 1878, 
 made under s. 60, it was directed that German 
 steamships measured after the 1st of January, 
 1873, should be deemed to be of the tonnage 
 mentioned in their registers in the same manner, 
 and to the same extent, as the tonnage denoted 
 in the certificate of registry of British ships was 
 deemed to be their tonnage. In the register of 
 ihis sliip the crew space was deducted: — -Held, 
 that the order in council of the 2i)th of June, 
 1873, did not make the certificate of registry 
 conclusive evidence of the tonnage or of the 
 l)ropriety of deducting the space solely appro- 
 priated for berthing the crew. The Franconia, 
 3 P. D. 164 ; 39 L.^T. 57 ; 27 W. R. 128 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 1— C. A. 
 
 Held, also, that under the Merchant Shipping 
 Act. 1854, s. 21, sub-s. 4, a closed-in space, 
 solely appropriate<l to the berthing of the crew, 
 is to be excepted in estimating the tonnage only 
 when it is on the upper declc, and not when it is 
 between the spar deck and the tonnage deck. 
 lb. 
 
 Held, also, that the crew space cannot in the 
 case of a foreign, any more than of a British, 
 ship, be deducted under the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1867, s. 9, unless the provisions of that sec- 
 tion as to inspection by a surveyor appointed by 
 the board of trade, and the other conditions 
 therein contained, have been complied with ; 
 and, therefore, that, as in the present case these 
 conditions had not been complied with, the space 
 ujipiopriated for berthing the crew must not be 
 deducted. Ih. 
 
 The owners of a foreign ship with a closed-in 
 space on the upper deck solely aiipropriated to 
 the berthing of the crew are entitletl, in limiting 
 their liability, to deduct such space under the 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, s. 21, sub-s. 4, 
 
 though the provisions of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1867, s. 9, Viive not been complied with. 
 The Franconia. supra, explained. 'Tli.e Palermo, 
 54 L. J., Adm. 46 ; 10 P. D. 21 ; 52 L. T. 390 ; 
 33 W. R. 643 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 369. 
 
 In an action fur limitation of liability, the 
 ydaintiifs sought, in computing the tonnage of 
 their steamship for the purposes of the action, 
 to deduct the spaces mentioned in s. 3 of 
 the Merchant Shipping (Tonnage) Act, 1889 
 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 43) : — Held, that the deduc- 
 tions could not be made, as the enactment in 
 question only applied to the computation of thj 
 register tonnage of vessels, and not to the gross 
 tonnage, upon which the owners' liability in the 
 case of steamships is calculated. The Umhilo, 
 60 L. J., Adm. 7 ; [1891] P. 118 ; 64 L. T. 328 ; 
 39 W. R. 336 : 7 Asp. M. C. 26. 
 
 If at the time of a collision the deduction in 
 respect of crew space authorised by 30 & 31 
 Vict. c. 124, s. 9, has not been made from the 
 registered tonnage and does not appear on the 
 register, the owners cannot afterwards limit 
 their liability on the basis of a deduction made 
 subsequently to tire collision, but the register as 
 it existed at the time of the collision is coti- 
 clusive. The John Ormstou or John Melntyre, 
 50 L. J., Adm. 76 ; 6 P. D. 200 ; 30 W. R. 276. ^ 
 In order to arrive at the ''gross tonnage" 
 (without deduction for engine-room space) on 
 which the owner of a British registered steam- 
 ship, measured under the Merchant >hipping 
 Acts, 1854 to 1889, is entitled to calculate the 
 amount of his limited liability for collision imder 
 the Merchant Shipping Act, 1.S62, such owners 
 may legally deduct from the total tonnage 
 appearing on the register in force at the time of 
 collision any deduction or deductions shewn on 
 such register in respect of certified spaces solely 
 appropriated to the crew. The Petrel, 62 L. J., 
 Adm. 92 : [1893] P. 320 ; 1 R. 651 ; 70 L. T. 
 417 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 434. 
 
 The provisions as to deducting crew spaces 
 apply in calculating gross tonnage. Bnrrcll v. 
 Sinqhion, 4 Ct. of Sess. Gas. (4th ser.) 177. 
 
 Double Bottom.] — In ascertaining the gross 
 tonnage, for the purpose of limitation of liability, 
 of a steamship constructed with a double bottom 
 for water ballast, the space between the inner 
 and the outer plating is not to be talvcn into 
 account, but the measurements for depth are to 
 be taken to the upper side of the inner plating 
 onlv. The Zanzibar, 61 L. J., Adm. 81 ; [1892] 
 P. 233 ; 68 L. T. 297 ; 40 W. R. 702 ; 7 Asp. 
 M. C. 258. 
 
 Sailing Ship — Navigation Spaces.] — In cal- 
 culating the tonnage of a sailing ship for the 
 purpose of arriving at the liability of her owners 
 for damages, the spaces mentioned in s. 3 of 52 
 & 53 Vict. c. 43, are to be deducted. The 
 Pilgrim, 64 L. J., Adm. 78 ; [1895] P. 117 ; 11 
 R. 57. 
 
 Covered Spaces above Main Deck.] — A vessel 
 had an upper deck above her main deck, but. 
 such upper deck was not continuous from 
 stem to stern of the vessel, and the hatches 
 and other fittings in it were not watertight : 
 — Held, that such upper deck was not a third 
 deck or spar deck within the Merchant Ship- 
 ping Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104), s. 21, 
 sub-s. 5 ; and that the space between it and the 
 main deck was not space available for cargo, or
 
 749 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 750 
 
 for accommodation of passengers or crew, within 
 sub-s. 4, and consequently should not be reckoned 
 in estimating her tonnage. Lord Advocate v. 
 Clyde Steam Karigatiun Co., L. R. 2 H. L. 
 (Sc.) 409 ; 32 L. T. 287 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 502. 
 
 Incorrect Register — Evidence.] — In an action 
 of limitation of liability, the defendants by their 
 defence denied that the registered tonnage of the 
 plaintifEs' ship was the correct tonnage, and at 
 the hearing tendered evidence in support of 
 their defence : — Held, that the evidence was 
 admissible. The Heceptn. 58 L. J., Adm. 70 ; 
 14 P. D. 131 ; 61 L. T. 698 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 433. 
 
 Registered Tonnage at Date of Collision.] — 
 The tonnage in respect of which shipowners are 
 entitled tolimit their liability under s. 54 of the 
 Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 1862, 
 is the tonnage appearing on the ship's register 
 which was in force at the time of the collision. 
 TheBione, 52 L. T. 61 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 347. 
 
 f. Limitation Actions — Practice. 
 
 Order for Release on Payment into Court.] — 
 The defendants in a collision cause, in which 
 their ship was under arrest, having instituted a 
 suit for limitation of liability, the court, upon 
 the motion of the plaintiff in the limitation suit, 
 ordered the ship to be released on payment into 
 court in that suit of the aggregate amount of 
 15/. per ton of the registered tonnage of the ship. 
 and of a sum to cover interest and costs, and did 
 not rcfjuire that the plaintiff in the limitation 
 suit should admit liability before ordering the 
 release. The Sisters, 32 L. T. 837 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 589. 
 
 Transfer of Fund Paid in to Credit of Limita- 
 tion Suit. J — A vessel which had been arrested in 
 a cause of'damage was released on payment into 
 court of the amount to which the liability of her 
 owners was limited by statute, together with a 
 sum to cover interest and costs. The Sinters, 1 
 P. 1). 2.S1 : .S5 L. T. 36 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 224. 
 
 Subsequently the vessel was pronounced solely 
 to blame for the collision, and her owners, who 
 had instituted a cause of limitation of liability, 
 moved the court to decree for a limitation of 
 their liability, and to order that the sum in 
 court should be transferred to the credit of the 
 limitation of the liability suit. The court decreed 
 a limitation of liability, but considered it unne- 
 cessary to order that the amount in court should 
 be transferred to the credit of the limitation of 
 the liability suit. lb. 
 
 Staying Proceedings.] — Where owners of cargo 
 have recuvered judgment in a collision action 
 brought by them, and the owners of the ship 
 carrying the cargo subsequently bring an action 
 against the same ship to recover damages in 
 respect of the same collision, and the damages 
 in both actions would exceed the value of tlie 
 defendants' ship at 81. per ton, and the damage 
 in the cargo action alone would not exceed that 
 amount, the court will not stay ])rocecdings in 
 the cargo's action until after judgment in the 
 ship's action, on the ground that without such 
 stay the defendants have to institute a limitation 
 of liability action, which would be unnecessary 
 if the defendants obtained judgment in the ship's 
 action. The Alne Holme (>;o. 2), 47 L. T. 309 ; 
 4 Asp. M. C. 593. 
 
 Prohibition — Order staying Proceedings in 
 other Courts.] — A steam vessel having, througQ 
 negligence, come into collision with another 
 shtp. and having been sunk and totally lost, the 
 owners instituted a suit in the court of admiralty 
 to limit their liability. Cross causes of damage 
 had previously been instituted between the 
 owners of the vessels, and the defendants had. in 
 the cause instituted against them by the owners 
 of the other ship and her cargo, paid into court 
 o,00t)/. (being an amount less than 15/. per ton 
 on each ton of the vessel's registered tonnage) as 
 security to enable them to prosecute the cau-^e 
 in which they were the plaintiffs. A passenger, 
 who had sustained personal injury from the 
 collision, sued the owners of the steam vessel for 
 damages in the court of exchequer, whereupon 
 the judge of the court of admiralty made an 
 order in the limitation suit that all actions 
 pending in any other court in relation to the 
 subject-matter "should be stojjped : and he after- 
 wards decreed that the owners were entitled to 
 limited liability, and were only answerable to the 
 extent of ().37(i/., being the full amount of I.")/, 
 per ton, which he directed them to pay into 
 court : — Held, that, under these circumstances, 
 neither the ship r.or the proceeds thereof were 
 "under arrest of the court of admiralty" within 
 s. 13 of the 24 Vict. c. 10, and that the court of 
 admiralty had no jurisdiction under the Mer- 
 chant Shipping Act. 1854, or the amending act 
 of 18t;2, to eiitertain the suit, and that a pro- 
 hibition might accordingly issue to that court 
 from the court of exchequer. James v. L. S)' 
 S.-W. By.. 41 L. .L. Ex. 186 ; L. R. 7 Ex. 287 ; 
 27 L. T. 382 ; 21 W. R. 25 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 226— 
 Ex. Ch. 
 
 The court could have granted an injunction 
 to restrain actions at common law in respect of 
 the same collision, even though the gfods were 
 to be carried partly by sea and partly by land. 
 The Xormandy, 39 L. .J.. Adm. 48 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 
 152 ; 23 L. T. 631 ; 18 W. R. 903. 
 
 The power to stop actions and suits pending 
 in any other court applies notwithstanding the 
 ciicumstance that the adverse claimant has 
 obtained a definitive sentence or judgment of the 
 court of admiralty condemning the ship ; and 
 the utmost to which the latter is entitled under 
 such a judgment, in respec;t of the loss he has 
 sustained, is to share ratably with the other 
 claimants in the value of the ship and freight. 
 Lcyrextrr v. Loijaii, 3 K. k. J. 446 ; 26 L. J., Ch. 
 306 ; 5 W. R. 334. 
 
 But a court of equity has no control over the 
 ship itself, and cannot prevent the party who has 
 obtained such a judgment from proceeding to a 
 sale of the ship and retaining out of the pro- 
 ceeds such costs as he may be entitled to retaia 
 under the order of the admiralty court. Ih. 
 
 Proceedings in other Court not Stayed on 
 Production of Order.j— An urdci- made by the 
 court of admiralty under 21 Vict. c. Hi, s. 13 
 (which confers on 'that court the satnc powers of 
 stopi)ing proceedings as were conferred on the 
 court of chancery by the Merchant Shipjiing 
 Act, 1854, s. 514), is not a "writ of injunction, 
 rule, or order of either of the sui)erior courts f.f 
 common law or equity at Westminster." within 
 the Connnon Law Procedure Act, 1.S52, s. 226 ; 
 and, therefore, proceedings in an action in the 
 court of exche luer will not be stayed upon the 
 i>roductiou of such an order made by the court 
 of admiralty. Mdhurn v. L. S,- S.- W. My., 40
 
 751 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 752 
 
 L. J., Ex. 1 ; L. E. 6 Ex. 4 ; 23 L. T. 418 ; 19 
 W. R. 105. 
 
 Reference as to Distribution of Amount after 
 Stay.] — In a cdllisicm cause, although the defen- 
 dant is entitled, upon admission of liability and 
 payment into court of the amount of his liability 
 under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1862, s. 54, 
 to a stay of proceedings as against himself, 
 plaintiffs having separate interests may, at the 
 defendant's cost, proceed to a reference to settle 
 the respective amounts due to them, and may 
 tax their costs. The Expert, 36 L. T. 258 ; 3 
 Asp. M. C. 381. 
 
 Discontinuance — Claim against Fund in Court 
 ^Estoppel.] — An action having Ijeen brought by 
 the owners of the ship " K. " against the owners of 
 ship " A. " for damages arising out of a collision, an 
 agreement was drawn up between the parties that 
 the action be " discontinued without costs on the 
 ground of inevitable accident," and an order in 
 those terms was drawn up in the admiralty 
 registry. The owners of the cargo of ship "K. " 
 haTving afterwards brought an action against the 
 owners of ship " A. " for damages arising out of the 
 same collision, both ships were held to blame, 
 and the cargo owners were held entitled to half 
 their damages. The owners of ship "A." having 
 obtained a" decree limiting their liability and 
 having paid a sum into court, the cargo owners 
 liled their claim in the limitation action. The 
 owners of ship •' K." having afterwards, with the 
 consent of the owners of slu|) "A.," obtained a 
 rescission of the order for discontinuance, claimed 
 against the fund in the limitation action. The 
 cargo owners having objected to this claim : — 
 Held, that the agreement and order for discontinu- 
 ance (upon their true construct ion) did not amount 
 to a release of all claims, and that the owners of 
 ship " K. " were not precluded from claiming 
 against the fund. The Bellcairn (10 P. D. 161) 
 distinguished. The Kronjrrinz or Tlie Ardandliu, 
 56 L. J., Adm. 49 ; 12 App. Cas. 256 ; 56 L. T. 
 345 ; 35 W. R. 783 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 124— H. L. (E.) 
 
 When Bail given, though no actual arrest.] — 
 
 In suits for limiting the liability of the owners 
 of a wrongdoing vessel the court has jurisdiction 
 if bail has been given by the owners, even though 
 there has been no actual arrest. 'The Nurthiimhria, 
 39 L. J., Adm. 24 ; L. E. 3 A. & E. 24 ; 21 L. T. 683 ; 
 18 W. R. 356. 
 
 Actions by Shipowners and Cargo Owners — 
 Compromise by Shipowners — Right of Cargo 
 Owners to prove for Whole Amount of Damage.] 
 
 — The defendants' vessel came into Cdllisiiin with 
 and sank another vessel cariying cargo belonging 
 to the plaintiffs. Actions were commenced by 
 the plaintiffs and by the owners of the carrying 
 vessel, but in the action between the lattei' and 
 the defendants' vessel the parties filed in the 
 registry an agreement to a decree that both 
 vessels were to blame, and for the usual refer- 
 ence as to the damages. The defendants then 
 ' brought an action for the limitation of their 
 liability, and paid into court the amount of their 
 liability under the merchant shipping acts. 
 In their statement of claim they referred to 
 the above-mentioned agreement, and in terms 
 admitted that the collision was " in part caused 
 by the improjier navigation of their vessel." The 
 plaintiffs, in their defence, did not notice this 
 admission, or otherwise refer to the cause of the 
 collision. The usual decree was made for limita- 
 
 tion of liability, and the staying of the plaintiffs' 
 action : — Held, first, that the agreement between 
 the owners of the two vessels, having been filed in 
 the registry, was, under Ord. LII. r. 23, equivalent 
 to a decree of the court, and that the owners of 
 the carrying vessel were not entitled to have 
 such agreement rescinded for the purpose of 
 proving against the fund in court for more than 
 half the damage sustained by them ; secondly, 
 that there was no admission on the pleadings by 
 the plaintiffs as defendants in the limitation 
 action which precluded them from claiming to 
 prove against the fund for the whole amount of 
 the damage sustained by them, and that in 
 support of their proof an issue might be directed 
 between them and the owners of the carrying 
 vessel to determine whether the defendants' 
 vessel was alone to blame for the collision. The 
 Kara, 57 L. J., Adm. 8 ; 13 P. D. 24 ; 58 L. T. 188 ; 
 6 Asp. M. C. 245. 
 
 Stay of Proceedings.] — In an action of limita- 
 tion of liability, the plaintiffs claimed a stay of pro- 
 ceedings in respect of claims for damage to ship 
 and goods, and in respect of claims for personal 
 injuries and loss of life on paying into court a 
 sum representing 8Z. per ton in respect of damage 
 to ship and goods, and on giving security for the 
 difference between %l. and 15/. in respect of 
 claims for personal injuries and loss of life : — 
 Held, that the stay of proceedings might be 
 ordered in respect of the claims for damages to 
 ship and goods, but not in respect to the claims 
 for personal injuries and loss of life. The Nereid, 
 58 L. J., Adm. 51 ; 14 P. D. 78 ; 61 L. T. 339 ; 
 37 W. E. 688 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 411. 
 
 Life Claims — Payment into Court.] — In an 
 action of limitation of liability, where the plain- 
 tiffs have paid into court, or are willing to pay in, 
 SL per ton in respect of damage to ship, goods, and 
 merchandise, but seek in respect of the life claims 
 to pay into court or give bail for an amount less 
 than their total liability under the Merchant 
 Shiijping Act, the court, before fixing such 
 amount, will require the plaintiffs to state on 
 affidavit the names of the persons killed and 
 injured, their condition in life, the number of 
 those who are legally entitled to claim, the 
 number of claims that have been settled, and 
 the amounts paid in settlement. The Dlone, 52 
 L. T. 61 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 347. 
 
 Limitation Claimed by Defence.] — The benefit 
 
 of the statutory limitation of liability may be 
 claimed by defence on counter-claim in the colli- 
 sion action. Wahllcry v. You7ig, infra ; The 
 Cliitha, infra. 
 
 Facts entitling to Limitation must be stated.] 
 
 — To entitle a defendant to the limitation of lia- 
 bility, the facts which entitle him to limitation 
 must, since the Judicature Act, 1873, be stated 
 in the defence. Wahlherg v. Yovng, 45 L. J., 
 C. P. 783 ; 24 W. R. 846 ; 4 Asp. M.'C. 27, n. 
 
 Order for Stay on Payment into Court and 
 Bail.] — The defendants admitted liability in 
 respect of damage to property and loss of life, but 
 no claim had been asserted in respect of loss of 
 life. The court ordered all proceedings against 
 the ship to be stayed upon the defendants paying 
 in the value of the ship at the rate of 8/. per ton, 
 and giving bail ft)r the rest of the value at 15Z. 
 per ton. The Clutha. 45 L. J., Adm. 108; 35 
 L. T. 36 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 225.
 
 753 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 754 
 
 Admission of Liability.] — A bill filed in chan- 
 cery to obtain the benefit of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. 
 ss. 504, 50.5, limiting liability, was required to 
 contain an admission of liability. Sill v. Andus, 
 1 K. & J. 263 ; 3 Eq. R. 422 ; 24 L. J., Ch. 229 ; 
 3 W. K. 230. 
 
 Alitor, in Scotland, Miller v. Powell, 2 Ct. of 
 Se^s. Cas. (4th ser.) 976. 
 
 It is not necessary that owners of a vessel and 
 cargo preferring their claim in the court of 
 admiralty to limited liability, should acknow- 
 ledge, in the first instance, that their vessel was 
 to blame. The Amalia, 1 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 
 471 ; Br. & Lush. 151 ; 32 L. J.. Adm. 191 ; 9 Jur. 
 (N.s.) 1111 ; 8 L. T. 805 ; 12 W. R. 24 ; 2 N. R. 
 533 ; and see The Sisters, col. 749. 
 
 Security for Costs.] — A foreign shipowner 
 residing out of the jurisdiction in an action for 
 limiting his liability must give security for costs 
 'J'he Wild Ranqer, Lush. 553 ; 32 L. J., Adm. 49 ; 
 6 L. T. 164. 
 
 Costs of Action.] — The plaintiff in an action 
 for limitation of liability must pay the costs of 
 the action, other than costs occasioned by special 
 issues raised by the defendant, in which he fails, 
 or by disputes between the claimants. African 
 Steamship Co. v. Sivanzy, 2 K. & J. 600 ; 25 L. J.. 
 Ch. 870 ; 4 W. R. 210. The City of Buenos Ayrcs, 
 2r, L. T. 672 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 169. The Creadon, 
 54 L. T. 8S0; 5 Asp. M. C. 585. The Empnsa. 
 48 L. J., Adm. 36 ; 5 P. D. 6 ; 41 L. T. 383 ; 28 
 W. R. 263 ; 4 Asp. ]\I. C. 185. The Warkworth, 
 53 L. J., Adm. 65 ; 9 P. D. 145 : 51 L. T. 558 ; 33 
 W. R. 112 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 326— C. A. 
 
 A vessel was arrested for losses exceeding 
 300/., the amount of their statutory liability at 
 8^. per ton : — Held, tliat the plaiutiifs were 
 entitled to the costs of the proceeding in thq court. 
 The Tvuny James. 39 L. .J.. Adm. 1 ; L. R. 3 
 A. k E. 1 ;'21 L. T. 397 ; 18 W. R. 52. 
 
 Priorities of Claimants.] — The plaint ill's in 
 ill! action to limit their liability paid into court 
 the sum of 7,H62Z. O-v. lOd., being the amount of 
 their statutory liability at the rate of 15/. per 
 ton. The amount so paid into court being 
 insufficient to satisfy in full claims ag.iinst the 
 |)laintifPs in respect of loss of life and loss of 
 goods, the registrar, by his rei)ort, ff)und that the 
 <-lairaants in respect of loss of life were entitled 
 to be paid out of the sum in court an amount 
 equal to 71. jjer ton, and that they and the 
 <;laimants in respect of loss of goods should rank 
 jiari passu against the balance representing 8/. 
 per tf)n. On objection to the repoit ; — Held, 
 that the report was right, as the court had power 
 to marshal the assets, and that the claimants in 
 resi)ect of loss of goods had no right in j)rif)rity 
 to the claimants in respect of loss of life against 
 file sum representing H/. per ton. The Vii-toriii, 
 iu L. .1.. Ailin. 103 ; 13 P. D. 12.5 ; 59 L. T. 728 ; 
 37 W. R. 62. 
 
 Claim against Fund — Right of Crown— Time.] 
 
 — 'I'hi' <T<)\\n niay claim aL'aiiisI a I'lnid paid 
 int(j court by the owners of a shi|) in older to 
 limit their liability under the Merchant Shipping 
 Acts, 1K54 and 1H62, by the general law, and 
 also uiirler the Admiralty Suits Act, 1868 (31 
 A; 32 Vict. c. 78), s. 3. A claim against a fund 
 paid into court in a suit for limitation of li:i- 
 bility undci- the Merchant Shipi)inL' Acts, 1.S54 
 and 1862, is not necessarily excludo<.l by the fact 
 
 that the time fixed by the order of the court for 
 entering claims has elapsed. The Zoe, 55 L. J., 
 Adm. 52 ; 11 P. D. 72 ; 54 L, T. 879 ; 35 W. R. 61 ; 
 5 Asp. M. C. 583. 
 
 Motion to set aside Verdict — Shipowner and 
 Cargo Owner.] — Motion to set aside a verdict 
 in favour of the plaintiff in an action for dainage 
 to his ship by collision, upon the ground that the 
 damages (being the total amount of the defen- 
 dant's liability by statute) were apportionable 
 between the owner of the injured ship and the 
 owner of cargo on board her, refused. Flens- 
 burg Steam S/iippintj Co. v. Seliffmann, 9 Ct. of 
 Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 1011. 
 
 8. Tug and Tow. 
 
 Vessels in Tow,] — A vessel in tow of a tug, 
 and the tug towing, are to be considered as one 
 vessel, for the conduct of which the vessel towed 
 is responsible. The Cleado7i, 14 Moore, P. C. 92 ; 
 Lush. 158 ; 4 L. T. 157. 
 
 Governing Power with Ship Towing.] — The 
 
 steamship "Aracan" found, at a foreign port, 
 the " Syria" totally disabled in her machinery ; 
 both vessels belonged to the same owner. The 
 "Aracan" took the '• Syria " in tow, and, whilst 
 so engaged, came into collision with a sailing 
 ship. The damage done by the " Aracan " caused 
 the sailing vessel to sink, but before she sank the 
 " Syria " ranged up alongside of her and came 
 into contact with her : — Held, that the governing 
 as well as the motive power being wholly with 
 the '• Aracan," the " Syria" was not liable to be 
 condemned indamages occasioned by the collision. 
 The " Syria " could not be deemed, iu intendment 
 of law, to be one vessel with the "Aracan," or 
 liabli' for her negligence. The American and 
 The Si/ria, Union Sfeamshij) Co. v. Tlie Aracan, 
 43 L. ,J., Adm. 30 ; L. R. 6 P. C. 127 ; 31 L. T. 
 42 ; 22 W. R. 927 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 350. 
 
 Tug is the Servant of the Tow.] — A tug is 
 
 deemed to be in the service of the tow, and the 
 owners of the tow are responsible for the acts of 
 the tug. 'The Sinqiutsi, infra. 'Tlie Ai/a/ston-by- 
 Sra, 3 W. Rob. 152. S. P., The Mary, 48 L. J., 
 Adm. 66 ; 5 P. D. 14, 16 ; 41 L. T. 351 ; 28 W. R. 
 95 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 183. 'The American and 'The 
 Syria, supra. 
 
 Duty of Tow to direct Tug.] — It is the 
 
 duty of those on board the vwsel in tow to 
 give general directions to thema.sterof the tug 
 as to the towage. Rut the master of the tug 
 should exercise his discretion as to the proper 
 manfeuvres to be employed, csi)ecijilly wheie he 
 is more conqjctent to form an opinion on this 
 jioint than the master of the vessel in tow. 'The 
 Jsca, 56 L. J., Adm. 47 ; 12 P. I). 34 ; 55 L. T, 
 779 : 35 W. R. 382 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 63. 
 
 Under an ordinary contract of towage, the 
 vessel in tow has control over the tug, Jind is 
 therefore liable for the wrongful acts of the 
 latter, uidess tln^y are done so suddeidy as to 
 prevent the vessel in tow from controlling them, 
 'The JS'iobe, infra. 
 
 It is not the fluty of those in charge of a tow 
 which is being towed with a long scope of hawser 
 by night at .sea to direct the movements of the 
 tujr — the circumstances being different to towing 
 by flay in a river. 'Ilie Stvrincuck, 53 L. T. 53 ; 
 5 Asp. M. C, 470.
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 •ib'o 
 
 Encumbered Condition of Tug with Ship in 
 Tow. j — A steam tu.u' in cliaige of a f-hip raniuit 
 lie fonsidered as a free steamer, so as to be boinid, 
 \iiuler all circumstances, to .ijive way to a sailing 
 shii) close-hauled. 27ie I/idrjwndeiice, Lush. 27(1 ; 
 ] 4 Moore, P. C. 103 ; -i L. T. 503 ; 9 VV. K. 5>s2— 
 
 r. c. 
 
 Action against Tug for Damage— Contributory 
 Negligence of Compulsory Pilot.]— In case of a 
 iiiisctiief occurriiiK to the vessel in tow, occasioned 
 directly by the conduct of the steam tug, the tug 
 cannot', in an action brought by the owners of the 
 tow for damage, set up as a legal ilefence contri- 
 butory negligence upon the ground that if the 
 pilot in charge of the tow when the mischief was 
 about to happen had done a certain thing the 
 jnischief might possibly have been avoided. 
 'J'hr Julia. Bland v. Rons (Lush, 231 ; 14 Moo. 
 
 V C 210) commented on and approved. Siiaiijld 
 
 V TcdcaMc, 6 App. Cas. 217 ; 44 L. T. 589 ; 29 
 W. R. 761 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 406— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Slipping Tow Eope.]— It is the duty of the 
 vessel in tow in frequented waters to have the 
 tow rope fast in such a way that it may be slipped 
 or cut to avoid collision. Tlte Jane Bacon, 27 
 W. R. 35. 
 
 Tow must follow in Wake of Tug.]— A smack 
 was capsized by the tow rope between a steam- 
 ship and a vessel in tow being si)read in conse- 
 quence of the tow not following in the wake of the 
 steamship : — Held, that the tow was liable. lb. 
 
 756 
 
 over and directs the course of both vessels, is 
 navigating a river in a fog so dense that the 
 banks of the river cannot be seen, and those on 
 board the tug and ship in tow do not know in 
 what direction they are going, it is negligence on 
 the part of both vessels to proceed ; but as. it is 
 the duty of the pilot in charge to give orders to 
 the tug to stop so as to enable the ship in tow to 
 come to an anchor, the neglect on the part of the 
 pilot to give such orders is contributory negli- 
 gence, which will preclude the owners of the 
 sailing ship from recovering against the owner 
 of the steam tug for negligently running the 
 sailing ship ashore by proceeding during the fog. 
 
 n. 
 
 It is a want of due caution to move, by means 
 of a steam tug, a ship from one dock to another 
 at nighttime ; under such circumstances, a pilot 
 on board the ship being towed has no such 
 charge or control over her movements as to 
 exculpate the owners. The Bomssia, Swabey, 
 94 ; 4 W. R. 503. 
 
 A tug is bound to obey the orders of the 
 pilot or person in charge of the tow. Claim for 
 towage remuneration dismissed because the tug 
 disobeved the orders from the tow. The Ch ristbui, 
 3 W. Rob. 27. *S'. C, nom. PMy v. Cutto, 6 
 Moore, P. C. 371. 
 
 A tug towing a ship in charge of a compulsory 
 pilot was in collision with a third ship without 
 fault on the part of those on board the tug, and 
 by the fault of the pilot of the tow : — Held, that 
 the tug owners were not liable. The Duke of 
 Sussex, 1 W. Rob. 270 ; 1 Not. of Cas. 161. 
 
 Vessel towed in Charge of Pilot.]— When a 
 
 steam tug is engaged to tow a vessel which is in 
 charge of a pilot, the tug is bound to obey the 
 orders of the pilot, and the pilot is bound to give 
 the tug proper directions and to superintend her 
 navigation. The Energy, 39 L. J., Adm. 25 : L. R. 
 3 A. & E. 48 ; 23 L. t! 601 ; 18 W. R. 1009. 
 
 Where a ship in chaige of a pilot, whose 
 employment is compulsory, is being towed by a 
 Pteam tug, and the steam tug, without waiting 
 for orders from the pilot, suddenly adopts a 
 wrong manoeuvre, and so causes the ship to come 
 into collision, the owners of the ship are respon- 
 Bible. The Sinqnasi, 50 L. J., Adm. 5 ; 5 P. D. 
 241 ; 43 L. T. 768 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 383. 
 
 Where a vessel is under the charge of a licensed 
 pilot, the employment of whom is compulsory, 
 and is at the same time in tow of a steam tug, 
 the latter is bound to obey the orders of the pilot. 
 Spaight V. Tedeastle, supra. 
 
 When a steam tug towing a vessel under a 
 towage contract is so neghgently navigated as to 
 come into collision with a vessel belonging to 
 third parties, the o\^^lers of the steam tug are 
 liable for the damage done, even if at the time 
 of the collision the vessel in tow was in charge 
 of a licensed pilot, by compulsion of law, whose 
 <letault solely occasioned the collision. The Mary, 
 48 L. J., Adm. 66 ; 5 P. D. 14 ; 41 L. T. 351 ; 28 
 W. R. 95 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 183. 
 
 A steam tug towing a sailing ship controls the 
 course of both vessels so long as no directions are 
 given by the person in charge of the shij) in tow. 
 The steam-tug is the moving power, but it is 
 under the control of the master or pilot on board 
 the ship in tow. Smith v. St. Laiorence Tow- 
 boat Co., L. R. 5 P. C. 308 ; 28 L. T. 885 ; 21 
 W. R. 569 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 41. 
 
 When a ship in tov/ of a steam tug, and in 
 charge of a licensed pilot who has the control 
 
 Two Ships in Tow of same Tug— Collision 
 between them.] — A vessel while being towed into 
 a harbour by a steam tug, got aground, and the 
 defendant's vessel, which was being towed in at 
 the same time by the same tug, astern of the 
 plaintiff's vessel, without any active default on 
 the defendant's part, struck and damaged the 
 plaintiffs vessel : — Held, no evidence of negli- 
 gence for which the defendant was liable. 
 Ifairis v. Anderson, 14 C. B. (N.S.) 499, 
 
 Contract of Hirer of Tug to insure against 
 Damage by Collision.] — See The Lord of the 
 Isles, ante, col. 681, 
 
 Tug and Tow — Joint Tortfeasors — Contribu- 
 tion.] — In a collision action in rem, where a tug 
 and tow are both pronounced to blame for a 
 collision with another vessel, the owner of the 
 latter vessel may enforce the judgment for the 
 whole of his damages against either or both 
 the defendants, and the defendants are not 
 entitled to have the decree so drawn up that 
 half only of the total damages is recoverable 
 from each defendant. The Thomas Jolife or 
 The Aron, [1S91] P. 7 ; 63 L. T. 712 ; 39 W. R. 
 176 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 605. 
 
 Damage to Tow by Grounding — Admiralty 
 Jurisdiction.] — The admiralty court has not 
 jurisdiction under 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65, s. 6, or 24 &. 25 
 Vict. c. 10, s. 7, or otherwise, to entertain a claim 
 against a steam tug for damage occasioned to 
 the vessel towed by negligence in towing, if the 
 damage arises not by collision but by the vessel 
 taking the ground. The Robert Pow, Br. & Lush. 
 99 ; 32 L. J., Adm. 164 ; 9 L. T. 237. 
 
 Aliter, where the damage is by collision. See 
 The 2\iqht M'atch. 32 L. J., Adm. 47 ; 8 Jur. 
 (X.s.) 1161 ; 7 L. T, 396 ; 11 W. R. 189,
 
 757 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 758 
 
 Collision caused by Tug — Payment on account 
 of Damage by Tow — Subsequent Action against 
 Tug.]— The schooner "J. M. S." having come 
 into collision with a tug and her tow, a damage 
 action in rem was instituted by the owners of 
 the schooner against the tug to recover all the 
 damages occasioned by the collision. Subse- 
 (juently to the collision the plaintiffs received 
 from the owners of the tow a sum of money 
 described in an agreement entered into between 
 these parties " as an advance on account of 
 the damages to be recovered from the owners 
 of the tug." By the agreement it was agreed 
 that the o\\Tiers of the tow should give the plain- 
 tiffs all information and assistance necessary to 
 bring the action to a successful issue ; that if 
 the schooner and the tug should both be held to 
 blame, the plaintiffs should repay any sum by 
 which the money already paid exceeded the 
 moiety of damages recoverable against the tug ; 
 and that, as a basis of the arrangement, it was 
 understood that the schooner should be found 
 blameless for the collision. The court, having 
 found the tug alone to blame, held that the 
 above payment was not such a payment by the 
 tow in satisfaction of the damages occasioned by 
 the collision as amounted to a settlement in dis- 
 charge of the action, and was consequently no 
 bar to the action ; and that, notwithstanding 
 the advance paid by the tow, the plaintiffs were 
 entitled to i-ecover from the defendants all the 
 damages occasioned by the collision. 'J7ie Storm - 
 cock, 53 L. T. 53 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 47U. 
 
 Tug, Tow, and Third Ship— Tug and Third 
 Ship damaged — Assignment of Judgment.] — A 
 collision occurred bclwccii a tug with a s!ii[) in 
 tow and a third ship. The third ship sued the 
 tow, and the tug brought a cross-action against 
 the third ship. The actions were consolidacd 
 and tried together, and all the ships were found 
 to blame. Judgment was given for the third 
 ship against the tug and the tow, declaring them 
 to be jointly aud'severally liable to the third 
 ship for haff her damage ; and judgment was 
 given for the tug again-t the third ship for half 
 the damage sustained by the tug. Upon motion 
 by the owners of the tow that, u])on payment by 
 them to the owners of the third ship of the 
 difference Vjetween the sums due upon the two 
 judgments, with interest, the owners of the third 
 ship should, under s. 5 of the Mercantile Law 
 Amen<lmeiit Act, 1850, be ordered to assign to 
 the owners of the ship in tow the judgment in 
 favour of the tug owners against the owneis of 
 the third ship :— HeM, that the statute had no 
 applicatifm. and motion refused. The EiKjIish- 
 vuin and The Aiistrtdio, i'A L. J., Adm. 74 : 
 ri8'.)5] P. 212; 11 U. 757; 72 L. T. 2U3 ; 43 
 W. II. 670 ; 7 Asp. M. C. <i05. 
 
 Claim to Indemnity by the Owners of a Tow 
 sued for Collision with a Third Ship against 
 Owners of the Tug.] — In an action of damage 
 between two vi ssels, the court has jurisdiction, 
 under Ord. XVI., to determine whether or not 
 the defendants' vessel is entitled to indemnity 
 against a tug by which she was being towed at 
 the time of the collision. A collision took place 
 V>etweentheveasels " S." and " C." The " C." at the 
 time was being towed by a tug. The owners of 
 the " S." instituted an action of damage against 
 the "C." and alleged in their statement of claim 
 that the collision was caused by the negligence <»f 
 the " C." and her tug, or of one of them. The owners 
 
 of the " C." obtained leave to issue a notice to the 
 tug that they claimed to be entitled to indem- 
 nity, and the court made an order that the 
 owners of the tug be at liberty to appear and 
 defend, being bound by any decision the court 
 might come to as to the cause of the col- 
 lision. At the hearing the owners of the tug 
 appeared, but the defendants did not, and the 
 court pronounced that the " C." was alone to 
 blame for the collision, and that her owners were 
 not entitled to indemnity over against the owners 
 of the tug :— Held, that the last portion of the 
 judo-raent should be struck out. The Oirtsbuni, 
 5 P. D. 59 ; 41 L. T. 710 ; 28 W. R. 378 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 202— C. A. 
 
 Third Party Order against Tug Owner.] — A 
 
 ship in tow fouled another at anchor : — Held, 
 that, in an action brought by the ship at anchor 
 against the ship that fouled her, the latter was 
 not entitled to bring in the owners of her tug, 
 against whom they claimed indemnity, as third 
 parties. The Bianci>, 52 L. J., Adm. 56 ; 8 P. D. 
 91 ; 48 L. T. 440 ; 31 W. R. 954 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 60. And see ^te Jacob Chrlstenseii, infra, col. 
 840. 
 
 Collision — Liability of Vessel in tow.] — A 
 
 tug with a vessel in tow came into collision with 
 another vessel, which was seriously injured by 
 the tug, but not injured by the vessel in tow. 
 The collision might have been avoided had there 
 been a good lookout on the vessel in tow. and 
 had she warned the tug that the latter was in 
 danger of collision by continuing on her course : 
 — lield, that the owners of the vessel in tow were 
 liable. The Nlohe, 57 L. J., Adm. 33 ; 13 P. D. 
 55 ; 59 L. T. 257 ; 36 W. R. 812 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 300. 
 
 Action in rem against Tug — Maritime L'en] 
 — A steam tug under charter came into collision 
 with the smack which she was towing, through 
 the sole negligence of a servant of the charterers, 
 who was ill chai'ge of the tug. The towage was 
 on the terms that the charterers were not to l>e 
 answerable for damage occasioned by the negli- 
 gence of their servants :— Held, that an action 
 in rem would not lie against the tug, for the 
 maritime lien arising from collision is not abso- 
 lute, and the owners not being personally liable 
 for this collision, and the charterers being- 
 exempted by the terms of their contract with 
 the plaintiff, the prima facie liability of tiie 
 vessel was rebutted. The Ticundcroga (Swabey, 
 215) explained. The Tu-iniania, 57 L. J.. Adm. 
 49 ; 13 P. D. 110 ; 59 L. T. 2G3 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 305. 
 
 Towage— Liability of Tow for Negligence of 
 
 Tug. J — Ihe •' C. 1)."' came into collision with ;k 
 hopper barge, which was in tow of a steam tug. 
 The collision was caused by the joint ncdigcnce 
 (if those on board t he '-C. D."and thesteam tug : — 
 Held, that the owners of the hopper barge were 
 not liable. The (^nSrhxfep, 59 L. J., Adm. 65 ; 
 15 P. D. 196 ; 63 L. T. 713 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 603— D. 
 
 Duty of Pilot as to employing Tug.]— TA^ 
 Stnif/i.yiei/ and The J.ihn/. supra, col. 772 ; of 
 shipowner, see The O'erior, 70 L. T. 7o3 ; J 
 Asp. M. C. 47. 
 
 9. FOKEIOX SiTTP.S — FORKIGN LAW. 
 
 Limitation of Liability — Lex fori.] — The 
 Stat. 6 (jco. 4, c. 125, ss. 2, 14, is a Law relating 
 to remedies, and therefore applicable to a foreign
 
 759 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collwnp, 
 
 760 
 
 sliipownor sninsr for collision in this country. 
 T/ie Vernon, 1 W. Kob. 31 G. 
 
 Collision Abroad —Admiralty Jurisdiction.] — 
 
 The admiralty court had jurisiliction in an 
 action brought by a British subject against a 
 foreitrn ship" for collision in the Dardanelles. 
 TJie ^GriefswaJd, Swabey, 430. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the admiralty in collision 
 oases, where the ships are both foreign, an(l the 
 collision in foreign waters, considered. Collision 
 cases are communis juris. The Johnnn Frirderleh, 
 1 W. Rob. 3.5. The Vivar, 2 P. D. 29 ; 35 L. T. 
 7S2 : 25 W. R. 433 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 308. 
 
 Under 24 Vict. c. 10, s. 7, the admiralty court 
 bad jurisdiction in case of a collision between 
 f(H-cien ships in foreign waters. Tlce Courier, 
 Lush. 541. 
 
 Eight of Aliens to Sue for Collision Abroad.] 
 
 — Aliens may sue in this country other aliens 
 for personal injuries done to them abroad, if such 
 injuries are actionable by the law of England 
 find also by the law of the foreign country— v>er 
 f^elwvn, L.J. The Halley, 5 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 
 263 ;' 37 L. J., Adm. 33 : L. R. 2 P. C. 193, 202 ; 
 18 L. T. 879 ; 16 W. R. 998— P. C. 
 
 Foreign Ship detained under 1 & 2 Geo. 4, 
 
 ^. 75.] — Foreign ship detained under 1 & 2 
 Geo. 4, c. 75, for injury done to a British ship. 
 The Christiajia, 2 Hag. Adm. 183. 
 
 Detention of Foreign Ship under 17 & 18 
 Yict. c. 104, s. 527.] — A foreign ship cannot be 
 <letained under 17 & 18 Vict. c. I(i4, s. 527, in 
 respect of loss of life or personal injury caused 
 by her. Harris v. Franconia (^Owners), 46 
 L. J., C. P. 363 ; 2 C. P. D. 173. 
 
 Negligence — Rules of Seamanship common 
 
 to all Nations.] — In collision actions, where 
 foreign ships are concerned, the test of negligence, 
 apart from the regulations, is the common 
 jiractice of seamen of all nations. See The 
 Duiiifiies, Swabey, 63, 125. 
 
 I Injury to Telegraph Cable by Foreign Ship.] 
 
 — The English owners of a telegraph cable 
 recovered damages from the owners of a foreign 
 ship, the crew of which had injured a telegraph 
 cable at the bottom of the sea. Subiiiarine 
 Telerjrajyh Co. v. Dichson, 15 C. B. (N.S.) 759 ; 
 33 L. J., C. P. 139. 
 
 Collision between British and Foreign Vessel — 
 Xaw applicable.] — In an action in personam, 
 brought by the owners of a British vessel against 
 the owners of a Spanish vessel to recover 
 damages caused to the British vessel by collision 
 with the Spanish vessel on the high seas, the 
 defendants pleaded that they were Spanish 
 subjects, and that if there was any negligence 
 on the part of those in charge of the Spanish 
 vessel it was negligence for which the master 
 and crew alone, and not the defendants, were 
 liable according to the law of Spain : — Held, 
 bad on demurrer. The Leon., 50 L. J., Adm. 59 ; 
 € P. D. 149 ; 44 L. T. 613 ; 29 W. R. 910 ; 
 4 Asp. M. C. 404. 
 
 Damage by Ship sailing under Foreign Flag 
 tout owned in England.] — Seml)lc, an English 
 company, trustee for a foreign comi>any, owning 
 a ship sailing under the foreign tlag, is liable 
 
 in this country to cargo owners for damage done 
 by the ship in collision. Chartered Mereantlle 
 lianlt of India v. Netherlands India Steam 
 Naviqaiion Co., 52 L. J., Q. B. 220 ; 10 Q. B. D. 
 521, 545 ; 48 L. T. 546 ; 31 W. R. 445 ; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 65 ; 47 J. P. 260— C. A. 
 
 Damage by French Ship on High Sea — Plea — 
 French Law.] — In a common law action for 
 collision, a plea that the collision was upon the 
 high seas out of British jurisdiction ; that it was 
 not caused by the defendant, but by the master 
 of the ship, which was French ; that the defen- 
 dant was a French subject, and that, by French 
 law, the defendant was not liable, but a French 
 corporation who owned the ship was liable : — 
 Held, good. General Steam Navigation Co. v. 
 Guillon, 11 M. & W. 877 ; 13 L. J., Ex. 168. 
 
 Action for Wrongful Act committed Abroad.] 
 
 — No action can be maintained in the courts of 
 this country on account of a wrongful act, either 
 to a person or to personal property, committed 
 within the jurisdiction of a foreign country 
 unless the act is wrongful by the law of the 
 country where it is committed, and also by the 
 law of this country — per Mellish, L.J. The 
 M. Moxham, 46 L. J., Adm. 17 ; 1 P. D. 107, 
 111 ; 34 L. T. 559 ; 24 W. R. 650 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 191— C. A. 
 
 Damage to Pier Abroad.] — An English com- 
 pany possessed of a jiicr in Spain, instituted an 
 action in the admiralty court against a British 
 ship for negligently injuring the pier. Plea, 
 that, by the law of Spain the shipowner is not 
 liable for negligence of his crew : — Held, that, 
 assuming that the court had jurisdiction, the 
 plea was good. lb. 
 
 Presumption of Fault— 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, 
 s. 17 — Foreign Ships.] — The statutory rules as 
 to presumption of fault in case of infringement 
 of the regulations apply to foreign ships. The 
 Englishman, 47 L. J., A<lm. 9 ; 3 P. D. 18 ; 27 
 L. T. 412 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 506. The Khedive, 
 Stoomvaart Maatsehappy Nederlandv.P.and O. 
 Steam Navigatioti Co., 52 L. J., Adm. 1 ; 7 App. 
 Cas. 795 ; 47 L. T. 198 ; 31 W. R. 249 ; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 360, 567— H. L. (E.) The Vera Cruz, 53 
 L. J., Adm. 33 ; 9 P. D. 88 ; 51 L. T. 104 ; 32 
 W. R. 783 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 270. The Love Bird, 
 6 P. D. 80 ; 44 L. T. 650 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 427. 
 
 Compulsory Pilot — Foreign Ship not liable for 
 Fault of— 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, s. 55.] — The stat. 
 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, s. 55, exempting owners from 
 liability for the fault of a compulsory pilot, 
 applied to foreign ships. The Christiana, 2 
 Hag. Adm. 183. 
 
 Collision Abroad — Foreign Law — Lia- 
 bility.] — The owners of a British ship in collision 
 in tlie Scheldt with a foreign ship are not liable 
 in the courts of this country for the fault of 
 their compulsory pilot, although, by the law of 
 the place of collision (Belgium), they are so 
 liable. The Ilalley, 5 Moore. P. C. (N.S.) 263 ; 
 37 L. J., Adm. 33 ; L. R. 2 P. C. 193 ; 18 L. T. 
 879 ; 16 W. R. 998. 
 
 Limitation of Liability— 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, 
 s. 54.] — The liability of a British ship in colli- 
 sion with a foreign ship in the Mediterranean is 
 limited bv 25 it 26 Vict. c. 63. The Ainalin, 
 Br. & Lush. 151 ; 1 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 471 ;
 
 761 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 762 
 
 2 N. K. 533 ; 32 L. J., Adm. 191 ; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 
 1111 ; 8 L. T. 805 ; 12 W. R. 24. 
 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104.]— Under this act the 
 
 liability of owners of a British ship in collision 
 with a foreign ship within three miles of the 
 United Kingdom was limited. Getwral Iron 
 Serew Cullier Co. v. Schurinann, 1 J. & H. 180 ; 
 29 L. J., Ch. 877 ; 6 Jur. (N.S.) 883 ; 8 W. R. 
 732. But see Tlte Saxonia, Lush. 410 ; 15 Moore, 
 P. C. 262 ; 31 L. J., Adm. 201 ; 8 Jur.(x.S.)315 ; 
 
 10 W. R. 431. 
 
 The liability of owners of foreign ships in 
 collision beyond the three-mile hmit was, under 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, unlimited. Copey. Buherty, 
 2 De G. & J. 614; 27 L. J., Ch. 600 ; 4 Jur. 
 (N.S.) 699 ; 6 W. R. 695— L.JJ. Affirming 4 
 K. & J. 367 ; The Wild Raiujer, Lush. 553 ; 32 
 L. J., Adm. 49 ; 9 Jur, (N.S.) 134 ; 7 L. T. 725 ; 
 
 11 W. R. 255. 
 
 53 Geo. 3, c. 159, s. 1.] — A municipal law 
 
 limiting the liability of shipowners for collision 
 is not applicable to foreign ships and shipowners 
 unless expressly so enactetl. A foreign ship- 
 owner held liable beyond the value of his ship 
 and freight, notwithstanding 53 Geo. 3, c. 159, 
 s. 1. The Carl Johaiin, cited 3 Hag. Adm. 186 : 
 1 Hag. Adm. 113. 
 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 512.]— The above 
 
 enactment as to proceedings by the board of 
 trade, in case of loss of life, did not apply to 
 foreign ships (semble). The Vera Cruz, 53 
 L. J., Adm. 33 ; 9 P. D. 96 ; 51 L. T. 104 ; 
 32 W. R. 783 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 270. Revereed on 
 another point, 54 L. J., Adm. 9, infra, col. 838. 
 
 Foreign Ships on the High Sea formerly not 
 bound by British Statutory Sailing Rules.] — 
 Before the adoption of regulations common to 
 all maritime nations, foreign ships on the high 
 sea were not bound by statutory rules for pre- 
 venting collisions contained in British statutes. 
 The Duiiifrieg, SwaVjey, 63, 125; 4 W. R. 7(»8. 
 S. P., The Sdxonia and The Eclipge, Lush. 410. The 
 Cleadc/i, Lush. 158 ; 14 Moore, P. C. 92 ; 4 L. T. 
 157. The Elizabeth. 3 L. T. 159. The Chancellor, 
 Williamg V. Ciitch,U Moore, P. C. 202 ; 4 L. T. 
 627. 
 
 Could not set up Infringement by British 
 
 Ship.] — Before 25 ii 26 Vict. c. 63, ss. 57, 58, a 
 foreigner could not set up against a British 
 vessel, with which she had been in collision, 
 the British vessel's violation of British statute 
 law on the high seas, for the foreigner could 
 7iot hei-self be bound by it, as it was beyond the 
 jiower of the legislature to make rules applicable 
 to foreign vessels beyond British waters. 'The 
 ZoUi-erein, Swabey, 96 ; 2 Jur. (N.S.) 429 ; 4 
 W. R. 5.55. 
 
 CroBS-action against Foreign Ship — Non- 
 appearance — Both to blame — Deduction of Half 
 Damages. J — See The Sirii(ij<tjiul<iiii, 3 W. Hob. 38, 
 post, col. 812. 
 
 Damage Lien — Foreign Ship — Wages have no 
 Priority. J — Where in a collision suit judgment 
 is given iigainst a foreign ship, aud her proceeds 
 are insutticient to meet the damages, her crew 
 have no prior right against the ship for wages. 
 The Linda Flur, Swabey, 309 ; 4 Jur. (N.S.) 172 ; 
 6 W. R. 197. 
 
 Foreign Plaintiff— Security for Damages.] — A 
 
 foreign plaintiff, in a collision action, held not 
 liable to give security for payment of damages 
 for wrongful arrest beyond the usual security 
 for costs, it being suggested that he had arrestee} 
 the wrong ship. The Peri, 32 L. J., Adm. 46 ; 
 8 Jur. (N.S.) 1230 ; 11 W. R. 44. 
 
 Foreign Sovereign suing for Collision — Bail.] 
 
 — Where one of the ships in collision is a public 
 ship of a foreign sovereign, and the foreign 
 sovereign sues for damages in the courts of this- 
 country, proceedings will be stayed until the 
 foreign claimant gives bail to answer a counter- 
 claim by the defendant. The Newbattlc, 54- 
 L. J., Adm. 16 ; 10 P. D. 33 ; 52 L. T. 15 ; 35 
 W. R. 318 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 356. 
 
 Ship of Foreign Sovereign — Liability in rem 
 — Salvage.] — An American ship of war, with 
 cargo on board for public purposes, was stranded 
 on the shore of England, and received salvage 
 service from an English vessel : — Held, that she 
 was not liable to arrest. The Constitution, 48 
 L. J., Adm. 13 ; 4 P. D. 39; 40 L. T. 219; 27 
 W. R. 739 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 79. 
 
 Non-liability to Arrest.] — As to the non- 
 liability to arrest of a public vessel belonging to 
 a foreign sovereism, see The Pui-lenient Behjc, 
 5 P. D. 197; 42 "L. T. 273; 28 W. R. 642; 4 
 Asp. M. C. 234— G. A.: The Charkieh, 42 
 L. J., Adm. 17 ;L. R. 4A.& E. 59; 28L.T.513; 
 1 Asp. M. C. 581. And see S. C, supra^ 
 col. 724. 
 
 Foreign Judgment.] — A foreign judgment is a 
 bar to an acliuu in this country between the same 
 parties for the same collision. The Delta and 
 The Erminia Foseolo, 45 L. J., Adm. Ill ; IP. D. 
 393 ; 35 L. T. 376 ; 25 W. R. 46 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 256. 
 
 But not if it went by default. Ih. 
 
 Foreign Judgment in personam.] — A foreign 
 judgment in personam for a collision is not 
 enforceable by arrest of the ship in this country. 
 The City of Mecca, 50 L. J., Adm. 53 ; 6 P. D. 
 106 ; 44 L. T. 750 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 412— C. A. 
 
 Foreign Ship Sunk — Both in Fault — Refer- 
 ence.] — In a cdllision suit where both ships have 
 been found to blame, and the owners of the ship 
 arrested have brought no cross-action, the damage 
 to the plaintiff's ship only will be referred to the 
 registrar, although she was sunk and her owners 
 reside out of the jurisdiction. The Aort/t- 
 American, Swabey, 466. 
 
 Ke-arrest — Damage greater than Bail.] — A 
 
 foreign ship was ainsied ami bailed inacullision 
 suit promoted Ijy the owners of the otliei' ship an<l 
 her cargo, an<l the damage i)roiiouneed for. After 
 claini for the damage to cargo had been preferred 
 before the registrar it wa-s fountl that the damage 
 was greater than supjioscd, and the ship was. 
 re-arrested : — Held, that the ship could not be 
 re-arrested in a new action for the same cause 
 and between the same parties. T/u} Kalamazoo, 
 15 Jur. 885. 
 
 Of Foreign Ship — Appeal.] — In cross 
 
 actions for collision the ju<lLreof the county court 
 found that one of the shi[)s, a foreigner, was not 
 to blame and ordered her to be released. There
 
 703 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 764 
 
 \vas an appeal to the hi;j;h court. Upon motion 
 liv the appellant she was ttnlered to be re-arrested. 
 TheFreir, The Albert, ii L. J., Adm. id ; 32 L. T. 
 572 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 689. 
 
 10. Compulsory Pilotage. 
 
 a. Generally. 
 
 Former Uncertainty of Law as to Liability for 
 Compulsory Pilot's Fault.]— The law as to the 
 liability of a shijiowner for a collision cansed by 
 the fault of a compulsory pilot was formerly 
 doubtful. Longridge v. Dorville, 5 B. & Aid. 
 117. 
 
 Ship held Liable in rem for Fault of Com- 
 pulsory Pilot.]— A ship in charge of a com- 
 pulsory pilot held liable in rem for a collision 
 <>ausecl by the pilot's fault. The Baron Ilollcrg, 
 3 Ha^'. Adm. 214. S. V. (under .5 Geo. 2, c. 2U), 
 The yeptune the Seeo/ul, 1 Dods. 467. 
 
 Whether Pilot was in Charge— Question for 
 Jury.] — Whether a pilot taken on boaid by C3 u- 
 pulsion of law was in charge of the sh'p at the 
 time of collision is a question for the ju:y. CJts 
 V. Herbert, 3 Stark. 12 ; 23 R. R. 752. 
 
 Contributory Negligence of Pilot in charge of 
 Irjured Vessel — Enect of.]^Couut to recover 
 damages for injuries sustained by the iilaintiffs' 
 ship through the negligence of the defendants ; 
 plea, contributory negligence ; replication, that 
 the contributory negligence was that of a pilot 
 licensed by the defendants, and compulsorily 
 employed by the plaintiffs ; rejoinder, that the 
 pilot was not the servant of the defendants ; 
 demurrer to the rejoinder allowed. Diidiuan v. 
 BuUin Port and Borlis Board, Ir. R. 7 C. L. 518. 
 But see Spa'iqht v. Ted castle, 6 Ajip. Cas. 217 ; 44 
 L. T. 589 : 29 W. R. 761 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 406. The 
 Hector, 52 L. J., Adm. 51 ; 8 P. D. 218 ; 48 L. T. 
 S90 ; 31 W.R. 881 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 101. 
 
 A barque, in charge of a pilot who was on 
 board her, was being towed by a tug in waters 
 where the employment of a pilot was compulsory. 
 The tug ported her helm and passed across the 
 bows of a brig, there was no room for the barque 
 to follow in her wake, and the barque came into 
 collision with the brig. The pilot gave no orders 
 to the tug before or after she ported ; if he had 
 given proper orders, even after the tug had ported, 
 the collision might have been avoided : — Held, 
 that the tug was to blame for attempting to tow 
 the barque across the bows of the brig ; but that 
 the owners of the barque could not, on account 
 of the neglect of the pilot to give proper orders, 
 recover against the tug damages in respect of the 
 collision. The Enerriy, 39 L. J.. Adm. 25 ; L. R. 
 3 A. & E. 48 ; 23 L.'T. 601 ; 18 W. R. 1009. 
 
 General Rule as to Shipowner's Liability.]— 
 
 Shipowners not liable for collision caused entirely 
 by the fault of a compulsciry pilot ; aliter, if the 
 crew are also in fault. The Atlas, 3 W. Rob. 502. 
 The Admiral Boxer, Swabey, 193 ; The Loehlibo, 
 Polloh v. McAljiin, 7 Moore, P. C. 427. 
 
 The shipowners are liable for a collision caused 
 by fault of crew and also of compulsory pilot. 
 The BuMia, 1 W. Rob. 131 ; nom. Stuart v. 
 Isemonger, 4 Moore, P. C. 11. 
 
 Master not Liable.] — The master of a passenger 
 vessel within a district where pilotage is com- 
 
 pulsory was summoned for not navigating his 
 vessel in a c;,r 'ful and proper manner. There 
 was a pilot in chai'ge of the vessel : — Held, that 
 the summons was properly dismissed, since the 
 j)ilot, who was compulsorily on board, must be 
 assumed to have been in charge of the vessel. 
 Oahley v. Speedy, 40 L. T. 881 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 134. 
 
 For a collision caused by the pilot's fault the 
 master is not liable in damages. The Octaiia 
 Stella, 57 L. T. 632 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 182. 
 
 Owners Liable though Pilot in Charge.] — A 
 
 shii.i with a compulsory pilot on board lying in 
 the Downs in bad weather was held in fault for 
 a collision caused by her driving in consequence 
 of her yards not having been sent down : — Held, 
 that the owners were liable, it being the master's 
 duty to see that the yards were sent down. 
 The Christiana, ITanniiond v. Bogers, 7 Moore, 
 P. C. 160. Cf. The Girolamo, 3 Hag. Adm. 
 169. 
 
 Where the evidence establishes that from want 
 of an efficient lookout, the pilot was not warned 
 in time to enable him to give orders so as to avoid 
 a collision, the defence of compulsory pilotage is 
 not established, and the owners of the vessel 
 causing; damage are liable therefor. The Schwan, 
 The Albano, [1892] P. 419 ; 69 L. T. 34 ; 7 Asp. 
 M. C. 347— C. A. 
 
 Although the pilot has charge of the ship the 
 owners are responsible for the sufficiency of the 
 ship and her equipments, the competency of the 
 master and crew, and their obedience to the 
 orders of the pilot. Under ordinary circum- 
 stances his commands are to beimplicitly obeyed ; 
 to him belongs the whole conduct of the naviga- 
 tion of the "ship, to the safety of which it is 
 important that the chief direction should be 
 vested in one only. See per Parke, B., Tlie 
 Christiana, 7 Moore, P. C. 160, 171. The City of 
 Camhrldqe, Wood v. Smith, 43 L. J., Adm. 11 ; 
 L. R. 5 P. C.4ol, 457 ; 30 L. T. 439 ; 22 W. R. 
 578 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 739. 
 
 Change of Pilots.] — A collision occurred in the 
 Humber Dock, Hull, between a fly-boat and a 
 foreign schooner bound to the Prince's Dock. 
 The schooner was in charge of a duly licensed 
 Humber pilot, who had taken over the charge of 
 the schooner while she was moored at a pier in 
 the Humber from the pilot who had brought her 
 in from sea. One sum was paid for the services 
 of the two pilots : — Held, that the schooner was 
 in charge of a pilot whose employment was com- 
 pulsory by law. 'The Bigliurqs Minde, 52 L. J., 
 Adm. 74 ; 8 P. D. 132 ; 49 L. T. 232 ; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 123- C. A. 
 
 Neglect to render Assistance.] — Under 25 & 
 26 Vict. c. 53, s. 33, it was declared to be, in case 
 of collision between two ships, the duty of the 
 person in charge of each ship to render assistance 
 to the other, and in case he failed to do so with- 
 out reasonable excuse, the collision, in absence of 
 proof to the contrary, was to be deemed to have 
 been caused by his wrongful act. Two steam- 
 ships, the '-Queen" and the "Lord John Russell," 
 each under the charge cf a compulsory pilot, 
 came into collision in the Thames. The "Queen" 
 was solely to blame, and after the collision she 
 rendered no assistance to the other vessel, and 
 shewed no excuse for having failed to do so : — 
 Hold, that the mere fact of her having a pilot on 
 board did not exempt her owners from liability.
 
 765 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 ■GG 
 
 I-/t€ Queen, 38 L. J,, Adm. 39 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 
 354 : 20 L. T. 855. 
 
 Semble. that if the collision had been caused 
 solely by the neglect of the pilot on board the 
 '• Queen," the subsequent misconduct of the 
 master in not rendering assistance would not 
 have made her owners liable for the collision. lb. 
 
 Pilot in Permanent Employ of Owners.] — In a 
 
 cause of collision, the mischief was found to have 
 arisen from the fault of a duly licensed pilot in 
 charge of the vessel doing the damage. The 
 jjilot had been in the permanent employ of the 
 owners, and engaged in navigating the ship for 
 many years : — Held, that notwithstanding such 
 permanent emplov, the owners were exonerated. 
 The Batarier, 2 W. Rob. 407 ; 10 Jur. 19. 
 
 Pilot selected by Master — Liability.] — The 
 
 Canadian statutes, 27 ic 28 Vict. c. 13, and 27 & 
 28 Vict. c. 58, are to be read and construed 
 together as being in pari materia ; and, therefore, 
 the owner of a Canadian ship, navigated in 
 Canadian waters, under the directions of a pilot 
 taken on board in compliance with the provisions 
 of these statutes, is expressly exonerated from 
 all liability for damage caused by obedience to 
 such directions ; and this is not affected by the 
 f.ict that the j)ilot is one selected by the master, 
 if selected only out of a particular qualitied class. 
 The Ulhernhui, Redimth v. Alhiii. 9 Moore, P. C. 
 (x.s.) 340 ; 42 L. J., Adm. 8 ; L. R. 4 P. C. 511 ; 
 27 L. T. 725 ; 21 W. R. 276 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 4'Jl. 
 
 Damage to Property of Thames Conservators.] 
 — The owner of a vessel navigating tlie Thames 
 is not responsible for damage done by her to 
 jiroperty belonging to the conservators through 
 the fault of a pilot compulsorily in charge of her ; 
 for, tliough the words of s. HG of the Thames 
 Conservancy Act, 1857 (20 iV: 21 Vict. c. cxlvii.), 
 are general, they are not to be read as including 
 pilots, and do not by implication repeal the 
 jiiovisions as to f)ilotage in 17 &; 18 Vict. c. 104. 
 'J'hiimrx ('unserriitors v. Hull, 37 L. J., C. P. 1G3 ; 
 L. R. 3 C. P. 415 ; 18 L. T. 3G1 ; IG W. 11.971. 
 
 Proof of Compulsion.] — Owners are not exone- 
 rated from lespoiisiljilitj' fur tlie default of a 
 pilot whom they have selected and placed in 
 ■charge when there was no obligation imposed on 
 Iheni to take such pilot atid put hiin in charge. 
 The Lion, ^ Moore, P. C. (N-.s.) 1G3 ; 3S L. .1.. 
 Adm. 51 : L. R. 2 P. C. 525 ; 21 L. T. 41 ; 17 
 W. R. 993. 
 
 Wiien there is no i)roof that the pilotage was 
 compulsory, no exemption can be claimed by the 
 owners, on the grf)Uiid of the vessel having been 
 in charge of a jiilot. The IWih:s.<. Lusli. 1():5 : 13 
 Moore, P. C. 444 ; 30 L. J., A<lni. 89 ; 3 L. T. 125. 
 
 When Pilotage is Compulsory.] — Pilotage is 
 <',oiiiliulsory wlii-ii the pilotage chai'ge can i)e 
 rccoven'd whether the ]iilot is employed or nfit. 
 ('(imitherH v. Sidrhothnm, 4 M. iV: S. 77. 'J'hc 
 Murla, 1 \V. Rob. 95, 1()9. The Arbutun, 11 L. T. 
 2(J8. The Ilihernutn, supra. 
 
 Principle of Statutory Non-liability of Ship- 
 owner for Fault of Compulsory Pilot.] — The 
 Icafling princiiile of the legislature in exempting 
 <iwners from any liability for d.'image occasioned 
 by I heir vessels having pilots on board is this : — 
 That the owners are uot respousiMe for the acts 
 -of the persons to whom they are thus forced to 
 •commit the inanajjement of their property, and 
 
 over whom they have no control — per Dr. Lush- 
 ington. 'The Maria, 1 W. Rob. 95, 99. And see 
 The Bilhao, Lush. 149, 154 ; 3 L. T. 338. 
 
 Statutory Exemption is declaratory of Common 
 Law. J — The statutory exemption of shipowners 
 from liability for the fault of a compulsory pilot 
 is declaratory of the common law — see per Brett, 
 M.R. The Uector, 52 L. J., Adm. 51 ; 8 P. D. 
 218, 224 ; 48 L. T. 890 ; 31 \V. R. 881 ; 5 Asp, 
 M. C. 101 — C. A. S. P., General Steam JVavii/a- 
 tion Co. V. lirifixh Colonial Steam jVaviqation 
 Co., 38 L. J., Ex. 97 ; L. R. 4 Ex. 238 ; 20 L. T. 
 581 ; 17 W. R. 741. 
 
 Apart from any statute, an owner is not re- 
 sponsible in proceedings in rem for damage done 
 to his ship, occasioned solely by default of a 
 licensed pilot employed b}- ci-m pulsion of law. 
 The Annajwli.'i, The Johanna Stoll, Lush. 295 ; 
 30 L. J., Adm. 201 ; 4 L. T. 417. 
 
 ■ — — Either at law or in admiralty. Tlie Ma ria, 
 I W. Rob. 95. 
 
 By the Liverpool Pilot Act, the master of every 
 vessel inward bound is compellable to take a 
 licensed pilot, unless the vessel be in ballast and 
 in the coasting trade ; but there is not, as in 
 G Geo. 4, c. 125, s. 55, any express exemption of 
 the liability of owners of a vessel for damage 
 clone by such vessel whilst in charge of a licensed 
 pilot : — Held, that the 55th section of the 6 Geo. 
 4, c. 125, was merely declaiatory of the common 
 law. and did not confer any independent exemp- 
 tion from legal responsibility ; and that, as by 
 the common law no person is responsible for the 
 negligent acts of a party in the performance of 
 any work, when by law he is com))elled to employ 
 that party to do such work, the owners of a ves.sel 
 entering the port of Liverpool, and in obedience 
 to the local act taking a licensed pilot on board, 
 were not responsible for mischief done by their 
 vessel, but occasioned by the sole neglect of the 
 pilot. The Agricola, 2 W. Rob. 10 ; 7 Jui-. 157. 
 
 Ship liable in Admiralty for Fault of Pilot 
 —6 Geo. 4, C. 125, s. 55.] — A foreign ship, 
 though ill charge of a compulsory pilot, held 
 liable in admiralty for a collision caused by the 
 pilijfs fault, notwithstanditig 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 75, 
 and G Geo. 4, c. 125, s. 55, which enactments do 
 iKjt apijly to proceedings in admiralty. The 
 Girolamo, 3 Hag. Adm. 1G9. 
 
 Damage to Other Ships— 62 Geo. 3, c. 35>.] — 
 
 Shipowners were exoneraicd hy 52 Geo. 3, c. 39, 
 s. 30, from liability tor damage done to other 
 ships as well as to tlieir own by the fault of a 
 compulsoiv pilot. Ititchir v. Jioa-.ijirld, 7 Taunt. 
 309 ; 18 li. R. 490. 
 
 Where by Foreign Law the Shipowner is 
 
 liable.] — In a, cause of collision prouiotcd liy the 
 owners of a Norwegian biinpie, against a. iJiitisli 
 steamer, in the court of admiralty in England, 
 for damage done in Belgian waters, alleged to 
 have been occasioneil by the negligent and 
 impro])cr navigation of the steam vessel, the 
 owners of the steamship pleaded, that the vessel 
 was in charge of a pilot whom they were com- 
 pelleil by the Belgian law to employ. The 
 owners of the baniue rei)lied that by the Belgian 
 law it is provideil that the owners of a shij) 
 which has done damage to another by collision 
 are liable for the damage notwithstanding the 
 vessel was in charge of a compulsory pilot, and 
 although the damage was occasioned by hid
 
 767 
 
 SrnPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 768 
 
 n'.^'^lisjcnce or want of sldll :— Hold, that the 
 chvim beina: founded on a tort committed in tlie 
 territory of a foreign state, the paity claiming 
 reparation in a British court was not entitled to 
 the benefit of the foreign law against the admitted 
 provisions of the statute law of England and the 
 practice of the court of admiralty in respect of 
 compulsorv pilotage, by which no such liability 
 as provided by the Belgian law existed, as it is 
 contrary to principle and authority to hold that 
 an English court will enforce a foreign municipal 
 law. and give a remedy in the shape of damage, 
 in respect of an act which, according to its own 
 ]n-inciples, imposes no liability on the person 
 from whom the damages are claimed. The 
 11,1 lie t/, 5 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 2fi3 ; 37 L. J., Adm. 
 
 998 
 
 L. R. 2 P. C. 193 ; 18 L. T. 879 ; 16 W. E. 
 
 Power of British, Legislature as to Pilotage 
 on the High. Seas.] — The legislature has no 
 authority over foreign vessels on the high seas 
 out of British jurisdiction, but may impose any 
 conditions on foreign vessels entering a British 
 port, and consequently an obligation on foreign 
 ships inward bound to take a pilot at a convenient 
 station beyond three miles from the British shore. 
 T/ie Annapolis, The Johanna Sfull, Lush. 29.5 ; 
 30 L. J., Adm. 201 ; 4 L. T. 417. 
 
 A statute imposing in general terms on all 
 inward-bound vessels the obligation to take a 
 pilot at a convenient station beyond three miles 
 from the British shore is binding on foi'eign 
 vessels, such construction being justified on 
 grounds of public policy. lb. 
 
 Collision in Suez Canal solely caused by 
 Negligence of Pilot.]— Where a collision in the 
 Suez Canal has been caused by the negligence of 
 a Suez Canal Company's pilot, compulsorily 
 taken on board the wrongdoing ship, the owner 
 of such ship is not exempt from liability for the 
 damage arising out of the collision. The effect 
 of the regulations for the navigation of the Suez 
 Canal is "to constitute a pilot taken on board a 
 ship traversing the canal the adviser of the 
 master, and to leave the control of the navigation 
 of the ship solely with the master. TJte Guy 
 Mannei-iwi, 51 L. J., Adm. 57 ; 7 P. D. 132 ; 46 
 L. T. 905'; 30 W. R. 835 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 553— 
 C. A. 
 
 damage done to another ship by the negligence 
 of the jiilot. The Augusta, 57 L. T. 326 ; 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 161— C. A. 
 
 Pilotage Certificate applied for, but not in 
 Possession of Master.] — The master of a ship 
 applied f(ir a certificate enabling him to pilot his' 
 ship under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 340. The 
 certificate was signed and sealed by the pilotage 
 authority, and had not been taken away by the 
 master : — Held, that the ship was liable to com- 
 pulsory pilotage. The Xillarncy, Lush. 202 ; 30 
 L. J., Adm. 4i ; 5 L. T. 21, 
 
 Damage to Pier — Person having the care of 
 
 Ship.] — A local act enacts that if "any person 
 having the care of " any craft should damage the 
 New Brighton pier, the shipowner shall be liable : 
 — Held, that the shipowner was not liable for 
 damage to the pier caused by a compulsory pilot 
 in charge of his ship. 2'he Clan Gordon, 7 P. D. 
 190 ; 46 L. T. 490 ; 30 W. E. 691 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 513. 
 
 Pilot taken on Board by Compulsion — No 
 Compulsion at Place of Collision.] — A ship bound 
 for London took a pilot off Dungeness where 
 pilotage was compulsory. A collision occurred in 
 the Thames by the pilot's fault at a place where 
 his employment was not compulsory, but where 
 his right and duty as pilot were not at an end : — 
 Held, that the shipowner was not liable. General 
 Steam, A'arlf/ation Co. v. British Colonial Stt-ani 
 Nariqation' Co., 38 L. J., Ex. 97; L. R. 4 Ex. 
 238 ;' 20 L. T. .581 ; 17 W. R. 741. 
 
 A qualified pilot having taken charge of a ship 
 at Bristol to pilot her to Cardiff, negligently got 
 her into collision at a place in the Bristol Channel 
 outside the port of Bristol, but where his duty as 
 pilot under his engagement was not at an end : 
 — Held, that the shipowners were not liable. 
 General Steam Navigation Co. v. British and 
 Colonial Steam Navigation Co. (supra) followed. 
 The Charlton, 11 R. 825; 73 L. T. 49; 8 Asp. 
 M. C. 29— C. A. 
 
 Held, also, that for pilotage purposes the port 
 of Bristol is bounded on the north by a straight 
 line joining the westernmost point of the Holms 
 to Aust in Gloucestershire. lb. 
 
 Pilotage in the Danube.]— By arts. 85, 89 and 
 92 of the International Rules for the Navigation 
 of the Danube, pilotage is compulsory in the 
 case of a vessel navigating the Danube, but the 
 master of such a vessel is not required to give up 
 the navigation of it to the pilot. Where, there- 
 fore, the master of such a vessel has in fact given 
 up the navigation of it to a pilot, the owners 
 remain answerable for damage caused by the 
 improi)er navigation of the pilot. Tlte Agnes 
 Otto, 56 L. J., Adm. 45 ; 12 P. D. 56 ; 56 L. T. 
 746 ; 35 W. R. 550 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 119. 
 
 Pilotage on the Seine — Havre.] — Although 
 the employment of a pilot by a vessel entering 
 the porn of Havre is by French law compulsory, 
 such pilot does not as of right, as is the case in 
 England, supersede the master and take charge 
 of "the ship, but according to French decisions 
 the master remains in charge, the pilot being 
 merely his adviser. Hence, though the master 
 may allow such pilot to take charge in fact, the 
 owners arc not exempted from liability for 
 
 Division of Loss — Fault of Pilot.] — A ship- 
 owner can only recover half his loss against the 
 other ship if his own ship was in fault through 
 the negligence of his compulsory pilot. The 
 Hector, 52 L. J., Adm. 51 ; 8 P. D. 218 ; 48 L. T. 
 890 ; 31 W. R. 881 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 101. 
 
 Ship in Bad Trim — Liability of Owner or 
 
 Pilot.] — The shipowner is not liable for a col- 
 lision caused partly by the ship being in bad 
 trim if the compulsory pilot in charge of her could 
 with ordinary care have avoided the collision. 
 Tlie An/o. Swabey, 462. See also The Meteor, 
 Ir. R. 9 Eq. 567. 
 
 Damage to Oyster Beds.] — A ship in charge of 
 a compulsory pilot was at high water brought 
 into and anchored by the pilot in a river in which 
 there were oyster beds, the existence of which 
 was known to the pilot. The place where she 
 was anchored was not the usual and customary 
 place for vessels of her size and draught to anchor 
 in. At low water she grounded, and thereby did 
 damage to an oyster b^,d. On notice of tire
 
 ■G9 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 770 
 
 existence of the oyster bed being given to the 
 master, he took all reasonable means to remove 
 I he ship as speedily as possible. In an action by 
 tlie lessee of the oj'ster bed against the ship- 
 owner and the pilot : — Held, that the act of the 
 liilot in anchoring the ship where he did was 
 negligence which made him liable, but that the 
 .ship was not liable because the master's duty on 
 receiving notice of the existence of the oyster 
 bed was to take all reasonable measures — not 
 extraordinary measures — to remove his ship, and 
 this he had done. 'The Octacla Stella, bl L. T. 
 G32 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 182. 
 
 Costs in Case of Defence of 
 
 Pilotage.] — See infra, col. S.J(]. 
 
 b. Ship in Tow. 
 
 Compulsory 
 
 Where a tug towing a vessel under a towage 
 contract is so negligently navigated as to come 
 into collision with a vessel belonging to third 
 parties, the owners of the tug are liable for the 
 damage done, even if at the time of the collision 
 the vessel in tow was in charge of a duly-licensed 
 pilot by compulsion of law whose default solely 
 occasioned the collision. The Mdvy, 48 L. J., 
 Adrn. 66 ; 5 P. D. 14 ; 41 L. T. 351 ; 28 W. R. 
 1)5. 
 
 A tug is under the conti-ol of the pilot on 
 boad the ship in tow, and is not liable for his 
 negligence where his employment is compulsory. 
 Smith V. St. Lawrence Toiv-hortt C:>., L. K. .5 
 1'. C. 308 ; 28 L. T. 88.5 ; 21 W. R. .569 ; 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 41. 
 
 Where a ship in charge of a i)il(it, wliose 
 employment is comjiulsory, is being towed by a 
 tug. and the tug, without waiting for onlers from 
 the pilot, suddenly adopts a wrong mancjcuvre, 
 and so causes the ship to come into collision, the 
 owners of the ship are res[)onsible. 'The Sin- 
 tinani, 50 L. J., Adm. 5 ; 5 1". D. 241 ; 43 L. T. 
 7(;s ; 4 Asp. M. 0. 383. 
 
 Semble, where a pilot is in charge of a ship in 
 tow in a crowded river, it is not necessarily 
 incumbent upon him to direct every movement 
 of the tug. Ih. 
 
 Where a vessel is under the charge of a licensed 
 pilot, the employment of whom is compulsory, 
 and is, at the same time, in tow of a tug, the 
 latter is bound to obey tlie orders of the jiilot. 
 Spu'iqht V. Tedrantle, 6* Ap)). (Jas. 217; 44 L T 
 5S'.) ; 2'J W. K. 761 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 406— H. L. (E.) 
 
 In a case of damage by collision occasioned by 
 a ves.sel wliile in tow of a steam-tug, having a 
 licensed i)iIot on board, in piirsnance of 17 i; 18 
 Vict. c. 103, H. 3HH, and no hlaiiK,' attached to the 
 nia.ster or crew : — HeM. that the owners of such 
 vessel were not lialilc, being protected bys. 388. 
 The Oeean Ware, Mamhall v. Momn, 6 Moore 
 1'. C. (N.S.) 492 ; L. 11. 5 1'. C. 205 ; 23 L. T 
 218. 
 
 It is negligence to mov(!, I)y means of a steam- 
 tug, a shij) from one dock to another at nigiit 
 time ; under such circumstances, a pilot on board 
 tlie ship being towed has no such charge or 
 control over her movements as to exculpate tho 
 owners. 'J' he JinnixKia. Swabey, 1)4. 
 
 As to whether negligence of a compulsory 
 
 pilot in charge of a ship in tow is contriljufory 
 
 f negligence on the part of her owners, sec SjM/ffht 
 
 V. Tedenstle, m\)ia., col. 755 ; The Energy, supra, 
 
 col. 763. 
 
 And see XIX. TowAGE, supra, cols, 679, scq. 
 
 VOL. XIII, 
 
 c. Proof of Pilot's Fault. 
 
 Onus of Proof of Negligence of Pilot.] — If a 
 licensed \n\ot is on board a vessel, in order to 
 exempt the owner from liability for damage 
 occasioned by collision, the onus proband! lies 
 upon the owner to establish that the collision 
 was occasioned solely by the negligence of the 
 pilot, and it is the duty of the owner relying 
 upon such a defence to call the pilot as a witness. 
 The Carrier Dure, 2 Moore, P. C. (n.S.) 261 ; 
 Br. & Lush. 113 ; It) L. T. 768. 
 
 When a collision is caused by a vessel in 
 charge of a licensed pilot, the owners, in order 
 to exonerate themselves from liability must 
 prove not merely that the crew was under the 
 pilot's orders at the time, but that the order 
 which caused the damage was actuallj- given by 
 the jiilot, the onus probandi being on them. 
 The Schwalbe, 14 Moore, P. C. 241 ; Lush. 239 ; 
 4 L. T. 160. And see The Rijxin, 6 Not. of Cas. 245. 
 To entitle the owners of a ship under the 
 compulsory charge of a licensed pilot to the 
 benetit of the provisions of a statute which 
 exempts them from liability, when a collision 
 has occured by the fault of "the pilot, it lies on 
 them to prove that it was occasioned solely by 
 the pilot. The Velasquez, i Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 
 426 ; 36 L. J., Adm. 19 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 494 ; 16 
 L. T. 777; 16 W. R. 81). 
 
 If the master and crew have contributed to 
 the accident by not keeping a sufHcient look-out, 
 so as to give the pilot the earliest possible infor- 
 niation of an approaching vessel, although the 
 pilot is also to blame, the owners are not exempted 
 fiom liability. lb. 
 
 Where, by the mismanagement of a vessel 
 which is proceeding to sea, damage is done, the 
 owners will not be exonerated, unless they shew 
 that the damage was occasioned exclusively by 
 the fault of the pilot. Modriqite.i v. Melhui.sh, 
 10 Ex. 110 ; 24 L. J., Ex. 26 ; 2 \V. R. 518. 
 
 A collision took i)lace between two vessels, and 
 the defendants admitted that their vessel was to 
 blame, but alleged by way of defence that they 
 had a pilot on board by compulsion of law, and 
 that they were therefore exempt from liability : — 
 Meld, that as there was no evidence of contrilm- 
 tory negligence on the i)art of the defendant 
 owners they were exempt fcom liability. The 
 iJaioz. 47 L. J., Adm. 1 ; 37 L. T. 137 ; 3 Asp. 
 M. C. 477— C. A. 
 
 In order to entitle the ownerof a ship, having, 
 by compulsion of law, a pilot on boaid, to the 
 benefit of the exemption from liability for 
 damage by default of the pilot, it is not enough 
 to i)rove that tiiere wa.s fault or negligence on 
 the jiilot's part, but the owner must shew that 
 there was no ilct'nult on the ]iarl of the master 
 and crew, which might have in any degree been 
 conducive to llic damauc The lona. \ Moore, 
 P. C. (N.S.) 336 : L. K. I \\ ('. (26 ; 16 L. T. 158 ; 
 not followed in (Jh/de Aarii/aliiin Co. v. Jiarclaij, 
 infra. 
 
 In a cause of collision occasioned by fi vessel 
 uniier compulsory pilotage, wiiere no contributory 
 negligence on tlie part of the master ami crew i.s 
 j)roved, the pilot in chaige is solely re poiisiljle, 
 and the ownt;rs are exempt from the conse- 
 quences of liis negl(;ct or default. Tlie Cilahar, 
 L. R. 2 P. C. 238 ; 19 L. T. 7(;8. 
 
 Defective Steering Power of Vessel in charge 
 of Pilot— Onus. ] — In a caiisu of damaire In' col- 
 lision, where the defence relied upon is compulsory 
 
 •2 5
 
 771 
 
 SHIPPING~XX. Collision. 
 
 772 
 
 pilotai:e only, and the dufendants prove that the 
 ves.<el was iu charge of a licensed pilot by com- 
 pulsion of law, and that he gave orders for the 
 [)nrpose of avoiding the collision, and that these 
 orders were obeyed, and the plaintififs seek to 
 shew that the collision was due to the defective 
 steering power of the defendants' vessel, it lies 
 upon tiie plaintiffs to prove such defective steer- 
 ing power by substantive evidence. The Lid a. 
 25 L. T. 887 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 284. See also The 
 Warhonrfh, ante, col. 744. 
 
 Where the plaintiffs make out a prima facie 
 case, and the answer is that the defendants are 
 exempt from liability on the ground of compul- 
 sory pilotage, and they give evidence which 
 prima facie proves that the accident was [caused 
 by] the fault of a pilot who was on board by 
 compulsion of law, the burden of proof is then 
 shifted back on the plaintiffs if they allege that 
 the defendants are guilty of some other act of 
 negligence — Per Lord Esher, M.R. The Indiix, 
 .-)(f L. J.. Ad. 88 ; 12 P. D. 46, 49 ; 35 W. R. 490 : 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 105. 
 
 The burden of proof is on the vessel causing 
 damage to shew that the fault was that of the 
 ])ilot alone ; but where the evidence establishes 
 that from want of an efficient look-out, the \n\ot 
 was not warned in time to enable him to give 
 orders so as to avoid a collision, the defence of 
 compulsory pilotage is not established, and the 
 owners of the vessel causing damage are liable 
 therefor. The Schivan, The Alhnno, [1892] P. 
 419 : 09 L. T. 34 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 347— C. A. 
 
 When shipownei's have proved fault on the 
 part of the pilot sufficient to cause, and in fact 
 causing the calamity, they must be held to have 
 satistied the comiition on which their exemption 
 from liability depends, and they are not to be 
 called upon to adduce proof of a negativecharacter 
 to exclude the mere possibility of contributory 
 fault. But if, in the course of the evidence, 
 certain acts or omissions on the part of the crew 
 come out, it will then be incumbent on the 
 owners to shew satisfactorily that those acts or 
 omissions in no degree contributed to the damage. 
 fh/de Narigntioti Co. v. Biii-clny^ 1 App. Cas. 
 790 ; 36 L. T. 379 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 390— H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 Where a compulsory pilot was on board it was, 
 under 52 Geo. 3, c. 39, s. 30, held that prima 
 facie the master was not liable for a collision in 
 which their ship was iu fault. Bennett. Moita, 
 
 7 Taunt. 258. 
 
 Where a defendant alleges that the collision 
 was caused entirely by the fault of his compid- 
 sorv pilot, the burden is on him to prove it. The 
 Atlas, 2 W. Rob. 246. 
 
 Pleading.] — The party intending to take 
 advantage of the statutory exemption from 
 liability for the fault of a compulsory pilot 
 (6 Geo. 4, c. 105) should so plead. TIte Canadian, 
 1 VV. Rob. 343. 
 
 d. Duties of Pilot. 
 
 It is the duty of the pilot to decide in bad 
 weather whether to get under way or to lie fast. 
 The Lochliho, Pollok v. MeAlpin, on appeal, 7 
 Moore, P. C.427. S. P.. The Carrier Dure, Br. & 
 Lush. 113 ; 2 Moore, P. C. C. 238 ; 19 L. T. 768 ; 
 but see The Girolatnu, 3 Hag. Adm. 1()9 ; The 
 JJorussia, Swabey, 94 ; The Oeean Ware, Mar- 
 shall V. Moran, 6 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 492 ; L. R. 3 
 P. C. 205, 209 ; 23 L. T. 218 ; The Strathspey and 
 Th-e Islay, infra ; The Oahjield, 55 L. J., Adm. 
 
 11 ; 11 P. D. 34 ; 54 L. T. 578 ; 34 W. R. G87 ; 5 
 
 Asp. M. C. 575. 
 
 To give orders as to setting canvas. The 
 Ocean Wave, supra. 
 
 To give orders as to the use of warps and 
 check ropes when docking. The Righdrgs Minde, 
 52 L. J., Adm. 74 ; 8 P. D. 132 ; 49 L. T. 23 ; 5 
 Asp. M. G. 460. 
 
 To give orders to the helm. The Seliwalhe, 
 14 Moore, P. C. 241 ; 4 L. T. 160 ; Lush. 329 ; 
 The Winston, 53 L. J., Adm. 69 ; 9 P. D. 85 ; 
 51 L. T. 183 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 274— C. A. 
 
 To decide whether or no it is necessary to 
 depart from the regulations. The Argo, Swabey, 
 462. 
 
 To decide when, where, and how to bring up. 
 The Agricola, 2 W. Rob. 10:7 Jur. 157 ; The 
 George, 9 Jur. 670 : 2 W. Rob. 386 ; 4 Not. of 
 Cas. 161 ; The Loehlibo,iiUYirii; The Christ/ana, 
 7 Moore, P. C. 160; The llhosina, Edwards v. 
 Fidinovth Ilarhour Commissioners, 54 L. J., 
 Adm. 72 ; 10 P. D. 24 ; 53 L. T. 210 ; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 114. 
 
 To give orders as to the catting, letting go, 
 and mode of carrying the anchor. The Gipsy 
 King, 2 \V. Rob. 537 ; The Ilighorgs Minde, supra ; 
 Tlie Aqricola, supra ; Tlie Monte Rosa, 62 L. .J., 
 Adm. 20 ; [1893] P. 23 ; 1 R. 557 ; 68 L. T. 299 ; 
 41 W. R. 304 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 326. 
 
 To tend the shijj whilst at anchor, to let go a 
 second anchor if necessary, and to manoeuvre 
 her if she parts. The City of Camhrid.ge, infra ; 
 The Northampton, 1 Spinks. 152 ; The Princeton, 
 47 L. J., Adm. 33 ; 3 P. D. 90 ; 38 L. T. 260 : 3 
 Asp. M. 0. 562. 
 
 To shift his berth, if necessary. The Cachapool, 
 7 P. D. 217 ; 46 L. T. 171 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 502. 
 
 To determine the speed of the ship and what 
 canvas to carry. Th' Calahar, L. R. 2 P. C. 
 23S ; 19 L. T. 768 ; The Maria, 1 \V. R. 95 ; 
 The Jidia, Lush. 224 ; 14 Moore, P. C. 210 ; The 
 Batarier, 9 Moore, P. C. 286. 
 
 To advise as to the employment of a tug. 
 The Jidia, supra. 
 
 Shortly after leaving dock the "Strathspey" 
 came into collision in the Clyde, whilst in 
 charge of a compulsory pilot, with the " Islay." 
 The collision was due to the "Strathspey" not 
 having steerage way owing to the boisterous 
 state of the weather and her slow rate of 
 speed through the water in order to comjily 
 with the by-laws : — Held, that the pilot was 
 in charge before leaving the dock, and that 
 it was for him to decide whether to sail or to lie 
 fast, and whether the employment of a tug was 
 necessary or not ; and that the owners were not 
 liable for the collision. 'The Strathspey and 'J he 
 Idaij, Burrell v. Machrayne. 18 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 (4thser.) 1048. 
 
 To give orders as to the navigation of the tug, 
 aTid as to casting off the tow rope. See !1 he 
 Energy, and cases cited, supra, col. 755. 
 
 Ship at Anchor.]— Wlien a ship in charge of a 
 
 licensed \n\ot is anchored in pilotage waters, the 
 length of cable at which the ship rides is a 
 matter entirely within the ))rovince of the pilot, 
 and it is his duty when the ship swings to the 
 tide to superintend that manoeuvre, and to 
 regulate the helm, and it is negligence on his 
 part to go below before the sliip is fully swung, 
 leaving the helm amidships without orders as to 
 its regulation ; and if, thiough want of length 
 of cable and of regulation of the helm, the ship 
 sheers and so parts from her anchor iu swinging
 
 SHIPPING— XX. ColUsion. 
 
 774 
 
 during his absence, the pilot will be alone respon- 
 sible, provided that the watch on deck takes the 
 right manoeuvre to counteract the sheering. I'lie 
 City of Canibridqe, or Wood v. S/iiifh, id L. J., 
 Adm. 11 : L. K. 5 P. C. 451 ; 30 L. T. 439 ; 22 
 W. R. .578. And see The Wobui-n Abbey, post, 
 col. 774. 
 
 When a ship at anchor in pilotage waters 
 and in charge of a licensed pilot parts her cable, 
 the necessity for letting go another anchor is a 
 matter within the discretion of the pilot, and the 
 manoeuvre should be directed by him ; and if the 
 pilot is below at the time, the officer of the watch 
 will be justified before giving any orders to 
 bring up the ship in calling the pilot on deck to 
 take chaige, provided that there is no immediate 
 necessity for action, as for instance to prevent a 
 collision which is imminent. lb. 
 
 Getting under Way — Suggestions by Master.] 
 — Where a vessel is in cliarge of a pilot by com- 
 pulsion of law, there is no duty on the master 
 to prevent her from being got under way in 
 obedience to an oider of the pilot, uidess such a 
 proceeding is manifestly dangerous. The defen- 
 <lants' vessel was compidsorily in charge of a 
 duly licensed pilot, and was got under way when 
 the weather was thick and hazy, but vessels 
 could be seen at 300 yards' distance : — Held, 
 that the defendants were not responsible for 
 <laraage caused by the vessel being under way. 
 While the defendants' vessel was approaching 
 ihat of the plaintiffs, the master expressed his 
 opinion that the helm should be starboarded. 
 'I'tie iiik)t gave the order, and in conscijuence of 
 it a collision occurred : — Held, that the defen- 
 <lants were not responsible for the damage 
 ♦ •aused by the collision. T/ic Lochliho (3 W. Rob. 
 :U(i) apjiroved. Tlie Odhficlil, it't L. J., Adm. 
 11 : 11 P. D. 34 ; 54 L. T. 578 ; 34 W. R. 687 ; 
 o Asp. M. C. 575. 
 
 ^^emble. The responsibility for being under 
 way unnecessarily in a dense fog is with the 
 pilot. The North Aiiiericait and The Wild 
 Jtiixp, 14 L. T. 68. (See also The Luchlibo, 
 7 Moore. P. C. 427. 
 
 The pilot i.s resjjonsible for getting the ship 
 under way in improper circumstances. The 
 Peerless, Lush. 30 ; 6 L. T. 107. 
 
 Carrying Anchor at Hawse-pipe.] — Wliother 
 the.'inchor of a sicainei- in tin- Tliaiiies should be 
 carried at the hawse-pipe with the stock above 
 water is a matter within the province of the 
 pilot, notwithst.'inding that the carrying of the 
 anchor in such a position may 1)0 an infringe- 
 ment of r. 20 of the 1'hames Conservancy by- 
 laws ; and therefore owners are not li.-ibie for 
 liamage caused tlu^reby. The Rijion (10 P. D. 
 6.5) explained. 'J'he Monte Rosa, 62 L. J., Adm. 
 20 ; [1803] I'. 23 ; 1 R. 557 ; 68 L. T. 21)9 ; 41 
 \V. R. 304 ; 7 Asi.. M. U. 326. 
 
 The damage was done by the fluke of the 
 i^chooner's anchor piercing the side of the fly- 
 boat. The court found that there was no want 
 of care in the crew in lowering the anchor. The 
 other allegations against the schooner were that 
 the anchor w;is improperly slung ; that she cain(! 
 too fast up the dock and without a chcrk rop(! : 
 — Held, that the flamage was caused by tlie faidt 
 <if the pilot in the cour.sc of his (iuty. The 
 Jliyhorys Minde, 52 L. J., Adm. 74 ; 8 I'.'V. 132 ; 
 49 L. f . 332 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 460. 
 
 When in Charge of a Ship in Tow.] — See supra, 
 •col. 755. 
 
 e. Duties of Shipowner, Master, and Crew. 
 
 Look-out,] — A steamship held in fault for 
 sinking a barge with her swell, although in 
 charge of a compulsory pilot, because the barge 
 and a dangerous swell caused by other passing 
 steamships were not reported by the look-out. 
 Hhe Batavlcr, 9 Moore. P. C. 286. S. P., The lona, 
 4 Moore, P. C. (n.S.) 336 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 426 ; 16 
 L. T. 158 ; Ihe Vda.sque:, 4 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 426 ; 
 36 L. J. Adm. 19 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 494 ; 16 L. T. 
 777 ; 16 W. R. 89 ; 'Ihe Julia, Lush. 224 ; 14 
 Moore, P. C. 210 ; The Atlas, 2 W. Rob. 502 ; llie 
 Minna, L. R. 2 A. & E. 97. 
 
 The owners held liable for a collision caused 
 partly by negligent look-out, and partly by the 
 fault of a compulsory pilot ; 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, 
 s. 55, did not exempt the owners in such cases. 
 T]ie Diana, Stuart v. Isemonger, 1 W. Rob. 131 ; 
 4 Moore, P. C. 11 ; 6 Jur. 157. 
 
 Anchor,] — The anchor must be clear and ready 
 to let go at the pilot's order. The Peerless, Lush. 
 103 ; 13 Moore, P. C. 484 ; 30 L. J.. Adm. 89 ; 3 
 L. T. 125 ; The Atlas, 2 W. Rob. 502 ; The 
 R'ujhorgs Minde, supra. 
 
 Tow-line.] — The shipowner is liable if the tow- 
 line is not cast off at the pilot's order. The 
 Eneryy, 39 L. J., Adm. 25 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 48 ; 
 23 L.' T. 601 ; 18 W.R. 1009. 
 
 Vessel at Anchor.] — The " W. A.," in charge of 
 a pilot, came to anchor in the Mersey, and gave 
 the " P. T. " a foul berth. Various remonstrances 
 were from time to time made by those on board 
 the •' B. T.," and after a few days the vessels in 
 swinging to the tide came into collision : — Held, 
 that the owners of the " W. A. " were responsible 
 for the damage, first, because, wliile the vessel 
 was at anchor, the employment of the pilot was 
 not comjjulsory ; and .secondly, because, even if 
 the pilot had not properly moored the '• W. A.," 
 her master was not relieved from responsibility, 
 and therefore her owners were liable for the 
 damage. I'he Wohurn Ahhey. 38 L. .)., A(hii. 28 ; 
 20 L. T. 621. And see Tlie Citi/ of Camhridqe, 
 43 L. J., Adm. 11 ; L. R. 5. P. C. 451 ; 30 L.T. 
 439 ; 22 \V. R. 578 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 239. 
 
 Ordinary Precautions to be Taken without 
 Express Orders from Pilot.] — The sliipowner is 
 responsible for the ordinary work of the ship 
 being projjcrly carried on, and usual precautions 
 being taken, without express orders from the 
 jiilot. J'he Christiana. 7 Moore, P. C. 160 ; The 
 Sin//iiasi, 50 J>. J., Adm. 5 ; 5 P. D. 211 ; 43 
 L. T. 768 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 383. 
 
 Sufficiency of Tug.] — The shipowtier is liable 
 for I hi' siillicii'iK'N' of the tug. 7he Oeean ]\dre 
 6 .Mooir, I'. C. (N.S.) 492 ; L. R. 3 I'. C. 285 ; 23 
 L. T. 218 ; and see supra, col. 679. 
 
 Wrong Light Exhibited by Pilot's Orders.] — 
 
 Thi' slc:iiii>hi|i ■' ];.." ill low ol a slc:iiii!-hi|i whicli 
 was turning her in tlir Kivcr liumlier, wjis. under 
 the directions of a ]iilot, who was on board her 
 by (Mimpnlsion of law, exhibiting, in addition to 
 herm.'isthead liglit and red and green side lights, 
 an anchor light which was hoisted at tlie main 
 peak. In these circumstances she was run into by 
 the steamship " E. " : — Held, that the exhibition 
 f)f Ihe ;inclior light was a breach of the Iliimber 
 rules which might by jiossibility liavecoiitii))ute(I 
 to tlie collision ; that the master of the "R." was 
 
 25—2
 
 775 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 no 
 
 responsible for such breach of a statutor.y regu- 
 lation as to lights, anil that the owners could not 
 therefore escape liability on the ground of com- 
 iiulsorv pilotage. The llipon, 54 L. J., Adm. 56 ; 
 10 P. "D. 6.-) ; 52 L. T. 438 ; 33 W. R. 659 ; 5 
 Asp. M. C. 365. 
 
 Duty to warn Pilot of Ship's Peculiarities,] — 
 Evidence was given of the steamer having been 
 ininlequately manned and out of trim on the 
 occasion of" the collision, and that the pilot, 
 ■who had only came on board a short time 
 before, had not been told of these latent defects. 
 The judge, holding that it was not open to the 
 plaintifE^on his pleadings to rely on such defects 
 and that their existence had not been in fact 
 proved, dismisseil the petition : — Held, on appeal, 
 that the plaintiff was entitled to rely on such 
 defects, though he had neither pleaded them 
 originally nor by special replication ; that they 
 li:id been actually proved, and that their non- 
 disclosure to the pilot invalidated the defendants' 
 plea of compulsory pilotage. The Meteor, Ir. 11. 
 y Eq. 567. S. P., The Oakjicld, supra. 
 
 Pilot Below.] — Where a collision occurred 
 -n-hen the pilot was unavoidably below for a 
 few minutes, tlie owners were held liable. The 
 Jfiihile, liafcs V. Don Pahlo Som, Svvabey, 127 ; 
 10 Moore, P. C. 467— P. C. 
 
 Pilot Intoxicated.]— If the pilot is manifestly 
 incapable or intoxicated, it is the duty of the 
 master to take charge of the ship. The LochUho, 
 Fulloek V. McAlphi, 7 Moore, P. 0. 427. 
 
 Not Giving more Chain— Not Taking Tug- 
 Not Getting Sail on Ship— After Collision.]- 
 
 A ship in charge of a compulsory pilot, after 
 fouling one ship, drove on board another. Her 
 owners held liable for not giving her more chain 
 to bring her up, and for not taking a tug, and for 
 not getiting sail on her. Tlie AnnapoUn and The 
 Golden L'ujht, Lush. 355 ; 5 L. T. 37. 
 
 for the waterman's fault. The General de Caen, 
 Swabey, i). 
 
 Warps and Check Lines.] — The omission to 
 run out a check line or warps when docking is 
 negliii-ence of the shipowner or his crew. The 
 (■,}ni)ua, 46 L. J., Adm. .58; 2 P. D. 52; 
 3(; L. T. 189 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 378 ; but see The 
 llifihorns Minde, as to the pilot's duty in this 
 case, 52 L. J., Adm. 74 ; 8 P. D. 132 ; 49 L. T. 
 23 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 460— C. A. 
 
 Engines.]— Owners are liable if the engines are 
 not stopped at the pilot's order. The HtjMii, 
 6 Not. of Cas. 245. 
 
 Interference with Pilot.]— The master has no 
 light to interfere with the pilot except in case of 
 manifest incapacity or intoxication. The An/o, 
 Swabey, 462 : "Jlie 'Christiana, supra ; The JMariK, 
 1 W. Kob. 95 ; The lUhernia, 4 Jur. (N.S.) 
 1244. 
 
 Even when the pilot is breaking the law by 
 navigating on the wrong side of the river. Tlie 
 Argo, supra. 
 
 it is not improper interference with the pilot 
 to make suggestions or to offer advice. The 
 LochUho, supl-a ; The OaUfield, supra. 
 
 It is the master's duty to point out manifest 
 danger, if the order of the pilot is clearly wrong. 
 'Jlte Dulte of JIanch eater, Sherhy v. Mlhhert, 5 
 Not. of Cas. 470 ; 6 Moore, P. C. 90. 
 
 Not sending down Yards in Heavy Weather.] 
 — Sliipowner held liable, because the master of a 
 ship in charge of a compulsory pilot riding in the 
 Downs in heavy weather did not send down his 
 yards, whereby she drove and fouled another 
 ship. The Chridiana, supra. 
 
 Waterman Employed by Pilot.]— A French 
 vessel upon the Thames took a pilot, and, as her 
 crew did not understand English, a waterman to 
 take the wheel. The waterman put her helm up, 
 instead of lulling, as the iiilot ordered, whei-eby 
 a barge was run into and damaged : — Held, that 
 the owners and not the pilot were answerable 
 
 f. When Compulsory. 
 
 i. Generalhj. 
 
 Passenger Ships in the United Kingdom— 17 
 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 353.] — Pilotage is com- 
 pulsory for shijis carrying passengers between 
 places' in the United Kingdom. The Temora, 
 Lush. 17; 2L. T. 418. 
 
 Ship within Home Port — Passengers.] — A 
 vessel navigating within the port to wuich she 
 belongs must take a pilot if she is carrying 
 passengers. Duhlin Port and Bocks Board v. 
 Shannon, Iv. R. 7 C. L. 116. 
 
 Ships shifting Moorings.] — As to the exemp- 
 tion of ships changing moorings in port, see The 
 Victoria. Ir. R. 1 "^Eip 336 ; The Maria, L. R. 1 
 A. & E.'358; 16 L. T. 717; 15 W. R. 143; 
 Thornton v. Boland, 2 Bing. 219. As to a similar 
 exemption under 5 Geo. 2, c. 20, see Mcintosh 
 V. Slndc, 6 B. & C. 657 ; 5 L. J. (O.S.) K. B. 345 ; 
 30 R. R. 494 ; Hex v. Lamh, 5 Term Rep. 76 ; Itp,o 
 v. Kcale, 8 Term Rep. 241. 
 
 ii. Under 6 Geo. 4, c. 125. 
 
 General operation of 6 Geo. 4, c. 125.]— The 
 provisions of 6 (leo. 4, c. 125, are not confined 
 to the London Trinity House pilotage. Tijnr 
 Improvement Commissioners v. General Steam. 
 jVariaation Co., 8 B. & S. 66 ; 36 L. J., Q. B. 22 ; 
 L R 2 Q. B. 65 ; 15 L. T. 487 ; 15 W. R. 178 ; 
 The Killarneii, Lush. 427 ; 6 L. T. 908. But see 
 The Eden, 2 W. Rob. 442 ; 10 Jur. 296 ; Att.-Gen. 
 V. Case, 3 Price, 302 ; 17 R. fi. 566 ; The 3Iaria, 
 1 W. Rob. 95. 
 
 Exemption from Liability Under 6 Geo. 4. 
 0. 125.]— The exemption from liability of ship- 
 owners under the 6 & 7 Geo. 4, c. 125, extended 
 to cases where the pilot was acting in charge 
 of the ship under the provisions of the act, 
 whether by compulsion of law or by the shij)- 
 owners' appointment. L'lce;/ v. Ini/ram, 6 M. & ^^ . 
 302 ; 9 L. J., Ex. 196. And see, per Romilly, M.R., 
 The Lion, 6 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 163 ; 38 L. J., P. O. 
 51 ; L. R. 2 P. C. 525 ; 21 L. T. 41 ; 17 \V. R. 993. 
 
 Admiralty Action in rem.]— 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, 
 
 s. 14, applied in Admiralty, and prevented one 
 injured by a collision caused by the fault of^ a 
 compulsory pilot from recovering damages. The 
 Protector, 'l W. Rob. 45. 
 
 Owners of Foreign Ship exempt from Lia- 
 bility.]— The statute 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, s. 55, 
 exempting shipowners from liability for the 
 fault of a compulsory pilot applied to foreign 
 ships. The Christiana, 2 Hag. Adm. 183.
 
 777 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 778 
 
 Master Commanding his own Ship.] — Pilotage 
 is compulsoiy under 6 Geo. 4. c. 125, for a master 
 commanding his own vessel on a foreign voyage 
 fiom London. Williaius v. Keioton, li M. & W. 
 747 ; 15 L. J., Ex. 11. 
 
 Change of Mooring.] — A vessel had to deliver 
 jiart of her cargo at the London Docks, and part 
 at a wharf higher up the river. She went to the 
 docks, under ^he charge of a pilot, who left her 
 there, where she remained some time without 
 discharging any of her cargo, as the part to be 
 Ijft at the wharf was uppermost. She then went 
 under the charge of another ijilot up the river 
 to the wharf, and by the neglect of the pilot ran 
 down a barge : — Held, that under (5 Geo. -i, c. 12."), 
 s. .")5. the pilot alone was answerable, and not the 
 owners, as they were bound to have a pilot on 
 board at the time, and that it was not a mere 
 chance of mooring. M-Intosh v. Sladc, 6 B. & G. 
 i\r,l ; 9 D. & E. 738 ; 5 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 345 ; 
 SO R. R. 494. 
 
 When Compulsory.] — Under the 6 Geo. 4, 
 c. 125. s. 55, if the ship was within a district to 
 which the act applied, the statutory protection 
 existed not only in those cases in wliich it was 
 compulsory to take a pilot on board, but also 
 where a pilot had been taken on board and was 
 forced to serve if called upon, but the master 
 was not bound to employ him. The Fania, 
 2 W. Rob. 184. 
 
 Other decisions under 6 and 7 Geo. 4, c. 125, 
 arc : Carrvthern v. Sidehothtun, 4 M. & S. 77 ; 
 J)o/l<h V. EiiiUrion, 9 V). i^ R. 27 : 5 L. J. (O.s.) 
 K. B. (\:> ; Jieilhii v. Snott, 7 M. & W. 93 ; 10 L. J., 
 E.\. 149 ; 'The Ayricolu, 2 W. Rob. 10 ; 7 Jur. 157. 
 
 iii. At Various Places. 
 
 Belfast.] — Pilotage is compulsory at Belfast 
 under 10 & II Vict. c. ii. Tlie I)r Jims, Ir. R. 
 ] E.|. 72 ; The Arbutus, 11 L. T. 208. 
 
 Cork.] — Where the judgment of the court was, 
 that the collision was occasioned ])y the mis- 
 niaiiagcmcnt and incompetency of the jiilot in 
 <liarge of the vessel proceeded against, su -h pilot 
 being duly appointed under the Cork pilot act : 
 — Held, that the owners were not protected from 
 their liability in res)>ect of the injury occasioned 
 by the act of the pilot, the em[)loyment of such 
 l)ilot not being compulsory upfm them by that 
 iict. and 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, not extending to the 
 local act. The Men, 2 W. Rob. 442 ; 10 Jur. 
 290. 
 
 Dublin.] — A steam tug, carrying passengers 
 between Kingstown Harbour and the North 
 "Wall, Dublin (both of wliicli places are under 
 1lie provisions of the Dublin Port and Docks Act, 
 ]M(;9, within the limits of the port of Diililin), is 
 within the meaning of tlie Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1854 (17 A: 18 Vict. c. I(i4). h. 354, ami 
 t)bliged to carry a pilot. JJiihlht Port atid Durks 
 Jiiiard r. Slioniwn. Ir. R. 7 C. L. 110. See also 
 The Meteor, Ir. R. 9 Eq. 507. 
 
 Glasgow and Clyde.] — Chide Xnrif/titian C<>. 
 V. Jl,nrl„,i. 1 App. ("as. 791; 30 L.'X. 379; 3 
 As].. M. C. 390—11. L. (Sc.) 
 
 Goole, Hull, and Humber.] — The employment 
 of a Huniljcr pilot is not compulsory upon a 
 vessel which is being towed from one dock to 
 another in the port of Hull, as a vos.sel is not, in 
 
 such circumstances, either passing into or out of 
 the port, within the terms of s. 22 of the Hull 
 pilot act. or bound to or from the port, witliiu 
 the terms of s. 89. The Maria, L. R. 1 A. \: E. 
 358 ; 16 L. T. 717 ; 15 W. R. 1113. 
 
 The employment of a licensed Goole pilot is 
 generally compulsory upon vessels inward bound 
 to Goole, including vessels belonging to that 
 port ; not, however, bv the Hull pilot act, but 
 by 6 Geo. 4, c. 125. ss. ^58. 59, and 17 & 18 Vict. 
 c. 104, s. 353. Tlie Killarncij, Lush. 427 ; 6 
 L. T. 908. 
 
 A collision occurred in the Humber Dock, 
 Hull, between a fly-boat and a foreign schooner 
 bound to the Prince's Dock. The schooner was 
 in charge of a duly licensed Humber pilot, who 
 had taken over the charge of the schooner while 
 she was moored at a pier in the Humber from 
 the pilot who had brought her in from sea. One 
 sum was paid for the services of the two pilots : 
 — Held, that the schooner was in charge of a 
 pilot whose emi)lovnient was compulsorj* bvlavv. 
 The Riqhorcjs Minde. 52 L. J., Adm. 74 ; s'P. D. 
 132 ; 49 L.'T 232 ; 5 Asp. M. 0. 123— C. A. 
 
 See also as to Humber pilotage, Pcilhi/ v. 
 Paper, 3 B. & Ad. 284 ; Hull Doeli Co. v. Browne, 
 2 B. & Ad. 43. 
 
 Ipswich.] — By the Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104), s. 353, the employ- 
 ment of pilots shall continue compulsory in all 
 districts where it is compMlsory at the time the 
 act passed. By s. 379, ships employed in the 
 coasting trade of the United Kingdom, when not 
 carrying jjassengers, shall be exempted from com- 
 pulsorj' pilotage in the Trinity House outport 
 districts, whicli by s. 370, comprise any pilotage 
 district for the appointment of pilots within 
 which no particular provision ismadeby any act 
 of parliament or charter. By the Ipswich Dock 
 Act, 1852 (15 Vict. c. cxvi. s. 3), a former act, 
 by which si)ecial provision was made for the 
 appoiniment of ])ili)ts in tlie port of Ipswich, is 
 re|jealed, and s. 91 enacts, as to the appointment 
 of sub-commissioners for examining pilots, &c., 
 in the words of s. 5 of 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, except 
 that they are described as persons " resident 
 within " the port of Ipswich, instead of " at" : — 
 Held, thats. 91 was not a "particular provision"; 
 and that Ipswich was therefore a Trinity House 
 outi)ort district, and a coasting vessel not carry- 
 ing passengers navigating that port was exem])t 
 fi'om compulsory j)iIotage. lladqraft \. J feu-it h. 
 44 L. J., M. C. 140; L. R. 10 Q. B. 3.50; 32 
 L. T. 720 ; 23 W. R. 911 ; 2 A.sp. M. C. 573. 
 
 Leith.] — As to the powers of the Leitli Trinity 
 House to grant licences from Oifortlncss to iho 
 Nore, see llossarh, v. Gray, B. A: S. 598 ; 34 
 L. J., M. C. 209 : II Jur. (N.s.) 900 ; 12 L. T. 
 701 ; 13 W. 1!. .S59. 
 
 Ilanelly and River Burry.J — P.y by-laws 
 made l>y the (.'oinmissioners foithc Improvement 
 
 of tlie Navigjiti )f tlie River Burry under the 
 
 l>rovisions of the h)cal acts (53 Geo. 3, c. clxxxiii. 
 and & 7 Vict. c. clxxxviii.), pilotage was made 
 compulsory in the River Burry and the port of 
 Llanelly. Tiiese by-laws were in force at the 
 time of tlic coming Mito operation of the Mer- 
 cliant Slii()i)ing Act, 1854, and were acted uj)on 
 by vesfcls tra<ling to the jiort of Llanelly : — 
 Held, that i)ilotage was compulsory. The Uuhij, 
 59 L. J., Adm. OH ; 15 P. D. 104 ; 63 L. T. 735 ; 
 39 W. R. 42 : Asp. M. C. 577— C. A.
 
 770 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Colisum. 
 
 780 
 
 Liverpool and Mersey.] — When a ship ready 
 ami alHUit to jiroct'oil to sea leaves one of the 
 Mersey ducks at night in charge of a licensed 
 pilot, and casts anchor in the river so as to be 
 ready to cross the bar at the mouth of the river 
 on the next morning's tide at an earlier hour 
 than she could if she left the dock in the morning, 
 the going into and casting anchor in the river is 
 a step in the " proeeediiig to sea," within the 
 meaning of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board 
 Act, 1858 (21 & 22 Vict. c. xcii. s. 139), and the 
 employment of the pilot is compulsory under 
 that section from the time of leaving dock, and if 
 the ship breaks away from her moorings, and 
 damages another vessel through the pilot's sole 
 default, the owners will not be responsible. T/ie 
 Cifi/ iif Cainhridrje or Wood v. Si)iitJi, 43 L. J., 
 Adm." 11 ; L. K. 5 P. C. 451 ; 30 L. T. 431) ; 22 
 \V. K. 578 : 2 Asp. M. C. 239. 
 
 When a vessel leaves a dock in the Mersey on 
 her voyage to sea, and receives slight injuries to 
 a yard-arm, necessitating repaiis, and in conse- 
 quence is anchored under the directions of the 
 pilot in the river, intending to go to sea on the 
 next day, the pilot remaining iu charge, but on 
 the next morning, before resuming her voyage 
 and whilst still at anchor, she gets into collision, 
 and does damage to another vessel, she is not 
 "proceeding to sea" within the meaning of the 
 139th section of the Mersey Docks Act Consoli- 
 dation Act, 1858 (21 & 22 Vict. c. xcii.), and the 
 ])ilot is not in charge by compulsion of law. The 
 rarJuipool, 7 P. D. 217 ; 46 L. T. 171 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 502. 
 
 By the Liverpool Pilot Act (5 Geo. 4 c. Ixxiii. 
 s. 37), in case the master of any ship outwaid 
 bound shall proceed to sea, and shall refuse to 
 take on board a pilot, he shall pay the pilot who 
 shall first offer his service at a certain rate as if 
 the pilot had piloted the vessel. On the 2nd of 
 December a vessel left the Liverpool Docks with 
 a i)ilot on board ; on the 3rd the boat of the 
 plaintiff, who was then employed by the owners 
 in raising the vessel's anchor, was lost, through 
 the carelessness of those on board the ship ; at 
 this time the master was not on board, and the 
 vessel being employed by the post-office, was not 
 to sail till the 4th of December, and her rigging 
 was being completed : — Held, assuming an out- 
 ward-bound vessel to be liable when proceeding 
 to sea to take a pilot on board, still that this 
 vessel was not proceeding to sea. llodriqiies v. 
 Melhuish, 10 Ex. 110 ; 24 L. J., Ex. 26 ; 2 W. R. 
 518. 
 
 A foreign vessel bound for Liverpool took a 
 pilot off Point Lynas, was brought to anchor in the 
 Mersey, and there lay two or three days, waiting 
 for want of water to dock. She was then con- 
 ducted by the same pilot into dock. In pro- 
 ceeding towards the dock, a collision was 
 occasioned by the jdlot's default :— Held, that 
 the vessel was not liable for the damage. 2'he 
 AiinajMl'is and The Johanna Stoll, Lush. 295 ; 30 
 L. .1., Adm. 201 ; 4 L. T. 417. 
 
 A duly-qualified Liverpool pilot having been 
 employed to pilot a ship from sea into the Mersey 
 and take her into dock, piloted her over the bar, 
 but owing to the state of the tide being unable to 
 dock her that day, anchored her in a clear berth 
 in the river. The pilot remained in charge of 
 the ship, and the next day the state of the 
 weather being such as to render it unadvisable to 
 take lier into dock that day, she remained at 
 anchor. In the course of that day, and whilst 
 the pilot was in charge, the ship dragged her 
 
 anchor and came iido collision with a barque. 
 In an action instituted by the owner of the 
 banjue against the ship, the court decided that 
 the collision was caused solely by the negligence 
 of the pilot in charge of the ship : — Held, that 
 the owners of the ship were not answerable for 
 the damage, for it was occasioned by the fault of 
 a i)ilot acting in charge of the ship within a dis- 
 trict where the employment of such pilot was 
 compulsorj' by law. The Princeton., 47 L. J., 
 Adm. 33 ; 3 P. D. 90 ; 38 L. T. 2110 ; 3 Asp. M. G. 
 562. 
 
 Pilotage compulsory under 5 Geo. 4, c. Ixxiii., 
 s. 25, at Liverpool. The Montreal, 17 Jur. 538. 
 
 See aim other Cases of Liverpool pilotage, Tlie 
 Ocean Wave, 6 Moore. P. C. (n.s.) 492 ; L. R. 3 
 P. C. 205 ; 23 L. T. 218. Carruthers v. Side- 
 botham, 4 M. & S. 77 ; 16 R. R. 392. Att.-Gen. 
 V. Case, 3 Price, 302 ; 17 R. R. 566. The 
 Korthainpton, 1 Spinks, 152. The Agrlcola, 2 
 W. Rob. 10 ; 7 Jur. 157. 
 
 London (Trinity House) and Outport Districts 
 — No Compulsion at Place of Collision,] — A.'s 
 vessel, belonging to the port of London, having 
 taken on board a pilot from Dungeness to 
 Gravesend, came in collision, through the pilot's 
 negligence, with B.'s vessel, at a spot in the 
 river Thames between Yantlett Creek and 
 Gravesend : — Held, that, for pilotage purposes. 
 Gravesend is the eastern limit of the [)ort of 
 London, and that the spot where the collision 
 took place is therefore within the district where 
 pilotage is com[uilsory ; that A. was not liable to 
 answer for the damage which B. sustained ; and 
 that the relation of master and servant did not 
 exist between A. and the pilot. General Steant. 
 Nur'igation Co. v. British Colonial Steam j\avi- 
 qatidn Co., 38 L. J., Ex. 97 ; L. R. 4 Ex. 238 ; 20 
 L. T. 581 ; 17 W. R. 741— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Foreign Ship.] — A Norwegian vessel, the 
 
 " Hanna," Ijound from Sweden to London, and 
 in charge of a duly licensed pilot, came wi'ong- 
 fully into collision with another vessel, off the 
 Nore lightship :— Held, that there was no com- 
 pulsion" to take the pilot, and that therefore the 
 owners of the " Hanna " were responsible for the 
 damage. Tlie Hanna, 36 L. J., Adm. 1 ; L. R. 1 
 A. & E. 283 ; 15 L. T. 334 ; 15 W. R. 263. 
 
 Differential Dues.] — Pilotage is compul- 
 sory on a foreign ship carrying passengers and 
 trading between Lomlon and ports between Bou- 
 logne and the Baltic. The order in council of the 
 18th February, 1854, extencHng the exemptions 
 from compulsory pilotage, applies only to British 
 vessels. A charge for a compulsory pilotage on a 
 foreign ship is not a differential due w^'^hin the 
 meaning of the Harbours and Passing T ills Act, 
 1S61, and is therefore not abolished by that act. 
 The Ve.<<ta, 51 L. J., Adm. 25; 7 P. D. 240; 46 
 L. T. 492 ; 30 W. R. 705 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 515. 
 
 Thames — Pilot licensed for Vessels of 
 
 Lighter Draft.]— The steamship " C," drawing 
 more than fourteen feet of water, was subject to 
 compulsory iiilotage in the river Thames. There 
 being no fully qualified pilot available, the " C." 
 took a i)ilot who was licensed to take charge of 
 vessels drawing not more than fourteen feet of 
 water, and in ithese circumstances came into col- 
 lision with the "A." The collision was occasioned 
 solely by the negligence of the pilot in charge of 
 the •' C." : — HelcC that he was a "qualified 
 pilot," within the meaning of s. 388 of the
 
 781 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 782 
 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, and that the 
 owners of the " C." were therefore exempt from 
 liability. The Carl XV., [1892] P. 324 ; 61 
 L. J., Adm. Ill— C. A. 
 
 Semble, a pilot qualified to conduct ships 
 drawing more than fourteen feet water would 
 have a right to supersede the pilot in charge 
 who was not so qualitied ; but the latter woukl 
 be entitled to a fair proportion of the pilotage 
 fees. lb. 
 
 Trinity Outport District — Evidence as to 
 
 Falmouth being." — See The Juno, 45 L. .J.,Adni. 
 105; I r. L>. 13.5; 34 L. T. 741; 24 W. E. 
 il02. 
 
 "Qualified Pilot" —Exempted and TJn- 
 
 exempted Ships.] — A jiilot licensed only to pilot 
 >hips exempt from compulsory pilotage is not 
 entitled to supersede an unqualified pilot in 
 charge of an unexempted ship, and is not a 
 ••qualified pilot" for this purpose within the 
 meaning of s. 353 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1854. atatford v. Diier, 64 L. J., M. G. 194; 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 566 ; 15 R. 287 ; 72 L. T. 114 ; 
 7 Asp. M. C. 568. 
 
 Coasting Vessels.] — An Irish vessel with a 
 
 general cargo, trailing between Belfast and Lon- 
 don, and not laden with corn or grain, as specified 
 in 46 Geo. 3, c. 97, s. 2, was not exempted 
 under 52 Geo. 3, c. 39, s. 2, from taking a pilot 
 on board, as such vessel could not be considered 
 as a coasting vessel, or an Irish trader, using the 
 navigation of the River Thames as a coaster. 
 Dacldsvn v. Mehlbhen, 6 Moore, 387 ; 3 Br. & B. 
 112. 
 
 The only reason why coasting vessels are ex- 
 empted from the obligation of taking a pilot, is, 
 that, from that fre(pient egress and ingress to 
 tlie particular port, their masters must be jire- 
 sumed to be perfectly acquainted with the 
 '"fnlity. The Ayricula, 2 W. Rob. 10 ; 7 Jur. 
 157. 
 
 A vessel ordinarily occupied in the foreign 
 trade, going from Liverjiool to Lomlon in order 
 to sail from London under advertisement for 
 foreign parts, not carrying passengers, but having 
 on board a cargo shipped at Liverpool and 
 deliverable at LoikIod, is not a sliip employed in 
 the coasting trade of the United Kingdom within 
 17 & \H Vict. c. 104, s. 379 ; and is compellaiile 
 by 8. 376 to take a i)ilot in the London district 
 of the Tiinitv IFonse. The Lhnjdn or Sea 
 Queen, Br. .V: Lush. 359; 32 L. J., Adm. 197; 9 
 L. T. 236. 
 
 London District — "Ship trading" to 
 
 Place North of Boulogne.] — I'.y the Merelmnt 
 SliippiiiL' A<:t, l'^"'! [\1 k. IS Vict. c. 101), s. 379. 
 sliips trading to any jilace in J'hirope north of 
 Boulogne are, when net carrying passengers, ex- 
 empted from comimlsory pilotage in the London 
 district. A British ship was one of a line of 
 vessels making regul.ar voyages from London to 
 Japan and jiorts in the East, and Itaek to London, 
 an<l Iheiii'c to ports in Europe noitli f>f IJoiilogne 
 and back to London. On a return voyage from 
 the East, she went as usual to London. She 
 there discharged part of her cargo and lier 
 crew, and then with the })ulk of her cargo and 
 a crew of runners, but without passengers, pro- 
 ceeded to Holland: — Held, that she was a ship 
 "trading to" a place north of J'.oulogne, and 
 thei'cforc exempted from compulsory pilotage 
 
 in the London district. Courtnerj v. Cidr. 
 56 L. J., M. C. 141 ; 19 Q. B. t). 447 ; 57 
 L. T. 409 ; 36 W. R. 8 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 169 ; 52 J. P. 
 20. 
 
 By the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (17 & IS 
 Vict. c. 104), s. 379, sub-s. 3, the following shijis 
 when not carrying ]>assengers shall be exempted 
 frtim compulsory pilotage in the London district 
 — that is to say, ships trading to Boulogne, or to 
 any place in Eui'ope north of Boulogne. A 
 vessel while on a voyage from Liverpool to Ham- 
 burg was obliged by an accident to j)ut into the 
 Thames for repairs : — Held, that she was ex- 
 empted by s. 379 from taking a i)ilot in the 
 London district. The Sutherhmd, 56 L. J., Adm. 
 94 ; 12 P. D. 154 ; 67 L. T. 631 ; 36 W. R. 13 ; 6 
 Asp. M. C. 181. 
 
 In 17 & 18 Viet. c. 108, s. 379, the description, 
 •' ships trading to any place in Europe north of 
 Boulogne," extends to vessels coming from a 
 )'lace north of Boulogne to the port of London. 
 The Wesley, Lush. 268. 
 
 A vessel, not carrying passengers, on a voyage 
 from Cronstadt to London, is exempted from 
 compulsory pilotage in the Thames. lb. 
 
 ' ' Ship trading from any Port in the London 
 
 District to any Port of Europe north and east of 
 Brest.] — A ship cai'ryinga cargo frtini a foreign 
 port to London, and thence without taking any 
 fresh cargo on board, proceeding to Rotterdam, 
 is a " ship trading from " a " port in Great 
 Britain within the London district to" a "port 
 in Europe north and east of Brest," within the 
 meaning of s. 625 of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1894, and therefore exempt from compul- 
 sory pilotage. The Rutland, 66 L. J., Adm. 
 105 ; [1897] A. C. 333 ; 76 L. T. 662— H. L. (E.) 
 
 ■ Ship Navigating within Limits of Port 
 
 to which she belongs — Passengers — Distressed 
 Seamen.] — Distressed seamen taken on boaril a 
 ship to be brought home under the provisions of 
 the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, are not "pas- 
 sengers" within the meaning of s. 625 of that 
 act, and therefore a vessel which is in other 
 I'cspeets within the provisions of that section, is 
 not by reason of having such persons on board 
 excluded from the exemptions from compulsory 
 ])ilotage contained therein. The (liiinriic, (>() 
 L. .1.. Adm. 1.52 ; [1897] P. 295 ; 76 L. T. 811 ; 
 16 W. R. 109. 
 
 "Navigating within."] — The words 
 
 "navigating withm," in 17 &. 18 Vict. c. 104, 
 s. 379, mean being within, and therefore a vessel 
 belonging to the port of London, and coming 
 fi'om a foreign ])ort, is exenii)t from the employ- 
 ment of a licensed pilot on the 'i'h;uncs. 'J lie 
 Stettin, P.r. & Lush. 199 ; 31 L. J., Adm. 208 ; 6 
 L. T. 613— 1'. G. 
 
 "Loading"— 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 41.]— 
 
 The word "leading" in 25 .».; 26 \'icl. c. C,:?. s. 41, 
 t'ioesnol refer to l he taking on board of cargo oidy. 
 Therefore when a steamer anchored in Dartmouth 
 Harbour, and took on board twenty tons of coal 
 for tiie purposes of the voyage, and was bound 
 for a place out of the outport district to a desti- 
 nation also out of it: — Held, that she was not 
 exempt from the ol)ligation to employ a pilot. 
 The WiiiHivn, 53 L. J., Adm. 69 ; 9 P. D. 85 ; 51 
 L. T. 183 ; 5 Asp. M. C.274— C. A. Aflirming 31 
 W. R. 892.
 
 783 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 784 
 
 CinoLue Ports.]— P.y G Geo. 4, c. 125, s. 62, 
 
 the master or mate of a vessel, being owner or 
 part owner, and residing at Dover, Deal, or the Isle 
 of Thanet, was exempt from a penalty for pilot- 
 ing his own ship from any of the places aforesaid 
 up or down the rivers Thames or Medvvay, or 
 into or out of any port within the jurisdiction of 
 t he Cintjue Torts : — Held, that the clause limited 
 tlie exemption to vessels navigated from Dover, 
 Deal, or the Isle of Thanet. Pcahe v. ShrerrJi, 
 7 Q. B. G03 ; 14 L. J., Q. B. 317. S. P., W!l- 
 Jiams V. Neicton, 14 M. & W. 747 ; 15 L. J., Ex. 
 11. 
 
 See also as to pilotage in the London Trinity 
 House districts, supra, cols. 780 seq. 
 
 Passengers.] — The master of a vessel be- 
 
 Linging to the port of London and bound up the 
 Tliames, on a voyage from Austialia to London 
 with passengers on board, is required by law to 
 employ a licensed jiilot within the limits of the 
 port of London. The ILi/ikoiv, 48 L. J., Adm. 
 29 ; 4 P. D. 197 ; 40 L. T. 335 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 97. 
 
 A steamship carrying cargo and passengers 
 from Boulogne to London is not bound, under 
 the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. 
 c. 104), to employ a pilot whilst navigating the 
 river Thames, the general exemption continued 
 from 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, s. 59, and the order in 
 council of 18th February, 1854, by the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1854, s. 353, not being overriden 
 by s. 379, relating to Trinit_y House pilotage, and 
 exempting such a ship only when not carrying 
 ])assengers. The Moselle, 32 L. T. 570 ; 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 586. 
 
 A British vessel carrying goods and pas- 
 sengers between Rotterdam and London, having 
 a licensed pilot on board, ran down a ship. Tlie 
 collision took place in the Thames, within the 
 Trinity House district, and was duly occasioned 
 by the fault of the pilot :— Held, that the 
 exemption from compulsory pilotage given by 
 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, s. 59. and 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, 
 s. 353, applied, and that the fact of the vessel 
 having a licensed })ilot on board, whose act alone 
 occasioned the damage, did not exempt the 
 (-iwners from liability. The Eiirl of Aneldand, 
 Lush. 387 ; 15 Moore, P. C. 304 ; 5 L. T. 558 ; 
 10 W. R. 124. 
 
 The fifth exemjition from compulsory pilotage 
 in 17 i!c 18 Vict. c. 104. ajiplies to vessels con- 
 fining their voyages within the limits of the 
 port to which they belong. As, however, all the 
 exemptions under 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, were con- 
 tinued by 17 & 18 Vict. e. 104, the more extcn- 
 .sive words used in the former act must be hel<l 
 to exempt from the necessity of taking a pilot 
 any master of a ship so long as his vessel is 
 within the limits of her port. In such case, 
 therefore, if a collision occurs, the presence of 
 a pilot gives no immunity to the owners. The 
 Stettin, Br. & Lush. 199 ; 31 L. J., Adm. 208 ; 6 
 L. T. 613— P. C. 
 
 P>y 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 353, which continues 
 all exemptions fi om compulsory pilotage existing 
 immediately before the time when that act 
 came into operation, the exemptions contained 
 in 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, aie continued, notwith- 
 standing ss. 376, 379, and notwithstanding that 
 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, is repealed by 17 & 18 Vict. 
 c. 120. lieq. V. Stanton or Stanton v. Banlts, 8 
 El. & Bl. 445 ; 27 L. J., M. C. 105 : 4 Jur. (N.S.) 
 10, 332 ; 6 W. R. 39. 
 
 At the time of a collision a man was on board 
 the vessel in fault, to whom the master had 
 
 agreed to give .a free passage, and who messed 
 with him and also assisted in working the shiji : 
 — Held, that the vessel was not carrying pas- 
 sengers so as to render it compulsory to take a 
 pilot. The Ilanna, 36 L. J., Adm. 1 ; L. E. 1 
 A. & E. 283 ; 15 L. T. 334 ; 15 W. E. 263. 
 
 An Irish trader (as described by 6 Geo. 4, 
 c. 125, s. 59), carrying passengers, is compellecl 
 to employ a licensed pilot in the Thames. The 
 Tcmora, Lush. 17 ; 2 L. T. 418. 
 
 It is not compulsory on a passenger ship to 
 take a licensed pilot on board when she is not 
 carrying passengers, and the owners are respon- 
 sible for the negligence of the pilot, where they 
 were not com})ellable to put him in charge of 
 their vessel. 'Tlie Lion, 6 Moore, P. C. (N.S). 
 163 ; 38 L. J., Adm. 51 ; L. Pv. 2 P. C. 525 ; 21 
 L. T. 41 ; 17 W. E. 993. 
 
 The payment of a fare is necessary to consti- 
 tute a passenger within the meaning of the 
 compulsory pilotage sections of the Merchant 
 Shipping Act (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104). Ih. 
 
 Where, therefore, the wife and father-in-law 
 of the captain were on board a vessel (usually 
 carrying passengers, but not on a passage voyage 
 at the time), by invitation from the captain, 
 without the privity of the owners, and they had 
 neither paid, or agreed to pay, any fare, before 
 a collision took place, such persons were held 
 not to be passengers within the meaning of the 
 act, so as to exonerate the owners from damage 
 occasioned by the pilot's default. lb. 
 
 Distressed seamen. See The Clijmene, supra, 
 col. 782. 
 
 Vessel engaged in the Coasting Trade.] — 
 
 Pilotage held to be compulsory in the Thames 
 for a steamship with part of her cargo on board 
 bound from London to Venice by way of Cardiff, 
 where she was to take in the remainder of her 
 cargo. The Winextead, 64 L. J., Adm. 51 ; [1895] 
 P. 170 ; 11 E. 720 ; 72 L. T, 91 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 547. 
 
 Tyne.] — The provisions of the 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, 
 s. 55, do not extend to British vessels in the 
 Tyne, and therefore the owner of a British vessel 
 in that river in charge of a qualified pilot 
 appointed by the Trinity House of Newcastle- 
 upon Tyne, under the local act of 41 Geo. 3, 
 c. Ixxxvi., is not protected from liability for 
 damage occasioned by the negligence of the 
 pilot. Tyne Tmprovrment Commissioners v. 
 General Steani' Kariqation. Co., 8 B. & S. 66 ; 36 
 L. J., Q. B. 22 : L. E. 2 Q. B. 65 ; 15 L. T. 487 ; 
 15 W. E. 178— Ex. Oh. S. P., Bodds v. Emhle- 
 ton, 9 D. & E. 27 ; 5 L. J. (o.S.) K. B. 65. 
 
 Foreign Vessels.] — Under the Tyne Pilot- 
 age Order Coiitiniiaiion Act, 1865, Sched., s. 16, 
 pilotage is not compulsory on foreign vessels 
 entering the Tyne. The Johann Scerdrnp, 56 
 L. J., Adm. 63 ; 12 P. D. 43 ; 56 L. T. 256 ; 35 
 W. E. 300 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 73— C. A. 
 
 As to Pilotage in the Tyne for Foreign 
 
 Ships under 41 Geo. 3, c. Ixxxvi.] — See The 
 
 Maria, 1 W. Eob. 95. 
 
 Waterford.] — Under the Watcrford Harbour 
 Act, 9 & 10 Vict. c. ccxcii., it is not necessary to 
 employ a pilot to shift a vessel from one berth 
 to another. The Victoria, Ir. E. 1 Eq. 336. 
 
 Indian Rivers.] — A collision took place in the 
 Covvcolly Eoads, one of the channels in the
 
 785 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 786 
 
 Hoojrhly Eiver, near Calcutta. By an act of the 
 Indian legislature, it is made compulsory upon 
 llie master to take a pilot on board in every port 
 subject to the provisions of that act : — Held, 
 first, that the CowcoUy Roads, the place of the 
 collision, -was not a port within the meaning of 
 the act. The Peerless, Lush. 103 ; 13 Moore, 
 V. C. 484 ; 30 L. J., Adm. S'J. 
 
 11. The Regulations. 
 a. Generally. 
 
 Port Helm Rule of 1840."— See The Friends, 1 
 W. Rob. 484 ; on ajipeal, 4 "Moore, P. C. 314 ; The 
 Vintij. Swabey, lOl ; Tlie Duke of Sussex, infra ; 
 The Hope, 1 W. Rob. 154 ; The Iiniiiaganda Sara 
 C'lasiiia, 7 Not. of Cas. 582. 
 
 Free and Close-hauled Ship— Rule in 1828.] — 
 See Ilaiidayside v. Wilson, 3 Car. & P. 528. 
 
 Object of the Regulations.] — To prevent col- 
 lisions and also tu niinimise their eiiect — per 
 Lord Watson. Tlie Khcdire, Stooniraart Maats- 
 chujJjn/ JS'fdfrliind v. P. ^' 0. Steam Kariijatiou 
 Co., 52 L. J., Adm.l; 5 App. Cas. S7C,] DOS; 
 43 L. T. 610 ; 29 W. R. 173 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 507— 
 11. L. (E.) 
 
 How Construed.] — The regulations, being 
 intended for seafaring people, are to be construed 
 literalh — per Jessel, M. R. 'The Libra, 6 P. D. 
 139, 142 ; 45 L. T. 161 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 42'J. And 
 see The Margaret, 9 P. D. 47 ; The Dtuu-lm, 53 
 L. J., Adm. 81 ; 9 P. D. 164 ; 51 L. T. 214 ; 32 
 W. R. 970 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 304 ; The Beryl, 53 
 L. J., Adm. 75 ; 9 P. D. 137 ; 51 L, T. 554 ; 33 
 W. R. 191 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 321. 
 
 Departure from the Regulations.] — See 2. Pre- 
 suiii'TiON OF Fault, supra, cols. 707 se [., and 
 Alt. 27, infra, cols. 816 seq. 
 
 Application of the Regulations — Risk of Col- 
 lision. , — The regulalidiis apply bclure ri--k e.xists, 
 if it is manifest that risk is about to arise. Tlie 
 JSirijl, supra. 
 
 Cases wliere risk was held to exist. The Jes- 
 irofid and The Earl of FA<iin, 8 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 
 179 ; L. R. 4 P. C. 1 ; 25' L. T. 514 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 I"'0 ; The Jioiujainrille and The James ('. Stcren- 
 x",,, L. U. 5 P. C. 316 ; 28 L. T. 822 : 2 Asp. M. C. 
 1— P. C. ; The Franeonia. 2 P. H. H ; 35 L. T. 721 ; 
 ■a; VV. R. 197; 3 Asp. M. C. 29.5— C. A.; The 
 Sea/on, 53 L. J., A(hn. 15 ; 9 P. D. 1 ; 49 L. T. 747 ; 
 32 \V. R. 6(10 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 191. 
 
 Case in which it was held not to exist (semblc). 
 The Jiunshee, 57 L. T. 841 ; Asj). M. C. 221. 
 
 In an action for cfillision, where both vessels 
 vcre held to blame for breach of the ])rovisions 
 of article 18, the court of appeal ask<-d tlie 
 ji-iutical assessors the questions asked in The 
 Jleryl (53 L. J., Adm. 75 ; 9 1'. D. 137), and upon 
 their lieing answered in the negative dismissed 
 (lie ajipeal. The Oporto, 66 L. J., Adm. 49 ; 
 [1897 J P. 249— C. A. 
 
 Narrowing of Lights.] — Where two stcam- 
 
 bhips are a|>pr(i:i(iiii]i.' u\\\: another at sea in such 
 a p(jsition as to jiass in safety, the closing in and 
 coming more into line of the mastliead and aside 
 liuht is not necessarily such an indication that 
 the ship is altering her course so as to cause risk 
 of collision and to impose upfin the f)theishij) the 
 <liitvto oVjey article 18 of the legulations. The 
 Alhix, 73 L. T. 004 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 92. 
 
 What constitutes Risk of Collision.] — 
 
 See The Mamjerton, Swabey. 12u; 2 Jur. (N.S.) 
 420 ; The Cleopatra, Swabey, 135 ; The Eriesson, 
 Swabey, 38 : Tlie Duke of Sussex, 1 Kot. of Cas. 
 161 : 1 \V. Rob. 274 : The Dumfries, Swabey, 63, 
 125 ; 4 W. R. 708 ; The Hose, 2 W. Rob. 1. 
 
 The regulations only apply at a time when two 
 vessels have approached so near to one another 
 that, if either of them does anything contrary to 
 the regulations, risk of collision wiU be involved. 
 The Banshee, 57 L. T. 841 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 221— 
 C. A. 
 
 The regulations are not applicable until the 
 other ship's course and distance can with ordinary 
 care be approximately ascertained. The Bona 
 and TheAva. 2 Asp.M. C. 182 ; The James Watt, 
 
 2 W. Rob. 270 ; The Bour/ainville and The James 
 C. Sterenson, L. R. 5 P. C. 316 : 28 L. T. 822 ; 21 
 W. R. 653 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 1 ; The Great Eastern, 
 
 3 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 31 ; 11 L. T. 5. 
 
 Instantaneous Compliance.] — A steamship did 
 not stop and reverse as soon as she might have 
 done : — Held, that she was to blame, but that 
 a reasonable time for compliance with the regula- 
 tions must be allowed. The Emmy Ilaase, 53 
 L. J., Adm. 43 ; 9 P. D. 81 ; 50 L. T. 372 ; 32 
 W. R. 880 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 216 : The Xgapuota, 66 
 L. J., P. C. 88 ; [1897] A. C. 391 ; infra, col. 818. 
 
 Alteration of Helm in Fog.] — An alteration of 
 the helm in fog upon a guess as to the distance, 
 coui'se, and speed of the other ship is not neces- 
 sarily negligence. The Vindomora, [1891] A. C. 
 1 ; 63 L. T. 749 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 569— C. A. 
 
 Alteration of Helm for Greater Safety.] — An 
 alteration of the helm for greater safety where 
 there is no risk of collision is not negligence. The 
 Sylph, Swabev, 233; and see Tlie Franeonia, 2 
 P. U. 8 ; 35 L.T. 721 ; 25 W. R. 197 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 29.5— C. A. 
 
 Regulations must be obeyed in Time.]— If you 
 adopt a nieasui-e at an inipro[)(;r time, it does not 
 lake away the culjjability of not having done it 
 before — per Dr. Lushington. The Stadacona, 5 
 Not. of Cas. 371. 
 
 Close Shaving.] — Is negligence. The John 
 Brothcriek, 8 Jur. 276 ; and see Cases supra, co\. 
 700. 
 
 Regulations to be complied with until Ships 
 Clear.J- A sliip that by jiorting had ajipaiTuily 
 determined risk of coliision held in fault for not 
 ■stojiping and reversing when the other shii) by 
 perverse starboarding created fresh risk. 'The 
 Arratoon Aprar, 59 L. .1., P. C, 49; 15 App. 
 Cas. 37 ; 62 L. T. 331 ; 38 W. R. 481 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 491— P. C. 
 
 Practice Contrary to Regulations is Illegal. ] — 
 
 The Sylph, 2 Spinks, 7.". ; 'I'he I nity, SuMbcy. lOl ; 
 The /land of J'roiidenee, '^wnhi-y, 107 ; The Jllaek 
 Prin-e, 15" Moore, P. C. 122; The Veloeity, 6 
 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 263 : 39 L. J., Adm. 20 ; L. R. 
 3 P. C. 44 ; 21 L. T. 686 ; 18 AV. U. 264. 
 
 Darkness of Night no Excuse.]— Dai kness of 
 the ni.L'hl is no excuse for di-obeying the rules o£ 
 nav)gati(jn. Tlie Flint, 6 Not. of Cas. 271. 
 
 Sea Regulations applied in Thames.]— See The. 
 C.doyne, 9 iloore, P. (;. (N.S.) 352 ; L. R. 4 P. C, 
 519 ; 27 L. T. 709 ; 21 W. R. 273 ; 1 Asp. M. C.
 
 787 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 788 
 
 484—?. C. ; Tlic VrJocify. fi IMoore, P. C. (n.s.) 
 2f.3 ; 3'J L. J., Adin. 20 ; L. K. H P. C. 44 ; 21 L. T. 
 C^i) ; 1 S W. R. 2f)4 ; The Conrordi/i, L. K. 1 A. & E. 
 ;i:? ; 12 Jur. (N.S.) 77 ; 14 L. T. 896. 
 
 In the Suez Canal.] — The Hilda and The 
 
 Australia, 12 Ct. of 8fss. Cas. (4tli ser.) 76. 
 
 In the Clyde.] — The Owl and The Ariadne, 
 
 Little Y. Jliirnx, '.) Gt. of Scss. Cas. (4th ser.) 118. 
 
 Foreign Ship in the Solent— Application of 
 
 Statutory Rules of 1854.] — A foreigu ship in the 
 Sdleiit witliin three miles of the coast is not sub- 
 ject to tlie rules of navigation contained in 17 & 1 8 
 Vict, c. 104, ss. 29G, 297, 298. The Saxonia, Lush. 
 410 ; 15 Moore, P. C. 262; 31 L. J., Adm. 201 ; 
 8 Jur. (N.S.) 31o ; 6 L. T. 6 ; 10 W. E. 431. 
 
 Course of Other Ship in Doubt.] — A ship should 
 not alter her helm decisively so long as the course 
 of the other ship is in doubt. The Bimgainville 
 and The James C. Stevenson, L. R. 5 P. C. 316 ; 
 28 L. T. 822 ; 21 W. R. 6.'i8 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 1 ; Tlie 
 James Watt, 2 W. Rob. 270. 
 
 b. Cases on the Regulations. 
 
 (^Arranged vnder the several Articles of the 
 Jtegidations o/lS'Jl.') 
 
 Preliminary. 
 
 Scope of the Rules; Deji nit ions; correspond- 
 ing ivith Article 1 of the Ilegulations of 1880 
 and 1884. 
 
 Tug lying to.] — A tug at sea waiting for 
 employment with her engines idle and her fires 
 banked is "under steam," and must keep out of 
 the way of a sailing ship. The Jennie S. Barker 
 and The Spindrift, 44 L. J., Adm. 20 ; L. R. 4 
 A.& E. 4.56 ; 33 L. T. 318 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 82. (N.B. 
 The tug in this case, though stated in the report 
 to be "lying to," had no canvas set. — Ed.) 
 
 A tug lying with her fires banked under jib and 
 foresail, with" her helm lashed, was run into by a 
 steamship : — Held, the steamship alone to blame. 
 T/ie Helvetia, 3 Asp. M. C. 43, n. 
 
 Article 1. 
 
 Ships' Li'jhts ; corresponding ivith Article 2 of 
 1880 atid 1884. 
 
 Old Law as to Lights,] — A brig held in fault 
 for a collision caused by her having no light 
 (1854). The Fairy, 1 Spinks, 298. S. P. (1858), 
 The ('alia, Swabey, 465. 
 
 Before the statutory regulations were in force 
 it was not necessarily negligence in a ship to 
 have no light. The Victoria, 3 W. Rob. 49 ; The 
 Iron Dvke, 2 W. Rob. 377 ; 4 Not. of Cas. 94 : on 
 appeal, 4 Not. of Cas. 585 ; The Londonderry, 4 
 Not. of Cas. Suppl. xxxi. But see as to a ship at 
 anchor The Sa.ronia. Lush. 410 ; 15 Moore, P. C. 
 262 : 31 L. J., Adm. 201 ; 8 Jur. (N.S.) 315 ; 6 L. T. 
 6 ; 10 W. R. 431. 
 
 Duty to replace Lights Carried Away.]— See 
 The Sa.vonia, supi-a ; The Aurora and TheHohert 
 Ingram, Lush. 327. 
 
 Lights being Trimmed — Out by Accident.] — 
 
 It is no excuse foi- not carrying lights that they 
 were being trimmed, or that ihey went out by 
 accidept. The C. M. Palmer and The Larnaa-, 
 
 29 L. T. 120 : 21 W. R. 702 : 2 Asn. M. C. 94 ; The 
 Victoria, 3 W. Rob. 49 ; The Sglph, 2 Spinks, 75. 
 
 Lights Obscured by Steamship's Smoke.]— A 
 
 steamship uimeeessaril y obscuring her lights with 
 her own smoke is in fault. 'The llona and The 
 Ava, 29 L. T. 781 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 182. 
 
 Clear Night — is no excuse for not carrying 
 liglits. 'J'he City of London (or 'The London}, 
 j}/organ v. Sim, Swabey, 245, 300; 11 Moore, 
 P. C. 307 ; 5 W. R. 678. 
 
 Vessel casting off from Moorings.] — When a 
 
 vessel casting oif from moorings in a navigable 
 river places herself at night partly athwart the 
 fairway, so that her regulation lights cannot be 
 seen by vessels astern of her coming up the 
 river, she is bound to make use of some con- 
 s]3icuous signal to warn them of her position. 
 The John 'Femrich, 41 L. J., Adm. 38 ; L. R. 3 
 A. & E. 510 ; 26 L. T. 322 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 249. 
 
 A steamship which, in getting under way in 
 the Thames to go up the river between sunset 
 and sunrise, is compelled to go astern and partly 
 athwart the river in order to get clear ahead, and 
 whose regulation lights are not visible to vessels 
 coming up the river, is bound to take everv 
 possible precaution to warn approaching vessels 
 of her position, and to use the best light she has 
 on board for that purpose, lb. 
 
 Placing a service lantern, ordinarily irsed to 
 give light in discharging the cargo, over the 
 stern, is not a sufficient precaution. Ih. 
 
 A vessel neglecting such precaution commits a 
 breach of the regulations, and will be held to 
 blame if a collision ensues. li. 
 
 Vessel coming to Anchor.] — A steamer ma- 
 noeuvring to come to an anchor in a place and 
 manner such that her regulation lights cannot 
 be seen by an approaching vessel is bound to give 
 timely notice of her presence by shewing a light 
 or some other sufficient means, llie Fhilotaxe, 
 37 L. T. 540 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 513. 
 
 Vessel Aground or Stationary.] — When a ves- 
 sel is aground in a place where her ordinary riding 
 light cannot be distinguished by approaching 
 vessels, and where vessels are not expected to 
 lie, it is her duty to exhibit a light on a mast or 
 some elevated position, and to have a look-out to 
 give warning to approaching vessels of her posi- 
 tion by the best means in her power. The 'Thomas 
 Lee, 35 L. T. 406 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 260. 
 
 Dumb-barge in Thames,] — In a cause of damage 
 by collision in the Thames a dumb-barge : — Held, 
 not bound to have exhibited a light. 'The Oiren, 
 Wallis, 43 L. J., Adm. 36 ; L. R. 4 A. & E. 175 ; 
 30 L. T. 41 ; 22 W. R. 695 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 206. 
 
 When a collision occurs between a dumb-barge 
 without lights and a steamer on a dark night in 
 the Thames, there is no presumption of law that 
 the steamer is to blame. 'The Swallow, 36 L. T. 
 231 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 371— C. A. 
 
 Flare.] — A sailing vessel having a steamship 
 approaching on her starboard bow at night, burnt 
 tlare-iip lights to attract her attention : — Held, 
 that the burning of a flare is not forbidden by 
 the regulations of 1884 ; held further, that whe- 
 ther a vessel is to blame or not for shewing a 
 flare-up light must depend upon whether or not 
 the exhibition of the flare is calculated to mislead. 
 The Mrrehant Prince, 54 L. J.. Adm. 79 : 10 
 P. D. 139 ; 53 L. T. 914 ; 34 W. R. 231 ; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 520.
 
 789 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 790 
 
 Article 2. 
 
 (^Steam^shijis' Liqhts ; corresjwnding ivith Article 
 3 'of 1880 and 1884.) 
 
 Under Way.] — A vessel driven from her 
 anchois by a gale of wind, and setting sail to 
 get out to sea, is, even if wholly unmanageable, 
 under wav, and is bound to exhibit coloured 
 lights. The Georqe Avlile, Lush. .S82. 
 
 A vessel with her anchor down, but not actually 
 holden by and under the control of it, is under 
 way within tlie meaning of the Admiralty 
 llegulation of 18.58, and is bound to exhibit 
 coloured lights. The Eah and The Gitana, 38 
 L. J., Adm.^83 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 350 ; 20 L. T. 587 ; 
 17 W. R. 10G4. 
 
 A sailing ship hove to is under way. The 
 London, supra; 21ie Janir.s, Swabey, 60; 10 
 Moore, P. C. 1C.2 : 4 W. R. 353— P. C. ; The 
 Jiosalie, 50 L. J., i^dm. 3 ; 5 P. D. 243 ; 44 L. T. 
 32 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 384. 
 
 And a tug driving at sea and waiting for 
 employment. The Jennie S. Barker and The 
 Spindrift, supra, col. 787 ; but see 'The Uelcetia, 
 3 Asp. M. C. 43, n. 
 
 A sailing barge dropping up the river stern 
 foremost, assisted by her anchor ahead, held not 
 to be a " sailing vessel under way " within the 
 Thames rules, and so not required to carry side 
 lights. The Indian Chief, 58 L. J., Adm. 25 ; 
 14 P. D. 24 ; GO L. T. 240 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 302. 
 
 Presumption of Fault.] — When a collision 
 occurs at night, and the lights of one of the ships 
 are not burning at the time when the vessels 
 come in sight, and the court is not satisfied that 
 the want of those lights is occasioned by circum- 
 stances over which the crew of the ship had no 
 control, she must, even if the want of the lights 
 did not contribute to the collision, be held to 
 blame under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1873 
 (36 Ac 37 Vict. c. 8.5), s. 17. The Ilihernia, 31 
 L. T. 805 ; 24 W. R. 60 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 454. 
 
 Trinity Ballast Lighters.] — A lighter of sixty 
 tons burthen was i)roeeeding under siil in the 
 Tliames, above (iravcsend, at nigiit, without any 
 light being exhibited on board her, and came into 
 ccUision wilh a steam vessel. In a suit instituted 
 on belialf of the owners of the lighter to recover 
 in rcsjiect of the damage dfine to the lighter l)y 
 reason of the collision, it was j)roved that the 
 lighter wa.s ordinarily employed in the river, and 
 wa.s not a sea-going vessel : — Held, that the sea 
 regulations did not impose upon the lighter any 
 obligation to carry any light, and that the lighter 
 wa.s not to lilamc for liaving no li'.'ht. Tlie ('. S. 
 Jivtirr, I>. R. 4 A. .V: iv 23S ; 31 L. T. 51'.) ; 23 
 W. R. 113 ; 2 Asp. M. (J. 237. 
 
 Infringement of Eegulations as to Lights.] — 
 A trawler with a bright ligiit, at iier must head, 
 <'ontrary to the regulations, iield not in fault for 
 collision, the other ship not having in fact seen 
 it. The Ch'usan, 53 h. T. 60 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 476. 
 
 Previously to 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 17.] 
 
 — Tlie llinin rur and J'he Ladif if the Lake, 
 Holt's Rule of the Road. 37 ; 'J he JJovgainville 
 and The James C. Stcrenxnn, infra. 
 
 A vessel not shewing a light as required by 
 law held niider 14 & 15 Vict. c. 7!t, s. 28. not to 
 be in fault for a collision where the absence of 
 
 the light did not contribute to the collision. 
 The Panther, 1 Spinks, 31. 
 
 Dumb-barge.] — A screw steamship had just 
 come out of the Regent's Canal Dock, in the 
 river Thames, before daylight on a December 
 morning, when she came into collision with a 
 dumb-barge which was drifting up the river 
 with the flood tide, and without having any light. 
 exhibited : — Held, that the steamship might, 
 under the circumstances, have kept out of the 
 way of the barge, and that she ought to have 
 done so, and that she was alone to bfame for the 
 collision, llie Oicen Wallis, 43 L. J., Adm. 36 ; 
 L. R. 4 A. & E. 175 ; 30 L. T. 41 ; 22 W. R. 695 ; 
 2 Asp. M. C. 206. 
 
 Position and Exhibition.] — A barque's side- 
 lights were so placed in the mizzen i-igging that 
 the centre of the lights did not project beyond 
 the gunwale. They were two feet six inches 
 within the broadest part of the vessel, and at a. 
 distance of more than 350 feet with the masts in 
 line they could not be seen from a window forty 
 feet above the deck of another A'essel : — Held, 
 not to be a sufficient compliance with the regu- 
 lations as to lights. 'The Germania, 37 L. .)., 
 Adm. 59 ; 19 L. T. 20. Affirmed on appeal, 21 
 L. T. 44— P. C. 
 
 The law does not appoint any particular place 
 at which the lights should be fixed, but they 
 ought to be placed so as to be properly visible. 
 Tlie Huvr/ainville and The James C. Sterena^m, 
 Beal V. 'Marehais. L. R. 5 P. C. 310 ; 28 L. T. 
 822 ; 21 W. R 653 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 1. 
 
 Lamps duly screened and fixed on stands 
 secured to the paul-bitts of the windlass are not 
 placed in a proper position, as required by the 
 regulations of 1863. The Gustav, 9 L. T. 517. 
 
 Lights Obscured — Effect of — Duty of Vessels.] 
 — 'I'lie JiniiijiiiiiriUi' and' The Jamcs C. Stecenxmif 
 lieal V. Ma rehiiix, supra. 
 
 Whei'e the light of one vessel was invisible, 
 the vessel was not previously to 36 & 37 Vict, 
 c. 85, s. 17, on that account held to have contri- 
 buted to the collision where the other vessel 
 pursued a course which pioduced the collision. Iti. 
 
 When a steamship is approaching a sailing 
 ship, and does not know what course the otiier 
 ship is pursuing, it is her duty (whether the 
 lights of the other vessel are visible or not) to 
 take no decisive movement until she can ascer- 
 tain it. //;. 
 
 Wlicii <a steamer sights a sailing vessel in the 
 night-time at a distance of three miles, but, 
 owing to the fact that the sailing vessel's lights. 
 are not visil)le, cainiot ascertain the course of the 
 sailing vessel, it is the duty of the steamer to 
 slacken s[)eed and wait to ascertain that conrsi.- 
 before adopting any decided mand'uvi'c for tlur 
 jjui'pose of avoiding the sailing vessel. If the 
 steamer inimeiliately on sighting the sailing vessel 
 adopts such a nianfjeuvre, as Vjy porting, ajid a- 
 collision ensues without fault on the part of tlie 
 sailing vessel, tlie steamer is alone to blame. Iti. 
 
 \Viu;n a steamship is approaching another, 
 whose exact couise cannot be at once ascertained 
 by reason of her lights being obscured by her 
 own smoke, it is the duty of the former to slackci* 
 speed and to wait till that course is ascertained 
 before taking any decided step to avoid the other 
 vessel ; if, before having ascertained the exact; 
 course of the other, slie, without slackening 
 speed, executes a maiKjeuvrc which, although 
 appearing to be right at the time, contributes to
 
 791 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 792 
 
 the collision, she will be to blame. TJie Rnna, 
 The Ara, 2'.) L. T. 781 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 182— P. C. 
 
 It is iieuli^encc on the part of a steamer to \io 
 i\t full speed under steam and sail before the 
 v'ind whilst her smoke is blown over her bows 
 so as to ohseure her lights, and to prevent her 
 from seeing and from being seen by other ships 
 approaching from an opposite direction. Ih. 
 
 A steamer seeing a ship's lights close ahead of 
 her, and being unable to make out the lights or 
 ihe course of the ship carrying them, should 
 i^lacken speed until she is able to ascertain the 
 meaning of the lights, and so be able to avoid 
 the vessel carrying them. Tlie Fa nny M. OtrvUl, 
 44 L. J., Adm. 34 ; 13 App. Cas. 455, n. ; 32 L. T. 
 (■,46 ; 24 W. R. 62 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 565. 
 
 See further, as to the effect of obscuration of 
 I'o-hts, 77/fl Dulu< of Biiccleuqh, [1891] A. C. 310 ; 
 ^;5 L. T. 422 : 7 Asp. M. C. 68— H. L. (E.) ; The 
 Jlermwl, 62 L. T. 670 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 509. 
 
 Lights Shifted — Tempestuous Weather — 
 Partially Obscured.] — A biig of 239 tons, beating 
 to wiutlward, encountered such weather as to 
 render it justifiable that her side-lights should 
 be removed from the place where they were 
 xisually carried to the after-part of the ship near 
 the taffrail. In this latter position the lights 
 -were so placed as to be obscured to the extent of 
 .n point, or a point and a half, on either bow. 
 The brig came into collision with a barque on 
 1 lie opposite tack : — Held, tliat the circumstances 
 of the case, while justifying the shifting of the 
 liL>-hts, did not justify their being obscured as 
 above mentioned, and that the brig be deemed 
 to be in default under the 17th section of the 
 ]\Ierchant Shipping Act, 1873. The Tirzah, 48 
 1. J., Adm. 15 ; 4 P. D. 33 ; 39 L. T. 547 ; 27 
 ^V. K. 584 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 55. 
 
 Effect of Non-exhibition of Lights.] — In a 
 «ause of collision between a steamship and a 
 sailing vessel, occasioned by the fault of the 
 steamship, it was proved that the sailing vessel 
 liad failed to comply with the regulations 
 reirarding lights, having either shewn no lights, 
 .-as'shc was bound, or if she had any lights, that 
 the lights could not be seen till the collision was 
 ton imminent for prevention : — Held, that the 
 •collision might have been avoided if the sailing 
 vessel had obeyed the regulations, and that 
 though the omission to exhibit proper lights 
 might be immaterial where it is clearly shewn that 
 the absence of such lights was not the cause of 
 the collision, and did not conduce to it, yet 
 where it is proved that a vessel has not shewn 
 proper lights the onus lies on such vessel to shew 
 that the non-compliance with the regulations 
 ^vas not the cause of the collision, which the sail- 
 iiio- vessel failed to do. The Frnham, 6 Moore, 
 F."C. (N.s.) 501 ; L. R. 3 P. C.212 ; 23 L.T. 329. 
 
 Light Extinguished.] — A steamship (in 1849) 
 beld in fault for a collision caused by one of her 
 ■s'de-lidits being extinguished. The Roh Roij. 
 3 W. Rob. 190. 
 
 Seagoiug Ship — Thames Sailing Ballast 
 Xighter.] — A Trinity House sailing ballast 
 lighter held not to be a seagoing ship re([uired 
 liv the regulations to carry lights. The C. S. 
 fniflcv, L. R. 4 A. & E. 238 ; 31 L. T. 549 ; 23 
 "\V. R. 113 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 408. 
 
 Ship dredging with Anchor— Side-lights.] — 
 
 A vessel dredging witii her anchor down is not 
 
 reirired to carry side-lights. The Siui/nui, 
 cited Lush. 385. 
 
 Sailing Vessel towing Another,] — A brigan- 
 tine witli a culler towing astern came into col- 
 lision with another ship, in the P.i-istol Channel, 
 after dark. The brigantine had the regulation 
 side-lights exhibited, but the cutter had only a 
 white light exhibited at her masthead. The 
 brigantine was sailing close-hauled on the star- 
 board tack, whilst the other ship was going free : 
 — Held, that the regulations as to lights had 
 been infringed by the cutter, and that the vessel 
 towing her was to be deemed in fault for the 
 collision by virtue of the provisions of the 17th 
 section of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1873. 
 The Miri/ Hovmell, 48 L. J., Adm. 54 ; 4 P. D. 
 204 ; 40 L. T. 368. 
 
 Wrong Lights — Presumption of Negligence.] 
 
 — A ship carrying her side-lights with screens 
 shorter than required by the regulations is not 
 to be deemed in fault if the shortness of the 
 screens could not by any possibility have con- 
 tributed to the collision. The Fanny M. Carvill, 
 44 L. J., Adm. 34 ; 13 App. Cas. 455, n. : 32 
 L. T. 646 ; 24 W. R. 62 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 569— P. C. 
 Where two ships incurred damage in a col- 
 lision, and it was found that one of them was to 
 blame for improper navigation, and that the 
 other had infringed the regulations with respect 
 to lights : — Hcki, that, in the absence of proof 
 that such infringement could not possibly have 
 contributed to the collision, the damage must be 
 divided according to the ordinary rule of the 
 court of admiralty. The Fanny M. Carvill, 
 supra, approved. 'The Hnchuny, The Lapwinfi, 
 China ilerchanW S. N. Co. v. Birjnold, 51 L. J., 
 Adm. 92 ; 7 App. Cas. 512 ; 47 L. T. 485 ; 31 
 W. R. 303 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 39— P. C. 
 
 Absence of Lights— No Evidence that it con- 
 tributed to Collision.] — An action for damages 
 by collision in the Thames was brought by the 
 owners of a barge against the owners of a 
 steamer. The steamer had been obliged to alter 
 her course in order to avoid another barge, and 
 the barge with which the collision took place 
 was last of three in tow of a tug, and did not 
 carry a light as directed by the rules of the 
 Thames conservancy : but there was no evidence 
 that the want of a light contributed to the colli- 
 sion : — Held, that the steamer was not to blame, 
 and that she might have acted differently if the 
 barge had carried a light. The action was dis- 
 missed without costs ; but semble that in suc- 
 cessful admiialty appeals the appellants will 
 have the costs of the ajipeal. The Swansea v. 
 The Condor, 48 L. J., Adm. 33 ; 4 P. D. 115 : 40 
 L. T. 442 ; 27 W. R. 748 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 115— C. A. 
 
 Article 3. 
 Towing Liijhts ; corresj)undin(i loith Article 4 of 
 1880 ajid 1884. 
 Towing Lights.] — The object of the rule as to 
 towing lights is to shew other ships that the 
 towing sliip is incumbered. 'The America and 
 The Syria, 43 L. J., Adm. 30 ; L. R. 6 P. C. 127, 
 131 ; 31 L. T. 24 ; 22 W. R. 927 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 350. 
 
 Article 4. 
 ShiiJS not under Command ; corresponding tvitk 
 .. Article 5 of 1S80 and 1884. 
 Steamship making Five Knots.] — The steam- 
 ship '• P. Calaud," owing to an accident to her
 
 793 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision, 
 
 791 
 
 machinery, was making way at a speed of 
 between four and five knots, instead of her 
 normal speed of eleven knots ; she could be 
 steered, but could not reverse as easily as before 
 the accident. She was carrying the three red 
 lights in place of the white light : — Held, that 
 under the above circumstances the " P. Caland " 
 could not be said to have been "not under 
 command " within the meaning of the Regula- 
 tions. The P. Calinid, The P. Calund and 
 Freight {Oic7iei-s) v. tilnmorgan Steamship Co., 
 62 L. J., Adm. 41 ; [1893] A. C. 207 ; 1 R. 138 ; 
 68 L. T. 469 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 317— H.L. (E.) 
 
 Ship parted from Anchor.] — A ship parted her 
 cable in a gale, drove over a sand, and came into 
 collision with another to leeward. She had no 
 red light exhibited :— Held, that there was no 
 statutorv presumpticju of fault. The Buckhuvst, 
 .ol L. J." Adm. 10 ; G P. D. 132 ; 46 L. T. 108 ; 
 30 W. R. 232 ; 4 Asii. M. C. 4S4. 
 
 Steamship Riding hy Chains — Anchors 
 unshackled.] — Where a steamship has become 
 umnaiKigeable and is riding head to wind by her 
 chains with anchors un-hackled, it is her duty 
 to exhibit the three red lights prescribed by 
 Article 5 (a) of 1884, and to keep her steam up 
 in order that she may immediately be brought 
 under control should the necessity arise. The 
 Fardrelandet, 64 L. J., Adm. 122 ; [1895] P. 205 ; 
 72 L. T. 650 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 1— C. A. 
 
 Article 5. 
 
 Sailing Ship/s and Ships in Tow; corresponding 
 
 ivlth Article 6 of 1880 and 1884. 
 
 Ship Hove-to — Under Way.] — A ship hovc-to 
 is under way within the meaning of the Regula- 
 tions. The Rosalie, 50 L. J., Adm. 3 ; 5 P. D. 
 245 : 44 L. T. 32 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 3S4. The London 
 or City of London, 11 Moore, P. C. 307 ; Swabey, 
 245, 306; 5 W. R. 78. The James. 11 Moore, 
 P. C. 162; Swabey, 5.5, 60; 4 W. R. 353. The 
 Pennsylvania, 23 L. T. 55. 
 
 Trawler at work — Under way.] — A trawler 
 with her gear down, Mshintr, is under way. The 
 JJunebn, .53 L. J., Adm. 81 ; 9 P. D. 164 ; 51 
 L. T. 214 ; 32 W. R. !»70 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 3o4, infra, 
 col. 794. See also The FAith, Ir. R. lo Eq. 345. 
 The Enqlishman, 47 T.. J., A.lm. 9 ; 3 P. U. 18 ; 
 37 L. T.'412 ; 3 Asp. M. (J. 506. 
 
 Ship bringing up — Under Way.] — A ship 
 coining t(i an aiK-hor and hauling down iiiH' jibs 
 is undci- way. The Adriatic, 33 L. T. 102 ; 3 
 Asp. M. i\. 16. 
 
 Ship Driving.] — Scrrdjle, a nliip parted from 
 liei' anchdis and driving aljout in an unmanage- 
 able state should not carry her side-lights. The 
 Jiuekhurist, supra, sed qu. 
 
 Articles 6 and 7, 
 
 Small Craft ; eorrespondin'i with Article 7 of 
 1880 and 1884. 
 
 As to what craft may carry these lights. Sec 
 The Livingstone, Swabey, 579 ; 'The Calla, 
 Swabey, 465 ; The Tirzah, 48 L. J., Adm. 15 ; 4 
 P. D. 33 ; 39 L. T. 547 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 55. 
 
 Article 8. 
 
 Pilot Boats ; corresponding with Article 9 of 
 1880 and 1884. 
 
 Pilot Boat — Uulicsnsed Pilots.] — Semble, a 
 boat with a pilot on board or serving ships, is a 
 pilot boat, whether the pilot is licensed or not. 
 The Mary Iloun.wU, 48 L. J., Adm. 54 ; 4 P. D. 
 204 ; 40 L. T. 368 ; 4 Asp. M. C. lOl. 
 
 Article 9. 
 
 Fishing Boats; corresponding with Article 10 of 
 1880 atid 1884! 
 
 Trawlers Lights.] — A trawler carrying a white 
 light at the masthead, as well as sidelights, 
 infringes the regulations of 1884. The Chi/San^ 
 53 L. T. 60 ; 5 Asp. M. 0. 476. 
 
 A French trawler and a schooner were in 
 collision before sunrise. The trawler was about 
 about to shoot her net, and had a white light at 
 her masthead and no sidelights : — Held, that the 
 trawler had not complied with the regulations of 
 1863. The Englishman, 47 L. J., Adm. 9 ; ^ 
 P. D. 181 ; 37 L. T. 412 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 506. 
 
 A trawler gning over the ground at the rate of 
 a quarter of a knot in the hour with her trawl 
 down held not in fault (under article 9 of the 
 regulations of 1863) for exhibiting a bright white 
 light only. The Edith, Ir. R. 10 Eq. 345. 
 
 Trawler at Work.] — A steam trawler, whilst 
 engaged in tiawliug at the rate of two and a half 
 knots an hour through the water and four and a 
 half knots an hour over the ground, carrying a 
 single white light, was run down by the " D. " : 
 it being admitted that the "D." was to blame,. 
 the question arose whether the trawler was not 
 also to blame for not carrying sidelights : — 
 Held, that the trawler was also to blame, since 
 she was a vessel under way, and therefore sub- 
 ject to article 3 of 1880, and not to article 9 of 
 1863 : — Held, on appeal, that the decision was 
 right ; but on the ground that though the trawler 
 was one of a class of vessels within article 9 of 
 1863, she, in order to be " stationary" within the 
 meaning of that article, was bound not to go 
 faster tlian was necessaiy to keep herself under 
 command whilst lishing, and that as her speed 
 was greater than was necessary for so doing, she 
 was, at the time ol: the collision, within article :i 
 of the legulations of 1880. The Ihinelm, 5:V 
 L. J., Adm. 81 ; 9 P. D. 164 ; 51 L. T. 214 ; 32 
 W. R. 970 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 304— C. A. And see 
 The Edith, supra. 
 
 A sailing vessel engaged in trawling is not 
 bound to exiiibit lo an approaching vessel the red 
 pyrotechnic lights reiiuired by the order in 
 council of the 24th of Juiu;, 1885. unless there i.s 
 risk of collision. The Orion, 60 L. J., Adm. 90 ; 
 [1891] P. 307 ; 65 L. T. 500 ; 7 Asp. M. C. SS. 
 
 Py article 10 {d) of 1884 "if a vessel when 
 fishing liecomes stationary, in consequence of her 
 gear getting fast to a rock or other obstruction, 
 she shall shew tlie light and make the fog signal 
 for a vessel at anchor" : — Held, that the rule is 
 applicable although the weather, when the vessel 
 becomes stationary, is clear. The Warwick, 15 
 P. D. 1.S9 ; 63 I.. T. 561 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 545. 
 
 The plaintiffs steam trawler, above twenty 
 tons register, while fishing with the trawl down 
 in the night and going at the rate of one and a 
 half knots an hour, came in collision with the
 
 795 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 796 
 
 tiifeinlants' sailing: ship. The trawler was carry- 
 iuix a lantern in front of her foremast head, 
 iihewing a white, jrreen, and red li,i,'ht, and about 
 six or seven feet below it a white lit^ht, according 
 to order in council of December 3()th 1884. The 
 trawler did not attempt to get out of the way of 
 the sailing ship : — Held, that the trawler was not 
 to blame for the collision; that article 17 of 
 1884 did not apply, inasmuch as there were 
 -• special ciicumstanees," within the meaning of 
 article 23 which authorised a dejiarture from 
 article 17, that by carrying the lights which she 
 did, she apprised other vessels that she was not 
 iible to get out of the waj', for such lights as she 
 carried were the regular lights of steam vessels 
 engaged in trawling which are not bound by the 
 requirements of article 17. The Twccdsdale, 5S 
 L. J., Adm. il ; 14 P. D. 164 ; 61 L. T. 371 ; 37 
 W. R. 783 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 430. 
 
 Row Boat at Anclior.] — " Open boat " in article 
 K) (.0 (of the Regulations of 1884) held not to 
 fipl)ly to a boat propelled entirely by oars. Carse 
 V. XortU British Steam Pacliet Co., 22 Ct. of 
 Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 475. 
 
 A fishing boat, in 1862, held, under 17 & 18 
 A'ict. c. 1U4. not to be required to carry the 
 statutory lights ; but held to be in fault for not 
 shewing a light. The Olivia, Lush. 497 ; 6 L. T. 
 3'J8. 
 
 Article 10. 
 
 Ovirtaltcn S/iip; Stem Litjlit ; conrsjionding 
 ivith Article 11 of 18S0 and 1884. 
 
 Stem Light — Law previous to 1880.] — 
 
 Although a ship is. under some circumstances, 
 bound to keep a look-out astern, and to shew a 
 light or to give a signal to another ship over- 
 taking her, and evidently unable to see her. 
 nevertheless, where a steamer going at a high 
 I'ate of speed in a fair way overtakes a sailing 
 ship shewing no light or signal, and does not see 
 her until too near to avoid a collision, although 
 keeping a good look-out, the steamer will be held 
 alone to blame, if a lower rate of speed would 
 have given the steamer time to avoid the collision 
 vipon sighting the sailing ship. The Earl Spencer, 
 33 L. T. 23.5^; 3 As]). M. C. 4— P. C. 
 
 On a dark morning before daybreak in October, 
 a small schooner with a crew of only four men 
 was beating up into the outer harbour of Holy- 
 head when she was run into from behind and 
 sunk by a large paddle-wheel steamer which was 
 entering the harbour at a speed of between ten 
 and eleven knots. To recover for the damage 
 sustained in the collision a cause of damage was 
 brought by the owners of the schooner against 
 the steamer : — Held, first, that the steamer was 
 to blame for entering the harbour at too great a 
 speed. Ih. 
 
 Held, also, that under the circumstances of the 
 case the exhibition of a stern light was not obli- 
 gatory on the schooner, and that the steamer was 
 alone to blame for the collision. Ih. 
 
 It is prima facie the duty of an overtaking 
 ship to keep out of the way of a ship ahead of 
 her ; but if the latter ship sees another approach- 
 ing her from a direction where her lights are not 
 visible, and which vessel she had reason to sup- 
 pose does not, in fact, whether keeping a good 
 look-out or not, see her, and is likely to come 
 into collision with her. it is her duty to give 
 some warning to the overtaking ship, not neces- 
 sarily by exhibiting a light, but by some signal, 
 
 such as the firing of a gun, the shewing a light, 
 or otherwise, which will indicate her where- 
 abouts to the overtaking ship, and call the atten- 
 tion of that ship to the danger of a collision. 
 The Anqlo-Indian, 33 L. T. 233 ; 23 W. R. 882 ; 
 3 Asp. M. C. 1— P. C. 
 
 Where one vessel during the night time is 
 overtaking another within the meaning of 
 article 17 of 1863, although the leading vessel 
 may be in such a position that the following 
 vessel cannot see the regulation lights of the 
 leading vessel, the latter is not bound, under 
 ordinary circumstances, to give a signal or shew 
 a light to the following vessel. The Chationry 
 and The Leri'Hnqton, 42 L. J., Adm. 58 ; 28 L. T. 
 284 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 569. 
 
 A vessel, unless there is apparent danger, is 
 not guilty of negligence in not shewing a light . 
 to a vessel following her. The City of Brooklyn, 
 
 I P. D. 276 : 34 L. T. 932 ; 24 W. R. 1056 ; 3 
 Asp. M. C. 230— C. A. 
 
 Apart from the regulations, it is a proper 
 measure for a ship being overtaken at night to 
 shew a light to the overtaking vessel. The 
 Hannah Park and The Lena, 14 L. T. 675. And 
 see lite John Feniciek, 41 L. -J., Adm. 38 ; L. R. 
 3 A. & E. 500 ; 26 L. T. 322 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 249. 
 
 Law Subsequent to 1880 — Character and 
 
 Position of Stern Light.]— Article 11 of 1884 
 — which directs that a ^hip being overtaken by 
 another shall shew from her stern to such last- 
 mentioned ship a white light, or a flare-up light 
 — is infringed if such light is carried in any way 
 other than is necessary to warn overtaking 
 vessels. Where therefore such light is so placed 
 or carried as to be visible over part of the area 
 of a side-light it must be taken that there is a 
 breach of article 11. 2'he Palinurus, 57 L. J., 
 Adm. 21 ; 37 W. R. 266—0. A. Affirming 13 
 P. D. 14 : 58 L. T. 533 ; 36 W. R. 768 ; 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 271 ; but see lb., as to 36 & 37 Vict. c. 65, 
 s. 17— C. A. 
 
 In an action for collision it appeared that one 
 of a pair of ordinary binnacle lamps in the plain- 
 tiff's vessel was temporarily removed from its 
 place and used as a stern light : — Held, that in 
 the absence of affirmative evidence of its effi- 
 ciency on the particular occasion it could not be 
 deemed to be such a light as is required by article 
 
 II of 1884. The Patrorlus. 13 P. D. 54 ;'58 L. T. 
 774 ; 36 W. R. 928 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 285. 
 
 A smack with her trawl down had a globular 
 white light exhibited from her weather cros,s- 
 tree partially hidden from overtaking vessels by 
 her sails, and did not exhibit any other white 
 light or flare-up to an overtaking steamer : — 
 Held, that this was an infringement of article 11 
 of 1884. The Pacific, 53 L. J., Adm. 67 ; 9 P. D. 
 124; 51 L. T. 127 ;33 \V. It. 124; 5 Asp. M. C. 263. 1 
 
 Binnacle Light not sufficient.] — The pro- 
 visions of article 11 of 1880, that a ship being 
 overtaken by another shall shew from her stern 
 a light, are not complied with where the only 
 litrht astern is the binnacle liulit in the binnacle. 
 The Breudalhane, 7 P. D. 186 ; 46 L. T. 204; 4 
 Asp. M. C. 505. 
 
 Fixed Stern Light.]— The "D.," in tow of a 
 
 steam-tug, was exhil)iting from her stern a fixed 
 bright light, when she was run into by the " S.," 
 which was overtaking lier. There were a great 
 many vessels in ihe vicinity, some of which had 
 overtaken and passed the " D.," and others were
 
 797 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 798 
 
 overtaking her : — Held, that in these circum- 
 stances it was not an infringement of the regula- 
 tions of 1884: to carry a fixed stern light. The 
 Stalu'sby, 59 L. J., Adm. 72 ; 15 P. D. 166 ; 63 
 L. T. 115 ; 39 W. R. 80 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 532. 
 
 The stern light is (1880) not required to be 
 fixed. See The Breadalhane, infra, col. 807. 
 
 It is a breach of article 11 (of 1884) to carry 
 the stern light fixed. The Imhro, infra. 
 
 How long to be Exhibited.] — A smack being 
 overtaken by a steamship shewed a stern light 
 until risk of collision had apparently determined. 
 The steamship then altered her helm and a 
 collision followed : — Held, that the smack was 
 not in fault. Tlte Reiher, 45 L. T. 767; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 478 (overruled in The Main, infra). 
 
 The stern light must be shewTi not once and for 
 a short time only, but from time to time while 
 the ship is •' being overtaken " within the meaning 
 of the article. The Egsequlhu. 57 L. J., Adm. 29 ; 
 13 P. D. 51 ; 58 L. T. 596 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 276. 
 
 One exhibition of a flare-up light by a vessel 
 which is being overtaken by another is not a 
 .'sufficient compliance with article 11 of 1884, but 
 the light should be exhibited from time to time 
 so long as there continues to be an overtaking 
 vessel. The Esxe(/utbo, supra, approved. The 
 Jtasset Hound, 6 R. 764 ; 71 L. T. 12 ; 7 Asp. 
 M. C. 4G7— C. A. 
 
 Overtaking Ship, what is.] — An overtaking 
 vi-ssel within tlie meaning of article IJ is one 
 which is approaching another from aft, and is 
 more than two points abaft the beam of the fore- 
 most ship. The Imhro, 58 L. J., Ailm. 49 ; 14 
 ]'. D. 73 ; 60 L. T. 936 ; 37 W. R. 559 ; 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 392. 
 
 Where one of two ships is abaft the beam of the 
 other in such a position that the hinder ship 
 cannot see the sidelights of the leading ship, and 
 the former is going at a greater speed than the 
 Litter, and getting nearer to her, the latter is a 
 ' ship which isbeingovertaken byanother" within 
 the meaning of article 11 of 1884, even though the 
 hinder ship broadens on her quarter • and she is 
 in such circumstances bound toslicw a stern light 
 in sufficient time to eiuible the other, by the 
 exercise of reasonable precaution!--., to avoid risk of 
 collision. The Main. 55 L. J.. Adm. 70 ; 11 P. D. 
 132 ; 55 L. T. 15 ; 34 W. R. 678 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 37 
 — C. A. 
 
 AUTICLK 11. 
 
 Rltl'inq L'lifht ; rari enjionfrniq with Artiele 8 of 
 ISyO and 1884. 
 
 Ship ashore in Fairway.] — A sliip asliore in a 
 fairwav ii]ii>t cxliiliil a liL'lit to warn nlhcr ships. 
 The Indiixtrio, 4( L. .J., Adm. 26 ; L. R. 3 \.k. E. 
 ;^03 ; 21 L T. 4J6 ; 19 \V. R. 728 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 17 ; K'dxon v. McArthur, 5 Ct. of JScss. Cas. 
 (4th ser.) 936. 
 
 Ship Dredging with Anchor.] — A shi]) dropping 
 n|) with 111"' tide- stern t.iicnin^t is ncif at anclior 
 'vithin the 'Ihaines rules. 'J'hr hid inn Chief. 
 "^H L. J. Adtn.. 25 ; 14 P. D. 2f ; (JO L. T. 240 ; 6 
 *sp. M. C. 362. 
 
 Eiding Lights in Mersey Sea Channels.] — 
 Vessels at aiuliur in the sea appiDaclies to the 
 iUver Jlersey are required by 37 i: 38 Vict. c. 52, 
 E>. 1, to exhibit a white light at the main or mizzen 
 uiast in ad<iition to the white light prescribed Ijy 
 25 «ii 26 Vict. c. 63, sciied., Table C, article 7, and 
 
 a vessel omitting to exhibit such additional 
 light will, where the omission may have caused 
 or contributed to a collision, be held to blame 
 under 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 17. The Ladif 
 Downshire, 48 L. J. Adm. 41 ; 4 P. D. 26 ; 39 
 L. T. 236 ; 27 W. R. 648 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 28. 
 
 Ship at anchor with Side Lights up — Thames 
 Rules.]— See The Weya, infra, col. 835. 
 
 Ship riding to her Chains — Anchor unshackled.] 
 — See TIlc Faedrelandct, supra, cob 793. 
 
 Article 12. 
 
 Flare; new. 
 
 Old Law.] — For the old law as to flare, see The 
 Merchant Prince, 54 L. J., Adm. 79 ; 10 P. D. 
 139 ; 53 L. T. 914 : 34 W. R. 231 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 520; Tlte John Fenwick, 41 L. J., Adm. 38; 
 L. R. 3 A. &. E. 500 ; 26 L. T. 322 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 249. 
 
 Article 13. 
 
 Men-of-War\^ Lirjhfs; corresponding ivith 
 
 Artiele 26 of ISSO and 1S84. 
 
 The Regulations and Government Ships.] — 
 Although the retrulations are not, under the 
 merchant whipping acts, binding on her 
 majesty's ships, if the latter submit to the juris- 
 diction the question of negligence will be tried 
 bv the regulations. II.M.S. Tipats, 10 L. T. 
 6.59 ; 12 \V. R. 923 ; HJI.S. Supply, 12 L. T. 
 799. 
 
 Foreign Ships ofWar.] — The Lord Byron, 
 
 cited, Maude <Sc Pollock on Shipping (4th ed.), 
 607, n. 
 
 Article 14. 
 Steavishlp under Sail ; new. 
 
 Article 15. 
 
 Fog Signals ; corresponding with Article 12 of 
 l.S.sn and 1884. 
 
 Sailing Vessel in Stays — Fog-horn.] — Wheio 
 Ji sailiiiLT vessel is l:e-king in a Uv^. she is not 
 relieved during the miuKeuvic from giving the 
 signals prescribed by article 12 of 1884, aiKl it is 
 lier duty until she gels the wind on to the side 
 other than that on which she had had it to treat 
 herself as still on the .^ame tack on which site 
 was when she began to go about and to make 
 the prescribed signal, and oidy to change that 
 signal when she gets the wind on the other side. 
 The Const ant la, 62 L. T. 2;{6 ; 38 W. R. 272 ; 6 
 Asp. M. C. 478. 
 
 Mechanical Fog-horn.] — X lyanpic provided 
 oidy with a mouth fog-horn came into collision 
 during a fog with a steamship. Tiie fog-horn 
 was (hdy sounded bef(jre the collision, and was 
 iieard by those on l)oard tJie steamship, and those 
 on board the steamslil|) neglected for some time 
 after they heard the fog-horn to stop or reverse 
 tile engines. The steamship was held to blame. 
 The barque was held 'o be deemed in fault for 
 not using a fog-horn to be sounded by mechanical 
 means, <as required Ity article 12 of 1880. The 
 circumstance that the bar<iue left the port a few 
 days before the regidations came into force was
 
 799 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. CoUision. 
 
 800 
 
 held not to afford any valid excuse for the neglect 
 of those in charge of her to furnish her with a 
 foo--horn to be sounded by mechanical means. 
 T/iP Loir Bird, 6 P. D. 80 ; 4-t L. T. 650 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 427. See also The Pennsylvania and Tin- 
 StcamKhip ]]'i\ifj>halitt, infra. 
 
 Accident to Mechanical Fog-horn.]— Where 
 the mechanical fojj^-liorn of. a sailinii' ship breaks 
 down, and a mouth-horn is made use of in its 
 place, the departure from the regulations is 
 necessary, and the vessel is not to blame. The 
 Chilian, Ah L. T. 623 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 478. 
 
 Fog-bank— Ship concealed in.] — In the neigh- 
 bouihood of a fog-bank in which other ships may 
 be hidden, it is the duty of a vessel to sound her 
 fog-horn, though not in the fog herself. 'Ihc 
 Milane.«e, 45 L. T. 151 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 218, 438— 
 H. L. (E). The N. Strovq, [1892] P. 105 ; 67 
 L. T. 2'Jl) ; 7 Asp. M. C. 194, infra, col. 801. 
 
 Vessel at Anchor— Bell.]— A vessel at anchor 
 in the Mersey held in fault for a collision with 
 a ferry stearnship in a fog, caused by her not 
 ringing her bell. The JSoith Americana nd The 
 Wild m>M; 14 L. T. 68. 
 
 Thames Barge in Fault for not ringing Bell.] 
 
 — See The ULue Bell, infra, col. 835. 
 
 Old Law.]— Apart from the regulations, it is 
 the duty of a ship in a fog to sound her fog-horn. 
 The Carron, 1 Spinks, 91. 
 
 Article 16. 
 SiJced in Fogs ; corretipondinri vMh Article \?> of 
 1880 and 1884. 
 Whistle heard ahead — Duty of Steamer — 
 Speed.] — A steamship, the " D.," in a dense fog off 
 Ushant, proceeding at slow speed, heard a whistle 
 about three points on her starboard bow ; the 
 whistle was repeated several times and answered 
 by the " D." In about a quarter of an hour from 
 the first sound of the whistle the steamship '-E." 
 appeared about a length from the ■' D." crossing 
 ti om starboard to port. The engines of the " D." 
 were reversed full speed, but a collision occurred. 
 The court having held both ships to blame, the 
 owners of the ''' D." appealed :— Held, by the 
 court of appeal, that the " D." was also to 
 blame, for she should have been brought to as 
 complete a standstill as possible, without getting 
 out of command, at an early period after the first 
 sound of the whistle, and should have also 
 stopped and reveised sooner. 'The Dordogne, 
 54 L. J., Adm. 29 ; 10 P. D. 6 ; 51 L. T. 650 ; 
 33 \V. E. 360 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 328— C. A. 
 
 Where two steamships, invisible to each other 
 by reason of a thick fog, find themselves gradu- 
 ally approaching each other until they arc within 
 a few ships' length of each other, each of them 
 ought at once to stop and reverse her engines in 
 compliance with article 18 (of 1884), unless the 
 whistle of the other clearly indicates that she is 
 upon such a course that she will ])ass clear with- 
 out involving risk of collision, or unless there 
 are circumstances which make it impossible or 
 dangerous to stop and reverse the engines. Tlie 
 Ceto, 14 App. Cas. 670 ; 62 L. T. 1 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 479— H. L. (E.) 
 
 And see further as to the duty of steamships in 
 fog, article 23, post, cols. 816, seq. 
 
 A collision happened between the steamship 
 " I." and the barque " Z." in a fog. It was proved 
 
 that Ihe " I." had reduced her speed so far as w.".s 
 possible without stopping her way altogether : — 
 Held, that she had not infringed article 13 of 1880. 
 The Zadoh, 53 L. J., Adm. 72 ; 9 P. D. 114 ; 50 
 L. T. 695 ; 32 W. E. 1003 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 252. 
 
 It is the duty of those who have charge of a 
 steamship in motion during a dense fog on first 
 hearing the wiiistle of a steam.ship in such close 
 proximity to them that risk of collision between 
 the two "vessels is involved, to bring their vessel 
 immediately to a standstill on the water, and 
 not execute any manoeuvre with their helm until 
 they have definitely ascertained the position and 
 course of the other ship. The Kivlnj Hall, 52 
 L. .J., Adm. 31 ; 8 P. D. 71 ; 48 L. T. 797 ; 31 
 W. E. 658 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 90. 
 
 If an officer in charge of a vessel in a fog hears 
 a whistle ahead, he must act sooner than if it is 
 heard from any other quarter, and on the proba- 
 bility that the vessel which is sounding the 
 whistle is coming towards him — Per Lord Esher, 
 M.E. The Ehor, 11 P. D. 25 ; 54 L. T. 200 ; 34 
 W. E. 448 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 560. 
 
 A steamship, navigating in a fog at a moderate 
 speed, hearing a whistle sounded many times, 
 indicating that a steamer was approaching her, 
 and had "come very near to her, so near that if 
 the vessels had then been stopped they would 
 have been within hailing distance, is bound, 
 under the 16th article, not only to stop the 
 motion of her engines, but to reverse them, so as 
 to stop the motion of the vessel, and ought not 
 to wait until the vessels sight each other, when 
 such a manoeuvre may be too late. The Frank- 
 land and The Kestrel, Morton v. Ifutohinson, \) 
 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 365 ; L. E. 4 P. C. 529 ; 27 
 L. T. 633 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 489. 
 
 In a dense fog it is the duty of a steam vessel 
 to anchor as soon as circumstances will permit. 
 The Otter, L. E. 4 A. & E. 203 ; 30 L. T. 43 : 
 22 W. E. 557. The Girolamo, 3 Hag. Adm. 169. 
 A steam vessel proceeding, though at a mode- 
 rate speed, under steam, in a dense fog, after she 
 had reached a proper anchorage-ground : — Held, 
 to blame for so doing. lb. 
 
 Where an officer in charge of a steamship in a 
 dense fog hears a whistle apparently two or three 
 points on the bow, but cannot be sure of the 
 bearing within a point or two, and does not know 
 the heading of the vessel whistling, it is his duty 
 to diminish the speed of his vessel to the utmost 
 to give him time to ascertain the manoeuvres of 
 the other vessel, and for that purpose he must 
 either reduce the speed until the engines are 
 only just moving, or he must stop them, but he 
 need not necessarily continue to keep them 
 stopped, but only sufficiently to diminish his 
 way, and when he is beginning to lose steerage 
 way, then, and only then, may put them on 
 again, but as slowly as is possible. The fact of 
 a steam-whistle alleged to have been blown in a 
 fog not being heanl by those on approaching 
 ship is not necessarily proof that there was a 
 bad look-out on the approaching ship, as the 
 direction in which and the distance from which 
 the sound would be heard is uncertain. The 
 Rosetta, 59 L. T. 342 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 310. 
 
 A sailing vessel in tow of a tug and a steam- 
 ship were approaching one another in a fog. 
 The captain of the steamship heanl a whistle 
 five points on his starboard bow, ami two minutes 
 later he heard a second whistle which he con- 
 sidered to be broader on his starboard bow and 
 still a considerable distance off. He kept on, 
 and after that heard another whistle more ahead,
 
 801 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 802 
 
 whereupon he stopped and reversed his engines, 
 and gave three blasts. He then saw the other 
 vessels about a hundred yards otf. and a collision 
 took place, and the sailing vessel sank. Jcune, 
 P., decided that the sailing vessel alone was to 
 blame : — Held, applying the rule laid down by 
 the house of lords in Tlic Ceto (1-i App. Cas. 
 €70), that the captain of the steamship ought to 
 have stopped on hearing the second whistle, inas- 
 much as he had failed to prove (the burden of 
 proof being on him) that there were indications 
 •of such a kind as would lead a seaman of reason- 
 able care and skill to the conclusion that the 
 vessels would pass well clear of one another 
 without danger of collision, and that, under the 
 ■circumstances, both vessels were to blame. The 
 Knarivutcr, G3 L. J., Adm. Go ; 6 E. 784— C. A. 
 
 Duty of Steamer before entering Fog.] — A 
 
 collision occurred between a steamer and a 
 sailing vessel, about five to six miles S.W. of the 
 Longships in the English Channel. Immediately 
 before the collision the steamer was proceeding 
 S.W. b. S. at the rate of eight or nine knots, and 
 approaching a bank of fog, in which the sailing 
 ship was, but did not sound her whistle, or 
 reduce her speed. The sailing vessel (a barque) 
 was heading N.N.W. with a moderate south- 
 easterly breeze of between three and four, and, 
 under all plain sail, except her mainsail, spanker 
 and light sails, was making abottt four knots an 
 fcour. In an action of damage by collision : — 
 Held, that the steamer was to blame for exces- 
 .•sive speed, and that, though it was not an 
 infraction of the terms of articles 12 (a), 13, of 
 1884, she ought, as a matter of precaution, to 
 liave whistled on approaching the fog, and also 
 to have reduced her speed : — Held, also, that the 
 sailing vessel had not infringed article 13, as, 
 considering the locality, she was not proceeding 
 at a rate of speed beyond what was necessary to 
 keep her well under command. 2'hc N. Stronrj, 
 [1892] P. 105 ; 67 L. T. 299 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 194. 
 
 Alteration of Helm.] — Where those in charge 
 of a .steamship in a dense fog hear the whistle of 
 another steamship on either bow, but not so 
 broad that they may reasonably infer that she 
 will clear their vessel, they ought not to 
 manoeuvre with the helm before seeing the other 
 vessel. Ih. 
 
 The jjlaiiitiffs' vessel, while proceeding in a 
 <lcnse fog, heard the whistle of the defendants' 
 vessel alxiut three and a half points on her .star- 
 board bow, and thereupon starboarded hci' helm. 
 A collision, however, occurred, as the rcf judants' 
 vessel struck her on her starboai-d ipiarter : — 
 Held, that, under the circumstances, the plain- 
 tiffs' vessel was not to blame for staiboarding 
 lier helm. There is no general rule that a vessel 
 when proceeding in a fog is not entitled to act 
 with licr helm, )>ut liiat each case must depend 
 upon the fi|)i:ci.'d circumstances. 7'/if Vlndomnrn, 
 14 P. D. 172 ; 38 W. K. G9— C. A. And sec The 
 Kirhy Hall, supra. 
 
 "Moderate Speed" — Steamship.] — The officer 
 in charge fif a stcimcr mi lii:;ning a whistle 
 idinost light idiead siiould reduce lirr speed to as 
 ]ii\v a rate as possiljle, only keeping her under 
 '■ommand ; by (emitting to (lo so In; had not gone 
 at a "moderate" specfl williin the meaning of 
 article 13 of 1880. Thr Diirdofjnp, supra, col. 
 799, commented on — per Lord Esiier, JI.ll. The 
 Klior, supra, col. 800, 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 " Moderate speed " in a river of narrow channel 
 means that a vessel shall be brought ncaily to a 
 standstill, whether the whistle or foghorn of 
 another vessel is heard or not ; but in the open 
 sea the article need not be so stricily construed, 
 unless a whistle or fogliorn is heard — per Prett, 
 M.R. The. Durdognc, su]n'a. 
 
 A collision happened between the steamship 
 " I." and tlic barge " Z." in a fog. It was proved 
 that the " Z." was proceeding at more than four 
 knots an hour : — Held, an infringement of article 
 13 of 1880, for tlie term "moderate speed" 
 means that a vessel is to reduce her speed so 
 far as she can consistently with keeping steerage 
 wav. The Zadoh, 53 L. J., Adra. 72 ; 9 P. D. 114 ; 
 50 L. T. 095 : 32 W. R. 1003 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 252. . 
 
 A steamship going twelve and a half knots ' 
 during fog in mid-ocean held in fault. TJte 
 Euvopa, 14 Jin-. G27. 
 
 If a steamer in a fog cannot reduce her speed 
 sufficiently to comply with article 13 of 1884 with- 
 out occasionally stopping her engiites, it is the 
 duty of those in charge of her to stop them. 
 The Rcsulntion, GO L. T. 430 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 363. 
 Cf. The Mosetta, 59 L. T. 342 ; 6 As]i. M. G. 310. 
 
 A steamer going at the rate of seven knots an 
 hour ran into a barque. The collision occurred 
 in the Atlantic Ocean, in the direct line to New 
 York, about 200 miles to the east of Sandy Hook. 
 There was at the time a thick fog, and the barque 
 was not seen till within a ship's length of the 
 steamer. The barque, though hove-to, was 
 making headway at the rate of about a mile 
 an hour. A bell was frequently sounded on 
 board the barque, but no foghorn was used : — 
 Held, that the steamer was alone to blame for 
 the collision, because she was going at an im- 
 proper rate of speed, and because wrong and 
 contradictory orders were given after the barque 
 was sighted.. The Pcnnsylrania, 23 L. T. 55 — 
 P. C. 
 
 The rate of speed proper for a steamer must 
 depend on circumstances, but in a thiclc fog and 
 at a part of the ocean where frequently a great 
 number of vessels are congregated, seven knots 
 an hour is too great. Ih. 
 
 The barque was wrong in not using a foghorn 
 as required by the admiralty regulations ; but 
 though a foghorn would have been lieard further 
 than a bell, yet the neglect to use a foghorn 
 was not the cause of the vessels coming into the 
 position which caused the collision. Ih. 
 
 When a steamship bound to the westward in 
 the English Channel, when off the Caskets, and 
 ten miles (liercfrom, was running at a speed of 
 eight or niTie knots an hour in a dense fog : — 
 Held, thattlie rate of sjjecd was unlawful. The 
 Wcfifphalia (Stcaiiishijf), 24 L. T. 75 ; 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 12. 
 
 A steamer in a dense fog is bound to go as 
 slow as it is possible for her to go and maintain 
 steerage way. Ih. 
 
 ]n the locality mentioned the omission of a 
 sailing vessel in a dense fog to sound her fog- 
 horn until she heard the whistle of a steamer 
 quite near, was great neglect on her part. The 
 horn should be continually sounded from the 
 moment fog sets in. Ih. 
 
 Four to live knots an lK)ur is not a moderate 
 speed for a steamer in a thick fog in tlie Paltic 
 twenty-five miles cast of (iotliland. The Maqna 
 Charia, 25 L. T. 512; 1 Asp. M. C. 193— P. C. 
 
 What is mo(U;rate speed depends upon tlie 
 circumstances of each case. The /ddnk, supra. 
 S. P., The Enropa^ 14 Jur. G27. The JJiyrdoijne, 
 
 2G
 
 803 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 S04. 
 
 supra. TIiP Elysia, infra. The Ebor, supra. 
 The Citi/ of JJro(>hli/>i, 1 P. D. 276 ; 34 L. T. 
 D.S2; 24 W. R. 1056; a Asp. M. C. 230— C. A. 
 The Old and The Ariadne, 9 Ct. of Scss. Cas. 
 (4th ser.) 118. 
 
 Apart from the re.sjulations, exce?sive speed in 
 fng is negligence. The Juliet Emhine, 6 Not. of 
 Cas. 633. The Lord Sauntarez, 6 Not. of Cas. 600 
 
 Sailing Ship.] — What is a " moderate 
 
 speed " for a sailing ship in a fog depends on the 
 place where the ship happens to be and her 
 handiness, and is not necessarily proportioned to 
 or less than the maximum speed she can make 
 under the circumstances. A speed of about five 
 knots in the case of a sailing ship out in tlie 
 Atlantic Ocean is a "moderate speed," and, in 
 compliance with this rule, the sailing ship being 
 at the time under all plain sail, and going as fast 
 as she can with the wind on her quarter. The 
 Eh/sia, 46 L. T. 840 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 640— C. A. 
 
 When a ship in tow of a steam-tug and in 
 charge of a duly licensed pilot who has the 
 control of both vessels, is navigating a river in a 
 fog so dense that the banks of the river cannot 
 be seen, and those on board the tug and ship 
 in tow do not know in what direction they are 
 going, it is negligence on the part of both vessels 
 to proceed. Smith v. St. Lawrence Tow-boat Co., 
 ].. E. 5 P. C. 308 ; 28 L. T. 885 ; 21 W. K. 5G'J ; 
 2 Asp. M. C. 41. 
 
 A barque with nearly all sail set, going five 
 knots in a frequented part of the English Channel 
 in a fog. heltl in fault under article 13 of 1884. 
 See, per Hannen, P., as to the duty of a sailing ship 
 in fogs. The Zadoh, 53 L. J., Adm. 72 ; 9 P. D. 
 114 ; 50 L. T. 695 ; 32 W. K. 1003 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 252. 
 
 A sailing ship carrying a press of sail on a 
 foggy night : — Held, not in fault for the collision, 
 which was said to be inevitable accident. The 
 Ebenezer, 2 W. Eob. 206. 
 
 A sailing ship in a fog must go at a speed at 
 which it will be possible to avoid another ship 
 when seen. Sailing ships under a press of sail 
 in a fog held not in fault. The Itinerant, 2 
 W. Kob. 236. 
 
 A schooner under all plain sail in the Bristol 
 Channel held in fault for not going at a moderate 
 speed in fog. The Beta, 9 P. D. 134 ; 51 L. T. 
 154 ; 83 W. E. 190 ; 5 Asp. M. C 276. S. P., 
 The Virgil, 2 W. Rob. 201. 
 
 Excessive Speed — Inevitable Accident.] — A 
 
 vessel going too fast in fog cannot sustain the 
 defence of inevitable accident. The Ei/ro2)a, 
 14 Jur. 627. S. P., The Juliet Ershine, 6 Not. of 
 Cas. 633. And see The Smyrna, 2 Moore, P. C. 
 (N.s.) 447 ; 10 Jur. (N.s.) 977 ; 11 L. T. 74. 
 The Marpesia, 8 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 468 ; L. E. 4 
 P. C. 212 ; 26 L. T. 333 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 261. 
 
 Ferry-boat running in Fog.] — A ferry steam- 
 ship has no right to get under way in thick 
 weather when she can do so only with risk to 
 other ships. The North Ameriean and The 
 Wild Eof-e, 14 L. T. 68, 547. S. P., The Perth, 
 3 Hag. Adm. 414. The Victoria, 3 W. Rob. 49. 
 
 Knowledge of Vessels in Track.] — A 
 
 steam ferry-boat started in a dense fog to cross 
 a navigable river, those in charge of her having 
 been informed that vessels were anchored in or 
 near her track. The ferry-boat, altliough navi- 
 gated with all ordinary care, ran into and 
 damaged a ship at anchor : — Held, tliat the 
 
 ferry-boat was to blame. The Lancn^'herc, 1.. R, 
 4 A. & E. 198 ; 29 L. T. 927 ; 2 As]). M. C. 2U2. 
 
 Speed when passing through Fishing Grounds. ] , 
 
 — A sailing sliip going six and a h:ilf kimts dver 
 fishing grduud on a veiy tlai'k night lield iu fault 
 for collision with a trawler. The Pcppcrellr 
 Swabey, 12. 
 
 Running through Roadstsad.] — A vessel is- 
 not justified in running through a crowded 
 roadstead in tlnck fog. See The Victoria, 3- 
 W. Eob. 49 ; The Georqe, 4 Not. of Cas. 161 ;. 
 The LochUbo, 7 Moore, P. C. 427. 
 
 In Thames^Dredging with Anchor in Fog.] — 
 See The Aguaddlana, 60 L. T. 897 ; 6 Asp. M. C 
 390. 
 
 Speed of Mail Ships.] — It is no excuse for 
 excessive speed that the ship was carrying mails^ 
 The Virid, Chnrchward v. Palmer, 10 Moore,. 
 P. C. 472 ; 4 W. R. 755 ; in court below, Swabey, 88.. 
 
 As to Speed generally.] — See 2. Negligence., 
 ii. Speed, supra, col. 690. 
 
 Article 17. 
 
 Steering and Sailing Rules; Sailing Shij}^ i 
 corresponding with Article 14 of 1880 and 1884. 
 
 Old Eule as to close-hauled and free Ship — 
 Port and Starboard Tack.] — By the law maritimCr 
 a vessel sailing free, or a steamship, is bound to 
 give way to a vessel close-hauled ; the vessel, 
 close-hauled is not bound to alter her course, but 
 at night is bound to exhibit a sufficient light in. 
 time to enable the other to avoid collision. The 
 Saxonia, Lush. 410 ; 15 Moore, P. C. 262 ; 31 
 L. J., Adm. 201 ; 8 Jur. (n.s.) 315 ; 6 L. T. 6 ;. 
 10 W. R. 431. 
 
 If a vessel at sea is going close-hauled to the- 
 wind, and another meeting her is going free, the- 
 rule of the sea is for the latter vessel to go to lee- 
 ward ; and although such vessel may either go- 
 to leeward or windward as she best can, yet slie 
 ought, as a general rule, to suppose that the 
 vessel going to windward will keep her position. . 
 Handayside v. Wilson, 3 Car. & P. 528. 
 
 The rule of the river is, that if a light vessel is-, 
 going free, and a loaded vessel is running close- 
 hauled to the wind, it is the duty of the loaded 
 vessel to keep her course, and of the vessel going 
 free to bear away. Sills v. Broivn, 9 Car. & P. 
 601. 
 
 The general rule of navigation where two- 
 vessels are close-hauled and nearing one another.,, 
 is that the one on the port tack shoLdd give way, 
 and the one on the starboard tack keep her luii ;. 
 but this rule will not excuse the vessel on the- 
 starboard tack not taking other measures to- 
 prevent a collision if circumstances render them 
 necessary. The Lady Anne, 15 Jur. 18. 
 
 A barc^ue held solely to blame for causing a. 
 collision off the Lizard for not giving way upon, 
 a dark night to a small schooner, close-hauled to- 
 the wind on the starboard tack under close-reefed 
 sails. Tlte Fortune, Machay v. liobcrts, 9 Moore,. 
 P. C. 357. S. P., The Gazelle, 5 Not. of Cas. 101. 
 
 When two vessels are approaching each other, 
 nearly on the same course, and both have the 
 wind free, each vessel is bound to port her helm 
 and run to starboard of the other ; but when one 
 vessel is close-hauled the ship that has the wind 
 free is bound to make way for the close-hauled.
 
 8o; 
 
 SHIPPIXG— XX. Collision. 
 
 80G 
 
 ship. Tiie Chancellor. Williams v. Giitcit, H 
 Moore, P. C. 202 : i L. T. 627. 
 
 A ship with the -wind oa the port beam held 
 in fault for a collision with another on the star- 
 board tack close-hauled (183G). The Chester, 
 3 Hag. Adm. 316. 
 
 Semble. under the old rule of seamen a vessel 
 on the port tack, whether close-hauled or not, 
 bore up for another on the starboard tack. The 
 Strr/)if/er, 6 Not. of Cas. 36. 
 
 The old rule was for the ship on the larboard 
 tack to bear up, and for the other to keep her 
 reach. The John Brotherirk, 8 Jur. 276. S. P., 
 The Mam Sleicart, 2 W. Rob. 244. The Jupiter, 
 3 Hag. Adm. 370. 
 
 The free ship gives way to one close-hauled. 
 Jamiexon v. Brinhald, 5 K J. (O.S.) C. P. 30. 
 
 Under the old law a ship with the wind on the 
 quarter was bound to go astern of a ship close- 
 hauled. The Dumfries. Swabey, 125. 
 
 Ships on opposite tacks ; both held in fault, 
 one for want of look-out and not porting, the 
 other for starboarding. The Washimjiun, 5 Jur. 
 1067. 
 
 The old port -helm rule applied to two sailing 
 ships with the wind fi-ee meeting on opposite 
 courses. The London Pachet, 2 Xot. of Cas. oOl. 
 The Seringapatam, 2 W. Piob. 506 ; 5 Not. of 
 Cas. 61. 
 
 A ship with the wind free held in fault for 
 delaying too long to keep out of the way of 
 another close-hauled. The Culoiiia, 3 Kot. of 
 Cas. 13. n. 
 
 A full-rigged ship with the wind free crossing 
 a brig and a schooner close-hauled upon the same 
 tack was held in fault for approaching the latter 
 so close that, upon the schooner going about, a 
 collision with the brig was inevitable. The 
 Mobile, Swabey, 69, 127; 10 Moore, P. C. 467. 
 
 '•Giving way" in the Trinity house rule of 
 1810, meant going under a vessel's stern. The 
 Hose. 2 W. Rob. 1. 
 
 Collier on starboard tack held in fault for 
 bearing up to a galliot on the port tack (1834). 
 The Jupiter, 3 Hag. Adm. 320. 
 
 Whether under the old law a ship clnse-hauled 
 on the starboard tack meeting another end on, 
 or nearly so, was rcr|uired to port her helm was 
 doubtful. See The JJrtxeij, 1 Spinks, 34, n.: The 
 Clfirrnre, 1 Spinks, 206 : The Ilalnjon, Lush. 
 ]00 : Chadiuivh v. City of Duhlin Steam Pachet 
 Co., 6 El. & Bl. 771 ; 3 Jur. (N.S.) 207 : The 
 Dumfries, Swabey, 125. 
 
 Under the old law (scmble) the port-tack siiip 
 was requircfl to bear up wiicrc the course of the 
 oiher ship was doubtful. The Trareller, 2 
 W. Rob. 197; lite Ann and Mary, 2 W. Rob. 
 1S9 ; The George, 5 Not. of Cas. 368. 
 
 Under 14 k. 15 Vict. c. 79, 8. 27, a vessel 
 close-hauled on the port tack and another with 
 the wind free on the starboard tack were icquircd 
 lK)tli to port. The Wamfell, 1 Spinks, 269. 
 
 Duty of Ship required to Keep out of the Way.] 
 — .\ si)i[) lopiiicd to keep out of the way of 
 another mii;ht, under former regulations, do so 
 in any way .she thinks fit. The Jiougainrille 
 and The James C. Stevenson, L. R. 5 P. C. 316 ; 
 28 L. T. 822; 21 \V. R. 653; 2 Asp. M. C. 1. 
 S. P., The Xor, 30 L. T. 576 ; 22 W. R. 30 ; 2 
 Asp. M. C. 2(;i : The Great Eastern, 3 Moore, 
 P. C. (N.S.) 31 ; 11 L. T. 5. 
 
 Sailing Vessel Hove-to on Port Tack. J — A 
 
 sailing vessel huvc-tu on the pOit tack is bound 
 
 to keep out of the way of a crossing vessel under 
 sail clo-e-liauk-d on the starboard tack. The, 
 Posalic, 50 L. J., Adm. 3 ; 5 P. D. 245 ; 44 L. T. 
 32 : 4 Asp. M. C. 384. 
 
 Two vessels hove-to on opposite tacks with 
 their helms lashed a-lee held to be within 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 296, requiring them to 
 port their helms. Tlie James, Swabey, 60 ; 
 
 4 W. R. 353— P. C. And see The Eleanor and 
 Tlie Alma, 2 Mar. Law Cas. (O.S.) 240 ; The 
 London, 6 2?\ot. of Cas. 29. 
 
 Ship reefing Topsails.] — A vessel engaged in 
 reefing topsails held in fault for not porting. 
 The Dlcnhcini, 1 Spinks, 285. 
 
 A brig on the port tack reefing topsails was 
 struck at night by a schooner on the starboard 
 tack : — Held, that owing to the darkness the 
 collision happened without fault in either ship ; 
 action dismissed without costs. Tlie John Puddle, 
 
 5 Not. of Cas. 387. 
 
 A barque on the port tack, engaged in furling 
 topsails, held in fault for not giving wav. The 
 City of Cai-lisle, Br. & Lush. 363; 11 L. T. 33. 
 
 Close-hauled Ship and Free Ship.] — A ship 
 close-hauled on the port tack held in fault for 
 pertinaciously standing on, the other ship with 
 the wind free being also in fault. Lhe Commerce, 
 3 W. Rob. 287. 
 
 Port and Starboard Tack.] — A vessel on the 
 starboard tack that obstinately kept her coiu-se 
 and struck the other ship before she had 
 gathered way on the port tack held in fault. 
 The Ida and The Wasa, 15 L. T. 103. 
 
 Duty of Ship required to keep her Course.] — 
 See Article 21, infra, col. 814. 
 
 Duty of Ship on Port Tack.] — A vessel whose 
 duty it is to keep out of the way should do so at 
 once ; if a collision occurs in consequence of her 
 close shaving, she is in fault. The John Brother ick, 
 8 Jur. 276. 
 
 Port-tack Ship hailed to keep her Luff.] — A 
 vessel on the port tack hailed by the otiier on. 
 the starboard tack to keep her luff held not in 
 fault for doing so. The Carolus, 3 Hag. Adm. 
 343, n. 
 
 "Close-hauled" — Meaning of.] — The wind 
 beini: smncwhere from S. to S.S.p]. the sloop 
 "Constantino" heading N.N. 10. fell in with the 
 cutter " Si)ring," heading W. by S. to leeward : — 
 Held, that it was the duly of the '• Constantino" 
 to keep out of the way, and of the " Spring" to 
 keep iier course. The Spring, L. R. 1 A. & E. 
 99; 12 Jur. (N.s.) 788; 14 W. R. 975. And see 
 The Singapore and The Ilehr, 4 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 
 271 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 378. 
 
 A collision took place in January, 1881, between 
 two sailing vessels, the " P." and tlic " S.," which 
 were crossing. 'i"hc court having come to tin- 
 conclusion, upon conflicting evidence, that the 
 "S.," though not strictly "close-hauled," was not 
 "running," and that she was "free" at most two 
 points, the wind being at farthest on her beam, 
 while the wind was at most on the quarter of the 
 " P.," almost certainly not more than three jioints 
 from her coui'.se, and in all probability more 
 nearly "aft" : — HeM, that the " S." was "close- 
 hauled," and that the "P." had the wind ■•aft," 
 both within the menTiing of the article and that 
 the "P." was tlicreforc bound to have kept out 
 
 2G— 2
 
 807 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. ColUsion. 
 
 808 
 
 of the way of the " S.," and was solely to blame | had the wind free and the other was close 
 for the coUisiou. If the wind be at any less 
 angle than forty-five degrees with the line of a 
 vessel's keel, it is a wind "aft" within the 
 artiele. The Pni-atcer, 9 L. E., Ir. 105— C. A. 
 
 The custom of sailors to treat sailing ships 
 when in the trades as close-hauled ships when 
 they are sailing a point or two from being as 
 close-hauled as they can lie, does not affect the 
 legal construction of the regulations, and the 
 court will not exonerate vessels so sailing from 
 duties applicable to sailing ships in other lati- 
 tudes. Semble, a sailing ship is close-hauled 
 
 within the meaning of the regulations if she is 
 
 sailing half a point free of tlie nearest she can 
 
 lie to "the wind, but not if she is two points off. 
 
 The Earl Wcmyss, 61 L. T. 289 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 
 407— C. A. 
 
 The saiHng ship " E. W." while sailing free in 
 
 the trades saw the red light of the sailing vessel 
 
 "A." on her starboard bow. The "A." was 
 
 sailing close-hauled (as it is called in the trades), 
 
 but was in fact not as close to the wind as she 
 
 could lie. As the vessels approached the " E. W." 
 
 ported to keep out of the way of the '• A." At 
 
 about the same time the "A." not only luffed up as 
 
 close as she could to the wind, but also went 
 
 a little farther under a starboard helm, thus 
 
 ■counteracting the porting of the " E. W.," and 
 
 a collision occurred :— Held, that the " A." altered 
 
 her course in breach of article 22 of the regulations 
 
 for preventing collisions, and was to blame for 
 
 the collision. Ih. 
 
 Port-tack Ship hearing up to Free Ship.] — A 
 
 ship on the port tack bure up to a free ship and 
 so caused the collision : — Held, that she was not 
 in fault, because she could not under the circum- 
 : stances with reasonable care have known that 
 the other ship was free. The Theodore II. Rnnd, 
 .^6 L. J., Adm. 65 ; 12 App. Cas. 247 ; 56 L. T. 
 343 ; 35 W. E. 781 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 122— H. L. 
 
 Approaching Close-hauled Ship too close.] — 
 
 A ship with the wind free held in fault for 
 .approaching two others so close that upon one of 
 them going about a collision with the other was 
 inevitable The jMobile, 10 Moore, P. C. 467 ; 
 Svvabey, 127 ; 4 W. E. 708— P. C. 
 
 Tacking or Wearing.] — When a vessel is sail- 
 ing upon a wind, and passes from one tack to 
 aiiuther, as a general rule she should tack and 
 
 hauled. The vessel which had the wind free 
 was being overtaken by the close-hauled vessel, 
 and there was a difference of four points between 
 the direction of their heads. The collision 
 occurred by the close-hauled vessel from leeward 
 striking the starboard beam of the vessel which 
 had the wind free. At the hearing of an action 
 of damage brought for the recovery of the 
 damage sustained in the collision : — Hel<l, first, 
 that the 12th article of the regulations for pre- 
 venting collisions at sea was applicable to the 
 case. lb. 
 
 Held, .secondl}', that the vessel with the wind 
 free ought to have ported her helm in time or to 
 have taken whatever steps were necessary to 
 avoid the collision. Ih. 
 
 Vessels Crossing or Meeting.] — Collision by 
 two sailing vessels crossing and having the wind 
 on opposite sides : — Held, that by the 12th article, 
 the vessel on the port side was bound to get out 
 of the way of the vessel on the starboard side, 
 unless she had the wind free. The Constitution, 
 2 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 453 ; 10 Jur. (N.s.) 831 ; 10 
 L. T. 81)4. 
 
 When two vessels are approaching, one heading 
 N.N.E. i- E. and the other S.W. | W., they are 
 crossing and not meeting. Tlte Ileiinj and The 
 St. Cyran, 12 W. E. 1014. 
 
 A ship and a barque were both on the port 
 tack. The barque was the windward vessel, and 
 had the wind three points free. The ship was 
 close-hauled, and when first sighted by the barque 
 was approaching her on her lee beam : — Held, 
 that the ships were crossing each other, and that 
 it was the duty of the barque, being the wind- 
 ward vessel, to get out of the way of the other, 
 The Pechfortun Castle, 47 L. J., Adm. 69 ; 3 P. D. 
 11 ; 38 L. T. 816 ; 26 W. E. 346 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 533— C. A. 
 
 LufB.ng.] — A close-hauled vessel is justified in 
 luffing so as to bring her, after she has sighted 
 another vessel as close to the wind as she can 
 get so as to remain under command, and such 
 luffing is not a deviation from her course that 
 will relieve the other vessel, having the wind free, 
 from the duty of getting out of her way. Tito 
 lUarmlun, 27 L. T. 255 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 412— P. C. 
 
 When a ship close-hauled is bound to keep 
 her course, luffing as close to the wind as she can 
 without losing headway is not a deviation within 
 
 not wear, unless for some good reason and with the regulations, such as will render her liable for 
 
 "" ■" " a coUision with another vessel, whose duty it is to 
 keep out of her way. TheAimo and The Ainclla, 
 29 L. T. 118 ; 21 W. E. 707 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 96— 
 P. C. Cf. 2'he Earl Wemyss, supra. 
 
 When it is the duty of a ship to keep out of 
 the way of another, but she is unable to do so 
 by reason of being disaVjled in a former collision, 
 and the other ship being unaware of her dis- 
 abled condition, continues her course, a collision 
 ensuing is the result of inevitable accident. Ih. 
 
 hufficient sea room for the purpose. Tlte Falh 
 land and The JVariqntor, 1 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 
 379 ; Br. & Lmsh. 204 ; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 1113. 
 
 Vessels Crossing or Overtaking.] — Semble, 
 that where two ships are on converging courses, 
 with the difference of a point and a half, the 
 one having the other on her quarter four or five 
 points abaft the beam, they are crossing ships, 
 and not within the overtaking rules. The 
 Breadalham, 7 P. D. 186; 46 L. T. 204; 4 
 Asp. M. C. 505. 
 
 Under former regulations there was no fixed 
 rule as to when a ship is to be considered as 
 crossing or overtaking, but the question must be 
 decided from the circumstances of each particular 
 case. The Pcclifoi-Um Castle, 47 L. J., Adm. 69 ; 
 3" P. D. 11 ; 37 L. T. 816 ; 26 W. E. 346 ; 3 
 Asp. M. C. 533— C. A. 
 
 A collision occurred in the daytime between 
 two port-tacked vessels. One of such vessels 
 
 Beating to Windward on the same Tack.] — 
 
 Two vessels, which had been sailing in company, 
 were beating to windward. They were both 
 close-hauled on the same tack, the one ahead 
 and a little to the windward of the other. The 
 leading vessel stood in as near as she could to a 
 shoal, and was then obliged to go about. The 
 other vessel kept her reach. The two vessels 
 came into collision : — Held, that it was the duty 
 of the following vessel to have gone about at
 
 809 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. CuIUsion. 
 
 810 
 
 the time she saw the loading vessel go about ; 
 and that, as the coUision was occasioned by 
 the following vessel neglecting to go about at 
 the proper time, she was to blame for the collision. 
 TJw Priseilla, L. K. 3 A. & E. 125 ; 23 L. T. 566. 
 
 Ship in Stays.] — AVhen a port-tacked vessel 
 has thrown herself into stays and becomes help- 
 less, she ought nevertheless to execute any 
 practicable manoeuvre in order to get out of the 
 ■way of a starboard-tacked vessel. The Lake St. 
 Clair V. The Und/ricritcr, M'ilwn v. Canada 
 Shq)])in(i Co., 2 App. Cas. 389 ; 36 L. T. 155 ; 3 
 Asp. M.C. 361— P.O. 
 
 A starboard-tacked vessel, when apprised of 
 the helpless condition of a vessel which by the 
 ordinary rule of navigation ought to get out of 
 her way, is bound to execute any practicable 
 manoeuvre which would tend to avoid a collision. 
 Ih. 
 
 Both vessels were held to blame for the col- 
 lision, lb. 
 
 Burden of Proof.] — A vessel proceeding in a 
 cause of collision and alleging herself to have 
 been in stays at the time of the collision, and 
 therefore helpless, is bouiul to prove in the tirst 
 instance that such was the fact. The burden of 
 l>roof then shifts, and the other side must shew 
 tiiat the collision was occasioned hy the vessel 
 proceeding being improperly put in stays or was 
 an inevitaVjle accident. The Sea yi/iiijjh, Lush. 
 23 ; 15 L. T. 103. 
 
 Article 18. 
 
 Steamshij?8 Meetinij ; corresjwjidtng iclih Article 
 
 15 of\%mand 1884. 
 
 Port-helm Rule of former Acts.] — The port-helm 
 Trinity luiuse rule of 1840 did not apply where 
 the ships' heads were in different but not opposite 
 directions. The London Packet, 2 ^ot. of Cas. 
 .501. 
 
 A galliot starboarded to the green light of a 
 steamship on her starboard bow, and, on the 
 steamship's red light appearing, ported. The 
 steamship struck her on the ptirtside. The steam- 
 ship cither starboarded or ported too late or not 
 at all. Steamship held in fault. The Sijl^ih, 
 Swabey, 233. 
 
 The " port-lielm " rule of 1840 did not require a 
 vessel to port her helm where by (loing soshe would 
 put herself ashore or not avoid risk of collision. 
 The Friend)!, Genf.rul Steam JVavitjation Co. v. 
 Tonkin, i Moore, P. C. 314. 
 
 A schooner held in fault under i) & 10 Vict, 
 c. loo, for starboarding lier helm to an approaching 
 steamship, which ported. The Lcith, 7 Not. of 
 Cas. 137. 
 
 Port-helm Eule of 1854.]— A stcanisliip,"B. 0.," 
 saw the green and white lights of another steam- 
 ship, the " B. D.," distatit ;il)outamile and a half, 
 and a point on the staibo.-inl bow. The " B. <)." 
 ported. Tlie "B. I)." kept lier course, and at Ww. 
 last moment starboarded : — Held, that tiie 
 " B. 0." ouglit either to have kept her cour.se or to 
 have slowed until the course of tlie other vessel 
 had been ascertained ; tiiat llie " B. O." im))io- 
 perlv ported, and was tiicrefore to blame. The 
 Bla'rk Diamond, 'J L. T. 31»(; ; 12 W. 1!. 21!). 
 
 The statutory rule of ]iort-helni, given by 17 
 A. 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 2!)6, applied oidy when vessels 
 were meeting in opposite directions end on, or 
 nearly so, when the observance of the lule would 
 
 have made the vessels pa«s port side to port side. 
 The Independence, Lush. 270 ; 14 Moore, P. C. 103 ; 
 4 L. T. 563 ; 9 W. E. 582. 
 
 Regulations of 1863 — Meeting or Approaching 
 "End on."] — Article 13 only applies when there 
 is a contintious approaching of two ships. The 
 Je.s-mond and The Uarl of Eh/in. 8 Moore, P. C. 
 (x.s.) 179 ; L. E. 4 P. C, i ; 25 L. T. 514 ; 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 150. 
 
 When two vessels are meeting end on, or nearly 
 end on, and one of them, at a proper distance, 
 ports her helm sufficiently to put her on a course 
 which will carry her clear of the other, she 
 thereby determined the risk, and is not " approach- 
 ing another ship so as to involve risk of collision " 
 and is not bound to slacken speed or stop. Ih. 
 
 Both Ships must port. — Both ships must port 
 their helms, although collision would be avoided 
 by one porting. The Ara.ves and The Black 
 Prince, 15 Moore, P. C. 122. See also Thf. Owl 
 ajid The Ariadne, Little v. Bvrna, 9 Ct. of 
 Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 118 ; The Cleopatra, Swabev^ 
 135. 
 
 End-on or nearly End-on — Meaning of 
 Phrase.] — Ships on ^\'.2s.AV. and S. E. by E. 
 courses respectively held to ho. "crossing'' and 
 "not meeting." The ConatitutioJi, 2 Moore. P. C. 
 453 ; 10 Jur. (N.S.) 831 ; 10 L. T. 894 (decision 
 before order in council of 30th Juh-. 18()8). 
 
 Two ships heading respectively N.X.E. h Iv 
 and S.W. ^ W. held to be crossing and not meet- 
 ing ships. The Henry and The St. Cijran, 12-' 
 W. E. 1014. 
 
 Ships within two points of meeting end on 
 held to be nearly end on within article 15 of 
 the regulations of 1863. Tlic Fruiter and The 
 Finfial, 13 L. T. 610. 
 
 Ships upon S.S.W. and N.E. \ N. courses 
 respectively held not to be meeting end on or 
 nearlvend on. The Monaand The Ava, 29 L. T. 
 781 ;'2 Asp. M. C. 182. 
 
 Aliter where the courses were K.X.W. and 
 S.E. (semble). I'he Jenniond and Tlie Furl of 
 Elgin, supra. 
 
 And where the ships were proceeding up and 
 down the Clyde, eacli having the other half a 
 ]ioint on the bow. Tlte Oicl and The Ariitdnc, 
 Little V. EiiriL.t, 9 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 
 118. 
 
 "Meeting" and "Crossing" Ships — Distinc- 
 tion between.] — See The Franconia, 2 P. 1). .s ; 35 
 L. T. 721 : 25 W. U. 197 : 3 Asp. I\I. C. 29.->— 
 C. A. The Peckforton Castle, 47 L. J., A.lm. 69 : 
 3 P. D. 11 ; 38 L. T. 816 ; 2(! W. E. 396 ; 3 Asp. 
 M. C. 533— C. A. The llreadulhaiu; 7 P. 1). 186 : 
 46 L. T. 204 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 505. The .Scut on, 
 infra 
 
 AiniCLE 19. 
 
 Steamships Crosxinq ; corresponding with Article 
 16 of\^>iOand 1884. 
 
 The " S." and tlie " P." were on parallel (S.W. 
 by W.) courses, the " P."' being abaft the beam 
 of the " S." and overtaking her. When the ships 
 were three or four miles aijart, the "P." .'dtcicd 
 her course to S. i W., and a cnllision fo!lnweil, 
 tlic .ships remaining on the same courses : — Held, 
 that the overtaking rule |irevailcd over the cross- 
 ing rule (articles 16 and 20 of 1880), and that the 
 " P." wa- alone in fault. The Scaton, 53 L. J.,
 
 811 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 812 
 
 Adm. 13 ; 9 P. D. 1 ; 49 L. T. 747; 32 W. R. 600 ; 
 5 Asp. M. C. 191. 
 
 " Crossing" Rule — Its Application in a wind- 
 ing River.] — Two steainshi|)S in reaclu-s oi the 
 Tlmmes that make an angle with each other 
 were a))pvoa('hiiig each other : — Held (under the 
 regulations of 18G3), that the "crossing" rule 
 did not apply. The Velocity, General Steam. 
 Nnviqatioii Co. v. Hedley, 6 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 
 263 ;■ 39 L. J., Adm. 20 ; L. E. 3 P. C. 44 ; 21 
 li. T. 686 ; 18 W. R. 264. See also The Ranger 
 and The Colof/ne, Malcolmson v. General Steam 
 Xarlfjailon Co., 9 Moore, P. C. (n.kS.) 352 ; L. R. 4 
 P. O'. 519 ; 27 L. T. 769 ; 21 W. R. 273 ; 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 484 ; The Esh and The Niord, 7 Moore, 
 P. C. (N.s.) 276 ; L. R. 3 P. C. 436 ; 24 L. T. 167 : 
 1 Asp. M. C. 1 ; The Occano and The Virgo, 3 
 P. D. 60 ; infra, col. 830. 
 
 In Cardiff Drain.] — A steamship bound for 
 
 , Penarth dock and making the usual docking 
 I isignal, held bound to keep out of the way of 
 ' .another steamship on her starboard bow coming 
 
 <lown CardiflE drain. The St. Andrews, 54 L. T. 
 
 .278 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 552. See also TheLeverington, 
 
 infra. 
 
 ' ' Crossing " Rule and " Narrow channel " Rules 
 may apply togetlier.] — The Lnreri /u/toii, 5') h. J., 
 Adm. 78 ; 11 P. D. 117 ; 55 L. T.'386 ; 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 7, infra, coL 823. 
 
 Two Ships making for same Spot.] — Two 
 
 vessels making for a pilot station to take pilots 
 on board are to be treated as crossing vessels, if 
 their courses, if continued, would intersect ; and 
 the fact of their seeking pilots at the same place 
 is not such a special circumstance as will take 
 them out of the operation of the rule requiring 
 1h".t the ship which has the other on her ov.-n 
 . starboard hand shall keep out of the way of the 
 ■ other. The Ada, The SajJi^ho, 28 L. T. 825 ; 2 
 Asp. M. C. 4— P. C. 
 
 Crossing Vessels in Rivers.] — The considera- 
 tions which arise in regard to vessels in the open 
 sea are not the same as those which apply to the 
 reaches of a winding river. Whether or not 
 vessels are " crossing vessels " in a river depends 
 ■on their presumable courses, and the question, 
 therefore, always turns on the reasonable infer- 
 ence to be drawn as to a vessel's future couisc 
 from her position at a particular moment, and 
 this greatly depends upon the nature of the 
 locality where she is at that moment. The 
 Lcverington (supra) distinguished. The Peltin, 
 The Normandie {Oioncrs') v. The Pehin {Owners'), 
 66 L. J., P. C. 97 ; [1897] A. C. 532 ; 77 L. T. 
 443— P. C. 
 
 Article 20. 
 
 Steainshij) and Sailing Ship ; corresponding 
 with Article 17 lif 1880 and 1884. 
 
 Reason of the Rule.] — Is that the steamship 
 is more perfectly under command than the sail- 
 ing ship. The Indejfcndence. Lush. 270 ; 11 Moore, 
 P. C. 103 ; 4 L. T. 553 ; 9 W. R. 587. 
 
 Sailing Ship overtaking Steamship.] — Under 
 the regulations of 1863 there was doubt as to 
 the dutv of a sailing ship overtaking a steam- 
 ship. The Ph ilotahc; 37 L. T, 540 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 512. 
 
 Duty of Steamship.] — It is the di\ty of a 
 steamer, where there is risk of collision, what- 
 
 ever may be the conduct of the sailing vessel, to 
 do everything in her power that can be done, 
 consistently with her own safety, in order to 
 avoid collision — per Westbury, C. The City of 
 Antwerp and The Friedrich, 37 L. J., Adm. 25 ; 
 L. R. 2 P. C. 25. 
 
 Where a steamer is charged with omitting to 
 do something which she ought to have done, 
 there must be clear proof, first, that the thing 
 omitted to be done was clearly within the power 
 of the steamer ; secondly, that, if done, it would 
 in all probability have prevented the collision ; 
 and, thirdly, that it was an act which would 
 have occurred to any ofirccr of competent skill 
 and experience in command of the steamer. 
 Ih. 
 
 Trawler at Work.] — A steam trawler at work 
 held excused by article 23 of 1S84 from 
 keeping out of the wav of a sailing ship. Tlie 
 Twcedsdale, 58 L. J., Adm. 41; 14 P. D. 164; 
 61 L. T. 371 ; 37 W. R. 783 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 430. 
 
 Duty of Sailing Ship— Keep her Course.] — 
 
 The fact that a steamship is neglecting to keep 
 out of the way of a sailing ship cloes not make it 
 the duty of the sailing ship to take measures to 
 avoid a collision, except possibly in very excep- 
 tional circumstances, because it is possible for a 
 steamship to act for a sailing ship up to almost 
 the last moment, and any action on the part of 
 the sailing ship might be liable to increase risk 
 of collision. The s.s. '• H." was approaching 
 the sailing ship " S." for several minutes, with her 
 masthead and red lights open, on the starboard 
 bow of the " S." The " S." kept her course till a 
 collision was imminent, and then hard-a-ported, 
 but the " H." with her port side struck the stem 
 and port bow of the " S." The "H." admitted that 
 she was to blame, but contended that the " S." 
 was also to blame for breach of article 23 of 1884 
 in not manoeuvring for the " H." after she saw 
 the " H." persisting in doing nothing tokeep outof 
 her way : — Held, that the " S." was not to blame, 
 as the circumstances were not such as to require 
 the " S." to alter her course and manoeuvre for 
 the "H." The Uighgate, 62 L. T. 841 ; 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 512. 
 
 A sailing ship meeting a steamship end on 
 must not port, but must keep her course. The 
 Bonqainville and The James C. Stevenson, L. R. 
 5 P.'C. 316 ; 28 L. T. 822 ; 21 W. E. 653 ; 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 1. 
 
 In the Thames— Steamship's Signal— Unable 
 to keep clear, j — In the Thames, where it was 
 not possible for the steamship to keep out of the 
 way, and she gave the recpiired signal to a sailing 
 barge : — Held, tiiat the barge was alone in fault 
 for the collision which followed. The Long 
 JS'cwton, 59 L. T. 260 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 302. 
 
 Sailing Ship going about.] — A sailing ship in 
 the Thames turning to windward went about 
 when she got to the edge of the tide with- 
 out giving any notice of her intention to a 
 steamship astern: — Held, that the steamship 
 was alone in fault. The Palatine, 27 L. T. 631 ; 
 1 Asp. M. C. 468. 
 
 Sailing Ship rounding to.] — A barque rounding 
 to Ijcfiiie coming to an anchor was struck by a 
 steamship : — Held, that the stcam.ship was alone 
 in fault, although she alleged that she was baffled 
 by the rapid change in the barque's lights. Th6 
 Sept line, 13 L. T. 510.
 
 613 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 814 
 
 Sailing Ship not ksepinj her Course.] — 
 'Collision ill tlie Atlantic Ocean at midnight 
 between a steamship of unusual size and tonnage 
 rand a sailing vessel : the steamer going at a rate 
 •of between twelve and thirteen knots an hour ; 
 the vessel sailing close-hauled on the port tack, 
 and being two or three miles distant when she 
 first sighted the steamer, instead of keeping her 
 course, ported her helm : — Held, first, that under 
 tlie 18th article of 1863, it was the duty of the 
 sailing vessel to have kept her course without 
 alteration, unless the danger of collision was so 
 imminent when the steamer was sighted as to 
 Tender a departure from the 18th article neces- 
 ■■sary to avoid tlanger, and that she was, therefore, 
 partly to blame for the collision, having con- 
 tributed to it by porting. The Great Eastern, 
 3 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 31 ; 11 L. T. 5. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the steamer was to blame, 
 .-as, even if the sailing vessel had kept her course, 
 from the rate of speed the steamer was advancing 
 .a collision was inevitable, it being, under article 
 1?, the duty of a steamer meeting a sailing 
 Tessel to reverse her engines, slacken her speed 
 in sufBcient time, so as, having regard to the 
 •state of the weather, as far as possible to avoid 
 a collision. Ih. 
 
 A collision took place between a sailing ship 
 -.and a steamship on a dark night, the wind 
 8.S.E. ; the sailing ship steering N.E. by E., the 
 •steamship S.S.W., so that the lights of the 
 -sailing ship were seen about four points on the 
 •starboard bow. The sailing ship, instead of 
 keeping her course, ported her helm ; thereupon 
 ■the helm of the steamship was put hard a-port, 
 .and her engines were reversed : — Held, that the 
 steamship was solely to blame for the collision. 
 The Lady Jocelipi' 12 Jur. (N.s.) 'J6.5. S. P., 
 The Una v. The 'llamas Lea, 14 L. T. 834. The 
 Fruiter v. The Fnujal, 13 L. T. Gil. 
 
 A slight alteration of the course by the sailing 
 •ship when two miles off the steamship held not 
 a breach of the regulations. The Norma, 35 
 L. T. 418 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 272. 
 
 A steamer was sighted by a sailing vessel at a 
 sufficient distance to have avoided a collision. 
 The steamer took no steps until the vessels were 
 very near to each other, when she starboarded 
 Tier helm, and the sailing vessel ported her helm : 
 — Held, that the steamer was alone to blame, as 
 it was the duty of a steamer to keep out of the 
 ■way of the sailing vessel, jn-ovided she could do 
 it, eitlier by starboarding or porting her helm, 
 and that, on the oilier hand, it was the duty of 
 the sailing vessel to keep her course, and that 
 «hc could oidy be excused from deviating from 
 it by shewing tliat it was necessary to do so in 
 •order to :ivoid immediate danger. The Velag- 
 qvez, 4 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 426 ; 36 L. J.. Adm. 
 I'J ; L. K. 1 P. C. 494 ; 16 L. T. 777 , G \V. K. 
 
 Tug with Ship in Tow must keep out of way of 
 Sailing Ship.] — A schooner, close-hauled on tiie 
 stariio.ud tack at night, saw the starboard light 
 and the two towing lights of a steam tug, thiee 
 points on lici- jjort bow about a mile otl'. The 
 schooner kejit her luff. The steam tug had a 
 •fully-laden ship in tow, and was steaming against 
 a head wind in the o])en sea. The steam tug 
 kept her conree until it was too late to get out 
 of the way of the schooner, and the steam tug 
 and the schooner came into collision: — Held, 
 that the schooner was riglit in holding hei^ 
 •course, ami that the steam tug was alone to 
 
 blame. The Warrior, L. R. 3 A. & E. ,5.")3 ; 27 
 L. T. 101 ; 21 W. 11. 82 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 400. 
 
 The steamship "Aracan" found at a foreign 
 port the '• Syria," a screw steamship, totally dis- 
 abled in her machinery ; both vessels belonged 
 to the same owner. The captain of the "Aracan," 
 to protect his employers' interest and earn salvage 
 from the owners of the cargo of the " Syria," 
 took her in tow, and towed her into the English 
 Chaniiel, and whilst so doing came into collision 
 with a sailing ship close-hauled on the starboard 
 tack. The damage done by the " Aracan " caused 
 the sailing ship to sink, but before she sank the 
 " Syria " ranged up alongside of her and came 
 into contact with her. The " Aracan " lirst saw 
 the green light of the ship at a distance of three- 
 quarters of a mile, and then, instead of slackening 
 speed or starboarding her helm, attempted to 
 cross the bows of the ship. The ship saw at two 
 miles distance the " Aracan " and " Syria," with 
 a great length of hawser between them, and the 
 red lights of both, and kept her course : — Held, 
 that the " Aracan " was to blame for the collision. 
 The American and The Syria, JFnion Steamshij) 
 Co. V. The Aracan, 43 L. J., Adm. 30 ; L. R. 6 
 P. C. 127 ; 31 L. T. 42 ; 22 W. R. 927 ; 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 350. 
 
 A vessel close-hauled on the port tack in the 
 open sea, and in daytime, and a steamer towing 
 a large ship, were standing so as to cross eacli 
 other's bows, the steamer being on the lee-beam 
 of the sailing vessel : — Held, that the sailing 
 vessel was to blame for holding her reach, and 
 that the steamer was likewise to blame for taking 
 no measure in time to avoid collision. Thi- 
 Independence. Lush. 270 ; 14 Moore, P C. 103 ; 
 4 L, T. 563 ; 9 W. R. 582— P. C. 
 
 Article 21. 
 
 Keep her Course and Speed : Correnponding icith 
 Article 22 of 1880 and 188 L 
 
 Alteration of Helm to give more Room.] — A 
 
 ship being overtaken does not infringe the rule 
 requiring her to keep her course by altering half 
 a jjoint in order to give the other more room. 
 The Franconia, 2 1". D. 8 ; 35 L, T. 721 ; 25 W. R. 
 197 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 295— C. A. 
 
 'Course."] — The word "course" refers to th'j 
 direction of the vessel's head and not to hei' 
 speed. The JJcri/l, 53 L. J., Adm. 75 ; 9 P. D. 
 137 ; 51 L. T. 554 ; 33 W. R. 191 : 5 Asp. M. ('. 
 321 — C. A. But see The Lereriny/un, infra, col. 
 823. 
 
 Overtaken Vessel altering Course.] — Somblc. 
 tiiat a vessel, which is bring overtaken h/ 
 another, is not to blame within article 22 of 
 th(; regulations if she alters her course at such a 
 dislanee ahead of the overtaking vessel that the 
 latter can, by the exercise of reasonable caie, 
 keel) o^^ o^ ^'^^ ^^'''•.V "^ tl"' former. The Ban- 
 shee, 57 L. T. 841 ; Asp. M. C. 221— C. A 
 
 Sailing Ship doing nothing to avoid Collision.] 
 
 — I'lilil ]\\-\ III foil' till' ciillisiiin a sailing;- sliip 
 took no steps to avnid ci>llisi(in with a sleamsliip 
 which slie saw was doing nothing to kee[) out of 
 tlic way : — Held, that the sailing ship was not in 
 faidt. ' ThcJIiiihgatc,G2 L. T. 84 1 ; G Asp. M. C, 
 512. 
 
 Stringency of the Bule as to keeping her 
 Course.] — Sec per Dr. Lusliinglon, The livid,
 
 815 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 816 
 
 7 Not. of Cas. 127. S. P., TJie Imiiutpattda 
 Stu-a Clasina, 7 Not. of Cas. 5S2. TJie Te^t, 5 
 Not. of Cas. 276. The nyfogcd Chrintensen 
 (1,1(1 The WiUiam Frcdrrlch, 4 App. Cas. (IGU ; 
 41 L. T. 535 ; 28 W. E. 233 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 201— 
 H. L. (E.) 
 
 •'If a ship bound to keep her couvsc under- 
 takes to justify her departure from the rule, she 
 takes upon herself the obligation of shewing both 
 that her departure was, at the time it took place, 
 necessary in order to avoid immediate danger, 
 and also that the course adopted by her was 
 icasonably calculated to avoid that danger" — 
 l)er Sir J. Colvile. The Afjm and The- FAizaheth 
 Jr„]nn.o. 4 Moore, P. C. '(^.s.) 435 ; 30 L. J., 
 Adm. 16 ; L. E. 1 P. C. 501 ; 16 L. T. 755 ; 16 
 W. E. 735. 
 
 But she must not obstinately stand on when 
 a collision may plainly be avoided by an altera- 
 tion of course. The Lahe St. Clair and The 
 Underwriter, 2 App. Cas. 389 ; 36 L. T. 155 ; 3 
 Asp M. C. 361. The Bosalie, 50 L. J., Adm. 3 ; 
 o P. D. 245 ; 44 L. T. 32 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 384. 
 
 A steamship overtaking a sailing ship held in 
 fault for a collision which occurred whilst the 
 sailing ship was round! ng-to before anchoring. 
 The Xeptune, 13 L. T. 510. And see The Falk- 
 land and The Xarif/ator, Br. & Lush. 204 ; 1 Moore, 
 P. C. (K.S.) 379 ; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 1113. 
 
 A sailing ship meeting a steamship nearly end 
 on held in fault for porting. The Buitffainvillc 
 and The James C. Stevenson, L. E. 5 P. C. 316 ; 
 28 L. T. 822 ; 21 W. E. 653 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 1. 
 
 A slight alteration of the helm when the ships 
 were two miles apart held not to be an infringe- 
 ment of the rule requiring the ship to keep her 
 course. The Korma, 35 L. T. 418 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 272. And see Tlte Banshee, supra, col. 814. 
 
 Or where the alteration was to give the over- 
 taking ship more room. The Franconia, supra, 
 cul. 814. 
 
 A three-masted schooner close hauled on the 
 starboard tack held in fault for collision with a 
 smack hove-to on the port tack wdth her helm 
 lashed, she having done nothing until the col- 
 lision was inevitable. TJie llusulie, supra, col. 
 806. 
 
 "Keep her Course" — Meaning of, in Winding 
 P.iver.] — Semble, in a winding river the meaning 
 of '• keep her course " is that the vessel is to keep 
 her course in the river, having regard to the 
 windings of its channel, not that she shall keep 
 the comjjass course upon which she is for the 
 moment heading. Tlie Velacitii, 39 L. J., Adm. 
 
 20 : (J Moore, P.^C. (n.s.) 263 ; L. E. 3 P. C. 44 : 
 
 21 L. T. (186 ; 18 W. E. 264. And see The Peliin, 
 Xorniandie (^Owners') v. The Pekin ^Owners), 
 and cases eited, supra, col. 811. 
 
 But see The Banshee, supra, col. 814. 
 
 Ship Hove to.] — As to how a ship hove to is to 
 " keep her course," see Tlie General Lee, 19 L. T. 
 750. 
 
 Ship Close Hauled — Luffing.] — A close-hauled 
 ship tlues not break the ride requiring her to 
 keep her course by lufHng a little, so long as she 
 is sailing full and by. The Marmion, 27 L. T. 
 255; 1 Asp. M. C. 412. Tlie Aimo and Tlie 
 Amelia, 29 L. T. 118 ; 21 W. E. 707 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 96 ; Tlie Great F'istern, 3 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 31 : 
 11 L. T. 5. Tlie Sinqapjre, 4 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 
 271 ; L. E. 1 P. C. 378. 
 
 A ship that luffed to the extent of two and a 
 
 half points, held in fault for not keeping her 
 course. The Earl Wemi/ss, 61 L. T. 289 ; 6 
 Asp. M. C. 407— C. A. 
 
 If a close-hauled ship departs from the rule 
 requiring her to keep her course, she should 
 generally luff rather than bear up. The Agra 
 and The Flizuleth JenUins, supra. The Great 
 Eastern, supra, col. 813. 
 
 Article 22. 
 " Keep out of the Way " ,• new. 
 
 Article 23, 
 
 " Stoj) and Beverse" : Corresponding with 
 ArtieU' IS of 1880 and 1884. 
 
 Article 13 and Article 18 of 1884.]— Article 13 
 of 1884 cannot be broken without at the same 
 time breaking article 18 of 1884 — per Lord Esher, 
 M.E. The Ebor, 11 P. D. 25 ; 54 L. T. 200 ; M 
 W. E. 448 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 560, infra. 
 
 In Fog — Whistle of approaching Steamship.], 
 
 — When tw(j steamships, invisible to each other 
 by reason of a thick fog, find themselves gradu- 
 ally drawing nearer, until they are within a few- 
 ships' length, they are within the second direc- 
 tion of article 18 of 1894, and each of them ought 
 at once to stop and reverse, unless the fog signals 
 of the other vessel have unequivocally indicated 
 that she is steered so as to pass clear without risk. 
 of collision ; or unless other circumstances exist 
 which make it dangerous to stop and reverse. 
 The Ceto. 14 App. Cas. 670 ; 62 L. T. 1 ; 6 Asp> 
 M. C. 479— H. L. (E.) 
 
 A sailing ship in tow of a steam-tug in a fog^ 
 while proceeding at as slow a rate of speed as. 
 possible, came into collision with a steamer 
 whose whistle had been heard several times, 
 approaching. The engines of the tug were not 
 stopped or reversed before the collision : — Held, 
 that there had been a sufKcient compliance with 
 the provisions of article 18 of 1884 on the part of 
 the tug and tow. The Lord Banqor, 65 L. J.,. 
 Adm. 6 ; [1896] P. 28 ; 11 E. 822 ; 73 L. T. 414 r 
 8 Asp. M. C. 217. 
 
 A steamer heard a whistle on her port bow irh 
 a dense fog, and it was repeated, shewing that 
 the vessel from which it was sounded was- 
 approaching and was in her vicinity : — TTeld, 
 that under such circumstances it is a general rule 
 of conduct that there is a necessity to stop and 
 reverse, and that she had disobeyed the rule by 
 not so doing. The John Melntyre, 53 L. J., Adm> 
 115 ; 9 P. b. 135 ; 51 L. T. 1«5 ; 33 W. E. 190 ;. 
 5 Asp. M. C. 278- C. A. 
 
 The plaintiff steamer, in a fog off Cromer, 
 heard a whistle almost risht ahead ; she was. 
 then going slowly, about tluee knots an hour,, 
 and She continued at this speed for about a» 
 minute, until a second whistle was heard, whea 
 the order was given to stop and reverse ; but the 
 defendants' steamer coming into sight, a collisioni 
 occurred. The defendants admitted at the trial 
 that they were to blame : — Hekl, that the plain- 
 tiffs wei-e also to blame, for they had infringed 
 article 18 by going on at the same speed after they 
 heard the first whistle as before. Tlte Ebor, 11 
 P. D. 25 ; 54 L. T. 200 ; 34 W. E. 448 ; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 560— C. A. 
 
 A steamship in a very thick fog, going three 
 and a lialf knots, heard the whistle of a steam- 
 ship almost right ahead several times. Her helrcj
 
 817 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 818 
 
 was ported, but her speed not changed : — Held, 
 that she was in fault for not stopping and 
 reversing. T/te I^ussf/idl and The Sjjanlel, 
 Leltrim (^Conntess) v. Burns, 24 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 (4th ser.) 993. 
 
 During a fog the steamships " A." and " L." 
 were sailing upon opposite courses, bound east- 
 ward and westward respectively. The " A.'s " 
 whistle was first heard hy the master of the " L." 
 a point or a point and a half on his starboard 
 bow, and the sound gradually broadened until it 
 was two and a half to three points on that bow. 
 The next whistle did not seem to broaden, and 
 the master of the " L." immediately stopped his 
 engines. The next whistle satisfied him that the 
 '■ A." was porting and closing on his starboard 
 b^AV, and he thereupon reversed his engines. 
 The vessels came into collision, which they would 
 not have done if the " A." had not ported : — 
 Held, that the " L." was to blame for the collision 
 as well as the " A.," because the master of the 
 ■• L." ought to have reversed, and not merely to 
 have stopped his engines under the circumstances. 
 The Ceto (supra) discussed. The Lancashire, 63 
 L. J., Adm. 80 : [1894] App. Cas. 1 ; 6 R. 46 ; 69 
 L. T. f)63 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 376— H. L. (E.) 
 
 And see further, as to duty of steamships in 
 fog, Article 16, ante, cols. 799, seq. 
 
 A steamship held in fault for not having 
 reversed until the lights of an approaching 
 steamship appeared in a thick fog, she having 
 previously stopped her engines on hearing the 
 other vessel's whistle close at hand. The Franlt,- 
 land and The Kestrel, 9 Moore, P. C. (x.s.) 36.5 ; 
 J.. R. 4 P. C. 529 ; 27 L. T. 633. S. P., The Lore 
 Bird, 6 P. D. 80 : 44 L. T. 650 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 427. 
 
 A steamshiij held in fault for not having 
 stopped until the other ship's whistle was heard 
 a second time and nearer, when her lights were 
 first seen. The Kirhii Hall. 52 L. J., Adm. 31 ; 
 8 P. D. 71 ; 48 L. T. 797 ; 31 W. R. 658 : 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 90. 
 
 A steamship held in fault for not having 
 reversed as well as stopped on seeing a barge 
 ahead, at anchor in the Thames, a ship's length 
 off. 'Tlie Ilartuu, 53 L. J., Adm. 25 ; 9 P. D. 44. 
 
 Duty to reduce speed to the lowest possible 
 fioint when a whistle is heard on the bows in fog. 
 The llisetta, 59 L. T. 342 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 310. 
 
 A steamship, hearing the wiiistle of another 
 three times in a thick fog, did not sto]) and 
 reverse until the other ship came into view a 
 rhip's length off : — Held, that she had broken 
 aiticle 18. The Bordofjne, 54 L. J.. Adm. 29 ; 10 
 P. D. 6 ; 51 L. T. 650 ; 33 W. R. 360 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 5.-.O. 
 
 CroBsing Ships— Eisk of Collision.] — The 
 steamship " Jd." sighted the masthead and green 
 ]i;.'lits of the steamship "S.," distant about three 
 mik'S, and hearing about two and a-half points 
 • III the port bow. Wlicn the" S."'got within thrc^e 
 .'-hip-lengths of the " M.," still shewing liermast- 
 hiad and green lights at a bearing of four i)oints 
 on the port bow. she suddenly starboarded, and 
 although tlie " M." immediately Klopp('<l her 
 f;ni,'ines, a collision occurred. The court, having 
 held that the "S." was to blame, further found 
 t hat the rc-pective coiirsfsof the vessels was such 
 tiat had tlie '• S." kept her course and not star- 
 bnarded, she would have passed one and adialf 
 ship-lengths astern of the " M.," and that the 
 bist and most seamanlike manoeuvre for the 
 '• JI."' was to continue her speed as she did, but 
 that there was in fact risk of collision before the 
 
 " S." starboarded, and that the " il." was to blame 
 for not stopping sooner. The Jlemnon, 62 L. T. 
 84 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 317— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Effect of Infringement of Article 18.]— Tho 
 " K.'' and •' V.,'' two large steam vessels, coming in 
 opposite directions, siglated each other at a con- 
 siderable distance ; they ultimately came into 
 collision. The " K." alleged that when the two 
 vessels were fast approaching each other the " V." 
 improperly changed its course ; that the master of 
 the " K." could not rely on the "V." taking a 
 particular course : that to meet possible con- 
 tingencies he ordered his engineers to stand to 
 their engines, and almost instantly afterwards 
 gave the order to starboard the helm, which he 
 deemed would prevent or greatly mitigate the 
 collision, and then stopped and reversed the 
 engines. This was not exactly the order requiretl 
 by the regulations, which directed that in such a. 
 case the engines should be stopped and reversed. 
 The court of admiraltj^ had deemed both vessels, 
 to be in fault, and had adjudged accordingly ;. 
 the court of appeal had held the master of the 
 " K." to be excused under the circumstances of the 
 case, and had given judgment against the"V." 
 On appeal to the house of lords : — Held, that 
 the statutes and the regulations had not left the 
 master of the " K." a discretion in the matter ; 
 that he was bound to stop and reverse the engines, 
 and that as he had not done so at the first moment 
 of danger he had disregarded the regulations, and 
 consequently that the " K." must be held in part 
 responsible. The KJiedlre, Stootntaart Jlaat- 
 schajjpij Xederlandx.P.and 0. Steam JS'arigatioti 
 Co., 52 L. J.. Adm. 1 ; 5 App. Cas. 876 ; 43 L. T. 
 610 ; 29 W. R. 173 ; 4 Asp.M. C. 567— H. L.(E.) 
 
 Keasonable Time to be allowed before the Eule 
 
 is applicable.] — Those in charge of a vessel must 
 have a reascjnable time to apjjreciate a situation) 
 of danger before the stop and reverse rule can 
 be held to have been infringed. Where the red 
 light of a steamshii) came into view, the green 
 having previously been seen, on the starboard 
 bow of another more than half a minute before 
 the collision, and no order to stop and reverse 
 was given : — Held, that the rule had bccii 
 infringed. The Emmij llaase, Maria ren v. 
 Conipaijnle Frangaise de Xarirfation a Vapenry, 
 53 L. J., Adm. 43 ; 9 App. Cas. 690 ; 50 L. T. 372 ; 
 32 W. R. 880 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 21(!— H. L. (lSc.> 
 And see The Beryl, infra ; The Ceto, supra, col. 
 816. 
 
 instantaneous compliance with article 18 of 
 ]88t, by which " every steamship when approach- 
 ing another ship so as to involve risk of collision 
 shall slacken her speed or stop and reverse if 
 necessary," is not necessary ; a man for the 
 exercise of his judgment must be allowed a 
 short, but a very short, time. The Eniwy Ilaase 
 (supra) apjiroved. The Xqajuwta, t>6 L. J., 
 P. C. 88 ; [18971 A. C. 391— P. C. 
 
 The "A." and " B." were crossing within the 
 meaning of article 16, and it was the duty of the 
 "A." to keep out of tiie way, but she did not do so. 
 The " B.," when from a quarter to half a mile 
 distant, slackened lier speed, and continued witl> 
 slackened speed to within 300 yards of the "A.,'' 
 and then stopped and reversed, but not in time 
 to prevent a collision: — Held, that the " P>." 
 must be held, for not stopping and reversing^ 
 sooner, to blame as well as the " A." Articles 1(> 
 and ]H (of 1880) are intended to bo applicable 
 according to the circumstances as they would
 
 1819 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. CoUision. 
 
 820 
 
 pvcsciit tlicmpclvcs to the mind of a prudent 
 cailiir, and come into force before the risk of 
 <^-on;sion is tixcd and determined. Tha Beryl, 
 5:5 L. J., Adm. 75 ; 9 P. D. 137 ; 51 L. T. 551 ; 
 .-,?:? W. K. 191 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 321— C. A. 
 
 Steamship justified in not Stopping.] — A 
 •Pteanier, tlic -G.," saw a green light at some 
 <listanoe and starboarded her helm ; soon after the 
 port side of the " B.," without a red light, came 
 into view, so close that the only chance of avoid- 
 -iug a collision was for the " G." to continue at full 
 ■ppeed ahead and starboard her helm, which she 
 <lid. The '• B." struck the " G." on her starboard 
 -side : — Held, that the " B." was alone to blame 
 for the collision, and that the stop and reverse 
 .rule did not ajiplj^ under the circumstances to 
 ■the " G.," and that article 23 was ajiplicable. The 
 Jicnarex. 53 L. J.. Adm. 2 ; D P. D. 16 ; 49 L. T. 
 702 ; 32 W. E. 268 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 171— C. A. 
 
 Duty of Sailing Ship as to Taking Way Off,] — 
 
 ■Though article 18 (of 1880) docs not apply to 
 mailing ships, nevertheless a sailing ship under the 
 •eircumstances mentioned in the article must be 
 under such sail that the way can readily be 
 ■taken ofE her. See per Brett, L.J. The Durdogne, 
 supra, col. 817. 
 
 Article 16 and article 22 (crossing and keeping 
 <'Ourse rules) of the regulations of 1880, are 
 'Wholly independent of the stop and reverse 
 Tule. "^Per Brett, M.R. The Berijl. supra ; The 
 jDi>rdogiu\ supra 
 
 Whether the Stop and Eeverse Rule applies 
 .-at Same Time with other Eules.]—Semble, when 
 iwo ships are approaching each other upon 
 ■meeting or crossing courses with risk of collision, 
 .tind one or both alter their helms so as to 
 <letermine risk of collision, the stop and reverse 
 lule does not apply. The Jesmond and The Earl 
 ^of Elqin, 8 Moore," P. C. (N.s.) 179 ; L. R. 4 P. C 
 i : 2.5 L. T. 514 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 150. The Rhondda, 
 .-8 ApD. Cas. 549 ; 49 L. T. 210 ; 5 Asp M. C. 
 114. 
 
 Steamship in Fault for not Stopping.] — A 
 
 -steamship held In fault for not having stopped 
 iind reversed when risk of collision must have 
 Sjeen apparent. The Thames and The Lnitetia, 
 i) App. Cas. 640 ; 12 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 
 1— H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 Lights coming into Line.] — The "S." and "C." 
 ■^vere approaching each other at night on opposite 
 <;ourses, so as to pass starboard to starboard. The 
 master of the " C." saw the green and white 
 lights of the " S." somewhat more than a quarter 
 •of a mile distant, coming into line. This indicated 
 ■a probability that the " S." was porting, which 
 ■would cause a risk of collision ; soon after the 
 red light of the " S." was seen. The engines of 
 the "C." had been previously stopped, but the 
 master did not reverse her engines till the red 
 'light of the " S." was seen ; the vessels soon after 
 •came into collision : — Held, that the "C." was to 
 blame for infringing the stop and reverse rule, 
 'because as there was a probability of risk of 
 •collision when the master of the " C." saw the 
 -green and white lights of the '■ S." coming into 
 line, he should, being aware of srich probability, 
 5»ave then reversed the engines of the " C." The 
 ^'ifanmore, 54 L. J., Adm. 89 ; 10 P. D. 134 ; 53 
 L. T. 10 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 441— C. A. And see The 
 AlMs, supra, col. 786 ; The Abis and The Oiwrto, 
 •eupra, col. 785. 
 
 Perverse Action of other Chip,] — A steamship, 
 •'A.,'" ported to anotliei' steanl^hip. " 1>.," that 
 was approaching her with all her lights shewing, 
 until "'B.'s" green was shut in. " B." by stiir- 
 boarding opened her green again to "A.," who 
 again ported and again shut in the green. " B." 
 continuing her starboard helm again opened her 
 green, and a collision followed : — Held, that " A." 
 was in fault under 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 17, for 
 not having stopped and reversed. The Arratoiui 
 Aprnr, 59 L. J.. F. C. 49 ; 15 App. Cas. 37 ; 62 
 L. T. 331 ; 38 W. R. 481 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 491 
 -P.O. 
 
 Object of the Rule as to Stopping and 
 
 Reversing.] — The object of the stop and reverse 
 rule is to minimise the results of collisions as 
 well as to prevent them. See The Emmy Haase, 
 supra ; Tlie TJiames and The Lufetia,supva, ; and 
 per Lord Watson, The Khedive, supra, col. 818. 
 
 Steam Trawler.]— Semblc, article 18 (of 1884) 
 applies to a steam trawler at work. The Tweeds- 
 dale, 58 L. J., Adm. 41 ; 14 P. D. 164 ; 61 L. T. 
 371 ; 37 W. II. 783 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 430. 
 
 Thames Rule as to Stopping' and Reversing.]— 
 
 A steamship rounding a point in the Thames held 
 not in fault under rule 14 of the Thames rules 
 (1877) as to stopping and reversing ; although if 
 she had not been under a port helm at the time 
 there would have been risk of collision. The 
 Libra, 6 P. D. 139; 45 L. T. 161; 4 Asp. M. C. 429. 
 
 The Stop and Reverse Rule does not apply to 
 Overtaken Ship.] — 'Ihe Franconia, 2 P. D. 8 ; 35 
 L. T. 721 ; 25 \V. R. 197 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 295— C. A. 
 
 Meeting Steamships — Porting without Stop- 
 ping and Reversing.] — Two steamshiiis were 
 approaching each other in daylight nearly end 
 on. One, "T.," ported and gave the port helm 
 signal. The other, " 0.," still came on, and "T." 
 ported again and gave a second port helm signal. 
 •' O." then starboarded, and a collision followed ; 
 — Held, that " T." was not in fault for not having 
 strapped and reversed before the second portingj 
 The Otto and The Thurs'i, Wilson v. Currte, 
 [1894] App. Cas. 116 ; 6 R. 162 ; 20 Ct. of Sess. 
 Cas. (4th ser.) 876— H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 Other Ship on Wrong Side of River.] — The 
 " Dromedary," pi'oceediug up the Clyde on her 
 right side in a thick fog, heard the whistle of the 
 tug of the " Nerano." She did not stop or reverse 
 until she saw the tug, which with the " Nerano " 
 was on the wrong side of the river : — Held, that 
 the " Dromedary" was not in fault for a collision 
 which followed. The JVerann and the Drome- 
 dary, 22 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 237. 
 
 Old Law as to Stopping and Reversing.] — 
 
 Steamship held in fault for not stopping and 
 reversing, in consequence of bad look-out. The 
 Julia David, 46 L. J., Adm. 54. 
 
 Steamship held in fault for a collision in the 
 Thames caused by her not stopping and reversing. 
 The Trident, 1 Spinks, 217. 
 
 AllTICLE 24. 
 
 Overtaliing Shij?; eorresjHviding with Article 20 
 oflSiOand 1884. 
 
 Crossing or Overtaking.] — When a vessel is at 
 the same time overtaking and crossing the course
 
 821 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. CoUision. 
 
 822 
 
 of another vessel, she is to be deemed an over- 
 taking, and not a crossing ship under article 16. 
 and is bound therefore to obey the directions of 
 article 20 of 1880, and keep out of the way of the 
 other vessel. T/ie Seaton, 53 L. J., Adm. 1.5 ; 9 
 P. D. 1 ; 49 L. T. 747 ; 32 W. R. 600 ; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 191. But see The Breudalhane, 7 P. D. 
 186 ; 46 L. T. 204 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 50.1. 
 
 As a general rule wherever two steamships are 
 on converging courses, the one abaft the beam of 
 the other in such a position that the hinder ship 
 cannot see the side lights oE the leading ship, 
 the former, if going at a greater speed than tlie 
 latter, is to be cons'idered as a vessel overtaking 
 another vessel, within the meaning of the 
 regulations, and bound to keep out of the way ; 
 and thev are not to be treated as crossing vessels. 
 The Frnneonia, 2 P. D. 8 ; 35 L. T. 721 ; 25 
 "\V. E. 197 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 295— C. A. 
 
 A ship is not overtaking the other unless she is 
 going faster than the latter. Ifj. 
 
 An " overtaking " vessel within the area lighted 
 by the stern light of the " overtaken " vessel does 
 not cease to have the obligation imposed by 
 article 20 of 1884, of keeping out of her way 
 upon catching sight of one of her side lights : — 
 Semble, where there is no risk of collision and 
 the vessel comes within sight of the side lights 
 of the other, the vessels being at a considerable 
 <listance apart, article 16, the crossing rule, applies 
 T/ic JMlere, 62 L. J.. Adm. 102 ; [1893] P. 217 ; 
 1 P. 639 ; 69 L. T. 263 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 364. 
 
 A ship coming up with another ahead upon a 
 ■course differing from that of the ship ahead by 
 half a point : — Held, to be overtaking her. The 
 Chanoiini, The Lever inaton. 42 L. J., Adm. 58 ; 
 28 L. T. 284 ; 1 As]). M'. C. 569. 
 
 And where the difference of courses was one 
 and a-half points. The Breadalhane, supra. 
 
 As to the '-overtaking" rule in the Tj-ne 
 bv-Iaws. see Tlie Jlcnnj Morton, 31 L. T. 859 ; 2 
 Asp. M. C.466. 
 
 And xce further, as to the distinction between 
 crossing and overtaking ships, ARTICLES 10, 
 20, ante, cols. 797, 811. 
 
 Overtaken Vessel — Manoeuvres for Third 
 Vessel. —Where a vessel winch is being over- 
 tukrn \>y aiiotlior deviates from her course, it 
 is still the duty of the overtaking ship to do all 
 she reasonably can to keep out of the way of the 
 former. An overtaken vessel which finds it 
 necessary to maiKxnivre for a third vessel is to 
 l)lamc if she deviates from her course more than 
 is necessary to avoid immediate danger. TJic 
 SiraqoHAfi, 68 L. T. 400 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 289— C. A. 
 Aniriiied in JI. L. 
 
 Collision in Suez Canal.] — A steamship was 
 overtaking anollicr in a salt water lake forming 
 part of the Suez Canal, and before she passed the 
 Other a collision occurred : — Held, under the 
 regulations, the overtaking shij) was in fault. 
 The Ililda and The Auntralia, 12 Ct. of Scss. Cas. 
 <4th ser.) 76. 
 
 Ships working to Windward.] — A steamship 
 in the Tlianies was coining up with a saihng 
 shij) turning to windward. The latter went about 
 as the steamship attempted to pass her, and a 
 collision occurred : — Held, that the steamship was 
 alone in fault. The Palatine, 27 L. T. 631 ; 1 
 Asj). JI. C. 46H. 
 
 Two .sailing ships turning to windward on the 
 s.iuie tack. AVlicn the leading ship goes about. 
 
 the other, if she cannot stand in without risk of 
 collision, must also go about. The PrisciUa, 
 L. R. 3 A. & E. 125 ; 23 L. T. 566 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 46S. 
 
 Two ships working to windward. The leading 
 ship wears : — Semble, the other is not an "over- 
 taking" ship whilst the wearing ship is approach- 
 ing her during wearing. The Falhluiid and 
 The Xarigatlon. Br. & Lush. 204 ; 1 Moore, P. C. 
 (x.S.) 379 ; 9 Jur. (x.s.) 1113. 
 
 Aeticle 25. 
 
 Karrow Channel; Starvoard Side Rule; cor- 
 res2)onding ivith Article 21 of 1880 and 1884. 
 
 Starboard-side Rule under fonner Acts.] — A 
 vessel held in fault for navigating on the port or 
 Cheshire side of the Mersey, contrary to 9 & 10 
 Vict. c. 100, s. 9. The Kimrod, 15 Jur. 1201. 
 
 A steam vessel was proceeiling down the river 
 Thames, close to the Surrey shore, under the 
 management of a licensed pilot, when she came 
 into collision with a barge, which was sailing up 
 the river. In an action for the damage thereby 
 caused against the pilot : — Held, that, according 
 to 14 & 15 Vict. c. 79, s. 27, and 17 & 18 Vict, 
 c. 104, ss. 296, 297, it was the duty of the pilot 
 to have kept the steam vessel to the starboard 
 side of, but within, the fairway or midchannel, 
 and when he saw the risk of collision, to port 
 her helm so as to pass on the port side of the 
 barge, and therefore it was properh^ left to tiie 
 jury to say, whether, at ttietime of the collision, 
 the steam vessel was on the starboard side, and 
 within the faiiway or midchannel, and, what- 
 ever was the position of the steam vessel, whether 
 the collision was caused by the negligence of the 
 pilot or not. Smith v. Voss, 2 H. k. N. 97 ; 26 
 L. J., Ex. 233 ; 5 W. R. 534. 
 
 Under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 79, a vessel w'as required 
 to keep on the starboard side of the Thames, 
 notwithstanding a usage for vessels to work the 
 tide in navigating the river. The Si/lj'h, 2 
 Spinks, 75. 
 
 A custom of the river as to vessels keeping to 
 particular sides and waters as they are going up or 
 down : — Held, not to override the Trinity house 
 regulations of 1840. The Friends, 4 Moore, P. C. 
 314. 
 
 A practice for vessels in a rivjr to keep in or 
 out of the strength of the tide cannot supersedi; 
 a rule of navigation made for preventing 
 collisions. The JJuhc of Sussex, 1 W. Rob. 274. 
 
 A custom that vessels in a river should keep upon 
 the one side of it when the statute law requires 
 them to keep on the other, cannot be maintained. 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, ss. 297, 298. The Unity, 
 Swabey, 101. 
 
 See also, for decisions as to the starboard sitle, 
 rule untler former act. The Fnither. 6 Spinks, 
 31. The Malcina, 1 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 357; 
 Lush. 493 ; Br. & Lush. 57 ; 9 Jur. (N.s.) 527 ; 8 
 L. T. 403; 11 W. R. 576.' The Nceander and 
 The Florence J^'iqhtiniialc, 1 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 
 63 ; Br. & Lush". 29 ; 6 L. T. 400. The Seine, 
 Swabey, 411. The Hand of Providunee, Swabey, 
 107. The Nimrod, 15 Jur. 1201. 
 
 Application to Ship in Tow.] — The starboard- 
 side rule (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 297) lield 
 ajiplicable to a ship in tow. The Lci Plata, 
 Swabey, 220, 298.
 
 823 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 824 
 
 In the Tees.]— Tlir Jlary Luhdcn, 58 L. T. 
 (M 1 : G Asp. M. C. 2t)2. 
 
 In the Danube.] — The Yourrl and The Spear- 
 man, 10 App. Cas. 276 ; 53 L. T. 29 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 
 458. 
 
 What are— Straits of Messina.] — The Strait of 
 Messina is a narrow channel within the meaning 
 of article 21 :— Held, that the "A. L.," by in- 
 fringing the said article, occasioned the collision 
 which afterwards happened, and failed to estab- 
 lish that the " R.," by anything which she did, 
 contributed to it or could in any way have 
 avoided it. 'The Rhundd'i, Sciduna v. Stcrcmon, 
 8 App. Cas. 549 ; 49 L. T. 210 ; 5 Asix M. C. 114 
 — P. C. 
 
 Held, that the "E."s" helm having been put 
 hard-a-port in a way w'hich, if successful, would 
 have put her on such a course as would have deter- 
 mined the risk of collision, the duty of reversing 
 her engines di:i not arise till it was discovered 
 that the vessel, owing to the action of a current, 
 was not obeying her helm. Ih. 
 
 Falmouth Harbour.]— Applies to a steam- 
 ship entering and passing up Falmouth Harbour, 
 and if a steamer going into that harbour keeps to 
 the side of the channel which lies on her port 
 hand, she violates the regulations. The Clydach, 
 51 L. T. 668 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 336. 
 
 — — Cardiff Docks.] — A collision occurred at 
 the junction of the main channel leading to 
 Cardiff Docks and the channel to the Eoath Basin, 
 between a steamer going up the former and 
 another coming down the latter :— Held, that the 
 place of collision was a "narrow channel "within 
 article 21, and that articles 16 and 22 were also 
 applicable, there being no special or local rules 
 to supersede the general rules of navigation. The 
 LuTcrington, 55 L. J., Adm. 78 ; iTp. D. 117 ; 
 55 L. T. 386 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 7— C. A. 
 
 Mersey Sea Channel.]— The channel near 
 
 tlie bell buoy outside the Queen's Channel of the 
 Mersey is not a narrow channel within 17 & IS 
 Vict. c. 104, s. 297. The Mceander and The 
 Florence Nightingale, 1 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 63 : 
 Er. & Lush. 29 ; lolj. T. 40U. 
 
 The Swin.] — The Swin, between the 
 
 Middle Lightship and the Middle Sands, is a 
 narrow channel within article 21 of 1884, and, 
 therefore, two steamships passing one another 
 through it, should each keep to that side of the 
 fairway of the channel which lies on their star- 
 board side. The Minnie, [1894] P. 336; 11 E. 
 705 ; 71 L. T. 715 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 521— C. A. 
 
 Since the lighting of the N.E. Maplin buoy, 
 in 1894, it has been safe and practicable, by 
 day and night, for inward-bound vessels navi- 
 gating the Swin Channel, at the entrance to 
 the river Thames, to pass to the northward and 
 westward of the Swin Middle Lightship ; and in 
 order to comply with the regulations, they must 
 now, in navigating that part of the channel, leave 
 the lightship on the port hand. The Minnie, 
 supra, and The Corennie ([1894] P. 338) dis- 
 cussed. The Oporto, 66 L. J., Adm. 12 ; 75 
 L. T. 599 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 213. See S. C. in C. A., 
 supra, col. 785. 
 
 Whether question of Fact or Law.] — 
 
 As to whether it is for the judge or the jury to 
 decide what is a narrow channek See The JJi'rhs- 
 
 gatc and The Barrahool, 58 L. J., P. C. 101 ; 14 
 App. Cas. 318— P. C. 
 
 Dockyard Ports— Admiralty Regulation as to 
 
 Navigation— Plymouth.]— TliL'ix.wers, if any, of 
 the lords of the admiralty umler 54 Geo. 3, c."l59, 
 s. 2, to make regulations as to navigation anti 
 mooring of ships in dockyard ports, must be 
 exercised in strict conformity with the act. A 
 notice signed by the admiralty superintendent 
 at Plymouth, as to merchant ships leaving the 
 deep-water channel of Hamoaze free for H.M.'.'i 
 ships when docking, not issued in accordance with 
 the act, held invalid. H.M.S. Topaze, 10 L. T. 
 659 ; 12 W. E. 923. 
 
 Article 26. 
 Sailing Ships and Finhing Craft; new. 
 
 Article 27. 
 
 Special CircumManccs ; corresponding loith 
 Article 23 of 1880 and 1884. 
 
 Where there is one chance of escaping collision, 
 article 23 of 1880 justities a seaman indeparting 
 from the regulations in order to avail himself of 
 it. The Benares, 53 L. J., Adm. 2 ; 9 P. D.'l6 ; 
 49 L. T. 702 ; 32 W. E. 268 : 5 Asp. M. C. 171. 
 
 Departure from the regulations, even though 
 no negligence is involved, if not necessary, may 
 cause the ship to be held in fault. See The 
 Khedive, Stoomraart Maatsehappy Xederland- v. 
 Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., 
 52 L. J., Adm. 1 ; 5 App. Cas. 876 ; 43 L. T. 610 ; 
 29 W. E. 173 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 567— H. L. (E.) Cf. 
 The Menmon, supra, col. 818. 
 
 The principle of law that you are not to adhere 
 to strict rules of navigation, but avoid an accident 
 if possible, is a doctrine very carefully to be 
 •rt-atched. Per Dr. Lushington.' The Test, 5 Not. 
 of Cas. 276. Cf. The William Frederick and The 
 Byfoged ChrLiteiiscn, 4 App. Cas. 669 ; 41 L. T. 
 535 ; 28 W. E. 233 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 201. 
 
 A vessel ought not to obstinately persist m 
 adhering to the rules of navigation if by depart- 
 ing from them (semble, and so only) a collision 
 may be avoided. The London, 6 Not. of Cas. 29. 
 Although rules of navigation may, and must 
 sometimes be departed from, '• it is at the same 
 time of the greatest possible importance to adhere 
 as closely as possible to established rules, and not 
 to allow a deviation from them, unless the cir- 
 cumstances which are alleged to have rendered 
 such deviation necessary are most distinctly 
 proved and established." Per Dr. Lushington. 
 Tlie John Buddie, 5 Not. of Cas. 387. 
 
 A vessel with the wind free hekl in fault for 
 obstinately holding on her course, the other sliip 
 being close-hauled and also in fault. The 
 Commerce, 3 W. Eob. 287. 
 
 The Trinity house sailing and steering rule of 
 1840 not to be departed from upon mere ground 
 of convenience in practice. The Friends, 4 
 Moore, P. C. 314. The Gazdle. 1 W. E. 471. 
 
 A vessel put her helm to starboard, contraiy to 
 the rules, in the expectation that the other vessel 
 would, under the special circumstances, also act 
 contrary to the rules : — Held, that the former 
 was in fault for a collision that followed. The 
 Superior, 6 Not. of Cas. 607. 
 
 Duty of sailing ship to depart from the regu- 
 lations where steamship does nothing. See Thd 
 Highgate, ante, cols. 812, 814. 
 
 The 19th article of 1862, which directs that in
 
 S2; 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 82G 
 
 *' obejint^ and construing all the other and pre- 
 vious legulations, due regard is to be had to all 
 dangers of navigation, and to any special circum- 
 stances existing in any particular case, rendering 
 a departure from such rules necessary, in order 
 to avoid immediate danger," does not prescribe 
 any specific course to be adopted or pursued. 
 T/w Allan and The Flora, U L. T. 8G0. 
 
 If a ship, bound to keep her course under 
 article 18, justifies her departure from that rule, 
 she takes upon herself the obligation of shewing 
 both that her departure was, at the time it took 
 place, necessary in order to avoid immediate 
 danger, and also that the course adopted bj-- her 
 %vas reasonably calculated to avoid that danger. 
 Tim Agra and EUzuhetlr Jt-nhinn, i Moore, P. C. 
 <N-..s.) 435 ; 36 L. J., Adm. 16 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 501 ; 
 16 L. T. 755; 16 W. K. 735. 
 
 It is dangerous to the public to leave to masters 
 of vessels a discretion as to obeying or departing 
 from the sailing rules ; and acconlingly such a 
 discretion need not be exercised except in cases 
 of very clear necessity. "Where a collision has 
 occurred owing to one colliding vessel having 
 failed to observe (as its duty was) the rule of the 
 road, by keeping out of the way : — Held, that, in 
 the absence of proof as to the particular time 
 at which an intention to violate that rule was 
 clearly manifest, the other colliding vessel, being 
 ])rima facie bound to observe the 18th rule by 
 iiceping on its course, would not have been 
 ju-stified in departing therefrom. TJie Bjifogcd 
 {'hristpnxpn, TIip William Frcderich, 4 App. Cas. 
 669 ; 41 L. T. 535 ; 28 W. 11. 233— P. C. 
 
 DepartuiC from the rule provided by 17 & 18 
 Vict. c. 104, s. 296, for ships meeting each other 
 to port their helms, allowed ; the circumstances 
 ■being such as to render such departure necessary 
 to avoid immediate danger. The Moderation, 1 
 Moore, P. C. (x.s.) 528 ; 'J L. T. 586. 
 
 A collision took place between two sailing 
 vessels crossing, the wind being about S.S.E., and 
 the vessel " C." steering about N.N.E., the vessel 
 ■" S." about W. by S. ; the vessel " C." did not 
 keep out of the waj-, but ke{)t her course, and 
 the vessel " S.," instead of keeping her course. 
 ported her helm, alleging immediate danger as a 
 Tcason for so doing : — Held, that both vessels 
 •were to blame ; the vessel " C." for not having 
 kept out of the way, in accordance with the pro- 
 visions of the last clause of the 12th article, and 
 the vessel " S." for not h.aving kept her course, 
 but having improperly portefl her helm, there 
 teing noevidence of immediate danger to justify 
 a departure from the 18th article. The Sj)ri)ig, 
 L. R. 1 A. & K. 99 ; 12 Jur. (N..S.) 788 ; 14 W.K. 
 1)75. S. P., The Dapimr and The Lady Nornuinby, 
 14 L. T. 895. 
 
 Two sailing ships at night were approaching 
 «ach other so as to pass jjort-side to port-side. 
 The one whose duty it was to keep out of tlie 
 ■way under article 14 («.) altered her course and 
 began to come across the course of the otlicr. 
 The master of the shi[) whose fluty it was, under 
 article 22 of 1884, to keep her cour.sc, at a dis- 
 tance of a quarter of a mile saw the red light of 
 the other shij) shut in, :md her green light conx' 
 into view. He continued to keep his course till 
 the other ship herself could be seen, when it was 
 too late to avoid the collision, which immediately 
 occurred : — Held, by the c(jurt of appeal, that 
 the officer in charge of the ship which was prima 
 facie bound to keep her course should not have 
 kept his course after he saw that tlic other vessel 
 was going to cross his bows ; and that article 23 
 
 of 1884 had then come into operation, and tliat 
 therefore both ships were to blame for the col- 
 lision. But held, in the house of lords, that 
 very great allowances should be made for an 
 officer in charge of a ship suddenly placed in 
 difficult circumstances by the wrongful act of 
 another ship. The judgment of the court below 
 was reversed upon the facts and evidence. The 
 Tasmania, 15 Ajip. Cas. 223 ; 63 L. T. 1 ; 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 517— H. L. (E.) Reversing 37 W. R. 552 
 — C. A. 
 
 In a cause of collision between two steam 
 vessels meeting jicarly end on in the river Thames, 
 it was alleged by the defendants that the helm 
 of their vessel was put a-starboard to avoid a 
 barge : — Held, that the onus of proving that a 
 departure from the rule was necessary in order 
 to avoid immediate danger lay upon the defen- 
 dants ; and that, in the absence of sufficient 
 evidence to shew what became of the barge, the 
 defendants had failed in their proof, and were, 
 therefore, to blame for the collision, the result of 
 not porting their helm. The Concordia, L. R. 1 
 A. & E. 93 ; 12 Jur. (N.s.) 771 ; 14 L. T. 896. 
 
 Article 23 (article 27 of 1897) is a rule of common 
 sense, to the effect that the regulations are to be 
 read and applied so as not to cause collision. 
 See, per Dr. Lushington, The Allan and The Flora, 
 14 L. T. 860. 
 
 " When one person neglects his duty, and so 
 puts another into danger, the second is not 
 justified in doing nothing to avert that danger, 
 though it is caused entirely by the fault of the 
 first." Per Brett, M.R. The Jane Bacon, 27 
 W. R. 35. And see The Ida and The Wasa, 15 
 L. T. 103. 
 
 The "Lad}' Anne," close-hauled on the star- 
 board tack, held in fault for not piitting down 
 her helm and easing oil her head sheets at the 
 last moment, so as to avoid another ship close- 
 hauled on the port tack. The Lady Anne, 15 
 Jur. 18. 
 
 A sailing ship held in fault for collision with a 
 steamship in a fog because, after hearing the 
 whistle of the steamship, her people were not 
 ready at the braces to assist the helm when the 
 ships came into sight of each other at close 
 quarters. The Zadoh, 53 L. J., Adm. 72 ; 9 P. D. 
 114 ; 50 L. T. 695 ; 32 W. R. 1003 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 252. 
 
 Article 23 (article 27 of 1897) does not apply to a 
 case where non-compliance with the regulations 
 could not have caused the collision, nor whore 
 the regulations coukl not safely be complied 
 with. See Ihe City of Antwerj) and Tlie Fried- 
 rich, supra. The Concordia, supra. 
 
 The "dangers of navigation " refer primarily 
 to dangers other than collision. As to whether 
 danger of collision is included, see The Lenarc.i, 
 supra. 
 
 Convenience is no excuse for departing from 
 the regulations. The Araxex and The Black 
 Prince, 15 Moore, P. C. 122 And sec cases supra, 
 col. 822. 
 
 The fact that a tug or a steamship has a heavy 
 ship in tow does not justify her in not keeping 
 out of thcwavof a sailing ship. The Warrior, 
 [,. R. 3 A. & E. 553 ; 27 L. T. 101 ; 21 W. R. 82; 
 1 Asp. M. C. 400. Tlic American and The 
 Syria. 43 L. J., Adm. 30 ; L. R. 6 P. C. 127 ; 
 31 L. T. 42 : 22 W. R. 927; 2 Asp. M. C. 350 
 And see The Indrnindcncc, Lush. 270 ; 14 
 Moore, P. C. 103 ; 4 L. T. 563 ; 9 W. R. 582. 
 
 Nor the fact that the two ships are both 
 making for the same pilot cutter. The Ada and
 
 827 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 828 
 
 T/ie SiippU, 27 L. T. 718 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 575. 
 AttirnK'.!. 28 L. T. 825 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 4. 
 
 Seinljle, article 27 docs not justify a departure 
 from the re^ulatious ou the ground of a reason- 
 able expectation that the damage would be 
 thereby diminished. The Khalh-e, supra, col. 
 818. 
 
 And see further, as to departure from the 
 regulations, 2. Presumption op Fault, ante, 
 cols. 707, scq. 
 
 Article 28. 
 
 Sound Signals; eorresjmidinr/ icltli Article 19 
 ()/■ 1880 (/«fZ 1884. 
 
 Proper 
 
 Article 29. 
 
 Precautions ; corresponding toith 
 Article 24 0/I88O and 1884. 
 
 As to what are Proper Precautions.] — See 
 1. Negligence, supra, cols. G84, seq. 
 
 Article 30. 
 
 Zocal Pules; corresinmdinfj with Article 2Z of 
 18S0''««fZ1884. 
 
 Infringement of Local Eules.] — ^Will beheld to 
 lie negli'J-ence. See Tlie Marrjaret, 54 L. J., 
 Adm. 18 ; 9 App. Cas. 873 ; 52 L. T. 3G1 ; 33 
 W. R. 281 : 5 Asp. M. C. 371— H. L. (E.) The 
 Yourri and The Spearman, 10 App. Cas. 276 ; 
 53 L. T. 29 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 458, infra, col. 828. 
 
 A vessel on the wrong side of the Tyue, in 
 breach of the local rule, held in fault for colli- 
 sion. The Eaithwaite Hall, 30 L. T. 233 ; 2 
 Asp. M. C. 210. 
 
 As to the obligation to obey local rules, and 
 |,ioof of them, see The Henry Morton, 31 L. T. 
 i^iy'd ; 2 Asp. M. C. 46G. The Peerless, Lush. 30 ; 
 appeal, 13 Moore, V. C. 484 ; 30 L. J., Adm. 89. 
 The Smyrna, 2 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 43.j ; 10 Jur. 
 (N.s.) 977 ; 11 L. T. 74, infra, col. 828. 
 
 Ignorance of a local rule is no excuse for not 
 comi>lying with it — per Lord Esher. The River 
 Pericent,^U L. T. 509 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 4G7. 
 
 A Trinity sailing ballast lighter held not to be 
 reouired by the sea regulations to carry lights in 
 the Thames. The C. S. Butler, L. K. 4 A. & E. 
 238 ; 31 L. T. 549 ; 23 W. E. 113 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 408. 
 
 A local rule, though not made by competent 
 authority, may give rise to a custom which will 
 be binding on all ships. The Fijenoord, Swabcy, 
 374. See also The Smyrna, infra, col. 828 ; 
 n.M.S. Topate, supra, col. 824. 
 
 Article 31. 
 
 Pistrcss Signals ; corresponding to Article 27 
 of 1884. 
 
 12. Local PiUles. 
 
 a. Danube. 
 
 Authority of Rules of Navigation.]— The 
 tveatv of peace, signed at Paris, in 1856, after 
 putting the Danube, with respect to the rights 
 of persons using it for the purposes of navigation, 
 in the same category as other great European 
 rivers separating diiierent states were placed by 
 the Congress of Vienna, provided that a com- 
 mission, in which Great Britain, Austria, France, 
 • Prussia, Russia. Sardinia, and Turkey should 
 each be represented by one delegate, should 
 
 have power to establish certain fixed duties ta 
 be levied, to cover the expenses of certain works 
 which were in progress, which commission was 
 to be temporary. It also provided for a river 
 commission, which was to be permanent ; its- 
 duties being to prepare regulations of navigation 
 and a river police. The commission to consist 
 of delegates from the states traversed by the- 
 river along its whole line. The European com- 
 mission issued provisional regulations for the 
 police of the Lower Danube, and one of those 
 regulations contained rules for navigating the- 
 Danube : — Held, that the rules were not binding: 
 on vessels navigating the Danube, the Euiopeaii 
 commission having no authority to make such 
 regulations. The ^Smyrna, 2 Moore, P. C. (N.s.> 
 435 ; 10 Jur. (N.S.) 977 ; 11 L. T. 74. 
 
 Ascending and Descending Ships — Articles. 
 32, 36.] — Article 32 of the regulations applicable 
 to the navigation of the Lower Daniibe provides- 
 that "when a vessel ascending the river finds- 
 itself exposed to meeting a vessel descending at 
 a point which docs not afford sufficient breadth^ 
 she must stop below the passage till the other 
 vessel has cleared it ; and if the ascending vessel 
 should be actually in the passage as the other- 
 approaches it, the descending vessel must stoi> 
 above until the passage is clear." The first part, 
 of this rule is imperative whenever an ascencUng 
 ship, approaching a point which does not afi'ord 
 sufficient brcadtli for two vessels to pass, has notice 
 that, if she proceeds, she will be exposed to the 
 risk of meeting a descending ship at or near the, 
 point. The second part of the rule only comes- 
 into operation in cases in which the ascending 
 ship has already reached the point of danger,, 
 and has actually begun to navigate the con- 
 tracted passage, before notice of the approach of 
 the descending ship is conveyed to her. Where,, 
 however, it is clearly the intention of one of the 
 vessels to violate the rule, it is the duty of the 
 other to give way and not to press her claim to 
 precedence. SS. Diana v. .S'*S'. Clieceden. 64 
 L. J., P. C. 22 ; [1894] A. C. 625 ; 6 E. 515 ; 
 71 L. T. 101 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 489— P. C. 
 
 Keeping to Eight Bank.]— Under r. 31, c. 2, 
 of the Danube commission rules, vessels going 
 down the Danube should keep to the right bank. 
 Where a vessel going down the Danube, when 
 there was a fog and approaching night, went to 
 the left bank :— Held, that, according to the 
 true construction of the rule, that was neglect 
 of duty ; and that such negligence was the 
 cause of a collision which occurred with a vessel 
 coming up, although the absence of lights on the 
 latter ves'sel might have partly contributed to 
 the accident. The Yourri, The Spearman, 10 
 App. Cas. 276 ; 58 L. T. 29 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 458— 
 P. C. 
 
 b. number. 
 
 Stern Light — Compulsory Pilotage.] — The 
 " R.," in clia'ge of a tug, was dropping astern 
 foremost up tlie Humber with the tide, and was- 
 eventuatlv brought athwart the tide to go into 
 dock. The " E.'^' was exhibiting, in addition to 
 the masthead and side lights, a white light from 
 the main peak shewing astern, which had been 
 placed there by the order of the pilot, who \yas 
 by compulsion of law in cliarge of the " 11." The 
 rules for the navigation of the river Humber, 
 made by order in council in pursuance of 25 & 2G 
 Vict. c. 63, s. 32, incorporate the regulations
 
 829 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 830 
 
 for preventing collisions at sc.a. The '• E.," 
 coming down the Humber, and the " H." came 
 into collision. At the hearing it was admitted 
 that the ■• E." was to blame : — Held, tliat the 
 ■ iC." was also to blame, for that as the Humber 
 rules were within the purview of 36 & 37 Vict. 
 c. 85, s. 17, there had been, by the exhibition of 
 a stem light, a breach of statutory regulation, 
 iiamely of article 2, which it was impossible to say 
 might not have contributed to the collision, and 
 there was no circumstance to make a departure 
 from the regulation necessary. The Mipon, 54 
 L. J., Adm. 56 ; 10 P. D. 65 ; 52 L. T. 438 : 33 
 "SV. R. 659 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 365. See The JIunte 
 .Uiisa, ante, col. 773. 
 
 Vessel at Anchor — Height of Riding Light.] 
 — The " M.," a two-masted vessel, while at 
 anchor in the river Humber was exhibiting an 
 anchor light on the forestay at a height of about 
 ten feet above the deck, and another on the 
 niizzen mast at a height of about twenty-five feet 
 above the deck : — Held, that there was a sufhcient 
 compliance with the rule for the navigation of 
 the Humber, which provides that the after light 
 shall be double the height of the forward light. 
 The Mdfjncta, o'J L. J., Adm. 55 ; 15 P. D. 101 ; 
 G3 L. T. 114 i 6 Asp. M. C. 531. 
 
 c. ETersey. 
 
 Lights.] — Vessels at anchor in the sea 
 api)ioaches to the river Mersey are bound by 
 37 i5c 38 Vict. c. 52, s. 1, to exhibit a white light 
 at the main or mizzen mast, in addition to the 
 white light prescribed by 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, 
 sched., table C, art. 7, and a vessel omitting to 
 exhibit such additional light will, where the 
 fimission may have caused or contributed to 
 Cf>llision, be hekl to blame under s. 17 of the 
 36 k 37 Vict. c. 85. The Ladii BjwnshJrr, 48 
 L. J., Adm. 41 ; 4 P. D. 2-^ ; 3t) L. T. 236 ; 27 
 W. K. 648 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 25. 
 
 Customs' Light.] — A steamship under way is 
 not entitled to carry a white light at the mizzen 
 truck as a signal for a customs officer, or other- 
 wise than as a ([uarantine light ; and if she 
 carries such a light for the former purpose, she 
 is guilty of a breach of the Mersey navigation 
 rules, and will be held to blame for a collision if 
 the other vessel might have been misled therebv. 
 The Talhut, [18D1J P. 184 ; 64 L. T. 542 ; 7 As'p. 
 M. C. 36. 
 
 Stem Light.] — At the trial of an action for 
 damage In' collision it ap]iearcd that tlie stern 
 liglit of the plaintiffs' vessel was placed on deck 
 abaft a house on the after part of the deck : — 
 Held, that this was an infringement of rule .5 of 
 the Mersey rules, but the court, having regard 
 to the position of the plaintiffs' and the defen- 
 dant's vessels, lield, that the infringement could 
 not have contributed to the collision. The Fire 
 Queen, hd L. J.. Adm. 1)0 ; 12 1'. D. 147 ; 57 L. T. 
 312 ; 36 W. R. 15 ; 6 Asp. M. (J. 146. 
 
 Vessel at Anchor— Lights.] — The steamship 
 "H." at night ran into the ban|uc " E." at 
 anchor in tiie liver ]\Iersey. l'>y order in council 
 of tlie 5th Jan., 1M81, every vessel when at anchor 
 in the river Mersey shall carry two white lights, 
 the after light being carried double the height of 
 the foremost light. The "E." exhibited two 
 anchor lights, both of which were about twenty 
 feet above the deck. It was admitted by the 
 
 defendants that they only saw the after light : — 
 Held, that the " H." was to blame for a bad look- 
 out, and the " E." to blame for a breach of the- 
 regulation, it not being shewn that in the circum- 
 stances of the case the breach couLl not have 
 contributed to the collision. The Ilerntud, 62: 
 L. T. 670 ; 6 Asp. M. C. oOi). 
 
 Launch.] — As to precautions to be taken at 
 launches in the Mersey, see The George Iloj^er,. 
 and Casen, supra, cols. 696, 697. 
 
 cc. Newport. 
 
 Entering Port of Newport— By-laws.] — The 
 proper mode for a vessel to enter the port of 
 Newport, having regard to rules 12 and 13 of 
 the by-laws (1894) of the port, which require 
 every vessel proceeding seaward to be kept to< 
 the right-hand or west, and every vessel pro- 
 ceeding inward from the sea to be kept to the- 
 right-hand or east of mid-channel — that is to- 
 say, the deep-water navigable channel, the- 
 entrance to which is marked by the Cell and' 
 Red buoys — is to keep outside the buoys until 
 she can turn so as to pass between them, passing.- 
 nearer to the Red buoy than to the Bell buoy,. 
 although when the tide is high there is sufficient 
 water to allow a vessel to enter the channel by- 
 passing over the flats inside the buoys. A vessel, 
 however, entering the port from the eastward' 
 would not be wrong, as regards a vessel coming, 
 out, in entering the channel by passing inside the- 
 Retl buoy. The Winsfanley, 65 L. J., Adm. 121 ; 
 [1896] P. 297 ; 75 L. T. 133 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 170— 
 C. A. 
 
 d. Thames. 
 
 Regulation of 1863 — Crossing Rule.] — Ships im 
 the Thames approaching each other upon opposite 
 sides of a point round which the river bends,^ 
 upon such headings that if at sea they would be 
 crossing ships, are not crossing ships within the 
 regulations of 1863. Tlie Rawjer and The 
 Cologne, J\laleolmv. General Steam Navigation Co.,. 
 9 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 352 ; L. R. 4 P. C. 519 ; 27" 
 L. T. 769 ; 21 \V. R. 273 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 484— 
 P. C. The Velocity, General Steam, JS'arigntioic- 
 Co. V. Jledleg. C, Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 263 ; 39 L. J., 
 Adm. 20 ; L. R. 3 P. C. 44 ; 21 L. T. 686 ; IS 
 W. R. 264— P.C. See also The E-ih and The 
 iXiord, 7 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 276 ; L. R. 3 P. C. 
 436 ; 24 L. T. 167 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 1. The Oceana- 
 and The Virgo, infra. 
 
 Getting under Way — Shewing a Light.]— A 
 steamship getting under way in the Thames, ancV 
 athwart the river in such a position that her 
 side lights arc not visible to vessels bound \\\> 
 and down, nnist shew alight sullicient to wain 
 apjjroaching vessels of her presence. If slie fails 
 to do so. she breaks the Thames rides. 1872, r. 20. 
 The John Fenwieh, L. R. 3 A. & E. 50(1 ; 41 L. J., 
 Adm. 38 ; 26 L. T. 322 : 1 Asp. M. 0. 249. 
 
 Crossing Rule of 1872.]— A steamship, "A.," 
 going up the river Thames, met another, " B.," 
 coming down in the reach above her, whicli- 
 niade an angle in the reach in which she was. 
 At this time "A."' had "'B. " on her starboard 
 bow : — Held, that they were crossing ships 
 within ride 29 of the Thames rules, 1872, and 
 that it was the duty of " A." to kecj) out of the 
 way. The Orcano and, The Virgo, 3 I". I). GO. 
 
 Thames Rules, 1880— Steamships— Rounding 
 i Points of River.] — Rule 23 of the Thames-
 
 831 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 832 
 
 rules, 1880, is not confined to the seaward side 
 of ''a line drawn from Blackwall Point to Bow 
 ■Creek." A steamship, the "C. S.," left the 
 South-Wcst India Docks nearly opposite the 
 •curve of Blackwall Point, and proceeded down 
 stream at easy speed against a flood tide. In a few 
 minutes, as she was about to round Blackwall 
 Point, she perceived the steamship " M. " in 
 Bugsby's Reach, and preparing to round the 
 point; the " C. S." stopped and reversed her 
 •engines, but a collision between the " C. S." and 
 the '• M." took place : — Pleld, that ride 23 of 
 the Thames rules, ISSO, did not apply, under the 
 circumstances, to the " C. S." ; that ordinary 
 care on the part of the " M." would, have 
 enabled her to avoid the collision, and that she 
 iilone was to blame. H'/io Marrinret, Cayzer v. 
 CiirroH Co.. TA L. J., Adm. IS ; App. Cas. 873 ; 
 :v2 L. T. 8(51 ; 33 W. 11. 281 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 371— 
 H. L. (E.) 
 
 Thames Rules. 1880, rr. 22, 23.]— A steamship 
 
 navigating the Thames against the tide is bound 
 to obey rule 23 of the Thames rules, 1880, and 
 •on approaching one of the points there named, 
 to wait until vessels then approaching it with 
 the tide have passed her, or, qurere, passed the 
 point. Whether vessels are also to observe 
 rule 22. and pass port-side to port-side, depends 
 ■on whether the vessel navigating against the tide 
 is close to the shore wdien waiting for the one 
 •coming down with the tide to pass her, or so far 
 ■out as to allow the latter to pass port-side to 
 poi-t-sidc. Semble, where the point to be passed 
 is on the north side of the river with a flood tide, 
 or on the south side with an ebb tide, if the 
 vessel navigating with the tide has her green 
 light open when ahead of the vessel waiting, the 
 23rd rule alone applies, and the vessels will pass 
 clear starboard to starboard ; otherwise both 
 rules 'apply. Steamships rounding a point are 
 ■not bound to stop or reverse engines because at 
 •one moment they are approaching each other 
 with risk of collision if they keep straight on, 
 iDut without risk of collision if both vessels keep 
 the curvilinear course they are then on. Tlie 
 Libra, 6 P. D. 130 ; -15 L. T. IGl ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 429. 
 
 Barge Dredging— Lights.]— The sailing barge 
 " M.," with her mast lowered and her anchor on 
 the ground, was dredging down the river Thames, 
 when she was run into by the steam tug " I. C." 
 with a string of barges in tow. The " M. " was 
 ■exhibiting a white light in a globular lantern, 
 which was placed on the top of her mast-case, 
 .about four feet above the deck:— Held, that 
 " M. " was not a sailing vessel " under way." 
 within the meaning of the Thames rules, 1880. 
 The Indian Chief, 58 L. J., Adm. 25 : 14 P. D. 
 24 ; 60 L. T. 240 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 3G2. 
 
 Thames Rules, 1880 — Application of Rule 
 
 52.] — This rule is not to be interpreted in the 
 same way as the " end on " rule of the sea regu- 
 lations. Vessels may be approaching each other 
 ■with risk of collision in the Thames without 
 being end on, or nearly end on, and where the 
 green or red light of one is seen on. the starboard 
 ■or port bow of the other. The Odessa, 46 L. T. 
 77 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 493— C. A. Followed in The 
 Lady Wodehouse, 2 Times L. Pi. 252. The Mary 
 Loh'den, 58 L. T. 641 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 262. 
 
 Barges in Tow.] — No. 4 of the by-laws of the 
 Thames conservators, July, 1877, is as follows : 
 
 " Above and to the westward of Albert Bridge at 
 Chelsea, six vessels and no more mny be towed 
 together in a single line at one time, and the 
 distance between any two of the vessels shall 
 not exceed fifty feet": — Held, that the towing 
 of eight barges by a steam tug, the first four 
 being in a single line, and the last four two 
 abreast, but lashed closely together, was an in- 
 fringement of the bv-law. Cadiieu v. Ilounh 
 40 L. T. 258 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 73. ' 
 
 Ballast Lighter— Lights.] — The regulations 
 for preventing collisions at sea issued under 
 the Merchant Shipping Act. 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. 
 c. 63), ss. 31, 32, and order in council of the 0th 
 of January, 1863, do not apply to a ballast lighter 
 whicli, though at times navigated under^sail, 
 never goes to sea, but is whoUyemployed within 
 the limits of the jurisdiction oJE the Thames con- 
 servancy. The C. S. Butler, L. E. 4 A. & E 
 238 ; 31 L. T. 549 ; 23 W. R. 113. 
 
 When such a vessel has been injured in a col- 
 lision, her owners will not, in the absence of any 
 by-law of the conservators of the Thames pre- 
 scribing lights to be carried by her, be held 
 disentitled to recover damages in a cause of 
 collision on the ground that she contributed to 
 the collision by being under way before sunrise 
 without having any lights exhibited. Ih. 
 
 Dumb - harges.] — Dumb - barges in motion 
 driving with the tide up or down the river 
 Thames at night are not bound to carry lights. 
 The Owen Wullis, 43 L. J., Adm. 36 ; "L. E. 4 
 A. & E. 175 ; 33 L. T. 41 ; 22 W. E. 695. 
 
 A dumb-barge coming up the river Thames in 
 a flood tide may keep on either side of the river, 
 and there is no obligation on her by custom or 
 otherwise to keep in mid-channel. lb. 
 
 There is no duty on a dumb-barge driving 
 with the tide in the Thames to keep out of the 
 way of a steamship ; but it is the duty of the 
 steamship to keep out of the way of the barge. 
 Tb. 
 
 When a collision occurs between a dumb-barge 
 without lights and a steamer on a dark night in 
 the Thames, there is no presumption of law that 
 the steamer is to blame. Tlie Swalloio, 36 L. T. 
 231 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 371— C.A. 
 
 Dumb-barges in the Thames do not carry 
 anchors, and have no means of bringing up 
 except by going ashore or fastening on to any- 
 thing they may come in contact with, and hence 
 a dumb-barge getting under way in clear weather 
 and getting into a fog, is not guilty of negligence 
 if she comes into contact with a vessel moored in 
 the river, and if that vessel, in breach of the 
 rules and by-laws for the navigation of the 
 river Thames, has her anchor not stock-a-wash, 
 and the barge is thereby injured, the vessel so 
 moored is solely responsible for such damage. 
 The Base of England, 59 L. T. 262 : 6 Asp. M."C. 
 304. 
 
 Stopping and Reversing.] — A steamer having 
 stopped but not having reversed immediately 
 before a collision, though the court found as a 
 fact that her not having done so did not affect 
 the collision, and having thus infringed rule 14 of 
 the Thames rules, 1880 :— Held, that she was 
 nevertheless not to blame, for the Thames rules 
 do not fall within the operation of s. 17 of the 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. 
 c. 85). The Ilarton, 53 L. J., Adm. 25 : 9 P. D. 44 ; 
 50 L. T. 370 ; 32 W. E. 597 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 213.
 
 833 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 884 
 
 Fog — Anchorage Ground.] — Although a vessel 
 may be jastified in anchoring in the fairway of 
 the Thames through being overtaken by a dense 
 fog. such a place is not a proper anchorage 
 gi'ound under articles lU and 12 of the Thames 
 rules, 1872, and the duty lies on those in charge 
 of her to move her as soon as they reasonably 
 can. and if a collision occurs whilst she is so 
 anchored, the question will be, whether between 
 the time of her anchoring and the collision the 
 weather was such that she could reasonably have 
 been removed. A steamship bound up the 
 Thames on a flood tide ought not to leave a 
 whai'f and get under way in a dense fog, and, 
 semble. if a vessel is overtaken by a dense fog in 
 such circumstances, the proper mode for her to 
 go up is dredging up stern first with her anchor 
 down, so that she can be brought up at any 
 moment. T/ie Ayuadillana, 60 L. T. 897 ; 6 
 Asp. M. C. 39U. 
 
 In Gravesend Reach.] — W^here a vessel, 
 
 intending either to moor at one of the buoys or 
 anchor in the anchorage ground in Gravesend 
 Keach, moves from buoy to buoy to select one, 
 and, finding them all occupied, anchors a short 
 distance above the last of the buoys, she does not 
 navigate within the anchorage ground in con- 
 travention of the Thames rules, 1872, r. 1.5. 
 Hie City of Delhi, .)8 L. T. .531 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 269. 
 
 Vessel Dropping up River stern foremost — 
 Look-out Astern — Duty to Warn approaching 
 Vessel.] — It is the duty of a vessel dropping up 
 the Thames in the neighbourhood of the Docks 
 at night to have a look-out astern, and to warn 
 an approaching vessel bound do^^'n of her 
 presence. Semble, a steamship may under such 
 circumstances sound the blast of five seconds' 
 duration mentiftncd in the Thames rules. 1880. 
 r. 19. The Juno, 11 K. 679; 71 L. T. 311 ; 7 
 A.sp. M..C. .506. 
 
 Anchor Stock awash.] — By r. 20 of the rules 
 and by-laws f(ir rhe regulation of the naviga- 
 tion of the river Thames, allowed by order in 
 council, February 5. 1872, "No vessel shall be 
 navigated or lie in the river with its anchor or 
 anchors hanging by the cable periiendicularly 
 from the hawse unless the stock shall be awash 
 . . . ." In an action of damage for a col- 
 lision which occurred in the river Thames, it 
 appeared that the anchor of the plaintiffs' vessel 
 was one of the jiarts which first came in contact 
 with the tlefendants' vessel. It was hanging 
 from the hawse, shackle, or ring, awash, an(l the 
 defendants by their counter-claim charged the 
 jilaintiffs with neglecting to comply with the | 
 rule : — H(,l(l, that the rule had not been in- 1 
 fringed, as the anchor must be as low as stock ; 
 awash, l>ut may be as much lower as is thought 
 jiroper. 7'/ir J. Jl. Iliiide, i>\ L. J., Adm. 91 ; i 
 [1H92] P. 231 ; 67 L. T. 832 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 2.57. 
 
 Where a vessel, intending either to moor at ] 
 one of the buoys or anchor in the anchorage 
 ground in (iravesend Reach, finds all the Vjuoys 
 occupied, and. on jiassing the last buoy, gets her 
 anchor a-cockbill for the purpose of biiiiging 
 herself to anchor on finding a suitaV^le i)lace, ; 
 and, after she has got a short distance above the ; 
 buoys, a collision occurs and damage is done Vjy ; 
 the anchor, such anchor is only a-cockbill 
 durinir such time as is"ah)solutely necessary "for 
 bringing her to anchor within the meaning of i 
 the Thames rules, 1880, r. 19. The City of\ 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 Delhi, supra. And see The Base of England, 
 supra, col. 832. 
 
 Whether the anchor of a steamer in the 
 Thames should be carried at the hawse-pipe 
 with the stock above water is a matter within 
 the province of the pilot, notwithstanding that 
 the carrying of an anchor in such a position may 
 be an infringement of r. 20 of the Thames con- 
 servancy by-laws ; and therefore owners are 
 not liable for damage caused thereb}*. The 
 Ripiiti (supra, col. 829) explained. 2'he Monte 
 Rosa. 62 L. J., Adm. 20 ; [1893] P. 23 : 1 R. 557 ; 
 68 L. T. 299 ; 41 W. R. 304 : 7 Asp. M. C. 326. 
 
 A dumb-barge, by the negligent navigation of 
 those in charge of her, was suffered to come into 
 contact with a schooner moored to a mooring- 
 buoy in the river Thames. The schooner had 
 her anchor hanging over the bow with the stock 
 above water, contrary to the Thames by-laws. 
 The anchor made a hole in the barge and caused 
 damage to her cargo. But for the improper 
 position of the anchor neither the barge nor her 
 cargo would have received any damage. In an 
 action of damage by the ownei's of the bai'ge 
 against the schooner : — Held, that both vessels 
 were to blame, and that therefore the o\\Tiers of 
 the barge were entitled to half the damage sus- 
 tained. The Margaret, 50 L. J., Adm. 67 ; 6 
 P. D. 76 : 44 L. T. 291 ; 29 W. R. 533— C. A. 
 
 Vessel crossing River.] — By article 24 of the 
 rules and by-laws for the navigation of the 
 river Thames, " Steam-vessels crossing from one 
 side of the river towards the other side shall keep 
 out of the way of vessels navigating up and do^^^l 
 theriver," and by article 25 such other vessels shall 
 keep their course : — Held, that a ship which has 
 not completely accomplished the manoeuvre of 
 crossing is still under the obligation of the rule, 
 although her stem may have got as near to the 
 opposite shore as .she can safel.y get, if she is still 
 athwart the stream. Tlie Hirer Derwent, 64 
 L. T. 509 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 37— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Where a vessel lying at anchor in the river 
 Thames, head to tide, gets under way for the 
 jiurpose of proceeding up or down the river with 
 the tide, and in turning round she has to work 
 across the river, she is a steam-vessel '• crossing 
 from one side of the river towards the other side" 
 within the meaning of the Thames rules, 1880, 
 r. 24, and it is her duty to keep out of the way of 
 vessels navigating up and down the river, and of 
 the latter to keep their course, under article 25. 
 The Srhwan, 61 L. T. 308 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 409. 
 
 Steamship— Four blast signal.] — Where 
 
 a steamship navigating the river Thames is in 
 such a jiosition, through no fault of those in 
 charge of her, that it is unsafe or im])racticablc 
 for her to keep out of the way of a sailing vessel, 
 it is the duty of the sailing vessel, under the 
 Thames rules, 1880, r. 21, on hearing tlie 
 steamer's whistle sounded as therein provided, 
 to kcej) out of the way of the steamer. The 
 [.iiiigiirirfoii. 59 li. T. L'lio" ; 6 Asp. M. C. 302. 
 
 Steamship Swinging— Stem Light.] — A steam- 
 ship having let gu Mil- anchdr in the Thames 
 was swinging to the tide aiiiwart tlie river. Her 
 sidelights and masthead light were not taken in 
 for three or four minutes after the anchor held, 
 when her riding light was jiut up and her mast- 
 head light siiown at the stern Ijy way of a stern 
 light : — Held, that she was in fault for a collision 
 with anothersteamship underway, which occurred 
 
 27
 
 835 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 836 
 
 very shortly after she took in her sidelights and 
 jiut up her ridintj light. Held, also, that her 
 masthead light, which she exhibited at her 
 stern, was not such a light as is required by the 
 Thames rules, 1892, r. 7 (r). Held, also, that 
 she was in fault for not sounding four or more 
 blasts of her steain whistle in compliance with 
 the Thames rules, 1880, r. IS. T/ie Wrqa, o-4 
 L. J.. Adm. 68 ; [1895] P. 156; 11 R. 726; 72 
 L. T. 382 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 597. 
 
 Steamship Turning — Four Blast Signal.] — A 
 
 steamship about to turn in the river is bound 
 to give the signal required by the Thames rules, 
 1880, r. ^8, before executing the manoeuvre of 
 turning. The Keiv Pelton, ()0 L. J., Adm. 78 ; 
 [1891] P. 258 ; 65 L. T. 494 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 81. 
 
 Fog — Fairway — Duty to ring Bell.] — The 
 
 word "fairway" in r. 18 of the Thames rules 
 (1877) means a clear passage-way by water. A 
 barge lay at anchor above and inside the West 
 Blyth buoy in Sea Eeach, in not less than 
 eighteen feet of water at half ebb : — Held, in 
 fault for a collision caused by her not ringing a 
 bell in a fog at intervals of not more than two 
 minutes. T/ie Bhie Bell, 64 L. J.. Adm. 71 ; 
 [1895] P. 242; 11 R. 790; 72 L. T. 540; 7 
 Asp. M. C. 601. 
 
 Watermen's Act — 22 & 23 Vict. c. cxxxiii. — 
 27 & 28 Vict. c. cxiii. — Barges in Tow.] — A tug 
 
 hauling into dock thirty-one barges from the 
 dock gates does not break r. 59 made under the 
 above act. Rolles v. JVewell, 59 L. J., Q. B. 
 423 ; 25 Q. B. D. 335 ; 63 L. T. 384 ; 39 W. R. 
 96 ; 55 .J. P. 70 : 6 Asp. M. C. 568. 
 
 Licensed Watermen in charge of Barges.] 
 
 — As to the construction of r. 60 made under the 
 above act, see Elmore v. Hunter, 47 L. J., M. C. 
 8 ; 3 C. P. D. 116 ; 38 L. T. 179 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 555. 
 
 Barge over 50 Tons — Two Hands.] — 
 
 Under the Thames Conservancy and Watermen's 
 Acts, and by-laws thereunder, if a barge under 
 way exceeds 50 tons, there must be two qualified 
 licensed watermen on board, and one is not suffi- 
 cient thovigh assisted by another unqualified man. 
 Perhlns v. G'ingell, 50 J. P. 277. 
 
 And see as to the Waterman's Act, supra, cols. 
 139, seq. 
 
 e. Tees. 
 
 " Maximum of Speed Six Miles per Hour."] — 
 The 22nd clause of the by-laws of the river Tees, 
 which provides that no steamship shall be navi- 
 gated on any part of the river Tees at a higher 
 rate of speed than six miles per hour, is to be 
 construed as prohibiting a steamship proceeding 
 against the tide being navigated at a greater 
 speed than six miles per hour over the ground. 
 The R. L. Alston, 8 P. D. 5 ; 48 L. T. 469 ; 5 
 Asp. M. C. 48— C. A. 
 
 Starboard side of River — Steamship.] — Articles 
 17 and IS I if the river Tees conservancy by- 
 laws, providing that ships shall keep " the star- 
 board side of the river, so that the port helm 
 may always be aiiplied,"' and that a '• steamship, 
 when approaching another ship on an opposite 
 course or from an opposite direction, shall before 
 approaching within 30 yards, slacken her speed, 
 and keep as near as possible to the starboard side 
 
 of the river," are to be observed even when 
 vessels are approaching one another so as to 
 shew each other their green lights, and nothing 
 will excuse the non-observance of these rules but 
 extreme necessity. The Mary Loliden, 58 L. T. 
 461 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 262— C. A. 
 
 f. Tyne. 
 Crossing River — Duty of Vessels going up or 
 down.] — The duty imi)osed by article 22 of the 
 rides for the navigation of the river Tyne upon 
 vessels crossing the river not to cause obstruc- 
 tion, injury, or damage to other vessels, does not 
 require them in any event to get out of the way 
 of vessels going up or down, and they are at 
 liberty when crossing at a proper time and in a 
 proper manner to do so at such times as may 
 be convenient to themselves, and vessels pro- 
 ceeding up and down must take the ordinary 
 precautions to avoid collision with crossing 
 ships. The Thetford, 57 L. T. 455 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 179. 
 
 Crossing near Pier-heads.] — By-law 20 of the 
 regulations of the river Tyne, 1884, must be 
 taken to mean that a vessel is not to cross from 
 north to south, or from south to north, close up 
 to the pier-heads, but is to get on a proper 
 course when at some considerable distance outside 
 the pier-heads. The Hurrest, 11 P. D. 90 ; 55 L. T. 
 202 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 5— C. A. 
 
 Side of River— Crossing River.] — By the by- 
 laws regulating the navigation of the river 
 Tyne (clause 17), all vessels proceeding to sea 
 must keep to the south side. of mid-channel, and 
 (clause 20) " vessels crossing the river and vessels 
 turning take upon themselves the responsibility 
 of doing so safely with reference to the passing 
 traffic." Under these by-laws a vessel outward 
 bound coming at full speed out of the Tyne dock 
 on the south side of the river Tyne, and crossing 
 the river to the north side, whether intentionally, 
 in violation of clause 17, or unintentionally by 
 reason of the force of the tide, is bound to use 
 the utmost caution to avoid the passing traffic, 
 and to contemplate before attempting to come 
 out any contingencies, such as tide, stoppage of 
 the traffic, &c., which m.ay arise, and she should 
 only cross if it can be done without risk to that 
 traffic ; if a collision occurs by want of such 
 caution, the ship will be responsible. The Henry 
 Morton, 31 L. T. 859 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 466— P. C. 
 
 Semble, that the 21st clause of the by-laws, 
 providing that " when steam vessels are pro- 
 ceeding in the same direction, but with unequal 
 speed, the vessel which steams slowest shall, 
 when overtaken," take certain measures to 
 allow the overtaking steamship to pass her, 
 applies only to a vessel overtaking and passing 
 another actuallv upon the same course with 
 itself lb. 
 
 A brig, in ballast, coming up the Tyne, along 
 the south shore, came into collision with a smack 
 being tugged down along the same shore. She 
 pleaded, in defence, a custom of that river that 
 vessels in ballast should come along the south 
 shore : — Held, that no such custom could be 
 maintained against the express conditions of the 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. The Hand of Providence., 
 Swabey, 107. 
 
 Launch.] — See The United States, ante, col. 697. 
 
 By-law 20.] — The construction put upon by-law 
 20 of the by-laws for the regulation of the river
 
 837 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. CoUision. 
 
 838 
 
 Tjaie, 1884. in TIw Havrest (55 L. J., Adm. 35 ; 
 11 P. D. 90). that an incoming vessel shall not 
 begin to make for the river and to shape her 
 course up it too near the piers, does not mean 
 to lay down a hard and fast rule as to distance, 
 but only that the incoming vessel shall leave 
 reasonable room for an outgoing vessel to pass 
 out. The John O' Scott. 66 L. J., Adm. 47 ; 
 [1897] P. 64 ; 76 L. T. 222 ; 8 Asp, M. C. 235— 
 €. A. 
 
 13. Jurisdiction and Practice. 
 
 a. Jurisdiction. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the Admiralty formerly 
 extended to all water, where the tide ebbs and 
 flows, and where great ships go. See per Loid 
 Blackburn, Eey. v. Anderson, 38 L. J., M. C. 12 ; 
 L. K. 1 C. C. 161 ; 19 L. T. 400 ; 17 W. R. 208 ; 
 11 Cox, C. C. 198 ; Reg. v. Carr, 10 Q. B. D. 76 ; 
 47 L. T. 4.50 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 604. 
 
 Collision within a County.] — Appearance under 
 protest in a cause of cnUision on the ground that 
 it was infra corpus, ikc, overruled. The collision 
 w'as in the Thames in the neighbourhood of Hole 
 Haven. The Eliza Jam, 3 Hag. Adm. 335. 
 
 Prohibition awarded in the same case. Carfrae 
 V. Salmon, 3 Hag. Adm. 338. 
 
 A collision in the Humber, twenty miles from 
 the main sea, near the Yorkshire coast, and three 
 miles from that of Lincolnshire : — Held (1832), 
 not to be within the juristliction of the admiralty. 
 The Puhlie Opinion, 2 Hag. Atlm. 398. 
 
 Prohibition to the admiralty in a suit for colli- 
 sion (semble in the river Thames), but upon 
 terms that the names of the owners be given. 
 Martin v. Green, 1 Keb. 730 ; and see The Volant, 
 1 Not. of Cas. 5(J3. 
 
 Prohibition to the admiralty in a suit for a 
 collision on the Thames at Kcdriff. Diirrinf/to?i,''s 
 Cum', Moo. 916 ; and see Violet v, Bhujue, Cro. 
 Jac. 514 ; Velthamn v. Ormdry, 3 Term Kep. 315. 
 
 Collision in Dock in London — County 
 
 Court. — The county court has jurisdiction under 
 the Admiralty Court Act. 1861, s. 7, to hear such 
 a case. Itey. v. Citij of London Court Judije, 51 
 L. J., Q. B. 305 ; 8 Q. B. D. 609 ; 30 W. R. 566. 
 And gee eage.i post, cols. 922, 941. 
 
 Foreign Ships in Foreign Waters.] — The 
 court has juri^diclidn over an action brought by 
 a British subject against a foreign ship for a 
 ■collision in foreign waters. The Griefswuld, 
 Swabey, 430. 
 
 Before 24 & 25 Vict. c. 10, s. 7, a master of a 
 Danish schooner lying alongside the quay at the 
 port of Ibraila, in the Danube, got on board an 
 Knglish barque lying outside him ; and with a 
 view to get the schooner out, wilfully cut the 
 bar(|ue atlrift from her mooritigs, wlieicby she 
 swung to the stream and capsized a barge, which 
 contained part of her cargo belonging to Turkish 
 owners: — Held, that the Turkish owners of the 
 cargo destroyed could not sue the Danish schooner 
 in the (Vmrt of Admiralty. The Ida, Lush. 6; 
 
 I L. T. 417. 
 
 The court ha<l jurisdiction in case of a collision 
 between an ?>nglisli and an Irish vessel in the 
 Great North Holland Canal. The Diana. 32 
 L. J., Adm. 57 ; 9 Jur. (n.S.) 26 ; 7 L. 'J'. 397 ; 
 
 II W. R. 189 ; and see post, col. 922. 
 
 Damage to Ship otherwise than by Collision.] 
 
 Semble. The Admiralty Court had always juris- 
 diction in case of damage to a shi}) by contact 
 with another object not being a ship. The Zefa, 
 Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Turner, 63 
 L. J., Adm. 17 ; [1893] A. C. 468 : 1 R. 307 ; 69 
 L. T. 630 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 369 ; 57 J. P. 660— H. L. 
 (E.) 
 
 Action in personam against Pilot.] — The High 
 Court of Admiralty had no jurisdiction to enter- 
 tain an action in personam against a pilot in 
 respect of a collision caused b}' his negligence in 
 the high seas. Rer/. v. City of London Court 
 Judge, 61 L. J., Q. B. 337 ; [1892] 1 Q. B.273 ; m 
 L. T. 135 ; 40 W. R. 215 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 140— C. A. 
 
 Consequently a county court has no such juris- 
 diction in such case. Ih. 
 
 Loss of Life.] — The Admiralty Court has 
 jurisdiction under 24 Vict. c. 10, s. 7, to entertain 
 an action under Lord Campbell's Act to recover 
 damages for the death of a person killed in a 
 collision. The Guldfaxc, 38 L. J., Adm. 12 ; 
 L. R. 2 A. & E. 325 ; 19 L. T. 740 ; 17 W. R.578. 
 S. P., The Borodino, 5 L. T. 291. But see Smith 
 V. Brown, 40 L. J., Q. B. 214 ; L. R. 6 Q. B. 729 ; 
 24 L. T. 80S ; 19 W. R. 1165 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 53, 
 contra ; and The Vera Cruz, infra. 
 
 The Admiralty Court Act. 1861 (24 Vict. c. 
 10), which by s. 7 gave the Court of Admiralty 
 " jurisdiction over any claim for damage done by 
 any ship,'" ilid not give jurisdiction over claims 
 for damages for loss of life under Lord Camp- 
 bell's Act (9 & 10 Vict. c. 93) ; and the Admiralty 
 Division cannot entertain an action in rem for 
 damages for loss of life under Lord Campbell's 
 Act. y/zei^/'fl ««'«/« (infra) overruled. 'The Vera 
 Cruz, Seward v. The Vera Cruz, 54 L. J., Adm. 9 ; 
 10 App. Cas. 59 ; 52 L. T. 474 : 33 W. R. 477 ; 5 
 Asp. M. C. 386 ; 49 J. P. 324— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Liability of Foreign Ships.] — An action 
 
 was instituted against a foreign ship to recover 
 damages for the death of the husband of the 
 l)laintiff alleged to have been caused by a col- 
 lision brought about ])y the improper navigation 
 of the ship proceeded against : — Held, that the 
 Admiralty Court had jurisdiction to entertain 
 tlie action. The Franconia or Jeffreii v. Fran- 
 eonia {Owners), 46 L. J., Adm. 33"; 2 P. D. 163 ; 
 36 L. T. 640 ; 25 W. R. 796— C. A. 
 
 An action in rem against a foreign ship under 
 Lord Campbell's Act (9 & 10 Vict. c. 93, s. 2), 
 is not within the Aihniralty Court Act, 1861 (24 
 Vict. c. 10, s. 7), and therefore the Admiralty 
 Division has not jurisdiction over such an action. 
 The Chancery and Admiralty Divisions may 
 entertain sucli a claim in an action for limitation 
 of liability, under their general statutory juris- 
 diction as to limitation of liabilitv. Per lirett, 
 M.R. The \'era Cruz, 53 L. .J., Adm. 33 ; 9 P. 1)., 
 96 ; 51 L. T. 104 ; 32 W. R. 783 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 270— C. A. See S. C, in H. L., supra. 
 
 Foreigners and their Representatives.] — 
 
 Foreigners injured, or the re|)resentatives of 
 foreigners killed, may sue in the Court of 
 Admiialty in lespect of injuries done by a Britisli 
 vessel on the high seas. The Explorer, 4(J L. J., 
 Adm. 41 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 289 : 23 L. T. 601 ; 19 
 W. R. 166. 
 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, 8. 512— Loss of Life- 
 Notice to Board of Trade.] — In a collision a Nor- 
 wegian briLC foundered with all hands. In 
 
 27—2
 
 839 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 840 
 
 answer to an inquiry from the Norwegian vice- 
 consu] the board of trade answered that they 
 did not intend to hold an inquiry — meaning, as 
 the court held, an inquiry under Part VIII. of 
 the act. Afterwards the widow of one of the 
 seamen drowned brought an action for damages 
 against the owners of the other ship, and notice 
 of her desire to proceed was sent to the board, 
 who stated that they did not intend to institute 
 an inquiry under Part IX. of the act : — Held, 
 that this notice not having been given to the 
 board before action brought the action did not 
 lie. HaqliDid v. Rxisselh, 9 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (-Ith 
 ser.) 958. 
 
 Nets Fouled by a Trawler.] — Justices held to 
 have jurisdiction in a case of drift nets being 
 fouled by a trawler. ILilldt v. Dowdall, 18 
 Q. B.882. 
 
 Torts on the High Sea.] — The Admiralty Court 
 has original jurisdiction over torts on the high 
 seas ; therefore where the damage was done by a 
 keel without mast, and usually propelled by a 
 pole. The Siirii/i, Lush. 549. 
 
 Ship Damaging Pile Driver.] — A collision 
 between a ship and a pile driving machine ashore 
 held to be within s. 29 of the Court of Admiralty 
 (Ireland) Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict. c. Hi. TJir 
 Maid of the Mist, 21 W. E. 310. 
 
 Action against Pilot in charge of Vessel.] — 
 
 The Court of Admiralty lias no jurisdiction to 
 entertain a suit against a pilot for damage occa- 
 sioned to a ship by his negligence whilst in 
 charge of another ship. The Alexdiidria, -11 
 L. J., Adm. 9-t : L. R. 3 A. & E. 57-t ; 27 L. T. 
 565 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 464. But see The Zcta,\niY% 
 col. 941 : Ei'fi. V. City of Lond,on Court {Judge'), 
 infra, col. 942. 
 
 The Court of Passage aiul the county courts, 
 having no larger admiralty jurisdiction than the 
 Court of Admiralty, cannot, therefore, entertain 
 sitch a suit. Ih. 
 
 Joinder of Pilot as Defendant.] — Where 
 
 an action in rem has been brought against a ship 
 and her ownei's for damage by collision, antl 
 compulsory pilotage has been pleaded, an order 
 ought not afterwards to be made for the joinder 
 of the pilot as a defendant (assuming there was 
 jurisdiction to make the order) if the eifect 
 of so doing would be to embarrass the trial of the 
 action. The Germmiic, 65 L. J., Adm. 53 ; [1896] 
 P. 84 : 73 L. T. 730 ; 44 W. R. 394 : 8 Asp. M. C. 
 116— C. A. 
 
 PlaintifTs Ship at Anchor — Burden of Proof — 
 Who to Begin.] — The plaintiff's ship being at 
 anchor, held that the burden of jiroof was on 
 the defendants, and that thev must begin. Tlie 
 George ArMe, 5 L. T. 290. 
 
 Damage to Barge in a Body of County.] — P)y 
 the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 10, s. 7 the Admiralty Court 
 has jurisdiction in a cause of damage done by a 
 sea-going vessel to a barge propelled by oars 
 within the body of a county. 21ie Mahina, 
 Lush. 493 ; Br. & Lush. 57 ; 1 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 
 357 ; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 527 ; 8 L. T. 403 : 11 W. R. 
 576. and see The Sarah, supra. Urerardv. Ken- 
 dall. 39 L. J.. C. P. 234 ; L. R. 5 C. P. 428 ; 22 
 L. T. 508 : 18 \V. R. 892. 
 
 Damage to Tow by Tug — Jurisdiction.] — The 
 
 Admiralty Court has jurisdiction to entertain a 
 suit against a steam-tug by the vessel in tow for 
 
 damage done to such vessel by collision caused 
 by the conduct of the tug. The Night Watch., 
 32 L. J., Adm. 47 : 8 Jur. (N.s.) 1161 ; 7 L. T. 
 396: 11 W. R. 189. But see The Robert Row, 
 ante, col. 756. 
 
 Discontinuance, Effect of.] — See The Ardandhu, 
 Kronprinz QO toners of Cargo) v. Kro7i2)rinz 
 {Owfiers), infra, col. 751. 
 
 Form of Action — Trespass or Case.] — If a 
 
 collision occurs through the pilot's negligence, 
 the owner being on board, the remedy against the 
 owner is by action on the case and not trespass. 
 Huggett v. Montgomery, 2 Bos. & P. (N.R.) 447. 
 
 b. Parties. 
 
 Child en ventre sa mere.] — In a suit for limi- 
 tation of liability, instituted on behalf of the 
 owners of a brig against the owners of a barqixe, 
 an appearance was entered on behalf of a child 
 of one of the drowned men killed by the collision, 
 en ventre sa mere. The court reserved leave ta 
 the child en ventre, if born within due time, to 
 prefer its claim for damages sustained by the 
 death of its father. The George and Richard, 
 L. R. 3 A. & E. 466 ; 24 L. T. 717 ; 20 W. R. 246 ; 
 
 I Asp. M. C. 50. The child was afterwards born, 
 and its claim was assessed. 
 
 Right of Underwriters.] — The right of the 
 underwriters of a lost ship for damages against a 
 wrongdoer is merely to make the same claim that 
 the insured might have made. Simpson v. Thom- 
 son, 3 App. Cas\ 279 ; 38 L. T. 1 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 567 
 — H. L. 
 
 In the case of a collision between two ships 
 belonging to the same owner, by which one was 
 totally lost through the exclusive faidt of the 
 other : — Held, that the underwriters could make 
 no claim against the sum paid into court, under 
 the Merchant Shipping Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict, 
 c. 63), s. 54, the insured being himself the person 
 who had caused the damage. lb. 
 
 Bailees of a Barge Competent to Sue in rem.] 
 — The bailees of a barge are competent to sue in 
 rem in the Admiralty Court in cases of collision. 
 The Minna, L. R. 2 A. & E. 97. 
 
 Action by one Part Owner.] — If one of the 
 part owners of a ship sue alone for damage by 
 collision and the defendant do not plead in abate- 
 ment, the other part owner may afterwards sue 
 alone for the damage suffered hj him in respect 
 of his share, and the defendant cannot plead in 
 abatement. Sedgimrth v. Orerend, 7 Term Rep. 
 279 ; Addison v. Overend, 6 Term Rep. 118. 
 
 To an action on the case against some of the 
 co-owners of a ship for negligence of the master 
 in damaging the plaintiff's goods on board another 
 ship by collision it cannot be pleaded in abate- 
 ment that there are other co-owners. Mitchell 
 V. Tarbutt, 5 Term Rep. 649 ; 2 R. R. 684. 
 
 Third Party Order.] — ^Where a ship, whilst in 
 the hands of engineers for repairs, came into- 
 collision with another vessel whose owners sued 
 her in rem for damages, the owner of the ship 
 sued cannot bring in the engineers as third 
 parties, as his right (if any) against them is not 
 one of contribution or indemnity within the- 
 meaninc: of R. S. C, Ord, XVI. r. 48. The Jacob 
 Christ ensen, 64 L. J., Adm, 92 ; [1895] P. 281 ; 
 
 II R, 795 : 72 L, T, 902 ; 8 Asp. M. C, 21. See 
 also The Cart.'iburn, col. 758, The Bianca, ante, 
 col. 668.
 
 841 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 842 
 
 c. Default of Appearance. 
 
 Default of Appearance by Defendant.] — See 
 The Spe/v E.rpecto. infra, col. 988. 
 
 d. Cross Actions — Bail — Security. 
 
 Security— Plaintiff out of Jurisdiction.] — The 
 
 provision of 24 Vict. c. lU, s. 34 as to giving 
 security to answer a cross cause, applies where 
 the plaintiff is a British subject resident in the 
 jurisdiction. The " Cameo " and the '• Kestless " 
 were in collision, and the " Restless " sank. Her 
 owners arrested and sued the " Cameo " ; the 
 "Cameo" owners entered a cross-action against 
 the " Restless" owners in personam : — Held, that 
 the latter, though British subjects resident 
 within the jurisdiction, must give security to 
 answer the cross action. The Cameo, Lush. 408 : 
 5 L. T. 773. 
 
 Staying Proceedings — " Principal Cause" 
 
 — ' ' Cross Cause.' ] — A collision having taken place 
 between the •■ J." and the -'R.," by which the " R." 
 was simk. the owners of the "J." commenced an 
 action of damage in personam. Subseiiuently 
 the owners of the " R." commenced an action of 
 damage in rem against the " J.," whose owners 
 gave bail to avoid her arrest. The actions were 
 consolidated, the owners of the " R." being made 
 defendants to the first action, in which they 
 delivered a counter-claim : — Held, that the court 
 had no power, under s. 34 of the Admiralty 
 Court Act, 1861, to order the counter-claim to be 
 stayed until the defendants gave security to 
 answer the plaiutiifs claim. The Rougemont, 62 
 L. J., Adm. 121 : [1893] P. 275; 1 R. 658; 70 
 L. T. 420 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 437. 
 
 Bail to Answer Counter-claim.] — The power of 
 the Admiralty Divisicm umlei- s. 34 of the 
 Admiralty Court Act, 18(!1, tu order an action to 
 be stayed until bail has been given to answer a 
 cross-action or counter-claim, does not extend to 
 making an absolute order to give bail ; and in a 
 damage action in which the plaintiffs had dis- 
 continued after the defendants had counter- 
 claimed, the court refused to enforce an order, 
 made by the legistrar, to give bail to answer 
 such counterclaim. Thr. Alcraiuh-v, 48 L. T. 
 797 : 5 Asp. y\. C. H9. 
 
 The court has jurisdiction by 24 Vict. c. 10, 
 s. 34, to order ajilaintiff in an action for damage 
 by collision to give security for damages to a, 
 defendant who brings a cf>uiiter-claiiii. 'J"he 
 court can exercise this power when such plain- 
 tiff is a foreign sovereign whose ship cannot be 
 arrested. The Xnohattle, .")4 L. .1.. Adm. 16 ; Id 
 P. D. .33 ; .52 F>. 1'. 15 : 33 W. R^ 31.s ; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 356— C. A. 
 
 Cross-actions— Bail.] — Two foreign vessels, a 
 barque and a ship came into collision, and the 
 baniue sank. The ship was arrested in a damage 
 cause by the owners of the barque. The owners 
 of the ship thercu])on commenced a cross-action 
 against the owner:; of the barfjue, to which the 
 latter made no ap]>eaiance. Motion to dismiss 
 the original actifin unless an apjiearance and Ijail 
 were given bv the owners of the banjue rejected. 
 The Cai-lijle^^ W. R. 197. 
 
 Where there is a cross-action, and both come 
 on to be heard together by consent of i)roctors, 
 the court decides in the cross-action according to 
 
 the facts pleaded and proved in the original 
 
 j action. The Vortigern, Swabey, 518 ; 1 L. T. 
 
 I 307. 
 
 The owners of a ship, " A.," brought an action in 
 a cause of damage against the owners of •• B." The 
 court found both to blame ; no cross-action had 
 been entered pending those proceedings. Subse- 
 
 , quently the owners of •' B." entered an action in 
 a cause of damage against the owners of ''A.." who 
 gave an appearance under protest : — Held, that 
 the owners of " A." must give an absolute appear- 
 
 1 ance. though a cross action, in the first instance, 
 would have been the proper course. The Caliipso, 
 
 : Swabey, 28 ; 4 W. R. 303. 
 
 \ Where cross actions were brought, and one 
 vessel was found solely to blame, but her owners 
 were freed from responsibility because the col- 
 lision was caused by the act of a pilot who was 
 employed compulsorily, in the action brought by 
 the innocent vessel, the court dismissed the plain- 
 tiff without costs, but in the cross action con- 
 demned the guilty vessels in costs. The Antia- 
 jnilis and The Johanna Stall, Lush. 295 ; 80 L. J., 
 
 I Adm. 201 ; 4 L. T. 417. 
 
 ! Collision between two foreign vessels, "A." and 
 " B." ; total loss of " A." ; " B." was arrested in an 
 action by the owaierof "A." ; cross action by the 
 owners of " B.," but no appearance. The court 
 refused to stay proceedings in the action against 
 ■' B." until an appearance was given in the 
 cross- action. Subsequently an appearance was 
 entered, but no bail given ; judgment in the 
 original action pronouncing both ships in fault ; 
 the court refused to order thai no damages be paid 
 to the owners of "A." until decree given in the 
 cross-action. The Xorth American and The 
 Tecla Carmen, Lush. 79. 
 
 When cross causes are instituted in respect ot 
 a collision, security cannot be required, under 
 24 ic 25 Vict. c. 10, s. 34, for a greater amount 
 than the value of a vessel of the defendant from 
 whom security is demanded, though that may 
 
 have sunk and the action against the owner 
 
 is a personal one. The Calcutta. 17 W. R. 
 
 744. 
 
 Both Ships in fault — Payment out to Foreign 
 Owner.] — Collision suit between the owners of a 
 foreign sliij) residing out of the juiisdiction and 
 cross suit by the owners of the other a British 
 ship. In the cross suit the foreign defendants 
 entered no appearance, whereupon it was dis- 
 continued. In the principal suit both shi]is were 
 found to blame. The court withheld payment 
 of the damages claimed b_y the foreign owner 
 until he consented to a deduction of half the 
 damage sustained by the British ship. The 
 Serlngapatam, 3 W. Rob. 28. 
 
 Reference— Plaintiff out of Jurisdiction.] — 
 
 Where a decree has been made of both vessels to 
 blame, the court will 7iot refer the damage of 
 both vessels to the registrar, but will leave the 
 defendant to his cross-action, notwithstanding 
 th.at the siiip of the plaintiff perished in the col- 
 lision, and the pliuntiff resides out of the juris- 
 diction. Thi' .\i\rth American, Swabey, 466. 
 
 e. Preliminary Act. 
 
 Amendment.] — The preliminary act on behalf 
 f)f the defendants was ordered to be amended, 
 a.s it did not contain a proj)er statement of 
 the distance and bearing of the other vessel in
 
 843 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 844 
 
 accordance with Oril. XIX. r. 28 (i.)- 'J'f"' 
 Godlva, 55 L. J.. Adm. 13 ; 11 P. D. 20 ; 54 
 L. T. 55 ; 34 W. R. 551 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 524. 
 
 When required.] In an action for damage to 
 cargo sustained in a collision between two ships 
 ■where the action is brought against the ship 
 carrying the cargo, the parties are not bound to 
 file the preliminary acts under Ord XIX. r. 80. 
 The John Bo>ine, 36 L. T. 29 ; 25 W. R. 75(j ; 
 3 Asp. M. C. 341. 
 
 Action by Tow against Tug.] — The plaintiffs, 
 owners of tlie barge " H." and of her cargo, 
 employed the defendants' tug " W." to tow the 
 '• H." "in the Thames. The '' H." whilst in tow 
 was in collision with a third ship, and was lost 
 with her cargo. In an action by the plaintiffs 
 against the defendants for negligence : — Held, 
 tlrat no order for the filing of a preliminary act 
 would be made. Aniisiro/if/ v. Gaselee, 58 L. J., 
 Q. B. 149 ; 22 Q. B. D. 2.50 ; 59 L. T. 891 ; 37 
 W. R. 462 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 353. 
 
 Action Under Lord Campbell's Act.] — In an 
 
 action under Lord Campbell's Act for loss of life 
 in a collision, preliminary acts under Ord. XIX. 
 r. 28 (1884) were ordered to be filed. Wi'butrr 
 y. Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire By., 5 
 Asp. M. C. 256, n. 
 
 May not be departed from.] — The Miranda, 
 51 L. J., Adm. 56 ; 7 P. D. 185 ; 47 L. T. 447 ; 3() 
 ^\. R. 615 : 4 Asp. M. C. 595. The Franldand, 
 41 L. J., Adm. 3 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 511 ; 25 L. T. 
 
 889 ; 20 W. R. 592 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 207, 489. The 
 Yortifier)i, Swabey, 578. 
 
 When to be Exchanged.] — Where the case is 
 to be heard on yiva yoce evidence only, the pre- 
 liminary acts are to be exchanged before the 
 eyidence is taken. The Buhy Qiieen, Lu.sh. 266. 
 
 f. Pleading's. 
 
 Eules of Pleadings — Proof secundum allegata.] 
 
 — The plaintiii in a collision suit must plead and 
 prove the facts from which negligence is to be 
 inferred ; the defendant is not concluded by 
 alleging that the collision was caused by a fact 
 Avhich he fails to prove. The East Lothian. Lush. 
 241 ; 14 Moore, P. C. 1 ; 4 L. T. 489. 
 
 The court will proceed secundum allegata et 
 probata, even though entertaining some doubt 
 whether, in so doing, it will arrive at the whole 
 truth and justice of the case. The North Ameri- 
 can and The Tecla Carmen, 12 Moore, P. C. 331 ; 
 8wabey. 358. 
 
 In a cause of collision, therefore, a party suing 
 cannot recover in full if he fails to prove the case 
 set up in his pleading and evidence, although no 
 fault is proved against his vessel, and fault is 
 established against the other vessel. lb. 
 
 A idaintiff is only entitled to recover secundum 
 allegata et piobata. The Ann, Lush. 55 ; 13 
 Moore, P. C. 198 ; 3 L. T. 128 ; 8 W. R. 567. 
 
 Where a plaintiff charges two separate colli- 
 sions, whereby his vessel, being at anchor, was 
 driven on the rocks, and sustained great damage, 
 and the first collision was such, that the plaintiffs 
 vessel might, and probably would have driven on 
 the rocks if no second collision had happened, he 
 will be entitled to recover, on proving the first 
 collision only, as the rule that the plaintiff must 
 recover secundum allegata et probata is thereby 
 
 satisfied. The Despatch, Lush. 98 : 14 Moore, 
 P. C. 83 ; 2 L. T. 219. 
 
 Where the plaintiffs pleaded that the collision 
 was caused by the defendant's vessel having sud- 
 denly put her helm a-starboard, and the evidence 
 given in support of the petition was that the col- 
 lision was caiised by the defendant's vessel having 
 ported instead of continuing her course under 
 a starboard helm : — Held, that the evidence could 
 not be applied to the statement in the petition, 
 and that the plaintifl's, therefore, were not entitled 
 to recover. The Haswell, Br. & Lush. 247 — P. C. 
 And see The Hoshunq and The Lapwing, 7 App. 
 Cas. 512 : 51 L. J., P. C. 92 ; 47 L. T. 485 ; 31 
 W. R. 303 ; 5 Asp. M. 0. 39— P. C. 
 
 The rule, that a party seeking redress for an 
 injury can onlj^ recover secundum allegata et 
 probata, applies only to cases where the aver- 
 ments alleged are material to the issue raised. 
 The Alice and The Bosita. 5 Moore P. C. (N.s.) 
 300 ; 38 L. J., Adm. 20 ; L. R. 2 P. C. 214 ; 
 19 L. T. 7.53. 
 
 Where, therefore, in a case of collision caused 
 by a vessel drifting and driving down upon 
 another at anchor in the same anchorage, though 
 the relative bearing of the two vessels previously 
 to the collision was incorrectly pleaded and 
 alleged by the vessel proved to be entitled to 
 redress : — Held, that the vessels not being in 
 motion, their i)revious relative bearing when at 
 anchor was not a material fact to the issue, 
 namely, which vessel caused the collision, so as 
 to render the actual proof of the damage of no 
 avail, and so entitle the offending party to the 
 benefit of the rule. Ih. 
 
 To a petition alleging that the " M." had been 
 for some time close-hauled on the starboard tack, 
 and that the " W. N." on the port tack came into 
 collision with her, the answer admitted that the 
 " W. N. " was close-hauled on the port tack, and 
 alleged that the " M." was seen on the port tack 
 distant about a mile : — Held, that the defendants 
 were bound also to allege what was subsequently- 
 done on board the " W. N." and before the colli- 
 sion, and the mode of the collision. Tlie Why 
 Xot, m L. J., Adm. 26 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 265 ; 18 
 L. T. 861. 
 
 If a plaintiff in a collision suit intends to rely 
 upon a particular act of negligence by the 
 defendant, he is bound specifically to allege that 
 act in his pleadings, and it is not sufficient that 
 the act may be included generally in an allega- 
 tion in the pleadings, %vhich do not clearly state 
 such particular act, as it is likely to mislead 
 the defendant, and prevent his being prepared 
 to meet that particular case. The Marpesia. 
 8 Moore P. C. (n.s.) 468 ; L. R. 4 P. C. 212 ; 26 
 L. T. 333; 1 Asp. M. C. 261. 
 
 Semble, that the established rule, which requires 
 a plaintiflf in a cause of damage to state with 
 reasonable certainty the instances of neglect on 
 which he intends to rely, and if he relies on a 
 breach of a statutory rule of navigation, that he 
 should specifically plead that the act done or not 
 done was in violation of that particular rule, 
 does not apply to a case where one vessel is under 
 way and the other incapable of moving. The 
 Secret, 26 L. T. 670 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 318 (Irish). 
 
 When the petition states such facts on the 
 ]iart of the plaintiff, as if proved or admitted, 
 woukl lead to the conclusion that the vessel 
 charged with the collision was to blame, it is 
 then rather for the defendant to shew what has 
 been done than for the plaintiff to shew what 
 mi'dit have been avoided. lb.
 
 845 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 846 
 
 The pleadings should be confined to the mei'its 
 of the collision. Tlie Geurge Arlde. Lush. 222. 
 See S. C, 5 L. T. 290. 
 
 Special damages, as rewards paid to salvors 
 for services rendered necessary by the collision, 
 are not to be pleaded. Ih. 
 
 An allegation in a petition that the vessel pro- 
 ceeded against in a collision cause was ''con- 
 siderably farther out to the north side of the 
 river than" the other vessel, and improperly 
 ported and so bi'ought about a collision, is suffi- 
 ciently proved, to entitle the owners of the vessel 
 making the allegation to recover, by shewing 
 that the vessel proceeded against was farther 
 over to the south side of the river than the 
 other, and improperly ported. Malcol niaon v. 
 General Steam yarigittion Co., The Ranger and 
 The Cologne, 9 Moore, P. C. (X.S.) 352 ; L. E. 4 
 P. C. 519; 27 L. T. 769 ; 21 W. R. 273 ; 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 484. 
 
 Ship in hands of Agent for sale — Defence not 
 pleaded.] — In a cause of damage, alleged to have 
 been done by and imputable to the acts of the 
 owners, and their servants, of the vessel proceeded 
 against, a general denial was pleaded in answer, 
 and a special defence that the damage complainetl 
 of was the same as had been already adjudicated 
 upon in a court of law, and judgment obtained 
 and satisfied ; at the hearing it was proved by a 
 witness, who was the principal defendant in the 
 action, that the damage proceeded for was occa- 
 sioned by acts ilone by him on his o\\u responsi- 
 bility, and in the assertion of a right claimed by 
 him as consignee for sale of the vessel, and not 
 as the agent on behalf of the owners ; where- 
 upon the judge held, that the suit could not be 
 maintained : but, inasmuch as the defence thus 
 disclosed had not been si)ecifically pleaded, 
 declined to give the defendants their costs, or to 
 go into the special defence, though his juilgment 
 thereon was asked for by the defendants' counsel : 
 — Hold, that the appeal was not for costs alone 
 witliin the meaning of the rule of the appellate 
 court against the allowance of ai)peals involving 
 costs only ; that the general traverse and denial 
 of tlie averments in the petition was sufficient to 
 justify the evidence produced ; and that the 
 defendants were further entitled to have the 
 judgment of the court, as asked on the special 
 defence pleaded, that if prejudiced by such 
 judgment they might appeal. The Orient. Teo 
 v. Tafem, 8 Moore,'P. C. (X.S.) 74 ; 40 L..I.. Adm. 
 29 ; L. K. 3 P. C. (;9(; ; 24 L. T. 918 ; 2n W. 1;. 
 6 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 108. 
 
 Admissions.] — An allegation averred 
 
 that by an act of tlie legislative council of India, 
 and the rules and regulations passed pursuant to 
 such act. tiie defendants were e.xeniptcil from 
 respf)n>ibility for the damages siieil foi- by reason 
 of the ship l)eing in charge of a pilot, whom they 
 were obliged by the provisions of that act to take 
 on board. The respfinsive allegation did not 
 traverse such aveiTnent as to the fact of the act 
 aTid rule and regulations, and the requirement to 
 take a ])ilot on Ijoard, but sjmi)ly alleged that the 
 <lefendants were not exempted by the act, and 
 the rules and regulations : — Held, that the act 
 and the rules and regulation.s being pleaded, and 
 not denied, there was no necessity to [irovc them, 
 the responsive allegation admitting, as far as was 
 necessary between the jiarties to the cause, the 
 act, rules and regulations as a fact, though not 
 the eflEect of their operation in law. The Peer- 
 
 less, 13 Moore. P. C. 484 : Lush. 103 ; 30 L. J., 
 Adm. 89; 3 L.T. 125. 
 
 In Limitation Suit.] — See The Karo, 
 
 ante, col. 752. 
 
 Replying.] — A plaintitf may plead new matter 
 in reply, if it is really matter of reply, and not 
 properly a part of the case set up in his behalf. 
 The Bothnia, Lush. 52 ; 29 L. J., Adm. 65. 
 
 Adding Pleas.] — The court will not. at the 
 hearing of a cause of collision, allow a plea to be 
 added allegiiag that the vessel proceeded against 
 
 ' was in charge of a licensed pilot, and that the 
 
 I accident was caused by his default. The Alhtun- 
 
 \ bra. Br. & Lush. 286. 
 
 I 
 
 I Defence of Compulsory Pilot, j — The defence 
 of compulsory pilotage must be specially pleaded. 
 
 i The Cau'idi'in, 1 W. Rob. 343. Tlie Xdrthdmptun, 
 1 Spinks, 155, n. The Alhambra, supra. The 
 Philomela, 1 Spinks, 155, n. 
 
 Inevitable Accident.] — By the old practice of 
 the admiralty, if tlae defence of inevitable acci- 
 dent is relied on. it must be pleaded in terms. 
 The E. Z., 33 L. J.. Adm. 200 ; 10 L. T. 290. 
 
 Infringement of the Regulations.] — Where 
 violation of a statutory rule is intended to be 
 charged, it must be so pleaded. The Ehenezer. 2 
 W.Rob. 210 : The Inm master. 6 Jur. (N.S.) 782 ; 
 Swabey, 441 ; The Exeter, 2 W. Rob. 261 ; The 
 Bothnia. Lush. 52. See also The Ladij Anne. 7 
 Not. of Cas. 37n. 
 
 Salvage rendered necessary by Collision.] — 
 
 Should not be pleaded. The Gennje Arhle, Lush. 
 222. 
 
 g-. Interrog-atories. 
 
 As to interrogatories in a collision action. See 
 The Biolu, 34 L. T. 185 : 24 W. R. 524 ; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 125. The Ridnm-shire. 49 L. J., Adm. 48 ; 
 5 P. D. 172 ; 43 L. T. 319 ; 29 W. R. 476 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 33S. 
 
 Whole Crew Drowned.] — In an action for 
 damage, where all the plaintiff's crew who could 
 give evidence as to the collision were drowned, 
 the court ordered the defendants to answer 
 ceitain interrogatories which were directed to 
 tliose matters upon which information would 
 l;e afforded by the iireliminarv act. The Islr nf 
 Cyprus. :>[) L. J.. Adm. 90; "15 P. D. 134 : 63 
 L. T. 352 ; 38 W. R. 719 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 534. 
 
 h. Inspection. 
 
 Reports of Surveys — Inspection of.] — Tlie 
 
 defenilani in an artion of ilainage to cargo is 
 not entitled to obtain from tlie plaintitf an 
 inspection of reports of surveys in possession of 
 the jilaintiff, written and prepared solely for the 
 purpose of tlie action. The Theodor Koraer, 
 47 L. J., Adm. H5 ; 3 P. D. 162 ; 38 L. T. 818 : 27 
 W. I{. 307 : 4 .\-\y M. < '. 17. 
 
 Reports by Officer of her Majesty's Ships — 
 Inspection of.] — After a collision between one of 
 hi T niaje>ty's ships and another ship, it is the 
 duty of the commanding officer of her majesty's 
 ship to forward a report of the collision to the 
 lords commissionei-s of the a<lmiralty. But in a 
 cause of damage against one of her majesty's
 
 847 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 848 
 
 ships a motion to inspect such a report was 
 refused on aitiilavit by the secretary to the admi- 
 ralty that it would be prejudicial to the public 
 interests to allow such reports to be inspected. 
 H.M.S. JMlrrophoii, 44 L. J., Adm. 5 ; 31 L. T., 
 ::)(; ; 2:5 W. 11. 248 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 44'.>. 
 
 Order to inspect Ship— 24 Vict. c. 10, s. 18.] — 
 
 Made. Tlir Mniiiict. 44 L. J.. Adm. 1 : L. K. 4 
 A. & E. 417, 428 ; 32 L. T. 12it ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 478 ; The Germawia, 37 L. J., Adm. 59 ; 19 L. T. 
 20. S. a on app. 21 L. T. 44. Refused, The 
 Victor Cotyiceritch, 54 L. J., Adm. 48 : 10 P. D. 
 40 ; 52 L. T. 632 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 417. 
 
 i. Evidence. 
 
 Naval Officer— Result of Inquiry.] — The result 
 of an inquiry into the conduct of a naval officer 
 for getting his ship into collision, cannot be 
 given in evidence in the Admiralty Court. 
 II.M.S. iSivallinv, Swabey, 30. 
 
 Decision of Pilotage Authority.] — Decision of 
 a pilotage authority at an investigation into the 
 conduct of the pilot of a ship that had been in 
 collision is not admissible as evidence in an 
 action for collision. The Lord Seaton, 2 W. R. 391. 
 
 Proceedings at Wreck Inquiry.] — Evidence 
 
 of proceedings at shii}ping casualty inquiries 
 is not admissible in a collision action. The 
 JIa)ifferto>i, Swabey, 120 ; 2 Jur. (N.s.) 620. S. P., 
 The London or The City of London, 11 Moore, 
 P. C. 307 ; Swabey, 245 ; .o"W. R. 678. 
 
 Depositions of Witnesses — Cross-examination 
 upon— Originals must be Produced.] — Certitred 
 copies of statements made to the receiver of 
 wreck as to the cause of collision cannot be 
 used to discredit the witness upon cross-examina- 
 tion. The originals must be produced, llic 
 Emperor and The Zephyr, 12 W. R. 890. S. P.. 
 The Risea, The Benayo, cited Marsden on 
 Collisions (4th ed.) 355. But see The Osear. 
 10 L. T. 7S9 ; 12 W. R. S72. 
 
 Not Admissible as Evidence.] — Deposi- 
 tions taken befoie a receiver of wreck are not 
 admissible in evidence to piove the facts to which 
 they relate. The Little Lizzie, L. R. 3 A. & E. 
 56 : 23 L. T. 84 ; 18 W. R. 960 ; The Enqyeror and 
 The Zephyr, supra. 
 
 The examination of the captain of the plaintiff's 
 ship, taken by the receiver of wrecks under 17 
 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 448, is not admissible for the 
 defendant for the purpose of pi'oving the fact 
 that the damage to the ship from the collision 
 was on her starboard bow ; such fact being 
 offered for the purpose of shewing that the 
 plaintiff's ship was in fault, the question which 
 ship causetl the damage to the other not being 
 a matter which the receiver had power to 
 examine into. Nothard v. Pepper, 17 C. B. 
 (x.s.) 39 ; 10 Jur (n.s.) 1077 ; 10 L. T. 782. 
 
 After Death.] — Depositions made by per- 
 sons on board a shij) relative to a collision cannot, 
 even after the decease of the deponents, be used 
 as evidence on behalf of that ship at the trial. 
 llie Henry Coxon. 47 L. J., Adm. 83 ; 3 P. D. 
 156 ; 38 L. T. 819 ; 27 W. R. 263 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 18. 
 
 Statements of Master or Crew.] — The state- 
 ments of the master with regard to a collision 
 
 are, but the statements of the mate or seamen 
 are not. admissible evidence against the ovvners. 
 The Aeto'on. 1 Spinks, 176. 
 
 Admissions by the crew as to the circumstances 
 of a collision, are not evidence in an action 
 brought by the shij)Owners and crews. The Foyle, 
 Lush. 10. 
 
 A statement made hy the pilot that the col- 
 lision was caused Vjy his fault is not admissible 
 as evidence of the fact : nor evidence of a seaman 
 confirming the pilot's statement ; nor the decision 
 of a pilotage authority as to the pilots being in 
 fault or otherwise. Tlie Lord Seaton, 2 W. Rob. 
 39 ; 4 Not. of Cas. 164. But see The Sehivalbe, 
 infra. 
 
 A statement of the master as to the cause of a 
 collision is admissible in evidence against the 
 shipowner. The Martehester, 1 W. Rob. 62. 
 
 Statements by the master as to the cause of 
 collision are admissible in evidence ; those by 
 the crew are not. The Midlotldan, 15 Jur. 806 ; 
 The Emperor and The Zephyr, supra ; The 
 Europa, 13 Jur. 856 : The Sulway. 54 L. J., Adm. 
 83 ; 10 P. D. 137 ; 53 L. T. 680 ; 34 W. Rob. 232 ; 
 5 Asp. M. C. 482. 
 
 Statements made by the mate and seamen as 
 to their ship making water or not immediately 
 after the collision held admissible as part of the 
 res gestee. TIte Mellona, 10 Jur. 992. 
 
 Evidence contradicting a denial bj^ the pilot 
 of the other ship that he made use of an expres- 
 sion indicating that his helm had been wrongly 
 put to starboard : — Held, to be admissible. The 
 Sehwaihe, Swabey, 521. 
 
 Allegations and Proof.] — On appeal, in a cause 
 
 of collision Ijctweeu two vessels originally at 
 anchor, the statement in the defendants' answer 
 in the Admiralty Court as to the bearing of their 
 vessel in respect to the other when at anchor, 
 varied from the proof : — Held, that the state- 
 ment as to the bearing of one vessel in respect 
 of the other when at anchor was immaterial, 
 and was therefore not necessary under the 
 Admiralty Rules, 1859, No. 67, and that the 
 variance was therefore immaterial. The Bosita, 
 38 L. J.. Adm. 20 ; L. R. 2 P. C. 214 ; 19 L. T. 
 753 ; 17 W. R. 209. 
 
 Lights.] — Evidence of an order, as to the 
 lights, given twelve hours before the collision, 
 is admissible, but not of conversations with 
 respect to them. The Aleppo, 35 L. J., Adm. 9 ; 
 14 L. T. 228. 
 
 Proof of Loss.] — On a reference to the regis- 
 trar in a cause of damage, the plaintiffs, who 
 were underwriters of the cargo, and had paid as 
 for a total loss, produced in support of their 
 title as owners of the cargo lost, the policies of 
 insurance of the cargo, the bills of lading, and 
 the invoice and copy manifest : — Held, that they 
 must give further evidence of the value of the 
 goods, and of a discharge from the owners of 
 the cargo. The John Bellamy, 39 L. J., Adm. 
 28 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 129 : 22 L. T. 244. 
 
 Protest — Original.] — The original |)rotest, and 
 not a notarial copy must be produced. The 
 Ljuhica, 23 L. T. 474 ; following The Emma, 
 2'W. Rob. 315 ; 3 Not. of Cas. 114. 
 
 Whole Crew Drowned.] — A schooner and a 
 steamship were in collision, and all the crew of 
 the schooner were drowned. The steamship
 
 849 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 850 
 
 held in fault upon admissions in her answer. 
 The Alepjju, 35 L. J., Adm. 9 ; 14 L. T. 228. 
 
 Evidence of Agency.] — In an action for damage 
 done to the plaintift's lug-boat, by the negligence 
 of the defendant's servant, it was proved that the 
 barge was the defendant's, but the witness could 
 not identify the bargeman : — Held, that this was 
 prima facie evidence that the barge was steered 
 by the defendant's servant ; and that, if the barge 
 was in the use of any other person, it lay on the 
 defendant to prove it. Joi/ce v. CaiJell, 8 Car. & P. 
 370. 
 
 No Cross-examination.] — Where witnesses are, 
 by mistake, examinetl de bene esse on behalf of 
 one party to a collision action, without cross- 
 examination, the cause will not be heard until 
 the witnesses are submitted for cross-examina- 
 tion. Tke Chance, Swabey, 29-1: ; 6 W. E. 221. 
 
 Reference — Evidence.] — On a reference in a 
 collision action the registrar and merchants are 
 not bound by uncontradicted evidence as to the 
 amount of damage done, but are entitled to use 
 their own judgment and experience, and find in 
 accordance therewith. Tlie Bermna, .5.5 L. T. 
 781 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 6.5. 
 
 Opinion of Experts.]— In an action for negli- 
 gently steering a ship, whereljy the plaintifE lost 
 his passage in her, no evidence can be given of a 
 specific act of negligence, which is not the foun- 
 dation of tiie action ; but evidence may be given 
 that the captain ha(l often expressed his convic- 
 tion that the officer in charge of the ship was 
 incompetent ; and experienced nautical men may 
 be called as witnesses, and asked wliether, in 
 their judgment, particular facts which have been 
 proved amount to gross negligence. Maltuu v. 
 JVexhit, 1 Car. A: P. 70. 
 
 But a nautical witness cannot be asked whether 
 he thinks, having heard the evidence, that the 
 conduct of the captain was correct or not. Sillx 
 V. Jiroicn. 9 Car. A: P. m\. 
 
 In an action for running down tlie plaintiflE's 
 ■ship, a nautical witjiess may be asked, whether, 
 having heard the evidence, and admitting the 
 facts proved by the plaintiff to h»e true, he is of 
 opinion that the collision could have ];ecn avoided 
 by i)roi)er care on the part of the tlefeudant's 
 -servants. Fcnw/rk v. Jirll, 1 Car. k. K. 312. 
 
 Where Court assisted by Trinity Masters.] — 
 In a cause of daniaL'i'. ulicie I lie c<iiirt is assisted 
 by tiinity masters, evidence will not be received 
 on a mixed question of law and nautical skill. 
 Thf Earl Sprnrrr, L. li. 4 A. A: E. 431 ; 32 
 L. 'J'. 370 ; 23 W. K. (i(!l ; 4 Asp. M. C. .523. 
 Affirmed 33 L. T. 235 ; 3 Asj). M. C. 4— C. A. 
 
 As to evidence of usual course of navigating a 
 channel see Thr Cm-vniur, [1894] P. 33M, n. See 
 alxit fdsrx. post, col. 999. 
 
 When Actions consolidated.] — The court can- 
 not except by consent order tiiat evidence in one 
 -uit that has been heard shall be admitted as 
 evidence in a subsequent suit. Thr Dcnietriux, 
 41 L. .1., Adm. (19 ; L. U. 3 A. & K. 523 ; 2(; L. T. 
 324 ; 20 W. I{. 701 ; 1 Asj). M. C. 251. 
 
 In consc'iuence of a collision between vessels 
 " A." and '• B.."' both the vessels and also the cargo 
 laden on board the " A." sustained damage. A .suit 
 in rem was instituted by the owners of the "A." 
 against the " B." to recover the damage dfine to 
 their vessel. A cross suit was instituted by the 
 
 owners of the " B." against the " A." These suits 
 were heard and determined. Afterwards a suit 
 in rem was instituted on behalf of the owners of 
 the cargo on board the " A." against the " B." to 
 recover the damage done to the cargo : — Held, 
 that the court had no power to order the evidence 
 taken in the suit by the owners of the " A." against 
 the •' B."' to be admitted in the suitdnstituted on 
 behalf of the owners of cargo. Ih. See also 
 The William Huff, Lush. 25. 
 
 Entries in Log.] — Entries made in the ship's 
 log by the mate of a vessel relative to a collision 
 and signed by him and the captain nearly two 
 days after the collision, cannot be used as evi- 
 dence on behalf of the ship in which they were 
 made, after the decease of the persons making 
 and signing them. The HcHry Cu.ron, 47 L. J., 
 Adm. 83 ; 3 P. D. 156 ; 38 L. T. 819 ; 27 W. K. 
 263 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 18. 
 
 The log-book of one of the ships produced con- 
 tained an erasure as to the wind at the time of 
 the collision, but the alteration was rather 
 adverse to the case on behalf of the ship : — 
 Held, that the erasure was immaterial, it being 
 adverse to the case on behalf of the ship. The 
 Comtitiifion, 2 Moore, P. C. (n.S.) 453 ; 10 Jur. 
 CN.S.) 831 ; 10 L. T. 894— P. C. 
 
 The official log is not evidence for the ship. 
 The Euvopa, 13 Jur. 856. The Malta, 3 Hag. 
 Adm. 158, n. The Earl of Dumfriex (engineers 
 log), 54 L. J., Adm. 7 ; 10 P. D. 31 ; 51 L. T. 
 906 ; 33 W. R. 568 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 342. 
 
 Lightship Log.] — The court will admit a light- 
 ship log, on production by the officer of the 
 trinity house in whose custody such logs are 
 kept, without requiring the evidence of the 
 l)erson who made the entries. The Maria Das 
 Dorian, Br. & Lush. 27 ; 32 L. J., Adm. 163 ; 
 7 L. T. 838 ; 1 1 W. K. 500. 
 
 Coastguard Log.] — The books containing the 
 entries made by the coastgtiard, and sent to the 
 coastguard office, are admissible to' prove the 
 state of wind and weather at the time of the 
 collision, without calling the person who made 
 the entries. 'The ('(tfhcrina Maria, L. K. 1 
 A. & E. 53 ; 12 Jur. (N.s.) 3S(). 
 
 Protest.] — A protest is not evidence for the 
 ship. Vhrixfiau v. Coomhe, 2 Esp. 489 ; The 
 Ljuhica, 23 L. T. 474 ; The Emma, 2 W. Hob. 315 ; 
 3 Not. of Cas. 114 ; The IIc(Uci<j, 1 Spinks, 19. 
 
 'Verdict in Action for same Collision.] — A 
 
 verdict in a (•(inirnoii-law action for the same 
 collision cannot be received in evidence in the 
 admiralty. Tlie Friendx, General Steam JVari- 
 f/ati(in Co. v. Toiihiii. 4 Mooic I'. ('. 311; in 
 court below. 1 W. Hob. 4S4. 
 
 j. Res or Bail Insufficient. 
 
 Res insufficient.]— An action in rem having 
 been bionglit, and the proceeds of the res being 
 insufficient to satisfy the iilaiiitiff's claim, a 
 citation in |)ersonam issued. The Pef, 20 L. T. 
 961 ; 17W. U. 899. 
 
 Bail insufficient. 
 
 -Whert; bail is given in a 
 
 collision action, in a sum which is insufficietit to 
 cover the damage and costs, the i)arty giving 
 bail will not be ordered to pay any further sum 
 beyond that for which bail is given, except
 
 851 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. ColUsion. 
 
 852 
 
 under special circumstances ; as where he puts 
 tiie jilaintitt' to unnecessary costs. The 7'emi.s- 
 rdiiiifft, 2 Spinks, 208. See yiir luilanuizoo, l.'j 
 Jur. 15.-,. 
 
 Ee-arrest — Bail insufficient -Admiralty Court 
 Act. 1861, ss. 15, 22,j— Where the bail given 
 ]>roves insulHeieut to cover damages recovered 
 and costs, tlie shij) may be re-arrested to satisfy 
 the costs. The Freedom, L. K. 8 A. & B. 4'J.5 ; 
 2.-. L. T. 31»2 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 136. 
 
 Action entered for too little.] — Where, 
 
 in a collision suit, the actiim was by mistake 
 entered for 1,U00/., the real claim being for 
 2,(500/., the vessel decreed to be re-arrested for 
 the balance. The Hero. Br. & Lush. 447 ; 13 
 W. R. 927. 
 
 Common-Law Action to recover Damages not 
 recovered in Admiralty.] — It is no bar to an 
 
 action for a collision at sea that a judgment in 
 rem has been recovered in the Admiralty Court, 
 and execution levied by the sale of the defen- 
 dant's vessel, where the damage done was more 
 than the amount realised by such sale, jyelsini v. 
 Coil eh, \h C. B. (N.S.) 99 ; 83 L. J., C. P. 4(5 ; 10 
 Jur. (N.S.) 36(5 ; 8 L. T. .-.77 : 11 W. R. 964. 
 
 Personal Remedy— Res insufficient.]— If the 
 
 value of the defendant's vessel and freight is not 
 equal to the damage done, the plaintiff may, 
 after judgment, obtain a monition against the 
 defendant personally to satisfy the deficiency. 
 The Zephyr, 11 L. T. 8.51. 
 
 Action in rem after Action in Personam.] — 
 
 A party, having two remedies, an action in per- 
 sonam and an action in rem, resorted, in the 
 first instance, to his personal action, and obtained 
 judgment, but coidd not recover the amount 
 sued for : — Held, that he was entitled afterwards 
 to proceed in rem. The Beiujal, The John, and 
 Mnrij, Swabey, 471 ; .5 Jur. (N.S.) 1085. 
 
 Undertaking to put in Bail — In Salvage 
 Action— Award in Excess of Bail — Personal 
 Liability of Owner of res for the Difference. ^ — 
 
 A salvage action was instituted in a sum of 
 5,000?. The solicitors for the defendants gave 
 an undertaking to put in bail for 5,000/. The 
 sum of 7,500/. was awarded for salvage : — Held, 
 that the plaintiff was entitled to sue out a writ 
 of fieri facias against the defendants for the 
 difference between 5,000/. and the amount of 
 the award. The Diefutor, 61 L. J., Adm. 73 ; 
 [1892] P. 304 ; 67 L. T. 563 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 251. 
 
 k. Generally. 
 
 Res— Increase of Value by Repairs.] — A 
 
 vessel damaged by collision was arrested and 
 subsequently repaired, whereby her value was 
 considerably increased : — Held, that she was 
 oidy liable to arrest for her value at the time 
 when she was arrested. The St. Oluf, 88 L. J., 
 Adm. 41 : L. R. 2 A. & E. 86o ; 20 L. T. 758 ; 
 17 W. R. 743. 
 
 Amount of Freight payable into Court.] — 
 
 The freight jiayable by the owner of cargo on 
 board the ship sued for collision is the amount 
 payable by him to the shipowner ; allowing for 
 deductions allowed by charterparty, costs of 
 paying into court, and deductions agreed to for 
 delivering short of the destination by reason of 
 
 the collision. The Leo, Lush. 444 ; 81 L. J., 
 Ailm. 78 ; 6 L. T. 58. 
 
 Arrest of wrong Ship.]— A plaintiff in a 
 collision suit, who failed to prove the identity of 
 the ship arrested with the ship that had done the 
 damage : — Held, not liable in damages for arrest- 
 ing her, he having acted in good faith and 
 without gross negligence. Tlte Bpa/u/elismos, 
 11 Moore, P. C. 352 ; Swabey, 378. And see The 
 Active, 5 L. T. 773, infra, col. 856. 
 
 Compromise — Doubt as to Law — Consideration. ] 
 
 — The defendants in a collision suit, in considera- 
 tion of the plaintiii's releasing the ship fi'ora 
 arrest in admiralty, agreed to pay 1 So/, for the 
 damage done ; the defendants' ship was in 
 charge of a compulsory pilot at the time, and 
 the law as to the liability of the shipowners in 
 such case was unsettled : — Held, that there was; 
 a good consideration for the promise to pay 180/. 
 Longr'uhje v. BorriUe, 5 B. & Aid. 117. 
 
 Discontinuance.] — See The Ardandhn ox The 
 Kronprinz, ante, col. 651. 
 
 Limitation of Liability — Stay of Actions after, ]. 
 
 — See The Sixter.s, and cases ante, col. 749. 
 
 Right of Beginning. ]— Where a defendant 
 
 admits in the pleadings that his sliip, when under- 
 way, ran into a vessel at anchor, but denies that 
 the vessel at anchor was the vessel of the plain- 
 tiff, the i)laintiff must begin and prove his case. 
 The Earl of Leicester, Br. & Lush. 188. 
 
 The defendants, by their pleadings, made no 
 charge against the plaintiffs, but only denied 
 generally the averments in the petition, and 
 pleaded inevitable accident : — Held, that defen- 
 dants ought to begin. 'The Thomas Lea, 38 
 L. J., Adm. 87 ; 20 L. T. 1017. 
 
 Eight of Reply.] — In a cause of collision, in. 
 which the evidence has been taken before an. 
 examiner of the court, the plaintiff's counsel is. 
 entitled to reply, lite Iljvhait, 14 W. R. 978. 
 
 Sale of Ship arrested and in perishable 
 Condition,] — A ship arrested in a damage suit, 
 being in a perishable condition, first decree made 
 for her sale. The St/lraii, 2 Hag. Adm. 155. 
 
 Function of Nautical Assessors in Admiralty.] 
 
 —See cols. 849, 999. 
 
 Action at Common Law — Nautical 
 
 Assessors.] — New trial ordered (1826) in a 
 collision action at common law, at which " the 
 judge may have the assistance of two of the 
 brethren of the trinity house to explain the 
 duties of the masters of both ships." Jameson 
 Y.Drinhald, 5 L. J., C. P. 30. 
 
 Assessors Disagreeing.] — Semble, that 
 
 where the two assessors disagree, the court can 
 call in a third, and, after submitting the evidence 
 alreaily given to him, have the case re-ai'gued 
 before the three assessors. The Philotaxe, 37 
 L. T. 540; 8 Asp. M. C. 512. 
 
 The judgment is that of the judge, and he may 
 decide in accordance with advice of one or more 
 of the assessors or not as he thinks lit. Ih. 
 
 Reference— Total Loss Caused by Plaintiffs 
 Negligence — Special Report.] — If tipon reference 
 the plaintiffs present a case of innnediate partial 
 damage resulting in the total loss of their ship.
 
 853 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 854 
 
 and no evidence is given on either side of the 
 pecuniary extent of such partial damage, and 
 the registrar is of opinion that the plaintiffs are 
 not entitled to recover the total loss, upon the 
 ground that by ordinary skill and diligence after 
 the collision they might have avoided it, but are 
 entitled to recover the partial damages, he 
 should not assess the amount of the partial 
 damages conjecturally and report such amount 
 to be due, but should make a special report to 
 the court : and the court will then order a 
 further reference to ascertain the amount of the 
 partial damages by evidence. IF. M.S. FlyiiKj 
 Fish, Br. & Lush. 436 ; 2 Moore, P. C. (N.s)' 77; 
 3i L. J., Adm. 113 ; 12 L. T. 619. 
 
 Beference — Practice as to.]— Practice of the 
 Admiralty Court, as to referring questions of 
 damages to the registrar and mei'chants, explained. 
 The Sir Geo?-(/p Seymonr, 1 Spinks, 67. 
 
 Foreign Suit pending.]— In a cause of damage 
 in respect of ci >llision between two foreign vessels 
 in the Bosphorus ; semble. that if a suit as to the 
 same subject-matter is pending elsewhere whereby 
 the plaintiff can obtain full indemnity, the 
 Court of Admiraltj^ will suspend the proceedings 
 in its court or put the plaintiff to his election : 
 and the court will so act whether the proceed- 
 ings elsewhere are in rem or in personam. The 
 Mali Iro, 3S L. J., Adm. 34 : L. R. 2 A. & E. 
 3r>6 ; 20 L. T. 681. 
 
 Judgment obtained.] — Wliere cross 
 
 actions between an English and a foreign ship 
 were hearrl and judgment given in a foreign 
 court in favour of the English shij) in both 
 actions, and suits in the Court of Admiralty were 
 afterwaifis heard and the English vessel found 
 alone to blame : — Held, that she must be con- 
 demned in damages and costs, notwithstanding 
 the foreign judgments. The Delta, The Erminia 
 Foxeohi. 4r, L. .]., Adm. Ill; 1 P. D. 3!>3 ; 3.-) 
 L. T. 376 : 2.") W. 11. 16 ; 3 Asp. M. ('. 2.-)6. 
 
 Plea of Judgment in Admiralty.] — A ])lea in 
 a common-law action of a decree in the Admiralty 
 Court, in the defendant's favour, in respect of 
 the same collision, is bad, if it does not state 
 that the admiralty had jurisdiction. Jfarris v. 
 W'illix, 1,-) C. B. 710 ; 24 L. J., C. P. 1)3 ; 3 C. L. li. 
 601) : 3 \\. K. 23.S. 
 
 Verdict and Judgment at Law.] — A verdict 
 anil jncl'^nncnt at law aie no liar to suVjsequent 
 proceedings in adrniialty. The Chirenee, 1 
 Spinks, 206. I'.ut see. jicr Knight Bruce, L.J., 
 1 Spinks, 20'.), n. ; The Sylph, 'M L. .!., Adm. 
 14 ; L. R. 2 A. i: E. 24 ;' 17 L. T. nil) ; The 
 Anfelnj),'. 42 L. J., Adm. 42 : L. R. 4 A. ct E. 33 : 
 2K L. T. 74 : 21 \V. II. 16 I ; 1 A-;p. M. C. oil. 
 
 Res Judicata — Consular Court.] — Plea of res 
 judicata in case wIk re judL'mcnt was given in a 
 cnllision action Ijy a court summoned by the 
 Prussian legatirm, at Constantinople, overruled. 
 The Gricfxirald, Swabey, 430. 
 
 Consolidation of Actions.] — Where several 
 actions are brought against a ship in respect of 
 one collision by different plaintiffs, and several 
 bail bonds given, and the actions are consolidated 
 by order of the court, and the damage pro- 
 nounced for in the usual course, the court has 
 the power to open the order of consolidation and 
 dissever the actions, but will not do so unless 
 
 due cause is shewn. The Williant Ilutt. Lush. 
 2.5 ; 1 Swabey, 696 ; 2 L. T. 448. 
 
 Judgment by Consent — Setting aside by 
 Consent.] — In an action by the owners of the 
 '• Britannia " against the owners of the '■ Bell- 
 cairn " for collision, a judgment dismissing claim 
 and counter-claim was taken by consent. Sub- 
 sequently, the owners of cargo on board the 
 •' Britannia " brought an action against the 
 owners of the " Bellcairu," and obtaiiied a judg- 
 ment that both ships were to blame. The 
 owners of the '' Bellcairn " then limited their 
 liability and paid the money into court, and the 
 owners of the "Britannia" having, with the 
 consent of the owners of the '• Bellcairn," 
 obtained an order in the registry setting aside 
 the judgment in the first action, brought in a 
 claim against the fund in court : — Held, that the 
 order setting aside the judgment of the court 
 was void, and that the owners of the " Britannia " 
 could not claim against the fund in court. The 
 Bellcairn, .5.5 L. J., Adm. 3 : 10 P. D. 161 ; 53 
 L. T. 686 : 34 W. R. 5.5 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 503— 
 C. A. 
 
 Sale of Ship and Cargo — Freight.] — Where in 
 an action in rem for collision against ship and 
 freight, in which the defendants' ship was held 
 solely to blame, the ship being still under arrest 
 with the cargo on board, was ordered to be 
 sold ; the court on motion directed the marshal 
 to discharge the cargo, to retain the same in his 
 custody as security for the payment of the land- 
 ing and other charges and freight, if any, due 
 from the owners or consignees of the cargo in 
 respect of the same, and that in default of any 
 application for the delivery of the cargo within 
 fourteen days, the marshal should be authorised 
 to sell such part of the cargo as might be neces- 
 sary to pay the said charges and freight, if any, 
 due. The Gettiixhimj. 52 L. T. (io ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 347. 
 
 Payment out of rem found due for Damages.] 
 
 — A shijAvright who had effected repairs on a 
 ship after a collisiim, for which the other ship 
 was held in fault, ai)plied to have the amount 
 found due by the registrar paid out to him upon 
 the giound that the owners were bankrupt and 
 had paid him nothing : — Application refused. 
 The Endearour, 62 L. T. 840 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 511. 
 
 Doubt as to Plaintiff being Owner.] — If a 
 
 question is raist'd. aftrr judgment in a collision 
 suit, wiiether the jilaintitl' was the owner of the 
 injured sliij). tlie amount found due ui)on the 
 reference will be ordered to l)e paid into the 
 registrj'. The llos, Swabey, KK). Ami see 'J'ltc 
 Minna, supra, col. 725. 
 
 Priorities of Claimants.] — Of two plaintiffs 
 in two damage causes he who fiist obtains a 
 decree is entitled to prioi'ity. Where the pro- 
 ceeils of the defendant's shi]i are in the registry, 
 anil the second plaintiff' tliinks that they are 
 insufficient to satisfy both claims, he must aj))ily 
 to the court before decree pionounced. The 
 Clara, Swabey, 1. 
 
 Second Suit Begun — Payment out of 
 
 Damages.] — Wlierc thi; owneis of llu; damaged 
 ship and the owneis of part of her cargo had 
 obtained a decree in their favour : — Held, that 
 they were entitled to have the proceeds of the 
 wrongdoing ship paid out of court to them,
 
 855 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 856 
 
 although the owners of the rest of the cargo 
 have, after decree in the first suit, instituted a 
 secdud suit ae:ainst. the wrongdoing ship. T/m 
 Saraceu, 4 Not. of Cas. 498 ; 2 W. Rob. 4.51 ; 6 
 Moore. P. C. .56. 
 
 Appeal upon Facts alone — Reluctance of Privy 
 Council to differ from Judge below.] — The judi- 
 cial counnittee refused to reverse a decision of 
 the court below u})on facts alone, the judge 
 having had the advantage of seeing the witnesses 
 and judging of their credibility. T/ie Alice and 
 The Princexx Alice, 38 L. J., Adm. 5 ; L. R. 2 P. C. 
 245 ; 19 L. T. 678 ; 17 W. R. 209. 
 
 Remission of Action from Court of Appeal.] — 
 
 If the cause is leuiitted from the Court of 
 Appeal, with injunction " to proceed according 
 to the tenor of former acts had and done," the 
 court has no authority to relax an order made 
 previously to the appeal. Tlie Williaui Hiitt, 
 Lush. 25 ; 1 Swabey, 696 ; 2 L. T. 448. 
 
 Contributory Negligence — Appeal — Point not 
 taken below.] — The privy council will not enter- 
 tain on ajipeal in a case of collision a question 
 of contributory negligence which was not raised 
 in the court below. TJie Pleiades v. lite Jane, 
 m L. J., P. C. 59 ; [1891] A. C. 2.59 ; 65 L. T. 
 169 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 41— P. C. 
 
 1. Costs. 
 
 i. Ciciu'vallij. 
 
 Against the Crown.] — Costs may be given 
 against the Crown where the lords of the admi- 
 ralty appear to contest a collision suit. The 
 Swallow, Swabey, 80. 
 
 In a cause of damage instituted on behalf of 
 her majesty in her office of admiralty, and of 
 the commander and crew of one of her majesty's 
 ships against a private shipowner, the court on a 
 finding for the defendant, decline to condemn 
 the Crown in costs, but condemned the com- 
 mander and crew to pay the whole of the costs. 
 The Leda, Br. k. Lush. 19 ; 32 L. J., Adm. 58 ; 9 
 Jur. (x.s.) 208 ; 7 L. T. 864 ; 11 W. R. 302. 
 
 Co-plaintiffs are severally liable to the whole 
 of the costs. Ih. 
 
 Misconduct after Collision punished by.] — 
 
 Owner of ship that rendered no assistance to 
 another with which she had been in collision, 
 though not in fault for the collision, condemned 
 in costs. The Celt, 3 Hag. Adm. 343. 
 
 A Dutch and a Spanish ship were in collision 
 in the Channel. The Spanish seamen came on 
 board the Dutch ship with knives and were 
 violent. The Dutch shij) was held in fault for 
 the collision, but no costs were given to the 
 Spanish ship. The Catalinu, 2 Spinks, 23. 
 
 Compromise — Collusion.] — In an admiralty 
 wages action, the plaintiffs and defendants com- 
 promised the action by payment by the defen- 
 dants to the plaintiffs of a sum in discharge of 
 claim and costs. The plaintiffs left the country 
 without paying their solicitors' costs. There 
 was no evidence that the settlement was made 
 with a view of depriving the plaintiffs' solicitors 
 ■of their lien for costs :— Held, that no order 
 could be made that the defendants pay the plain- 
 tiffs their taxed costs. The Hope. 52 L. J., Adm. 
 63 ; 8 P. D. 144 : 49 L. T. 148 ; 32 W. R. 269 : 
 5 A.sp. M. C. 126— C. A. 
 
 Co-defendants — Costs of successful Defendant.] 
 
 — The duiiil) liarge •' E.," wliile in tow of the 
 steamtug •' S.,'" was damaged by a collision with 
 the steamship " R. LT" The owners of the " E." 
 commenced an action joining the owners of both 
 vessels as defendants. At the trial " R. L." was 
 found alone to blame : — Held, that the owners of 
 the " R. L.," having endeavoured to throw the 
 blame on the " S.," must pay her costs as well as 
 those of theplaintiffs. Tlie Ricer Lagan, 57 L. J., 
 Adm. 28 ; 58 L. T. 773 ; 6 A.sp. M. C. 281. 
 
 Wrong Ship sued.] — If the plaintiff negligently 
 arrests the wrong ship he will have to pay costs. 
 TIte IJra/K/eli/inio.s, Swabey, 378 ; 12 Moore, P. C. 
 352. S. P., The Active, 5 L. T. 773 ; The Strath- 
 nacer, 1 App. Cas. 58 ; 34 L. T. 148 ; 3 Asp. 
 M. C. 113. And see The Peri, 32 L. J., Adm. 46; 
 8 Jur. (N.S.) 1230 ; 11 W. R. 44. 
 
 Collision caused by Fault of third Ship — Costs.] 
 
 — The owners of a pier in the Thames sued the 
 owners of the "Valencia" and the owners of 
 the " Alfred " for damage done to their pier 
 by the "Valencia." The "Valencia" owners 
 admitted collision with the pier, but said that 
 their ship was driven against the pier by the 
 negligent navigation of the " Alfred " ; and the 
 jury so founil : — Held, that the "Alfred " owners 
 must pay the costs of the " Valencia " owners as 
 well as those of the plaintiffs. Green v. Goodyer, 
 6 Asp. M. C. 281, n. 
 
 Costs in Limitation Action.] — -See The Warli- 
 worth and cases, supra, col. 753. 
 
 Expense of detaining Witnesses.] — The ex- 
 
 jiense of detaining witnesses until the trial is 
 allowetl as costs. The Karlu, Br. & Lush. 367 ; 
 13 W. R. 295. 
 
 Cost of Bail.] — Money paid to sureties on a 
 bail bond in consideration of their suretj'ship is 
 not allowed as costs. Tlte Xuinida, The Collin- 
 grore, 54 L. J., Adm. 78 ; 10 P. D. 158 ; 53 
 L. T. 681 ; 34 W. R. 156 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 483. 
 
 Costs of paying Freight into Court.] — The 
 owner of cargo arrested for freight may deduct 
 the costs of paying it into court. The Leo, Lush. 
 414 : 31 L. J., Adm. 78 ; 6 L. T.58. 
 
 Monition to pay in Freight — Doubt as to Law.] 
 
 — Where freight was not brought in by the 
 person against whom a monition had issued, upon 
 a reasonable doubt as to whether the act 3 <lc 4 
 Will. 4, c. 57, s. 47, allowed it, costs not given, the 
 appearer having abandoned his petition. The 
 Lord Aiildand, 2 AV. Rob. 301. 
 
 Monition to pay — Res insufficient.] — The pro- 
 ceeds of a vessel sold in a collision suit being 
 insufficient, a monition issued against the owner *t 
 to pay costs. TJie John Dunn, 1 W. Rob. 159. 
 
 Costs of Commission for taking Evidence 
 abroad.] — Circumstances under which costs 
 allowed against unsuccessful party. The Hilda 
 and 'The Aiixtriilia. 12 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 
 574. 
 
 ii. ( oinpxl.sory Pilot. 
 
 Practice as to Costs.] — Defendants in a cause 
 of damage, who rely at the hearing upon the 
 defence of compulsory pilotage only, and succeed 
 in this point, but whose pleadings raise other 
 issues which are not proved, are not entitled to 
 their costs. The Llcia, 25 L.T. 887; 1 Asp. M.C. 204.
 
 857 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 858 
 
 Defendants in a collision suit, by their answer, 
 denied that their vessel was to blame, and also 
 set up the defence of compulsory pilotage. The 
 court decided that their vessel was to blame, but 
 dismissed the suit upon the ground that the 
 defence of compulsory pilotage was established : — 
 Held, that the plaintiff was not entitled to an}' 
 portion of the costs of the suit. The Sohwa/i. 
 The Robert Morrixon, 43 L. J., Adm. 18 ; L. R. 4 
 A. & E. 187 ; 30 L. T. 537 : 22 W. R. 743. S. P., 
 The Winston, .53 L. J.. Adm. 69 ; 9 P. D. 85 ; 51 
 L. T. 183 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 274— C. A. 
 
 In an action of damage, if the only defence is 
 that the collision was caused by the negligence 
 of a pilot taken by compulsion of law, the defen- 
 dants, if successful in establishing this defence, 
 are entitled to costs. The Juno, 45 L. J., Adm. 
 105 ; 1 P. D. 135 ; 34 L. T. 741 : 24 W. R. 902 : 
 3 Asp. M. C. 217. 
 
 The rule of the Court of Admiraltj-, that, where 
 the defendants .succeed on a plea of compulsory 
 pilotage, no costs are to be given, also holds good 
 in the Court of Appeal. The Daioz, 47 L. J., 
 Adm. 1 ; 37 L. T. 137 : 3 Asp. M. C. 477— C. A. 
 
 The admiralty division will adhere to the 
 practice of the High Court of Admiralty as to 
 costs in cases of compulsory pilotage. The Prince- 
 ton, 47 L. J., Adm. 33 ; 3 P. D. 90 ; 38 L. T. 260 : 
 3 Asp. M. C. 562. 
 
 Where the defendants in a collision suit raise a 
 defence on the merits, and also set up a plea of 
 compulsory' pilotage, and the court dismisses the 
 suit on the ground that the plea of compulsory 
 pilotage is established, each party to the suit 
 will, in accordance with the practice prevailing 
 in the Court of Admiralty before the Judicature 
 Acts, be left to bear his ownco-sts. The Matthew 
 Cay. 49 L. J., Adm. 47 ; 5 P. D. 49 ; 41 L. T. 759 ; 
 28 W. R. 262 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 224. S. P., The 
 Agricola, 2 W. Rob. 10. 
 
 The only defence was, that the coUisiim was 
 caused by the fault of a jiilot whom the defen- 
 dants were compelled to take. They having 
 proved their case : — Held, that plaintiffs must be 
 condemned in costs. The Roijal Charter, 38 
 L. J., A(hn. 36 ; L. R. 2 A. A: E. 362 : 20 L. T. 
 1019 ; LS W. R. 49. See also The Oakfirld, 55 
 L. J., Adm. 11 ; 11 P. D. 34 ; 54 L. T.".57.S : 34 
 W. R. 687 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 575 ; The Beta, P,r. A: 
 Lush. 328 ; 3 Moo. P. C. (N.S.) 23 : 34 L. J., Adm. 
 76 ; 12 L. T. 1 ; The InnixfaH and The Seeret, 35 
 L. T. 819 ; 3 Asj). M. C. 337. 
 
 Collision caused either }>y fault of compulsory 
 pilot or \>y accident : — Suit di.smissed with costs. 
 The Cantor, 6 L. T. 106. 
 
 Collision caused by fault of compulsory [lilot of 
 plaintiff's ship : — Plaintiff's action dismissed with 
 costs ; defen(lant's cross action dismissed without 
 costs. The Annajwliii and The Johaniui Stoll, 
 Lush. 295. 
 
 Where a suit is dismisse<l because the collision 
 was caused by the fault of a compulsory pilot, 
 costs were formerly never given. 'I'he Admiral 
 Boxer, Swaliev, 193. The Marathon, 48 L. J., 
 Arhi). 17. 
 
 Admiralty Rule not applied in other Divi- 
 sions, ^ — In ;ui iictiuii ill the i'X<'li(:ijU(;r divisiun, 
 tried by a jury, for damages caused by collisiun 
 of the defen<lants' ship with the idaintiffs' ship, 
 the defendants raised several grounds of defence, 
 but succeeded only on the ground that the col- 
 li.sion was causcfl by the negligence of the pilot, 
 ■whom they were compelled by law to employ. 
 The plaintiffs afterwards, under Ord. LV., applied 
 
 to the exchequer division for an order depriving 
 the defendants of costs, on the ground that in 
 the admiralty division a defendant under similar 
 circumstances is entitled to no costs : — -Held, that, 
 whether the exchequer division had or had not 
 power to make such an order, it ought not to be 
 made, for the rule which prevails in the admiralty 
 division does not extend to the other divisions. 
 The Daioz, General Steam JVaviffation Co. v. 
 London and Udinhtrt/h Shij)])inff Co., 47 L. J., 
 Ex. 77 : 2 Ex. D. 467 ; 36 L. T. 743 ; 25 W. R. 
 694 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 454 ; 47 L. J., Adm. 1 ; 37 L. T. 
 137 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 377— C. A. 
 
 Counter-claim — Defendant alone to blame.] — 
 In an action of damage arising out of a collision 
 the plaintiff's claim was dismissed without costs, 
 the court having found that the defendants' 
 vessel was alone to blame for the collision, but 
 that they were exempt from liability on the 
 ground of compulsory pilotage. The defendants 
 had counter-claimed : — Held, that, under the 
 circumstances, the plaintiffs were entitled to have 
 the counter-claim dismissed with costs. The 
 Ruby, 15 P. D. 139 ; 63 L. T. 735 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 577.' See S. C. in C. A., ante, col. 778. 
 
 Discontinuance — Compulsory Pilotage.] — In 
 
 an action of damage by collision, the defendants 
 pleaded, inter alia, that their vessel at the time 
 of the collision was compulsorily in charge of a 
 licensed pilot, and that the negligence, if an}', 
 which caused the collision, was solely that of the 
 pilot : — Held, that on the plaintiff's discontinuing 
 their action, they must pav the defendants' costs. 
 T?ie ./. //. IIenhe.s, 56 L. J., Adm. 69 ; 12 P. D. 106 ; 
 56 L. T. 581 : 35 W. R. 412 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 121. 
 
 Uncertainty of Law.] — Uncertainty of the law 
 as to compulsory pilotage assigned as a reason for 
 not giving successful party his costs. The Hankow, 
 48 L. J., Adm. 29 ; 4 P. "U. 197 ; 40 L. T. 335 ; 4 
 Asp. M. C. 97. 
 
 iii. Ineritable Aecident. 
 
 Costs — Inevitable Accident — Admission in 
 
 Pleadings,] — The plaintiffs in an action for 
 damage by collision admitted on the pleadings 
 that the collision was the result of an inevitable 
 accident : — Held, that the defendants wei'e 
 entitled to judgment with costs. Unless there are 
 special circumstances to induce the couit to 
 dejKii't fiom this rule, costs will be given against 
 the plaint iifs in an action of damage, whenever 
 the defi'iidants ])rove that the collision is the 
 result of an inevitable acciident. The jVa/Je.t, 
 55 L. J., Adm. 64 ; II P. I). 124 ; 55 L. T, 584 ; 
 35 W. R. 59 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 30. 
 
 A sailing ship in a gale drove fiom hei' anchors 
 acrossa saixl, and her rudder was so damaged as to 
 render the ship unmanageable ; in this comlit ion 
 she came into collision after sunset with a brig at 
 anchf>r. At the time of the collision the ship liad 
 her anchor-light exhibited and no other light, hi 
 an action of damage Ijy the owners of the brig 
 against the ship it was helil that the collisio7i was 
 occasioni'd by iiievital)Ie accident, and that the 
 ship, in the ciicunistanees of the (;ase, w.asnot to 
 be deemetl in fault for not carryingside-lights, or 
 the three red lights ])rescribed by the regulations, 
 and that the suit ought to be dismissed without; 
 costs. The Ruckhurxt. 51 L. J., Adm. 10 : 6 P. D. 
 1.52 : 46 L. T. 108 ; 30 W. R. 232 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 84. 
 
 When the defence of inevitable accident is 
 sustained, the plaintiff will tiot be ordered to pay
 
 859 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. CoUmon. 
 
 860 
 
 the costs, unless he might have known th.it there 
 was, apart from the merits, a good legal defence. 
 T/tr Virffo. 85 L. T. .519 ; 25 W. K. 81)7 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 285. 
 
 It is a rule in the Admiralty Court, where a 
 collision is found to be the result of .an inevitable 
 accident, to make lui order as to costs, unless it 
 can be shewn that the suit was brought unreason- 
 ably and without sufficient grounds. T/ie Mtir- 
 pr.'<)(i, S Moore. P. C. (N.S.) 468 ; L. K. 4 P. C. 212 ; 
 26 L. T. 883 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 261. 
 
 It is the practice of the Admiralty Court in case 
 of inevitable accident that each party should pay 
 its own costs. But if, from the circumstances of 
 the collision, it must have been obvious that the 
 collision was an inevitable accident, the court 
 will use its discretion as to dismissing the suit 
 ■with costs. Tlic Intnxfail^ The Secret, 35 L. T. 
 819 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 837". 
 
 Where the court finds inevitable accident, the 
 general rule is, that each party pays his own 
 costs ; but the court still holds, and will on occa- 
 .sion exercise, a discretionary power to condemn 
 the plaintiff in costs. TJte London, Br. & Lush. 
 «2 : 9 Jur. (N.S.) 1330 ; 9 L. T. 348. The Itinerant, 
 
 2 \V. Rob. 236. 
 
 Costs given against the claimant in a case of 
 collision which was an inevitable accident. The 
 Thurnley, 7 Jur. 659. 
 
 Inevitable accident found by Court of Appeal ; 
 decision below reversed. The modern rule is that 
 costs follow the event in case of collision by 
 inevitable accident, unless there are special cir- 
 cumstances. The Monliscatun, 58 L. J., Adm. 52 ; 
 14 P. D. 51 ; 60 L. T. 662 ; 37 W. R. 523 ; 6 
 Asp. M. C. 383. S. P., The Bafavier, 59 L. J., Adm. 
 546 ; 15 P. D. 37 ; 62 L. T. 406 ; 38 W. E. 522 ; 
 6 Asp. M. C. 500— C. A. 
 
 For earlier decisions aliter, see The Corinna, 35 
 L. T. 781 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 307 ; The Agra and The 
 Mizaheth Jenkins, 4 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 435 ; 36 
 L. J., Adm. 16 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 501 ; 16 L. T. 755 ; 
 16 W. R. 735 ; and cases supra. 
 
 Both ships found in fault in court below ; one 
 appeals ; appeal dismissed, with costs. Tlie 
 Milanese, 45 L. T. 151 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 438— H.L. (E.) 
 
 A. held alone in fault in court below ; B. alone 
 in fault in Court of Appeal ; A. gets costs of 
 appeal and below. The Glannihunta and The 
 'Jransit, 1 P. D. 283 ; 34 L. T. 934 ; 24 W. R. 1033 ; 
 
 3 Asp. M. C. 339— C. A. 
 
 iv. Both Vessels in Fault. 
 
 Both Vessels to blame — Action by Owners of 
 Cargo.] — The owners of a cargo laden on boaid 
 a vessel which had been sunk in a collision with 
 another vessel brought an action of damage 
 against the owners of such other vessel. The 
 judge of the admiralty division pronounced that 
 both vessels were to blame for the collision, gave 
 the plaintiffs half their damages from the defen- 
 dants, and condemned the defendants in the costs 
 of the action. The decision that both vessels were 
 to blame was upheld by the Court of Appeal : — 
 Held, that as the plaintiffs had failed on the issue 
 that the vessel carrying the cargo was not to 
 blame, no costs ought to have been given. The 
 City of Manchester, 49 L. J., Adm. 81 ; 5 P. D. 
 221 ; 42 L. T. 521 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 261. .S. P., 
 The Vera Crnz, 53 L. J., Adm. 33 ; 9 P. D. 88 ; 
 51 L. T. 104 : 32 W. R. 783 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 270. 
 Cf. The Washington. 5 Jur. 1067 ; The Telegraph, 
 1 Spinks, 427 ; The Lake St. Clair and The 
 Underwriter, 2 App. Cas. 389 ; 63 L. T. 155 ; 3 
 
 Asp. M. C. 361. The Lore Bird, 6 P. D. 80 ; 44 
 L. T. 650 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 427. The Righorqs Minde, 
 52 L. J., Adm. 74 ; 8 P. D. 117 ; 49 L.'T. 23 ; 5 
 Asp. M. C. 460— C. A. 
 
 When both ships are to blame for a collision, 
 the damages are equally divided, and each party 
 bears his own costs. The Agra and Elizahetli 
 Jenkins, 4 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 438 ; 36 L. J., Adm. 
 16 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 501 ; 16 L. T. 755 ; 16 W. R. 735. 
 
 In a collision case where both ships are to 
 blame, the plaintiff is entitled to his costs if in 
 his statement of claim he admits that he is to 
 blame. The General Gordon, 63 L. T. 117; 6 
 Asp. M. C. 533. 
 
 Both ships in fault. Appeal dismissed with 
 costs except so far as increased by respondent 
 adhering to ai)peal. The Mceander and The 
 Florence Nightingale, 1 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 63 ; 
 Br. & Lush. 29. 
 
 The case of The Milan (Lush. 388) does not lay 
 down any general rule that whenever owners of 
 cargo succeed in an action brought by them to 
 recover damages for the loss of or injury to the 
 cargo, they are entitled to the whole costs of the 
 litigation. " The circumstances of each particular 
 case must introduce a variation in the way the 
 costs are given " — per Baggallay, L. J. The City 
 of Manchester, supra. iSemble, The Hibernia, 5 
 P. D. 3 ; 31 L. T. 805 ; 24 W. R. 6o ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 454, not now followed. 
 
 The rule of no costs where both ships in fault, 
 applies where the fault of one ship is the fault 
 of her compulsory pilot. The Hector, 52 L. J., Adm. 
 51 ; 8 P. D. 218 ; 87 W. R. 491 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 1013. 
 The Riglorgs Minde, supra. The Oakfeld, supra, 
 col. 778. 
 
 In Court of Appeal — Where both Ships in 
 Fault.] — See The Xorth American, infra. 
 
 V. Aj>jjeal. 
 
 When the Court of Appeal varies the decision 
 of the judge of the admiralty division, by which 
 he found one vessel wholly to blame for a colli- 
 sion, by finding that the collision was an inevi- 
 table accident, the practice of the privy council 
 that each party should, except under very excep- 
 tional circumstances, pay their own costs, will be 
 followed. The City of Cambridge, 35 L. T. 781 ; 
 
 3 Asp. M. C. 307— C. A. 
 
 When the Court of Appeal varies a decision of 
 the judge of the admiralty division, by which 
 he found one vessel wholly to blame for a colli- 
 sion, by finding that both vessels are to blame, 
 each party will pay its own costs, both in the 
 court below and in the Court of Appeal. The 
 Corinna, 35 L. T. 781 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 807— C. A. 
 
 Semble, in successful admiralty appeals the 
 appellants will have their costs of the appeal. 
 2'he Swansea and The Condor, or Perkins v. The 
 Condor, 48 L. J., Adm. 33 ; 4 P. D. 115 ; 40 L. T. 
 442 ; 27 W. R. 748 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 11.5— C. A. And 
 cp. The City of Berlin, 47 L. J., Adm. 2 : 2 P. D. 
 187 ; 37 L. T. 307 ; 25 W. R. 793 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 491— C. A. 
 
 When the Court of Appeal varies the decision 
 of the court below by finding both vessels to 
 blame for a collision, there will be no order as to 
 costs, but each party must bear the costs of the 
 whole litigation. The Milaiiesc, 45 L. T. 151 ; 
 
 4 Asp. M. C. 438— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Action and cross action ; judgment, both ships 
 to blame and damages to be divideii ; appeal by 
 one party in both actions, and adherence to the
 
 861 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision. 
 
 862 
 
 appeal by the other party ; the judgment being 
 attirmed, each party was sentenced to pay his 
 own costs. The Saxoiiiu and The Eclipnc^ Lush. 
 41U : 15 Moore, P. C. 262 ; 31 L. J., Adm. 201 ; 8 
 Jur. (N.s.) 315 ; 6 L. T. 6 ; 10 W. K. 431— P. C. 
 
 Judgment of the Court of Admiralty in a 
 cause of collision, which imputed mutual blame, 
 and condemned each party in a moiety of the 
 damages and costs, reversed by the judicial 
 committee upon a review of the evidence and 
 the opinion of the nautical assessors. 'The 
 Singapore and The Hebe, 4 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 
 271 : L. R. 1 P. C. 378. 
 
 Where both ships are found in fault in the 
 court below and the decree is affirmed no costs of 
 appeal are given. The North American and The 
 Teda Carmen, Swabey, 358 ; 12 Moore, P. C. 331 ; 
 Lush. 79. But see next ease. 
 
 Where an appeal from a judgment in a collision 
 action that both ships are to blame is dismissed, 
 the appellant will be ordered to pay the costs of 
 the appeal except so far as they have been 
 increased bv notice given by the respondent under 
 Ord. LVIII. r. 6 (1879), of his intention to ask 
 for a variation of the judgment. 'Tlie Lauretta, 
 48 L. J., AAm. 55 ; 4 P. D. 25 ; 40 L. T. 444 ; 27 
 W. R. 9U2; 4 Asp. M. C. 118. 
 
 Where the Court of Appeal reverses or varies 
 the decision of the court below and finds both 
 ships in fault, no costs of the appeal or of the 
 court below are given. 'The Hector, supra, col. 
 860 ; The Ituihoryis Mlnde, supra ; 'The Arratoon 
 Ajjvar, 59 L. J.. P. C. 49 ; 15 App. Cas. 37 ; 62 
 L. T. 331 ; 38 W. R. 481 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 491— P. C. 
 
 Appeal dismissed without costs because the 
 appellant pleaded the other ship ported, whereas, 
 in fact, she caused the collision by starboarding. 
 The Ann, Lush. 55 ; 13 Moore, P. C. 198 ; 3 L. T. 
 128 ; 8 W. R. 567. 
 
 vi. Jliffh Court or County Court. 
 
 Less than £300 recovered.] — The comt will 
 not give a successful plaintiff his costs in actions 
 which might have been commenced in the county 
 court, unless there arc special circumstances to 
 justify the plaintiff in bringing the action in the 
 High Court. The Asia. 60 L. J., Adm. 38 ; [1891] 
 P. 121 ; 64 L. T. 327 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 25. 
 
 In an action of damage by collision, the 
 hearing lasted five hours, and the decision 
 mainly turned on the inability of the defendants 
 to exonerate their steamship from the charge of 
 not keeping out of the way of the plaintiff's' 
 steamer, a hirge vessel in tow of tugs, and which 
 the defendants' steamer was overtaking in the 
 river 'J'hames. In the result the defendants' 
 vessel was held alone to blame, and the damages 
 were referred in the usual way to the registiar 
 an<l merchants. — The plaintiffs filed their par- 
 ticulars of claim amounting to 339^. ]5.v. Id., but 
 the reference was not pioceeiled with, as the 
 parties agreed the damages at 226/. 5*. — On 
 motion on behalf of tlie phiintiffs, to cundemn 
 the defendants and their bail in that amount, 
 with interest, and in the costs of the action, the 
 defendants contended that the plaintiffs were 
 not entitled to their costs, as tlie amount recovered 
 was under the statutory county court limit of 
 300/., and therefore, the action ought to have 
 been brought in a county court: — Held, that 
 the plaintiffs were entitled to their costs, for the 
 discretion of the court in allowing, or refusing, 
 costs now depends upon whether, considering the 
 facts and the circumstances of the particular 
 
 case, the plaintiffs have acted properly and 
 reasonably in bringing their action in the High 
 Court, and — considering the size of the vessels, 
 the nature of the collision, the length of time 
 the hearing lasted, and the judgment pronounced 
 — this case was a proper one to be tried in the 
 High Court. The Salthurn, [1892] P. 333 ; 1 R. 
 543 ; 69 L. T. 88 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 325. 
 
 Where successful plaintiffs in a collision action 
 in the High Court recovered less than 300/. they 
 were allowed no costs, although they claimed 
 more than the county court limit. The Herald. 
 
 63 L. T. 324 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 542. 
 
 By s. 9 of the County Courts Admiralty Juris- 
 diction Act, 1868 : "If any peison shall take in 
 the High Court of Admiialty, or in any superior 
 court, proceedings which he might, without 
 agreement, have taken in a count}' com't, . . . 
 and shall not recover a sum exceeding the amount 
 to which the jurisdiction of the county court in 
 the admiralty cause is limited by this act, . . . 
 he shall not be entitled to costs, and shall be 
 liable to be condemned in costs," unless the judge 
 Vjcfore whom the cause is tried shall certify that 
 it was a proper admiralty cause, to be tried in 
 the Admiralty Court or in a superior court : — 
 Held, that this enactment was inconsistent with 
 the discretionary power as to costs given to the 
 court by Ord. LXV. r. 1, and must, therefore, be 
 taken to be repealed. Tenant v. Ellii^^^ Q. B. D. 
 46) approved. Rochett v. CVipinncjdale or Chip- 
 pinqdule, 60 L. J., Q. B. 782 ^[1891] 2 Q. B. 293 ; 
 
 64 L. T. 641— C. A. 
 
 vii. lieference. 
 
 An action of damage was brought by the 
 owners of the ship " V." against the ship " S.," 
 and the owners of the " S." claimed tlamages by 
 way of counter-claim against the " V." At the 
 hearing of the action the court found both ships 
 to blame for the collision, condemned the owners 
 of each ship in a moiety of the damage sustained 
 Ijy the other, referred the cjuestion of damages to 
 the registrar and merchants and made no order 
 as to costs. Afterwards the owiu;rs of the " S." 
 brought their counter-claim into the registry. No 
 tender was made by the owners of the " V.," and 
 the registrar struck off less than otie-ninth of the 
 amount claimed, but made no reconnnendaticm 
 as to the costs of the reference. The court, on 
 till! application of the owners of the " S.," cdu- 
 demiied the owners of the "V." in the ct)sts 
 of and incident to the reference. The Con.s-ett 
 (infra) followed. The Savernake, 49 L. J., Adm. 
 71 ; 5 P. D. 166; 29 W. R. 123; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 34, n. 
 
 In an action of damage brought h\ the owners 
 of the ship " J." and the owners of the cargo on 
 board her against another vessel, the court pro- 
 nounced that the two vessels were both to blame 
 for the collision, and condemned the defendants 
 in a moiety of (he damage proceeiied for : — Held, 
 that the owners of the cargo on boaid the "J." 
 were entitled to the costs of the affidavits 
 brougiit in by them in sujjport of their claim at 
 the reference. The Cunsett. 5 P. D. 77 ; 42 L. T. 
 33 ; 28 W. R. 622 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 230— C. A. 
 
 Where, in an action of damage, the defendant 
 sets up a counter-claim relating to the collision 
 in respect of which the action is brought, and 
 both ships arc held to blame, and a reference is 
 ordered to ascertain the amount of damage sus- 
 tained by each ship, each party is, as a general
 
 863 
 
 SHIPPING— XX. Collision . 
 
 864 
 
 rule, entitled to the costs of establishing his 
 claim before the registrar, in'ovided that not 
 more than one-fourth of his claim has been dis- 
 allowed. The Mary, 7 P. D. 201 ; 48 L. T. 28 ; 
 31 W. R. 248 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 33. 
 
 Where a plaintiff claimed unliquidated damages 
 in respect of loss of the remainder of a season's 
 fishing occasioned by a collision, and on a refer- 
 ence to tlie registrar and merchants, the defendant 
 objectetl to tlie claim altogether, but the plaintiff 
 recoveretl, being awarded less than two-thirds of 
 the amount claimed by him as damages, the court 
 gave him costs in respect of the reference on the 
 ground of the peculiarity of the plaintiff's claim, 
 and without prejudice to the general rule as to 
 costs of references. The Gleaner, 38 L. T. G50 ; 
 3 Asp. M. G. .582. 
 
 Where the amount of damage is referred to 
 the registrar and merchants, and a tender is 
 made by the defendant but not accepted by the 
 plaintiff, if the amount pronounced to be due is 
 less than two-thirds of the claim, but exceeds 
 the tender of the defendant, the plaintiff is liable 
 for the general costs of the reference, but the 
 defendant for the costs occasioned by his making 
 an insufficient tender. The Seine, Swabey, .513 ; 
 
 2 L. T. 340. 
 
 The ordinary rule, that a plaintiff shall pay 
 the costs of the reference to the registrar and 
 merchants, if their rejjort disallows more than 
 one-third of his claim, is not to be relaxed, even 
 if he fails in substantiating his entire claim upon 
 a question of law only. The Empress Eugenie, 
 Lush. 138. 
 
 In a damage action, at the reference, more than 
 one-third of the plaintiff's claim was disallowed ; 
 the greater part of the items disallowed being 
 sums claimed in respect of salvage service ren- 
 dered after the collision : — Held, that the usual 
 rule should not prevail, and that under the special 
 circumstances the plaintiffs were entitled to 
 their costs. The Berhlce, 6 L. T. 106. 
 
 Notwithstanding a general rule that where 
 more than one-fourth of the plaintiff's claim was 
 struck off no costs of reference were given, it 
 was always within the registrar's discretion to 
 allow the plaintiff his costs. The Amelia, 23 
 L. T. 544 ; I'J W. R. 216. And see The Willi am in a, 
 
 3 P. D. 97. See The Elina, 5 P. D. 237, n. ; 
 The Parana, 2 P. D. 118 ; 36 L. T. 388 ; 25 W. R. 
 596 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 399— C. A. 
 
 Claimant ordered to pay costs of reference ; 
 less than two-thirds of original claim proved. 
 The Eilean Eubh, 49 L. T. 444 ; 5 Asp. M. G. 
 154. 
 
 There is no hard-and-fast rule as to allowing 
 or disallowing costs of the reference. The 
 Friedeherq, 54 L. J., Adm. 75 ; 10 P. D. 112 ; 52 
 L. T. 837 ; 33 W. R. 687 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 426. 
 
 Costs of appeal from the registrar's report 
 usually follow the result of the appeal. The 
 Mack Prince, Lush. 568 ; The Parana, supra. 
 
 Where more than one-third of the plaintiff's 
 claim was disallowed by the registrar, the plain- 
 tiffs were condemned in the costs of the reference. 
 The Naomi, 32 L. T. 836 ; 23 W. R. 387 ; 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 588. S. P., The Englishman, 38 L. T. 756 
 (where the rule as to one-third was considered 
 to be binding on the court) ; Tlie Gleaner, 
 supra. 
 
 Upon a reference in a collision cause more than 
 one-fourth and less than one-third of the claim 
 was disallowed : — Held, each party must pay his 
 own costs of the reference. The Peerless, Lush. 
 30 ; 6 L. T. 107, 
 
 viii. Security for Costs. 
 
 Where a plaintiff has recently executed a deed 
 of assignment of all his property to an assignee, 
 he will be required to give .security for the costs 
 of suit, unless he satisfies the court that he is 
 solvent. The fact that he is carrying on business 
 is not sufticient proof of his solvency. The Lake 
 Mefiantic, 36 L. T. 183 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 382. 
 
 A defendant in a collision cause making a 
 counter-claim for the damage sustained by his 
 own vessel, must, if he is resident out of the 
 jurisdiction, give security for the costs, not 
 merely of his counter-claim, but of the whole 
 action. The Julia Fisher, 2 P. D. 115 ; 36 L. T. 
 257 ; 25 W. R. 756 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 380— C. A. 
 
 If he makes default in giving security for costs 
 pursuant to order, he will have his counter-claim 
 dismissed. / h. 
 
 Where the plaintiff in a collision suit was 
 resident out of the jurisdiction, the Admiralty 
 Court required him to give security for costs. 
 The Sophie, 1 W. Rob. 326 ; The Volant, 1 
 W. Rob. 383 ; The Johanna Frederich, 1 W. Rob. 
 39 ; The Lord Cochrane, I W. Rob. 312 ; The 
 Coiutantine, 4 P. D. 156 ; 27 W. R. 747— C. A. 
 The Newhattle, 54 L. J., Adm. 16 ; 10 P. D. 33 ; 
 52 L. T. 15 ; 33 W. R. 318 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 356. 
 
 XXI. PASSENGER SHIPS. 
 
 1. Qualiji cation, 864. 
 
 2. Contracts of Conveyance, 866. 
 
 3. Emigrant Ships, 873. 
 
 4. Passage Broker, 873. 
 
 1. Qualification. 
 
 Number of Passengers — Tonnage.] — Under 
 18 & 19 Vict. c. 119, ss. 3 and 71, a sailing ship is 
 not a passenger ship because she carries more 
 than thirty passengers, or more than one statute 
 adult passenger to every fifty tons, if that number 
 or proportion is not made up without reckoning 
 cabin passengers ; and where persons are cabin 
 passengers in all respects except that of having 
 received contract tickets in the form in schedule 
 K. which in its terms applies to passenger ships 
 only, such persons, for the purpose of estimating 
 the number or proportion, are to be reckoned as 
 cabin passengers ; aud unless, without including 
 them, the number or proportion is not made up, 
 the ship is not a passenger ship. Ellis v. Pearce, 
 El. Bl. & El. 431 ; 27 L. J., M. C. 257 ; 4 Jur. 
 (N.s.) 1275 ; 6 W. R. 683. 
 
 Certificate from Board of Trade — Defence to 
 Action on Policy.] — In an action on a marine 
 policy, a plea that the ship was sent by the 
 owners with i)assengers on board on the voyage 
 on which she was lost, without the owners having 
 done what was necessary to enable them to 
 receive, and without having received, a pas- 
 sengers' certificate from the Board of Trade, all 
 which the owner well knew, is good. Dudgeon 
 V. Pembroke, 43 L. J., Q. B. 220 ; L. R. 9 Q. B. 
 581 ; 31 L. T. 31 ; 22 W. R. 914. And see S. C. 
 in H. L., col. 1088. 
 
 • "Vessel used in Navigation" — "Pas- 
 senger Steamer."] — An electric launch, in which 
 passengers are taken for hire on pleasure trips on 
 an artificial lake three feet deep, half a mile 
 long, and 1 60 yards wide, is not a " vessel used 
 in navigation" within s. 2 of the Merchant
 
 8G5 
 
 SHIPPING— XXI. Passenger Ships. 
 
 8G6 
 
 Shipping Act, 18o4. nor a '-passenger steamer" 
 tvithin s. 318, so as to require a duplicate of a 
 certiticate of the board of trade to be put up in 
 a conspicuous part of the vessel. Mr//, v. South- 
 pi>rt (Wporatlon, or Soiithporf Corporation v. 
 Morrlss. 02 L. J., M. C. 47 : [KS03] 1 Q. B. 359 ; 
 » l\. 201 : 68 L. T. 221 : 41 W. K. 382 ; 7 Asp. 
 M. C. 279 ; 57 J. P. 231. 
 
 Steamship not having Certificate carry- 
 ing Persons other than Crew.] — The respondents 
 were charged that they being the owners of the 
 British steamship ■' Era," did ply on the river 0. 
 with certain passengers on board without having 
 one of the duplicates of a certificate issued by 
 the board of trade put up in some conspicuous 
 part of the ship so as to be visible to all persons 
 on board the same. More than twelve persons 
 were taken on board the steamer for an excursion 
 from I. down the river 0. to F. and back. No 
 charge was made by the respondents for the use 
 of the steamer, but a gratuity was given to the 
 master and crew. The justices dismissed the 
 case : — Held, that the justices were right, as the 
 steamship was not a passenger steamship within 
 the meaning of ss. 303 and 313 of the Merchant 
 Shippins: Act, 1854. Hedqcs v. Ilonlwr. GO L. T. 
 822 ; 37W. R.491; 6 Asp. M. C. 386; 53J. P. 613. 
 
 Perions carried gratuitously.] — The Merchant 
 Shii)ping Act, 1854, s. 3U3, defines "passenger" 
 iis including any person carried in a steamship 
 other than the master and crew, and the owner, 
 his family and servants ; and " passenger steamer " 
 jxs including every British steamship carrying 
 passengers between places in the United King- 
 <loni ; and in s. 318 provides that no passenger 
 steamer shall proceed to sea, or upon any voyage 
 and excursion with passengers on board, without 
 A certificate as therein prescribed, and a penalty 
 is imiioscd for offending against the section. The 
 Merchant Shipping Act of 1876, exempts from 
 these provisions steamships carrying passengers 
 not exceeding twelve in number. The owner of 
 a tug steamer called the '• Flying Hawk," was 
 summoned to answer a complaint that a certain 
 passenger steamship, called the "Flying Hawk," 
 <jf whif-h he was owner, went to sea on the 21st 
 .July, 1882, from Dublin, with more than twelve 
 l)a.ssengers on board, without any Board of Trade 
 certificate, and without having a duplicate of 
 such certificate i)Ut up in some conspicuous part 
 of tlie ship, contrarv to the provisions of the 
 17 &; 18 Vict. c. 1(J4, .s. 318, and the 39 & 40 Vict. 
 c. 80, s. 10. The persons on board the steamer 
 on the occasion in question, other than the master 
 and crew, considerably exceeded twelve in num- 
 ber, and had been invited for a pleasure trip in 
 re.spcct of which none of them paid anything. 
 The magistrate having disn)isscd tlie sninninns ; 
 on a case stated : — Held, that the magistrate, if 
 he believed the evidence, should have convicted 
 the <lefcnilant. Kiihllr, v. KldMon, 14 L. 11.. Ir. 1 ; 
 15 Cox, C. C. 379. 
 
 Eefasal to give Certificate — Kemedy.] — 
 
 A board of trade surveyor refused to give a 
 •certificate for a passenger stcamshi]) under the 
 Merchant Shii)])ing Act, 1854, ss. 307, 312, 318 ; 
 the Merchant Shi|)])ing Amendment Act, 1872, 
 s. 13 : — Held, th.at the Merchant Shijiping Ainend- 
 •ment Act, 1876, ss. 14, 15, i)rovided the ship- 
 owner with a remedy by appeal to the court of 
 -urvey, and that the jurisdiction of the court of 
 session was excluded. Deninj Jirnthprax. Board 
 >f Triid,'. 7 Cf. of Scss. Cas. (4th scr.) 1019. 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 Contract of Co]sr\'EYANCE. 
 
 Time of Sailing.] — Where a vessel, bound fur 
 the East Indies, is advertised to sail by a certain 
 day, and does not, the shipowner wiU be entitled 
 to recover half the passage-money of a person 
 who refused to go. after having engaged a pas- 
 sage, unless either the time was of the essence of 
 the contract, or the delay in sailing was unreason- 
 able. Yateis v. Buff, 5 Car. & P. 369. 
 
 C, who resided in Ireland, having applied to 
 certain emigration agents in London, respecting 
 a passage for himself and family on board their 
 ships to Australia, received in answer a letter in 
 which they agreed to convey him and his family 
 for a sum of money. This letter was written on 
 the fly-sheet of a printed circular, beaded " Emi- 
 gration to Australia," and which stated that ships 
 " will be despatched on the appointed days 
 (wind and weather permitting), for which written 
 guarantees will be given." Then followed a list 
 of ships, amongst wlaich the "Asiatic " was named 
 as to sail from London on the loth of August, 
 and from Plymouth on the 25th. In another 
 part of the circular it was stated. " Passengers 
 from Ireland can readily join at Plymouth. A 
 deposit of one-half the passage-money to be paid 
 at the time the berths are engaged, tlie balance 
 to be paid prior to granting the embarkation 
 order." C. engaged a berth on board the "Asiatic," 
 and paid the agents a deposit, but no written 
 guarantee was given. The "Asiatic " did not arrive 
 at Plymouth until the 3rd of September, although 
 not prevented In' wind or weather. The berth 
 was kept vacant from London to Plymouth : — 
 Held, that the statement in the circular was not 
 a mere representation, but a warranty that the 
 " Asiatic " would sail on the days appointed, and 
 that as she did not, C. was justified in taking a 
 passage on board another vessel, and was entitled 
 to recover from the emigration agents the amount 
 of the deposit, and the expenses he had been put 
 to bv the delay at Plymouth. Cranston v. Mar- 
 shall, 5 Ex. 395 ; 19 L. J., Ex. 340. 
 
 Custom as to Right to Carry— Charterparty.] 
 — A charterpart}-, not anicjunting to a demise of 
 the shii), provided for the carriage of a full and 
 complete cargo of lawful produce and mer- 
 chandise for payment of a lump freight, but was 
 silent as to the use to which the passengers' 
 cabins might be put : — Held, that the charterers 
 were not entitled to carry passengers in the 
 cabins. Shaw v. Aithen, 1 Cab. &; E. 195. 
 
 No custom exists entitling the charterer under 
 the :ibove circumstances to carry passengei's, or 
 entitling the shipowner to have pa.ssengcrs carried 
 for his benefit. Jh. 
 
 ItQii of Life — Claim by Person not responsible 
 for Negligence— Admiralty Rule as to Damages. J 
 
 — \ [la^^ciiger nn l)i)anl tlie " i'.usliire" and one 
 of the crew lost their lives by diowning in con- 
 sequence of a collision with the " Bernina." Both 
 vessels were to blan.e, but neither of the deceased 
 had anytliing to do with the negligent navigation 
 of the "Biishire" : — Held, that their representa- 
 tives could maintain actions under Lord Camp- 
 Ijell's Act agaiii^t the owners of the " I'ernina," 
 and could recover the whole of the damages ; 
 s. 25, sub-s. 9, of tiui Judicature Act, 1873, not 
 being a|)plicable to such actions. Thoro/jood v. 
 Bryini (8 C. B. 1 15) and Armstrong v. Lancashire 
 and Yorhshirr By. (44 L. J., Ex. 89) overruled. 
 The Bernina. Mills v. Armstrong. 57 L. .)., Ailm. 
 
 28
 
 867 
 
 SHIPPING— XXI. Passenger Shijjs. 
 
 Go : 13 App. Cas. 1 ; 58 L. T. 423 : 3G "W. R. 870 ; 
 () Asp. M. C. 257 ; 52 J. 1\ 212— JI. L. (E.) 
 
 Liability — Meaning of Words "Loss or 
 
 Damage" — Passenger's Ticket.] — The personal 
 representatives oi a deceased niau cannot main- 
 tain an action under Lord Campbeirs Act (9 & 10 
 Vict. c. 9i>), where the deceased, if he had sur- 
 vived, would not have been entitled to recover. 
 The defendants, a steamship company, issued a 
 passenger's ticket, which contained amongst 
 others, the following condition :—'■ The com- 
 pany will not be responsible for any loss, 
 damage, or detention of luggage under any cir- 
 cumstances. . . . The company will not be res- 
 })onsible for the maintenance of passengers, or 
 for their loss of time or any consequence arising 
 therefrom . . . nor for any delay arising out of 
 accidents ; nor from any loss or damage arising 
 from the perils of the sea, or from machinery, 
 boilers, or steam, or from any act, neglect or 
 defarrlt whatsoever of the pilot, master or 
 mariner" : — Held, that the words "loss or 
 damage arising from the perils of the sea," as 
 contained in the above conditions, exempted the 
 defendants from liability for injury or loss of life 
 to a passenger occasioned on the voyage by the 
 negligence of the defendants' servants. Ifaif/h 
 V. Royal Mall Steam Pacliet Co., 52 L. J., Q. B. 
 640 ; 49 L. T. 802 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 189 ; 48 J. P. 
 230— C. A. 
 
 Injury to Passenger — Contributory 
 
 Negligence.] — The owner of a Clyde steamboat 
 held liable to a passenger who rushed on to the 
 gangway after the bow rope of the steamboat 
 had been cast off, and was thereby thrown into 
 the water and injured. Monagluin v. Buchanan. 
 13 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 860. And see 
 BahjcU V. Tyrer, El. Bl. & El. 899, supra, col. 
 714. 
 
 County Court — Admiralty Jurisdiction — Car- 
 riage of Passengers' Luggage.] — Passengers' 
 luggage carried on board a ship is not "goods" 
 within the meaning of the County Courts 
 Admiralty Jurisdiction Amendment Act, 1869, 
 and consequently the act does not confer juris- 
 diction to try a claim arising out of the loss of 
 such luggage, as a court having admiralty juris- 
 diction. Reg. V. City of London Court Judge, 
 53 L. J., Q.B. 28 ; 12 Q. B. D. 115 ; 51 L. T. 
 197 ; 32 W. K. 291 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 283. 
 
 Kigbts of Passengers as to Berths.] — In an 
 
 action, in which one of the questions between 
 the parties was, whether the defendant was 
 justified in expelling the plaintiff from a berth 
 in a steamer, it was proved that the plaintifE 
 placed his coat upon the berth while it was 
 vacant, afterwards applied at the office of the 
 company to which the steamer belonged for the 
 purpose of engaging the berth, and caused the 
 company's clerk or agent, then in attendance at 
 the oflice, to enter the plaintifE's name on the 
 way-bill opposite the number of the berth, but 
 that the defendant, having also applied for the 
 same berth, another agent or clerk of the com- 
 pany altered the way-bill by inserting the defen- 
 dant's name opposite the berth, and allotting 
 another one to the plaintifE, and that the plaintiff, 
 upon returning to the berth in dispute, after the 
 steamer had started, found the defendant's ser- 
 vant at the door, who refused to allow him to 
 enter. The plaintiff afterwards entered the 
 berth and was removed by the defendant. Evi- 
 
 8G8 
 
 dence was also given that, according to the usage 
 on board the steamer, the rights of the passengers 
 inter se to berths during the voyage were to be 
 determined by the way-bill as finally settled 
 and sent on board, and that disputes during the 
 voyage with respect to passengers' accommodation 
 should be decided by the captain or steward : — 
 Held, first, that the plaintiff was not entitled to 
 a direction that he was in possession of the 
 berth in dispute. Dysart v. Montgomery, Ir. R. 
 8 C. L. 245. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the way-bill, as finally 
 settled and delivered to the officers on board, 
 determined the right to the berth as between the 
 plaintiff and the defendant. Ih. 
 
 Held, thirdlj', that the jury having found that 
 the way-bill, as finally settled for the purpose of 
 the voyage, allotted the berth to the defendant, 
 and that he was in possession at the time of the 
 alleged assault, he was justified in removing the 
 plaintiff, without using unnecessary violence, 
 upon his refusal to leave the berth. Ih. 
 
 Putting into Port during "Voyage.] — The cap- 
 tain of a ship covenanted to promote the com- 
 fort of passengers engaged by the plaintiff ; the 
 plaintiff' covenanted not to interfere with the 
 navigation of the ship, and to defray the expense 
 of putting into port if it should be necessary for 
 the convenience and at the request of the plain- 
 tiff : — Held, that the captain was bound to put 
 into port for the convenience and at the request 
 and expense of the plaintiff, unless he could 
 shew that putting in would be dangerous. Corhln 
 V. Leader, 10 Bing. 275 ; 3 M. & Scott, 751 ; 6 
 Car. & P. 32. 
 
 Accommodation and Provisions.] — There was 
 in an agreement under seal for the use of cabins 
 and accommodations for passengers in a ship, a 
 covenant on the part of the captain, to permit 
 and suffer the hirer to stow away the baggage of 
 the passengers in a part of the hold : — Held, that 
 this, in connection %\'ith a covenant to promote 
 the comfort and convenience of the hirer and his. 
 passengers, fairly imported that there should be 
 some demand or request made by the hirer for 
 the clearing the space agreed on. lb. 
 
 A covenant to keep up a supply of the neces- 
 sary and usual quantity of water, for the use of 
 the passengers, is not broken by a deficiency for 
 a short time, occasioned by the unusual length of 
 the voyage. Ih. 
 
 In an action against a captain for not furnish- 
 ing good and fresh provisions to a passenger on a 
 voyage, the jury mitst be satisfied that there was 
 a real grievance sustained by the plaintiff, and 
 there is no right of action unless he has really 
 been a sufferer ; for it is not because a man does, 
 not get such a good dinner as he might have had 
 that he is therefore to have a right of action 
 against the captain who does not provide .all that 
 he ought. Young v. Fewson, 8 Car. & P. 55. 
 
 Authority of Captain over.] — A declaration on 
 an agreement to carry the plaintiff in a siiip to 
 a particular place alleged as a breach, that the 
 defendants by their agent, caused him to be dis- 
 embarked at an intermediate point, and by their 
 agent caused the disembarkation to be conducted 
 in a scandalous, disgraceful, and improper 
 manner, whereby, and also by contemptuous 
 usage and insulting language addressed to the 
 plaintiff by the agent in effecting the disem- 
 barkation, the plaintiff sustained damage : —
 
 8G9 
 
 SHIPPING— XXI. Passenrier Ships. 
 
 Held, a good declaration, Coppin v. Braith- 
 wiiitr. s Jur. 875. And see Cases ante, col. 81. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the judge rightly received 
 evidence of the language of the captain in putting 
 the plaintifif on shore, in which he described him 
 as being a pickpocket, and belonging to the swell 
 mob. lb. 
 
 Held, thirdly, that the judge rightly directed 
 the jury, that the defendants were responsible 
 for any injury naturally resulting from the acts 
 of the captain, when acting as their servant ; 
 and that the plaintiff was entitled to fair com- 
 pensation for the injury done to him in being 
 put ou shore at the intermediate place, so far as 
 injury arose from the act of the captain in putting 
 him on shore. lb. 
 
 Conduct unbecoming a gentleman, in the strict 
 sense of the word, will, it seems, justify a cap- 
 tain of a ship in excluding a passenger from the 
 cuddy table, whom he has engaged by contract 
 to i)rovide for there ; but it is" difficult to say in 
 what degree want of polish would in point of law 
 warrant such exclusion ; but it is clear, that, 
 if a passenger use threats of personal violence 
 towards the captain, the captain may exclude 
 him from the table, and require him to take his 
 meals in his own private apartment. Premier- 
 gust V. Cumpton, 8 Car. &: P. \'A. 
 
 The captain has absolute control over the pas- 
 sengers in all that is necessary to the safe and 
 proper conduct of the vessel, but the exercise of 
 .such power in each instance is defined and 
 limited by the necessity of the case. Kinq v. 
 Franklin. 1 F. & F. 360. See also ^'u(len v. 
 Julinson, 16 Q. B. 218 ; 20 L. J., Q. B. 95 ; 15 
 Jur. 424. 
 
 Tiie captain has authority to exercise so much 
 force as is necessary for the safety of the ship. 
 Aldwiirth V. Stewart, 4 F. & F. 957 ; 14 L. T. 862. 
 To imprison a passenger in his cabin for seven 
 flays for alleged insolence to the captain person- 
 ally is an excess of such power, and an action for 
 the fal.'^e imprisonment will lie '"' 
 
 Ih. 
 
 Passage-money — Commencement of Voyage.] 
 — Where an agreement was made to carry a pas- 
 senger on board a ship from London to the West 
 Indies, the passage-money to be paid in London 
 before the commencement of the voyage ; and 
 the passenger put his baggage on board in the 
 Thames, meaning him.'^clf to embark at Ports- 
 mouth ; and the shij) was lost going round to 
 that place ; the passage-money could not be 
 recovered back. Gillan v. Si'mpkhi, 4 Camp 
 241 ; 16 R. R. 784. 
 
 Aliter, if the agreement had been to carry the 
 passenger from Portsmouth to the West Indies. 
 lb. 
 
 Ship's Officers— When entitled to.] — If 
 
 acaptaiu <ii an Ka>t Imliaman dies at tlic outward 
 port, after having contracted to bring home 
 certain pa.'^seiigers and lai<l in a certain ijuantity 
 of stores for the homeward voyage ; and the chief 
 mate, succcding to the command, brings home 
 these and other passengers, and provides further 
 stores for their subsistence during the voyage ; 
 the captain's representatives are entitled to the 
 passage-money of the passengers with whom he 
 had contracted, and the m.ate to that of tlie 
 otiiers ; the representatives being liable to him 
 for the j)f>rtion of the stores laid in hy him con- 
 sumed by the former class of passengers, anfl he 
 being liable to the representatives for the jior- 
 tion of the captain's stores consumed by the 
 
 870 
 
 latter class of passengers. Slordct v. Brudic 3 
 Camp. 263. 
 
 Lien for.] — The master has a lien on the 
 
 luggage of a passenger for his i iassage-mone3\ 
 ir<»//v. Summers, 2 Camp. 631 ; 12 R. R. 764. 
 
 But he has certainly no lien on the passenger 
 himself, or the clothes which he is actually wear- 
 ing, when h,e is about to leave the vessel. " lb. 
 
 Capture— Condemnation as Prize.] — The 
 
 plaintiff contracted to carry the defendant, his 
 I family, and luggage, from Demerara to Flushing ; 
 I and in the couise of the voyage, within four 
 
 1 days' sail of Flushing, the ship was captured by 
 ' an English ship of war, and brought into Eng- 
 land, and the ship and cargo libelled for prize 
 in the court of admiralty, and the cargo con- 
 demned, and proceedings still pending against 
 the ship ; but the defendant and his family were 
 liberated, and their luggage in fact restored to. 
 their possession :— Held, that however the ques- 
 tion might be as to the plaintiff s right to recover- 
 passage-money upon an implied assumpsit pro- 
 rata itineris, if the ship was restored, yet pending 
 the proceedings against the ship, as prize in the 
 admiralty court, no such action could be main- 
 tained for non constat, but that the ship might 
 be condemned and the freight decreed to the 
 captors. MuloyY. Backer, 5 East, 316; 1 Smith. 
 447 ; 7 E. E. 704. 
 
 Mortgage of Ship.]— In an action to re- 
 cover passage-money brought by mortgagee of a 
 ship against mortgagor, which passage-money had. 
 been received, by the mortgagor, as part of the 
 earnings of the ship before the mortgagee took 
 possession of the ship :— Held, that the mortgagee 
 could not recover. Willis v. Palmer, 7 C. B 
 (N.s.) 340 : 29 L. J.. C. P. 194 ; 6 Jur.(X.S.) 732 ; 
 
 2 L. T. 626 ; 8 W. R. 295. 
 
 Insurance of.] — A policy of insurance- 
 
 was effected upon the passage-money of emi- 
 grants upon a voyage from Liverpool to Boston 
 against the perils of the sea. At the end of the- 
 policy was a memorandum, '* On pass.age- money 
 of emigrants, subject to pay a loss pro rata, and 
 subject to the clauses and conditions under ss. 4r 
 — 51 of the 15 i: 16 Vict. c. 44, and .against the.se 
 risks only " :— Held, that the pohcy extended to. 
 any expense occasioned by the perils insured 
 against, which were thrown upon the shipowners- 
 by any of the enumerated sections ; but not tO' 
 the expense of maintaining the passengers durmg 
 the detention of the ship at a foreign port foT- 
 the purfjose of repairs, the .shij) afterwards com- 
 pleting the voyage with the passengers ou board, 
 such expense being cast upon the owners by 
 s. 32. Willis v. Coohe. 5 El. & PI. 641 : 25 L. J., 
 Q. B. 16 ; 1 Jur. (n..s.) 1161 ; 4 W. li. 51. 
 
 Expenses of forwarding Passengers to Desti- 
 nation.]— By 15 it l(i Vict. c. 44, s. 4il, if any 
 pas-engers uf any pa-^scnger ship shall, without 
 any neglect or default of their own. rind them- 
 selves within any foreign or colonial ].ort other 
 than that at which they have contracted to land, 
 and the master of the ship shall decline, or omit 
 within six weeks thereafter, to forward or carry 
 them on to their original destination, it shall be 
 lawful for the governor of the olony to forward 
 such passengers to their intended destination. 
 By s. 50 the expenses incurred under this section 
 
 28—2
 
 871 
 
 SHIPPING— XXI. Passenger Shij^s. 
 
 872 
 
 shall become a debt due to the crown from the 
 owner, charterer and master: — Held, that a 
 l>oliey of assurance bj' the owners against all 
 liabilities, ti^ which they might become by perils 
 of the sea liable under these sections, covered a 
 liability for exiienses incurred by the cajitain 
 in forwarding, without the intervention of the 
 governor, and before the lai)SG of six weeks, pas- 
 sengers who were in a colony to which they 
 were not ultimately destined, in consequence of 
 ■the loss of the ship in which thev sailed. Gihxon 
 V. Bradford 4 El. & Bl. 580 ; 24 L. J., Q. B. 159 ; 
 1 Jur. (N.P.) 520 ; 3 W. R. 183. 
 
 Loss of Luggage— Liability of Owners.] — A 
 passenger by steamer from America paid for 
 iind received a passenger ticket from the agents 
 .of the owners, containing a condition exempting 
 the owners from liability in case of loss or deten- 
 tion of the ship by accidents of navigation or 
 perils of the sea, and from responsibility for 
 luggage, goods, or other description of property, 
 unless bifls of lading had been signed therefor : 
 . — Held, that the latter condition not having 
 been observed by the passenger, he could not re- 
 . cover for the loss of his luggage, though the loss 
 was caused by the ship having been wrecked 
 owing to the negligence of the captain. Wilton 
 V. Royal Atlantic Mull Steam Natlcintion Co., 
 10 C. B. (N.s.) 453 ; 30 L. J., C. P. 309 ; 8 Jur. 
 (N.s.) 232 ; 4 L. T. 706 ; 9 W. K. 748. 
 
 Special Contract — Notice.] — A passenger 
 
 on paying his fare received a ticket from the 
 clerk "of the steamship company, on the back 
 of which was a notice exonerating the com- 
 pany from liability for loss, injury, or delay to 
 the passenger or his luggage, however caused. 
 There was no evidence that the passenger had 
 been made aware of this condition before or at the 
 time when he took the ticket. During the 
 voyage the steamer was lost by the negligence 
 of the servants of the company, and the passenger 
 lost his luggage and suffered other damage and 
 inconvenience : — Held, that, in the absence of 
 proof that the passenger had assented to be 
 bound by the condition indorsed on the ticket, it 
 was no defence to an action by him to recover 
 the loss he had sustained. Henderson v. Steren- 
 gon, L. R. 2 H. L. (Sc.) 470 ; 32 L. T. 709. See 
 also Bnrke v. *S'. £. Btj., 49 L. J., C. P. 107. 
 
 Exemption from Liability.] — A con- 
 tract entered into between a shipowner and a 
 passenger, contained a provision that the ship- 
 owner would not be answerable for loss of 
 baggage " under any circumstances Mdiatsoever " : 
 — Held, that such a stipulation covered the case 
 of wilful default and misfeasance by the ship- 
 owner's servants. Taxihman v. Pacific Steam. 
 Kavlgutlon Co., 26 L. T. 704; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 330. 
 
 • Eobbery — Conditions on Ticket Limiting 
 
 Liability.] — Sect. 502 of the Merchant Ship- 
 ping Act, 1894, provides that the owner of a 
 British seagoing ship shall not be liable for 
 the loss by robbery without his actual fault of 
 any gold, silver, jewellery, &c., taken on board 
 his ship, the tnre nature and value of which have 
 not been declared. This section applies whether 
 the robbery be committed by a passenger for 
 whose act the shipo-mier would not be otherwise 
 responsible, or by one of the servants. A 
 
 jiassenger from Dnrljnn to London by the defen- 
 dants ship received a ticket, which purported to 
 be a receipt for the passage-money. On the 
 margin of the ticket were the words " Issued 
 subject to the further conditions ]irinted on the 
 back hereof," and on the face of the ticket there 
 was written and printed matter which the 
 passenger saw, but did not read. There was 
 also this clause, " The owners do not hold them- 
 selves responsible for any loss, damage, or deten- 
 tion of luggage under any circumstances," and 
 on the back there was an indorsement, " Con- 
 ditions and Regulations," one of which was that 
 "it is hereby agreed by the person holding this 
 ticket that the owners will not be liable in any 
 way for the luggage of passengers unless the 
 passenger choose to pay 1*. per cubic foot for 
 luggage put under the owners' charge." A 
 box, part of the passengers' luggage, containing 
 money, jewellerj^, and papers, was during the 
 voyage stolen, it was supposed by one of the 
 crew : — Held, that the terms and conditions 
 on the ticket constituted the terms of the con- 
 tract between the passenger and the shipowners ; 
 that the passenger ought to have known that 
 there were conditions, and that he had. under 
 the circumstances, reasonable notice of the con- 
 ditions, and was bound by them, although he had 
 not read the same, and that he could not recover 
 from the shipowners : — Held also, that, apart from 
 the special contract, the passengerwas disentitled 
 from recovering that part of the goods which 
 consisted of gold and silver by reason of section 
 502, the value of the same not having been 
 declared, and there being no actual fault on the 
 part of the shipowners. Arton v. Castle Mall 
 PacUets Co., 73 L. T. 158 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 73. 
 
 Limitation of Liability.] — A railway company 
 carrying passengers and goods partly by railway 
 and partly by its own ships is entitled to the 
 limitation on the liability of shipowners imposed 
 by the merchant shijiping acts. L. S)' S. W. 
 Ry. V. James, 42 L. J., Ch. 337 ; L. R. 8 Ch. 
 241 ; 28 L. T. 48 ; 21 W. E. 151. And see ante, 
 cols. 738 seq. as to Limitation op Liability. 
 
 Means of Access to Ship.] — A. agreed to carry 
 B. from Milford Haven to Liverpool : the mode 
 of transit provided was that B. should come on 
 to a hulk lying in the harbour at Milford Haven, 
 and wait till a steamer came and took him to 
 Liverpool. On the hulk, close to a ladder down 
 which B. had to pass to reach the steamer, was a 
 large hatchway, which was negligently left 
 unguarded and improperly lighted, and B. fell 
 through it and was injured. The hulk belonged 
 to a third party, and A. had only acquired a right 
 to use it for the purpose of embarking passengers 
 on his steamer. In an action by B. against A. 
 for the injury he sustained : — Held, that he was 
 answerable for all injury occurring through the 
 means of transit being improper, whether it 
 arose from negligence of his own servants or of 
 other parties who helped to provide the means of 
 transit. John v. Bacon, 39 L. J., C. P. 305 ; 
 L. R. 5 C. P. 437; 22 L. T. 477; 18 W. R. 
 894. 
 
 Held, also, that A. having invited B. on to the 
 hulk, was bound to protect him from concealed 
 dangers, and was liable for injury he sustained 
 through the condition of the hatchway, even 
 though it was under the care of others and not 
 his own servants. Ih.
 
 873 SHIPPING— XXII. 
 
 3. Emigrant Ships. 
 
 Contracts to Equip.]— The defendant being 
 under contract with the owner to supply and fit 
 an emigrant ship with everything comprised in 
 the commissioners of emigrants' schedule, to the 
 entire satisfaction of the surveyor to such com- 
 missioners, the plaintiff contracted with the 
 defendant to do part of such work, viz. he 
 undertook "to fit up the between-decks of the 
 ship for government emigrants, to provide all 
 materials and labour viz. all plumbers' and 
 joiners' work, for 15.*. per statute adult : the whole 
 to be done to the satisfaction of the emigration 
 commissioners.'' The plaintiff erected many more 
 berths in the vessel than she was measured to 
 cany according to 18 &; 19 Vict. c. 119, and 
 several of the berths had to be taken down, and 
 some of them to be rebuilt and altered, by the 
 plaintiff, by the order of the emigration com- 
 missioners. By the like order other work, in the 
 nature of ship's fittings, was done by the plaintiff, 
 such as making a ventilator, deck lights, and a 
 schoolmaster's cabin : — Held, that the defendant 
 was oiih' liable to pay the plaintiff at the rate of 
 !.")«. per statute adult for the number of berths 
 by which the ship was allowed by the commis- 
 sioners to go to sea, and that he was not 
 responsible for any further sum in respect of the 
 other work done by the plaintiff under the order 
 of the.commissioneis. Dobsnii v. Hudson,! C. B. 
 (N.s.) 6.o2 : 2G L. J., C. P. 153 : 3 Jur. (x.s.) 21G ; 
 5 W. R. 308. 
 
 Duties of Emigration Officer.] — An ©migration 
 officer. appointLd uniler 15 ^: KJ Vict. c. 11-, was 
 justified in refusing to certify that the require- 
 ments of the statute had been complied with, if 
 he, acting bona fide, deemed that the quantity 
 of cargo on board a passenger ship was such as 
 to endanger the safety of the ship, although 
 none of the articles expiessly prohibited by s. 26 
 were on board, and although his objection was 
 not to any sjiecific articles on board, but solely 
 because the ship was too deep in the water ; and 
 if ail action was bi ought against him for refusing 
 his certificate under such circumstances, he was, 
 by s. 81, entitled to have the verdict entered for 
 him. SIppI v. Srhomhpni, 3 C. L. R. 302 ; 4 
 El. & Bl. 020; 24 L. J., Q. B. 87; 1 Jur. (N.s.) G79. 
 
 The Kith section did not apply to such a case. 
 lb. 
 
 Board of Trade Proceedings. 874 
 
 XXII. BOARD OF TRADE PROCEEDINGS. 
 1. Wi'eeJi Inqiiu'ies, 874. 
 
 2. Marine Board Lupiiries, 876. 
 
 3. UnseawortJitj Shijfs, Betcntion, 877. 
 
 1. "^"RECK Inquiries. 
 
 Decision of Judge given in open Court- 
 Reasons.] — The decision given by the judge 
 after an investigation into a casualty dealing 
 with the certificate of an officer must be given 
 in open court, but need not be accompanied by 
 reasons, and if he gives reasons the officer is not 
 entitled to a copy of the shorthand- writer's notes 
 of those reasons, for the |>urii0se of an ajipeal. 
 The Kestrel, 6 P. D. 182 ; 45 L. T. Ill ; 30 \\. R. 
 182 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 433. 
 
 Jurisdiction to suspend Master's Certificate.] 
 — The jurisdiction to suspend the certificate of 
 the master of a ship has not been extended by 
 the Merchant Shi[)ping Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict, 
 c. 80), ss. 29, 32, to cases not within ss. 242 and 
 432 of the Merchant Shipping Act. 1854 (17 & 18 
 Vict. c. 104) : and therefure where an inquiry 
 into the stranding of a ship where no damage has 
 been done is held by a wreck commissioner under 
 s. 32 of the later act, he has no jurisdiction upon 
 such inquiry to suspend the certificate of the 
 master of the stranded ship. Stioy. Ex parte, 
 
 47 L. J., Q. B. 266 ; 3 Q. B. D. 166 ;"3S L. T. 29 ; 
 26 W. R. 329 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 549. 
 
 A shipping casualty must be actually causcd^ 
 or contributed to by the master to enable the 
 court of inquiry to suspend his certificate. The- 
 Arizona. 49 L. J., Adm. 54 ; 5 P. D. 123 ; 42 L. T. 
 505 ; 28 W. R. 704 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 269— C. A. 
 
 An error of judgment on the part of the 
 master of a vessel at a moment of great difliculty 
 and danger does not amount to a wrongful act or 
 default, within the meaning of the 242nd section 
 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, so as tO' 
 justify the suspension or cancellation of the 
 master's certificate. The Fanienath, 7 P. D. 207 ; 
 
 48 L. T. 28 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 35, infra. 
 
 Appeal.] — "Where a court of inquiry into- 
 
 a shipping casualty, held under the 8th part of 
 the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, orders the 
 sus])ension of a master's certificate, in pursuance 
 of the powers given by the 242nd section of the 
 same act, and the 23rd section of the Merchant 
 Shij)ping Act, 1862, the court of appeal, having 
 jurisdiction under the Shipping Casualties Inves- 
 Personwho " receives Money for or in Respect of 1 ligations Act, 1,S79, will on aniical consider the 
 
 ■1. P.\SSAf;E P.r.OKER 
 
 Passenger's Contract — "Passage Broker "- 
 
 a PaEsage in any Ship."j — A ■■ ]i:i— a'jr lnokci 
 within tiu: meaning of s. 311. siiii-s. 1, of the 
 Merchant Stiiiij/ing Act, 1894, is one who sells or 
 letH a jtassage in a named i-hip to commence at a 
 definite time for a .specified voyage. A person 
 who by way of business, agrees to place farm 
 pupils in the colonies in consideraticm of a lump 
 sum which includes sliip's passage fiuc. but witli- 
 out specifying any particular shi]), and wlio out 
 of that sum subsequently j)ays for ami obtains 
 from a duly qualifierl ])assage brf>ker a contract 
 ticket for a second-class passage in a ])articu]ar 
 ship, is not a " pa.ssage-broker " within tlie 
 meaningof s.341,sub-s. 1, of theact of 1894 : nor 
 is he a person who " receives money fur and in 
 respect of a pa.ssage in any ship" within the 
 meaning of s. 320, sub-s. l', of the same act. 
 Morrios v. I/owden, 66 L. J., Q. B. 2G4 ; [1897] 
 1 Q. B. 378; 76 L. T. 156 ; 45 W. R. 221 ; 61 
 J. P. 246, 
 
 evidence on which the judgment of the court of 
 intpiiry })roceeded,and will reverse the judgment 
 if the evidence is insufficient to justify the sus- 
 pension of the certificate. Where a court of 
 mquiry ordereil a master's certificate to be sus- 
 pende<!, anrl the only ground on which the deci- 
 sion could be supported was that serious damage 
 to a ship liMtl been caused by the wrongful act 
 or default of the master, within the meaning of 
 s. 242 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, 
 sub-s. 2, and on aj)peal it appeared to tlie court 
 of api)cal tliat theie was no evidence that the 
 • himage had been caused by the wrongful act or 
 default of ilie master, the court of appeal reversed 
 the deci>inii. and lestored to the master his 
 certificate. The Arizimn, supra. 
 
 "Who may Appeal.] — A shipowner, who 
 
 has appearetl as a party at the hearing of an 
 I investigation under the merchant shipping acts
 
 SHIPPING— XXII. Board of Trade Proceedings. 
 
 876 
 
 into the circumstances attending the loss of a 
 .ship owned by him, has no right of appeal, not- 
 withstanding that the tribunal investigating the 
 case has given a decision suspcmHngthe certificate 
 of the master of the ship and condemning the 
 shipowner in costs. T/ie Golden Sen, .51 L. J.. 
 Adm. 64 ; 7 P. D. 194 ; 47 L. T. .579 ; 30 W. E. 
 842 : 5 Asp. M. C. 23. 
 
 Thewreclv commissioner having been requested 
 to hold an investigation into the loss .and aban- 
 donment of a Britisli ship, found that the loss of 
 the ship was due to certain improper ballast 
 taken on board her at an English port having 
 been converted into mud by mixture with the 
 water made by her during the voyage, and so 
 choking the junnps that tliey could not be used, 
 whereby the ship foundered, and for these wrong- 
 ful acts and defaults suspemled the certificate of 
 the master of the ship for three months. The 
 master appealed. The probate, divorce, and 
 admiralty division being of opinion that the 
 evidence before the wreck commissioner estab- 
 lished that the master had authority from his 
 owner to provide ballast for the vessel without 
 restriction as to price, and had been aware of 
 the character of the ballast which she had taken 
 on board, and that the carrying of sucli ballast 
 contributed to her loss, dismissed the appeal with 
 costs. lb. 
 
 Fresh Evidence on Appeal.] — On a ship- 
 
 jnng casualty appeal where it is desired to adduce 
 fresh evidence at the hearing of the appeal, 
 application for leave to do so should be made to 
 the court of appeal by motion prior to the 
 hearing of the appeal. The Fnme/ioth, 7 P. D. 
 207 ; 48 L. T. 28 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 35, supra. 
 
 ■ Procedure on Appeal,] — The court when 
 
 hearing an appeal will look to the report and the 
 annex thereto. Observations on the admission 
 of fresh evidence on appeal and on the admissi- 
 bility of evidence of experts where the court is 
 assisted by assessors. The Kestrel, supra, col. 874. 
 
 Costs.] — Where, on an appeal under the 
 
 Shipping Casualties Investigations Act, 1879, the 
 decision of the wreck commissioner, suspending 
 the certificate of a master, was affirmed, but the 
 Court of Appeal recommended that the Board of 
 Trade should shorten the time for which the 
 certificate had been suspended, the parties to the 
 appeal were left to bear their own costs of the 
 apjieal. The Kestrel, supra. 
 
 The court below having suspended the certifi- 
 •cate on the invitation of the board of trade, the 
 court of a[)peal ordered the board of trade to 
 ])av the costs of the appeal. TJte Arizo/i/i, supra, 
 col". 874. 
 
 On a successful appeal the board of trade, 
 having appeared in support of the decision 
 apjiealed fi'om. were directed to pay the costs 
 of the appeal. 2'he Famenoth, supra. 
 
 Wrongful Act or Default — Costs.] — Failure of 
 the master to take reasonable steps for the safety 
 of passengers during an unreasonable panic :— 
 Held, to Ije a wrongful act in default for which 
 his certificate might be su.spended. Brmcii v. 
 Board of Trade, 18 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 
 291. 
 
 Costs of evidence of a part of case abandoned 
 by board of trade disallowed. Ihid. 
 
 Appeal — Proper Evidence not before the Court 
 Below, j — Appeal from decision of board of trade 
 
 inquiry as to the strandingof a ship, and suspen- 
 sion of the master's certificate allowed, on liie 
 ground that proper and necessary evidence had 
 not been placed before the court below. Turner 
 V. Board of Trade, 22 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 
 IS. 
 
 Master leaving Bridge— Instructions to Mate 
 —Procedure— Questioning Master.] — iiec]\'atso/i. 
 V. Board of Trade, 19 Ct. of iSess. Cas. (4th ser.) 
 1078. 
 
 Suspension of Certificate.] — A master 
 
 left the bridge whilst his ship was pi'oceeding 
 through a narrow channel to call the second 
 mate. The first mate was left on the bridge : — 
 Held, that the master's certificate was properly 
 suspended. Kwer v. Board of Trade, 7 Ct. of 
 Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 835. 
 
 Naval Inquiry into Conduct of Captain,] — 
 When an inquiry is instituted under the Mer- 
 chant Shipping Acts into the conduct of a cap- 
 tain, the court may proceed with the inquiry, 
 although the board of trade has no charge to 
 make against the captain. 3Iinto, Ex parte, 35 
 L. T. 808 ; 25 W. E. 251 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 323. 
 
 Refusal to order Re-hearing — Appeal.] — A 
 
 refusal by the board of trade to grant a re-hear- 
 ing of an investigation into the conduct of a 
 certificated officer is not a decision within 42 & 
 43 Vict. c. 72, s. 2, sub-s. 2, and thei'efore no 
 appeal lies from it to the admiralty division 
 of the high court. The Ida, 55 L. J., Adm. 15 ; 
 11 P. D. 37 ; 54 L. T. 497 ; 34 W. E. C28 ; 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 57. 
 
 Refusal to Institute Inquiry — Foreign Ship.] 
 
 — A refusal bj' the board of trade to institute an 
 inquiry under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 512, is not 
 a condition precedent to an action in rem against 
 a foreign ship — Per Butt, J. The Vera Cruz, 9 
 P. D. 88 ; 51 L. T. 24 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 254. See 
 -S'. a in H. L., ante, col. 838. 
 
 2. Marine Board Inquiries. 
 
 Marine Boards — Jurisdiction. ] — A local marine 
 b<.iard appoiutetl to in(|uire into a charge of 
 alleged misconduct against the master or mate 
 of a vessel has a discretionary power as to grant- 
 ing summonses for witnesses for the defence. 
 Beq. V. Colli ngrhhje, 34 L. J., Q. B. 9 ; 12 W. E. 
 1109. 
 
 Witnesses.] — It is a proper course for such 
 
 court before granting the summonses to inquire 
 who the witnesses are and what they are expected 
 to prove, and to refuse the summons in respect 
 of any witness who can only speak to matters 
 clearly- irrelevant. The witnesses summoned for 
 the defence are witnesses of the court, and their 
 expense is to be borne not by the defendant but 
 by the public. lb. 
 
 Perjury before.] — Wilful and corrupt false 
 swearing before a local marine board lawfully 
 constituted, upon a matter material to an inquirj^ 
 then being lawfully investigated by them in 
 pursuance of 17 & 18 Vict. <•. 104, is perjury, and 
 indictable as such. Rrq. v. Tomlinson, 30 L. J., 
 M. C. 41 : L. E. 1 C. C. 49 ; 12 .Jur. (N.S.) 945 ; 
 15 L. T. 188 ; 15 W. R. 4G ; 10 Cox, C. C. 323.
 
 SHIPPING— XXII. Board of Trade Proceedings. 
 
 Cancellation of Certificate— Power of Board of 
 Trade — Local Marine Board." — The bnaid of 
 trade remitted a ca-e under s. 471 of the Merchant 
 Shipjiiug Act, 1894, for inquiry to a local marine 
 board, who reported that the charge was proved, 
 and advised that the certificate should be sus- 
 pended, but stated that they had no power to do 
 so:— Held, that the local marine board was a 
 "court" within 3.470 (b)and had the power ; also 
 that the board of trade had not the power. Board 
 of Trade v. Leith Local JIarhw Board, 24 Ct. of 
 Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 177. 
 
 3. Unseaworthy Ships, Detention. 
 
 Detention and Survey by Board of Trade,] — 
 In order to justify the board of trade in taking 
 proceedings under the Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1873 (36 i: 37 Yict. c. 8.5), s. 12, it was unneces- 
 sary that either the complaint as to a vessel or 
 the report from surveyors should state in express 
 terms that she was unable to proceed to sea 
 " without serious danger to human life '"; it was 
 sufficient if it appeared from the facts therein 
 respectively mentioned that she was in that con- 
 dition. Lewis v. Gray. 45 L. J., C. P. 72() ; 1 
 C. P. D. 452 ; 34 L. T. 421 : 3 Asp. M. C. 13G. 
 
 The plaiutifE was the owner of a British ship 
 named the " L.," which was at the British port of 
 a., and was intended to be employed in the 
 foreign cattle trade. Certain surveyors of the 
 board of trade reported in doubtful terms that 
 owing to her unusual proportions the '■ L." was an 
 unsafe ship. The board of trade thereupon 
 ordered the " L." to be provisionally detained. A 
 court of survey was held as to the condition of 
 the " L.," and the members thereof reported that 
 the " L.," was not unsafe, and that she ought not 
 to have been detained. The •' L." was accordingly 
 released. The plaintiff then brought an action 
 against the secretary of the board of trade to 
 recover compensation for the loss to him hj 
 reason of the provisional detention. At the trial 
 it was admitted that the " L." was a safe ship. 
 The judge in substance directed the jury to 
 consider whether it was reasonable in the board 
 of trade to detain the " L." for survey without a 
 direct affirmation by their surve\-ors that in their 
 opinion .'-lie was unsafe : — Held, a misdirection ; 
 for the proper question to be left to the jury was 
 whether the facts with regard to the '• L.," as she 
 lay at S., which would have been apparent to a 
 person of ordinary skill on examining her and 
 inquiring about her, would have given him 
 reasonable and probable cause to suspect her 
 :-.ifety and to detain her for survey and iu(pury. 
 TItiim])son v. Farrrr, 51 L. J.," t^- B. 534 : 
 D Q. B. D. 372 ; 47 L. T. 117 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 502— C. A. 
 
 Indictment for sending Unseaworthy Ships to 
 Sea.] — A man was tried and convicted under 
 34 & 35 Vict. c. 110, s. 11, for sending a sliip 
 to sea in an unseaworthy state, upon an indict- 
 ment wliich did not aver either that lie knew 
 of her being unscawortliy, or that he had not 
 used reasonable means to make her seaworthy : 
 — Held, first, that the in<lictnient need not aver 
 that the accused knew the sliip to be in an 
 unseaworthy state. Rcrj. v. Frerman, Ir. R. 9 
 C. L. 527. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the indictment need not 
 contain averments negativing the use of reason- 
 able means to make and keep the ship .seaworthy. 
 
 87S 
 
 Foreign Ship— Overloading.] — An order in 
 
 couticil under s. 37 of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act. 1876, is not needed to enforce the provi- 
 sions of ss. 13 and 34 of the act relative to the 
 detention of a foreign ship which has been over- 
 loaded in a port of the United Kingdom, and is 
 unsafe to put out to sea. Chalmers v. Suqjejiich, 
 61 L. J., M. C. 117 : [1892] 1 Q. B. 735 ; 66 L. T. 
 348; 40 W. R. 477; 7 Asp. M. C. 171; 56 J. P. 521. 
 
 Damages — Want of Reasonable and Probable 
 Cause — Injury to Reputation as Shipowner.] — 
 The Merchant Shipping Act, 1876, by s. 6, sub- 
 s. 1, enacts that the board of trade may, if they 
 have reason to believe, on complaint or other- 
 wise, that a British ship lying in any port in the 
 United Kingdom is unsafe — that is to say, is, by 
 reason of (amongst other things) overloading, 
 unfit to proceed to sea without serious danger to 
 human life — provisionally order the detention of 
 the ship for the purpose of being surveyed ; and 
 by s. 10 provides that if it appears that there 
 was not reasonable and probable cause for such 
 detention, the board of trade shall be liable to 
 pay to the owner of the ship " his costs of and 
 incidental to the detention and survey of the 
 ship, and also compensation for any loss or 
 damage sustained by him by reason of the 
 detention or survey" : — Held, that a shipowner, 
 wliose ship has been detained under s. 6, sub-s. 1, 
 cannot under s. 10 recover damages for injury to 
 his reputation as a shipowner by reason of the 
 action of the board of trade in detaining the 
 ship. Bij-on v. Calrraft, 61 L. J., Q. B. 529 ; 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 458 ; 66 L. T. 554 ; 40 W. R. 598 ; 
 7 Asp. M. C. 161 ; 56 J. P. 388— C. A. 
 
 Eight to Trial at Bar — Change of Venue.] — 
 By the Crown Suits Act, 1865, s. 46, where in 
 any cause in which the attorney-general is 
 entitled on behalf of the crown to demand as of 
 right a trial at bar he states to the court that he 
 waives that right, ''the court on the ajiplication 
 of tiic attorney-general shall change the venue 
 to any court he may select" : — Held, that an 
 action under 39 & 40 Vict. c. 80, s. 10, against 
 the secretary of the board of trade, to recover 
 damages for the detention of a ship for survey 
 without reasonable antl probable cause, is within 
 the above section, that the attorney-general is 
 entitled to demand as of right a trial at bar in 
 such an action, and that the court is Iround on 
 his waiving that right to change the venue to 
 any county wherein he elects to have the action 
 tried. Dixon v. Farrer, 56 L. J.. Q. B. 53 ; IS 
 Q. B. D. 43 ; 55 L. T. 578 ; 35 W. II. 95 ; 6 
 Asp. M. C. 52— C. A. 
 
 Detention by Board of Trade— Ship sold to 
 Foreigner— 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 12.]— Until 
 the British register is closed, a British ship, 
 though sold to a foreigner, is lial^le to detention 
 for unseaworthiness. Oranfelt v. Lord Advocate, 
 1 Ct. of Se.s.s. Cas. (4th ser.) 782. 
 
 .x.xiii. wil\i;finger. 
 
 1. Landing and Sliippin'j (roods, 878. 
 
 2. Ohstrv'cHonto or hij U'/i.a rf, H7'J. 
 
 1. L.\Nr)iN(; AND SurppiNf; Goods. 
 
 BondedGoods— Duty to Receive.] — The London 
 Dock Comi^any, having a certificate from fhu 
 treasury under 43 Geo. 3, c. 132, allowiji<»
 
 879 
 
 SHIPPING— XXIII. niuirfutiier. 
 
 880 
 
 importers to dejiosit wines upon their premises 
 ■without paying (hity, are bound to receive such 
 goods for a reasonable charge. AJlmdt v. ItK/lif. 
 12 East, 527; 11 K. E. 482. 
 
 Sufferance Wharfs.] — The acts relating to 
 landing goods at a sufferance wharf are for the 
 protection of the shipowner. Barher v. Meyer- 
 stem, 39 L. J., C. P. 187 ; L. R. 4 H. L.317 ; 22 
 L. T. 808 ; 18 W. R. 1041. 
 
 Delivery by Wharfinger to Mate of Ship.] — 
 Where goods are to be carried coastwise, and the 
 usage of the wharf is to deliver them on the 
 wharf to the mate of the ship ; if they are 
 delivered to the mate the wharfinger's respon- 
 sibility is at an end, and he is not liable though 
 the goods are lost from the wharf before they are 
 shipped. Cohhan v. Boivne, 5 Esp. 41 ; 8 R. R. 825. 
 
 Trover — Acknov^ledgment by Wharfinger as 
 to Property in the Goods.] — The defendant, a 
 wharfinger, having acknowledged certain timber 
 on his wharf to be the property of the plaintiff : 
 — Held, that he could not dispute the plaintiff's 
 title in an action of trover. Gosling v. Birnie, 
 7 Ring. 339 ; 5 M. P. 160 ; 9 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 105. 
 
 Detinue — Fraudulent Indorsement of Bill of 
 Lading.] — Tlie plaintiff, a foreign merchant, 
 upon the order of L., shipped wine to him in 
 London, and sent him bills of lading. L. handed 
 the bills of lading to the defendant, a wharfinger, 
 directing him to warehouse the goods for him, L. 
 The defendant did so, receiving the wine subject 
 to a stop-order for freight, pursuant to 25 & 26 
 Vict. c. 63, s. 28. L. refused to accept the wine, 
 as not being equal to sample, and the plaintiff 
 ag)-eed to take it back. L. sent no delivery 
 order to the jdaintiff, but collusively indorsed 
 the bills of lading to M., who caused the wine to 
 be transferred in the wharfinger's books from 
 L.'s name to his own. The plaintiff demanded 
 the wine from the wharfinger, offering to ]>ii\ 
 all expenses, and to indemnify him against other 
 claims. In an action of detinue : — Held, that 
 the wharfinger had no better title than L., his 
 bailor, and that the plaintiff was entitled to 
 recover. Batu'it v. IlarUcij. L. R. 9 Q. B. 594 ; 29 
 L. T. 968 ; 20 W. R. 899 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 337. 
 
 2. Obstruction to ok by Wharf. 
 
 See also XXIV. Ports, Piers, Harbours, 
 Lighthouses, and Docks, c. Obstruction 
 TO Harbours, infra, cols. 890, seq. 
 
 Obstruction in Kiver Bed — Negligence of 
 Wharfinger — Vessel grounding.] — By charter- 
 party it was agreed that the plaintiffs' ship 
 should load a cargo of iron ore, sail for Newport, 
 Mon., and deliver the cargo as directed by the 
 consi,gnees or their agent. By the bill of lading, 
 which incorporated the conditions of the charter- 
 party, the cargo was to be delivered to named 
 consignees or their assigns. The bill of lading 
 was indorsed to the defendants, who were pro- 
 prietors of a wharf at Newport, and lessees of 
 liart of the river bed alongside the wharf. The 
 vessel on her arrival at Newport was ordered by 
 the defendants to discharge her cargo at the 
 wharf. There were two berths or "docks" along- 
 side the wharf, one outside the other ; and between 
 them a lidge of mud had accumulated. The 
 vessel in approaching the wharf grounded on 
 
 the ridge and was damaged : — Held, that the de- 
 fendants were liaVjle. The Calliope, 60 L. J., Adm. 
 28 ; [1891] A. C. 11 ; 63 L. T. 781 ; 39 W. R. 
 641 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 585 ; 55 J. P. 357— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Vessel Grounding and Receiving Damage 
 Alongside Jetty—Liability.] — The defendants, 
 wharfingers in the Thames, in consideration of 
 charges for landing and storing cargo, allowed 
 the plaintiff to discharge his vessel at their jetty, 
 alongside which the vessel grounded at low water. 
 The bed of the river was vested in the Thames 
 conservators, and the defendants were not aware 
 whether it was even and fit for ships to ground 
 on. The vessel grounded and received damage 
 owing to the river bed being uneven : — Held, 
 that the defendants were liable, as they must be 
 taken to have represented that they had taken 
 reasonable care to ascertain that the river bed 
 alongside their jetty was fit for a ship to grottnd 
 on. The JSIoorcoclt, 58 L. J., Adm. 73 ; 14 P. D. 
 64 ; 60 L. T. 654 ; 37 W. R. 439 ; 6 Asp. M. c' 
 373— C. A. 
 
 Damage to Craft by Piles.] — The defendants 
 were possessed of a wharf in the Thames, alongside 
 of which in the river bed was a campshed of piles 
 to keep the soil up. It had been improperly 
 erected by the defendants' predecessors, and was 
 out of repair, and dangerous to vessels. The 
 plaintiffs' barge came to the wharf to receive 
 goods from a schooner unloading at the wharf, 
 to be discharged into the barge by the wharf 
 crane, grounded on the campshed and was 
 injured : — Held, that the defendants were liable. 
 White V. Phniqis, 15 C. B. (n.s.) 245; 33 
 L. J., C. P. 33. And see Brownlow v. Metro- 
 politan Board of Worhs, 16 C. B. (N.s.) 546 ; 33 
 L. J., C. P. 233 ; 12 W. R. 871— Ex. Ch. 
 
 The plaintiff was possessed of a wharf on the 
 Thames, in front of wdrich was a pile driven into 
 the river bed by a former occupier of the wharf, 
 and essential for the use of the wharf. The pile 
 had been there without objection by the crowii 
 or river conservators for over twenty years : — 
 Held, that the o'^mership not being disputed, the 
 plaintiff could maintain an action against the 
 defendant for negligently damaging the pile. 
 Lancaster v. Eve, 5 C. B. (N.s.) 717 ; 28 L. J.. C. P. 
 235 ; 5 Jur. (N.S.) 683. 
 
 Navigable River — Access to Wharf.] — A 
 
 navigable river is a public highway, navigable 
 in a reasonable way by everyone. Accordingly, 
 a riparian owner has a right to moor a ship of 
 ordinary size alongside his wharf, to unload or 
 load, although she may overlap his neighbours' 
 premises ; provided she does not prevent reason- 
 able access to the same. Orifjinal Hartlepool 
 roller ies Co. v. Gihh, 46 L. J., Ch. 311 ; 5 Ch. D. 
 713 ; 36 L. T. 433 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 411. See also 
 Bell V. Q lichee Corpora tio7i, 49 L. J., P. C. 1 ; 
 5 App. Cas. 84— P. C. 
 
 The owner of land abutting upon a navigable 
 river has a right, distinct from that of the public 
 to navigate, of access to his land from the river. 
 Lyon V. Fislnnonqers'' Co., 46 L. J., Ch. G^ : 1 
 Aop. Cas. 662 ; 35 L. T. 569 ; 25 W. R. 165— 
 H. L. (E.) 
 
 Nuisance — Wharf projecting into River.] — 
 
 The defendant's ship, navigating the Thames, 
 struck and injured the plaintiff's wharf, which 
 he alleged projected into the river so as to be a 
 nuisance : — Held, that the defendant was not 
 justified in injuring the wharf, even if it were a
 
 881 SHIPPING— XXIY. Ports, Piers, Harbours, Lighthouses, Docks. 882 
 
 nuisance, if he could hare conveniently navigated 
 the river without injury to the wharf. Davits v. 
 Petlnj, 15 Q. B. 276. 
 
 "Wharves and Quays — Exercise of Private 
 Eights over — Obstruction of Public Traffic] — 
 By a special act of 1840 trustees were appointed 
 for the management of a certain harbour, ^ect. 
 53 of the act authorised the lord of the manor, 
 or the o\vner of land situate within or adjoining 
 to the harbour, amongst other things, to lay 
 down railways over the quays, roads and works, 
 but so as all such railways should be constructed 
 of such height and in such form as should not 
 in any manner impede or interrupt the general 
 public tratfic of the port, or the free passage to 
 and from the same ; and railways so to be 
 erected or made were (subject to the aforesaid 
 restriction) to be wholly excluded from the 
 jm-isdiction of the trustees, and be the private 
 property and for the sole and exclusive use of 
 the person or persons upon whose land the same 
 should stand or be placed, and his or their assigns. 
 The lord of the manor was the owner of lauds 
 adjoining the south side quay of the harbour. 
 Tenants of the lord of the manor having pro- 
 ceeded to lay down two lines of railway from 
 their works along the south side quay, an action 
 was brought by the tntstees of the harbour to 
 restrain them from constructing such railway, 
 on the ground that they would impede the general 
 public traffic of the port : — Held, that the main 
 object of the act was to benefit the persons 
 frequenting the harbour, and that any railway 
 laid on the south side of the quay must be con- 
 structed in such a way as not by its construction 
 or its natural and necessary user, in any manner 
 to impede the fair public traffic of the port : — 
 Held, also, that, as the defendants' railway did 
 so impede the traffic, the plaintiffs were entitled 
 to an injunction, and to an order for removal of 
 such railway. Lowthcrv. Curwen, 58 L. T. 168. 
 
 Navigable Eiver — Obstruction — Injunction.] 
 
 — The owner of a wliart on a navigable river 
 drove piles into the betl ui the river diminishing 
 by three feet the navigable breadth of the river : 
 — Held, that an injunction should issue. Att.- 
 Gen. V. Ternj, L. K. 9 Ch. -123 ; 2i» L. T. 716 ; 2 
 Asp. M. C. 2iy— C. A. 
 
 Eight to Navigate — Private Fishery.] — A ship- 
 owner is entitled to use a navigable river for the 
 purjioses of navigation, although in so doing he j 
 may inteifere with a private right of fisher}', 
 I Toviding he docs not act wantonly or maliciously. 
 Anon., 1 Camp. 517, n. 
 
 Damage to or by Craft alongside Wharf.] — 
 
 See D:ilUiii. V. Denton, ante, cnl. tl'.Hl. 
 
 Eights of Wharfinger over the adjacent Bed of 
 the Eiver.] — See Mum/ v. Mdriipolitdti Doardof 
 1 1 '-'/•/■.v. 3 X. K. 66;»; 33 L. .1.. Cli. 377 ; 10 Jur. 
 (■s.i<:) 333 ; 10 L. T. CC ; 12 W. It. CIK. 
 
 Damage to Ship through inefficiency of Tug — 
 StrandiDg.] — See The liutata, infra, col. 8'J6. 
 
 XXIV. POBT.'^, PIEItS. HARBOURS, LIGHT- 
 HOUSES AND DOCKS. 
 
 1. Ports. 
 
 a. Generally, 882. 
 
 b. Tcflls and Dues, 883. 
 
 2. Piers, Harbours and Lighthouses. 
 
 a. Piers, 886. 
 
 b. Injury to Piers, 889. 
 
 c. Obstruction to Harbours, 890. 
 
 d. Tolls, Dues and Metages, 896. 
 
 3. Doehs. 
 
 a. Reparation and Regulation, 903. 
 
 b. Tolls and Dues, 906. 
 
 c. Liability of Dock Companies, 90S. 
 
 d. Duties of Dockmasters and others, S13. 
 
 1. Ports. 
 a. Generally. 
 
 Creation.] — A port may be created in modern 
 times, with a right to receive a port duty from all 
 who come within its limits. Jenhins v. Harvey, 
 1 Gale. 23 : 5 Tyr. 326 ; 1 C. M. & R. 877 ; 5 
 L. J., Ex. 17. 
 
 The crown is entitled, except where vested 
 rights would be interfered with, to create a port 
 for the landing of goods, and to assign its limits, 
 though the soil is in a subject ; and such creation 
 is a good consideration for the receipt of petty 
 customs and port dues throughout the port so 
 assigned. And such petty customs and port dues 
 might in ancient times be granted away by the 
 crown. E.retcr Corporation v. Wai-ren, 5 Q. B-. 
 773 ; D. & M. 524 ; 8 Jur. 4il. 
 
 The owners in fee of the manor of Whitstable, 
 in an action for anchorage dues, claimed in re- 
 spect of a vessel casting anchor on a certain 
 anchorage-ground situate within the sea below 
 low-water mark, adtluced evidence that the tolls 
 had been taken from time immemorial ; that 
 they kept buoys, beacons and lights to mark the 
 bounds between the oyster beds and the anchor- 
 age ground ; that Whitstable, before and since 
 the time of legal memory, had been mentioned 
 in official documents as a port ; and that in 
 ancient times there was a place within the manor 
 for the unlading of merchandise : — Held, that 
 the anchorage dues had a legal origin, the 
 existence of a port being established. However 
 commodious a place may be for vessels, it will 
 not therefore become a port, the establishment 
 of which must be by authority of the crown ; but 
 evidence of traffic in respect of tolls of merchan- 
 dise being taken, of a place being mentioned as- 
 a port in early documentvS, and of natural con- 
 figuration favourable to the formation of a port, 
 justify an inference of fact that a port did exist. 
 Forrmanv. W'hitstahlc (^Free Fisher.i'). L. R. 4 
 H. L. 266 : 21 L. T. 804 ; 18 W. R. 1016. 
 
 Limits of Ports.] — The powers of the board o£ 
 trailc uiKJcr 1(1 i^c 17 Vict. c. 107 (Customs C!on- 
 solidation Act, 1S53). and 25 & 26 Vict. c. 69, s. 17 
 (The Harbours Transfer Act, 1862). to appoint 
 ports and declare the limits, arc not limited to 
 revenue purposes oidy ; nor are such |)owers con- 
 fined to })Orts in their merely geographical sense. 
 Mrholsou v. Williams. 40 L. J., M. C. 159 : L. R. 
 6 Q. V,. 632 ; 24 L. T. 875 ; 19 W. R. 973 ; 1 A^K 
 M. C. 67. 
 
 Where, therefore, by an order of the board of 
 trade, the limits of the jiort of Hull were extended 
 and defined, and the sea between P'lanil)oioiigh 
 Head and Spurn Point was placed within them, i 
 and persons were piohibited from taking ballast 
 or shingle from certain parts of the shore so 
 extended as the port of Hull : — Held, that a 
 person so taking ballast or shingle from such
 
 883 SHirPIXG— XXIV. Port^, Piers, Harbours, L'vjhthoiises, Dods. 8Si 
 
 parts was guilty of an ofEe ;ce \A-ithin 51 Geo. 3, 
 c. 150, s. I'i. ih. 
 
 By-laws— Speed of Ships— Thames.]— I^nclcr 
 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. Ixxv. 8. 57. the lord iua.yor and 
 aldermen had power to regulate the speed of 
 steamships iu the Thames. Tisdell v. Comhe,'?, 
 N. & P. 29 ; 7 A. & E. 788 : 1 W. W. & H. 5 ; 7 
 L. J., M. C. 48 ; 2 Jur. 32. 
 
 By-law— Dealing in Marine Stores.]— A by- 
 law under a local harbour act, which incorporated 
 the 10 Vict. c. 27, declared that no person should 
 deal in marine stores in or about the docks with- 
 out first obtaining permission of the docli com- 
 pany. An engineer of a steamer in doclc sold to 
 C. some old iron bars and worn-out fittings within 
 the dock without such permission : — Held, that 
 the by-law was ultra vires and unreasonable, 
 being "in restraint of trade. Chamherlain v. Con- 
 toay, 53 J. P. 214. 
 
 Water Bailiff— Thames.]— As to the right of 
 the conservators of the Thames to appoint, see 
 Tiirnidye v. Skaw, 3 El. & El. 588 : 30 L. J., M. C. 
 ]13 ; 7 Jur. (x.s.) 755 ; 3 L. T. 147 ; 9 W. P.. 
 
 MSI. 
 
 By-laws of Dock Companies.] — Sec infra, 
 3. Docks. 
 
 Thames Watermen's Acts.] — See ante, cols. 
 139, 835. 
 
 b. Tolls and Dues. 
 
 Nature of.] — A port duty ex vi termini implies 
 a consideration for it. Jenkins v. Harceij, 1 Gale, 
 23 ; 5 Tyr. 326 ; 1 C. M. & K. 877 ; 5 L. J., Ex. 
 17. 
 
 Xyne — "Coals exported from the Port" — 
 What are.]— By the Tyne Coal Dues Act, 1872 
 (35 Vict. c. xiii.), the old coal dues are abolished, 
 and the commissioners are empowered to levy 
 dues, one penny per ton on '• coals exported from 
 the port " : — Held, that, in the absence of any- 
 thing in the act to the contrary, "exported from 
 the port " must be taken to be used in its ordinary 
 meaning of "carried out of the port"; and 
 therefore included coals taken out of the port in 
 a steamer to be consumed on board during a distant 
 voyage. MnUei- v. Bahhrht. 43 L. .J., Q. B. 164 ; 
 T,. R^ 9 Q. B. 457 ; 30 L. T. 864 ; 22 W. R. 909 : 
 2 Asf). M. C. 204. See Stockton and Diivlinqton 
 Ry. V. Barrett, 11 CI. & F. 590— H. L. (E.) S. C, 
 8 Scott, (x.i:.) 641 ; 7 Man. & G. 870— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Liverpool— Vessels Trading Inwards, or in 
 Ballast and Trading Outwards.]— An act pro- 
 vided that a vessel tra-Img inwards to the port 
 of Liverpool should pay dock rates, according to 
 a fixed scale, proportioned to the distance of the 
 port from which she was trading, and that a 
 vessel arriving in ballast, but trading outwards, 
 should pay in proportion to the distance of the 
 port to which she was trading. A vessel that 
 had discharged her cargo at a port in England 
 and taken on board ballast, being about to sail to 
 Liverpool for the purpose of loading a cargo for 
 the West Indies, took on board a bale of cotton 
 and a few other articles admittedly in order that 
 she might pay dock rates as a vessel trading 
 inwards from the port where she took on board 
 sucli articles, and not as a vessel arriving in ballast : 
 — Held, that she was a vessel arriving in ballast 
 wiihin the meaning of the act. Be Garteiej v. 
 
 Mersey Docks and Ilarhonr Biuird, 37 L. T. 
 411. 
 
 Hull — Return or Double Voyage.] — Under 
 a clause in an act exempting ships "from the 
 payment of the same port or toll duties more 
 than once for the same voyage out and home, 
 notwithstanding such ship or vessel might go 
 out and return with a loading of goods or mer- 
 chandise" : — Held, that a vessel having cleared 
 out of yjort at Hull, with a cargo of goods for 
 Mogadore, on the coast of Africa, which she dis- 
 charged, and then took in another cargo for 
 London, discharged the same at London, and 
 took in a cargo for HitU, with which she arrived 
 there, constituted two distinct voyages, and did 
 not fall within the exemption. Kinyston-vjwn- 
 Hull Dock Co. V. Huntiyigton, 2 Chit. 597. 
 
 London — Grain for Sale — Import Duties.] — 
 Grain brouglit into the port of Ijondou for the 
 purpose of being dealt with, and which is actually 
 dealt with, in such a manner as to change its 
 character and name in a commercial sense, and 
 which after being so changed is then sold, is not 
 " grain brought into the port of London for sale" 
 within the meaning of s. 4 of the Metage on 
 Grain (Port of London) Act, 1872, and is not 
 liable to the duty therebv imposed. Cutton v. 
 Vo/j»n. 65 L. J., Q. B. 486: [J89(i] A. C. 457; 
 74 L. T. 591 ; 61 J. P. 36— H. L. (E.) Affirming 
 14 R. 763 ; 44 W. R. 55— C. A. 
 
 Docks — Charge for watching Goods,] — A local 
 dock act enacted that the master of a vessel or 
 owner of cargo may cause the cargo to be 
 deposited in a transit shed and that the goods 
 should be removable from such shed by the same 
 process in all respects as if the cargo was still on 
 board : — Held, that the porter watching the shed 
 could sue the owners of goods for watching the 
 goods while there. Bounqjhrey v. Ifnuyhtor., 55 
 J. P. 729. 
 
 Eamsgate Harbour Dues— 22 Geo. 2, c. 40.] — 
 
 Ships passing Ramsgate at such a distance a^j not 
 to be likely to receive aid from Ramsgate do not 
 pay dues under 22 Geo. 2, c. 40. Pole v. Jonson, 
 \v. Bl. 764. See also Matson (or Butsini) v. Seobel, 
 4 Burr. 2258. 
 
 Sunderland — Primage.] — A charter of James 2 
 granted and confirmed to the corporation of the 
 master, pilots and seamen of Newcastle-upon- 
 Tyne, that all persons, as well subjects as 
 strangers born, being owners of any goods, 
 brought in any ship from beyond the seas into 
 the river Tyne, or any member or creek belong- 
 ing to the port of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, shall 
 from time to time, as often as such goods shall be 
 brought in, pay an ancient duty lawfully, usually 
 and accustomably paid to the corporation, called 
 primage ; that is to say, 2d. for every tun of 
 wine and all other goods, rated by the tun 
 (fish killed and brought in by Englishmen only 
 excepted), and 'M. for every last of flax, and all 
 other goods rated by the last, in manner follow- 
 ing : that is to say, aliens and strangers-born, and 
 all other such person or persons who with ships 
 or vessels shall arrive within the port, or in anj-- 
 of the creeks or members, and not belonging to 
 the same, before they depart with their ships or 
 vessels from the port, or from the creeks, shall 
 pay the duties for and in the name of primage ; 
 and every free merchant, and every other inhabi- 
 tant of Newcastle, arriving with their ships or
 
 55 SHIPPIXG— XXIV. Ports, Piers, Harbours, Lighthouses, Docks. S8G 
 
 vessels within the river of Tyiie. shall pay the 
 duties, within ten days after the landing of the 
 goods, upon lawful demand. The defendants 
 were natives and merchants of Sunderland, 
 which was a creek or member of the port of 
 Kewcastle-upou-T^-ne. They brought their own 
 goods from sea in their own ships, into Sunder- 
 land, and refused to pay the primage on such 
 goods claimed by the corporation, who thereupon 
 brought an action to recover it. On the trial the 
 corporation put in the charter, and gave evidence 
 of ancient and modern usage, that all persons, 
 including those resident in Sunderland, and who 
 being owners of goods brought them into Sun- 
 derland in ships from beyond sea, had paid 
 primage : — Held, that the corporation was not 
 precluded by the charter from claiming primage 
 in respect of goods imported into Sunderland by 
 Sunderland merchants ; that the charter was not 
 incompatible with such claim, and that evidence 
 of usage was admissible in support of it. Hvad- 
 ley V. Newcastle-uptm-Tiine (^Muster. Pilots and 
 Seameii). 2 El. i: Bl. 427; 23 L. J.. Q. B. 35 ; 18 
 Jur. 240 ; 1 W. R. 394— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Newcastle— Primage— "Owner."]— Under the 
 same charter: — Held, also, that a person who 
 gratuitously landed, entered and warehoused 
 goods for the owners, who resided iu London, 
 was an owner within the meaning of the charter^ 
 and liable to the dues. XcwcastIe-iq)07i-Tiine 
 (^MustiT, Pilots and Seamen) v. Hamviond, 4 
 Ex. 285 ; 18 L. J., Ex. 417. 
 
 Hull— Meaning of "Port "— Goole.]— The 14 
 Geo. 3, c. 50. s. 42. which gives the Hull Dock 
 Company a tonnage on ships coming into or 
 going out of the harbour of Kingston-upon-HuU 
 and the company's basin or docLs within the port | 
 of Kingston-upon-HuU, or unloading or ladin; 
 
 some service or aid to navigation was rendered 
 by the owner of the soil who claimed the anchor- 
 age due. Gann v. Whitstahle {Free Fishers') 
 11 H. L. Cas. 192 ; 20 C. B. (n.s.) 1 ; 35 L. J , 
 C. P. 29 ; 12 L. T. 150 ; 13 W. R. 589. See also 
 Foreman v. Whitstahle Free Fishers supra. 
 
 Evidence of mere inunemorial usage will not 
 sustain such a claim. lb. 
 
 A liability to make compensation for actual 
 injury done to the oyster beds by anchoring, is 
 not to be confounded" with a liability to toll^for 
 casting anchor in the soil itself. Ih. 
 
 Goods Distrainable for Port Dues.] — Anchor 
 and sails of a ship carrying coals from Newcastle 
 and all the master's goods are distrainable for 
 port dues ; not only the coals in respect of which 
 the dues arise. Vinhcsto?ie v. Fhden. 1 Salic 
 248. 
 
 2. Piers, Haeboues akd Lighthouses. 
 
 a. Piers. 
 
 Calling in.] — Steam vessels plying between 
 the river Itchen. at Southampton,' and the Isle 
 of Wight, are bound, under the Southampton 
 Local Pier Act, to call at the royal pier at 
 Southampton when requested by five passengers 
 to do so. Farrand v. Cooper,' 12 C. B. (n.s) 
 283. 
 
 Eight to use.]— The plaintiff was the owner 
 of the soil forming the bed of a navigable lake 
 and also of a pier which had been thereon 
 erected wrongfully by a third person. The 
 defendants, in common witli the public, had the 
 right of navigating the lake, and were the 
 lessees, from the person who erected the pier, of 
 the land adjoining that part of the lake where 
 
 any of their cargo within the port, must be con- 1 ^^^^ V^^^ ""'as erected, and therefore h;ul a right 
 
 strued as using the term port in the popular 
 sense, and not as extending the burden of dock 
 duties to places which, in point of local descrip- 
 tion, arc without the port of Hull, as Goole, on 
 the river Oiise. A'iii;/ston-vjjo/i-IIi/ll Pock Co.\. 
 Jirnirni; 2 B. ^V: Ad. 43. 
 
 Evidence of Title.]— Where a party suing for 
 port duties, as (jwner of a port, gave no other 
 evidence of title than the continual enjoyment 
 of a duty which the jury found to be unreason- 
 able in anKuint .-—Held, tliat he could not have 
 a verdict for a less amount found by the jury 
 to be reasonable. Prune v. Thompson,, 4 Q. B. 
 543 : 2 G. i: D. 110 ; 12 L. J., Q. B. 251. 
 
 Kec|)ing up a capstan and rnpc in a cove to 
 assist boats in landing, and without which they 
 could not safely land in bail weatlier, is a good 
 consideration for a reasonable toll on all boats 
 fre(iueiiting the cove, whether ihey used the 
 oipstan or not ; and the custom to exact the toll 
 is good, although the [larty claiming it is neither 
 owner of the cove nor lord of the manor, nor 
 were liis predecessors shewn to have been such ; 
 but he and tiiey had always been owners of the 
 spot on which the caj.stan stood, and of an estate 
 in the neighbourhood. Falmouth {Pari) v. 
 Georae, 5 Bing. 28(5; 2 M. ic P. 457; 7 L. J. 
 (o.,S.) C. P. 40 ; 30 R. R. 597. 
 
 Whitstahle — Anchorage Dues.l — A right to 
 
 to embark and disembark, at the land leased by 
 them, passengers \ising the defendants' boats on 
 the lake. The pier was maintained by the 
 plaintiff, and from its position prevented the 
 defendants from getting with their boats to 
 the land leased by them when landing and 
 taking on board passengers : — Held, that the 
 defendants were justified in causing passengers 
 to pass and rejjass over the pier Ijetwecn their 
 boats ami the land leased by them. Marshall 
 V. Fllcsu-atrr Steam. Kavir/ation Co., 41 L. J., 
 Q. B. 41 ; L. R. 7 Q. B. IGG ; 25 L. T. 793 ; 
 20 W. R. 144. 
 
 The city of London by licence grant(>d a com- 
 pany permission to form a floating i)ier on the 
 Thames, such pier to remain during pleasure, 
 and to take tolls on all passengers landed at the 
 pier. Uniler the i)owers conferred upon them 
 by the Thames Emljankment Act, 1SG2, the 
 board of works took the floating pier from the 
 company, and agreed to pay them a certain sum, 
 and to construct a new ianding-stage in lien 
 of the old pier, and to appropriate it in per- 
 petuity to the Ijcnetit of the company. The 
 Thames Embankment Act, 18()8, iiurp'orlcd to 
 give validity to this agreement. On a bill bv 
 the conservators of tlie Thames (in wlioni ail 
 the estate of the city of London in the bed. soil 
 and .shores of the river had become vested by 
 the Tiianics Conservancy Act, 1857) to restrain 
 the company from continuing in po.ssession of 
 
 anclK rage dues cannot exist merely in res[)ect of the landing-sta<jre constructwl in lieu of the old 
 the u.se ot the sod ; it must be founded on pmof pier :— Held, that the company was entitled to 
 tliat .he sod of the clannant was originally the use of the pier only on .sufferance, and at 
 
 within tlie precincts of a port or harbour, or that 1 the pleasure of the con.servators of the Th
 
 887 SHIPPING— XXIV. rorts, Piers, ITarhours, Lighthouses, Docks. 
 
 that the board of works had no po\Yer to con- 
 vert the licence at pleasure into an irrevocable 
 licence ; and that the act which purported to 
 give a validity to the agreement between the 
 company and the board of works did not affect 
 the rights of the conservators of the Thames. 
 Thames Consermncy v. S. E. By., 2i L. T. 
 246 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 3. 
 
 Remedy in respect of.] — Held, also, that their 
 proper remedy was by bill in equity, and not by 
 ejectment. lb. 
 
 Kight to erect.] — By an act passed in 31 
 Hen. 8, the corporation of the city of Exeter 
 was empowered to pluck down, dig, break and 
 cast up all and all manner of weirs, rocks, sands, 
 gravel, and other lets and ni;isances in the river 
 Exe between the city of Exeter and the high 
 sea, and further to do and make all other things 
 requisite and necessary whereby ships, k.(i., 
 misht have their sure course and recourse in the 
 said river to and from the city of Exeter, com- 
 pensating the owners of the soil where such works 
 should be made for injury done to the soil : — 
 Held, that this act did not give the corporation 
 any right to institute a suit to restrain the 
 erection of a pier in the river, but only a right 
 to abate nuisances on giving compensation. 
 Es-ctpv Corporation v. Devon (^Earl), L. II. 10 
 Eq. 232 ; 23 L. T. 382 ; 18 W. R. 879. 
 
 Held, also, that the pier did not interfere with 
 or affect any property or privilege belonging to 
 the corporation within the General Pier and 
 Harbour Act, 1861, s. 14, and consequently that 
 the consent of the corporation was not required 
 for the erection of the pier. Ih. 
 
 The right or privilege referred to in the 
 General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, s. 14, means 
 a profitable right or privilege, one that confers a 
 tangible benefit on the person or corporation 
 possessing it, and not a mere right to abate a 
 nuisance on giving compensation, like that which 
 the corporation of Exeter possessed under 31 
 Hen. 8. lb. 
 
 Operation of Provisional Orders.] — In persu- 
 ance of a provisional order made by the board 
 of trade under the General Piers and Harbours 
 Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 45), duly confirmed 
 by an act passed in 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. clxxxv.), 
 the plaintiffs constructed a pier, commencing at 
 the end of a narrow street, and by so doing pre- 
 vented the piiblic from getting to the sea shore 
 from the end of the street without passing over 
 a portion of the pier, for which they were obliged 
 to pay a toll. Neither the provisional order nor 
 the special act contained a reference to any 
 right of way. The defendants contended that 
 the public had a prescriptive right of way from 
 the street to the shore, which must be taken away 
 by express words, and that, at any rate, it was 
 saved under ss. 11 and 14 of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 45. 
 They therefore threatened to pull down certain 
 gates put up at the end of the pier by the 
 plaintiffs, who then brought this action for an 
 injunction to restrain them from doing so : — 
 Held, that, as the pier was built in accordance 
 with statutory provisions, and as its existence 
 was physically inconsistent with the alleged 
 right of way, the right of way was abolished by 
 necessary implication, and that the reservations 
 contained in the 11th and 14tli sections of 24 & 25 
 Vict. c. 45 did not apply, as they were incon- 
 sistent with the powers contained in the subse- 
 
 quent special act. Ynrmonth Corporation v. 
 Simmonx, 47 L. J., Ch. 792 ; 10 Ch. D. 518 ; 38 
 L. T. 881 ; 26 W. R. 802. 
 
 User hy Railway Company — Special Contract 
 — Statutory Tolls.] — The proprietor of a pier 
 erected under the powers of an act of parliament, 
 whicli were to be exercised during a certain 
 limited period, was authorised by the act to 
 demand certain specified tolls, for the use of 
 the pier when completed. By an agreement 
 between him and a railway company, he agreed 
 to complete his pier at a considerably earlier 
 time than he was bound to do by the act, and 
 the company agreed to complete a branch rail- 
 way to the pier by the same time ; but the 
 agreement contained no stipulations as to open- 
 ing the pier or railway, or as to the terms on 
 which the pier was to be used. The owner of 
 the pier completed it accordingly, but refused to 
 permit the railway company to use it, except 
 upon terms to which the company declined to 
 accede. The coirrt refused to grant on motion 
 an injunction restraining the owner of the pier 
 from obstructing the use of it by the company 
 at the statutory tolls. Furness Ry. v. Smith, 
 1 De G. & Sm. 299. 
 
 Londonderry — Validity of Regulations for 
 Boats.] — Harbour commissioners were em- 
 powered by statute to make by-laws for regu- 
 lating and fixing the conduct and hire or fare of 
 all boats or ferry-boats plying in the harbour, 
 and for regulating the conduct of boatmen, 
 ferrymen, and others plying in the harbour : — 
 Held, that a by-law, requiring the owners of 
 boats carrying passengers within the port to 
 take out an annual licence from the commis- 
 sioners under a penalty was ultra vires. Zo/tdon- 
 derry Harbour Commissioners v. Londonderry 
 Bridge Commissioners, [1894] 2 Ir. R. 384. 
 
 Pier built on Waste of Manor — Railway to 
 Pier — User,] — An ancient pier and quay built by 
 the lord of a manor is made the subject of a deed 
 of trust, to which the lord for the time being 
 is a party, and subsequently is from time to 
 time regulated by statutes, local, but so far 
 public, by which certain dues are imposed. In 
 the deed, and in the statutes, thei-e are recitals 
 that the pier and quay are built on waste ground 
 of the manor. An act is obtained to make a 
 railway on the pier coming from a distant range 
 of hills containing iron ore, which is intended to 
 be shipped from the pier, and the tenant for life 
 and devisees in trust of the last lord assent to 
 such act. The railway company, having failed 
 to obtain a lease of the pier, purchase land of 
 the devisees down to the foot of the pier, and 
 then, without notice to them or any other pro- 
 ceedings taken as to compensation or otherwise, 
 enter on the pier, and are proceeding to make a 
 railway thereon. A bill is filed, and an injunc- 
 tion moved for to restrain such works : — Held, 
 first, that the pier was built upon waste ground 
 of the manor ; secondly, that nothing had been 
 done to divest the rights of the lord, and that 
 his devisees were owners of the soil ; tliirdly, 
 that it was not a highway, and that, as between 
 the lord and the company, they would be liable 
 to an action for trespass if they interfered with 
 the use of the pier, which their works, if prose- 
 cuted, it clearly appeared would do. Injunction 
 granted to restrain the company from entering 
 without taking the necessary legal steps by 
 notices, and making compensation, but refused
 
 889 SHIPPING— XXIV. Ports, Piers, Harbours, LlfiJithouses, Docks. 890 
 
 to restrain the laying down rails in a particular 
 manner, there being nothing to shew that they 
 intended to proceed irregularly. Thonqyson v. 
 Went SomeraPt Mineral Bij.. 5 W. R. 296. 
 
 Liability for Negligence causing Injury to 
 Boat.] — The defendant, under a local act, con 
 structed a pier and a landing-stage. The pier 
 was a solid structure, which did not extend to 
 low-water mark. Ijut the landing-stage floated 
 on the river, anrl was moored belo«" low-water 
 mark by anchors fixed in the bed of the river. 
 a bridge being made to connect the landing- 
 stage with the pier. Part of this landing-stage 
 was beyond the limits marked on the deposited 
 plans, but it, with its mooring anchors, received 
 the approval of the admiralty. One of the 
 mooring anchore to which the floating stage 
 was attached was insutficiently buoyed to indi- 
 cate its position under the water, and thereby 
 injured a boat, whicli. whilst lawfully navigating 
 the river, and witlmut any negligence of the 
 owner of the boat, struck against such anchor : 
 — Held, in an action for the injury to the boat, 
 that the landing-stage and works were authorised 
 by the act ; but that there was a cause of action 
 against the defendant for negligence in insuffi- 
 ciently buoying the an<-hor, which caitsed the 
 injurv to the boat. JoUitlh v. WuUa.'iPij Local 
 Board, 43 L. J.. C. V. 41 : L. 11. 9 C. P. G2 ; 
 29 L. T. 082 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 14(5. 
 
 b. Injury to Piers. 
 
 By Stress of Weather.] — By the Harbours, 
 Dorks an 1 Piers Act. 1S47 (10"Vict. c. 27), the 
 owner of every vessel or float (if timber shall be 
 answerable to the undcrtakeis fur any damage 
 <lone by sucli vessel or float of tindjer, or by any 
 person employed about the sazne, to the harbour, 
 (lock or pier, or the quays or works connectecl 
 therewith : and the master or jicrson having the 
 charge nf such vessel or float of timber, through 
 wliosc wilful act or negligence any such damage 
 is done, sliall also be liable to make good tiic 
 same. There is a ])roviso tliat nothing therein 
 contained shall extend to impose any liability 
 upon the owner, wlicre the vessel is, at the time 
 Mlien the damage is caused, in charge of a com- 
 pulsory pilut-:— Held, tiiai. in a case where the 
 damage to tiie |>ier iiad been occasioned by a 
 vessel, through the violence of the winds and 
 waves, at a time when the master and ciew had 
 been compelled to escape from the vessel, and 
 h;id, consequently, no control whatever over it, 
 (he owners were not liable. Winr B'lrer Com- 
 iiiix:<iiincr>! v. Ailtniixiiii, 47 L. .J., Q. li. 19:i; 
 2 App. Cas. 743 ; 37 L. T. 543 ; 2(J W. Pt. 217 ; 
 :i Asp. M. C. .->21— H. L. 
 
 A liability imiioscd by statute is subject, no 
 less than a liability at common law, to the 
 exception that, in tlie absence of express words, 
 no duty is imposed u|)on a person to make good 
 a lo.ss or damage occasioned, without his dclaidt, 
 by causes which human agency is powerless to 
 control. Ih. 
 
 Under the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses 
 Act, 1847 (10 Vict. c. 27). s. 74, the owner of a 
 vessel doing flamagc to the ijicrs or works of a 
 harbour is liable to make good tlic damage, 
 although the accident is the result of inevitable 
 accident from stress of weather, without any 
 ckfault of those in charge. Bennix v. Torcll. 
 42 L. .J.. M. C. 33 : L. H. 8 Q. B. 10 ; 27 L. T 
 4^2 ; 21 W. n. 170; 2 Asp. M. C. 402. 
 
 The owners of a ]iier, who are undertakers 
 within the meaning of the Harbours, Docks and 
 Piers Clauses Act, 1847, acquire, under s. 74, a 
 maritime lien in respect of any damage done to 
 their pier by a ship, and may proceed in rem to 
 recover tliat damage in the court of admiralty, 
 and the shipowners are debarred, by s. 74, from 
 setting up the defence of inevitable accident. 
 The Merle, 31 L. T. 447 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 402. 
 
 See Bomney Mar.slb (^Lord.s; Bailiffs and 
 Jnrats) v. Trinihj Hm/se Corjioration, 41 L. J.. 
 Ex. lOG ; L. Pv. 7'Ex. 247— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Who may Recover for Damage caused to Pier.] 
 
 —When a limited coniiiauy. duly constituted by 
 a provisional order made under the General Pier's 
 and Harbours Act, ISill and 1862. as the under- 
 takers of a pier within the meaning of the 
 Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, is 
 voluntarily wound up, and its property sold by 
 the liquidator, a purchaser of the pier has trans- 
 ferred to him both the property and the rights 
 of the original undertaker, becomes the under- 
 taker, within the meaning of the last-mentioned 
 act, and can recover against a ship for damage 
 done to his pier by thatTship. The Merle, supra. 
 But see Cases supr.i. 
 
 Damage to Pier in Foreign Country.] — Tiic 
 question of tiie liability of a shipowner, pro- 
 ceeded against in the English admiralty court, 
 for an injury done by his ship to a pier, pro- 
 jecting into the sea, but attached to the soil of a 
 foreign country, is governed by the lex loci, and 
 not bv Enulish law. The M. Mo,vham, 4i; 
 L. J.. Adm. 17 : 1 P. D. 107 ; 34 L. T. .559 : 24 
 W. K. 650 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 191— C. A. 
 
 When an English ship, by the negligence of 
 her master and cicw, ran into and damaged a 
 pier on the coast of S|)aiii, and the owners of the 
 pier jiroceeded against the ship for the damage 
 in the admiralty court, and the shipowner 
 l)leaded that by the law of Spaiir a shipowner 
 was not responsible for the damage occasioned 
 by the negligence of his master ami crew : — 
 Held, that the jilea was a good defence to the 
 action. Ih. 
 
 c. Obstruction to Harbours. 
 
 See aUo XXllI. Wii.\ui-ingeks, suitra, col. 
 879. 
 
 Who liable — Underwriters — Owner. ] — The 
 harbour-master of a harbour constructed under a 
 private act inoorporaling the Harbours Act, 1847 
 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 27), iiaving incurred expense in 
 removing an obstruction caused by part of a 
 wreck, sought to recover it from the owner of 
 theship under s. .56. The undcrwrilers, wiio had 
 l)aid as for a tot.al loss, were joined with the 
 original shipowner as defendants: — Held, that 
 the underwriters did not by such payment 
 become; the owners of the wreck for the jiurposu 
 of liability to tlie harbour-master under this sec- 
 tion, and that tiie original shipowner must liear 
 the expen.Hc, the liability having at tavhed to him 
 as owner at tlie time of the happening,' of the 
 casualty. Ijjliiifon (EurV) v. Norman, Ai) L. .). 
 Ex. 557 : 36 L. T. 84« ; 25 W. R. 056 : 3 Asp. 
 M. C. 471— C. A. 
 
 Liability of Owner of Wreck,] — The " D.," in. 
 consequence of the s()le<iefault of her master and 
 crew, had sunk in the Thauies and had become a 
 wreck, obstructing the navigation of the river
 
 891 SHIPPING— XXIY. Ports, Piers, Harbours, Lighthouses, Docks. 892 
 
 Her mate sent a messapje to the hfirbour-master 
 at G. to inform him of the accident, who said 
 that he would cause the wreck to be lighted. A 
 few hours afterwards, the Avreck not having been 
 lighted, a vessel, without any default on tlie part 
 of those on board her, came into collision with 
 the wreck and sustained damage. An action of 
 damage having been instituted on behalf of the 
 owner of the damaged vessel against the owners 
 of the " D.," the judge at the trial refused to 
 admit the evidence shewing that the mate of the 
 '• D." had sent a message to the harbour-master, 
 and that the latter had promised to light the 
 wreck : — Held, that the evidence was wrongly 
 rejected, that the collision had not been caused 
 by the negligence of the owners of the wreck, 
 and that they were not liable for the damage 
 done. The Douglas, 51 L. J.. Adm. 89 : 7 P. D. 
 151 ; 47 L. T. 502 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 15— C. A. 
 
 Sect. 96 of the Dublin Port and Docks Act 
 (32 & 33 Vict. c. c.) enacts, that " the harbour- 
 master or dockmaster may remove any wreck or 
 other obstruction to the harbour, quays, docks, 
 or other approaches to the same ; and also any 
 floating timber which impedes the navigation 
 thereof ; and the expense of removing any such 
 wreck, obstruction or floating timber, shall be 
 repaid by the owner of the same, and the harbour- 
 master or dockmaster may detain such wreck, 
 obstruction or floating timber for securing the 
 expenses, and, on nonpayment of such expenses 
 on demand, may sell such wreck, obstruction or 
 floating timber, and out of the proceeds of such 
 sale pay such expenses, rendering the surplus, if 
 any, to the owner on demand " : — Held, that a 
 personal liability is not thereby imposed on the 
 owner in respect of the removal of a vessel 
 which has been sunk in the harbom- or in the 
 ap{)roaches to the harbour, either by the act of 
 God, or through the negligence of a person not 
 the owner, or for whose act the owner is not 
 responsible. The Edith, 11 L. P., Ir. 270— C. A. 
 
 Duties of Commissioners.] — Under 6 & 7 Will. 
 4, c. 117, the dues, and other moneys which the 
 commissioners of Kingstown harbour were by 
 statute empowered to receive from vessels fre- 
 quenting the harbour, were directed to be applied, 
 in the tirst place, in payment of the expenses of 
 maintaining and regulating the harbour ; and it 
 was provided that if there should be any over- 
 pins, beyond what should be requisite for the 
 purposes of that act, and earlier acts relating to 
 the harbour, and recited in the preamble, such 
 overplus should be applied in repayment of 
 certain advances which the lord-lieutenant was 
 authorised to make. One of these earlier acts 
 directed that means should be used for the cleans- 
 ing nnd deepening, and also for the improving of 
 the harbour, and another directed the commis- 
 sioners to proceed in the making, improving and 
 completing the harbour ; but none of the acts 
 relating to the harbour imposed in terms upon 
 the commissioners the duty of removing accumu- 
 lations or obstructions which had existed pre- 
 viously to their appointment. In an action 
 against the commissioners for negligence, in 
 allowing an accumulation of rubbish in the har- 
 bour, whereby a vessel was injured, they pleaded 
 that the obstructions which caused the injury 
 complained of were in the harbour before their 
 appointment, and that the moneys statutably 
 receivable by them were applicable to certain 
 specific works, and that they never had any 
 moneys applicable under those acts to the removal 
 
 of the obstructions complained of : — Held, a good 
 answer to the action. Cainphell v. Ilornshy 
 Ir. P. 6 C. L. 37. See S. C, Ir. P. 7 C. L. 540 
 Ex. Ch. 
 
 Liability of Harbour Commissioners for not 
 moving Obstructions.] — Harbour commissioners 
 cannot be sued for not cleansing, deepening or 
 removing obstructions from the harbour, if they 
 have not funds to enable them to do so. Grant 
 V. Sl'iqo Ilarhour Commissioners. Ir. P. 11 C. L. 
 190. 
 
 By act of parliament, 26 & 27 Vict, c. Ixxxix., 
 the harbour of B. was vested in the defendants, 
 the limits were defined, and the defendants had 
 jurisdiction over the harbour of P. and the 
 channel of P. beyond those limits, for the purpose 
 of, inter alia, buoying " the said harbour and 
 channel." but they were not to levy dues or rates 
 beyond the harbour of B. By 42 & 43 Vict. c. 
 cxlvi., a moiety of the residue of light duties to 
 which ships entering or leaving the harbour of 
 P. contributed were to be paid to the defendants 
 and to be applied by them in, inter alia, buoying 
 and lighting the harbour and channel of P. A 
 vessel was wrecked in'the channel of P., which, 
 under the Wrecks Removal Act, 1S77 (40 & 41 
 Vict. c. 16), s. 4, the defendants had power to, and 
 did partially remove. The wreck not removed 
 was not buoyed, and the plaintiff's vessel was in 
 consequence wrecked : — Held, that the statutes 
 imposed upon the defendants an obligation to 
 remove the wreck from the channel, or to mark 
 its position by buoys, and that, not loaving done 
 so, they were liable in damages to the plaintiff. 
 Dormant v. Furness Rij., 52 L. J., Q. B. 331 ; 
 11 Q. B. D. 496 ; 49 L. T. 134 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 127 ; 47 J. P. 711. See also Beq. v. Williams, 
 53 L. J., P. C. 64 ; 9 App. Ca. 918, infia. 
 
 Obstruction on Land to Passage to.] — A local 
 act enacted, that " if any person shall place on 
 any quay, within ten feet of the quay head, or 
 on any ground immediately adjoining to the 
 haven, and within the space of ten feet from 
 high-water mark, any goods, so as to obstruct the 
 free and commodious passage through or over the 
 same, every person so offending shall forfeit any 
 sum not exceeding 51." A boat builder placed 
 three boats in a yard in his occupation, on the 
 part immediately adjoining the river, and within 
 the space of ten feet from high-water mark, so as 
 to obstruct the passage, and was convicted in the 
 penalty. There was no public right of passage 
 through and over the yard : — Held, by Cockburn, 
 C.J., Crompton and Blackburn, JJ. (dissentiente 
 Wightman, J.), that the section applies' only to 
 cases where the public had a right of passage, 
 and that the conviction could not be sttstained. 
 By Wightman, J., that the obstruction was pro- 
 hibited in express terms, and that he was 
 properly convicted. Ilarrod v. Worship, 1 
 B. & S. 381 ; 30 L. J., M. C. 165 ; 8 Jur. (N.s.> 
 153 ; 9 W. P. 865. 
 
 Harbour Authority — Liability for Damage to 
 Ship taking the ground.] — A ve^sel that liad 
 taken the ground in a tidal harbour was damaged 
 in her bottom. A stone was found in the berth 
 where she lay, that might have caused the 
 damage : — Held, that in the absence of proof 
 that the harbour authority had been negligent 
 they were not liable. Thompsoyi v. Greenock, 
 Harbour Trustees, 3 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 
 1226.
 
 393 SHIPPIXG— XXR\ Ports, Piers, Harhours, Lighthouses, Docls. 89-1 
 
 Damage by Snag.] — The government of a 
 
 colony had the control of a tidal harbour and 
 authority to remove obstructions ; and the 
 wharves belonged to them, the public having a 
 right to navigate the harbour and to use the 
 wharved on payment : — Held, that the govern- 
 ment was .iable for damage to a vessel by a snag, 
 which they had not taken reasonable care to 
 remove. JRer/. v. Williams, 53 L. J., P. C. 6i ; 9 
 App. Cas. 418. 
 
 Damage by submerged Pile — Liability 
 
 of Trustees of Navigation.] — Unpaid trustees 
 appointed for public purposes in aid of the com- 
 mon-law right of navigating an ancient high- 
 way, with a discretionary but not compulsory 
 power of removing obstructions : — Held, not liable 
 in an action for damage to the plaintiffs barge 
 by striking upon a submerged pile. Furies v, 
 Lee Conservancy Board, 48 L. J., Ex. 402 ; 4 
 Ex. D. 116 ; 28 W. E. 688. 
 
 Damage by sunken Wreck.] — A canal 
 
 company taking tolls for the use of it and having 
 power to raise sunken boats at the owner's 
 expense, held liable for damage to a fly boat 
 that struck on a sunken boat ; and that their 
 liability was by the common law and not under 
 their statute. Par aah y y. Lancaster Canal Co., 
 1 1 A. A: E. 223 ; 3 P. & D. 162 ; L. J., Ex. 338 
 — Ex. Ch. See also The J/oorcock, and cases 
 ante, col. 880 ; The Utopia, ante, col. 721 ; Met- 
 calf \. Hetherington, and cases post, col. 910. 
 
 Damage by Stump of Beacon — Liability of 
 
 Trinity House.] — A beac-n erected by and vested 
 in the trinity house, having been nearly de- 
 stroyed, a stranger applied to the trinity house, 
 and obtained leave to remove the remains of it. 
 He removed part of the remains, but left an iron 
 stump standing up above a rock under the water. 
 A vessel struck against the iron stump and was 
 'ost : — Held, that the trinity house was liable. 
 GilheH v. Trinity House Corporation, 56 L. J., 
 Q. B. 85 ; 17 Q. B. D, 795 ; 35 W. K. 30. 
 
 Statutory Duty to buoy Eiver — Damage by 
 Neglect to do SO.J — Semble, tlie harbour authority 
 is liable. Huchanan v. Clyde Liyhthouscs 
 Trustees, 10 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 531. 
 
 Wreck — Expenses of Removal.] — The owner 
 of a wreck within the meaning of s. 56 of 
 the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clau-ses Act, 
 1847, is the owner at the time that the wreck is 
 removed and disposed of, not the person who was 
 owner at the time the obstruction occurred. 
 £<jlinton {EurV) v. Xoriitaii, supra, col. 890, 
 overruled on this point. T/ie Cryxtal, Arrow 
 Steamship Co. v. Ti/ne Commissioners, 63 L. J., 
 Adm. 146 ; [1894] A. C. 508 ; 6 K. 2.58 ; 71 
 L. T. 346 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 513— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Per Lord Herschell, L.C., and Lord Watson 
 (Lords Ashbourne and ilorris dissenting) : 
 Semble. that s. 56 of that act creates a 
 jiers^onal deVit in lesjiect of which an action may 
 Ic- maintained against the owner of a wreck 
 vhich is removed by the harbour-master as 
 ciusing an obstruction to any harbour or dock. 
 lb. 
 
 Per Lord Macnaghten : Semble, that the 
 ownt r only incurs liability under that section 
 when the wreck is substantially in the same 
 cocdition at the conclusion of the operation of 
 
 removal as it was at the commencement, and 
 the owner derives some benefit from the re- 
 moval : the statute did not contemplate the 
 disposal of the wreck by explosives. Whether 
 at common law a man can by abandonment 
 wholly dejirive himself of property in goods. 
 Quaere. Ih. 
 
 Per Lord Herschell. L.C. : Eiver commis- 
 sioners who seU a wreck which is obstructing 
 the entrance to their river are not bound to 
 ap]-)ly the moneys derived from the sale pro rata 
 to the expenses incurred under the acts of 1847 
 and 1877. lb. 
 
 Wear Hirer Commissioners v. Adamson, supra, 
 col. 70, discussed, and The Edith, supra, col. 891, 
 disapproved. lb. 
 
 Thames Conservancy.] — In ascertaining 
 
 the charges and expenses oi weighing or raising a 
 vessel under the Thames Conservancy Act, 1857, 
 s. 86, the cost of a special apparattts provided by 
 the conservators for removing wrecks, and tised 
 on the particular occasion, may be taken into 
 account ; such cost comprising interest upon 
 capital invested in the apparatus, repairs, a 
 depreciation fund and the insurance of the 
 apparatus against risk. The charge for insur- 
 ance of the apparatus cannot be estimated by 
 reference to the tonnage of the wreck raised by 
 it. Where it appears that the work in question 
 could have been done more cheaply by a less 
 expensive apparatus, the charges must be based 
 on the lower rate. Tlie Harrinqton, hi L. J., 
 Adm. 45 ; 13 P. D. 48 ; 59 L. T. 72 ; 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 282, 
 
 Mersey Docks and Harbour Board — 
 
 Wreck - raising Plant.] — A lightship and a 
 dredger, the property of the Mersey docks and 
 harbour board, were sunk by the negligence of 
 the defendant's ships. The board, having power 
 by 37 & 38 Vict. c. xxx. to raise and sell wrecks 
 and retain the expenses, raised the wrecks and 
 sued the defendants for the expenses : — Held, 
 that the board were entitled to recover in respect 
 of the plant used for raising the wrecks at the 
 rate of 12Z, per tide during the period the plant 
 was at work ; that rate being calculated with 
 reference to the capital invested in the plant, 
 repairs, depreciation fund and insurance. The 
 Ildvrinyton (supra), apjjroved. The Emerald, 
 The Greta Holme, 65 ~L. J., Adm. 69; [1890] 
 P. 192 ; 74 L. T. 645 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 134— C. A. 
 As to damages recoverable for the loss of use 
 of the dredger, see The Greta Holme (6*. C. on 
 appeal to H. L.), supra, col. 735. 
 
 Aire and Calder Navigation — Abandon- 
 ment by Owners — Tidal Water.] — Sect. 47 of 
 the Aire and Calder ^Navigation Act, 1889, pro- 
 vides that if any vessel ^hall be sunk in the 
 river Ouse within the limits of the jurisdiction 
 of the undertakers, and the owners shall not 
 forthwith remove the same, it shall be lawful 
 for the undertakers to remove such vessel and to 
 detain the same until payment be made of all 
 the exi>cnses relating thereto, or to sell such 
 vessel and thereout to pay such expenses and 
 the expenses of the sale, returning to the owner 
 of such vessel the overjilus : — Held, that, upon 
 the true construction of the section, the time 
 when the expenses were incurred, and not the 
 time when the vessel sank, is the period at 
 which the ownership is to be ascertaincfl, ami 
 that the owners of a vessel which sank in tidal
 
 SHIPPING— XXIV. Ports, Piers, Tlarhours, Lifilithouscs, Docks. 
 
 895 
 
 water in the river Ouse within the statutory i 
 limits, who abandoned her sine animo reenpcr- 1 
 tindi, were not liable to pay to the undertakers 
 of the naviu;ation the cxi)onses. incurred by the 
 nndertakers after the abandonment, of unsuccess- 
 fully at tempt ins to raise the vessel and of 
 destrovinf her bv explosives. Burruclou/j/i v. 
 Brouui, CG L. J., Q. B. 672 ; 76 L. T. 797 ; 8 Asp. 
 M. C. 290— H.L. (E.) 
 
 Humber— Failure to Raise— Blowing up.] 
 
 — A Iluniber conservancy act enabled commis- 
 sioners, when any vessel was sunk in the Humber 
 (on neglect of the owners), to appoint a person 
 to raise or blow up the same, with powers to 
 recover summarily the expenses from such 
 owners. A vessel was sunk in the Humber, 
 and, on the neglect of the two owners to raise 
 her, the commissioners appointed a person to 
 raise or blow her up. Whilst the works were in 
 progress, one of the part owners died, leaving 
 two executors. The attempts to raise having 
 failed, the vessel was blown up, and proceedings 
 were taken against tlie surviving part owner and 
 the two executors of the deceased part owner, 
 to recover the expenses incurred in endeavouring 
 to raise the vessel, and in blowing her up : — 
 Held, first, that it was for the justices to decide 
 whether or not these expenses were properly 
 incurred ; and, secondly, that the justices had no 
 power to include the executors in such order. 
 W'ihoti V. C<irfe>% 7 L. T. G7G ; 11 W. E. 337. 
 
 Victoria— Marine Act, 1890, s. 13.]— The 
 
 above act imposes upon the registered owner of 
 a ship sunk in a harbour the duty of clearing 
 the wreck away, or of reimbursing the statutory 
 officer the expenses incurred by him in doing so. 
 He cannot escape this liability by abandoning 
 the wreck to underwriters, or otherwise. The 
 Cryxtal (supra, col. 893), distinguished. Hnicard 
 tiinith and Sons v. Wilso'7i, 65 L. J.. P. C. GO ; 
 [1890] A. C. 579 ; 75 L. T. 81 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 
 197— P. C. 
 
 Mersey — Removing Wrecks.] — The Mer- 
 sey Dock Acts Consolidation Act, 1858 (21 & 22 
 Vict. c. scii.), empowers the defendants to raise, 
 destroy, &c., any " wrecks of vessels and any 
 vessels that shall be sunk in any dock within 
 ■the port of Liverpool," which may be an obstruc- 
 tion to the navigation, and. in case the master 
 or owner of such vessel or other obstruction shall 
 neglect to pay the charge of removing the same 
 for the space of three days after demand, to sell 
 the same, and out of the proceeds retain the 
 expense incurred in raising, destroying, &;c., 
 " such wrecks or other obstructions," rendering 
 the overplus to the person entitled to the same. 
 A ship came into collision with another vessel 
 and was sunk in the Mersey, within the port of 
 Liverpool, having on board copper ore and other 
 goods belonging to the plaintiffs. The defen- 
 dants took possession of the wreck, which 
 obstructed the navigation, and claimed the 
 exclusive right of dealing with ship and cargo. 
 A portion of the cargo (worth about 1,200/.) 
 was raised by them from the wreck, at a cost of 
 :29-lZ. lis., and they ultimately blew up and 
 •destroyed the hull of the vessel and the rest of 
 the cargo. The expense incurred by them in 
 removing the obstruction caused by ship and 
 -cargo was about 4,500Z. :— Held, that the defen- 
 dants were not entitled to detain the plaintiffs' 
 :goods to indemnify themselves for the costs 
 
 896 
 
 incurred in tlic destruction of Ihe ship, of which 
 the plaintiffs were not the owners. Ylc'tdn v. 
 Mrr.icy Boohs and Ilarhoiir Board, o9 L. J., 
 C. P. 3 ; L. K. .") 0. P. 19 ; 21 L. T. 362. 
 
 Damage to Ship— Stranding— Duty of Har- 
 bour Authority to provide efficient Tugs — 
 
 Liability.] — Under the PihMe Navigation Act, 
 1883, the defendairts were constituted the har- 
 bour authority for the port of Preston, and all 
 vessels entering or within the port or harbour 
 were under the control of the defendants' 
 harbour master, whose orders they were bound 
 to obey. The plaintiffs' vessel on arrival at the 
 mouth of the river was lightened under the 
 orders of the defendants, and the harbour-master 
 subsequently informed the plaintiffs' master that 
 there would be sufficient water on a certain 
 morning to enable the plaintiffs' vessel to dock 
 at Preston, and a tug was supplied by the defen- 
 dants for the purpose of towing her to the dock. 
 The plaintiffs' vessel was preceded up river by 
 two smaller vessels which were towed by two 
 tugs also supplied by the defendants. Owing to 
 bad stoking, or some other cause which was not 
 explained by the defendants, the leading tug 
 occupied an hour in doing what she shoidd have 
 accomplished in thirty-five minutes. It was 
 impossible for the plaintiffs' vessel, owing to the 
 narrowness of the channel, either to pass the 
 leading vessel and her tug or to turn back. The 
 two leading vessels entered the Preston dock, 
 but the plaintiffs vessel was stranded about a 
 quarter of a mile from the dock owing to the 
 river having fallen about fourteen inches, and 
 was damaged : — Held, that the defendants, as 
 between themselves and the plaintiffs, had the 
 duty imposed upon them to supply an efficient 
 tug for the leading vessel, and that as a prima 
 facie case had been made out by the plaintiffs 
 that the tug was not efficieirt, and that prima 
 facie case had not been explained away by the 
 defendants, they were liable for the damage 
 cairsed to the plaintiffs' vessel. The Ratata, 66 
 L. J., Adra. 39 ; [1897] P. 118 ; 76 L. T. 224 ; 
 8 Asp. M. C. 236— C. A. Affirmed in H. L. See 
 also Reiiey v. Klrkcudbrit/Jit 2Iagistrates, post, 
 col. 914. 
 
 Ballast— Casting into Rivers.] — 19 Geo. 2, 
 c. 22, s. 1, which imposed a jienalty for casting 
 ballast into rivers is impliedly repealed by 54 
 Geo. 3, c. 159, s. 11. Micliell v. Brown, 1 EL 
 & El. 267 ; 28 L. J., M. C. 53 ; 5 Jur. (N.s.) 
 707. 
 
 Expense of Cutting Weeds.] — Persons incor- 
 porated Ijy act of parliament to improve the 
 navigation of a river, havitig power to take tolls : 
 — Held not liable for sewerage in the river, or 
 for not cutting weeds which were no injury to 
 the navigation. Barrett Kariijation Co. v. 
 B.ohl>is, 10 M. & W. 593 ; 12 L. J., Ex. 81. 
 
 Expense of Pumping Ship in Dock.] — See 
 
 Blaehctt v. Smith, 12 East, 518, ante, col. 69. 
 
 d. Tolls, Dues and Metages. 
 
 Lighthouse Duties.] — British ships, in passing 
 by the Eddystone and other lighthouses in the 
 Channel, not touching at any jilace in Great 
 Britain or Ireland, are not liable to pay the 
 lighthouse duties to the trinity house. Trinity 
 House Corporatmi v. Sorshie, 3 Term Kep. 768,
 
 897 SHIPPING— XXIV. Ports, Piers, Harhuurs, Lighthouses, Docks. 898 
 
 contracted to deliver on board a ship to be pro- 
 vided by B., that even if s. 42 of the general act 
 be applicable to dues under s. 71 of the special 
 act, A. was not liable to the company for such 
 dues, and that A. was not the shipper of coals 
 so as to be owner within the interpretation clause 
 of the 10 & 11 Vict. c. 27. Bihble Xarigafnm Co. 
 V. Ilargreaves, 17 C. B. 38;") ; 25 L. J., C. P. 97. 
 
 Exemptions — Mail Packet.] — A post-ofBce 
 packet, hired by the postmaster-general, under a 
 contract to carry mails and government dis- 
 ])atches to and from Dover to Calais, entering 
 the harbour of Dover on her return voyage, 
 bringing no mail, but having on board dispatches 
 for the secretary at war, and also private passen- 
 gers and their luggage, a carriage, and bullion 
 for passage and freight, the vessel, being the 
 private pi'operty of the commander, was a vessel 
 employed in his majesty's service, and therefore 
 exempt from the payment of the Dover harbour 
 dues payable under 47 Geo. 3, c. 69, s. 6, which 
 contained an exemption in favour of vessels 
 belonging to his majesty, or that might be 
 employed in bis service. Ila/iiilfon v. Stow. 1 
 D. & R. 274 ; 5 B. & Aid. G49. 
 
 Transport Chartered to Crown.] — Where 
 
 a person chartered his ship to the commissioners 
 of the transport service on belialf of the crown, 
 to be employed as a transport, and the ship in the 
 course of such employment made several voyages 
 from Deptford to foreign parts and back : — Held, 
 that by the terms of the charterparty, coupled 
 with the nature of the service, a temporary 
 ownership passed to the crown, so that the 
 charterer, during the time of such service, was 
 not to be considered as owner within the charters 
 granted to the Trinity house, which impose 
 lighthouse duties, and for buoyage and beaconage 
 on the masters and owners of ships. Trinity 
 II0U.W CorjJoratlon v. Clark, 4 M. & S. 288. See 
 Smithctt V. Bhjthe, 1 B. & Ad. 509 ; 9 L. J. (O.s.) 
 K. B. .S9. 
 
 Material for Government Works.] — By 
 
 a local act in 1820, wharfage duties were autho- 
 rised to be talcen in respect of certain goods, 
 including stone, which should be imported into 
 a harbour, and the same were to be vested in the 
 corporation of the borough for the purpose of 
 repairing, improving and maintaining the har- 
 bour, wharfs, &c., within the borough and town. 
 There were no words in the act binding the 
 crown to pay such duties, but there were provi- 
 sions exempting the crown from liability in 
 respect of coals imported into the port for the 
 use of his majesty's steam-i)ackets, and actually 
 used on board the same, and also from the tolls 
 to be taken for passing over a bridge connected 
 with the liarbour. Stones were brought by a 
 barge into the harbour, for the jutrpose of being 
 used upon gf)Vornment works which were being 
 carried on tlicre, and which, if they had been 
 brought by any private individual, would have 
 been liable to tlie (hities given by the act : — 
 Held, that the crown was not liable to be called 
 upon to pay such duties. Wcynioitth CorjwratioH 
 V. yiiffcnt, 6 B. & S. 22 ; 34 L. .T., M. C. 81 ; 
 11 Jur. (N.s.) 4(J5 ; 11 L. T. 672 ; 13 W. R. 338. 
 
 Who Liable to Pay Shipper— Owner.] — A 
 local act, incorporating a comjtany, by s. 71 
 imposed certain river (lues in respect of goods 
 carried on the river Ribblc, for every time of 
 pjissing certain lines, without saying by whom 
 they were to be paid. The 10 & 11 Vict. c. 27, 
 which was incorporated with the special act, 
 jirovides, by s. 42, that rates in respect of goods 
 shipped or unsliipjicd within the limits of the 
 harbour, dock or pier, shall be paid, in case the 
 goods are to be shipped, before shipment, or in 
 case they were to be unshii)ped, before removal 
 from the premises of the undertakers : — Held, in 
 the case of coals which A. had sold to B., and 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 What Goods Liable— Gravel from Thames and 
 
 Lea.] — The Trinity house has a right to the 
 duty of ballastage of screened garden gravel, 
 though not taken from the Thames ; but it is 
 doubtful whether gravel taken from the river 
 Lea is witliin the jurisdiction of the Trinity 
 house. Trinltij House Corjjoratiun v. Staples, 2 
 Chit. 689. 
 
 "Metals."] — An act for keeping in repair a 
 harbour imposed duties, enumerated in a schedule 
 annexed, on goods exported and imported. In 
 the schedule, under the head " metals," certain 
 duties were imposed on copper, brass, pewter 
 and tin ; and on all other metals not enume- 
 rated, for every lOl. value, lO^Z. : — Held, that the 
 latter words did not include gold and silver, and, 
 therefore, that the commissioners were not 
 entitled to demand for specie or bullion, 10^. for 
 every 101. value. Casher v. Holmes, 2 B. & Ad. 
 592 ; 9 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 280. 
 
 By Package or Weight.]— An act authorised 
 harbour commissioners to charge a sum not 
 "exceeding Id. for every ton or less quantity 
 than a ton, and for every package and parcel of 
 goods, wares, merchandise, &c., exported or 
 imported over the bars of certain rivers." Tin 
 plates were exported, packed in wooden boxes 
 for shipment, and such boxes formed and com- 
 posed one entire quantity or shipment in one 
 vessel (under one bill of lading), and to the same 
 consignee, and at a uniform rate of freight on 
 all the tin plates so shipped, such freight being 
 jiaid on the quantity of tons weight : — Held, 
 that the commissioners were entitled to charge 
 Id. i)er package, and were not bound to charge 
 Id. per ton weight. Jones v. Phillips, 7 Ex. 85 ; 
 21 L. .L, Ex. 6. 
 
 "Exportation."] — The words "shipped for 
 exportation" are not necessarily restricted to. 
 an exportation to foreign countries, but may 
 mean exportation in its widest sense, that is, 
 carrying out of port. Stockton and Darlinqton 
 Ry. V. Barrett, 11 CI. & F. 590— H. L. (E.) ; 8 
 Scott (N.E.) 641 ; 7 Man. & G. 870— Ex. Ch. 
 
 " Importation."] — A local act imposed a duty 
 on goods imported into or exported from the 
 harbour of I'.erwick-upon-Twced. The harbour 
 extends from the bridge over the Tweed down 
 the river to the sea. A person brought goods by 
 sea into the harbour in a sea-going vessel, char- 
 tered for the voyage, and having first used the 
 rings or posts erected by the harbour commis- 
 sioners in order to moor the vessel while her 
 masts were being lowered, passed under the 
 bridge, and uidoadcd the goods 200 yards above 
 the bridge : — Held, that the goods were not 
 irnfjortcd itito the harbour so as to be liable to 
 (hies. Wihon V. Rohertson., 4 El. k Bl. 923 ; 24 
 L. J., Q. B. 185 ; 1 Jur. (N.s.) 755. 
 
 Goods Landed,] — A corjjorat ion was eiii[iowered 
 by a local act to levy tolls on all gfiods landed 
 within thcii- harliour. In pursu.'ince of a practice 
 whicli hud continued fcii- niiiiiy years, stones 
 
 '29
 
 891) SHIPPING— XXIA'. I\>rtH, Piers, Harbours, Lu/litlioiiscs, Docks. 900 
 
 hrou.uht nloiip- the coast into the hnvhnur wei'e 
 shot I'loin boats on to the shore, below high- 
 water mark. nm\ remained on the spot wliere 
 thej' were dej'osited till they were shipped for 
 exportation from the harbour : — Held, that the 
 stones were not landed within the meaning of 
 the act. and therefore that the corporation was 
 not entitled to claim the toll on them. Havvrij 
 V. Ltjmv Beqiii CurjHiratin/i, ;?8 L. J., Ex. 141 ; 
 L. li.i Ex. I'UO; 17 W. E. 81»2. 
 
 Mersey Dock — Tonnage Rates — "Trading 
 Inwards "and "Trading Outwards."] — \'(s-ils 
 took in part of their cargo at Glasgow, sailed to 
 Liverpool, entered the appellants' docks, and 
 there completed their loading, but discharged no 
 cargo ; they then proceeded to a port in India, 
 there discharged and loaded a complete cargo, 
 thence sailed to Liverpool, entered the appel- 
 lants' docks, and there discharged the whole or 
 part of their cargo, and then returned with the 
 remainder of their cargo or in ballast to Glasgow : 
 — Held, that under s. 230 of the Mersev Docks 
 Acts Consolidation Act, 1858 (21 & 22 Vict. 
 c. xcii."), such vessels using the appellants' docks 
 as aforesaid on their way to India were liable to 
 dock tonnage rates, not as vessels " trading 
 inwards" from Glasgow, but as vessels "trading- 
 outwards " to India, and that such vessels using 
 the docks as aforesaid on their return voyage 
 from India were liable to rates as vessels " trading 
 inwards " from India. Mersey Doclat v. Hender- 
 son, 58 L. J., Q. B. 152 ; 13 App. Cas. 595 ; 59 L. T. 
 697 ; 37 W. E. 449 ; 6 Asp. M. G. 338— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Timber "Shipped or Unshipped,"] — Where a 
 statute gave trustees appointed for the improve- 
 ment of a navigable river and harbour power to 
 charge dues on all timber "shipped or unshipped 
 within the harbour or river": — Held, that to 
 attach a tow-rope to a log of timber, or a number 
 of logs loosely connected at one of the ends, for 
 the purpose of towing them, is not to " ship " 
 those logs, and that to cast off the tow-rope is 
 not to " unship " them. Clyde Norigation Trus- 
 tees y. Laird, 8 App. Cas. 058 — H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 QuEere, whether a raft of logs so constructed 
 as to be capable of being navigated, can be said 
 to be "unshipped" when, on reaching its desti- 
 nation, it is taken to pieces and landed. lb. 
 
 By an act dated 1770, the Clyde trustees had 
 power to charge rates on " all timber or wood 
 either carried in boats or other vessels, or floated 
 in and upon the said river Clyde, within those 
 points aforesaid" (that is above Dumbuck). By 
 a statute in 1840, the Clyde trustees' jurisdiction 
 was extended down the river to Newark Castle, 
 and the duties were imposed by that act on "all 
 goods carried or conveyed on the river." Bj' the 
 statute in force at i)resent, dated 1858, all the 
 prior acts are totally repealed. 'Bj s. 75 the 
 limits of the river are to include the whole 
 channel or waterway forming the harbour, and 
 the whole works within certain given limits, and 
 the whole lands acquired for the purposes of 
 such works, or occupied by the trustees in con- 
 nection with the navigation of the said river. 
 By s. 98 it is enacted that the trustees are to 
 have power to levy on goods " shipped or un- 
 shipped " in the river or harbour the rates speci- 
 fied in the first and second columns of part 1 of 
 schedule H. Schedule H. is headed " Rates on 
 goods conveyed upon or shipped or unshipped in 
 the river or harljour." In 1876 the trustees, 
 under their act of 1858, sought to levy rates on 
 
 tind)er in logs, which were .taken out of the 
 vessels importing them from abroad, outside the 
 jurisdiction of the trustees, and then floated or 
 towed, chained together, over the old shallow 
 channel of the river to storing ponds situate 
 within the trustees' jurisdiction. In a note for 
 suspension and intei'dict at the instance of the 
 owners: — Held, that the word "river" as it 
 occurs in s. 9S. com{)rehended the whole waters 
 of the Clyde within the limits defined in s. 75, 
 and cannot be restricted to those portions of the 
 channel which have been artificially deepened ; 
 but that the statute of 1858 confers no authority 
 on the trustees to levy rates on timber towed in 
 the manner mentioned. lb. 
 
 Tolls for Beaching Boats — Providing Accom- 
 modation for.] — When the fishermen of a sea 
 village had been immemorially accustomed to 
 beach their boats in winter on ground adjoining 
 the harbour, and where the proprietor had subse- 
 quently obtained a local act authorising his levy 
 of five shillings yearly for each boat beached, the 
 fishermen's rights were enforced against him ; 
 and it was held that he could not exclude the 
 fishermen from the ground used for beaching 
 without assigning to them other ground equall^^ 
 well adapted for the purpose. Alton v. Stejjhen, 
 1 App. Cas. 456— H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 When an act authorises the exaction of a toll, 
 the accommodation for which the toll is autho- 
 rised must be provided. lb. 
 
 Company Liable to Pay Deficiencies in Income 
 of Harbour and Pier Board.] — A dock company 
 was liable under an act of parliament to pay a 
 harbour and pier board deficiencies of their income 
 made up to a certain day in each year : — Held, 
 that the board was bound to claim such defi- 
 ciencies every year. SoidJu/iiqjtoa Dock Co. v. 
 Soutluinqjton Harbour and Pier Board, 41 L. J., 
 Ch. 832 ; L. E. 14 Eq. 595 ; 20 L. T. 828 ; 20 
 W. E. 940. 
 
 The board had power to reduce or alter their 
 tolls : — Held, that, as against the company, they 
 had no power to remit tolls on particular classes 
 of goods. lb. 
 
 The board had power to compound for tolls : 
 — Held, that, as against the company, they could 
 not let the whole annual tolls. lb. 
 
 Action to recover Eates Paid under Invalid 
 Regulations.] — By severalacts of parliament, all 
 vessels entering into or leaving the Mersey docks 
 were liable, according to the tonnage burden, and 
 were compelled to pay certain fixed dues. By 
 the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, s. 26, whenever 
 the tonnage of any ship has been ascertained and 
 registered in accordance with the provisions of 
 that act, the same shall thencefortli be deemed 
 to be the tonnage of such ship, and be repeated 
 in every subsequent registry, unless any altera- 
 tion is made in the form or capacity of such ship, 
 or unless it is discovered that the tonnage of such 
 ship has been erroneously computed ; and in 
 either of such cases such ship shall be re-measured, 
 and the tonnage determined !lnd registered accoi'd- 
 ing to the rules in that act contained. By s. 27, 
 re-measurement may be made upon desire of the 
 shipowner. By s. 29. the commi.ssioners of cus- 
 toms are empowered to make certain modifications 
 and alterations in the tonnage rules prescribed by 
 the act. Under that section the commissioners of 
 customs in 1860 made regulations, which had the 
 effect of increasing the registered tonnage of the
 
 901 SHIPPING— XXIY. Ports, Piers, TIarhuurs, Lighthouses, Docks. 902 
 
 plaintiff's ships. In 1S65. these rejriilations were, 
 by a decision of a court of law, declared to be 
 conti-aiy to the act of parliament, and invalid. 
 An action was brought to recover the excess of 
 rates paid in accordance with these invalid regu- 
 lations, over the amount which would have been 
 due under the Merchant Shipping Act : — Held, 
 that the action was not maintainable. Jfoss v. 
 Mersey Bnclis and Harbour Board, 26 L. T. 425 ; 
 20 W. E. 700 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 605. 
 
 Metage.] — A corporation was, under an act 
 passed in 18.39, entitled to the right to take dues 
 in respect of vessels lading or unlading upon or 
 from the wharves of the harbour ; a subsequent 
 act passed in 1868. giving the corporation addi- 
 tional powers, and conferring upon them the 
 exclusive ajipointment and regulation of meters 
 and weighers within the harbour, and incorpo- 
 rating the 81st and 82nd sections of the Harbours, 
 Docks, and Piers Clauses Act. 1847 (10 Vict. c. 27). 
 The corporation thereujjon made by-laws for the 
 appointment, government, and payment of meters. 
 In 1807, the corporation granted a lease to B. for 
 999 years of premises, in which thei-e was a 
 proviso that '• all such goods, wares, and mer- 
 chandise as shall be proved to be bona fide the 
 sole property of B., his executors, administrators, 
 or assigns, who shall be legally and beneficially 
 entitled to the premises when such goods, &:c., 
 shall be landed, shipped, or unshipped, brought 
 to, carried, or laden to, upon, or from certain 
 premises in the harbour mentioned, shall be freed 
 and discharged from all wharfage, cranage, petit 
 customs, and other duties usually paid at any 
 time or times heretofore, or whicli at any times 
 hereafter during the respective terms shall become 
 due or payable to the corporation." A party 
 claiming under B. unloaded a cargo of coals at 
 the premises in the harbour for his own use, and 
 did not employ a corporation meter : — Held, that 
 he was under no legal obligation to employ such 
 meter. Whithif/ v. Carjioitcr, 24 L. T. 576. 
 
 By a charterparty it was agreed that a ship 
 should load a cargo of oats, and proceed to a safe 
 port on the east coast of Great Britain, London 
 inclusive, or a safe port in the English Channel, 
 or to Havre, and there " deliver the same always 
 afloat on being paid freight," at certain lates per 
 quarter of oats di.schargeil. " The cargo to be 
 brought to and taken from alongside at char- 
 terer's expense and risk." The ship sailed to 
 Kochester, and discharged her cargo within that 
 port. The corporati(jn of Rochester, as owner of 
 the port, is entitled to an ancient fee, toll, due 
 or reward of \d. per quarter upon corn brought 
 by water to, and unloailed within the i)ort, pay- 
 able by the persr.n bringing such corn, for the 
 weighing of the corn, or being ready and willing 
 to weigh it. This due having been paiil by the 
 captain, the shipowners' agent l)rougiit an action 
 in the county CDurt to recover the ;uii(iuiit fi-oin 
 the consignees of the cargo as and for money 
 paid for them at their request. Ju<lgnicnt was 
 given for the plaintiff. On appeal, the court, 
 being of opinion that the question of liability 
 arising between the shipowners and consignees 
 depended upon wiiether the due was in ancient 
 times a payment for actual metage service done 
 by the corjtoration before a cargo was put over 
 the side of a ship, or afterwards, remitted the 
 case to the judge in order that he might ascertain 
 the fact : — Held, that (having regard to the 
 terms of the charterparty), if the due in its 
 origin was for metage to be performed on board, 
 
 the shipowners must bear it : but, if the metage 
 was to be done ashore, then the charge should 
 fall on the consignees, who would in that case 
 be liable to repay to the shipowners the amount 
 disbirrsed for the same. Woodham v. Peterson, 
 25 L. T. 26 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 93. 
 
 Payment of Harbour Dues more than once a 
 
 Year.] — The 32 Geo. 3, c. Ixxiv. s. 14. which 
 exempted coasting vessels from payment of duty 
 to Ramsgate harbour oEtener than once in a year, 
 including coasting vessels carrving onlv coal. 
 Shq^Jierd v. Moore, 1 H. & N. 125 ; ^25 L.'j., Ex. 
 264 ; 2 Jur. (N.S.) 617 ; 4 W. E. 570, n.— Ex. Cli. 
 And see 2 El. & Bl. 382 : 22 L. J., Q. B. 377 : 17 
 Jur. 1179. 
 
 Ballastage — Trinity House,] — Validity of grant 
 of monopoly to the Trinity house. See Re.r v. 
 Trinity House Corporation, 1 Iveb. 137, 250, 270, 
 300, 331. 
 
 Clyde Navigation Dues — Exemption.] — See 
 
 Xe^c Dumbarton Steamboat Co. v. Clyde Kavi- 
 fjation Trustees, 8 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 
 850. 
 
 Limerick Harbour Dues — Limerick Harbour 
 Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict. c. civ.— Shannon Naviga- 
 tion Act, 2 & 3 Vict. c. 61,] — Dues payable on 
 vessels reported at the custom-house of Limerick 
 were by statute payable to the Limerick Bridge 
 commissioners, who by 10 & 1 1 Vict . c. cxcviii. were 
 constituted Limerick Harbour commissioners, 
 to be applied in the construction and main- 
 tenance of docks and other works of the port 
 which the commissioners were empowered to 
 execute. Under 2 & 3 Vict. c. 61, and acts 
 amending the same, certain outports in the 
 Shannon, including the harbour of Foj'nes and 
 the conservancy thereof, are vested in commis- 
 sioners of piublic works, who are empowered tn 
 levy rates on vessels using the outports. By the 
 Limerick Harbour Act, 1867, the piers and har- 
 bours in the estuary of the Shannon then vested 
 iTi the commissioners of public works are not 
 comprised in the harbour and port of Limerick ; 
 and harbour rates are defined as including all 
 rates and dues leviable in the port and harbour 
 of Limerick under the act, and are made payable 
 to the harbour commissioners in lieu of those 
 payaljle under the former acts ; and such rates 
 and dues include dues leviable on '• every vessel 
 from any port in Great Britain or Ireland report- 
 ing at the custoni-lwuse of Limerick or dis- 
 charging or loading within the port or at the 
 quays." By custom-house regulations all vessels 
 arriving at the outports, whether from foreign oi' 
 from ])orts of the United Kingdom, are required 
 to report tliemselves at the Limerick custom- 
 house : — Held, that under the Act of 1867 the 
 Limerick Harbour commissioners arc not entitled 
 to dues on a vessel arriving from a port of the 
 United Kingdom and discharging at Foynes, 
 though rei)orted at the Limerick custom-house. 
 Limrrich Harbour Commissioners v. Kane. 2 L. R., 
 Ir. 473. 
 
 Skerries Lighthouse Tolls.] — Vessels bound 
 from Cork to Dublin thnjugh St. George's 
 Channel arc not subject to the toll given by 
 3 Geo. 2, c. 36, to the Skerries light proprietor. 
 Boyce v. Jojws, 4 L. R., Ir. 231. 
 
 Light Dues — Exemption — Landing Persona 
 at Bunkering Port. J — On Iht ^■^yaLrl■ frdiii 
 Mediterranean ports to Aarhuus, iu Denmark, 
 
 29—2
 
 903 SHIPPING— XXIV. Ports, Piers, Harbours, Lighthouses, Docks. 904 
 
 the s.s. " Chelona," laden with barley, put into 
 ilalta for bunker coals. The master there took 
 three persons on board who desired to go to 
 England. He charged them no passage-money, 
 but^made a substantial charge per head for their 
 food, for which he did not account to the owners. 
 The " Chelona" touched at Portland for bunker 
 coals, and the three jicrsons were there landed. 
 The collector for the general lighthouse authority 
 at Portland demanded light dues, which he 
 alleged had been incurred by the owners of the 
 ship in consequence of sucli landing: — Held, that 
 the ship was exempt from light dues. The case 
 was analogous to that of the master taking a 
 friend on board and landing him, and did not 
 fall within the proviso to the exemption in the 
 order in council of the 16th of May, 1893. 
 ITaiJ V. Trinity Huuse Corpuratio7i, 65 L. J., 
 Q. B. 90 ; 73 L. T. 471 ; 4i W. E. 188 ; 8 Asp. 
 M. C. 77. 
 
 Dungeness Lighthouse Dues — Grantee from 
 Crown.] — Action claiming Dungeness lighthouse 
 dues by grantee from James I. against customers 
 collecting the same. Gibs v. Oshaston, 2 Keb. 
 114. 
 
 Tonnage — Measurement.] — See Richmond Hill 
 Steamship Co.y. Trinity House Coriioration, ante, 
 col. 26. 
 
 3. Docks. 
 
 a. Reparation and Regulation. 
 
 Right to Moor.] — The 63rd section of the Har- 
 bom-, Docks and Piers Clauses Act (10 & 11 
 Vict. c. 27), which imposes a penalty upon the 
 master of any vessel who shall, without permis- 
 sion of the harbour-master, moor the same in the 
 entrance (or within the prescribed limits) of any 
 dock or harbour, and who shall not remove the 
 same upon notice, overrides and extinguishes all 
 local and private rights of property therein. 
 Gardner v. WJiitford: \ C. P.. (N.S.) 665. 
 
 The assertion of such local or private rights 
 does not exclude the jurisdiction of the justices 
 under the act. Ih. 
 
 Maintenance and Repair.] — A dock company 
 was reijuired to make and maintain a new chan- 
 nel, with equal depth and breadth at the bottom, 
 and with equal inclination of the sides to the 
 former channel : — Held, that a duty was cast 
 upon the company to repair generally the banks 
 of the new course. Reg. v. Bristol Dock Co., 
 1 G. & D. 286 ; 2 Q. B. 64 ; 2 Eailw. Cas. 599. 
 
 High Tide— Injury to adjoining Land.] — A 
 
 dock company was authorised by its special act 
 to make and maintain a dock and works connected 
 therewith according to the levels defined in plans 
 and sections deposited with the clerk of the 
 peace. The dock communicated with the Thames 
 by an artificial channel, through which the water 
 was admitted. The sections shewed the retaining 
 bank of the dock and channel at a uniform height 
 of four feet above Trinity high-water mark. The 
 level of the surrounding country was some feet 
 below Trinity high-water mark, the river being 
 kept from overflowing by means of a river wall 
 four feet two inches above Trinity high-water 
 mark. The company allowed its retaining bank 
 to be at one ])oint several inches below the level 
 of four feet. In November, 1875, an extra- 
 ordinary high-tide took place, and the river rose 
 to four "feet five inches above Trinity high-water 
 
 mark, in consequence of which the water in the 
 dock overflowed the bank and damaged the 
 property of a neighbouring landowner. The tide 
 had never been known to rise so high before, but 
 in March, 1874, it had risen to four feet above 
 Trinity high-water mark. On that occasion there 
 was a small overflow from the dock, but nO' 
 damage was done to the neighbouring landowner. 
 Previously to that the tide had never risen 
 above three feet four inches, and the water had 
 never overflowed from the dock : — Held, first, 
 that the company was bound to keep its bank up 
 to the level of four feet above Trinity high-water 
 mark, and was liable to the plaintiff for breach 
 of its statutory duty in not doing so. Nitro- 
 Phosphate and OdanCs Chemical Manure Co, v. 
 London and St. KathariTie Dock Co., 9 Ch. D. 503 ; 
 39 L. T. 433 ; 27 W. R. 267— C. A. 
 
 Held, secondly, that, independently of the 
 act, the dock company was bound as a riparian 
 owner to keep the bank up to the level of four 
 feet two inches, the height of the rest of the river 
 wall, and that the company was liable to the 
 plaintiff for negligence in not so doing. Ih. 
 
 Held, thirdly, tbat the extraordinary high tide 
 of November, 1875, although an act of God, did 
 not excuse the dock company from its liability ; 
 but that it ought to have an opportunity of 
 shewing that the damage done by the act of 
 God and the damage done through its negligence 
 ought to be apportioned. Ih. 
 
 Contract for.] — A corporation constituted 
 
 for the purpose of carrying on a particular trade, 
 entered into a contract for cleansing and removing^ 
 the filth and dirt accumulating in their docks and 
 basins : — Held, that such a contract ought to have- 
 been under the corporation seal, as it was not a 
 contract of a mercantile nature, nor was it with 
 a customer of the company, nor was it of a charac- 
 ter which created an impossibility that it should 
 be under seal. London Dock Co. v. Sinnott, 8- 
 El. & Bl. 347 ; 27 L. J., Q. B. 129 ; 4 Jur. (N.s.) 
 70 ;. 6 W. R. 165. 
 
 Raising or Destroying Wrecks.] — See Viriaw 
 V. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and Cases- 
 supra, cols. 893 — 896. 
 
 Piers — Liahility to Repair — Trustees — Pro- 
 prietor.] — Bv the Clyde Navigation Consolida- 
 tion Act, 1858 (21 & 22 Vict. c. 149), s. 76, the 
 undertaking of the Clyde trustees shall in terms 
 of the recited acts (which include 3 & 4 Vict. 
 c. 118), consist of (inter alia), " The construction 
 and completion of the several wet docks or tidal 
 basins, quays, wharfs, ferry slips, approaclies. 
 embankments of river dykes, and all other works 
 and improvements shewn and described on the 
 several plans and sections referred to in the 
 recited acts, and thereby authorised to be made 
 and maintained." By s. 11 of 3 & 4 Vict. c. 118. 
 the trustees amongst other works were authorised 
 to reconstruct the piers of the ancient ferry of 
 Erskine. Sect. 50 enacted that " the said quays 
 should, at the expense of the said trustees, 
 but with the consent of the proprietors, be 
 repaired, lengthened, altered, or reconstructed," 
 where such repair, lengthening, altering, or 
 reconstruction should be rendered necessary by 
 the work carried out by the trustees for deepen- 
 ing the river. The trustees having enlarged and 
 reconstructed the piers of Erskine ferry, one 
 of the piers was damaged by a ship, and tlie pro- 
 prietor brought an action for a declaration that
 
 905 SHIPPING— XXIV. Ports, Piers, Harbours, Lighthouses, Docks. 906 
 
 the trustees were bound to repair the pier as 
 part of their undertaking. The trustees denied 
 liability unless for damage done by their works : 
 — Helii, that the ferry was not part of the 
 undertaking of the trustees, and they were not 
 bound to repair the damage. Clyde JVa vigat'um 
 Tmstees v. Blantyre {Lord), [1893] A. C. 703— 
 H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 By-laws, Validity of — Discharge of Cargo — 
 Employment of Lumpers." — IJy 10 .S: 11 Vict. 
 c. 27. s. 83, the undertakers aulhorised by any 
 special act to construct a dock may from time 
 to time make such by-laws as they shall think 
 fit for (amongst other purposes) regulating the 
 .shipping, unshipjjing. and removing of all goods 
 within the limits of the dock, and for regulating 
 the duties and conduct of all persons, as well 
 the servants of the imdertakers as others, 
 employed in the dock. A dock company, who 
 were the undertakers under a special act, made 
 by-laws that no lumpers should be allowed to 
 work on board any vessel in the dock, but such as 
 were authorised by the company, unless pei mis- 
 sion in writing had been previously obtained 
 from the superintendent of the dock, and the 
 servants of the comi)any only should be allowed 
 to work within the dock premises, whether on 
 ship, lighter, or shore : — Held, that the by-laws 
 were in excess of the powers conferred upon the 
 dock company bv s. 83. and were therefore 
 invalid. J)lch \.' liadarl, 10 Q. B. D. 387 ; 48 
 L. T. 3M1 : 5 Asp. M. ('. 4".) : 47 J. P. 422. 
 
 St. Katharine's Docks — Dumb Barge 
 
 with no one on Board — "Vessel."] — A ••dumb 
 Ijai'ge," a river craft \vhii;h is simply projjelled by 
 means of oars, and having no rigging or other 
 ■equipment, is not a " ves-sel"' within tlie meaning 
 of ss. 100 and 101 of the London and St. 
 Katharine Docks Act, l.S(;4 (27 & 28 Vict, 
 c. clxxviii.), notwithstanding the definition of 
 the word " vessel '" in the interpretation clause 
 •(s. 3) of the Harlxjurs, Docks and Tiers Clauses 
 Act, 1847, 10 Vict. c. 27, and consequently the 
 owner is not liable to a penalty for allowing her 
 to remain in the docks regulated by the former 
 act without any person on boani. Ilodijcti v. 
 Jjitnditn and St. Kdthitrhio JJorlt.s Co.. />."> I,. J., 
 M. C. 40 ; 16 Q. B. D. 5'.»7 ; 54 L. T. 427 ; 34 
 \V. II. ",03 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 53'J : r,0 J. 1'. 580. 
 
 Statutory Powers.] — The statutory 
 
 ])owcrs <onfi iM.l by the l(,-gislature upon <lock 
 coni|pariies and nihcr liodies cieated for jjublic 
 puipii-es, and atithurised to acquire land for 
 such jmipo-^es, are inserted in order to define — 
 i.e. limit — the rights conferred, and as implying 
 a prohibition against the exercise of more exten- 
 sive rights wliich such cf)nipaiiics ini.'ht have l)y 
 virtue of their owneiship of property. Jjondon 
 AHXocidtioii iif iShi/xiiviiir.s V. London mid India 
 J)i)r]tx. [\K)i] 3 Ch. 212 : (i7 L. T. 23S ; 7 Asp. 
 
 .M. c. ly.-.— C. A. 
 
 By-laws and Regulations — Validity— Confir- 
 mation. |— Tin; power (if making liydawr^ differs 
 frnin the jiowcr whi<di (;vory ownci- of property 
 Lms of making agreements witli those persons 
 wlio desire to use it. A by-law is not an agiec- 
 nient, but a law binding on all persons to wl)om 
 it ap])lics, whether they agree to be l>oun'l by it 
 or nf)t. All legulatioiis made by a corporate 
 body, and intended to bind not only themselves 
 and their officers and servants, but members of 
 the public who come within the sphere of their 
 
 operation, may be properly called " bj'-laws " 
 whether they be valid or invalid in point of law, 
 for the term " by-law " is not restricted to that 
 which is valid in point of law. Under the two 
 statutes — the London and St. Katharine Docks 
 Act, 1864, and the Harbours, Docks and Piers 
 Clauses Act, 1847 (10 Vict. c. 27)— the public 
 have certain rights to use the docks belonging to 
 the London and St. Katharine Dock Company, 
 including the wharfs, quays, and warehouses, 
 and the company are empowered to make by-laws 
 and regulations and charges for their use : but 
 such regulations and by-laws are not valid and 
 binding until made, confirmed and published as 
 bv-la\ s 11 the manner prescribed by the act of 
 1847. I . 
 
 Duty to Repair.] — Mandamus to dock com- 
 pany to repair their canals. R>'g. v. Bristol Bock 
 Co., supra, col. 903. 
 
 b. Tolls and Dues. 
 
 Liability and Amount.] — The 39 Geo. 3, c. 49, 
 s. 137. gives to the West India Dock Company 
 certain rates and duties of all goods impm'ted 
 from the West Indies which shall be landed fiom 
 on board any ship entering into and using the 
 docks ; which rates are directed to be " accepted 
 f(U- the use c,t the docks, and the quays, wharfs 
 and ci'anes, and oiher machines belonging thereto, 
 and the land-waiter's fees on account of such 
 goods after being unshipped, and all charges 
 and expenses of whaifage, landing, housing and 
 weighing such goods, and of such cooperage as 
 the same may want after being unshipped, and 
 all rent for warehouse lOom for twelve weeks, 
 and all charges of delivering the same from tlie 
 said warehouses." The latter words include a 
 delivery of tho goods into lighters in the dock, 
 as well as an immediate delivery from the ware- 
 houses into land carriages placed under the 
 cranes of the waiehouses, although for the pur- 
 pose of such delivery into lighters it is necessary 
 to put the goods upon trucks in order to carry 
 them across the quay, and afterwards ciane 
 them into the lighters. Harden v. Sniif/i, 8 
 East, IG. 
 
 West India Ships— Stores — Necessaries.] — 
 The statute giving to \\'e>t India .-hijis. which 
 have (liscliaiged their honic'wai'd-bound cargoes, 
 in tlie docks of the West India Company, the 
 use of the light dock for a time nf)t exceeding 
 six months from the time of unloading, on pay- 
 ment of the tonnage duty of (j.v. 8^/. payal>le on 
 the entrance of such ships into the import 
 dock, does not entitle the owners to ship stores 
 intended for the use of such ships as part of their 
 outfit, over the wharfs of the light dock, witiioiit 
 payment of wharfage and iiorterage. as in ease 
 of otlier goods shipped by way of merchandiseon 
 the outward-bound voyage ; aliter, as to neces- 
 saries intended for the present use of such ships 
 while lying in the dock during the tiuic allowed 
 by the act. JShirhrtt v. Smith, 11 East, 553. 
 
 Hull Dock — Port of Goole.] — Ves.sels taking in 
 the whole or a part of tlieir cargo in the port of 
 Goole, and proceeding therewith to Hull, arc 
 liable to pay to the Hull Dork C( nip.uiy the 
 toiiiuitre duties of 2d. per ton v.nder 12 (ieo. 3, 
 e. xci. s. 44. Jlull Dock Co. v. Prir-stleij, 1 N. i: M. 
 85 : 4 B. Ac Ad. 178. 
 
 Vessels proceeding to Hull from a place above
 
 907 SHIPPING— XXIV. Ports, Piers, Harbours, Lighthouses, Docks. 908 
 
 Goole (as Leeds\ and not touching at Goole. 
 but merely passing the entrance into the port of 
 Goole, are not liable to tonnage duty. Jb. 
 
 Goods of "Similar Nature, Value," &c.] — A 
 company was empowered by an act to charge for 
 the landing of goods in their dock, the several 
 sums mentioned in the schedule annexed, and, for 
 articles not therein particularised, such sums as 
 should be equal to the sums affixed on goods " of 
 a similar natiu-e. package, value and quality," in 
 the schedule. All the charges mentioned in the 
 schedule were of small fixed sums, none being ad 
 valorem except the charge for sculptured marble 
 and marble slabs. .it the end was a note, 
 " Goods not included in the foregoing schedules 
 to be charged in proportion to the rates therein 
 specified, according to size and weight " :— Held, 
 that the company was not entitled to make an 
 ad valorem charge for the landing of goods not 
 enumerated, or at all approaching, in "nature, 
 vahre and quality," to any of those enumerated 
 in the schedule. Soutliamjjton Docli Co. v. Hill, 
 16 C. B. (N.s.) 567 ; 10 L. T. 462 ; 12 W. E. 800 
 —Ex. Ch. 
 
 "Near the Eiver Tyne."] — By a local act, a 
 toll or tax of \d. per chaldron was imposed upon 
 the owners or lessees of "any collieries or coal 
 mines near the river Tyne," for every chaldron of 
 coals sold or delivered by them to be exported 
 from or out of the river, and which shall be so 
 exported ; such toll to be collected or received at 
 the offices or places respectively when the con- 
 tracts for the sale or delivery of such coals are 
 usually made, in aid of the Tyne Keelmen's 
 Charitable Fund. Since the formation of rail- 
 ways and docks, the services of the keelmen in 
 the shipment of coals on the Tyne have become 
 unnecessary, the coals being brought down to the 
 wharfs or quays by railways, and shipped direct : 
 — Held, that 'coals shipped on the Tyne from 
 collieries " near" to the river were still liable to 
 the payment ; and that a colliery situate ten 
 miles from the Tjnie is " near the river Tyne," 
 within the meanine of the act. Tyne Xcclmcn 
 v. Davison, 16 C. B.^Cn.S.) 612. 
 
 Held also, that coals brought for shipment to 
 the Tyne by a public railway, from collieries 
 which'^before the formation of the railway had 
 always shipped their coals on the river Wear, to 
 which they had been conveyed by private tram- 
 ways from the collieries, were equally liable to 
 the keelmen's dues. Tyne Keelmen v. Elliott, 16 
 C. B. (n.s.) 612. 
 
 Lien on Goods in Name of Broker for Charges.] 
 
 — The Commercial Dock Company was created 
 by a statute, and empowered to distrain and 
 sell ships for nonpayment of rates and charges 
 due for dockage of ships, receiving, ware- 
 housing and storing goods, and if any owner, 
 consignor or consignee of any goods or merchan- 
 dise neglects or refuses to pay rates or charges, 
 the company may detain the goods until paid, 
 and, if removed before payment, may distrain 
 a-ny goods of the owner, consignor or consignee, 
 and detain and sell the same, or may prosecute 
 actions for those duties. The 10 & 11 Vict. c. 27 
 (Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847), 
 s. 45, contains similar provisions, which were by 
 a subsequent private act extended to the dock 
 company. D. having purchased from the owners 
 some timber stored at the Commercial Docks, and 
 which was entered in the books of the company 
 
 in the name of a broker, the company refused to 
 transfer the timber into D.'s name, on the ground 
 that the broker was indebted to them for rent 
 and charges in respect of other goods standing 
 in his name in the books of the company, 
 although D. tendered to them the specific rent 
 and charges due in respect of the goods pur- 
 chased by him : — Held, first, that the statutes, 
 conferred on the company no right to do so. 
 Dresser v. Bosanquet, 4 B. & S. 460 : 32 L. .J., 
 Q. B. 374 ; 9 Jur. (x.s.) 458 ; 11 W. R. 840— 
 Ex. Ch. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the company could not 
 rely on any general lien to that extent by the 
 common law, supposing that such existed, as the 
 statutes must be taken to displace such right. 
 lb. 
 
 Extent of Powers of Distress for Nonpayment 
 
 of Eates.] — A dock company, by their act of 
 incorporation, was empowered to receive for all 
 goods deposited on their premises rates not 
 exceeding those usually paid in the port of 
 London for wharfage of such goods, and in case 
 default was made in payment of the rates, the 
 collectors or the company were to retain and sell 
 the goods or any part of such goods, and out of 
 the moneys thence arising to retain and pay the 
 rates payable in respect of such goods, returning 
 the overplus to the party entitled ; and in case 
 such goods shall be removed before the rates- 
 shall be paid, it shall be lawful for the company 
 to take and distrain or sell any goods of the 
 owner thereof in manner before mentioned. 
 Certain rates payable in respect of goods belong- 
 ing to A. which had previously been removed 
 from the premises of the company being unpaid, 
 the company claimed to distrain other goods of 
 A. then on the premises until payment of the 
 rates due in respect of both these sets of goods. 
 A. had applied to have the goods then on the 
 premises delivered up to him, and was informed 
 lay the company that no more goods would be 
 delivered to his order until his debt was paid or 
 reduced : — Held, that the statute enabled the 
 company to distrain and sell any goods in their 
 possession for the recovery of rates payable in 
 respect of other goods of the same owner. Green 
 V. St. Katharine Dock Co., 19 L. J., Q. B. 53 ; 13 
 Jur. 1116. 
 
 Held also, that the above facts amounted to a 
 distraining and detaining. lb. 
 
 Action to recover Rates paid under Invalid 
 
 Regulations.] — Moss v. J/ersei/ Docks and Har- 
 bour Board, 26 L. T. 425 ; 20 W. E. 700 ; supra, 
 col. 901. 
 
 Primage — Liability of Agent.] — Liability of 
 gratuitous agent landing goods for London 
 owners for primage at Newcastle. JVeiceastle-on- 
 Tyne (^Master Pifots and Seamen of^ v. Hammond^ 
 supra, col. 885. 
 
 c. Liability of Dock Companies. 
 
 For Acts of Servants.] — The London Dock 
 Company is hable for the neghgence of their 
 servants in unloading goods, although the com- 
 pany derives no profit from their labour. Gibson 
 v. Jnglis, 4 Camp. 72 ; 15 K. R. 727. 
 
 For Injuries to Vessels.] — Trustees incorpo- 
 rated for the j>urpose of constructing a dock, and 
 who receive rates and have funds which they
 
 909 SHIPPING— XXIV. Ports, Piers, Harbours, Lighthouses, Docks. 910 
 
 are bound to apply in maintaining and cleansing 
 the dock, so that it may be in a fit state for 
 vessels to enter, are liable for injury to a vessel 
 caused by an accumulation of mud in the dock, 
 of which by their servants they had the means 
 of knowing, and were negligently ignorant. 
 The o^vner of a cargo, which was damaged by 
 reason of the ship's stranding on a mud bank 
 negligently left at the entrance of a harbour 
 vested in the Mersey board by statute, sued the 
 board for damage. The defence was, that the 
 board acted under a statute ; that they derived 
 no personal benefit from the management of the 
 docks ; that they took no part personally in the 
 management, but merely appointed servants and 
 officers in discharge of their public duty ; and 
 that the negligence was not theirs, but was solely 
 that of one of their servants : — Held, that the 
 case of public statutory trustees, if not servants 
 of the crown, did not differ from that of absolute 
 owners levying tolls for their own benefit, and 
 that the board was liable. Jlcrsci/ Dicks v. 
 Glbbx, 11 H. L. Cas. 686 ; 35 L. J.. Ex. 225 ; 
 L. R. 1 H. L. 93 ; 12 Jirr. (N.s.) 571 : 14 L. T. 
 677 ; 14 W. R. 872— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Opening Dock before Channel Clear,] — 
 
 In an action by owners of a ship against the 
 proprietors of a dock and tidal basin, made under 
 the powers of an act, and for the use of which 
 the}' were entitled to receive tolls, it appeared 
 that the dock and basin were opened for public 
 use on the 3rd of March, 1859. The basin opened 
 into a river between two piers, distant 120 feet 
 apart. In constructing the basin, a bank was put 
 across it for keeping out the water during the 
 excavation. When the excavation was completed, 
 the operation of cutting through the bank was 
 commenced ; and at the time of the accident to 
 the ship, a channel seventy feet wide had been 
 cleared through the bank opposite the middle of 
 the space between the piers at the entrance of 
 the basin. At the time when the dock was 
 opened, the seventy-feet channel had been exca- 
 vated at about three feet six inches above the 
 bottom of the rest of the basin, and the dredging 
 of the cliannel was continued from that time 
 until the plaintiff's ship went out. The ship, 
 which was of 674 tons burden, entered the dock 
 on the 9tli of March, and having received a 
 cargo, went out on the TJth of March, under the 
 charge of a river pilot, and, whilst proceeding 
 through the basin, grounded on the bank. The 
 channel was not marked by buoys or otherwise. 
 The pilot, who had taken a larger ship out on 
 the 8th March, knew the state of the basin : — 
 Held, first, that it was the duty of the proprietors 
 of the dock to take reasonable care to make 
 their dock and basin safe for navigation before 
 they opened them to the public ; and, therefore, 
 they were liable for negligence in opening them 
 before the diannel had been well cleared. Tliomj>- 
 non V. -V. E. Jl>/.. 2 r.. & S. 100 ; 31 L. J., Q. 15. 
 194 ; 8 Jur. (N.S.) 991 ; 6 L. T. 127 ; 10 W. U. 
 404— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Knowledge of Pilot.]— Held, secondly, 
 
 that as-uniiiig the kii<iw]Mli:e of the state of the 
 basin by the pilot ti> be the knowledge of the 
 owners of the ship, it was im excuse for the dock 
 proprietors, in:ismuch as they contended that 
 the state of tiie basin was not such as to make 
 it imprudent to take the vessel out ; and the jury 
 had negatived mismanagement on the part of 
 those who had charge of the vessel. lb. 
 
 Liability for Damage to Ship by Ground- 
 ing.] — By a local act fiir better preserving a 
 harbour, trustees were appointed to carry the 
 act into execution. They might elect a harbour- 
 master, who might direct any person, having the 
 command of any vessel entering into or being 
 within the harbour, to anchor and place the same 
 in such situation within the harbottr as he should 
 direct. After the passing of the act some coals 
 were shot into a berth in the harbour, which 
 rendered it dangerous. The trustees, at a board 
 meeting, having had notice of the state of the 
 berth, gave directions to their clerk to have the 
 coals removed, and the coals were accordingly 
 partly, but not sufficiently, removed at their 
 expense. After this the harbour-master, with- 
 out the knowledge of the trustees, directed the 
 plaintiff to place his vessel in the berth. He 
 did so, and the vessel, while lying there, sus- 
 tained damage in consequence of the berth being 
 unsafe. The harbour-master knew that the 
 berth had been unsafe and what had been done 
 to it, but neither he nor the trustees knew that 
 the berth continued unsafe when he directed the 
 \ plaintiff to place his vessel in it : — Held, that 
 '. there was no evidence to warrant a verdict against 
 i the trustees. Metcalfe v. Hetherlngton. 5 H. & N. 
 719 ; 11 Ex. 257 ; 8 W. R. 475— Ex. Ch. 
 
 The trustees of a dock, being about to open a 
 new one under the authority of parliament, 
 issued a notice addressed to shipowners, mer- 
 chants and others, describing the accommoda- 
 tion which their new dock would afford to 
 shipping, and containing a statement that " the 
 depth of water on the dock sill was twenty-six 
 and twenty-three feet at the highest spring tides,, 
 and fifteen feet at the lowest neaps": — Held, 
 that this amounted to a warranty that there was 
 an available depth of water in the entrance 
 channel a[)proximating that mentioned in the 
 notice ; and that the trustees were responsible 
 to the owners of a ship, who trusting to the 
 representation contained in the notice, entered 
 the dock to load, and were delayed and put to- 
 expense in consequence of the insufficiency of 
 water in the channel to enable her to complete 
 her loading in the ilock. Williams v. Swansea 
 Harbour trustees, 14 C. B. (N.S.) 845. 
 
 The " R.," which was anchored in F. outer 
 harbour, having to be beached in the inner 
 harljour, S., the harbour-master, directed the- 
 master of the •' R." where to beach her. Before 
 the " R." left the outer harbour, S. came on 
 board, although a Trinity house pilot was in the 
 vessel, and, when she had arrived near the place 
 where she was to l)c beached, gave directions as 
 to the lowering of her anchor. The '• R." over- 
 ran her anchor and grounded on it. sustaining 
 damage. In an action against the harbour com- 
 missioners and S., the court found, as a fact, that 
 there was negligence on the part of S., and that 
 the place where the "R." grounded was outside 
 tlie jurisdiction of the harbour commissioners : — 
 Held, that the duties of the harbour-master com- 
 prised directions as to the mooring and beaching 
 of vesi^els ; that, by giving directions when he 
 went on board, S. had resumed his functions as 
 harbour-master, and that he and the commis- 
 sioners were therefore liable for the damage ilone 
 to the " K." The Ilhoxina, or JJihrards v. Fal- 
 muuth Harbour Coutini.ixio/wrs, 54 L. J., Ailm. 
 72 ; 10 P. D. 131 ; 53 L. T. 30 ; 33 W. R. 794 ; 
 5 Asp. M. G. 460—0. A. 
 
 The plaintiffs' vcsfcI, having fouled her pro- 
 peller whilst entering the \>OTt and harbour of
 
 911 SHIPPING— XXIV. Ports, Piers, Harbours, Linhihouscs, Bodes. 012 
 
 Port Talbot, was. with tlic authority of tlio fore- 
 man docksnian, in the aVjsence of the harbour- 
 master through ilhiess, placed in a lock leading 
 into the dock for the purpose of being jnit upon 
 the ground for repairs. On the vessel taking the 
 ground she sustained damage to her bottom b_v 
 sitting upon the sill of the old lock gates, which 
 had not been removed when the lock was 
 lengthened. It appeared that the foreman 
 (locksman did not know the condition of the 
 bottom of the lock, and informed the master of 
 the ship of it. In an action by the shii^owners 
 against the dock authority : — Held, that the 
 docksman had authority to allow such user, so as 
 to render the defendants liable for the damage 
 ensuing, and that he ought to have known of the 
 sill and warned the plaintiffs' vessel of the dan- 
 ger. The AjHiJhi, Apollo (Oirnrrs') v. Port Talbot 
 Co., CI L. J.. Adm. 2.5 : [1891] A. G. 499 : (i.5 L. T. 
 590 ; 7 Asp! M. C. 11.5 ; 5.5 J. P. 820— H. L. (E.) 
 By a private act of parliament, the defendants 
 were appointed as guardians of the port and 
 harbour of Wisbech, with prescriptive rights to 
 receive tolls, to be applied to improving the 
 harbour and port, and lu'ovision was made for 
 the appointment of one or more harbour-masters 
 for regulating the placing and mooring of vessels, 
 and for preventing and removing obstructions. 
 A later act gave the defendants the same rights 
 over a channel called the New Cut, which had 
 been constructed partly for better drainage and 
 partly in place of the old channel forming part 
 of the port and harbour, and was vested in com- 
 missioners. A vessel was berthed in the New 
 Cut, under the direction of the defendants' 
 harbour-master, and sustained damage to her 
 bottom, owing to the unfit state of the berth. 
 In an action brought by the shipowners against 
 the harbour authority : — Held, that the defen- 
 dants were liable for the damage arising from the 
 neglected state of the channel. The Birrli»ijto>i, 
 72 L. T. 890 : 8 Asp. M. C. 88— C. A. 
 
 Admittance to Dock — Remoteness of 
 
 Damage.] — In an action for a breach of contract, 
 in not admitting the plaintiff's ship into the 
 defendant's dock, whereby she grounded when 
 the tide ebbed, and was damaged, it appeared 
 that the ship left in ballast a dry dock, where 
 she had been repaired, and, in charge of a pilot, 
 was towed b,y a steam-tug to the dock, where 
 she arrived about high water. In consequence 
 of the chain of the dock gate being broken, she 
 could not be admitted. The captain was un- 
 acquainted with the navigation, and, considering 
 that the ship was not sufficiently ballasted to go 
 to sea, directed her to be anchored where she was. 
 At the ebb of the tide she grounded and was 
 damaged. There was conflicting evidence as to 
 the state of the weather. The jury was asked, 
 first, whether there was a place of safety to which 
 the ship could have been taken before the tide 
 ebbed ? and, secondly, whose fault was it that she 
 was not taken there ? Upon the first question 
 they returned no answer, being unable to agree, 
 but replied to the second, that neither the captain 
 nor the pilot was to blame : — Held, per Martin, 
 B., that the damages were not too remote to be 
 recovered by the plaintiff. Per Pollock, C.B., 
 Channell, B., and Pigott, B., that the finding of 
 the jury was not sufficient to enable them to 
 come to a cenclusion, and that there must be a 
 new trial. Wilson v. Newport Dock Co., 4 H. & C. 
 232 ; 35 L. J., Ex. 97 ; L. R. 1 Ex. 177 : 12 Jur. 
 (N.s.) 233 ; 14 L. T. 230 ; 14 W. E. 558. 
 
 Liability for Damage by Sunken Wrecks — 
 Grounding.] — ^^ee XX. Collision, ante, col. 
 721 ; XXIII. Wharfinger, ante, col. 879. 
 
 Injury to Goods — Stowing Wines and 
 Spirits in Docks.] — The rate table of a dock 
 company contained the following provisions : 
 '■ Wines and spirits (rum and British spirits 
 excepted) landed in the docks will be chargeable 
 with the following rates : . . . The company 
 will not be responsible for deficiencies on wines 
 or spirits imported in casks not made of oak, nor 
 on spirits exceeding 20 per cent, overproof ; but 
 is answerable for deficiencies in quantity on 
 those contained in other casks housed with the 
 company, beyond one gallon per cask for each 
 year or part of a year the goods shall remain in 
 their custody, provided such deficiencies be 
 claimed of the company within sis months after 
 delivery, and shall be satisfactorily established 
 by the customs' gauge on landing and delivery. 
 . . . Rates and chaiges on rum. . . . When 
 rum is imported in casks made of proper oak, 
 the company engages to be responsible for defi- 
 ciencies in measure, which shall exceed one 
 gallon per cask for each year," &c. : — Held, in an 
 action for loss of brandy housed with the com- 
 pany, that, under the above provisions, they 
 would not be liable for a diminution in alcoholic 
 strength, though exceeding one gallon per cask, 
 the deficiency contemplated being a deficiency 
 in actual bulk ; but that if such diminution was 
 caused by their negligence, they were liable, 
 apart from contract. Lamare v. London and 
 St. Kuthanne Borh.^ Co., 39 L. T. 330. 
 
 Delay of Persons Using Swing Bridge.] — A 
 dock company having a swing bridge on a public 
 highway, is bound, in the passing of vessels, to 
 use all reasonable means (both as to the number 
 of men employed and number of ships passed at 
 a time) to prevent unnecessary delay : and if 
 they do not do all which can be expected of 
 reasonable men, and if anyone is obstructed in 
 consequence, such obstruction will render them 
 liable for the injury sustained. Wifff/ins v. Bod- 
 dington, 3 Car. & P. 544. 
 
 Injury to Visitors.] — A dock company pro- 
 vided gangways from the shore to the ships 
 lying in their dock, the gangways being made 
 cif materials belonging to the company and 
 managed by their servants. The plaintiff went 
 on board a' ship in the dock at the invitation 
 of one of the ship's officers, and, while he was 
 on board, the servants of the company, for the 
 purpose of the business of the dock, moved the 
 gangway, so that it was, and to their knowledge, 
 insecure. The plaintiff, in ignorance of its inse- 
 curity, returned along it to the shore, the gang- 
 way gave way, and he was injured : — Held, that 
 there was a duty on the company towards the 
 plaintiff to keep the gangv/ay reasonably safe, 
 and that he was entitled to recover damages 
 from them for the injuries he received. Smith v. 
 London and St. Katharine Dochs Co., 37 L. J., 
 C. P. 217 ; L. R. 3 C. P. 32G ; 18 L. T. 403 ; 16 
 W. R. 728. 
 
 Licence to use Graving Dock — Interest in 
 Land — Statute of Frauds— Contract with Cor- 
 poration — Not under Seal.] — A municipal cor- 
 poration received a fee from a shipowner to 
 enter his vessel for her turn at a graving dock 
 belonging to the corporation. The corporation 
 allowed another vessel to take the turn of the
 
 913 
 
 SHIPPING— XXV. Shiplrokcrs and Agents. 
 
 plaintiff's ship. In an action against the corpora- 
 tion for damages : — Held, that the contract, not 
 being a contract concerning an interest in land, 
 npcd not be in writing under the 4th section of 
 the Statute of Frauds : or under seal, being a 
 matter of constant occurrence and daily neces- 
 sity. Wells V. Kinq.ston-nj)on-HuU Curporation, 
 44 L. J.. C. P. 257 ;■ L. R. 10 C. P. 402 : 32 L. T. 
 615 ; 23 W. R. 562 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 580. 
 
 Poor Eate — Lighthoass Authority.] — A light- 
 house tower coiitaiuiDg. besides the loomsforthe 
 light and apparatus, a room for working a post- 
 office telegiaiih used for the exclusive benefit of 
 the owners of the tower, who were ]jioprietors of 
 docks having no power to make i>rofi!s, held not 
 ratable to the poor ; but adjoining buildings 
 occupied by the lighthouse keepers held ratable 
 at their value as connected with the lighthouse 
 find telegraph station. Metwy Djch.s and Har- 
 } our Board v. LUnieVian (^OiPrmcvs'). 54 L. J., 
 Q. B. 41) : 14 Q. B. D. 770 ; .52 L. T. 118 : 33 
 W. R. 97 : 3 Asp. M. C. 3:»8 : 4'J J. P. 164. 
 
 17 & 18 Yict. c. 104, s. 430, applies only to 
 lighthouses under the genei-al lighthouse authori- 
 ties. S. C, in court below, 51 L. T. 62 ; 5 Asp. 
 248; 48 J. P. 301. 
 
 Poor Rate — Docks.]— Occupiers of a dock held 
 not liable to pay poor rates in respect of harbour 
 and tonnage dues, but only in respect of dues 
 Ijayable by ships using the dock. Berwick Har- 
 hour Cummixsionprii v. Tireed month {Chtirch- 
 u-ardeiix). 54 L. T. 159 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 532. 
 
 d. Duties of Dockmasters and Others. 
 
 Dockmasters — Discretion of — How Exercised. ] 
 
 — A dockmaster is invested with a discretion to 
 be exercised for the benefit of all tiie ships in 
 the harbour, and the master of a vessel is there- 
 fore bound to obey the dockmaster, and to assist 
 in the removal of his ship, even though if the 
 interests of the ship alone might be considered 
 the removal was injutlicious. T/ir ICxcdsior, 37 
 L. J., A(hn. 54 ; L. R. 2 A. A: E. 268 ; I'j L. T. 87. 
 
 Action against.] — In an action against a 
 
 harbour-master for loss of the cargo of a foreign 
 merchant vessel through her iieeling over upon 
 taking the ground in tlie harbour, it being 
 admitted that the master brought her in, in 
 order to take the groimd ; and that being sharply 
 built, slie could not safely do so, unless there was 
 mud of sufficient depth and strength to sujiport 
 her ; and the case for the owner of the vessel 
 being that at a certain point there was such mud, 
 but that she took the ground before she could 
 get there, owing to there not being sufficient 
 <lepth of water for a vessel of her draught : — 
 Held, that the fjue^tion of negligence on the part 
 of tlie harl)oiir-master would depend ujion the 
 knf)wledge or information he had of the build 
 and draught of the vessel ; and that in the 
 absence of knowledge on his part, it was the 
 duty of tiie captain to inform hirn ; and that, as 
 it was materially misrepresented to him by the 
 captain, he was not resi)onsiblc for the result. 
 Lloijd V. Iron, 4 F. & F. loll. 
 
 Duty of Master of Ship— Damage— Liability.] 
 
 — \\ hrii ;i sliip i^ njooi'd in (|o<'i<, it i> generally 
 the (hity of her master to keep on l>oard a sutli- 
 cient Clew to jirotect the ves.sel against ordinary 
 risks. A ship after having been moored in a 
 dock, was subseriuently. by order of the dock- 
 ma.ster, removed to another part, from which, by 
 
 914 
 
 the negligence of her master and his disobedience 
 of the dockmaster"s orders, she broke loose and 
 damaged the doclcs : — Held, that the ship was 
 liable for the damage. The Ea-ceJslor, supra. 
 
 Harbour-master— Injury to Ship in attempting 
 to enter Dock.] — The authority of a haibour- 
 master over a vessel entering a dock is not 
 limited by his knowledge that there are persons 
 on board the vessel more familiar with the local 
 circumstances of the place than he is. Tlie latter 
 are not at liberty to disregard the orders of the 
 harbour-master because they think that he is 
 making a mistake. It is only in the last resort, 
 and when the danger is fully obviou-;. that the 
 orders of the harbour-master should be dis- 
 obeyed. Beneif v. A'irhci/dbr'u/hf Manixtrates, 
 61 L. J., P. C. 23 : [1892] A. C. 264 ; '67 L. T. 
 474 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 221— H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 Semble, that the master of a vessel is not 
 affected by the knowledge of a local pilot whom 
 he has taken on board to assist him, so as to 
 make the owners of the vessel responsible for 
 the omission of such i)ilot to inform the master 
 of a local danger. Ih. 
 
 Collision caused by.]— .S>c XX. Colli- 
 sion, The Cjinthui, and Cases- ante, col. 723, 
 
 XXY. SHIPBROKERS AND AGENTS. 
 
 1. Commission and Enqdoijnwnt, 914. 
 
 2. Liabilities, 919. 
 
 1. Commission axd Employment. 
 
 Commission, whether Contingent.] — A ship- 
 broker is entitled to 5/. per cent, on the gross 
 freight of a ship, though payment of a part is 
 cotitingent on the arrival of the vessel home. 
 Roberts v. Jackson, 2 Stark. 225 ; 19 R. R. 70(1. 
 
 The actual earning of freight under a charter- 
 party is not a condition precedent to the right of 
 the shii)broker to his commission for procuring 
 the execution of the charter. Uill v. Kitchinj, 
 3 C. B. 299 : 15 L. J.. C. P. 251. 
 
 A., a shipbroker. procured a charterparty to be 
 made between B.. a shipowner, and C, under 
 which the owner contracted to bring home a 
 cargo of guano, and the merchant agreed to pay 
 fi eight at the rate of Al. 1.5.v. per ton, to be 
 reduced to Al. 12.v. 6//. if the ship did not arrive 
 off Cork or Falmouth on or before a given day. 
 There was no express eiiiragement on the part of 
 C. to .ship a cargo : — Ibdd, that A. was entitled 
 to recover from B. upon a quantum meruit for 
 his procuring the charter to be executed, with- 
 out shewing the arrival of ll:e vessel (m or before 
 the day mentioned, and notwithstanding only a 
 very small quantity of guano had been shipped 
 aiKl a small amount of freight actually earne 1 ; 
 that the amount of compensation due to him 
 was a question for the jury; and that, in esti- 
 mating such compensation, they were properly 
 guided by evidence of what was customary in 
 similar cases. Ih. 
 
 If a broker charters shi|)s at a commission of 
 2}\ i>er cent, on their outward freight, and the 
 like on their homeward freight, and the charter- 
 party makes it contingent what the amount of 
 freight shall be, the broker cannot sue for any 
 sum till the contingency is determined. Winter 
 V. Muir, 3 Taunt. 531. 
 
 Semble, the broker's commission on obtaining 
 a charterjiarty is 5 per cent, on the freight, 
 unless there is a special agi-ecment or the ship is
 
 915 
 
 SHIPPING— XXV. SJnphrokers and Agents. 
 
 916 
 
 chartered upon a teinler. Bnncri v. Kainie, {) 
 Car. cV: P. 204. Ami see Brad v. Ilaiui, 10 B. & C. 
 4S8 ; 8 L. ,1. (o.s.) K. B. 144, infra ; Cohen v. 
 P.iiiet. 4 Camp. '.»(). 
 
 The broker who first introduces the purchaser 
 oi: a ship to the vendor is entitled to his com- 
 mission, althou.u'h the principals complete the 
 negotiation, and other brokers unknown to each 
 other also introduce the purchaser and vendor, 
 who had communicated with each other, without 
 and before the introduction of any broker. 
 Citnard v. Van Oppcn. 1 F. & F. 716. 
 
 If the neg'otiation goes off by the fault of the 
 broker he is entitleil to no commission or expenses, 
 other than such as have been occasioned at ship- 
 owners' special request. JJalton v. Trrin, 4 Car. 
 ct P. 289. 
 
 The charter contained a provision that the 
 ship should be cousigned to C. & Co. at Liver- 
 jiool, or their agents at her port of discharge in 
 this country ; and in the margin was a memo- 
 randum that "this charter is subject to 3Z. per 
 cent, payable by the ship " : — Held, that the jury 
 might infer from A.'s execution of the charter a 
 contract bv him to pay C.'s commission. Sinifh 
 v. Boutcher, 1 Car. & K. .573. 
 
 Three shipbrokers agreed in writing with a 
 shipowner to freight his ship at a certain com- 
 mission, dividing profits of commission. One of 
 the brokers alone paid and received money on 
 accoirnt of the ship, and delivered to the owner 
 an account, charging a sum for commission. The 
 owner agreed to the account, biit objected to the 
 commission. There was no adjustment of account 
 between the brokers : — Held, that an action for 
 money had and received would not lie by the two 
 brokers against the third for their share of the 
 commission. Bovill v. Ilatiniio/id. 9 D. &. K. 186 ; 
 6 B. & C. 149 : 5 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 145. 
 
 Actions for.] — It is no answer to an 
 
 action by a bioker for commission for procuring 
 freight that the charterparty procured was such 
 that if the charterer failed to obtain certain 
 licences the vovage would be illegal. Haines v. 
 Bush, ') Taunt!" 521 ; 1 Marsh. 191. 
 
 When two brokers are referred to in advertise- 
 ments by a shipowner, and one of them procures 
 the cargo and receives tlie freight, and the other 
 pays the charges for clearing out the ship, the 
 latter must share the commission with the former, 
 and cannot by usage of trade maintain an action 
 against the shipowner. Mall v. Benson, 7 
 Car. & P. 711. 
 
 When Earned.] — To enable a broker to 
 
 recover a commission on the sale of a ship, the 
 mere fact of his having introduced the purchaser 
 to the seller will not be sufficient ; but if it 
 appears that such introduction was the founda- 
 tion on which the negotiations proceeded, the 
 parties cannot afterwards, by aga-eement between 
 themselves, withdraw the matter from the broker's 
 hands and deprive him of liis commission. The 
 broker will be entitled to his commission if he 
 was, up to a certain time, the agent or middle- 
 man between the parties, although the contract 
 was afterwards completed without his instru- 
 mentalitv or interference. Wilkinson v. 3Iartin, 
 8 Car. &>. 1. 
 
 The usage is that when a broker has brought 
 the captain of ,a ship and a merchant together, 
 and they by his means enter into some nego- 
 tiation as to the intended voyage, the broker 
 is entitled to commission if a charterparty is 
 
 effected between them for that voyage, even 
 though they may employ another broker tf> 
 prepare the charterparty, or may write the 
 charterparty therirselves. Burnett v. Bonch, 1> 
 Car. & P. 620. 
 
 If a broker is authorised by both parties, and, 
 acting as the agent of each, communicates to the 
 merchant what the shipowner charges, and also 
 communicates to the shipowner what the mer- 
 chant will give, and he names the ship and the 
 parties so as to identify the transaction, and a 
 charterparty is ultimately effected for that 
 voyage, this broker is entitled to his commis- 
 sion ; but if he does not mention the names so 
 as to identify the transaction, he does not get his 
 commission to the exclusion of another broker, 
 who afterwai'ds introduces the j^arties personally 
 to each other. lb. 
 
 A shipbroker employed to sell a ship which 
 when put up for sale was bought in. is not 
 entitled to a commission on the sale. J/est/icr 
 V. Atkins, I Marsh. 70 ; 5 Taunt. 381. 
 
 A shipbroker who has procured a bargain for 
 the hire of a vessel is, by usage in the city of 
 London, entitled to a certain commission on the 
 amount of freight if the contract is perfected, 
 but not otherwise. Bead v. Bann, 10 B. & C. 
 438 ; 8 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 144. 
 
 Even where the contract is not completed 
 through the act of the owner. Bread v. Thomas, 
 7 Bing. 99 : 4 M. & P. 732 ; 4 Car. & P. 338 ; 
 9 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 32. 
 
 Shipbrokers were employed by shipowners to> 
 procure charterers for certain ships. The brokers 
 introduced the owners to another firm of brokers, 
 and negotiations were commenced at the office 
 of the last-named firm with L. for the chartering 
 of these ships. The negotiations with L. came 
 to nothing ; but L., from the knowledge thus 
 acquired, informed M. that the owners had a 
 ship in want of a charterer, and M. became the 
 charterer of this ship of theirs. In an action 
 by the brokers to recover their commission from 
 the shipowners on the charter of this ship : — 
 Held, that their services in the transaction were 
 too remote. Gibson v. Cricli: 1 H. & C. 142 : 31 
 L. J., Ex. 304 : G L. T. 392 ; 10 W. R. 525. S.C, 
 at nisi prius, 2 F. & F. 766. 
 
 Where by the terms of a charterparty a vessel 
 is let for an indefinite period, and the voj'age is 
 general, the shipbroker who lets the vessel is 
 entitled to claim commission as for a voyage of 
 that description, and not for a specific voyage on 
 bonds. Holl v. Pineent, 6 Moore, 228. 
 
 Provision in Charterparty as to Brokers.] — 
 
 Ship to be •' consigned to charterers" agents 
 inwards and outwards, paying the usual com- 
 mission." See Cross v. Pagliano, ante, col. 247. 
 
 Custom — Evidence as to.l — A declaration 
 on a charterparty stated that it was agreed 
 between the owner of t!:e ship " Maggie," 
 and charterers, that ''the ship should load a 
 cargo in London and proceed to Hong Kong- 
 and deliver the same, the ship to be consigned 
 to the charterers' agents in China, free of com- 
 mission on that charter" ; that according to 
 the custom of merchants in London, when a ship 
 chartered in London for China is agreed to be 
 consigned to the charterers' agents, whether con- 
 signed free of commission on that charter or not, 
 it is the right and duty of such agents to procure 
 a charter or a cargo for the ship, and they are 
 entitled to be paid the usual brokers' commission
 
 91' 
 
 SHIPPING— XXV. Shijjhrokers and Agents. 
 
 918 
 
 on the amount of freight payable under such 
 charter, unless excluded by special contract ; but 
 in case the owners procure a charter or cargo for 
 the ship, without any default of the consignees, 
 the consignees are entitled to the brokers' com- 
 mission on any freight payable under such 
 charterparty, unless such right is excluded by 
 special contract ; that the ship arrived in China, 
 and the owners" agents as consignees performed 
 their duty free of commission on the outward 
 voyage, and were ready to procure a charter or a 
 cargo for Hong Kong : that the charterer did 
 not permit them to procure such charter or cargo, 
 but. without the default of the o^\-ners' agents, j 
 himself procured a cargo. Breach, nonpayment 
 by the charterers of any commission on the ] 
 cargo : — Held, that the parol evidence of the 
 mercantile itsage was not admissible to vary the 
 terms of the charterpartv. PhiU/'pj^s v. Briard, 
 1 H. & N. 21 : 25 L. J.. Ex. 233 : 4 W. R. 486. 
 
 The defendants, who were shipbrokers, being 
 employed by the French government to charter 
 two siiips. L.. who was also a shipbroker, in- 
 formed them of two ships, the " New York" and 
 the " Glasgow,'' open to charter. After corre- 
 spondence between L.. the defendants and the 
 shipo\\Tiers. the " Xew York "' was chartered for 
 six months, and the defendants wrote to L. that 
 in consideration of his having assisted them in 
 getting the •• 2s ew York '" charter they agreed to 
 pay him a commission of 2J per cent. The 
 "Glasgow"' was afterwards chartered and the 
 "Newl'ork" charter was renewed for a further 
 six months. L. claimed commission on the 
 " Glasgow " charter and on the renewed " New 
 York" charter : — Held, that evidence was admis- 
 sible of a custom amongst shipbrokers that an 
 introducing broker should receive further com- 
 mission on renev.-ed charters notwithstanding the 
 written agreement. Alien v. Sutidhig, 1 H. & C. 
 123. 
 
 In order to prove a custom, it was proposed to 
 ask a broker, " ^Vhat is the custom with regard 
 to payment of brokers' commission when the 
 broker introduces another broker to a shipo\\-ner, 
 which shipowner substantially negotiates with 
 one of the brokers introduced .'"" — Held, that this 
 question was rightly disallowed. Gibson v. Crick, 
 supra. 
 
 "W'here A. employs B., a broker, to procure a 
 charter, and B. employs C, another broker : — 
 Semble, evidence of custom as to which broker 
 is entitled to the commission is admissible. Sm ith 
 y. Bontclier, 1 Car. A: K. .")73. 
 
 Notice of Names of Vessels.] — The defen- 
 dants, London merchants, employed a broker at 
 Liverpool to purchase some wool. The broker 
 negotiated a sale by the plaintiff to the defen- 
 dants of certain bales deliverable at Odessa, 
 '• the name of the vessels to be declared as soon 
 as the wools were shipped."' In this transaction, 
 the broker acted for both the plaintiff and the 
 defendants. By the custom of Liverpool, where 
 a contract contains a stipulation that notice of 
 an event should be given hy the vendor to the 
 vendee, it is usual for the vendor to give the 
 notice to the broker, who coniniunicates it to 
 the vendee : — Held, that the defendants were 
 bound by such usage, and therefore that a notice 
 by the plaintiff to the broker of the names of the 
 vessels ou which the wools were shipficd was a 
 performance of that stipulation, althougli the 
 broker omitted to comniunicite them Xo the 
 defendants. Graves v. Legtj, 2 H. i: N. 210 ; 2(5 
 
 L. d.. Ex. 31G ; 3 Jur. (X.S.) 519 ; 5 W. R. 597— 
 Ex. Ch. 
 
 Payment on Behalf of Ship.] — A broker, who 
 had received money for the shippage of goods 
 on account of the owners of the ship, offered to 
 pay it to the captain, who was also managing 
 owner, by a cheque. This the captain declined, 
 preferring that the broker should open a credit 
 for him at a bank in New Brunswick in favour 
 of H., which the broker did. The bank accord- 
 ingly paid H. 250?., for which H. gave a bill, 
 drav.-n by him in favour of the bank upon the 
 broker, who accepted and paid it when due. The 
 broker having sued the co-owners for the balance 
 of his account : — Held, that this was a good 
 payment of 250Z. by the broker, and binding on 
 the co-owners. Anderson v. Hillies. 12 C. B. 
 499 ; 21 L. J., C. P. 150 ; 16 Jur. 819. 
 
 Lien.] — Shipbrokers have no lien on the 
 
 certificate of registry for advances made by them 
 to the owner for the use of the ship. Gibson v, 
 Ingo, 6 Hare, 112. 
 
 Lien on Cargoes — Agent for Sale.] — A., 
 
 in Xew^ Brunswick, employed an agent in London 
 to charter vessels for carriage of deals from New 
 Brunswick to be consigned to the agent for sale. 
 A., in breach of this contract, consigned the deals 
 to another person : — Held, that the agent had a 
 lien on all the cargoes for expenses and loss 
 incurred in respect of each vessel chartered by 
 him, but not for commission and profits which 
 he might have earned if the vessel had been con- 
 signed to him. Younq v. Xtill, 32 Beav. 529 ; 
 2 X. R. 212 ; 9 Jiu-. (N.s.) 976 ; 9 L. T. 9 ; li 
 W. R. 1052. 
 
 Commission on Freight — Charterers acting as 
 Brokers — Ship lost.] — .See Sih-Hnni v. Sii/j} liar- 
 craig Co., ante, col. 383. 
 
 Introducing Buyer — Commission.] — Where the 
 
 sale is not in consequence of the shipbrokers 
 introduction commission is not pavable. White 
 V. .Vfinro, 3 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 1011. 
 
 Statutes as to Brokers.] — Shipbrokers are not 
 within the statutes relating to brokers in London. 
 Gibbons V. Ilulfl. 4 Bing. 307 : 5 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 
 176 ; 29 R. R. 570. 
 
 Loss on Ke-charter — Liability of Principal.] — 
 The defendants chartered a ship to sail to T. and 
 there load a cargo at 60*. jicr ton freight. They 
 wrote to the i)laintiffs asking them to instruct 
 their firm at T. to re-charter the ship for the 
 defendants at the best rate they could ; and 
 stating that if there should be a loss the plaintiffs' 
 draft for the difference should be honoured. The 
 rate of freight at T. being only 40.?. per ton, the 
 plaintiffs i)ut their own cargo on board, drawing 
 ui)on the defendants for the difference bctweeii 
 40.'?. and 60.». freight. The ship was lost, and the 
 defendants refused to accept the draft : — Held, 
 that the cargo when on board being liable to the 
 shipowner for fieight at GO.v. instead of 4(.i.v., there 
 was such a loss as contemplated in the letter, and 
 that the defendants were liable for not accepting 
 the draft. Ycamrs v. Linrkui/, 3 L. T. 855 ; D 
 W. R. 313. 
 
 Sale of Ship — Commission.! — See Wilhinson v. 
 
 Alftoti. mid (iisrs ;uitr, col. ItiS. 
 
 Passage Broker.] — See Morriss v. Iluwdcn^ 
 sujira, col. 873.
 
 919 
 
 SHIPPING— XXVI. AdmiraUij Law and Practice. 
 
 2. Liabilities. 
 
 In Forwarding.]— On a bailment to a, shippini,' 
 agent to forward goods, an aciiou for not safely 
 carrying and delivering is not maintainable. 
 Platzojjx. Le Jican, 4 F. & F. 545. 
 
 Duty to Examine Goods.]— The defendant, who 
 •carried on business at B., and had acted there as 
 agent for the plaintiffs, who were merchants at 
 L., in the shii)ment of iron to Germany, wrote 
 to the plaintiffs proposing to them to purchase a 
 (juantity of scrap iron, describing it as of a 
 t^ljccitied quality. The plaintiffs desired to have 
 an offer of cost and freight to Rotterdam. The 
 »lefendant stated the price, but his inability to 
 make an offer as to freight, as he had then no 
 «hip available, but expressed his conviction that 
 he sliould shortly be able to find a ship. Before 
 Xhe plaintiffs closed with the offer, the defendant 
 proposed a ship for the conveyance of the iron. 
 The plaintiffs accepted the purchase, but objected 
 to the ship as too small to take the whole cargo, 
 desiring the defendant to look out for another. 
 Thereupon he, as agent for both parties, entered 
 into and accepted the contract of sale, and 
 transmitted it to the plaintiffs. He afterwards 
 engaged a vessel to convey the iron, received the 
 same, and caused it to be shipped, assuring the 
 plaintiffs that the cargo was considered a first- 
 rate description of scrap iron. The profit of the 
 defendant was derived from commission from 
 the seller and from the shipowner : — Held, that 
 the defendant was not liable for damages on 
 account of the iron shipped being inferiorto the 
 description in the contract, inasmuch as no obli- 
 gation to see to the quality of the iron arose on 
 the employment of the defendant as shipping 
 agent, there being no evidence of usage, nor of 
 an engagement by him. that he should do so. 
 Zvilchenbart v. Alexander, 1 B. & S. 234 ; 30 
 L. J., Q. B. 254 ; 7 Jur. (N.S.) 1157 ; 4 L. T. 412 ; 
 9 W. E. 670— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Brokers acting as Owners.]— Shipbrokers, not 
 being owners of a particular ship, though they 
 were of others, having issued advertisements 
 and tickets announcing the times of sailing, and 
 describing the ships as their "line"; evidence 
 was given that if they were owners the announce- 
 ments would be in the same form : — Held, that 
 it was for the jury to say whether the parties 
 had held themselves out as owners, or had acted 
 only as agents. Simpson v. Younn, 2 F. & F. 
 42G. 
 
 Warranty of Authority.]— In an action against 
 a Ijroker who had professed, on behalf of the 
 owner of a ship, to charter her to the plaintiff's, 
 not having authority so to do, and who had 
 requested them to charter themselves some other 
 ship, and they having chartered a much larger 
 ship at a higher freight :— Held, that they could 
 not recover from the broker more than the differ- 
 ence of freight on the tonnage of the former 
 Bhip, if they could have procured one of similar 
 size, or had neglected to give the bioker notice 
 of the substituted ship, so that he might use the 
 surplus freight. Mitchell y. Kahl, 2 F. & F. 709. 
 
 Pilotage Dues.]— The fees to which pilots who 
 are carried to sea against their will or beyond 
 their distance are entitled, under 17 &; 18 Vict, 
 c. 104, s. 397, are not "pilotage dues" for which 
 shipbrokers are liable under s. 303. Mortco v. 
 
 Julian. 48 L. 
 L. T. 71. 
 
 920 
 
 M. C. 126 ; 4 C. P. D. 216 ; 41 
 
 Cesser Clause— Effect of.]— See Brydm v 
 ^u'huln\ c.l. 2.-,2 ; Lorlihart v. Falh. and Cases, 
 col. 446 ; Hansen v. Ilarrold, col. 402. 
 
 XXVI. ADMIEALTY LAW AND PEACTICE. 
 
 I. High Court of Admiralty and Admiralty 
 
 Division. 
 
 a. Jurisdiction. 
 
 i. Subject-matter, 921. 
 
 ii. Locality, 922. 
 
 iii. Maritime Lien, 923. 
 
 iv. Between Foreigners, 924. 
 
 V. Mortgages, 925. 
 
 vi. Assault and Ill-usage. 925. 
 vii. Personal Injury— Loss of Life, 925. 
 (As to other matters see sub-heads below.) 
 
 b. Actions for Wrongfully Suing in Admi- 
 
 ralty, 926. 
 
 c. Prohibitions, 926. 
 
 d. Chancery Jurisdiction in Admiralty 
 
 Matters, 936. 
 
 2. County Courts, 937. 
 
 3. Passage Court, 945. 
 
 4. Ci7ique Ports, 945. 
 
 5. Vice- Admiralty, Colonial, and Consular 
 
 Courts, 946. 
 
 6. Begistrar, Office of, 948. 
 
 7. Lrw Applicable, 948. 
 
 8. High Court, not of Record, 948. 
 
 9. Wrech, 948. 
 10. Droits, 950. 
 
 II. Beaconage, 951. 
 
 12. Illegal Colours, 951. 
 
 13. Foreign Enlistment, 951. 
 
 14. Prize, 951. 
 
 15. Wages and Disbursements, 952. 
 
 16. Restraint, 953. 
 
 17. Possession, 955. 
 
 18. Co-ownership, 957. 
 
 19. Necessaries. 
 
 a. Generally, 960. 
 
 b. What .are, 961. 
 
 c. Lien, 964. 
 
 d. Foreign Ships, 965. 
 
 e. Priorities. 967. 
 
 20. Breach of Contract— Damage to Cargo, 968. 
 
 21. Slave Trade— Piracy Bou/ities, 971. 
 
 22. Practice. 
 
 a. Practitioners, 971. 
 
 b. Parties, 973. 
 
 c. Writ and Appearance, 975. 
 
 d. Arrest, 976. 
 
 e. Breaking Arrest, 981. 
 /. Bail, 981. 
 
 g. Apin-aisement and Sale, 984. 
 h. Default Proceedings, 987. 
 i. Stay and Transfer, 989. 
 j. Preliminary Act, 992. i 
 
 k. Pleadings, 993. 
 I. Particulars, 995. 
 m. Inspection and Discovery, 996. 
 71. Interrogatories, 997. 
 0. Assessors, 999. 
 p. Evidence, 1000. 
 q. Consolidation, 1001. 
 r. Amenflment of Proceedings, 1001. 
 s. Jury. 1002. 
 t. Eight to Begin, 1003. 
 u. Tender. 1003. 
 
 V. Proceedings in Actions— Various, 1004. 
 w. Eeference to Registrar, 1005.
 
 921 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiralhj Law and Practice. 
 
 X. Decree — Judtrment — Execution, 1007. 
 y. Security for Costs, 1009. 
 
 23. Ajjjjivils. 
 
 a. To Court of Appeal. 1010. 
 
 b. To Privy Council, 1012. 
 
 c. From County Court, 1014. 
 
 24. Costs. 
 
 a. GeneraUv, 1017. 
 
 b. Of Reference, 1022. 
 
 c. Of Appeal, 1024. 
 
 See also IX. Mortgage ; XVIII. Salvage ; 
 xx. collisiox. 
 
 1. High Court op Admiralty and 
 Admiralty Division. 
 
 a. Jurisdiction. 
 
 See also sub-heads, cols. 926, seq., 948 — 971, 
 below. 
 
 i. Suhject-matter. 
 
 Subject-matter — Bottomry.] — Whether the 
 couit has or has not jurisdiction, depends upon 
 the subject-matter. Meretone v. Gibbons, 3 Term 
 Rep. 267. 
 
 It has cognizance of an hypothecation-bond 
 given in the course of a voyage, though executed 
 on land and under seal. lb. 
 
 Freight — Prize.]— So it has jurisdiction 
 
 over the question of freight, claimed by a neutral 
 master against the captor, who has taken the 
 goods as a prize. Smart v. Wolff, 3 Term Rep. 323. 
 
 Possession.] — So it has, in a cause of 
 
 posscssioH, jurisdiction to take a ship from a 
 wrong-doer and deliver her over to a person 
 claiming as the right owner. Blanshard, In re, 
 2 B. i: C. 244 ; 3 D. & R. 177 ; 26 R. R. 329. 
 
 Torts at Sea.]— The court has original 
 
 jurisdiction over torts committed on the high 
 seas, and therefore over a collision on the high 
 seas where the vessel doing the damage was a 
 keel, or a vessel without masts, usually propelled 
 by a pole. The Sarah, Lush. 549. And see 
 Caulc v. Coohe, 2 Keb. 498, infra, col. 927. 
 
 But a suit to recover damages for a tort com- 
 mitted in a foreign country will not lie, if no 
 .'iuch remedy is given by the English law. The 
 J f alley, .5 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 262 ; 37 L. J.. Adm. 
 33 ; L. R. 2 P. C. 193 ; 18 L. T. 879 ; 16 W. R. 998. 
 
 Salvage — What is Subject-matter of.] — 
 
 See (i(ix Float Whifton, No. 2, intra, cnj. ."/j.j. 
 
 Pilotage.] —See The Bee, Pierce v. 
 
 Jlojiper, ante, col. 143. 
 
 Damage done by Negligence — Collision.] 
 
 — If through the negligence or mi.sconduct of 
 those on board a vessel another vessel receives 
 (ir does damage, the owners of the wrongdoing 
 vcsl^el would be liable in the court of admiralty 
 for the damage, even though there was no 
 collision between the two vessels. The Indu-tfrie, 
 4U L. .1.. Adm. 26 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 303 ; 24 L. T. 
 446 ; 19 W. R. 728 : 1 Asp. M. C. 17, 
 
 The '■ Blue Bell," coming up the channel to 
 Hartlcjiool on a dark morning, was comj)ellcd 
 suddenly to port her helm by reason of the 
 " Industry " being discovered across the fairway of 
 the channel without any light exhibited ; in con- 
 u-quence of this manoeuvre the " Blue Bell" took 
 tiie giound, and though her anchor was let go, 
 dragged it and drove against the town wall of 
 
 922 
 
 Hartlepool, suffering damage :— Held, that the 
 court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and 
 that a good ground of action was disclosed, lb. 
 
 — — Average.]— The court of admiralty had 
 no jurisdiction to enforce a claim for general 
 average contribution, except, perhaps, where the 
 proceeds of ship, cargo and freight were in court. 
 The Const anela, 4 Xot. of Cas.'677 ; 10 Jur. 845. 
 And see XVII. Average, ante, col. 592. 
 
 Damage by Tug to Tow.]— A ship in tow 
 
 of a tug was by the fault of the tug damaged by 
 collision with a third ship. Held, that the 
 admiralty court had jurisdiction in a suit by 
 the owners of the ship in tow against the tue. 
 The Mght Wateh, 32 L. J.. Adm. 47 ; 8 Jur 
 (N.s.) 1161 ; 7 L. T. 396 ; 11 W. R. 189. See also 
 The Bvlert Bow, ante, col. 756. 
 
 ii. Loeality. 
 
 Within Counties— Contract,]— The admiraltv 
 had no jurisdiction in cases of contracts and 
 matters done within the bodies of counties, either 
 by land or by water. Boss v. Walker, 2 Wils. 264 . 
 
 Collision.]— Nor for running foul of 
 
 and breaking a vessel in the river Thames, ami 
 in the body of the cotmty of Kent. Vclthasen v. 
 Ormsley, 3 Term Rep. 315. See also The Eliza 
 Jane, 3 Hag. Adm. 335, ante, col. 837 ; The 
 Publie OjJinion, 2 Hag. Adm. 398, ante, col. 837. 
 
 Kestriction— Onus.]— AVhere the ancient juris- 
 diction of the court is restricted by act of 
 parliament, the burden is on those who wish to 
 avail themselves of the restriction to give full 
 proof of the circtimstances (e.g. the distance of 
 three miles from the shore) which give effect to. 
 the restriction, and in case of doubt the court 
 will not consider its jurisdiction ousted. The 
 Argo, Swabey, 112. 
 
 Cinque Ports.] — The court has a concurrent 
 jurisdiction within the boundaries of the juris- 
 diction of the cinque ports ; and this remains 
 unaltered by 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 460. Maria 
 L>ii.sa, Swabey, 67 ; 2 Jur. (n.s.) 264 ; 4 W. R. 
 376. 
 
 Damage to Pier in Foreign Country,] — See The 
 
 M. Mo.rhinii, infra, cols. 760, S'.tu. 
 
 British Dominions Abroad — Arrest.] — Upoin 
 the arrest of a ship within the juri.sdiction, the 
 power of the court extends to acts done on the 
 high .seas, and to places within the British 
 dominions abroad. T'hc Peerless, 13 Moore, 
 P. C. 4K4 ; Lush. 103 ; 30 L. J., Adm. 89 ; JJ 
 L. T. 125. 
 
 Criminal Jurisdiction.] — The conmion law 
 courts liave Cfmcurrent jurisdiction with the 
 admindty in murders committed in creeks and 
 havens, as Jlilford Haven. Bex v. Bruce, 2. 
 Leacli, C. C. 1093. 
 
 Murder on Foreshore.] — The admiral has 
 
 not jurisdiction in case of one wounded at .sea and 
 dying on shore. Peacock v. Lacy, 2 Co. Rep. 93. 
 
 Indictment for wounding on board a ship, 
 lying in Pen.arth roads, three quarters of a 
 mile from the shore : — Held, that the venue 
 was rightly laid in Glamorganshire. Bey. v. 
 Cunninfjhavi, Bell, C. C. 72.
 
 923 
 
 SHIPPING— XXVI. Admiralty Laic and Practice. 
 
 924 
 
 On High Seas and Foreign Rivers.] — The 
 
 admiralty jurisdictiou of Eiiglaud extends over 
 British ships, not only when they are sailing on 
 the hig-h seas, hut also when they are in the rivers 
 of a foreign territory, at a place below bridges, 
 ■where the tide ebbs and flows, and where great 
 ships go. lifff. V. Andersun, 38 L. J., M. C. 12 ; 
 L. K.IC. C. IGl ; 19L.T.400; 17 W.E.208 ; 11 
 Cos. C. C. 198. See also Ileg. v. Luj^ez, 27 L. J., 
 M. C. 48; 7Cox, C.C. 431. 
 
 Coroner.] — In an estuary of the sea where both 
 banks are visible, the admiralty and common-law 
 coroner have a common jurisdiction. Inquisition 
 on one hanged on board ship at Blacliwall. Rex 
 v. Bnncn, 1 Keb. 420. 
 
 Information against the captain of a man-of- 
 war at Portsmouth for refusing to allow coroner 
 to come on board to view a body. Rex v. 
 Saleguard, Andrews, 231. 
 
 Accessories on Shore to Barratry on the Sea 
 are not triable in Admiralty.] — Accessories 
 before the fact on shore to tlie wilful destruction 
 of a ship on the high seas are not triable by the 
 admiralty jurisdiction under 11 Geo. 1, c. 29, 
 s. 7 ; they not having done any act within 
 admiralty jurisdiction. Rlx v. Easttrhy, 2 
 Leach, C. C. 947 (but sec now 43 Geo. 3, c. 113) : 
 East, P. C, Add. to Pref. xxvi. 
 
 Municipal Corporation Act, 5&6 Will. 4, c. 76 
 — Transfer of Jurisdiction. ] — See Raft of Ti ni her, 
 2 W. Eob. 251, 2.5.5, u.. infra, col. 949. 
 
 iii. Ilaritiiiie Lien. 
 
 Judgment of Foreign Court.] — The plaintifEs 
 brought an action and obtained judgment in the 
 tribunal of commerce at Lisbon against the 
 captain and owners of a British ship for damages 
 for injury caused by a collision with the plain- 
 tifEs' ship. The Portuguese courts recognise no 
 distinction between actions in personam and 
 actions in rem. The defendants' ship having 
 come into a British court the plaintiffs com- 
 menced an action in rem against the ship, 
 claiming to enforce the judgment of the Portu- 
 guese court against it, and arrested the ship : — 
 Held, that the action in the Portuguese court 
 was a personal action, and that the writ in the 
 present action and all proceedings iinder it must 
 be set aside, the court having no jurisdiction 
 to enforce a judgment in a personal action by 
 ]iroceedings in rem. The City of Mecca, 50 
 L. J., Adm. 53 ; 6 P. D. 106 ; '44 L. T. 7.50 ; 4 
 Asi^. M. C. 412— C. A. 
 
 Collision— Damage Lien.] — All nations recog- 
 nise and will en^oice a damage lien when it has 
 been declared by a foreign court ; but it is 
 essential that it should appear from the pro- 
 ceedings of the foreign court that the object of 
 the suit was the sale of the ship, and not a 
 personal remedy against the captain or owners. 
 The Bold Buccleugh (7 Moore, P. C. 2G7) con- 
 sidered. Ih. 
 
 Wrongdoing Ship — Wilful Act of Crew — 
 
 Scotch Law.] — The courts of Scotland have from 
 the earliest times, in the exercise of admiralty 
 jurisdiction, administered, not the municipal 
 rules of Scotch law, but the law and custom of 
 the sea generally prevailing among maritime 
 slates, including the law as to maritime lien, and 
 
 now the admiraltv law of Scotland is identical 
 with that of England, The Bold Bverleiigh 
 (7 Moore, P. 0. 267) approved. The Dunlosslt, 
 Currie v. McEnight, 60 L. J., P. C. 19 ; [1897] 
 App. Gas. 97 ; 75 L. T. 457 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 193— 
 H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 In order, however, to give rise to a maritime 
 lien, the ship against which the lien is claimed 
 must be the instrument of mischief, and some 
 act of navigation of the ship itself must either 
 mediately or immediately be the cause of the 
 damage. lb. Arid see further as to damage 
 lien, ante, cols. 717. seq. 
 
 Winding Up.] — The proper mode of 
 
 enforcing a maritime lien on a vessel belonging 
 to a company which has been ordered to be 
 wound up is by a proceeding in the winding-up, 
 and not by a proceeding in rem in the admiralty 
 comt. Australia Direct Steam Xariqation Co., 
 In re, 44 L. J., Ch. 676 ; L. E. 20 Eq. 325. 
 
 The arrest of a vessel by the admiralty court 
 is a sequestration within the meaning of the 
 Companies Act, 1862, s. 163. lb. 
 
 Suit in Ireland restrained hy Injunction' 
 from Chancery in England — Payment out of 
 Money in Court.] — A suit was instituted in 
 admiralty in Ireland for the price of necessaries 
 supplied in 1869 to '• The Lion," then the property 
 of the North-West of Ireland Deep Fishery Co. 
 The defendants, liquidators of the company, 
 lodged in court 208/. 7s. in lieu of bail and as 
 security for the claim and costs, and to abide 
 the judgment of the court. They then applied 
 to the court of chancery in England and obtained 
 an injunction against the plaintiffs from jiro- 
 secuting the necessaries suit " until further 
 order," and afterwards applied to the admiralty 
 court in Ireland for payment out to them of 
 the 208Z. 7.S. Application refused. The Lion, 
 19 W. E. 168 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 321. 
 
 Master's Disbursements and Wages — Lien.] 
 — See V. Mastee, ante, cols. 97, seq. 
 
 Seamen's Wages — Lien.]— &e VI. Seamen, 
 ante, cols. 119, seq. 
 
 Necessaries — Lien.] — See 19. Necessaries, 
 post, cols. 904. seq. 
 
 iv. Beticeen Foreigners. 
 
 Court unwilling to adjudicate.] — The admir- 
 alty court was unwilling to exercise its juris- 
 diction in disputes between foreisrners. The 
 Martin of Xorfolh. 4 C. Eob. 293. 
 
 Possession of Foreign Vessel.] — A plaintiff in 
 an action in rem claimed to be the sole owner or 
 mortgagee of a foreign vessel against which the 
 suit was brought, and to be entitled to have 
 possession of the same decreed to him. The 
 defendants appeared under protest, and delivered 
 a petition on protest alleging, as the fact was, 
 that the plaintiff and defendants were foreigners 
 resident abroad, and praying the court to pro- 
 nounce against its jurisdiction. The consul of 
 the foreign state where the ship was registered 
 was desirous that the court should entertain the 
 suit, and prima facie evidence was given at the 
 hearing that by a decree of a competent court 
 of such foreign state possession of the vessel had 
 been transferred to the plaintiff : — Held, that
 
 925 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiralty Law and Practice. 
 
 9-2G 
 
 the court would not decline to exercise jurisdic- 
 tion in the suit. The Emngeli-^tria, 46 L. J., 
 Adm. 1 ; 35 L. T. 410 : 25 W. R. 255. 
 
 A plaintiff, a foreigner, purchased of the 
 defendant cue fourth share of a ship. At the 
 time of the purchase she was a British ship, but 
 the defendant, a foreigner, subsequently pro- 
 cured a register for her as a foreign ship. In a 
 suit by the plaintiff for possession, the court, 
 upon the foreign consul refusing to interfere, 
 declined to entertain the suit, which was dis- 
 missed, with costs, but not damages. The Agin- 
 court, 47 L. J., Adm. 37 ; 2 P. D. 239. 
 
 Attachment.] — Attachment for contempt 
 issued by the court of admiralty against a 
 person resident in Scotland and executed with 
 the consent of the court of admiralty jurisdic- 
 tion in Scotland, the person attached being 
 brought to England. Afterwards the court in 
 Scotland revoked its consent : — Held, that a 
 supersedeas of the attachment should issue. The 
 Mathesis, 2 W. Rob. 286. 
 
 Wages.] — See T7ie Vroio Mina, infra, col. 953. 
 
 Possession Suit.] — See The See Reuter, 1 Dods. 
 22, infra, col. 957. 
 
 T. Mortgages. 
 
 The admiralty court had formerly no jurisdic- 
 tion in resjject of ship mortgages. The Portsea, 
 3 Hag. Adm. 84. The Exmonth. 2 Hag. Adm. 
 83, n. 
 
 Under 3 <k 4 Vict. c. 65, s. 3, the court has 
 power to decide, not any question arising under 
 a deed of mortgage, as for example the right of 
 the mortgagee to freight, but only questions as to 
 the mortgage of the ship herself. The Fortitude, 
 2 W.Rob. 217. 
 
 vi. Assault and Ill-usage. 
 
 Damages lOOZ. recovered in admiralty by a 
 cook against the captain of an East India 
 Company's ship for ill-usage. The Agincourt, 1 
 Hag. Adm. 271. S. P., The Lowther Castle, 1 
 Hag. Adm. 384. 
 
 Assault by master on seaman ; 120Z. damages 
 awarded bj' admiralty court. The Enchantress, 
 1 Hag. Adm. 395. 
 
 Assault bv master on mate. The Centurion, 1 
 Hag. Adm. 161. 
 
 The admiralty court has jurisdiction in case of 
 assault bv tlie master upon a passenger at sea. 
 The Ihir'lters, 4 C. Rob. 73. 
 
 V i i . Pe rso na I Injn ry — Loss of Life. 
 
 " Damage done by any Ship."] — A stranger 
 wiiil^t |>.'i--:ii^' <iver tli<,' di/ck of a ship in dock 
 in the 'J'haiiies was injured by falling down a 
 hatchway left unprotected by the negligence of 
 those on board : — Held, that he could not sue 
 the ship in rem : ami that his itijurj' was not 
 damage done b3' a ship witliin the meaning of 
 the Admiralty Court Act. 18<".I. The ThHa, 03 
 L. J., A<hn. 160 ; [1894] P. 280 ; 6 R. 712 ; 71 
 L. T. 25 ; 43 W. R. 160 : 7 Asj). M. C. 480. 
 
 The admiralty court has jurisdiction to enter- 
 tain an action in respect of injury to person 
 <lone by a ship. The Beta. 38 L. J., Adm. 50 ; 
 20 L. T. 988 ; 17 W. R. 933— P. C, S. P., The 
 
 Siflvh, 37 L. J.. Adm. 14 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 24 : 
 17 L. T. 519 : Thi! Uhla, 37 L. J.. Adm. 16. n.; 
 L. R. 2 A. & E. 29, n ; 19 L. T. 89 ; Thr Ciuld- 
 faxe, 38 L. J.. Adm. 12 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 325 ; 
 19 L. T. 748 : 17 W. R. 578. See also cols. 725, 
 838, 990. 
 
 b. Actions for Wrong-fully Suing- iu 
 Admiralty. 
 
 Depredation at Sea.] — Contraband goods were 
 condemned and sold in Scotland to the plaintiff. 
 The defendant subsequently sued the plaintiff iu 
 admiralty for depredation at sea. Juror with- 
 drawn, and plaintiff ordered to discontinue. Had- 
 ley V. Eccle.'tjield, 1 Yentr. 173. 
 
 Taking Kelp in the Severn.] — Action for 
 damages for suing in admiralty for taking kelp 
 in the Severn. Flemming v. Yates, 3 Bulstr. 
 205. 
 
 Writ of error to reverse a judgment for 
 damages for wrongfully suing in admiralty ; all 
 the errors assigned were overruled. N.B. — The 
 suit in admii-altj' was for taking kelp in the 
 Severn. Ih. 
 
 Charterparty Made Abroad.] — Action for suing 
 in the admiralty upon a charterparty made 
 abroad. Creiner and Tooklei/s Case, Godb. 385. 
 
 Contract for Sale of Ship and Cargo.] — Action 
 against A. fur wrongfully truing, together with B., 
 in admiralty, upon a contract made at Melcombe 
 in the countj- of Dorset for the sale of a ship and 
 her cargo of fruit. Poyntell was attached to 
 make answer as well to the king and queen as 
 to the plaintiff, Billota. Cause agreed. Poyntell 
 V. Billota, Benloe, pi. Ill ; Dyer, fo. 159, b. 
 
 Action for Wrongfully Suing in Admiralty.] — 
 
 Boiv V. Aljjort, 1 Bnjwjil. & G. 4. 
 
 Action for Arresting Ship as an Interloper — ■ 
 East India Company. _, — A warrant to stay Sands' 
 ship as an interloper was olitaincd from the 
 king in council by Cliild on behalf of the East 
 India Company, and she was afterwards arrested 
 by admiralty process, upon which Sands appeared 
 pro interes.se suo. Sands thereupon sued Child 
 for wrongfully suing iiim in admiralty and , 
 obtained judgment for 1,500Z. damages and double 
 costs under 2 Hen. 4, c. 11. Child v. Sands,] 
 Carth. 294 ; Lev. pt. 3, 351 ; Comb. 215 ; 4 Mod. ' 
 176 ; 1 Salk. 31. 
 
 He who procures the first process out of the 
 admiralty doth prosecute and pursue therein 
 within the meaning of the above statute. Ih. 
 
 c. Prohibitions. 
 
 Generally. ' — I'lie court of admiralty, although 
 it possesses by statute in certain cases some 
 of the powers of a superior court, is an inferior 
 court, to which prohil)ition will lie. James v. 
 L. 4- S. W. By., 41 L. J., Ex. 186 ; L. R. 7 Ex. 
 287 ; 27 L. T. 382 ; 21 W. R. 25 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 226— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Courts of admiralty and courts of prize arc 
 all liable to the controlling authority which the 
 courts of Westminster Hall have from time to 
 time exercised for the purpose of preventing 
 them from exceeding the jurisdiction given to 
 them ; the general ground of prohibition being 
 an excess of jurisdiction when they assume to act
 
 927 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYL Admiraltu Law and Practice 
 
 Grant v. 
 
 928 
 
 in matters not within their cognizance. 
 (nnild, 2 H. r.l. CD, 100 ; 3 Kll. 342. 
 
 If a court of admiralty proceeds in a question 
 wliere it has no jurisdiction, the court will grant 
 a prohibition without imposing any terms. Velt- 
 hdifen V. Onnttloj, 3 Term Rep. 315. 
 
 Prohibitions — Contract.] — Prohibition to 
 admiralty court refused in suit upon a bond 
 made in"^ France, because the witness may be 
 beyond sea, and cannot be examined in a com- 
 mon-law court. Delaroche and Barnei/s Cane, 
 Leon. pt. 3, 232. S. P., The Admiral Court, 
 Br. & Gold., pt. 2, 16. 
 
 Suit in admiralty for possession of goods ; 
 contract by deed pleaded. Prohibition awarded. 
 (\iiiihridqe. (^Earl) v. Penrose, cited, Dyer, fo. 
 15y, b. 
 
 Suit in admiralty for wages earned at sea ; 
 contract made in Suffolk. Prohibition awarded. 
 Bene v. Wilcoclis, cited, Dyer, fo. 1.59, b. 
 
 Suit in admiralty upon obligation made at 
 P>eaumaris for appearance in admiralty. Pro- 
 hibition awarded. Shirt and Floyd's Case, cited, 
 Dyer, fo. 159, b. 
 
 Suit in admiralty upon obligation made at 
 Lincoln, and suggested to have been made at sea. 
 Prohibition awarded. Brian v. Browne, cited. 
 Dyer, fo. 159, b. 
 
 Suit in admiralty for breach of contract made 
 at sea or in foreign parts. Prohibition awarded. 
 Tane v. Pennoir, 1 Keb. 479. 
 
 Prohibition to the admiralty where the issue 
 is whether the contract is made on sea or land. 
 Susans v. Turner, Noy, 67. 
 
 Semble, a contract made at sea is within 
 admiraltj- jurisdiction. Ih. 
 
 Prohibition in suit upon charterparty. Smith- 
 son V. Pain, 1 Keb. 158. 
 
 Prohibition to the admiralty refused in a suit 
 upon a charterparty made in Barbary and under 
 seal, for non-delivery of sugars spoiled at sea. 
 Palmer v. Pope, Hob. 79, 212. And see Maldo- 
 nado V. Slaney, Benloe, 140. 
 
 Sale of ship alleged to be at sea. Prohibition 
 awarded on suggestion that it was at land. Green 
 V. ColducJi, 1 Keb. 786. 
 
 Suit in admiralty on bill of lading for not 
 delivering goods in as good condition, &c. Pro- 
 hibition granted. Caule v. Cooke and Sparlte, 
 2 Keb. 498. 
 
 Semble, if the libel had been in tort for 
 damage to the goods, the admiralty would have 
 had jurisdiction. Ih. 
 
 Semble, in a suit by cargo-owner against ship- 
 owner for non-delivery of goods through breach 
 (if duty as carrier, the admiralty has jurisdiction. 
 Ih. 
 
 Suit in admiralty upon charterparty made on 
 land, the contract being alleged to be at sea. 
 Prohibition awarded. Bushel v. Jay, 1 Keb. 
 153. S. P.. Jolinson v. Prahe, 1 Keb. 176. 
 
 The admiialty court had no jurisdiction upon 
 a contract made on land abroad. Ball v. Tre- 
 lawny, Cro. Car. 603. 
 
 If the libel alleges, contrary to the fact, that 
 the contract was at sea, prohibition will go to 
 the admiralty. Godfrey's Case, Latch, 11. 
 
 A contract made on shipboard at sea for 
 victuals is triable in admiralty — per Doderidge, 
 J. Ih. 
 
 Suit in admiralty upon a charterparty and 
 ship arrested. Semiale, the master cannot make 
 the ship liable in admiralty for breach. Watson 
 V. Warner, Sid., pt. 2, 161. 
 
 The admiralty had no jurisdiction in matters 
 done beyond sea. Thoudinson's Case, 12 Co. Rc\t. 
 104. 
 
 The admiralty cannot hold plea for matters 
 done on land, as of a suit for money lent to the 
 master in Spain. Bridyeman's Case, Hob. 11. 
 
 Collision.] — Prohibition granted in case 
 
 of damage by a foreign ship in collision in the 
 Thames. Velthasen v. Ormsley, 3 Term Eep. 
 315. 
 
 Prohibition refused where the collision was in 
 the Thames, on the ground that there was no 
 remedy at common law. Wharton^. Pits, 1 Salk. 
 548 (not followed in Velthasen v. Ormsley, 
 supra). 
 
 Prohibition granted in a collision suit, but only 
 upon the undertaking of the applicants to give 
 the names of the owners of the ship sued, so that 
 they could be sued at common law. Martin v. 
 Green, 1 Keb. 730. 
 
 After Sentence.] — Prohibition may issue 
 
 to the admiralty after sentence. Bex v. Broom, 
 or Brome, Comb. 444 ; 12 Mod. 135. 
 
 Prohibition to the admiralty refused after 
 sentence on appeal, there being concurrent juris- 
 diction. Chambers' Case, 1 Keb. 10, 66. 
 
 Suit in admiralty for breach of charterparty, 
 and sentence given. Prohibition refused. Smith- 
 son v. Pain, 1 Keb. 158. 
 
 Prohibition refused, after sentence and execu- 
 tion. Walker v. Adams, Siderf. 331 ; 2 Keb. 2U0, 
 722. 
 
 Prohibition after sentence refused, wliere the 
 contract was alleged infra jurisdictionem admi- 
 rallitatis. Bar her v. Wharton, 2 Ld. Raynr. 
 1452 : 2 Barnard. 2. 
 
 Prohibition not granted upon a surmise after 
 sentence passed. Susans v. Turner, Noy, 67. 
 
 An admiralty sentence, unless upon its face it 
 appears to have been passed without jurisdiction, 
 is presumed to have been made with jurisdiction. 
 Ladhroke v. Crickett, 2 Term Eep. 649 ; 1 R. R. 
 571. 
 
 The court will not prohibit the admiralty after 
 sentence upon mere surmise that the matter was 
 infra corpus comitatus. Case of the Admiralty, 
 12 Co. Rep. 79. 
 
 Prohibition granted to the admiralty after 
 sentence. Keech v. Potts, 1 Keb. 3. 
 
 Enforcing and Giving Bail.] — Prohibi- 
 tion refused in a suit to enforce bail given 
 in admiralty. Parre or Par v. Beans, Sir Th. 
 Raym. 78 ; 1 Keb. 489. Cf. Barouyh v. CatVnc, 
 1 Keb. 88. 
 
 A stipulation taken in a vice-admiralty court 
 in the colonies to abide the decision of the court 
 of appeal in prize cases is not a recognizance, 
 being taken in a court not of record ; but it is 
 enforceable by the court of appeal. Prohibition 
 refused. Brymer v. Atkins. 1 H. BL 165. 
 
 As to the nature of stipulations or bail in 
 admiralty ; whether prohibition lies in a suit 
 upon the bond. Greenway and Baker's Case, 
 Godb. 193, 260. 
 
 Security for safe return enforceable in admi- 
 raltv. See Grave or Beyrate v. Hedges, infra, 
 col. '929. 
 
 Prohibition to admiralty applied for in suit 
 upon bond given by part owners taking ship to 
 sea against wish of co-owners : suit stayed by 
 consent. Justice v. Brown, Hardr. 473.
 
 929 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiralty Law ami Practice. 
 
 930 
 
 Whether a stipulation taken in the admiralty 
 by a part owner for the return of the ship can be 
 sued on in admiralty doubted. lb. 
 
 Necessaries.] — Prohibition gi-antcd in 
 
 suit in ailmiralty for supply of an anchor to a 
 foreign ship at Kadcliife. Juxtin v. Balhim, 2 
 Lfl. Ravm. 80.-> ; 1 Salk. 84 : 1 Keb. .511 : B Mod. 
 24-t ; G'Mod. 79 : 1 Sid. 4.53; 1 Lev. 267 : 1 Vent. 
 32 ; Cro. Car. 290. 
 
 Action in admiralty in mayor's court of Hull 
 by shipwright for repairs. Prohibition granted. 
 As/it(i)i's Case, Lit. Rep. 166. 
 
 Semble, a contract for the supply of victuals 
 made on shipboard is triable in admiralty. 
 Godfri'ii's Case. Latch, IL 
 
 Prohibition granted. Libel against ship and 
 master, and late and present owner (who had 
 purchased her after necessaries supplied) for sails 
 and other necessaries supplied in an English port. 
 Houre v. Chnnent, 2 Shower (3rd ed.) 559. 
 
 Prohibition to the admiralty in a suit for 
 necessaries supplied within the body of a county. 
 CradorJi'/i Ca.se. Brownl. & G. pt. 2, 37. 
 
 Libel against the ship in admiralty for pro- 
 visions and mariners' wages. Semble, prohibition 
 will be awarded. Smith v. Till;/, 1 Keb. 708. 
 
 Prohibition to the admiralty in a suit for 
 supplies furnished on the Thames. Leigh, t. 
 Hurley, Owen, 122. 
 
 Bottomry.] — Prohibition refused in a 
 
 bottomrj- suit, except so far as necessary to make 
 the master a party, in order to condemn the ship. 
 Johmoii V. Shepjinj, or Shipj)ett, or Shrjjway, 
 Holt, 48 : 1 Salk. 35 ; Ld. Raym. 982 ; Mod. 79. 
 
 Prohibition to a<lmiralty refused in a bottomry 
 .suit, the money having been lent at sea. Scare- 
 hurrow v. Lifvius, Noy, 95. 
 
 Prohibition to admiralty refused in suit against 
 master who had hvpothecated the ship abroad. 
 Cumet V. Ilusrlcy. Holt. 48 ; Comb. 138. 
 
 See also Jienzrn v. Jr /tries, 1 Ld. Raym. 152, 
 and X. BoTTOMKV. supra, col. 225. 
 
 Possession and Restraint.] — Prohibition 
 
 granted in a suit lor po-.sc<siiiii nf a sliip adjudged 
 prize and buught by the plaintill in Scotland. 
 Thiij-iitoti V. Smith, 2 Keh). 158. 
 
 Prohibition does not lie to restrain the a(hni- 
 ralty from proceeding in a cause of possession for 
 tlie restoration of a vessel to a person claiming 
 as true owner against a wrongdoer. JilaiiJihard, 
 III re, 3 I). & R. 177 ; 2 J'.. cV (!. 244 ; 26 R. R. 
 329. See The I'eyfjij, 4 C. Rob. 304. 
 
 Prohibition refused in a suit in admiralty by 
 a minf)rity in value of part owners to get 
 Hecurity for retui-n of ship. Oiixfrn v. Jlrttden, 
 Wils. pt. 1. loL 
 
 Rut graiitr-d as to an orrler by the admiralty 
 for sale of the ship. Ih. 
 
 Suit in admiralty upon a l>otid given by 
 majority of part owners todissentingpart owners 
 for safe return of the shif). the ship having been 
 lf)st. A))plicant orrlered tf) declare in prohibition. 
 Grave or Dri/rarr v. Ifedtiex, Holt. 470. 
 
 Prohibit ions formerly issucfl to the admiralty 
 in suits of restraint, but subsequently the admi- 
 ralty was allowed to juocced in such cases. Anon., 
 1 Barnard. 410. S. P., Kniqht v. Jlerry, Holt, 
 647 ; Carth. 26 ; Comb. 109.' 
 
 Prohibition refused ; suit in admiralty by 
 dissenting part owner, to comjiel his co-owner to 
 give security for return of ship. Dimmnck v. 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 ! 67/r/«^Z«/'. Strange, 890 : Fitzg. 197. S. P..J«yw., 
 2 Chitty. 359. 
 
 Spoil and Piracy.] — Prohibition to the 
 
 admiralty m a suit by Frenchmen, whose goods 
 had been taken at sea by the servants of the defen- 
 dant, an Englishman, to whom letters of marque 
 had been granted to take the ships of Spaniards. 
 Waltham v. Mulyar, Moore, 776. 
 
 The question whether goods have been cap- 
 tured by pirates or in war is not triable in 
 ailmiralty. Aliter, where the claim is by the 
 owner of goods taken at sea by pirates. Udnian 
 V. Smith, 3 Keb. 744. 
 
 Semble, prohibition would issue in case of a 
 claim by the French owner of a ship captured by 
 a Dunkirker and driven into Weymouth before 
 being taken infra pKiesidia of the king of Spain, 
 the goods having been sold at Weymouth by the 
 ca])tor. Anon., March. 110. 
 
 Trespass for taking, as alleged, at sea money 
 and cloths ; prohibition nisi awarded. Tridahan 
 V. Tup, 1 Keb. 202 : cf. Hex v. Wuimcriglit, 
 1 Keb. 607, 624. 
 
 A fisherman was indicted for piracy ; igno- 
 ramus found ; he was nevertheless detained in 
 prison u{)on suspicion of piracy : habeas corpus 
 applied for and refused, the susi)icion being well 
 founded. Re-c v. Marsh, Bulstr., pp. 3, 27. 
 
 A pirate imprisoned by the Admiralty Court 
 was assisted to escape by S.. who being also 
 imprisoned, applied for a habeas corpus : — Held, 
 that the offence was of the same character as the 
 principal offence, piracy, over which the admi- 
 ralty had jurisdiction. Prisoner remanded. 
 Sradding's Case, Xoy, 131. 
 
 Suit in aflmiralty, before spoil commissioners, 
 by Si)anish owner of goods taken at sea by Sir 
 John Gilbert : — Prohibition awarded. Gilbert's, 
 Sir John, Cii.se, cited Dyer, fo. 159 (b). 
 
 Capture by pirates does not change the pro- 
 l>erty. Grcemrai/ and Jialicr's (or liarker'.s') 
 Ca.se, Godb. 193. 260. 
 
 Prohibition refused where the alleged taking 
 of the goods by pirates was at a foreign port, of^ 
 which the court could not take notice, whether 
 it were at sea or on laiul. 
 
 Prohibition refused in a case of piracy, because 
 no security at common law. Pellayii\s Case, 
 cited in Bex v. Marsh, Bulstr. pt. 3. 27, 29. 
 
 The admiral, by his ])atent, takes bona pira- 
 tarum, that is, the jjirate's own goods, not the 
 goods of others in the pirate's possession : aiul 
 tlie ])i]'ate nnist be attaiiil(><l of piracy before tlie 
 admiral can lake tliem. 'I'iu! aihiiiral cannot sue 
 for them in liisowu court : — Prohibit ion granted. 
 Prinston v. The Cavrt of Admiral/i/, Bulstr., pt. 
 3, 147. 
 
 Prohibition to the admiralty refused in a case 
 tliat was incidental to jjiracv. Spark v. Staf- 
 ford, Hai(h-. 183. 
 
 Prohibition refused in a piracy case, after 
 sentence. Villiers, la re, citeil Hob. 79. 
 
 Salt was taken at sea by pirates, brought to 
 land, anil sold. The owner sued the purchaser 
 in aihniralty : — Prohibition granted, and after- 
 wards consultation awai'iled. J iie original cause 
 having arisen at sea, the sale on land was 
 incidental thereto. Anon.. (Jro. Eliz. 685. 
 
 Prohibition to tlie aibiiiralty in a suit for 
 buying on land goods taken by pirates at sea : — 
 Refused, as to the taking of the goods l)y the 
 pirates. Don Dieqo Serrientode Aenna v. Joliff'e 
 and Tiirher. Uol).'78, 113, 212. 
 
 Semble, the admiralty had jurisdif;tion in a 
 
 80
 
 931 
 
 SHIPPING— XXVI. Admiralty Laic and Practice. 
 
 932 
 
 suit foi- possession of ship that had been taken 
 by pirates, carried to Tunis, and tliere sold ; the 
 sale on land being incidental to the taking by 
 })iiates. A»(iN., 1 V'entr. HOS. 
 
 But the taking nuist be alleged in the libel to 
 be super altum mare, or prohibition will issue. Ih. 
 
 linuiR'. sent out by the African Company, 
 who liad letters of marque to take prizes, took a 
 French ship, and hatl her condemned as prize. 
 Brome was sued in admiralty to make satis- 
 faction to the king for her value, and sentence 
 was given against him. He ajiplied for pro- 
 hibition ; prohibition refused ; the taking at sea 
 gives the admiralty jurisdiction, and the subse- 
 quent conversion is to be coupled with it. lie.v v. 
 Broiiif or Broom, Comb. 44-1 ; Garth. 398. 
 
 Subjects of the Chilian government who had 
 risen in rebellion, held to be pirates within 
 13 ct 14 Vict. c. 2(5. Piracy discussed. The 
 Mii//('U(in Pii'dtrfi, 1 Spinks, 81. 
 
 See tiho ;t. Wreck, infra, col. !)48 ; 10. Droits, 
 infra, col. 948 ; 21. SLAVE TRADE — PIRACY — 
 Bounties, infra, col. 971. 
 
 Prize.] — The question of prize or no prize 
 
 is triable in admiralty, and not at common law ; 
 ])rohibition refused. Brown v. Fr/iiiMyn, Carth. 
 474 ; T/imiioiili/i v. Sands, Carth. 423 ; 1 Ld. 
 Itaym. 271 : cf. Mitchell v. liodnnj, 2 Bro. P. C. 
 423. 
 
 Prohibition to the admiralty refused in case of 
 ])rize. T/ioiiijmin v. Siiiith, Sid. pt. 1, 320. 
 S. P.. Turner v. Smith, Sid. pt. 1, 367 ; and see 
 JEdnian v. Smith, supra, col. 930. 
 
 Prohibition to the admiralty for not admitting 
 a plea as to an agi'eement for sharing a prize 
 taken by two ships in consortship. Somers and 
 BvcJdeifs Case, 2 Leon. pt. 2, 182. 
 
 Prohibition will usually be granted in a suit 
 relating to a ship captured and not bi'ought infra 
 praesidia ; sale within body of a county. Anon., 
 March, 110 ; (not granted here because of mis- 
 conduct of vendee). 
 
 Goods claimed in Admiralty Court by Spanish 
 ambassador as having been bought by English- 
 men of a pirate ; defence that the alleged pirate 
 was ambassador of the king of Morocco sent to 
 the Netherlands ; that there was war between 
 Spain and Morocco, and that the goods were 
 taken jure belli ; sentence in the admiralty for 
 the Spanish ambassador ; prohibition applied for 
 by the English purchaser of the goods refused. 
 Bella ffii's Case, cited Eex v. Jfursh, Bulstr., pt. 
 3,27. 
 
 A suit for an account of prizes taken by a 
 private man-of-war between owner and master 
 lies in the admiralty. Berheley and Mor rice's Case, 
 Hardr. 502 ; 2 Keb. 441. I 
 
 Suit in admiralty for money due for prize 
 goods. Denial of Act of Oblivion pleaded in 
 admiralty. Question whether buyers who had 
 pjaid for the goods or defaulting receiver liable. 
 Consultation awarded. Rex v. M'ainwrif/ht, 1 
 Keb. (507. 
 
 Illegal seizure of British ship by British com- 
 missioned ship. See Faith v. Pearson, ante, 
 col. 83 ; Bochicra;/ v. Birhrnson, ante, col. 27. 
 
 Wages of Seamen — Special Contract.] — 
 
 Mariners may sue for their wages in admiralty, 
 except where the contract is special and unusual, 
 or by deed. 0^;v/ v. Child, 1 Salk. 31. 
 
 Where the seaman agreed with the master on 
 a voyage from London to the Danube for 'M)l. : — 
 Held, that the contract was special, and the 
 
 Admiralty Court had no jurisdiction, Tlte 
 Behrecsia, 3 W. Rob. 33. 
 
 A prohibition would go to the court, in a suit 
 there for seamen's wages, if the agreement was 
 sjiecial or under seal. Howe v. Kapier, 4 Burr. 
 1944. S. P., Ben^- v. Parre, 2 Ld. Raym. 120G. 
 
 Prohibition granted in wages suit in the 
 admiralty, because a plea that the contract was 
 special was not admitted. Blackivell v. Clerk, 
 1 Keb. 684. 
 
 Mariners formerly could not sue in admiralty 
 where the contract was special. The Si/dnei/ 
 Core, 2 Dods. 11. S. P., The Mona, 1 W.' Rob. 
 137. 
 
 Prohibition granted to the admiralty in a 
 wages suit, where the contract was by deed with 
 unusual covenants. Bai/ v. Searl, Cunn. .53 ; 
 Strange, 968 ; Ca. t. Har'dw. 53. 
 
 Prohibition to admiralty in wages suit refused 
 after sentence, though coptract by deed, that 
 objection not being taken m admiralty. Bennet 
 V. Bufjcfin, 4 Burr. 2033. 
 
 Seaman cannot sue for wages at common law 
 and admiralty at the same time ; in such case 
 prohibition would formerly have gone to the 
 admiralty. Edmontons. Franldijn, Fortesc, 231. 
 
 Ordinary Contract — Prohibition Refused.] 
 
 — Mariners may sue for wages in the admiralty, 
 unless there is a special contract, even where the 
 contract is in writing : — Prohibition refused. 
 The Mariners' Case, 8 "^Mod. 379. S. P., Rex v. 
 Pihe, 2 Keb. 779. And see Bens v. Parre, 2 Ld. 
 Raym. 1206. 
 
 Prohibition refused after judgment in admi- 
 ralty in a case of mariners' wages by favour of 
 the court and as a privilege to mariners. Jones' 
 Case, Winch, 8 ; Ewer v. Vauf/han, Winch, 8. 
 
 Where the seaman's wages were agreed to be 
 paid as to part by a share of a whaling adventure, 
 the Admiralty Court had no jurisdiction : but as 
 to the part of the wages payable under the 
 ordinary seamen's contract there was jurisdiction. 
 The Rihij Grove, 2 W. Rob. 52. 
 
 Wages earned in Thames.] — Seamen may sue 
 in admii-alty for wages earned on the Thames. 
 It is a ])riviiege to seamen to prevent their being 
 l)ut to the expense of separate actions. Mills v. 
 Gregory, Sayer. 127. 
 
 Reason for Jurisdiction — Lien on Ship.] — A 
 
 mate or a mariner may sue in admiralty for his 
 wages, although he sues alone, and the contract 
 was made on land, because the ship is liable in 
 admiralty. Hook v. Moreton, 1 Ld. Raym. 397. 
 
 Seaman Discharged before Voyage Begun.] — 
 
 A seaman <Uschai'ged after signing articles and 
 before commencement of voyage niay sue in 
 admiralty. Tlic City of London, I W. Rob. 88. 
 
 Prohibitions Refused.] — Coke v. Cretchet,'Ley. 
 pt. 3, 3((() ; Middlcton \. Scolly, cited, ibid.; Aniin. 
 1 Ventris, 343. And see per Eyres, J.. Comb, 
 255. 
 
 Though voyage not begun. Wells v. 
 
 Osman or Osmond, 2 Ld. Raym. 1044 ; 6 Mod. 
 238. 
 
 Where port of arrival not port of delivery. 
 
 Brown v. Bonn, 2 Ld. Raym. 1247. 
 [ Prohibition refused ; mariners had by deed 
 contracted to forfeit wages in certain events ;
 
 933 
 
 SHIPPING— XXVI. Admiralty Laic and Practice. 
 
 984 
 
 sentence in admiralty tliat tlie deed was obtained 
 by fraud. Burh v. Aticood, Sti'auge. 761. 
 
 Prohibition refused : libel by mariner for wages 
 earned in a shij) seized for smuggling, and after- 
 wards released on payment of fine. Miunett v. 
 Roh'inston. Bunb. 121. 
 
 Semble. If a ship is condemned for smuggling, 
 the mariners' lien for wageais gone, and prohibi- 
 tion will issue. Ih. 
 
 Prohibition refused ; suit by one mariner hired 
 by the freighters and not by the owners. Semble, 
 the ship liable, though not the shipowner. Smith 
 V. Croshij, Foit. 230. 
 
 Arrest of Freight — -Wages.] — Suit against 
 freighters to arrest fi-eight in their hands for 
 master's and mariners' wages. Prohibitions 
 granted, both as to the master, and, on the 
 freighters' application, as to thcseaman. Mrchai- 
 liam V. folium or yechtnliaiii v. Foldaiiih, Gibb. 
 y : 6 Yin. Abr. ."iHit. 
 
 Wages of Master and Others— Surgeon. ] 
 
 — A surgeon may sue in admiralty for wages. 
 Milh V. Lona. Sayer, 13fi : The Wharton. 1 
 Hag. Adm., 141 n. ; but not for medicines sup- 
 plied to crew. The Lord Ilohart, 2 Dods. 100. 
 
 Carpenter.] — A carpenter may sue for 
 
 wages in admiralty. Prohibition refused. 
 Wheeler v. Thonipmn, 2 Str. 707 ; The Lord 
 Hohnrt. 2 Dods. 104. And see Creed v. Mallet. 
 Fort. 231. 
 
 A Woman.] — A woman serving on board 
 
 .ship entitled to wages in admiralty. The Jane 
 and Matilda, 1 Hag. Adm. 187. 
 
 ■ • Mate.] — Prohibition refused in suit by 
 
 mate in admiralty for wages. Ilooh v. Morefon, 
 
 1 Ld. Ravm. 3!t7. And see The Faronrite, 2 
 W. Hob. 232 ; Itead v. Chapman, Str. 1)37 : Keb. 
 394. 
 
 Mate may Sue for Wages in Admiralty.] 
 
 — The mate may >ue in a(hiiiralty lor wages on 
 a coiitiact made on land. Jiailij v. Grant, 1 
 Ld. Kavm. (J32 ; Salk. 33; Holt, 48; 12 Mod. 
 440. 
 
 Boatswain.] — Piohiljilion refused in suit 
 
 by boatswain for wages. K'lU'J '^- A'/w/. infra, 
 S. P., AllexuH V. Marsh, 2 Ventr. 181. 
 
 Master.] — The master formerly could not 
 
 sue for his wages in admiralty. Proliibition 
 granted. Ifai/i/ v. A'int/. 2 ^Ir. HoH; 1 Com. 740 : 
 
 2 Karnard. 21(7. S. P.. Jiarher v. Wharfon,iin\\Yn, 
 col. !»2H ; Claii v. Sneh/rore, 12 Mo<l. 40.") : Holt, 
 J)!>ri : Carth. :>[>>■ ; The Faronrite, 2 \V. l!ob. 232 : 
 Head V. Clni piiKin. Sti'. 1)37: 3 liarnaiil. IliO: 
 Kcl. 324. 
 
 Cutting Wood in Brazil.] — Prohibition to the 
 ndniiralty in a suit tor wrongfully cutting log 
 WfM)d in Brazil. b(,']onging to the Kin'.r of Spain. 
 Don Deijoe Servient Deaeiino {^Sjianixh Amlxix- 
 K/idor') V. limitixjt and Points, 2 JinNtr. 322. 
 
 Claim by Spanish King to Forfeited Goods by 
 Spanish Subject.] — Pioperty brought to England 
 by a S|iani-h subject whose goods had V)een for- 
 feited to the King of Spain an<l Ijought \t\ Watts. 
 The Spanish Ambassador sues Watts in admiralty. 
 Prohibition g'rantc*!. DonAlon.-<ov. Cornero, Hob. 
 
 79, 212. S. P., Don Pedro de Snncga, cited, 
 In re. ih. 
 
 Detinue of Ship at Limehouse.] — Prohibition 
 to the admiralty in a suit for detinue of a ship In 
 the Thames at Limehouse. Violet v. Blaijue, 
 Cro. Jac. 514. 
 
 Office of Measuring Coals.] — Prohibition to the 
 admiralty in a suit by the judge against an officer 
 of the Lord Mayor of London for meastiring coals 
 in the Thames, the judge being grantee of the 
 otKce from the admiral. Cccsar''s Case, Sir Julius, 
 Leon. pt. 1, lu(). 
 
 Obstructing Wharf in Thames.] — Prohibition 
 granted in a suit in the admiralty for laying a 
 ship alon.irside a wharf in the Thames, so as to 
 prevent other ships approaching it. Consultation 
 awarded, but afterwards superseded and prohi- 
 bition allowed. Goodwin v, Tomhins, Noy, 
 148. 
 
 "Validity of Letters Patent to Vice-admiral.] — 
 
 Prohibition to the admiralty in a matter as to the 
 validity of letters patent granted to vice-admirals 
 by a deceasetl admiral. Daeon\s Case, Sir 
 Thomas. Leon. pt. 2. 103 ; pt. 3. 192. 
 
 Suit by Master for Disbursements.] — A master 
 libelled tlie charterers in admiralty for disburse- 
 ments. Proliibition granted. Woodwardv.Boni- 
 tham. Sir Tli. Kaym, 3. 
 
 Ransom.] — Prohibition in a case of ransom, 
 before a])pearauce, the cargo having been arrested 
 by the ailmiralty at the instance of the hostage, 
 refused. Trantor v. }]'atson, tJ Mod. 13; 2 Ld. 
 Ray m. 931. 
 
 Suit in the admiralty ])y a master for money 
 borrowed by him to ransom himself and his ship 
 from ])irates. Prohibition refused. Spark v. 
 Stafford, Hardr. 18."). 
 
 The ship could be sued in admiralty for non- 
 l)ayment of his ransom, because the contract was 
 made at sea — Per Holt. Wilson v. JJird, 1 
 Ld. Raym. 22. 
 
 Executing Sentence of Foreign Admiralty.]— 
 Prohibition to the admiralty for executing an 
 interlocutory sentence as to carriage of goods 
 alleged to have been jjassed by an admiralty court 
 of Spain. Jnrado v. Gret/ori/, Sid. pt. 1, 418; 
 2 Keb. .-)11. 
 
 Allegation of "Infra Fluxum et Refluxum 
 Maris."] — Libel in admiralty alleging the cause 
 infra Ibi.xum et refluxum maris. Prohibition 
 awarde<l. Jial/ v. filar I; more. 1 Kel). 14. 
 
 Goods Awarded by Admiral ] — Suit in 
 :i(hiiiraliv tni ]M.--cs-ion of goods in hands of J. 
 at Dartmouth, which lia<l been allotted to him by 
 award of the admiral on the high sea, acting as 
 arbitrator. Sii mines v. Mart ham, cited, Dyei, fo. 
 l.-,9. 1). 
 
 Wreck Royal Fish. J— Suit in admiralty for 
 wreck of the sea (_royal fish) cast up on shore, 
 i'rohihition awarded. Jirownes Case, cited 
 Dyer, fo. If/) b. 
 
 Beaconage.] — Suit in admiralty for beacon- 
 atrc in respect of a beacon at Falmouth, the title 
 bein" in question; prohibit i(in awarded ; alitcr 
 
 30—2
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiralty Laic and Practice. 
 
 035 
 
 whore the suit is (nily for the profits. CtvsfU'y. 
 li'uis (^or Biiji/cs). 1 Keb. '>7:> ; 1 Sid. ir)S. 
 
 Sentence of Foreign Court — Average.] — Suit 
 iniuhnirahy to exeeute sentence of a foreign court 
 for average on a shi)) run aground : iirohibition 
 refused on the ground that averages should be 
 by the foreign usage. (ruIfJ v. fr'oodivhi. 2 Keb. 
 (uS. 
 
 Breach of Navigation Act — Forfeiture.] — 
 
 Semble. i)roliiV)ition will not be granted to the 
 admiralty in a suit for forfeiture of the ship 
 for trading contrary to the Navigation Acts. 
 Pidgcim v. Trent, 3 Keb. 640, (i47, 651. 
 
 Nuisance in the Exe River.] — Presentment of 
 i^uisance in the river Exe at an inf[uest held by 
 the vice-admiral of Devon, by lime boats 
 grounding at low tide. 
 
 Semble, i)rohibition will not be awarded, the 
 jurisdiction being in admiralty as well as at 
 common law. Sliperx v. Miirtyn, 1 Keb. 78'.>. 
 
 Collusive Suit.] — After an action for freight 
 liad been commenced by a shipowner against a 
 charterer, a monition issued from the Coiu't of 
 Admiralty. re(iuiring him to bring the freight 
 into that court, in a suit there by the holder of a 
 bottomry bond on the ship. The charterer 
 pleaded to that suit, paid in the money, and the 
 cause stood for hearing. The court refused a 
 prohibition : though it was suggested that the 
 suit in the Admiralty Court was brought by 
 collision between the holder of the bottomi-y 
 bond and the charterer, to deprive the plaintiff 
 in the action of his freight. Place, In re, 8 Ex. 
 704 ; 22 L. J., Ex. 241 ; 17 Jur. 828. 
 
 Suit for Ballastage,] — Prohibition to the 
 admiralty in a suit by the Trinity House against 
 a Dutch ship for ballast. Tr'imtij House (^Cor- 
 2>oration) v. Jinrentan, Brownl. & G. 2, pt. 2, 13 ; 
 as to the validity of the grant to the Trinity 
 House of the ballasting monopoly, see 1 Keb. 
 137, 250, 270, 300, 331. '' 
 
 Derelict.] — Derelict ship found three miles 
 from land ; claim in admiralty bv" the admiral 
 and first decree given ; prohibition refused ; 
 York {Bnlie of) or Linstred v. Le Seigneur 
 Admiral, 1 Keb. 657 ; 1 Sid. pt. 1. 178. 
 
 Property in Ship.] — Question of property in 
 ship cannot be tried in admiralty ; prohibition 
 granted. Thtmixon v. Smith. 2 Keb. 158 ; 2 Ld. 
 Kaym. 805. 
 
 Admiralty of Cinque Ports.] — Prohibition to 
 tlie admiralty of the Ciiique Ports in a suit for 
 deljt, the goods of the delator being arrested 
 afloat. JJi//// V. Jlern/icraf/irr, 2 Keb. 305, 
 312. 
 
 Refused after Defendant had Pleaded.] — Pro- 
 hibition to the a<hiiiralty refused where the 
 defendant had pleaded, and it did not appear 
 upon the libel that the jurisdiction was exceeded. 
 Je/ininf/s v. Audlpij. 2 Pirownl. & Cr. 30. 
 
 Citation for Contempt] — Prohibition to the 
 admiralty granted for citing one to appear to 
 answer for contempt in suing elsewhere. Ilill.s' 
 Case, Style, 207. 
 
 Trover of Goods at Sea.] — Suit in admiralty 
 for trover and conversion of sliip goods alleged 
 
 936 
 
 to be at sea : prohibition awarded. Lejwol and 
 Trijan's (\ix<-. Style, 470. 
 
 Criminal Case.] — Prohibition refused in a 
 criminal case alleged to be not triable in admir- 
 alty. Semble, certioiari would issue in such 
 case. Defh ieJt's Case, Style, 233 
 
 Refusal to Admit Plea.] — Refused by the 
 admiralty to admit a i)lca of the act of oblivion ; 
 prohibition refused ; contra if the admiralty 
 undertakes to expound an Act of Parliament. 
 Anun., 1 Keb. 3!)3. 
 
 Refusal of Admiralty Court to entertain a 
 plea as to the ownership of sails detained by one 
 to whom they had been pawned. Prohibition 
 granted. Edmtindson v. Walker, Carth. 166. 
 
 Incidental Matter.] — Where the principal suit 
 is within the admiralty jurisdiction prohibition 
 refused in incidental suit. Turner v. Keale, 
 Lev. pt. 1, 243 : Hex v. Brome or Broom, Carth. 
 31)8 ; Cumb. 244, supra, col. 931. 
 
 Proceedings for Contempt.] — Prohibition re- 
 fused in proceedings by the admiralty against 
 one for contempt in resisting the process of the 
 court. Sparks v. Jlartj/n, 1 Ventr. 1. 
 
 Prohibition granted in the same case upon a 
 suggestion that the court was proceeding in the 
 principal suit without jurisdiction. lb. 
 
 Ship of Foreign Sovereign— Collision — Im- 
 munity from Arrest— Admiralty Jurisdiction.] 
 
 — See The Chr/rkirh, supra, col. 724. 
 
 Habeas Corpus.] — Collusive proceeding to 
 defeat process of admiralty ; habeas corpus 
 refused. Ke.aoh's Case, Holt, 335. 
 
 Habeas Corpus— Suit in Admiralty for Em- 
 bezzlement.] — One libelled in admiralty in a 
 " causa danini sive spolii civili niaritimse " (sic) 
 for embezzlement was afterwards sued in the 
 King's Bench for debt. Habeas corpus awarded, 
 and'defendant taken from custody of the admir- 
 alty to the Marshalsea. Rotherford, or Ruther- 
 ford V. Seof, or Scott, Kel. pt. 2, 214 ; 2 Str. 936. 
 
 Pirate Goods.] — The admiral in his patent 
 has granted to him bona piratarum. Resolved 
 by all the judges that the goods of pirates pass 
 by this grant ; and not piratical goods. The 
 king shall have piratical goods, if the owner be- 
 not known. In this case the admiral ought to- 
 sue at common law and not in admiralty. Anon., 
 Jenk. 325. 
 
 Prohibitionbefore Libel.]— Prohibition granted 
 
 before libel exhibited, the admiralty having 
 issued a vvai'rant to seize a ship. Poirell v. 
 Robinson, Bunbury, 9 : prohibition refused in a 
 similar case. Roberts v. Cadd, Bunb. 247. 
 
 Pilotage.] — See Pieree v. Hopper, ante, col.. 
 144. 
 
 d. Chancery Jurisdiction in Admiralty 
 Matters. 
 
 Control of Court of Chancery over Admiralty 
 Courts. Blades Case,Blad v. Bam field, 3 Swanst. 
 603, 604 : Jlahj v. Goodson. 2 Mer. 77. 
 
 Letteis of 'marque and i-eprisal may be 
 vacated in Chancery. Rca: v. Carew, 3 Swanst- 
 669.
 
 937 
 
 SHIPPING— XXVI. Adudnilty Law and Practice. 
 
 938 
 
 No relief in equity a.s^ainst a security (i-iven 
 for performing the sentence of Court of -Ailmir- 
 nlty, although reversed on appeal, the court to 
 which appeal had been made not havintr juris- 
 iliction. Bc/irtc v. Sfoch, 8 Swanst. ()62. See 
 Lovr V. lialicr. 1 Ch. Ca. 67 : Xels. 108. 
 
 Where jurisdiction was giveu in respect of a 
 particular kind of proceeding, by an act passed 
 before the passing of the Jmlicature Acts, to the 
 Court of Chancery alone, but, by a later act, 
 still before the passing of the Judicature Acts, 
 the jurisdiction was extended to the Court of 
 Admiralty, the Chancery Division now has juris- 
 <liction under the .Judicature Acts. Stintan. In 
 re, 26 W. R. 810. 
 
 The Court of Chancery had power to issue a 
 special itijunction to the Court of Admiralty. 
 Jilail V. Btinip'f'ld, sui)ra : Mdciuniiara v. Mac- 
 queen, Dick. 223. 
 
 Part Owners refusing to Navigate — Jurisdic- 
 tion in Chancery. I — See (loodltart x. Liurv iind 
 Cases siqira, col. ")8. 
 
 2. County Courts. 
 
 Jurisdiction — Amount of Claim.] — A county 
 court, tn which admiralty jurisdiction is given 
 by HI Isi 82 \'ict. c. 71, has admiralty jurisdiction 
 over a claim, not exceeding 800^., for damages 
 for negligence, causing a collision between a 
 barge and a ship in a river, within the body of 
 a county forming part of its district. Furli'm 
 V. Fkmn; i8 L. .J., Q. B. 88; L. R. 9 Q. B. 
 1 14 ; 80 L. T. 40 ; 22 W. R. 28i) : 2 Asp. M. C. 
 226. 
 
 Therefore, when an action was })rought in 
 respect of such a claim for a collision in the 
 Thames, in which, after judgment in default of 
 a plea, the damages were assessed, on a wi'it of 
 inquiry, at \'>L.. and no certificate was given 
 that the cause was a proper one to be brouglit in 
 the superior court, the plaintiff was lield not 
 entitled to the costs of the ac^tion under 81 & 82 
 Vict. c. 71, s. !). Ih. See also FUucrr v. Jirtul- 
 Irij, post, col. 1(42. 
 
 In pursuance of s. '.) of 81 A: 82 Vict. c. 71, 
 application may be made to the Court of Aihnir- 
 alty for an order to institute in that court 
 j)roceediMgs that might have been taken without 
 jigreement in a (bounty court, and the Court of 
 Admiraitv will, if it sees fit. make such order. 
 The Jir,i;ial, L. K. 8 A. A: E. 14 ; 21 L. T. 727. 
 
 An action of damage was institute*! in the 
 Admiralty Court in a sum exceeding 800/. It 
 was admitteil that the defendant's ship was to 
 blame, and that tln' damage susfaim'<l liy the 
 plaintiffs ship cxc-ccdcd 80(l/. 'I'hc defendant 
 proved liy allidavit that lie was entitled to iiave 
 his liability limited to a sum less than 800/., and 
 a tcndci- of less than 800/. was accepted by the 
 jilaintifT : — Held, that the suit was not a pio- 
 ueeding which the plaintiff might, without 
 agreement, have taken in a cnunty court ; ;inil 
 that tin; above section did not discntilli' I he 
 l)laintiff to costs. Thr Ymiini .hiinrx. 8'.t !>. .1., 
 Adrn. 1 ; L. R. 8 A. .t K. 1 ■ 21 L. T. 8;t7 ; IK 
 W. R. r.2. 
 
 When a suit has been corinnenced in the Court 
 of Admiralty for an amount within thi' county 
 court jurisdiction, the )ilniMtifl' caniiot obtain 
 an order f<ir leave to proceed so as to relieve him 
 from liatiilitv for costs. Thr Jju-otta. \K) J,. J., 
 A.hn. 21 L. t. 447 ; 1 .\~|.. M. i '. !'.». 
 
 Collision.] — The County Courts Admiralty 
 
 Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (81 & 82 Vict. c. 71), does 
 not deprive county courts not having admiralty 
 jurisdiction of their original jurisdiction to try 
 actions to recover damages for injuries caused 
 by collision between vessels where the amotmt 
 claimed does not exeed 50Z. Srorell v. BertiH, 
 56 L. .J., Q. B. 604; 19 Q. B. D. 428; 86 W. R. 801. 
 
 Freight.]— The statutes 81 & 82 Vict. 
 
 c. 71, and 82 ^: 88 Vict. c. .")1, do not deprive 
 county courts not having admiralty jurisdiction, 
 of their jurisdiction to try actions to recover 
 freight under charterparties, where the amount 
 claimed is less than 'M. lieq. v. Southend 
 Ooimtij Court i-Tudgc), 58 L. .1.,' Q. B. 428 ; 18 
 Q. B. b. 142 ; 82 W. R. 754. 
 
 Breach of Charterparty.] — The second section 
 of the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction 
 Amendment Act, 1869, gives the county courts 
 jurisdiction in cases of claims arising out of 
 charterparties or other agreements for the use or 
 hire of ships, altlKuigh the Admiralty Division 
 may have no original jurisdiction in such cases. 
 Arffo.s, C'tiri/o e-r, infra, followed. Siinjt/ioit v. 
 Blucx and (ruanextad v. Price, infra, disap- 
 proved. The Alhui, 49 L. J., Adm. 40 ; 5 Ex. 
 D. 227 ; 42 L. T. 517 ; 29 W. R. 94 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 256— C. A. 
 
 The County Court Acts (81 & 82 Vict. c. 71, 
 and 82 i: 88 Vict. c. 51) do not give a county 
 court, appointed to have a(hniralty jurisdiction 
 uniler those statutes, a jurisdiction which the 
 Court of Admiralty never possessed ; therefore, 
 such county court has no jurisdiction to enter- 
 tain a suit for dama.gcs for breach of a charter- 
 part}', nor a suit for payment of freight and 
 demurrage. 'J'hc Minhje Wildpre. Shiijtwn v. 
 Jilvcs, 41 L. J., C. r. i21 ; L."R. 7 C. 1'. 290 ; 
 26 L. T. 697 ; 20 W. R. (iSO. 
 
 Demurrage.] — By 82 & 88 Vict. c. 51, s. 2, 
 
 it is enacted, "tliat any county court appointed, 
 or to be ai)pointcd, to have admiralty jurisdic- 
 tion, shall have jurisdiction, and all jxiwers and 
 authorities relating thereto, to tryaiul determine 
 the following causes : — 1. As to any claim arising 
 out of any agreement made in relation to the use 
 or hire of any ship, oi' in relation to the carriage 
 of an}- goods in any ship . . . pi'ovided the 
 amount claimed does not exceed 8(10/, :" — Held, 
 that this section gives thi' county (;ourt jurisdic- 
 tion in cases of claims arising out of cliarlcr- 
 l)arties or other afircements lor the use or liirc 
 of ships, although the Court of Adnnralty may 
 have no original jurisdiction in such cases. 
 An/o.f, ('(iri/o cr. (uiiidrt v. Jlroirn, 12 Jj. .1., 
 Adm. I ; \\. K. 5 1'. <'. 18 1 : 2S ],. T. 77 : 21 
 W. U. 120. 
 
 A r];iim foi- dcnnu'rage is not within tiie 
 Count v I'onris ,\(hniralty Jui'isdicI inn AnuMid- 
 mcnt Act, 1869 (82 .V 88"Vict. c. 51), s. 2 which 
 only gives jurisdiction to county courts to ti'y 
 uiid deternnne causes whicii are within the 
 jurisdiction of llu' .Ailmiralty Court, (innnexttid, 
 ;,r (linixirad v. Price, 44 L. .1., Kx. 44; L. R. 
 10 Ex. 65: 82 Iv. T. 492; 28 \V. I!. 170; 2 
 Asjp. M. C. 548. Appi'oving Siinjismi wJthirs, 
 sujiiM, iinii dissenting fi'om Anjox, Ciinjo c.r, 
 
 SUpI'M. 
 
 A loa<Iing agreement hetwei'U a colliery com- 
 
 jiiiny and the charterers of a ship, by which the 
 
 I colliery <'oni](any undertake to load the ship in 
 
 a certain time, and pay demun;ige if that time
 
 939 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiralty Tmic and Practice 
 
 940 
 
 is exceeded, is not an '• agreement made in rela- 
 tion to the use or hiie" of a ship within s. 2 
 of the County Courts Achniralty Jurisdiction 
 AmeiKhnent Act. ISd'.l. and lience the county 
 court has no jurisdiction on the admiralty side 
 to entertain a claim for demnri-age against the 
 colliery coni])any. Tlip Zevx, Vi', P. D. 188 ; 59 
 L. T. :U4 : 87 W. R. 127 : (5 Asp. M. C. 312. 
 
 A county court, exercising admiraltj^ jurisdic- 
 tion under the County Courts Admiralty Juris- 
 diction Act. lS(i8, and tlie County Courts 
 Admiralty Jurisdiction Amendment Act, 18(51), 
 has jurisdiction under s. 2, sub-s. 1, of the latter 
 Act to entertain a claim for demurrage arising 
 out of a bill of lading. TJir A linn, sujira, col. 988, 
 followed. Piifi.slry v. liopliins. tJl L. J.. (^ B. 
 (M.5 : [1892] 2 Q. B. ISi : G7 L. T. 8G9 : 40 W. R. 
 596 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 21.5— C. A. 
 
 Necessaries.] — When a cause of neces- 
 saries is iiistitutetl in a county court, and is 
 transferred to the Court of Admiralty, and the 
 petition shews the claim to be based on a 
 bottomry Ijond (the county court having no 
 jurisdiction over bottomry bonds), the court will 
 reject the petition. Thr Elnin. 42 L. J., Adm. 
 48 : L. R. 4 A. ct E. 1 ; 27 L. T. CfU : 21 W. R. 
 576. 
 
 County courts exercising admiralty jurisdic- 
 tion cannot, as such, entertain a claim for 
 necessaries supplied either to a vessel in her own 
 l>ort, or when an owner of the vessel is domiciled 
 in this country. The Baivxr. 89 L. J., Adm. 46 ; 
 L. R. 8 A. c^" E. 185 ; 22 L. T. 627 ; 18 W. R. 
 1U08. 
 
 The court of passage has not a more extensive 
 jurisdiction as to any claim f()r necessaries than 
 "that exercised by the Court of Admiralty. Tb. 
 
 Supplied to British Ship — Owners 
 
 Domiciled in Great Britain.] — A county court 
 having admiralty jurisdiction has no greater 
 jurisdiction in respect of a claim for necessaries 
 than that possessed by the Admiralty Division 
 of the High Court, and consequently cannot 
 entertain an action for necessaries suj)plied' to 
 a British ship, the owners of which are domiciled 
 in Great Britain. TJip Dairxe, supra, followed. 
 The Al'ina, supra, distinguished. Allen v. Gar- 
 hutt. 50 L. J.. Q. B. 14l : 6 Q. B. D. 165 : 29 
 \\. R. 287 : 4 Asp. M. C. 520, n. 
 
 Damage to Cargo — Owner Domiciled in 
 
 England.] — 'I'lie cnunty courts liave jui'isdictiou 
 in admiralty to entertain cases \\\) to the amount 
 of 800L, where damage to cargo is caused by, 
 and the claim arises out of, an agreement made 
 in relation to the cai-riage of goods in a ship, 
 notwithstanding that an owner or jiart owner 
 of the ship is domiciled in England or Wales. 
 The County Court Admiralty Jurisdiction 
 Amendment Act, 1869, is not limited to cases 
 in which the High Court of Admiralty had juris- 
 diction at the time. The liann. 51 L. J.. Adm. 
 65 : 7 P. D. 247 ; 46 L. T. 6()1 : 80 W. R. 614 ; 
 4 Asp. M. C. 520. 
 
 Wages.] — A county court has no jurisdic- 
 tion in admiralty over a claim for a master's 
 disbursements, and therefore, in an action for 
 master's wages and dislnirsements in the High 
 Court, a certificate under the Countj' Courts 
 Admiralty Jurisdiction Act. 1868 (81 i: 32 Vict, 
 c. 71). is not necessary to entitle a successful 
 plaintiff to his costs, although he recovers less 
 
 than 150Z., the limit of the county court jurisdic- 
 tion over wages under s. 8, The Dietator, 38 
 L. T. 947 : 4 Asp. M. C. 19. 
 
 The words " any claim for wages " in s. 3 of the 
 County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868, 
 include a claim for damages for wrongful dis- 
 missal by the master of a vessel engaged under 
 a special wages agreement. The Blessing. 8 P. D. 
 35 ; 88 L. T. 259 ; 26 W, R, 404 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 561. 
 
 Mate — Services rendered in Dock after 
 
 Payment off of Crew.] — The chief mate of a 
 vessel, who, on her arrival in port, was paid off 
 witli the rest of the crew, by direction of the 
 owner remained on board at the same rate of 
 wages as he had received during the voyage. 
 While the vessel was loading for another voyage 
 it was found necessary to take her into dock for 
 repairs, and the officer went with her into dock 
 and remained with her there for more than three 
 months, at the end of which time the mortgagee 
 entered into ])ossessiou and dismissed him : — 
 Held, on a rule for mandamus, that the City of 
 London Court had jurisdiction under the County 
 Courts Admiralty J urisdiction Act, 1868, to enter- 
 tain an action in rem instituted by him to recover 
 wages in respect of the time during which the 
 vessel was in dock. Rc(i. v. City of London Covrt 
 Judge, 59 L. J., Q. B. 427 : 25 Q. B. D. 889 ; 63 
 L, T. 492 ; 38 W, R. 688 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 547. 
 
 Master's Wages.] — See The Sir Chas. 
 
 Napier. 5 P. D, 78 ; 48 L, T. 864 ; 28 W. R,718 ; 
 4 Asp, M, C, 821 : supra, col. 92. 
 
 Master's Disbursements.] — The county 
 
 court has no jurisdiction in admiralty in a claim 
 for master's tUsbursements. llie Dictator, 38 
 L. T. 947 ; 4 Asp. M, C. 19. 
 
 Towage.] — A tug having entered into a 
 
 contract to tuwashij) from A. to B. for a specified 
 sum, the shij), during the performance of the 
 agreed towage, was injitretl by collision, and the 
 tug was detained nearly three days in attend- 
 ance on the ship. In an action of towage insti- 
 tuted by the owner of the tug in a county court, 
 and transferred to the Admiralty Division : — 
 Held, that it had no jurisdiction to award, in 
 addition to the sum agreed to be paid for towage, 
 any remuneration for the delay. The HJemmett, 
 49 L. J.. Adm. 66 : 5 P. D. 227 ; 42 L. T. 514 ; 
 4 Asp, M. C. 274. 
 
 A cotxnty court lias under 32 & 38 Vict, c, 51, 
 s, 2, sub-s, 1, jurisdiction to entertain a claim for 
 damage for breach of a contract of towage, llic 
 Zsw/, 56 L, J., Adm. 47 : 12 P. D. 34 ; 55 L. T, 
 779 ; 85 W. R. 882 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 68. 
 
 Salvage.] — A county court having ad- 
 
 miraltj' jurisdiction under the County Courts 
 Admiralty Jurisdiction Act. 1868 (81 & 82 Vict, 
 c. 71), has jurisdiction, under s. 8, in claims for 
 salvage wherein the jiroperty salved does not 
 exceed 1,000^., or in the alternative where the 
 amount, claimed does not exceed 300Z, The 
 Glannitjanta. Elmore v. 'Trim, 46 L, J,, Adm. 75 ; 
 2 P. D. 45 ; 86 L. T. 27 ; 25 W. R. 513. 
 
 The word "or" in s. 3, sub-s. 1, must be read 
 as indicating the alternative. Ih. 
 
 A salvage suit was instituted in the Cotu't of 
 Admiralty in a sum exceeding 800?. ; the value 
 of the property was less than 1,000/. : — Hekl, 
 that the court had jurisdiction to entertain the 
 suit. The Emprexx, 41 L, J,, Adm. 32 ; L. R, 3
 
 941 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiraltii Law and Practice. 
 
 A. & E. 502 : 2.5 L. T. 885 ; 20 W. E.553 ; 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 183. 
 
 Subject-matter of.] — The county court 
 
 has no jurisdiction with regard to any other 
 subject-matter than that which might be enter- 
 tained by the High Court of Admiralty. Gas 
 Float ^^llittou (-Vt;.2). (io L. J.. Adm. 17 ; [1896] 
 P. 42 : 73 L. T. 698 ; 44 W. R. 263 : 8 Asp. M. C. 
 110— C. A. See -S'. C. in H. L., supra, col. 595. 
 
 Necessaries.] — See Michael, Ex inirtc, 
 
 ante, col. 9(i(;. 
 
 Collision— With Barge.]- The 31 & 32 
 
 Vict. c. 71, and 32 & 33 Vict. c. 51, do not give 
 the county court, which has an admiralty juris- 
 diction under those acts, jurisdiction to try cases 
 of damage by collision between vessels of a 
 different class from those over which the Court 
 of Admiralty has jurisdiction, and therefore a 
 county court is not empowered by those acts to 
 try a question of collision between barges pro- 
 pelled by oars only. Ecerard v. Kendall, 39 
 L. J.. C. P. 234 : L. 11. 5 C. P. 428 ; 22 L. T. 408 ; 
 18 W. E. 892. 
 
 With Dock Wall.]— A ship, whilst under 
 
 the control of the servants of a tlock company, 
 was through their negligence damaged by coming 
 into collision with the dock company's wall 
 whilst entering their dock. The shipowner 
 brought an action in the Admiralty Division of 
 the High Court and recovered a sum less than 
 300/. : — Held,that a county court havingailmiralty 
 jurisdiction had, under s. 3 of the County Courts 
 Admiralty .Jurisdiction Act, 1868, and s.'4 of the 
 County Courts A(hniralty Jurisdiction Amend- 
 ment Act, 1869, jurisdiction to try such a case, 
 and therefore an order ilepriving the shipowner 
 of his costs of the action in the high ccnirt was 
 rightly made. The llvhert Poic{y,Y. A: Lush. 99) 
 and The Ida (Lush, (i) coumiented on and dis- 
 approved. The Zeta. Mrrsey Borhx and llarhour 
 Hoard v. Turner, 63 L. .1., Adm. 17 ; [1893] 
 A. C. 468 ; 1 K. 307 : 69 L. T. 630 ; 57 .L P. 660 
 — H. L. (E.) Pevcrsiug 40 \V. 11. 53.5—0. A. 
 
 With object Ashore.] — Damage occa- 
 sioned to an object on the l)ank of a river by 
 contact with the sailing gear of a vessel alioat iii 
 the river is not '•damage by collision" within 
 s. 3, sub-s. 3, of the County Courts Admiralty 
 Jurisdiction Act, 1X68 (31 ic 32 Vict. c. 71), and 
 a county court has not admiralty jurisdiction in 
 lespect of such damage. The Kate. Jlolmia v. ! 
 Kate {Oieiur), 57 L. .)., (}. 1!. 5 16 : 21 Q. B. D. 
 13; 59 L. T. 557 ; 36 W. II. 9 Hi: (; Asp. M. C. 
 330. 
 
 Collision in Dock.] — A collision occurred 
 
 in a dock connected with the river Thames by 
 channels provided witli gates and lucks. An 
 action was brouglit in a county court having 
 admiralty jurisdiction in respect of damages 
 arising out of the collision. On an application 
 for a proliibition : — Held, that tlie claim was 
 within tlie Admiralty Court Act, 1K«1,8. 7, and 
 that the county cuurl had jurisdi(;tioii. Jlet/. v. 
 C'iti/ of Jjiinilna Court Judifr. or Kirr, 51 L. .L, 
 Q. 15. 305 : S Q. P.. 1). (iU9 • 30 \V. 11. 566. 
 
 Amount Claimed.] — Scq Seorellv. Jirvan, 
 
 supra, col. 'Xis. 
 
 Action against Pilot for Negligence,] — 
 
 An action against a pilot for coUision damage 
 
 942 
 
 caused to a barge by a vessel under his charge is 
 not an "admiralty cause"' within the meaning of 
 31 & 32 Vict. c. 71. and 32 & 33 Vict. c. 51, which 
 confer admiralty jiu'isdiction upon county cotuts. 
 Flojoer v. Bradleij, 44 L. J., Ex. 1 ; 31 L. T.702 ; 
 23 W. R. 74 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 489. 
 
 The High Court of Admiralty had no jurisdic- 
 tion to entertain an action in personam against 
 a pilot to recover damages arising from a collision 
 between ships upon the high seas caused by his 
 negligence ; nor has a county court exercising 
 admiralty jttrisdiction tinder the Cottnty Courts 
 Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868, and the County 
 Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Amendment Act, 
 1869, jurisdiction to entertain such an action. 
 Reg. v. City of London Court Judge, 61 L. J., 
 Q. B. 337 : [18921 1 Q. B. 273 ; ^:>& L. T. 135 ; 
 40 W. R. 215 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 140— C. A, And see 
 The Alexandria, infra, col. 945. 
 
 Carriage of Passengers' Luggage.] — 
 
 Passengers' luggage carried on board a sliij) is 
 not '-goods" within the meaning of the County 
 Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Amendment Act, 
 1869, and consequently the act does not confer 
 jurisdiction to try a claim arising out of the loss 
 of such luggage, as a court having admiralty 
 jurisdiction. Meej. y. Citij of London Court 
 Judqe, 53 L. J., Q. B. 28 ; '12 Q. B. D. 115 ; 51 
 L. T. 197 ; 32 W. R. 291 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 283. 
 
 What Court — Residence of Parties.] — 
 
 Under s. 74 of the County Courts Act, l^;88, 
 an admiralty action may be commenced in the 
 county court (having admiralty jurisdiction) 
 within the district of which the defendant resides 
 or carries on business. The Hero, 60 L. J., Adm. 
 99 ; [1S91] P. 294 ; 65 L. T. 499 ; 40 W.R. 143 ; 
 7 Asp. M. C. ><i\. 
 
 Property to which Action Relates.] — By 
 
 the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 
 1868, s. 21 : " Proceedings in an achniralty cause 
 shall be commenced (1) in the county court 
 having admiralty jurisdiction within tlie district 
 of which the vessel or property to which the 
 cause relates is at the commencement of the 
 proceedings : (2) if the foregoing rule be not 
 applicaljle, then in the county court having 
 a<lmiralty jurisdiction in the district of which 
 the owner of the vessel or property to which the 
 cause relates . . . resides." The plaintiffs, 
 owners of a steamship, commenced an action 
 on the admiralty side of the county court within 
 the district of which they resided, under s. 21, 
 sub-s. 2, of the Act of isiw, against the defen- 
 dants, assignees of a cargo of timber under a bill 
 of lading, to recover damages fur the detention 
 of their ship in discharging the cargo. At tlu; 
 commencement of the action the plaintiffs' ship 
 was on the high seas, and the cargo was at the 
 port of discharge, whicli was nut within the 
 jurisdiction of the county court in which the 
 action was commenced. On a motion for a pro- 
 hibition on the ground that the (;aigo was the 
 "property to which the cause related" williin 
 the meaning of s. 21, sidj-s. 1, of the Act of 1868, 
 and that conse(iuently the action should have 
 been commenced in the county court within the 
 district of which the cargo lay at the cummence- 
 ment of the action : — Held, that the cause of 
 action, being in respect of the detention of the 
 plaint iffs' ship, related to the ship only anil not 
 to '•property" witliin the meaning of s. 21, 
 sub-s. 1 ; and as the ship was on the high seas
 
 943 
 
 SHIPPING— XXVI. Admiralty Luh- and Practice. 
 
 944 
 
 when the piocecdinj^s were commenced, s. 21, 
 sub-s. 1 Wiis not applicable, and tlie action was 
 jiropei'ly commenced, uniler s. 21, sub-s. 2, in the 
 county court within the district of which the 
 plaintiffs resided. Piujdeii v. llophnm, 61 L. J., 
 g. B. 04,5 : [lSlt2] 2 Q.' B.*1S4 ; (i7 L. T. 3(59 ; 40 
 W. K. 596 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 2ir,— C. A. 
 
 The defendants, who resided at Poole, where 
 they also owned a wharf, entered into a charter- 
 party with the plaintifEs, the owners of the 
 '• C. D.," in which they warranted the depth of 
 water at their wharf. The " C. D.," while at the 
 defendants' wharf, in pursuance of this charter- 
 ])arty, took the grountl anil was damaged. The 
 '•C. D." being subsequently at Newcastle- on-Tyne, 
 the plaintiffs commenced an action in the county 
 court of Northumberland against the defendants 
 for breach of warranty in the charterparty : — 
 Held, that the county court of Northumberland 
 had jurisdiction to trv the case. Tlte Countif of 
 Durham, m L.J.. Adm. .5 ; [1891] P. 1 ; 64 L. t. 
 146 ; 39 W. R. 303 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 606. 
 
 Eeceiver of Wreck in another District.] 
 
 — Semble, that a countj' court of one district has 
 110 jurisdiction over the receiver of wreck in 
 another district. The John Ura/n; 43 L. J., 
 Adm. 9 ; 30 L. T. 306 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 234. 
 
 Jurisdiction to Restrain Proceedings in 
 
 Court of Admiralty.] — A debtur to the estate of 
 a bankrupt seized in the vice-admiralty court 
 in Sierra Leone a vessel which formed jiart of 
 the bankruj)t's estate, for a debt claimed to be 
 due to him for necessaries supjilied to such ship, 
 and thereupon the trustee in the bankruptcy 
 obtained an interim injunction from the county 
 court of Manchester, in which the bankruptcy 
 proceedings had been instituted, to restrain the 
 debtor from jjrosecuting his suit in the vice- 
 admiralty court at Sierra Leone : and, peniling 
 the continuance of such injunction, issues were 
 <lii-ected bj' the judge of such county court to be 
 tried before him as to whether he had a lien on 
 such ship for necessaries. Ujjon an application 
 by the debtor for a ])rohibition to prohibit such 
 county court proceedings : — Held, that the county 
 court judge had jurisdiction under the Bankru})tcy 
 Act, liS69 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 71, s. 72), to grant the 
 injunction and to try such issues, if he deemed 
 it ex[)edient to do so for the i)urpose of doing 
 complete justice or making a comjilete distribu- 
 tion of the bankrupt's property, and that if such 
 court was improperly exercising its jurisdiction 
 in the matter the remedy of the debtor was by 
 appeal to the Court of Ajjpeal in bankruptcv. 
 JlaUidaii V. Ilnrn.^. 43 L. J., C. P. 3.50 ; L. K. 
 9 C. P. 668 ; 30 L. T. 680 ; 22 W. R. 756. 
 
 Transfer to Admiralty Division.] — Where a 
 
 necessaries acti(jn against a ship in the City of 
 London court has proceetled t( i ju( Igment b}' which 
 a sale of the ship is ordered, and subsequently 
 another action is commenced in the high court 
 by material-men having a possessory lien upon 
 the ship, and an appearance has been entered to 
 the action in the City of London court by the 
 l)laintiffs in the High Court, the sale will be 
 stayed, and the City of London Court action 
 transferred to the High Coui't upon the applica- 
 tion of the plaintiffs in the High Court. The 
 liuiKucolata Cuncezione. 8 P. D. 34 ; 47 L. T. 
 388 ; 31 W. R. 642 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 593. 
 
 The court of admiralty may transfer to itself 
 an admiralty or a maritime cause pending in a 
 
 county court, notwithstaiuling that the suit may 
 relate to matters over which the court of admiralty 
 has not original jurisdiction. The Swan, 40 L. .!., 
 Adm. 8 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 314 ; 23 L. T. 633 ; 
 19 W. R. 424. 
 
 Transfer — Pleadings.] — See The Carin- 
 
 hroolt, infi-a, col. 992. 
 
 Affidavit of Value — Evidence to Contradict 
 
 AflB.davit.] — In a salvage action in the county 
 court, if the defendant makes an affidavit of 
 value, and the plaintiff does not apply for an 
 appraisement, the Judge is not bound to admit 
 evidence at the trial directed to show that the 
 value of the ship salved was greater than that 
 stated in the affidavit. The Argo, 64 L. J., Adm. 
 12 ; [1895] P. 33 ; 11 R. 675 ; 71 L. T. 640 ; 43 
 \V. R. 415; 7 Asp. M. C. 534. 
 
 Semble, he has a discretion to admit such 
 evidence if he thinks proper to do so. Ih. 
 
 Trial by Jury.]— Sect. 101 of the County 
 Courts Act, 1888, does not give a party to an 
 admiralty action the right to require a trial by 
 judge and jury where the other party has, under 
 s. 11 of the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction 
 Act, 1868, requested the judge to summon 
 assessors. The Tynwald, Kelly v. Ide of Man 
 Steam Pacliet Co., 64 L. J., Adm. 1 ; [1895] 
 P. 142 : 11 R. 690 ; 71 L. T. 731 ; 43 W. R. 509 ; 
 7 Asp. M. C. 539. 
 
 Sect. 101 of the County Courts Act, 1888, 
 does not confer a right upon the plaintiff or the 
 defendant in an action brought on the admiralty 
 side of a county court under s. 2 of the County 
 Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Amendment Act, 
 1869, to have the case tried by a jury. The 
 Theodora, 6(1 L. J., Adm. 50 : [1897]"P.'279 ; 76 
 L. T. 627. 
 
 Costs — Amount of Claim.] — An action was 
 bniught in the Queen's Bench, in which an 
 amount less than the sum of 300Z. w^as claimed 
 in the particulars of demand for damage by 
 collision, and a further sum not exceeding 300L 
 for salvage services, and further sums for depre- 
 ciation in value of ship and fortlemurrage. The 
 causes of action arose within the district of a 
 county court having admiralty jurisdiction. The 
 defendant paid 254Z. 12.y. 10^/. into court in 
 respect of the claim for damage by collision, 
 which the jjlaintiff accepted in full satisfaction, 
 and entered a nolle prosequi as to the rest : — 
 Held, that the superior courts of common law 
 at Westminster were superior courts within s. 9, 
 and that the right to costs depended upon the 
 amount recovered and not the amount in the 
 l)articulars of demand, and that the plaintiffs 
 were therefore not entitled to costs. Hewitt r. 
 Corry or Cory, 39 L. J., Q. B. 279 ; L. R. 5 Q. B. 
 418 ; 22 L. T. 666 ; 18 W. R. 954. 
 
 Held, also, that no suggestion of the facts 
 necessary to shew that a county court had juris- 
 diction over the district where the cause of 
 action arose was required to be entered on the 
 record. Ih. 
 
 Sect. 7 of the County Courts Admiralty Juris- 
 diction Act, 1868, which deprived a i)laintiff 
 of and also rendered him liable to be condemned 
 in costs, where in an action brought in a superior 
 court, which might by that act be tried by a 
 county court having admiralty jurisdiction, he 
 did not recover a sum exceeding what a county 
 court had by that act jurisdiction to try without 
 agreement, is repealed by the effect of Ord. LV.
 
 945 
 
 SHIPPING— XXVI. Admiralty Law and Practice. 
 
 of the Judicature Act. 187o. Tenant v. Ellis, 
 no L. J.. Q. B. 143 : 6 Q. B. D. 4t> : 43 L. T. 506 ; 
 29 W. R. 121. 
 
 3. Passage Court. 
 
 Suit against Pilot.]— A ship by compulsion 
 of law ill charge of a duly licensed pilot in the 
 river Mersc}-, came into collision with and 
 damaged another vessel. The owners of the 
 damaged vessel instituted an admiialty suit 
 against the pilot in the court of passage :— Held, 
 that the court of passage had not jurisdiction to 
 entertain the suit as an admiraltv suit. The 
 Alexandria, 41 L. J.. Adm. 'J4 : L. K. 3 A. ic E. 
 574 : 27 L. T. oCo ; 1 Asp. M. C. 4G4. 
 
 Claim for Necessaries.] — The court of passage 
 has not a more extensive jurisdiction as to any 
 claim for necessaries than that exercised by the 
 Court of Admiralty. The Duic/se, 39 L. J., Acbn. 
 46 ; L. K. 3 A. & E. 135 : 22 L. T. 627 ; 18 W. R. 
 ln08. 
 
 Appeal from.] — The appeal from the court of 
 jjassage of Liverpool exercising admiralty juris- 
 tlictiou is under the County Courts Aihniralty 
 Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), s. 26, 
 and security for costs must be given before the 
 instrument of ajjpeal is lodged. The Ganqex. 
 5 P. D. 247 ; 43 L. T. 12 : 4 Asp. M. C. 317— C. A. 
 
 From the decision of the court of passage in 
 an admiralty cause, an appeal lies to the Court 
 of Admiralty. The Dowm; 39 L. J., Adm. 46 ; 
 L. R. 3 A. ct E. 135 : 22 L. T. 627 ; 18 W. R. 
 1008. 
 
 Action in rem — Power to make Order that 
 no Defence.] — Neither the County Courts Admi- 
 ralty Jurisdiction Act. 1868, nor the Amenthnent 
 Act, 1869. enabled orders to be made purjjorting 
 to apply to a<lmiraity actions in rem and in 
 l)ersonani, a proce(hne simihir to that under 
 R. S. C. Ord. XIV. enabling a i)laintiff, on 
 shewing that there was no defence to the action, 
 to obtain judgment for the amount claimed. 
 Fdldicx V. Lord Htanleij {Ownerx), [1893] 1 
 Q. B. 98 : 5 R. 115 ; 67 I^. T. K57 : 41 W. R. 253 : 
 7 Asp. M. (J. 29K. 
 
 Distribution of Salvage Awarded by High 
 Court — Jurisdiction.] — Jnjunction issued Ity the 
 A(biiiralty iJivi^ioii tn restrain one of the ofHcers 
 of a tug, to wliicli a salvage award of 3,0Ot)Z. had 
 been made by the High Court, from proceeding 
 with an action for distiibution of salvage insti- 
 tuteil in tlie IJverpoul court of passage against 
 the tug owners. The Thercm, 11 R. 6.S1 ; 71 
 L. T. 347 : 7 A-|.. .M. C. 505. 
 
 I. ('i.NQUK Ports. 
 
 Admiralty Jurisdiction of.] — Tlic Cinque 
 
 P<iit> li;ivc- :iii adniiinliy jurisdiction. Stock (or 
 iStorhr) V. Ciilliii. .lono, ('.6; 3 Kcl). 59H. 
 
 Enemies' Goods Stranded on the Goodwins — 
 Droits.] — .See The (hotter Emx, 1 C. Rob. 284, 
 n. ; Hay and Marriott, Preface, xxvii., infra, 
 col. 950. 
 
 Appeal from.] — Appeals from the ('ini|ue 
 Ports admiralty lay to tlie privy couiif'il. Cinquv 
 Port*, Lord Warden v. Rej-, 3 Hag. Adm. 43H, 
 446. 
 
 946 
 
 There is no appeal from the Cinque Ports 
 Admiralty Court to the High Court. Denew v. 
 Stoch, 3 Swanst. 662. S. C, nom. Stock v. Denew, 
 Ca. in Ch. 305. S. P., Stock or Sturke v. Cullen, 
 Jones, 66 ; 3 Keb. .'i.98. 
 
 5. Vice-Admiraltv, Colonial, and Con- 
 sular Courts. 
 
 Jurisdiction — Necessaries.] — Vice - admiralty 
 courts have not (apart from statute) more than 
 the ordinary admiralty jurisdiction, i.e. as it 
 existed before 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65 enlarged it. The 
 Vice-Admiralty Act, 1863 (26 & 27'Vict. c. 24), 
 s. 10, sub-s. 1(1, does not create a maritime lien 
 with respect to necessaries supplied within the 
 possession. The Ilio Tinto. Laics v. Smith. 9 
 App. Cas. 356 ; .50 L. T. 461 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 224 
 —P. C. 
 
 A vice - admiralty couit has no jurisdiction 
 under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 24, s. 10, to entertain a 
 suit for necessaries supplied at a port out of 
 the possession, that is, the British possession, in 
 which the court is established. The Albion, 
 •27 L. T. 723: 1 Asp. M. C. 4S1. 
 
 Wages and Compensation.] — By an order 
 in council, s. 15, passetl in jjui-suance of 2 Will. 
 4, c. 51, the Vice-Admiralty Court has jurisdic- 
 tion to entertain a suit brought by any num- 
 ber of seamen, not exceeding six, to recover 
 their wages. The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, 
 s. 189, does not take away such right of suit 
 so long as the total aggregate amount claimed 
 by such seamen exceeds 50/. Where, in a suit 
 brought by six seamen in the Vice- Admiralty 
 Court, the judge found that a total amount of 
 2o3Z. 19.V. Hd. was due to them, partly lor wages 
 and partly for wrongful dismissal, but that the 
 amount due to each was less than 50/. : — Held, 
 that, under the above rule and section, the judge 
 was wrong in dismissing the suit for want of 
 jurisdiction, and that a decree for 2i)3/. I'Jx. Sd. 
 should be made. The Ferret, PhiUipx v. Hiqh. 
 laiul It II., 52 L. J., P. C!. 51 ; 8 App. Cas. 329 ; 
 48 L. T. 915 : 31 W. R. 869 : 5 Asp. M. C. 94— 
 P.C. 
 
 The 17 i: 18 Vict. c. Ii)4. applies to the 
 colonies ; and })y s. 191. a master has a lien for 
 his wages in the Vice-.Vdmiialty Court, whatever 
 may be the nmiucipal law of the colony. The 
 Itiijah of Cochin, Swabey, 473. 
 
 Title to Ship.]— The vice - admiralty 
 
 court at Hong Kong had only the ordinary 
 admiralty jurisdiction possessed by admiralty 
 courts previously tt) the passing of the 3 iV: 4 
 Vict. c. 66 : it had no jurisdiction to entertain a 
 suit for possession for the purpose of tr^'ing a 
 sliip. The Anxtralia. Lapraih v. JUirrmrx, 
 Swabey, 180 ; 13 :\Ioore, P. C. 132 ; 7 W. 1!. 71S. 
 
 Vice-Admiralty Court not of Record — Stipu- 
 lation Enforceable by the Delegates. ] — See 
 Jirijmrr v. Thomiixon. ill. I'd. 16.",. S. {'..Smith 
 V. iMchotlx, 5 Ring. (X.C.) 208 ; 7 Scott, 147 ; 7 
 D. P. C. 2K2 ; 8 L. J., C. P. 92. 
 
 Offences against Revenue Laws.] — The 
 
 vice-adinirally i'<iiji Is in llic West Indies had no 
 jurisdiction over oifeiices against revenue laws 
 committed out of their respective islands. 'The 
 Fahiux, 2 C. liob. 215. 
 
 Sale of Ship.] — Vice-adndralty courts 
 
 have no jiower to order a .sale of the ship in ciuse
 
 947 
 
 SHIPPING— XXVI. Admiralty Law and Practice. 
 
 948 
 
 of (listi'oss — ,syr per Sir W. Scott. The Fdinnj \ 
 ((i((l Eliiiird. Edwards, 117. 
 
 The vice - atlmiralty courts abroad have no 
 authority, upon the mere petition of the captain 
 of a ship bound on a foreign voyage, to decree 
 the sale of such a ship I'eported upon survey to 
 lie seaworth}' or repairable, so as to carry the 
 cargo to its place of destination, but at an 
 expense exceeding the value of the ship when 
 repaired. Held v. Diu-hij, 10 East, 143. 
 
 High Courts in India.] — Observations on the 
 admiraltv jurisdiction of the high courts in 
 India. Thr lirinhiUhi, 45 L. T.^389 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 4G1— r. C. 
 
 Procedure — Colonial Courts.] — • It may be 
 presumed that the procedure in the vice-admi- 
 ralty court of Victoria is so far analogous to 
 that in the maritime courts of Great Britain 
 and Ireland, that a shipwright of Melbourne 
 would be entitled to arrest a British ship and 
 detain her irntil his legal demands upon her 
 were satisfied. The Staffordsli ire. Smith v. Bank 
 of Xeiv South Walei^, 8 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 443 ; 
 41 L. J., Adm. 4It : L. R. 4 P. C. 194 : 25 L. T. 
 137 ; 2U W. l;. 557 ; 1 Asp. M.C. 365— P. C. 
 
 Breach of Revenue Laws — Security for Costs.] 
 
 — Decree of the vice -admiralty court of Sierra 
 Leone in a proceeding in rem for breaclr of the 
 revenue laws of the colony, condemning the 
 goods seized, and the owners in penalties, reversed 
 by the committee, so far as the penalties were 
 concerned, with costs, it appearing that though 
 the claim of the owner of the goods was rightly 
 rejected, because he failed to comply with the 
 rule of the Vice-Admiralty Court requiring 
 security for costs, yet that such rule tUd not 
 apply, so far as regarded the penalties, against 
 which he was entitled to be heartl in the court 
 below without giving any such securitv. George 
 v. AVr/., 4 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 287 ; L."R. 1 P. C. 
 389. " 
 
 Probable Cause for Seizure.] — An appeal 
 
 from a decree of the vice - achniralty court of 
 Sierra Leone, restoring property seized for breacli 
 of the custom laws, but without damages or 
 costs, the judge below being of opinion that there 
 was probable cause for the seizure, was dis- 
 missed by the judicial committee with costs, on 
 the ground that it appearing from the evidence 
 that there was probable cause for the seizure, 
 tlie judge of the Admiralty Court was justified 
 in refusing to decree damages and costs to the 
 appellants, the owners of the goods seized. 
 Wilson V. lief]., L. R. 1 P. C. 4U5. 
 
 Appointment of Deputy Judge.] — The chief 
 justice for tlie time being for Sierra Leone 
 may lawfully appoint a deputy judge of the 
 vice - athniralty court of that colonv. llolet v. 
 li.eq.. 4 Moore, 'p. C. (N.S.) 41 : L.R.'l P. C. 198 ; 
 12 Jur. (N.s.) 715 ; 15 W. R. 233. 
 
 Practice.] — The form of preliminary acts in 
 use in the Admiralty Division of the High Court 
 in collision cases should be used in similar cases 
 in the vice-admiralty courts. Tlie JS'ornm, 35 
 L. T. 418 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 272— P. C. 
 
 In collision causes in the vice-admiralty courts 
 witnesses should, as far as possible, be examined 
 viva-voce before the court, not upon written 
 interrogatories before an officer of the court prior 
 to the hearing. lb. 
 
 Consular Courts.] — The consular court at 
 Constantiiuij)lc possesses a jurisdiction in rem, 
 in cases of collision between British and foreign 
 ships ; but although that court has such juris- 
 diction, it does not involve the administration of 
 the common law of England. The Laconia, 
 FiipdiliinnJ V. JiKssian Steam JWirigation and 
 Trading Co., 2 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 16i. 
 
 6. Registrar, Office of. 
 
 Registrar of Admiralty — Ouster of.] — Tenure 
 of office of registrar of the admiralty ; bond 
 given that plaintiff should enjoy the same for 
 his life ; ouster by granter of admiral subse- 
 quently appointed. Parker and Harrold's Case,. 
 2 Leon. pt. 2, 114. 
 
 7. Law Applicable. 
 
 Bankruptcy Law.] — The Admiralty Court,, 
 being a court of law and equity, will follow the 
 decisions of the courts of law and equity in 
 deciding questions under the bankruptcy law. 
 The Heart of Oak, 39 L. J., Adm. 15 ; 21 L. T. 
 727. 
 
 General Maritime Law.] — There is a general 
 maritime law administered alike by English and 
 foreign courts, having admiralty jurisdiction, dis- 
 tinct from the municipal law of nations. The 
 Patria, 41 L. J., Adm. 23 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 436 ; 
 24 L. T. 849. 
 
 Generally, the Court of Admiralty is governed 
 by the civil law, the law marine, and the law 
 merchant. TIte yejdune, 3 Hag. Adm, 129, 135. 
 S. C, reversed on App. 3 Knapp 94, infra, col. 
 960. 
 
 Equity. — The court, although influenced by 
 equitable considerations, is not a court of equity, 
 so as to allow matters, foreign to the issue, to be. 
 introduced in order that complete justice may 
 be done between the parties ; it follows rather in 
 its pleadings and practice the courts of common 
 law. The Don Franeineo, Lush. 468 ; 31 L. J., 
 Adm. 14 ; 5 L. T. 460. 
 
 By the ancient maritime law the Court of 
 Admiralty woukl have an equity to moderate 
 contracts made untler pressure of necessity — per 
 Sir W. Scott, The ^'eh■on, 6 C. Rob. 217, 231. 
 
 8. High Court, not op Record. 
 
 The admiralty was no court of record, lltovi- 
 lin.fon''^ Case, 12 Co. Rep. 104. S. P., Greenwaij 
 and Haher'.s Ca.se, Godb. 193, 261 ; and, semble,, 
 Johwn'n Ca,ie, Noy, 24. 
 
 The Admiralty Court is not a court of record, 
 and cannot fine or imprison. Empringham, vice 
 admiral Yorkshire, and Kettlewell, his marshal, 
 fined and imprisoned for citing persons w'rong- 
 fuUy to the admiral's court. A'niprua/hanfs Case, 
 12 Co. Rep. 84. 
 
 The Court of Admiralty could not proceed 
 criminally against one in contempt. Teneh v. 
 ]Iuhri.son's Ca-ie, Style, 340. 
 
 Habeas corpus to bring up one imprisoned by 
 the admiralty. Anon., Style, 183. 
 
 9. Wreck. 
 
 Generally.] — Nothing is wriccum maris but 
 what is cast on land by the sea. ConstaMe\s Case„ 
 Sir Henry, 5 Co. Rep. 106 a ; 1 Anders. 86.
 
 949 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. AdmiralUj Laic and Practice. 
 
 950 
 
 The Court of Admiralty has uo jurisdiction of i be presumed to have come from a wrecked ship, 
 wreck. Ih. \ though no trace of the ship is found near them. 
 
 Below low water mark the admiral has sole I Talbot v. Lewis, 6 Car. & P. 603. 
 jurisdiction, between high and low water the I 
 common law and the admiral have jurisdiction I 
 
 accoi-ding as the tide is. Ih. 
 
 Infants, feme covert, executrix, men in prison 
 and beyond sea are boimd by nonclaim of wreck 
 within a year and day. Ih. 
 
 Effect as against the office of admiralty of a 
 grant from the Crown to a lord of a manor of 
 " wreck of the sea." Claim by grant to flotsam 
 within three miles from low water mark rejected. 
 "Wreck of the sea must have touched ground : 
 goods afloat are (hoits. Rex v. Furty-nine 
 Cashu of Brandy, 8 Hag. Adm. 2.57. 
 
 Habeas corpus awarded to the lord warden of 
 the Cinque Ports for the imprisonment of one 
 for stealing wrecks. Bourn. s Case. Cro. Jac. 543 ; 
 Palmer, 'J6. 
 
 Over wreck and derelict, when landed, the 
 adniiraltv had no jurisdiction. The 7'wo Friends. 
 1 C. Rob. 271. 
 
 10. Droits. 
 
 Enemies' Goods.]— By the common law, enemies" 
 property taken b^- a subject vests in the captor ; 
 by admiralty law, in the king, if taken without 
 letters of marque, the captor holding it in trust 
 for the king ; for breach of this trust a suit in 
 the admiralty is verv proper. Be.r v. Broom or 
 Brome. 12 Mod. 13.5'; Carth. 398 : Comb. 444. 
 
 Broom, by authority from the African Com- 
 pany, who, by patent, had power to take enemies' 
 ships and dispose thereof at their will, took a 
 French ship on the high sea, carried it into a 
 river beyond sea and sold her there. The ship 
 was condemned in the admiralty for prize ; the 
 grantee of the jjerquisites of the admiralty sued 
 Broom in admiralty for conversion of the ship 
 and non-delivery of her, claiming her as a droit. 
 Sentence against Broom : ajipeal to the dele- 
 Municipal Corporations Act.]— The Municipal { gates ; prohibition refused. Ih. 
 Corporations Act, .5 k 6 Will. 4. c. 76. does not ! ^ Prussian ship was stranded on the Goodwins. 
 transfer to the High Court all the jurisdiction ^o™e specie onboard was sent ashore and claimed 
 (e.g. in wreck and salvage) formerlv exercised ! ^.T the warden of the Cinque Ports as enemies' 
 by the vice-admiralty courts— per Dr. Lushing- goo''^. The master obtained a monitioti from the 
 ton. B'iff of Tiinlie'r. 2 W. liolj. 2.51. High Court of Admiralty to remove the cause to 
 
 : the prize court, where he claimed the goods as 
 Grant of Wreck — Wreck appurtenant to Prussian property. The delegates reversed the 
 Hanor.] — Wreck belonging to a manor Ijy pre- <lecree of the High Court on the ground that it 
 scription does not pass under a grant (to Lord I had no jurisdiction. I'he Oostrr Ems.l C. Rob. 
 Lisle, high a(hniral) of all wrecks of the sea, anil I 284, n. : Hay and .Marriott. Preface, xxvii. 
 other profits to the said office appertaining. M'ly-' An enemy's ship captured by a non-commis- 
 yon \. Branthiruit. 1 Ld. Rayni. 473; 12 Mod. I si()nedshi[) is a droit of the Admiralty. The Twee 
 
 2.5'J : Holt. 7.5S. 
 
 Owner entitled to.] — The owner of wreck is 
 entitled thereto as against a grantee from the 
 Crown, although no living creature comes ashore. 
 Hamilton v. Dari.i, ;5 Burr. 2732. 
 
 Right to— Trespass.] — .\ grantee of wreck 
 may maintain tres])ass against a wrongdoer for 
 taking away goo<ls cast ashore, although i)eople 
 escaped from the ship alive, and altliough the 
 goo<ls were claimed by the owners within a year 
 and day. and altliougii the i)laintiffs never seized 
 them. Diinwirh (Jiai/i(l's') v. Stern/, 1 B. &; Ad. 
 831 ; 1» L. .1. Co.s.) K. I!. Km. 
 
 Customs Duty — 
 Tobacco landed fr( 
 
 3 & 4 Will. 4, 
 ||M a St landed ■ 
 
 c. 52, 8.50. 
 
 Gvsusters, 2 C. Rob. 284. n. 
 
 A queen's ship, during the Russian war. fell in 
 with a raft of timber belonging to the Russian 
 government : — Held, that tlie timber was a di-oit 
 of the C'rovvn and not of the adniiialty. llaft of 
 Bussifin Timher. In re. .5 Jur. (N.s.) Ud'.l. 
 
 A capture made by crews of king's ships 
 stationed at the island of St. Marcon adjudged 
 to be piize, and not an arlmiraltv droit. Tlir 
 Behevhih, 1 C. Rob. 227. 
 
 A ship captured bj- the (iibialtar gai'rison in 
 Oiljraltai- bay condemned to the admiralty as a 
 droit. The yo.tf ro Sii/norii del Carmen, 1 (_!. Rob. 
 228. n. 
 
 A non-commissioned captor of an enemy's shij) 
 an<l gun|)owder cargo rewarded by the whole of 
 
 hill ''*■'•' "of to I the jiroceeds ; one-thiril to the owner, two-thirds 
 to the crew. The Ilaiixe. 1 C. Rob. 28(J. 
 
 be wreck within the above act. so as to Ijc liable 
 todlltv. Leqqe v. Jioijd. 1 C. P,. 1)2 ; 14 L. J., 
 C. r. 138; yjur. 30. 
 
 But the term "wreck " in the above statute is 
 not continefl to goods that would pass to the 
 
 Crown f)r the crown's officer by virtue of the|)ie- that the forfeiture gave the prior title 
 rogative. It includes goods im|iorte(l into Eng- 
 land, entered and shipped for export, and aftei-- 
 wauls i)icke<l up partly aHoat and jiarllyoii shore 
 from the wreck of tiie ship in an English port. 
 Biirni V. A maud, Kt A. &. E. i\\i\ ; 2 P. Ac D. 
 «33; '.I L. .].. <}. ]',. 22t;. 
 
 Breach of Navigation Act.] — .A. ship arrested 
 as an a(hiiiraliy (hoii was afterwards seized as 
 forfeiteil for breach of a navigation act : — Held, 
 
 Srore v. 
 Lord Admiral. Parker, 273. Quicre as to tlie 
 iccuracy of this report, see per Thomi)son, P>., 3 
 (\nstr. s(14. 
 
 Droits or Wreck. — .\ log lloating in the sea 
 was drawn up(ni a rock i)y a person wading: 
 another log cast upon the Ifcach was afti-rwards 
 Evidence of Bight to.] — Parol evidence; to su])- swc])t our to sea, and being found floating was 
 port a prescriptive <'laim to wreck cannot be brouirht liack to shore: — Held, that l>oth logs 
 given where tin- property to wreck was in the , were droits of tlie admiralty and did not belong 
 crown at the time of Charles I. Alcur/tv. Cooke, I to grantees of wreck. Slaehpoolr v. lieij., Ir. 11. 
 2 M & P. (',2.5 ; 5 Ring. 340 ; 7 L. J. (o.S.) C. P. j '.) E(|. iWW. 
 12(; ; 30 R. R. (;2.5. 
 
 i Goods floating are not Wreck.] — Goods floating 
 
 Dollars in the Sand.] — Dollars more than 100 i in the sea arc not wiok : when ,>r,dunded they 
 
 years old found in the sand of the seashore will i are wreck, though water be round them : if agrun
 
 051 
 
 SHIPPING— XXVI. Admiralty Law and Practice. 
 
 952 
 
 atioat they t-case to be wreck. Two casks of 
 tallow picked ui) afloat off the Norfolk coast coii- 
 ■tleiniied as droits of the admiralty. Rex v. Tico 
 Cdnlis of TiiUow, 8 Hag. Adtii. 2iU. Cf. Ilai- v. 
 Forfij-iilne Ctt.skx of Jinauli/, 3 Hag. Adm. 2."»7 ; 
 supra, col. ;)4i>. And see Yorl- {DiiUf of) v. 
 Llitfifrcd, 1 Keb. 657, supra, col. itSr). 
 
 An Anchor.] — Imprisonment for taking an 
 anchor in the Cinque Ports. Habeas corpus 
 awarded. Jlouni'x Ca-si\ Cro. Jac. o-t3 ; Talmer, 
 1)6. 
 
 Pirate Goods — Slave Ship.] — Unclaimed 
 residue after reca})ture frcim pi rates are admiralty 
 <lroits. Tlir MdridiuKi. '^'i Hag. Adm. 206. 
 
 A condemnation of a shi]) for engaging in the 
 slave trade does not found title in the seizors. 
 Ih. 
 
 Goods taken from Pirates.] — Property taken 
 frompiiates, theowners of which were unknown, 
 held to be a droit of the admiralty. The P<nida, 
 1 W. Itob. 428. Cf. The Helen, I'Hag. Adm. 142. 
 
 A grant of pirates' goods to the admiral does 
 not pass goods in the possession of pirates taken 
 from others. Anon., 12 Co. Rep. 73. 
 
 There is no limit of time within which the 
 owners may claim them. Ih. 
 
 11. Beaconage. 
 
 The Admiralty Court formerly had jurisdiction 
 in suits for beaconage, but the jurisdiction is 
 gone ; prohibition granted. Cioxae v. Difftje.s- Qir 
 JJif/x), 1 Sid. 158 : 1 Keb. 575. 
 
 Action at common law for Dungeness light- 
 house tolls, (r/hxv. 0.slM.yfon, 2 Keb. 114. 
 
 12. Illegal Colours. 
 
 Warrant to arrest a merchant ship wearing 
 illeial colours. Tie;/, v. TJicen, 2 Jur. (n.s.) 454. 
 
 A master fined for wearing illegal colours. 
 Iter/. V. Jie/ixon, 8 Hag. Adm. !)6. 
 
 18. Foreign Enlistment. 
 
 A ship was fitted out as a transport for i)Crsons 
 in Cuba wIki had revolted from Spain and were 
 exercising jiowers of goverinnent in Cuba, and 
 conducting hostilities against Spain : — Held, a 
 breach of the Foreign Enlistment Act, 5!) Geo. 8, 
 c. (i'J, s. 69 ; and the vessel forfeite<l. The 
 Suh-ador, lleq. v. Carlhi, 81) L. J., Adm. 88 ; 
 L. II. 3 P. C. 218 ; 28 L. T. 203 ; 18 W. R. 1054. 
 
 As to the mode of proceeding in a claim for 
 indemnity for detention of a ship under the 
 Foreign Enlistment Act, see The Great Northern 
 and The J/idland, 26 I.. T. 201 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 246 ; infra, r,>\. 1()04. 
 
 14. Prize. 
 
 The Court of Admiralty has no original juris- 
 diction in matters of booty of war. Its juris- 
 <liction is derived solely from 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65, 
 and orders in council issued in pursuance of that 
 statute. Utinda and Kiricee Booty, In re, 44 
 L. J.. Adm. 41 ; L. R. 4 A. & E. 486 ;' 83 L. T. 882. 
 
 I'he matter of the '• Banda and Kirwee" 
 booty had been by order in council referred to 
 the court to determine the persons entitled to 
 share, and in what proportions, and as to costs. 
 Certain moneys, the proceeds of the booty, had, 
 iis alleged, not been paid to the parties who had 
 
 been declared by the court entitled to the booty : 
 — Hekl, that tlie order in council gave the court 
 no power to order that these moneys should be 
 brought into court for ilistribution, and that, 
 therefore, the court had no jurisdiction to make 
 such an order. Ih. 
 
 A captured ship not taken infra prassidia is 
 not lawful prize. Anon., March, 110. 
 
 No interest in a prize vests before condemna- 
 tion ; but upon condemnation it is taken to 
 have vested at the capture. Stevens v. liar/well, 
 15 Ves. 139 ; 10 R. R. 46. 
 
 The sentence of a foreign admiralty court is 
 conclusive as to prize or no prize. M'e.ston v. 
 Wilt 11 , Skinner, 152 ; and cases infra, col. 1109. 
 
 Action for False Imprisonment in Case of 
 "Wrongful Capture.] — An action will not lie at 
 common law for false im))risonment, where the 
 imprisonment was merely the consec|uence of 
 taking a ship as piize. Le Cau.j; v. Eden, 2 
 Doitgl. 594. 
 
 Prize Jurisdiction — History and Origin.] — 
 
 The founilation and nature of prize jurisdiction 
 in the Court of Admiralty explained by Lord 
 Mansfield. Lindo v. liodnci/, 2 Dougl. 612, n. 
 
 15. Wages and Disbursements. 
 
 See aho PROHIBITIONS, supra, cols. 932, 933 ; 
 VI. Seamen, supra, cols. 106, seq. ; V. Master, 
 supra, cols. 92, seq. 
 
 Jurisdiction as to.] — The gist of the admiralty 
 jurisdictioji in wages is service at sea. Howev. 
 Xappirr. 4 Jiurr. 194. 
 
 Payment by Bill.] — A seaman took payment 
 of his wages at Calcutta by a bill of exchange 
 on his owners, in preference to cash. The bill 
 was dishonoured and the owners became bank- 
 rupt : — Held, that he coukl not sue the ship. 
 The WiUidni Money, 2 Hag. Adm. 186. 
 
 Paid out of Proceeds of Droit.] — Wages prior 
 to 1 Will. 4, c. 25, paid out of proceeds of a dere- 
 lict condemned as an admiralty droit. The 
 Sj>eei/Iatiir, 3 Hag. Adm. 380, n. 
 
 Additional Sum promised to prevent Desertion 
 — Wages Recoverable in Admiralty.] — The 
 
 master at a foreign port where his crew was 
 deserting gave each seaman a promissory note 
 for U)l. in addition to the wages payable under 
 the articles to induce them to remain with the 
 ship. On arrival in England the owners ten- 
 dered to the seamen their wages, upon condition 
 that they should sign a release and give up the 
 promissory notes. The seamen refused, ancl 
 brought an action in admiralty for their wages : 
 — Held, that in the admiralty action they were 
 entitled to recover their wages and costs. The 
 Mobile, S\val)ey, 256 ; 5 W, R. 880. 
 
 Arrest of Post-office Packet.] — A post-oftice 
 packet may be ai'i-ested in a suit for mariners' 
 wages, y'he Lord J/ohart, 2 Hods, 100. 
 
 Suit pending Abroad.] — A suit in Canada 
 against tiie master for wages was })ending when 
 a suit in rem against the slnp for the same wages 
 was instituted ni England : — Hekl, that the suit 
 in rem atiated. The L(in<i rh.diire, 2 SpiidvS, l!;9. 
 
 Second Mate Serving as First Mate.] — A 
 
 second mate during the vovatre becoming and
 
 953 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiralty Lair and Practice. 
 
 serving as fii-st mate, in the place of the former 
 first mate, who had deserted : — Held, entitled to 
 the same wages as first mate as his predecessor 
 received, there being no new agreement. The 
 Gondolier, 3 Hag. Adm. 19(i. 
 
 Purser not on Articles.] — Pui-ser"s wages pro- 
 nounced for. though no figure specified for his 
 wages in the articles. The Pniit-c Gem-tjc, 'A Hag. 
 Adm. S7i;. S. r.. AJhson v. Marxh, 2 Ventr. 181. 
 
 Jurisdiction of Justices.] — Under fi Will. 4. 
 c. lit. ss. I.j. lO. the Admiralty Court could not 
 entertain a suit for wages under 20/.. except 
 where justices were unable to administer full 
 justice. The Khif] WiUi/iiii, 2 \V. Kob. 231. 
 
 Master suing Owner for Seamens Wages 
 paid.] — The master having i)aid the mariners 
 Tlieir wages could not (formerly) sue the owner 
 in admiralty. Anon., Fort. 230. 
 
 Mates Claim for Wages Paid and Disburse- 
 ments.] — Tlie Court of Achuiralty has no juris- 
 diction to adjudicate upon a mate's claim for 
 wages paid to the crew, and necessary disburse- 
 ments in foreign ports. T/w Yictor'in, 37 L. J., 
 Adm. 12. 
 
 Foreign Seamen in Ship of alien Enemy.] — 
 
 The couit will entertain a suit fur wages of a 
 foreign seaman on a ship of an alien enemy coming 
 to this country under a licence, llie Yrvw Mlnu, 
 1 Dods. 234. 
 
 Wages claimed by foreign seamen. Objection 
 to juristHction overruled. 'The William Fredericli , 
 1 Hag. Adm. 13S. 
 
 1(>. Restraint. 
 
 And nee IV. Owners, supra, col. Trl ; PuoHini- 
 
 TiONS. supra, col. 'J2'.i ; 17. Possession, infra. 
 
 col. 'Jo.'j. 
 
 Admiralty Jurisdiction.] — A dissenting part 
 owner may sue in admiralty to compel his 
 oo-owners setting the ship to sea to give security 
 for her safe return, or for a sale. LumhcH v. 
 Arrrfrrr. 1 Ld. Ilavm. 223 : Blacltet v. Anstey, 
 Ih. 23.-.. 
 
 Tlie majority of thc^ jiart owners desiring the 
 ship to goto sea may institute a suit in achuiralty 
 to compel a dissenting ]iart owner to give up the 
 certificate of registry. I'rohihition refused. 
 .Iw.//., 2 Chit. 3.V.). 
 
 Where there are several ])art -owners, the 
 owners of the less shares may arii.'st the ship in 
 the Admiralty (Jourt, and compel a security to 
 l>e given \>y the rttlieis before they will be j.er- 
 mitted to navigate out of port. Oiiiiton v. Jfthden, 
 1 Wils. 101. 
 
 The CVmrt of Admiral ly is oj.en all the year 
 round to api)lications by part owners to restrain 
 the sailing of ships without their consent, until 
 security is given to the amount of the i'es|)ective 
 shares. Jlalr v. (loodnon. 2 Mer. 77. 
 
 The court has jurisdiction to arrest a vessel in 
 an action of lestraint at the suit of a part owner 
 holding a minority of shares, notwithstanding 
 that the vessel is about to ])roeee<l on a voyage 
 ai)prove<l by a majoritvof the j.art owners. TUr 
 Talai,:> P.'L). Ki!)'; 42L. T.Ol ; 2i» W. U. 123; 4 
 Asp. M. C. 22r,. 
 
 Di8.senting part owners who have f.btained 
 security for the ship's return may sue thereon in 
 aflmiralty. (J rare ox Deijrarc v. Jledgex, 2 Ld. 
 Eaym. 1285 ; Holt, 470. 
 
 954 
 
 A stipulation taken from a dissenting part 
 owner for the return of the ship not suable iu 
 admiralty. King v. Perry, 3 Salk. 23. And .see 
 e. Prohibitions, supra, cols. Si2S. l>2'.i. 
 
 The admiralty always had jurisdiction in an 
 action of restraint to detain a ship from sailing 
 at the instance of a dissenting part owner, until 
 the other jjart owners gave a bonfl to the fidl 
 value of his share for her safe return : upon her 
 lo.ss such bond is immediately payable. 'The 
 AjyoUo, 1 Hag. Adm. 30K. 
 
 Foreign Ship.] — The Admiralty Court had no 
 juristlictiun, at the suit of a British part owner 
 of a foreign ship, to arrest her until bail was 
 given for her safe return to her own port abroad. 
 Tlie Graff Arthur Bern.sforf, 2 Spinks. 30. 
 
 Bail, who can obtain — Ship's Husband.] — The 
 
 plaintiti" and all the other owners of a vessel 
 appointed two persons as shijj's husbands and 
 managers by an agreement, which stated that 
 they should be, and should at all times there- 
 after discharge the duties of, ship's husbands 
 and managers of the said vessel and of agents 
 for the owners, their executors and adminis- 
 trators. The agreement also gave the managers 
 authority to perform all the usual duties of 
 ship's husbands : — Held, that this agreement did 
 not debar the plain i iff as owner of two sixty- 
 fourth shares in the ship from obtaining in an 
 action of restraint bail from the other part 
 owners in the value of his shares. The England^ 
 .->6 L. J., Adm. ll.-> : 12 P. D. 32 : .-.t; L. T. 89(i ;. 
 3.5 W. R. 3(i7 : (i Asp. M. C. 140. 
 
 Part Owners.] — The court has jurisdic- 
 tion to arrest a vessel in an action of restraint at 
 the suit of a part owner holding a minority of 
 shares, notwithstanding that the vessel is about 
 to proceed on a voyage approved of by a majority 
 of the part owners, and is being emploj-ed under 
 a charter entered into by the ship's husband, 
 appointed to act on behalf of all the owners. 
 The Talcn, 5 P. D. Ifiit : 42 L. T. 01 : 29 W. R. 
 123 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 22C.. 
 
 Charterer.] — In a cause of restraint the 
 
 charterer of the vessel, if he has a substantial 
 interest in the fjuestion before the court, is 
 entitled to intervene in the suit. The Innixfidlvn^ 
 3;-, L. J.. Adm. 1 10 ; L. li. 1 A. t*c E. 72 : 12 Jur. 
 (N.s.) (;53. 
 
 A vessel having been arrested in a cause of 
 restraint between co-owners, the court, on a 
 motion by the charterer, to whom the vessel had 
 Ijcen let for a voyage, ordered her release, it 
 apiiearing th:it the alleged co-owner was only a 
 mortgagee. 1 h. 
 
 Bail Bond.] —Where the defendants in an 
 action of restraint have given a bond for the safe 
 rctin-n of the ship they are still at liberty to 
 dis|)ute the pl;iiiitifTs' right to bring the action, 
 and the court, if satisfied that the plaintiffs have 
 no such riuht. will set aside the bond. The 
 Kerovla, r>-,' L. J., Adm. 4.". : 1 1 I'. D. '."2 : r,:, F.. T. 
 (il ; 3.-| W. n. 60 ; (i Asp. M. C. 23. 
 
 Release of Sureties.] — In an action of 
 
 restraint two sureties executed a bail bond for 
 the safe return of the ship. No time was fixed 
 in the bond at which the liability of the sureties 
 should cea.se. After the b<md had been in 
 existence for nearly three years, and when tiie 
 vcs.sel was in this cimntry. and the owners of the
 
 955 
 
 SHIPPING— XXVI. Admiralty Laic and Practi 
 
 ce. 
 
 956 
 
 niajovity of shares were olmnged, the sureties 
 applied to be released from tlie bond : — Held, 
 tliat the api)lication was reasonable, and the bond 
 Avas ordered to be cnneelled. 77/r Vir'ienne, 56 
 L. J.. Adm. 107: 12 P. D. is:. : :.7 L. T.31(); 3(5 
 W. K. 11(» : (■> Asp. M. C. ITS. 
 
 How long it Continues — Second Action.] 
 
 — Where minority owners have instituted an 
 aetion of restraint, claiming security for the 
 safe return of the ship to a named port witliin 
 the juiisdielion.and a bond is given bythedefen- 
 <lants for that purjiose, such bond remains in 
 foi-ce until the ship returns to that port, and 
 theplaintiifs are not entitled to institute another 
 action for further security upon the ship's return 
 to another port within the jurisdiction, and \i 
 such second action is instituted, it will be dis- 
 missed with costs. The lleqcdhi, 51 L. T. i)04 ; 
 5 Asp. M. C. 338. 
 
 Form.] — In an action of restraint the 
 
 bail bond should not be given to pay what may 
 be adjudged against the defendant in an action, 
 but simply for the appraised or agreed value of 
 the plaintiff's shares, in case the ship does not 
 return to the jjarticular port named in the bond. 
 The Ilohrrf Dickinson, 54 L. J., Adm. 5 ; 10 
 P. D. 15 ; 52 L. T. 55 ; 33 W. R. 400 ; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 341. 
 
 As to tlie form of bonds given for the safe return 
 of a ship, to dissenting part owners ; and of 
 tlecree upon her not returning. The Manjaret, 
 2 Hag. Adm. 275. The A/me, 2 Hag. Adm. 
 279, n ; The Waterhcn. Ih. 
 
 17. Possession. 
 
 :See aUo Prohibitions, supra, col. 929 ; 
 IV. Owners, supra, cols. 52, seq. 
 
 Wrongdoer in Possession.] — The Admiralty 
 Court had jurisdiction to take a ship from a mere 
 vvrono-doer and deliver her to her owner. liUni- 
 ..hard In re, 2 B. & C. 244 ; 2 D. & R. 177 ; 2fi 
 R. R. 329. 
 
 Majority in Interest of Owners can Change.] 
 
 — The Admiralty Court would not interfere to 
 change the possession of a ship except at the 
 instance of a majority of the part owners in 
 interest. The Val/f/nf, 1 W. Rob. 04, infra. 
 .S. P., The TJIizaheth and Jam; 1 W. Rob. 278. 
 
 Owner of Moiety.] — The Admiralty Court 
 in a default cause declined to decree possession 
 to the owner of a moiety of a ship, but granted a 
 monition calling ui)on the other interest to shew 
 cause. The Egyptienne, 1 Hag. Adm. 340, n. 
 
 Where no adverse Title.] — The Admiralty 
 Court would entertain a suit of possession where 
 no adverse title was set up. The Frances, 2 
 Dods. 420. S. P., The Sisters, 3 C. Rob. 213 ; 4 
 C. Rob. 275: 5 C. Rob. 155. S. P., The Valiant, 
 1 W. Rob. 04, infra. 
 
 The court gave effect to a legal title without 
 taking notice of equitable claims. The Valiant, 
 1 W. Rob. 04. 
 
 The Admiralty Court had no jurisdiction to 
 interfere in cases of adverse title. Warrant of 
 arrest refused to a mortgagee claiming under 
 Geo. 4. c. 110, s. 45, to arrest and sell the ship. 
 TJie Frvit Preserver, 2 Hag. Adm. 181 ; The 
 (inardiau, 3 C. Rob. 93. 
 
 The Admiralty Court always had and retained 
 
 its jurisdiction to interpose to transfer possession 
 when no direct question of property was involved ; 
 but direct questions of property belonged to the 
 courts of common law and chancery — per Sir W. 
 Scott. The Martin of yorfolh, 4 'C. Rob. 293. 
 S. P., The Pitt, 1 Hag. Adm. 240 ; The Warrior, 
 2 Dods. 288. 
 
 Ownership of vessel formerly not triable in 
 admiralty. Smith v. Gibson, Ca. t. Hardwicke, 
 271, 317. And see per Holroyd, J. Anon., 2 Ch. 
 359, 301 ; and Thompson v. Smith, supra, col. 935. 
 
 Attachment Refused.] — The court declined to 
 issue an attachment in execution of a decree in 
 a possession suit. The John of London, 1 Hag. 
 Adm. 342. 
 
 Bona fide Possession not disturbed.] — In a 
 
 cause of possession the Admiralty Court will not 
 examine the title of a person in bona fide posses- 
 sion of a ship until it is impeached. Where the 
 only title rests on a conditional assignment of a 
 ship as a security not reduced into possession, 
 the court has no jurisdiction to disturb the person 
 in possession under a subsequent sale ; nor does 
 it vary the case that it is an ayjpeal from a vice- 
 admiralty court that has exercised the jurisdic- 
 tion. The John, 2 Hag. Adm. 305. 
 
 Equitable and Legal Owners.] — The Court of 
 Admiralty will not dispossess the equitable 
 owner of the moiety of a ship at the instance 
 of the legal owner of more than a moiety. The 
 Victoria^ Swabey, 408 ; 5 Jur. (N.S.) 204 ; 7 
 W. K. 330. 
 
 The court inclines against dispossession, and 
 requires the plaintiff's claim to be clearly proved. 
 Il>. 
 
 Owner dispossessed by Violence or Fraud.] 
 
 — The court had, even when its jurisdiction was 
 more restricted, authority to decree possession of 
 a vessel to the owner, who had been deprived of 
 it by force, violence or fraud. The Heatrice, 
 otherwise The Bappahannoch, 30 L. J., Adm. 9. 
 
 Against Master, Part owner.] — The majority 
 of part owners in interest, are entitled to posses- 
 sion of the ship, as against the master who owns 
 the remaining shares and is in possession, 
 although he offers security for her safe return. 
 The Kent. Lush. 495. S. P., The Xew Draper, 4 
 C. Rob. 287. 
 
 Order for Production of Ships Papers.] — See 
 
 The Lusitano; m. INSPECTION AND DISCOVERY, 
 infra, col. 997. 
 
 Sale by Court without Jurisdiction.] — A ship 
 sold under sentence of a pretended admiralty 
 court at St. Domingo, stayed on her arrival at 
 Liverjiool at the instance of her former owner. 
 The Thomas, 1 C. Rob. 322. 
 
 Sale by Master abroad.] — The ship was sold 
 by the master abroad. Possession decreed to 
 the original owner as against the purchaser, 
 upon bail given. The Partridge. 1 Hag. Adm. 81. 
 
 Possession of a ship decreed to her former 
 owners : it apjicaring that she had been sold 
 without authority by ^Lloyds' agent at Archangel, 
 having been ashore and abandoned by her 
 master. The Lagan or Mimax, 3 Hag. Adm. 
 418. 
 
 Foreign Ship.] — Suit of possession not enter- 
 tained by the court in the case of a foreign ship. 
 The Joh'an and Siegmiaid, Edwards, 242.
 
 957 
 
 SHIPPING — XXYI. AdmiralUj Law and Practice. 
 
 958 
 
 The court interferes in a cause of possession of 
 a foreign ship between foreign owners with 
 reluctance ; an order of the admiralty of Rostock 
 executed by the admiralty of England. The See 
 lieuter, 1 Dods. 22. 
 
 Default of Appearance by Part Owner.] 
 
 — Action in admiralty against the ship, claiming 
 possession, and an account against A., the 
 managing owner ; default of appearance by A. 
 Possession given to plaintiffs holding majority 
 of shares. Order to join A. as defendant, and 
 for an account to be taken. Sale of A.'s shares 
 before the reference, to satisfy costs, and any 
 sum found due from A., refused. The Xat'ire 
 Pearl, 87 L. T. 5 42 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 515. 
 
 Abortive Sale — Suit by Vendors.] — Vendors of 
 shares in a ship sold by auction, the purchase- 
 money having been partly paid, but the transfers 
 not having been completed, institute a possession 
 suit in admiralty. The ship was sold, but pro- 
 duced a few shillings only. Application that the 
 purchaser at the auction be condemned in costs 
 refused. The Virtue, 1 Spinks, 77. 
 
 Proceedings in Chancery.] — The master being 
 unable to repair tlie plaintiffs' shi]), sold her 
 aVjroad, and executed a bill of sale to the defen- 
 dants. The ship came to England, and the defen- 
 <lants, refusing to ratify the sale or consent to 
 the registiy, took possession of her. The plain- 
 tiffs applied to the Court of Chancery for an 
 injunction: — Held, that the plaintiffs had no 
 equitable, as distinct from legal, title : and that 
 their title, if anj', being legal, they must sue at 
 law. Rldf/icay v. lloberfs, i Hare, 106. 
 
 Bail.] — In suits for possession the Court of 
 Admiralty can take bail. 77ie /'Jrtiiiqelinfria, 40 
 L. J., Adm. 1 : 35 L. T. 410 : 25 W.ll. 255 : H 
 Asp. M. C. 264. 
 
 18. Co-ownership. 
 
 Co-owners disagreeing — Sale of Ship by Court.] 
 
 — The fiimt will iiiit cxci-cisc tlic power of sell- 
 ing a sliii) given by 24 N'iet. c. iV.i, s. S (2), except 
 in a ver}' stiong case : mere disagreement of co- 
 ownei's not sufficient. The Murian. 54 L. J., 
 Adm. 8 : 10 I'. D. 4 : 51 L. '!'. ilOC : 83 W. W. 432 ; 
 5 Asp. M. C. 33;t. 
 
 dealing with his joint interest in the ship, held to 
 be incompetent ; because sub-s. 65 applied only 
 where it was sought to prevent the sale of a slii|j 
 under ss. 62, 63, and 64, alleged to be vested in a 
 person not qualified to own a British ship. 
 MePhail V. HinnUton, 5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 
 1017. And see Roy v. Hdinilton, 5 Ct. of Sess. 
 Cas. (3rd ser.) 573. 
 
 Claim for Damages.] — In a co-ownership suit 
 brought for sale of the ship by some of the part 
 owners against the others, the latter set up in 
 their defence a claim for damages alleged to have 
 been caused by the wrongful act of the former : 
 — Held, that under 24 Vict. c. 10, s. 8, the court 
 had jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The 
 Ceylon, 18 L. T. 417. 
 
 Under 24 Vict. c. 10, s. 8, the Admiralty 
 Court oi'dered an account to be taken between 
 co-owners relating to matters which took j)lace 
 before the date assigned for the act to come 
 into operation, and relating to a ship lost before 
 the institution of the cause. The Idas, Br. & 
 Lush. 65. 
 
 Bill of Sale, Absolute or Mortgage.] — A bill of 
 sale of shares in a ship was executed by tlie defen- 
 dant, the sole owner, to T., with a declaration of 
 ownership as required for registration. T. did 
 not register the instrument for four years. In a 
 co-ownership suit he sought to have the ship sold, 
 and accounts taken between himself and the 
 defendant. The bill of sale, thougli in form 
 aljsolute, was really given as security for a debt. 
 Application refused. The Jane. 23 L, T. 791 
 (liish). 
 
 Sale of Ship — Registered in Guernsey.] — The 
 Admiralty Division has no jurisdiction over an 
 action in rem, instituted under s. 8 of the A(hnir- 
 alty Court, 1861, claiming an account of the 
 earnings and sale of a ship when the shij) is 
 registered at the ])ort of (iuernsey, and not at 
 any i)ort in England or Wales. Tlie JlohinwnH 
 and The Satellite, 51 E. T. 1)05 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 33S. 
 
 Receiver.] — The court will appoint a receiver 
 in a co-ownership suit where the cireuiMstances 
 exist which in the opinion of the court render 
 such a course just and convenient. The An>j>th/ll, 
 5 P. I). 224. ■ 
 
 Sale of Ship at Instance of Minority Owners — 
 Majority Owners transformed into Limited Com- 
 pany.] — Where the owners of the majority of the 
 shares in a shi]) had, without the consent of or 
 notice to tlieir co-owners converted themselves 
 into a limitcfl liability company, to wiiicli they 
 had transfcM'red tlieir shares, the court, at the 
 instance of the minority ovvneis, ordered the sliip 
 to be soM. 77(ryA'/r//v//Y/, 64 E. .1., A(im.H7 ; 11 
 R. 798; 72 I,. T. ;t()3; 4 1 W. II. 2«,S ; 8 Asp. 
 M. C. 22. 
 
 Registered Owners.] — Quicrc, whether s. 8 of 
 the Admiralty ( 'ourt Act, ]H()1, giving tlie Admir- 
 alty Court jurisdiction to decide questions between 
 co-owners is not confined to registered owners. 
 The Ronnie Kate,:,! I,. T. 203; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 14i). 
 
 Account— After Sale of Share.] — A. and !'.. were 
 co-owners of a ship. A. sold his share to a third 
 person, and afterwards instituted a suit in rem in 
 the Court of Admiralty to have an account taken 
 between himself and B. in relation to the emph)y- 
 ment and earnings of the sliip during the time he 
 and B. were co-owners : — Hehl, that as the suit 
 related to rpu'stions which arose between the 
 parties while they were co-owners, the court liad 
 jurisdiction to entertain tlie suit, iiotwitlistaiid- 
 ing A. liad ceased to be a co-owner at the tinu'of 
 the institution of the suit. The Lady of the 
 Lali, 3'.) L. J.. A(hn. 40 ; E. R. 3 A. .V: E. 2'.) ; 21 
 L. '1". 683; 18 W. R. 528. 
 
 What should be Included^ Account of 
 
 Ship's Agent.] — In an action for scttleiinni of 
 accounts iK'tween co-owners under s. S ol' the 
 Petition to Restrain Sale of Ship — 17 & 18 I Adminilty Court Act, 18(il. the plaintiff is 
 Vict. C. 104, 8. 65. J— A intition presented under j entitled only to settlement of such accounts as 
 17 & IS Vict. c. 104, s. r,5, by a jiart owner of a [ are or ought to be rendered before the writ. If 
 ship, which was the subject of a joint adventure, ! a co-ownei- is ship's agent for a coasting steamer 
 to have the other part owner restrained from i at a port of call tlie amount due to him as agent
 
 1)50 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYL Admiralty Law and Practice. 
 
 960 
 
 cannot be recovered in a c(>-owncrshi]i action. 
 'J'/ic Uidrr, 40 L. T. 46o : 4 Asp. M. ('. 1(»4. 
 
 Of Managing Owner. ] — See The Mount Vrrnoiu 
 and eases ante. cols. aU. et circa. 
 
 Reference — Report — Stay of Execution — Costs.] 
 
 — A nianaLrinL: owner, who luul not delivered 
 accounts for nine years, instituted a co-ownersliip 
 action for settlement of accounts, and for pay- 
 ment of the balance found due to him, and 
 claimed certain items in respect of materials 
 su])plied to the ship for which he had not paid, 
 and tor which the defendants were being sued in 
 the Queen's Bench Division. The registrar in 
 his report allowed the plaintiff these items. 
 Upon application to confirm the report, and for 
 judgment, the court decreed payment of the 
 amount found dne by the registrar, but stayed 
 execution \xntil the defendants were protected 
 against the claims in the Queen's Bench Division, 
 and refused the plaintiff the costs of the action 
 upon the ground of delay in rendering his 
 accounts. The ClmrJcs Jnrhxoii, 52 L. T. GHl : 5 
 Asp. M. C. 399. 
 
 Objection to Report.] — Where an action 
 
 is institutu<l in an admiralty district registry 
 by part owners of a ship against the managing 
 owner for an account, and the writ claims an 
 acconnt under Ord. III. r. 8, and an order for 
 the filing of the accomits is made under Ord. 
 XV. r. 1, and the account is proceeded with 
 pursuant to order, and the district registrar 
 reports thereon, such report is to be treated as 
 the usual report in an Admiralty Court action, 
 and if the defendant seeks to take objection 
 thereto, he must do so according to the provisions 
 of Ord. LYl. r. 11, otherwise the plaintiff will be 
 entitled to judgment thereon. Giuduii v. Sprott, 
 51 L. T. 26G ; 5 Asp. M. C. 288. 
 
 ■ Objecting to — Extension of Time.] — The 
 
 court will not extend tbe time for objecting to 
 the registrar's report in a co-ownership action 
 without special grounds being shewn by tlie 
 party seeking to object. Ih. 
 
 Charterparty— Authority of Managing Owner.] 
 
 — The managing owner of the ship " V.," with 
 the authority of his co-owners, entered into 
 negotiations abroad with the view of chartering 
 tlie ship. These negotiations were carried on 
 by an agent abroad. On the 17th July, 
 1S84, a "form of charter, signed by the 
 managing owner, was offered to the proposed 
 charterers. They objected to certain provisions 
 in it, to which objections the agent, with the 
 managing owner's authority, assented. On the 
 lltth July the charterers signed the charter, 
 having previously introduced into it certain 
 further alterations which had never been 
 suggested to the managing owner's agent. On 
 the same day certain of the co-owners gave 
 notice to the managing owner that they refused 
 to be bound by any charter. The managing 
 owner, considering himself bound to sign the 
 charterparty, signed it on the 22nd July. The 
 execution of the charterparty was prevented by 
 the arrest of the " V." by the dissentient owners, 
 and damages resulted therefrom : — Held, in a 
 co-ownership action, that there was no binding 
 contract until the managing owner signed the 
 charter on the 22nd July, and that, as the dis- 
 senting owners had revoked their authority on 
 the 19th July, they were not bound by the 
 
 charter. The Vinrlnliriltf, 5S Ij. J., Adm. 51 ; H 
 P. D. 50 ; (iO L. T. 657 ; 37 W. R. 409 ; (J Asp. 
 M. C. 376— C. A. 
 
 Citation.] — In a cause between co-owners, 
 under 24 iV 25 Vict. c. 10, s. 8, the court granted 
 a citation in personam on the defendant, and a 
 monition on the London Dock Company to bring 
 in freight detained by them under a stop-order 
 from the defendant. The Meggie, L. R. 1 A. & E. 
 77. 
 
 19. Necessaries. 
 
 See (ihw. I. Building, Repairs and Tonnage ; 
 V. JVlASTER ; VIII. Sale and Transfer. 
 
 a. Generally. 
 
 Material Men have no Lien on the Proceeds, 
 of the Ship sold by the Court. J — Material men have 
 no lien for supplies furnished in England on the 
 proceeds of a ship sold by decree of the Admiralty 
 Court in a wages suit. Tlie J\'ej>fiine, Iludges v.. 
 Sims, 3 Knapp, P. C. 94. 
 
 Lien — Practice of Admiralty Court.] — 
 
 Although there was no lien for necessaries, 
 the Admiralty Court previously to Tlte JS'eptune- 
 (sirpra), allowed material men to claim against 
 the proceeds of a ship remaining in the registry.. 
 The Whurtoii, 3 Hag. Adm. 148, n. 
 
 Arrest for general Balance of Account.] — 
 
 The agents of a foreign shij), being also part 
 owners, supplied her from time to time with 
 coals, and made disbursements, receiving freight, 
 and crediting the same in their accounts. They 
 arrested the ship for a balance due upon the- 
 same account : — Held, that the arrest was 
 invalid. The West Frieslancl or The Twentje, 
 
 Tan Hasselt v. Sack, Swabey, 456 ; 2 L. T. 613 ; 
 8 W. R. 423— P. C. Reversing S. C, nom. The 
 
 West Frieshnid (otherwise Ticenje), Swabey 
 454 ; 5 Jur. (N.s) 658. See also The Mia A. Clark, 
 infra, col. 965 ; The Princess Charlotte, infra, 
 col. 965. 
 
 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65 — Necessaries Supplied before: 
 
 the Act.] — The statute 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65, enabled 
 the admiralty to entertain a claim for necessaries 
 supplied to a foreign ship before the passing 
 of the act. The Alexander, 1 W. Rob. 288, 346. 
 
 Inquiry whether any Sum Due.] — Under 
 Ord. XXXIH., Judicature Act, 1875, in an 
 action for necessaries, the court, in its tliscretion, 
 orderetl enquiries to be made before judgment,, 
 whether anv and what sum is due. 'The Sully,. 
 48 L. J., Afim. 56. 
 
 Necessaries Supplied to Foreign Ship — 
 
 Jurisdiction.] — See Tlie Anna, infra, col. 965. 
 
 Jurisdiction of Court of Passage.] — See The 
 
 Dowse, supra, col. 945. 
 
 Title of Suit— Repairs.] — The institution of a 
 suit as u cause of necessaries does not estop the- 
 plaintift' from afterwards pleading, and proving- 
 that his claim is in respect of repairs ; but the 
 title of the cause must be amended. The Skip- 
 imrth, 10 Jur. (N.S.) 445 ; 10 L. T. 43. 
 
 Contempt of Court by Master.] — Where, on a 
 claim for necessaries, the master, in contempt of 
 the warrant, sailed out of the jurisdiction, the-
 
 961 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiralty Law and Practice. 
 
 court allowed a cause for necessaries to be set 
 dow-n, and the plaintiff to file proofs ; and. upon 
 such proof of the facts, condemned the ship in 
 the claim and costs. T/ie Ladii Blesxhuiton, .3-1 
 L. J., Adm. 72. 
 
 Bankruptcy Jurisdiction of County Court- 
 Vice- Admiralty Court — Injunction.] — A county 
 court had jurisdiction iu kuikrui>tcy under 
 32 i: 38 Vict, c 71. s. 72, to restrain a person 
 trading in London from enforcing in a vice- 
 admiralty court at Sierra Leone a claim for 
 necessaries supjdied abroad, on the order of the 
 master, to a ship belonging to the bankrupt 
 after the filing of the petition. Tlw Albion. 
 IlaUiduij V. Harris, or Harris v. IleiUiil/n/. 43 
 L. J.. G. P. 3.-.() : L. R. 9 C. P. CGS : 27 L. 1.732 : 
 22 W. II. 7.5(3 : I Asp. M. C. 481. 
 
 Vice-Admiralty Court— 24 & 25 Vict. c. 24.]— 
 
 A vice-admiralty court in a British possession 
 has no jurisdiction under 2-t Vict. c. 24, s. 10, to 
 entertain a suit for necessaries supplied at a port 
 out of that possession. A master can only claim 
 against the ship for disbursements from the date 
 at which he is^on the ship's register as master. 
 
 b. What are. 
 
 Meaning of Term Generally.] — The term 
 '•necessaries,'' in the statutes giving the admi- 
 ralty court jurisdiction over such clauns, has the 
 same meaning as is given to it by the common 
 law courts, and signifies whatever tlie owner of a 
 vessel, as a prudent man, if present under circum- 
 stances in whicii his agent in his absence is called 
 upon to act, would have ordered. Tlie lllr/t/, 
 41 L. .1.. Adm. 3'J ; L. K. 3 A. cV: E. 516 : 20 L.' T. 
 202 : 20 W. 11. <.»27 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 240. 
 
 " Necessaries." in 3 &; 4 Vict. c. 6.5. s. 6, mean 
 articles immediately necessary for the shiji, as 
 contradiitinguishedfrom those merely neccessary 
 for the voyage. T/ie Cumtcs.se do Trcfirrillc. 
 Lush. 329 ; 4 L. T. 713. 
 
 The statute does not apply to ordinary mer- 
 cantile accounts between shipowner and atrent. 
 Ih. 
 
 962 
 
 TlirPcrhi. 
 
 Copper sheathing is a necessar' 
 Swabey. 353 : 4 .Jur (x.s.) 741. " 
 
 Agent's Expenses — Collision Suit.] — Ihe 
 
 expenses of aii agent for coming from Newcastle 
 to Loudon to assist the master in the defence of 
 a vessel prosecuted iu a cause of collision, and for 
 attending the trial are not necessaries. Tlie 
 Bonne Amt'lie, 35 L. J., Adm. 115; L. It 
 1 A. E. 19 ; 14 L. T. 191 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 149. 
 
 Supplies Generally.]— Necessaries are what- 
 ever is fit and proper for the service of the ship, 
 and whatever a prudent owner would provide. 
 The onus of proving the necessity is on the 
 material-man. The Alexander, 1 W. Rob. 28S. 
 346. 
 
 Butcher's Meat.^— r//^ X. R. Go.tfuhrirJt, 
 Swabey, 344 ; 4 .Juf. (x.S.) 742 : 6 W. R". 871. 
 
 Ticrnfjc, or West Fric.slaud, 
 
 Premiums on Insurance — Ship Dues — Broker- 
 age.] — Premiums paid by a shipbroker at the 
 owner's request to prficure insurance on freight 
 are necessaries. Mackiidosh v. J/ifr/iesufi, 4 Ex. 
 175: l,s L. J.. E.x. 3S.5. 
 
 Charges paid by a shipbroker at the owner's 
 request for entering, reporting, and piloting a 
 .shi|). and for tonnage and light-dues, and for 
 noting protest, are within the term. IIj. 
 
 Advances at tlie owner's request for travelling 
 exijcnses of the master and goods supplied for 
 I lie slii])'s use are necessaries. Jlj. 
 
 Prokerago charges made by a ship's broker for 
 acting as ship's agent, and for negotiating a 
 cliaiterparty may be ncce.ssaiies within the 
 meaning of the statutes, but must be proved to 
 come within tin- definition. Ih. 
 
 Premiums f)n insurance not necessaries, 7'he 
 ffelnrich Bjorn. supra, col. 96G. 
 
 Coppering Ship.] — When it is necessary that 
 a w(Mi.|(ii >lij|, liMund u]»on a particular voyage 
 should Ije copp(;red. the co|)pering is a necessarj' 
 for the voyage, which gives the material-maii 
 doing (he work to a foreign ship.upoji tlie orders 
 of the master, a maritime lien. The Turliani, 
 32 L. T. 341 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 603, 
 
 VOL. XIIL 
 
 Coals.]— See Thi 
 supra, col. 960. 
 
 Expenses of Defending Collision Action. t 
 
 The expenses of an agent coining from Newcas'tle 
 to London to assist the master in a suit against 
 the shi}) in admiralty :— Held, not to be neces- 
 saries. Tlic Bonne Ainelin. 35 L. .J.. Adm 115 • 
 L. R. 1 A. i: E. 19 : 14 L. T. 191 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 149. 
 
 Repairs to Machinery.] — Repairs to machinery 
 of a steamship, in order to make her seaworthy, 
 are necessaries within 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65. Tlie 
 Flerha, 1 Spinks, 438. 
 
 Charterparty — Broker's Commission.] — The 
 •■ M.," wliile on a voyage, was chartered by her 
 owners, through shipbrokers, for a future voyage. 
 Subsequently the shipbrokers arrested the •' M." 
 in a suit for necessaries, to recover their commis- 
 sion on obtaining the charterparty : — Held, that 
 the commission was not a " necessary." The 
 Marianne. 60 L. .1., Adm. 39 ; [1891] P. 180 : 
 64 I.. T. 539; 7 Asp. M. C. 34. 
 
 Money Advanced.] — Money advanced to pro- 
 vide necessaries, held to be "necessaries" within 
 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65, s. 6. The Sophie, 1 W. Rob. 3(i9. 
 
 Advances in a foreign port to procure neces- 
 saries may be recoverecl as necessaries. The 
 Mason ie, 5 L. T. 460. 
 
 Moneys obtained by means of a bill of exchange 
 to procure necessaries are necessaries within 3i>c4 
 Vict. c. 6"), s. 6. The Anna, 46 L. J., Adm. 15 ; 
 1 P. D. 253 ; 34 L. T, 895 : 3 Asp. M. C. 337— 
 C, A. 
 
 A simple contraci cirdiior for p;iyiiiciit of 
 seamen's wages ami board has no lien on ihc .sliip. 
 The proceeds of a phip salved as a derelict there- 
 fore (follo^ving The .Yrj/fune. suina, col. 960) 
 paid out to salvors and mortgagees. 7'he AVvr 
 IJar/le, 2 W. Rob. 441, 
 
 Tlie agents of a foreign ship in a P.ritish port, 
 who have pai<l foi- necosaiies supjilied to iier. or 
 who have rendered themselves liable to pay for 
 such necessaries, may sue the ship for such 
 advances as were made on her account, but not 
 for the balance of a general account against her 
 owners. J'he Underu-ritcr, 2'> L. T. 279 ; 1 Asp. 
 M.C. 127. 
 
 A liiin in England having accepted and paid 
 a bill of exchange drawn on them by the master 
 of a foreign ship at>road, to procure necessaries, 
 may sue the ship in the admiralt\- court, as for 
 
 31
 
 963 
 
 SHIPPING— XXVI. Admindiii Law and Practice. 
 
 964 
 
 iR'cesi=nvics. Tlie Onn'i. Lush. l.")4 : 8 L. T. 417. 
 X (\. infra. 
 
 A repayment of a debt due from the shi[i for 
 the sui)))!}' of necessaries docs not place the 
 person makint; such repayment in the position 
 of a person supplying the necessaries, even though 
 such repayment was required by the law of the 
 country where the supply was made, and the ship 
 could not leave the port until such repayment 
 liad been made. The Pacifje, Br. & Lush. 24S ; 
 ;5S L. J., Adm. 120 : 10 Jur."(N.S.) 1110 ; 10 L. T. 
 541 ; cf. The Flo )• de Fuiichal, infra, col. !)<;7. 
 
 A claim for money advanced to a master to 
 pay average dismissed, such advances not being 
 necessaries within 3 & 4 Vict. c. fio, s. 6. The 
 Aalfjc WiUeminu, L. K. 1 A. & E. 107. 
 
 • Liabilities of Master.] — Necessaries hav- 
 ing been supjilied to a ship in a foreign port, 
 they were jiaid for by the agents at that port, the 
 master indorsing the accounts to the agents, when 
 sent to him, with a request to them to pay, and 
 signing them. The master was accredited to the 
 agents by his owners, and the former were to 
 draw bills on the owners for the amounts 
 advanced. No money passed through the master's 
 hands. When the ship arrived in England, the 
 mortgagees took possession of her and the 
 freight : — Held, that as the master became per- 
 sonally liable for the amounts so paid, he had a 
 right to proceed in rem against the shi]3. The 
 SlaiTo Polo, 24 L. T. 804 Cl Asp. M. C. 54. 
 
 To Release Ship.] — -A master and sole 
 
 owner of a vessel put her into a shipwright's 
 dock for repair. The ship)wright repaired the 
 A'essel, and refused to allow her to leave his dock 
 until his bill for the repairs was paid for. The 
 master having no funds the plaintiff lent him 
 money to pay the shipwright's bill, and the 
 master paid the bill with the money lent : — Held, 
 that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the 
 amount of the loan in a suit for necessaries. The 
 Alhert Croshii, L. K. 2 A. & E. 37 ; 18 W. R. 410. 
 
 • To pay oiF Bondholder.] — Money ad vanceil 
 
 to the master of a foreign ship in London to pay 
 off a bondholder who had arrested the ship, is not 
 necessaries within 8 & 4 Vict. c. 65. But the per- 
 sons interested not opposing, moneys in court 
 representing proceeds of the ship were ^laid out 
 to the lender. The Henry Read, 7 W. R. 180. 
 
 A Dutch ship, on her voyage to Liverpool, was 
 driven to Stornoway. where she had to relit. 
 Merchants at Liverpool advanced 200?. for the 
 purpose, and afterwards, at Liverpool, a further 
 sum to defray port charges, and other necessary 
 ex])enses. The ship was arrested and sold in a 
 necessaries suit, under 3 & 4 Vict. c. G5, s. 8, at 
 the instance of the merchants : — Held, in the 
 absence of opjiosition by the shipowners, that the 
 200Z., as well as the further sum advanced at 
 Liverpool, could be paid out to the lenders. The 
 AJiiKi Van Singe, Swabey, 514 ; 1 L. T. 340. 
 
 An advance of money to pay off a bottomry 
 bond for which a ship is arrested, beiiig made 
 under a conti-act to pay off claims outstanding 
 on the ship, and outfit her for a new voyage, in 
 consideration of receiving brokerage and the pre- 
 paid freight for the new voyage, is not within 
 3 &; 4 Vict. c. 65, s. 6, and cannot be recovered in 
 the admiralty court. The OnyiJ, Lush, 154 ; 
 3L.T. 447, S. r. supra. 
 
 To get Master out of Gaol.] — A foreign 
 
 ship cannot be sued for money advanced to the 
 
 master to enaljlc him to come out of gaol, where 
 he was imprisoned for a debt incurred for neces- 
 saries sui)])lied to the ship. 'Tlie N. R. Gos- 
 fahrlrli, Swabey, 344 ; 4 Jur. (N.S.) 742 : 6 W. R. 
 871. 
 
 c. Iiien. 
 
 There is no maritime lien for necessaries. 
 Bu.rton v. Snee, I Ves. Sen. 154. But see Benzen 
 V. Jeffries, aliter, and cases supra, col. 929. 
 
 One who supplies necessaries has no lien upon 
 the ship. Wiiod v. TLnnilfon, H. L. 15th June, 
 1789, cited, Maclachlan on Shipping (3rd Ed.), 
 68. 
 
 One who suj^jlied necessaries to a ship for- 
 merly helil to have a lien on her. ^\'ld.son 
 V. Wrirtier, Sid. pt. 2, 161 : Farmer v. Bariett, 
 1 Term Rep. 108 : Anon., Sid. pt. 1. 453 ; Rleh 
 V. Coe, 2 Cowp. 636 ; 1 Term R. 108, n. 
 
 Or, in equity, upon her earnings, in 
 
 case of the bankruptcy of her owner. JHll, E.c 
 parte, 1 Madd. 61. 
 
 No lien for necessaries can be created by parol, 
 or by bills drawn by the master. Ilallett, Ex 
 parte, 19 Ves. 474 ; 3 V. & B. 135 ; 2 Rose, 194, 
 229. 
 
 The ship cannot be sued in admiralty for pro- 
 visions supplied to her. Nature of process against 
 the ship considered. Smith v. Tilly, 1 Keb. 708. 
 
 The jurisdiction conferred on the court of 
 admiralty by the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 
 (24 Vict. c. iO), s. 5, " over any claim for neces- 
 saries sui)plied to any ship elsewhere than in the 
 port to which the ship belongs," does not create 
 a maritime lien, nor render the ship chargeable 
 for necessaries. The Two JEllenx, Johnson v. 
 niaeh. 8 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 898 : 41 L. J., Adm. 
 83 : L. R. 4 P. C. 161 : 26 L. T. 1 ; 20 W. R. 592 ; 
 1 Asp. M. C. 208— P. 0. 
 
 The material-man has no maritime lien, his 
 right to the res as a security only arises upon his 
 instituting a suit ; any security he may thus 
 obtain is subject therefore to any then existing 
 claims ; and a registered mortgage takes pre- 
 cedence as an existing encumbrance over a claim 
 for necessaries, though supplied previously to the 
 register of the mortgage. The Pacifie, Br. & 
 Lush. 243 : 33 L. J., Adm. 120 ; 10 Jur. (N.S.) 
 1110: 10 L. T. 541. 
 
 The lien of the plaintiff" in an action in rem, 
 under s. 4 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, 
 takes effect from the moment of the arrest of the 
 ship. Whei'c, therefore, such an action was com- 
 menced against a vessel belonging to a limited 
 company, and the company, after a warrant of 
 arrest had been served, was ordered to be wound 
 up : — Held, that the official liquidator had no 
 claim to the proceeds of the vessel in the hands 
 of the court as against the plaintiff. The Cella, 
 57 L. J., Adm. 55 ; 13 P. D. 82 ; 59 L. T. 125 ; 
 36 W. R. 540 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 293— C. A. 
 
 No maritime lien attaches to a ship in respect 
 of costs or other necessaries supplied to it. The 
 Rio Tinto. Laws v. Smith, 9 App. Cas. 856 ; 50 
 L. T. 461 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 224— P. C. 
 
 Necessaries do not ab origine give a lien, but 
 oidy a statutory remedy against the ship. 'The 
 Gustaf, Lush. 506 ; 31 L. J., Adm. 207 ; 6 L. T. 
 660. 
 
 A material-man, who supplies stores and 
 materials for the equi[)ment of a British shiji. 
 having no maritime lien, cannot enforce his 
 claim against the ship in the hands of a subse- 
 quent ])urchaser, even though such purchaser 
 has notice at the time of purchase that the
 
 965 
 
 SHIPPING— XXVI. Admiralty Law and Practice. 
 
 claim is still unpaid. T/ie A/wroid, 47 L. J., 
 Adtn. 15 ; 2 P. D. 180 : 3() L. T. 448 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 418. 
 
 Court of Chancery — Jurisdiction.] — The court 
 of equity had ccmcun-ent jurisdiction with the 
 admiralty in cases of necessaries and wages, 
 creating a lien on the ship. AUpoH v. Thomas, 
 Gilbert. Eq. 227. 
 
 Proceeds of Ship sold by Court.] — Proceeds 
 of a ship sold for wages, and l>ottomry not paid 
 out to material-men. The Maithotd, 2 Hag. Adm. 
 253. See also The Xcj)fi(ii(', supra, col. 'JOU. 
 
 d. Foreig-n Ships. 
 
 Ship Colonial built and owned.] — A vessel 
 built and registered at New Brunswick and 
 owned in Nova Scotia : — Held, not to be a 
 foreign ship or sea-going vessel, within 3 & 4 
 Vict. c. Go, s. (>. The Ocean Queen, 1 W. Rob. 457. 
 
 Transfer to British Owner.] — A claim for 
 necessaries sup[)lied to a foreign ship may be 
 enforced by jn-oceedings in rem under 3 & 4 Vict, 
 c. 65, s. 6, notwithstanding a subsequent and 
 Vjona fide transfer to a British owner, and this 
 remedy is not taken away by 24 & 25 Vict. c. 10, 
 s. 5, though the British owner is domiciled in 
 Entrland at the time of the institution of the 
 cause. The Ella A. Clarh, Br. & Lush. 32 ; 32 
 L. .J.. Adm. 211 ; i) Jur. (n.s.) 312 : 8 L. T. 119 ; 
 1 1 W. Pt. 524. 
 
 The 24 k, 25 Vict. c. 10, s. 5, does not apply to 
 ships foreign owned at the time when the neces- 
 saries wore furnished. Ih. 
 
 A vessel foreign owned at the time when 
 necessaries arc supplied to her, cannot, by a 
 subsequent sale, change her legal position so as 
 to deprive the person supplying the necessaries 
 of the remedies given bv 3 & 4 Vict. c. fio. s. 6. 
 The Prineex.s Ch'i rhilte, 33 L. J.. A<hn. bSS.' 
 
 Supplied in Foreign Port.] — The court of 
 admiralty has no jurisdictioii. either under 3 i: 4 
 Vict. c. 05. or under 24 k. 25 Vict. c. 10, to enter- 
 tain a claim for repairs done, and necessaries 
 supplied, to a foreign shi]) in a foreign port. 
 The Iiulhi, 32 L. J.. Adm. 185 ; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 41 7 ; 
 9 L. T. 231 : 1 1 W. it. 53(;. Overruled by Th<- 
 Meeea, infra. 
 
 Articles supplied for the equipment of a vessel 
 building in a ffu'cign dockyai'd iire not neces- 
 saries within tlie meaning of 3 &; 4 Vict. c. 05, 
 s. «;. The Oeean, 2 W. Hob. 308 ; 9 Jur. 381. 
 
 Supplied in Colonial Ports.] — The court 
 
 has jurisdiction to <iii(itain a claim against 
 a foreign ship to recovei- payments made to 
 enable the master of tli(( ship to supply her with 
 necessaiies while IviiiL' in a I'riti^li (•(ilmiial )M>rt. 
 The Anna, 40 I>. .'l., Ailin. 15 : ] I'. I). 25:i : 31 
 L. T. 895— (j. A. 
 
 The admiralty division of tiie high coui't has 
 jurisdiction to entertain an action brouglit for 
 necessaries supplied to a foreign siiip in a liritish 
 colonial port. Ih. 
 
 The master of a foreign vessel lying in the 
 jiort of Quebei;. being without funds oi- credit, by 
 means of a bill j)f excliange drawn upon a firm 
 of shipbrokers in London, procured the advance 
 of a sum of money for necessaries for the ship. 
 The bill was acceptetl and paid, but the accep- 
 tors, not having received the amount of the bill 
 from the shipowners, instituted an action against 
 
 966 
 
 the ship for tlie amount of the bill : — Held, that 
 the court of admiralty had jurisdiction to 
 entertain the action. Ih. 
 
 An American ship, supplied with necessaries 
 at the Cape of Good Hope by an English firm 
 having an establishment thei-e, on her arrival in 
 the port of London, was arrested at the suit of 
 the merchant who supplied the necessaries, and. 
 with the consent of the owner, sold. Payment 
 to him out of the proceeds was opposed by the 
 mortgagees of the vessel; but the court 'held 
 that it had jurisdiction on a claim for necessaries 
 supplied to a foreign vessel in the colonial as 
 well as in British ports, and decreed payment 
 accordingly. The Wataga, Swabey, 165 ; ,5 W. R. 
 155. 
 
 Supplied to Foreign Vessel in English 
 
 Port.] — The statute 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65, s. 6, does 
 not give a maritime lien in respect of necessaries 
 supplied to a foreign ship in an English port. 
 The IleJnrich Bjiirn, Xuvfhcofe v. Ileinrieh, 
 Bjiirn {Owners'), 55 L. J., Adm. 80 ; 11 Apj). Cas. 
 270 ; 55 L. T. 66 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 1— H. L. (E.) 
 
 The plaintiffs advanced to the i)art-owner of 
 a foreign ship, then at Liverpool, money for 
 necessaries for the ship. The part-owner having 
 sold his interest in the ship to the defendants, 
 the idaintiffs brought an action in rem for the 
 amount of the advances : — Held, that the action 
 could not be maintained. lb. 
 
 Supplied in Foreign Port — ' ' High Seas." ] 
 
 — An action in rem may lie maintained against 
 a foreign ship, if found in this country, in respect 
 of necessaries supjjlied to such ship in a foreign 
 port (not being the port to which the ship 
 belongs), whether or not such foreign port be 
 on the high seas. The India, supra, col. 965, 
 overruled. As to what constitutes a place "on 
 the high seas." quicre. The Meeea, 64 L. J., 
 Adm. 40 : [1895] P. 95 : 11 R. 742 : 71 L. T. 711 ; 
 43 W. R. 209 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 529— C. A. 
 
 /Owners domiciled in England or Wales — 
 ^Meaning of Term.] — The term ••doiuiciled," in 
 24 I.V: 25 Vict. c. 10, s. 5, is used in its known 
 legal sense ; and an action for necessaries will 
 not lie against a ship, the owner of which is 
 tem])orarilv absent from this countrv. Tlie 
 Paeifie, Br". .V; Lush. 243 : 33 L. J., Adm."l20 ; 10 
 Jur. (N.S.) 1110 ; 10 L. T. 541. 
 
 County Court.] — When a suit is insti- 
 tuted in a county court, undei- 31 & 32 Vict. c. 71, 
 s. 3, for necessaries su[>plicd to a ship, the objec- 
 tion that the owner or iiart-owner ot the ship is 
 domiciled in England or Wales nuist Ije taken 
 before judgment is jjronounced. .tfiehnel, lie 
 parte, 41 L. .1., Q. B. 349 ; L. R. 7 Q. 15. ()58 ; 
 26 L. T. S71 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 337. 
 
 When the objection is taken for the first time 
 after judgment has hern ]ii-onoiin('cd, .n ]U'ohil)i- 
 tion will not br gi-anicd. ///. 
 
 Agent of Foreign Ship on the Spot ready to 
 supply Necessaries. ] — Senihlc, an ;iction will not 
 lie against a for<Mgn ship I'or 7iecessaries. under 
 3 it 4 Vict. c. 65, although there is an agent of 
 the owner upon the spot ready to sup|)ly the 
 jKJcessary funds. The Helena Soph ia, 3 W. Rob. 
 265. 
 
 The lend(;r of money to buy necessaries has 
 the same right against the ship as a material- 
 niaii. I hid. 
 
 31—2
 
 967 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiralfi/ Law and Practkr. 
 
 968 
 
 e. Priorities. 
 
 Between Necessaries Men, j — Amontist several 
 elainiaiits fur iieeessaries. he whu first established 
 his ehuin lias preeedenee. y/ic (^uccn, H) L. T. 
 705. 
 
 Where one only of several plaintiffs in different 
 causes of neeessaries has obtained a decree of the 
 court, he is entitled to be paid in priority ; the 
 others, being in i)ari conditione, share ratably. 
 The WilJiaiii F. Siifford. Lush. 69 ; 29 L. J., 
 Adm. 109 : 2 L. T. :K)1. 
 
 Plaintiff in possession of a ship, arrested for 
 necessaries, under first decree ; subsequent 
 arrests by other claimants for necessaries; pro- 
 ceeds of sale of ship insufficient ; pro rata pay- 
 ment orderetl. 'f/ic Dr.sdciinn/n, Swabej^ 158. 
 
 Ship sold and Proceeds brought into Court — 
 Order and Distribution of Fund.] — Where a ship 
 has been sold and the i)roceeds paid into 
 court, claims for necessaries, in respect of which 
 actions have been brought, take priority inter se, 
 neither according to priority of writ nor of 
 judgment, but the fund is to be distributed pro 
 rata as between the persons who assert their 
 claims before an unconditional decree is pro- 
 nounced. TIic Afrirtnio, ()3 L. J., Adm. 125 : 
 [1894] P. 141 ; 6 R. 767 ; 70 L. T. 2.50; 12 
 W. E. 113 : 7 Asp. M. C. 127. 
 
 Even if the decree in an action for necessaries 
 were in any instance made in unconditional 
 terms, it would appear that, so long as the fund 
 remains in court, the decree could and should be 
 modified so as to let in other persons who with- 
 out laches put forth claims of a like character. 
 Ih. 
 
 QuiBre, whether, when, as in the present case, 
 a judgment has been obtained in the county 
 court, and the action is subsequently transferred 
 to the high court, such a judgment gives any 
 priority. lb. 
 
 Mortgagee.] — A claim by the plaintiff in an 
 action for necessaries brought under s. 1 (or, 
 semble. under s. 5) of the Admiralty Court Act, 
 1861, even though it includes wages paid to the 
 ship's crew at the request of the owner, is not 
 entitled to precedence of a mortgagee's claim. 
 Semble, precedence might have been gained by 
 obtaining prior permission from the court to 
 make the payment. The Lyons, 57 L. T. 818 ; 
 6 Asp. M. C. 199. And see IX. Mortgage, 
 ante. cols. 189. se(i. 
 
 Advance of Freight to enable Master to Pay 
 Disbursements.] — An advance of freight to 
 enalile a master to pay his ship's disbursements 
 before sailing does not give the charterer a claim 
 against the shij) which will take precedence of 
 t iie claim of a mortgagee ; nor does an advance 
 for a similar purpose made by an insurance 
 company. The Tuyliani, 32 L. T. 841 ; 2 Asp. 
 H. C. 603. 
 
 Necessaries Lien ranks after Bottomry.] — Sec 
 
 The Wi] Via III F. Sii.jjnrd. supra. _ . 
 
 A claim against a shi[) for necessaries supplied, 
 when made.not by the person who actually sup- 
 l)lies them, but by the broker who procured them 
 to be supplied, and paid for them on account of 
 the ship, does not take jirecedence of a claim 
 under a bottomry bond. The Flar de Fuiieluil, 
 35 L. J.. Adm. 119 : 13 W. U. lOUO. 
 
 Ship Agent postponed to Shipwright.] — A 
 
 ship's agent was a])pointed by the master on his 
 arrival at Bristol. He had no previous know- 
 ledge of either master or owner, but made no 
 inquiries as to how he was to be repaid his 
 advances for necessaries. He allowed the vessel 
 to be placed in the hands of a shipwright to be 
 repaired, and when her value was by this means 
 increased, caused her to be arrested : — Held, that 
 he was not entitled to be paid his claim in pri- 
 ority to the shipwright. Tlie Panthea. 25 I,. T. 
 983; 1 Asp. M. C. 13\ 
 
 Shipwright's Lien.] — A foreign ship in a 
 builder's yaid at Grimsby was arrested for neces- 
 saries. It appearing that the claim was for an 
 amount exceeding her value, an order was made 
 for her sale, without prejudice to the builder's 
 right to claim against the proceeds. The Nordst- 
 jerne/i, Swabey. 260. 
 
 Time of Attachment of Claim.] — The lien of 
 the plaintiff in an action in rem, under s. 4 of 
 the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, takes effect from 
 the moment of the arrest of the ship. Where, 
 therefore, such an action was commenced against 
 a vessel belonging to a limited company, and the 
 company, after a warrant of arrest had been 
 served, was ordered to be wound up : — Held, that 
 the official liquidator had no claim to the pro- 
 ceeds of the vessel in the hands of the court as 
 against the plaintiff. The Cella, 57 L. J., Adm. 
 55 ; 13 P. D. S2 : 59 L. T. 125 ; 36 VV. R. 540 : 
 6 Asp. M. C. 293— C. A. 
 
 20. P>REACH OF Contract -. Damage to 
 Cargo. 
 
 24 Vict. c. 10, s. 6— Breach of Contract by Part 
 Owner.] — Semble, that the court of admiralty 
 has jurisdiction to proceed in rem against a ship 
 for breach of contract within the above act, 
 although that breach is committed by one of the 
 part owners of the ship only (the master), and 
 for which the other part owners would not be 
 responsible. Tin- EiniJieii Miir'ie, 44 L. J.. Adm. 
 9 ; 32 L. T. 435 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 514. 
 
 Master Refusing to Sail to Loading 
 
 Port.] — A sliip was chartered to proceed to a 
 port abroad and there take in cargo. The char- 
 terers instituted a suit against the ship, and in 
 their petition alleged that the master of the ship 
 improperly refused to proceed with the ship to 
 the agreed port of loading, and proceeded with 
 her to another port : — Held, that such conduct 
 on the part of the master did not constitute a 
 breach of duty or breach of contract within the 
 above act, and that the court had no jurisdiction 
 to entertain any claim for damages arising there- 
 from. The Bannehrug, 44 L. J.. Adin. 21 ; L. E. 
 4 Adm. 386 ; 31 L. T. 759 ; 23 W. R. 419 ; 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 452. 
 
 • — — Contract referred to— Bill of Lading.] — 
 
 The general words of the Admiralty Court Act, 
 1861, s. 6, "any claim . . . for any breach of 
 contract on the part of the owner, kc. of the 
 ship," have relation to the contract in the bill of 
 lading. The Piere Siij)erii)re, Bapneto v. WijUie. 
 43 L.^J., Adm. 20 : L. R. 5 P. C. 482 : 30 J.. T. 
 887 ; 22 W. R. 777 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 319. 
 
 Breach of Duty — Improper Abandonment. ] 
 
 — A petition allegett that a master who was also 
 the owner of the vessel had wilfully, inipro}ierly
 
 969 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiraltij Law and Practice. 
 
 and fraudulently injured and abandoned her on 
 the high seas. She was subsequently taken into 
 port by salvors, antl the ownei-s of cargo were 
 compelled to pay salvage to get possession of 
 their cargo, and its deliverj' was consequently 
 delayed. The master and vessel were both 
 foreign : — Held, that the allegation '• fraudu- 
 lently " might be struck out of the petition ; 
 that the court had jurisdiction over the cause ; 
 and that the owneis of the cargo might sue the 
 ship in the admiralty court for the constructive 
 damage. The Princess Royal, 39 L. J., Adm. 43 : 
 L. R. 3 A. & E. 41 ; 22 L. T. 39. 
 
 Stoppage in Transitu— Refusal to Deliver.] 
 
 — Uiiou a veiidiir asserting: liis right to stop in 
 transitu, the master, unless awareof some legal 
 defeasance of such right, is bound to deliver the 
 goods to him, and his refusal to deliver con- 
 stitutes a breach of duty for which the ship will 
 be liable. The Tig reus, ^Bv. & Lush. 3S : 32 L. J., 
 Adm. 97 : 9 Jur. (X.s.) 361 : 8 L. T. 117 : 11 
 W, K. 538. 
 
 With respect to Protest.] — But the 
 
 omission by the master of certain particulars 
 in his protest is not a breach of duty or contract i 
 on the part of the shipowner or his servants, so 
 as to give the owner of the damaged goods a 
 right of action, even if such omission has been 
 made from improper motives. The Santa Anna. 
 32 L. J., Adm. 198. 
 
 Collision —Damage to Cargo.] — Under 24 Vict. 
 I-'. ]o. >. 7. the admiralty division has no juris- 
 • liction to entertain an action in rem by the 
 (jwners of cai-go against the vessel on which it 
 was laden for damage done to sucli cargo. The 
 Victoria. .")(> L. J., Adm. 75 : 12 P. D. 10.5 ; 56 
 L. T. 499 ; 35 W. II. 291 ; 6 Asp. il. C. 120. 
 
 Carriage into English Port.]— The admiralty 
 court lias jurisrUi-tioii under 24 \ict. c. lU, s. 7. 
 in case of slioit deli\ery of cai-go to be carried 
 into an English port, although the goods are not 
 in fact so carried into port. The iJaiiziq, Br. & 
 Lush. 102 ; 32 L. J., A(hn. 164 ; 9 L. T. 236. 
 
 A ship under charter to proceetl to certain 
 ports in P^nglaiid for orders to tlischarge at a 
 jiort in England or on the continent, entered 
 Fahnoutli with iier cargo for oidcrs, and was 
 ordered to discliarge at Bremen, wliere she did 
 tlischarge her cargo. Slie then sailed for Cardiff, 
 wliere slie was anestcd by process of the ad- 
 miralty court : — Held, that inasmuch as the 
 cargo was deliverable at a port in England, and 
 as the ship with her cargo liad entered such a 
 port for orders, the car.L'o had Ijcen '-carried into 
 a port" in Knghin<l within the meaning of the 
 ab<ive section. The Pine Siiperiarr, supra. 
 
 The court has juris<liction oidy wliere the 
 breach of (;oiitract complained of lias been com- 
 mitted by the ship which actually brings tlie 
 goofls into a port in England and" Wales. The 
 JroHsidex, Lush. 4.58; 31 L. J., Adm. 129; 6 
 L. T. 59. 
 
 Wliere, therefore, a part of goods shipped on 
 board vessel "A." was lost, and the remainder 
 was transliippeii an<l brmiglit into an English 
 port on board vessel " B."' : — Held, that no juris- 
 <liction was given to it to arrest •• !!." to satisfv 
 the owner of the gooils lost. J h. 
 
 But the court of admiralty has jurisdiction 
 over a claim for short delivery of cargo as per 
 bill of lading in a British })ort, though the goods 
 not delivered were not in fact carried into port. 
 
 970 
 
 TheDanziq, Br. & Lush. 112 : 32 L. J.. Adm. 164 ; 
 9 L. T. 236. 
 
 A foreign vessel was chartered to carry coals 
 on the charterer's account to a foreign port, and 
 bring home to England a return cargo of timber ; 
 the charterers sued the ship clainnng damages 
 for nondelivery of certain coaLs on the outward 
 voyage and for the improper delivery of the 
 timber on the return voyage : — Hekl. that they 
 were not entitled to sue in respect of the non- 
 delivery of the coals abroad, as the 24 k. 25 Vict. 
 c. 10, s. 6, did not give the court of admiralty 
 such jurisdiction. The Xasan, Br. & Lush, l'; 
 32 L. J., Adm. 97 ; 9 Jur. (n.s.) 234. 
 
 To a claim for damage to goods imported, 
 instituted luider the above provision, a claim of 
 set-off for freight due under the bills of lading 
 wiU not be allowed. The Bun Franciu-o, Lush. 
 468 ; 31 L. J., Adm. 14 ; 5 L. T. 460. 
 
 The words "goods carried into any port in 
 England," in 24 & 25 Viet. c. 10. s. 6, do not 
 mean goods imported into England exclusively. 
 The Bahiii, Br. i: Lush. 61. 
 
 When, therefore, the master of a foreign ship 
 having a cargo consigned from New York to 
 Dunkirk, in France, put into Ramsgate and 
 landed the cargo, and refuseil either to carrj- it 
 on to Dunkirk or to give delivery to the owners 
 at Ramsgate : — Held, that for such breach of 
 duty by the master the ship could be sued in the 
 Admiralty Court. It). 
 
 I No Lien.]— The Admiralty Court Act, 1861, 
 I s. 6, does not confer a maritime lien. It only 
 ; gives to tlie court of admiralty jurisdiction to 
 
 entertain a suit either in i)ersonam or in rem by 
 j arrest of the ship wlienever it comes within reach 
 [ of process. The arrest cannot avail against any 
 
 valid charge on the ship, nor against a bona fide 
 
 purchaser. The Cclla, ante, col. 968. S. P., 
 
 The Piere Superiore. stipra. 
 
 Who may Sue.]— An indorsee of a bill of lading 
 
 I may sue for damage to caruo under the liills of 
 
 ; Lading Act, 1856 (18 A: 19 Vict. c. Ill), and in 
 
 I the case of a foreign shii), take proceedings in 
 
 rem under the Admiralty Court Act, 186i (24 
 
 I Vict. c. 10), although at the institution of the 
 
 suit he has sold the caitro. The Marathon, 40 
 
 L. T. 163: 4 Asp. M. C. 7.5. 
 
 ^ Where the plaintiffs in an action for damage to 
 
 ' cargo had indorsed their l)ills of lading to a liank 
 
 to secure advances : — Held, tliat they retained 
 
 an interest in the cargo sufficient to enable them 
 
 to maintain their suit, the money recovered to be 
 
 for the benefit of the paities shewn to beentitled 
 
 thereto. The (rlainonianxhire. 13 App. Cas. 454 ; 
 
 .59 L. T. 572 ; 6 .\sp. ^1. ('. 314— P. C. 
 
 Interpleader.] — Where proeeedings in ad- 
 miralty have been taken against a ship by two 
 persons (•laiming to be owners of cargo, for breach 
 of duty by the master in not delivcTing the cargo : 
 — Seiiible, inter[)leader will not lie because the 
 suit is against the ship and not airainst the 
 1 master. Sahlicich v. Pi/.s-.s-,//. L. R. L' E<|. 441 ; 
 14 W. R. 913. 
 
 Damages referred to Registrar.] — In cases 
 bioughi un.ler 24 iS: 25 Vict. c. Id. s. 6, the 
 damages will be referreil to the registrar and 
 merchants, with instructions to follow the rules 
 of the courts of common law as to the measui'c 
 of damage. The ,St. Cloud, Br. ic Lush. 4 ; 8 
 L. T. 54.
 
 971 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admbrdtij Laic and Practice. 
 
 972 
 
 Shipowner residing in England.] — See Mic/iurl, 
 Ea- piirfe. ante, col. IH".!;. The Ella A. Cltirlt, 
 ante. enl. '.iC..">. 
 
 Inspection.] — See Diniirl v. J>'ii/itJ. post, col. 
 
 Limitation of Liability — Stay.1 — See The Ahw 
 
 Holme. iH.st. col. 74'.). 
 
 Preliminary Act.] — See The .Tnh n Boijnr. post, 
 col. 84o. 
 
 County Court Jurisdiction.] — See The liona, 
 aiul cases, ante. eol. ;•:!'.•. 
 
 21. Slave Trade ; J'ikacy ; Bounties. 
 
 Slave Trade.] — The treaty with Portugal as to 
 slave trade relates to seizures on the high sea and 
 not in territorial waters. The Ricardo Sehinhlt, 
 4 Moore. P. C. 121 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 268. Approved, 
 The Ontreuse. Re/j. v. Casacit, 49 L. J., P. C. 41 ; 
 ij App. Cas. 548 ; 43 L. T. 2110 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 308 
 —P. C. 
 
 Evidence suflScient to justify seizures on the 
 hig'h sea is not sufficient w hen the vessel is in 
 harbour and her papers may be examined. Ih. 
 
 A seizor may be condemned in costs and 
 damages for wrongful seizure, notwithstanding 
 the presence of suspicious articles on board. li. 
 
 In cases of joint capture of slave ships the 
 same principles applied, as nearly as may be, as 
 in cases of joint capture of a prize in war ; 
 statement of the principles. The Soeiedctde 
 Felh, 1 W. Eob. 803. 
 
 In a case of joint capture of a slave ship it is 
 not necessary that the claimant should have 
 been seen bv the prize. Br'iq, name viiltnoicit^ 
 Br. & Lush. 370. 
 
 Ship condemned for Slave Trading — Title to 
 Proceeds.] — Tlie Mdrhinna, ante, col. 'jrd. 
 
 Pirates — Bounties for Capture of.] — Bounties 
 under (i Geo. 4. c. 49, decreed for destruction of 
 pirates. Piraticdl I'roi/hs, 3 Hag. Adm. 426. 
 Vessel, name u/iJannr/i. 1 W. Rob. 461. The 
 tSe>-ha.s.sa/i Pirates, 2 W. Rob. 354. 2'he llleanoii 
 Pirates, 6 Moore, P. C. 471. 
 
 Bounties for capture of pirates by boats 
 detached from their shiyjs distributable amongst 
 the whole ship's comjjany. Tiro Piratical Gun- 
 hoats, 2 Hag. Adm. 407. 
 
 Meaning of "Piracy" — Extradition Act.] — 
 In the Exti-a<litiou Act. 6 iV 7 Vict. c. 76, 81, 
 '■ piracy '" means piracy by the law of the United 
 States, and not piracy by the law of nations. 
 In time of peace any act of dei)redation to a 
 ship is piracy : in time of war, aliter. Tirnan, 
 In re, 5 B. & S. 645. 
 
 Claim of Admiral to share Bounty.] — The pro- 
 visions of 6 Geo. 4, c. 49, as to salvage on rescue 
 from pirates are not retrospective. The claim of 
 the admiral to share as a constructive salvor 
 rejected. I'he Calijpso, 3 Hag. Adm. 209. 
 
 22. Practice. 
 
 a. Practitioners. 
 
 Proctor's Lien.] — A jn-octor has the same lien 
 for his costs as an attorney has on sums of 
 money decreed by the court to be paid. The 
 
 Aramiiit.i. Swabev, 81 ; 2 Jur. (N.S.) 310 ; 4 W.R. 
 396. 
 
 The court will give effect to a proctor's lien 
 notwithstanding a garnishee order obtained 
 against money in the registry. The Jeff Davis, 
 L. R. 2 A. .ScE. 1 : 17 L. T. 151. 
 
 Where, in a suit for master's wages, upon a 
 counter-claim for purchase-money of shares in 
 the vessel (contracted to be purchased) being set 
 up by the owner, a reference to the registrar and 
 merchants resulted in a balance being found 
 against the master : — Held, that the solicitors 
 for the master were entitled under 23 & 24 Vict, 
 c. 127, s. 28, to a charge upon such shares for 
 their costs. The Philippine, L. R. 1 A. i: E. 309 ; 
 16 L. T. 34 : 15 W. E. 462. 
 
 After payment of the amount awarded for sal- 
 vage and costs, the defendant's proctor has against 
 the property salved a lien in priority to average 
 expenses or necessaries incurred since the 
 salvage. The Suhlomsten, 3(5 L. J., Adm. 5 : 
 L. R.l A. .V; E. 293 : 15 L. T. 393 ; 15 W. R. 
 591. 
 
 A plaintiff having obtained a decree for pay- 
 ment by the defendant of a sum of money and 
 costs, he paid part of the sum to the judgment 
 creditors of the plaintiff, under the authority of 
 two garnishee orders. The plaintiff's attorneys 
 had a lien for their costs at the time the orders 
 were made, but no notice had been given to them 
 previously to the application for the oixlers, nor 
 was the existence of their lien mentioned to the 
 judge who made the orders : — Held, that the 
 defendant ought to have caused notice to be 
 given to the attorneys, or ought to have apprised 
 the judge of the existence of their lien before the 
 orders were linall}' made, and that the payment 
 under the orders was not a valid satisfaction of 
 the judgment of the court. The Leader, 37 
 L. J.'. Adm. 57 : L. R. 2 A. & E. 314 ; 18 L. T. 
 767 : 17 W. R. 61. 
 
 The freight and proceeds of sale of a shijj were 
 insufficient to pay the following claims : first, 
 solicitor's costs of successfully defending the 
 ship in the first action, for breach of contract ; 
 second, necessaries supplied before and after the 
 first suit ; third, money advanced to pay harbour 
 dues, cfcc. ; fourth, wages of master, also part 
 owner: — Held, that the solicitor's lien had 
 priority to the necessaries supplied after, but not 
 to those furnished before, the institution of the 
 first suit, and to the claim for wages, but not to 
 the claim for moneys advanced for harbour dues. 
 The Heinrieh. 41 L. J., Adm. 68 ; L. E. 3 A.& E. 
 505 ; 26 L. T. 372 ; 20 W. R. 759 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 79. 
 
 Solicitors for defendants in a salvage suit 
 against a foreign ship, who are entitled to a charge 
 upon the ship or the proceeds thereof for their 
 costs and exjjenses incurred in the preservation 
 of the property, do not take ])riority of the claim 
 of the foreign government, who, on the abandon- 
 ment of the shiji by her owners, are entitled by 
 the provisions of their code to a lien upon the 
 ship or the proceeds for the expenses of sending 
 back the ship's crew to their own countrv. The 
 Livictta. 52 L. J., Adm. 81 : 8 P. D. 209 ; 49 
 L. T. 411 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 151— C. A. 
 
 Exhibition of Proxies.] — A proctor in the 
 admiralty court is not usually recjuired to exhibit 
 a proxy, but if called upon for a proxy, he satis- 
 fies the law by stating the name of the party for 
 whom he is authorised to appear. The Euxine, 
 Harceij v. Eu,rine (^Owners), 41 L. J., Adm. 17.
 
 973 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiralty Law and Practice. 
 
 974 
 
 L. R. 4 P. C. S : 2.5 L. T. 5 It! : 20 W. R. r,01 ; 8 
 Moore, P. C. (x.s.) 189 : 1 Asp. M. C. 15.5. 
 
 In the vice-admiralty courts proctors are not 
 bound to do more than this under rule 40 of the 
 vice-admiralty rules and regulations, unless upon 
 a strict order of the court. Ih. 
 
 The pro(kiction of a proxy, purporting to be 
 duly signed and sealed, but without proof of the 
 handwriting of those who a])pear to have sub- 
 scribed the instrument, is a prima facie compli- 
 ance with an order to produce a proxy, and throws 
 the onus of disproving its authenticity on the 
 opponents. Ih. 
 
 An objection to a suit on the ground of the 
 non-production of a proxy is a preliminaiy 
 objection, to be raised on motion, and not on 
 protest, and the utmost a court can do where 
 such ]jroxies are produced is to stay proceedings 
 until further information can be obtained. Jh. 
 
 Changing Solicitors.] — A suit was instituted 
 against a vessel. an<l an appearance entered by a 
 firm of solicitors on behalf of the owner. A sum 
 of money was paid into court in lieu of bail, and 
 the solicitors thereu{)on procured the release of 
 the vessel, and incurred costs in defending the 
 suit on behalf of the owner. Whilst the suit was 
 pending, and before any sum had been paid to 
 the firm of solicitors on account of such costs, 
 another firm of solicitoi-s entered a second appear- 
 ance in the same suit on behalf of the same 
 defendant. On an application on behalf of the 
 fimi of solicitors by whom the first a|)pearance 
 had been entered, the court made an order setting 
 aside the .second appearance, and condemned the 
 defendant in the costs of the motion. TJir 
 Oncha. L. R. 4 A. k. E. 80 : 27 L. T. 032 ; 21 
 W. R. 2:^2 ; 1 Asp. M. ( '. 470. 
 
 b. Parties. 
 
 Sfc iilxo XVIII. Salv.\<;k. lit. TiiACriCE ; 
 XX. Collision. 1:i .Jurisdiction and 
 Practice, col. 840. 
 
 Parties — Joinder of Plaintiffs.] — The practice 
 which existed in tiic adinir.ilty court before the 
 judicature acts, peiinittiiig several plaintiffs to 
 sue collectively, has not bjcn affecteil oi' altered 
 by the judicature acts, or the I'ules made tlieie- 
 unilcr. ,Siiu/rf/nntifr v. /faii/i(/i/ ((i3 L. .J., Q. 15. 
 737; [1H'.)4] A. ('. lill ) .h'st'iiiguishe<l. 'J'/ii- 
 Marerluil Siirhet. ti.5 ].. .].. A.hn. 1)4 ; [bSUfi] I*. 
 2:« ; 74 L. T. 7s;» ; 1.-, W. K. 141 ; S Asp. M. (.'. 
 1.5H. 
 
 Appearance — Action in Rem.] — Wiicn a pio- 
 ceediiig in rem is instituted in the admiralty 
 court to enffirce a maritime lien, it is wliolly 
 immaterial to wlioni the n;^ Ijclfmgs. Tlie owner 
 or other person interested may intervene to 
 defend the suit. Init the couit deals witli tlie res 
 only, and it is the res and not tlie owner that 
 is liaVjlc in tin,' suit. The J/iil/i/u/ar, 2(5 L. T. 
 :W, : 1 Asp. .M. C. •_>:.2. 
 
 Appearances in Local Kegistry.]— Wlien a 
 cause in rem has been institutud in tlie LiverjKM)! 
 district registry of the court of admiralty, the 
 owners of the ship proceeled against, if i-esideiit 
 out of the limits of the Liverpool district, may 
 a])iiear in the London registry of the admiialty 
 division of the high court of justice, but tlie 
 praecipe to enter an appearance must contain a 
 recital of the institution of the cau.se in the 
 Liverpool <listrict registrj* of the court of 
 adniiraltv. shewing the title under which the 
 
 cause was entered at Liverpool. The General 
 Bireh. 83 L. T. 792 ; 24 W. R. 24 : 3 Asp. M. C. 99. 
 
 Appearance under Protest to Jurisdiction.] — 
 
 A defendant in an admiralty action desiring to 
 object to the jurisdiction of the court, may enter 
 an appearance under protest, in accordance with 
 the practice in force in the high court of admi- 
 raltv before the coming into operation of the 
 judicnture acts. Tlu- \irar, 2 P. D. 29; 35 
 L. T. 782 ; 2.5 W. R. 4.53 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 308— C. A. 
 
 A collision took place at sea, about ten miles 
 from the South Stack lighthouse, between an 
 American and a Spanish vessel. Both vessels 
 sank in consequence of the collision, and the 
 owners of the American vessel applied in the 
 I'cgistry for leave to issue a writ for service out 
 of the jurisdiction In an action to recover com- 
 pen.sation for the loss of their vessel, against a 
 British 'Subject resident in Spain, who was alleged 
 to be one of the owners of the Spanish vessel. 
 The registrar having granted the necessary leave, 
 the writ was issued and service was effected on 
 the defendant in Spain. Thereupon an appear- 
 ance under protest was entered on his behalf. 
 Afterwards, on these facts being brought before 
 the judge of the admiralty court, the court 
 oi'dered the action to be dismissed : — Held, on 
 appeal, that the order was right. Ih. 
 
 An action of co-ownership was instituted on 
 behalf of a foreigner against a foreign vessel. 
 On the vessel being arrested an appearance under 
 protest was entered for another foreigner, who 
 applied that the action should be dismissed. It 
 appeared that the representative of the state to 
 which tlie ship belonged declined to interfere, 
 and the court dismissed the action with costs. 
 The Af/huviirt, 47 L. J., Adm. 37 ; 2 P. D. 239. 
 
 Semble, the practice of the court of admiralty 
 with regard to ])leadings on protest is still in 
 force in admiralty actions in the high court of 
 justice. The Ecfinfielixtrld, 40 L. .J., Adm. 1 ; 
 35 L. T. 410 ; 25 W."R. 255 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 264. 
 
 Petitions on Protest.] — When a petition on 
 protest is tilcil on the ground of want of jurisdic- 
 tion, before the i)laintitt"s petition settin? forth 
 the jiarticulars of his dania.ge. the [letition on 
 pi'Otest ou.ght to state the facts which sliew want 
 of jurisdiction. Tlie Pierr Sitperiare. Dapurto 
 v. Wyllie. 13 L. .1.. Adm. L'O : L. R. 2 P. C. 4S2; 
 30 L. T. 887 ; 22 W. R. 777 ; 2 A<p. .M. ('. 319— 
 P. C. 
 
 Eifect of Appearance — Jurisdiction.] — Sub- 
 stantive object ions to the jtirisdict i ■titertained 
 
 after aljsoliile appeaiaiice. lite hhi. Liisii. ti ; 1 
 L. T. 417. 
 
 An absolute ai)i)earance once given cannot be 
 recalled. The JUtiheneif, Swabey, 428 ; 5 .lur. 
 (N..S.)418. 
 
 l"'ormal ol^jections to jmi.sdictioii not allowed 
 to be taken after an absolute aitiiearance .given. 
 The liilhiio. Lush. 149; :; L. T. 33H. 
 
 Where the court has no jurisdiction, the defen- 
 dant is nut prejudiced in his claim f ir damages 
 by havinu' appeared al)soliitelv. The Eleanoer, 
 iff. \ I>nsli. 1.S5 : 3:'. L. .1.. Adii'i. 19 : 9 !.. T. 397 ; 
 12 \V. i;. 2 IS. S. v.. The Km pi re (,)iiee,i, 3 ir. 
 IV|. i;. 71. 
 
 All objection to the juri.sdiction may be taken 
 at anv time during the progress of the cause. 
 The .if,/,;/ Ainie. wi L. J.. Adm. 73; 12 L. T. 238. 
 
 Cross Actions.] — Where on a collision 
 
 between an English and a forei.gii vessel cross
 
 975 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiralty Lair and Practice. 
 
 976 
 
 actions were brou.uht by the owners of tlie two 
 vessels, and in tlie action by the Knglish vessel 
 the t'oii'ign vessel did not ]iut in an apitearance : 
 — ileld. that the court could not stay the action 
 brought by the foreitrn vessel until she had 
 entered an a]H)earanec in the action a.sainst her. 
 T/ir J/r/irt of (hi/;. 2i) L. J.. Adm. 78. The Mono. 
 39 L. T. r.41i': 4 Asp. M. C. 94. 
 
 Appearance in Default Actions.] — !^cr 
 Ji. Defai'LT I'koceedings, intra, eol. 987. 
 
 c. Writ and Appearance. 
 
 Issue and Service of Writ of Summons against 
 Foreign Owners.] — A shipsailing under a foreign 
 flag, and belonging to a foreign company estab- 
 lished abroad, came into collision with, and did 
 damage to, an English shijj on the high seas. 
 The owners of the English ship apjjlied for 
 leave to i.^sue a writ of summons, of which 
 notice should be given out of the jurisdiction, 
 claiming compensation for the damage against the 
 foi-eien companv. Leave refused. SmitJi. In re, 
 Cifi/W J/rcr/i. In n; 4.5 L. J.. Adm. 92 : 1 F. D. 
 ■M)6 : 85 L. T. 880 : 24 W. II. 1)U8 : 8 Asp. M. C. 259. 
 
 The ])hrase, "within the jurisdiction," used in 
 K, S. C, 1876, Ord. XI. r." 1, means territorial 
 jurisdiction. Ih. 
 
 The ordinary courts of this country have no 
 jurisdiction over acts done by foreigners on the 
 high seas below low-water mark : consequently, 
 Ord. XI. r. 1, does not warrant an order for the 
 service of a writ on a foreigner residing abroad, 
 in respect of a cause of action arising at sea 
 below low-water mark, though within three 
 miles of the English coast. Ilarri.s- v. Fn/tinmia 
 iOiCHerff). 46 L. J., C. P. 363; 2 C. 1'. D. 173. 
 
 The court will not exercise jurisdiction over a 
 foreign river, if the parties are foreigners and 
 the subject-matter of the action is oi doubtful 
 cognizance by the court. 'J7ie Iiln, Lush. 6 : 1 
 L.T. 417. 
 
 Writ in Admiralty Court — Claim within 
 Jurisdiction of County Court,] — When there 
 are circumstances I'cndering it advisable that 
 an action which a county court has jurisdiction 
 to try under the County Couits Admiralty Juris- 
 <liction Act, 1868, s. 3, should be connnenced in 
 the high court, such as the necessity for a com- 
 mission abroad, the court will grant leave for a 
 writ to issue under 31 & 82 Vict. c. 71, ss. 3, 9, 
 though the cause of action may be of less amount 
 than the limit of the county court jurisdiction. 
 EU'isx. (iriieral Strr/ui yiii-'iqat'iou Co., 88 L. T. 
 57U : 3 Asp. M. C. 581. 
 
 In such a case notice of the order made by the 
 court should be given when the writ is served. I h. 
 
 The court, in pursuance of the provisions of 
 81 & 32 Vict. c. 71, s. 9, will, should it think 
 tit, grant an order for instituting proceedings 
 before it, which might have been taken without 
 agreement in the county court. Tlw Bewjal, 
 L. R. 3 A. & E. 14 ; 21 L. T. 727. 
 
 Writ in Personam, Setting aside — Misdescrip- 
 tion of Party.] — A shipowner, residing and 
 carrying on business in Scotland, having been 
 described on the face of a wi'it of summons for 
 service within the jurisdiction, sued out against 
 him in an action of damage in personam, as '• of 
 the city of London," applied before .service of 
 the writ and after a cross action of damage in 
 respect of the same collision liad been instituted 
 on his behalf, that the writ should be set aside. 
 
 The court refused the motion. Tho Ilelemlea, 
 The, Cntalnnia, 51 L. J., Adm. 16 ; 7 P. D. 57 ; 
 47 L. T. 446 ; 30 AV. R. 616 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 594. 
 
 Consolidation before Service of Writ.]- See 
 S.C, infra, col. 11()2. 
 
 Election of Remedies in Rem or in Personam.] 
 
 — Where there is a remedy both in personam and 
 in rem, a person who has resorted to one of these 
 remedies may, if he does not get thereby full 
 satisfaction, resort to the other ; but if a person 
 has resorted to one of these remedies, and has 
 recovered full compensation, and such com- 
 pensation has been paid, no further proceedings 
 can be taken. Yeo v. Tateiii, The Orient, 8 
 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 74 ; 40 L. J., Adm. 29 : L. R. 
 8 P. C. 696 ; 24 L. T. 918 ; 20 W. R. 6 ; 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 108. 
 
 Writ in Rem.] — Ord. IX. r. 10, as to service of 
 writs of sunnnons in admiralty actions in rem, 
 is to be strictlv followed. 'lite Marie Constance, 
 87 L. T. 366 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 505. 
 
 Service of a writ of summons on the captain 
 on board, and nailing the warrant of arrest on 
 the mast, are not sufficient notice of a suit in rem 
 against the ship to all whom it may concern. Ih. 
 
 Amendment — Adding Parties.] — Plain- 
 tiffs commenced an action in rem under Lord 
 Campbell's Act, on the 4th January, 1884, in 
 respect of loss of life by collision at sea on the 
 10th January, 1883. After the 1 0th January, 
 1884, it having been decided in the interim that 
 the admiralty court had no jurisdiction in such 
 actions, the plaintiffs applied to add as defen- 
 dants the owners of the wrong-doing ship 
 personally : — Held, that the court had no power 
 to add parties as defendants in personam in au 
 action in rem, and that even if such power 
 existed, the proceedings against the owners 
 would be deemed to commence from the date 
 of service on them of the writ of summons, and 
 would be too late. The Uowc^pAd. 51 L. T. 128 ; 
 5 Asp. M. C. 265. 
 
 Amount claimed — Amendment after 
 
 Judgment,] — After judgment in a salvage 
 action the court allowed an amendment of the 
 indorsement on the writ by increasing the 
 amount claimed therein. Tlie Dictator, 61 
 L. J., Adm. 73 ; [1892] P. 64 ; 66 L. T. 863 ; 
 7 Asp. M. C. 175. 
 
 Service — Default Action in Rem.]^ — Where 
 the pioceeds of a vessel sokl by the court are 
 in the admiralty registry, and nt owner has 
 appeared, a vi^rit, original or amende \ must be 
 personally served on the registrar. R. S. C, 
 Ord. IX. r. 18 (1879). The Casmrpeia, 48 L. J., 
 Adm. 39: 4 P. D. 118 ; 40 L. T. 869 ; 27 W, R. 
 703 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 148. 
 
 Service out of the Jurisdiction — R. S. C, 1875, 
 
 Ord. XI. r. 1.] — In an action by a first mort- 
 gagee of a British ship and her freight against a 
 second moitgagee, claiming an account, an order 
 was made for service of the amended writ upon 
 merchants at Antwerp, claiming to retain part of 
 the cargo for a debt due from the second mort- 
 gagee. MucSfppJieii V. Can/i'i/ie, 42 L. T. 309 ; 
 4 Asp. M. C. 215. 
 
 d. Arrest. 
 
 Collision — Cargo — Arrest of.] — Cargo con- 
 signed to Handiurg was sliipped on l)oard a
 
 977 
 
 SHIPPING— XXVI. Admiraltij Lair and Practice. 
 
 978 
 
 barque which came into collision with a ship 
 off Cornwall. The barque put into Plymouth, 
 and was with her cargo arrested there, and 
 remained under arrest. The consignees of the 
 cargo declined to accept it at Ph'mouth. and the 
 barque was subsequently held to blame for the 
 collision. The court decreed a release of the 
 cargo, without costs. T/ie Flora. 3.5 L. J., Adm. 
 1.5 ; L. R. 1 A. & E. 4.5 ; 14 f,. T. 1112. 
 
 Cargo on board a ship to blame for a collision 
 can only be arrested to obtain payment of the 
 freight due to the shipowner ; and therefore, if 
 uo freight has accrued, the court will decree a 
 release of the cargo. Ih. 
 
 A vessel was arrested in a cause of collision. 
 At the time of the collision she had a cargo on 
 board ; at the time of the arrest a portion only 
 of such cargo remained on board. The vessel and 
 cargo belonged to the same owner : — Held, that 
 the freight due upon the whole cargo must be 
 paid into court, before the i)ortion on board at 
 the time of the arrest could be released. The 
 Koeelif, 38 L. J.. Adm. .5(> : L. 11. 2 A. & E. 3(53 ; 
 20 L. T. 58G ; 17 W. It. 74.5. 
 
 Freight.] — A vessel under charterpartyas 
 
 to both her outward and homeward cargo, whilst 
 on the outward voyage came into collision with 
 another vessel : — Held, that the freight for the 
 homeward voyage was liable to arrest for the 
 <lamaire. Thr Orphrns, 4() L. J., Adm. 24 : L. R. 
 3 A. k E. 308 ; 23 L. T. SSo. 
 
 If a ship is arrested for ship and freight, a 
 party shewing a prima facie right to freiglit is 
 entitled to a release of the ship on giving bail 
 for payment thereof, without bringing it into 
 court. The iriiiijdin-r. Swabey. 310. 
 
 Keceiver in Chancery — Arrest in Admi- 
 ralty.] — The court of chancery appointed 
 leceivers of a freight which was arrested in 
 admii'alty before tliey had obtained ])ossession of 
 it. Release decreed in admiraltv. The Jilonnier. 
 1 1 L. T. 4(;. 
 
 Wrongful Arrest of Cargo, ^ — \Vliere in a cause 
 of collision between two vessels, foreign owned. 
 the value of the vessel that was found .scjlely to 
 blame, and of her freight, was not sutti(;ient to 
 satisfy the damages, the court discliarged the 
 cargo from an ariest which liad l)een made on 
 the gnmnd of the deticicncy (even though the 
 owner t>f the ship was also the owner of the 
 cargo), with mtisfaction for all loss caused by 
 the detention. The Virfor. T.ush. 72 ; 21> L. .]., 
 Adm. I in : 2 I,. T. 3:(I. 
 
 Re-arrest— Allegation of Insufficiency of Bail. ] 
 — Sliij) rclr;isi;d fruiii aiirsi iip'in hail rr-aric>lri I 
 Upon suggc-lidii that the liii! was (ibjcclcd to. 
 'J'lic objection being unfounded, plaintiff con- 
 tlcmncfl in costs and <l!im;ig(!S, Thr Ciinier, 
 Kr. & Eusii, ICl : :!3 L. ,1., ,\<lm, IC, : 12 I.. T. 
 62. 
 
 In a collisif)n >uit, the .ship having been 
 released upon bail for the fidl sum claimed, she 
 cannot be re-arrested if the <iam:igcs prove to 
 exceed that sum ; nor, after .sale of the ship in 
 another .suit, can the court apply the proceeds 
 remaining in court towards .satisfying damages, 
 interest or costs in the collision suit. The ]\'ild 
 J{(i)i(/er, \',r. k Lush S4, I 
 
 Wlien a suit has been institute<l against a I 
 ve.s.sel, and bail has been given for an estimated 
 amount to cover damages and cr)sts, and the I 
 
 damages recovereil and the costs taxed are a 
 larger sum than the bail given, and there has 
 been no carelessness on the part of the plaintiffs, 
 the court will issue a writ for the re-arrest of the 
 ship to satisfj' the costs, and will direct the writ 
 to the marshal for e.x^ecution. The Freeffom, 41 
 L, J,, Adm. 1 : L. R. 3 A. & E. 41)5 : 25 L. T. 392 ; 
 1 Asp. M. C. 136. 
 
 The jurisdiction which the court undoubtedly 
 possesses, to order a second arrest in respect of 
 the same cause of action, should be cautiously 
 exercised. 'The Flora, 35 L. J., Adm. 14 ; L. li. 
 1 A. A: E. 45 ; 14 L. T. 191. 
 
 An application for such arrest should gene- 
 rally be made to the court itself, lb. 
 
 No Bail — Caveat.] — When an admiralty cause, 
 instituted in rem against a ship, has been trans- 
 fen-ed from a county court to the court of 
 admiralty, and no bail has been given in either 
 court, and the ship is already under the arrest of 
 the high court in other suits, the high court 
 will onler the issue of a caveat to prevent her 
 release, in case the other causes shoul<l be with- 
 drawn. The Ilio L'niia, 28 L. T. 775 ; 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 34. 
 
 Appeal from County Court.] — In an appeal by 
 a [)laiiititf frum a county court in a cause in rem, 
 in which tliere was a decree for the defendant, 
 and the shi]) had in conseqiience been released, 
 the court of admiralty, on an ex parte applica- 
 tion of the plaintiff ordered a warrant to issue 
 for the detention of the ship, and, as the ship pro- 
 ceeded against was a foreign one. did not require 
 notice of the intention to arrest to be given to 
 the defendant. The Fre'ir, The Albert, 44 L. J., 
 Adm. 49 ; 32 L. T. 572 : 2 Asp. M. C. 589. 
 S. 1'., The Jliriaiii, 43 L. J.. Adm. 35 ; 30 L. T. 
 537 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 259. 
 
 Companies Act, 1862 — Sequestration.] — The 
 
 arrest of a vessel ]>y the aihniralty ccuirt is a 
 sequestration within the meaning of the Com- 
 lianies Act, 18()2, s. 1(13. A ii-st niJUm D'ireet 
 Steam Xanqat'ion (\).. In re. liaher. K.v parte, 
 44 L. J., Ch.' (mC ; L. U. 20 Ivp 325. 
 
 Transfer from County Court.]— When causes of 
 necessaries and waves had been instituted against 
 a ship in tiie court of admiralty, and other 
 causes of necessaries in a county court agiunst 
 thesiune shi|), and the latter li;id l)cen transferred 
 after decree made to the couit nf admiralty for 
 the purpose of enforcing tlic decrt'es, the ship 
 being luider the arrest of that court, the latter 
 court oi'dered all the causes to be refei'red to the 
 registrar :ind merchants to I'cport the amount 
 dur tiicreoii. 'The Tiirl'ian'i. 32 !;. T. s 1 1 . 
 
 Scmble, that where a shi[) is un<lcr the arrest 
 of the couit of aihuiridty. and causes are also 
 instituted in the county court against the shijt, 
 she should not he arrested liy the coinity court, 
 as it is not jirohabk^ tJi.it tin' ship will be 
 icmo\cd out of the juiisdici ioii of tlic county 
 court without s;itisfaction of tiu' srvcrai claims, 
 within till' iMc.'ining of the ('ounty Courts 
 Admiralty .Jurisdiction Act. ISdS, s. 22". ///. 
 
 Amount Due.] — Where a shij) is arrested for a 
 specilic diniand. tlu! amount cannot be leferred 
 to till.' rcgisliar uidcss it appciiis that something 
 in any event is due. The Wext Fr'irxhtnd or 
 The Tuwidje. .Swabev. 45() ; 5 Jur. (N.S.) (158 — 
 1'. C.
 
 979 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiralty Law and Practice. 
 
 980 
 
 Warrant of Arrest — Service.] — A warrant of 
 ariTsT in an art inn in rrni was issued from the 
 city of London court directed to the high 
 linilitf. and others the bailiifs thereof, but was, 
 without aixthority from the court, served by a 
 clerk in the high bailiifs office : — Held, that this 
 was not a proper service of the warrant. Per 
 Sir James Hannen : ''Any officer" mentioned 
 in 1-51 & o2 N'ict. c. 71, s. 23, means any officer 
 duly authorised by the court. Per Butt, J. : 
 ■• That it means any officer whose ordinary duty 
 it is to serve i)rocesses, or one duly authorised so 
 to do." T/ir Pahimiirpti. :A L. J., Adm. 54 i 10 
 P. D. Sfi: 52 L. T. 57; H3 AY. R. (JlG ; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 343. 
 
 Notice — Telegram.] — When tlic marshal sends 
 by telegram to his substitute at an outport notice 
 of the issue of a warrant, and such substitute 
 communicates it to the master of the ship 
 against which it is issued, it is a contempt of 
 court to move the ship from 1 he place where it is 
 Iving. The St-rar/lio, 54 L. J., Adm. 76 : 10 P. D. 
 120 ; 52 L. T. 8fi5' ; 34 W. R. 32 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 421. 
 
 Arrest of Person.] — The jiroceeding by arrest 
 of the person in admiralty is obsolete. T/ic 
 Cliira. Swabey, 1. 
 
 Eelease — Expense caused by Delay.] — The 
 
 defendants having occasional great delay and 
 extra expense, so that the amount in which the 
 action had been entered proved insufficient to 
 cover the amount pronounced to be due to the 
 l)]aintiif, with his costs of sixit, the court ordered 
 that the ship should not be released from arrest 
 until jiayment of the iilaintiff's claim and costs 
 shoulil have been made. The Ilrlci). 14 W. E. 502. 
 
 Possessory Lien — Sailmaker.] — A saiimaker 
 with a possessory lien on the sails cannot retain 
 them against the officer of the admiralty who is 
 in possession of the ship under warrant from the 
 court. The Ilarnionk'. 1 W. Rob. 178. 
 
 Seizure by Sheriif on fieri facias.] — After 
 sentence by the admiralty in a bottomry suit, 
 and warrant to sell, the sheriif cannot seize the 
 ship upon a fieri facias. Ladhrohc v. Cr'icltett. 
 •1 Term. Rep. (Ml» : 1 R. R. 571. 
 
 SMpbelongingto Khedive of Egypt — Sovereign 
 Prince — Arrect.J — In a collision suit instituted 
 by tlie <iwi;ers. master and crew of "The 
 l>atavier " against '• The Charkieh," belonging to 
 the Khedive of Egypt, an apjiearance under 
 jirotest was entered on behalf of the khedive 
 and his minister of marine. " The Charkieh," 
 carrying the Ottoman navy tiag, had come to 
 England for repairs with a cargo on board, and 
 at the time of the collision, which was in the 
 Thames, was on her outward voyage to Alexandria 
 under charter to a British subject, and advertised 
 to carry cargo to Alexandria : — Held, that the 
 khedive was not entitled to the privilege of a 
 sovereign prince ; protest overi'uled. The Char- 
 hirh. 42 L. J.. Adm. 17: L. R. 4 A. A: E. 5!) : 
 2,S L. T. 513 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 581. 
 
 Semble, a suit in lem to enforce a damage lien 
 may be entertained though the owner of the res 
 lie a foreign sovereign. Jb. 
 
 Semble, if the sovereign assumes the character 
 of a trader, and uses the ship for trade to this 
 country, he waives the privilege which might 
 otherwise belong to the ship. lb. 
 
 Mail Packet belonging to Foreign State.] — 
 
 A ]iacket conveying mails and canying on 
 
 commerce, which belongs to the sovereign of a 
 foreign state, and is officeretl by officers com- 
 missioned by him, comes within the category of 
 vessels which are exem])t from process of law. 
 The Piirleiiicnt Belqe, 5 P. D. lt)7 : 42 L. T. 273 ; 
 28 W. R. U2 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 234— C. A. 
 
 The immunity of a ])ublic ship is not lost by 
 her being used subordinatel}^ and partially for 
 trading purposes. Ih. 
 
 Setting aside Warrant.] — Warrant to arrest 
 not set aside on allegation of agreement to refer 
 salvage claim to arbitration. L(t Par'i.^.s'iiiiK 
 ConcejJc'ion, 13 Jur. 545. 
 
 Wrongful Arrest — ^Want of Reasonable and 
 Probable Cause — Damages.] — In an admiralty 
 action in personam for the wrongful arrest of 
 a ship by admiralty process without reasonable 
 and probable cause, it is not necessary to prove 
 actual damage. The Walter D. W(dlpt, 62 
 L. J., Adm. 88 ; riS93] P. 202 ; 1 R. 627 : 6i) 
 L. T. 771 ; 7 Asp. M". C. 31)8. And see XX. Colli- 
 SIOX, ante, cols. 852, 856. 
 
 The plaintifE in an action in rem is not con- 
 demned in damages for the arrest of the property 
 unless he has been guilty of gross negligence or 
 malice. The TJ(riiie/el/x/iiti.'<, Xe/ios v. Ahlemleij, 
 12 Moore, P. C. 352 : Swabey, 378. 
 
 Damages.] — Where an arrest was made 
 
 without notice of claim, and for a sum dispro- 
 portionate to the value of the vessel and the 
 services rendered, the court awarded damages. 
 The Uleu/iore, Br. & Lush. 185 ; 33 L. J., Adm. 
 19 ; 9 L. T. 397 ; 12 W. R. 218. And see ante, 
 col. 856. 
 
 Where it appeared upon affidavits that the 
 plaintiffs were mistaken as to the identity of the 
 vessel proceeded against, and the defendants 
 offered to disclose the real wrongdoer, the court 
 refused to accede to an application to extend the 
 security to be given by the i)laintiffs to meet the 
 costs, if unsuccessful, so as to cover the damages 
 caused by the wrongful arrest. The Peri, 32 
 L. J., Adm. 46 : 8 Jur. (N.s.) 1230 : 11 W. R. 44. 
 
 Xo claim for demurrage or detention of a ship 
 under warrant of arrest issued by the unsuc- 
 cessful promoters of a salvage suit can be 
 allowed in the absence of mala fides or malicious 
 negligence. The Stniflnidrer, 1 App. Cas. 58 ; 
 34'l. T. 148 : 3 Asj). M. C. 113— P. C. 
 
 Damages given for wrongful arrest and deten- 
 tion of a ship by a plaintiff in a collision action, 
 the detention being in order that he might con- 
 sider whether he would appeal. The Cheshire 
 Witeh, Br. & Lush. 362 : 11 L. T. 350. 
 
 Problematical Earnings.] — A vessel was 
 
 wrongly arrested as a slaver, and 20,000/. dam- 
 ages claimed for wrongful arrest, mainly in 
 respect of possible earnings she might have 
 made : — Held, that damages were not recoverable 
 in resijcct of possible but problematical earnings. 
 The Leri II Linil;. Swabey, 45. 
 
 Wrongful Arrest of Cargo.] — Sec The Tirtur, 
 sujira, col. 977. 
 
 Ship's Gear lost by Marshal.] — Decree against 
 the marshal for a long boat and cable lost from 
 a ship in his possession. The Hooj), 4 C. Rob. 
 145 : cited. 6 C. Rob. 157. 
 
 Arrest in High Court and also in County Court 
 ■ — Possession Fees. — When an admiralty suit is 
 instituted in a county court against a vessel
 
 981 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admimltrj Laic and Practice. 
 
 982 
 
 .which is under the arrest of the court of 
 admiralty, it is unnecessary, so long as the 
 vessel remains under such arrest, for the officer 
 of the countj' court to incur expense in placing 
 a person in possession, and a double set of 
 possession fees will not be allowed. T/tc Rio 
 Lima, 43 L. J.. Adm. 4 ; L. R. 4 A. & E. 157 : 
 29 L. T. 517 ; 22 W. R. 303 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 143. 
 
 Arrest at Out-Port.] — "Where a vessel is arrested 
 in an out purt. and not by the marshal of the 
 court, the detention fees are to be paid by the 
 aiTesting party, though successful in the cause. 
 The Xorth Auirvicmt. SwabcA-, 466 : 2 Asp. M. C. 
 589. 
 
 Co-ownership — Accounts.] — "Wliere a ship is 
 arrested on a specitic demand before a reference 
 of accounts to the registrar and merchants can 
 be made, it must be shewTi to the court that 
 something is due, although the actual amount 
 may be the proper subject of inquiry. The 
 practice differs from a reference by a court of 
 equity on an unsettled account, where the court 
 directs an account to be taken, leaving it to be 
 shewn by the result on which side the balance 
 lies. The Twentje. Vnn Hax.ielf v. Such, 13 
 Moore, P. C. 18.5:' 2 L. T. 613: S W. R. 423. 
 Revei-sing ."i .lur. (x.s.) (J.')S. 
 
 Mortgagee intervening— Right to Release of 
 Ship.] — See The Enxtrm BpUc. ante. cnl. loS. 
 
 Material — Man — Lien — Arrest of Ship.] — See 
 The Acacia, ante, col. 'l'.\. 
 
 Action of Restraint— Arrest of Ship.] — SV 
 ante. cols. .J2. seq., and int'ia. cols. '.)53, se \. 
 
 e. Breaking- Arrest. 
 
 Attachment — Against Harbour - Master.] — 
 Attachiiient airainst a harhonr-nia.-tur I'ur carry- 
 ing off gear from a ship under arie>t. in order to 
 pay harbour dues. The Jlarmonle, 1 W. Rob. 179. 
 
 Against Master.]— Attachment against a 
 
 master, pair owner, who took the ship to .Jer.sey 
 whilst under ai ;c.-.t. The Petrel. 3 Hag. Adm. 299. 
 
 Atiachment against the master for contempt 
 in taking the ship out of i)osse.ssioii of the officer 
 of the court. The Bure, 14 .lur. 1 12.'!. 
 
 Against Marshal of Queen's Bench Prison. ] 
 
 — Attachment addressed to the iii;ii>hal of tlie 
 queen's bench prison iield valid. The I'liim. 2 
 \V. l{oh. 31.-,. 
 
 Power to Supersede Attachment.]— Tiie admi- 
 ralty court had no power to supei'sede an attach- I 
 ineiit issued in aiil of a decree, except wliere it I 
 was wroii'.dy exeented J/i. 
 
 Attachment or Monition to shew Cause.] — 
 Contempt in breaking arrest of go(Mls. Monition 
 to shew cause wliy attachment fhouM not issue, 
 and not attaciimeiit in the first iiislan<-e. Ship 
 inihiiiiirii. 1 f. Rob. 331. 
 
 Rescue of Ship arrested — Admiralty Jurisdic- 
 diction. — i onu-anee of lexiie on l;ind of a siiip 
 properly arrested liy the arlmiralty iM'longs to tlic 
 admiralty. It'uiilen \ . Ilrdijex. I l,d. llavTn. 4 46 ; 
 12 M()<1. 246. 
 
 f. Bail. 
 
 Possession Suit.] — In suits for i.osscssion the 
 court of admiralty can take bail. The JCniii- 
 iielixtrhi. 46 L. .).". A<hn. 1 : 3.". L. T. 41il : 2:^ 
 \V. K. 2.V. : 3 A.sp. M. C. 264. 
 
 Conditional— Offer by Mortgagee refused.] 
 
 — A mortgagee, although entitled to intervene in 
 a cause in rem for equiiJinent and repair, is not 
 entitled to claim a release of the vessel upon 
 giving bail conditioned to pay the claim of the 
 material men, in the event of its being held to 
 have priority over the mortsrage. Tlie Aeaela, 
 42 L. T. 264 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 2.54. 
 
 Discharge of.] — Bail given to answer 
 
 judgment in a cause where the appearance is 
 under protest will not be discharged on account 
 of a change in the indorsement on the writ of 
 summons, which renders the protest of no avail. 
 The Cltij of Meee,,. 5U L. J.. Adm. 53 : 6 P. D. 
 106 ; 44 L. T. 750 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 412— C. A. 
 
 By whom given.] — A ship's husband antl 
 
 managing owner cau.sed a Ijail bond to be given 
 in the admiralty court, in the names of his 
 co-owner and himself, in a suit for acoUi.sion, and 
 the suit terminated in favour of the plaintiffs, 
 and the bail were called upon to pay damages, 
 interest and costs : — Held, that the co-owner was 
 responsible to the bail for the money so paid. 
 Burlier v. Hlqhleij. 15 C. B. (n.S.) 27 ; 32 L. J., 
 C. P. 270 ; id Jur. (X.s.) 391 : 9 L. T. 228 : 11 
 W. R. 968. 
 
 Where the interests arc distinct, separate bails 
 should be given. Tlie Rui/iil Areh, Swabey, 269 ; 
 6 W. R. 191. 
 
 Sureties to a bail bond nuist not ])e partners. 
 The Corner. Br. cV: Ln>h. 161 ; a3 L. J.. Adm. 16 : 
 12 L. T. 62. 
 
 Objection to Sufficiency.] — A vessel re- 
 leased fre'm arrest upon a liail bond taken before a 
 commissioner in the countrj^ and signed by two 
 persons in partnership, ordered to be re-arrested, 
 notwithstanding the twenty-four hours' notice of 
 the bail tendered had been given to thei)laintiff's 
 agent in London, the plaintiff's solicitor in the 
 country having within that time given to the 
 defendant's solicitors formal notice of objection 
 to the bail. 11). 
 
 The objection to the bail having proved to be 
 unfounded, the plaintiff was condemned in costs 
 and damages. ///. 
 
 Amount.] — 'I'he bail is only liable to the 
 
 extent of the value of the ship and freight, and 
 not for the full amount of the damage done, even 
 though bail may have been given for a sum 
 l)eyond tlic value of the slii)) and freight. The 
 Jhiehe.sxe lie Unihint. Swaljcy. 26.4 ; 6 W. R. 329. 
 
 Reducing.] — Where, in an action against 
 
 the ship, bail was given for the amount claimed, 
 and a great proportion of this claim was not 
 recoverable, the court orderecl the bail to bo 
 rciluced to an amount sufficient to cover the rest 
 of the (;laim and costs. The Chieffdin, Br. A: 
 Lush, lol : \V> L. .I...\,lni. lod: 9 .lur. (X.s.) 388 ; 
 8 L. T. 12(1 : 11 \V. It. .-.37. 
 
 Enlarging.] — .\n appellant will not be 
 
 required t(. eid.'irge any security wiiieli he gave 
 as defendant in the court of admiralty to answer 
 judgment and costs in that court notwithstaniling 
 such security has ]iroved insufficient for that 
 purpose. The Jlelene, infra. 
 
 Caveat Release.] — Where a caveat release 
 
 is entered, and groundless (.bjectioiis are taken 
 to the suflieienev of l.ail. the party entering the 
 caveat will be condemned in dam.'igcs and costs. 
 The Jhin llie.nilo. 49 L. .1.. Adm. 28 : 5 1". 1). 121 ; 
 12 L. T. 32 : 2H \V. I!. 131 : 4 Asp. M. V.. 225.
 
 983 
 
 SHIPPING— XXVI. Admiralti/ Law and Practice. 
 
 984 
 
 The omission of the plaintiff's comitiy solicitor 
 to order by electric telegraph a caveat release to 
 be entereil <loes not amount to negligence. The 
 ( 'orncv, supra. 
 
 Cross Actions.]— By 24 & 2.5 Vict. c. 10, 
 
 .s. 84, when bail td answer judgment has been 
 given by the ilel'endant in tlie principal cause, 
 the same i)arty, when plaintiff in a cross-action, 
 may obtain a similar security, notwithstanding 
 that he may be resident within the jurisdiction 
 of the court. The (\imeo. Lush. 408 ; h L. T. 
 778. 
 
 To answer Counter-claim.] — Where, in a 
 
 damage action, the shi[) proceeded against is not 
 nrrested, and the plaintiffs do not require bail to 
 be given, the defendants cannot compel the 
 plaintiffs to give security to answer a counter- 
 claim in the action under the jn-ovisions in the 
 Admiialty Court Act, 18(11 (24 cV: 25 Vict. c. 10), 
 s. 34, although they voluntarily give bail. The 
 Aim Holme, 47 L. T. 307 \ 4 Asp. M. C. 
 591. 
 
 The power of the admiralty division under 
 s. 34 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1801, to order 
 an action to be stayed until bail has been given to 
 answer a cross-action or counter-claim, does not 
 extend to making an absolute order to give bail ; 
 and in a damage action in which the plaintiffs 
 had discontinued after the defendants had coun- 
 terclaimed, the court refused to enforce an order, 
 made by theregistrar, togive bail to answer such 
 counter-claim. The Ale.r/nider, -iii L. T. 797 ; 5 
 Asp. M. C. S9. 
 
 Form of Bond.] — A hail bond to lead the 
 .supersedeas of an arrest, signed before a commis- 
 sioner by the sureties simply, without the addition 
 of their descriptions and addresses, is good. The 
 Taniffrae, Lush. 28. 
 
 The form of a bail bond appointed to be given 
 in the admiralty court by the rules of 1859, to 
 answer judgment with costs, does not receive a 
 new interpretation from 24 i: 25 Vict. c. 10, s. 33, 
 and does not extend to cover the costs of an 
 appeal. The Ilelene, Br. & Lush. 425 : 3 Mooj'c, 
 P. C. (N.8.) 240 : 35 L. J.. Adm. 1 ; 13 W. R. 
 931. 
 
 What Bail — Value.] — A wrongdoing 
 
 vessel was arrested in a cause of collision, having 
 been herself injured in the collision. She was 
 ■then rejjaired, and her value was materially 
 increased by the repairs : — Held, that she was 
 only liable to the extent of her value at the time 
 when she was arrested, and that she ought to be 
 released on bail to that amount being given. The 
 St. Olaf\ 38 L. .J. Adm. 41 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 3(!0 ; 
 20 L. f. 758 ; 17 W. R. 743. 
 
 Prize Suit.] — A bail bond given in a prize suit 
 is not a mere security given to the party, but is 
 regarded as a pledge or substitute for the thing 
 itself, in all matters fairly in adjudication before 
 the court. 'The yied Elicin. 1 Dods. 50. 
 
 Misdemeanour of Master or of Ship.] — A ship 
 arrested for misdemeanour of the master is bail- 
 able ; aliter, where the misdemeanour is of the 
 boat and the king makes title. Anon., 1 Keb. 44. 
 
 Liability of Sureties.] — The sureties in a bail 
 bond are not liable in respect of any action 
 against the vessel other than that in which they 
 
 have given bail. The Strrriecn, 6 Moore P. C. 
 5(; ; 4 Not. of e"as. 498 ; 2 W. Kob. 451. 
 
 Costs of excessive Bail.] — See 24. Costs, infra, 
 col. 1(122. 
 
 Privy Council — Dispensing with bail.] — See 
 
 iruntei- v. Jlexhefh Stefni/.shij), infra, col. 1012. 
 
 Action of Restraint — Bail for safe Beturn.] — 
 See Hi. Restraint, infra, col. 953. 
 
 g-. Appraisement and Sale. 
 
 Appraisement.] — A vessel which had been 
 salved was valued by a receiver of wreck at less 
 than 1,000/. The salvors obtained an order for a 
 commission of api)raisement, but did not execute 
 it, and after three weeks gave notice that they 
 proceeded no further in the suit : — Held, that 
 they might, within four days of obtaining the 
 order, have ascertained the value, and that there- 
 fore they must be condemned in damages for 
 detention of the vessel during the rest of the 
 three weeks. 'The Mdrgnret and June, 38 li. .J., 
 Adm. 38 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 345 ; 20 L. T. 1017 ; 
 17 W. R. 10()4. See also Ca.sex ante, cols. (570, 
 seq. 
 
 The owner of a ship arrested in a damaged 
 suit alleged the value of the ship to be one- 
 lif teenth less than it was afterwards shewn to be 
 upon a commission of appraisement obtained by 
 the plaintiffs : the amount claimed by the plain- 
 tiffs was less than the sum for which the owners 
 were willing to give security ; but, assuming the 
 claim to be sustained, the costs would extend the 
 claim greatly bej'ond that sum : — Held, on a 
 motion by the plaintiffs to condemn the defen- 
 dants in the costs of the appraisement, that the 
 l)roper order was that the costs should be costs in 
 the cause. The llap'id, 18 W. R. 150. 
 
 An appraisement by order of the court is bind- 
 ing on both parties. Ap})eal by an owner to have 
 the property sold, and the value so tletermined, 
 rejected. The 11. M. Mills, 3 L. T. 513. S. P., 
 Vemis, Cai-ffo e,r, L. R. 4 A. & E. 50 ; 12 Jur. (N.S.) 
 379 ; 14 W. R. 4(;(). 
 
 Value of salved Property — Appraisement — 
 Court will not open.] — See The J-Jinlnirour, ante, 
 col. 634. 
 
 Default of Appearance — Order for Sale.] — 
 
 Ship arrested on the Gth ; motion for sale on the 
 7tli in default of api)earance, and no affidavit that 
 the owners could not be found. Sale decreed, it 
 appearing that underwriters on cai'go were con- 
 .senting to a sale of the cargo. The Bes^y, 4 
 W. R. 92. 
 
 Appraisement after Sale.] — -Appraisement 
 made at'tci- sale held void. The Queen, 19 L. T. 
 
 705. 
 
 Costs of Appraisement.] — See The Pevs'ian, 
 infra, coL 1021. 
 
 Co-owners--Sale by Court.]— N«' VIII. Sale 
 AND Tkansfer. suina. col. UI4. 
 
 Sale, when Ordered.] — An order will not be 
 made for the sale of a vessel even upon the 
 application of the owner, where such vessel is 
 not proceeded amiinst in the court. The Wex- 
 fonl,ol L. J.. Adm. (I : 13 1*. D. 10 ; 58 L. T. 28; 
 3() W. R. 5(50 : C Asp. M. ('.244.
 
 985 
 
 SHIPPING— XXVI. Admiraltij Laic and Pmcticc. 
 
 986 
 
 Sale of Ship and Cargo— Freight.]— Where in ! before appraisement and sale, such priorities 
 an action ill rem for colli-ioii against ship and to be ascertained by petition and answer in 
 
 freight, in which the defendants" ship was held 
 solely to blame, the slnp beins: still under arrest 
 with the cargo on board, was ordered to be sold ; 
 the court on motion directed the marshal to dis- 
 charge the cargo, to retain the same in his cus- 
 tody as security for the payment of the landing 
 and other charges and freight, if any, due from 
 the owners and consignees of the cargo in 
 respect of the same, and that in default of any 
 application for the delivery of the cargo within 
 fourteen days, the marshal should be authorised 
 to sell such jiart of the cargo as might be neces- 
 sary to pay the said charges and freight, if anv. 
 due. T/ie Gpttijulnini. 52 L. T. 60 : 5 Asp. M. G. 
 347. 
 
 Foreign Ship— Affiadvit.]— The court 
 
 ordered the sale of a foreign ship on the report 
 of the marshal that it was desirable she should 
 be sold, and subject to the filing of an affidavit, 
 verifying the cause of action and stating that no 
 ajjpearance had Ijeen entered. The Hereulcit, 11 
 r. D. 10 : TA L. T. 273 : 34 W. K. 400: 5 Asp. 
 M. C. .>1.-). 
 
 Sale by Private Contract.] — In an action for 
 masters wages ;ind disbursements, where the 
 ship proceeded against was subject to other 
 claims by mortgagees and material men, the 
 court upon motion, no opposition being offered, 
 ordered an official appraisement of tlie ship to 
 be made, and the ship to be sold b}' the mar- 
 shal by private contract for a suui of money not 
 less than the ai)praisement, upon proof that the 
 mortgagees assented to such sale, and that 
 notice of the motion liad been served upon all 
 the claimants. The Pliawf, 4'.» L. T. 204 ; 5 Asp. 
 il. C. 144. 
 
 Expenses — Marshal's Fees — Mortgagees. ] — 
 Tiie •• C. " was ariested in an action for neces- 
 saries suj)plied by the plaintiflf. The owners 
 appeared but did not give bail or deliver plead- 
 ings. The mortgagees of the '" C." intervened, 
 and took possession under the mortgage, but the 
 " C" still remained in thecusto(l3'of the marshal, 
 and was subseiiuently sold by liim under an 
 order of the court ol>taiiied by tlic interveners. 
 Judgment witli costs, by consent, foi' the inter- 
 veners was afterwards entered. Under it the inter- 
 veners claimcfl from the plaintiff the amount 
 due to tlie marshal for the expenses of the 
 sale: — Held, that as the interveners, though 
 able to obtain the release of tlic " C." by giving 
 bail, had not done so, but had obtained an 
 order for the sale of the ••C.."' and )iad received 
 the proceeds of such sale, they must beai- the 
 expenses of it. Thi; ColimiKiy :>') L. J., Adm. 
 31 ; 11 P. D. 1 7 ; .->4 L. T. 338 ;' Tt Asp. M. C. r,4r.. 
 
 Fund in Court— Priorities.]— When a fund, by 
 a sale of a >hip, is placed in court by one set of 
 claimants, .so as to be available for other claim- 
 ants, the former are cntitletl to their costs up to 
 and inclusive of the sale, though they do not 
 rank first in respect of their actual claim. Thr 
 fill mil riilnto ConrrzUme, 53 !>. .]., Adni. 10 : It 
 V. I). 37 ; 50 L. T. 53'J ; 32 W. il. 705 : 5 Asp. 
 .M. C. 20.S. 
 
 Sale — Practice to ascertain Priorities.] — Sale 
 of vessel liy decree of the high cuiiil of admi- 
 lalty restrained in oider to ascertain the respec- 
 tive priorities of material men and mortgagees 
 
 the high court of admiralty. The Acaela. 
 Ham lit un v. Harland. 42 L. T. 264 ; 4 Asp. M C 
 254— C. A. 
 
 Sale of Ship— Proceeds of.]— "When there are 
 several claimants against the proceeds of a 
 vessel in the registry, and she has been sold at 
 the suit of one, the costs of such sale will be paid 
 before all claims, as such sale was for the benefit 
 of all. The Panthea. 25 L. T. 389 ; 1 Asp. M C 
 133. 
 
 In a cause of collision, the ship having beeit 
 released from arrest upon bail given in the full 
 sum in which the cause was instituted, cannot 
 be re-arrested by the plaintiff to answer his- 
 damages, if, after the ordinary decree and refer- 
 ence, they prove to exceed that sum. and if the 
 ship has been sold by the court in another 
 action, brought by other parties, the court 
 cannot order the proceeds of the ship to be 
 applied to satisfy such damages, or interest, or 
 costs of the first action. The Wild Runqer. Br k. 
 Lush. 84. 
 
 Where a ship has been sold by order of t he- 
 court, and the proceeds are in the registry, such 
 proceeds are not money belonging to the owners 
 of the ship under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 12, nor a 
 debt owing to them under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125 
 s. 61. Ih. 
 
 Where, after judgment against a ship in a 
 damage action where bail had been given ami 
 the ship released, judgment is given against the 
 same ship in a necessaries action, in which the 
 ship is sold and the proceeds of the sale of the 
 ship paid into court, the plaintiffs in the damage 
 action cannot be paid out of the proceeds, to the 
 prejudice of other claimants still having maritime 
 liens ujion the proceeds. The Falk, 47 L. T 308- 
 4 Asp, M. C. 592. 
 
 Default Action— Sale before Judgment.] 
 
 — Where in a salvage action, in whicli no appear- 
 ance had been entered, it was alleged upon affi- 
 davit that the ship and cargo were daily deterio- 
 rating in value, and that large expenses were 
 being incurred in respect of the charge of the 
 property, and that the plaintiffs had" been in 
 communication with the owners as to a sale, the 
 court, on motion by the plaintiffs prior to decree, 
 ordered an appraisement and sale of the property. 
 The An III Helena, 48 L. T. 681 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 61. 
 
 Sale and Unlivery of Cargo.]— Order made on 
 application of the respondents in a pending 
 .appeal, for unlivery of the sargo and sile of a 
 mortgaged ship, the uidivery ami sale of which 
 hail been decreed by the court of admiralty. 
 The Jeff JJacirx, 5 AJoore, 1'. ('. (N.S.) 25 : L. li. 
 2 !'. ('. I'.i. 
 
 Attachment of Funds in Registry. ] — A fund 
 lying in tiie registry of the court (^uuKit be 
 attached by process of foreign ai lachmcnt out of 
 the mavor's court of [,ondon. The AUnrl ('ro.sliii 
 liush.lbl. 
 
 Injunction to restrain Removal of Ship sold 
 Abroad.] —An iMiglislmian cntereil into a con- 
 tract abroad with a foreigner for the ])urchase of 
 a siiip, tlien on her homeward voyage to Cf)rk, 
 the purchaser to take jiossession of the shij) 
 immediately after the delivery of the homeward 
 cargo at any place whither she might be ordered
 
 987 
 
 SHIPPING— XXVI . Adiniraltjj Late and Practice. 
 
 988 
 
 The ship was ordered to Sunderland, where she 
 dischartred her cargo. On a motion by the pur- 
 chaser for an injunction to restrain the removal 
 of the ship from Sunderland : — Held, that sub- 
 stituted service on the captain in charQe of the 
 vessel was sutficient. and that the court had 
 jurisdicticm to restrain the removal of the ship 
 pending the suit. Ilnrf v. Ilenvif/. 42 L. J., Ch. 
 457 ; L. R. 8 Ch. 800 ; 29 L. T. 47 ; 21 W. R. 
 em : 2 Asp. M. C. 63. 
 
 Prohibition from dealing in Shares.] — The 
 
 court of probate, as a division of the high 
 court of justice, to which the jurisdiction for- 
 merly exercised by the court of chanceiy has 
 been transferred hj the Judicature Act, s. 16, has 
 power to issue an order prohibiting the dealing 
 in any share of a ship for a time and on condi- 
 tions to be named therein, and the registrar of 
 shipping on being served with such order, or an 
 official copj' thereof, must obey the same. 
 Kh-liohtK V. Driicacliis, 4.5 L. J. , Adm. 4.5 ; 1 
 P. D. 72 ; 24 W. R. 461. 
 
 Ship sold in another Suit— Service of Writ.] 
 — After the writ in an action in rem had been 
 served on the ship, she was sold in another action 
 and the proceeds brought into court. The writ 
 was then amended and refileil. but was not 
 served upon the registrar, nor indorsed with the 
 date of service under Ord. IX. r. 13. The defen- 
 dants did not aj)pear : — Held, that the service 
 was not sufficient, and the plaintiff not entitled 
 to judment in default. The Cn.s.^iojiL'hi. 48 L. J., 
 Adm. 39 ; 4 P. D. 188 ; 40 L. T. 869 : 27 W. R. 
 703 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 148. 
 
 Fieri facias — Claim of Sheriff.] — Upon sale of 
 n ship in a wages suit by admiralty process 
 issuing after seizure of the ship under a writ of 
 fieri facias : — Hel<l, that the claim of the sheriff 
 to the surplus proceeds was good as against the 
 late owner, 'flie Flora, 1 Hag. Adm. 298. 
 
 Vice-Admiralty Courts— Power to order Sale 
 ■of Ship in Distress.] — Sec 'J'hr Fdunij mul 
 Flin'tnit. ante, cnl. 947. 
 
 Co-owners disagreeing — Sale by Court.] — See 
 
 'I'lir Mdi-ioii, ante, col. 9.57. 
 
 h. Default Proceeding-s. 
 
 Signing Judgment in Default.] — Proceedings 
 by default in admii-alty actions in rem are 
 regulatetl by the practice which prevailed in 
 the court of admiralty immediately before the 
 ]mssing of the Judicature Act, 1875. Tlie 
 Puhjmcdc. 1 P. D. 121 ; 34 L. T. 367 ; 24 W. R. 
 256. 
 
 Ord. XXIX. r. 2. as to signing judgment in 
 default of ])leading, does not apply to proceedings 
 in rem. When in an action in rem for a li(iui- 
 (latedsum for necessaries supplied, the defendant 
 makes default in delivering his statement of 
 •defence, the plaintiff cannot at once sign final 
 judgment, but must bring the case on for hearing 
 before the judge upon attidavit. The Sfactoria, 
 2 P. D. 3 : 35 L. T. 431 ; 25 W. R. 62 ; 8 Asp. 
 M. C. 271. 
 
 Affidavit of Service.] — The affidavit of service 
 required to be filed in the registry before pro- 
 ceedings can be taken to obtain judgment by 
 default in an action in rem nmst have the 
 •original writ in rem annexed to it. The Epjioft, 
 
 49 L. T. 604 ; 32 W. R. 154 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 180. 
 
 Service of Writ in rem.] — In an action in 
 rem the writ of summons was served in the 
 manner provided by Ord. IX. r. 12, no appear- 
 ance was entered, and the action came on for 
 judgment by default under Ord. XIII. rr. 12, 13. 
 The affidavit of service of the writ was made by 
 the solicitor's clerk who had served such writ : — 
 Held, that service of a writ in rem Ijy a solicitor 
 or his clerk, and not hy the marshal or his sub- 
 stitute, was a valid service, and that the affidavit 
 was sufficient. The Solis, 54 L. J., Adm. 52 ; 10 
 P. D. 62 : 52 L. T. 440 ; 33 W. R. 659 ; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 368. 
 
 Action in rem— Registrar and Merchants.] — 
 In a default action in rem the admiralty court 
 will not before judgment refer the ])laintiff's 
 claim to the registrar for asse.ssment. Tlie Tlt'ia, 
 64 L. T. 148 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 32. 
 
 Ten Days to elapse — Notice of Trial.] — In 
 
 order to obtain judgment by default of appear- 
 ance in an action in rem under Ord. XIII. r. 12, 
 the ten days stated in Ord. XXI. r. 6, must 
 elapse, and a notice of trial under Ord. XXXVI. 
 r. 11, must be filed in the registrv. 'The Arei/ir, 
 53 L. J., Adm. 63 ; 9 P. D. 84 ; 50 L. T. 512 ; 32 
 W. R. 755 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 218. 
 
 Motion for Judgment.] — As under Ord. 
 
 XIII. r. 12, default actions in rem are to proceed 
 as if the defendant had appeared, Ord. XXVII. 
 r. 11, as to settling down an action on motion for 
 judgment where the defendant makes default 
 in pleading, applies to such actions, and judg- 
 ment tlierein is to be obtained under the pro- 
 visions of that rule. The Spero E-xqwcto, 49 
 L. T. 749 ; 32 W. R. 524 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 197. 
 
 Where in afi action in rem for collision the 
 defendant makes default, the plaintiff should on 
 moving for judgment, support his claim by affi- 
 davit. Ih. 
 
 Statement of Claim.] — Where the plaintiff in 
 a default action in rem for necessaries had 
 complied with all the formalities entitling him 
 to judgment save service of a statement of 
 claim, but it appeared that the writ, though 
 not sjiecially indorsed, contained particulars of 
 the claim the court gave judgment for the 
 plaintiff. The Ilnltla, .58 L. t. 29 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 244. 
 
 Writ served but Warrant not served — Judg- 
 ment.] — Judgment by default given in an 
 action in rem against a ship, after service of 
 the writ within the jurisdiction, where after- 
 wards and before service of the warrant to 
 arrest she was taken out of the jurisdiction. The 
 Xauiih. 64 L. J., Adm. 61 : [1895] P. 121 ; 11 R. 
 716 ; 72 L. T. 21 ; 43 W. R. 703 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 591. 
 
 Wages — Foreign Consul.] — A foreign ship 
 was sold in a ilcfault action and the pro- 
 ceeds were in the registry. Upon an application 
 by the master and crew for their wages, an order 
 was made for payment out of the sum due to the 
 solicitor for the applicants upon his undertaking 
 to pay the foreign consul, who had advanced 
 money to the crew for their ex]icnses, waiving 
 the preliminarv ste]is in a default action. The 
 JuUaiui, 35 L. T. 410 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 264.
 
 989 
 
 SHIPPING— XXVI. Admimltij Law and Practice. 
 
 Order for Sale of Ship and Cargo — Discovery 
 
 of Owners— Ship,]— Arrest on the 5tli : appli- 
 catioii f(ir ^^ale ot hihip and caruo on the 7th 
 refused, there being no affidavit that the owners 
 could not be found. Tlie IJc.wi/. 4 W. II. 92. 
 
 Assessment of Damages — Lord Campbell's 
 Act.] — An action for (hiniai^cs under Lord Camp- 
 belFs act was commenced in the admiralty 
 division, and no ajiplication was made to 
 transfer the cause to anj- other division : — Held, 
 that upon default in pleading by the defendants 
 tlie plaintiffs were entitled, under Ord. XXVII. 
 r. 4, to enter interlocutory judgment and to 
 have the damages assessed and apportioned by a 
 juiy. T/ir Orwell, Tu L. J., Adm. 61 ; 13 P. D. 
 .SO : .50 L. T. 812 : 86 W. R. 703 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 3{i;(. 
 
 Notice of Action required in some Cases. ]^ 
 See Tlie Lumjfurd, col. lOU."). 
 
 Nature of Action in rem.1 — See SmifJi v. 
 Tilhj. 1 Keb. 7n.s. sui)ia, col. !i(U. 
 
 Salvage Suit.] — See The Anna Ildemi. ante, 
 col. 'JSIi. 
 
 i. Stay and Transfer. 
 
 Two Proceedings for Same Matter— Estoppel.] 
 — To an action for an injury to a vessel by a col- 
 lision in the Thames, the defendant pleaded that 
 the merits in respect of the demand by the action 
 sought to be enforced, had been tried and deter- 
 mined, and proceedings, to which the plaintifE 
 and the defendant were parties, had been had in 
 tlie admiialty court, and that the merits upon 
 wliich the plaintiff sought to recover were thereby 
 tried, and after due jjroceedings had and taken 
 in that court, and in due form of law, determined 
 by that court in favour of tlie defendant, and it 
 wa,s held and adjudged by the court that the 
 collision occurred tin'ough the negligence of the 
 plaintiff and not through the negligence of the 
 defendant : — Held, that the plea "was no answer, 
 ina-much as it did not shew upon the face of it 
 that the admiralty coui-t liad jurisdiction over 
 ilic matter, llnrnn v. WilUx. 15 (!. B. 710 • 
 3 ( '. L. R. (;0i» : 24 L. J.. ( '. 1'. <)8 ; 8 W. R. 288. ' 
 
 A. brought an action for freight. After action, 
 the assignees of the freight to whom it had been 
 a.ssigne(l on a bottomry bond for necessary repaii's 
 wliilo the ship was in a foreign i)ort. con'unenced 
 proceedings against the defemlant in the admi- 
 ralty court. That court issued a monition to the 
 ilefcndant to pay the fi'cight into court. He did 
 .so, and then plcailcd to tlic.artion the proceedings 
 in the admiialty couii and the ) payment of the 
 freight into coiirl :— Hel<l. that the plea was a 
 good answer. I'larr v. I'ottx. :, II. L. Cas 383 • 
 24 L. J., Ex. 22.-,; 3 W. R. ."I. 
 
 Action In rem and Action In personam, ] 
 
 — A suit having been brought in rem. in which 
 tlie i>roccc(ls of the res are iiisullicient to .satisfy 
 the claim, a separate suit in iicisonniii may be 
 brought to recover the remainder. Tlir Pet,20 
 L. T. WW ; 17 \V. R. s;)l>. 
 
 Arbitration,] — A claim f<iri)ersonal irijury 
 
 done by a ship w;is referred to ari)itraf ion, with 
 a condition reserving the claimant's rights and 
 remedies in ca.se the award should not be per- 
 formed. The arbitrator awarded a sum of money 
 whieli had not been paid :— Held, that the 
 
 990 
 
 claimant had not barred himself of his right to 
 sue in the admiralty court. The Sylph, 37 
 L. J., Adm. 14 : L. R. 2 A. & E. 24 ; 17 L. T. 511). 
 
 Award of Commissioners of Salvage.] — 
 
 Salva.ge services had been renderetl to a vessel 
 by several sets of salvors off Ramsgate. The 
 owners of the vessel summoned a meeting of the 
 commissioners of salvage for the Cinque Ports, 
 to adjudicate on the matter. No notice of the 
 intended meeting was given to any of the salvors, 
 and it was proved that it was not usual to give 
 any such notice. At the meeting of the com- 
 missioners one set of salvors was unrepresented, 
 but it was ])roved that they were aware of ths 
 meeting, and were at hand. The commissioners 
 made an award upon the whole matter. The 
 salvors so unrepresented refused to accept their 
 share of the money awarded, and brought then- 
 action in the admiralty court : — Held, ""that the 
 award was no bar to the action, the plaintiffs 
 not having been parties to the first decision. 
 The El'ixe, Swabey, 486. 
 
 Collision— Lis Alibi Pendens.] — A col- 
 lision occurred un the high seas between the -'C."' 
 and the " J.,"' two foreign veseels. The " C." was 
 arrested in Holland in an action brought by the 
 owners of the "J." and her cargo, but was 
 released with the consent of the agent of the 
 "J." on the guarantee of a firm of underwriters 
 interested .in the " C." to answer judgment in 
 the action. Cross proceedings were instituted in 
 the Dutch court by the owners of the " C." and 
 the '"J." An action was subsequently com- 
 menced in this country against the owners of the 
 " C." by the owners of the " J." and her cargo, 
 and the " C." was arrested in respect of the same 
 collision. The plaintiffs cxi)ressed their willing- 
 ness to abandon the action in Holland :— Held 
 (dissentiente Brett, M.R.), that the proceedings 
 in this country must be stayed and the ship 
 released. The. Chvhtiamhovq, 54 L. J., Adm. 84 ; 
 10 P. U. 144 ; 53 L. T. 612 ;' 5 Asp. M. C. 491— 
 C. A. 
 
 In an action of damage in personam by tlic 
 owners of the shij) •' G.," against the owners of 
 the ship " P.," it appeared that a cause of damage 
 in rem relating to the same collision ha<l. prior to 
 the proceedings in this court, been instituted by 
 the owners of the "P." against the " G." in a 
 vice-admiralty court abroad, and was then 
 l)eiidiiig. The court, on the application of the 
 owners of the ship •• P.,"' stayed the i)roceedings 
 in this court until after the hearing of the cau.se 
 in the vice-admiralty court abroad. Thr PcshmoKr, 
 52 L. J., Adm. 30': S P. 1). 32: 4.s L. T. 796: 
 31 W. R. 660 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 89. 
 
 Guarantee given Abroad — Arrest of Ship 
 
 in United Kingdom.]— The fact lliat the defen- 
 dnnts have given a guarantee abroad to put in 
 l>ail to answer the judgment of a foreign court 
 in a case of collision is not a ground for ordering 
 the reletise of tluii' ship fioni an arrest in an 
 action commenci'd in lliis country, where no 
 legal proceedings have been instituted in the 
 foreign court. Thi- ('hrixthinxhoni (supra), 
 distinguished. The Mdimheim, 66 L. J., Adm. 6 ; 
 [1897J P. 13 ; 75 L. T. 424 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 210. 
 
 Suits in Ireland and England.] — When 
 
 a jilaintiff in a cause of damage has commenced 
 two actions; one, first in order of date, in the 
 court of admiralty of Ireland, and a .second
 
 991 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admivaltij Law and Practice. 
 
 992 
 
 ill the liiuh court of justice in England, he will i the action in tlie inferior court will be placed 
 not be allowed to proceed with the latter until in the position of plaintiffs in the consolidated 
 he has abandoned proceedings in the former. It. 
 
 IS not sufficient that he is desirous of abandoning 
 proceedings in the former, and tliat he is not 
 alloweil to do so by the Irish court : such refusal 
 should be corrected by appeal. 'The C'liftiirina 
 Chia-zfiro, 45 L. J., Adm. 105 : 1 P. D. 268 : 
 34 L. T. 588 : 3 Asp. M. C. 130. 
 
 Foreign Ships — One Sunk— Actions In 
 
 rem and In personam.] — When a collision has 
 occurred between two vessels, each belonging to 
 foreign owners not resident within the jurisdic- 
 tion of the court, and one of the vessels has been 
 arrested in a cause of damage in rem, but the 
 other has. in consequence of the collision, become 
 fi total wreck and cannot be arrested, the court 
 may, on a cause in personam being properly 
 instituted on behalf of the owners of the vessel 
 arrested against the owners of the vessel which 
 cannot be arrested, stay the proceedings in the 
 principal cause in I'em until security is given to 
 answer judunnent in the cross cause in personam. 
 The Chiirh'ieh, 42 L. J., A.lm. 70 : L. R. 4 A. & E. 
 120 ; 29 L. T. 404 ; 22 W. R. (13 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 121. 
 
 Judgment in Vice-Admiralty Court.] — 
 
 A judgment in a colonial vice-admiralty court 
 is no bar to an action in a common law court in 
 this country. Sni'ith v. JVicIioU.% 5 Bing. (N.C.) 
 208 ; 7 Scott. 147 : 7 D. T. C. 282 : 8 L. J., 
 C. P. 92. 
 
 Collision — Actions by Shipowner and ' 
 
 Cargo Owner — Limitation of Liability.] — Where 
 owners of cargo have recovered judgment in a ' 
 collision action brought by them, and the owners j 
 of the ship carrying the cargo subsequently 
 bring an action against the same ship to recover 
 damages in resjiect of the same collision, and the 
 damages in both actions would exceed the value 
 of the defendant's ship at 8?. per ton, and the 
 damage in the cargo action alone would not 
 exceed that amount, the court will not stay 
 proceedings in the cargo's action until after 
 judgment in the ship's action, on the ground 
 that without such stay the defendants have to 
 institute a limitation of liability action, which 
 would be unnecessary if the defendants obtained 
 judgment in the ship's action. The Abie Holme, 
 47 L. T. 309 : 4 Asp. M. C. 593. 
 
 And .we further, as to stay and transfer 
 in collision actions, XX. Collision, ante, 
 cols. 841, 853. 
 
 Stay Pending Appeal.] — Sec The Annot Lijle, 
 post, col. loll. 
 
 Damage to Cargo — Staying Common Law 
 Actions.] — In an action for loss of goods shipjied 
 on board a vessel, the court refused to stay 
 proceedings on the ground that the court of 
 admiralty had made an order, in a suit for deter- 
 mining the liability of the shipowners, declaring 
 that they w^ere entitled to limited liability, and 
 ordering that all actions or suits pending in other 
 courts in relation to the subject-matter of such 
 suits should be stopped. M'lUmrn. v. L. S,- S. W. 
 R,j.. 40 L. J., Ex. 1 : L. R. (! Ex. 4 : 23 L. T. 418 ; 
 19 W. R. 105. 
 
 actions, if they began the action in the inferior 
 court before the cross action in the high court. 
 The Nerer Be.yii/ir, 53 L. J., Adm. 30 :' 9 P. D. 
 34 ; 50 L. T. 3(;9 ; 32 W. R. 599 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 
 211. S. P., TheJijor/i, 9 P. D. 30, n.; 5 Asp. M.C. 
 
 212. n. ; and The Cosinojnilitan, 9 P. D. 35, n. : 
 5 Asp. M. C. 212. n. 
 
 Subject of Action — Jury.] — Although an action 
 in which the sole question is a question of salvage 
 may, under Ord. LXIX. r. 3, be properly trans- 
 ferred to the admiralty division, such a transfer 
 should not be ordered where there are other 
 questions in the action capable of being tried by 
 a jury. Oeeaii Steaniithip Co. v. Anderson, 33 
 W. R. 536— C. A. And see -S'. C. in H. L. ante, 
 col. 992. 
 
 Transfer from County Court — Pleadings.] — 
 
 Where a case is transferred to the admiralty 
 division of the high court under s. 8 of the 
 County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868, 
 pleadings must be delivered as in actions 
 originally commenced in the high court. 21ie 
 Cari.shrook. 59 L. J., Adm. 37 ; 15 P. D. 98 ; 62 
 L. T. 843 : 38 W. R. 543 ; 6 Asp. M. C. .507. 
 
 Damage to Cargo — Transfer to Queen's Bench 
 
 Division.] — An action for damage to cargo on 
 
 hoard a British ship whose owners resided in 
 
 England was instituted in the admiralty division. 
 
 Upon an application to transfer it to the queen's 
 
 bench division an order for transfer was made 
 
 upon the ground that it had been wrongly 
 
 ' brought in admiralty : but not on the ground 
 
 i suggested that it could not be tried there by a 
 
 I jury. The Seaham, 40 L. T. 38 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 58. 
 
 Witness Abroad.] — It was a common case in 
 the admiralty court to delay a cause till a 
 material witness who was absent beyond sea came 
 home — per Sir George Lee. Martin Y.Roiinson. 
 2 Lee, 397. 
 
 j. Preliminary Act. 
 
 Amendment.]— The defendants in a cause of 
 damage applied to the court when the cause 
 was called on for hearing, and before any evi- 
 dence had been taken, for leave to amend a 
 statement in their preliminary act, and to make 
 a similar amendment in the answer. The court 
 allowed the amendment to be made in the 
 answer, but refused to allow any amendment to 
 be made in the preliminary act. The Franldand, 
 41 L. J., Adm. 3 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 511 ; 25 L. T. 
 889 : 20 W. R. 592 : 1 Asp. M. C. 207, 489. 
 
 The court will refuse to allow a mistake in a 
 preliminary act to be amended, even though the 
 application for an amendment be made before- 
 the hearing of the suit, and be supported by 
 affidavit. The Jf/n/ndt/, 51 L. J., Adm. 56 : 7 
 P. D. 185 ; 47 L. T. 447 ; 30 W. R. 615 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 595. 
 
 An application to amend a mistake in a 
 preliminary act must be made immediately 
 upon discovery, and must be supported by 
 affidavit. The Vortigern, Swabey, 518 ; 1 L. T. 
 307. 
 
 Transfer from Inferior Court— Consolidation— When Necessary— " Actions for Damage by 
 
 Plaintiff. '—When an action is transferred from I Collision between Vessels."]— An action was 
 an inferior court and consolidated with a cioss ! brought by the owner of a l)arge and her cargo, 
 action begun in the high court, the plaintiffs in | against the owners of a tug for negligence in.
 
 993 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiralty Laic and Practice. 
 
 994 
 
 The Ilahni 
 
 towing, in consequence of which, as the plaintiff the particular accidents or perils, 
 alleged, the barge came into collision with Adcl.stceu, 43 L. J., Adm. 9. 
 another vessel, and was lost with her cargo : — In a cause of damage, where the evidence is 
 Held, that the action was not one '• for damage taken before an examiner, the rule applies, that 
 by collision between vessels'' within the meaning if it is intended to rely upon a defence of inevit- 
 of Ord. XIX. r. 28, and that the parties were not able accident, such defence must be in terms 
 required to file preliminary acts as prescribed by distinctly raised on the i)leading. The E. Z., 33 
 the rule. Armafronq v. Gaselee, .58 L. J., Q. B. L. J., Adm. 200 ; 10 L T. 790 
 1-ty ; 22 Q. B. D. 2.50 ; .59 L. T. 891 ; 37 W. R. 
 
 462 : 6 Asp. JI. C. 3.">3. Since Rules of Supreme Court, 1883.] — A 
 
 The principle of tiling a preliminary act, statement of claim in a salva-je action was drawn 
 under Ord. XIX. r. 2><, applies to every division ^ in the Form No. 6 of Ajipendix C to the Rules 
 of the high court, and is not confined exclu- ; of the Supreme Court, 1S83 ; on motion by the 
 sively to actions in the admiralty division. The defendants under Ord. XIX. r. 7, for a further 
 plaintiff had a quantity of goods on board a and better statement of claim or particulars :— 
 barge. This barge was sunk by a vessel belong- Held, that the plaintiffs must deliver a fuller 
 ing to the defendants, and the plaintiff's goods statement of claim, and that in salvage actions 
 were damaged. Cross-actions were brought by a fuller form than that given in Appendix C, 
 the ownei-s of the barge and vessel respectively ; Xo. 6. should generally be followeil. The Isll 
 
 but these actions were dismissed, as both parties 
 were to blame. Afterwards an action was 
 brought in the queen's bench division by the 
 plaintiff, the owner of the goods, against the 
 owners of the vessel for the damage to his goods. 
 
 .53 L. J.. Adm. 14 ; 8 P. D. 227 : 49 L. T. 444 ; 32 
 W. R. 171 ; .5 Asp. M. C. 1.5.5. 
 
 Admissions in.] — Where the answer does 
 
 ^ not denv the truth of the i^recedina; allegation. 
 
 The defendants required the plaintiff to file a but draws a conclusion from it, it must be taken 
 preliminary act under Ord. XIX. r. 28 :— Held, , to admit the truth of the allegation. The Peir- 
 that the damage sued for was -'damage by colli- i /av.v. Lush. 103 : 13 Moore, P. C. 484 ; 30 L. J., 
 sion within the meaning of the rule, and that ; Adm. 89 ; 3 L. T. 125. 
 
 the plaintiff must file a preliminary act. Secre- 1 Admission by pleading extends to matters of 
 tar II nf State for India v. Hewitt, 60 L. T. 334 ; \ fact, but not of law. Ih. 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 3S4 
 
 In an action by owners of cargo on board a 
 ship that had been in collision against the other 
 ship :— Held, that Ord. XXIX. r. m, as to filing 
 preliminary acts, did not apply. The John Botjni;. 
 36 L. T. 29 : 25 W. R. 756 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 341. 
 
 When Opened.] — Preliminary acts ordered to 
 be opened in court upon examination of plain- 
 tiff's witnesses, after petition and answer filetl. p'l^ifji,, 
 The Two Friends, Lush. 552 
 
 k. Pleading-s. 
 
 Counter-claim.]— Under the Judicature Act 
 and rules, the defendant, where he admits his 
 liability for the damage done by a collision, but 
 claims to have his liability limited to %l. or \bl. 
 per ton of his vessel under the Merchant Ship- 
 ping Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 63), s. 54, can so 
 claim by counter-claim instead of by instituting 
 a separate suit for limitation of liability. The 
 45 L. J., Adm. 108 ; 35 L. T. 36 ; 3 Asp. 
 M. C. 225. 
 
 Api)lication to amend statement of defence by 
 adding counter-claim at trial, refused. The 
 Leon, 50 L. J., Adm. 59 : 6 P. D. 148 ; 44 L. T. 
 613 ; 29 W. R. 916 : 4 Asp. M. C. 414. 
 
 Default of Pleading.]— Ord. XXIX. r. 2, does 
 not apply to proceedings in an admiralty action 
 in i-em wliere no statement of defence has been 
 delivered. In such a ca.se, the practice prevailing 
 in the liigh court of admiralty immediately 
 before the coming into operation of the Judi- 
 cature Acts must be followed. Tlie Sf'artnriu, 
 2 P. D. 3 : 35 L. T. 431 : 25 \\. R. 62. S. P., 
 The Poli/medr. 1 I'. D. 121 : 34 I,. T. 367: 24 
 W. R. 25(1. 
 
 Form of Pleadings.]- Pleadings should be so 
 framed as to assist not only the party in his 
 statements of the case, but also the court in 
 investigating the truth Ixitween the litigants ; 
 the defendant in a collision cause cannot rely on 
 a sim[)le negative, but must state the circum- 
 stances of the collision. The Why Xot, 38 L. J.. 
 Adm. 26 ; L. R. 2 A. k E. 265 ; 18 L. T. H61. 
 
 In a suit for damage to cargo, the jjctition 
 ought in general to state, so far as is ])racticable, 
 the cau.se to which the plaintiff attributes the 
 loss or damage. The Ifeleiu; Br. k Lush. 415 ; 4 
 Moore, P. C. (K..S.) 70 ; 35 L. J., P. C. 63 ; L. R. | 
 
 l-^w*^T'^"^f-* '^ ■'"''■ ^^'^'^ ^^■"'' ^^ I^-T. 875; Amendment— Time.]— \V1h„ the court orders 
 'J7- '>■• 2 J-^. ' a pleading t(i l)c amended, wiliiout naming a time 
 
 I he rule that a party seeking redress for an ' witliin wliich the amendment is to be made, and 
 injury can only recover secundum allegata et i there is unnecessary delay in making the amend- 
 probata, applies ordy to cases where the aver- : rnent, the proper course is for the other party to 
 ments allegetl m the pleadings are material to :,pp|y to the court for a peremptorv order. 'The 
 the i.ssuc raised. The Aliee and The Itoxitu. JuMipi 11 W R 44 
 
 5 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 300: 38 L. J., Adm. 20 ; Where a long delay had taken pl.ice through 
 rrl" , V' ' ' misappiehension m neglect in amending a repli- 
 
 1 he pleadings should be so framed as, if ncces- cation in accordance with the <lirecti(m of the 
 
 ^'^r^^V " ^^^'"'"'''" *'' ^''"'^''^ '" '^'^'''^■"^■^" '■'^'"'''' '"'* "" api'l'cation had been made for 
 
 all the facts of the ca.'^e. The Clavx Thomesen. a peremptory order si)ecifving a time within 
 
 1-M 11 wi ■-■''"' ' ■' '^"''' ^^'^'^ ^^^'' ^ ^- '^'- I ^^'h'ch the amendment was to be made, the 
 1_1 ; 11 W. R. ;).^8. 'court refused to strike out the amended replica- 
 
 Iii answer to a suit for damage to cargo, it is tion. Ih. 
 not sufficient to allege that the damage was I 
 
 caused by accidents and perils by the bill of Rejoinder.]— In a rejoinder the matter pleaded 
 lading excepted. The defendant must specify must be in answer to the plea of the adverse 
 VOL. XIII. • 32
 
 995 
 
 SHIPPING— XXVI. Admivalty Laic and Practice. 
 
 996 
 
 party ; iiuw niatter not allowed. 77/r Aiinira. 
 1 \V! Kob. S22. 
 
 Proof secundum allegata.] — Where the plaintiff 
 alleged that the collision was caused by the 
 defendant starboarding, and it was not proved 
 that he did starboard, the suit was dismissed. 
 'The Ann, Lush. 5.5 ; 18 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 198 ; 
 3 L. T. 128 : 8 W. K. 5(;7. 
 
 Statute of Limitations.] — The Statute of Limi- 
 tations must be pleaded and sentence given 
 accordingly in admiralty. Barhdcij v. JMorrice, 
 Hardr. .502. 
 
 Amendment — Withdrawing Plea.] — Leave 
 
 given under special circumstances to withdraw 
 answer and plead de novo. The Caxthjlionr 
 and CurfHK 2U L. T. 180 (Irish). 
 
 1. Particulars. 
 
 Rules same as in Queen's Bench Division — 
 Damage to Cargo,] — The rule as to giving the 
 opposite party particulars of any general allega- 
 tion in pleadings ought to be the same in the 
 admiralty as in the queen's bench division. 
 Where, therefore, in an action in the admiralty 
 division by cargo owners against shipowners for 
 delivery of cargo in a damaged condition, the 
 statement of claim alleged that the damage was 
 not occasioned by any of the excepted perils 
 mentioned in the bill of lading under which the 
 cargo had been shipped, but was occasioned by 
 the defective condition of the vessel, or by the 
 negligence or breach of duty of the defendants 
 or their servants, it was held that the defendants 
 were entitled to i^articulars of the defects render- 
 ing the vessel not fit to carry the cargo. Tlie 
 Rurij, 51 L. J., Adm. 73 : 7 P. D. 117 ; 46 L. T. 
 757 ; i Asp. M. C. 537— C. A. 
 
 Collision.] — When a ship was totally lost in a 
 collision, the court, contrary to the practice of 
 the court, made an order, in an action by the 
 shipowners against the vessel doing the damage, 
 for particulars of the plaintiff's claim to be 
 delivered to the defendants. Tltc A'. P. Ncilxcn. 
 34 L. T. 588 ; 24 W. R. 324 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 109. 
 
 Damage to Cargo.] — In an action for damage 
 to cargo, the plaintiffs are not bound to set out 
 the particular acts or character of the negligence 
 which caused the damage. The Freedom, 38 
 L. J., Adm. 25 : L. R. 2 A. & E. 34(j ; 20 L. T. 
 220, 1018 ; 18 W. R. 48. 
 
 In action for damage to cargo, particulars of 
 <lamage ordered to be delivered by the iilaintiff, 
 in order to enable the defendant to pay into 
 court the amount for which he admitted liability. 
 The Wetterhorn, 34 L. T. 587 ; 24 W. R. 323 ; 3 
 Asp. M. C. 1(J8. 
 
 Action by Passenger against Shipowner.] — In 
 
 au action by a passenger against a shipowner for 
 damages by reason of the improper condition of 
 the ship and negligent navigation, an application 
 for particulars of negligence refused. Georqe v. 
 Watts, 30 L. T. CO ; 2 Asp. M. C. 243. 
 
 m. Inspection and Discovery. 
 
 Depositions made before Receiver of Wreck.] 
 
 -Depositions of the master and crew of a British 
 
 ship, the " R.," in regard to a collision, had been 
 taken Ijy the receiver of wreck, and the board 
 of trade refused to give copies of .such depositions 
 to the owners of the " P." in an action arising out 
 of the collision between these vessels. Copies 
 had however been obtained for the purpose of 
 the action by the solicitors to the owners of the 
 " R.," whose master and crew had made the deposi- 
 tions. On motion by the owners of the " P." for 
 leave to inspect and take copies of the deposi- 
 tions in the possession of the solicitors of the 
 owners of the " R. '' : — Held, that these copies 
 were privileged. The Palermo, 53 L. J., Adm. 
 6 ; 9 P. D. 6 ; 49 L. T. 551 ; 32 W. R. 403 ; 5 
 Asp. M. C. 165— C. A. 
 
 Against Foreign Shipowners.] — In an action 
 in rem against a foreign ship whose owners are 
 resident abroad, the court will make an order for 
 discovery of documents against such owners, but 
 will always allow a reasonable time for making 
 the affidavit of documents. The Emma, 34 L. T. 
 742 ; 24 W. R. 587 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 218. 
 
 Form of Affidavit.] — To obtain discovery of 
 documents, the affidavit in support of the appli- 
 cation must allege some one particular document 
 to be in the possession of the party from whom 
 discovery is sought. The Cordelia, 28 L. T. 776 ; 
 2 Asp. Ji. C. 35. 
 
 Costs of Motion.] — The court, where a motion 
 is made for leave to inspect documents without 
 a previous application to the person in possession, 
 will condemn the party moving in costs of the 
 motion. The J/emphis, L. R. 3 A. & E. 23 ; 21 
 L. T. 727 ; 18 W. R. 74. 
 
 Compromise — Actions by Cargo Owner and 
 Shipowner.] — In an action by the owner of cargo 
 against a shipowner, he alleged damage in con- 
 sequence of a collision with another ship, caused 
 by the defendant's negligent navigation. A 
 compromise of cross-suits in the admiralty court 
 in respect of the collision had been entered into 
 by the respective owners of the two ships : — 
 Held, that the plaintiff had a right to inspect 
 the terms of this compromise. Hutchiii,son v. 
 Glover, 45 L. J.. Q. B. 120 : 1 Q. B. D. 138 ; 33 
 L. T. 605 ; 24 W. R. 185. Affirmed, 33 L. T. 
 834 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 120— C. A. 
 
 Court will examine Documents.] — Upon an 
 application for inspection of documents, the court 
 will order them to be brought into the registry, 
 and after perusal of them decide whether or not 
 the application should be granted. The Mae- 
 iireqor Laird, 36 L. J., Adm. 10 ; L. R. 1 A. & E. 
 307 ; 15 W. R. 262. 
 
 Private Documents.] — In a suit for damage to 
 cargo, it is no answer to a claim for production 
 of letters with reference to the shipment of the 
 cargo that those letters disclose the private secrets 
 of their owners. Tlie Don. Franclseo, Lush. 468 ; 
 31 L. J., Adm. 205 ; 5 L. T. 466. See also Cases, 
 cols. 998, 1317. 
 
 Damage to Cargo — Documents shewing Unsea- 
 worthiness.] — In an action for ilamage to cargo 
 through the ship's unseaworthiness, copies of 
 surveys, average statement, shipwright's bill for 
 repairs and captain's protest, ordered to be pro- 
 duced for inspection by the plaintiff. Daniel v. 
 Dond, 17 C. B. (n.s.) 716.
 
 997 
 
 SHIPPING— XXVI. AdmiralUj Law and Practice. 
 
 998 
 
 Possession Suit— Ship Papers.]— In a suit of 
 possession the court of admiralty had power to 
 compel production of the ship's papers ; but it 
 would not order production except in such a 
 cause, or on an ex parte affidavit. J7ic Lusifand. 
 1 W. Kob. 1()6. 
 
 False Representations as to Ship— Passenger 
 induced to take Passage.] — In an action for 
 makinj; false representatious respecting a ship 
 whereby the plaintiff was induced to take a 
 passage in her, and was afterwards obliged (with 
 other passengers) to leave her, inspection was 
 refused of letters written by other passengers to 
 the defendants : also of letters of the cai)tain to 
 the defendants, written after the plaintiff left the 
 .ship, touching the plaintiff leaving the ship ; also 
 of letters to the defendants, who were agents for 
 the ship, from the owner written after the plain- 
 tiff left her. Birhards v. GeUatlrii, L. E. 7 C. P. 
 127 : 2fi L. T. 42.t ; 1 Asp. M. L'. 277. 
 
 Inspection of Ship by Trinity Masters.] — 
 
 Before the hearing of an action an application 
 was made under 24 Vict. c. 10, s. 18. by the 
 plaintiffs, that two TrinitjMnasters should inspect 
 the lights of the defendants' ship : — Held, that 
 the aijplication was premature, and ought to be 
 refused. The Victor Curacerich, 54 L. J., Adm. 
 48 : 10 P. D. 40 ; 52 L. T. 632 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 417. 
 
 The court has power to order an inspection of 
 a vessel Vjy Trinity masters, and will direct that 
 thej' be attended by tlie proctors, and a viewer 
 on behalf of each ])artv. Tltr Grt-maiiid. 37 L. J., 
 Adm. 59 ; 19 L. T. 20. 
 
 An inspection to ascertain whether the lights 
 carried by a ship weie such as the regulations 
 require, ought to be made at night. The 
 ■Grniian-ui. 21 L. T. 44— P. C. 
 
 n. Interrogatories. 
 
 Striking Out,] — Interrogatin-ics relating to 
 the circumstances of the collision, will not be 
 struck out as scandalous or unreasonable or 
 vexatious, because the information sought to be 
 obtained would for the most part be affoided by 
 the ])roliminary act. The ItadnorMn', 49 L. .J., 
 Adm. 48 ; 5 P. \). 172 : 43 L. T. 319 ; 29 W. R. 
 47« : 4 Asp. M. C. 338. 
 
 In an action of damage by collision, interro- 
 gatories which seek to oV>tain information given 
 in the preliminary act of the party interrogated 
 are inarlmissible, and will be struck out on the 
 application of the party sought to be interrogated. 
 The Jiiolu, 34 L. T. 185 ; 24 W. 11. .524 ; 3 Asp. 
 M. C. 125. 
 
 The i)laintiffs applied for leave to deliver 
 interrogatories to the defendant, stating, in 
 an affidavit of themselves and theii' solicitor-, 
 that tlie dejionents believed that they would 
 derive material benefit in the cause from the 
 discovery which they sought, and that there 
 was !x good cause of action upon the merits. 
 The interrogatories asked, whether any and what 
 docnments relating to the cause were in jiosses- 
 sion of tlie defendant. The defendant ojiposed 
 the api)lication upon the ground that the court 
 (lUght not to gi'ant leave to deliver interroga- 
 tories for the discovery of documents witliout an 
 affidavit by the jilaintiffs of their belief that 
 some document, to the production of which the 
 )ilaintiffs were entitled, was in the possession or 
 power of the defendant. The court overruled 
 
 the objection, and granted the application. The 
 Minnehaha, L. R. 3 A. & E. 148 ; 23 L. T. 747 ; 
 19 W. R. 304. 
 
 The court has power to order interrogatories 
 to be administered to a defendant before the 
 plaintiff has filed his petition. Tlte Munllo, 28 
 L. T. 374 : 1 Asp. M. C. 579. 
 
 When a cause of collision was instituted in 
 personam against an owner of a ship, and he 
 entered an appearance, alleging himself to be 
 " improperly sued as one of the owners " of the 
 ship, the court allowed interrogatories to be 
 administered by the plaintiff to him for the 
 purpose of ascertaining the ownership before the 
 petition was filed. Ih. 
 
 The court will allow interrogatories to be 
 administered rather in accordance with the i)rac- 
 tice of the courts of eipiity than of common law ; 
 and the principle by which the court will be 
 governed is, that the interrogatories should be 
 such as tend bona fide to support the case of the 
 party seeking to administer them, and to favour 
 a complete inquiry into the truth of the issue 
 which the court has to decide. The Mary or 
 Alcvandra., 38 L. J., Adm. 29 ; L. R. 2 A. & E. 
 319 ; IS L. T. 891 ; 17 W. R. .551. 
 
 On objection by a defendant to interrogatories 
 tendered in a cause of possession, that his answers 
 to them might subject him to jienalties under 
 the Foreign Enlistment Act : — Held, that the 
 interrogatories should be administered, but that 
 if the defendant stated upon his oath his belief 
 that an answer to any particular interrogatory 
 would subject him to such penalties, he should 
 not be compelled to answer it. Ih. 
 
 In an action against a shipowner for non- 
 delivery an interrogatory as to whether the 
 cargo was insured is not admissible. BulcUoio, 
 Vauqhan S,- Co. v. Yuu/u/, 42 L. T. 690 ; 3 Asp. 
 M. C. 301. 
 
 In an action for damage to cargo the defendants, 
 shiyiowners, refused to answer interrogatories 
 upon the ground that they had no personal 
 knowledge of the facts inquired about, namely, 
 the details of the navigation of the ship shortly 
 before her loss : — Held, that if the information had 
 been supplied to them in the onlinary course of 
 business by their agents they were bound to 
 answer, liolrknw, V/du/h/in S' Co. v. Fi.s-her, 52 
 L. J.. Q. B. 12 ; 10 Q. B. D. 161 ; 47 L. T. 724 ; 
 31 W. R. 235 : 5 Asp. M. G. 20— G. A. Gf. The 
 Miniichdlid, supra, col. 998. 
 
 o. Assessors. 
 
 Duties of Judge and Assessors.] — The duty of 
 Trinity masters, sitting as assessors, is to assist 
 the judge in (piestidns of nautical skill. In case 
 of a difference of opinion between the judge and 
 the assessors, the judge is not at liberty to act 
 u])()n any inferences which tliey may draw from 
 the evidence, except they accord with his own. 
 It is the duty of the judge to decide the case on 
 iiis own resp'onsil)ility. The Maqna Charta, 25 
 L. T. 512 ; 1 Asp. M."G. 153— P. C. 
 
 The judgment is that of the judge, and he may 
 decide in accordance with the advice of one or 
 more of the assessors or not, as he thinks fit. 
 The I'hilotuxi; 37 L. T. 540 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 512 ; 
 4 Asp. M. C. 321. 
 
 Nautical assessors summoned under the County 
 Court Admiralty Juri.sdiction Act, 1.S6.S, to attend 
 at the hearing of an admiralty action tried by a 
 county court judge, are present merely to advise 
 the judge, and the judge ought to decide the ca.se 
 
 32—2
 
 999 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Ad ml rait)/ Law and Practice. 
 
 1000 
 
 in acceii'daiicc with his own opinion as to the law 
 and merits of the case. TJie Aid. 50 L. J., Adra. 
 40 ; (! r. D. 84 ; 44 L. T. 843 : 29 W. R. (!14 : 4 
 Asp. M. C. 432. 
 
 If the judge wlio trios the case differs from his 
 assessors, he is bound to decide in accordance 
 with his own opinion. The Bcn/l, 53 L. J., 
 Adm. 75 ; 9 P. D. 137 ; 51 L. T. 554 : 33 W. R. 
 191 : 5 Asp. M. C. 321— C. A. S.P., Tlw Alfred, 
 7 Not. of Gas. 354. And see The Fred, infra. 
 
 The judge decides questions of fact ; function 
 of nautical assessors in admiralty. The Jamen 
 Wutt. 2 W. Rob. 271. 
 
 Evidence — Matters of Nautical Skill — Trinity 
 Masters.] — In admiralty actions, where the com-t 
 is assisted by nautical assessors, evidence as to 
 matters of nautical skill and knowledge is not 
 admissible. The Assi/rian, 63 L. T. 91 ; 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 525— C. A. S. P., The Kirby Hall, 52 
 L. J.. Adm. 31 ; 8 P. D. 75 ; 48 L. t. 797 ; 31 
 W. R. 658 : 5 Asp. M. C. 90. The Earl Speneer. 
 L. R. 4 A. & E. 431 ; 33 L. T. 235 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 4— C. A. Affirming 32 L. T. 370 : 23 W. R. 
 661. The Ann and Mary, 2 W. Rob. 189. The 
 Tco. 1 Spinks, 184. The Sir Robert Peel, 43 
 L. T. 364 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 321— C. A. The 
 Mm rod, 14 Jm-. 942. 
 
 Where in a damage to cargo action the judge 
 found on the advice of his assessors that all 
 screw alleys, however well made, may emit 
 smells which may damage sensitive cargo stowed 
 in the vicinity, the court of appeal, being assisted 
 by assessoi's, refused to allow the appellants, the 
 shipowners, at the hearing of the a]3i)eal, to call 
 evidence to shew that the particular screw alley 
 did not emit a smell, on the ground that it was a 
 question of nautical skill. The Assyrian, 63 
 L. T. 91 : 6 Asp. M. C. 525. 
 
 Assessors Disagreeing.] — Semble, that where 
 two assessors disagree, the court can call in a 
 third, and. after submitting the evidence already 
 given to him, have the case re-argued before the 
 three assessors. The Philotaxe, supra, col. 998. 
 
 Engineer Assessor.] — In an action of wages 
 whicli involved questions as to the state of 
 machinery of a steamship, engineer assessors 
 were summoned to assist the court. The Marina, 
 50 L. J., Adm. 33 ; 29 W. R. 580. 
 
 Inspection by Trinity Masters — Report.] — 
 
 Where Trinity masters are desired to inspect and 
 report to the court, their report may include all 
 matters in their opinion affecting the merits of 
 the case. The Marathon, 40 L.T. 163 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 75. 
 
 Admission of Flea — Attendance of Assessors.] 
 
 — Application for attendance of Trinity masters, 
 upon a question as to the admissibility of a plea, 
 refused. The Yaroas, 15 Jur. 710. 
 
 Advice as to Entries in Log.] — Trinity masters 
 called in to advise as to the effect of entries in the 
 log-book as to the shi^j's course and probable 
 destination. The Edward, 4 C. Rob. 68. 
 
 Appeal — Beasons of Nautical Assessors.] — 
 
 See Tlie Banshee, infra, col. 1012. 
 
 Advise only when Requested.] — Trinity 
 masters advise the court when rLM.iuested, and no 
 more. The Alfred. 7 Not. of Cas. 354 : 3 W. 
 Rob. 232. 
 
 Judgment of Assessors, not of Judge — Power 
 of Divisional Court to alter Judgment.] — In a 
 
 collision action In-ought in the county court the 
 judge formed an opinion on the evidence in 
 favour of the plaintiffs, but the nautical assessors 
 took the view that the plaintiffs' vessel was to 
 blame for a wrong manoeuvre. The judge found 
 himself bovind to give judgment in accordance 
 with the view of the assessors, expressing at the 
 same time his dissent therefrom. The plaintiffs 
 appealed : — Held, that, on these facts, the court 
 had no power to alter the decision of the learned 
 judge. The Fred, 72 L. T. 153 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 .550. 
 
 p. Evidence. 
 
 Examination of Witness before Examiner — 
 Correction of Transcript — Application to take oiE 
 File — Costs.] — If, after filing in the admiralty 
 registry the transcript of the shorthand notes 
 of the evidence of a witness taken before an 
 examiner, a mistake is discovered to have been 
 made by the shorthand writer in transcribing his 
 notes, application should be made by the party 
 grieved to the court for an order directing that 
 the transcript be taken off the file and returned 
 to the examiner for amendment, and the costs 
 thereby incurred will be costs in the cause. The 
 Kn7(tsford, [1891] P. 219; 64 L.T. 352 : 39W.R. 
 .559 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 33. 
 
 Evidence in Prior Suit when Admitted.] — The 
 
 court cannot, except by consent, order that 
 evidence in one suit that has been heard, shall 
 be admitted as evidence in a subsequent suit. 
 Two suits in rem by the owners of two ships 
 which came into collision were instituted, and 
 judgment had been given. An application that 
 the evidence in those suits be atbnitted in a suit 
 in personam by the owners of cargo on board of 
 one of the ships was refused. The Demetrius, 
 41 L. J., Adm. 69 ; L. R. 3 A. & E. 523 ; 26 L. T. 
 324 ; 20 W. R. 761 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 256. 
 
 Admissions in Pleadings.] — When the defen- 
 dant admits all the facts jjleaded in the statement 
 of claim in a salvage action, the plaintiff will 
 not be allowed to call evidence except by per- 
 mission of the court, and on special grounds. 
 The Ilardwich, 53 L. J., Adm. 23 ; 9 P. D. 32 ; 
 50 L. T. 128 ; 32 W. R. 598 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 199. 
 
 Letter of Captain to Owners.] — A letter written 
 by the captain uf a ship to his owners is admis- 
 sible in evidence against the owners ; though all 
 the statements contained in the letter may not 
 be evidence. The Sulway, 54 L. J., Adm. 83 ; 10 
 P. D. 137 ; 53 L. T. 680 ;' 34 W. R. 232 ; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 482. 
 
 Engineer's Log.] — In an action of damage the 
 engineer's log is admissible as evidence against 
 the shipowner by whom the engineer is employed. 
 The Earl of Dumfries, 54 L. J., Adm. 7 : 10 P. D. 
 31 ; 51 L.'T. 906'; 33 W. R. 568 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 342. 
 
 Rejection of Evidence — New Trial.] — See The 
 
 Sir llobert Peel, post, col. 1014. 
 
 Reference — Cross-Examiuation of Deponent.] 
 —Under Ord. XXXVII. r. 2, which enables the 
 evidence in references in admiralty actions to be 
 given by affidavit, it is in the clisci'etidi of the 
 registrar to refuse if he thinks fit to give weight
 
 1001 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiralty Law and Practice. 
 
 1002 
 
 to such evidence unless and until the deponent 
 has been cross-examined on his affidavit, and 
 where the deponent is a party to the action, he 
 mav, though resident abroa<l. be require I to 
 attend in this country for such cross-examina- 
 tion. The Parisian. 57 L. J.. Adm. 13 ; 13 P. D. 
 16 : 58 L. T. 92 ; 36 W. R. 704 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 249. 
 
 - Extra Articulate Evidence — Application to 
 strike out.] — In a proceetling by ]ilea and proof 
 each party has a right to have extra articulate 
 evidence struck out at the hearing or previously. 
 The Xcpfi/ni/.^. 6 W. E. 262. 
 
 > Rules of, in Admiralty.]— The rules of evi- 
 dence as to what is admissible were not always 
 the same in the admiralty and common-law 
 courts. The Peerlcsx, Lush. 30. 
 
 On Appeal from the Registrar.] — On an 
 
 appeal from the registrar new evidence is admis- 
 sible. The Iriiiuiiaxfer. Swabey. 441. And see 
 The Thitri/u/ia. The Xewpitrt. infra, cols. 1005. 
 In06. 
 
 Questions of Seamanship.] — See o. Assessors, 
 
 sujira. ciil. W.^. 
 
 ^In Default Suits.]— See h. Default Pko- 
 CEEDIXGS. supra, col. ys7 : 'The Spero E.Tpecto. 
 col. 9.S8. 
 
 ^■'On Appeal.] — See The Sri /ul/a. and cases, post, 
 col. liilX>. and The Endearour. ante, col. 634 (as 
 to the value of salved ship) ; The Eelip.^e, post, 
 col. 1016 ; The Eusy Bee, post, col. 1016. 
 
 /l-s\. Collision Actions.] — See ante, cols. 847, seq. 
 
 q. Consolidation. 
 
 "S Reference to Registrar.] — The court will, 
 where it is convenient to do so, order one of 
 several consolidated causes to be referred to 
 the registrar sepai-atelv. The Helen R. Cooper. 
 L. R. 3 A. k E. 331) ; 40 L. J., Adm. 46. 
 
 After Judgment.] — When judgment has been 
 given in one of two suits, the court cannot ordei- 
 the two suits to be consolidated. The DenietriuK. 
 41 L. J.. Adm. 6!) ; L. R. 3 A. &; E. 523 ; 26 L. T. 
 324 : 20 \V. R. 761 : 1 Asp. M. C. 251. 
 
 Discretion as to.] — The court will, in the 
 exercise of its discretion, make such order for 
 consolidation as it considers will meet the justice 
 of the case, and jMotect the interest of the 
 suitois. The ViUo.<iala. The Einerald. The 
 Satellite. The Toiler, 42 I.. T. 115 : 4 Asp. :M. C. 
 22H. 
 
 Refusal of Consolidation Order before Service 
 
 of Writ. J — riir i-iiurt will ri'fu^c tu (•(uiM.lidate 
 'Tjss-actinns lit daiiiage in pei'sniiaiii wh(n(; tli<;re 
 has been no service of the wiit in the principal 
 action. The ffelensleu. The Cafaliinia. 7 1*. D. 
 57 : 47 L. T. 4 (6 : 3u \V. R. 616 : 4 Asp. M. C.5'»4. 
 
 In Salvage Suits.] — Sro The Sfrafhriarrij':\m\ 
 cases ante. fol. <;t;s. 
 
 r. Amendment of Proceeding-s. 
 
 Error in Decree.] — To entitle a party to 
 amend an error in a decree, the mistake should 
 be brouirht to the notice of the court with'tlie ! 
 
 j utmost possible!; diligence. An application to 
 alter a decree five months after the decree was 
 made was rejected. The Orient, 39 L. J., Adm, 
 10 ; 21 L. T. 762. 
 
 • Amount for which Damage Suit entered in- 
 creased.] — An action fur damage had been 
 entered in a sura which was subsequently found 
 to be insufficient to cover the damages ; an 
 appearance had been entered, but no bail given, 
 and the ship had not been arrested. Motion to 
 increase the amount granted. The Florence 
 Xif/hfinz/rile and The Jf wander, 2 Br. & Lush. 
 29 : 1 Moore, P. C. 63 ; 6 L. T. 400. And see 
 The Dictator, sujjra, cols. 851, 976. 
 
 Praecipe.] — In a cause of collision after their 
 vessel had been arrested and released on bail, 
 the defendants admitted their liability and con- 
 sented to a reference. The court afterwards, 
 under special circumstances, granted leave to the 
 plaintiff to amend the precipe to institute, by 
 increasing the amount in which the suit was 
 instituted. The Johannes, 39 L. J., Adm. 41 ; 
 L. R. 3 A. & E. 127 ; 23 L. T. 26. 
 
 In a prsecipe to institute the cause the plain- 
 tiffs stated the suit as one of damage to cargo, 
 and the affidavit to lead warrant alleged that 
 they had sustained damage by breach of duty 
 and breach of contract. After the arrest of the 
 ship, and appearance entered on behalf of her 
 o\vners, leave to amend by striking out of the 
 praecipe to institute the words •' damage to 
 cargo," and substituting the words " breach of 
 diit}' and breach of contract on the part of the 
 master and crew,"' granted on payment of the 
 costs occasioned by the misstatement in the 
 praecipe. The Princess Royal, 39 L. J., Adm. 29 ; 
 L. R. 3 A. & E. 27 ; 22 L. T. 29. 
 
 The prfecipe to institute an action having been 
 by mistake entered in a smaller sum than that 
 intended, the defendant's ship was arrestetl and 
 bailed in that sum. On the mistake being dis- 
 covered before the hearing of the cause, the court 
 gave permission (on payment of costs occasioned 
 by the mistake) for the priecipe to be amended, 
 and the ship to be re-arrested. The Hero, Br. & 
 Lush. 447 ; 13 W. R. 927. 
 
 Amendment of Title of Action — Necessaries or 
 Repairs. , — .\ suit instituted as for necessaries, 
 but really in respect of repairs : the title must 
 l)e amended. The Shipwith, 10 Jur. (N.s.) 445; 
 lU F>. T. Ci. 
 
 Amendment of Decree.] — See 'J'he (leory, ante, 
 col. 633 ; The Mowireh, post, col. Itl22. 
 
 s. Jury. 
 
 Trial by Jury — Discretion, j — Tlic plaintiff in 
 an action in rem for <lisbursenients in the piobate, 
 divorce, and admiralty division, api)lietl for an 
 order tiiat the action should be tried by a judge 
 with a jury :— Held, that Ord. XXXVl. r. 6, 
 gives no "absolute right to a jury in actions which 
 before the i)ii.ssing of the Judicature Act, 1873, 
 would have been tried without a jury ; that the 
 case fell within Ord. XXXVL rr. 4 and 7a, and 
 that the judge had a discretionary power oidy, 
 I.) allow "trial by a jury. The Temple liar, 55 
 L. .1.. Arlm. 1 ;"ll P. D. 6 ; 53 L, T. 904; 34 
 \V. It. 6S : 5 Asp. M. C. 509—0. A. 
 
 Power to Summon— 30 & 31 Vict. c. 114, s. 61, 
 Admiralty Court (Ireland) Act. , — There is no
 
 1003 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Aihmralty Law amJ Practice. 
 
 1004 
 
 power ijivcii by the above act to the jnds^cs of 
 the athiiirahv in Irehuul to suniinou a jury. 
 Thr Aiidrrhfa. 'lO T.. T. ISO. 
 
 County Court — ^Right to a Jury in. 
 
 Ti/viniliJ. ante, eoL '.144. 
 
 -Sec TJu 
 
 Assessment of Damages by Jury under Lord 
 
 Campbell's Act.] — See 'J'lir r//vrr//. ante, col. !I8I). 
 
 t. Right to Begin. 
 
 Collision.] — "Where it apiieared on the iilead- 
 ings in a eattse of damage by collision that at 
 the time of the collision the plaintifE's vessel. 
 a fishing smack, was riding attached to her 
 nets, and stationary, with a single white light 
 exhibited, but one of the charges made against 
 her by the defendants in their answer was that 
 she imjjroperly neglected to exhibit the lights 
 required by the Sea Fisheries Acts, 1868, two 
 lights, one above the other : — Held, that as it 
 must be implied that the neglect to exhibit such 
 lights contributed to the collision, the plaintiff 
 ought to begin. T/ie Bottle Imp, 42 L. J., Adm. 
 48 ; 28 L. T. 286 ; 21 VV. R. 600 : 1 Asp. M. C. 
 571. 
 
 In a caitse of collision, where the defendants 
 plead inevitable accident alone, it lies upon the 
 plaintiff to shew a prima facie case of negligence 
 against the defendants, and the plaintiffs must 
 therefore begin. The AbruJiani, 28 L. T. 775 ; 
 2 Asp. M. 0.34. 
 
 In a cause of damage the defendant, by his 
 pleading, made no charge of negligence against 
 the plaintiff, but denied generally the averments 
 in the petition, and pleaded inevitable accident : 
 — Held, that the plaintiff ought to begin. 'The 
 Benmore, 43 L. J., Adm. o ; L. R. 4 A. & E. 132 ; 
 22 W. R. lyo. 
 
 In a damage suit the practice of the court 
 requires the plaintiff to begin, notwithstanding 
 that the defendant raises no other defence than 
 that of inevitable accident. The Otter, L. K. 4 
 A. & E. 203 : 30 L. T. 43 ; 22 W. R. .5.-)7 ; 2 
 Asp. M. C. 4. 
 
 Salvage.] — Where there are rival salvors the 
 salvor who first enters his suit has the right to 
 begin, unless special circumstances are shewn. 
 The Jlorooco, 24 L. T. 598 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 46. 
 
 u. Tender. 
 
 Effect of.] — A tender in admiralty admits that 
 something is due to the plaintiff. Thf Pon-itphu; 
 1 Hag. Adm. 378. 
 
 Payment out of Court.] — Rules of the supreme 
 court, Ord. XXII. rr. 1 and 2, do not apply to 
 the practice of the admiralty division as to tender 
 hy act in court. Where a collision action is 
 settled upon the terms that the defendant shall 
 pay to the plaintiff' a specified [lercentage of his 
 damages, and the defendant pays into court a 
 sum which by notice, filed in court, he tenders 
 to the plaintiff in satisfaction of his claim, in 
 the event of such sum exceeding that which the 
 registrar finds to be tlue to the plaintiff for 
 damages and interest, the defendant is entitled 
 to the balance. 'The Mima, 63 L. J., Adm. 137 ; 
 [1894] P. 265 ; 6 R. 707 ; 71 L. T. 24 : 43 W. R. 
 173 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 478. 
 
 Money jiaid into court in a wages suit not 
 paid out until conclusion of the suit. The seamen 
 continuing to claim a larger sttm, motion to pay 
 out refused. The Annie (Itililx, Lush. 509. 
 
 Tender in Salvage Suits.] — See ante, col. 669. 
 
 Plea of Tender without Payment into Court.] — 
 Is bail. The X//.viii/th, 54 L. J., Adm. 63 ; 10 
 r. D. 41 ; 52 L. T. 392 ; 33 W. R. 736 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 364, 
 
 V. Proceedings in Actions — Various. 
 
 Repairs to Damaged Ship — Bankruptcy of 
 Shipowner — Money in Court in Collision Suit.] — 
 
 Where in the registrar's rejiort in a collision action 
 it appears that the claimant claims (inter alia) as 
 part of his damages the cost of repairing his ship, 
 but has not paid the shipwright, and has since 
 the repairs were effected become insolvent, and 
 the registrar allows such item, the court has no 
 power to do anj^thing to ensure the money being 
 paid over by the claimant to the shipwright, and 
 will not retain the money in the registrj' until the 
 claimant has given satisfactory evidence that he 
 has paid the shipwright. The Ended roitr, 62 L. T. 
 840 ; 6 Asp. M. C. oil. 
 
 Garnishee Order.] — Where the proceeds of a 
 ship are in court, eiiect will be given to a prior 
 lien, so as to give effect to a garnishee order. 
 The Jeff' Davis, L. 11. 2 A. & E. 1 ; 17 L. T. 
 151. 
 
 Discontinuance.] — The plaintiffs in an action of 
 co-ownership having obtained an order lequiring 
 the defendant to deliver up the certificate of 
 i-egistry of the ship to them, before delivering a 
 statement of claim wholly discontinued the action 
 without leave of the court. The defendant there- 
 upon applied to have the action dismissed with 
 costs : — Held, that the action must be dismissed, 
 and that, under Ord. XXIII. r. 1, he was entitled 
 as of right to all the costs of the action. The St. 
 Olaf, 46 L. .J., Adm. 74 ; 2 P. D. 113 ; 36 L. T. 
 30 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 341. 
 
 Re-hearing.] — The admiralty court had a dis- 
 cretion as to allowing a re-hearing ; but it would 
 only allow it upon fraud or its equivalent being 
 shewn. The Fortititdo, 2 Dods. 58, 70. 
 
 Scotch Law — Arrestment — Bottomry Bond- 
 holder — Priority.] — See Bdiikiiuj v. 'Todd, 8 Ct. 
 of Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 914 : X. Bottomry, supra, 
 coL 217. 
 
 Foreign Enlistment — Indemnity for Deten- 
 tion.] — An a[)plication to the court of admiralty 
 for an indemnity bj' the crown for detention of a 
 vessel under 33 lV: 34 Vict. c. 9t), s. 24, should be 
 made by motion upon affidavit. 'Tlie Great 
 Xorthern and The Midland, 26 L. T. 201 ; 1 
 Asp. M. C. 24(5. 
 
 Third Party Procedure — Collision.] — See 
 
 Sj)iUer V. Bristol ,Steani Xarlgatinn Co., supra, 
 coL 552 ; The Cartshnrn, supra, col. 758 ; 'The 
 Bianca, supra, col. (\^'!i ; 'The I/ereward, supra, 
 col. 958. 
 
 Action in rem — Notice of Action — City of 
 Dublin Steam Packet Company.] — 15y (> ^: 7 Will 
 4, ch. c, s. 8, no action shall be brought in which 
 the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company shall
 
 1005 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiraltii Law and Practice. 
 
 1006 
 
 be liable for any damage to any ship against 
 such company, unless one month's notice in 
 writing shall have been given to the company : — 
 Held, that the word "action'' in s. 8 did not 
 apply to an action in rem. The Longford, 58 
 L. J.. Adm. 3.S : 14 P. D. 34 ; 60 L. T." 373 ; 37 
 W. R. 872 : fi Asp. M. C. 371—0. A. 
 
 Affidavits — Adjournment of Motion.] — The 
 
 adjournment of the hearing of a motion for the 
 convenience of counsel does nor preclude the 
 parties making the motion from filing and using 
 a further affidavit. The Thur'nigin. 41 L. J.. 
 Adm. 2(1 : 2.5 L. T. 605 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 166. 
 
 Parties — Minor.] — A minor sues by proxy. 
 The Albert Croal/y, Lush. 44. 
 
 Assignment of Cause of Action.] — In a suit 
 for building and e([iiii>i)ing a vessel, the defen- 
 dant pleaded that the plaintiffs' claim vested in 
 their trustee under a composition deed ; and 
 the plaintiffs in their reply alleged that they 
 assigned the causes of action before the execution 
 of the deed, and that the suit was brought in 
 their names as tri;stees for the assignee : — Held, 
 that the assignment of the causes of action carried 
 with it all rights of action, which though inchoate 
 at the time might subsequentlv become complete. 
 The Wasp. L. R. 1 A. .*c E. 367 : 16 L. T. 854. 
 
 Winding up Company — Enforcing Lien.] — The 
 proper mode of enforcing a maritime lien on a 
 vessel belonging to a company which has been 
 ordered to be wound up, is by a proceeding in the 
 winding-up. and not by a ])roceeding in rem in 
 the admiralty court. Ai/xtralia Direct Steam 
 JVt/rig/itiiin Co.. In re. JIaker, Ex parte, 44 L. J., 
 Ch. 676 : L. R. 20 Eq. 25. 
 
 In Damage to Cargo Actions.] — See ante. cols. 
 550 seq.. '.His scq. 
 
 In Collision Actions.] — See XX. Collision. 
 
 In Salvage Actions.] — See XV II I. Salvage. 
 
 w. Reference to Registrar. 
 
 In what Cases.] — It is not an inflexible rule of 
 jiractice tliat all (juestions of damage should be 
 referred to the registrar and meichants. There- 
 fore when the question of consequential damages 
 was distinctly raised by the pleadings, and the 
 court, assisted by Trinity masters, was admit- 
 teilly the best tribunal to determine the issues 
 so raiNcd, the court ruled that evidence with 
 respect to such issues might be given at the 
 liearinj.', and that it wouhl itself decide them, and 
 not refer them to the registrar and merchants. 
 The Mnid of Kent. 50 L. J., Adm. 71 ; 6 P. D. 
 1 7« ; 45 L. T. 71.S ; 2!) W. K. 81)7 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 476. 
 
 A reference will not be ordered when the court 
 can itself satisfactorily dispose of the question. 
 The Eleonore, Hr. A: Lush. 1H5 ; 33 L. J., Adm. 
 1!» ; i) L. T. 3'.)7 ; 12 W. K. 21 S. 
 
 Objections to, and Appeals from, Report.] — A 
 Frencli Hsning Ijrig of 142 tons. cmiilovLMl in tiie 
 cod fishery oil the liariks of NewfoundiaiHJ, came 
 into collision on the 6th of July, l.s«L with an 
 Italiati bar(|ue, and in consequence of the collision 
 was comi)e]led to put into port for repairs, but, 
 her repairs having been comi)leted, returned to 
 
 the fishing ground before the close of the fishing 
 season. In an action of damage instituted on 
 behalf of the owners of the brig against the barque, 
 the court pronounced the barque solely to blame 
 for the collision, and referred the question of 
 damages to the registrar and merchants. At the 
 reference the plaintiffs claimed l,2(JtiZ. for demur- 
 rage of their vessel from the date of the collision 
 to the 26th of August, 1881, the date of her return 
 to the fishing ground ; and of the amount so 
 claimed, the registrar, by his report, allowed the 
 plaintiffs 880Z. as the loss sustained by the inter- 
 ruption of their fishing. The defendants moved 
 the court in objection to the report : — Held, that 
 the motion must be dismissed. The Rlsoluto, 52 
 L. J.. Adm. 46 ; 8 P. D. lOU ; 48 L. T. 909 ; 31 
 W. R. 657 : 5 Asp. M. C. 93. 
 
 Upon appeal from the report of the registrar 
 and merchants, the court will not admit addi- 
 tional evidence unless satisfied that such evidence 
 could not by proper diligence and application 
 have been produced before the registrar and 
 merchants. The Thurinqia. 41 L. J., Adm. 20 ; 
 
 25 L. T. (i05 : 1 Asp. M. (J. 166. 
 
 An affidavit in support of a motion for leave 
 to produce further evidence, where the object is 
 to vary the evidence already given, should be 
 clear and precise as to the xyitnesses it is pro- 
 posed to call, and the nature of their testimony. 
 Ih. 
 
 An affidavit of a witness, who is not tendered 
 for cross-examination, and who deposes to a 
 fact material to the inquirj- before the registrar 
 and merchants, should be filed before the hear- 
 ing. Ih. 
 
 On an appeal from a rejjort of a registrar and 
 merchants, new evidence is admissible. The 
 Xewport, Swabey, 317. S. P., Tlte Ironmaster, 
 Swabey, 441. 
 
 When a cause has been referred to and heard 
 by the registrar and merchants, it is competent 
 to the judge, in considering the report thereon, 
 in his disci etion, to admit fresh evidence. H.M.S. 
 Flijimi Fi.s/i, Bv. k Lush. 436; 2 Moore. P. C. 
 (N.S.) 77: 34 L. J., A<lm. 113; 12 L. T. 619— 
 P. C. 
 
 In a cause of limitation of liability arisingout 
 of a collision, where, the fund in court being 
 insufficient to satisfy the claims against it, a 
 reference has been made to the registrar and 
 merchants to assess the damages as to time and 
 rate, the court will review the registrar's rei)ort 
 and correct it, if it should appear that any 
 portions of the report are founded on what 
 the court deems to be an erroneous view of the 
 I'vidence. Ttie City of Jhieno.s Ai/rex. 25 L. T. 
 672 ; I Asp. M. C. 169. 
 
 On appeal from the report of the registrar, dis- 
 allowing a claim for total loss in a cause of 
 damage Ijy collision : — Held, that the master of 
 tlie plaintiff's vessel was not justified in abandon- 
 ing her after the collision. Report confirmed 
 with costs. The Thiirim/ia, 41 ]j. J., Adm. 44 ; 
 
 26 L. T. 4-16 : 1 Asp. M. (J. 283. 
 
 Report of registrar anu-nded on motion by 
 adding items for which no vouchers iiad been 
 produced at the reference. The J'Jng/ixhman, 38 
 L. T. 756. 
 
 On appeal from a rejiort of the registrar and 
 merchants, no ohjection can be made before the 
 court to an item whicii was not ipiestioned before 
 them. T/ir Prinrexx HcIcim, Lush. 19U ; 30 L. J., 
 Adm. 137 ; 4 L. T. 869. 
 
 An objection to the registrar's report cannot 
 be heard on motion, except by consent. The
 
 1007 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiralty Law and Practice. 
 
 Edmond. Lush. 211 ; 30 L. J., A.lin. 128 ; 2 I.. T. 
 r)21. 
 
 In an appeal from his ropcu't, the couit will 
 not allow a party to set uj) a case which he 
 did not endeavour to establish at the reference. 
 The Glenmanna, Lush. 11a. 
 
 The court will not interfere with the report of 
 registrar and merchants, unless it is fully con- 
 vinced that they are in error. The Clijde, 
 Swabey, 28. 
 
 Cross-Examination of Deponent.] — Under Ord. 
 XXXV IL r. 2, which enables the evidence in 
 references in admiralty actions to be given by 
 attidavit, it is in the discretion of the registi'ar to 
 refuse, if he thinks lit, to give weight to such 
 evidence unless and until the deponent has been 
 cross-examined on his affidavit, and where the 
 deponent is a party to the action, he may, though 
 resident abroad, be required to attend in this 
 country, for such cross-examination. Tlte 
 P.irU'ian, 57 L. J., Adm. 13; 13 P. D. 1(5; ns 
 L. T. 92 ; 3(5 W. R. 70-1 ; (5 Asp. M. C. 249. 
 
 Report referred back for further Evidence.] 
 
 — Report of rcijistrar referi'cd back for reconsider- 
 ation for the jjroduciion of further evidence, the 
 applicant paying costs of previous reference and 
 application to refer back. The Mafehle.ss, 10 Jur. 
 1017. 
 
 Objection to Registrar's Report.] — Where an 
 action is instituted in an admirnlty district 
 registry by part owners of a shii) against the 
 managing owner for an account, and the writ 
 claims an account ixnder Ord. III. r. 8, and an 
 order for the filing of the accounts is made under 
 Ord. XV. r. 1, and the account is proceeded with 
 pursuant to order, and the district registrar 
 reports thereon, such rei)ort is to be treated as 
 the usual report in an admiralty court action, and 
 if the defendant seeks to take objection thereto, 
 he must do so according to the provisions of 
 Ord. LVI. r. 11, otherwise the plaintifiE will be 
 entitled to judgment thereon. Gowaii v. Sprotf, 
 51 L. T. 266 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 288. 
 
 Time for.] — A report of the registrar and 
 
 merchants does not necessarily stand confirmed 
 by reason of the defendants failing to take objec- 
 tion thereto within the time provided for in r. 117 
 of the Admiralty Court Rules, 1859, so as to 
 absolutely entitle the plaintiffs to payment to 
 them by the defendants of a sum of money which 
 the court is of opinion ought not to have been 
 allowed them in the report. The Tlnjattra, 19 
 L. T. 713 ; o Asp. M. C. 178. 
 
 Extension of Time.] — The court will not 
 
 extend the time for objecting to the registrar's 
 report in a co-ownei'ship action without special 
 grounds being shewn by the party seeking to 
 object. Goioun v. Sjjrutt, supra. 
 
 The court has power to extend the time within 
 which objection to the report of the registrar 
 and n.erchants may be taken. The Th ijat'ira, 
 supra. 
 
 Appeal from^New Evidence.] — See The Iron- 
 master, ante, col. 1006. 
 
 Costs of Reference.] — See post, col. 1022. 
 
 X. Decree — Judgment — Execution. 
 
 Priority.] — The rule that the court will give 
 priority to the suitor who first obtains a decree 
 
 1008 
 
 applies only as between claimants in pari condi- 
 tione. The Mnrhhind, L. R. 3 A. & E. 340 ; 24 
 L. T. 596 : 1 Asp. M. 0. 44. 
 
 Varying.] — Where in a suit in rem, a decree 
 has been made per incuriam for the payment of 
 money out of the proceeds in court to satisfy the 
 claim of the plaintiff, the court may, before the 
 money has been paid, revoke or vary the decree. 
 Ih. 
 
 Rescinding or Setting Aside.] — Fraud suffi- 
 cient to set aside in the court of admiralty the 
 decree of a competent court of vice-admiralty, 
 must be fi'aud in procuring the decree. The 
 Jiistun, 6 L. T. 553. 
 
 By Consent.] — Final as well as interlocutory 
 decrees and orders may be obtained by consent, 
 without an ortler of the judge in person, but the 
 consent must be express. The Buenos Ay res, 
 17 W. R. 627. 
 
 The court refused an application to rescind a 
 decree pronouncing for the validity of a bottomry 
 bond, founded upon an affidavit by the defen- 
 dants' solicitor that there was a good defence on 
 the merits, the decree having been pronounced 
 with the consent of the defendants. Tlie Gleii- 
 hiirn, Br. & Lush. 62 : 11 W. R. 685. 
 
 Amendment of." 
 633. 
 
 ■ See The Georg, ante, col. 
 
 Execution,] — The admiralty coiu-t has no 
 power of levying execution upon a defendant's 
 eoods and chattels, to satisfv the judgment of 
 the court. The Victor, Lush. 72 ; 29 L. J., 
 Adm. 110 : 2 L. T. 831. But see 24 & 25 Vict, 
 c. 10, s. 15. 
 
 Interest on Damages.] — In an action in the 
 admiraltj^ division, which could not, prior to the 
 Judicature Acts, have been tried in the admiralty 
 court, the defendant made no objection to the 
 jurisdiction, and interest was, according to the 
 practice in the admiialty registry, allowed on 
 the assessed damages from the time when the 
 plaintiff's claim arose. In another action trans- 
 ferred by consent, after verdict for the plaintiff, 
 to the admiralty division for the assessment of 
 the damages by the registrar and merchants, the 
 same practice was followed in regard to the 
 interest : — Held, that interest on the damages 
 was properly awarded by the registrar, on the 
 ground that the parties, in both cases, having 
 proceeded on the understanding that the admi- 
 ralty practice should apply, had impliedly con- 
 sented to abide by such practice. Tlte G>rtrude, 
 The Baron Aherdare, 13 P. D. 105 ; 59 L. T. 251 ; 
 36 W. R. 616 : 6 Asp. M. C. 81.5— C. A. Affirming 
 56 L. J., Adm. 106. 
 
 In Collision Actions.] — -SW' ante, cols. 719, 
 S53 et setj. 
 
 Effect of Judgment in Rem — Salvage Action.] 
 
 — A judgment in rem of the admiralty division 
 in a salvage action, is conclusive against all the 
 world as to the status of the res, but is not con- 
 clusive as to the grounds of the decision except 
 as between the parties to the action. A judg- 
 ment in rem by a court of competent jurisdiction 
 is conclusive against all the world as to the 
 status of the res, but there is no distinction 
 between a judgment in rem and a judgment in
 
 1009 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiraltu Laic and Practice. 
 
 pei-sonam as to its being only conclusive as to 
 the point adjudicated upon, except that in the 
 case of a judLrment in rem the i)oint adjudicated 
 upon, which is always as to the status of the 
 res, is conclusive against all the world as to 
 that status, whereas in the case of a judgment 
 in personam the point adjudicated upon, not 
 being as to the status of the res, is only con- 
 clusive as between parties or privies. Ballan- 
 tijiw V. Miich'innoa. (i/i L. J.. Q. B. (51(i : [1896] 
 2 Q. B. 4oo : 75 L. T. yn : 45 W. R. 7() : 8 Asp. 
 M. C. 173 — C. A. And see Cnxtr'iquc v. Inirie, 
 supra, cols. 162, 165. 
 
 y. Security for Costs. 
 
 To answer Counter-claim — Bail.] — Where in 
 a damage action the ship proceeded against is 
 not arrested, and the plaintiffs do not require 
 bail to be given, the defendants cannot compel 
 the plaintiffs to give security to answer a 
 counter-claim in the action under the provisions 
 in the Admiralty Court Act. ISOl (24 tV: 25 Vict. 
 C. 10), s. 34, although thev voluntarily give bail. 
 The Ahic Holme. 47 L. 'T. 3u7 : 4 Asp. M. C 
 
 The power of the admiralty division under 
 s. 34 of the A(hniralty Court Act, 1861, to order 
 an action to be stayed until bail has been given 
 to answer a cross-action or counter-claim, does 
 not extend to making an absolute order to give 
 bail : and in a damage action in which the plain- 
 tiffs had discontinued after the defendants had 
 counter-claimed, the court refused to enforce an 
 order, made by the registrar, to give bail to 
 answer such counter-claim. The Alr.ninrlpr. 48 
 L. T. 797 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 89. 
 
 When the owners of a ship whicli has sunk. 
 and the owners of the cargo laden on hoard her ' 
 join in an action against another ship for damages, 
 sustained by collision, the couit will order the 
 claim by the owiiei- of the ship to be dismissed, \ 
 unless security for the counter-claim is given, 
 but will allow the owner of cargo to proceed 
 without securitv. The Caruitrn<n (\ixtli\ 38 
 L. T. 736: 26 \V. K. S76 : 3 Asp. M. C. 6ii7— 
 C. A. 
 
 Foreigners.] — In a suit instituted in 450/. for 
 lecovery of wages by (ierman seamen against a 
 German ship, the court ordered tlie plaintiffs to 
 give security for costs. The '/.ufull. \\ L. .J., 
 .\dm. 16 : 32 F.. T. 571 : 23 W. jt. 328 : 2 A^p 
 M. C. 5M9. 
 
 Where a plaintiff lias lecently executed a AiiuX 
 of assignment of all his ])ropert3% he will be 
 rc'iuired to give security for tlie costs f)f suit, 
 nnless he satisfy the court that he is solvent. 
 Thr Lulic Mrr/diitir. 36 L. T. 1S3 ; 3 Asii. M C 
 3H2. 
 
 A defendant is not liound to give secuiity f(ir 
 costs, even though, from the circumstances of 
 thecase.it may happen that the burden of prf)of 
 <if the issues in the case lies upon him. Ih. 
 
 I'laintiffs beyond the jurisdiction of the court, 
 in a cause of possession, though liable to give 
 security for costs, v.-ill not be re([uire(l, a.s a 
 general rule, to give security for damages. The 
 Miirij or Alrjiiiiditi. L. R.* 1 A. it E. 335 : 16 
 I,, t! 9.S. The Peri. 32 I,. J., Adm. 46 ; 8 Jur. 
 <N.S.) 1230: 11 W. R. 44. 
 
 The master of a foreign ship suing for his 
 wages will be required to give security for costs. 
 7'he Fr((nz ct Elizc, Lush. 377 : 5 I>. T. 29(t. 
 
 1010 
 
 It is in the discretion of the court to allow the 
 mate of a foreign vessel, though not domiciled 
 in England, to prosecute an action for wages 
 without giving security for costs. The Don 
 Ricardo. 49 L. J., Adni. 28 : 5 P. D 121 • 42 
 L. T. 32 ; 28 W. R. 431 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 225. 
 
 Where, in a suit against the owners of a 
 foreign vessel for damage done in collision, the 
 owners had filed a petition for a limitation of 
 their liability, the court ordered them to c-ive 
 security for costs. The Wild Ranger, Lush. 
 553 ; 31 L. J.. Adm. 206 : 6 L. T. 164.' 
 
 Foreigners resident out of the jurisdiction 
 who have intervened as defendants in an action 
 of collision in rem instituted on behalf of foreign 
 l)laintiffs by whom security for costs has been 
 given, must, if they seek relief by way of coimter- 
 claim, give security for the whole costs of the 
 action. The Jtdid Fisher, 2 P. D. 115 ; 36 L T 
 
 j 257 ; 25 W. R. 756. 
 
 In an action and cro.ss-action, if the pro- 
 ceedings are in personam, anil the ship has not 
 
 j been arrested nor bail given in the principal 
 cause, the court cannot stay the proceedings in 
 the cross-action until the pla'intiff in the jirincipal 
 cause has given security for costs as ilcfendant 
 in the cross-cause. The Amazon, lite Oxpreii, 
 36 L. J., Adm. 4. 
 
 Plaintiffs resilient out of the jurisdiction must 
 
 ' give security for costs. The Sophie, 1 W^ Rob. 
 326. Cf. Ml/lander v. Barnes, 6 H. & N. 509. 
 
 Foreign Government.]— A foreign govern- 
 ment ordered to give security for costs as plain- 
 tiffs ; not as ( lef endants. The Beatriee. otherwise 
 The Rappahunnoeh, 36 L. J., Adm. 10. 
 
 Appeal to Privy Council.] — In a proceed- 
 ing in rem. a Ijail Ijoiid given in court below only 
 covering the costs in that court, the appellants, 
 who were foreigners, were called upon to give 
 security for the costs of the appeal ; the court 
 of appeal will not. however, entertain any ques- 
 tion as to uncovered custs in the court below. 
 The Ilclene, Br. iV; Lush. 425 : 3 Moore, P. C. 
 (N.S.) 240 ; 35 L. J., Adm. 1 ; 13 W. R. 931. 
 
 To Court of Appeal.] — The court refused 
 
 t(j direct a defendant who had appealed from a 
 judgment of the admiralty division, although his 
 ship had been arrested and released on bail, and 
 although he had obtained a stay of execution 
 pcndinL' the appeal, to give secuiritv for the costs 
 of the appeal. Thr j'irforia. 1 P. 1). 2K() : 34 
 I,. 'I'. 931 : 21 \V. II. 596: 3 Asp. :\1. C. 230— 
 C. A. 
 
 23. .\1'Im:als. 
 
 a. To Court of Appeal. 
 
 When it Lies.] — An ajipcal will not lie from a 
 rrfn>al liy the judge of the adiniriilty division 
 to allow." under 31 iV: 32 Vict. c. 71, s. 27, an 
 appeal from a count v court judgmimt to be pro- 
 secuted. Thr AwMtrl. 47 L. J., Adm. 1 1 ; 2 P. D. 
 1S6 ; 37 L. T. 138 ; 26 W. R. 69 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 4HH— C. A. 
 
 Leave.] — In cases raising impoitant points of 
 law. the court will give leave to appeal to the 
 cfiurt f)f appeal where, on a ])roper construction 
 of the acts governing appeal, such leave is 
 necessary. 'J'hr Rona.'A L. J.. Adm. ()5 ; 7 P. D. 
 247 : 46^L. T. 601 ; 30 W. R. 614 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 520.
 
 1011 
 
 SHIPPING — XXYI. Admiralty Law and Practice. 
 
 1012 
 
 Principle of Court in dealing with Decisions 
 appealed against. J — WIk'ii tlic jud.uv oi:' the 
 ccHirl below lias come to a ronclusiuu of fact 
 after hearing witnesses, the court of appeal will 
 not. except in cases of extreme pressure, reverse 
 his decision ; but where the decision of the court 
 does not (lci)en(l upon the credibility of the wit- 
 nesses, but on the inferences fi'om the evidence 
 tlrawn by the judge, his decision may, even with- 
 out such ])ressrn-e, be reversed by the court of 
 appeal. 'The Gluimihanta and The Tninsit, 1 
 P. D. 283 ; 34 L. T. 934 ; 24 W. R. 1033 ; 3 Asp. 
 M. C. 33'.)— C. A. 
 
 The court of appeal will not reverse a judg- 
 ment of the coitit of admirtilty which has been 
 arrived at after hearing witnesses and on their 
 credibility. Tlir StMer.s, 4.5 L. J., Adm. 3'.t ; 1 
 P. D. 117 : 34 L. T. 338 : 24 W. K. 412 ; 3 Asp. 
 M. C. 3220— C. A. 
 
 The reasons for judgment of the countj' couit 
 judge, as well as for that of the high court, 
 should be before the court of appeal when a 
 fi;rthei' ai)peal is allowed to that court. The 
 Sioullmv, m L. T. 231 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 371— C. A. 
 
 When the court of admiralty has given no 
 opinion on a question, which in the opinion of 
 the court of aytpeal is a vital one in the cause. 
 the court of apjieal will decide that question on 
 the evidence before them. Thp C. M. Paluipr 
 and The Lurna.c, 29 L. T. 129 : 21 W. R. 702 : 
 2 Asp. M. C. 94. 
 
 In Claims for Salvage as to the Quantum.] — 
 See XVIII. Salvage. 
 
 To Court of Appeal from Divisional 
 
 Court.] — AVhere, on appeal from a county court 
 in an admiralty cause, the probate, divorce and 
 admiralty division alters the judgment, an 
 appeal lies without leave to the court of appeal 
 under s. 10 of the County Courts Acts, 187.5, not- 
 withstanding s. 45 of the Judicature Act. 1873. 
 The Li/did.^h^ L. J., Adm. 37: 14 P. D. 1 : 5') 
 L. T. 843 ; 37 W. R. 161— C. A. 
 
 From County Court.] — See col. 1014 ; The 
 Burt, infra, col. 1017. 
 
 Collision — Reasons of Nautical Assessors.] — 
 Where in a collision action the nautical assessors 
 sitting in the admiralty division reduce their 
 reasons into writing, parties appealing from their 
 decision are not entitled to see these reasons or 
 have copies of them for the purposes of the 
 appeal. The Ihinshee, 56 L. T. 725 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 130— C. A. 
 
 Staying Proceedings pending Appeal to House 
 of Lords. J — Wlicu an appeal is Ijiuught from the 
 court of appeal to the house of lords in an 
 admiralty action in which bail has been given by 
 the parties, an api)lication by the appellant to 
 stay execution pending the appeal will not be 
 granted, unless special circumstances are shewn 
 by affidavit. TJie Annot Lyle. 55 L. J.. Adm. 62 : 
 11 P. D. 114 : 55 L. T. 576 ; 34 W. R. 647 ; 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 50— C. A. 
 
 Appeal from an Inferior Court — Application to 
 adduce fresh Evidence.] — An application to 
 allow fresh evidence to be adduced at the 
 hearing of an atlniiialty appeal from an inferior 
 court may be made to a single judge of the 
 admiralty diviision. The Ed\i)xo, 14 P. D. 71 ; 
 60 L. T. 899 : 6 Asp. M. C. 409. 
 
 Appeals in Prize Cases.] — Origin and history 
 considered, linjmer v. Athins, 1 H. Bl. 164. 
 
 b. To Privy Council. 
 
 Time for — From Vice-Admiralty Court.] — The 
 
 time for appealing fidm tlie judgment of a vice- 
 admiralty court is governed strictly by the rules, 
 and regulations made bv order in council, June 
 27. 1832. The linnhiUia, 45 L. T. 389 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 461— P. C. 
 
 Excuse for Delay.] — Where the time for 
 
 api)ealing from a vice-admiralty court has expired,, 
 owing to a delay by counsel in advising on the 
 success or failure of such appeal, such delay being 
 caused by counseFs waiting for the decision of 
 another appeal pending before the privy council, 
 which decision it is reasonably possible may throw 
 light on the appeal to be advised upon, such 
 apology may, in the absence of circumstances to- 
 destroy its effect, induce the committee to allow 
 the prosecution of the appeal under 26 ic 27 Vict, 
 c. 24, s. 23. The Ricurdo Schmidt, Caxsanora \. 
 Req., L. R. 1 P. C. 115 ; 12 Jm-. (N.S.) 127 ; 14 
 W.R. 617. 
 
 From Admiralty Courts.] — The time for 
 
 appealing from any court ;if admiralty jurisdic- 
 tion is limited to fifteen days by the practice of 
 the court. The Br'inhUda, supra. 
 
 An ajjpeal from the high court of admiralty 
 asserted after ten, but before tifteen days from 
 the sentence, was in time. The Ulster, Laird 
 V. Brou-hlie. Lush. 424 ; 1 Mooie. P. C. (If.S.) 31 ; 
 8 Jur. (N.S.) 1067 ; K) W. R. 794. 
 
 A plaintiff in one of two cross-suits for damage 
 arising out of a collision, lodged an appeal within 
 fifteen days of the decree, t)ut did not give to 
 the defendants notice thereof till after the expi- 
 ration of fifteen days from the date of the decree. 
 On a petition by the defendants for leave to lodge 
 a cross ajjjjcal : — Held, first, that the 24 Hen. 8, 
 c. 12, s. 7, which provides that appeals shall be 
 made by the parties aggrieved within fifteen days 
 after judgment, is confined to causes cognizable 
 in the ecclesiastical courts. I'he Florence Night- 
 inqule and The Mwunder, 1 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 
 42 ; 32 L. J.. Adm. 1 ; 8 Jur. (N.S.) 1067 ; 6. 
 L. T. 765 ; 10 W. R. 794. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the limitation of the time 
 of appealing from a decree of the high court of 
 admiralty to fifteen days depends not upon legis- 
 lative enactment, but upon long-established prac- 
 tice. Ih. 
 
 The judicial committee is not precluded either 
 by statute or by practice from recommending an 
 extension of the time in which an appeal may 
 be made in cases which call for such indulgence. 
 
 n. 
 
 The time for apjiealing from the high court 
 of admiralty to the privy council was fifteen 
 days. The ri.sfcr. 1 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 31 ; 10' 
 W. R. 794. 
 
 From Vice-Admiralty Court— Bail.]— Rule 15 
 
 of the Privy Council Rules of 1865, regulating 
 appellate procedure from vice-admiralty courts, 
 by which an appellant is required to give bail in 
 200/. to answer the costs of appeal, is not 
 impliedly repealed by rule 150 of the Vice- 
 Admiralty Court Rules of 1883, by which an 
 appellant may be required to give security not 
 exceeding 3o6z. for the costs of the appeal, but 
 the judicial committee has a discretion in fitting
 
 1013 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiralty Law and Practice. 
 
 1014 
 
 cases to release the aiipellant from giving security 
 under rule 15 of the I'rivy Council Rules. 186"). 
 T/w HexltPth. Iluntcf v. Tie Hpshctli, (51 L. J.. 
 P. C. 84 ; [1891] A. C. 628 : 66 L. T. H05 : 7 Asp. 
 M. C. 160— P. C. 
 
 EeportofVice-Admiralty Court.] — Whereupon 
 the liL-aring of an aii]iual to the privy council 
 from a jutlgment upon the report of the registrar 
 of a vice-adniiraUy court the l)rivy council is 
 of o})inion that tiie report must be referred back 
 for the finding of other facts and figures, such 
 reference will be to the registrar of her majesty 
 in ecclesiastical and maritime appeals, if con- 
 venient and less expensive than a reference back 
 to the vice-admiraltv court. The C'ltij of PpIuiuj. 
 59 L. J., P. C. 88 ^15 App. Cas. 438 ; 63 L. i\ 
 722 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 572— P. C. 
 
 Appeal from Vice-Admiralty Court — Security 
 to restore Ship — Nature of Recognizance.] — 
 
 Though the security taken was in tlie form of a 
 debt to the king, not being taken in a court of 
 record, it was not a recognizance, but operated 
 as a stipidation to abiile the decision of the court 
 of appeal. Origin and history of a})peals in 
 prize cases considered. Br)jiner v. Atldnx, 1 
 H. Bl. 164. 
 
 When it Lies.] — In any admiralty or vice- 
 admiralty cause the right of api)eal to the privy 
 council is peremj)ted by any i)roceedings being 
 taken by the appellant under the decree to be 
 appealed from. Tlir Jirinliilda. supi'a. 
 
 An offer Vjy a defendant out of court to pay 
 the plaintiff a specific sum and costs, made after 
 judgment pronouncing the defendant liable in 
 general damages, does not peremjjt his right of 
 ajjpeal. Luinl v. JSnnrnl'ic, supra. 
 
 Interlocutory Matters.] — Before 24 tt 25 
 
 Vict. c. 10, s. 30. there was no a])peal fiom an 
 interlocutory order, which was a mere grievance : 
 but the cau.se being appealeil on the merits, the 
 party might bring the grievai'ce to the notice of 
 the superior court. Failing to do so, the party 
 was held to ailoj)! the interlocutory oider ; and. 
 upon the cau.se being I'cmitted, was estopped' 
 from moving the court to rescind such order. 
 The. Williuiii Jliift, Lusl). 25 ; Swabev, 696 ; 2 
 I-. T. 44.S. 
 
 Adduction of Fresh Evidence.] — .\ special libel 
 of appeal, witli allegation and resijonsive allega- 
 tion, pleading new matter, ailmitted by the court 
 of appeal, an<l evidence taken thereon. 77/r 
 Newport, .Svvabey. 317. 
 
 An allegaiion pleading facts noviter ad iioti- 
 tiani perventa. admitted by the appellate court. 
 and evidence taken viva vf)ce thereon. Uiiu/i-sxix 
 v. Jlef/., The Jmui-ii, 3 Moore, P. C!. (N.8.) IHl. 
 
 On a motion foi- leave to adduce fresh evidence 
 before the hearing of an appeal, it api)eared tiiat 
 the evidence might have been adduced at the 
 hearing in the court below, if application iiad 
 been made to jiostiKine tlie hciiring for that pur- 
 pose, but tliat no such application was ma<le. 
 The committee, therefore, refused to inlniit fur- 
 ther evidence, and clismissed the motion, with 
 costs. The SvindUi. 35 L. J., P. C. 53 ; L. U. 1 
 P. C. 241 ; 12 .lur. (N.s.) 534. 
 
 Sendjje, where an objection is taken to the 
 exclusion of evidence by the jmlge of the admi- 
 ralty division, the proper course is to apply for 
 a new trial rm that '.'round, and not to tender 
 
 the evidence afresh in the court of appeal. The 
 Si,- Robert Peel, 43 L. T. 364 : 4 Asp. M. C. 321 
 — C. A. 
 
 Principles of Dealing with Judgment or Decree 
 appealed against.] — Where a disputed fact, 
 involving nautical questions, is raised by an 
 appeal, as in a case of collision, the court will 
 not reverse the decree ap[)ealed from, unless con- 
 clusively satisfied that the decree is wrong, even 
 though the court may entertain doubts as to the 
 finding of the admiraltv court. The Julia, 14 
 Moore, P. C. 210 : Lush" 224. 
 
 The court must be satisfied that the decree is 
 founded on some substantial mistake, either in 
 law or fact. General Iron Screw Co. v. J/o.v.y, 15 
 Moore, P. C. 122. 
 
 Although there may be considerable doubt in 
 the estimate taken by the court, in respect of 
 the evidence of the witnesses upon questions of 
 nautical skill, yet, considering the advantage 
 that court has with the assistance of the Trinity 
 masters, the appeal court must be satisfied 
 that the court below was wrong, to justify a 
 reversal of such finding. I'he ('on.ttitittion, 
 Dean v. J/ark, 2 Moore, P. C. (n.s.) 453. 
 
 Though the judicial committee will not lay 
 down any exclusive rule as to appeals from judg- 
 ments of the court of admiialty, upon questions 
 which are entirely of fact, yet they are most 
 reluctant to come to a conclusion different from 
 that of the judge of the court below, merely on 
 a balance of testimony : the judge having had 
 the opporttinity of seeing and testing the conduct 
 and tlemeanour of the witnesses. The Alire ami 
 The Prinrexx Alire, 38 L. J., Adm. 5 ; L. K. 2 
 P. C. 245 ; 19 L. T. 678 : 17 W. R. 209. 
 
 Security for Costs, 
 lull. 
 
 -See Tlie Jlclcne, ante. col. 
 
 c. From County Court. 
 
 When it Lies.] — Cross causes of damage lieanl 
 together in a county court are, as to the right of 
 appeal, to be eoiisiilered distinct. The Elizabeth, 
 39 L. .J., Adm. 53 : L. R. 3 A. .V Iv 33 : 21 L. T. 
 729. 
 
 The plaintiffs in a cause of damage in a county 
 court claimed loo/., and recovered an amount 
 under 50/. : — Held, that no appeal lay to the 
 court of admiralty. lb. 
 
 The County Courts Admiralty .Juiisdiction Act, 
 1868, s. 27, provides tiiat the judge of the court 
 of admiralty nuiy, on sutticient cause being 
 shewn to his satisfaction, allow an appeal from 
 a final tieci'ce or order of a county court in an 
 admii'alty cause to be prosecuted, notwithstand- 
 ing that the instrument of appeal has not been 
 lodged in the registry of the court of admiralty 
 within ten <lays from the date of the decree or 
 order appealed from : — Held, that an application 
 for leave to api)eal under this section was rightly 
 made to the judge of tlie court of admiralty 
 sitting as a judge of the high court of justice. 
 The To-o IfrotherH. 45 L. .J.. Adm. 47 : 1 P. D..-)2 ; 
 33 L. T. 7!»2 ; 24 W. U. 112 ; 3 Asj). M. C. 99. 
 
 No ai)i)eal lies from the decision of a county 
 court in a salvage cause wliere there is a tender 
 of less tlian 50/. and tliat tender is upheld, the 
 amount tendereil being the amount "decreed or 
 ordered" within the County Courts Admiralty 
 .Jurisdiction Act, iHfJK (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), 
 s. 31. The Fijenoord, 34 L. T. 918; 3 Asp. 
 M. <'. 21 s.
 
 1015 
 
 SHIPPING— XXVI. Admiralty Law and Practice. 
 
 1016 
 
 A plaintiff claiming an amount not exceeding 
 50Z. in an admiralty cause in a county eouft, is 
 precludeil from appealing from the decision of 
 the court by s. 81 of the County Courts Admi- 
 ralty Jurisdiction Act, 18()8 (81 & 32 Vict. c. 71). 
 The Falcon. 47 L. J.. Adm. 5(5; 8 P. D. 100 ; 88 
 L. T. 294 : 2(i W. R. G9G : 8 Asp. M. C. ")()(;. 
 
 By a decree of the city of London court an 
 action of damage instituted in that court in the 
 sum of 80i'. was, after having been heard on the 
 merits, dismissed with costs. The plaintiff 
 appealed. At the hearing of the appeal the 
 respondent objected to the jurisdiction of the 
 court to entertain the appeal. The court dis- 
 missed the appeal on the ground that as the 
 appellant, if successful, could not have recovered 
 more than 80/. in the action, he was precluded 
 from ai)pealing by the County Courts Admiraltj' 
 Jurisdiction Act,"l868, s. 31. " Ih. 
 
 The restriction as to amount due applies oidy 
 to appeals by defendants. The Doctor Van 
 Tlninnrn Trlfoir. 20 L. T. 900 ; 17 W. R. 899. 
 
 Extension of Time.] — The power of extending 
 the time for a))i)ealing from a decree or order of 
 a count}' court in an admiralty suit, conferred on 
 the judge of the court of admiralty by the 
 County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868, 
 s. 27, may. since the coming into operation of the 
 Judicature Act, 1873, be exercised by the judge 
 of the court of ailmiralty sitting as a judge of 
 the high court of justice. The Two Jirothcr.s. 
 supra. 
 
 The power conferred hj s. 27 of the County 
 Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868, to 
 extend the time within which an instrument of 
 appeal may be lodged, provided sufficient cause 
 be shewn, is not altered or curtailed by s. 6 of 
 the County Courts Act, 1875, this latter section 
 providing: an alternative mode of ajipeal. The 
 Ilumher^oii L. J., Adm. 7 ; 9 P. D. 12 ; 49 L. T. 
 604 ; 32 W. R. 664 ; .5 Asp. M. C. 181. 
 
 Security for Costs.] — Upon appeal from a 
 county court to the court of admiralty, security 
 for the costs of the api)eal must be given in the 
 countv court, and not in the court of admiralty. 
 The Forest Queen. 40 L. J., Adm. 17 ; L. R. 3 
 A. & E. 299 : 23 L. T. 544 ; 19 W. R. 167. 
 
 Judge's Notes on Appeal.] — In an appeal to 
 the court of admirfdty from a county court 
 where there is a conflict between the transcript 
 of the notes of evidence and the judgment taken 
 by a shorthand-writer in the county court, and 
 the county court judge's own notes, the version 
 given by the county court judge must be accepted 
 as binding ; and if the county court judge alters 
 the shorthand-writer's notes so as to correspond 
 with his own version, the court of admiralty 
 will order the alteration so made to be carried 
 into effect in the printed copies of the appendix. 
 The RaithwdHe Hall. 30 L. T. 283 : 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 210. 
 
 In the absence of the judge's notes of evidence, 
 the court of admiralty on the a])peal allowed 
 a witness to be examined who had given evidence 
 in the court below. The C. S. Jiiifler. L. R. 4 
 A. ic E. 288 : 31 L. T. 549 ; 23 W. R. 113 : 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 408. 
 
 Where there were no notes of the evidence 
 taken before the county court and no judge's 
 notes, the judge of the admiralty division 
 ordered the appeal to be heard in viva voce 
 
 evidence. The {^mp'dence. The S^isan Elizuheth, 
 40 L. T. 201 : 4 Asp. M. C. 79. 
 
 Evidence on Appeal.] — The court may order 
 witnesses to lie examined viva voce at the hear- 
 ing of a cause of ajjpeal from the county court. 
 But such order will not be made except under 
 special circumstances. Tlie Jhisij Bee, L. R. 8 
 A. & E. 527 ; 26 L. T. 590 ; 20 W. R. 803 : 
 1 Asp. M. C. 293. 
 
 Wherever there is a i)robability of an appeal, 
 notes of the evidence given in the county court 
 should be taken by a reporter duly ai)i)ointed 
 aceonling to the provisions contained in the 
 rules for regulating the admiralty jurisdiction of 
 the county court. Ih. 
 
 The court of admiralty is very cautious as to 
 admitting fresh evidence at the hearing of an 
 appeal from the county court, and will not do 
 so unless the principles of justice require the 
 admission of such evidence. I'he Jloordei/, 29 
 L. T. 6()3 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 471. 
 
 Semble, that surprise is a ground for the 
 admission of fresh evidence. An application for 
 admission of evidence refused on the ground 
 that there was no suri)rise shewn. ///, 
 
 An apitlication to allow fresh evidence to be 
 adduced at the hearing of an admiralty appeal 
 from an inferior court may be made to a single 
 judge of the admiralty division. The Ecl'qjse, 
 14 P. D. 71 ; 60 L. T. 899 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 409. 
 
 Leave to Appeal.] — As a general rule, the court 
 of admiralty will not grant permission to appeal 
 from a decree or an order of the court made on 
 appeal from a county court excejit in cases where 
 the law is doubtful, or where the facts are such as 
 to leave a substantial doubt on the mind of the 
 court whether the conclusion at which it has 
 arrived is right, or where the pecuniary interest 
 involved is large. Tlie Sanniel La'nvj, 39 L. J., 
 Adm. 42 ; L. R. 8 A. & E. 284 ; 22 L. T. 891. 
 
 Leave to set down an api)eal from a county 
 court judge in admiralty, which could not be set 
 down without leave, was refused by the judge of 
 the admiralty division. On appeal from this 
 decision, tlie court of appeal held they had no 
 jurisdiction to interfere. The Anistel, 47 L. J., 
 Adm. 11 ; 2 P. D. 186 ; 87 L. T. 138 ; 26 W. R. 
 (i9 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 488. And see The Rom, supra, 
 col. 1010. 
 
 From County Court.] — Appeal lies by 
 
 permission of the judge below to the high court 
 from an interlocutory order made by a county 
 court in an admiralty action, although the 
 action is for a less sum than 50/. 'Tlie Alert, 
 United Steam Tiiq Co. v. The Alert (Owners), 11 
 R. 702 ; 72 L. T.'l24 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 544. 
 
 Interlocutory Matter.] — Under s. 26 of 
 
 the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 
 1868, leave toajtpeal from an interlocutory order 
 in county court actions on the admiralty side 
 must be obtained from the county court judge, 
 and this enactment is still applicable to such 
 actions, notwithstanding the general provisions 
 of s. 120 of the County Courts Act, 1888, and 
 hence a pai'ty caimot appeal from such orders 
 without leave. The Cash mere, 59 L. J., Adm. 
 57 ; 15 P. D. 121 ; 62 L. T. 814 ; 38 W. R. 623 ; 
 6 Asp. M. C. 515. 
 
 Judgment of County Court varied by 
 
 Divisional Court — Appeal to Court of Appeal
 
 1017 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiralty Lair and Practice. 
 
 1018 
 
 without Leave.] — Where a divisional court of 
 the probate, divorce and admiralty division 
 '•alters" on appeal the judgment of a county 
 court in an admiralty action, an appeal lies 
 without leave from the judgment of the divisional 
 court to the court of appeal. T/ir Drift, (52 
 L. J.. Adm. 82 : [1893] P. 83 ; 1 R. .572 : (i9 L. T. 
 2.->l : 41 W. E. 153 : 7 Asp. M. C. 3.53— C. A. 
 And see T/ie Li/dia. supra, col. 1011. 
 
 Amount decreed not exceeding £50 — Question 
 of Law.]— The effect of s. 120 of the County 
 Courts Act, 1888. is to give an appeal from a 
 decision of the county court on a point of law 
 in an admiralty action, although the amount 
 decreed to be due tloes not exceed oOl. The 
 Men, 61 L. J., Adm. 68 ; [1892] P. 67 ; 66 L. T. 
 387 ; 40 W. R. 415 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 174. 
 
 An appeal now lies to the high court from the 
 decision of a county court on a question of law 
 in an admiralty action, although the amount of 
 the judgment does not exceed 50Z,, and although 
 no security for costs has been given ; the general 
 words of s. 120 of the County Courts Act, 1888, 
 by implication repealing, so far as regards 
 api)eals on questions of law, the special pro- 
 visions contained in ss. 26 and 31 of the County 
 Courts Admiralty .Jurisdiction Act, 1868. TIip 
 Brluno, 64 L. J.. Adm. 8 ; [1895] P. 40 ; 6 R. 810 ; 
 71 L. T. 544 : 43 W. R. 65 : 7 Asp. M. C. 523— C. A, 
 
 Per Lord Esher, M.R. : An appeal on a ques- 
 tion of law in an admiralty action in the county 
 court is now governed by the act of 1888, 
 whether the amount does or does not exceed 
 50Z. : an appeal on a question of fact in such an 
 action is still governed by the act of 1868, and 
 must comply with the conditions in .ss. 26 and 
 31. Ih. 
 
 Cross-appeal — Jurisdiction.] — The divisional 
 
 court has no jurisdict iun to hear a cross-appeal 
 the subject-matter of which it lias no jurisdiction 
 to hear as an original api)cal. 'J'lii- Alne Holme. 
 62 L. J., Adm. 51 ; [1893] P. 173 : 1 R. 607 ; 68 
 L. T. 862 ; 41 W. R. 572 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 344. 
 
 Judgment of Assessors, not of the Judge.] — 
 See Tlic Fred, ante, col. lODO. 
 
 24. Costs. 
 a. Generally. 
 
 In Salvage Actions.] — .sVv.WIII. Salvage, 
 
 ;iiit(;, cols. 671. s(M|. 
 
 In Collision Actions.] — See. XX. Collision, 
 
 ante, cols. 855, seq. 
 
 In Possession Suit.] — See Thr ]'ir/i/e, ante, 
 col. 957. 
 
 Certificate for.] — The defendants in an action 
 fur daiiiagr, before any statement of claim had 
 been delivered, a(hriitted tlieir liability for the 
 d.'image, and by consent the (piestion <t amount 
 was by a7i order of court refei'red to the i-egistr.'w 
 and merchants to report thereon. At the refer- 
 ence before the registrar the jilaintiffs claimed 
 as damages 295Z. 18*. Id. The registrar reported 
 to the court that there was due to the plaintifTs 
 199?. 18.V. nd. Afterwards they moved the judge 
 to condemn the defendants in the costs of the 
 action and of the reference, ilvidence was given 
 
 on affidavit in supjiort of the motion to the 
 effect that the plaintiffs at the time their action 
 was instituted were liable to a claim for salvage 
 in respect of services rendered to tlieir vessel 
 after the collision, and that subsequently and 
 before the reference 601. had been paid and 
 accepted in settlement of such claim : — Held, 
 that the court had jurisdiction to certify that 
 the case was a tit case to be tried before it, and 
 that the proper order to be made was that the 
 plaintiffs should have the costs of the action, but 
 that each ])arty should bear their own costs of 
 the reference. T/te William inu, 3 P. D. 97. 
 
 Since the Judicature Acts it is not necessary 
 to obtain a certiticate to enable a ])laintiff to 
 recover his costs in an action in the high court, 
 where such action is within the admiralty juris- 
 diction of the county court, but not within its 
 common law jurisdiction. The Enf/lisJiiiian, 38 
 L. T. 756. See also The Kaoiiii, infra, col. 1022. 
 
 Costs in Cross Causes of Damage.] — In cross 
 
 causes of damage the defendants in the principal 
 suit alleged various defences, and established 
 only the defence of compulsory pilotage. The 
 court refused to apportion the costs, so as to allow 
 the plaintiffs the costs of the defences thej' had 
 established. The Srhuwn, The Ihthert Morrison, 
 43 L. .J., Adm. 18 : L. R. 4 A. & E. 187 ; 30 L. T. 
 537 ; 22 W. R. 743 ; 2 Asp, M. C. 259. 
 
 Separate Appearance at Trial.] — Where a 
 party obtains leave to appear separately at the 
 ti-ial, he does so subject to his costs being dis- 
 allowed. The Lonijford, 50 L. J., Adm. 28 ; 6 
 P. U. 60 ; 44 L. T."254 ; 29 W. R. 491 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 385. 
 
 Liability of Co-Plaintiffs.] — Inununity of a 
 co-plaintift' from costs does not create a like 
 immunity for the remaining co-plaintiffs. In 
 the admiralty court each co-plaintiff is .severally 
 liable for the whole of the costs. Tlie Leda, 
 Br. & Lush. 19 ; 32 L. J.. Adm. 58 ; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 
 208 ; 7 L. T. 864 ; 11 W. R. 302. 
 
 Proof of Documents.] — The plaintiffs, in a 
 collision suit, subpcenaed the receiver of wreck 
 to produce the original depositions, and did not 
 call upon the defendants to admit copies. The 
 court pronounced the defendants' vessel alone 
 to blanic, and condemned the defendants in the 
 costs of suit. Tlie registrar disallowed the costs 
 of the subpcjena and the expenses of the attend- 
 ance of the receiver of wreck, and the court 
 refused to interfere with his decisioji. The 
 Cromwell, L. R. 3 A. & K. 316. 
 
 Tender in Salvage Suit.] — Wiicrc a lender in 
 a salvage suit is pionminced for, the usual prac- 
 tice is to condemn tiie plaintiffs in the costs 
 incurred since the time of tender, but this 
 ])racticc is not invariable, and where the court is 
 of opinion that the tender is not a liberal one, it 
 will, in its discretion, make no order with regard 
 to such costs. The Lofiix, 7 P. I). 199 ; 47 L. T. 
 447 ; 30 W. R. 892 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 595. See also 
 ante, col. 6(i9. 
 
 Form of Tender — Offer to Pay Costs.] — A ten- 
 der which docs not contain an oiTcr to ))ay costs 
 must specify tlie grounds upon which the defen- 
 dant contends the plaintiff is not entitled to 
 costs. The Thraeinii. 41 L. J., Adm. 71 : L, R.
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiralty Lair and Practice. 
 
 1019 
 
 8 A. c^ E. r)(>4 : 25 L. T. .sSt) ; 20 W. 11. :^S0 ; 1 
 Asp. M. V. 207. 
 
 Collision — Inevitable Accident.] — i^rr Casex 
 ante, cols. 858, sei|. 
 
 Co-defendants — Costs of Successful De- 
 
 1020 
 
 Country Solicitor attending Trial in 
 
 London — Discretion.] — lu taxing cowts between 
 l)arty ami parry a charge for the attendance of 
 the country solicitor at the hearing in London is 
 discretionary. Where in admiralty cases the 
 attendance of the country solicitor, who has 
 taken tiae examination of tlie witnesses and 
 
 allowed. The Soto. (52 L. J.. Adm. 17 ; [18i):S] 
 P. 78 : 1 R. 57!) : m L. T. 281 ; 41 W. R. 479 ; 7 
 
 fendant.] — I'lu' diunl) barge •' E.," while in tow ' managed the proceedings up to the trial, is 
 
 of the steam tug" y.,'' was damaged by a collision I necessary for the proper conduct of the case, 
 
 with the steamship " E. L." The owners of the his charges for such attendance ought to be 
 
 " E." commenced an action joining the owners " ' "" - , ^ . . -- - -. 
 
 of both vessels as defendants. At the trial the 
 
 "R. L." was found alone to blame :— Held, that j Asp. M. C. 385. 
 
 the owners of the " R. L.," having endeavoured ' 
 
 to throw the blame on the " S.," must pay her ' Printing Evidence.] — The parties to an 
 
 costs as well as those of the plaintifEs. The j action between the owners of the " B." and the 
 Biver Laqan, 57 L. J., Adm. 28 : 58 L. T. 778 : [ •■ C." agreed that the evidence taken in an action 
 6 Asp. M.'C. 281. : between the owners of the '' A." and the " C," 
 
 I and printed for the purpose of an api)eal, should 
 
 Defence of Compulsory Pilotage.] — /Se^ j be ixsed in the action between the " B." and the 
 
 Cases ante, cols. 856, seq. 
 
 Costs of Motion.] — The court will not give the 
 costs of apjicaring to consent to a motion where 
 the party appearing is not in any way prejudiced 
 by the motion. The Achilles, 25 L. T. C05 ; 
 1 Asp. M. C. 165. 
 
 C." The plaintifEs paid the solicitors of the 
 
 A." for such prints, and charged the sums so 
 
 paid in addition to the regular charge of 8^7. per 
 
 folio, as though the printing had been done in 
 
 this action, under Ord. LXVI. r. 7 : — Held, on 
 
 objection to the taxation, that the charge of 'Sd. 
 
 per folio was not improper. The JIaiiimuth, 53 
 
 L. J., Adm. 70 ; 9 P. D. 126 ; 51 L. T. 549 ; 88 
 
 Action in High Court— Less than £300 re- | W. R. 172 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 289. 
 
 covered — High Court Scale.]— Where in action; 
 
 of damage liy collision instituted in the high. Third Counsel.] — In an action arising 
 
 court less than 300Z. is recovered, the court, in out of a collision where damage had been done to 
 exercising its discretion as to costs, will regard I the amount of 2,700^. :— Held, that the charges 
 the size of the vessels, the nature of the collision, [ of a third counsel should not be disallowed, 
 the length of time occupied at the trial, and the ' Jb. 
 judgme'iit delivered by the court. The Salthiyii, 
 
 [1892] P. 838 
 M. C. 325. 
 
 1 R. 543 ; 69 L. T. 88 ; 7 Asp 
 
 Taxation.] — In an outport bill brought into 
 the registry for taxation by a proctor who acted 
 as proctor for parties in a cause, charges were 
 made for work ilone in the cause by a notary at 
 an outport. The notary was neither a proctor, 
 an attorney, nor a solicitor. A portion of the 
 work for which these charges were made was 
 work connected with the preparation of briefs 
 
 and affidavits in the cause, and was such as is j allowed in the admiralty division to senior and 
 usually done by solicitors. The charges for this junior counsel : but not where the hearing of a 
 portion of the work the court disallowed. The case though taken on two days does not amount 
 City of Brussels. 42 L. .J., Adm. 72 ; I-. R. 4 in the whole to one day. The Krera, 5 P. D. 
 
 Counsel's Fees.] — In an action for damage 
 
 by cnllisiuii. where the damage to one vessel 
 amounted t<j 20.000Z., the registrar, on taxation, 
 reduced counsels" fees to sixty guineas, forty 
 guineas, and twenty-seven guineas ; the court, 
 on appeal frcnn the taxation, allowed the original 
 fees, holding that they were proper fees in a case 
 of that magnitude. The City of Luehnoio, 51 
 L. T. 907 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 340. 
 
 Retainers — Refreshers.] — Refreshers 
 
 ity of 
 A. & E. 194 ; 29 L. T. 812 ; 22 W. R. 71. 
 
 On a taxation between solicitor and client of 
 the costs of a cause, objections were taken on 
 behalf of the client to charges occasioned by the 
 postponement of the trial and the amendment of 
 the i)leadings, on the ground that the postpone- 
 ment of the trial and the amendment of the 
 pleadings had been rendered necessary by the 
 negligence of the solicitor ; the registrar refused 
 to disallow the items, on the gi-ound that it was 
 not within his province as taxing-master to 
 inquire into the question of negligence : — Held, 
 that the ruling of the registrar was right. The 
 Pujja de Russie, 8 P. D. 160 ; 27 W. R. 867. 
 
 Upon disallowance of a fee to counsel fir 
 advising as to the admissibility of a plea, the 
 court reviewed the registrar's taxation, and 
 directed the allowance of the fee and the costs 
 attendant thereon. The Roneit, 81 L. J., Adm. 
 132 ; 6 L. T. 508. 
 
 The costs of an issue, upon which he is unsuc- 
 cessful, may be taxed against a party, though 
 successful in the suit. 2'he Lavrcl. Br. & Lush. 
 191 ; 33 L. J., Adm. 17 ; 9 L. T. 457. 
 
 118 : 42 L. T. 743 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 277. 
 
 Discontinuance — Commissions for Bail.] — The 
 
 expenses of procuring bail for the release of a 
 ship cannot be recovered as costs against a plain- 
 tiff who has discontinued his action, though in 
 certain circumstances they may be recovered as 
 damatjes. Tlie yuinida, The ColUngrofe, 54 
 L. J., Adm. 78 ; 10 P. U. 158 ; 53 L. T. 681 ; 34 
 W. R. 156 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 483. 
 
 On Higher Scale.]— Costs on the higher scale 
 will only Ijc allowed under exceptional circum- 
 stances.' The Raishy or Card if Steamship Co. 
 V. Barwirh, 54 L. J., Adm. 65 ; 10 P. D. 114 ; 
 53 L. T. 56 ; 88 W. R. 988 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 478. 
 
 Costs on the higher scale will only be granted 
 when special grounds of urgency or importance 
 are shown, as it was intended that the lower 
 scale should be the ordinary scale. An award of 
 2,400/. having been made in a salvage action, 
 an application under Ord. LXV. r. 9, for costs 
 on the higher scale was made to the com-t : — 
 Held, thaf this was not a special ground so as to
 
 1021 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiralty Laic and Practice. 
 
 10-22 
 
 take the case out of the ordinarv rule. TJie 
 Horace. 58 L. J.. Adm. tU : 9 P. D.-SG ; 50 L. T. 
 595 ; 82 W. R. T.V") : 5 Asp. M. C. 218. 
 
 Detention Fees at Outport.] — Detention fees 
 at an (lUtport aie paiil by the party arresting ; 
 but where the marshal arrests he has the security 
 of the ship for his fees. The yovth Am erica it. 
 .Swabey. 466 ; Lush. 79. 
 
 Costs of Appraisement.] — Costs of appraise- 
 ment, where it does not shew a greater value 
 than that stated by the owners, are to be borne 
 by the salvors. The Persian. 1 Not. of Cas. 
 304. 
 
 Decree against Defendant Personally.] — The 
 
 admiralty ciiurt ciiuld deci'te a defendant person- 
 ally to pay costs, though tiie ship was arrested 
 and bail given. 'The Volant. 1 W. Rob. 888. 
 
 Marshal's Expenses.] 
 L. T. 70.-,. 
 
 See The Queen, 19 
 
 Costs of Witnesses.] — The expenses of detain- 
 ing a witness will not be allowed, unless it can 
 be shewn that his detention was absolutely 
 necessar}^ to insure his attendance as a witness, 
 and was not for any other purpose, e.g. merely 
 to watch the proceedings in a suit. The Bahia, 
 L. 11. 1 A. i: E. 15:"ll Jur. (N.s.) 1008; 14 
 W. R. 411. 
 
 A master's expenses, at the rate of \l. per week, 
 allowed from the arrest of the vessel in March, 
 1868, to July, l.s(;4, when the defeiulant applied 
 to have the cause put off. Ih. 
 
 A party in a cause is not bijund to examine 
 any of his witnesses before the hearing ; and if 
 judgment is given in his favour with costs, he is 
 in general entitled, with respect to seamen who 
 are reasonably detained by him as necessary 
 witnesses, to the expunses of maintaining them 
 to the time of the hearing. The Karla. Br. k. 
 Lush. 867 ; 18 W. R. 295. 
 
 In the case of the witnesses being foreign sea- 
 men, a reasonable charge incuri-ed for agency or 
 interpretation may be allowed. Ih. 
 
 In estimating the allowance and compensation 
 for loss of time in the case of a seaman detainetl 
 to give evidence, the rate of wages is a fair 
 criterion. The Olive, Swabey, 292. 
 
 The expenses of material and necessary wit- 
 nesses may be allowed, though they may not 
 have been called at the tiial. Tlie Jiiddick, 88 
 L. J., Adm. 24 ; 19 L. T. 7m5. 
 
 Enforcing Payment — Attachment.] — In a suit 
 for WMLTi- bioii'.dit \,\ a nia-t'T a n iider was ma<le, 
 and accepted. I'roccedings were then taken in 
 the court of exclie<|uer, under 17 & 18 V'ict. 
 c. 125, ss. 61, 65, to attach tliese costs in the 
 hands of the party from wliom they were due, 
 and such party was compelled to pay them over 
 to the judgment creditors of the master. The 
 liroctor for the ma,ster having received notice of 
 tliese proceedings, but not having opposetl them : 
 — Held, that the court of admiralty was bound 
 by the order of the court of exchc(iuer, and 
 could not enforce payment of cost.s against the 
 mortgagee in possession of the vessel, tlie party 
 proceeded against. The Olire, SwaVx-y, 423 ; 5 
 Jur. (N.s.) 445. 
 
 Excessive Bail.] — A shij) was arrested, and 
 bailrc'iuiied for an exorljitant sum : — Held, that 
 
 the plaintiifs must pay the costs and expenses 
 incurred by the defendants in giving this bail. 
 The George Gordon, 58 L. J.. Adm. 28 ; 9 P. D. 
 46 ; 50 L. T. 871 ; 82 W. R. 596 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 216 ; and see The Earl Grey, 1 Spinks, 180. 
 
 Varying Decree as to.] — A decree made by a 
 former judge, as to costs in a collision cause 
 where both sliips were held in fault, varied. Tlte 
 Monarch, 1 W. Rob. 21. 
 
 Solicitors' Lien — Charging Order — Solicitors 
 Act, 1860, s. 28.]— A collision action was com- 
 promised upon the terms that the defendants, 
 the owners of the '• Paris," should pay 50 per 
 cent, of the damage, each party to bear their 
 own costs, and the amount to be ascertained by 
 an arbitrator. After the compromise the plain- 
 tiff wrote to the defendants' solicitors, who were 
 jjressing for payment of money due from the 
 plaintiff to certain clients of theirs, and also for 
 payment of certain costs due to them from the 
 plaintiff in other matters, that they might settle 
 these claims •' out of money coming in from 
 ' Paris " s.s." After the arbitrator had made his. 
 award the defendants' solicitors sent to the plain- 
 tiffs' solicitors a cheque for a small sum, being 
 the balance after payment of the above-men- 
 tioned claims. The plaintiffs' solicitors took out a 
 summons under the Solicitors Act, 1862, s. 25, for 
 a charging order for the amoimt of their costs : — • 
 Held, that they were entitled to the order. The 
 Paris, 65 L. J., Adm. 42 : [1896] P. 77 ; 73 L. T. 
 786. 
 
 b. Of Reference. 
 
 Damage.] — It is within the discretion of the 
 registrar to order that all the costs of a reference 
 shall be borne by the defendants, though more 
 than one-fourth of the plaintiff's claim be dis- 
 allowed. The Amelia, 28 L. T. 544 ; 19 W. R. 
 216. 
 
 When more than one-third of the claim is 
 struclv off at a reference by the registrar and 
 merchants, the court will consider itself bound 
 bj' the rule of practice as to costs, and condemn 
 the plaintilf in the costs of the I'eference, not- 
 withstanding hardship in the particular case. 
 7'he J-Jni/lishman, 88 L. T. 75(5. See also The 
 Williamina. sujira, col. lOlS. 
 
 A ship was damaged by anotlier outward 
 bound, ami tlie owners of the injured vessel, in 
 the bona lide belief that their damage was greater 
 than it actuall}' was, instituted a suit in the court 
 of admiralty and arrested the ship for a large 
 amount, but accepted bail and relcascil the shij) 
 at once on ascertaining their actual damage ; the 
 defendants admitted liability, and the damage 
 was refencfl to the registrar ; the claim made by 
 the i)laintiffs was a little over 8(i((/., but the 
 registrar reduced the amount claimed by more 
 than one-third, and made tkj report as to costs. 
 On application by the plaintiffs, the court certi- 
 licd for the costs of suit, undei' the County 
 C(jurts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 18(;8, but 
 condemned the plaintiffs in the costs of the 
 reference. The Xuom.i, 82 L. T. 836 ; 28 W. R. 
 8.S7 ; 2 Asi>. M. C. 588. 
 
 Where in an action of damage, the defendant 
 sets up a counter-claim relating to the collision in 
 respect of which the action is brouglit, and both 
 ships are helil to blame, and a reference is
 
 1023 
 
 SHIPPING— XXYI. Admiraltij Laic and Practice. 
 
 1024 
 
 ordered to ascertain the amount of damage sus- 
 taineil by each shiji, each party is, as a general 
 rule, entitled to the costs of establishing his 
 claim before the registrar, i)rovi(lei1 that not 
 more than one-fourth of his claim has Ijcen dis- 
 allowed. The Mory, 7 V. D. 2Ul : 48 L. T. 28 ; 
 31 W. 11. 298 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 33. 
 
 Where a iilaintiff in a reference in a collision 
 action withdraws a large item of his claim at the 
 reference, and not before, and he recovers less than 
 two-thirils of the amount originally claimed, but 
 more than two-thirds of the auKmut which remains 
 after his withdrawal of the above item, the 
 original amount of his claim before withdrawal 
 is the claim upon which costs are to be given, 
 and he is not entitled to his costs. The Eilean 
 Dithh, 49 L. T. 444 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 154. 
 
 As by Ord. LXV. r. 1, of the Rules of the 
 Suprem'e Court, 1883, the costs of all proceedings 
 are in the discretion of the court, the general 
 rule of practice in the admiralty court as to the 
 costs of references, namely, that when more than 
 a fourth is struck ofE a claim, each party pays 
 his own costs, and when more than a third the 
 claimant pays the other party's costs, is wrong, 
 and the court must exercise its discretion accord- 
 ing to the circumstances of each particular case. 
 The Empress Euxjenie (Lush. 140) overruled. 
 The Frk'cleherq, .54 L. J., Adm. 75 ; 10 P. D. 
 112 ; 52 L. T. 837 ; 33 W. R. 687 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 426— C. A. 
 
 Claimant condemned in whole costs of the 
 reference where a large part of the claim was 
 disallowed, and no object inn made to the regis- 
 trar's report. The J. J. Hathoni, 4 Jur. (K.s.) 
 790. 
 
 Taxation— Interference with.] — The court will 
 not ordinarily interfere with the registrar's dis- 
 cretion as totaxation, unless a mistake in prin- 
 ciple has been made. The Neera, 5 P. D. 118 ; 
 42 L. T. 743 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 277. 
 
 Costs attending Claim for Freight disallowed.] 
 
 — The shipowner claimed as damages for the 
 collision freight which his ship might have 
 earned under a charterparty entered into before 
 the colHsion for a voyage to be performed after 
 the collision : — Held, that he must pay the costs 
 attending the claim for freight at the reference. 
 The So/ith Sea, Swabey, 141. 
 
 Masters' Wages.] — The rule obtaining in refer- 
 ences in causes of collision, that if the registrar 
 strikes off more than one-third of the ]ilaintiff's 
 claim, the plaintiff shall be condemned in the 
 costs of the reference, does not apply to a refer- 
 ence in a cause of master's wages ; but the court 
 will decide efjuitably according to the circum- 
 stances of the particular case. The LenineUa 
 Lush. 147: 30 L. J., Adm. 1. 
 
 Upon a report by the registrar in a cause of 
 master's wages, the court will not determine the 
 incidence of the costs of the reference by any 
 fixed riile, but according to circumstances of the 
 case. The William. Lush. 199. 
 
 On a reference of the accounts in a master's 
 wages suit, more than half of the owner's claim 
 of set-ofE and nearly two-thirds of the master's 
 claim, were disallowed. Charges of immorality 
 were made by the owners but not sustained. 
 The master was allowed his costs of reference. 
 The Strathallan, 6 L. T. 107. 
 
 Of Appeal from Kegistrar.] — See The Blach 
 Prince, infra. 
 
 c. Of Appeal. 
 
 Costs to follow Event — Special Circumstances.] 
 — The costs of an admiralty action, both in the 
 court of appeal and in the court below, follow 
 the event in the absence of special circumstances. 
 The Batariei; 59 L. J., Adm. 54 ; 15 P. D. 37 ; 
 62 L. T. 406 ; 38 W. R. 522 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 500— 
 0. A. S. P., The Swansea and The Condor, 48 
 L. J., Adm. 33 ; 4 P. D. 115 ; 40 L. T. 442 ; 27 
 W. R. 748 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 115— C. A. 
 
 Where leave necessary.] — Costs not allowed 
 when the court of appeal reversed the decision 
 of the court Vjelow in an ai^peal for which per- 
 mission was necessary. The Swalloiv, 36 L. T. 
 231 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 371— C. A. 
 
 Collision — Inevitable accident.] — In an action 
 for damage by collision in which the defence was 
 inevitable accident, the plaintiiis obtained judg- 
 ment on the ground that negligence on the part 
 of the defendants had been proved. On appeal 
 to the court of appeal, the defence of inevitable 
 accident was established, and the judgment 
 reversed : — Held, that as the admiralty court is 
 a division of the high court of justice, the 
 general rule, in force in the other divisions — that, 
 in the absence of special circumstances, costs 
 follow the event — ought to be followed in that 
 court, and that on the appeal being allowed, the 
 defendants were entitled to the costs both of the 
 appeal and in the court below. The Monhseaton, 
 58 L. .J., Adm. 52 : 14 P. D. 51 ; 60 L. T. 662 ; 
 37 W. R. 523 : 6 Asp. M. C. 383— C. A. ; and see 
 The Nufles, 55 L. J., Adm. 64 ; 11 P. D. 124 ; 55 
 L. T. 584 ; 35 W. R. 59 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 30. 
 
 One or both Ships in fault.] — When in a 
 
 cause of collision the appellant was found in the 
 court below solely to blame, and condemned in 
 the whole damage, and the court of appeal found 
 both parties to blame, and divided the damage, 
 costs of appeal were given. The Fyenoord, Swa- 
 bey, 374. 
 
 Where both parties appeal from a sentence, 
 pronouncing both to blame, and the sentence is 
 affirmed, no costs of the appeal are given. The 
 North Ameriean and The Tecla Carmen, Swabey, 
 358 ; 12 Moore, P. C. 331. 
 
 Material mistakes in respect to certain facts in 
 evidence occurred in the summing up of the 
 judge. The committee, though it sustained the 
 decree appealed from, under the circumstances 
 affirmed the judgment without costs. General 
 Iron Screw Co. v. Moss, 15 Moore, P. C. 122. 
 
 And see further as to costs in collision appeals, 
 ante, col. 860. 
 
 Salvage.] — Though in appeals as to the amount 
 of salvage the privy council generally did not 
 give a successful appellant his costs of the appeal, 
 such appeals under the Judicature Act form no 
 exception to the general rule that a successful 
 appellant is entitled to his costs. The City of 
 Berlin. 47 L. J., Adm. 2 ; 2 P. D. 187 ; 37 L. T. 
 307 ; 25 W. R. 793 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 491— C. A. And 
 see further as to costs in salvage appeals, ante, 
 col. 677. 
 
 From Eegistrar.]— The costs of an appeal 
 from the registrar, as a general rule, follow the 
 result of the appeal. The Black Prince, Lush. 
 568.
 
 1025 
 
 SHIPPING— B. Marine Insurance. 
 
 1026 
 
 B. MARINE INSURANCE. 
 
 I. Policies. 
 
 1. Stdviping and Hcquiremcntx. 
 
 (I. Necessity of ."^tauip, lii28. 
 
 b. Upon Alteration, 1030. 
 
 c. Slips find Informal Contracts, 1032. 
 
 d. Le.^ality, lo8."). 
 
 2. Jii'-Jjhturancfi, 1036. 
 
 3. Double Innurance, 1039. 
 
 4. Grant and Igxne of PoHc>/, 1040. 
 
 0. Altendion and Correction, 1041. 
 
 6. Construction, 1043. 
 
 7. Ratification, 1046. 
 
 8. Property in Policy. 1046. 
 
 II. Insurance by Agents, Part Owners, or 
 
 Trustees, 1046. 
 
 III. Duration of PvISK. 
 
 1. On Goods. 
 
 a. What Goods. 1048. 
 
 b. On I.oadin.g or Landing Cargo, 1050. 
 
 c. Mode of Loading and Landing, 1054. 
 
 d. What Port, 1055. 
 
 2. On Ship. 
 
 a. Extent of Liability, 1058. 
 
 I. Termination on Mooring, 1064. 
 
 c. Time Policy, 1067. 
 
 3. On Freight, 1068. 
 
 IV. Nature of Risk. 
 
 1. Perils oft lie Sea 
 
 a. Injury consequential on, 1073. 
 
 b. Collision — Kimning-dowu Clause, 
 
 10S2. 
 
 c. Whilst under Repair, 1085. 
 
 d. Ship Missing. 1086. 
 
 e. Other Cases, 1087. 
 
 /. Evidence of Loss, 1087. 
 
 2. Jlentrnint and Detention, 1089. 
 
 3. Strandinij. 
 
 a. Operation of Memorandum, 1092. 
 *. What is, 1093. 
 
 4. Barratrij. 
 
 a. What is, 1097. 
 
 b. Who can Commit, 1099. 
 
 c. Effect and Proof of, 1100. 
 
 5. Jctti.ion, llol. 
 
 6. Fire. 1102. 
 
 7. Capture and Seizure. 
 
 a. What amounts to, 1104. 
 h. Proof. 11 OH. 
 
 8. Other Hi xkx, 1109. 
 
 V. Inthhest ok ,\ssi;hei). 
 
 1. Freifjht, lllti. 
 
 2. Gondx and Cinio. Ills. 
 
 3. Panxacje-moneii, 1125. 
 
 4. Seamen H W'ayex, 1126. 
 
 5. Frpeeted Profit x, 1 1 26. 
 
 6. Ship and Furniture, 1129. 
 
 7. Deck Carijo, Jettixon. 1130. 
 
 8. Jiillf and Adraneesfor Ship's Cue. 113ii. 
 
 9. Jiottomry, Bespondentia, J/oHf/ayc, 1132. 
 10. Connninjsion, M'^Ct. 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 1 1 . E-rpected Losses, 1 1 36. 
 
 12. Wayeriny Policies, 1137. 
 
 13. Valned Policies, 1138. 
 
 14. Neutral or Ho.it He Property, 1142. 
 
 15. Prize, 1143. 
 
 16. Legal or Equitable, 1145. 
 
 17. Ai-ernient and Proof of Lnte rest. 1145. 
 
 VI. Warranties. 
 
 1. Construction Generally, 1148. 
 
 2. Nationality, 1149. 
 
 3. Seateorthineits. 
 
 a. Sufficiency generally, 1150. 
 
 b. On Time Policy, 1154. 
 e. Carrying Goods, 1155. 
 
 d. Crew, 1157. 
 
 e. Pilot, 1158. 
 
 /. Repairs, 1158. 
 q. Tackle and Furniture, 1159. 
 'h. Liehters, 1159, 
 /. Proof, 1159. 
 
 4. Position of Ship, 1161. 
 
 5. To Sail on a. given Day, 1163. 
 
 6. To Sail with Conruy, 1167. 
 
 7. Neutrality, 1170. 
 
 8. Against Confiscation, 1173. 
 
 9. Against Ca2>ture, 1176. 
 
 10. As to Cargo, 1177. 
 
 11. Uninsured, 1177. 
 
 12. Freefrovi Average— See X. Losses. 
 
 VII. Concealment and Misrepresentation. 
 
 1. ^M^en Material generally, 1178. 
 
 2. Knowledge of Agents. 1185. 
 
 3. Known Con r.<te of Proceeding, IISS. 
 
 4. Intelligence at Lloyd.' s, 1189. 
 
 5. State and Condition of Ship and Cargo. 
 
 1191. 
 
 6. Time of Sailing, 1194. 
 
 7. Ship's Name, when in Danger, 11 9(5. 
 
 8. Port or Plaecof Sailing or Loading, 1197. 
 
 9. Commencement of Hostilities, 1198. 
 
 10. Terms of In-mrance, 1199. 
 
 11. Proof, 1199. 
 
 12. Chancery .hirisdieiion. 1200. 
 
 VIII. Voyage. 
 
 1. General Legality, 1201. 
 
 2. Simulated Papers, 1205. 
 
 3. Clearance, 1206. 
 
 t. herh Cargo, 1207. 
 
 5. Ilo.stile Ports, 1208. 
 
 6. Ports vnder Embargo. 1209. 
 
 7. Neutral Trading, 1209. 
 
 8. Abandonment of Voyage, 1211. 
 
 IX. 1)i:viati()N. 
 
 1. Generally, 1212. 
 
 2. Stress of Weatlier. 1215. 
 
 3. Hostile Ports, 1215. 
 
 4. Itestraint. 1216. 
 
 5. Trading, 1217. 
 
 6. Liberty to Touch at Ports, 1219. 
 
 33
 
 1027 
 
 SHIPriXG— INSURANCE— I. PoUcies. 
 
 1028 
 
 7. SccJihii/ Conroij, 1223. 
 S. Cruising, 1223. 
 
 X. Losses. 
 
 1. Total Loss, 1221. 
 
 2. Constructive Total Loss, 123G. 
 
 3. Average Loss. 
 
 a. General Average, 1240. 
 h. Warranty against, 1247. 
 
 4. Adjustment. 
 
 a. Persons Adjusting, 1253. 
 h. Computation, 1255. 
 
 c. EfEect of, 12*52. 
 (I. Payment, 1266. 
 
 5. E.rjye uses— Sue and Labour Clause, 126S. 
 
 XI. Abandonment. 
 
 1. Xotice. 
 
 a. Form of, 1277. 
 
 I). By whom Given, 1278. 
 
 e. Time for Notice, 1278. 
 
 d. Acceptance of, 1282. 
 
 2. In what Cases, 1283. 
 
 3. On Loss by Perils of Sea, 1288. 
 
 4. On Capture, 1289. 
 
 5. Embargo and Confiscation, 1292. 
 
 6. On Loss by other Means, 1294. 
 
 7. Effect of, on Freight and Cargo, 1294. 
 
 XII. Sale, by Master, of Ship and Cargo. 
 
 1. Shij), 1297. 
 
 2. Cargo, 1301. 
 
 XIII. Premiums. 
 
 1. Return of. 
 
 a. Policy Void, 1303. 
 
 b. Voyage Illegal, 1303. 
 
 c. Risk not Commenced, or Incomplete, 
 
 1305. 
 
 d. Ship in Safety. 1306. 
 
 e. Other Matters. 1308. 
 
 2. Payment — Action for, 1309. 
 
 XIV. Assignment op Policy, 1311. 
 
 XV. Subrogation, 1313. 
 
 XVI. Action on Policy. 
 
 1. Generally. 
 
 a. Parties, 1314. 
 
 b. Time for, 1317. 
 
 c. Evidence, 1317. 
 
 d. Consolidation, 1321. 
 
 e. Payment into Court, 1323. 
 /. Arbitration, 1323. 
 
 g. Pleading, 1325. 
 
 2. Bights of Insurers, 1331. 
 
 3. Bankruptcy, 1334. 
 
 4. Interest Becoverable, 1334. 
 
 5. Clianccry Jurisdiction, 1334. 
 
 6. Early Actions on Policies, 1335. 
 
 XVII. Insurance Brokers and Agents. 
 
 1. Betainer and Em2}loy>nent,13'3o. 
 
 2. Duty and Liability, 1336. 
 
 3. Authority to Pay and Beceire Losses, 
 
 1340. 
 
 4. Set-off, 1342. 
 
 5. Liahility for Policy Moneys, 1344. 
 
 6. Bemvneration, 1344. 
 
 7. Lien, 1346. 
 
 XVIIl. Insurance Companies and Mutual 
 Marine Insurance Associations. 
 
 1. Legality, 1350. 
 
 2. Actions for Contrihution, 1352. 
 
 3. B.ules, 1357. 
 
 4. Winding-uji, 1363. 
 
 I. POLICIES. 
 
 1. Stamping and Bequiveinenfs. 
 
 a. Xecessity of Stamp, 1028. 
 
 b. Upon Alteration. 1030. 
 
 ('. Slips and Informal Contracts, 1032 
 d. Legality, 1035. 
 
 2. Be-Insurance, 1036. 
 
 3. Double Insurance, 1039. 
 
 4. Grant and Issue of Policy, 1040. 
 
 5. Alteration and Correction, 1041. 
 
 6. Construction, 1043. 
 
 7. Batification, 1046. 
 
 8. Property in Policy, 1046. 
 
 1. Stamping and Requirements. 
 a. Necessity of Stamp. 
 
 Under early Acts.]— Under 25 Geo. 3, c. 44, 
 where several persons were interested in an 
 insurance all their names had to be inserted in 
 the policy. Wilton v. Beatson, 1 Park. Ins. 
 (8th ed.) 16. 
 
 Stamped policy is alone binding. Boyers v. 
 McCarthy, 1 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 39. 
 
 Admissibility in Evidence.] — By 35 Geo. 3, 
 c. 63, s. 14. and 4S Geo. 3, c. 149, if several distinct 
 interests were insured in the same policy, though 
 for one entire sum, on goods "to be thereafter 
 declared and valued" ; and it appeared in fact 
 that the several interests included fractional 
 parts of lOOZ., which interests were afterwards 
 declared and indorsed on the policy, such policy 
 could not be given in evidence, nor was available 
 in law to aiiy extent, unless stamped with a 
 stamp of sufficient value to cover aU such frac- 
 tional parts ; though sufficient to cover the 
 entire sum insured. Bapp v. Allnutt, 15 East, 
 601. 
 
 Where a policy produced at the trial of an 
 action has a suiiicient stamp, evidence will be 
 received that it had no such stamp when it was 
 effected, in which case it is a mere nuUity, 
 though stamped afterwards by order of the 
 commissioners. Boderich v. Ilovil, 3 Camp. 
 103. 
 
 A. insured a ship in a mutual marine insurance 
 association in 1863, and the policy, which was 
 not stamped, was annually renewed up to the 
 year ending March, 186S. In February, 1868, 
 the ship, with A. on board, was lost at sea. The 
 loss of the ship was reported to the association, 
 and from entries in the minute-books the money 
 due upon the policy was raised by order of the 
 committee, but retained by the secretary until a 
 personal representative to A. had been appointed.
 
 1029 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— I. Policies. 
 
 1030 
 
 T'ie coi.ipany was ordered to be wound up in 
 .lanuarT, 1870. and A.'s widow obtained letters 
 of administration to him in December, 1871. 
 Upon a claim by the widow under the winding- 
 up for the amount secured by the policy : — Held, 
 that there was a sufficient admission of liability 
 in the books of the company to enable the widow 
 to recover as a creditor for the amount secured 
 by the policy, although, from the absence of a 
 stamp, the policy itself, upon which the claim 
 arose, could not be given in evidence. Te'ign- 
 inoufJi i/nd General Mutnal Shipplnij Atisuri/i- 
 t'lon. In re. Jfen-fin'x elaim. 41 L. J.. Ch. 679 : 
 L. K. 14 Eq. 148 : 2(J L. T. 684: 1 Asp. M. C. 
 82.i. 
 
 Question for Jury.] — On the trial of an action 
 on a policy in \\ hich the existence of the policy 
 was in issue, the plaintiffs, pursuant to notice to 
 produce, called on the defendant to produce the 
 original policy. He declined, and they thereupon, 
 with a view of proving that it had been duly 
 executed, proceeded to put in a document, pur- 
 porting to be a copy of the jjolicy which they 
 had received from the defendant's broker. The 
 defendant objected, and requested the judge to 
 hear evidence to shew that no original policy 
 ■was or ever had been in existence. The objection 
 was overruled, and the alleged copy admitted. 
 Later in the cause the defendant gave evidence 
 tending to prove that in fact there had never 
 been any duly stamped policy, or indeed any 
 policy at all executed, and the judge left it to 
 the jury to say whether there had or had not 
 been executed a duly stamped j)olicy by the 
 defendant. The jury found in the affii'mative : — 
 Held, that the question was rightly left to the 
 jury, inasmuch as if the judge had himself decided 
 it, he would in fact have decided the main issue 
 between the parties. Stowe, v. Querner, 39 L. J.. 
 Ex. 60 : L. R. :, Ex. 1.5.5 ; 22 L. T. 29 ; 18 AV. R. 
 466. 
 
 Letter referring to Rules not Stamped.] — B. 
 & Co.. by letter, authorised the niaiiagcrs of a 
 nnitual marine insurance association to insure a 
 shij) with the association, and undertook to abide 
 by the rules and regulations thereof. By the 
 rules, each insurer became liable to contribute 
 to the losses of any other insurer in certain i)ro- 
 portions. In ])ursuancc of the authority given 
 by B. & Co., a duly stamped policy was issued to 
 them, which, however, contained no reference to 
 the rules : — Held, that the letter, althnugh not 
 stamped, was admissible in evidence, and that 
 B. & Co. were contributories. Albert Areri/t/e 
 Axuocifit'tini, In re, JUiifh ^' Co.' a Caxe, L. R. 13 
 Eq. 529 ; 20 W. R. 504. 
 
 Court will take Notice of, notwithstanding 
 Parties' Admissions. \ — In an artiuu on an .'illeL'ed 
 f-ontract of iTi^iiiaiice. a special cise was slati'd 
 without pleadings, from which it appeared that 
 no stamped ]iolicy liad ever })ecn executed ; but 
 It was stated that, for the )»urf)osc of the case, it 
 was to be taken as if the defendants had executed 
 a valid jiolicy in the ordinary form. The case 
 was ordered to Vie struck out on the ground that 
 tberc was no legal contract, on which tlie judg- 
 ment of the court could be delivered, and tliat 
 the admission did not authorise the court to 
 ■tliscuss the case. Xhon v. Albion Marine Inxur- 
 (inee Co., 36 L. J., Ex. 180 ; L. R. 2 Ex. 338 ; 16 
 'L. T. 56S ; 15 W. R 964. 
 
 30 Vict. c. 23, ss. 1, 4.] — A time policy embrac- 
 ing several ships with separate sums insured on 
 each is properly stamped at the aggregate amount 
 insured. Great Britain Steani.'^hij) Preminin 
 Association v. W/ii/te, 19 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th 
 ser.) 109. 
 
 Ship Insured without Stamped Policy — Estop- 
 pel.] — Where a member of a mutual insurance 
 company, afterwards converted into a limited 
 company, has vessels on its books as insured, 
 and pays calls, and otherwise acts as if he 
 were a member of the company, he is, in any 
 action brought against him by the limited com- 
 pany for calls on losses, estopped from denying 
 his liability, and from setting up either any irre- 
 gularity in the transfer from the one company 
 to the other, or that the losses were paid without 
 any stamped policies being entered into in con- 
 travention of 30 Vict. c. 23, s. 7. Burrow-in- 
 Funie.s-s Mdttal Shii) Insnrance Co. v. Ashburner, 
 54 L. J., Q. B. 377 : 54 L. T. 58 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 527— C. A. 
 
 Policy issued by Mutual Company — Sealing — 
 Validity — Stamp Act.] — Where a policy issued 
 by a mutual insurance company is sealed with 
 the company's seal and attested by the manager 
 it is sufficientl_v signed within the meaning of the 
 Stamp Act, 30 & 31 Vict. c. 23, s. 7. Marine 
 Mutual Insurance Co. v. Young, 43 L. T. 441 ; 
 4 Asp. M. C. 357. 
 
 b. Upon Alteration. 
 
 Where Stamp Required.] — A stamped policy, 
 on which an unstamped memorandum has been 
 afterwards indorsed, is not admissible, unless 
 the memorandum is also stamped. Ilex v. Gill- 
 .snn, 2 Leach, C. C. 1007 : R. i: R. 138 : 1 Taunt. 
 95. 
 
 Goods and specie to a certain amount having 
 been in.sured by a policy on ship or ships which 
 should sail on the voyage insured between the 
 1st October, 1799, and'the 1st June, 1800, a 
 memorandum written on tlie policy on the 11th 
 June, extending the time of sailing to the l.-rt 
 August, 1800, did not reijuire a new stamp, being 
 within the 35 Geo. 3, c. 63, s. 13, which jirovided 
 that the act imposing the stamp siiall not extend 
 to prohibit the making any lawful alteration in 
 the terms or conditions of any policy. A'en.iinijton 
 V. Jni/lis, S East, 273 ; 9 K. K. 43s'. 
 
 A policy of insurance ilulystanqied was effected 
 on a ship on a voyage at and from Liverpool to 
 Quebec. The sliip being detained beyond the 
 intended time of sailing, the following memoran- 
 dum was indorsed on the policy : "The 'Hebe' 
 being unavoidably detained beyond the intended 
 tiuu' of sailing to Queliec. the voyage is cliangid. 
 and the vessel proceeds from Liverpool to St. 
 Jolm's, New Brunswick, at aiul from thence to 
 London ; and in consideration of one guinea ]ier 
 cent. a<lditional, the uiKhrwriters agree to con- 
 tinue on the risk until the vessel shall be arrived 
 back in London, or her port of discliarge in the 
 United Kingdom": — Held, that the change of 
 destination of the ship, provide<l for by the 
 meinfiratMhim, was an alteration in the terms and 
 conditions of the policy, within 35 Geo. 3, c. 63, 
 s. 13; and. therefore, the jiolicy so altereil l)y 
 the memorandum did not require a new stanqi. 
 Jiroeltelbiinh v. Sugrur. 1 15. & Ad. 81 ; 1 M. iV: 
 
 38-2
 
 1031 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— I. Policies. 
 
 1032 
 
 Kob. 102 : r. Car. & T. 21 : S L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 
 871. 
 
 Whei'L' tlicrc w.is a policy on ti'oods at ami from 
 H. to II.. and the ship being driven into W. and 
 detained, the assured wrote to their agents in L. 
 " that the caiitain had been ordered to proceed to 
 C. as they were not certain whether the enemy 
 might be at 11. or not, and tliat the passage to C. 
 was nearly the same, but rather the shortest and 
 safest, and they desired- the agents to arrange 
 the matter with the underwriters," which letter 
 the agents receiving on 12th July, applied to the 
 underwriters for their consent to alter the policy, 
 by adding the words '' S. or M. after E." which 
 consent was obtained, and the ship and goods 
 were afterwards lost in the voyage to C. : — Held, 
 that this alteration did not recpiire a new stamj), 
 it being within 3.^ Geo. 3, c. 63, s. 13. Ihimxfrom 
 V. Jiell. h M. & 8. 267. 
 
 A policy eiJected on ship and outfit on a voyage 
 ujion the southern whale fishery out and home, 
 cannot be altered by consent after the ship sails, 
 and the risk attaches to an insurance on " ship 
 and goods " without a new stamp ; outfit, the 
 subject-matter of insui-ance, being essentially 
 different in such a voyage from goods, and there- 
 fore not within the exception of the 35 Geo. 3, 
 c. 63, s. 13, which enabled alterations to be made 
 in the terms or conditions of a policy, without 
 having a new stamp, so that the thing insured 
 remained the jiroperty of the same persons. 
 imi V. Patten, 8 East, 373 : 1 Camp. 72 ; 9 R. R. 
 469. And see Freiwh v. Patton, 9 East, 351 ; 
 1 Camp. 180 ; 9 R. R. 571 ; Bci'd v. Dirre, 
 7 B. & C. 261 : 2 Car. ^: P. 624 ; 31 R. R. 
 190. 
 
 A vessel having sailed and put back to the 
 Downs, and then sailed again, laboured and 
 strained much from being overloaded, and then 
 put back a second time ; and \\\)0\\ an applica- 
 tion to the underwriters for liberty for the ship 
 to go into port to discharge part of the cargo, it 
 was oidy communicated to them that the ship 
 was too deep in the water : — Held, that the 
 memorandum giving such liberty did not require 
 a new stamp. Weir v. Ahcrdrcn. 2 B. & Aid. 
 320 : 20 R. R. -150. 
 
 A policy was effected at four guineas per cent, 
 on hemp, marked R., and valued, with certain 
 returns of premium ixpon arrival at certain ports, 
 and warranted to sail before the 20th of Autrust, 
 which was a summer risk and premium ; by a 
 memorandum iiulorsed, the uiiderwriters for four 
 guineas additional and the return of 5*. less for 
 arrival, absolved the assured from the warranty 
 of sailing before 20th August, so making it a 
 winter risk : and withdi'ew the mark of the 
 hemp : — Held, that these were not such altera- 
 tions of the subject-matter insured, and of the 
 terms of the policy, but that they might be made 
 liy 3.') Geo. 3, c. 63, s. 13, without any new stamp. 
 Ilahhard v. .Taclison, 4 Taunt. 169 ; 13 R. R. 
 574. 
 
 A broker, instructed to effect a policy on 
 goods, effected it on the ship ; the mistake was 
 afterwards rectified by the underwriter subscrib- 
 ing a memorandum in the margin 5 — Held, that 
 no new stamp was necessary. Sawtell v. Luudon, 
 5 Taunt. 359 : 1 Marsh. 99. 
 
 A mistake made by an agent in declaring the 
 interest in the margin of the policy to be on a 
 ship by a wrong name, may be rectified by 
 inserting the true name, without a fresh stamp. 
 llohinson v. Ti)iir(iii, 1 M. lV S. 217 ; 3 Camp. 
 160 ; i:^ K. U. 7S1 ;■ and .ve li; R. R. 284, n. 
 
 c. Slips and Informal Contracts. 
 
 Slips, Effect of.] — The unsigned underwriters' 
 slips constitute only a provisional insurance, not 
 binding in law on the underwriters : and the 
 rights of the parties must be determined by the 
 policies when e.Kecuted. Mildred v. Ma.s/)on.\; 
 53 L. J., Q. B. 33 ; 8 App. Cas. 874 ; 32 W. R. 
 125 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 182— H. L. (E.) Aifirming 
 (S'. C. nom. Henna no v. Mildred. 
 
 As Evidence.] — Although by 31) Vict. 
 
 c. 23, ss. 4 and 9, a slip in the ordinary printed 
 form of an insurance office, not being stamped,. 
 is not available as a policy, it may be referred 
 to for the purpose of shewing what was the 
 intention of the parties at the time of the execu- 
 tion of a policy which is founded upon the slip. 
 lonidea v. Pae'ific Fire and Marine Inmuranee 
 Co.. 41 L. .J., Q. B. 190 ; L. R. 7 Q. B. 517 ; 26. 
 L. T. 738 ; 21 W. R. 22 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 454— 
 Ex. Ch. 
 
 By 30 Vict. c. 23, s. 7, no contract or agree- 
 ment for sea insurance shall be valid, unless, 
 expressed in a policy : — Held, that, notwith- 
 standing that statute, the slip might be given in 
 evidence, though not valid as a contract, as evi- 
 dence of the intention of the parties. Ih. 
 
 A slip signed by underwriters is not admis- 
 sible as evidence of a contract of insurance- 
 unless stamped. Morriwii v. Universal Marine- 
 Insurunee Co., 25 L. T. 108 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 100. 
 See iS-. C, 27 L. T. 791 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 503 — 
 Ex. Ch. 
 
 Custom as to.] — A custom whereby an 
 
 underwriter is held bound to issue a policy in 
 accordance with the terms of the slip, notwith- 
 standing that it was discovered after the signing- 
 of the slip that the subject-matter of the insur- 
 ance was lost, is bad. Ih. 
 
 No Contract to Execute Stamped Policy.] 
 
 — A Liverpool insurance cumpany euiphiyed the- 
 firm of E. & Co. as its agents in London. The 
 plaintiff instructed P. & Co. to insure for him 
 steel rails, and P. & Co. prepared a slip, which 
 was initialed by E. & Co. on behalf of the insur- 
 ance company. According to the course of 
 business observed by the insurance company, 
 P. & Co. sent a copy of the slip to E. & Co., who- 
 the same night sent it to the company at Liver- 
 pool. P. & Co. paid to E. &; Co. the premium 
 due on the policy and the amount due for the 
 stamp duty. The steel rails were afterwards 
 totally lost by the perils intended to be insured 
 against, and the company then refused to- 
 execute any stamped policy : — Held, that no 
 action would lie ; for that the initialing of the 
 slip and forwarding the copy slip to the company 
 were parts of one contract ; and that no further 
 contract could be implied to execute a stamped 
 policy within a reasonable time after the copy 
 slip was transmitted to the company, and as no- 
 stamped policy had been executed, 30 Vict. c. 23, 
 ss. 7 and 9, prevented the jjlaintiff from main- 
 taining an action. Fi,sher v. Liveriwol Marine 
 Inmvanee Co., 43 L. J., Q. B. 114 ; L. R. 9 Q. B. 
 418 ; 30 L. T. .501 ; 22 W. R. 951 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 454— Ex. Ch. 
 
 The memorandum, or slip, which, by the cus- 
 tom of Lloyd's, is given by underwriters prior to 
 the grant of a policy will not be enfoi-ced in 
 etjuit}' as a contract to grant a policy. Moroeeo-
 
 1033 
 
 SHIPPING— IX SUE AXCE— I. PoUci 
 
 cs. 
 
 1034 
 
 LaniJ (I ml Trddimi Co. v. Fri/. 11 Jiir. (X.S.) 7() : 
 
 11 L. T. 618 : 18 W. R.31U.' 
 Underwriters having executed to the defen- 
 dants, iron merchants, a policy of marine insur- 
 ance on a cargo which sutt'ered loss, tiled a bill 
 in equity for a rectitication of the policy, so as 
 to make it conformable to that which they said 
 was the real contract between the agents, in 
 proof of which they produced in evidence the 
 slip which was signed by their agent when pre- 
 .seuted at Lloyd's by a clerk of the defendants' 
 insurance broker. They denied that they ever 
 entered, or intended to enter, into any contract 
 other than that expressed by the policy : — Held, 
 that as the slip formed no contract, antl there 
 was no binding agreement between the parties 
 imtil the policy was signed and the premium 
 paid, the bill must be dismissed with costs. 
 Mdclienzie v. CuuUcni, L. R. 8 Eq. 368. 
 
 On Contract to keep Insured.] — A plain- 
 tiff having l)r(iught an actidii against a ship's 
 company f(jr the recovery of a debt, it was agreed 
 between the parties that proceedings should be 
 sta3-ed and no judgment signed, upon the terms 
 that the comijany should execute to the plaintiff 
 a mortgage of the ship for the amount of his 
 debt, and keep the same insured. On the day 
 before the expiration of the then existing policy, 
 .slips of jjolicies were signed by the underwriters, 
 but the new jJolicies themselves were not com- 
 pleted until three days after the expiration of 
 the old ones : — Held, that this was a non-com- 
 pliance on the part of the comj)any of their 
 undeitaking to keep insured, and that the plain- 
 tiff was therefore entitled to sign judgment. 
 P((rni V. Grrat Ship Co.. 4 B. <.V: S. .556; 83 
 L. J.. Q. B. 41 : 1(1 Jur. (x.s.) 294 ; 9 L. T. 379 ; 
 
 12 W. K. 78. 
 
 On Winding up.] — S. agreed Ijy writing 
 
 to become a member of an association, each 
 member of which on effecting an insurance on 
 his own ship became bound to contribute to the 
 l<jss of any otliei' mendjcr. S. agreed to become 
 a member in respect of an insurance foi' 3n()/. on 
 his own ship, but no stamped ])olicy was ever 
 executed. He (•f)ntri1)uted to tlie losses of other 
 members, and liis own shi]) having been injured 
 he made a claim in respect of it, but before any- 
 thing liad been paid the association was ordered 
 to be wound u|) : — Held, tiiat under 8.'» Geo. 8, 
 c. 68, no agiecment for insui'ance of sliips can be 
 valid nidess duly stamped according to that act, 
 that tiioreffire tlierewas no eviilence of a binding 
 mutual contract for insuiancc having been 
 cntei'ed into, and that S. was not a contributor}'. 
 London Mariiw ] n.turnncc Anxoci/iflon, In vv, 
 A'w/7//, A'j- />/irfr, 8H I>. ,J., Cli. (181 : L. K. I Ch. 
 611 : 21 T>. T. 97 : 17 W. It. 911. 
 
 'Open Cover"— Refusal of Policies in Terms 
 of Cover — Specific Performance.] — .\ii open 
 <-ov«;r. or pro|pos:d to insun- Ixjforc the goods to 
 be insured arc sliii)ped. was given by the respon- 
 <lcnts to M. in order that he might give it to the 
 charterer, who after shipmoit applied for policies 
 to the amount mcntioncil in the (;over ami was 
 refused: — Held, that such ajiplicatioii consti- 
 tuted an acceptance of a subsisting proposal, and 
 that there was a binding contract with the 
 charterer to issue a policy in terms of the 0])en 
 cover. The asking for two jiolicies did not pre- 
 vent the acceptance being sufficient as there was 
 a refusal to give any. JihiKjiouiuhix.i v. Nether- 
 
 huid.'i Ind'id Sen Innuntncc Co.. 14 App Cas 83 
 —P. C. . 1 b ■ 
 
 Effect of Misnomer.] — The jJaintiffs, by order 
 of K.. at Hamburg, opened witli an insurance 
 company a policy on hides by ship or ships to 
 the extent of 5.000^. The slip was signed on the 
 28rd of September, 1869, but the jiolicy had not 
 then been made out ; on the 3rd of February, 
 1870, one of the plaintiffs went to the company's 
 office, taking with him the slip for the .o.OOoZ. 
 policy, and filed up two slips, one for 2,4.5.5;. on 
 hides, per " Socrates," and another slip for 2.50()Z. 
 on hides by another vessel : he stated to the 
 clerk of the company that it would be more con- 
 venient to both i)arties to have two separate 
 policies, instead of drawing up an open i)olicy 
 for .5,(100/., and then declaring it on 4.95.5/. The 
 clerk actiuiesced, and initialed the two slips, and 
 afterwards the policies were executed by the 
 company. There was a Norwegian ship, the 
 " Socrates," and a French ship, the " Socrate," 
 both des(U-ibed in the Veritas, the risk on the 
 latter being greater than on the former. The 
 hides insured by the i)olicy were shipped on 
 board the '• Socrate " and lost. At the trial the 
 jury found that the jiarties, on entering into the 
 contract, both meant to insure the hides by the 
 vessel on which they were actually shipped, 
 whatever her name might be, though they sup- 
 posed it to be the " Socrates," and that the 
 company did not mean only to insure hides on 
 board the " Socrates " : — Hekl, that the com- 
 pany being bound on the 8rd of February to 
 insure hides on board any shijjs selected by the 
 plaintiffs, the misnomer was of no consequence, 
 and the company were liable. lonidex v. Pacifc 
 Fire nnd Jfarine In.turaHre Co.. 41 L. J., (.}. B. 
 190 : L. R. 7 Q. B. 517 : 26 L. T. 788 : 21 W. R. 
 22 ; 1 Asp. i\I. C. 880— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Disclosure after Slip initialed.] — When under- 
 wi-iters have. l)y initialing a slij), made a con- 
 tract of assurance, which, although invalid at 
 law and in equitj- for want of statutory 
 requisites, is, nevertheless, in practice, and 
 according to the usage of those engaged in 
 marine insurance, a complete and final contract 
 binding upon them in lionour and good faith, 
 whatever events may subsequently happen, the 
 assured need not connnunicate to the under- 
 writers facts which afterwards come to his 
 knowledge material lo the risk insmvd against ; 
 and the non-disclosure of such facts will not 
 vitiate the policy of insurance afterwards exe- 
 cuted. And it makes im diiference that, the 
 insurance being negotiated l)y an agent of the 
 assured, the slip was initialed subject to the 
 ratification of the assured. Cory v. Patton, 
 18 I.. J.. Q. B. 181 ; I,. R. 9 Q. 1$. 577 : 80 L. T. 
 75S : 28 \V. R. 16 ; 2 Asj). M. ('. 802. 
 
 See S. ('.. on demurrer. 41 L. .1.. Q. !'.. 195. n. ; 
 L. R. 7 Q. B. 804 ; 2(; L. T. 161 : 20 W. R. 864 : 
 1 Asp. M, C. 225. 
 
 An midcrwiitcr signed a slij) effecting an 
 insurance on the freight of a ship ; at the time 
 of his so signing the plaintiff knew of, but did 
 not cominunifate to the dcfciKlant, a fact wiiicji 
 the court held to be a material f.act, which the 
 plaintiff was bound to communicate. 'J'he defen- 
 dant sub-scfiuently, at the time when he was 
 fully ac(|uaintcd with this fact, signed a policy 
 in conformity with the terms of the slip, but also 
 at the same time wrote a letter of jirotcst to the 
 plaintiff's brokers, declaring that iir, would lesist
 
 1035 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— I. Policies. 
 
 1036 
 
 any claim made mider the policy : — Held, that 
 the i)olicy ■was vitiated by the concealment, and 
 the action was not maintainable. Xir/niLio// v. 
 J'owcr. 20 \j. T. .■iSi). 
 
 Estoppel by Conduct.] — Where the assurer 
 
 discovers the t'Oiiccalment of a material fact 
 between the initialiiiL;- of the slip and the issuing 
 of the stamped policy, but issues the policy 
 without jirotest, he is not estopped from disputing 
 his liability, nor is the burden of proof thrown 
 ou him to shew that the assured was not misled 
 into treating the contract as still subsisting. 
 Morrison v. Uniccrsal Jlaj'iiu; Imvrttnce Co., 
 42 L. J., Ex. ll.'> : L. R. 8 Ex. 197 ; 21 W. R. 
 774 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 503— Ex. Ch. 
 
 d. Leg-ality. 
 
 And see V. Interest of Assured, 12. 
 
 Wagering Policies, post, coL 1137 ; 14. 
 
 Neutral or Hostile Property, post, col. 
 1142. 
 
 Under Repealed Acts.] — A. & B. were secret 
 partners in underwriting, each signing policies 
 in his own name : — Held, that such policies 
 were not voitl under 3.5 Geo. 3, c. 63, s. 11. 
 Brrtt V. Berk with. 26 L. J., Ch. 130 ; 3 Jur. 
 (N.s.) 31 ; 5 W. R. 112. 
 
 A policy effected in the name of the broker 
 of the assured not describing the broker as agent 
 was not contrary to 28 Geo. 3, c. 56. De Viguier 
 V. Sivanson, 1 Bos. & P. (N.R.) 346, n. ; 4 R. R. 
 825, n. 
 
 Semble, a transfer by one underwriter to 
 another at a higher premium his subscription to 
 a policy is not a reassurance prohibited by 
 19 Geo. 2, c. 37, s. 4. Delver Y.Barnes, 1 Taunt. 
 48 ; 9 R. R. 707. 
 
 A policy made by a company not subscribed 
 b}' the individual members of the company is not 
 void under 25 Geo. 3, c. 63. Dowdall v. Allan, 
 19 L. J., Q. B. 41. And see Reid v. Allan and 
 cases infra, col. 1351. 
 
 A. and B. were in partnership carried on in A.'s 
 name, to insure ships. A. ]iaid all the losses. 
 The partnership being illegal under 6 Geo. 1, 
 c. 18, A. could not recover from B. his share of 
 the losses. Mitclicll v. Cockhimc, 2 H. Bl. 
 380. 
 
 Advances on Ship — Full interest admitted — 
 19 Geo. 2, c. 37, s. 1.]— See Smith v. Reynolds, 
 post, col. 1132. 
 
 Names of Subscribers.] — A mutual marine 
 
 insurance association issued policies signed by 
 managers per procuration of the several mem- 
 bers of the association : — Held, that this was not 
 a specification of the names of the subscribers 
 or underwriters within the meaning of the 30 
 Vict. c. 23, s. 7, and that on this ground the 
 policies were void. Arth^ir Average A.i'sociation, 
 In re, Cory, Ex parte, Ilarqrove, E.v parte, 45 
 L. J., Ch. 346 : 3 Oh. D. 522'; 34 L. T. 388 ; 24 
 W. R. 514 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 570— C. A. 
 
 Companies.] — Since the 5 Geo. 4, c. 114, 
 
 where a marine insurance is effected by an insu- 
 rance company, it is not necessary that the name 
 of each member of the company' should be 
 expressed in the policy. Reid. v. Allan, 4 Ex. 
 326: 19 L. J.. Ex. 39: 13 Jur. 1082. S. P., 
 Doiodall V. Clarh, 19 L. J., Q. B. 41 ; 14 Jur. 
 
 311 ; Ilallett v. Doivdall, 18 Q. B. 2 ; 21 L. J., 
 Q. B. 98 ; 16 Jur. 462. 
 
 Person Interested or Agent.] — If an agent 
 residing abroad effected a jxilicy without insert- 
 ing his name as agent, such policy was void by 
 25 Geo. 3, c. 44 (repealed by 28 Geo. 3, c. 56). 
 Pray v. Eadie, 2 Term Rep. 313 : 1 R. R. 200. 
 
 And the name of the i)arty interested must 
 have been inserted in the policy, otherwise he 
 could not recover upon it. Gw v. Parry, 1 
 Term Rep. 464. 
 
 If the name of the broker effecting a policy is 
 inserted in a policy as agent, it is a sufficient 
 compliance with 28 Geo. 3, c. 56. Bell v. Gilson, 
 1 Bos. & P. 345 ; 4 R. R. 823. 
 
 In a policy the persons interested were denomi- 
 nated "the trustees of Messrs. K. F. & Co.": — 
 Held, that this might be considered their usual 
 style and firm of dealing. Hihbert v. Martin, 
 1 Camp. 538. 
 
 A declaration stating that M. and another 
 caused to be effected a policy containing that 
 J. G. & Co. did make assurance, and averring the 
 interest in F. W. S., with a promise by the defen- 
 dant to the plaintiffs, in consideration of the 
 in-emium paid by them, was held good after 
 verdict ; for it must be intended that the plain- 
 tiffs insured under the names of J. G. & Co., and 
 that they were proved to be within one or other 
 of the descriptions of persons in 28 Geo. 3, c. 56, 
 in whose names or usual style or firm of dealing 
 insurance may be made. Mellish v. Bell, 15 
 East, 4 ; 13 R. R. 344. 
 
 A. having consigned a cargo to B., and drawn 
 bills on him to the amount of it in favour of C, 
 his general agent, sent these bills together with 
 the bills of lading to C, desiring him to transmit 
 them to B., " that B. may have an opportunity of 
 insuring " ; he also drew a bill for 6001. on C, 
 which was accepted ; B. refused to take to the 
 cargo or accept the bills drawn on him ; C. then 
 effected a policy in his own name, and informed 
 A., who approved of his conduct : — Hekl, that 
 the policv was good within 28 Geo. 3, c. 56. 
 Wolf V. 'llorneastle, 1 Bos. & P. 316 ; 4 R. R. 
 808. 
 
 Policy signed by Three for Themselves and 
 Others— Validity— 30 Vict. c. 23, s. 7.]— A policy 
 signed by three persons " for ourselves and the 
 other membei's of the I. Assurance Association," 
 which was an unincorporated and mutual society, 
 does not comply with 30 Vict. c. 23, s. 7. (Lord 
 Justice Clerk and Lord Young, contra), Inrer- 
 licitltiny Marine and Freight Assftranee Asso- 
 eiation'y. Maelicnzie, 9 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 
 1043. 
 
 Commission.] — Insurance of captain's com- 
 mission, ^:e. in the African trade is legal. King 
 V. Glorcv, 2 Bos. & P. (N.R.) 206; 9 R.^R. 638. 
 
 2. Re-Insurance. 
 
 Liability on.] — Formerly every re-insurance 
 in this countiy. either by British subjects or by 
 foreigners, whether on British or on foreign ships, 
 was void, and an action to recover the premiums 
 would not lie. Andree v. Fletcher. 2 Term Rep. 
 161 ; 3 Term Rep. 266 ; 1 R. R. 701. But see 
 30 & 31 Vict. c. 23, s. 3. 
 
 By a policy a vessel was insured from Bombay 
 to Calcutta, and for thirty days after she had been 
 moored at the latter place. She had arriveel there
 
 1037 
 
 SHIPPING— IXSUEANCE— I. Policies. 
 
 1038 
 
 ten days before such policy was effected ; and on 
 receiving news of her arrival, her owners effected 
 a second policy on her with the same insurers, by 
 which she was insured at and from Calcutta to 
 Bombay. The vessel was totally lost at Calcutta 
 during the continuance of the risk under both 
 policies, and the insurers having paid the owners 
 as for a total loss upon the second policy sought 
 to recover the full amount upon a policy of re- 
 insurance which they had effected of the risk 
 under the second policy, without deducting the 
 money payable upon the first policy. The court 
 was of opinion that the second policy was inten- 
 ded as a substitution for the first, and that the 
 original insurers were liable only on the second 
 policy, and were, therefore, entitled to recover 
 the full amount on the policy of re-insurance. 
 I'/iioH Jfarine Insurdnce Co. v. Martin. 35 L. J., 
 C. P. 181. 
 
 Need not be Mentioned.] — An underwriter 
 "on goods" may reinsure by the same descrip- 
 tion ; and the policy neeil not be expressed to be 
 a reinsurance. JfticJtenzic v. Wliiticvrth, 45 
 L. J., Ex. 233 : 1 Ex. D. 36 ; 33 L. T. G55 ; 2i 
 ^^^ R. 287 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 490— C. A. 
 
 An underwriter having subscribed a marine 
 policy of insurance on certain goods, afterwards 
 insured his risk by effecting with other under- 
 writers a policy on the goods without stating that 
 the latter transaction was a re-insurance. In an 
 action by him upon the second policy, a common 
 jji'actice to state tire fact of a re-insurance in the 
 slip or policy was admitted ; but the jury found 
 the fact immaterial and negatived concealment : 
 — Held, that he was not bound by law to disclose 
 the fact of re-insurance unless inquiry were made 
 of liim with respect to it, and was. therefore, 
 u[)on the findings of the jury, entitled to the 
 verdict. Ih. 
 
 Declarations of Risk.] — In accordance with an 
 agreement entered into Vjetween the plaintiffs, 
 a marine insurance companj', and tlie defendants, 
 a fire insurance coni])any, the defendants sub- 
 scribed a policy whereby they undertook to rein- 
 sui'c the plaintiffs against loss oi- damage by fire 
 to the extent of 50.000^. by the ships as might bo 
 declared at and from certain ])0its to destination, 
 tlie policy to be subject to the same conditions 
 (as far as they related to the fire risk only) as 
 till' original policy or policies, and would ])ay as 
 might be paid theicoii. The])olicy provideil that 
 the arrangement was to be in force for one year 
 from tlie 1st of October, IH7f'>, and to include 
 only such vessels as were coal-laden ; the policy 
 to be HU|i))lementcd by further policies on like 
 terms shriuld the amount thereof not prove 
 sutficient for the year's transactions. Tlie policy 
 becoming exhausted l)y declaration of risk, the 
 defendants, on the itth of July, subscribed a 
 second policy similar in terms to the former 
 policy, and this secoml policy becoming likewise 
 exhausted, a third |)olicy was. on the 25th of 
 October, subscribed by the defendants, similar 
 in terms to the former |)olicies. On the 71 h of 
 June the plaintiffs insured a coal-laden shi]), the 
 " Hampden." and there was a loss by fire of the 
 cargo on the IHth of September, which would 
 have been covered Vjy the ])olicy of insurance if 
 the risk had been didy declared, but through the 
 negligence of the plaintiff's manager the risk had 
 not been declared. At the tinir; the third i>olicy 
 was effect (mI the ])laintiffs knew of the loss, and 
 on thr 2nd of 2sovember they declared the 
 
 " Hampden " and claimed for a loss. The plain- 
 tiffs having brought an action to recover the loss, 
 it was : — Held, tliat the plaintiffs were entitled 
 to recover, for that the defendants were insurers 
 in respect of a marine risk, and as such subject 
 to the usage of underwriters, stated in Sh'pheyis 
 V. Auftt}-alia>t Insurance Co. (L. R. 8 C. P. 18), 
 by which in the case of open policies on ships to 
 be declared, the policy attaches to the goods as 
 soon as, and in the order in which, they are 
 shipped, in which order the assured is bound to 
 declare them, and in case of mistake as to the 
 ortler of shipment, the assured is bound to rectify 
 the declaration, which may, in the absence of 
 fraud, be altered even after the loss is known. 
 Imperial Marine Insurance Co. v. Fire Insurance 
 Corporation, 48 L. J., C. P. 424 ; 4 C. P. D. 16(5 ; 
 40 L. T. 166 ; 27 W. R. 680 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 71. 
 
 "To pay as may be paid" on Original Policy 
 — Indemnity — Condition precedent.] — The W. 
 
 Company, having insured a ship, re-insured part 
 of their risk with the E. Company, and duly 
 paid the premiums. The re-insurance policy was 
 not an exact copy of the original policy, but 
 contained the following clause : — "'Being a i-e- 
 insm-ance ajiplying to the lines of the Western 
 Insurance Company, Limited, policy No. , 
 subject to the same terms and conditions as the 
 original policy or policies, and to pay as may be 
 paid thereon." The ship insured had suffered 
 damage from the perils insured against, but the 
 W. Company had not as yet paid any part of it. 
 Both companies were in liquidation, and the 
 liquidator of the W. Company made a claim in 
 the winding-up of the E. Company for the 
 amount secured by the policy of reinsurance : — 
 Held, that payment by the W. Companj' on the 
 original policy was not a condition precedent to 
 their recovering against the E. Company. Wes- 
 tern Insurance Co., Ex parte, Eddystone Marine 
 Insurance Co., In re, 61 L. J., Ch. 362 ; [1892] 
 2 Ch. 423 : 66 L. T. 370 ; 40 W. R. 441 ; 7 Asp. 
 M. C. 1(;7. 
 
 Appropriation.] — The plaintiffs were the 
 London agents of an insurance company, who 
 had also an agent at Calcutta. The company 
 issued ))olicies on cargoes proceeding from Cal- 
 cutta to the United Kingdom, re-insuring the 
 excess above 5,000/. on any one shij), through 
 their agents, the plaintiffs, with the defendants, 
 lost or not lost, in any one ship, as may be 
 ileclared. From time to time the plaintiff's 
 icceived advices from the agent at Calcutta, 
 stating the names of the shijjs, aiul particulars 
 of the excess of 5,000Z. upon each, whereu|)on 
 they declareil the ships to the defendants, 
 together with the amount of excess, indorse- 
 ments of which were made on the back of the 
 policy, which was thereby appro])riated to the 
 particular risk, liy a letter of the 15th February, 
 1860, the Calcutta agent informed the plaintiffs 
 of an excess insured by the company on the ship 
 " R." On the 16tli March both the i)laintiffs 
 and defendants had infdrnialion, as the fact was, 
 that the " R," had liecn destroyed by fire. On 
 the 17tli M.'irch the plaintiffs ai)pro|iriated the 
 whole of the amount remaining on the then cur- 
 rent policy to other ships. On the 19th March 
 the plaintiffs effected a fresh policy with the 
 defendants, in cont inuation of the former one ; 
 and on the 21st the [ilaintiffs received the letter 
 of the Calcutta agent of tlie 15th February ; 
 whereupon they innnediately declared to the
 
 1039 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— I. Policies. 
 
 1040 
 
 (lofoiulaiits that the policy of the I'.tth would be 
 ajUH'opriated to the exeess of 5,000/. on board the 
 " K." ; and on the 2Gth March made an indorse- 
 ment thereof upon the policy, the defendants 
 disputing their right to do so : — Held, tliat the 
 fact of the loss of the " E." being known to both 
 plaintiffs and defendants at the time of the 
 issuing of the policy was immaterial, as it was 
 not at that time known to either party that the 
 company had undertaken any risk with respect 
 to the ship ; and that the declaration and appro- 
 priation were sutfieient. Gledstanes v. lldi/al 
 Exchange Inttvrance Corporation, 5 B. & S. 7'J7 ; 
 S4 L. J., Q. B. 30 ; 11 Jur. (N.s.) 108 ; 11 L. T. 
 305 : 13 W. K. 71. 
 
 Voyage ended when Policy effected.] — The 
 
 defendant, who had insured a cargo by a certain 
 vessel, lost or not lost, for a certain voyage, 
 believing such vessel to be overdue, effected a 
 policy of reinsurance with the plaintiff on the 
 same cargo and risk. Before effecting the policy 
 of reinsurance, the vessel and cargo had iu fact 
 arrived safely at the port of destination ; but 
 this was not known to either the plaintiff or 
 defendant at the time the policj' was effected : — 
 Held, that the policy had attached, and that 
 therefore the plaintiff was entitled to the pre- 
 mium at which it had been effected. Bradford 
 V. Symondson, 50 L. J., Q. B. 582 ; 7 Q. B. D. 
 456 : 45 L. T. 364 ; 30 W. R. 27 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 455— C. A. 
 
 Construction of Clause " to Pay as may be 
 Paid" — Liability of Reinsurer.] — A policy of 
 reinsurance contained the following clause : 
 " Being a reinsurance subject to the same 
 clauses and conditions as the original policy, and 
 to pay as may be paid thereon, but against the 
 risk of total and (or) constructive loss, total loss 
 only." The ship insured bj' the original policy 
 stranded and was abandoned, and the under- 
 writers paid a total loss. The reinsui-ers I'efused 
 to admit any liability to pay under the polic.y of 
 reinsurance, upon the ground that the ship had 
 never been shewn to be a constructive total loss : 
 — Held, that, upon the true construction of this 
 clause, it did not bind the reinsurer to pay such 
 sum as the insurer might choose to pay the 
 assured, whether liable or not. CJiippendale v. 
 Holt, 65 L. J.. Q. B. 104 ; 73 L. T. 472 ; 44 W. K. 
 128 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 78. 
 
 Reinsurance against Fire — Usage — Order of 
 Attachment of Policies.] — See M<rrittiiir Marine 
 Insurance Co. v. Fire Ileinxvrancc Co., infra, 
 col. 1046. 
 
 3. Double Insurance. 
 
 Amount Recoverable.] — In a case of double 
 insurance, the insured may recover the whole 
 against any of the insurers, and leave him to 
 recover satisfaction from the rest. Xcidci/ v. 
 Reed, I W. Bl. 116. S. P., Roqcrs v. Dadx, 1 
 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 601. 
 
 In an action on a valued policy, it is no 
 defence that the assured has received the amount 
 of the valuation in the policy from the under- 
 writers on another policy, if the subject-matter 
 insured is proved to be of a value equal to the 
 sum received and that sought to be recovered. 
 Bousfield V. Barnes, 4 Camp. 228 ; 16 R. R. 
 780. 
 
 Where two policies for different sums were 
 effected on goods on board any ship or ships on a 
 
 particular voyage, and goods were put in different 
 ])roportions on board two ships which sailed on 
 the voyage, one of which was lost, but the other 
 arrived in safety : — Held, that the insured might 
 apply either policy to the ship which was lost. 
 Henchman v. Otficy. 2 H. Bl. 345, n. ; 3 Dougl. 
 135. 
 
 Bankruptcy of Assured — Second Insurance by 
 Assignees — Payment.] — J. S. made a policy on a 
 ship valued at 2,500Z., and became bankrupt. 
 His assignees reinsured for 2,500^. ; and upon 
 the loss of the ship the underwriters on the 
 second policy paid J. S. 2,500/. for the loss : — Held, 
 that J. S. could not sue on the first policy. Mor- 
 gan V. Stockdale, 4 Ex. 615. 
 
 4. Grant and Issue of Policy. 
 
 Formalities.] — A policy purported to be 
 signed, sealetl and delivered by two of the direc- 
 tors of an insurance company in the presence of 
 their secretary, and according to the powers 
 vested in the directors by the deed of settlement 
 of the comjiany. This statement was taken, as 
 against the company, to be conclusive that it 
 was not only duly signed and sealed, but also 
 duly delivered. Xeno.-i v. Wlchhani, 36 L. J., 
 C. P. 313 ; L. R. 2 H. L. 296 ; 16 L. T. 800 : 16 
 W. R. 38. 
 
 A policy signed, sealed and delivered is com- 
 plete and binding as against the party executing 
 it, though, in fact, it remains in his possession, 
 unless there is some particular act required to be 
 done by the other party to declare his adoption 
 of it. Ih. 
 
 It is not necessary that the assured should 
 formally accept or take away a policy in order 
 to make the delivery complete. Ih. 
 
 After the broker hatl j)repared a slip, and the 
 proposed insurer had accepted it, and had jn'c- 
 pared a polic.y iu accordance with it, a desire 
 was expressed by him and assented to by the 
 underwriter that the policy should be cancelled, 
 on which a cancellation was in form effected : — 
 Held, that this was not effectual as to the 
 assured, who hail not, in fact, given the broker 
 any authoritj' to cancel the policy. Ih. 
 
 Mistake — Cancellation.] — A broker was 
 instructed to effect for a shipowner an insur- 
 ance on a shij). The broker gave a slip to C. 
 (the authorised representative of an insurance 
 company), which was accepted, and a policy }ire- 
 pared accordingly. When the policy (with the 
 amount debiting the broker with the premimn) 
 was sent to his office, duly signed, sealed and 
 delivered, his clerk said there had been a mis- 
 take, that the policy ought not to have gone 
 forward, and that there was no premium due. 
 This was repeated by another clerk, who came to 
 C.'s office for the purpose, and requested the 
 cancellation of the policy. C. acted on these 
 representations (which, however, had been made 
 by the broker's clerks without any authority 
 from the shipowner), and cancelled the policy, 
 but charged the broker with the stamp duty jjaid, 
 and gave the policy to him in order to enable 
 him, if possible, to get a return of the stamp 
 duty on it. The ship was lost, and the siii})- 
 owner made his claim for the loss : — Held, that 
 the cii'cumstances were sufficient to shew an 
 execution and a delivery of the polic.y, and that 
 the unauthorised act of the broker afforded no 
 answer to the claim. Ih.
 
 1041 
 
 SHIPPING— IN SUE ANX'E— I. Policies. 
 
 ]042 
 
 At what Time Valid.] — A policy on a ship 
 "lost or not lost." executed after the ship is 
 known by all the j)artics to be lost, in jnirsuance 
 of a previous asreemcnt to insure, is valiil. Mend 
 V. Barison. i X. & M. 701 : 3 A. & E. 303 ; 1 
 H. & W. ].-)6 : 4 L. J.. K. B. 1!)3. 
 
 5. Alteratiox and Correction. 
 
 TTsage to Alter.] — A shipowner who was in 
 the habit of receiving shipments of cotton to be 
 carried on deck, sometimes at the request and 
 risk of the shippers, sometimes for his own con- 
 venience, and under a clean bill of lading at his 
 own risk — to protect himself as to jettison in the 
 latter case, entered into open policies of insur- 
 ance as to which the usage was that he was 
 bound to declare all his risks in order of ship- 
 ment, and rectify any mistake even after loss 
 known. His agent, by negligence or by mistake, 
 gave a clean bill of lading for a certain shipment 
 and gave no notice to him, but such shipowner 
 on discovering the omission altered his (leclara- 
 tion b}' inserting this shipment though after 
 loss known : — Held, that the shipowner had an 
 insurable interest, as at law a written contract 
 cannot be varie<l on the gi'ound of negligence or 
 mistake, and was entitled to alter the declara- 
 tions both according to the usage, which could 
 not be .said to be unreasonable, and according to 
 the doctrine to be deduced from decided cases, 
 that by the usages of merchants and under- 
 writers, recognised by the courts without formal 
 l»roof, such declarations may be altered even 
 after loss known, if the alterations are made 
 innocently and without fraud. Sfrphrns v. 
 Aiixtralnsinn Inxuvatice Co., 42 L. J.. C. P. 12; 
 L. K. 8 C. P. IH ; 27 L. T. .58.5 ; 21 W. R. 228 ; 
 1 Asp. M. C. 4.-.S. 
 
 Addition of Subject-matter.] — If a policy is 
 executed in the printed form, without any 
 (Specific subject of insurance being inserted in 
 writing, and the .subject-matter is afterwards 
 added in writing, antl the addition signed by 
 some of the underwriters only, the assured 
 cannot recover against those underwriters who 
 do not so sign, on the contract as it stands 
 alrcicfl by the insertion. Langhorn v. Cohujan, 
 4 Taunt. 330: 13 K. II. 613. 
 
 A policy originally underwritten on "ship and 
 outfit " was, after the .ship sailed, declared by 
 consent of all parties to )je on shi]) and goods, 
 by a memorandum written on a blank space in 
 the body of the jiolicy : Ijut without any new 
 stamps ; and it iiaving been before decided, that 
 for want of the stamp the plaintiff could not 
 recover as upon a policy on ship and gfiods, as 
 declared by the niemoran<hini, it was now held 
 that he could not recover upon the jiolicy in its 
 original state as an insurance on "sliip and 
 outfit," by reason of the alteration appaient 
 upon the face of the instrument itself, and 
 which was ma<lc by jiarties interested. French 
 v. I'dttoii or Pdtfr'ii. H Kast, 3.")1 : 1 Camj). 72, 
 ISO. IMO b ; \) \l. K. .571. An<l .sec inil v. Patten, 
 ^ Kast. 373; 1 f'amp. 72 ; 9 K. 11. 469. 
 
 As to Voyage.] — A iiolicy wa.s effected on 
 goods from Patavia to London ; after the exe- 
 cution of the ])olicy. the time of sailing was 
 enlarged from the 10th Octo])er to the 31st 
 December by the assured. an<l ,nc(|uiesccd in by 
 all the underwriti'rs. except the <lefendant :— 
 Held, that it was a material alteration, although 
 
 I the defendant had signed three memoranda sub- 
 sequent thereto : yet. not having assented to it, 
 the policy was void as to him : and that, con- 
 sequently, the assured could not recover the 
 amount of his subscriptioii. Fairlir v. C/irixfie. 
 1 Moore. 114 : 7 Taunt. 412 ; Holt, 331 ; 18 R. R. 
 .51.5. 
 
 The owner of a vessel bound from London to 
 Berbice. which had deviatetl b^' taking in goods 
 at Madeira, insured her, with notice to the 
 underwriter of the circumstances, " at and from 
 London to Berbice," and inserted the words " at 
 sea " in another part of the policy : — Held, that 
 the deviation was a good defence, as the policy 
 was thereby vacated. Bedinan v. Loudon or 
 Lvwdcn, .5 Taunt. 462 : 1 Marsh. 136 : 3 Camp. .503. 
 
 A policy "at and from A. and B." is not 
 vitiated by inserting, without the consent of the 
 underwriter, the words " both or either." Chip- 
 Jiitm V. Cohu/an. 3 Camp. 382. 
 
 On a policy on ship and goods " at and fiom 
 Cuba to Liverpool, with liberty in that voyage 
 to proceed and sail to and touch and stay at any 
 ports and places whatsoever : and with leave to 
 discharge and take in at any ports or places she 
 might call at, without prejudice to that insur- 
 ance," the assured, after the subscription of 
 the ]3olicy, inserted in the body of it the wor<ls, 
 " with leave to call off Jamaica," which was 
 acquiesced in by all the underwriters except the 
 defendant, without increase of premium : — 
 Held, that this was a material alteration, and 
 avoided the policy as against the defendant. 
 Forsliiiw V. Chahert, 6 Moore. 3(59 ; 3 Br. .!c B. 
 1.58 ; 23 R. R. .596. 
 
 A policy from Calmar to Portsmouth was 
 altered with the consent of some of the under- 
 writers, by inserting the words "or Weymouth" 
 after Poitsmouth : — Held, that the policy was 
 void against an underwriter who was ignorant 
 of the alteration when it was made, although 
 afterwards, on being informed of it, he said he 
 would not take aclvantage of it. Camphell v. 
 Christ ir. 2 Stark. I!!. 
 
 Policy differing from Slip.] — If a policy differs 
 from the label, which is the memorandum of the 
 agreement, it shall be made agreeable thereto ; 
 for the owner's agent, when he fetches the 
 policy, is not bound to compare it with the label ; 
 and it is not a sutlicicnt gi-ound in equity to say 
 that the insurance is in the name of a trustee, 
 uidess he denies the cestui (]ue trust the use of 
 his name in an action at law. Muttenu.r v. 
 London Angiirunre Co., 1 Atk. 545. 
 
 Alteration must be in Writing.] — A policy 
 cannot be varied Ijy agreement not in writing. 
 Kdinex V. Kn'ujhthy, Skinner, 54. 
 
 Policy on Goods in Ship "M.," her real 
 Name being " M. G." -Alteration.] — A jjuljey 
 was eli'ecled on i,'m(mI> in tlie "Mary" by 
 mistake, the ship intended being the "Mary 
 fialley." The " Mary Galley " was lost, .-ind 
 the insurers after the loss consented to alii'r 
 the iKilicy. and did .so. In an action on the 
 policy : — Held, tliat the insurers were liable ; 
 and that they were not entitled to an increase 
 of premium on the ground that the " Maty " was 
 the stouter ship. Bates v. (Inthluiin, Holt, 469. 
 
 Alteration of Destination — Policy Avoided,] — 
 
 A ship is iiisuii'd fur a vu\a;rc from \'irgini;i to 
 Rotterdam, with leave to call at ,i port in 
 England. After the underwriters had signed
 
 1043 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— I. Policies. 
 
 1044 
 
 the policy the destination was altered to Hull, 
 and a memorandum of the alteration was 
 indorsed on tlie policy. Hull is not a port on 
 the voyage from Virginia to Iiottcrdam : — Held, 
 that the alteration avoided the policy as to all 
 the underwriters who did not sign the memo- 
 ranilum. Laird v. Rohcrtxon, -1 Bro. P. C. 688. 
 
 Immaterial — Addition of "and Trade."'] — 
 A [lolicy was effected on a ship from Liverpool 
 to Africa, and during her stay there and from 
 thence back to Liverpool, with liberty to proceed 
 to and stay at any ports of discharge and load- 
 ing in Africa, to sell, barter and exchange goods, 
 and load, unload and reload goods at all or zinj 
 of the ports she might call at and proceed to. 
 After the execution of the policy, the assured 
 inserted the words " sell, barter and exchange 
 goods," as well as the words "and ti'ade," after 
 those of " during her staj-," and to which several 
 of the underwriters assented: — Held, that the 
 alteration was unimportant, and therefore did 
 not avoid the policy against an underwriter who 
 hud subscribeti his initials to the words " sell, 
 barter and exchange goods," but had not 
 assented to the insertion of the words " and trade," 
 although his initials were subscribed to them. 
 SnnderaoK v. M'CuUom, 4 Moore, r>. 
 
 So, where a vessel was insured from Liverpool 
 to Africa, and during her stay there and back, 
 with liberty to sell, barter, exchange, load, 
 uidoad and reload goods. After the execution of 
 the policy, the assured inserted the words " and 
 trade " in the risk without the consent of the 
 defendant (an underwriter), although others had 
 assented thereto : — Held, an immaterial altera- 
 tion, as the ship had liberty to ti'ade without 
 the introduction of those words. Sdndevmui, v. 
 Sijiiions, 4 Moore, 42; 1 Br. & B. 426; 21 K. K. 67.5. 
 
 Value of Share.] — A policy was effected on the 
 plaintiff's share of goods, valued at .500?., but 
 upon its turning out that his interest was larger, 
 the words were added in the margin of the 
 policy on the plaintiff's goods, "say one-fifth 
 valued at 100/.," to which the defendant's 
 initials were subscribed ; the declaration need 
 not notice the original stipulation. Rohinson v. 
 Tolnn, 1 Stark. 336. 
 
 Further Premium.] — A policy containing a 
 warranty that the ship shall sail on or before a 
 given day may be altered pending the risk, by a 
 memorandum, whereby the underwriters, in con- 
 sideration of a further premium, agree to cancel 
 the warranty, and to make a return of premium 
 if the ship sails with convoy. Ridsdcilc v. 
 Slnddcn. 4 Camp. 107. 
 
 Necessity of Fresh Stamp.] — jSVy' ante, col. 
 1030. 
 
 Alteration of Adventure Passage Money not 
 Freight.] — See Beuoon v. Home and Colonial 
 Inxuvanrc Co., post, col. 1124. 
 
 Bill to Rectify Policy.] — Bill to rectify a 
 policy of insurance dismissed ; there not being 
 evidence to vary the contract. Ilrnklf v. Royal 
 Exchange As.snranee Co., 1 Ves. sen. 317. 
 
 6. Construction. 
 
 Rule for Construing.] — Policies of insurance 
 are to be construed by the same rules as other 
 instruments, uidess where, by the known usage 
 of trade, or the like, certain words have acquired 
 
 a peculiar sense, distinct from their ordinary 
 and popular sense. See Cazalet v. St. Barhe. 1 
 Term Rep. 191 ; 1 R. R. 178. 
 
 Policies are to be construed according to the 
 same rules as all other written contracts, namely, 
 by ascertaining the intention of the parties, to 
 be gathered, in the first instance, from the words 
 of the instrument, but interpreted, if necessary, 
 by the surrounding circumstances. Carr v. 
 Montefiore, 5 B. & 8.^408 : 33 L. J., Q. B. 256 ; 10 
 .Jur. (N.s.) 1069 ; 11 L. T. 157 ; 12 W. R. 870— 
 Ex. Ch. 
 
 The words " perils of the seas " in a policy are 
 terms of general import, upon which the court is 
 to put a construction. Croft-^ v. Marshall, 7 
 Car. & P. 597. 
 
 A policy of insurance was effected on a ship 
 on 22nd January, 1872, to 23rd January, 1873, 
 both inclusive. These words were written in on 
 a printed form, which also contained in print 
 the words "at and from," and "for this present 
 voyage," and other similar words which were 
 commonly found in the form of a voyage policy, 
 and which had not been erased : — Held, that 
 this policy was really a time policy, and its 
 character was not affected by the printed words 
 left in. Dudqeon v. Pembroke, 46 L. J., Q. B. 
 409 ; 2 App. Cas. 284 ; 36 L. T. 382 ; 25 W. R. 
 499 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 393— H. L. (E.) 
 
 A policy of insurance is " to be construed 
 according to its sense and meaning as collected in 
 the first place from the terms used in it, which 
 terms are themselves to be understood iu their 
 plain ordinary and popular sense, unless they 
 have generally in respect to the same subject- 
 matter, as by the known usage of trade or the 
 like, acquired a peculiar sense distinct from the 
 popular sense of the words ; or unless the context 
 evidently points out that they" must in the 
 particular instance, and in order to effectuate 
 the immediate intention of the parties to that 
 contract, be understood in some other and 
 peculiar sense." Per Lord Ellenborough. Robert- 
 son v. French, 4 East, 130, 135 ; 4 Esp. 246. 
 
 Written words in policies to have a greater 
 weight in case of ambiguity than the printed 
 words. lb. 
 
 Construction of Condition.] — When a warranty 
 or a condition in a policy of marine insurance is 
 expressed in clear terms, evidence will not be 
 admitted to shew that it is to be construed con- 
 trary to the apparent meaning of those terms, 
 although the desired construction may be that 
 which has ordinarily been put upon it by persons 
 making use of that form of policy. Provincial 
 Insuranec Co. of Canada v. Leduc, 43 L. J.. P. C. 
 49 ; L. R. 6 P. C. 224 ; 31 L. T. 141 ; 22 W. R. 
 929 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 338. 
 
 Usage at Lloyd's.] — Usage at Lloyd's is not 
 binding ujion assured unless he knows of it. 
 Gahayy. Lloyd, 3 B. & C. 793 ; 5 D. & R. 641 ; 
 3 L. .J. (o.s.) k. B. 116 ; 27 R. R. 486. 
 
 Usage cannot Contradict the Policy.] — Evi- 
 dence is not admissible to shew that by usage the 
 risk on goods expires twenty-four hours after 
 the ship is moorccl in safety, when by the terms 
 of the policy it does not expire until the goods 
 are " discharged and safely landed." Parkinson 
 V. Collier, 1 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 47. 
 
 Usage of Trade — Non-communication.] — Insur- 
 ance on fish from NewfouTidland to Portugal. 
 The ship on arrival in Newfoundland proceedetl
 
 1045 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEA^XE— II. By Agents and Others. 
 
 1046 
 
 to Sydnej-, X.B., and took in a cargo of coals, 
 which she carried to Newfoundland, where she 
 took in her fish, and was lost on her voyage to 
 Portugal : — Held, that it being the usage of the 
 trade to make such an intermediate voyage as 
 that to Sydney, its non-communication to the 
 underwriters was immaterial. Oii//ier v. JennhiffS, 
 1 Camp. 5U."> ; 10 E. K. 739, n. 
 
 Usage as to Attachment of Policies.] — 
 
 See J/iiritiiiiP Jlnrine Inxuruuce Co. v. Fin' 
 Reinsurance Co.. infra. 
 
 Reinsurance.] — See Chippendale v. Holt. 
 
 su))ra, col. In39. 
 
 " Ice-bound" — " OpenWater."] — By therules 
 of a mutual insurance association, •• If a ship 
 insured shall be and remain wrecked, stranded or 
 sunk for a period of four months . . . and during 
 sucli period it shall have been found impracticable 
 to save the shijt . . . the ship shall be considered 
 to have been lost. . . . Provided that a ship which 
 is so situated, and ice-bound, shall not be con- 
 sidered as coming within this rule or to have 
 Ijeen lost unless and until there shall have been 
 four months ... of open water after the 
 disaster " : — Held (Lopes, L.J.. diss.), that the 
 period of four months in the above rule would 
 run, notwithstanding that floating ice prevented 
 salvage operations, " ice-bound " meaning that 
 ice is so round the ship that she could not move 
 away out of it. Per Lopes, L.J. : So long as 
 floating ice prevents .salvage operations, there is 
 not '-open water" within the rule. Sunderland 
 Stciivixhlp Co. V. Xortli of Entjland Iron Steam- 
 ship Iiimirancr As.in., 14r R. 196 — C. A. 
 
 "Premises."] — A fire insurance company, in 
 making out a policj- of insuiance of a steamship, 
 referring to conditions indorsed, so far as appli- 
 cable, used one of their printed forms of condi- 
 tions applicable to houses, the language being, 
 " if moie than twenty pounds of gunpowder be 
 on the j)reniises at the time of the loss, such loss 
 will nf)t be made good" : — Held, that the word 
 " premises" equally a])plied to a ship, the woid 
 Vjeing in legal language often used to denote 
 " the KuVjjcct or thing j)reviously expres.sed," 
 Jieacon Life Assuronce Co. v. Glhh, 1 Moore, 
 P. C. (N.S.) 73 ; 9 Jur. (N.s.) 185 ; 7 L. T. 57-i ; 
 1 1 W. H. 194, 
 
 Held, also, that jiaiol evidence was not admis- 
 sible to prove tiiat the wonl '"premises" wiisnot 
 intended to include the steamer. Ih. 
 
 Held, also, that one of the conditions having 
 specified a limited fiuantity of gunpowder to 
 be carried on board, it was fpiite immaterial 
 whether the fire was or was not occasione<l by 
 more than the specified quantity of gunpowder 
 being on boai'd. Jli. 
 
 "In the Month of October."] — Warranty io 
 sail in the month of October explained by 
 evidence of merchants tfi mean not after October 
 2">tli. Cliaii riiiid v. A7i{/rrsfr/n, Peake, <>1. 
 
 Parol Evidence.] — Parol evidence admitted to 
 explain the meaning of "at and from '' a poit. 
 Sec Jfoii-on V. Athln*, 3 Camp. 2<iO : 13 R. H. 
 
 7S9. 
 
 "No St. Lawrence" — Construction.] — Sec 
 Jilrrrll v. JJr>/rr. p(»t. ci,]. ] ]i,2. 
 
 Valued Policy — Value not Filled in.] — See 
 Asfar v. TSlundiil, post, col. 1 1 12. 
 
 Reinsurance against Fire — Usage — Declara- 
 tion of Risks — Order of Attachment.] — The 
 plaintiifs. a maiine insurance company, agreed 
 with the ilefendants, a tire insurance company, 
 that the defendants should reinsure them against 
 loss by fire of coal-laden ships insured by the 
 plaintiffs between certain ports, during the con- 
 tinuance of the agreement. Policies to cover 
 risks upon such ships as might be declared by 
 the plaintiffs were issued and subscribed by the 
 defendants. A usage was admitted as between 
 merchants and umlerwriters that in case of open 
 policies upon ships to be declared the policies 
 attached upon and in order of the declarations ; 
 and that in case of mistake the declaration was 
 rectified sometimes after the loss : — Held, that 
 the usage applied as between the plaintiffs and 
 defenilants. Jlarlthiip Marine In.s'urance Co. v. 
 -Fire lleuisurance Co., 4ii L. T. ItJG : 4 Asi). ^1. C. 
 71. 
 
 East India Company's Policies.] — East India 
 insurances include the chance of detention hy 
 the charterers in India and the risk of the country 
 voyage there. The policy construed by reference 
 to the East India Company's charterparty, which 
 was weU known. Salvador v. Hopkins, 3 Buj-r. 
 1707. 
 
 Action on policy of insurance on goods in ship 
 chartered by East India Company. Defence that 
 the loss was during a voyage not covered by the 
 policy : — Held, that the custom of the East India 
 Company as to ordering ships chartered by them 
 on voyages such as that in question must be 
 taken to have been in the knowledge of the 
 insurers. Grant v. Delacour, 1 Taunt. 463, 467. 
 
 7. Katificatiox. 
 
 After Knowledge of Loss.]— A policy on 
 freight, valued at a certain sum. was made by 
 charterers on behalf of themselves and those 
 interested, in the usual terms. It came to the 
 knowledge of the shipowners, but not till after 
 they had heai'd of the loss. They then claimed 
 the benefit umler it : — Held, that, there being 
 satisfactory evidence of the policy having been 
 made on the owners' account, it was open to 
 them to ratify it, even after they had knowledge 
 of the loss. Willianisx. Xorth China Insurance 
 Co., 1 C. P. D. 7r,7 ; 3.-, L. T. 884 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 342— C. A. 
 
 8. Property in Policy, 
 
 Property of the Assured.] — The policy when 
 cfFcctcd is the ]irii|irrty (if theinsured. Harding 
 V. Carter, 1 Park Iiis.'(Sili ud.) 5. 
 
 II. INSrUAXCE BY AGENTS, PART 
 OWNERS, OR TRUSTEES. 
 
 Insurance by Agent — Lien on Policy Moneys.] 
 
 — Merchants in London, upini the iii-i nici inn of 
 ship[iing agents at Havannali, aftei- receiving the 
 shiyiping tlocumcnts of a cargo of tobacco con- 
 signed to them, (ffectcfl i)olicies on the cargo 
 for the benefit of all whom it might concern. 
 The Havannali agents shipjicd the tobacco in 
 their own name, but were in fact acting as com- 
 mission agents for the Havannali owners of the 
 tobacco. The FiOndon merchants Ijcfore insuring 
 hail notice that the Havaniiiih agent had an 
 unnamed ))rinciiial. A total loss occuired, and 
 the London merchants received the jiolicy
 
 1047 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— III. Duration of Bhh 
 
 1048 
 
 moneys, after receiving notice that tlie moneys 
 were claimed by the HavaTinah ]iriiici})als : — 
 Held, that the"^ latter were entitled to the 
 moneys, and that the London merchants were 
 not entitled to a lien upon the moneys for the 
 balance of their general account with the 
 Havannah agents : and that in an action by the 
 Havannah principals against them for the moneys 
 they could set otf nothing but premiums, stami)S 
 ami coumiission for insurance. Mildred v. JA/.s-- 
 jnms. .58 L. J., Q. B. 83 : 8 App. Cas. 874 : 4!) 
 L. T. (58.-. : 82 W. R. 12.-J : .-. Asp. M. C. 182— 
 n. L. (E.) 
 
 Authority to Insure — Ship's Husband.] — 
 
 A shi[i's liiisband has ni> power to insure excejit 
 by authority of all the owners. Fvenrh v. 
 Fonlton, ."> Burr. 2727. 
 
 Clerk of Consignee.] — A clerk of a 
 
 foreign consignee having effected a policy in 
 England to cover the goods sent to his master, 
 and the policy having been adopted by the 
 latter : — Held, that the jury were justified in 
 finding that the clerk had authority to insure. 
 B(n-low Y. Lfcliie, 4 Moore, 8. 
 
 Part Owners.] — One of several part 
 
 owners of a ship, without any express authority 
 from the others, effected a joint insurance upon 
 the entire ship, chai-ging the premium and com- 
 mission in the shi})'s accounts, which were open 
 to the inspection of, and were actually inspected 
 by. the other owners, and not objected to : — 
 Held, that the jury was warranted in finding 
 that the managing owner had a joint authority 
 to effect an insurance for the whole ; and that 
 consequently all the owners were liable to the 
 broker, notwithstanding the credit was in the 
 first instance given to the managing owner alone 
 — it appearing that the broker was ignorant of 
 the names of the other owners, llnhinsoii v. 
 Gleadow. 2 Scott, 250 ; 2 Bing. (n.c.) 150 ; 1 
 Hodges. 245. 
 
 Although one part owner of a ship has no 
 implied authority, as such, to order assurances to 
 be effected on account of the other part owners, 
 yet, if they are in partnership together, an order 
 to insure the ship given hy one will render all 
 liable. Iloo/xr v. Lnahy. 4 Camp. 06. 
 
 One part owner cannot, by ordering an insur- 
 ance of the ship without authority from another, 
 charge the other with any part of the premium, 
 unless the other afterwards assents to the insur- 
 ance. Bell V. JIuiiijjhries, 2 Stark. 854. 
 
 Where part owners of a vessel authorise co- 
 owners to insure the whole vessel, and after- 
 wards assign their interest in the freight, and 
 the assignees do not give express notice of the 
 assignment, the co-owners are entitled to insure 
 the vessel, and deduct the costs of insurance 
 from the freight. Lindsay v. Gihh.t. 8 De CI. & J. 
 690 ; 28 L. 'j., Ch. 692 ; 5 Jur. (K.S.) 876 : 
 7 W, K. 820. 
 
 An action is maintainable by an assured ]iart 
 owner of a vessel against an insurance broker, 
 who has received from the underwriters the full 
 amount of the sums subscribed on a total loss, 
 although there are several other persons in- 
 terested as part owners, who have given the 
 •defendants notice of their interest, where the 
 plaintiff insured on the whole ship generally, 
 through the intervention of his captain, who 
 gave the order for effecting the insurance. 
 liuhertit V. Oqilhy, 9 Price. 269 : 28 R. R. 671. 
 
 When an insurance is effected by a part owner 
 
 of a ship generally, in his own name, but to an 
 amount exceeding the value of his share, and 
 it is understood that such insurance is intended 
 to cover the interest of other persons, the other 
 part owners are. upon a loss, entitled to their 
 proportion of the insurance. Brack v. Dovijlax^ 
 4 Myl. & Cr. 320. 
 
 Part Owners, Liability for.] — One part owner 
 cannot b_y oi-dering an insurance without autho- 
 rity from another, charge the other with any 
 part of the premium, unless the other afterwards 
 assent to the insurance. Oyle v. Wrunyham, 
 Abbott on Shipping (13th Ed.) 96. 
 
 Insurance as Trustee — Receipt of Policy 
 Moneys.] — A jjerson shall not be allowed to 
 detain to himself money due upon a policy of 
 assurance wherein his name was only made use 
 of as a trustee, under pretence that the cestui 
 que trust was indebted to him. Fell v. Lritwidye, 
 Barnard. Ch. 819. 
 
 III. DURATION OF RISK. 
 
 1. On Goods. 
 
 a. What Goods, 1048. 
 
 b. On Loading or Landing Cargo, 1()50. 
 
 c. Mode of Loading and Landing, 1054. 
 
 d. What Port, 1055. 
 
 2. On Ship. 
 
 a. Extent of Liability, 1058. 
 
 h. Termination on Mooring, 1064. 
 
 c. Time Policy, 1067. 
 
 3. On Frriyht, 1068. 
 
 1. On Goods. 
 a. "What Goods. 
 
 Transhipping.] — Where the owners of goods 
 insured shifted them from one ship to another : 
 — Held, that they might still recover for an 
 average loss arising from the capture of the 
 other ship. Plantainoiir v. Staplcx, 1 Term Hep. 
 611, n. ; 3 Dougl. 1. 
 
 By a policy, assurance was made " including 
 risk of craft to and from the ship," on linseed- 
 oil cakes, " free of particular average unless 
 general, or the ship was stranded." The cakes 
 were put on board a lighter at their destination, 
 and the lighter stranded and sank, whereby a 
 particular average loss was sustained : — Held, 
 that the underwriters were not liable. Hofnian. 
 V. Marshall, 2 Bing. (N.C.) 383 ; 2 Scott, 559 ; 1 
 Hodges. 38u : 5 L. .L, C. P. 70. 
 
 Several Vessels.] — Carriers on a canal effected 
 an insurance for twelve months, upon goods on 
 board of thirty boats, named, between London, 
 Birmingham, ic, backwards and forwards, with 
 leave to take in and discharge goods at all j.laces 
 on the line of navigation. The insurance was 
 agreed to be 12,000^. on goods, as interest might 
 appear thereafter ; the claim on the policy war- 
 ranted not to exceed lOOZ. per cent., and 3,000?. 
 only were to be conveyed by the policy in any 
 one boat on anj^one trip : — Held, that the policy 
 was not exhausted when once goods to the value 
 of 12,000Z. had been carried by all the boats, or 
 by each of them, but that it continued, through- 
 out the year, to protect all the goods afloat at 
 any one time, up to the amount insured. Croir- 
 ley V. Cohen, 3 B. & Ad. 478 : 1 L. .1.. K. 15. 
 158. 
 
 Held, also, that, upon the lor.s of goods on 
 board one of the boats, the assured was entitled
 
 1049 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— III. Duration of lUsk. 
 
 to recover that proportion of such loss which 
 12,0O0Z. bore to the whole value of the amount 
 carried during the year. lb. 
 
 "Where two policies for difEerent sums were 
 effected on goods on board any ship or ships on a 
 
 1050 
 
 between such 
 
 for a fall in the market price 
 arrival and the time of sale. lb. 
 
 Open Policy— Declaration of Goods by In- 
 sured.]— Where an open jjolicy was granteil on 
 
 l)arricular voyage, and the goods were put in ; goods shipped from Melbourne to London per 
 dilferent proportions on board two ships which 0"e set of specified steamers to Sydney and 
 sailed on the voyage, one of which was lost, but thence to London per another set, covering risk 
 the other arrived in safety :— Held, that the , while in a specified factory at Sydney, '• declara- 
 sured might ap])ly either policy to the ship I tions to be made within forty-eight hours after 
 
 departure of steamer fi-om Sydney"': — Held, 
 that according to the true construction of this, 
 contract two declarations must be made by the 
 insured, one as incident to every contract of an 
 open policy, for the jiurpose of identifving the 
 shipments at Melbourne to which the policy was. 
 to attach and necessary- by law to make the 
 policy operative ; the other, under the express, 
 terms of the above contract, giving particulars 
 lelating to such goods as had been already 
 brought within the policy, by a previous declai-a- 
 tion apt for that purpt)se, and had since l)een 
 actually shipped for London. D/ivict v. Xatioiiid 
 Marhw I/i.s>i ra nee Co.. 60 L. J., P. C. 73 ; [181)11 
 A. C. 485 ; 65 L. T. 56U. ' 
 
 which was lost. Ihnclmuni v. OHicij. 2 H. Bl 
 345. n.: 3 Dougl. 139 : 3 R. R. 4(»8, 413. 
 
 Sale at Sea.] — A ship being chartered with 
 grain from Galatz to Emden. for orders to dis- 
 charge in a port of the United Kingdom, the 
 owners effected an insurance on the cargo from 
 Galatz to Emden, and thence to a port of dis- 
 chai-ge in the United Kingdom, with leave to 
 call for orders, and to naturalise the cargo, to 
 return 20.y. per cent, if risk should end at the 
 poi-t of naturalisation. The cargo was sold 
 afloat, while on the voyage from Galatz to 
 Emden, by bought-and-sold notes, for 60.v. per 
 quarter, including freight and insurance to 
 Emden. The bill of lading (which was in con- 
 formity with the charterpaity) and the policy of 
 assurance were delivered to the purchaser : — 
 Held, that the purchaser was only entitled to 
 the assurance to Emden, and consequently that 
 he could not recover from the underwriter for a 
 loss between Emden and the port of discharge 
 in the United Kimjdom. lonidcK v. Ilorfurd. 
 21) L. J., Ex. 36. 
 
 Insurance of Goods— Marks.]— Declaration in 
 a policy on shi}) and goods at and from London 
 to Emden " beginning the adventure on the said 
 goods, &c., from the loading thereof on board the 
 said ship."' In the iiolicy was a memorandum 
 whereby the insurance was declared to be on 
 fifteen hogsheads of tobacco marked, " B. S. No. 
 51 &; 65." S})ecial demurrer, first, because the 
 n-n Sor,o.,o4-n -Po.T^o^o^n T^ ■ 1- Igoo''* ^^'ce not averred to -have been put on 
 
 ?...,I^" f^^l !!.;iTl'-.'''^"!'^^^^^^^ •'^t London; secondly, because the goods 
 
 '" "' '" " '"" " "^vere not alleged to have been marked or 
 
 numbered as in the memorandum, but thus : " 15 
 hogsheads, the goods, &:c., in the policy men- 
 tioned" ; thirdly, because the plaintiff was stated 
 to have been interested initil and at the time of 
 the loss, without shewing that he was interested 
 at the time of the policy being made ; fourthly, 
 because no venue was laid to the alleged loss o"n 
 the high seas. Semble, that tjie declaration 
 was bad. Bi; Symondi v. Shcdden, 2 Bos. iV: V 
 (x.E.) 153. 
 
 of insurance the insui-ancc was described to be 
 '■on 1,711 packages teas, valued at one sum, on 
 a voyage from New York to London."' by a ship 
 " warranted by the assured free from "tlamage 
 from dampness, change of flavour, or being 
 spotted, or mouldy, except caused by actual 
 contact of sea water with the articles damaged, 
 occasioned by sea perils." In case of paitial 
 loss by sea damage to cei-tain goods, not includ- 
 ing tea, "the loss shall be ascertained by a 
 separation and sale of tiic portion oidj'of'the 
 contents of the ])ackages so damaged, and not 
 otherwise ; and the same practice shall obtain as 
 to all other merchandise, as far as jjraeticable." 
 Tlie ship met witli very bad weather during the 
 voyage, an<l 44'.) of tlie 1.711 packages of tlie tea 
 were seriously damaged by actual contact of sea 
 water. The rest of the packages arrived soundly 
 and in good condition, except by the injury to 
 tlieir reputation from having formed i)ait of a 
 shipment of which 44i) packages had been 
 damaged by sea water, and which was the 
 cause, as was usual in such cases, of these 
 packages, though sound and uninjured, not 
 realising so high prices as tlicy would liave 
 done if the 44'.) packages liad not been damaged 
 by sea water : — Held, that the packages insured 
 by the polic^y were divisible, and that the 
 assured was entitled to i-ecover only in respect 
 
 Goods Stowed on Deck.]~Goods stowed on 
 deck aie not within a general jiolicy on goods. 
 BitrlthmiHo v. li'iplen, 1 I'ark. (8th ed') 24. S. P.,. 
 y/o.v.v V. 'niiruifrs, Ih. 
 
 b. On Loading: or Landing- Carg-o. 
 
 "From the Loading" — Reference to Original 
 Policy.]— A policy of insurance was underwritten 
 for l.OtJd/., whii'ii was d(M'lMre<l to l)C a re-assui'- 
 ance. subject to all clauses and coinUtions <ir the; 
 original ])olicy, on the ship •' Daybreak." at and 
 from any jiort or ports in any ordei' on the West 
 Coast of Africa to the vessel's ])ort or ])orts of 
 (;all and discharge in the United Kingdom, the 
 insurance to commence "from the loading of the 
 
 of the 441) packages which were actually dam- i "'""''' '^' ^^ Jibove.'" Hy the original policy the 
 
 aged. Cater v. Great We.strrn hixnrance Co. of\ J"«"';'\','L'''; ^va.s for 1 .000/. upon the cargo of " Day- 
 
 A>w York, 42 L. .1., V. ]'. 266 : L. K. 8 C. P. 
 
 552 ; 2'J L. I". i:!(i : 21 \V. It. 8.50 ; 2 Asi.. M. C 
 
 1)0. 
 
 Goods Valued as at Time of Arrival.]— Held, 
 
 also, liijit the lovs in value of the L'oods depended 
 on their value at the time of their arrival at the 
 ])ort of destination, and not at the time of sale, 
 and the underwriters were therefore not liable 
 
 bi'cak." at and from Fjiverpool to any ports in any 
 ordei', backwards and forwaids and forwards and 
 backwards on the coast of Africa, and thence 
 back t()ai)oi't of dischai'ge in the United Kingdom, 
 with leave to increase the valuation of the ca)'go 
 on the homeward voyage ; "outward cai'go to be 
 considered homeward interest twenty-four hour.s 
 after her arrival at her first port of discharge." 
 CJoods were shipped at Liverpool, and tlie vesseL
 
 1051 
 
 SHIPPING— INS UEANCE— III. Buration of Bisk 
 
 1052 
 
 with the same lioods on board, departed from a 
 port on the West Coast of Africa, and more than 
 twentv-four hours after she had arrived at her 
 tirst port of discharge, the goods were lost by 
 ]ierils insured against in the original policy : — 
 Held, that the words '• the insurance to commence 
 from the loading of the goods as above" were 
 qualified by the words in 'the original policy, by 
 \\-hieh outward cargo was to be considered home- 
 ward interest twenty-four hours after the vessel's 
 arrival at her first port of discharge, and that the 
 risk had consequently attached and the under- 
 writers were liable. Joyrr v. I?palm Ma vine 
 Inmriince Co., 41 L. J., Q. B. 35f. : L. R. 7 Q. B. 
 o80 : 27 L. T. \A\ ; 1 Asp. M. C. 194. 
 
 Loss of Lighters alongside.]— The plain- 
 tiffs, shipowners, by a policy of insurance under- 
 written by the defendants, caused " themselves 
 to be insured, lost or not lost, at and from Liban 
 to Bordeaux, upon freight (valued at interest), 
 <if and in the vessel ' Hawthorn,' beginning the 
 adventure upon the said goods or freight fiom 
 the loading thereof, on board the said ship at 
 Liban, anrf to continue and endure during the 
 said vessel's abode there, and until the said vessel 
 shall have arrived at Bordeaux, and the said 
 goods shall be safely delivered from the said 
 ship." The plaintiffs' vessel commenced loading 
 at Liban a cargo of oats for Bordeaux, and a 
 portion of the cargo was in lighters alongside, and 
 was about to be transferred to the vessel, when, 
 Iby reason of the perils of the sea, the lighters 
 and portions of cargo were wholly lost, and the 
 plaintiffs were prevented from earning the 
 freight insured : — Held, upon demurrer, that the 
 plaintiffs could not recover. Hopper v. Wear 
 3Lir}ne Imurance Co., 46 L. T. 107 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 482. 
 
 Time of.]— Where, by a policy, a ship and 
 
 goods were insured "at and from all and every 
 port. &c.. on the coast of Brazil, and after the 
 17th of September to the Cape of Good Hope, 
 b)eginning the adventure upon the goods from 
 the loading aboard the same ship at all and every 
 port, &c., on the coast of Brazil, and from the 
 17th of September, 1800, and upon the ship in the 
 ■same manner," with liberty to sail to. &c., any 
 places backwards or forwards under the Portuguese 
 government, &c., at a premium of four guineas 
 \)ev cent., to return 3Z. \0s. should the ship have 
 ■arrived or the risk have otherwise ceased on or 
 before the r7th September :— Held, that the 
 policy only attached on the homeward-bound 
 cargo ladeii on board at the coast of Brazil, and 
 ■did'not cover a cargo originally taken in at the 
 Cape of Good Hope, and which continued on 
 board after the 17th of September, while the ship 
 was on the coast of Brazil, and after she left it 
 ■on her return to the Cape. Neither did the policy 
 cover the ship itself, which was insured in the 
 same manner as the goods. Robertson v. French, 
 4 East, 130 ; 4 Esp. 246 ; 7 R. R. 535. 
 
 Commencement of Risk — Distinction between 
 Insured Voyage and Risks Insured— Deviation 
 Clause.] — In construing an open policy of marine 
 insurance in order to ascertain what risks are 
 covered by the policy, it must first be ascertained 
 what the voyage insured is. If the goods lost 
 never were upon the insured voyage, then the 
 policy never attached ; and the fact that the 
 policy contains a deviation clause is immaterial. 
 ^irnon V. Sedfiwleh, 62 L. J., Q. B. 163 ; [1893] 
 
 1 Q. B. 303 ; 4 R. 128 ; 67 L. T. 785 ; 41 W. R. 
 163 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 245— C. A. 
 
 Consignors, at Bradford, of the goods in ques- 
 tion, effected, through their agents at Liverpool, 
 a marine policy of insurance from the Mersey to 
 any port in Portugal or Spain '• this side Gibraltar, 
 — ■ at and from thence to any place in the 
 
 or, 
 
 interior, inclitding all risks by any conveyance 
 whatsoever from the time of leaving the ware- 
 hottse in the United Kingdom until on board, 
 . . . and all risks of every kind until safely 
 delivered at the warehouse of the consignees." 
 The policy contained the following marginal 
 clause : — " Deviation — change of voyage . . . 
 not included in the policy, to be held covered at 
 a premium to be arranged." The consignees 
 were merchants at Madrid, and the consignors 
 intended that the goods should be shipped at 
 Liverpool for Seville, and carried thence by land 
 to Madrid. By the blunder of the consignors' 
 agent the goods were in fact declared and shipped 
 at Liverpool on board a vessel bound only for 
 Carril and Huelva, on the west coast of Spain, 
 and for Carthagena and other ports on the east 
 coast of Spain. The bills of lading of the goods 
 in question were made out for Carthagena. The 
 consignors only discovered the mistake after the 
 vessel had sailed. The vessel was lost between 
 Liverpool and Carril. a part of the voyage com- 
 mon to vessels bound either for the west or the 
 east coast of Spain : — Held, that the goods in 
 question never. were upon the insured voyage ; 
 that, consequently, the policy never attached ; 
 and that the underwriters were not liable to pay 
 the consignors the amount of the goods in question. 
 Ih. 
 
 Loading.] — A policy was effected on 
 
 guano on board the " D. H. " " at and from port 
 or ports in the river Plate to the United Kingdom, 
 &c. . . . beginning the adventttre from the load- 
 ing thereof aboanl the said ship as above." The 
 guano had been loaded at Patagonia before the 
 ship went to the Plate. When she arrived in the 
 Plate part of the guano was unloaded to enable 
 a leak to be stopped. This guano was reshipped, 
 and the ship sailed from the Plate for England. 
 Before the policy was effected the underwriter 
 was informed that the guano had been loaded in 
 Patagonia and taken to the Plate, and that the 
 ship had sailed from the Plate for England. A 
 loss occurred : — Held, that the policy attached, 
 and that the plaintiff could recover upon it. 
 Nonnen v. Kettlewell (1 6 East, 1 76~) followed. Cnrr 
 V. Montefiore, 5 B. & S. 408 : 33 L. J., Q. B. 256 ; 
 10 Jur. (N.s.) 1069 ; 11 L. T. 157 ; 12 W. R. 870 
 —Ex. Ch. 
 
 ■ Shipment of Portion.] — Where a contract 
 
 of insurance related to wheat cargo then on board 
 or to be shipped in the " D. of S." : — Held, that 
 the risk commenced as soon as any portion 
 thereof was on board. Colonial Insurance Co. 
 of New Zealand v. Adelaide Marine Insurance 
 Co., 56 L. J., P. C. 19 ; 12 App. Cas. 128 : 56 
 L. T. 173 ; 35 W. R. 636 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 94— P. C. 
 
 Before Loading.] — Action upon a policy, 
 
 at and from New York to Quebec, during the 
 ship's stay there, and thence to Liverpool, on 
 profit on cargo, beginning the adventure ui>on 
 the goods from the loading aboard the ship. The 
 ship" was at the time of effecting the policy on 
 the voyage from New York to Quebec, where the 
 plaintiff had provided a cargo ready to be
 
 1053 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— III. Daration of Risk. 
 
 1054 
 
 loaded, and ^vas lost before she reached that 
 port. The declaration set out a corres])ondence 
 between the plaintiff and his brokers, which 
 shewed that the plaintiff intended to insure the 
 loss of his profit by the ship being lost before 
 she reached Quebec, and alleged that the corres- 
 pondence and the nature of the intended risk 
 were explained to the defendant before he sub- 
 scribed the policj', and that the rate of premium 
 was higher than would have been charged for a 
 similar risk commencing at Quebec, or for a risk 
 on goods only for the said voyage : — Held, that 
 as no goods ever were loaded aboard her by the 
 insured, the adventure never began, and there- 
 fore the underwriters were not liable. Tlallieud 
 V. Young, 6 El. & Bl. 312 : 25 L. J.. Q. B. 2i)0 : 
 2 Jur. (X.S.) <J70 ; 4 W. R. 530. 
 
 Fire after Landing.] — A time policy was 
 
 made on the '• (Jrand Bduiiy," "on 15,000/. on 
 cargo, valued at 15,000/., with liberty to increase 
 the value on the homeward voyage." The body 
 of the policy was in the ordinary printed form, 
 expressing the risk on the goods to be from the 
 loading on board the ship, including risk of craft, 
 and to endure until discharged and safely landed. 
 On the margin was a memorandum, " with libertj" 
 to load, reload, exchange, sell, or barter, all or 
 either, goods or property, on the coast of Africa 
 and African islands, and with any vessels, boats, 
 factories, canoes, and to transfer interest from 
 the vessel to any other vessel, or from any other 
 vessels to this vessel, in port and at sea, and in 
 any ports or places she may call at or proceed to, 
 without Vjeing deemed a deviation." The "Grand 
 Bonny" sailed to Africa with a cargo, part of 
 which was landed in a factory for the purjjose of 
 barter, antl was lying at anchor loading from the 
 factory native produce, when the factory with 
 its contents was destroyed by fire : — Held, that 
 thi' policy embraced only maritime lisks, and 
 <lid not protect either the goods which had been 
 part of the cargo of the " Grand Bonny," but had 
 been landed in the factory, nor the produce in- 
 tended to be her cargo, but still on shore, whether 
 that produce had been obtained by barter of the 
 cargo or otherwise. J/a rrixoii v. Ellis, 7 El. <Sc Bl. 
 4C.5'; 2(i L. J., Q. B. 23'.): 3 .Jur. (N.S.) 908; 5 
 W. R. 494. 
 
 Valued Policy on Freight — Breakdown 
 
 of Machinery before Cargo Loaded.] — In an 
 
 ai-ticiii to ri'ciivci- 2.000/. uiidci- a valued policy 
 <iii fieiglit theipiestiou was whetlier a risk against 
 loss of freight through a Ijreakdovvn of machinery 
 had attached. The words printed in the [lolicy 
 were " Tlic assurance shall commence upon freight 
 anil gofKJs or merchandise on board (the vessel) 
 from the loading of the said gf)ods or merchandise 
 at ." 'I'he words ''.Monte \'ideo" in 
 
 writing completed tlie .sentence. The vessel 
 arrived at Monte Video and dischargeil her out- 
 ward cargo. A refrigerating engine was tlien 
 started to reduce the teinperatuie below 288 V. 
 so that a cargo of meat could be slii|)|)ed. The 
 engine broke down, and the adventure was 
 abau<loned : — Hel<l, that Hk; words d(,'lining the 
 commencement of the risk with regard to the 
 loading of the goods being absolutely inapplicable 
 under the circumstances must be reje(;ted, and 
 that tlie policy attaclied although no meat was 
 ever loaded. Ilijildrncx SS. Co. v. Jitdrmnitij 
 Mnfvnl Marine A.i.i>/ritnrr Cii.. Cti L. J., <}. B. 353 ; 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 500 ; 14 R. 210 ; 72 L. T. 103 ; 
 7 Asp. M. C. 553— C. A. 
 
 Loss of Profits on Cargo bought — Ship Dis- 
 abled at Port of Loading — Contract Inoperative. ] 
 —See McSwuiey v. Ruijal ExrhaiKjc AKsuvance 
 CurjHD-atiuH, post, col. 1079. 
 
 c. Mode of Lioading- and Lauding'. 
 
 By Lighters.] — Insurance on goods from A. to 
 B., '• until they should be there discharged and 
 safely landed." On their arrival at B., the mer- 
 chant to whom the goods belonged employed antl 
 paid a public lighter to land them, and the goods 
 being damaged in the lighter, without negligence, 
 the underwriters were held liable for the loss. 
 Iltirni V. llotjul E.rcliKiiqe Assurance Co., 2 Bos. <Sc 
 P. (N.'r.) 430 ; 3 Esp. 289 ; 5 R. R. G39 ; 6 R. R. 
 804. 
 
 Goods ptit into a public lighter for thepttrpose 
 of being lauded, are protected by usage under a 
 general policy ; but if the merchant sends his own 
 lighter, the underwriter is discharged. RuclaT v. 
 London Aanurdncc Co., 2 Bos. & B. (N.E.) 432, n.; 
 3 Esp. 290 : 5 R. R. 639, n. 
 
 Action on a policy on goods, " until the cargo 
 should be discharged and safely landed." On the 
 arrival of the ship, the goods insured were put 
 on board a lighter hired in the usual way, and 
 brought to the plaintiff's wharf in the evening ; 
 but not landed on account of the rough weather ; 
 the plaintiff then txndertook to see to the landing 
 himself, but in the night the lighter was by an 
 unavoidable accident sunk and the goods lost : — 
 Held, that the underwriters were discharged. 
 Strong v. Katullij, 1 Bos. & P. (N.R.) 16 ; 8 R. R. 
 741. 
 
 By a policy, assurance was made "including 
 risk of craft to and f lom the ship," on linseed oil 
 cakes, "free of i)articular average unless general, 
 or the ship was stranded." The cakes were put 
 on board a lighter at their destination, and the 
 lighter stranded and sunk, whereby a particular 
 average loss was sustained : — Held, that the 
 underwriters were not liable, llofman, v. M(ir- 
 sludl, 2 Bing. (N.C.) 383 ; 2 Scott, 559 ; 1 Hodges, 
 330 ; 5 L. J., C. P. 70. See also Jloppe.v v. Wear 
 Mdr'tne InHnrance Co.,\<o L. T. 107 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 482, ante, col. 1051. 
 
 Lost in Government Warehouses.] — Ui)on a 
 comuion policy on goods the underwriters are 
 discharged if the goods are landed at the port 
 of destination by the officers of government 
 there, and are lodged in the government ware- 
 houses, if this is the usual mode in which goods 
 are hmded at that i)ort, althougli the goods 
 insured ai'C afterwards confiscated by the 
 government, and are never in the po.ssession 
 of the consignees. Jiroicn v. Carntah:i, 3 Cam[). 
 161. 
 
 Removal and Reloading.] — A shi]), having 
 lande<l a cargn of guano at Patagonia, saileil for 
 England, but being sea-damaged. i)Ut into Monte 
 Video, in tlie river Plate. She there uiidei'went 
 repairs, a portion of hei' cai'go having l)eeii 
 removed for the |)urpose ; and after refitting and 
 i-eloading, she was .sold, together with the cargo, 
 tol). i\: Co., who cau.sed liei- to be insured "at 
 and from jiort or ports in the river Plate to the 
 United Kingdom, beginning the adventure ujion 
 the goods and mercliandises from the loading 
 thereof aboard the shiii at as above": — Held, 
 that the removal and reloading of a portion of 
 the cargo at Monte Video amounted to a con- 
 structive loading at that port, so as to satisfy the
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— III. Duration of lUsL 
 
 1055 
 
 terms of the policy, ami that the underwriters 
 were therefore liable. Carr v. Montrjiore, 5 
 B & 8. 40S ; 33 L. J.. Q. B 2.56 ; 10 Jur. (N.s.) 
 iDC'.t : 11 I,. T. 157 : IL' W. R. 870— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Loss in Lighter.]— tioods lost after the owner 
 has taken thoni from the ship into a liu^hter are 
 no oharLTC to the insurer. Spiu-foio v. Citruthers. 
 ■2 Str. 1L'H.">. 
 
 Risk of Craft till Goods landed— Tranship- 
 ment from Lighters into export Vessel.] — A 
 
 pcilicv of insurance on goods whicli includes •■all 
 risk of craft until the goods are discharged and 
 safely landed" does not cover the risk to the 
 goods while waiting on lighters at the port of 
 delivery for transhipment into an export vessel. 
 Jluulder v. Jfrrc(ia)th' Jfiirtnr Inxuvdiiec Co., 5.") 
 L. J., Q. B. 420 : 17 Q. B. D. 3.54 : o5 L. T. 244 ; 
 34 W. R. 673 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 12—0. A. 
 
 d. "Wliat Port. 
 
 What is a Port.] — Policy on ship for four 
 months, at and from a place to any port or 
 ports whatsoever : — Held, that an open roadstead 
 (being the usual place of loading and unloading) 
 w-as a port within the meaning of this policy. 
 Corl-ey v. Atl-insoti, 2 B. & Aid. 460 : 21 K. R. 
 3.17. 
 
 Extent of Port.] — A policy " at and from Lyme 
 to London" does not protect a cargo laden at 
 Bridport within the port of Lyme, and eight 
 miles nearer to London. Conxf/rhle v. Xo?)Jt', 2 
 Taunt. 403 ; 11 R. R. 617. 
 
 Port of Loading.] — If a policy is effected on 
 goods on a v<iyage defined from A. to B., the risk 
 to commence " at and from the loading thereof 
 on board," not saying where, it must be intended 
 a loading at the place from which the voyage 
 commenced. Sp'ttta v. Wuodnuoi. 2 Taunt. 416 ; 
 11 R. R. 62S. 
 
 A policy on goods at and from G. to the ship's 
 port of discharge, beginning the adventure on the 
 goods from the loading aboard the ship, does not 
 cover goods loaded at an anterior port, though 
 they were in a loaded state and in good safety at 
 0.."just before effecting the insurance. Mellish 
 V. Allnvft. 2 M. & S. 106 ; 14 R. R. .o99. 
 
 An assured was entitled to recover a loss of 
 goods insured at and from Landscrona to Wol- 
 gast, though they were shipped at Gottenburg 
 before the ship arrived at Landscrona, and though 
 the policy was declared to be at and from the 
 loading of the goods on board the ship ; it appear- 
 ing that the underwriter was informed at the 
 time when the goods were loaded on board at 
 Gottenburg. and that part of them was landed 
 and reloaded at Landscrona, so as to enable the 
 custom-house officers there to ascertain the quality 
 of the whole, and to adjust the duties, and the 
 ))olicv being free of average, yonnen v. lieid, 16 
 East.' 176. And see Carr v. Muntffiorc, supra. 
 
 Policy on goods at and from G. to any port in 
 the Baltic, beginning the adventure from the 
 loading on board the ship, and the policy was 
 declared to be in continuation of a former policy : 
 which was a policy from V. to her port of dis- 
 charge in the United Kingdom, or any ports in 
 the Baltic, with liberty to take in and discharge 
 goods wheresoever, to return 12 per cent, if the 
 voyage ended at G. :— Held, that the assured was 
 entitled to recover, although the goods were not 
 loaded on board at G. but at V., and although 
 
 1056 
 
 the defendant wa.s not an underwriter on the 
 former policy. Hell v. Ilohson, 16 East, 240 ; 
 3 Camp. 272 : 14 R. R. 337. And see ILirroicer 
 
 V. iriifrhtnxoii, post, col. ll'.)S. 
 
 Partial Discharge.] — If, on an insurance of 
 goods only to a jjarticular port, the ship touches 
 at one port, and, after discharging part of lier 
 cargo proceeds with the residue to another, the 
 insurance remains in force until her arrival at 
 the latter port. Leigh v. JIather, 1 Esp. 411 ; 
 .-) R. R. 740. 
 
 Secus, if the insurance is on ship and goods. I Ik 
 
 Goods on Board before Arrival at Port of 
 Loading.] — A policy at and from G. on goods. 
 beginning the adventure from the loading on 
 board the ship, will not protect goods latlen on 
 board before the ship's arrival at G. Lamjhorn 
 V. JLird//, 4 Taunt. 628 ; 13 R. R. 708. 
 
 Ship and goods insured at and from the coast 
 of Brazil, and after September 17th to the Cape 
 of Good Hope, beginning the adventure from 
 the loading of the goods on the coast of Brazil, 
 and from September r7th ; with liberty to sail 
 backwards and forwards to Portuguese ports ; 
 at four guineas per cent., to return 3Z. lO.v. 
 should the ship have arrived or the risk deter- 
 mined on or before September 17th : — Held, that 
 the policy did not cover cargo taken in at the 
 Cape, and on board on September 17th, when the 
 ship was on the Brazil coast ; nor did it cover the 
 ship. Rohertsun v. French, 4 East, 130 ; 4 Esp. 
 246 ; 17 R. R. .53.5. 
 
 Goods insured at and from L. to W. They 
 were shipped to the knowledge of the under- 
 writer at G. before the ship arrived at L. 
 Xanncn v. llfid, 16 East, 176. 
 
 Previous Loading.] — Where a policy was on 
 goods at and from Pernambuco to Maranham, and 
 from thence to Liverpool, beginning the adven- 
 ture on the goods from the loading thereof on 
 board the ship wheresoever : — Held, that it 
 would cover goods pjreviously loaded at Liver- 
 pool, and which arrived at P., but were not 
 unloaded there, and afterwards sustained a 
 partial loss by wreck in the voyage from P. to M. 
 Glad.stonc v. Clay, 1 M. & S. 418 : 14 R. R. 471). 
 
 Under a policy upon a ship and cargo " at and 
 from the coast of A. to her jiort and ports of dis- 
 charge in the United Kingdom, beginning the 
 adventure upon the goods and merchandise from 
 the loading aboard "the ship, twenty-four hours, 
 after her "arrival on the coast " : — Held, that no- 
 part of the outward cargo was covered by the 
 policy, it not appearing on the face of the policy 
 that the goods on board previously to the arrival 
 on the coast of A. were intended to be insured. 
 liU'hman v. Carsta}rs,2^. k.U. 562 ; 5 B.&Ad. 
 651 ; 3 L. .L, K. B. 28. 
 
 Held, also, that a memorandum, valuing the 
 cargo at a certain sum, did not operate to make 
 the policy extend to cover a loss of ])ortions of 
 the outvvard cargo, which continued on board 
 after the vessel had arrived on the coast. Ih. 
 
 "At and from" a Foreign Port.]— A pohcy 
 upon a homeward voyage from India, upon goods 
 at and from a foreign port of loading, until the 
 ship's arrival in London, beginning the adven- 
 ture upon the goods from the loading at the 
 foreign port of loading, and so to continue upon 
 the goods until the same should be discharged, 
 attaches only on the particular cargo taken at 
 the first jiort of loading. Grant v. Pa.vton, 1 
 Taunt. 463 : 10 R. R. 583.
 
 1057 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— III. Buration of Risk. 
 
 Where a vessel is insured " at and from " a 
 foreign port at which she is expected to arrive, 
 the risk attaches when she first arrives at the 
 port in such a seaworthy condition as to be 
 enabled to lie there in safety. Haughton v. 
 Empire Marine Insurance Co., 4 H. &; C. 41 ; 35 
 L. J., Ex. 117 : L. R. 1 Ex. 2U6 ; 12 Jur. (N.s.) 
 376 ; 15 L. T. 80 : U W. R. (545. 
 
 A ship was insured on a valued policy, lost or 
 not lost, at and from Havana to Greenock. 
 Upon arriving inside the harbour of Havana she 
 )iroceeded up the harbour in charge of a pilot. 
 When past the mass of the shipping lying off the 
 city of Havana, and past the point where she 
 was ultimately discharged, she began to stir up 
 the mud, whereupon the pilot ordered her to be 
 nnchored. She sustained damage from settling 
 down on the anchor of another ship : — Held, that 
 the word "at" was to be construed in its ordinary 
 and geographical sense, and that it was equiva- 
 lent to " at her first arrival at " ; and therefore 
 the policy attached immediately on the ship 
 entering the natural boundaries of the harbour 
 of Havana. lb. 
 
 A policy, at and from a foreign port, attaches 
 when the ship has arrived there in good physical 
 safety, although, from pliysical causes, she may 
 be in great danger of comlemnation. Bell v. 
 Jidl, 2 Camp. 475 ; 11 R. R. 769. 
 
 On a policy at and from Pernambuco, or any 
 other port or ports in the Brazils, to London, 
 " beginning the adventure from the loading the 
 goods on board the ship on the termination of her 
 cruise, and preparing for her voyage to London." 
 The ship, on the termination of her cruise, 
 touched at Pernambuco, but failing to procure a 
 cargo there, she proceeded to St. Salvador, and 
 was lost on her voyage thither : — Held, that the 
 I'olicy attached at Pernambuco. Lambert v. 
 Liddard, 1 Marsh. 149; 5 Taunt. 480 ; 15 R. R. 
 557. 
 
 Last Port of Discharge.] — Last port of dis- 
 charge h(jl(l to iiiraii not the original i)ort of 
 destination, but ilie port where the ship in fact 
 discharged. Moffat v. ]Vard, 4 Dougl. 31. 
 
 Cargo taken in Outside Bar.] — Insurance at 
 and from Oporto. A >hip according to usage 
 took in part of hei' cargo in^i(le and part outside 
 the river bar, and whilst loading outside was 
 caught by bad weather and lost: — Held, that 
 tlie indemnitcrs were liable, being bound to 
 know the usage. Kinti-itun v. Knibbn, 1 Camp. 
 5()H ; 10 P.. R. 712. 
 
 Ship never goiug to Island named — Usual 
 Modeof Loading.j — Policy on good.s "at andfrom 
 the siiip's loading port or ports in Amelia Island 
 to London." Tiio ship never touched at Amelia 
 Island, but went furtiier up the St. Mary's river 
 to Tiger Island, wliere slie took in her cargo : — 
 Held, that the policy attached, this being the 
 usual mfxlc of loading in tlie trade. Moxon v. 
 Atkins, 3 Camp. 200 ; 13 R. R. IH'd. 
 
 "At and from Port." ]— Whore the plaintiffs 
 proposcfl to iiiMirp a wiic-it cargo "at and from" 
 j)Ort, and the defendants, " in accord;ince with 
 your written request," gianted an insurance 
 "from" port : — Held, that there was a cf)mplete 
 contract to insure " at and from " port. Culonial 
 Insurance Co. of Aew /raland v. Adelaide 
 Marine Innnranre Co., 56 L. J., P. C. 19 ; 12 
 App. Cas. 128 : 56 L. T. 173 ; 35 W. R. 636 ; 6 
 Asp. M. C. 94. 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 1058 
 
 Goods in Store Ship — Transhipment.] — Insur- 
 ance on goods from Malaga to Gibraltar, and 
 from thence to England and Holland, or either ; 
 with liberty to tranship the goods at Gibraltar 
 into a British ship or British ships for England 
 or Holland. There being no British ship at 
 Gibraltar, the goods were, according to custom, 
 put on board a store ship, and there lost : — Held, 
 that the underwriters were liable. Tierney v. 
 Ethei-ington, cited 1 Burr. 348. 
 
 Delay at Intermediate Port.] — Gootls and 
 freight were insured at and f lom L. to M. V. and 
 B. A., if open, or the ship's final port of discharge 
 in the river P.. with liberty to wait two months 
 at M. v., if needful, at a premium of five guineas 
 per cent., to return 21. per cent, for risk ending 
 at M. V. on arrival. The vessel arrived on the 
 2nd of August at M.V., which was then blockaded 
 by an enemy's fleet, to prevent vessels passing to 
 B. A. The blockade did not cease till the 4th 
 of October. The vessel afterwards sailed for 
 B. A., and was lost : — Held, that the risk was at 
 an end as soon as the vessel had stayed two 
 months at M. V., and the underwriters were 
 therefore discharged. Doyle v. Powell, 4 B. & 
 Ad. 267 ; I X. & M. 678. 
 
 2. On Ship. 
 a. Extent of Liability. 
 
 Preparing for Voyage — Undue Delay.] — 
 
 Whilst a ship is jireiiaring for the voyage upon 
 which she is insured, the insurer is liable ; but 
 if the voj-age is laid aside, and the ship lies by 
 for five, six, or seven years, with the owner's 
 privity, the insurer is not liable. Chitty v. 
 Selwyn, 2 Atk. 359. 
 
 Description of 'Voyage.] — If parties describe in 
 the usual terms tlie voyage they insure, both 
 knowing that the adventure has deviated from 
 that description, they are nevertheless bound by 
 the description they have chosen, and the pre- 
 vious deviation is fatal. Itrdinan v. Loudon or 
 Lowdenji Taunt. 462 ; 1 Marsh. 136 ; 3 Camp. 503. 
 
 Time or 'Voyage Policy.] — A ship insured "at 
 and fiom the jiort of Pomaron to Newcastlc-on- 
 Tyne, and for fifteen days whilst there after 
 arrival," arrived safely at Newcastle on the 4th 
 of December, and on the 13th completed the 
 flischarge of her inwaid cargo within the jxirt of 
 Newcasile. Having been chartered to load in 
 the River Tyne a cargo of coals for delivery at 
 (iibraltai-, and having received on boaid two 
 keels of the .same as a stiffening, the ship was 
 moved on the 15th of December to a loading 
 place on tlie Tyne, within the port of Newcastle, 
 there to complete her loading. Whilst moored 
 there, she was, on the 16th. injured in a st(jrni. 
 The stani]) on the policy was sullicient to cover 
 both a voyage ami a time policy. The polic.v 
 did not contain the usual twenty-four liours' 
 clause : — Held, that the policy must be construed 
 as a voyage policy witli a lime policy engrafted 
 upon it, and tliul, although tlv.; voyage was 
 terminated and the inwaid cargo discharged, 
 the untlerwritcrs were liable. Gmiihle v. Ocraii 
 Marine Innnranre Co. of Bombay, 45 L. J,, E.x. 
 366 : 1 Ex. D. 141 ; 34 L. T. 189 ; 24 W. R. 384 ; 
 3 Asp. M. C. 180— C. A. 
 
 In such a policy the provisirmas to the further 
 periofl after arrival is not a mere expansion of 
 the period covered by the voyage policy so as to 
 
 34
 
 1059 
 
 SHIPPING— IN SUEANCE— III. Duration of Bisk. 
 
 lOGO 
 
 require that the ship up to the time of the loss 
 should not be eugaged in a matter unconnected 
 with purposes ot the voynge insured. That pro- 
 vision, though appended to a voyage policy, is to 
 be administered ujion the principles applicable 
 to a time policy. lb. 
 
 To a Port.] — The risk on a vessel under a 
 policy to a place generally, without any provision 
 as to her safety there, continues until she is 
 anchored at her'port of destination, in the usual 
 place for discharge of her cargo. Stone v. Ocean 
 Marine Inmhrance Co. of GotJii'nhurg, 45 L. J., 
 Ex. :^61 : 1 Ex. D. 81 ; S-t L. T. 490 ; 24 W. R. 
 55 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 152. 
 
 By a memorandum indorsed on a policy made 
 by way of reinsurance on a vessel from Liver- 
 ])Ool to Baltimore and United Kingdom, the 
 vessel, in consideration of an additional premium, 
 was to be at liberty to go to Antwerp. On leav- 
 ing Baltimore, she wentdirect to Antwerp, where 
 she arrived the day before the memorandum was 
 made. Two days after, while in the outer dock, 
 on her way into the inner dock, the usual place 
 of discharge, she was ordered to Leith, on her 
 way to which place she was lost. In an action 
 on the policy or for a return of the additional 
 premium : — Held, that the memorandum did not 
 give liberty to touch or call at Antwerp, and so 
 did not permit the vessel to go to Antwerp, and 
 thence to England ; and that, as the vessel had 
 not, when the memorandum was made, reached 
 the usual place of discharge, the voyage was not 
 then at an end, and the additional premium 
 could not be recovered back. Jb. 
 
 "At and from a Port."] — In a voyage policy 
 of insurance " at and from " a port, it is an im- 
 plied understanding that the ship shall be at 
 the port within such a time that the risk shall 
 not be materially varied : and if there is delay 
 beyond sue i time, the policy does not attach. 
 Be Wolj V. Archangel Mavltiinc Bank and 
 Insurance Co., 43 L. J., Q. B. 147 ; L. R. 9 
 Q, B. 451 ; 39 L. T. 605 ; 22 W. R. 801 ; 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 273. 
 
 Where the words of a policy are " at and 
 from England to Bengal," the lirst arrival of the 
 ship at Bengal is implied, and shall be so under- 
 stood ; but if a ship is decayed, and goes to the 
 nearest port for repair, it is the same as if she 
 was repaired at the place from whence she came. 
 Motteujc V. London A&surancc Co.., 1 Atk. 545. 
 
 In a homeward policy the words " at and 
 from " a named port, are to be construed in their 
 natural geographical sense without reference to 
 the expiration of an outward policy " to " the 
 same place ; therefore the policy attaches as 
 soon as the vessel arrives within the port. 
 
 A vessel insured " at and from " Havana was 
 injured by striking an anchor whilst proceeding 
 up the harbour to her place of discharge : — Held, 
 that the policy attached. Iluvghtoii v. Bmpire 
 Marine huurance Cy., 4 H. & C. 41 ; 35 L. J., 
 Ex. 117 ; L. R. 1 Ex. 206 ; 12 Jur. (N.S.) 376 ; 
 15 L. T. 80; 14 W. R. 645. 
 
 What Ports.] — In an action on a policy on a 
 voyage, '• to any port in the Baltic," evidence 
 was admitted to prove that the Gulf of Finland 
 is considered in mercantile contracts as within 
 the Baltic, although the two seas are treated as 
 separate and distinct by geographers. TJhde v. 
 WarltcrK, 3 Camp. 16 ; 13 R. R. 737. 
 
 A policy at and from Martinique and all and 
 
 every West India Island, warrants a course from 
 Martinique to islands not in the homeward 
 voyage. Bragg v. Anderson, 4 Taunt. 229 ; 13 
 R.'R. 584. 
 
 In an action on a policy on a voyage " at or 
 from the port or ports of discharge and loading 
 in India and the East India Islands," evidence 
 was admitted to show that the Mauritius w'as 
 considered in mercantile contracts as an East 
 India Island, although treated by geographers 
 as an African island. Robertson v. Money, Ry. & 
 M. 75 ; 27 R. R. 732. 
 
 But the court afterwards decided that the 
 Mauritius was not in the East Indies, nor was 
 it an Indian Island. Bobertson v. Clarke, 1 
 Bing. 445 ; 8 Moore, 622 ; 2 L. J. (o.S.) C. P. 71 ; 
 25 il. R. 676. 
 
 Under an insurance from the port of loading 
 a loading at one single place only is authorised. 
 Brown v. Taylcur, 5 N. & M. 472 ; 1 Hurls. & 
 Walms. 578 ; '4 A. & E. 241 ; 5 L. J., K. B. 57. 
 
 Under a policy at and from an island, a ship 
 is protected in moving from port to port in the 
 same island. Cruicks/uinJi v, Janson, 2 Taunt, 
 301 ; 11 R. R. 584. 
 
 If a jwlicy describes a voyage at and from a 
 place which is the head of a port, it will not cover 
 a voyage at and from a distant place which is a 
 member of the same port. Pmjne v. Hutchinson, 
 2 Taunt, 405, u. ; 1 1 R. R. 620. 
 
 Voyage Specified — Further Voyage not 
 Covered.] — A policy covering a specitic voyage 
 cannot be extended by implication to cover a 
 further voj'age. although circumstances (of war) 
 make the further voyage necessary. Parkin v. 
 Ttinno, 2 Camp. 59 ; if East, 22 ; 10 R. R. 422. 
 
 Intermediate Voyage.] — Policy on ship at and 
 from ]^e\\fciundland to Portugal, upon goods, 
 begiiiing the adventure from the loading thereof. 
 Before loading the fish she made an inter- 
 mediate short voyage with coals, according to 
 the usage of the Newfoundland trade : — Held, 
 that the usage could be proved and that the 
 policy attached. Ougicr v. Jennings, 1 Camp. 
 505 ; 10 R. R. 739. 
 
 East India Company's Ship.] — A policy 
 
 in common form upon g(_iods to the East Indies, 
 ceases when the ship has delivered the company's 
 outward cargo in the East Indies, and will not 
 protect the goods to a market in an intermediate 
 voyage made by the ship before her return to 
 Europe. Richardson v. London Assurance Co., 
 4 Camp. 94. 
 
 From L. to R. — Ship never reaching R.] — A 
 shij) insured from L. to R., on ajiproaching R. 
 ascertained that an embargo was laid upon all 
 ships of her nation. She thereupon sailed home to 
 L. and was lost : — Held, the assurers not liable. 
 Blarhenhagen, v. London Assurance Co., 1 Camp. 
 454 ; 10 r! R. 729. 
 
 Until Ship Discharged.] — Policy to run until 
 the ship shall have ended and be dischai'ged of 
 her voyage : — Hekl, arrival at port of discharge 
 is not a discharge until she be unloaded. 
 A/um., Skinner, 243. 
 
 "Last Port of Discharge."] — A ship was 
 insured from London to any port or ports in the 
 River Plate, until her arrival at her last i)ort of 
 discharge in that river; and the master, intending 
 to discharge her cargo at Buenos Ayrcs, passed.
 
 1061 
 
 SHIPPING— IXSUEANCE— III. Duration of Risk. 
 
 1062 
 
 ilaldonado, but hearing that Buenos Ayres was 
 then in the hands of the enemy, he went to Monte 
 Video, with intent to make a complete discharge 
 there, if the market was favourable ; but after 
 discharging a part, and not finding the market 
 there so favourable as he expected, he had not 
 abandoned his original intention of going to ' 
 Buenos Ayres, if it should afterwards be practi- 
 cable ; but while he was still discharging part of 
 his cargo at Monte Video, a loss hajipened by a 
 peril of the sea : — Held, that as Buenos Ayres. 
 to which other port onlj' in the Plate he had con- 
 templated to go, was at the time of his arrival 
 in the Plate (and in fact continued up to the 
 time of the loss) in the hands of the enemy, so 
 that he could not legally go there, Monte Video 
 must be taken to be the ship's last port of dis- 
 charge, and that on her arrival there the policy 
 was discharged. Browti v. Vigne, 12 East, 283 ; 
 11 R. R. 375. 
 
 Upon an insurance from England to Barbadoes 
 and all or any of the West India colonies, to 
 continue until the ship shall be aiTived at her 
 final port of discharge, the risk terminates on the 
 discharge of the outward cargo at any of the 
 colonies. Muore v. 'faylai-, 3 N. &; M. 406 ; 1 
 A. & E. 2.5 ; 3 L. J., K. B. 132. 
 
 "Whilst in Port" — Fairway of Navigable 
 Channel.] — A ship insured for a voyage to any 
 port of discharge in the United Kingdom, " and 
 whilst in port during thirty days after arrival," 
 ariiveil at Greenock, discharged her cargo, and 
 was placed in a dock for repairs. "Within thirty 
 <lays after her arrival she left the dock in ballast 
 for the port of Glasgow, in tow of a steam-tug. 
 to pificeed on a new voyage, and had reached 
 the fairway of the channel of the Clyde, her 
 stem being about .500 feet distant from the 
 harbour works when she was cajjsized by a 
 sudden gust of wiml, and sustained damage: — 
 Held, that the shif) at the time of the accident 
 was not "in port" within the meaning of the 
 pfilicy, and that the unflerwritcrs were not liable. 
 "■' Garston" Sailing Shij? Co. v. Illchie (l.o 
 Q. B. D. 580) discussed. Ilwnter v. Nortlu-rn 
 Marine Insurance Co., 13 App. Cas. 717 — 
 H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 What Ship.] — Plaintiff insured, interest or no 
 inter<-t, on any shij) he should come in from 
 Virginia tfi London, beginning the adventure on 
 his embarking ; the money to be paid thougli 
 his person should escape or the ship be retaken. 
 He emVjarked on the " S." but she springing a 
 leak he went on board the " F." and arrived at 
 London. The " S." was captured after he left 
 her : — Held, the underwriter wa.s liable. Dick 
 v. Barren, 2 Str. 1218. 
 
 Time of Sailing.] — On an assurance of a vessel 
 at and from New York to Queljcc, during her 
 stay there, thence to the United Kingdom, the 
 ship being warranted to sail from Qmbec on or 
 before the first of Novenil>er, 1853 :— Held, that 
 the assurer was liable for a loss occurring on her 
 "Vfiyage to Quebec after the 1st of November, 
 1853. Balncx v. IMhind, lO Ex. 802 ; 3 C. L. R. 
 5'J3 ; 24 L. J., Ex. 2ul. 
 
 Loss after Expiration of Time — Damage 
 within.] — Where a ship, insured for 1,<I()<)/. umler 
 i\ time policy ending on the 23rd September, 
 whilst attempting on the Ifith September, to 
 enter the harbour of Santa Cruz, took the ground 
 and remained fa^t, on a rocky bottom, till the 
 
 tide flowed, and was then got off and biought 
 into harbour, where she remained with her crew 
 on board, but kept afloat by pumping till the 
 middle of October, when she was beached, and 
 it was found that, by the accident of the 16th 
 September, she had been so damaged that the 
 necessary repairs could not be made at Santa 
 Cruz, and that to take her to the nearest port, 
 at Monte Video, was more than a prudent owner 
 could be expected to do, and wheie the master, 
 in consequence, sold her at Santa Cruz, for the 
 benefit of all concerned, for 72^. lO.y. : — Held, 
 first, that there was no actual total loss within 
 the time stipulated by the policy. Kniqht v. 
 Faith, 15 Q. B. 649 ; 19 L. J., Q. B. 509 ; 14 Jur. 
 1114. 
 
 Held, secondly, that it was sufficiently proved 
 that there was actually a partial loss within the 
 time, although neither the nature nor the extent 
 of that loss was ascertained by examination until 
 after the expiration of the time. lb. 
 
 Held, also, that although the ship was to be 
 considered as totally lost after the expiration of 
 the risk, in consequence of the injury of the Kith 
 September, yet, since the insurers were not liable 
 for the total loss they were not thereby exempteil 
 from their liability to pay the partial loss, arising 
 from the same injury, which was suffered during 
 the risk, and continued prejudicial to the assured 
 even to the time of action brought. Ih. 
 
 *' Coasting Trade." ] — A ship whilst on a 
 voyage from Sunderland to Bordeaux, lost off 
 the coast of ]Sorfolk, is not employed in the 
 " coasting trade " at the time of loss, so as to 
 escape the stipulated deduction from the insur- 
 ance in respect of the extra risk incurred by a 
 voyage " crossing the North Sea or the Bay of 
 Biscay, or to any port south of Brest." ILirrcy 
 V. Bcchworth, 2 H. & M. 429 ; 4 N. R. 255 ; 10 Jur. 
 (N.s.) 577 ; 10 L. T. 632 ; 12 W. R. 896— C. A. 
 
 Continuing Policy.] — A policy was made on 
 a vessel fi>r a year by an insurance association, 
 bj' the rules of which the insurance was to be from 
 year to year, unless notice to the contrary was 
 given, and the managers, unless they received 
 ten days' notice to the contrarj^ were to renew 
 the i)()licy on its expiration : — Held, that accord- 
 ing to the term of such rules, and 30 c5c 31 Vict. 
 c. 23, s. 8 (which makes null a policy exceeding 
 twelve months) the jjolicy was not a continuing 
 one, but expired at the end of the j-ear. JAxhinaii, 
 v. Northern Maritime Insiiranrr Co., 44 L. J., 
 C. P. 185 ; L. R. 10 C. P. 179 ; 32 L. T. 170 ; 23 
 W. R. 733— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Freight wa,s insured by a club ))oli('y from tlic 
 24th of January, 1852, to the 1st of Marcli, 1852, 
 subject to the rules of the association, one of 
 which was as follows: — "Tliat the committee, 
 unless they receive ten days' notice to the con- 
 trary, sliall renew each policy on its expiration, 
 except in cases where it may be deemed expe- 
 dient not to lenew, when tlic CDimiiittee shall 
 cause similar notice to be given to the parties." 
 N<j notice having been given : — Held, that tliis 
 was a continuing policy, and not merely a policy 
 to come till the 1st of March. Mirharl v. 
 Gillrsi„i, 2 C. B. (N.s.) 627 ; 26 L. J., C. P. 3(l6 ; 
 3 Jur. (N.S.) 1219. 
 
 Time of Excution of Policy.] — Where, by 
 the rules nf !ui iii>»iance association, insurances 
 were to cnnimence on the day on which the ship 
 was accepted by the committee, and to conlinue 
 in force for twelve months, a ship accepted in 
 
 34—2
 
 1063 
 
 SinrriNG— INSURANCE— III. Duration of nisk. 
 
 1064 
 
 FebruaTy, a,nd lost in June, was well insured 
 by a policy executed 'did October. Mead v. 
 Davison, 4 N. & M. 701 ; 3 A. & E. 303 ; 1 H. & 
 W. 156 ; 4 L. J., K. B. 193. 
 
 On and ofFEisk — Consideration.] — A declara- 
 tion on a policy stated that the policy was made 
 by the plaintiij and the defendants, whereby the 
 latter insured the former's vessel for twelve 
 months (setting out the terms of the policy con- 
 taining certain warranties). The declaration 
 stated that at the time of the making of the 
 policy the defendants were used and accustomed 
 to allow to all persons insuiing ships with them 
 for the period of twelve calendar months to take 
 their vessels off risk for any one or more entire 
 month or months for which such vessels were 
 insured, and upon giving notice to the insured to 
 consider such vessels as off risk, and not subject 
 to any of the terms of such policies until such 
 vessels were again taken upon risk and notice 
 given to the defendants, and to make a return to 
 the persons so insured of part of the premium 
 during each of such entire month or months. 
 The declaration averred that the plaintiff had 
 notice of the custom, that the vessel was taken 
 off risk for a month and that the plaintiff had 
 claimed SI. I2s. as a return of the premium, and 
 ihat it was agreed between the plaintiff and 
 defendants that the sum should be accepted in 
 discharge of the claim, and that the vessel should 
 be considered as again on risk for the residue of 
 the twelve months, and that the policy should 
 continue in full force for the unexpired residue 
 of such period. The declaration contained an 
 averment tliat the vessel was again on risk, and 
 that during the I'esidue of such period she was 
 wholly lost. There were averments of compliance 
 with the warranties by the plaintiff during the 
 continuance of the policy, and after the vessel 
 was again on risk : — Held, that the declaration 
 was bad in substance for not alleging a compli- 
 ance with the warranties during the whole period 
 the vessel was on risk, for that either the vessel 
 was on risk again under the original contract or 
 upon a new agreement, in which latter case the 
 agreement was void for want of a sufficient con- 
 sideration, llntcliinson v. Bead, 4 Ex. 761 ; I'J 
 I-. J., Ex. 222. 
 
 " Port or ports " — Eisk Covered — Ports of 
 Loading and of Discharge.] — In a policy of 
 marine reinsurance the voyage covered by the 
 })olicy was described as "at and from Newcastle 
 (N.S.W.) to any port or ports, place or places, 
 in any order, on West Coast of South America, 
 and for thirty days after arrival in final port, 
 however employed ":— Held, that the jjolicy 
 cohered risks at both ports of loading and ports 
 of discharge on the West Coast of South 
 America, and was not limited to risks at the 
 port of final discharge of the cargo from New- 
 castle, and thirty days after. Crocker v. Stun/e, 
 66 L. J., Q. B. 142; [1897] 1 Q. B. 330; 
 7.5 L. T. 549 ; 45 W. II. 271 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 
 208. 
 
 "In Port," Meaning of.] — In a policy for a 
 voyage anti "while in port thirty days after 
 an-ival": — Held, that "in port" as applied to 
 Greenock did not include the fairway of the 
 navigable channel of the Clyde off the harbour 
 works. The Afton (^Owners') v. Northern Marine 
 Insurance Conq)i(ny, 14 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 
 544. 
 
 Fire in Dock — "Intended to Navigate."] — A 
 
 policy against Idss ijy fire desuribed a steamboat 
 as " now lying in Tait's Dock, Montreal, and 
 intended to navigate the St. Lawrence and lakes 
 from Hamilton to Quebec principally as a freight- 
 boat, and to be laid rip in winter in a place 
 ajiproved by the insurers, who will not be lialde 
 for explosion either by steam or gunpowder." 
 The steam -boat never left Tait's Dock, and was 
 burnt there : — Held, that the words in the policy 
 implied no agreement to navigate the steamboat 
 as described in the policy, and that consequently 
 the insurers wei'C liable, though the steamboat 
 never left the dock. Grant v. ^l^tna Insurance 
 Co., 15 Moore, P. C. 516 ; 8 Jur. (n.S.) 705 ; 6 
 L. T. 735 ; 10 W. R. 772. 
 
 Three Months' Cruise — Mutiny.] — Insurance 
 on a cruise for three months, the sailors mutinied 
 and brought the ship into port : the insvxrance is 
 not due. Pole or Poole v. Fitzgerald, Ambl. 145 ; 
 Willes, 641 ; 4 Bro. P. C. 430. 
 
 Insurance of Pumps — "While at Wreck."] — 
 A policy of insurance stated the risk to be on 
 four pumps " at and from Ardrossan to the 
 ' Alexandra ' steamer ashore in the neighbourhood 
 of Drogheda, and while there engaged at the 
 wreck and until again returned to Ardrossan by 
 the ' Sea Mew' salvage steamer, beginning the risk 
 from the loading on board the said ship and [or] 
 wreck, including all risk of craft and for boats 
 to and from the vessel and while at the wreck " : 
 — Held, that the words of the policy did not 
 include the risks while the pumps were on board 
 the wreck on a voyage to Belfast, a port of 
 safety. Wingate v. Foster, 47 L. J., Q. B. 525 ; 
 3 Q. B. D. 582 ; 38 L. T. 737 ; 26 W. E. 650 ; 3 
 Asp. M. C. 598— C. A. 
 
 Pumps engaged " at the Wreck."] — A 
 
 policy of insurance was effected on salvage 
 pumps insured "from the 3oth of December, 
 1882, to the 12th of January, 1883, . . . whilst 
 engaged in salvage operations at the wreck of 
 the ' C.,' " " including all risk whilst being con- 
 veyed from B. to — on board the wreck." It was 
 
 •^ or 
 
 shewn that the " C." was floated by means of the 
 pumps which were brought from B., and placed 
 on board her, and that she was kept afloat by the 
 pumps, and that she partly steamed and partly 
 was towed by another vessel for a distance of 
 nearly forty miles, until she had almost reached 
 B., the nearest {lort of safety, when she sank iu 
 deep water, with the salvage pumps on board, 
 on the 4th of January, 1883 :— Held, that the 
 loss was not covered by the policy. Difiori v. 
 Adams, 53 L. J., Q. B. 437 ; 1 Cab." & E. i228. 
 
 Quarantine — Loss during.] — Ship insured 
 from LrgliiJiii to London, and till there moored 
 twenty-four hours in safety. Slie arrived on the- 
 8th July at Fresh Wharf, but the same day was 
 ordered back to the Hope to perform quarantine. 
 On the 12th her master applied to be excused, 
 her seamen having deserted on the 9th ; on the 
 30th she was finally ordered back to the Hope, 
 and whilst there was burnt : — Held, that the 
 insurers were liable. Waples v. Uanics, 2 Str., 
 1243. 
 
 b. Termination on Mooring. 
 
 Lying in Dock for Eepairs.] — A time policy 
 against fire was effected on a steamship. The- 
 policy described it as then " lying in the Victoria.
 
 1065 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— III. Duration of Risk. 
 
 Docks," but gave it liberty " to go into dry dock, 
 i\nd light the boiler fires once or twice during 
 the currency of this policy." The only dry dock 
 into which the ship could go was Lunglcy's 
 Dock, at some distance up the river. To go 
 there it was necessary to remove the paddle- 
 wheels ; they were removed in the Victoria 
 Docks, and the ship was then towed up to 
 Lungley's Dock. The necessary repairs there 
 having been completed, the ship was brought 
 out and moored in the river, ])reparatory to 
 replacing the paddle-wheels. This operation 
 could have been j)crfectly performed in the 
 Victoria Docks, but it was found that in such 
 case it was customary, as the more economical 
 course, to replace the paddle-wheels while the 
 ship lay in the river. Before the wheels had 
 been rejdaced the ship was burnt : — Held, that 
 the policy' covered the ship while in the Victoria 
 Docks, and while passing from them to the dry 
 < locks, and while directly returning from the dry 
 <l<)cks to the Victoria Docks ; but did not cover 
 the vessel while moored in the river for a col- 
 lateral purpose. Pearso7i v. Commercial Uuiuu 
 Axsurauce Co.. 4:5 L. J., C. P. 761 ; 1 App. Cas. 
 4!)8; 35 L. T. 4i5 ; 2i W. R. 951— H. L. (E.) 
 See also Gamhle v. Ocean Marine In.'iurance Co., 
 1 Ex. D. 141 ; and Stone v. Ocean Marine Imur- 
 ance Co. of Gothenburg, 1 Ex. D. 81, airte, col. 1059. 
 
 Twenty-four Hours in Safety.] — By a Lloyda' 
 j)olicy on ship, the risk was described in writing 
 to be "at and from London to Calcutta, and for 
 thirty days after arrival," and then followed the 
 usual printed words, " upon the ship, ifcc, until 
 she hath moored at anchor twenty-four hours in 
 pood safety." — After having sustained damage at 
 sea to such an extent as to reijuire constant 
 pumping to keep her afloat, the vessel arrived at 
 Calcutta, and was safely moored there on the 
 28th of October, ISGti. Her cargo was uidoaded 
 in safety by the 8th of November. It was neces- 
 •sary to continue the pumjiing during the discharge 
 ■of the cargo until she was much lightened. On 
 llie 12tli she was taken from lier moorings to a 
 ■dry dock for survey and repair, and was there 
 <le'troyed by an accidental fire on the 5th of 
 Decemljcr : — Held, that as the vessel remained 
 iit her moorings more than twenty-four hours as 
 ii shii), thougli damaged, and not as a mere wreck, 
 she had been mooretl " twenty-four liours in good 
 safety," and as her desti'uction did not tak(! phicc 
 until after thirty days from that time, that the 
 risk had terminated at the time f)f the loss. 
 Li(hirtt v. Srrrrtun, 39 L. J., C. P. 190 ; L. K. 5 
 <;. 1'. 19(1 ; 22 L. T. 272 ; IH W. II. 092. S. 6'., on 
 another point, infra, col. 1141. 
 
 The outward risk uprni a ship ceases after she 
 has been mof)rcil at anchor twenty-four hours in 
 the first i)Oit of an island to which she is des- 
 tined; but an outward policy upon goods con- 
 tinues until they are laiuled. Hurras v. London 
 Axxiiraiire Co.. 1 Ksp. 411. 
 
 An insurance fin a ship to Jamaica is deter- 
 mined by the ship's mooi-ing twenty-four houi-s 
 in any jiort there, an<l <lo(!s not continue till she 
 comes to the last [lort of delivery. Camden v. 
 Vowhii. 1 \V. Bl. 417. 
 
 A siiij) being insured for a voyage, the under- 
 writer is not liable for any loss arising from 
 seizure, after she has been twenty-four hours in 
 poi t ; though such seizure was in consequence of 
 nn act of smuggling committed by the master 
 <luring the vovage. Lockyer v. Offlcy, 1 Term 
 i:ep. 252 ; 1 11. H. 194. 
 
 1066 
 
 When, immediately upon the arrival of a ship 
 at Riga, her papers were taken, and her hatches 
 sealed down by the officers of government, and 
 so kept till her papers were sent to St. Peters- 
 burg to be examined ; and on such examination 
 immediate orders were issued for the seizure of 
 the ship and cargo, which were afterwards con- 
 demned for carrying simulated papers : — Held, 
 that this was not a mooring twenty-four hours 
 in safety after her arrival, within those words 
 in the policy. Horneijer v. Lnshington, 15 East, 
 46 ; 3 Camp. 85 ; 13 R. R. 759. 
 
 Policy at and from the islantl of St. Michael's. 
 The ship arrived there in a very disabled state, 
 and after lying at anchor twenty-four hours in 
 great danger from a storm, was blown out to sea 
 and wrecked : — Held, that the policy on the 
 homeward voyage never attached. Parmcter v. 
 Cousins, 2 Camp. 235 ; 11 R. R. 702. 
 
 Inability to enter Dock.] — A vessel in- 
 sured from Sierra Leone to London, and upon 
 which the insurance was to endure until she had 
 been moored in good safety twenty-four hours, 
 arrived in the evening of the 18th February, 
 and the captain, having orders to take her into 
 the King's Dock at Deptford, moored her near the 
 dock gates. On the following morning he was 
 informed at the dock that no order for his 
 admittance had been received ; but that, if it 
 had, the vessel could not be then admitied, on 
 account of the quantify of ice in tlie river. The 
 order was sent by the navy board on the 21st, 
 but on account of tlie ice the ship could not be 
 moored until the 27th, and then, in warping her 
 towards the docks, a rope broke, she grounded, 
 and was totally lost. The jury found that the 
 vessel remained at her moorings from the 18th to 
 27th of February, on account of the ice, and not 
 for want of an order to enter the dock : — Held, 
 that upon this finding, the plaintiff was entitled 
 to recover, as the place where the ship was 
 moored not being that of her ultimate destina- 
 tion, the j)olicy did not expire when she had 
 been there in safety twenty-four hours ; and as 
 the vessel remained at those mooi'ings on account 
 of the ice, and not waiting for the order, the 
 underwriters were not discharged by the delay. 
 Samuel v. Jloijul ExcluitKie A.sKn.r<ince Co., 8 
 B. & C. 119 ; 6 L. J. (O.S.)'K. B. 315. 
 
 Arrival at Port — Question for Jury.] — 
 
 Declaration on a policy of insuiaiice on the. 
 barque " S." "from Swan river to Mauritius and 
 for thirty days after arrival," avening a toud 
 loss ; ])lea that theshij) was uniu'cessarily delayed 
 and abandone(l, and deviated from her voyage. 
 It was pioved that ships liound f'<ir Mauritius 
 loaded, usually go into the harbourof Port Louis, 
 If in ballast or seeking, they usually anchor at 
 the bell-buoy at sea, a few miles from llic 
 harbour. The " S." sailol in ballast fioni llic 
 Swan river to Mauritius, and on her arrival 
 there ancluircd near the bell-huoy for fourteen 
 days, awaiting the arrival of money to pay a 
 bottomry bond, and at end of that perioil was 
 wrecked : — Held, that it was a question of fact 
 for the jury, whether she had ari'ived at Mauri- 
 tius. Lindnay v. Jansun, 4 II. &. N. 699 ; 28 L. J., 
 Ex. 315. 
 
 Policy ceases on Arrival of Ship in Absence 
 of Provision to contrary.] — In the absence of 
 any period being mentioned in the jiolicy during 
 which the ship is to be at the risk of under-
 
 1067 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— III. Daralion of Risk. 
 
 1068 
 
 writers after her arrival, the poh'cy determines 
 ou the ship being moored at her port of arrival. 
 Anon., Skinner, 243. 
 
 Until Moored.] — rolicy on a vessel at and 
 from Liverpool to Quebec, dvu-in^ her stay there, 
 and from thence back to her discharging port, 
 in the United Kingdom, and until she has 
 moored at anchor twenty-four hours in good 
 safety. The vessel was chartered to take on 
 board a cargo at Quebec, and proceed therewith 
 to Wallasey Tool, in the river Mersey, or as near 
 thereto as she could safely get, and there dis- 
 charge her cargo. She arrived from Quebec in 
 the Mersey, on the 4th of September, and was 
 towed up the next morning, and came abreast of 
 Wallasey Pool, where, being unable to enter the 
 pool by reason of her great draught of water, the 
 captain anchored, and reported the vessel at 
 Liverpool. He engaged lumpers to discharge 
 the cargo, at a fixed rate of payment, and dis- 
 charged the crew. The deck cargo, and also a 
 considerable portion of the other cargo having 
 been discharged, on the 14th of Seiitember the 
 vessel fell over and sustained injury. The 
 captain had always intended to take the vessel 
 into Wallasey Pool, with as much of the cargo as 
 she could safely carry : — Held, that the vessel 
 had arrived at her port of discharge, was in the 
 course of discharging her cargo, and had moored 
 twenty-four hours in safety, and that the under- 
 writers were not liable. Whitwell V. Ilarrisoii. 
 2 Ex. 127 ; 18 L. J., Ex.465. 
 
 Printed and Written Conditions Dis- 
 similar.]— By a policy effected by B. lS; Co. on 
 a ship, they caused themselves " to be insured, 
 lost or not' lost, at and from L. to any port or 
 ports, in any order, backwards and forwards. 
 and during thirty days' stay in her last port of 
 discharge." In another part of the policy there 
 was the usual clause, whereby she was insured 
 "until she has moored at anchor twenty-four 
 hours in good safety." The clause as to the 
 thirty days was in writing ; that as to the 
 twenty-four hours in print. The ship arrived 
 at her last port of discharge at 7 p.m., on the 
 2oth May, 1868, where she remained until 
 8.4.5 a.m. on the 24th June, 1803, when she was 
 driven on shore and wrecked : — Held, that the 
 thirty days had not expired, and that the loss 
 was covered by the policy. Mercantile Marine 
 Insurance Co. v. Titherin/jton, 5 B. & S. 765 ; 34 
 L. J., Q. B. 11 ; 11 Jur. (N.s.) 62 ; 11 L.T. 340 ; 
 13 W. R. 141. 
 
 Moving in Harbour.] — Under a policy on a 
 ship for a given time, while securely moored in 
 a certain harbour, she is warranted in changing 
 lier moorings within the same harbour. Anon. v. 
 Westmore, 6 Esp. 109. 
 
 c. Time Policy. 
 
 Time Policy — Chartered Freight.] — The plain- 
 titfs were the owners of a vessel which they 
 chartered on certain terms as regards payment 
 of freight for si.x months from the 21st of 
 March, 1881, with the option to the charterer 
 of extending the time for a period of three or 
 six months. A clause in the charterparty pro- 
 vided that, in the event of loss of time by 
 collision, whereby the vessel was rendered incap- 
 able of proceeding for more than forty-eight 
 hours, payment of hire was to cease until such 
 
 time as she was again in an efficient state to 
 resume her voyage. On the 4th of April. 1881, 
 the plaintiffs insured against loss of freight 
 with the defendant "at and from and for and 
 during the space of six calendar months from 
 the 1.5th of April to the 14th of October, 1881," 
 the defendant to pay only loss of hire which 
 might arise under the clause in the charterparty 
 "for accidents occurring between the 15th of 
 April and the 15th of October." On the 27th of 
 June, 1881, the vessel, while on a voyage, 
 struck something soft with her bottom, but was 
 able to proceed on her voyage, and it was not 
 until the 18th of November, when she arrived 
 at Liverpool, that it was discovered that she 
 required considerable repairs, owing to damage 
 admittedly caused by the accident in June. The 
 charterers, who had exercised their option of con- 
 tinuing the charter until the 21st of December, 
 thereupon gave notice to the plaintiffs discon- 
 tinuing the hire until the vessel was in a fit state 
 to resume employment, which she never was 
 until the end of December : — Held, that as the 
 policy was a time policy, the loss insured against 
 must happen during the period covered by the 
 policy ; and that the defendant's liability being 
 confined to loss of chartered freight between the 
 15th of April and the loth of October, could 
 not be extended so as to include loss of hii-e 
 which only occurred after the expiration of that 
 time. Ilouf/h v. Head, 55 L. J., Q. B. 43 ; 53 
 L. T. 80'J ; 34 W. K. 160 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 505—0. A. 
 
 Loss after Expiration of Policy— Death-wound 
 received before.] — Where a ship received the 
 injury which ultimately caused her loss during 
 the period for which she was insured, and was 
 kept afloat by pumping for some days and mitil 
 after the expiration of that period, when she 
 sank, it was held that the underwriter was not 
 liable. Me.retomj v. Bunlope, cited, 1 Term Rep. 
 260 ; 1 R. R. 194. 
 
 d. On freight. 
 
 When it Attaches.] — The risk on freight does 
 not attach until goods are either actually shipped 
 on board, or until there is an actual contract for 
 shipping them. Flint v. Flemyng, 1 B. & Ad. 45 ; 
 8 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 350. 
 
 Where there is a valued policy on freight, and 
 the ship is lost while taking in her cargo, the 
 assured can only recover for the freight of the 
 goods actually on board, unless a full cargo is 
 then provided for her, or there is a contract 
 either written or parol to supply one. Patrick 
 v. Fames, 3 Camp. 441. 
 
 Printed and Written Clauses in Policy— Re- 
 frigerating Machinery,] — A policy of insurance 
 upon freigiit of a cargo of frozen meat in a ship 
 fitted with refrigerating machinery, provided (in 
 writing), that tlie assurors should be liable 
 "for any loss occasioned by breaking down of 
 machinery until final sailing of vessel." The 
 voyage was stated to be at and from " Monte 
 Video to anv ports in any order backwards and 
 forwards in the river Plate, and thence to any 
 port of the United Kingdom," these words being 
 also in writing. The insurance was to commence 
 " upon the freight and goods or merchandise on 
 board thereof from the loading of the said gooils 
 or merchandise ou board the said ship or vessel 
 at Monte Video." This last clause was in print, 
 except " Monte Video," which was written. The
 
 1069 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— III. Duration oj liisk 
 
 1070 
 
 assured had contracted with the charterers that 
 they would not receive meat on board until the 
 temperature had been reduced to a specified 
 degree by the refrigerating machinery. The 
 charterers had contracted to pay freight on the 
 arrival of the ship at the port of discharge on all 
 meat which had been shipped. It was known 
 to all parties that no meat ever was or could be 
 shipped at Monte Video. The ship having dis- 
 charged her outward cargo at Monte Video, 
 proceeded to Buenos Ayres, both of them ports 
 ia the river Plate. After her refrigerating 
 machinery, which was set at work at Monte 
 Video, had been at work for two weeks, it broke 
 down in such a way as to be useless before the 
 requisite coldness had been attained. No meat 
 was ever received on board, and notice of 
 abandonment was given to the assurors. In an 
 action on the policy by the assured to recover 
 the amount of freight insured : — Held, that the 
 liability under the policy for loss of freight 
 occasioned by the breaking down of machinery 
 attached at Monte Video, and was not only to 
 attach upon the loading of the meat on board : 
 the printed words, "from the loading of the said 
 goods on board the said ship," being capable of 
 being read as applying only to an insurance 
 upon goods, antl not to an insurance upon 
 freight, and that being, under the circumstances, 
 the proper construction. Jlj/ihtrnes Steamship 
 Oil. V. Indcninify Mutual Murine Insurance Co., 
 M L. J., Q. B. 3.->3 ; [1895] 1 Q. B. 500; 14 R. 
 216 ; 72 L. T. 103 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 553— C. A. 
 
 Engagement of Goods — Loading Port.] — 
 A policy on freight " at and from " Valparaiso 
 (Iocs not attach if the ship be lost before arrival 
 at Valparaiso, notwithstanding that a subsequent 
 clause provides that the policy is " to cover 
 freight from the time of the engagement of the 
 goo<ls," and that the goods were engaged before 
 the ship was lost. The Copernicus, 65 L. J., 
 Adm. 108 ; [181)6] P. 237 ; 74 L. T. 757 ; 8 Asp. 
 M. C. 166— C. A. 
 
 "From the Loading."] — The plaintiffs, ship- 
 owners, by a policy of insurance underwritten 
 by the defendants, cau.sed " themselves to be 
 insured, lost or nfit lost, at and from Libau to 
 Bordeaux, upon freight (valued at interest), of 
 and in the vessel ' Hawthoin,' beginning the 
 adventuie upon tlic said goods or freight from 
 the loading thereof, on board the said ship at 
 Libau, and to continue and endure during the 
 said vessel's abode tliere, and until the said vessel 
 shall have arrived at Bordeaux, and the said 
 goods shall be safely delivered from the said 
 ship." The ]>laintiff's saitl vessel commenced 
 loading at Libau a cargo of oats for Bordeaux, 
 and a portion C)f the cargo was in lighters along- 
 side, and was aljout to be transferred to the said 
 ves.sel, when, by reason of the perils of the sea, 
 the said lighters and portion of cargo were 
 wholly lost, and the plaintiffs were prevented 
 from earning the freight insured : — Held, upon 
 demurrer, that the plaintiffs could not recover. 
 Iliipinr V. Wear Marine Insurance Co., 46 L. T. 
 107 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 482. 
 
 A ship was chartered to carry a cargo from 
 Liverpool to Lagos, (m the west coast of Africa, 
 there discharge, aiid reload anotlier cargo for the 
 United Kingdom, in consideration of a lump sum 
 by way of freight, payable half before sailing 
 from Liverpool, half on delivery of the home- 
 ward cargo. The shipowner effected an insurance 
 
 on freight " at and from Lagos," and the policy 
 contained a clause whereby the insurance com- 
 pany agreed that the insru-ance " shall commence 
 upon freight and goods or merchandise aforesaid 
 from the loading of the goods or merchandise on 
 board the said ship or vessel at as above." The 
 ship was lost before she had shipped any of her 
 homeward cargo : — Held, that this clause pre- 
 cluded the assured from recovering against the 
 underwriters, although the freight was chartered 
 freight. Becliett v. West of England Marine 
 Insurance Co., 25 L. T. 739 : 1 Asp. M. C. 185. 
 
 Where the owner of a vessel entered into a 
 contract with the East India Company at 
 Madras, through the medium of a correspon- 
 dence with their agents, for freight and the 
 passage of invalids ; and the ship had been sur- 
 veyed by their officer and represented to be fit 
 for the purpose, after certain alterations had 
 been made, and goods had been shipped, water 
 taken in for the invalids, and the pi-ojected 
 alterations commenced, but the completion was 
 prevented by the perils of the sea : — Held, that 
 there was an inception of the risk ; and that the 
 plaintiff was entitled to recover for passage- 
 money as well as freight. Truscott v. Christie, 
 5 Moore, 33 ; 2 Br. & 13. 320. 
 
 The assured assigned a policy on chartered 
 freight of the vessel "Napier," on a voj^age to 
 Baker's Island, and from Baker's Island to a port 
 of destination in the United Kingdom. They 
 then caused themselves to be reinsured, "lost or 
 not lost, upon freight payable in respect to this 
 present vo^'age to be performed by the vessel 
 'Napier' from Baker's Island to a port of dis- 
 charge in the United Kingdom ; the insurance 
 on the freight beginning from the loading of the 
 vessel." The "Napier" arrived at Baker's Island, 
 and was wrecked after taking in about two- 
 thirds of her homeward cargo : — Held, that the 
 assured were not entitled to recover as for a total 
 or partial loss of the freight — by Blackburn, J., 
 on the ground that it was not Intended that the 
 risk should commence until the vessel sailed ou 
 her voyage from Baker's Island, ami that the 
 words " beginning from the loading of the vessel" 
 ilid not extend the liability of the underwriters, 
 but only added the further statement that they 
 would not be liable for freight until the goods 
 were actually loaded — by Mellor, J., and Lush, 
 J., on the ground that these words did create a 
 liability before the voyage commenced, but that 
 the Wf)rd "loading" must be taken to mean 
 "com])lcte loading," so that as the cargo was 
 never fully loailed, the policy did not attach, and 
 nothing could be recovered. Jones v. Neptune 
 Miiriw Insnranre Co., 41 L. J., Q. B. 370 ; L. 11. 
 7 Q. B. 702 ; 27 L. T. 308 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 416. 
 
 Los8 after loading Part.] — Policy upon the 
 freight of the ship "Stranger" at and from 
 London to Jamaica, with liberty to touch at 
 Madeira, and discharge and take goods on board 
 there ; the ])laiiitilfs had agreed by charterparty 
 that the ship should take in goods at London, 
 and proceed to Madeira, and there deliver suc-h 
 parts of the gorwls Hhippe<l at Lf)ndon as their 
 agent sliould direct, aiMl receive on lioard wine, 
 and proceed to Jamaica, and there delivci- ; ;inc| 
 the freighter agreed to pay 135/. in lull lor 
 freight, during the whole voyage from l,ond<in to 
 Madeira, and from tlience to Jamaica, such freight 
 to ))C paid in Madeira, on delivery of the goods 
 shii)ped at London for that place, by Madeira 
 wine at 40L per pipe, to be carried in the said
 
 1071 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— III. Duration of Ilkk. 
 
 1072 
 
 ship to Jamaica free of freight. The ship, arrived 
 at ^ladi'ira, ami delivered all her London cargo, 
 except thirtj'-three casks of coals, whicli the cap- 
 tain kept on board to stiffen the ship ; having 
 received part of his cargo for Jamaica, but not 
 the wine to be paid for freight, a gale of wind 
 arising, the captain was obliged to cut his cables 
 and run out to sea, where he was captured : — 
 Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover 
 f 1 )r a total loss. Atti/ v. Lindo, 1 Bos. & P. (N.K.) 
 2:5G ; 8 K. E. 788. 
 
 Loss Before Loading.] — Policy at and from 
 Sheerness in ballast, tu Charente, and back to a 
 port in the Pjritish Cliannel and London, from 
 the date thereof, till the ship shoidd be arrived 
 at Charente, and back at a port in the Channel 
 and London ; on freight valued at the sum 
 insured, to be deemed interest on the outward 
 vo,yage. The ship was freighted for the voyage 
 in question by a charterparty, whereby she was 
 to proceed to Charente in ballast, and there the 
 freighter was to provide her with a full cargo of 
 brandy ; on the arrival of the ship at Charente 
 she was put under an embargo, and, after being 
 kept for sis months, she was seized and con- 
 demned by the French government : — Held, that 
 the freight was protected by the policy while the 
 ship lay at Charente, before any goods were put 
 on board, and that the underwriters were liable for 
 a loss so happening. Mackenzie v. Shcdden, 2 
 Camp. 431 ; 11 R. R. 75<). 
 
 Policy on freight valued at 500Z. on a voyage 
 r.t and from Demerara, Berbice, and the Wind- 
 ward and Leeward Islands to London : the ship 
 being at Demerara, an agreement was entered 
 into by the master with a house there for a 
 freight from Berbice to London, the cargo to be 
 put on board at Berbice, and the ship to take a 
 cargo of bricks and planks there. While pro- 
 ceeding from Demerara to Berbice, with the 
 bricks and i>lanks on board, she met with an 
 accident, and in consequence never earned her 
 freight : — Held, that it was not a loss within the 
 ])olicy. Sellar v. J/' Vicar, 1 Bos. & P. (n.k.) 23 ; 
 8 R. R. 744. 
 
 "At and from" Ports.]— A vessel when about 
 to proceed on a voyage with cai-go from Calcutta 
 to Mauritius was chartered " to proceed with all 
 cnnvenient speed on her present voyage to 
 Mauritius, and, having discharged her cargo 
 there," to "sail and proceed to Akyab, &,c., and 
 1)1 ]ok, from the charterers, a cargo of rice for a 
 port in the United Kingdom." Subsequently the 
 owner insured the freight to be earned under the 
 charterparty by an insurance "at and from 
 ^Mauritius to rice ports, and at and thence to a 
 1 ort of discharge in the United Kingdom, on 
 chartered freight, valued at 1,150/." The vessel 
 was afterwards lost at Mauritius, by a peril 
 insured against, before she had discharged the 
 whole of her cargo there : — Held, that the risk on 
 the ])olicy attached upon the arrival of the vessel 
 at iiauritius, and that the assured was therefore 
 entitled to recover. Foley v. United Fire and 
 Marine Inaiimnce Co., 39 f.. J., C. P. 206 ; L. R. 
 f. C. P. Lo5 ; 22 L. T. 108 ; 18 W. R. 437.— 
 Ex. Ch. 
 
 A homeward policy on freight, at and from 
 Algoa Bay, attaches when the ship is at Algoa 
 I'.ay in a condition to begin to take in her home- 
 v.-ard cargo. Williamsun v. Innes, 8 Bing. 81 ; 1 
 M. & Rob. id.. 
 
 ?/here a ship was chartered on a voyage from 
 
 London to Dominica, and back to London, at a 
 certain rate of freight upon the outward cargo ; 
 and, after delivering her outward cai'go at D., the 
 charterers were to provide her a full cargo home- 
 wards, at the current freight, from D. to L. : — 
 Held, that an insurance by the owner of the ship 
 on the freight at and from D. to L. attached 
 whilst the ship lay at D. delivering her outward 
 cargo, and before any part of the homeward 
 cargo was shipped, during which time she was 
 captured by an enemy, the contract of affreight- 
 ment by the charterparty being entire, and the 
 risk on the policy having commenced. Horn- 
 cafitle V. Stuart, 7'East, 400 ; 8 R. R. 649. 
 
 Where a ship was chartered from L. to T., 
 there to take on board a certain number of pipes 
 of wine, and proceed to B., for which the owner 
 was to receive freight at the rate of so much 
 per pipe ; a policy on such freight attached from 
 the sailing of the ship from L. Thunijjso/i v. 
 Taylor, 6 Term Rep. 478 ; 3 R. R. 233. 
 
 What Voyages.] — The stipulation in a charter- 
 party may be varied by subsequent instructions 
 which may amount to a new contract pro tanto ; 
 and an insurance of the freight upon the new 
 voyage, though different from that described in 
 the charterparty, may be good. Hall v. Bruwn, 
 2 Dow, 367. 
 
 Intermediate Cargoes.] — A policy on freight, 
 at and from the ship's port of loading at J., to 
 her port of discharge, with leave to call at inter- 
 mediate ports, beginning the adventure on the 
 goods from the loading as aforesaid, with leave to 
 discharge, exchange and take on board goods 
 at any port she may call at, without being deemed 
 a deviation, covers the freight of goods loaded at 
 an intermediate port ; and, therefore, where the 
 ship having sailed with a cargo loaded at J., was 
 during the voyage cast on shore at an inter- 
 mediate port, and lost a part of her cargo, and 
 took on board other goods at that port to com- 
 plete her cargo, and arrived at her port of 
 discharge, and earned freight : — Held, that the 
 assured, who had abandoned to the underwriter 
 upon intelligence of the loss, and had adjusted 
 with him as for a total loss, was liable to the 
 underwriter for the freight of that part of the 
 cargo loaded at the intermediate port, after 
 deducting the expenses attendant upon procuring 
 the freight. Barclay v. Stirling, 5 M. & S. 6 ; 
 17 R. R. 245. 
 
 Outward or Eeturn.]— A policy at and from 
 Riga to the United Kingdom, on shipand freight, 
 was declared to be in continuation of two other 
 policies, which were on ship and freight, on a 
 voyage from the United Kingdom to the ship's 
 port of discharge in the Baltic during her stay 
 there, and from thence back to her port of dis- 
 charge in the United Kingdom : the ship was 
 seized and condemned at Riga before she had 
 discharged her outward cargo : — Held, that the 
 first policy could not be applied to the outward 
 freight. Bell v. Bell, 2 Camp. 475 ; 11 R. R. 
 769. 
 
 Retardation of Adventure.] — Policy on freight 
 valued, at and from li. and any ports in the 
 Baltic to any ports in the United Kingdom, and 
 the ship was chartered to sail with a cargo from 
 L. to some port in the Baltic, not beyond B. 
 and from thence to R., there to take in a home- 
 ward cargo, and sailed from L. and arrived at R., 
 where she was detained live weeks, and prevented
 
 1073 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEAXCE— IV. Xature of Eisk. 
 
 1074 
 
 from loading by the government, and the freighter 
 never loaded her ; and a few days after the 
 detention ceased the frost set in, which detained 
 her till the spring, when she procured a freight 
 from other persons, and returned with it to L., 
 Ijut the expenses of her detention exceeded such 
 freight : — Held, that the policy attached at the 
 time of the detention, but that freight having 
 been afterwards earned, the underwriter was 
 not liable. £certh v. Smith, 2 M. &; S. 278 ; 15 
 K. K. 246. 
 
 Sending Home Portion of Cargo.] — An insur- 
 ance on the freight of a ship ilestined for a fishing 
 adventure in the South Sea, is not determined by 
 the arrival of part of the cargo in another 
 ship. Phillips V. Champion, 1 Marsh. 402 ; 6 
 Taunt. 3. 
 
 See also Cases under Y. INTEREST OF ASSUEED, 
 1. Freight, post, cols. 1110, seq. 
 
 Freight Earned. j — Upon a policy for freight 
 the insurers cannot be held responsible where the 
 freight has been actually earned. Scottish Marine 
 Insurance Co. v. Turner, 1 Macq. H. L. 334 ; 17 
 Jur. 631. 
 
 Ship never arrived at Port of Loading — Can- 
 cellation of Charterparty.] — See Jam ieson v. Aew- 
 cd.stlc Steamship I'rcii/ht Assurance Assn., post, 
 col. 1117. 
 
 IV. NATURE OF RISK. 
 
 1. Perils of the Sea. 
 
 a. Injury consequential on, 1072. 
 
 b. Collision, 1082, 
 
 c. WhiLst under Repair, 1085. 
 
 d. Shi[) Missing, 1086. 
 
 e. Other Cases, l(i87. 
 
 /. Evidence of Loss, 1087. 
 
 2. first raint and Detention, 1089. 
 
 3. StrandiiKj. 
 
 a. Operation of Memorandum, 1092. 
 h. What is, 1U93. 
 
 4. liar rat nj. 
 
 a. What is, 1097. 
 
 h. Who can Commit, 1099. 
 
 c. Effect and Proof of, 1100. 
 '.. Jettison. 1101. 
 <;. Fin; 1102. 
 7. Capture and Seizure. 
 
 a. What Amounts to, 1104. 
 
 h. l'rf)0f of, 1108. 
 
 5. Other Itixhs, llij9. 
 
 I. Perils of the Sea. 
 
 a. Injury consequential on. 
 
 Negligence of Crew.] — Underwriters are liable 
 for a loss arising iitmiediately out of the perils of 
 the sea, such as the winds and waves, althdugh 
 remotely from the mismanagement and negii- 
 gi-ncc of the master and mariners. Walker v. 
 J/aifland, 5 B. & Aid. 171 ; 24 K. R. 320. S. P., 
 J.'isho/j v. Pe/Uland, 7 B. & C. 214 ; 1 M. &; Ry. 
 49; 6 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. ; 31 R. R. 177. 
 
 Throwing away Ballast,]— To a declara- 
 tion on a time pulir^y f<ir si,\ months, stating a 
 loss by perils of the sea, the defendant jtleaded, 
 (hat, although the vessel was lost by perils of the 
 fsea, yet such loss was occasioned by the wrong- 
 ful, negligent, and improjier conduct (the same 
 not being barratrous) of the master and mariners 
 
 of the ship, by wilfully, wrongfully, negligently 
 and improperly (but not barratrously) throwing 
 overboard so much of the ballast that the vessel 
 became unseaworthy, and was lost by perils of 
 the sea, which otherwise she would have encoun- 
 tered and overcome : — Held, that the plea was 
 bad, and that the underwriter was liable for the 
 consequence of the wilful but not barratrous act 
 of the master and crew, in rendering the vessel 
 unseaworthy before the end of the voyage, by 
 throwing overboard a part of the ballast. Sadler 
 v. Dixon, 8 M. & W. 895 ; 1 1 L. J., Ex. 435— Ex. Ch. 
 
 To Animals,] — Policy on horses "warranted 
 free from mortality." Special verdict, finding, 
 that on the voyage, in consequence of a storm, 
 the horses broke down the partitions between 
 them, and by kicking, bruised each other so much, 
 that they died ; that a particular usage with 
 respect to policies on live stock prevailed at 
 Lloyd's coffee-house in London, and was adopted 
 both by the underwriters subscribing, and the 
 merchants effecting policies there, and that this 
 policy was effected there : — Held, first, that this 
 was a loss by perils of the sea for which assured 
 might recover notwithstanding the warranty ; 
 and secondly, that, as it did not ajjpear that tlie 
 assured knew of the usage prevailing at Lloyd's, 
 or was in the habit of effecting policies there, 
 such usage did not bind him. Gahaij v. Lloyd, 
 5 D. & R. 641 ; 3 B. & C. 793 ; 3 L. J. (o'.s.) 
 K. B. 116; 27 R. R. 486. 
 
 Where a policy was effected on mules and 
 other living animals, warranted "free from mor- 
 tality and jettison " ; and in the course of the 
 voyage some of them were killed, in consequence 
 of the agitation of the ship in a storm ; and 
 others died before the termination of the voyage 
 insured, in consequence of the injuries they had 
 received : — Held, th;it this was a loss by a peril 
 of the sea, for which the underwriters were 
 liable. Lawrence v. Aherdcin, 5 B. &. Aid. 107 ; 
 24 R. R. 299. 
 
 To Goods.] — A vessel latlen with hides and 
 tobacco, in the course of her voj'age shipped 
 large quantities of sea water. On the termina- 
 tion of the voyage it was discovered that the sea 
 water had rendered the hides putrid, and that 
 the putrefaction of the hides had imparted an ill 
 flavour to the tobacco, and had thereby injured 
 it : — Held, that the damage thus occasioned to 
 tlie tobacco was a loss by the perils of the sea. 
 Montoifa v. London Assurance Co., 6 Ex. 451 ; 
 20 L. J., Ex. 2.-.4. 
 
 Negligent Loading,] — Whcie a ship, in- 
 sured against the jjciils of the sea, was injurc<l 
 by the negligent loading of her cargo by the 
 natives on the coast of Africa, and, in conse- 
 quence, shortly afterwards became leaky, and, 
 being pronounced unseaworthy, was i-iin ashore, 
 in order to prevent her from sinking and to save 
 the cargo: — Held, that the insurers were liable 
 for a constructive total loss, the immediate cause 
 of the loss being the perils of the sea, although 
 the cause of the unseawortliiness w.as tlie negli- 
 gence in the loading, Itedmnn v. Wilson, 14 
 M, k W. 476 ; 14 L. J., Ex. 333 ; 9 Jur. 714. 
 
 A. effected a jiolicy against " perils of the seas 
 and all other perils, losses and misfortunes that 
 have or shall come to the hurt, detriment or 
 damage of thegoo<ls," in the ordinary form, upon 
 gfMids for a voyage by a steamer fiom K. to Y. 
 While tlie steamer was loading in the harljour at 
 K. her draught was increased by the weight of
 
 1075 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— IV. Nature of Bisk. 
 
 the cnrgo, until the discharge-pipe was brought 
 below the surface of the water, which then 
 liovvcd down the pipe under the valve and, some 
 (■(i(;ks or valves in the niacJiinery having been 
 negligentl}' left open, llowetl into the hold and 
 injured A.'s goods : — Hekl, that the injury was 
 caused by one of the perils insured against. 
 Darldmn v. linrnnnd, 38 L. J., C. P. 73 ; L. R. 4 
 C. P. 117 ; li) L. T. 782 ; 17 W. R. 121. 
 
 Held, also, that the burden of proving that 
 the vessel was unseaworthy was ou the defen- 
 dant. Ih. 
 
 Through Delay.] — Meat shipped at Ham- 
 burg for I.ondon was delayetl on the voyage by 
 tempestuous weather, and solely by reason of 
 such delay became putrid, and was necessarily 
 thrown overboard at sea : — Held not a loss by 
 perils of the sea, or within the words " all other 
 jierils, losses and misfortunes," in the policy. 
 T.iylur V. Bunhar, 38 L. J., C. P. 178 ; L. R. 4 
 C. P. 20G ; 17 W. R. 382. 
 
 " Perils of the Seas and all other Perils," &c. 
 — Donkey-engine, Injury to.] — A steamer was 
 insured by a time policy in the ordinary form on 
 the ship and her machinery, including the don- 
 key-engine. For the purposes of navigation the 
 donkey-engine was being used in pumping water 
 into the main boilers, when owing to a valve 
 being closed which ought to have been kept open 
 water was forced into and split open the air- 
 chamber of the donkey-pump. The closing of 
 the valve was either accidental or due to the 
 negligence of an engineer and was not due to 
 ordinary wear and tear : — Held, that whether 
 the injury occurred through negligence or acci- 
 dentally without negligence, it was not covered 
 by the policy, such a loss not falling under the 
 words " perils of the seas," &c., nor under the 
 general words "all other perils, losses, and mis- 
 fortunes that have or shall come to the hurt, 
 detriment or damage of the subject-matter of 
 insurance." West India and Panama Telegraph 
 Cii. V. Hume and Colonial M((rine Insurance Co. 
 (6 Q. B. D. 51 ; 50 L. J., Q. B. 41), disapproved. 
 flmnies and, Mersey 3Iarine Insurance Co. v. 
 Handlton, 56 L. J., Q. B. G26 ; 12 App. Cas. 484 ; 
 57 L. T. CJo ; 36 W. R. 337 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 200— 
 H. L. (E.) 
 
 " Improper Navigation of Ship " — Negligence 
 —Damage to Cargo — Insufficiently-closed Port.] 
 
 — By tlic articles of a mutual assurance associa- 
 tion the members agreed to indemnify each other 
 against losses, damages, and expenses arising 
 f loni or occasioned by any loss or damage of or 
 to any gootls or merchandise caused by improjjcr 
 navigation of the ship carrying the goods," for 
 which any such member might be liable. A 
 caigo of wheat was shipped on board a vessel 
 belonging to the plaintiffs, who were members of 
 the association. During the loading of the cargo 
 an opening or port in the side of the vessel was 
 by the negligence of persons employed by the 
 jilaintiffs insufficiently secured, so that during 
 tlie voyage the water leaked in and damaged the 
 wheat in the lower hold, and the plaintiff's 
 became liable to pay and paid compensation to 
 the owners of the cargo. The leak did not 
 hinder or impede the navigation of the vessel 
 in the course of her voyage : — Held, that this 
 was a damage arising from " improper naviga- 
 tion of the shi])," within the articles of associa- 
 tion, for which the plaintiffs were entitled to 
 
 1070 
 
 recover. Carmichael v. Livcrjmol Sailing Ship 
 Owners'' Assn., 56 L. J., Q. B. 428 ; 19 Q.' B. D. 
 242 ; 57 L. T. 550 ; 35 W. R. 793 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 184— C. A. 
 
 "Improper Navigation."]— An association of 
 steamship owners agreed by deed to indemnify 
 each other in respect of ships entered by them 
 in the association against " loss or damage which 
 by reason of the improper navigation of any 
 such steamship as aforesaid may be caused to 
 any goods, &c. on board such steamship." The 
 steamship " ISevern " was duly entered, and 
 whilst on a voyage from Memel to Hull with a 
 cargo of linseed and flax, having encountered 
 heavy weather and being short of coals, she put 
 back to Frederickshaven to coal and to trim her 
 cargo, which had shifted. Going into the har- 
 bour she took the ground, but was got off within 
 an hour. The pumps were put on to see whether 
 she had made any water, and for this purpose 
 the bilge-cock was opened, but through the 
 negligence of the crew this cock was not closed 
 when the attempt to pump ceased. Whilst the 
 " Severn" was moored at Frederickshaven quay 
 orders were given to put on the donkey-engine 
 pumps to fill the boilers, and for this purpose the 
 sea-cock was opened. The sea-cock communi- 
 cated with the box or tank in which was the 
 bilge-cock, and when the boilers were filled the 
 sea-cock being through a like negligence left 
 open the water entered in large quantities by 
 means of the open bilge-cock into the hold of the 
 vessel and damaged the linseed : — Held, that 
 this was a damaging arising from "improper 
 navigation " within the meaning of the deed. 
 GoodY. London Steamship Ourners' Mutual Pro- 
 tecting Association, L. R. 6 C. P. 563 ; 20 W. R. 33. 
 
 "Improper Navigation" — "Improper Stow- 
 age."] — By the rules of the defendants, a ship- 
 owners' mutual insurance association, the plain- 
 tiffs were entitled to protection in respect of 
 •' damage to goods on board when caused by the 
 improper navigation " of their ship, but were not 
 entitled to claim in respect of "damage caused 
 by improper stowage." A cargo of wheat while 
 in the hold of the plaintiffs' ship was damaged 
 owing to a taint communicated to the wheat 
 tliough the ceiling and limber boards of the 
 vessel having been saturated with a composition 
 which had leaked from the previous cargo. The 
 ceiling aiid limber boards had not been properly 
 cleaned before the wheat was stowed : — Held, 
 that the damage was not caused by " improper 
 navigation." Quebi'c, whether it was caused by 
 " improper stowage." Carmichael v. Licerpool 
 Sailing Shij)oiv7wrs' Mutual Indemnity Assn. 
 (supra) distinguished. Canada Shipping Co. v. 
 British Shij)oa:ners' Mutual Protection Assn., 58 
 L. J., Q. B. 462 ; 23 Q. B. D. 342 ; 61 L. T. 312 ; 
 38 W. R. 87 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 422— C. A. 
 
 Master part Owner — Loss through Master's 
 Negligence.] — When a loss by perils of the sea 
 occurs to an insured ship through the negligent 
 navigation of the assured himself, the under- 
 writers will be liable for such loss unless the 
 assured's negligence was knowing and wilful. 
 Trinder, Anderson <\'- Co. v. North Queensland 
 Insurance Co., 66 L. J., Q. B. 802 ; 77 L. T. 
 80. Affirmed, 67 L. J., Q. B. 666— C. A. 
 
 Leakage,] — In an action on a policy for a 
 constructive total loss arising from a leak : — 
 Held, that it was for the jury whether the leak
 
 1077 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— IV. Nature oj Risk. 
 
 arose from the ship being unseaworth_y before 
 the voyage, either from anyinjurj'^ arising before 
 the insurance, or from ordinary wear and tear 
 or whether it arose from the perils of the seas, in 
 the course of the voyage insured, and whether 
 the ship was abandoned in the exercise of an 
 honest and reasonable discretion. Javdine v. 
 Leathley, 3 F. & F. 80. 
 
 In a case where it is suggested on the one side, 
 that the loss of a quantity of liquid was occa- 
 sioned by the perils of the sea, and on the other 
 side, that it was leakage, for which the under- 
 writers were not answerable, witnesses cannot 
 be called and asked "Whether, where the cargo 
 has not been shifted, nor the casks damaged, the 
 running out of the liquid is in practice con- 
 sidered as leakage, or as a loss by the perils of 
 the sea." But this question may be put to 
 persons skilled in navigation — " vSuppose the 
 casks have not been shifted nor damaged, but 
 the liquid escapes, to what do you attribute it ? " 
 Crofts V. Marshall, 7 Car. & P. 597. 
 
 Piratical Act of Emigrants.] — To a declara- 
 tion on a policy on advances for the transport of 
 Chinese emigrants from China to Peru, for their 
 outfit and provisions, to be paid on arrival of the 
 emigrants at the port of destination, the perils 
 insured against being pirates, rovers, thieves, 
 barratry of the master and mariners, and all 
 other perils, losses, and misfortunes, and alleg- 
 ing a total loss by the emigrants piratically and 
 feloniously murdering the cajitain and part of 
 the crew, and feloniously stealing and carrying 
 away the ship, the defendant pleaded, first, that 
 as soon as the emigrants obtained possession of 
 the vessel, they steered to the nearest land for 
 the purpose of being landed, and refused to and 
 would not proceed upon the vo^'age, and the 
 vessel was then fit and able to proceed safely on 
 the voyage, and the remainder of the crew would 
 have navigated her there, and was ready ami 
 willing to convey the emigrants there if they 
 would have gone, but that they would not, and 
 that by reason of such refusal, and for no other 
 cause whatsoever, the transport was never com- 
 l>letcd ; and, secondly, as to taking and carrying 
 away the vessel, that the emigrants were un- 
 willing to be carried on the voyage, and that 
 they committed the murder and took possession 
 of the vessel for the purpose of being landed, 
 and of escaping frotii being carried on the 
 voyage, and ftn- no otiier purpose, which is the 
 piratical carrying away of the vcs.sel : — Held, 
 that the murder of the captain and part of the 
 crew, ami the seizure of t lie vessel by the emi- 
 grants, was, if not a piratical act, fine ejusdein 
 generis, and tiierefore within tlie perils insured 
 against, anfl that as the loss was complete at 
 that moment, and never reduced, the unwilling- 
 ucss of tlie emigrants to proceed was nf)t the 
 cause of the loss, but was wholly inmiaterial, 
 and consequently that the jjleas were bad. 
 Palmer v. A'ai/Zor, 10 K.x. :!H2 ; 2 C. L. U. 1202 ; 
 23 L. J., E.X.' 32;j; 18 Jur. <Jiil : 2 \V. K. G21 
 —Ex. Ch. 
 
 Perils of Sea incurred by Capture.] — A mer- 
 chant sliip was, hy mistake, sci/.<(i ;it sea and 
 taken in tow by a British man-of-war; she was 
 Ihen-by exposed to bad weatiier, whicli injured 
 goods on board her: — Held, that this is a loss by 
 perils of the sea. Scnible, it is also a loss by 
 ca|)tureaiid detention. Uaaedorn \. Whit more. 
 1 atark. 157. 
 
 1078 
 
 Rats.] — A loss arising from rats eating holes 
 in the ship's bottom is not within the" perils 
 insured against by the common form of policy. 
 Hunter V. Potts. 4 Camp. 203 ; 16 R. R. 776. 
 And see Laveroni v. Prury, Kay v. Wheeler, 
 PandorfY. Hamilton, ante, col. 275. 
 
 Unseaworthiness — Question for Jury.] — Action 
 on a time policy alleging a loss by perils of the 
 sea. Plea, that the plaintiff knowingly, wilfully, 
 wrongfully, and improperly sent the ship to sea 
 in an unseaworthy state, and wrongfully and 
 improperly caused and permitted her to remain 
 on the high seas, near to the seashore, for a great 
 length of time, in the state and condition afore- 
 said, during which time the ship, by reason of 
 the premises, was wrecked and lost. At the trial 
 it appeared that the ship, having been loaded, 
 was, by authority of the plaintiif, towed out of 
 Sunderland Harbour, and over the bar, for the 
 purpose of taking advantage of a spring tide. 
 Some of her shrouds, which had been cast off for 
 the purpose of loading her, were not replaced, 
 and her rigging was incomplete. In consequence, 
 the plaintiff, who was on board, ordered her to be 
 brought up in the open roadstead, and lumpers 
 were sent out to complete her equipment. After 
 her equipment was completed, but before she 
 had left the roadstead, a sudden storm came on, 
 and owing to a defect, the cable broke, and she 
 went on shore and was lost :— Held, that the 
 insurers were liable for the loss, miless it was. 
 immediately occasioned by the wrongful act or 
 default of the insured. Thumjmm v. Hopper. 6 
 El. Bl. & El. 1033 ; 27 L. J., Q. B. 441 ; 6 VV. R. 
 857 — Ex, Ch. See Piidgeon v. Pembroke, post, 
 col. 1088. 
 
 Salvage Expenses.]— Where a steamship leaves 
 port with an insufficient supply of bunker 
 coal for her whole voyage, and lies helpless at 
 sea till towed to her destination by a passing 
 tug, her .salvage expenses cannot be reeovereil 
 from her underwriters as an average loss under 
 a time jiolicy. Jinllantyne v. MacMnnon, 65 
 L. J.. Q. B. 616 ; [181)6] 2 Q. B. 455 ; 75 L. T. 
 95 ; 45 W. R. 70 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 173— C. A. 
 
 Injury to Electric Cable.]— Where an attempt 
 to lay an electric cable resulted in failui'c owing 
 to the imperfect insulation of the coi>per wire 
 along which the electrical fluid passed, arising 
 from defect in the outer covering by which it 
 was protected from external contact ; vvhieli 
 defect was occasioned by accident jnior to the 
 shi|)meiit of the cable, and the commencement 
 of the risk, aggravated hy the action of the sea, 
 and aro.se from the chemical action of tiio sea 
 water on the interior of the cable, and not from 
 any mischief done by the mechanical action of 
 the sea: — Held, that this was not an injury 
 caused by perils of the sea. Paterson v. ffarris., 
 1 I?. & S. 336 : 30 L. J., Q. B. 354; 7 Jur. (N.s.) 
 1276 ; '.» \V. It. 713. 
 
 Loss by Weather— Time Policy.] — Sec Kenneth 
 V. .IA;.'/v', po.st, col. 1155. 
 
 Shaft broken— Voyage abandoned— Charter- 
 party cancelled.]— See Jimxaiide v. Thawrs and 
 Mersey Marine Insii ranee Co., post, col. lliS. 
 
 Charterparty thrown up.]— A shipowner, in 
 November, 1H71, entered into a charter|)arty, by 
 which the ship was to proceed with all ])ossible 
 dispatch (dangers and accitlents of navigation
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— IV. Nature of Rink. 
 
 1079 
 
 excepted) fi-om Liverpool to Newport, and there 
 load a cargo of iron rails for San Francisco. He 
 effected an insurance on the chartered freight 
 for the voyage. The ship sailed from Liverpool 
 on the '2nd of January, 1872, and on the 3rd got 
 i\ground in Carnarvon Bay. She was got off by the 
 ISth of February and repaired, the time necessary 
 for the completion of such repairs extending to 
 tlie end of August. In the meantime on the 
 lath of February, the charterers had thrown up 
 1 he charter and "chartered another ship to carry 
 the rails (which were wanted for the construction 
 of a railway) to San Francisco. In an action by 
 the shipowner on the policy of insurance on the 
 chartered freight, the jury found that the time 
 aiecessary for getting the ship off and repairing 
 lier was so long as to put an end, in a commercial 
 pcuse, to the commercial speculation entered 
 upon by the shipowner and the charterers : 
 - — Held, that the charterers were, by reason of 
 the delay, not bound to load the ship, and that 
 I here was therefore a loss of the chartered 
 freight by perils of the sea. Jackson v. Unum 
 JIarine Insurance Co., 44 L. J., C. P. 27 ; L. R. 
 10 C. P. 12.5 ; 31 L. T. 789 ; 23 W. R. 1G9 ; 2 
 Asp. M. C. 43.5— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Ship disabled — Contract inoperative — Loss of 
 Profits on Cargo bought.] — Plaintiff in Loudon 
 contracted to buy of D. 6,000 bags of rice to 
 arrive by the ship "E." from Madras before the 
 end of May, and he contracted to sell the same 
 lice to another at an advanced price. He then 
 insured " at and from Madras to London on 
 profit on rice" loaden and not loaden, and on 
 the ship " E.," beginning the adventure upon 
 goods immediately after the loading thereof on 
 board at Madras. The ordinary perils were 
 dnsured against. When 1,200 bags of rice had 
 been put on board the ship was disabled by 
 perils of the sea ; she could not perform the 
 voyage; the 1,200 bags were spoiled; and the 
 plaintiff's contracts were inoperative. The 
 plaintiff sued upon the policy for a total loss 
 of 4,800 bags, the 1,200 having been settled for : 
 — Held, that the interest in profits was insurable; 
 but, that except as to the 1,200 on board, the pre- 
 sent policy did not cover it ; also, that the rice 
 ashore, assuming it to be covered by the policy, 
 ^vas not lost by peril of the sea. McSwinry 
 \ lloyal Exclinwje Asmrance Corporation^ 
 14 Q. B. 034; 18 L. J., Q. B. 193. 
 
 Cessation of Hire — Damage occasioned by 
 Perils insured against — Causa proxima.] — By a 
 
 charterparty it was provided that the vessel 
 iihould be hired by the charterer at a stipulated 
 f^um per month, and that, in the event of loss of 
 time from want of rejjairs, preventing the work- 
 ing of the vessel for more than twenty-four hours, 
 1he payment of hire should cea.se from the hour 
 ■when detention began until the ship should be 
 iigain in an efficient state to resume her service. 
 The shipowners insured the chartered freight 
 figainst fire. During the continuance of the 
 ] olicy the vessel was damaged by fire to such an 
 extent as necessitated her being repaired. The 
 hire of the vessel " ceased," and a loss of chartered 
 freight thereby accrued to the shipowner : — Held, 
 that there had been a loss of chartered freight 
 by the immediate action of the perils assured 
 against, and that the underwriters were liable to 
 the shipowners therefor. 'The Alps, 62 L. J., Adm. 
 r.9 : [1893] P. 109 ; 1 R. 587 ; 68 L. T. 624 ; 41 
 W. R. 527 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 337. 
 
 1080 
 
 Loss of Freight — Proximate Cause — Conceal- 
 ment of Material Fact. J — A charterparty con- 
 tained a clause for cesser of payment of freight 
 in the event of the ship being delayed in conse- 
 (luence of the breakdown of machinery for more 
 than twenty-four hours. The shii)owners insured 
 the freight for three months, the slip containing 
 the words "freight chartered and [or] as if 
 chartered, on board, or not on board, one third 
 diminishing each month." The existence of the 
 cesser clause was not expressly communicated to 
 the underwriter. In conser^uence of a breakdown 
 of machinery caused by a peril of the sea covered 
 by the policy the ship was delayed, and payment 
 of freight ceased. The owners having brought 
 an action on the policy : — Held, that, as the 
 cesser clause had been put into operation throxigh 
 the immediate action of a peril insured against, 
 such peril was a sufficiently proximate cause of 
 the loss to found an action on the policy. The 
 Alps (supra) followed. The Bedouin, 63 L. J., 
 Adm. 30 ; [1894] P. 1 ; 6 R. t;93 ; 69 L. T. 782 ; 
 42 W. R. 292 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 391— C. A. 
 
 Held, also, that the undei writer could not 
 rely on the non-disclosure of the existence of the 
 cesser clause as a concealmeirt of a material fact, 
 for the words of the slip shewed that the freight 
 proposed to be insured was freight under a time 
 charter, and consequently gave the underwriter 
 notice that the charter probably contained the 
 cesser clause. Ih. 
 
 Option to Charterers to discharge Ship — 
 Condition precedent.] — A ship was chartered for 
 time on monthly liire ; the cliarterers agreeing to 
 pay the freight during employment and efficient 
 performance of the service, and the owner cove- 
 nanting that the ship should be seaworthy during 
 the continuance of the charter ; provided that if 
 at any time it shotdd appear to the charterers that 
 the ship became inefficient it should be lawful 
 for them to put her out of pay, or to make such 
 abatement by way of mulct otit of the hire or 
 freight as they should adjudge fit. The owner 
 effected a time policy of insurance "on freight 
 outstanding." During the time the ship became 
 inefficient through perils of the seas, and the 
 charterers refused to pay freight after that date. 
 The owner having brought an action on the 
 policy : — Held, that on the true construction of 
 the charterparty the efficiency of the ship was 
 not a condition precedent to the earning of the 
 freight ; that the pecuniary loss was caused by 
 the charterers availing themselves of the abate- 
 ment clause, and not by the perils of the sea ; 
 and that the underwriters were not liable. Inman 
 Steamship Co. v. Bischoff, 52 L. J., Q. B. 169 ; 7 
 App. Cas. 670 ; 47 L. T. 581 ; 31 W. R. 141 ; 5 
 Asp. M. C. 6— H. L. (E.) 
 
 The plaintiffs, on the 29th of July, 1875, 
 chartered their ship "G." for a voyage from New 
 York to Odessa. The freight was agreed '■ dui ing 
 the voyage aforesaid " at 5,500Z. in cash at Hull, 
 England, on the discharge of the cargo in Odessa, 
 " if the vessel has not arrived at the port of New 
 York on or before the 1st of Sei)lember, 1875, 
 charterers have option of cancelling this charter- 
 party." The plaintiffs, on the 7th of August, 
 1875, effected an insurance with the defendant 
 "at and from London to New York, while there, 
 and thence to Odessa via Constantinojile," on 
 their chartered freight, including, besides the 
 ordinary ones, all risks "incident to steam navi- 
 gation." The clause in the charterparty giving 
 the option to cancel was not mentioned to the
 
 1081 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— IV. Nature of Risk. 
 
 defendant. The ship started from England on 
 the 7th of August, but owing to the failure of 
 her machinery in the British Channel was obliged 
 to put back for repairs, which occupied so much 
 time that she did not reach New York until 
 after the 1st of September, whereupon the 
 charterers cancelled the charter and the freight 
 was lost : — Held, that the iuterest in the chartered 
 freight had commenced at the time when the 
 charter was cancelled, but that the defendant 
 was not liable, for the freight was not lost by any 
 of the perils insured against, but by the exercise 
 of the option to cancel in the charterparty ; and 
 further that the withholding from the defendant 
 information as to the power to cancel vitiated 
 the policy. Merci utile Steamshij) Co. v. Ti/.ser, 
 7 Q. B. D. 73 ; 29 W. R. 790 ; 5 Asp. M, C. 6, n. 
 
 Vessel Hogged.] — A vessel was chartered for a 
 voyage, and the cargo was insured against total 
 loss. In the course of the voyage the vessel went 
 aground, became hogged, and sustained other 
 injuries, and surveyors recommended her to be 
 stripped with despatch, ami steps taken to save 
 the cargo, but no attempt was made to do so ; 
 and after several days the master fearing bad 
 weather, sold the vessel and cargo for the benefit 
 of all concertied. The vessel remained for some 
 days in the same state, and the weather proving 
 fine, the purchasers saved a large part of the 
 cargo : — Held, that the charterers were not 
 eutitleti Ui treat the cargo as having been totally 
 lost. Curric v. Uonihai/ Xutive Insurance Co., 
 6 Moore, P. C. (N.s.) 302 ; 39 L. J., P. C. 1 ; L. R. 
 3 P. C. 72 ; 22 L. T. 317 ; 18 W. R. 296. 
 
 A vessel was, in the ordinary course of naviga- 
 tion, moored in harbour, and at each succcessive 
 low tide took the ground. She became hogged 
 or strainetl in consequence : — Held, that there 
 was no casus fortuitus, and that therefore the 
 insurers were not liable for the loss as a loss 
 from the perils ot the sea. Magiiu.'i v. Butter- 
 w/fcve, 11 C. B. 87G ; 21 L. J.,C. P. 119 ; 16Jur. 480. 
 
 Injury to Hull.] — In the absence of an}' cus- 
 tom, underwriters are liable for injury to a ship's 
 lx)ttom, caused not by the ordinary action of the 
 winds and waves, h)ut by their violent action in 
 a storm. JLirrixon v. Universal Marine Insurance 
 Co., 3 F. & F. 190. 
 
 Where a Rhi[)"s bottom has, during the vo3'age 
 insured, been tak(;n by the worm, in consequence 
 of wliich she is incapable of proceeding on her 
 voyage, and is condemned, that is not a loss by 
 j)'.'rils of the sea within the meaning of the policy. 
 Itohl V. Purr, 1 Esp. 44.^ ; .5 R. R. 741. 
 
 1082 
 
 41 : G 
 4 Asp. 
 
 Marine Insurance Co., .50 L. J., Q. B. 
 Q. B. D. 51 ; 43 L. T. 420 ; 29 W. R. 92 : 
 M. C. 341— C. A. 
 
 Barratry of Master or Crew.]— Semble, that 
 if a declaration of a policy of insurance lay the 
 loss by perils of the seas, the plaintiff may recover 
 upon proof that the ship was wrecked, although 
 this may have been occasioned by the barratry 
 of the master or mariners. Heijman v. Parish, 
 2 Camp. 148 : 11 R. R. 688. And see Small v. 
 United Eim/doni Marine and Mutual Insuraiice 
 Association, post, col. 1136. 
 
 Fruit Rotted by Sea Water — Destroyed by 
 Orderof Port Authority.]— Pulley on fruit from 
 Cadiz to London with usual memorandum. 
 During the voyage the fruit was damaged by sea 
 water, rotted and stank, and on the ship's- 
 arrival at a port to which she was driven, by 
 order of the port authority not allowed to be 
 landed. The ship being too much damaged ta 
 proceed, was sold, and the cargo necessarily 
 thrown overboard : — Held, that the assured could 
 recover for a total loss. Dijson v. Rowcroft, 3 
 Bos. & P. 474 ; 7 R. R. 809. 
 
 Ship Stranded — Seizure by Enemy — Loss by 
 Peril of Sea.] — Goods insured in a ship 
 warranted free from capture and seizure. The 
 ship was stranded, disabled and lost. Whilsti 
 ashore on the shoal she was seized by the enemy 
 and the goods confiscated by him :— Held, a loss 
 of the goods bv peril of the sea. Hahn v. Cor- 
 bett. 2 Bing. 205 ; 9 Moore, 390 ; 3 L. J. (o.S.) 
 C. P. 253 ; 27 R. R. 590. 
 
 b. Collision — Rxinning- dow^n Clause. 
 
 By Gross Negligence.]— A loss occasioned by 
 another ship runuiiig down the ship insured 
 through gross negligence, is a loss by perils of the 
 sea. Smith v. Scott, 4 Taunt. 126 ; 13 R. R. 
 568. 
 
 Accidental.] — Where there is an exception in 
 a charterparty of perils of the sea, a loss from 
 the shijj's running foul of another by misfortune 
 is within the exception, and is a loss by perils of 
 the sea. Puller v. Fisher, 3 Esp. 67 ; Peake s. 
 Add. Gas. 183 ; 4 R. R. 902. 
 
 Collision Clause— Legality.] — Whether insur- 
 ance against (laiiiagcs iliat a shipowner maybe 
 liable to [lay in consciiuence of his ship running 
 down another be ille^'al, (puere. Anon., 5 Taunt. 
 292. Put see 25 & 26 \'ict. c. 63, s. 54, 55. 
 
 Explosion of Boiler.]— Plaintiff's steamer was 
 insured liy a time policy against "adventures 
 aiul perils ... of the seas . . . fire, and of all 
 oilier perils, losses and misfortunes that have or 
 sliall come to the hurt, detriment or damage of 
 the aforesaid subject-matter of the insurance or 
 any part thereof." The steamer was damaged 
 while at sea by the bursting of the boiler, wliich 
 took place in consequence of the jjlates being 
 worn too tliiii to resist the pressure of the steam. 
 This condition of tiie i)];ites was due to the negli- 
 gence of tho-c who had charge of the boiler in 
 omitting to clean and inspect it at proper inter- 
 vals. In an action against the underwriters: — ir,f; j 8 Asi).''m. C. 71. 
 Held, that the damage caused by the bursting of 
 the lioiler was covered by the policy, and plain- 
 tiffs were entitled to recover. West India and 
 Pa/uima Tcleijraph Co. v. Home and Colonial 
 
 Construction — Collision with Breakwater.] — 
 Where a vessel was insured " against risk of loss 
 or damage through collision with any other ship 
 or vessel, or ice, or suidien or floating wreck, 
 or any other floating substance, or harbours or 
 wharves, or piers or stages, or similar structures," 
 and was lost by being driven by the wind against 
 the sloping liank or " toe" of a brealcwater, such 
 loss was caused by " collision," and not by 
 "stranding," and w;is therefore within the word-* 
 of and covered by the insurance policy. Uninn 
 Jfarinc Insurance Co. v. Porwick, 64 L. J., Q. B. 
 679 ; [1895] 2 Q. B. 279 ; 15 R. 546 ; 73 L. T. 
 
 "Sunken Wreck."] — Part of the frame 
 
 of a ship sunk l)cn(;ath the surface of the sea, 
 and partially embedded in the ground, and also a
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— IV. Nature of Risk. 
 
 1083 
 
 quantity of iron ore that had formed part of the 
 cargo of a ship, are " sunken wreck" within the 
 meaning of the collision clause in a policy of 
 marine reinsurance. The Miniroc. [ 1 893] P. 2-18 ; 
 1 R. 642 ; 70 L. T. 246 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 407. 
 
 "Damage received in Collision."] — An 
 
 injury to a ship may fairly be said to cause its loss 
 if. before that injury is or can with reasonable 
 diligence be repaired, the ship is lost by reason 
 of the existence of that injury ; i.e. under cir- 
 cumstances which, but for that injury, would not 
 have affected her safety. Accordingly, if a policy 
 is effected covering such an injury, it will in the 
 supposed circumstances extend to the loss of the 
 ship. Reisclier v. Borwich, 63 L. J., Q. B. 7.53 ; 
 [1894"! 2 Q. B. .548 ; 9 R. 558 ; 71 L. T. 238 ; 
 7 Asp"'. M. C. 493— C. A. 
 
 "Damage Consequent on Collision" — 
 
 Repairs — Damage to Cargo by Delay and Hand- 
 ling.] — Goods were insured by a marine policy 
 against (among other things) damage consequent 
 on collision. The ship in which they were shipped 
 came into collision with another ship, and was 
 thereby damaged so as to render it necessary for 
 f(ir her to go" into a port for repairs. For the 
 purpose of such repairs it was necessary to dis- 
 charge a portion of the goods insured. When 
 the repairs were completed such goods were 
 re-shipped, and the ship proceeded to her desti- 
 nation. On arrival it was found that the goods, 
 being of a perishable nature, had been damaged 
 by the handling necessary for their discharge and 
 re-shipment and by the delay. In an action by 
 the insured upon the policy to recover the amount 
 of the damage to the goods : — Held, that the 
 collision was not the proximate cause of the loss, 
 and therefore the jjlaintiffs could not recover. 
 Pink V. Flemhuj, 59 L. J., Q. B. 5.59 ; 25 Q. B. D. 
 396 ; 63 L. T. 413 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 554— C. A. 
 
 Costs and Damages Payable to other Ship.] 
 
 — A policy of 4,M(JU/. for twelve months on tiie 
 ship ■• Rouen " and her freight contained the 
 following clause : "And we, the assurers, do 
 covenant and agree that in case the vessel shall, 
 by accident or negligence of the master or crew, 
 run down or damage any other ship or vessel, and 
 the assured shall thereby become liable to pay, 
 and shall pay as damages any sum or sums not 
 exceeding the value of the vessel and her freight, 
 by or in pursuance of any judgment of any court of 
 law or equity given in any suit or action defended 
 with our previous consent in writing, or by or 
 in pursuance of any award made upon reference 
 entered into by the assured, with our previous 
 consent in writing, we, the assurers, shall and 
 will bear and pay such proportions of three- 
 fourth parts of the sum so paid as aforesaid, as 
 the sum of 4,00uZ. hereby assured bears to the 
 value of the vessel and her freight." The ship 
 having run down another ship, whereby some 
 of her crew were drowned, and the owners of the 
 " Rouen " having been condemned by the Court of 
 admiralty to pay damages to the personal repre- 
 sentatives of the deceased for the loss of those 
 lives : — Held, that the clause did not apply. 
 Taylor v. Dewar, 5 B. & S. 58 ; 33 L. J., Q. B. 
 14i ; 10Jur.(N.S.)361 ; 10 L.T.267 ; 12 W. R.579. 
 A Lloyds' policy on the owner's vessel was 
 expressed to be made " subject to the running- 
 down clause, as per slip attached." By that 
 clause the assurers agreed that if the assured 
 became liable to pay and paid as damages for 
 
 1084 
 
 running down nny other ship any sum not 
 exceeding the value of the vessel insured, they 
 would repay to the owner a certain pi'oportion of 
 such sum. The vessel insured having run do^vn 
 another, and the owner assured having success- 
 fully defended an action brought against him in 
 respect of the injury : — Held, that he was not 
 entitled to recover any portion of the costs of the 
 defence, either under the suing and labouring 
 clause or the running down clause. Xenos v. 
 Few. 38 L. J., C. P. 351 ; L. R. 4 C. P. 665 ; 
 17 W. R. 893— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Both Ships to Blame.] — ^Where there is a 
 collision between two vessels, by which one of 
 them is more damaged than the other, and, both 
 being to blame, they have to share the damage 
 equally, there is not a cross liability on the part 
 of each vessel to pay half of the damage sustained 
 by the other, but one liability only, viz. the 
 liability of the vessel less damaged to pay to the 
 vessel more damaged one h;df of the amount by 
 which the damage to the one exceeds the 
 damage to the other. Therefore the owner of 
 the more damaged vessel in such a case is not 
 entitled to recover upon an insurance effected 
 by him against liability for damage to another 
 vessel by collision with his vessel. Lundon 
 Steamship Oicnrrs huuvancp, C'n. v. Grnni})iaii 
 Sfrani.shij) Co. 59 L. .J., Q. B. 549 ; 24 Q. B. D. 
 663 ; 62 L. T. 784 ; 38 W. R. 651 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 506— C. A. 
 
 Damages for Loss of Life.] — The collision 
 clause held to include damages payable by the 
 assured in respect of life lost in the collision. 
 T?ie ExceUior Co. v. Smith, 2 L. T. 90 (Scotch). 
 
 Collision clause in Lloyds' policy held to cover 
 damages recovered against the owners of the 
 ship insured by relatives of persons on board the 
 other ship killed in the collision. Coeyy. Smith, 
 22 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 955. 
 
 Tug and Tow — Indemnity to Tow-Owner,] — 
 
 Contract by tug-owner to insure against damage 
 done to or by ot her ships by or to tug or tow. See 
 The Lord of the Isles, ante, col. 681. 
 
 Exemption of Underwriters from Liability 
 for the Removal of Sunken Ship.] — A colli- 
 sion clause iu a policy of insurance upon ship 
 stipulated that "if the ship insured shall come 
 into collision with any other ship, and the 
 insured shall, in consequence thereof, become 
 liable to pay, and shall Y>n.\, by way of damages 
 . . . any sum not exceeding the value of the 
 ship insured," the itnderwriters " will severally 
 pay the assured such proportion of three-fourths 
 of such sum .so paid as" each underwriter's sub- 
 scription "bears to the value of the ship insured ; 
 . . . provided that this clause shall iu no case 
 extend to any sum which the assured may 
 become liable to pay for removal of obstructions, 
 under statutory powers, . . . consequent on such 
 collision " : — Held, that the underwriters were 
 exempted from liability for any sum which 
 the assured was liable to pay, whether by way of 
 damages or otherwise, for the removal of 
 obstructions consequent on collision, and that 
 the exemption of the underwriters was not 
 restricted to any sum which the assured was 
 liable to pay otherwise than by way of damages 
 for the removal of obstructions consequent on 
 ccjllision. Taylor v. Dewar (supra), discu.ssed. 
 The North Britain, liohcrts v. Ocean Marine 
 Insurance Co.. 63 L. J., Adm. 33 ; [1894] P. 77 ;
 
 1085 
 
 6 R. 673 ; 70 L. T 
 M. C. 413— C. A. 
 
 SHIPPIXG- 
 
 210 ; 42 \V. 
 
 -IXSUEANCE 
 
 R. 243 ; 7 Asp 
 
 -IV. Xature of Misk. 
 
 1086 
 
 Vessels in Tow — Collision with Tug.] — By a 
 policy of marine insurance the underwriters 
 insured the ship " Xiobe " from the Clyde (in 
 tow) to Cardiff -- Penarth while there and 
 
 •^ or 
 
 thence to Singapore, and while in port for thirty 
 days after arrival ; and agreed " if the ship 
 hereby insured shall come into collision with 
 any other ship or vessel, and the insured shall in 
 consequence thereof become liable to pay, and 
 shall pay, to the persons interested in such other 
 ship or vessel, any sum or sums of money," «tc. 
 to pay the assured a certain proportion of the 
 sum so paid. While the '•Niobe" was being 
 towed to Cardiff, her tug came in collision with 
 and sank another vessel, whose owners recovered 
 <Iamages both from the "Xiobe" and the tug. 
 In an action bj-the o^v•nersof the "Niobe " upon 
 the policy against one of the underwriters for 
 payment of his proportion of the sum paid by 
 such owners on account of the collision, the 
 underwriter pleaded that under the policy he 
 was only liable for damage arising fiom collision 
 ■with the " Xiobe" : — Held (Lord Bramwell dis.), 
 that the collision of the tug with the damaged 
 vessel must be taken to have been a collision of 
 the "Xiobe" with another vessel witliin the 
 meaning of the policy, and that the under- 
 writers were liable. MrCuwan v. Balne, [1891] 
 App. Cas. 401 ; 65 L. T, 502 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 89— 
 H. L. (.-50.) 
 
 c. Whilst under Bepair. 
 
 On Beach.] — If a ship hove down on a bench 
 within tne tideway, to repair, is thereby bilged 
 and damaged, it is not a loss occasioned by the 
 jierils of the sea. Tfn>iii/>.i(i)i v. Whltinnrc, 3 
 Taunt. 227 ; 12 R. 11. (142. Cf. Itinccruft v. 
 U aim III ore, cited, 3 Taunt. 228 ; 12 R. 11.643. 
 
 In Harbour.] — A transport in government 
 service was insured for twelve months, during 
 which she was ordered into a dry harbour, the 
 bed of which was hard and uneven, and, on the 
 tide having left lier. she received damage by 
 taking the ground : — Held, that this was a loss 
 l)y a jicril of the sea. Fletcher v. Inglis, 2 
 K & AM. 315 ; 20 R. R. 448. 
 
 On a policy on a shi|i, for twelve mr)nth'!, at 
 sea and in jiort the declaration avcri-ed a loss as 
 follows: — Tiiat tlie ship having ariived at the 
 li irljour of St. .John in tiic province of Xcw 
 I'.runswick, and discharged her cargo there, it 
 }»ecame necessary to place her, and she was 
 accordingly placed, in a graving do(;k, there to 
 be rcpaiied. and near to a certain wharf in the 
 graving dur-k ; and that, whilst tJierc,', she was 
 by the violence of the wind and weather, blown 
 over on her side, whcreljy she struck the ground 
 with great violence, and was bilged and greatly 
 <lamagcd : — Held, tliat this was a loss within the 
 words "all f)tlier perils, losses and niisfortunes 
 t lat have or shall come to the liuit, di-trinKint 
 or dam.'ige of the ship," for which the undiM- 
 writcrs were liable. P/iUUjmv. Barber,') li. & Aid. 
 ltd ; 24 R. R. 317. 
 
 In moving a ship from one part of a harbour 
 to another, it became necessary to send two of 
 the crew on shore to make fast a new line and 
 cast off the rope by which the ship was made 
 fast : tlios',' two men beinginimedinlely irn|)iessed 
 
 press-gang to cast off the rope, the ship in 
 consequence went ashore and was lost : — Held, 
 a loss by perils of the sea within the policy. 
 Tlodqson V. Malcolm, 2 Bos. &; P. (n.r.) 336 ; 9 
 R. R. 656. 
 
 A time policy against fire was effected on a 
 steamship. The policy described it as then 
 "lying in the Victoria Docks," but gave it 
 "liberty to go into dry dock, and light the 
 boiler fires once or twice during the currency of 
 this ])olicy." The only dry dock into which 
 the ship could go was Lungley's Dock, at some 
 distance up the river. To go there it was neces- 
 sary to remove the paddle wheels : they were 
 removed in the Victoria Docks, and the ship was 
 then towed up to Lungley's Dock. The necessary 
 repairs there having been completed, the ship 
 was brought out and moored in the river, pre- 
 paratory to replacing the paddle-wheels. This 
 operation could have been perfectly performed in 
 the Victoria Docks, but it was found that in such 
 case it was customary, as the more economical 
 course, to replace the paddle-wheels while the 
 .ship lay in the river. Before the wheels had 
 been replaced the ship was burnt : — Held, that 
 the policy covered the ship while in the Victoria 
 Docks, and while passing from them to the dry 
 dock, and while directly returning from the dry 
 dock to the Victoria Docks, but did not 
 cover the vessel while moored in the river for 
 a collateral purpose. Pearson v. Commercial 
 Union Assurance Co., 45 L. J., C. P. 761 ; 1 
 App. Cas. 498 ; 35 L. T. 455 ; 24 W. R. 951 ; 3 
 Asp. M. C. 275— H. L. (E.) 
 
 d. Ship Missing-. 
 
 Presumption.] — There is no fixed rule of law 
 with regard to the time after which a missing 
 ship will be reputed to be lost. It is in all 
 cases a question of presumption, to be governed 
 by the circumstances of the particular case. 
 Iloi/stman v. Thornton, Holt, 242 ; 17 R. R. 632. 
 Anil see Marshall v. Furlicr, 2 Camp. 70 ; 11 
 R. R. 665. 
 
 Where a loss by the perils of the sea is to be 
 inferred from the ship not being heard of after 
 her sailing, the assured must prove that, when 
 she left the j)ort of outfit, she was bounil upon 
 the vovnge insured. Cihcn v. Jllnchlni, 2 Camp. 
 51; 1 Taunt. 249; 11 R. R. 660. ^'V.,Kostcr 
 V. Intu's, Ry. & M. 333 ; 27 R. R. 755. 
 
 In the absence of any ex[)ress stipulation in 
 the jiolicy, a vessel which is not heard of for a 
 reasonable time is prc^irmed to have [lerished by 
 a peril of the sea. What is such a reasonable 
 time as to give rise to this presumption depends 
 not upon any fixed rule of law, but upon the 
 circumstances of any particular ca.se. Green v. 
 J{n>wn, 2 Str. 1199. 
 
 Where, in an action on a policy of goods by a 
 ccr-tain shi)). it was proved that she sailed on the 
 voyage insured with the goods oir board, and 
 never arrived at her port of de.stiiration ; and 
 that, a few days after her dei)arture. a report was 
 lieard at the place wiiencc she saili'd, that the 
 ship had fotmdeied at .sea, but that the crew 
 were saved : — Held, that this was a sulficient 
 primA facie evideirce of a loss 1)}' perils of the 
 sea ; and that the a.ssured was not bound to call 
 any of the crew, or to shew that he was unable 
 to procure their attendance. Koster v. Heed, 6 
 n. iV C. 19 ; 9 D. & R, 2 : 30 R. R. 23!t. 
 
 In an aciion on a ]>oIicy from an English to a 
 
 and carried away, and not being allowed by the foreign port, to found a presumption that a
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— IV. Nature of Risk. 
 
 1087 
 
 ship was lost on the voyage, it is not enough to 
 prove that she was not heard of in this country 
 after she sailed, without calling witnesses from 
 her port of destination, to shew that she never 
 arrived there. Tweiidow v. Unwin, 2 Camp. 85 ; 
 UK. R. 070. 
 
 Rights of Underwriters.] — If a ship, for wliich 
 the nnderwritt-'rs (when a demand is made upon 
 the policy) liave paid as for a lost ship, should 
 chance to turn up, she is to be considered as 
 abandoned, and will belong to the underwriters. 
 Houstmanx. Thornton, Holt, 242 ; 17 E. E. 032. 
 
 1088 
 
 e. Other Cases. 
 
 Plunder,] — Where a vessel is wrecked, part of 
 the goods is lost, and part is got on shore, but 
 (whilst on shore) is destroyed and plundered by 
 the inhabitants of the coast, so that no portion 
 of them comes again into the possession of the 
 assured :— Held, that is a loss by the perils of 
 the sea, and no abandonment was necessary. 
 Bondrett v. Ilentigri, Holt, 149 ; 17 K. E. 02.5. 
 
 Accidental Shot.]— A ship and goods were 
 sunk at sea by another ship firing upon her, in 
 consequence of mistaking her for an enemy : — 
 Held, a loss within the general words of the 
 policy, " all other perils, losses," &c. Cnlleu- v. 
 Bntler, 5 M. & S. 401 ; 4 Camp. 289; 17 R. E. 400. 
 
 Death of Slaves— Failure of Provisions.]— A 
 
 policy on slaves against perils of the sea does 
 not cover a loss by deaths caused by failure of 
 provisions in consequence of delay caused by 
 bad weather. Tathum v. Hodgson, 6 Term Eep. 
 056. 
 
 Goods sold to Pay for Eepairs — Causa 
 proxima.] — The assurer is not liable for loss on 
 goods sold by the master to defray expense of 
 repairs made "necessary by bad weather to which 
 the ship and goods had been exposed ; the bad 
 weather not being the proximate cause of the 
 loss. Sarquy v. Hohsoii, 4 Bing. 131 ; 3 D. & E. 
 192 • 2 B. & C. 7 ; 12 Moore, 174 ; 26 R. E. 251 ; 
 1 Y. k J. 347 ; 1 L. J. (O.S.) K. B. 222 ; 30 E. E. 
 794— Ex. Ch. 
 
 f. Evidence of Loss. 
 
 Absence of Evidence how Loss arose.] — A 
 
 ship, whose cargo was insured by a policy, began 
 suddenly to leak, and sank at her anchors in port 
 during fine weather. In an action on the policy 
 evidence was given on the part of the assured 
 tending to shew that the ship was seaworthy, 
 viz. that she had not long before been put in 
 good repair ; that surveys had been made of her 
 just previously, and that she had behaved well 
 on previous voyages, and on her voyage to the 
 port where she was lost. No evidence was given 
 of any actual facts shewing the cause of her loss, 
 although possible explanations of it, by way of 
 conjecture, were suggested by the witnesses :— 
 Held, that there was evidence of a loss by the 
 perils insured against. Anderson v. Moricc, 
 46 L. J., Q. B. 11 ; 1 App. Cas. 713 ; 35 L. T. 
 500 ; 25 VV. R. 14 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 290— H. L. (E.) 
 A time policy was effected on an iron steamer, 
 the " Frances," of 705 tons burden, then lying in 
 the yard of its owner, a shipwright. It had been 
 put under repair, and it was stated that there had 
 not been any stint placed upon the repairs, and 
 
 that the marine engineer who superintended the 
 repairs, and the workmen who executed them, 
 believed tliem to be completely satisfactory. It 
 was expressly found that if the ship was unsea- 
 worthy the assured was ignorant of the fact. 
 The ship went with nothing but a deck cargo of 
 iron machinery from London to Gothenburg, made 
 more water on the voyage than could have been 
 exiiccted from the state of the weather, ceased 
 to do so on getting into harbour, was examined, 
 and its condition on the voyage could not be 
 accounted for ; and in a few days afterwards took 
 on board a cargo of oats and 380 tons of iron, 
 and a deck loading of timber, started from 
 Gothenburg, encountered in the open sea very 
 bad weather, which put out the fires, ran for the 
 port of Hull, could not make the port, ran ashore, 
 and after some time was broken up and became 
 a total wreck : — Held, that these facts shewed a 
 loss by perils insured against, the perils of the 
 sea, and that the assured was entitled to recover 
 as for a total loss. Dudgeon v. Pembroke, 46 
 L. J., Ex. 409 ; 2 App. Cas. 284 ; 36 L. T. 382 ; 
 25 W. R. 499 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 393— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Constructive Total Loss — Sale by Master 
 
 — Necessity.] — A vessel struck upon a rocli 
 outside a harbour, and it was necessary to 
 lighten her in order to get her off at the next 
 high tide, and for that purpose her master 
 entered into a contract with one G., who wa.s the 
 only person at the place who had a sufficient 
 number of men to render effectual assistance, 
 to find the labour required for that purpose. G. 
 supplied only a small number of men, who 
 worked very languidly in discharging the cargo 
 for two or three hours, and at the end of that time 
 G. persuaded the master to cancel this contract, 
 and to call a survey of the vessel and sell her. 
 G. and some men he brought accordingly made 
 a survey and by it found the mainmast raised 
 one incii, the main combings parted, the deck 
 plank opening, and the vessel unseaworthy, and 
 advised that the ship and cargo should be sold 
 for the benefit of all concerned. The master 
 then sold her to G. for a very small sum of 
 money. When the vessel struck on the rock 
 there was a strong breeze blowing, but it after- 
 wards got calmer, and at the time of the sale 
 the weather was good, and the vessel lying on 
 her bilge, with no more danger than she had 
 been in from the time she struck, but there was 
 evidence that if the wind veered round to the 
 south or west the sea would have heaved in, and 
 the vessel would have broken up in a short time. 
 As a fact, directly after the sale G. brought a 
 number of hands to discharge the cargo, and so 
 got the vessel off and floated her at the next 
 high tide, and he afterwards repaired and made 
 her seaworthy at a trifling expense. In an 
 action against the underwriter on a policy of 
 insurance on the vessel for constructive total 
 loss, the judge ruled on the above facts appear- 
 ing at the end of the plaintiff's case, that there 
 was no evidence upon which the jury could 
 reasonably find the urgent necessity for the sale 
 of the vessel at the time she was sold, and he 
 accordingly withdrew the case from the jury, and 
 directed the verdict to be entered for the defen- 
 dant : — Held, by Lord Coleridge, C. J., that such 
 luling was right. Hull v. Jvpe, 49 L. J., C. P. 
 721 : 43 L. T.^41] ; 4 Asp. M. C. 328. 
 
 Held, by Grove, J., that it was wrong, and 
 that the case should not have been withdrawn 
 from the jury. lb.
 
 1089 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— IV. Xature of lUsk. 
 
 1090 
 
 Captain's Protest.] — The plaintifiE's agent 
 shewL'd to the defendant, an underwriter, the 
 captain's protest, containing an account of the 
 loss of the ship insured, demanding payment : — 
 Held, that this did not entitle the defendant to 
 I'ead the protest in evidence in an action on the 
 policy. Senat v. Porter, 7 Term Rep. 158 ; 4 R. R. 
 403. " 
 
 As to Presumption arising when Ship Missing.] 
 
 — See (i/ifr. col. InsG. 
 
 "What is sufficient Evidence.] — On the 7th 
 August. ]S6(j. the agents of the owners of a ship, 
 lying at Bombay, chartered her at Liverpool for 
 a voyage from Howland's Island to a port in the 
 United Kingdom for a cargo of guano, freight to 
 be paid at port of discharge, the ship to be at 
 Howland's Island on or before the 1st June, 1867, 
 or the charterer to have the option of declaring 
 the charter void. On the 7th September, 18tJ6, 
 an agent, on behalf of the owners of the vessel, 
 effected an insurance with an underwriter at and 
 from Bombay to Howland's Island while there, 
 and thence to any port, ice, in the United King- 
 dom on freight chartered, or otherwise, valued at 
 3,600Z. in the ship. It was lawful for the ship to 
 sail to and touch and stay at any ports whatso- 
 ever without prejudice to the insurance, which 
 was against the usual perils. On the 4th Sep- 
 tember she sailed in ballast under the charter 
 from Bombay for Howland's Island. She got 
 out of her course, and on the 2oth December ran 
 ashore on the coast of New Zealand. The owners 
 declined to furnish the funds necessary for 
 repairing her, and the captain was unable to 
 borrow money on a bottomry bond except on con- 
 dition that he would charter the ship to the 
 lender for a cargo of timber from New Zealand to 
 England. Ultimately she was abandoned to the 
 holder of the bottomry bond : the repairs were 
 completed, and a cargo of timber brought to 
 England for the holder of the bottomry bond : — 
 Held, that it was a question for the jury 
 whether there was a total loss by the perils of 
 the sea. But there was abundant evidence in the 
 affirmative. Jiurher v. Flrml/u/. 10 B. & S. 879 ; 
 3t) L. J., Q. B. 2.-> ; L. U. .". (). P.. r.'.t : IS \V. U. 2rA. 
 
 Ship sinking from Unascertained Cause.] — 
 Voyage policy on ship from M. to C, whilst at 
 C, and thence to A. The ship arrived and 
 loadeil coals at Cardiff, sailed. anclK)re<l in Cardiff 
 road.s the same day, and (hiring the night, in 
 fine weather, tilled and went down, pioliably 
 from one of the coal jioits having l>een left open. 
 The jury having found tliatsliewas unseavvortliy 
 when she sailed, and that she was not lost from 
 perils of the sea (which were explained by the 
 judge to mean violent action of the elements 
 from without) : — Held, that the juilge's direction 
 was right, and a new trial rcfuseil. Mrrrhiinfx' 
 Tradi/tff Co. v. Cnirrrxdl Murinr Cn.. cited in 
 Dvdqc'on v. Prmhrohr, L. U. 1) Q. B. .",81. .','.)(; ; 
 
 2 Asp. M. c. t:n, n. 
 
 Presumption of Unseaworthiness — Ship sink- 
 ing.] — If a sliip Itecomes hsaky and unable to 
 proceed soon after the commericeuient of the risk, 
 without any visible cause, the presumption is 
 that she was not seaworthy when she sailed. 
 Munro v. Vundam, 1 Park. Ins. (8th eil.) 4<jy. 
 
 2. PvKSTUAINT ANIJ DETENTION. 
 
 Land Transit.] — In a policy of insurance on \ Nature of Seizure.] — The clause in a policy 
 goods the voyage was thus described : "At and • on a ship and goods which insures against losses 
 
 VOL. XIII. 35 
 
 from Japan and [or] Shanghai to Marseilles and 
 [or] Leghorn and [or] London, via Marseilles 
 and [or] Southampton, including all risks of 
 craft to and fiom the steamers." The risks 
 insured against were of the seas, tire, and thieves, 
 arrests, restraints, and detainments of all kings, 
 princes, and people. In the margin of the policy 
 was the following memorandum : — It is hereby 
 agreed that the silks insured by this policy shall 
 be shipped by Peninsular and Oriental Companj' 
 Messageries Imp^riales steamers, and [or] the 
 steamers of the Mercantile Trading Company of 
 Liverpool onh'." The goods insured were shipped 
 from Shanghai for London by the Messageries 
 Imperiales : the practice of that com]>any was 
 to send such goods overland through France bv 
 the Lyons Railway, from Marseilles to Paris, and 
 thence by the Northern Railway to Boulogne, 
 and thence to London ; and this course of busi- 
 ness was well known among underwriters. The 
 goods arrived in Paris on their way on the 13th 
 of September, 1870. At this time the German 
 armies were advancing on Paris, and had seized 
 parts of the Northern Railway, so that the goods 
 could not be forwarded to Boulogne, and by the 
 19th of September they completely surrounded 
 and besiegeil Paris, preventing communication 
 between it and all other places, by reason of 
 which it was im[)Ossible to remove the goods 
 from Paris. This state of things continued till 
 after the 7th of October, on which day the 
 assured gave notice of abandonment: — Held, 
 that the policy covered the overland transit from 
 Marseilles to Boulogne, and that there was a 
 constructive total loss by restraint or detainment 
 of ju'inces within the meaning of the policy. 
 Itudoconachi v. Elliott, V^ L. J.,'C. P. 2."').") ; L. R. 9 
 C. P. .518 ; 31 L. T. 239 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 399— 
 Ex. Ch. 
 
 Total or Partial Loss.] — A cargo on board a 
 ship bound from Liverpool to Matamoras was 
 insured against the usual perils, including 
 •'takings at sea, arrests, restraints, and detain- 
 ments of all kings, princes, and people." The 
 ship sailed, and had nearly reached her destina- 
 tion, when she was captured by a United States 
 cruiser and taken into New Orleans, where a 
 suit was instituted in the jjrize court for her 
 condemnation. The insurers contested the suit, 
 electing to treat the loss as a partial one. They 
 obtained the judgment of the court, whereupon 
 the ca])tors appealed. The insured gave a formal 
 notice of abandoinnent, which the insurers refused 
 to accept. Upon the api>lication of the captors, 
 the shij) and cargo were ordered to be sold, 
 unless bail were given by the insured. Upon 
 receiving intelligence that this order had been 
 made, tliey a])plied to the insurers for assistance 
 in giving bail to ])i'event the sale. The insurers 
 refused, ami in the end the ship and c;argo were 
 sold by the order of the prize court. 'I'he insured 
 brought an action to recover from the insurers 
 a.s for a total loss: — Held, that they were entitled 
 to recover the whole amount, inasmuch as the 
 decree of the prize court, and the sale of the 
 goods under it, was a deprivation of the owner- 
 shi|i of the goods, and .iniountcd to a total loss. 
 Strinijrr v. KnqUxh and Si-ott'ish Marhir Iiisiir- 
 (tnre Co., 10 li. i: S. 770 : 39 L. J., Q. B. 214 ; 
 L. R. 5 y. B. .599 ; 22 L. T. 802 ; 18 W. R. 12ol ; 
 — E.x. Ch.
 
 1091 
 
 SHIPPING— IN SUEANCE— IV. Nature of Risk. 
 
 1092 
 
 occasioned by " arrests, restraints and detain- 
 ments of all kings, jirinces and people, of what 
 nation, condition, or (luality soever," applies to 
 a seizure of the ship in consequence of an em- 
 bargo laid on her by the sovereign of the country 
 of the assured, for the purpose of carrying on a 
 \var with another power. Auhert v. Gray, 3 
 B. & S. 163, 169 ; 32 L. J., Q. B. 50 ; 9 Jur. (n.s.) 
 714 ; 7 L. T. 469 ; 11 W. R. 27— Ex. Ch. 
 
 There is a distinction in this respect between 
 an embargo, in a time when there is peace 
 between the countries of the insurer and the 
 assured, laid on for a purpose wholly uncon- 
 nected with hostility either existing or expected, 
 and an embargo connected with such hostility. 
 Ih. 
 
 A policy on a ship and stores, " at and from a 
 port " in a foreign country, in the common form 
 against arrests of princes, people, (fcc, extends to 
 an embargo laid on by the government of that 
 country in the loading port. Hatch v. Edie, 6 
 Term Rep. 413 ; 3 R. R. 222. 
 
 And if the embargo continues, the assured 
 may abandon and recover as for a total loss. Ih. 
 
 If an armed force boards a ship and takes 
 part of the cargo, the underwriters are not liable 
 on a count stating the loss to be by a seizure by 
 people to the plaintiffs unknown ; for people, in 
 the policy, means the governing power of the 
 country. Keshttt v. Luslthiyton, 4 Term Rep. 
 783 ; 2 R. R. .519. 
 
 In an action on a policy of insurance upon a 
 ship, in which the subject-matter was warranted 
 " free from capture and seizure, and the conse- 
 quences of any attempt thereat," it was proved 
 that during the continuance of the risk some 
 natives took forcible possession of the ship in the 
 Brass River, plundered the cargo, and damaged 
 her, so that she became a constructive total loss, 
 and that their intention in so taking possession 
 was only to yjlunder the cargo, and not to keep 
 the ship : — Held, that the acts of the natives 
 constituted a "seizure" within the meaning of 
 the warranty, and therefore, that the under- 
 writers were not liable. Johnston v. Hogg, .52 
 L. J., Q. B. .S43 ; 10 Q. B. D. 432 ; 48 L. T.'435 ; 
 31 W. R. 768 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 51. 
 
 Permission to Leave.] — A policy was 
 
 effected on a ship from London to her lading 
 port in Virginia and back. On her arrival at that 
 port in January, 1808, an embargo was laid on 
 all shipping in American ports by an act of 
 Congress, which contained a proviso that all 
 foreign ships, either in ballast or with goods on 
 board, might depart when notified of that act. 
 The captain covenanted by eharterparty to take 
 in a cargo of timber at that port, and return 
 therewith to London. It was proveil that the 
 embargo was taken off in March, 1809, and that 
 the ship did nofsail until the August following, 
 and that she was lost on her way home : — Held, 
 that the captain was justified in remaining in 
 port, and that he was not bound to return with 
 the cargo or sail in ballast ; and that, conse- 
 quently, the underwriters on the ship were liable 
 at the time of the loss. Schrordrr v. Thomjison, 
 1 Moore, 163 ; 7 Taunt. 462 ; 18 R. R. 540. 
 
 Delay through Mistake.] — If, by some mistake 
 of a ship's manifest, a suit is commenced in a 
 foreign port against the captain for a supposed 
 surreptitious landing of a part of his cargo, by 
 which he is delayed in prosecuting his voyage, 
 there being no suit against the ship, this is not a 
 
 loss for which the underwriters on the ship are 
 liable. Bradford v. Levy, 2 Car. & P. 137 ; 
 Ry. & :\r. 331 ; 31 R. R. 657. 
 
 Kestoration.] — Goods detained by a foreign 
 power being afterwards restored, as between the 
 assurer and assured, the yielding up quasi in 
 integro is to be considered as a restoration, not- 
 withstanding some spoliation during the deten- 
 tion. Jordaine v. Cornwall, 1 Stark. 6. 
 
 Evidence.] — The plaintiff declared on a policy 
 from Jutland to Leith, and averred a loss by 
 seizure. The captain stated that the ship was 
 pursuing her course for Leith when she was cap- 
 tured by a Swedish frigate, five German miles off 
 the coast of Norway ; the defendant produced a 
 Swedish sentence of condemnation for breaking 
 the blockade of Norway : — Held, first, that this 
 was conclusive evidence that the blockade had 
 been violated ; but secondly, that it was not 
 sufficient evidence to fix the captain with bar- 
 ratry. Evcrth V. Hannam, 2 Marsh. 72 ; 6 
 Taunt. 375. 
 
 To support an averment in a declaration on a 
 policy on goods, " that the ship, with the goods 
 on board, when at A., was arrested by the per- 
 sons exercising the powers of government there, 
 and the goods were then and there, by the said 
 persons seized, detained and confiscated," it is 
 enough to shew that the goods were forcibly 
 taken from on board the ship by the officers of 
 government, and never delivered to the con- 
 signees, without putting in any sentence of con- 
 demnation. Carruthers v. Gray, 3 Camp. 142 ; 
 15 East, 35. 
 
 Detention by British Government.] — Where 
 the assured is a British subject, he may recover 
 against a British underwriter for a loss by deten- 
 tion of the British government. Page v. Thomp- 
 son, 1 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 175. 
 
 Sentence of Foreign Admiralty — Ship released 
 on Appeal — Detention.] — If a ship warranted 
 neutral be condemned as prize by a French 
 admiralty court, and the sentence is afterwards 
 reversed by a court of appeal, but on the appeal 
 no damages or costs are given, because the 
 muster-roll does not give the place of nationality 
 of the crew according to the ordinance of B^rance, 
 and it is proved that the ship was othei-wise 
 properly documented as neutral, the assured 
 may recover on the policy for the detention, not- 
 withstanding the refusal of the court of appeal, 
 to give damages and costs. Siffhen v. Li-e, 2 
 Bos. & P. (N.R.) 484 ; 9 R. R. 676. And see 
 post, XI. Abandonment, 5, Embargo and 
 Confiscation. 
 
 3. Stranding. 
 
 a. Operation of Memorandum. 
 
 Stranding not cause of Loss.] — If an insurance 
 is effected on fruit, and the policy contains the 
 usual memorandum " corn, fruit. &c., warranted 
 free from average, unless general, or the ship be 
 stranded," and the ship is in fact stranded in the 
 course of the voyage, the underwriters are liable 
 for an average loss arising from the ])erils of the 
 seas, though no part of the loss arises from the act 
 of stranding. Burnett v. Kenjiington. 7 Term Rep. 
 210; 1 Esp. 416; Peake's Add. Cas. 71; 4 R. R. 424. 
 
 Effect of Stranding.] — The ship having been 
 stranded the assured recovered an average loss of
 
 1093 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— IV. Xature of Eisk. 
 
 1094 
 
 80 per cent, being the whole loss. The words, 
 "if the ship be stranded," are a condition upon 
 the happening of which the assured is let in to 
 prove his entire loss. Cantillon v. London 
 Assurance Co., cited, 3 Burr. 1553. 
 
 Fraudulent Stranding.] — Insurance on fish 
 with the usual memorandum. The ship having 
 been fraudulently run ashore by her crew : — 
 Held, that the underwriters were not liable. 
 Browning v. Mnidie, cited, 7 Term Eep. 216 ; 4 
 Term Eep. 783. 
 
 Per Lord Kenyon, C.J. : If the stranding was 
 not fratidulent the underwriters were liable for 
 all damage to the fish whether caused by strand- 
 ing or not. lb. 
 
 b. What is. 
 
 Definition.] — Stranding is where a ship, by an 
 accident and out of the ordinary course of her 
 voyage, gets upon the strand, and receives injury 
 in consequence. Bi.sJmj) v. Pentland. 7 B. & C. 
 21!) ; 1 M. & Ry. -19 ; G L. J. (O.S.) K. B. ; 31 
 11. E. 177. 
 
 Act of Mob.] — Where, after a seizure, the 
 vessel stranded, and j)art of the cargo (consisting 
 of corn) was taken by the mob at their own 
 price, the loss could not be recovered as for 
 genei'al average ; but, for such part as in con- 
 sequence of the stranding was damaged and 
 thrown overboard, the insured might recover on 
 a count stating the loss to be by stranding. 
 Xexhitt V. Lu.'shington, 4 Term Rep. 783 ; 2 R. R. 
 .519. 
 
 Confiscation.] — Where a vessel was stranded 
 and afterwards confiscated for breach of an 
 embargo : — Held, that as the vessel was warranted 
 free from confiscation, the insured could not 
 lecover. Lleie v. Jan.irn, 10 P]ast,()-18 : 11 R. R. 
 513. 
 
 Time of.] — Hides were .shipped on board a 
 vessel at Valparaiso for Bordeaux. The ship 
 sailed from Valparaiso on the 13tli May, and 
 on the 7th July put into Rio de Janeiro, in con- 
 sequence of damage by stress of weather. It 
 being found that the hides were so much damaged 
 that it would be impossible to carry them in 
 sijccie to the termination of the vo^'age, they 
 being in such a state that tliey must either have 
 been anniliilafed by |)Utrefactioii. or thrown over- 
 boanl, they wert; sold at Eio de Janeiro for one- 
 fourth of their value. On tlie 23rd July, the 
 ship set sail from Eio on her voyage to Bordeaux, 
 and was stranded on the 2'Jth of September at 
 the entrance of the (iaronnc. In an action on 
 the jiolicy, containing a menK)randuin declaring 
 '•cocoa and liides free of jiarticular average; 
 unless the ship was stranded" : — Held, tliat tliis 
 was not a stranding of the ship within the 
 meaning of the memorandum. Ruu.r v. Sulrathir, 
 1 Bing (X.C.) 520; 1 Scott, 4'Jl ; 4 L. J., C. 1' . 
 15(;; overruled, but not on this j)oint, 4 Scott, 
 1 : 3 Bing. (N.c.) 260 ; 2 Hodges, 209 ; 7 L. J., 
 Ex. 32H— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Salvage.] — A cargo of salt, of the vahie with 
 prepaid freight of about 1,900/., was insured 
 from liivcrpool to Calcutta, the policy contain- 
 ing tlie memorandum warranting "'corn, fish, 
 salt, kc., free from average unless general or tlie 
 ship be stranded." Having encountered Ijad 
 weather, lost both her anchors, and had lier 
 masts cut away, the shi]) was taken in tfiw by 
 salvors and jdaced on a baidv out of the (ndinary 
 
 course of the voyage, where she lay on her port 
 side for several tides, and sustained considerable 
 further injury. The salt was landed in a damaged 
 state, and the ship reiiaircd, though at an expense 
 which exceeded her value when repaired. About 
 one-fifth of the salt might have been made sale- 
 able, but would have realised no jirofit. Suits 
 were instituted by the salvors in the admiralty 
 court, and the salt sold under a decree, the 
 entire })roceeds being absorbed by the costs : — 
 Held, that there was a partial loss of the salt, 
 but not a total loss, the seizure and sale under 
 the decree of the admiralty court not being a 
 natural or necessary consequence of a peril 
 insured against ; and that there was a stranding 
 within the meaning of the memorandum. De 
 Mattos V. Sannders, L. E. 7 C. P. 570 ; 27 L. T. 
 120 ; 20 W. E. 801 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 377. 
 
 Negligence of Crew.] — Underwriters are liable 
 for a stranding occasioned remotely by the negli- 
 gence of the crew. Bl.shoj) v. Pentland, supra. 
 
 A vessel, moored in the usual way in a tidal 
 harbour, was obliged also to be lashed to the side 
 by a rope, which broke, and the vessel fell over 
 on her side : — Held, to be a stranding, and that 
 the underwriters were answerable, though it was 
 remotely caused by the negligence of the crew. 
 lb. 
 
 Where no Pilot.] — A ship insured at and from 
 London to Sierra Leone, arrived otf the river 
 Sierra Leone, where there was a regular estab- 
 lishment of pilots, about three o'clock in the 
 evening. The captain hoisted a signal for a 
 pilot, but no pilot came on board ; about ten 
 o'clock at night he attempted to enter the river 
 without one, and in so doing the ship took the 
 ground and was lost. The judge left it to the 
 jury whether the captain, in entering without a 
 pilot, did what a prudent man ought to have 
 done under the circumstances. The jury was of 
 that ojiinion, and found for the jilaintiff. On 
 motion for a new trial, on the groinid that the 
 verdict was against evidence : — Held, that the 
 underwriters were liable, and would have been 
 so although the captain had Ijeen wrong in 
 attempting to enter the port without a pilot, he 
 being a person of competent skill, liaving used 
 reasonable diligence to obtain a pilot, and liaving 
 exercised his discretion bona tide under the cir- 
 cumstances. PliiUipti v. Jloddhnn, 2 B. & Ad. 
 3S0 ; 9 L. J. (O.S.) K. B. 238. 
 
 Order of Pilot — Mooring.] — A ship being 
 under conduct of a jiilut in her (•(uii'se up the 
 river to Liverpool, was, against the advice of the 
 master, fastened at the pier of the dock basin by 
 a rope to the shore, and left there, and she took 
 the ground, and when the tide left her fell over 
 on her side and bilged ; in consequence of which, 
 when the tide rose, she filled with water, and 
 the goods were wetted and damaged : — Held, 
 that this was a stranding to entitle the assurerl 
 to recover for an average loss upon the goods. 
 ('arriifhern v. Siidchothiini, 4 M. tt S. 77 ; 1(5 
 E. E. 392. 
 
 Canal. ]^l)uring the course f>f a voyage on an 
 inland canal, it Ijecame necessary, in order to 
 repair tlie canal, to draw off the water, and the 
 ship, in coTiseciuirnce. having liccn platHjd in the 
 most secure situation that could l)e found, when 
 tlic water was drawn off, took the ground \)y 
 accident on some ](iles which were not jire- 
 viously known to be there : — Hekl, that this was 
 a stranding, the accident not having happened in 
 
 35—2
 
 109^ 
 
 SHIPPING— IN SUE ANCE— IV. Nature of Risk. 
 
 1096 
 
 the ordinary course of the voyage. Baijncr v. 
 Godmoml 5 B. & Aid. 225 ; 24: K. R. 335. 
 
 Harbour — Condition of.] — A policy of marine 
 insurance on cargo contained the usual warranty 
 against average unless the ship were stranded. 
 The place of discharge was in a tidal harbour, 
 where vessels of the size of the ship in question 
 can only get to the quay to unload during high 
 spring tides. A ship arriving in the port is 
 brought towards the quay as soon as in the pilot's 
 judgment there will be water enough to Hoat her 
 there, and, if in the course of getting her to the 
 quay the depth of water proves insufficient, she 
 takes the ground to wait until the next tide 
 admits of her being floated further. The ship in 
 question was in the course of being brought to 
 the quay, but it was found that she could not 
 get within twenty feet of it, and consequently 
 she was left where she was to await a higher 
 tide. As the tide receded and she settled down, 
 instead of resting on an even keel she pitched by 
 the head into a hole, and remained in such a 
 position as to cause her timbers to be strained, 
 by reason whereof she made water and damage 
 resulted to the cargo. It afterwards ajipeared 
 that there was an elevation in the bottom of the 
 harbour, a small bank having been formed 
 parallel with the quay, and a hole beside it 
 into which the vessel had pitched. This state 
 of things had been caused by the paddles of 
 steamers leaving the harbour at low tide, and 
 its existence had not been found out previously 
 to the accident : — Held, that the taking of the 
 ground by the vessel was under circumstances of 
 such an accidental and unforeseen character as 
 not to be in the ordinary course of navigation 
 and to amount to a "stranding." Letelifovd v. 
 Oldham, 49 L. J., Q. B. 458 ; 5 Q. B. I). 538 ; 
 28 W. R. 789— C. A. 
 
 Upon the ebbing of the tide, a vessel took the 
 ground in a tidal harbour, in the place where it 
 was intended that she should ; but in so doing, 
 struck against some hard substance, by which 
 two holes were made in her bottom, and the 
 cargo damaged : — Held, not a stranding for 
 which the underwriters were liable upon an 
 insurance upon corn warranted free from average, 
 unless general, or the ship to be stranded. K'ukjs^- 
 ford v^MamJial, 8 Bing. 458 ; 1 M. & Scott, 657 ; 
 1 L. J., C. P. 135. 
 
 A ship having on board goods which were 
 insured on a voyage from London to Hull, but 
 " warranted free from average, imless general, or 
 the ship should be stranded," arrived in Hull 
 harbour, which is a tidal harbour, and proceeded 
 to discharge her cargo at a quay inside of it ; 
 this could be done at high water only, and could 
 not be completed in one tide. At the first low 
 tide the vessel grounded on the mud ; on a sub- 
 sequent ebb, the rope by which her head was 
 moored to the opposite side of the harbour, 
 stretched, and the wind blowing from the east at 
 the same time, she did not ground on the mud, 
 which it was intended she should do, but her 
 forepart got on a bank of stones, rubbish and 
 sand, near to the quay, and the vessel having 
 strained, some damage was sustained by the 
 cargo, but no lasting injury by the vessel : — 
 Held, by Lord Tenterden, C.J., Littledale and 
 Taunton, J J., Parke, J., dissentiente. that this 
 was a stranding within the meaning of that word 
 in the policy. Wells v. Hojyicood. 3 B. & Ad. 20. 
 
 Policy on goods, with a warranty against 
 average, unless general, or the ship be stranded. 
 
 On the voyage the ship was driven by stress of 
 weather into a hai'bour at the mouth of which 
 she struck upon an anchor, and was in danger 
 of sirdving ; to prevent which she was warped 
 higher up in the harbour, where she took the 
 ground, and remained fast half an hour : — Held, 
 that the ship was stranded. Jinrrow v. Bell, 4 
 L. J. (O.s.) K. B. 47 ; 7 D. & R. 244 ; 4 B. & G. 
 736 ; 28 R. R. 468. 
 
 Driven into, by Stress of Weather.] — If 
 
 a ship takes tlie ground at the ordinary time, in 
 the ordinary place, in the ordinary manner, and 
 from the ordinary causes, that is, so in all respects 
 as it must have been contemplated she would in 
 the course of an ordinary voyage, such a taking 
 the ground is not a stranding ; but if she takes 
 the ground at an unusual time, or in an unusual 
 place, or in an unusual manner, or from acci- 
 dental and unusual though natural causes, she 
 is to be considered as stranded. Coi-corufi v. 
 Gurmij, 1 El. & Bl. 456 ; 22 L. J., Q. B. 113 ; 17 
 Jur. li52 ; 1 W. R. 129. 
 
 Where a ship was driven by stress of weather 
 into a tidal harbour, where by reason of its 
 being low water, she took the ground : — Held, 
 that she was stranded. Ih. 
 
 Moored in.] — A vessel with a cargo on 
 
 board took the ground on two successive days in 
 going up Cork harbour, under the direction of a 
 pilot, and being afterwards moored in the usual 
 course, was thrown on her broadside by the 
 receding of the tide, and received a considerable 
 injurv : — Held, that this was not a stranding. 
 liearnc v. Edmunds, 1 Br. k. B. 388 ; 4 Moore, 15 ; 
 21 R. R. 660. 
 
 Damage resulting from a ship's taking the 
 ground on the falling of the tide, in a tidal har- 
 bour, in a spot where she is properly placed for 
 the purpose of unloading, is not a stranding 
 within the ordinary term of a policy. Magnu» 
 V. ButUrmer, 11 C' B. 876 ; 21 L. J., C. P. 119 ; 
 16 Jur. 4S(). 
 
 On Rock.]- — A vessel strikes upon a rock and 
 remains fixed there for the space of fifteen or 
 twenty minutes, in consequence of which she- 
 sustains a material injury. This constitutes a 
 stranding. Baker v. Town/. 1 Stark. 436 ; 18- 
 R. R. 803. 
 
 But the striking of a ship on a rock, where she- 
 remained a minute and a half, and was laid ou 
 her beam ends, was held not to constitute a 
 stranding. J\PDuugle v. Royal Exclianqe Assv7-~ 
 a nee (\k, 4 M. & S. 503; 4 Camp. "283; 16 
 R. R. 532. 
 
 Where there is a warranty in a policy against 
 average, " unless general, or the ship be 
 stranded " ; if, during the voyage, the ship is. 
 forced ashore by the wind, or driven on a bank, 
 and remains fast for any time, this is a suflicient 
 stranding to do away with the effect of the- 
 warranty, although the ship is not proved to 
 have thereby received any material damage. 
 Harman v. Vau.v, 3 Camp. 429 ; 14 R. R. 773. 
 
 A ship which had struck upon a sunken rock, 
 and received damage, was run on shore by direc- 
 tion of the pilot, when she was repaired, and 
 afterwards proceeded to her ports of delivery : — 
 Held, not to be a stranding. Burnett v. Kensing- 
 ton, 7 Term Rep. 20 ; 1 Esp. 416 ; Peake's Add. 
 Cas. 71 ; 4 R. R. 424. 
 
 Improper Mooring.] — Where a ship, being 
 under the conduct of a pilot, in her course up 
 the river to Liverpool, was, against the advice of
 
 1097 
 
 SHIPPING— IX SUE ANCE— I Y. Xaturc of lUsk. 
 
 1098 
 
 the master, fastened at the pier of the clock 
 basin, by a rope to the shore, and left theie, and 
 she took to the ground, and when the tide left 
 her, fell over on her side and bilged, in coiise- 
 quence of which, when the tide rose she filled 
 with water, and the goods were wetted and 
 damaged : — Held, that this was a stranding, to 
 entitle the assured to recover for an average 
 loss upon the eoods. Carrutliers v. Sydelot/iam, 
 4 M. & S. 77 flP. R. K. 8112. 
 
 The assured is not prevented from recovering 
 against the underwriter because the ship was in 
 charge of a compulsory pilot, lb. 
 
 Grounding on Piles.] — A ship grounding on 
 piles in the Wisbeacli river, put there to keep up 
 the banks and sitting on them until they were 
 cut away : — Held, to be stranded within the 
 meanina: of the memorandum. Dob.sun \. Bolton. 
 1 Park.^Ins. (8th ed.) 239. 
 
 4. Barratry. 
 a. What is. 
 
 Position of Owner.] — Barratry can only be 
 committed against the owner of the ship, and 
 without his consent. Xiitt v. Bourdiev. 1 Term 
 Rep. 823 ; 1 R. R. 211. 
 
 In an action by an assured against the under- 
 writers for a loss by ihe barratry of the master, 
 j)rf)of that the person who was described in the 
 policy as master, and who was treated with and 
 acted as such, carried the ship out of her course 
 for fraudulent purposes of his own, prima facie is 
 sufficient to entitle the assured to recover, with- 
 out shewing negatively that he was not the 
 owner, or that any other person was. Rons v. 
 Ilvnfrr, 4 Term Rep. 33 : 2 R. R. 31i). 
 
 Barratry is any frauckilent or criminal conduct 
 against the owners of ships or goods by the 
 master or mariners in breach of the trust reposed 
 in them, and to the injury of the owners ; 
 although it may not be done with intent to 
 injure them, or to benefit, at their expense, the 
 master or mai'iners. ]'iillrjo v. M'heelet\ Cowp. 
 143 ; Lofft, «31. 
 
 Deviation.] — A deviation of a vessel from the 
 voyage insured, through tlie ignorance of the ca[)- 
 taiii, or from any other motive not frau(hdent, 
 though it avoids the jiolicy, does not constitute 
 an act of barratry. Phijn v. Jioi/al J'Jxrlifi/iffr 
 AxKiirunrr Co., 7 Term Rep. 'jO.t ; 4 R. R. 508. 
 Rut SIC liriiiniiiiii v. JClmnlic, supra, col. 1093. 
 
 Scuttling Ship.] — Scuttling a ship with tlie 
 knowledge of the shipowner, but without the 
 knowledge of the freighter, is barratry, in respect 
 of whiich the freighter may recover against the 
 underwriteis. lonidixw. Pender, 27 L. T. 244. 
 
 Kidnapping.] — The Kidnapping Act, 1872 (3.") 
 ii. 31; \'ict. c. lit), having proliibite<l tlie carrying 
 of I'olynesian native latmurers in ships without 
 a licence, under penalty of forfeiture of the sliip, 
 a master wlio, without the authority of his 
 owners, but with a knowledge of the prohibition, 
 ships and carries native labourers, and so brings 
 about the seizure and condemnation of his shiji, 
 commits an act of barratry in respect of which 
 his owners may recover against their under- 
 writers. Ay.sfniliiiii Iiixiirti/ire Co. v. Jiirkxon. 
 33 I., r. 2.St; ; 3 Asp. M. C. 20— P. C. 
 
 Absence of Master.] — Where the cai)tain, in 
 the due course of his voyage, ])ut into port for 
 the purpose of repairing damage : and whilst the 
 
 repairs were proceeding was absent, and con- 
 tinued so for a much longer time than was 
 necessary to finish such repairs ; and during his 
 absence procured forged paj^iers, and afterwards 
 returned to the vessel : and. instead of proceed- 
 ing ondhe voyage, carried her to a foreign port ; 
 and the jury found that an act of barratry was 
 committed during the absence of the captain, 
 and whilst the vessel was being repaired : — Held, 
 that thej' wei-e warranted in so doing. Moscow 
 V. Comin, 8 Taunt. 684 ; 21 . R. .507. 
 
 Where the voyage insured was from Jamaica 
 to New Orleans, which lies up the river Missis- 
 sippi, and the captain jnoceeded on his voyage 
 as far as the mouth of that river, and then 
 dropped anchor, and went up the river in his 
 boat for a fraudulent purpose of his own : — 
 Held, that the dropping of his anchor with such 
 fraudulent intention was an act of barratry, and 
 not merelv a deviation. lio.s.s v. Hunter, 4 Term 
 Rep. 33 : 2 R. R. 319. 
 
 Collusive Capture — Barratry of Master.] — See 
 Arcum/ehi v. Th'iiiqixon. 2 Camp. 620 : 12 R. R. 
 7.)8 ; infra, col. 1107. 
 
 Cruising.] — If the captain, contrary to the 
 instructions of his owner, cruises for and takes a 
 prize, and the vessel is afterwards lost in conse- 
 quence of it, it is an act of barratry, upon which 
 the insured may recover against the under- 
 writers : although the captain libelled the prize 
 as well for the benefit of his owner as for him- 
 self. Mossy. B!/ro»i,(; Term Rep. 379 ; 3 R. R. 208. 
 
 Trading with Enemy.] — A master had general 
 instruct icijis tn make the best purchases with 
 despatch : — Held, that it did not warrant him in 
 going into an enemy's settlement t(j trade; (which 
 was permitted by the enemy), though his cargo 
 could be more speedily and cheaply completed 
 there ; but such act, in consequence of which 
 the shiji was seized and confiscated, is barratrous. 
 JEi/rle V. Itowcro/t, 8 East. 126 ; 9 R. R. 38o, 
 
 Negligence.] — A party shipped goods on board 
 a vessel, the '• Black Piince," under a bill of 
 lading, which contained the excei)tions of bar- 
 ratry and jierils of the sea. The" Black Prince." 
 with the goods on lioard, was lost in a collision 
 with another vessel, the '■ Araxes." In an action 
 on the bill of lading for the loss of the goods, 
 there was evidence at the trial that the collision 
 arose from the "Black Prince" starboarding 
 instead of porting her helm, aiul a collision 
 occasioned by non-observance of such rules is, by 
 the .MerchaiU Shipping Act of lS.-)4, s. 299, to be 
 deemed to have been occasioned by the wilful 
 default of the person in charge of the oifending 
 shi]) : — Held, that the contravention of the rules 
 of the Merchant Shipping Act by those in charge 
 of the -'Black I'rince," in starboarding instead 
 of poiting the helm, did not amount to barratry 
 within the exception in the 1)111 of lading, (rrill 
 v. (Ifnerid Iron Scmo Collier Co., 37 L. J., C. J'. 
 20.-, ; L. 1{. 3 C. P. 476 ; 18 L. T. 48", ; 16 \\. R. 
 796— Kx. Ch. 
 
 Must be a Wrongful Act.] — In order to con- 
 stitute Vjarratry the master must be proved to 
 liave acted against his Ijctter judgment. Mere 
 want of judgment in seamanship or treatment 
 of the vessel is nf)t barratry. Todd v. Ritchie, 
 1 Stark. 240; IK \i. M. "f.K. 
 
 Not mere Error of Judgment.] — Where 
 
 the master acts oidy for the benelit of his owners 
 it is not barratiy, though it may Vjc a deviation
 
 1099 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— IV. Nature of Risk. 
 
 1100 
 
 or abreach of contract. Stdiiniut v. Jinnv)i, 2 Str. 
 1173. And see S. ('.. ritcd 8 East, i;5G. St'c 
 i) R. K. 3S'.i. 
 
 Smuggling.] — In a time policy of marine 
 insurance on ship the ordinary perils insv;red 
 ayaiust (including '• barratry of the master ") 
 were enumeratcil, and the ship was warranted 
 '• free from capture and seizure, and the conse- 
 quences of any attempt thereat." In consequence 
 of the barratrous act of the master in smuggling, 
 the ship was seized by Spanish revenue otiicers, 
 and proceedings were taken to procure her con- 
 demnation and confiscation. In an action on 
 the policy to recover expenses incurred by the 
 owner in obtaining her release : — Held, that 
 the loss must be imi)uted to " capture and 
 seizure," and not to the barratry of the master, 
 and that the underwriter was not liable. Cory 
 V. Burr, 52 L. J., Q. B. 657 : 8 App. Cas. 393': 
 49 L. T. 78 ; 31 W. R. 894 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 109— 
 H. L. (E.) 
 
 Where the ship was insured whilst engaged 
 "in any lawful trade," and barratry of "the 
 master was a risk to be borne by the insurer ; 
 the underwriter was held liable for the loss by 
 the master smuggling : the " lawful trade " meri- 
 tioned being the trade of the owners and not of 
 the master. IlurelocU v. Ilancill, 3 Term Eep. 
 277 ; 1 R. R. 703. 
 
 Illegal Trade— Chartered Ship.]— If a char- 
 tered slii]) is lost tlirough the captain engaging 
 in illegal trade under the orders of the charterer, 
 this is not a loss by barratry for which the ship- 
 owner can recover against underwriters. Ilohhx 
 V. Ilannain, 3 Camj). 93. 
 
 Loss by Peril of Sea caused by Barratry of 
 
 Master.] — See Heiiman v. Parish^ 2 Camp. 148 ; 
 11 R. R. 688, ante; col. 1082. 
 
 b. Who can Commit, 
 
 Master — Collusion with Owner.]— The owner 
 of a vessel, fully laden by the freighters, colluded 
 with the captain to run her on shore : — Held, 
 that this amounted to barratry, although by the 
 terms of a charterparty entered into between 
 such owner and the freighters the former was 
 entitled to put goods on board during a previous 
 part of the voyage. Soares v. Thornton, 1 Moore, 
 373 ; 18 R. R. 615. 
 
 The master of a vessel, condemned for a breach 
 of blockade, swore he was bound for another 
 destination :— Held, that this did not so disaffirm 
 his owner's privity and consent to the breach of 
 blockade, so as to enable the assured to recover 
 as for a loss by barratiy. Ecerth v. Ilannain, 6 
 Taunt. 375 ; 2 Marsh. 72. 
 
 Part Owner,] — Barratry may be com- 
 mitted by a master of a ship who is part owner. 
 Jones V. JVtcJiolxon, 2 C. L. R. 1236 ; 10 Ex. 28 ; 
 23 L. J., Ex. 330. 
 
 The master, being part owner, fraudulently 
 sold the ship and cai-go and applied the proceeds 
 to his own use :— Held, that this was a loss 
 insured against by the words "barratry of the 
 master," and, per Martin, B., also by the words 
 " all other perils, losses and misfortunes." lb. 
 
 By master, a part owner, who had mortgaged 
 his share to his co-owner. See Small v. United 
 Ahif/dovi Marine Mutual Insvranre AssoclatUm, 
 post, col. 1136. 
 
 With Privity of Freighter.] — See Bont- 
 
 Hower v. WUmcr, infra, col. 1101. 
 
 c. Effect and Proof of. 
 
 Warranty free from Capture and Seizure.]— 
 
 In a time policy of marine insurance on ship the 
 ordinary perils insured against (including " bar- 
 ratry' of the master ") were enumerated, and the 
 ship was warranted "free from capture and 
 seizure, and the consequences of any attempts 
 thereat." In consequence of the barratrous act 
 of the master in smuggling, the ship was seized 
 by Spanish revenue officers, and pi'oceeding.s 
 were taken to procure her condemnation and 
 confiscation. In an action on the policy to 
 recover expenses incurred by the owner in 
 obtaining her release : — Held, that the loss must 
 be imputed to " capture and seizure," and not to 
 the barratry of the master, and that the under- 
 writer was not liable. Cory v. Burr, 52 L. J., 
 Q. B. 657 ; 8 App. Cas. 393 ; 49 L. T. 78 ; 31 
 W. R. 894 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 109— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Loss, whether caused by.]— If, through the 
 negligence of the owner of a ship insured, the 
 mariners barratrously carry smuggled goods on 
 board, whereby the ship is seized as forfeited, the 
 underwriters are not liable for the loss. P'ipon 
 V. Copi', 1 Camp. 434 ; 10 R. R. 720. 
 
 If a ship is insured by the terms of the policy 
 in any lawful ti-ade, and the barrati-y of the 
 master is mentioned as one of the risks to be 
 borne by the insurer, the underwriters will be 
 liable for a loss which happens by the barratry of 
 the master by smuggling. Ilacelock v. JIaneill, 
 3 Term Rep. 277 ; 1 R. R. 703. 
 
 A loss by barratry is well alleged, tliough the 
 proof is that it happened by the act of an enemy 
 and by barratry conjointly. Touhnin v. Ander- 
 son, 1 Taunt. 227. 
 
 Where a ship and a cargo were carried barra- 
 trously by the master out of the course of the 
 voyage, and the ship and a part of the cargo 
 were sold, and the remainder sent home by a 
 strange ship : — Held, that this was a total loss of 
 the cargo from the time of committing the act of 
 barratry ; and that the underwriters were liable 
 for such loss, with the benefit of salvage only. 
 Dia-on V. Reid, 1 D. & R. 207 ; 5 B. & Alil. 597 ; 
 24 R. E. 481. 
 
 The insurer of a ship is not liable for the 
 expenses incurred by the delay of the vessel, for 
 the purpose of recovering her cargo, when 
 detained under process of a foreign country, if 
 the ship itself is not detained by the process. 
 And the circumstances causing the detainer 
 must be positively shewn to have originated in 
 the fraud of the master, in order to support an 
 averment of loss by his barratry. Bradford, v. 
 I.ery, Rv. & M. 331 ; 2 Car. & P. 137 ; 31 II. R. 
 657. 
 
 A vessel, with liberty to chase and capture 
 prizes, had some Sjianish prisoners on board ; by 
 means which did not appear they broke loose, 
 rose upon and imprisoned the crew, with the 
 exception of one sailor, who was heard upon the 
 deck in conversation with them. The captain 
 and crew, with the exception of the sailor, were 
 put on shore, and the Spaniards ran away with 
 the ship. Upon a loss alleged to be by barratry 
 of the mariners, this was evidence to be left to 
 the jury that such barratry was committed. 
 Jluchi V. Thornton, Holt, 30 ; 17 R. R. 594. 
 
 A sentence condemning as enemy's property a 
 cargo which the master had barratrously cairied 
 into an enemy's blockaded port, although it maj^ 
 be conclusive evidence that the cargo was enemy's
 
 1101 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUKANCE— IV. Xature of Risk. 
 
 1102 
 
 property at the time of capture and condemna- 
 tion, does not disprove the allegation that the 
 cargo was lost by the captain's barratrously 
 carrying the cargo to places unknown, whereby 
 the goods became liable to be, and were con- 
 fiscated. Goldxclunhlf v. Whit more. 3 Taunt. 
 508. See En-rth v. JLi/i/Kini. ante. col. 1099. 
 
 Barratry with Privity of Freighter.] — Insur- 
 ance by shipowner ; barratry committed with 
 jjrivity of freighter ; the underwriter is not dis- 
 charged uidess he can shew that the shipowner 
 was privy to the barratry. Bontfioicer v. Wil- 
 iiifi: cited 2 Selw. X. P. (ilth ed.), 9(59. 
 
 a. Jettison. 
 
 To Save Capture.] — Where the captain of a 
 ship, in order to prevent a quantity of dollars 
 from falling into the hands of an enemy, by 
 whom he was about to be attacked, threw them 
 into the sea, and was immediately afterwards 
 captured : — Held, first, that this was a loss by 
 jettison, that term in a policy meaning any 
 throwing overboard of the cargo for a justifiable 
 cause ; secondly, if not that it was a loss by 
 enemies ; and, thirdly, if it was not a loss by 
 jettison, that it was ejusdem generis in the 
 strictest sense, and came within the meaning of 
 the words in the policy, "all other losses and 
 misfortunes." Butler v. WilihiKut. 3 B. i: Aid. 
 398 ; 22 R. R. 43.5. 
 
 Negligence — Ballast.] — To a declaration on a 
 time policy fur six niunths. stating a loss by perils 
 of the sea, the defendant pleaded that though 
 the vessel was lost by perils of the sea, yet, that 
 such loss was occasional wholly by the wrongful, 
 negligent and improper conduct (the same not 
 being barratrous) of the master and mariners of 
 the ship, by wilfully, wrongfully, negligently and 
 improperly, but not barratrously, throwing over- 
 board so much of the ballast, that the vessel 
 became unseaworthy, and was lost by perils of 
 the sea, which, otherwise, she would have encoun- 
 tered and overcome : — Held, that the plea was 
 l>ad, and that the underwriter was liable for the 
 conse(iuence of the wilful, but not barratrous act 
 of the master and crew in rendering the vessel 
 unseaworthy before the end of the voyage, by 
 thrf>wing overboard a part of the ballast. Dixuii 
 v. Sadler, .". M. et W. 405 ; 9 L. J., Ex. 48. 
 Afiirmed, nom. Sadler v. Dixon, 8 il. .S: W. 895 ; 
 1 1 L. J., E.x. 43.5— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Deck Cargo Loose.] — A ship on a voyage from 
 Quehijc to I.Miidun, laden with timber, was over- 
 taken in a gale, and in order to enable the pumps 
 to work — the working of ttiem was impeded by 
 the deck cargo getting adrift — the master threw 
 sucli cargo overlx)ard : — H'ld, that such jettison 
 was made to avert a danger cf)minon to all tiie 
 interests cfincerned, ship, freight and cargo ; and 
 that the timber so jettisoned, not being at the 
 time wreck within the received meaning of that 
 word, and the sacrifice of it being voluntary, 
 the loss accruing on the same must be held to be 
 general average, and that all interests must con- 
 tribute to make it good. Johiixoii v. Chapinan, 
 19 C. 1?. (.N-.S.) 5(;3 ; 35 L. .J., C. V. 23 ; 15 L. T. 
 70; 14 W. It. 204. 
 
 Goods stowed on Deck.] — Loss of, does not 
 give occasion fnr general average contribution. 
 lioHx v. Thauite, 1 Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 23 ; 
 Jiuekhoune v. Ilipleij, Ih. p. 24. See uUu 
 X. Losses, post, col. 124i;. 
 
 6. Fire. 
 
 General Average Losses.] — See Cases sub tit. 
 X. Losses, infra, col. 1240. 
 
 How Occasioned.] — In an action on a policy 
 on ship, by which the underwriters insured 
 against fire and barratry of the master and 
 mariners, they are liable for a loss by fire occa- 
 sioned by the negligence of the master and 
 mariners. Bush v. lioijal Exehnngc Assurance 
 Co., 2 B. & Aid. 73 ; 20 R. R. 350. And see 
 Bishop V. Peyitland, 7 B. & C. 214 ; 1 M. & Ry. 
 49 : 6 L. J. (O.S.) K. B. (i ; 31 R. R. 177. 
 
 If a captain of a ship insured burns her, to 
 prevent her falling into the hands of the enemy, 
 this is a loss by fire within the meaning of the 
 policy. Gordon \.Rinuiiin{iton. 1 Camp. 123. 
 
 If a fire arises on board a ship from the damaged 
 quality of goods on board, which are insured, the 
 underwriters are not liable ; but if the loss is not 
 occasioned by the damaged state of the goods on 
 board, the policy is not vitiated h\ the fact not 
 having been disclosed to the underwriters that 
 the goods were damaged, though thej' might 
 have a tendency to increase the risk. Boyd v. 
 Dubois, 3 Camp. 133. And see Bufe v. Turtwr, 
 2 Marsh. 46 ; 6 Taunt. 338 ; 16 R. R. 626. 
 
 In Warehouse.] — At Canton, an East India 
 ship stayed to clean and refit, for which purpose 
 all the sails and furniture were taken out of the 
 ship and put into a warehouse, built for them on 
 a sand-bank in the river there, where they were 
 accidentally burnt ; this is a loss within the 
 words and meaning of a policy of the ship, on its 
 body, tackle, apparel and other furniture, against 
 perils of the sea and fire (expressly), to any ports 
 and places beyond the Cape of (iood Hope, and 
 back again to London. Pelhj v. Roi/al E-echamje 
 Assurance Co., 1 Burr. 341. 
 
 Communication of other Policy when neces- 
 sary.] — The plainliifs ctfecled a policy of insu- 
 rance with the defendant as chairman of a fire 
 insurance company for 3,000Z., "on wool in bales 
 or fleeces greasy and washed, in all or any shed 
 or store, on station or in transit to Sydney by 
 land only, or in any shed or store, or any wharf 
 in Sydney, until placed on ship." The policy 
 contained a provision as follows : " No claim 
 shall be recoverable if the property insured be 
 previously or suljseiiuently insured elsewhere, 
 unless the jiarticulars of .such insurance be noti- 
 fied to the comi)any in writing." The plaintiffs 
 subsc(iuently effected an insurance with a marine 
 insurance company to cover 16,500/. uiioii wool, 
 the risk being describeil as "at and from the 
 river Hunter to Sydney per ships and steamers, 
 and thence l)er ship or ships to London, including 
 the risk of craft from the time that the wools are 
 first waterborne and of transhii)mciit or landing 
 and reshipment at Sydney." The frequent prac- 
 tice at the iiort of Syilncy is that wool arriving 
 there for shipment is not delivered direct to the 
 ship for which it is intended, but is conveyed to 
 the stt)res belonging to the |)ersons who are acting 
 as the .stevedores of the shij), and is there jjressed 
 for the purpose of reducing its bulk. By the 
 practice and cause of business, the stevedores' 
 receipt is regarded, as between the .ship and the 
 shippers, as equivalent to the mate's recei|)t, and 
 bills of lading are given in e-xchange for it. 
 Certain wool belonging to the plaintiffs was 
 forwardeil bv several consignments by several
 
 1103 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— IV. Nature of Risk. 
 
 1104 
 
 steamers from the river Hunter to Sydney. 
 The yilaintiifs' agent at Sythiey had the wool 
 conveyed on its arrival to his own stores, for the 
 purpose of being weighed, and entered into a 
 contract for its conveyance to London on board 
 a sliip. The wool was then convej'etl from his 
 warehouses to the stores of tlie stevedores of the 
 ship, who gave the usual receipts for the same. 
 While in the stevedores' warehouses, a portion of 
 the wool was destroyed or damaged by a fire, 
 and the plaintiffs sought to recover such loss upon 
 the policy effected with the defendant's company. 
 The company resisted the claim, upon the ground 
 that the policy of marine insurance above men- 
 tioned came within the terms of the provision in 
 the tire policy, and ought to have been communi- 
 cated to them : — Held, that the marine policy 
 did not cover the wool in the stevedores' ware- 
 houses, and was not such an insurance as the 
 plaintiffs were bound under the provisions in the 
 tire policy to notify to the defendant's company, 
 and that the plaintiffs were therefore entitled 
 to recover. Avstralian Aqricvltnral Co. v. 
 Saunder.% 44 L. J., C. P. 391 : L. R. 10 C.P. 668 : 
 33 L. T. 447 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 63— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Steamship.] — A general policy covers the risk 
 of lire at sea in a steamboat, as in any other 
 vessel. Pattimn v.-Milh: 1 Dow & Clark, 342; 
 2 Bhgh (N.S.) .519 ; 31 R. R. 49. 
 
 A tire insurance company, in making out a 
 policy on a steamship, referring to conditions 
 indorsed, so far as applicable, used one of their 
 printed forms of conditions applicable to houses, 
 the language being, " if more than twenty pounds 
 of gunpowder be on the premises at the time of 
 the loss, such loss will not be made good " : — 
 Held, that the word premises equally applied to a 
 ship, the word being in legal language often used 
 to denote the subject or thing previously expressed. 
 jBeacon Life Assurance Co. v. G'thh. ] Moore, P. C. 
 (N.S.) 73 :" 1 N. R. 110 : 9 Jur. (n.s.) 185 : 7 L. T. 
 574 ; 11 W. R. 194. 
 
 Held, also, that parol evidence was not admis- 
 sible to }n'ove that the word premises was not 
 intended to include the steamer. lb. 
 
 Held, also, that one of the conditions having 
 specified a limited quantity of gunpowder to be 
 carried on board, it was quite immaterial whether 
 the fire was or was not occasioned by more than 
 the specified quantity of gunpowder being on 
 board. Ih. 
 
 In Dock.] — A ship was insured for three 
 months against fire, and was described in the 
 policy "as lying in the Victoria Docks, with 
 liberty to go into a dry dock, and light her boiler 
 fires once or twice during the currency of the 
 policy" : — Held, that the ship was covered while 
 she was in the river passing from the Victoria 
 Docks to a dry dock, and vice versa, but not while 
 she was in the river for any other purpose. 
 Pearson v. Commercial Union, Assurance Co., 45 
 L. J., C. P. 761 ; 1 App. Cas. 498 ; 35 L. T. 445 ; 
 24 W. R. 951 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 27.5— H. L. (E.) 
 
 A policy against loss by fire described a steam- 
 boat as "now lying in Tait's Dock. Montreal, 
 and intended to navigate the St. Lawrence and 
 lakes from Hamilton to Quebec principally as a 
 freight-boat, and to be laid up in winter in a 
 place approved by the insurers, who will not be 
 liable for explosion either by steam or gun- 
 powder."' The steamboat never left Tait's Dock, 
 and was burnt there : — Helih that the words in 
 the policy implied no agreement to navigate the 
 
 steamboat as described in the policy, and that 
 consequently the insurers were liable, though 
 the steamboat never left the dock. Grant v. 
 .ICtna Insurance Co.. 15 Moore, P. C. 516 : 8 Jur. 
 (N.s.) 705 ; 6 L. T. 735 ; 10 W. R. 772. 
 
 Ship Stranded — Subsequent Loss by Fire — 
 Time Policy.] — Thess. " Bawnmore " was insured 
 under a time policy valued at 22,00OZ. against 
 loss or damage by fire or explosion only. She 
 was driven ashore by perils of the sea, and 
 whilst stranded totally destroyed by fire. The 
 underwriters denied their liability, on the ground 
 that, at the time the fire occurred, the ship was 
 already a constructive total loss : — Held, upon a 
 preliminary point of law, argued on the assump- 
 tion that the ship was still capable of being 
 floated and re})aired, thougli at an expense 
 which would exceed her value when repaired, 
 that the assured were entitled to judgment, and 
 that the valuation in the policy was binding 
 upon the underwriters. Woodside v. Glohe 
 Marine Insurance Co.. 65 L. J., Q. B. 117 ; [1896] 
 1 Q. B. 105; 73 L. T. 626 ; 44 W. R. 187 ; 8 
 Asp. M. C. 118. 
 
 7. Capture and Seizure. 
 
 a. What amounts to. 
 
 Stress of Weather.] — If a ship is driven by 
 stress of weather on an enemy's coast, and there 
 captured, it is a loss by capture and not by the 
 perils of the sea. Green v. Elmslie, Peake, 278 ; 
 3 R. R. 693. 
 
 Recapture.] — When a ship was insured for a 
 voyage or a cruise of three months, and taken by 
 the enemy within that time, but before she was 
 carried infra praesidia hostis, was retaken by an 
 Englishman, and was at the time of action a 
 living ship : — Held, to be a total loss to the 
 insured. Pond v. King. 1 Wils. 191. See Dean 
 V. Ilornhy, 3 El. & Bh' 180 ; 2 C. L. R. 1519 : 23 
 L. J., Q. B. 129 : 18 Jur. 623 ; 2 W. R. 156, 
 infra. 
 
 Arrival at Port — Embargo.] — If a policy is on 
 ashiii bound to a foreign port until she is twenty- 
 four hours moored in safety there, and previously 
 to such ship's arrival at her destined port, an 
 embargo is laid on all English vessels in that port, 
 and she on entering is also detained, and her 
 crew made prisoners of war, the assured is entitled 
 to recover. Minctt v. Anderson, Peake, 211 ; 3 
 R. R. 692. 
 
 Release.] — Money having been expended in 
 reclaiming a cargo on board a ship captured, 
 insured by the owners, upon the event of the 
 ship's arrival at Marseilles ; the ship being cap- 
 tured, and restoi-etl upon appeal, relinquished her 
 voyage, and was afterwards lost ; pending the 
 appeal, the goods were ordered to be sold, and 
 the expenses of the appeal were afterwards de- 
 frayed therewith ; yet an averment of a loss by 
 capture is bad, because the ship might, notwith- 
 standing the capture, have afterwards arrived at 
 Marseilles. Kitlen Kemp v. Vif/ne, 1 Term Rep. 
 304 ; 1 R. R. 205. 
 
 If a ship is justly seized as forfeited for smug- 
 gling, and afterwards restored, the underwriters 
 are not liable for any damage happening to the 
 ship by the perils of the sea in the interval 
 between the sei/Aue and the restoration. Pijnni 
 V. Cojje, 1 Camp. 434 ; 10 R. R. 720.
 
 1105 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— IV. Nature of Risk. 
 
 1106 
 
 A ]iolicy was effected on a Prussian ship against 
 such risks only as were excluded by the clause, 
 •' warranted free from capture, seizure and 
 <letention, or the consequences of anj^ attempt 
 thereof," with a stipulation that the insurers 
 should pay a total loss thirty days after the 
 receipt of otticial news of capture or embai-go, 
 without waiting for condemnation. The ship was 
 detained by an embargo in a Danish port, after 
 the breaking out of hostilities between that 
 power and Germany : — Held, that the right of 
 the assured to claim for a total loss became vested 
 on the expiration of the thirty days, notwith- 
 standing that the vessel had never been actually 
 taken out of the possession of the captain, and 
 was afterwards (and after action) I'estored, and 
 arrived safely in Lontlon. Fowler v. E/tf/li.s-Ji 
 find Scotthh Murine Iiisurt/nrr Co.. 18 C. B. (N.S.^ 
 919 ; 3i L. J., C. P. 253 ; 11 Jur. (N.S.) 411 ; 12 
 L. T. 381 : 13 W. R. 658. 
 
 Held, also, that the entry of the fact of the 
 embargo in Lloyds' Loss Book, however the 
 intelligence might have been received, was suffi- 
 cient to satisfy the term " official news " in the 
 policy. Ih. 
 
 Hostilities — Perils of Sea.] — A policy was 
 effected on (5,500 bags of coffee, warranted " free 
 from capture, seizure and detention, and all the 
 consequences thereof, and free from all conse- 
 <|uences of hostilities, riots and commotion." 
 The coffee was shipped on board a vessel lx)und 
 for New York. At the time of ship sailing a 
 war had broken out between the Northern and 
 Southern States of America ; and, as an act of 
 hostility, a light, which had usually indicated the 
 ]i(^)sitifin of Cape Hatteras, was extinguished. 
 The war, and the extinction of the light, were 
 unknown to the captain, and from ignorance of 
 the latter, he fell out of his reckoning, and ran 
 ashore. Certain persons on the coast had 
 recovered 120 bags of the coffee, when they were 
 interrupted by .soldiers, who appropriated the 120 
 bags, and pi-evented others being saved. The 
 ca])tain and ciew wcie taken prisoners. But for 
 this interference, 1,000 more bags might have 
 been saved before the breaking up of the ship : — 
 Held, that the loss of the sliip was by perils of 
 the sea, and not " by the conseciuences of hos- 
 tilities," within the meaning of tiic policy ; that 
 a.s the 1,120 bags were lost by reason of the inter- 
 ference of tlie soMieis, that loss was covered by 
 the exce|)tion, and the insurers were not liable ; 
 but that for the remainder the insurers were 
 liable, as for a loss by the perils of the sea. 
 Jonidrx v. Cnirerxiil \fiirhir Inxurunve, Co., 14 
 C. B. fN.s.) 2.V.) ; 32 L. .1.. C. P. 170; 10 Jim 
 
 (N.S.) IS : M F.. '!'. 70.-, ; 1 ] W. \\. Ky>K. 
 
 Capture by Pirates. j — A ship, being insured 
 tmder a time policy, was caplui'cd by pirates. 
 Slie was afterwards recaptureil by an English ship 
 <^if war, but kept by them as a prize, whereupon 
 tlie owners gave nf)tice of abandonment. The 
 .ship was afterwards sent to Etigland under the 
 care fif a jjrize master, with orders to obtain an 
 adjudication in tlie court of admiialty, but, 
 meeting witli bad weatlier, put into F., and was 
 sold by the |)rize master. Afterwards the owners 
 brought an action against the underwritei-s as for 
 a tot.'d loss : — Held, that they were entitled to 
 recover as for a total loss, for capture by pirates 
 was a total loss in tlie first iiislance, and such 
 total loss could not be reduced to a partial loss 
 unless either the ship was restored to the posses- 
 
 sion of the owners before action brought, or they 
 had the power of resuming possession of her 
 before action brought, it being immaterial whether 
 they had the right to immediate possession, and 
 whether the recaptors had any right to detain. 
 Dean v. Hornh,/, 3 El. & Bl. 180 : 2 C. L. R. 
 1519 ; 23 L. J., Q. B. 129 ; IS Jur. 623 : 2 \V. R. 
 156, 
 
 Intention to Keep the Ship.] — In an 
 
 action on a policy of insurance upon a shij), in 
 which the subject-matter was warranted '' free 
 from captm-e and seizure, and the consequences 
 of anjr attempt thereat," it was proved that during 
 the continuance of the risk some natives took 
 forcible possession of the ship in the Brass river, 
 plundered tlie cargo, and damaged her so that 
 she became a constructive total loss, and that 
 their intention in so taking possession was only 
 to plunder the cargo, and not to keep the ship : 
 — Held, that the acts of the natives constituted a 
 "seizure" within the meaning of the warranty, 
 and therefore that the underwriters were not 
 liable. Johndon v. Jfotjq, 52 L. J., Q. B. 343 ; 10 
 Q. B. D. 432 ; 48 L. T. 435 ; 31 W. R. 768 ; 5 Asp. 
 M. C. 51. 
 
 Illegal Acts by Belligerent.] — By a policy on 
 goods on lx>ard the ship " 1!.." they were warranted 
 " free from capture and seizure, and the conse- 
 quences of any attempt thereof." The perils 
 insured against were enumerated as usual, viz. 
 " of the seas, men-of-war. fire, enemies, pirates, 
 rovers, thieves, jettisons, letters of marque and 
 counter-marque, reprisals, takings at sea, arrests, 
 restraints, and detainments of all kinds, and of 
 all other perils, losses and misfortunes " : — Held, 
 that the exceptions introduced by the warranty 
 were not confined to legal cai)ture ami seizure, 
 but that an illegal capture or seizure was within 
 both the exceptions and the perils enumerated 
 as insured against. Powell v. Hyde, 5 El. & Bl. 
 607 : 25 L. J., Q. B. 65 ; 2 Jur. (nIs.) 87 ; 4 W. R. 
 51. 
 
 A British shij), in her i>assage down the Danube, 
 passed within shot of a Russian fort, there being 
 then war between Turkey and Russia, but not 
 war between Great Britain and Russia. The 
 Russian fort fired into her and sunk her, alleging 
 that the vessel was mistaken for a Turk, but 
 l)ermitte<l her crew, after some detention, to 
 depart. It appearing to the court, on the whole 
 of the facts, that the object of the Russians was 
 to detain the ship :—" Held, that but for the 
 warranty, the insuiers would have been liable ; 
 but that the warranty protected them. J//. 
 
 The owners of a vessel who, by i)erforniing the 
 legal stipulations of a charterparty, provoke ctm- 
 liscation by the illegal and piratical act of a 
 foreign state, do nol thereby avoid their assur- 
 ance. Seirrlf v. ItoijuJ Krclniiuje .[.i.iKroiice Co., 
 4 Taunt. 856. 
 
 By Emigrants on Board.] — .Action iijion 
 
 a iiolicy on |iidvi>ion'^ and freight, on a voyage 
 from .^iaeaoto I lavannali wit li ( 'liinese emigrants 
 on board, which contained the wonls, " warranted 
 free from capture and seizure, and tlie con.se- 
 quences of any attempt thereat." While the 
 ship was i)roceciling on her voyage, the Chinese 
 emigrants piratically carried away the ship, and 
 the provisions and" stores on board of her, 
 whereby a total loss accrued to the insured: — 
 Held, that this was a loss by seizure within the 
 exception introduced by the warranty, and there-
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— IV. Xatitre of Bisk. 
 
 1107 
 
 f.iio the uiulerwriter was not liable. KIrlnworf i 
 V. Shepard, 1 EI. & El. 447 ; 28 L. J., Q. B. 147 ; 
 5 Jur. (N.s.) .SC.S ; 7 W. R. 227. 
 
 Barratry — Proximate Cause.] — In a time 
 policy of marine insmanci; on ship the ordinary 
 perils insin-cd aL,'ainst (includiny "barratry of 
 the master") were enumerated, and the ship 
 was warranted " free from capture and seizure 
 and the consequences of any attempts thereat." 
 In consequence of the barratrous act of the 
 master in smuggling, the ship was seized by 
 Spanish revenue officers, and proceedings were 
 taken to procure her condemnation and confisca- 
 tion. In an action on the policy to recover 
 expenses incurred by the owner in obtaining her 
 release :— Held, that the loss must be imputed 
 to " capture and seizure," and not to the barratry 
 of the master, and that the underwriter was not 
 liable. Coni v. Buvi; 52 L. J., Q. B. ().)7 ; 8 
 App. Cas. 393 ; 49 L. T. 78 ; 31 W. R. 894 ; 5 
 Asp. M. C. 109— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Collusive Capture— Barratry of Master.]— A 
 
 count on a iiolicy of insurance, laying tlie loss to 
 be by capture, is sustainetl by evidence that the 
 ship was captured by a privateer, although there 
 was collusion between the master of the shij) and 
 the commander of the privateer : and although 
 the plaintiflE might have recovered under a count 
 laying the loss by barratry of the master. 
 Arcangelo v. Thovipson, 2 Camp. 620 ; 12 E. R. 
 7.o8. 
 
 Mutiny of Passengers.] — Advances for the 
 transport of Chinese passengers payable on their 
 arrival were insured. The Chinese mutinied, 
 seized the ship and refused to go to their destina- 
 tion. The policy covered the piratical seizure of 
 the ship : — Held, that the mutiny was the cause 
 of the loss, and insurers held liable. X/njlor v. 
 Palmer, 10 Ex. 382 ; 23 L. J., Ex. 323— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Wrongful Seizure— Consequent Loss by Perils 
 of Sea. J — A merchant ship was by mistake 
 seized and taken in tow by a British man-of-war. 
 She was thereby exposed to bad weather, by 
 which goods on board were injured. Semble, 
 this was a loss by capture and detention, as well 
 as by perils of the sea. ILirjcflorn v. Whit mure, 
 1 Stark. l.'>7. 
 
 1108 
 
 Risk of British Capture.] — A policy on a foreign 
 ship made during war, nmst be understood as 
 containing an exception of all captures made by 
 British ships. Kdlner v. Le Mesurier, 4 East, 
 396 ; I Smith, 72 ; 7 R. R. 581. 
 
 An insurance effected in Great Britain on a 
 French ship before hostilities commenced between 
 England and France, does not cover a loss by 
 British capture. Furtadu v. Eut/er.s; 3 Bos. & P. 
 191 ; 6 R. R. 752. 
 
 Insurance by a subject of this country upon 
 foreign property does not cover a loss by capture, 
 in a war afterwards taking place between this 
 country and that of the assured. Proof in bank- 
 ruptcy, therefore, under such a policy expunged. 
 Lee, E-v parte, 13 Ves. 64. 
 
 Slaves thrown overboard — Want of Water.] — 
 The captain being out of his reckoning, and the 
 crew in distress for want of water, some of the 
 slaves were thrown over : — Held, not to be a loss 
 by perils of the sea. Greijuni v. Gilbert. 1 Park. 
 Ins. esth cd.) 138. 
 
 By Queen's Ship — Total Loss.] — Merchants in 
 
 London, as agents for F., a Brazilian subject 
 residing at Loanda, chartei-ed a British ship to 
 carry goods on his behalf from London to Ambriz. 
 or Loanda, on the coast of Africa, and to reload 
 there a homeward cargo of African produce for 
 London. They afterwards, on F.'s behalf, insured 
 the outward cargo at and from London to 
 Ambriz or Loanda. The perils insured against 
 were " takings at sea, arrests, restraints and detain- 
 ments of all kings, princes and people of what 
 nature, condition or quality soever." The ship 
 sailed with this cargo, consigned toF.at Loanda. 
 While on the voyage out she was seized, near 
 Ambriz, by a queen's ship, under 5 Geo. 4, c. 113, 
 s. 4, for being illegally engaged in the slave trade, 
 and was sent to St. Helena for adjudication. 
 Proceedings were instituted in the vice-admiralty 
 court at St. Helena, which court, on 20th Novem- 
 ber, 1854, condemned the ship to be forfeited, 
 and condemned the shippers of the cargo in 
 penalties amounting to double the value of the 
 goods and in costs, and ordered the goods to be 
 held in deposit till payment of the penalties and 
 costs. The ship and i)art of the goods were sold 
 uneler order of the court. The residue of the 
 goods was detained by the court. As soon as the 
 proceedings at St. Helena were known in Eng- 
 land, notice of abandonment was given to the 
 underwriters. At that time the decree of the 
 court at St. Helena was not known in England. 
 An appeal to the privy council against this decree 
 was lodged, and on 3rd February, 1858, the privy 
 council reversed the decree of the court below, 
 and ordered restitution of the ship to her owners, 
 and of the goods unsold, and the proceeds of the 
 goods sold, to F. On the 6th July, 1858, the 
 shippers, on F.'s behalf, brought an action 
 against the defendant on the policy, claiming as 
 for a total loss of the cargo. At that time the 
 goods remaining in specie and unsold at St. Helena 
 had deteriorated in value, but could have been 
 forwarded thence to Loanda at a price less than 
 their value when delivered there : — Held, first, 
 that the seizure by the queen's ship of the "New- 
 port," with the goods insured on board, being 
 wrongful, was a loss of the goods by a peril 
 insured against. Luzano v. Jansnii. 2 El. & El. 
 160 : 28 L. J., Q. B. 337 ; 5 Jur. (N.S.) 1401 ; 7 
 W. R. 654. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the wrongful seizure and 
 the notice of abandonment made the loss total, 
 and that it was still total at the time of action 
 brought ; the court drawing the inference of fact 
 that F., as a prudent man, could not then be 
 reasonably expected to take possession of the 
 unsold goods at St. Helena. Ih. 
 
 Capture — Abandonment — Restoration of Ship 
 after Writ issued, but before Trial.]— The aban- 
 donment, as a total loss, of a siiip insured against 
 war risks, which has been cafiturcd, is not 
 defeated by the restoration of the ship at a date 
 subsequent to the commencement of an action 
 for total loss on the policy by the shipowners 
 against the underwriters, liuiix v.Boi/al E.rehange 
 Assurance Co., 66 L. J., Q. B. 534 ; [1897] 
 2 Q. B. 135 ; 77 L. T. 23 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 294. 
 And see VI. Warranties ; 9, Against Cap- 
 ture. 
 
 b. Proof. 
 
 Condemnation.] — The sentence of a condem- 
 nation of a foreign court of admiralty cannot 
 be received, without previous proof of the ship
 
 1109 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—Y. Interest of Assured. 
 
 1110 
 
 having been caiitured. Jf/rx7i/ill v. Pdi-ltcr, 2 
 Camp. 69 : 11 R. R. 6(55. S. P.. T7.sv/^'/' v. Pre.wott. 
 5 Esp. 18i : 8 R. R. S\i3. 
 
 Lloyds' books are evitlence of a capture, but 
 not of notice of a loss to anj' jierson in particular, 
 but may go, coupled with other evidence, to the 
 jury. Ahfl V. Pott.% 3 Esp. 242 ; 6 R. R. 826. 
 See Fowler v. EnijUxh and Scottish Marine Innur- 
 anec Co.. IS C. B. (N.S.) '.)19 ; 34 L. J., C. P. 2.53 ; 
 12 L. T. 3S1 ; 13 W. R. 6.58 ; supra, col. 110.5. 
 
 If an insuretl declares upon a total loss by 
 capture, and, after j)roving a capture, shews a 
 recapture, upon which proceedings were hail in 
 an admiralty court, he cannot recover without 
 proving the proceedings in the admiralty court 
 under seal, though he only claims the amount of 
 the loss sustained by the salvage proceedings and 
 sale, lliellunwn v. Shcdden, 2 Bos. & P. (N.E.) 
 228. 
 
 If a defendant on a policy would impugn the 
 l)laintiff's right to recover for a loss by capture, 
 on the ground that the condemnation apjjears by 
 the sentence of a foreign court to have (proceeded 
 on the want of certain documents not reqiiired by 
 the law of nations, which tlie plaintiff ought to 
 have provided, it is for the defendant to shew the 
 foreign law or treaty which renders such docu- 
 ments necessary. Lc Chemlnant v. Pearson, 4 
 Taunt. 367 ; 13 R. R. 636. 
 
 A count on a policj'. laying the loss by capture, 
 is sustained byevidence that theship was caj)tured 
 by a privateer ; although this happened from a 
 collusion between the master of the ship and the 
 commander of the privateer, and the plaintiff 
 might have recovered under a count laying the 
 loss by the barratry of the master. Arcunijelo v. 
 J'/tomjj.to/i, 2 Camp. (I2<) ; 12 R. R. 7.58. 
 
 Condemnation by Enemy's Prize Court of Ship 
 lying in Neutral Port.] — Condemnation in the 
 court of the eneiii}' on a ])rize shij) lying in a 
 neutral port — under si)ecial circumstances held 
 valid. The Ilenrlch and Maria, 4 C. Rob. 43. 
 
 8. Other Ri.sks. 
 
 Desertion.] — A ship received considerable 
 damage from tempestuous weather, and the crew, 
 comiiletely exhausted, deserteil the ship on the 
 high seas for the mere preservation of their lives ; 
 and the ship was then taken possession of by a 
 fresh crew, wlio succeeded in conducting her 
 safely into port : — Held, that such desertion of 
 tlie crew did not of itself amount to a total loss ; 
 and, secondly, tlie ship having been sold under the 
 decree of the admiralty court to [lay the salvage, 
 and it not appearing tiiat the assured had taken 
 any means to jirevent such sale, tliat they had 
 no riglit to abandon, and that there was no more 
 tlian a partial loss. Thornehj v. Jlehxon, 2 
 B. c»c AM. .513; 21 R. R. 3S1. 
 
 A sliip, deserted at sea by her crew, umler a 
 bona Hde belief that she is sinking, is totally lost. 
 'I'he right of the iussured to recfiver, as for a total 
 loss, is not affected by her being afterwards 
 repaired at an expense e<juai to her value ; nor 
 is deserting the ship, under the circumstances, 
 negligence in the crew. Jliddxa^orth v. 11 '/V, 6 
 L. .J. (o.s.) K. B. 134 ; 1 M. & Ry. 673 ; 7 B. i: C. 
 7'.i \ : 31 11. R. 2'J'.). 
 
 Mutiny.] — The insured cannf)t recover upon a 
 policy, uidess the loss is a direct and an immediate 
 conse(iuence of the peril insured ; a Iriss by any 
 other Uicans than by wounds or bruises received 
 
 in the very act of quelling a mutiny, is not within 
 that provision of an African policy which insures 
 against loss by mutiny. Jones v. SchnioU, 1 
 Term Rep. 130," n. ; 1 R. R. 196, n. 
 
 By Carriers Delivering to Ship.] — A declara- 
 tion on a policy on goods at and from L. by 
 land carriage to H., ami at and from thence by a 
 packet to G., beginning the adventure on the 
 goods from the loading on board the ship, averred 
 that the goods were delivered at L. to carriers, to 
 be carried from L. by land carriage to H. ; and 
 b}' the fraud and the negligence of the servants 
 and persons employed by the carriers were 
 wholly lost : — Held, that this was a loss within 
 the meaning of the usual form of marine policy. 
 Boehm v. Comlje, 2 M. & S. 172 ; 14 R. R. 611. " 
 
 Loss by Enemies.] — A captain threw overboard 
 a ([uantity of dollars to prevent them falling into 
 the hands of an enemy and was immediately 
 captured : — Held, if not jettisoned, a loss by 
 enemies. Butler v. Wlldnuin, 3 B. &; Aid. 398 ; 
 23 R. R. 43.5. See also Bent v. Smith, post, col. 
 1150. 
 
 Policy against Losses under the Passenger* 
 Act Amendment Act, 15 & 16 Vict. c. 44 — Expense 
 of Forwarding Passengers.] — The plaintiffs, ship- 
 owners, effected with the defendants a policy 
 " against all costs, ch;irges and liabilities to which 
 the owners or charterers of the ship ' M. P.' 
 might be subject under clauses 46, 47, 48, 49 and 
 ;50 of 1.5 & 16 Vict. c. 44." The ship struck on a. 
 bank sixty miles from her port of destination, 
 and the caijtain incurred expense in hiring steam- 
 ships to which, after vain attempts to tow his 
 own ship off the ground, the i)assengers were 
 transferred, and in which they were taken to their 
 destination : — Held, that assuming the expenses 
 of carrying on the passengers to be covered by 
 the policy, the expense of the attemjits to get 
 the ship off were not to be taken into account. 
 Jiiilnes v. lloijal Krchange Assuranee Co., (> 
 W. R. 247. 
 
 Thieves.] — Underwriter is liable for robbery 
 by thieves from without. Jlarlord v. Maijnard, 
 1 Park, Ins. (8th ed.) 36. 
 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 
 ('). 
 
 7. 
 
 8. 
 
 9. 
 1(1. 
 11. 
 12. 
 13. 
 14. 
 15. 
 16. 
 17. 
 See 
 i. Ad 
 
 V. IXTKKKST OK ASSURED. 
 
 Frehjht, 1110. 
 
 Goods and ('(injii. 1118. 
 
 Pas!^tl(fe-\noneij, 1 125. 
 
 Seamen's M'ai/e.s-. 1126. 
 
 Krpveted Profits, 1126. 
 
 Shij) and Fnrnitnre, 1129. 
 
 J)erl; Canjo. Jettison, 1130. 
 
 JitUs and Adi-aneesfor S/iljis Use, 1130. 
 
 Jloffomr;/, Jlespoiulentlu, Mortijaijc, 1132. 
 
 Commission, 1 136. 
 
 K.rpeeted, Losses, 1136. 
 ]\'ai/erlii;/ Policies, 1137. 
 
 Valued Polleies. 1138. 
 \eutral or Hostile I'ropirl ij. 1112. 
 Prize, 1143. 
 
 Le(jal or B/juitahle. I I 15. 
 Arerment and I'roof of Interest, 11 45. 
 also XIII. Freight ; 3, Payment ; 
 
 VANCE. 
 
 1. Fkeight. 
 
 A shipowner, who has entered into contracts 
 for freight, has an insurable interest in the 
 freight, although such contracts are not in
 
 1111 
 
 SHIPPING— IN SUKANCE—V. Interest of Assured. 
 
 1112 
 
 ^vl•iti^£r. J/iUrr v. Warre, 7 D. & R. 1 ; 4 B. & C. 
 58S ; 1 Car. & P. 237 ; 4 L. J. (O.S.) K. B. 8. 
 
 Ownership.] — Two partners purchased a ship 
 uiuler a bill of sale. confornKibly to 20 Geo. 3, c. 
 ()i) : afterwards they took in two other partners, 
 but there was no transfer of the ship to them 
 jointly with the others : — Held, that the four 
 partners had not any Insurable interest in the 
 freisjht of the ship. Camden v. Anderson, 5 
 Term Rep. 709. And see S. C, 6 Term Rep. 723 ; 
 1 Bos. & P. 272. 
 
 The right to freight results from the right 
 of ownership : and these four partners had 
 neither a legal nor an equitable title to the 
 ship. lb. 
 
 Freight when Earned.] — Upon a policy for 
 freight the insurers cannot be held responsible 
 where the freight has been actually earned. 
 Scottish Marhifl Imimincp. Co. v. 'Turner,! Macq. 
 H. L. 334 ; 17 Jur. 631 ; 1 VV. R. 537. 
 
 Freight may be insured by a time policy, 
 although it cannot be earned until after the time 
 for which it is insured. Micliael v. Gillexpy, 2 
 C. B. (N.s.) 627 ; 26 L. J., C. P. 306 ; 3 Jur. (N.s.) 
 1219. 
 
 Chartered Freight — Commencement of In- 
 terest.] — On the 7th August, l.S6(». the agents of 
 tlie owners of a ship, lying at Bondjay, chartered 
 her at Liverpool for a voyage from Rowland's 
 Island to a port in the United Kingdom for 
 
 said" at 5,.500Z. in cash at Hull, England, on the 
 discharge of the cargo in Odessa. " If the vessel 
 has not arrived at the port of New York on or 
 before the 1st of September, 1875, charterers 
 have option of cancelling this charterparty." 
 The plaintiffs, on the 7th of August, 1875, 
 effected an insurance with the defendant "at 
 and from London to New York, while there, and 
 thence to Odessa, via Constantinople," on their 
 chartered freight, including, besides the ordinary 
 ones, all risks "incident to steam navigation." 
 The clause in the charterparty giving the option 
 to cancel was not mentioned to the defendant. 
 The ship started from England on the 7th of 
 August, but owing to the failure of her machinery 
 in iThe British Channel was obliged to put back 
 for repairs, which occupied so much time that 
 she did not reach New York until after the 1st of 
 September, whereupon the charterers cancelled 
 the charter and the freight was lost : — Held, that 
 the interest in the chartered freight had com- 
 menced at the time when the charter was cancelled, 
 but that the defendant was not liable, for the 
 freight was not lost by any of the perils insured 
 agahist, but by the exercise of the option to 
 cancel in the charterparty ; and further that the 
 withholding from the defendant information as 
 to the power to cancel vitiated the policy. Mer- 
 cinitile Steamshij) Co. v. Ti/srr, 7 Q. B. D. 73 ; 29 
 W. R. 790 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 
 6, n. 
 
 Ship discharged from Charter by Admiralty, 
 
 cargo of guano, freight to"bc'prid''ar pol-t' Jf j ^fter Damage.]-The plaintift\s were the owne^^^ 
 discharge, the ship to be at Howlaud's Island on • ^t a steamship named .tlie " P.,^^ Mhich_ NNas 
 
 or before the 1st June, 1867, or the charterer to 
 have the option of declaring the charter void. 
 On the 7th September, 1866, an agent, on behalf 
 of the owners of the vessel, effected an insurance 
 with an underwriter at and from Bombay to 
 Rowland's Island, while there, and thence to 
 any port. &c., in the United Kingdom, on freight 
 chartered or otherwise valued at 3,600/. in the 
 ship. It was lawful for the ship to sail to and 
 touch and stay at any ports whatsoever without 
 prejudice to the insurance, which was against 
 the usual perils. On the 4th September, she 
 sailed in ballast under the charter from Bombay 
 for Rowland's Island. She got out of her course, 
 and on the 25th December ran ashore on the 
 coast of New Zealand. The owners declined to 
 furnish the funds necessary for repairing her, 
 and the captain was unable to borrow money on 
 a bottomry bond except on condition that he 
 would charter the ship to the lender for a cargo 
 of timber from New Zealand to England. Ulti- 
 mately she was abandoned to the holder of the 
 bottomry bonil : the repairs were completed and 
 a cargo of timber brought to England for the 
 holder of the bottomry bond : — Held, first, that 
 when the ship sailed from Bombay the chartered 
 freight had come into existence, and the owners 
 had an insurable interest in it. liitrher v. 
 Flcmlnq, 10 B. & S. 879 ; 39 L. J., Q. B. 25 ; 
 L. R. 5 Q. B. 59 ; 18 W. R. 254. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the terms of the charter- 
 party which allowed the ship to take in a cargo 
 on the passage from Bombay to Rowland's 
 Island did not prevent the interest from attach- 
 ing, lb. 
 
 Kisks "incident to Steam Navigation" — 
 
 Option of Cancelling Charterparty.] — The plain- 
 tiffs, on the 29th of July, 1875, chartered their 
 ship " G." for a voyage from New York to Odessa. 
 The freight was agreed " during the voyage afore- 
 
 chartered to the commissioners of the admiralty 
 for transport service for three months certain at 
 an agreed freight, which was not to be payable 
 in the event of the steamship becoming unsea- 
 worthy or unfit to perform the service for which 
 she was chartered. One month's freight was to 
 be paid to the plaintiffs in advance. The plain- 
 tiffs effected with the defendants a policy of 
 insurance in the ordinary form upon freight. The 
 " P." sailed, under the charter to the admiralty, 
 with troops for South Africa, and soon after the 
 expiration of the first month of the period for 
 which she was chartered she struck on a rock, 
 and was so damaged as to become unseaworthy 
 and unfit to perform the service for which she 
 had been chartered. She was thereupon dis- 
 charged from the service of the admiralty : — 
 Held, that the plaintiffs could not recover from 
 the defendants the residue of the freight, which 
 the " P." would have earned during the time 
 covered by the policy. Innitni SfeamsJiij? Co. v. 
 
 B. 169 ; 7 App. Cas. 670 ; 
 
 R. 141 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 6— 
 
 Bischoff, 52 L. J., q. 
 47 L. T. 581 ; 31 W, 
 H. L. (E.) 
 
 Cargo not on Board.] — The owner of a ship 
 effected a policy on freight at and from the 
 Coromandel coast to Bourbon ; the ship put 
 into port on the Coromandel coast for repairs ; 
 he purchased a cargo, and had it ready to be 
 sent on board, about seven miles from the port ; 
 the ship was lost by accident in going out of the 
 dock : the policy coveretl perils of the seas, and 
 all other perils, losses and misfortunes : — Held, 
 that his interest in the ))rofit of conveying the 
 cargo was properly described as freight ; that 
 the cargo being ready when the ship was about 
 to leave the dock, the risk attached, an<l that tlie 
 loss was a loss within the terms of the i)olicy. 
 Demn.7- v. .PAn.s-on, 5 Bing. (iN.C.) 519 : 7 Scott, 
 507 ; 2 Am. 82 ; 8 L. J., C. P. 284 ; 3 Jur. (;78.
 
 1113 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—Y. Interest of Assured. 
 
 1114 
 
 Part Payment — Second Charterparty.] — By a 
 charterparty it was agreed that a ship, then being 
 at M. v.. should proceed to b\. and thence to S. C, 
 where she was to load a complete cargo, and then i 
 proceed to E. ; 250Z. per month for freight, to be 
 paid thus : 250/., one month's freight, at F., and i 
 balance on delivery of the cargo at the port of J 
 discharge. The vessel sailed, and 2.'')0/. was paid i 
 at F. She arrived at S. C. but. instead of pro- ! 
 ceeding to E., returned to M. Y. A policy was ! 
 effected, by which ioOl. freight advanced was 1 
 insured on the voj-age from M. V. to H. A second j 
 charterjiarty was entered into whilst the vessel 1 
 was still at M. Y., by which she was to proceed to : 
 H. with the cargo then on board, a jjart of which 
 she brought from S. C. ; freight 2.5oZ. per month, 
 allowing a "deduction of 250Z., whicli the captain 
 has already received on account of this charter." 
 The first charterparty was not expressly cancelled 
 or annulled. The ship sailed, and was lost : — 
 Held, that the payment at F. was not for ser- 
 vices already rendered, but a part payment of an 
 entire sum which remained at risk, and was an 
 insurable interest ; and that it was competent for 
 the parties to enter into the second charterparty, 
 and to treat the 2.")0/. as a part ]iayment of the 
 entire sum therebv secured. JEUis v. Lafane, 8 
 Ex. 516 ; 22 L. J., Ex. 124 : 17 Jur. 213 : 1 AY.K. 
 2U0— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Advances on Account of Freight.] — C. & Co., 
 the owners of a brig, wrote to the plaintiffs, 
 merchants at New Orleans, to procure a freight 
 for the vessel, stating tliat if the plaintiffs 
 accepted a cliarter for Great Britain, they pre- 
 ferred the captain drawing against freight. In 
 this letter was inclosed a letter from C. & Co. to 
 the captain, in which they referred him to the 
 plaintiffs to procure a charter for the vessel. 
 The captain shewed his letter to the plaintiffs, and 
 asked them if they would draw on account of 
 freiglit. and they said they would. The vessel 
 was loaded as a geneial shi]) for Liverpool, and 
 wa.s intended to be consigned to M. ic Co. ; the 
 plaintiffs wrote to C. &. Co., informing them that 
 tlie vessel was being loaded as a general ship, and 
 stating that they would draw upon the freight 
 for the amount of disbursements. The captain 
 accordingly drew on M. ^: Co., requesting them 
 to charge tlie same to account of freight. M. 
 A: Co. refused to accejit tiie draft, and it was 
 indor.scd to d. &. Co., the plaintiffs' agents, wlio 
 effected an insurance on freight. The vessel 
 was lost by perils of tlie seas on her voyage 
 from New Orleans to Livcrjiool : — Held, that the 
 jilaintiffs had insurable interest, anil that it was 
 corrcctU' described as ••advance on account of 
 freight." Wihnn v. Miirti/i, II Ex. (J84 ; 25 
 E. J., Ex. 217. See also Watson \. Shankland, 
 XIII. FKKHiHT, col. 412. 
 
 Count on a policy from Cardiff to Panama, in 
 the ordinary form, and with the ordinary nienio- 
 ramlum. -The interest was declared to be '• on 
 money advanced on accftunt of frc'ight " : — Held, 
 that tlie interest was sulHciently described in 
 the policy. Ifall v. Jniiniin, 4 VA. ic Bl. 500 : 3 
 C. L. K. 737 ; 24 L. J., Q. 15. 'J7 ; 1 Jur. (n.s.) 571 ; 
 3 W. R. 213. 
 
 Advances made by the charterer to the nia.ster 
 at the port of loailing. tobc repaid by deductions 
 out of freight, give the chaiterer an insuraljle 
 interest in a policy on disbursements. Cnrrie v. 
 Jiiimhay Nativr Iiixvrance Co., 6 Moore, P. C. 
 (N.S.) 302 ; 39 L. J., P. C. 1 ; L. R. 3 P. C. 72 ; 
 22 L. T. 317 ; 1« \Y. R. 2'.)(!. - • . 
 
 A charterparty contained the following clause : 
 '• Sufficient cash, not exceeding 600/., to be ad- 
 vanced against freight, if required, at ports of 
 loading, subject to insurance and 2^ per cent, 
 commission." The charterers submitted to the 
 captain, as agent for the owners, and he accepted 
 a disbursement account made up of three items : 
 cash actually advanced ; commission due to the 
 charterers under the charterparty : premium on 
 a jjolicy of insurance on freight made on o\\'ners' 
 behalf :— Heli, that such sums, though not all 
 representing actual advances, were nevertheless 
 •■freight advances" within the meaning of the 
 charterparty, and were, therefore, rightly insured 
 by the charterers on their own account. WiU'uinis 
 V. North China Insuninre Co.. 1 C. P. D. 757 ; 
 35 L. T. 884 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 342— C. A. 
 
 Money supplied to the master under a contract 
 in the charterparty to supply cash for the ship's 
 use is not prepaid freight ; and the freighter has 
 no insurable interest therein. Mantield v. Malt- 
 land, 4 B. & Aid. 582 ; 23 R. R. 402. 
 
 Amount of Loss.] — When by the terms of a 
 charterparty a i)art of the freight is made pay- 
 able in advance, the charterer has a right to deduct 
 the whole amount so paid by him from any freight 
 which may actually be earned in case of the loss 
 of part of the cargo, and not only a proportionate 
 iiart of it. Allison v. Bristol Slarine In.sitrance 
 C:, 1 App. Cas. 209 ; 34 L. T. 809 ; 24 W. R. 
 1039 : 3 Asp. M. C. 178— H. L. (E.) 
 
 A shipowner chartered his ship for a voyage 
 to Bombay. The charterparty provided that 
 freight was to be paid on unloading, and right 
 delivery of the cargo at the rate of 42.v. per ton 
 on the*^ (juantity delivered, " such freight to be 
 paid one-half in cash on signing bills of lading, 
 the remainder on right delivery of the cargo." 
 Half of the estimated amount of freight was paid 
 in London, and the shipowner insured the unpaid 
 freight. The ship was lost, but half tlie cargo 
 was saved, and delivereil without any additional 
 payment by the charterer. The siiipowncr then 
 claimed as for a total loss of the unpaid half of 
 i the freight : — Held, that on the proper construc- 
 tion of the charterparty and policies he was 
 entitled to recover as for a total loss. Ih. 
 
 The valuation upon a freight policy is cal- 
 culated ui)on all the goods the ship is intended 
 to carry upon the voyage insured ; and if, by a 
 peril insured against, the ship is lost, when part 
 only of the goods, the freight of which was 
 intended to be covered, was on board, the valua- 
 tion must be opened, and the assured can only 
 recover as for that projiortionable share. Forhcs 
 V. Asp, nail, 13 Ea>t, 323 ; 12 R. R. 352. S. P., 
 Forhrs v Cowir, 1 Cam|). 520. 
 
 But if there is a loss by a peril insured against 
 of the whole subject-matter of tlic insurance to 
 which the valuation applied, as of all the 
 intended freight, where the insurance is on 
 freight, the valuation in the policy will not be 
 opened. Ih. 
 
 Where a ship was chartered from Liverpool to 
 .lamaica, theie to take on board a full cargo for 
 Liverpool at the current rate of freight, to be 
 paid at one month from the discharge of her 
 cargo at Liverimol ; and the shipowners effected 
 a valuetl policy on the freight at and from 
 .Jamaica to her jiort of discharge in the United 
 Kingdom ; and the ship arrived at .Jamaica, and 
 after taking on board one-half of her cargo, 
 was lost by a storm, the remainder of her cargo 
 being on shore and ready to be shipped :— Held,
 
 1115 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— V. Interest of Assured. 
 
 1116 
 
 that the assured was entitled to recover as for 
 a total loss. Dnridwii v. WiUasey, 1 M. ct S. 
 313 : U K. R. 488. 
 
 A policy was effected <ni frci^lit on a voyage 
 from A. to B., and a second insurance was effected 
 on freight valued at 10,000?. on a like voyage. 
 <and thence to C, with a memorandum that if 
 the ship should be lost at B. a settlement should 
 be made as if she had on board an entire freight 
 to C. The ship earned freight to the amount of 
 2.0OOZ. on her voyage from A. to B., and was lost 
 at the latter place : — Held, that the assured could 
 only recover to the amount of 7.500?. liohcrtson 
 V. J/ur/onha/tJi.s: 2 Stark. 573 ; 20 R. R. 740. 
 
 Valued Policy on Freight at Current Rate — 
 Jul! Cargo shipped at Lower Rate — Total Loss 
 — Basis of Valuation.] — The iilaintiffs. owners i)f 
 n steamship, effected an insurance on freight 
 valued at 5.500Z. in the vessel from New Orleans 
 to Liverpool, 1,.500?. of which amount the defen- 
 dants uiulerwrote. The insurance was to attach 
 on the freight from the loading of the goods on 
 board the vessel. When the policy was taken 
 out, the vessel was sailing outwards from Ham- 
 burg to New Oiieans. and the valuation of ."),.500/. 
 "was a reasonable and pi'0]ier one of the freight 
 •expected on a full cargo, having regard to the 
 rates of freights then current at New Orleans. 
 On the outward voyage the vessel met with an 
 accident, in consequence of which she was delayed 
 at New Orleans, and did not sail in due course. 
 She eventually sailed for Liverpool with a full 
 ■cargo which was shipped at lower rates of freight 
 than those current when the policy was effected, 
 the total actual freight being onlj^ 8,2.50/. 7s. In 
 the course of the voj'age the vessel was lost : — 
 Held, that the policy covered the freight at risk 
 ■on the voyage in question, and that the valuation 
 •of .5,50U?. was binding upon the defendants with 
 regard to what actually so came at risk under 
 the policy. Fvrbcs v. Aspinall (18 East. 325; 
 12 R. R. 352) explained. The Main, 68 L. J., 
 Adm. 69; [1894] P. 320; 6 R. 775 ; 70L.T. 247; 
 7 Asp. M. C. 424. 
 
 Freight — Salvage — Duty of Shipowner.] — A 
 ■shipowner shipped goods of his own on his own 
 ship for a particular voyage from Sunderland to 
 Valparaiso, and effected a policy of insurance on 
 " freight." The ship was run into and damaged 
 at the port of loading with the goods on board 
 after the policy had attached, whereby the cargo 
 was so damaged that it had to be unloaded, and 
 the particular adventure was frustrated. The 
 ship was detained in port some six weeks, and 
 all expenses of repairs and demurrage were paid 
 by the owners of the colliding ship. When 
 again in a sea-going condition she was offered a 
 similar cargo to the same port by the owners of 
 the colliding ship ; this the shipowner refused, 
 and sailed with another cai-go elsewhere : — Held, 
 that the shiiiowner could recover nothing on the 
 policy, inasmuch as the salvage was, or might 
 have been, equivalent to the freight insured. 
 Gayiier v. Sunderland Joint Stock Premium Assn., 
 1 Cab. & E. 293. 
 
 Legality of Voyage — Embargo.] — Freighters 
 chartered a foreign ship to take a cargo from 
 London to St. Petersburg, and to load a cargo 
 there, and immediately retuin to London, paying 
 freight per ton ; if political or other circum- 
 stances should prevent the shipping a return 
 cargo, or discharging the outward cargo, the 
 
 freighters might detain the ship at St. P. for 
 f(Hty running days ; and if that time elapsed 
 witliout the outward cargo being delivered, and 
 the return cargo being jjut on board, the master 
 slioukl be at liberty to return to Loudon, and the 
 freighters should jiay him 2,500Z. upoir the arrival 
 of the ship at London ; the freighters then pro- 
 cured a policy, wliereby the uiulerwriters agreed 
 to pay a total loss in case the ship was not 
 allowed to load a cargo at St. P. The Russian 
 government, when the ship arrived at St. P., 
 presuming that the outward cargo was British, 
 refused ])ermission to unload her, and conse- 
 (juently she could not take in a Russian cargo ; 
 on which the master proceeded to Stockholm, 
 whence, after disposing of tire outward cargo to 
 disadvantage, he brought home a Swedish cargo 
 to London, and earned freight thereon : — Held, 
 1st, that the insurance was legal ; 2ndly, that 
 the refusal of the Russian government to permit 
 the ship to unload her outward cargo was, in 
 effect, a refusal to allow her to load a cargo at 
 St. P., and that a total loss was incurred ; 3rdly, 
 that the proceeding directly from St. P. to 
 London was not a condition precedent to the 
 master's right to recover from the freighters the 
 dead freight of 2,500?., but that he was entitled 
 to the same, notwithstanding the intermediate 
 voyage to Stockholm, and that the freighters 
 were entitled to recover the same from the 
 underwriters ; but, 4thly, that the freighters 
 would be entitled to deduct from the sum pay- 
 able to the master for dead freight the amount 
 of the freight received by him on the cargo from 
 Stockholm to London, though such intermediate 
 voyage was not originally contemplated by the 
 contracting parties. Puller v. Stan/forth, 11 
 East. 232 ; 1 R. R. 486. 
 
 Where a ship was chartered to take a cargo of 
 lead from London to St. Petersburg, and there 
 receive a return cargo from the freighter's agent, 
 and bring it to London ; with a proviso that, if 
 political circumstances should prevent a return 
 cargo being loaded, the master, after waiting at 
 St. P. forty running days without the outward 
 cargo being unloaded, and, without the return 
 cargo being loaded, should be at liberty to return 
 to London, or any port in England ; and the 
 ship not having been permitted to unload at 
 St. P. by the Russian government, the master, 
 after waiting there forty days, loaded a return 
 cargo for his own benefit upon the outward 
 cargo, both of which he brought home, and 
 earned new freight on the homeward cargo ; 
 which freight was adjudged to liim in an action 
 between him and the freighters, over and above 
 the dead freight stipulated to be paid by the 
 charterparty : — Held, that the freighters were 
 entitled to recover the whole of such dead 
 freight upon a policy, whereby the underwriter 
 agreed to pay a loss in case the master should 
 not be allowed to unload the outward cargo at 
 St. P. ; the vessel having sailed chartered by the 
 freighters on a voyage from London to St. P. 
 and back ; and that the underwriters were not 
 entitled to deduct such return freight earned by 
 the master on his own account, they having 
 agreerl with the assured pending this action and 
 pending the action as to the return freight, that 
 in case the plaintiffs (to whom they had paid a 
 percentage loss) should not be able to obtain so 
 large an allowance as the full return freight by 
 reason of any demurrages or expenses being 
 allowed against the freight, the difference should 
 be paid by the underwriters by a further per-
 
 1117 
 
 SHIPPING— IN SUEANCE—Y. Interest of Assured. 
 
 1118 
 
 centage, whether the same were settled between 
 the plaintiffs and the shi]) by arbitration or by 
 lesjal decision. I'ullrr \. HaUiday. 12 East, -tO-i : 
 ifll. R. 464. 
 
 When Liberty to Touch at Ports.] — A policy 
 on freight, at and from the ship's port of loading 
 at F. to her port of discharge, with leave to call 
 at intermediate ports, beginning the adventure 
 on the goods from the loading, with leave to 
 discharge, exchange, and take on board goods at 
 any port she might call at. without being deemed 
 a deviation, covers the freight of the goods 
 loaded at an intermediate |iort. Buvclay v. 
 Stirling, 5 M. i: 8. G ; 17 R. R. 245. 
 
 Time Policy — Chartered Freight.] — See IFoufjh 
 V. Heard, ante. col. IOCS. 
 
 Collision — Damages Recovered in respect of 
 Unearned Freight — Right of Underwriters.] — 
 See Sea Inauranre Co. v. ILulden, post, col. 1332. 
 
 Insurance during Part of the Voyage of 
 Freight for "Whole Voyage.] — Freight may be 
 insured from St. Ubes to i'Drtsmonth upon a ship 
 which sailed with a cargo from St. Ubes for 
 (jothenburg, with intent to proceed first to 
 Portsmouth, to take up convoy on her way to 
 (rothenburg, and without notice to the under- 
 writers that the ship was bound to Gothenburg. 
 Taijlar v. WUmn, 15 East, 324 ; 13 R. R. 488. 
 
 Time Policy on Freight— Exception of Claims 
 " arising from the Cancelling of any Charter" 
 Damage to Ship before Loading — No Consent to 
 Cancel.^ — A shipcliartcred fora vo^-age, stranded 
 on her way to the port of loading, and sustained 
 such damage as to necessitate repairs which made 
 the voyage contemplated in the charterparty 
 impossible. The shipowner had insured the 
 freight from perils of the sea under a time 
 policy : — Held, that a claim by the shipowner 
 under the policy for the loss of freight so caused 
 was not a claim arising from the '•cancelling'" 
 of the charter, witliin an exception in tlie policy, 
 the charter being at an end through sea j)eriis, 
 and not by consent. Jtimicson and Aeicru.sfir 
 Stctitnxhij) Freiffht Inxni-a nee. A.s.'Oi., In re, 04 
 L. J., Q. B. 5(iO ■; [1895] 2 Q. B. UO ; 14 R. 444 ; 
 72 L. T. (148 ; 43 W. K. 530 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 593 
 — C. A. 
 
 Policy on Goods — Freight paid in order to get 
 Possession.] — See JlaiUir v. Mond'Hilimii, infra, 
 col. 1125. 
 
 Freight Insurable apart from Ship.] — Tlie 
 property in the freight may he distinct from that 
 in the shijt.and is an insurable interest. Mcntaer 
 V. anie.ii)ir, 11 Ves. 029 ; 8 R. R. 201. 
 
 Cargo not on Board.]— A sliip, with ))art of her 
 cargo on board, was lost at Jamaica, in passing 
 from port to port to complete her cargo. The 
 owner claimed for a loss of freight on cargo 
 not on board, but which he slicwed by letters 
 from merchants and planters the ship was 
 intended to take in : — Held that the under- 
 writers were liahle for the loss of freight on the 
 whole cargo. Parhe v. Ilelmm, cited, 2 Br. & B. 
 320, 329; 23 R. R. 451, 453. 
 
 Freight to be earned liy the ship is not recover- 
 able uniler a policy on ship and freight if the 
 ship is lost before anv of the goods are on board. 
 Toii'jf V. Wattti, 2 Str. 1251. 
 
 Profitable Charter — Loss of Cargo and 
 
 Freight.] — See A.sfur v. JJIundcU, i)ost, col. 1125. 
 
 Policy free from " Claim consequent on Loss of 
 Time, whether arising from a Peril of the Sea or 
 otherwise" — Frustration of Adventure by Peril 
 of Sea, involving Delay for Repair.] — A time 
 policy of marine insurance on the freight of a 
 ship against risks which included perils of the 
 sea contained the clause " Warranted free from 
 any claim consequent on loss of time, whether 
 arising from a peril of the sea or otherwise." 
 The ship in pursuance of a charterparty loaded 
 a cargo and sailed, and on the following day 
 her mainshaft bioke by reason of perils of the 
 sea. She was towed back to the port of load- 
 ing, and it was there found that the delay 
 necessarj' for the repair of the damage would 
 frustrate the object of the adventure, and the 
 charterers, as they were entitled, determined 
 the cliarterparty, and the shipowners lost the 
 freight : — Held, that the loss of freight was 
 consequent on loss of time arising from a peril 
 of the sea within the meaning of the clause, 
 and that the underwriters were not liable under 
 the policy. Benmude v. Thames and. Jlersei/ 
 Marine In-suram-e Co., 00 L. J., Q. B. ()()6 ; [1897] 
 A. C. 009 ; 77 L. T. 282 ; 40 W. R. 78 ; 8 Asp. 
 M. C. 315— H. L. (E.) 
 
 2. Goods and Cargo. 
 
 Shipowners.] — A shipowner who was in the 
 hal)it (if receiving shii)nients of cotton to be 
 carried on deck, sometimes at the request and 
 risk of the shipi)ers, sometimes for his own con- 
 venience, and under a clean bill of lading, at his 
 own risk — to protect himself as to jettison in the 
 latter case, entered into open policies of insurance 
 as to which the usage was that he was bound 
 to declare all his risks in order of shipment, 
 and rectify any mistake even after loss known. 
 Ilis agent, by negligence or by mistake, gave 
 a clean bill of lading for a certain shipment and 
 gave no notice to him, but such shipowner on 
 discovei'ing the onnssion altered liis declarations 
 by inserting this shipment though after loss 
 known : — Held, that the shii)ovvner had an 
 insurable interest, as at law a written contivact 
 cannot be varied on the ground of negligence or 
 mistake, and was entitled to alter the declara- 
 tions both according to the usage, which could 
 not be said to be unreasonable, and according to 
 the doctrine to be deduced from ilecided cases, 
 that by the usages of merchants and undei'- 
 writers, i-ecognised by the courts without formal 
 proof, such declarations may be altered even 
 after loss known, if the alterations are made 
 innocently and witiiout fraud. Stephen.*! v. Au.i- 
 tralaxian In.<iifranee Co., -12 L. J.. (J. 1*. 12 ; L. R. 
 8 C. P. 18 : 27 L. T. .5S5 : 21 W. R. 22s ; 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 45(». 
 
 Amount Recoverable.] — I. \- Son wci-e 
 
 lightermen and effected an insurance in tlie form 
 of an ordinary Lloyd's policy at and from all 
 wliarves on the Thames, from Wandsworth to 
 the Victoria Docks, which contained the follow- 
 ing clause: — "To cover an<l include idl losses, 
 damages, and accidents amounting to 201. or 
 upwards in each (;raft, to gruxls carried by J. & 
 Son as lightermen, or dcliveied to them to ha 
 waterborne, either in their own or other craft, 
 and for which losses, damages, aiid accidents, 
 J. & Son may be liiible or respoiisilile to the
 
 1119 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—Y. Litercst of Assured. 
 
 1120 
 
 owners thereof, or others interested." The policy 
 was subscribed by ditt'erent underwriters for dif- 
 ferent sums aniountiuij; to 2,(i()0/.,and one under- 
 wrote the jiohcy for 100/. A loss happened to 
 goods carried by J. tV: Son in a barge for which 
 they became liable to those interested in the 
 goods to the amount of 1,100/. The total value 
 of the risks of J. & Son in this and other barges 
 at the time of the loss, and covered by the 
 l)olicy, amounted to 20,000/. :— Held, that J. & 
 Son were entitled to be indemnitied for the loss 
 actually sustained, viz. 1,100/. and to recover 
 from tiie one underwriter 55/., his proportion ; 
 and that the sum to be recovered was not merely 
 such a proportion of their loss as the sum for 
 which he had subscribed the policy, viz. 100/., 
 bore to the value of all the goods afloat and 
 covered by the policy at the time of the loss, 
 viz. 20.0007. Joyce v. A'cn/iard 41 L. J., Q. B. 
 17 : L. E. 7 Q. B. 78 ; 25 L. T. 932 ; 20 W. R. 233 : 
 1 Asp. M. C. 19i. 
 
 Carriers.] — An insurance on goods is sufficient 
 to cover the interest of carriers in the property 
 under their charge ; for, in general, if the subject- 
 matter of insurance is rightly described, the par- 
 ticular interest in it need not be specified. 
 Crowley v. CoJioi, 3 B. & Ad. 478 ; 1 L. J., K. B. 
 158. 
 
 Foreign Consignor.] — The defendants, an 
 English tirm, traded with D., a Spanish shipping 
 agent at Havannah. The plaintiffs who were 
 Spanish merchants at Havannah, consigned a 
 cargo of goods to the defendants through the 
 agency of D. The defendants knew that D. was 
 acting for a third party who was alluded to as 
 the '■ interesado," but the name of the plaintiffs 
 was not disclosed. The defendants efEected an 
 insurance in London on the ship in the name of 
 themselves and for the benefit of all parties 
 interested. The ship having been lost, the policy- 
 money was paid to the defendants, and D. being 
 insolvent, the plaintiffs claimed the whole of 
 the money after deducting the premiums and 
 expenses. The defendants claimed a lien for the 
 balance of their general account due from D. : — 
 Held, that an action lay by the Havannah prin- 
 cipals against the London merchants for the 
 policy moneys ; that the London merchants 
 were not entitled to a lien upon the moneys for 
 the balance of their general account with the 
 Havannah agents, and could not in that action 
 set-off their claim to that balance, or set-off 
 anything except the premiums, stamps and com- 
 mission in respect of the insurance. Mildred v. 
 Ma><pon.<i, 53 L. J., Q. B. 33 ; 8 App. Cas. 874 : 49 
 L. T. 685 ; 32 W. R. 125 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 182— 
 H. L. (E.) 
 
 Agent of Consignor.] — A., having consigned a 
 cargo to B., and drawn bills on him to the 
 amount of it in favour of C, his general agent, 
 sent these bills together with the bills of lading 
 to C, desiring him to transmit them to B., that 
 B. might have an opportunity of insuring ; he 
 also drew a bill for 300/. on C. which was 
 accepted. B. refused to take the cargo or accept 
 the bills drawn on him. C. then effected a policy 
 in his own name and informed A. who approved 
 of his conduct : — Held, that C. had an insurable 
 interest to the amount of 300/. Woolf v. Horn- 
 castle, 1 Bos. & P. 316 ; 4 R. R. 808. 
 
 Indorser of Bill of Lading.] — The indorsement 
 and deliverv of a bill of lading to a creditor 
 
 prima facie convey tlie whole property in the 
 goods from the time of its tlelivery ; but if the 
 intention of the parties appears to have been 
 only to bind the net proceeds in case of the 
 arrival of the goods, then an insurance made on 
 account of the indorser after such indorsement 
 is good. Hihbert v. Carter, 1 Term Rep. 745 ; 
 1 R. R. 388. 
 
 Consignees.] — The plaintiffs were cotton 
 brokers and agents in London, who were accus- 
 tomed to receive consignments of cotton from 
 Bombay for sale on behalf of the shippers, who 
 drew bills of exchange on them against the con- 
 signments ; the bills of exchange were usually 
 negotiated in India, sent to this country with 
 the bills of lading attached as security, pre- 
 sented to and accepted by the plaintiffs against 
 delivery of the shipping documents ; and the 
 plaintiffs were in the habit of effecting open 
 floating policies of insurance with the defen- 
 dants '• as well in their own names as for and in 
 the name or names of all and every person or 
 persons to whom the same doth, may or shall 
 appertain in part or in all." Cotton having 
 been shipped, bills of exchange drawn on the 
 ])laintiffs against it, negotiated and sent with 
 the bills of lading and accepted against delivery 
 of the documents, they declared the cotton 
 against two open floating policies previously 
 made and not yet exhausted ; and the cotton 
 being lost, the bills of exchange paid by them, 
 and the bills of lading obtained, brought an 
 action on the policies, averring that they, or 
 some or one of them, were interested to the full 
 amount named, and that the insurances were 
 made for the use and benefit and on account of 
 the persons so interested :— Held, per Bovill, 
 C. J., and Denman J., that they had an equitable 
 interest in every part of the cotton, and that it 
 was intended that not only their interests but 
 those of the other parties interested should be 
 covered, and that the plaintiffs having such an 
 interest and a duty of selling and managing, 
 were in law entitled so to insure and were the 
 only persons to bring an action, and might aver, 
 as they did in their declaration, and recover to 
 the full extent, applying the proceeds to their 
 own benefit to the extent of their own claims, 
 and holding the residue for the other persons 
 interested ; but per Brett and Keating, JJ., the 
 plaintiffs were consignees for sale of goods not 
 arrived, who had made advances on goods, but 
 had only a contract right as to them, and though 
 interested in every part were not the legal 
 owners, and therefore they were by law limited 
 to the recovery of their own beneficial interest, 
 which alone they could properly insure and 
 recover. Elmcorfh v. Alliance Marine Inmrance 
 Co., 42 L. J., C. P. 305 ; L. R. 8 C. P. 596 ; 29 
 L. T. 479 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 125. 
 
 Under Invalid Contract.]— H. & Co., being 
 owners of two ships, called the '■ Antelope " and 
 the "Maria," trading to the coast of Africa, and 
 which were expected to arrive at Liverpool, with 
 cargoes of ])alm oil, agreed verbally to sell to the 
 plaintiff 200 tons of oil ; 100 tons to arrive by 
 the '• Antelope," and 100 by the " Maria." The 
 ••Antelope" did afterwards arrive with 100 tons 
 of oil on board, which were deliveied by H. & Co. 
 to the plaintiff. The " Maria," having 50 tons 
 of palm oil on board, was lost by peril of the sea. 
 The plaintiff having insured the oil on board the 
 "Maria," together with the expected profits
 
 1121 
 
 SHIPPING— IXSUEAXCE—y. Interest of Assured. 
 
 1122 
 
 thereon : — Held, that he had no insurable interest, 
 as the contract he had entered into with H. & Co.. 
 being verbal only, was incapable of being 
 enforced. Storhduh- v. Dinilop. 6 M. cV: W. 224^ 
 4 Jur. 681 ; 9 L. J., Ex. 83. 
 
 Purchase of Cargo — When Property passes.] 
 — A. c^: Co.. in London, contracted with B. A: Co., 
 of Calcutta, for the purchase of a cargo of " new 
 crop Rangoon rice, per ' Sunbeam,' 707 tons 
 register, a^ 9.s-. l^cl. per cwt., cost and freight 
 payment by sellers" draft oil purchasers at six 
 month.s' sight, with documents attached." B. i 
 & Co. chartered the " Sunbeam " to go to Rangoon 
 and ship a cargo of rice, and A. & Co. effected a 
 policy of insurance •' at and from Rangoon, to 
 any i)Ort of discharge in the United Kingdom or 
 Continent by the '• Sunbeam,' on rice, as interest 
 may appear, amount of invoice to be deemed the 
 value." The " Sunbeam " went to Rangoon, and 
 the loading commenced, but after 8.878 bags of 
 rice were on board she sprang a leak and sank. 
 and the ship and the rice were totally lost : 4U() 
 more bags would ha\e completed the loading. 
 The captain afterwards signed bills of lading for 
 the 8,878 bags, and B. &; Co. drew bills for the 
 price upon A. & Co., who accepted and paid 
 them with knowledge of the loss. In an action 
 on the policy of insurance : — Held, that A. & Co. 
 had no insurable interest in the rice that was 
 shipped. Anderson v. Morice, 46 L. J., C. P. 11 ; 
 
 1 Api). Cas. 713: 3.5 L. T. 566: 25 W. R. 14; 
 3 Asp. M. C. 29U— H. L. (E.) [ 
 
 After Stoppage in transitu.] — After a stoppage 
 in transitu, the vendee ceases to have an insurable 
 interest in goods. Clui/ v. Ilurrison. 5 M. Ac Ry. j 
 17 : 10 B. ic C. 99 ; 8 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 90. I 
 
 And a policy effected Vjefore the stoppage 
 becomes thereVjy void. Ih. 
 
 Double Sale — Interest of First Vendee.] — i 
 B. sold to the plaintiff, to be delivered at Ports- ; 
 mouth, from 500 to 700 Vjarrels of oats, to be 
 shipped by I. fiom Youghal. Yout days after- 
 wards B. advised the plaintiff that I. had engaged 
 room in the packet to take about 600 barrels of 
 oats on the plaintiff's account. On the following 
 day the plaintiff insured 40oZ. on oats per the 
 packet ; the oats were shipped, but the packet 
 being bound for Southampton, and refusing to 
 touch at Portsmouth, B. sold the oats again, and 
 delivered the Vjillof ladingtoO.at Soutliampton : 
 the plaintiff insisting that he was entitled to the 
 oats, and would assert his right by action. In 
 the meantime the packet was lost, and after a 
 long dispute, the plaintiff, in consideration of 
 60/., by indorsement on the policy, vested the 
 interest in the insurance in P.. : — Held, that the 
 plaintiff had a sufficient interest when the policy 
 was effected, and that he was entitled to sue 
 the underwriter on this jiolicj-. Sprtrkex v. 
 Mtirxhall, 3 Scott, 172; 2 Bing. (N.c.) 761; 
 
 2 Undg..-. It : .- r.. .!., C. P. 286. 
 
 Purchase after Loss.] — A i)arty may make an 
 insurance on gofnls lost or not lost, though lie 
 has acquired his interest in them after a partial 
 loss, utdess he bf)Uglit them with a knowledge 
 of the damage. Siiiidrrliind or Snthn-hind v. 
 Pratt, 11 M. & W. 296: 2 D. (N.S.) 813; 12 
 L. J., Ex. 235; 7 Jur. 261. 
 
 Price of Cargo objected to by Purchaser — 
 Property passing nevertheless.] — A., who liad 
 been in the habit of buying largely guano from 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 B. & Co., of Liverpool, at prices which were 
 settled at the beginning of each year, wrote to 
 them on the 14th of February, ordering a ship- 
 ment of 100 tons, provided freight did not 
 exceed &s. 6d. On the 26th, B. & Co. wrote in 
 answer, " We have succeeded in fixing the 
 schooner ' Anne and Isabella ' to carry about 
 115 tons, at your limit of 6s. 6d. per ton. We 
 presume we may value upon you at six months 
 from the date of shipment, at 101. per ton" ; 
 adding, in a postscript, " Please say if you 
 purpose effecting insurance at your end." On 
 the 3rd of March A. wrote objecting to the 
 price, but concluding with a request that some 
 flowering shrubs should be sent to him, in 
 charge of the captain. On the same day A. 
 effected an insurance on the guano, per "Anne 
 and Isabella."' The guano was shipped at Liver- 
 pool on the 4th of March, under a bill of lading, 
 making it deliverable to B. & Co., or their 
 assigns. The bill of lading (unindorsed) was 
 sent from Liverpool to one of the members of 
 the firm of B. «Sc Co. (then in Belfast), who was 
 about to pay A. a friendly visit at Londonderry. 
 That gentleman arrived at A."s house on the 
 evening of Saturday, the 7th of March, when he 
 told A. that he had received the bill of lading 
 and invoice of the guano, and a di-aft for A.'s 
 acceptance for the amount ; and on the morning 
 of the 9th they went together to A."s office, and 
 there the bill of lading was indorsed and handed 
 over with the invoice to A., who thereupon 
 accepted the bill. In the course of the same day 
 they heard, for the first time, that the " Anne 
 and Isabella." with the guano on board, had 
 been wrecked on the coast, near Londonderry : 
 — Held, that the property in the guano passed 
 to A. by the contract from the time of its ship- 
 ment, A.'s letter of the 3rd of March not being a 
 repudiation, though expressing some dissatisfac- 
 tion at the price ; and that A. had an insurable 
 interest in the cargo at the time of the loss. 
 Joyrc V. Swann, 17 C. B. (N.s.) 84. See Seuarave 
 V. Un'iiin Mar'nic Itisnraiwe Co., infra, col. 1125. 
 
 Captain's Goods, &c.] — A policy on "goods, 
 specie, aiul effects " belonging to a captain, by 
 usage of trade, extends to money expended In' 
 him in the course of the voyage for the use of the 
 shij), and for which he charges respon<lenlia 
 interest. Grnjonj v. Chri.'ith-, 3 Dougl. 419. 
 
 Possessory Interest.] — The jilaintiff agreed 
 with one W. for a sum of lo,()OoZ. to transport 
 the obeli.sk known as "' Cleopatra's Needle " from 
 Alexandria to London, and theie to erect it upon 
 .some public site to be afteiwards selected. 'To 
 cover exjienses (about 4,000/.) the jjlaintiff 
 caused two policies to be effected with the 
 lespective defendants "upon the goods and mer- 
 chandises in the good ship or vessel called ' The 
 Cleopatra' iron vessel containing the obelisk . . 
 
 . . valueil at 4,300/ against the risk of 
 
 t(jtal loss oidy " ; the risks insured against being 
 the ordinary sea risks, and the suing and 
 labouring clause being in the ordinary form. 
 In the course of the voyage "The Cleopatra" got 
 adrift in a storm in tiie Bay of Biscay ; and was 
 idtiniately picked u|) liy another steamer and 
 carried into Ferrol. where the salvors detained 
 her under a claim for salvage. The Admiralty 
 Division awarde<l them 2,000/. salvage and costs. 
 In actions ujMin the policies : — Held, 1. That the 
 plaintiff, Ijeing the owner of " The Cleopatra," 
 and liavingpossession of the obelisk, and (possibly) 
 
 3(3
 
 1123 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—V. Interest of Assured. 
 
 1124 
 
 a lien upon it for his cxpciulitnrc, had a sufficient 
 insurable interest, at least to the extent of his 
 outlay : 2. That the true effect of both i)olicies 
 was, an insurance, not on " cargo " or " fieight " 
 only, but on the vessel and her cargo : 3. That, 
 iinder the suing and labouring clause, the assured 
 was entitled to recover the 2,O00Z. awarded to the 
 salvors, but not the costs of the proceedings in 
 the Admiralty Court, nor the expenses incurred 
 by him in refitting " The Cleopatra " at Ferrol 
 and towing her to London. Dixon v. Whit worth, 
 48 L. J.. C. P. .538: 4 C. P. D. 371; 40 L. T. 718; 
 28 W. R. 184 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 326. 
 
 Respondentia.] — Insurance on goods does not 
 exteuil to respondentia interest. (I'loverY. Black, 
 3 Burr. 1394, 
 
 Goods at Purchasers' Risk — Sale of Goods 
 «'f. 0. b."]— D. sold to B. 200 tons of German 
 sugar, " f . 0. b. Hamburg ; payment by cash in 
 London in exchange for bill of lading " ; the 
 price to be variable according to the percentage 
 of saccharine matter, which was not to exceed or 
 fall short of certain limits. B. resold to the 
 respondent the same quantity at an increased 
 price, but otherwise upon similar terms. D. 
 also sold to the respondent 200 tons upon similar 
 terms. To fulfil these contracts 390 tons (being 
 ten tons short) were shipped in bags on one 
 vessel at Hamburg for Bristol, no bags being set 
 apart for one contract more than the other. Each 
 bag was marked with its iiercentage of saccha- 
 rine matter, and bills of lading with marks 
 corresponding to the bags were sent to D. to be 
 retained till payment in accordance with the 
 contracts. The respondent was insured in 
 floating policies " upon any kind of goods and 
 merchandises "' between Hamburg and Bristol, 
 and duly declared in respect of this cargo. The 
 ship sailed from Hamburg for Bristol and was 
 lost. After receiving news of the loss, D. allo- 
 cated 2,000 bags, or 200 tons, to B.'s contract, 
 and 1,900 bags, or 190 tons, to the other con- 
 tract. In an action upon the policies : — Held, 
 that the sales being " f. o. b. Hambui-g," the 
 sugar was at the respondent's risk after ship- 
 ment ; that he had an insurable interest in it, 
 and that the underwriters were liable. Inqlis 
 v. Stock, .54 L. J., Q. B. .582 ; 10 App. Cas. 263 ; 
 62 L. T. 821 : 33 W. R. 877 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 422— 
 H. L. (E.) 
 
 Full Cargo — Freight and Passage Money.] — A 
 vessel had been chartered on a voyage from 
 Sydney to Calcutta and London, but upon her 
 arrival at Calcutta, the voyage to England was 
 abandoned because of the charterers having 
 stopped payment, and the ship took 360 coolies, 
 and the necessary provision for their use, and 
 12,000 bags of rice for Mauritius. The passage- 
 money of the coolies amounted to 1,994Z., and 
 was payable on their arrival at Mauritius, and 
 the bill of lading freight of the rice amounted to 
 1,412^. On hearing this the owner of the vessel, 
 who wished to insure the freight on the rice 
 only, caused a policy of insurance which had 
 originally been effected for 1,000^. upon char- 
 tered freight valued at 7,000Z. on the voyage 
 from Sydney to Calcutta and London, to be 
 altered by the underwriters inserting a declara- 
 tion •' that the within voyage is from Sydney to 
 Calcutta, and thence to Mauritius, instead of as 
 before stated," and that " the within interest is 
 to be on freight valued at 2,000Z." The sum 
 
 insured remained unaltered as 1,000Z. The 
 insurer was not informed that coolies were 
 carried. Though there did not apjiear to exist 
 a customary use of the word "freight" in 
 insurance business, yet the most frequent course 
 was to insure passage-money by some distinguish- 
 ing term when it was intended to insure it, and 
 the premium for insuring such upon a voyage 
 from Calcutta to Mauritius was generally less 
 than for insuring freight of goods upon the same 
 voyage. The vessel was wrecked near Mauritius, 
 and the rice and freight were wholly lost, but 
 348 of the coolies were saved, and their passage- 
 money was paid : — Held, that the freight of the 
 rice only was insured, but that as the rice was 
 not a full cargo, and there was nothing to shew 
 what the total freight would have been had the 
 vessel been filled \\\\ with cargo, the policy was 
 an open policy for half the loss of freight of the 
 rice, not exceeding l.OOOZ., and the under'writers 
 were liable, therefore, for the amount of such 
 half, namely, 706Z. Di/unm or Dotoon v. Home 
 and Colonial Asmrance Co., 41 L. J., C. P. 162 ; 
 L. R. 7 C. P. 341 ; 26 L. T. 628 ; 20 W. R. 970 ; 
 1 Asp. M. C. 309. 
 
 Open Policies — Declaration of Shipments at 
 less than real Value.] — The defendants effected 
 with the plaintiff, a Lloj-d's underwriter, a series 
 of open policies for certain specified sums to cover 
 shipments to be declared and valued as interest 
 might appear. The policies were effected at 
 different dates, and were to succeed each other 
 in the order of date. The value of the shipments 
 were declared at considerably less than their real 
 value, so that when the later policies were 
 effected the earlier policies were in fact more 
 exhausted than they would appear to be from 
 the declarations. The undervaluation of the 
 shipments was systematically and fraudulently 
 made by the defendants, and the fact that they 
 had been so undervalued was concealed from the 
 plaintiff when he underwrote the later policies : 
 — Held, that, under these circumstances, a jury 
 would be justified in finding that the conceal- 
 ment was of a fact of which it was material 
 that the plaintiff should have been informed, in 
 order to guide him in deciding whether he would 
 underwrite these later policies or not, or at what 
 rate ; and that on the jury so finding the plain- 
 tiff was entitled to have such later policies set 
 aside and cancelled. RUaz v. Gerussi, 50 L. J., 
 Q. B. 176 ; 6 Q. B. D. 222 ; 44 L. T. 79 ; 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 377— C. A. 
 
 Purchasers of Goods also Charterers.] — Where 
 the charterers of a vessel were also the pur- 
 chasers of a cargo of wheat to be shipped on 
 board, and the master of the vessel from time 
 to time received delivery from the vendors : — 
 Held, that such delivery from time to time was 
 a delivery to the purchasers, that it vested in 
 them a right of possession and property, and 
 that, consequently, they had an insurable inte- 
 rest in such wheat as had been so delivered. 
 Anderson v. Morice (supra, col. 1121) dis- 
 tinguished ; Oxendale v. Wetherell (9 B. & C. 
 387) approved. Coloni'il Insurance Co. of Xew 
 Zealand v. Adelaide Marine Insurance Co., 
 .56 L. J., P. C. 19 ; 12 App. Cas. 128 ; 56 L. T. 
 173 ; 35 W. R. 636 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 94— P. C. 
 
 Profit on Charter — Destruction of Merchant- 
 able Character of Cargo — Loss of Freight.] — 
 
 The plaintiff's, who had chartered a steamship at
 
 1125 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— Y. Interest of Assured. 
 
 1126 
 
 a lump sum freight of 3.900?., insured her with 
 the defendants, who were underwriters. The 
 interest insured was described in the policy as 
 " 2.000Z. on profit on charter .... warranted 
 free from all average." The plaintiffs did not 
 inform the defendants that the vessel was char- 
 tered for a lump sum freight, nor of the amount 
 of their bills of lading freights. During the 
 voyage the vessel came into collision with another 
 ship, and was submerged for twenty-four hours. 
 A large portion of the cargo, consisting of dates, 
 was condemned by the sanitary authorities, and 
 not allowed to be delivered to the consignees. 
 The dates were, however, sold, transhipped and 
 exported for distilling purposes. In an action 
 brought by the plaintiffs upon the policy to 
 recover for a total loss : — Held, that the dates 
 "being unmerchantable as such, no freight was 
 payable in respect of them ; that there was, 
 therefore, no profit on the charter, and that the 
 plaintiffs were entitled to recover. Asfar v. 
 BlnndpU. 65 L. J., Q. B. 138: [1896] 1 Q.B.123: 73 
 L. T.64.^: 4-t W. K. 130 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 106— C. A. 
 
 Policy on Goods — Capture — Freight paid in 
 order to get Possession.] — Cargo owner who pays 
 to the shipowners freight pro rata itineris in order 
 to get the proceeds of the cargo, which had been 
 captured by the enemy, sold, and afterwards the 
 proceeds restored on appeal, cannot recover the 
 freight so paid against the insurer of the goods. 
 Ba'dlie v. Moi/du/lia/ii, 1 Park. Ins. (Sth ed.) 116. 
 
 Goods consigned by Debtor to be held for 
 Creditor.] — A. being indebted to B.. without any 
 order from him consigns goods to C, to be held 
 •for B., and indorses the bill of lading to C. : — 
 Held, that B. had an insurable interest in the 
 goofls so consitrned. Hill v. ,Secn-fan. 1 Bos. & P, 
 31.^ ; 4 R. Pi. S06. 
 
 Assignee of Cargo under void Indorsement of 
 Bill of Lading.] — The defendant having as secu- 
 rity for a di'bt taken an indorsement of the bills 
 •of lading of cargoes, which indorsement was 
 void Vjy reason of an act of bankruptcy com- 
 mitted by the indorsee before the indorsement, 
 •effected an insui-ance of the cargoes ; and, a lo.ss 
 happening, he recovered against the underwriters 
 on a count averring interest in the assignees of 
 the bankrupt : — Held, that the a,ssignees could 
 not recover over this money as had and received 
 i)y tlie defendant for their use. Grant v. Hill, 
 4 T.-uiiit. 3.S0. 
 
 Broker nominal Shipper and Consignee — Goods 
 .Purchased. J — A bi'uker, who is noniinal >hipper 
 anil consignee of cargo, and a mere agent of the 
 vendf)r or purchaser, and who has not possession 
 or custody of the gomls a.s carrier or bailee, nor 
 any liability to account for their loss by the 
 perils insured against, ha.s no insuraVjle interest. 
 .Seaq rare v. Union Marine Inxurancr f'o., 1 
 H. k II. 302 ; 3.-, L. J.. C. P. 172 ; L. K. 1 C. P. 
 .30.-> ; 12 Jur. (.\.s.) 3.-,H : 14 L. T. 479 ; 14 W. R. 
 •690. See also JiHjrr v. Smnnn. 17 C'. B. fN.S.) 84, 
 supra, col. 1122. 
 
 Insurance of Cargo by Shipowner in respect 
 of his Liability as Carrier.] — See Hill v. Scott, 
 
 ante. col. 71. 
 
 3. Passage- .Mo.vKY. 
 
 Expenses of Forwarding.] — If any pas.scngers 
 for a passenger >hip sLall, without any neglect 
 ■or default of their own (as by reason of the shii) 
 
 being lost), find themselves within any colonial 
 or foreign port or place other than that at which 
 they may have contracted to land, the master of 
 the ship is bound under the 1.5 &; 16 Vict. c. 44, 
 
 ; ss. 49, 50, 51, to forward them to their original 
 destination, and the amount expended by him in 
 forwarding them may be recovered from the 
 underwriters of a policy on the passage-money 
 against all costs, charges and liabilities to which 
 the owner mav be subjected under ss. 46, 47. 48, 
 
 j 50, 51. Gibson v. Bradford, 4 El. & Bl. 586 ; 
 24 L. J., Q. B. 159 ; 1 Jur. (N.s.) 520 ; 3 W. R. 
 
 I 183. 
 
 ; Of Maintenance,] — A policy was made at 
 
 and from Liverpool to Boston on passage-money 
 valued at 700/. The policy was in the usual 
 
 I printed form, with this memorandum : " On 
 passage-money of emigrants, subject to pay a 
 
 i loss pro rata, and subject to the clauses and con- 
 ditions made under ss. 47 to 51 of the Passengers 
 
 I Act, 1852, 15 & 16 Vict. c. 44, compensation 
 clause excepted, and against these risks only." 
 The ship, being a passenger ship within the act, 
 
 [ sailed, and by a peril of the sea was driven into 
 a foreign port, where she necessarily remained 
 repairing damages for more than six weeks, after 
 which she proceeded with the passengers to 
 Boston, and arrived there. During the detention 
 at the foreign port the passengers were main- 
 tained by the insured at a cost exceeding the 
 passage-money : — Held, that this was not a loss 
 incurred under the enumerated sections, and that 
 the underwriters were not liable to make it good. 
 Willis V. Coukc. 5 El. & Bl. 641 ; 25 L. J., Q, B. 
 16 ; 1 Jur. (N.s.) 1164 ; 4 W. R. 54. 
 
 Policy on "Freight" held not to Cover 
 Passage-money.] — See Hi noon nr Brnoon v. Honte 
 and Colonial Insurance Co., ante, col. 1124. 
 
 4. Seamen's Wages. 
 
 Not Insurable.] — A seaman cannot insure his 
 wages — i)er Lord Stowell. 'The Xeptune, 1 Hag. 
 Adni. 227, 232. S. P., The Ladif Bin-ham, 3 
 Hag. Adm. 201. 
 
 Goods in lieu of Wages.] — Where a mate 
 
 of a ship or a sailor is to receive something at 
 the end of the voyage in lieu of wages (e.g., 
 slaves), he cannot insure it. Wehstcr v. Be Tastet, 
 7 Term Rep. 157 ; 4 R. R. 402. 
 
 5. E.XPECTED Profits. 
 
 Validity.] — Expected profits on a cargo may 
 be insured. Grant v. Parkinson, 6 Term Rep. 
 483 ; 3 Bos. ct P. 85, n. : 3 Dougl. 16. 
 
 Description.] — An insurance may be effected 
 on piolit> generrdly without more dcscrii)tion, 
 and engrafted upon a policy on ship jind goods, 
 in the common printetl form for a certain voyage ; 
 with a return of premium for shoit interest, the 
 assured pioving an interest in the cargo. Ei/re 
 V. Glover, 16 East, 218 ; 3 Camp. 276 ; 13 R.' R. 
 801. 
 
 An insurance on the imaginary i)rofits of a 
 cargo of indigo from Bordeau.x to be sold at 
 Hamburg is gooil. Ilenrirhson v. Marrjetson, 
 2 Ea.st, 549, n. ; 6 R. R. 509, n. 
 
 Possible Profits.] — The owner of a ship and 
 D. slii|)ped goods on a voyage from Hamburg to 
 a port in Asiatic Russia. The adventure was 
 
 36—2
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— V. Interest of Assured. 
 
 1127 
 
 expected to be enormously profitable. The whole 
 cartjo shijiped was valueif at 8,000/., but the total 
 insurances effected amounted to 20,000/., the 
 profits being variously estimated at from 80 to 
 12.") per cent. To secure these profits the goods 
 had been overvalued to the extent of 25 to 30 
 per cent., and there were heavy insurances of 
 commissions. Amongst the cargo was a ship- 
 ment of spirits costing 1,000/., but valued at 
 2,800/. The ship went down in fine weather in 
 mid-ocean without any known cause. D. brought 
 an action to recover commission, profits on char- 
 ter, and 1,800/. of the 2,800/. insured on spirits. 
 It was pleaded that the loss was not the conse- 
 quence of perils of the sea, that the concealment 
 of the over-insurance was concealment of a 
 material fact, and that the goods were shipped 
 with the fraudulent design of sinking the shij) : 
 
 Held, that an insurance on profits must be 
 
 taken to mean possible profits. lonicles v. Pender, 
 27 L. T. 244 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 432. 
 
 Upon an insurance on profits valued at 400/., 
 where the plaintiff declared as for a total loss, 
 and it appeared that after a shipwreck, by which 
 many of the slaves, on the profits of whom the 
 insurance was made, were lost, but the remainder 
 reached the market anil were there sold ; and it 
 did not appear what profit was made of them, or 
 whether, if all had arrived, any profit would 
 have been made ; though it was found that the 
 produce of those who were sold did not give a 
 profit upon the whole adventure : — Held, that 
 the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Hudg- 
 son v. Glover, 6 East, 316 ; 8 R. R. 495. 
 
 Foreign Government Bounty.] — A French law 
 provideil that " the vessel which shall have fished, 
 either in the Pacific by doubling Cape Horn, or 
 by passing through the Straits of Magellan, or 
 to the south of Cape Horn, at 62 degrees of 
 latitude at the least, shall obtain on its return a 
 supplemental bounty, if it brings back in the 
 produce of its fishing one-half at least of its 
 burthen, or if it can prove a navigation of sixteen 
 months at least " : — Held, that a vessel which had 
 caught fish to the amount of half its burthen in 
 the Atlantic, then doubled Cape Horn and fished 
 without success, and was lost within sixteen 
 months after setting sail, had not complied with 
 the conditions of the law so as to be entitled to 
 the bounty. JJevaux v. Steele, 8 Scott, 637 ; 
 Bine. (N.c.) 358. 
 
 Held, also, that the practice of the French 
 government to allow the bounty under such cir- 
 cumstances was a mere matter of expectation, 
 and did not constitute a vested interest which 
 could be the subject of insurance. Ih. 
 
 Position of Cargo.] — A declaration on a jiolicy 
 stated that M. agreed to buy 6,000 bags of rice, 
 supposed to have been shi[)ped at Madras on 
 board the " E. B.," to arrive on or before the end 
 of May, and guaranteed equal to samples, at \2s. 
 per cwt. : that he agreed to sell the same 6,000 
 bags at 20a-. %d. per cwt. on the like terms ; that 
 he had just reason to expect by reason of the 
 contracts and the arrival of the rice to make a 
 profit of 675/., and thereupon caused a policy to 
 be effected " on profit on rice loaden or to be 
 loaden on board the ' E. B.' at and from Madras, 
 beginning the adventure on the goods and mer- 
 chandises from and immediately following the 
 loading thereof on board the ship at Madras." 
 When'the " E. B." was at Madras ready to receive 
 the 6,000 bags of rice on board, which were 
 
 1128 
 
 lying ready to be shipped, and when 1,200 bags 
 had been put on board, she was blown out to sea 
 and so damaged that 1,200 bags of rice were 
 spoiled, and she was disabled from taking on 
 board the remaining 4,800 bags, which were sent 
 to London in another ship, and arrived there in 
 June. The " E. B." having been repaired, arrived 
 at London in November. The assurance com- 
 pany paitl M. for the loss of profit on the 1,200' 
 bags of rice, but refused to pay anything for the 
 loss of profit on the 4,800 bags :— Held, first, that 
 M. had an insurable interest in the expected 
 profit on the rice, and might, by a policy adapted 
 to the case, have insured that special interest 
 from the time that the rice was appropriated 
 by the vendors and ready to be shipped at Madras 
 against any of the events by which it might be 
 defeated, viz., loss of the ship, or of the whole of 
 the rice, or part of the rice, or the delay of the 
 voyage. Boyal Exchange Assurance Co. v. 
 M-Swlncij, 14 Q. B. 684 ; 19 L. J., Q. B. 222 ; 14 
 Jur. 998— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Held, secondly, that according to the meaning 
 of the policy, M. insured the ordinary profit on 
 rice, and only against losses by perils of the sea 
 directly affecting the rice, and consequently the 
 profits on the rice ; and therefore the policy 
 attached only on such rice as was actually put 
 on board. Ih. 
 
 Held, thirdly, that if the policy attached to- 
 the profit of the rice on shore, there had been 
 no loss of that profit by perils of the seas, but 
 only a retardation of the voyage, which was not 
 insured against by the policy. li. 
 
 Nature of Loss.] — Where profits are insured 
 against perils of the sea, the liability of the 
 underwriters does not attach unless the profits 
 themselves are lost by a peril insured against. 
 Choije V. Reynolds, 5 C. B. (N.S.) 642 ; 28 L. J., 
 C. P. 194 ; 5 Jur. (N.S.) 822 ; 7 W. R. 208. 
 
 A. bought goods of B., to arrive at Bristol by 
 the ship " James Daly " from the West Coast of 
 Africa, and effected an insurance with C. against 
 the ordinary perils, with a memorandum indorsed 
 on the policy, declaring the insurance to be " on 
 profit in palm oil, valued at the rate of three 
 guineas per cent., per 'James DalJ^' " "The 
 James Daly," while on her voyage to Bristol 
 with the oil on board, was lost by a peril insured 
 against, but the oil was brought home undamaged 
 by another vessel, and was sold by B. to a third 
 person : — Held, that there had been no such loss 
 of the subject-matter of insurance as was con- 
 templated by the policy. lb. 
 
 Where profits were insured by a policy on 
 goods " beginning the adventure upon the said 
 goods from the loading thereof on board the said 
 ship," and the ship was lost before she reached 
 the port at which the cargo was ready to be 
 shipped, it was held that the policy never attached, 
 and that the owner could not recover under it for 
 the delay in the shipment of the cargo and conse- 
 quent loss of profits. Halhrad v. Young, 6 
 El. & Bl. 312 : 25 L. J., Q. B. 290 ; 2 Jur. (N.S.) 
 970 ; 4 W. R. 530. 
 
 Interest in Profits on Cargo bought.]— See 
 Tioyal Ea'cliamje Assurance Co. v. M'Swiney, 
 supi'a. 
 
 Valued Policy] — Profits on cargo may be 
 insured by a valued policy. Ba relay v. Cousins,. 
 2 East, 544 ; 6 R. R. 505.
 
 1129 
 
 SHIPPING— IN SUE ANCE—V. Interest of Assured. 
 
 1130 
 
 (). Ship and Furniture. 
 
 Owners.] — When a ship is purchased in the 
 name of two persons. A. and B., but the purchase- 
 money is by arrangement between them paid by 
 A. only ; and B., in order to give some security 
 to A. for the payment of his share, authorises A. 
 to insure the ship in his, A.'s name alone, and in 
 case of the loss of the ship to receive the whole 
 insurance money, and so pay himself the amount 
 due to him from B. ; A. has an insurable interest 
 in the whole ship, and may, in an action on a 
 valued policy, recover in his own name the full 
 amount insured. A statement by B. to a third 
 person of this arrangement with A., being a 
 declaration against his, B."s interest, is evidence 
 against the insurers to shew A.'s insurable 
 interest. ProcUwial Insurance Co. of Canada 
 V. Lethtr. 43 L. J., P. C. 49 ; L. R. 6 P. C. 224 ; 
 31 L. T. 142 : 22 W. K. 929 : 2 Asp. M. C. 338— 
 P. C. 
 
 A person who makes insurnnces as the owner of 
 a. ship must stanil so registered at the custom- 
 house at the time and the pi'oduction of the 
 register from the custom-house is conclusive 
 evidence of ownership. Mamli v. Jlobi/taon, 4 
 Esp. 98; 3 R. R. «17. 
 
 Where it is stipulated by a charterparty, that, 
 in case the ship is lost during the voyage, the 
 charterer shall pay the owner a sum of money, 
 which is estimated as the value of the shi}), the 
 owner has still an insurable interest in the ship 
 during the voyage. Ilohbx v. Jlaaiiam, 3 Camp. 
 93 : 13 R. R. 764. 
 
 A. having insured his ship, afterwards trans- 
 ferred it, but without the policy, to B. The trans- 
 fer on the register, though absolute in form, was, 
 in fact, by way of mortgage. The ship having 
 foundere(l: — Held, that A. being liable for the 
 mortgage debt, had a sufficient interest in the 
 ship to entitle him to iccover the whole loss. 
 I-Iutrhinnon v. Wright, 2.") Beav. 444 ; 27 L. J., 
 Ch. 834 ; 4 Jur. (N.S.) 749 ; 6 W. R. 47.5. 
 
 Held, also, that the policy of the 17 tV: 18 Vict. 
 C. 104, did not apply to such a case. Ih. 
 
 A shipowner whose ship is mortgaged may, if 
 he remains in |)OSsession, insure his ship to the 
 full amount of hei' value. Pniriiicial Inxiira/tcc 
 Co. of Cuiuida, V. Li'diir, supra. 
 
 Tackle.] — A jjolicy upon a ship employed in 
 the fiieerdand trade, on "ship, tackle, apparel, 
 and furniture." docs not, by tlie usage of trade, ] 
 cover th(; fishing-tackle. Ilonkinx v. PIrJ/erxf/ill, i 
 3 Doiu.d. 222. I 
 
 Provisions.] — Provisions in a ship i'<ir llie use 
 of the (;rew arc protected t)y a policy on the ship 
 and furniture. Jfrom/h v. Wliitmore, 4 Term 
 Rep. 206 ; 2 R. R. 3(;i'. 
 
 Wages.] — Seamen's wages and ])rovisions 
 <luring an embargo are not covered by an insur- 
 ance f)n the bod}' of tlicshij), JtohrrtxoH v. Eifcr, 
 1 Term Rep. 127 ; 1 R. R. H\\. S. P., Edni v. 
 Poole, 1 Term Rep. 132. ii. 
 
 Ship Assigned to secure Debt.] — A. having 
 injured son/, upon Ins own ship, and being 
 greatly indebted to P... dejiosits securities with 
 B.. and assigns the ship to him absolutely. The 
 ship was afterwards lost. In an action on the 
 jiolicy the underwriters contended that tlie policy 
 was void, for want of interest, under 19 Geo. 2, 
 c. 37 : A. having sold the ship before the loss : — 
 
 Held, that, the assignment to B. being no more 
 than a pledge or security for debt, A. had a suffi- 
 cient interest in the ship at the time of her loss. 
 Alston V. Camphell, 4 Bro. P. C. 476. 
 
 Hull and Machinery — Disbursements.] — An 
 
 insurance upon hull and machinery of a steam- 
 ship by a time i)olicy does not cover items of 
 expenditure for the voyage upon coals, stores, 
 and provisions. Roddicli v. Indemnity Mutual 
 Marine Inxurducc Co., post, col. 1178. 
 
 Wages and Expenses in Port of Distress not 
 covered by Policy on Ship.] — Extraordinary 
 wages paid to seamen and provisions expended 
 during the detention of a ship for repairs in a 
 port of distress are not coveretl by a policy on 
 ship. Fletcher v. Poole, 1 Park, Ins. (8th ed.) 
 115. 
 
 7. Deciv Cargo, Jettison. 
 
 Insurable Interest.] — An insurance broker 
 effected an open policy on a cargo of cotton on 
 board the ship of his principal. It was intended 
 to ship the cotton on board at the shipper's risk, 
 which should have been expressed in the bill of 
 lading, but by a mistake of the shipowners' 
 agent in the foreign port at which the cotton was 
 put on board, a clean bill of lading was given. 
 On the voyage the vessel encountered heavy 
 weather, and the cotton, owing to its being 
 carried on deck was compelled to be jettisoned. 
 The Vjroker gave notice to the insurance com- 
 pany of the loss, but other o))en policies having 
 been eifected with the same insurance company 
 by the same shipowners for cotton shipped sub- 
 sequently, and declarations having been made on 
 these policies by the broker, although no declara- 
 tion had been made in resi)ect of the cotton that 
 had been lost, he, on <liscovering that a mistake 
 had been made, and that, contrary to his insti'uc- 
 tions, a clean bill of lading had been given, instead 
 of one expressing that the cotton was shipped at 
 the sliip])er's risk, altered the declarations on the 
 policies by substituting for certain cotton therein 
 the cotton whieli liad been jettisoned : — Held, 
 that the shipowners being liable for the loss of 
 the goods by jettison through their being carried 
 on deck, had an insurable interest in respect of 
 which they, and therefore their agent, were 
 entitled to recover. Str/>henx v. Auxtridaxian 
 Inxuramr Co.. 42 L. .1.. C. P. 12 : L. R. 8 C. P. 
 1 S : 27 L. T. .-)8.-, ; 21 W. R. 228 : 1 Asp. M. C. 458. 
 
 8. P.II.I.S AND ADVAXCE.S I'OK SllIP'S USE. 
 
 Advances by Charterer.] — Advances made by 
 the charterer to the master at the i)ort of load- 
 ing, to be iiaid by de(hu;tions out of fi'cight; give 
 
 ' the charterer an insurable i)iteiesl in a policy on 
 disbursements. Cnrr'ic v. Bonihuii Xntire Inxur- 
 
 <<inre Co., 6 Moore, P. C. (N.S.) 302; 39 L. J., 
 1'. C. 1 : L. R. 3 v. C. 72 ; 22 L. T. 31 7 ; 18 W. R. 
 296. iSrc (ilxo riixix ante, col. 1113. 
 
 Money Lent to Captain.] — A policy on money 
 
 lent to the i'a|ilain. payable out of the freight, is 
 
 ' illegal, and tlie piemium cannot l)e I'eeovcrcd 
 
 I from tlie underwriter. U'/l.fonv. Jloi/iil Krchiiuf/e 
 
 Axirtiranrr Co., 2 Camp. (i26 ; 12 R. R. 760. 
 
 Bills for Expenses.] — \ memorandum for a 
 eli;irter statril that oiir-li;ilf of the freight was to 
 be paid in ca.sh on unloading and right delivery 
 of the cargo, and the remainder by bill on
 
 1131 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—y. Interest of Assured. 
 
 1132 
 
 London, at foxir months' date, thirty runninj,' 
 days to be allowed for loading and discharging, 
 and ten days" demurrage at 4/. per day, the cap- 
 tain to be supplied with cash for the ship's use. 
 In piu-suance of this last stipulation the master 
 drew a bill of exchange on the freighters which 
 was duly accejjted and paid : — Held, that the 
 freighters had no insurable interest in such bill. 
 Mnnjidd V. Maitland, 4 B. & Aid. 582 ; 23 R. 11. 
 402. 
 
 An East India captain, having borrowed 
 money from A., in order to secure him, arranged 
 with B. that C. should draw bills on D. (A.'s 
 agent at Calcutta) in favour of the captain, pay- 
 able thirty days after the arrival of the shij) ; 
 which bills A. was to indorse to B., who was to 
 negotiate them in Calcutta, upon the captain's 
 consigning to D. goods to double the amount of 
 the bills : — Held, that B. had no insurable interest 
 in these bills ; and that, even if he had, he was 
 not entitled to recover upon a policy describing 
 them as bills of exchange. Palmer v. Pratt, I) 
 Moore, 358 ; 2 Bing. 185 ; 3 L. J. (O.S.) C. P. 
 250 ; 27 R. R. 583. 
 
 The master of ^a ship drew a bill on his owners 
 for supplies for the ship, and wrote on the bill, 
 " If this be not honoured, the holder will insure 
 the amount, and place the premium to the 
 drawer's account." The bill being dishonoured, 
 the holder insured the ship for three months, 
 and decliired interest in the bill, which was to be 
 sufficient ju'oof of interest ; the ship was lost 
 after the three months : — Held, that the owner 
 of the bill was authorised to insure for his own 
 benefit, and was warrante<l in insuring for three 
 months, and that he might recover the premium 
 against the drawer. Tasher v. Scutt, 1 Marsh. 
 556; 6 Taunt. 234 ; 16 K. R. 608. 
 
 Invalid Hypothecation.] — A ship having 
 
 put into a foreign port in a damaged state, the 
 master borroN^'cd money of a merchant there, for 
 necessary repairs and disbursements ; to secure 
 which he drew bills upon his owner, and also 
 executed an instrument which purported to be 
 an hypothecation of the ship, cargo, and freight. 
 By this instrument the merchant who advanced 
 the money forebore all instrument beyond the 
 amount necessary to insure the shij) to cover the 
 advances, and the master took upon himself and 
 his owner the risk of the voyage, making the 
 money payable at all events, and subjecting the 
 ship to seizure and sale by virtue of process, 
 " out of the High Court of Admiralty of England, 
 or any court of vice-admiralty possessing juris- 
 diction at the port at which the ship might at 
 any time happen to be lying, or to be according 
 to the maritime law and custom of England," in 
 the event of the bills being refused acceptance 
 or dishonoured : — Held, that this not being such 
 an hypothecation as could be enforced in the 
 Court of Admiralty, the jiayment of the money 
 borrowed not being made to depend upon the 
 arrival of the vessel, the merchant had no insur- 
 able interest in the ship. iSta'nihajth v. Slicpard, 
 13 C. B. 418 ; 1 C. L. R. 609 ; 22 L. J., Ex. 341 ; 
 17 Jur. 1032 ; 1 W. R. 50.5— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Expenses of Cargo.] — A shipowner who has 
 paid money in order to release the ship and 
 cargo from a claim for salvage, has a lien on the 
 cargo for the proportion of those expenses pay- 
 able to him by the owners of the goods, and an 
 insurable interest in the cargo in respect of such 
 lien. Brujijn v. Merchant Traders SMy Loan 
 
 and Axaurance Associatinn, 13 Q. B. 167 : 18 
 L. J., Q. B. 178 ; 13 Jur. 787. 
 
 The plaintiff agreed with one W. for a sum 
 of lO.OOOZ. to transport the obelisk known as 
 " Cleopatra's Needle" from Alexandria to London, 
 and there to erect it upon some public site to be 
 afterwards selected. To cover the expenses 
 (about 4,000?.) plaintiff caused two policies to be 
 effected with the respective defendants " upon, 
 the goods and merchandises in the good ship or 
 vessel called ' The Cleopatra' iron vessel contain- 
 ing the obelisk . . . valued at 4,000/. . . . against 
 the risk of total loss only " ; the risks insured 
 against being the ordinary sea risks, and the 
 suing and labouring clause being in the ordinary 
 form. In the course of the voyage the " Cleo- 
 patra " got adrift in a storm in the Bay of Biscay ; 
 and was ultimately picked up by another steamer 
 and carried into Ferrol, where the salvors detained 
 her under a claim for salvage. The Admiralty 
 Division awarded them 2,000Z. salvage and costs. 
 In actions upon the policies : — Held, 1. That the 
 plaintiff, being the ovi'ner of the " Cleopatra," and 
 having i.)ossession of the obelisk, and (ijossibly)- 
 a lien upon it for his exiienditure, had asutficient 
 insurable interest, at least to the extent of his 
 outlay : 2. That the true effect of both policies 
 was, an insurance, not on "cargo," or " freight" 
 only, but on the vessel and her cargo : 3. That, 
 under the suing and labouring clause, the assured 
 was entitled to recover the 2,000Z. awarded to the 
 salvors, but not the costs of the proceedings in 
 the Admiralty Court, nor the expenses incurred 
 by him in refitting the "Cleopatra" at Ferrol 
 aiid towing her to London. Dlron v. 117/ itwurth, 
 48 L. J., C. P. 538 ; 4 C. P. D. 371 ; 40 L. T. 718 ; 
 28 W. R. 184 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 326. 
 
 Advances on Ship — "Full interest admitted."] 
 
 — A policy insuring cash advances on a ship is 
 within I'i Geo. 2, c. 37, s. 1. Such a policy 
 containing the term "full interest admitted" is 
 avoided by that statute. Smith v. liri/nolds (1 
 H. cV: N. 221 ; 25 L. J., Ex. 337 ; 4 W. R. 644) ; 
 and Be Mattos v. North (37 L. J., Ex. 116 ; L. R. 
 3 Ex. 185 ; 18 L. T. 797), followed. Berridge v. 
 Man On Insurance Co., 56 L. J., Q. B. 223 ; 18 
 Q. B. D. 346 ; 56 L. T. 375 ; 35 W. R. 343 ; 6 
 Asp. M. C. 104— C. A. 
 
 Advance hy Agent — Bill Accepted.] — A., 
 
 having consigned a cargo to B., and drawn bills 
 on him for tire price of it in favour of C, his 
 general agent, sends these bills, together with the 
 bills of lading, to C, desiring him to forward 
 them to B., in order that he might insure. He 
 also draws a bill for 300Z. on C, which is accepted. 
 B. refuses to take to the cargo, or to accept the 
 bills. C. then insures in his own name, informing 
 A., who approves. The goods are lost, and C. 
 sues on the policy :— Held, that the policy was 
 good within 28 Geo. 3, c. 56 ; and that C. 
 had an insurable interest to the amount of 300Z. 
 Wolfx. Ilorncadle, 1 Bos. i: P. 316 ; 4 R. R. 80S. 
 
 Advances for Transport of Coolies payable on 
 their Arrival— Loss by Mutiny of Coolies.]— See 
 Naylor v. Palmer, ante, col. 1107. 
 
 9. Bottomry, Respondentia, Mortgage. 
 Bottomry — Policy decreed to be delivered up.] 
 
 — One having no interest in the ship lends 300Z. 
 on a bottomry bond, an^l insures 450/. on the ship ; 
 policy decreed to be delivered up. One having 
 no interest in a ship insures it, the assurance is
 
 1133 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—V. Interest of Assured. 
 
 1131 
 
 void, though the policy runs interest or no 
 interest. But if he is interested in the ship, he 
 may insure more than the value of his interest. 
 Where one insures a ship, if he would have any 
 benefit of the insurance, he must renounce his 
 interest in the ship. Goddart v. Garrett, 2 
 Vern. 2fi0. 
 
 Insurance held Valid. ] — One lends 250?. on a 
 bottomry bond, and afterwards insures on the 
 same ship. The ship is lost. He shall have 
 both the benefit of the insurance and the money 
 due on the bond too. JIarman v. Vanhattuii, 
 2 Yern. 716 : £([. Ca. Abr. 371. 
 
 What is Insurable Bottomry Interest.] — An 
 
 instrument executed in a foreign port by the 
 
 master of a shij), reciting that his vessel, bound 
 
 to London, had received considerable damage, 
 
 and that he had borrowed 1,077/. to defray the 
 
 expenses of repairing her, proceetled as follows : 
 
 " I bind myself, my ship, her apparel, tackle, &,c., 
 
 as well as her freight and cargo, to pay the above 
 
 sum, with 12Z. jier cent, bottomry premium ; and 
 
 I further bind myself, ship, her freight and 
 
 cargo, to the payment of that sum with all 
 
 charges thereon, in eight days after my arrival 
 
 at the port of London ; and I do hereby make 
 
 liable the vessel, her freight and cargo, whether 
 
 she do or do not arrive at the port of London, 
 
 in preference to all other debts or claims, declar- 
 ing that this ])ledge or bottomry has now, and 
 
 must have, prefei-ence to all other claims and 
 charges, until such principal, with 121. per cent. 
 
 bottcimiy premium, and all charges, are duly 
 jiaid" : — Held, that this was an instrument of 
 bottomry, for an intention sufficiently appeared 
 from the whole of it that the lender should take 
 upon himself the peril of the whole voyage ; 
 that the words. " my arrival," must be under- 
 stood to mean " My shijj's arrival ; " and that the 
 woi-ds, "I make liable the vessel, her fieight 
 and cargo, whether she do or do not arrive at 
 London," were intended only to give the lenders 
 a claim on the shiji, in preference to other 
 claims, in case of the ship's arrival at some other 
 than the destined port, and not to provide for the 
 event of the loss of the ship. Shninonds (or 
 SlininuW) v. J[od(ixun, 3 I'., it Ad. "jO : 1 L. J., 
 K. 15. .■>!— Ex. Ch. Overruling 'i M. .V 1'. ;isr) ; 
 *; i'.ing. 114: 7 I.. J. (o.s.) C. K 23!l. 
 
 The master f)f a ship borrowed money of the 
 plaintiffs for repairs, and gave them, by way of 
 Hccurity, bills drawn by him upon the owner of 
 the ship and u])on the consignee of the cargo. 
 and also an instrunu;nt of liypothecation, by 
 which he took upon himself and his owner the 
 risk of the voyage, made the money rei)ayable ' ^^^-'^ 1"*^**- ^" ^" fU'tion by the bondliolder on a 
 
 the plaintiff and another, although they are 
 general partners in trade. Ecerth v. Blackhurn, 
 6 M. & S. 152 ; 2 Stark. 66. 
 
 Damages.] — Where repairs are ordered 
 
 by the underwriters, for the payment of which 
 a bottomry bond is given, and they refuse to pay 
 it on the arrival of the ship, in consequence of 
 which the ship is sold, they are liable for all the 
 damage which accrues to the owner in conse- 
 quence of that refusal. Da Costa v, Xewnhani, 
 2 Term Hep. 407. 
 
 East India Trade.]— The 7 Geo. 1. c. 21, 
 
 s. 2, prohibiting loans of bottomry by British 
 subjects, upon foreign ships engaged in the East 
 India trade, is repealed. The India, Br. & Lush. 
 221 ; 33 L. J., Adm. li)3 ; 12 L. T. 316. 
 
 Total Loss.] — An assured on bottomry 
 
 cannot recover against the underwriter, unless 
 there has been an actual total loss of the ship ; 
 for if the ship exists in specie in the hands of 
 the owners, though under circumstances that 
 would entitle the assured on the ship to abandon, 
 it will prevent its being an utter loss within the 
 meaning of the bottomry bond. Thomson v. 
 Royal E-rchangc Assurance Co., 1 M. & S. 30 ; 14 
 R. R. 388. 
 
 A lender on bottomry cannot recover if a loss 
 happens by capture, if it is such as to occasion a 
 total loss : but if the ship is taken and detained 
 for a short time and yet arrives at the port of 
 destination wiihin the time limited (if time is 
 mentioned in the condition), the bond is not for- 
 feited, and the obligee may recover. Joi/rc v. 
 WilUanison, 3 Dougl. 164. 
 
 There is no average or salvage on a bottomry 
 bond. Ih. 
 
 ■ Constructive.] — The conditions of a 
 
 bottomry bund jjrovided for its defeasance on 
 payment of the amount of the bond, " or, in case 
 of the loss of the ship or vessel, such an average as 
 by custom shall have become due on the salvage, 
 or if on the voyage the ship or vessel should be 
 utterly lost, cast away, or tlestroyed." The ship 
 having become a constructive total loss, the 
 bondliolder, by a decree in the Admiralty Court, 
 obtained jiayment to him of the proceeds of tlie 
 ship, which had been paid into court, aiul which 
 were insuflicienl ; the court holding that a 
 bottomry bond was only discharged by payment 
 or by an alisolute total loss, and that the condi- 
 tion }iroviding for defeasance on payment of 
 such average as by custom should have become 
 due, did not refer to the case of a constructive 
 
 at all events, an<i theshij) subject to seizure, ai 
 to process of the A<hni)alty Courts at any place, 
 should the bill be not acceptetl or paid, the 
 plaintiffs forbearing all interest beyond the 
 amount necessary to insure the shij) to cover 
 their advances : — Held, tliat a court of admiralty 
 would not enfoice this instrument ; and there- 
 fore, that the plaintiffs took no interest in tiie 
 ship. Staiiihank v. Ffnii'nxf. II ('. 1!. 51 ; 13 
 C. B. 4IS ; 20 \.. .).. C. 1'. 226 : 15 .liir. 10K2. 
 
 Eespondentia. J — .\n insurance cm goods 
 
 docs not extend to a respomlentia interest. 
 Glover v. Mark, 1 W. Bl. 306, 3'jy, 405, 422. 
 
 Joint-bond.] — An action cannot be main- 
 tained on a policy where the plaintiffs interest 
 is founded on a bottomry bond made jointly to 
 
 policy of insurance u|)on the bond : — Held, that 
 the doctrine t)f const met ive total loss was not 
 apiilicable to a policy of insni-ance on bottomry, 
 and that the conilition of defeasance did not 
 apply to the case of a constructive total loss. 
 JJro"mfi/'/d v. Suiifhrrii Insvranre Co., 31* L. J., 
 Kx. 1K6; L. K. 5 K.x. 1112; 22 L. T. 371 ; IH 
 W. U. 810. 
 
 Foreign Law, how far Applicable to 
 
 English Policy. ] — A policy of marine insurance 
 was ilbci((l with English underwriters by an 
 Englisli iiicrcliant upon goods slii|)|ied in a 
 Frciicji shi|), and it was thereby piovide<l that 
 general average was to lie payable as per judicial 
 foreign statement. The ship was danuigeil by a 
 collision and put into i)ort for repairs, tlie cargo, 
 however, being uninjured. The master, not
 
 1135 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—V. Interest of Assured. 
 
 1136 
 
 having funds to do the necessary repairs, gave a 
 buttomry bond on ship, freight, and cargo. The 
 ship anil freight proving insufficient to satisfy the 
 bond, tlie assured had to i)ay the deficiency in 
 order to ol)tain possession of his goods : — Held, 
 tliat the policy was not to be construed accord- 
 ii:g to French law, except so far as the parties 
 had expressly stipulateil that it shoultl be, and 
 that there being no loss by perils of the sea 
 according to English law, the assured could not 
 recover from the underwriters the amount which 
 he had paid as above mentioned. Greer v. Poole, 
 49 L. J.. Q. B. 463 : .5 Q. B. D. 272 ; 42 L. T. 
 (387 ; 28 W. R. .-)82 ; 4 Asp. M. C. BOO. 
 
 Freight Earned and Received.] — A ship 
 
 with a cargo on boai-d, left Pernambuco on a 
 voyage to Liverpool on the 29th June, 1839 ; in 
 proceeding out of the harbour at Pernambuco 
 she struck on a rock, and was obliged to put back 
 to "be repaired. The master, after several sur- 
 veys, and with the concurrence of the persons to 
 whom he had been addressed by the owner to 
 procure a cargo, proceeded to reiiair the ship, the 
 repairs continuing from the 29th of June, 1839, 
 till the 4th of January following. The expenses 
 of the repairs amounted to 7,132/. 3.s-. Sfl., a sum 
 much exceeding the value of the ship and freight, 
 and which sum the master, not being able to 
 procure it in any other manner, was compelled 
 to borrow on bottomry, and accordingly executed 
 a bottomry bond, charging the ship, freight and 
 cargo. The cargo, which had been necessarily 
 taken ov;t during the repairs, was reshipjied, and 
 the ship sailed on the fith January, 1840, and 
 arrived with the cargo at Liverpool ; the obligees 
 of the bottomry bond received the freight under 
 a decree of the Court of Admiralty : — Held, in 
 an action against the underwriters on freight 
 claiming for a total loss, that the plaintiff was 
 not entitled to recover, in respect either of a 
 total or of a partial loss of freight, the freight 
 having actually been earned, and its receipt by 
 the obligees of the bottomry bond being in law 
 a receipt by the plaintiff. Benson v. Chapman, 
 8 C. B. 950 ; 2 H. L. Cas. 696 ; 1 3 Jur. 969. 
 
 Lender on Respondentia not Liable for Average 
 Losses — Aliter by Law of Denmark.] — Action on 
 policy upon respondentia bond on ship andgooils 
 at and from B. to C. The ship was Danish, and 
 an average loss was sustained on goods to the 
 amount of Gl. 1.5.s\ per cent. The plaintiff by the 
 Danish law was recjuired to contribute, as hokler 
 of the respondentia bond, and having so con- 
 tributed sued his English underwriters : — Held, 
 that the underwriters were not liable, as by 
 English law the lender on respondentia is not 
 liable for average losses. Walpole v. Eiiier. 2 
 Park, Ins. (8th ed.) 898. 
 
 Mortgage of Ship— Policy by Mortgagor on 
 behalf of Mortgagee — Barratry by Mortgagor as 
 Master.] — A mortgagee advanced the part owner 
 of a ship a sum of money upon a mortgage of his 
 shares in the ship, it being a part of the arrange- 
 ment that the mortgagor should be the master of 
 the ship, and that an insurance should be effected 
 by the mortgagor to cover the interest of the 
 mortgagee. In pursuance of the arrangement 
 the mortgagor caused an insurance to be effected 
 to cover the interest of the mortgagee and his 
 own interest. The perils covered by the policy 
 of insurance included perils of the sea and barratry 
 of the master and mariners. The ship having 
 
 been lost, as the underwriters of the policy alleged, 
 liy the barratry of the mortgagor as master : — 
 Held, that, assuming the allegation to be true, 
 then, if the mortgagor was master for the mort- 
 g.agee, the mortgagee was entitled to recover 
 against the underwriters for a loss by barratry ; and 
 ifthe master was not master for tlie mortgagee, the 
 mortgagee was entitled to recover for a loss by 
 perils of the sea. Small v. United Kingdom, Marine 
 Mutual Iimtrance Ass7i., 66 L. J., Q. B. 736 ; [1897] 
 2 Q. B. 31 1 ; 76 L. T.828 ; 46 W. R. 2 1 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 
 293— C. A. 
 
 Mortgagees — Insurance against Absolute 
 
 Total Loss — Payment off.] — The mortgagees of a 
 ship agreed with the mortgagors to effect an 
 insurance on the ship at the mortgagors' expense, 
 the policy to be held by them as part of their 
 security. After the ship had sailed, the mortgagees 
 effected an insurance against absolute total loss 
 only. On the voyage the ship was driven ashore 
 in a gale, and having become a constructive total 
 loss, notice of abandonment was given by the 
 mortgagees to the underwriters. The mortgagees 
 immediately gave notice that they would look to 
 the mortgagees as if they were their under- 
 writers for a full insurance, and recovered from 
 them the full value of the ship. The ship 
 remained for two months exposed to the perils 
 of the sea, when she became a complete wreck, 
 and was then sold without prejudice to the rights 
 of the parties. After the sale, but before this 
 action, the mortgage was paid off : — Held, in an 
 action by the mortgagees against the underwriters 
 claiming for an absolute total loss, that the mort- 
 gagees, though their mortgage had been paid off, 
 iiad an insurable interest in the ship, the mort- 
 gagors having ceded to them their rights under 
 the policy wiien they were paid the full value of 
 the ship. Levy v. Merclmnta Marine Insurance 
 Co., 1 Cab. & E. 474 ; 52 L. T. 263 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 407. 
 
 10. Commission. 
 Nature of.]— A., residing in Dublin, having 
 agreed with B. <*c C. at Jamaica to send out two 
 ships annually, for which they were to provide 
 cargoes, to be consigned to him, chartered a ship 
 which was to proceed from Bristol to St. Thomas, 
 where she was to deliver an outward cargo (the 
 property of another person), and thence to 
 Jamaica, where she was to take in a cargo from 
 B. and C. for Dublin, and, by the terms of the 
 charterparty. A., in consideration of guaranteeing 
 the homeward cargo, was to receive a commission 
 of 2J per cent, upon the homeward freight. The 
 ship was captured on her passage from St. 
 Thomas to Jamaica : — Held, that A. had not 
 then an insurable interest either in the commis- 
 sion on the freight or in the commission on the 
 sale of the homeward cargo. Knox v. Wood, 1 
 Camp. 543 ; 10 R. R. 746. 
 
 Legality.] — An insurance on the "commission, 
 privileges," iic, of the captain of a ship in the 
 African trade, is legal. King v. Glover, 2 Bos. k, P. 
 (xN.B.) 206 ; 9 R. R. 638. 
 
 11. Expected Losses. 
 
 On Collisions.] — Qu^re, whether an insurance 
 against <lamages, that a shipowner may be liable 
 to pay in consequence of his ship running down 
 another, is not illegal. Delamnj v. Rohson, 5 
 Taunt. 605. See Tai/lor v. Deicar, 5 B. & S. 58 ; 
 33 L. J., Q. B. 141 ; 10 Jur. (N..S.) 361 : 10 L. T. 
 267 ; 12 W. R. 579.
 
 1137 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—Y. Interest of Assured. 
 
 1138 
 
 On Exchange.] — An underwriter does not shipped on board the ship at Jamaica, is a wager- 
 insure asfainst am* loss that may arise from the ' ing policy. Kno-c\. Wuod, 1 Camp.. 543 ; 10 R. R. 
 
 difference of exchange. 
 Esp. 77. 
 
 Thelhixon v. JBcivick, 1 
 
 746. 
 
 Proof of Interest.] — A memorandum as follows : 
 "In ct)nsi(leration of forty guineas for 100^. 
 received of , we, who have hereunto sub- 
 scribed our names, do for ourselves, assume, engage 
 and promise that we respectively will pay unto 
 
 the the sum and sums of money which we 
 
 have hereunto respectively subscribed, in case the 
 Imperial Brazilian mining shares be done at or 
 above lOOZ. per share, on or before the 31st 
 December, 1829," is a policy of insurance within 
 14 Geo. 3, c. 48, and void, the assured not being 
 interested in the suVjject-matter insured or his 
 name mentioned in the body of the instrument. 
 Patersun v. Puwdl. 2 M. & Scott, 399 ; 9 Bing. 
 320; 2 L. J., C. B. 13. 
 
 If a policy dispenses with all proof of interest, 
 it is a wagering policy within 19 Geo. 2, c. 37, 
 and void ; but ir the insurer must prove his 
 intei-est, and the policy only saves him the trouble 
 of shewing its amount, it is a valued policy and 
 good. J/iirjjJii/ V. Bell, 4 Bing. .567 ; 1 M. & P, 
 493 ; 6 L. J. (6.S.) C. P. 118 : 29 R. R. 630. 
 
 Where a policy stipulated " that the goods 
 insured were and should be valued at five tierces 
 of coffee, valued at 271. per tierce, say 13.5Z., that 
 policy to be deemed suthcient proof of interest " : 
 — Held, that it was void under the statute. lb. 
 
 Where an insurance is interest or no intei'est 
 the plaintiff is not recjuired to prove his interest, 
 for the defendant cannot controvert that. Depaha 
 v. Ludlow, 1 Comyns Rej). 360. 
 
 Abandonment.] — A wagering policy cannot be 
 abandoned by the assured at any time. Kulcii 
 Ktiup V. Vigne, 1 Term Rep. 304. 
 
 Interest or no Interest.] — Wager policies, 
 interest oi' no interest, were formerly valitl. Asxe- 
 ciedu v. Cuiiihridge, 10 Mod. 77. 
 
 History of policies with these words ; they have 
 proved a great temptation to fraud. See Saddlers'' 
 Co. V. Budnnlt, 2 Atk. r>.5(i. 
 
 Policy, interest or no interest, without benefit 
 of salvage. The shij) was captured, but afterwanls 
 arrived safe at her port of delivery : — Held, that 
 the underwriters were liable. Spencer \. Franco, 
 cited, 2 Bun'. 69.5. 
 
 Warranted free from all Average and without 
 Benefit of Salvage— 19 Geo. 2, c. 37—21 & 22 
 Geo. 3, c. 48 — Ireland.] — A policy containing a 
 prfivision that thi: pruperty insured is warranted 
 free from all average and without benefit of 
 salvage, and that no further proof of interest than 
 the policy shall he retiuircd is a wagering policy ; 
 hut is not void at common law and is valid in 
 Ireland. Tlie statute 19 (ieo. 2, c. 37,does not 
 apply to Ireland by 21 4:22 Geo. 3, c. 48 (Ir.) 
 Ac/fli V. Protection Marine Inxvranee Co., 10 
 L. i;.. Ir. 36.5. 
 
 Recapture— Total Loss— Wager Policy.]— On 
 
 property, though one of the parties had some I a poUcy, interest or no interest, a recapture aft^r 
 
 - ■ ■ • s c)f the ' being in an enemy's port wdl not avail the 
 
 12. Wageeing Policies. 
 
 General Eule.] — A policy containing any of 
 the words forbidden by 19 Geo. 2, c. 37, s. 1, is 
 illegal, if the insurance relates simply to " ship 
 {""o^] ships, steamer {""r'} steamers," and does 
 not exclude British vessels. Allkijus v. Jupe, 46 
 L. J., C. P. 824 ; 2 G. P. D. 375 ; 36 L. T. 851. 
 
 A policy was affected upon commission and 
 profit upon -ship [^^f] ships, steamer {'^ot] 
 steamers ": and the following clause was inserted : 
 '• Warranted free from all average and without 
 benefit of salvage, but to pay loss on such part as 
 shall not arrive." The goods to which the com- 
 mission and profit insured related were shipped on 
 board a British vessel, which was lost by the perils 
 of the sea. The assured having sued to recover 
 the amount of the underwriter's subscription, or, 
 if the policy were void, the premium paid by the 
 assured : — Held, that the policy was rentlered 
 illegal by 19 Geo. 2, c. 37. s. 1, for the insurance 
 was •• without benefit of salvage," and the terms 
 of the policy did not exclude British ships. Ih. 
 
 Held, also, that the illegality was so far the 
 fault of the assured that he could not recover 
 back the ))remium. Ih. 
 
 The insured is entitled to recover as for a total 
 loss, upon a mixed jKilicy of insurance of a 
 peculiar sort, though a valued policy, if a fair 
 one. and within the exception of 19 Geo. 2, c. 37, 
 s. 2. I)a Coxta v. Firth, 4 Burr. 1966. 
 
 On Profits.] — A policy on profits made "free 
 from average, but without benefit of salvage to 
 the assurer," is void under 19 Geo. 2. c. 37, s. 1. 
 I)c Matton V. yoi-th, 37 L. J.. Ex. 116 ; L. R. 3 
 Ex. 185 ; 18 L. T. 797. S. P., Mortimer v. Broad- 
 icood, 20 L. T. 398 ; 17 W. R. (;53. 
 
 An insurance on profits on goods laden on 
 board a ship is an insurance on goods within 
 19 Geo. 2, c. 37, s. 1. Smith v. liei/ntddx, 1 
 H. i: N. 221 ; 25 L. J.. Ex. 337 ; 4 W. R. 644. 
 
 Therefore a policy declared to be "on profit 
 on cotton, say 150 bales, said profits valued at 
 3.50Z., and in case of loss or accident, the |)oiicy 
 to becoHMdered a sufficient proof of interest, and 
 the policy warranted free from average, and 
 without benefit of salvage, that is. should the 
 vessel from any cause wliatever be unable to bring 
 on her cargo, then a trjtal loss is to be paid," is a 
 policy on goods within 19 Geo. 2, c. 37, s. 1, and 
 is therefore void as containing terms prohibited 
 1-y that -iiitute. I//. 
 
 No Property.] — An agreement to pay 2(tZ. to 
 the defendant at tlie next port a ship should 
 retich. provided that, if she did not save her 
 jiassage to China, he would pay to the plaintiff 
 1.000/. at the end of one montii aftei- she arrive<l 
 in the river 'ihames, without leference to any 
 
 rd. insurer. JJcin v. Dicker, 2 Str. 1250. 
 
 13. \'AI.T;Kr) POLICIE.S. 
 
 goods on board liable to suffer by the loss 
 season, is a wageiing policy. Kent v. Jii 
 Covvp. 5H3. 
 
 An insurance "on the ship, at and from Bristol 
 to .St. Thomas and .Jamaica, and thence l»ack to 
 Dublin, on commission valued at 1,000/.," which : '\ralidity.J— A valued policy of insurance is 
 appeared to bear insurance uj.on the commissions not to be cf.nsidered as a wagering policy. Lewis 
 expected to arise upon the sale and disposition by | v. Ilnrker, 2 Burr. Il(i7. 
 the plaintiff in Dublin, of prvluce expected to be ' A wagering policy, and a policy on interest.
 
 1139 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— Y. Interest of Assured. 
 
 1140 
 
 are contracts distinct in their nature and inci- 
 dents. Coih<ii)is V. A'untf.'i, 3 Taunt. 512 ; 13 R. K. 
 
 It must apjicar on the face of the policy' of 
 which species the contract is. lb. 
 
 If the policy is in the connnon form, it is a 
 policy- on interest. Ih. 
 
 If goods are fraudulently overvalued in a 
 {lolicy with intent to cheat the underwriters, the 
 contract is entirely vitiated,' and the assured 
 cannot recover even for the value actually on 
 board. ILi/f/ft v. Be hi Cmir, 3 Camp. 319 ; 
 13 R. R. 813. And see Amerri v. Roners, 1 Esn. 
 207. •' -^ ' 1 
 
 Value Conclusive.]— In a valued policy the 
 agreed total value is conclusive. Irrbuj v. 
 Manning. 1 H. L. Cas. 287. S. P., 1/ra.sm'u.s v. 
 Banht^, infra. 
 
 On a valued policy, the insured cannot recover 
 more than the actual loss which happened, at 
 the time when he chose to abandon. IlamUtini 
 V. Mend,'.s or Mendez, 2 Burr. 1198 ; 1 W. Bl. 276. 
 
 The value of the ship insured stated in the 
 valued policy is in the absence of fraud conclu- 
 sive between the parties, however largely in 
 excess of the true value. Barhrr v. Jamon, 37 
 L. J., C. P. 105 ; L. R. 3 C. P. 303 ; 17 L. T. 
 473 ; 16 W. R. 399. 
 
 In a valued policy, unless there is a charge of 
 fraud, in a bill filed in chancery for discovery, 
 to the effect that the value of the cargo insured 
 is below the amount insured, it is sufKcient if 
 the defendant swears to the value as stated in 
 the invoice. Avlert v. Jacoh.t, Wightw. 118. 
 
 A valut d policy amounts to an agreement that 
 the particulars of value shall not be inquired 
 into — per Wood, B. lb. 
 
 A policy was effected for 6,000Z. on a ship 
 valued at 6,000/. She was run down and sunk 
 by another ship, and the underwriters paid the 
 owners the 6,000Z. as for a total loss. After- 
 wards the sum of 5,00OZ. was recovered in the 
 Court of Admiralty in lespect of her against the 
 owners of the other ship. Her real value was 
 9,000/. : and there was no other insurance upon 
 her : — Held, tliat as between the underwriters 
 and the assured, her value must be taken to be 
 6,000/. for all purposes. North of Enrjland Iron 
 Steumxhip Insumnce Co. v. Armstrotui, 39 L. J., 
 Q. B. 81 : L. R. 5 Q. B. 244 ; 21 L. T. 822 ; 18 
 ^y. R. 520. 
 
 Opening in Case of Partial loss.] — The word 
 '• valued " is an estoppel on both parties in case 
 of a total loss, but not in case of a partial loss 
 (ag) eed). B)-i/.wiv^ v. Banlix, cited, 3 Dougl. 86. 
 
 An average loss opens a valued policy. Le 
 Cras V. Iliighi's, 3 Doxigl. 81. 
 
 A party insured by one policy for 1,700/. on 
 the ship " «.," valued at 3,000/., and by another 
 for 2,000/. on the same ship, valued again at 
 3,000/., cannot receive more than 3,000/. on 
 the two policies. Irv'niq v. Eiclutrdson, 1 M. & 
 Rob. 1.^)3 ; 2 B. & Ad. 193 ; 9 L. J. (o.S.) K. B. 225. 
 
 The amount of the valuation can only be dis- 
 puted on the ground of fraud, but the insurer's 
 interest may be contested. Williumn v. North 
 China Insurance Co. 1 C. P. D. 757 ; 35 L. T. 
 884 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 342— C. A. S. P. Lidgett v. 
 Secretan. infra. 
 
 What Included.] — Under a valued policy it 
 maj- be shewn what it was that was intended to 
 be valued, with a view to disputing interest in 
 
 the whole subject of valuation. WiUiam.s v. 
 North China In.snranee Co., supra. 
 
 The assured upon a valued policy on freight is 
 entitled to recover the whole amount, though 
 l)art of the goods only was on board at the time 
 the shi)) was lost ; the rest being ready to be 
 shipped. Montgomery v. Eqginqton. 3 Term 
 Rep. 362 ; 1 R. R. 718. 
 
 By a time policy the ship, valued at 2,000/., 
 and goods, valued at 8,000/., were insured in a 
 barter voyage to the coast of Africa, and it was 
 stipulated that the outward cargo should be con- 
 sidered homeward interest twenty-four hours- 
 after arrival at first port or place of trade, with 
 liberty to extend the valuation of the homeward 
 cargo. The vessel, with the outward cai-go on. 
 board, arrived at Kinsembo, the first place of 
 trade on the coast of Africa, and there landed a 
 jjortion of her cargo ; and after remaining at 
 Kinsembo more than twenty-four hours, she 
 sailed thence with the remainder, without having 
 received any other goods there, and was totally 
 lost : — Held, that the assured was only entitled 
 to recover upon this policy the value of that 
 portion of the cargo which was actually on board 
 at the time of the loss. Tobin v. Harford, 17 
 C. B. (N.s.) 528 ; 34 L. J., C. P. 37 ; 10 Jur. 
 (N.s.)859; lOL. T. 817; 12W.R. 1062— Ex, Ch. 
 
 In an action against an underwriter upon a 
 valued policy, evidence of the value of the goods 
 on board having been gone into at the trial, and 
 parts of the cargo not covered by the policy 
 having been included in the calculation, the 
 court sent the case back for a new trial. Rich- 
 man V. Car.^t(/i7:t, 2 Is.k M. 562 ; 5 B. i: Ad. 651 ; 
 3 L. J., K. B. 28. 
 
 What are.] — A policy on " goods valued at 
 1,400/." is a valued policy, without stating the 
 particulars of goods valued. Franco v. Natusch, 
 1 Tyr. & G. 401. 
 
 A policy was effectetl upon freight, to " be 
 valued at as under." The i>olicy was in the 
 usual form, containing the common memo- 
 randum, which was immediately followed by the 
 words, ''on freight, warranted free of capture, 
 seizure, piracy, detention or the consequences. 
 of any attempt thereat." In the margin, nearly 
 opposite but a little above these words, the sum 
 of 1,300/. was written in figures: — Held, that 
 this was not a valued policv. Wih-on v. NcJson, 
 5 B. & S. 354 ; 33 L. J., Q. B. 220 : 10 Jur. (N.S.) 
 1044 ; 10 L. T. 523 ; 12 W, R. 795. 
 
 Declaration of Interest.] — Where there 
 
 is a policy on gdijds as may be thereafter declHred 
 and valued, the declaration of interest, to be 
 available, must be communicated to the under- 
 writers, or some one on their behalf, before 
 intelligence is received of the loss ; but the 
 declaration of interest is not a condition pre- 
 cedent, and, if none is made, the policy is then 
 open instead of being valued, antl, upon proof 
 of interest at the trial, the assured will be 
 entitled to recover. Ha r man v. Kingston, 3 
 Camp. 150 ; 13 R. R. 775. 
 
 Capture.] — Goods protected by a valued policy, 
 being captured, were condemned as lawful prize, 
 the captors paying the freight : — Held, that the 
 assured might nevertheless recover as for a total 
 loss. Marshall v. Parker, 2 Camp. 69 ; 1 1 R. R. 665. 
 
 Repairs.] — The owner of a vessel effected two 
 policies of insurance upon her, one for the out- 
 ward voyage, in which the risk was " at and 
 
 I
 
 1141 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEAXCE—Y. Interest of Assured. 
 
 1142 
 
 from London to Calcutta, and for thirty days 
 after arrival." and the other for the homeward 
 voyage, in which the risk was "at and from 
 Calcutta to London."' In each policy the vessel 
 was valued at a specific sum. The vessel arrived 
 at Calcutta damaged from an injury received 
 during the outward voyage by striking on a reef, 
 and after the expiration of the outward policy, 
 and when the risk under the homeward policy 
 had attached, she was totally destroyed by fire. '■ 
 At that time her repairs rendered nece.ssary by ' 
 the damage sustained on her outward voyage 
 had been begun, but were not finished. The j 
 underwriter admitted a liability to a partial 
 loss under the outward policy, and a total loss \ 
 under the homeward pohcy : — Held, that such 
 losses were to be assessed under each policy as if 
 the other policy had never been made, and that 
 the loss under the outward policy was to be j 
 assessed on the principle of the assured being 
 entitled to be paid the diminution in value of 
 the vessel at the end of her voyage from the 
 damage which she had received by striking on 
 the reef, although all the expense of repairing 
 such damage had not been actually incurred ; 
 and that in assessing the total loss under the ; 
 homeward policy the underwriter was not i 
 entitled to any deduction from the valuation of 
 the vessel in the policy in respect of the expense 
 of such repairs which had not been incurred, as 
 the valuation of a vessel in a valued policy is, 
 in the absence of fraud or wagering, the con- 
 ventional sum to be paid if the vessel is lost, 
 whatever mav then be her actual value. Liggett 
 V. Secretan, 40 L. J., C. P. 257 ; L. R. 6 C. P. 
 «1C : 24 L. T. 942 : 19 W. R. 1088 ; 1 Asp. 
 
 M. c. ;i.-). 
 
 Eights of Underwriters to Damages from 
 Vessel causing Loss.] — When a vessel insured 
 by a vahiL-d policy is destroyed by collision, the 
 uiiderwriteis, after paying the amount insured, 
 are entitled to the damages recoveied from the 
 colliding vessel, although the amount insured by 
 the policy is lass than the actual value of the 
 vessel insured. Sorth of EiujUnul Inm Strdiii- 
 ship Iiixiinoice Co. v. Arrnxfro/n/, S9 L. J., Q. B. 
 SI ; L. R. 5 Q. B. 244 ; 21 L. T. 822 ; IS W. R. 
 520. See Slmpxon v. ThomxiDi, S App. Ca.s. 279 ; 
 38 L. T. 1 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 5(57— H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 Right to Compensation paid by Sovereign 
 State. J — Tlio res|iondeMts eliVcti'd with under- 
 writers valued policies of insurance (including 
 war lisks) on a cargo, which was afterwards 
 destroye<l by the '-Alabama," a Confederate 
 cruiser, and the underwriters paid to the respon- 
 dents as on an actual total loss the valued amounts, 
 which were less than tlie real value, 'i'he United 
 States, out of a compensation fund created after 
 the loss and <li8tributed under an act of con- 
 gress pa.ssed sulwc'iuently to the loss, jjaid to the 
 respondents the difference between their real 
 total l()S.s and the sum received from the under- 
 writers. Under tlie act of congress no claim 
 was allowed for any loss for whicii the jiarty 
 injured should have receiveii compensation from 
 any insuier, but if such coni|>ensation should not 
 have been e'jual to the loss actually sufTcned, 
 allowance might be madt; for the difference ; 
 and no claim was allowetl by or on behalf of any 
 insurer either in his own right or in that of the 
 party insured : — Held, that the underwriters 
 were not entitled to recover the compensation 
 from the respon<lents. Jiiirimnil v. JfiHliic<iiiti<-lii, 
 
 .51 L. J.. Q. B. 548 : 7 App. Cas. 333 ; 47 L. T. 
 277 : 31 W. R. 65 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 57(5— H. L.(E.) 
 
 Whole Sum Recoverable.] — In the case of a 
 valued policy on ship and cargo, the assured 
 must recover the whole sum underwritten, 
 because he could not have any return of 
 premium for short interest, if the ship had 
 arrived safe. JIaeXa'ir v. Coulter. 4 Bro. P. C. 450. 
 
 Profits on Cargo.] — See Barclay v. Cousinn, 
 ante, col. 1128. 
 
 Value not Stated.] — Where the valuation 
 clause in a policy is not filled up, but at the 
 foot of the policy the amount of the insurance is 
 inserted, such statement cannot be treated as 
 the valuation, if without difficulty the value 
 intended to be protected can be ascertained. 
 ^.sV«/-v. BlundeU, 65 L. J., Q. B. 138 : [1896] 1 
 Q.' B. 123 ; 15 R. 481 : 73 L. T. 648 ; 44 W. R. 
 130 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 106— C. A. 
 
 Excess of Value beyond Amount insured 
 warranted uninsured — Further Insurance to 
 cover Eisk of Underwriter's Insolvency.] — See 
 General Insurance Co. of 'Trieste v. Cory, post, 
 col. 1178. 
 
 14. Nectral or Hostile Property. 
 
 Whether Insurable.] — Neutral property taken 
 
 ', by a king's ship, but ordered to be restored by 
 
 j the Court of Athniralty, though it pronounced 
 
 the cause of seizure good, is a lawful object of 
 
 insurance. Vlsger v. Pre.scott, 5 Esp. 184 ; 8 R. R. 
 
 846. 
 
 An insurance cannot be effected on neutral 
 property, though bound to an enemy's port. 
 IJ.y)o.iit(i V. Jhiwdcn, 7 El. cVc Bl. 763; 27 L. J., 
 1 Q. B. 17:3 Jur. (N.S.) 1209; 5 W. R. 732— Ex. Ch. 
 And where an embargo had been laid on pro- 
 visions in Ireland, an insurance on provisions on 
 board a vessel to an enemy's port was void. 
 Zlelmada v. Motteu.r, 1 Term Rep. 85, n. 
 
 An insurance by a subject of this country upon 
 
 foreign property does not cover a loss b}' capture, 
 
 I on a war afterwards taking i]lace between this 
 
 t countrv and that of the assured. Lre, Kr parte, 
 
 \ 13 Ves". 64. 
 
 I Where goods, the iiroduce vi Holland, pur- 
 chased in that country during hostilities between 
 Holland and Great fjritain. by a British agent 
 resident there and shipped for British subjects, 
 were insured by them in this country: — Held, 
 that this was a legal insurance. Jiell v. Cil.'coii, 
 ! 1 Bo.s. A: P. 345 ; 4 R. R. 823. 
 ! Every insurance on alien property by a P.ritish 
 .subject must be understood within this implied 
 exceiition, that it shall not extend to cover any 
 loss liapjiening during the existence of hostilities 
 between the respective countries of the assured 
 ami the assurer. Jinnidon v. Cnrliiiy. 4 East, 
 410 ; I Smith, 85 ; 7 R. R. 592. S. P., Kelliwr v. 
 Le Mctiirier, 4 East, 396; 1 Smith, 72 ; 7 R. R. 
 .581. 
 
 Legality— Insurance of Enemy's Property.] — 
 Insurance of enemy's property is illegal, and no 
 action can be maintained thereon. lirhtow v. 
 Toirer.1. i\ 'i'erm Rep. 35 : 3 R. R. 113. n. 
 
 Enemy's Property.] — An underwriter on 
 French property in time of peace is not liable 
 for a loss occasioned by capture by a king's ship 
 during hostilities Ijetwccn France and England,
 
 1143 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— V. Interest of Assured. 
 
 1144 
 
 which commenced after the ])olicj' was effected, ] 
 and terminated before action brought. Gavtha 
 V. Dr J/fxi/rirr, 4 East, 407 ; 7 K. 11. 5i}0. 
 
 15. Prize. 
 
 Whether Insurable.] — Captors of a ship seized 
 as a prize may insure their interest therein, and 
 are not entitled to a return of premium, although 
 afterwards adjudged to be no prize, and resti- 
 tution is awarded to the owner by the Court of 
 Admiralty. lioclun v. Jirll. 8 Term Rep. 154 ; 4 
 R. R. 620. 
 
 After an order by the king in council, gazetted 
 on the .5th September, 1807, to detain and bring 
 into port all Danish vessels ; a hired armed ship 
 of his majesty took off Lisbon, on the 10th, and 
 carried in thither, a Danish vessel ; and without 
 instituting any proceedings in the Admiralty 
 Court there (though Portugal was an ally with 
 England in the war), sold her cargo to defray the 
 expense of repairs and took in a loading on 
 freight for London, with which she sailed on 3rd 
 November, on which day hostilities were declared 
 against Denmark, by another order of council ; 
 and on 12th November, an insurance was made 
 by order of the prize agent appointed by the 
 captors, in consequence of a letter written by 
 him in October, before the declaration of hostili- 
 ties, directing the plaintiff to insure " for my 
 account the Danish vessel, ' Knud Terkelson,' 
 which has been detained by his majesty's armed 
 ship ' Duchess of Bedford,' and for which I am 
 authorised to act as agent " ; and concluding with 
 expressing the agent's confidence that the plain- 
 tiff would do the best for the interest of the con- 
 cerned ; and after such insurance was effected, 
 the king, by another order of council, reciting 
 the circumstances, adopted the insurance : — Held, 
 that his majesty, having a lawful possession of 
 the captured vessel through the aid of his otticers 
 and servants, whose possession was legalised by 
 the previous order to detain Danish vessels, 
 whether known to them or not at the time of the 
 capture, had an insurable interest therein, and 
 that it was competent for him to adopt the 
 insurance made by order of the agent apjiointed 
 bv the captors. Muutli v. T/to/iipso/t, 13 East, 
 274 ; 11 East, 428 ; 10 R. R. 539. 
 
 Upon a joint capture by the army and navy, 
 the officers and crews of the ships before con- 
 demnation have an insurable interest by virtue 
 of the Prize Act, which usually passes at the 
 commencement of a war. Lc Cras- v. Ilvf/Jws, 
 3 Dougl. 81 ; 2 Park, Ins. (8th ed.) 568. 
 
 A prize taken by the navy and army conjointly 
 was insurable, on account of the interest of the 
 captors, under 45 Geo. 3, c. 72, s. 3, which granted 
 a prize so taken to the joint cajjtors after con- 
 demnation, subject only to the a])portionment of 
 the Crown as to the respective shares. StbTtiig 
 v. yawjhan, 11 East, 619 ; 2 Camp. 225. 
 
 The expectation arising from the habit of the 
 Crown as to restoring a prize taken without 
 letters of marque is an insurable interest. Xicliol 
 V. Guodall. 10 Ves. 157. 
 
 Preliminary Claim.] — If a ship or a cargo 
 insured is taken and condennied as prize, it is not 
 necessary for the insured to make any claim or 
 appeal before they call on the imderwriters. 
 Ti/xon V. Gut-ncy, 3 Term Rep. 477. 
 
 Eestitution— Hotchpot.] — The ship "Ross," 
 belonging to the plaintiffs, and the ship " Atlan- 
 tic ■■ to Fisher ct Co., and the cargoes to other 
 
 persons, were insured on a former voyage, and 
 captured by the Spaniards and carried into Spain ; 
 and the underwriters upon the " Atlantic," of 
 whom the defendant was one, paid as for a total 
 loss. But while proceedings for condemnation 
 were pending in the prize court in Spain, Cowan 
 (residing there) having been severally empowered 
 by the different owners to claim restitution, and 
 to enter into compromise with the captors for 
 giving up part of the cargoes on the restitution 
 of the remainder and of the ships, and to defray 
 all costs and charges thereon, and to forward the 
 ships and goods restored to London, and to pay 
 all demands on the ships and goods, agreed with 
 the captors, subsequent to the cessation of hos- 
 tilities, that upon giving up to them part of each 
 cargo, the rest and the ships should be restored 
 for the common benefit of the original owners of 
 both ships and cargoes, in the lump. On which 
 Cowan advised the plaintiffs that he should con- 
 sign the " Atlantic " to them, with their own 
 ship the " Ross," and draw bills on them for the 
 general expenses of effecting the arrangement 
 with the captors, and for the outfit of both ships, 
 and referred to this information to guide them 
 with respect to insurance, on which the plaintiffs 
 insured the " Atlantic " by a policy, " on ships or 
 on salvage charges, or on any interest as may be 
 hereafter declared by the assured " ; and, after a 
 subsequent capture of her by the French, brought 
 an action against the defendant (who had also 
 underwritten this second policy), and averred the 
 interest to be first in themselves ; and, secondly, 
 in Fisher & Co., the original owners of the ship 
 "Atlantic" : — Held, that the plaintiffs had an 
 insurable interest, as well on account of the 
 whole property captured (of which they owned 
 the other shij) " Ross ") having been restored at 
 the sacrifice of part of the cai'goes, for the com- 
 mon benefit of all, which created in them a 
 hotchpot interest in the ship " Atlantic " ; and 
 also as representing Cowan, who was empowered 
 to act as an attorney for all the original owners, 
 and to whom such restitution in hotchpot was 
 made for their common benefit, and who had 
 incurred charges and drawn bills on the plaintiffs 
 on account of the common concern, which had 
 been accepted and paid by them ; anfl Cowan 
 having had authority to insure from Fisher & Co., 
 the original owners, under their order, on obtain- 
 ing restitution, to forward the ship to London, 
 and to pay all claims and demands on her. 
 Ilohertson v. Jlaiiultun, 14 East, 522 ; 13 R. E. 
 303. 
 
 Commissioners for Sale of Prizes — Insurable 
 Interest.] — Commissioners appointed by the 
 Crown fi )r the care, management and sale of Dutch 
 ships brought to this country held to have an 
 insurable interest in Dutch ships captitred by a 
 British man-of-war and on their way to England, 
 under instructions to capture, with a view to 
 their provisional detention. Held, also, that they 
 might recover upon a loss of such ships by perils 
 of the sea, thoiigh the loss happened after a 
 l)roclamation for general reprisals against the 
 Dutch. Li/re/ni v. Craufurd, 3 Bos. & P. 101 ; 2 
 Bos. & P. (N.R.) 269 ; 6 R. R. 623— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Commissioners appointed under an act of 
 parliament to take possession of Dutch ships 
 brought into ports of Great Britain, may insure 
 in their own names such ships seized abroad, 
 and whilst on their voyage to Great Britain. 
 Crawfunl v. Ilunter, 8 Tei-m Rep. 13 ; 4 R. R. 
 576.
 
 11-15 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—Y. Interest of Assured. 
 
 1146 
 
 16. Legal or Equitable. 
 
 Trustee.] — Insurable interest exists in a 
 trustee in respect of the legal interest in a ship, 
 as in the cestui que trust in respect of the 
 equitable. Tallop, E.r parte,\o\ei.(Jl ; lOR.K.2-1. 
 
 Cestui que trust.] — An equitable interest is 
 insurable : and both the trustee and the cestui 
 que trust have an insurable interest, the former 
 in respect of his legal interest, and the latter in 
 respect of the equitable interest. Hoiigliton or j 
 Howton, Ex parte. 17 Yes. 251 ; 1 Rose, 177 ; Hi 
 K. E. 73. 
 
 Foreigner Trustee.] — An American, who is 
 owner of a ship only as trustee, and would not 
 thereby be entitled to the privileges of the 
 American flag under the laws of his own country, 
 has a sufficient interest to maintain an action on 
 a policv. nil hid v. Wilkinson, 2 Taunt. 237 ; 11 
 R. R. 5.51. 
 
 17. Averment and Proof of Interest. 
 
 Averment.] — A defendant must plead the 
 plaintiff's want of interest specially. Jlills v. 
 Camiibell, 2 Y. & C. 389. 
 
 It is necessary in a declaration on a policy 
 truly to describe tlie interest on which the policy 
 is effected. Cohen v. Htuinuni, 5 Taunt. 101 : 
 14 R. R. 702. 
 
 So, the declaration must aver in whom the 
 interest is vested, if it is a policy on interest. 
 Cousinx\. Xuntea, 3 Taunt. 513 ; 12 R. R. 696. 
 
 A declaration on a policy on a foreign ship 
 need not aver any interest in the assured ; 
 though there are no such words as '• interest or 
 no interest " in the policy. Xantes v. Thumpsun, 
 2 East, 385 ; 6 R. R. 4.58. 
 
 If a British subject has an interest in an}' part 
 of a caigo on a valued })olicy, he nux}' recover 
 to the extent of the policy on a count averring 
 interest in himself, if he proves some interest, 
 although alien enemies may be interested in 
 other parts of the cargo. Feine v. Ar/ziilar, 3 
 Taunt. 506 ; 12 R. R. 695. 
 
 An averment of interest at tlie time of effect- 
 ing the policy is immaterial, and need not be 
 proveil ; it is sufficient if the plaintiff is inter- 
 ested at the conmienccment of the risk. JUrind 
 V. Wilkinson, 2 Taunt. 237 ; 11 R. R. 551. 
 
 In a declaration on a policy, the plaintiff 
 averrerl that Messrs. H., at the time of effecting 
 the policy, and at the time of the loss, were 
 interested in the cargo, which was the subject of 
 the insurance, " to a iaige amount, to wit, to the 
 amount of all the money ever insureil thereon " ; 
 at the trial it apjieared, that, previously to effect- 
 ing the pf)licy, Messrs. H. had a<lmitted another 
 mercantile house to a joint concern in the cargo 
 insured : — Held, tliat the averment wassupported 
 by the evidence. Pa//e v. Fri/, 2 Bos. i!c 1'. 240 ; 
 5 R. R. 583. 
 
 A. A; B., trading under the firm of A. & Co., 
 engaged in an adventure, and afterwaids received 
 C. i^ D. as sharers therein ; a policy was effected 
 on account of A. & Co., and a loss having hap- 
 pened, the interest was averred in tlie declaration 
 to be in A. tS: B. It was left to the jury to say 
 whether all tlie adventurei's were inten<led to be 
 included, which they found in the affirmative : — 
 Held, that the ])laintiff was entitled to recover 
 accordingly'. Carnifherg v. Shedden, 1 Marsh. 
 416 ; 6 Taunt. 14. 
 
 Joint owners of property insured for their 
 joint use and on their joint account cannot 
 recover upon a count on the policy, averring the 
 interest to be in one of them only. Bell v. 
 Andey, 16 East. 141 ; 14 R. R. 322. And see 
 Hiseo.v V. Barrett, 16 East, 145. c. 
 
 Where the plaintiffs averred that they were the 
 persons residing in Great Britain who received 
 the order for and effected the insurance : this 
 was considered as a material averment, and not 
 sustained by evidence of a letter received by 
 them after the policy was effected, directing 
 them to make assurance ; although the policy 
 was originally on goods on board the ship called 
 the '• Ann," or ships, or by whatsoever other 
 name the ship should be named ; and the plain- 
 tiffs, upon the receipt of the letter, procured a 
 memorandum to be made on the policy, signed 
 by the defendant, declaring the interest to be on 
 boaril the " Herald," the ship mentioned in the 
 letter. Bell v. Janwn, 1 M. i: S. 201. 
 
 Where the plaintiff effected an insurance on 
 a ship, as well in his own name, as for and in the 
 name of all and every other person, in the usual 
 form, for the benefit of S., an alien enemy, and 
 procured a licence to legalise the voyage, and a 
 loss happened ; and two years afterwards S., by 
 letter to the plaintiff, adopted the insurance : — 
 Held, that the plaintiff might recover against 
 the unilerwriter, averring the interest in 8. 
 Uagedorn v. Oliver-son;! M. & S. 485 ; 15 R. R. 317. 
 
 Property in Ship — Proof.] — In an action on a 
 policy, the property in tlic shij) may be proved 
 by parol evidence of the possession of the assured, 
 unless disproved by the production of the written 
 documents of the ship under the register acts. 
 Robertson v. Freneh, 4 East, 130 ; 4 Esp. 246 : 7 
 R. R. .535. 
 
 The production of the register from the custom- 
 house is conclusive evidence of the ownership. 
 Man<h v. Rohinmn, 4 Esp. 98 ; 2 Anstr. 479 ; S 
 R. R. (il7. 
 
 Freight.] — A shipowner who has entered into 
 contracts for freight, has an insurable interest in 
 the freight, though the contract for freight is not 
 in writing. Miller v. Warre, 7 D. & R. 1 ; 4 
 B. k C. .538 ; 1 Car. .t 1'. 237 ; 4 L. J. (o.s.) 
 K. B. 8. 
 
 Goods.] — In an action on a policy on goods 
 the bill of lading signed by the captain is not 
 evidence to prove the jilaintiil's interest in the 
 goods. IJieknon v. Lodge, 1 Stark. 226 ; IS U. R.764. 
 
 A bill of lading signed by a master of a vessel 
 since deceased, for goods to be delivered to a 
 consignee or his assigns, he paying freight, is 
 admissiVde as evidence of the consignee liaving 
 an insurable inteiest in the goods. Iladdow v. 
 Varrij, 3 Taunt. 303 : 12 R. R. 666. 
 
 But if the master guards his acknowledgment 
 l^y saying, "contents unknown," so tiiat he does 
 not charge himself with the receipt of any goods 
 in jmrticular, the Ijill of lading alone is not evi- 
 dence, either of the (piantity of the goods or of 
 [)roperty in the consignee. Ih. 
 
 To prove an interest in the insured, the 
 production of the l>ill of lading, and tlie evi- 
 dence of the captain of the ship that he had 
 the goods mentioned in it on board, are sufficient. 
 M'Andreio v. Bell, ] Esp. 373. 
 
 A shipowner, who was in the habit of receiv- 
 ing shipments of cotton to be carried on deck 
 under a clean bill of lading, at his own risk,
 
 1147 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— V. Interest of Assured. 
 
 1148 
 
 entered into open policies of insurance as to 
 which he was bound, according to usage, to 
 <leclare all his risks in order of shipment, and 
 rectify any mistake even after loss known. His 
 affcnt.by negligence or mistake, gave a clean bill 
 of lading for a certain shipment and gave no 
 notice to him, but such shipowner, on discover- 
 ing the omission, altered his declaration by 
 inserting this shipment, though after loss known : 
 — Held, that the shipowner had an insurable 
 interest, as at law a written contract cannot be 
 varieil on the ground of negligence or mistake, 
 and that he was entitled to alter the declaration. 
 ^pphens V. Austnd'uiii Insurance Co., 42 L. J., 
 C. P. 12 ; L. R. 8 C. P. 18 : 27 L. T. 585 ; 21 \V. R. 
 228 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 458. 
 
 The mere fact of a person's name appearing in 
 a bill of lading as the shipper and consignee of 
 the goods is only prima facie, and not conclusive 
 evidence that such person has an insurable interest 
 in such goods. Seaqrcirc' v. Union Marine Insur- 
 unce Co., 1 H. & R. 302 ; 35 L. J., C. P. 172 ; 
 L. R. 1 C. P. 305 ; 12 Jur. (N.s.) 358 ; 14 L. T. 
 479 ; 14 W. R. G90. 
 
 S., who was a broker, sold for his principals on 
 commission a cargo of goods, which were shipped 
 under a bill of lading, which made the goods 
 deliverable to the order of S. or his assigns, and 
 he retained the possession of such bill of lading 
 until the purchaser had accepted a bill for the 
 amount of the goods. S. was not a factor, but a 
 mere agent, who had not possession of the goods, 
 or any lien on them for advances, commission, or 
 otherwise. The goods were lost on the voyage ; 
 and in an action upon a policy which S. had 
 effected upon the cargo, the jury found that 
 there was no sale of the goods until after their 
 loss : and the judge ruled that S. had an insur- 
 able interest, as the bill of lading made the goods 
 deliverable to him or his assigns : — Held, that 
 such ruling was wrong as a matter of law, and 
 that S., having in fact nothing to suffer, and 
 incurring no liability by the loss, had no insur- 
 able interest. lb. 
 
 Subscription to Policy.] — In an action on a 
 pcjlicy on a foreign shii), where there is a stipula- 
 tion that the policy shall be sufficient proof of 
 interest, if there is judgment by default, the 
 plaintiff, on the writ of inquiry, need only prove 
 the defendant's suVjscription to the policy, with- 
 out giving any evidence of interest. Thclluson 
 V. Fletcher, 1 Dougl. 315 ; 1 Esp. 73. 
 
 Searcher's Report.] — A copy from the custom- 
 house of the searcher's report of the cargo kept 
 there is evidence. Jolnimn v. Ward, 6 Esp. 48. 
 
 Inclination of the Courts to favour Interest. ] 
 
 — It is the duty of the court always to lean in 
 favour of an insurable interest, if jjossible, for it 
 seems to me that after underwriters have received 
 the premium, the objection that there was no 
 insurable interest is often, as nearly as possible, 
 a technical objection, and one which has no real 
 merit, certainly not as between the assured and 
 the insurer — per Brett, M.R. Stock v. Int/lis, 53 
 L. .J.. Q. B. 356 ; 12 Q. B. D. 564 ; 51 L. T.'44y ; 5 
 Asp. M. C. 294— C. A. See S. C, on app. ante, 
 •col. 1123. 
 
 VI. WARRANTIES. 
 
 1. Construction Generally, 1148. 
 
 2. Natiomlity, 1149. 
 
 3. Seaworthiness. 
 
 a. Sufficiency Generally, 1150. | 
 
 h. On Time Policy, 1154. 
 e. Carrying Goods, 1155. 
 
 d. Crew, 1157. 
 
 e. Pilot, 1158. 
 /. Repairs, 1158. 
 
 (/. Tackle and Furniture, 1159. 
 '//. Lighters, 1159. 
 /. Proof, 1159. 
 
 4. Position of Shij}, 1161. 
 
 5. To Sail (in a giccn Day, 1163. 
 
 6. To Sail with Oonvoi/, 1167. 
 
 7. Neutrality, Wli). 
 
 8. Against Conf scat ion, 1173. 
 
 9. Against Capture, 1176. 
 
 10. As to Cargo, 1177. 
 
 11. Uninsured, 1177. 
 
 12. Free from Average — See X., LOSSES, 
 
 col. 1247. 
 And see VII. Concealment and Misrepre- 
 sentation, col. 1178. 
 
 1. Construction Generally. 
 
 Warranty or Eepresentation.] — A representa- 
 tion is a statement or an assertion made by one 
 party to the other, before or at the time of the 
 contract, of some matter or circumstance re- 
 lating to it. It is not an integral part of 
 the contract, and the contract is not broken, 
 although the representation proves to be untrue, 
 unless it was made fraudulently, and except in 
 the cases of marine policies of insurance. 
 Behn v. Burness, 3 B. & S. 751 ; 32 L. J., 
 Q. B. 204: 9 Jur. (n.s.) 620: 8 L. T. 207 ; 11 
 AV. R. 496— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Whether a descriptive statement in a written 
 instrument is a mere representation, or whether 
 it is a substantive part of the contract, is a ques- 
 tion of construction for the court to determine. lb. 
 
 A statement in a contract descriptive of the 
 subject-matter of it, or of some material inci- 
 dent thereof, when intended to be a substantive 
 part of the contract, is generally regarded as 
 a warranty or a condition on the failure or non- 
 performance of which the other party may, 
 provided the condition has not been partially 
 executed in his favour, repudiate the contract in 
 toto. lb. 
 
 In policies and charterparties the word " war- 
 ranty " is synonymous with condition. lb. 
 
 Whatever is written in the margin of a policy 
 of insurance is a warranty, and must be liter- 
 ally complied with. Be Hahn v. Ilurtleii, 1 
 Term Rep. 343 ; 2 Term Rep. 186 ; 1 R. R. 221. 
 
 If a stipulation is written on a separate paper, 
 though pinned or wafered to the policy, it is not 
 a warranty, but only a representation. Pawson 
 V. Barnevelt, 1 Dougl. 12, n. 
 
 A warranty inserted in a policy must be liter- 
 ally and strictly complied with : a representa- 
 tion to the underwriter need only be substan- 
 tially performed ; but, if false in a material point, 
 it will avoid the policy. Pawson v. Watson, 
 Cowp. 785 ; 1 Dougl. 11, n. 
 
 A warranty does not include any thing not 
 necessarily implied in it ; therefore a warranty 
 that a ship should have twenty guns w^as held 
 not to mean also that she should have the neces- 
 sary complement of men to work all the guns. 
 Hyde v. Bruce, 3 Dougl. 213. And see per Lord 
 Eldon, Rees v. Berrington, 2 Ves. 541. 
 
 A false warranty in a policy will vitiate it, 
 though the loss happens in a mode not affected 
 bv the falsity. Woouier or Woohner v. Jluilnuin, 
 IW. Bl. 427; 3 Burr. 1419.
 
 11^9 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— VI. Warmniies. 
 
 1150 
 
 The statements as to the state of the ship and 
 as to the voyage contained in a shp of paper 
 attached to the policy by a wafer, laeld not to be 
 a warranty but representations only, Jiize v. 
 Fletcher, l Dougl. 12, n. (4). 
 
 Extent of.] — A rei)resentation made to the first 
 underwriters extends to all the others. Barber 
 V. Fletcher, 1 Dougl. 305. 
 
 But in another case it was doubted how far a 
 representation made to one underwriter should 
 be taken to extend to the rest, and what should 
 be evidence of it. JIarsden v. Reid, 3 East, 
 572 : 7 R. K. 516. And see Bell v. Carstairs, li 
 East, 374 ; 2 Camp. 544 ; 12 R. R. 557 ; 11 R. R. 
 593. 
 
 The rule that a representation made to the 
 first underwriter is made to the other under- 
 writer questioned by Lord EUenborough. Fur- 
 ester V. Pigoiu 1 M. & S. 13 ; 3 Camp. 380. 
 
 No evidence can be I'eceived of representations 
 made by the insurance broker to other under- 
 writers than the defendant, subsequently to the 
 first underwriter ; and evidence of represen- 
 tations to the first underwriter is received more 
 on precedent than on reason. Brhw v. Featlier- 
 4<tune. 4 Taunt. Sgy ; 14 R. R. 689. See also 
 Provincial Imurance Co. v. Leduc, post, col. 
 1162. 
 
 By Broker.] — A representation made by an 
 insurance broker when the names of the under- 
 writeis are put upon a slip, is binding on the 
 assured, unless qualified or withdrawn by some 
 ciimmunication upon the subject between that 
 time and the execution of the policy. Edwards 
 v. Fontner, 1 Camp. 530. 
 
 The broker who insured shewed to the under- 
 writers a paper detached from the policy stating 
 that the ship was to sail with twelve guns and 
 twenty men. There weie no men or guns on 
 board when the policy was subscribed and only 
 ten guns and six swords and sixteen men when 
 she sailed: — Held, that the statement was a repre- 
 sentation and not a warranty, and that the policy 
 wa.s in force. Pawson v. Ewer, 1 Dougl. 12, n. 
 
 2. Xatioxality. 
 And sec 7, Neutrality. 
 
 Insuring a shi[) by an English name does not 
 amount to a warranty or a lepresentation that 
 she is an Englisli ship. Claphmit v. (Adoyan, 3 
 Camp. 3>i2. 
 
 Where a policy described the insurance to be on 
 goods on board the ship calle<l " The American 
 shi|i President.' tliis was taken to be all tlie name 
 <>i tlie shi]». and not a warranty of her being an 
 American .shij) called tlie" President. " And where 
 the jKilicy, after such name, had the words '• or by 
 whatever other name tlie ship should be called," 
 it was holden to be no variance that the real 
 name of the ship was the "President"; the 
 indent ity of the ship meant to be insured with 
 that name being jiroved. Le Mcsiiricr v. 
 VaiKjhan, 6 East, 3H2 ; 2 Smith, 492 ; 8 R. R. 
 500. S. P., //all v. Molinriir, 6 East. 385, n. ; 8 
 R. R. 503. 
 
 A warranty of a ship being American does not 
 mean that she is American built, but that she is 
 the property of an Ameiicaii subject. Wilson v, 
 /iachhoHse, Peake's Add. Cas. 119. 
 
 A policy was effected by the shipjiers on gold, 
 l)ortion of the cargo of a ship to sail from London 
 to Constantinople. At the time of the insurance 
 
 the vessel was English, but subsequently, and 
 before sailing, she was sold to a Russian company 
 and received a certificate as a Russian ship, her 
 British certificate of registry being cancelled. 
 On the voyage she was wrecked in Turkish 
 waters and within the jurisdiction of the port 
 of Constantinople, where by convention all 
 shipping disputes were determined by the law of 
 the country whose flag the ship bears, in the 
 consular court of such country. The gold was 
 taken on shore before any expense was incurred 
 about the remainder of the cargo or the ship, and 
 was deposited with the Russian authorities. 
 The ship having become a total wreck, and legal 
 proceedings having been taken in the court of 
 the Russian consulate, the owners of the gold 
 were compelled, in order to obtain possession of 
 it, to pay a sum of money for salvage claims and 
 legal expenses incurred in respect of the ship and 
 the rest of the cargo, and adjudged to be charge- 
 able on the gold. Some of these charges would 
 not have been incurred had the vessel remained 
 under the English flag and subject to the English 
 law, and had the salvage claims been adjusted 
 according to that law : — Held, first, that there 
 being no express warranty in the policy against 
 change of nationality, none could be implied, 
 and the insurers could not take advantage of 
 the change to escape from or to limit their 
 liabihty. '~ Bent v. Smith, 38 L. J., Q. B. 144 ; 
 L. R. 4 Q. B. 414 : 20 L. T. 868 ; 17 W. R. 646. 
 
 Held, also, that these payments were a loss, the 
 direct consequence of the wreck which enabled 
 the Russian authorities to enforce them, and as 
 such were within the perils insured against, and 
 must be borne by the insurers, /h. 
 
 A representation that cargo insured was 
 Swedish, which was true in fact, though con- 
 tradicted by sentence of a French admiralty 
 court : — Held, not to prevent the assured recover- 
 ing. JVonnen v. Rcid, 16 East, 176. 
 
 Absence of documents required by French 
 orilinanees : — Held, not to prevent assured from 
 recovering. III. 
 
 Policy on a ship warranted Ameiican. Sentence 
 of Frence prize court at St. Domingo, condemning 
 the ship to captor either as not being American, 
 or as not being properly documented as Ameri- 
 can, is conclusive evidence that she was not 
 American. Baring v. Chufi/rtt, or Christie, 3 
 Bos. & P. 201 : 5 E;ist, 398 ;' 4 R. R. 520 ; 6 R. R. 
 7.59 ; 7 R. U. 719. 
 
 A ship warranted to belong to a particular 
 state must be properly documented as such. 
 /iirh v. Parher, 7 Term Rep. 705 ; 4 R. R. 552, 
 S. P., /iarzillaii v. Lewis, 3 Dougl. 126. 
 
 3. Seaworthiness. 
 
 a. Sufficiency Ganerally. 
 
 Implied Warranty of. J — I'hcre is an inqdied 
 agreement on the i)art uf the assured that the 
 ship insured shall be in a proper state and con- 
 dition to perform the voyage. Mills v. Roebuck, 
 1 Park, Ins. (8th cd.) 460.' 
 
 Disclosure of Defects.] — As an assured im- 
 pliedly warrants iln' ship insured to be sea- 
 wurthy, whatever forms an ingredient in sea- 
 wi^rthiness is not necessary to be disclosed by 
 the assured to the underwriter in the first 
 instance, unless information upon the subject is 
 particularly called for, and then the assured 
 must disclose truly what he knows in the respect
 
 1151 
 
 SHIPPING— IN SUEANCE— VI. JVarranties. 
 
 1152 
 
 required. IIay>nwd v. Roijcrx, •! East, 590 ; 1 
 Smith, 289 ; 7"R. R. 638. 
 
 At what Period.] — A ship may be seaworthy 
 in harbour, in a state which would not be sufK- 
 cieut for a voyage ; therefore, on a policy at and 
 from the port at which the ship was undergoing 
 repairs at the time of insurance : — Held, that 
 although not seaworthy for a voyage, she was 
 sufficiently so in harbour, and there was no 
 breach of the implied warranty. Hlhhcrt v. 
 Martin, 1 Camp. 538. S. P., Forbes v. Wilson, 1 
 Park on Ins. (8th ed.) 472. 
 
 A ship is seaworthy if she is sufficiently fur- 
 nished for the service in which she is for the 
 present time engaged. Annen v. Woodmun, 3 
 Taunt. 299 ; 12 R. R. 663. 
 
 Therefore, a ship much out of repair is sea- 
 worthy in harbour, and is protected under the 
 word " at." li. 
 
 The implied warranty of seaworthiness, in a 
 policy on a ship, does not extend to her being 
 seaworthy at every port which she leaves in the 
 course of her voyage. Iloldsivorth v. Wise, 
 1 M. & Rv. 673 ; 7 B. & C. 794 ; 6 L. J. (O.s.) K. B. 
 134 ; 31 R. R. 299. 
 
 The implied warranty of seaworthiness refers 
 to the commencement of the risk; the only 
 exception is where pilots are, or a particular 
 description of crew is, necessary in certain parts 
 of the voyage. HoUi/u/worth or HolUnfisivurfh 
 V. Brodricli, 7 A. & E. 40 ; 2N. & P. 608 ; 8 L. J., 
 Q. B. 80 ; 1 Jur. 430. 
 
 Different Stages of Voyage.]— A ship 
 
 insured at and from >^ew Orleans to Liverpool. 
 She was lying on the mud in the Mississippi and 
 was seaworthy for that position ; but her bottom 
 was worm-eaten, so that she was unfit for a sea 
 voyage. She sailed, and before reaching the sea 
 her bottom was pirt into good repair : — Held, 
 that the policy attached. Oliverson v. Lough- 
 nnan, 4 M. & S. 346. 
 
 Action for loss of ship insured by a time policy. 
 Demurrer to a plea, that during the time for 
 which the ship was insured, and before the loss, the 
 ship was unseaworthy and might and ought to 
 have been repaired and kept seaworthy by the 
 assurer, the plea not alleging that the assurer 
 knew of the unseaworthiness or that the non- 
 repair caused the loss, upheld. Hollingworth v. 
 JBrodricli, sujjra. 
 
 Effect of sending to Sea in unseaworthy Con- 
 dition.] — If a shipowner knowingly and wilfully 
 sends his ship to sea in an unseaworthy condi- 
 tion, the knowledge and wilfulness are essential 
 elements in the consideration of his claim to 
 recover on an insurance policy. But there is no 
 implied warranty of seaworthiness in a time 
 policv Budqeoii v. Pemhrohe, 46 L. J., Ex. 409 ; 
 2 App. Cas. 284 ; 36 L. T. 382 ; 25 W. R. 499 ; 3 
 Asp. M. C. 393— H. L. 
 
 Ship sinking in fine weather— Facts raising 
 Presumption of Unseaworthiness.]— See Budfjeon 
 V. Peiiihrokc, supra, and rasrs supra, col. 1088. 
 
 Insurance of Goods — Unseaworthiness of 
 Ship.] — Where the ship was unseaworthy at the 
 commencement of the voyage and was obliged to 
 put into a port, and some goods were spoilt and 
 obliged to be sold :— Held, that the shipper of 
 the goods could not recover against his insurer, 
 although he knew nothing as to the seaworthiness 
 or otherwise of the ship. Oliver v. Cowley, 1 
 Park, ins. (8th ed.) 470. 
 
 Insurer not aware of Unseaworthiness.] — A 
 
 ship sailed from the Thames repaired and sea- 
 worthy, as the owner and shi])wright thought, 
 but before reaching Portsmouth was leaky and 
 was condemned as unfit to proceed : — Held, that 
 the underwriters were discharged. Lee\. Beech, 
 1 Park, Ins. (8th ed.) 468. 
 
 From Capture.] — A ship, to be seaworthy, 
 must be provided with storm-sails, and rendei'ed 
 as secure as possible from capture, as well as 
 from the perils of the sea. Wedderhurti v. Bell, 
 1 Camp. 1 ; 10 R. R. 61.5. 
 
 Neutrality.] — A neutral vessel is not sea- 
 worthy unless she is provided with documents to 
 prove her neutrality. Steel v. Lacy, 3 Taunt. 
 285 ; 12 R. R. 658. 
 
 What Voyage.] — By the law of marine insur- 
 ance there is an implied warranty in every 
 insurance of a ship that the vessel shall be sea- 
 worthy, by which is meant that she shall be in a 
 fit state as to repairs, equipment and crew, and 
 in all other respects to perform the voyage in- 
 sured, and to encounter the ordinary perils at 
 the time of sailing upon it. If the assurance 
 attaches before the voyage, it is enough that the 
 state of the ship is commensurate to the risk ; 
 and if the voyage is such as to require a difEerent 
 complement of men, or state of equipment in 
 difEerent parts of it, as if it was a voyage down 
 a canal or a river, and thence to and on the 
 open sea, it is enough if the vessel is, at each 
 stage of the navigation in which the loss hap- 
 pened, properly manned and equipped for it. 
 But the assured makes no warranty to the under- 
 writers that the vessel shall continue seaworthy, 
 or that the master or crew shall do their duty 
 during their voyage, and their negligence or 
 misconduct is no defence to an action on the 
 policy when the loss has been immediately occa- 
 sioned by the perils insured against. Biccard v. 
 Sheplierd or Commercial Marine Insurance Co. 
 Y Xamaqua Mining Co., 14 Moore, P. C. 471 ; 5 
 L. T. .504 ; 10 W. R. 136— P. C. 
 
 The seaworthiness, of which, in the absence of 
 express stipulation, there is an implied warranty 
 in every voyage policy, is a relative term depend- 
 ing on the nature of the ship as ^^•ell as of the 
 vovage insured. Clajtham. v. Langton, 34 L. J., 
 Q.'B. 46 ; 10 L. T. 875 ; 12 W. R. 1011— Ex. Ch. 
 S. P., Burqess v. WickJiam, 3 B. & S. 669 ; 33 
 L. J., Q. B". 17 ; 8 L. T. 47 ; 11 W. R. 992. 
 
 Therefore, on a policy " on a voyage from the 
 Tyne to Odessa," it being shewn that the vessel 
 was an iron steamer of very light draught of 
 water, constructetl for river navigation only, 
 that this was disclosed to the underwriters before 
 the policy was efEected, and the dimensions of 
 the vessel then stated to them, and that (though 
 it was impossible to make her fit to encounter 
 the ordinary perils of ocean navigation) the ship 
 had been made as seaworthy as her size and con- 
 struction would admit ; the underwriters were 
 hekl liable on her being lost by the perils insured 
 against. Ih. 
 
 Three vessels, insured on a voyage from L. to 
 G., were warranted to sail from L. on or before 
 the 15th of August. L. was on a river, and 
 bridges crossed the river below L., so that the 
 vessels could not insert their masts, and the 
 depth of water would not allow of the heavier 
 anchors and other apparel of the vessels being 
 put on board. They aU left L. before the 15th,
 
 1153 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEA^'CE—yI. Warranties. 
 
 1154 
 
 and arrived at A., at the mouth of the river, 
 where they were supplietl with necessaries for a 
 short coasting voyage to M.. to which they ])ro- 
 ceeded, and were there fully provided for their 
 long sea voyage to G. By a local law. vessels 
 were required to go to M. for certificates to 
 entitle them to sail, but they might have been 
 fully equipped for sea at A. if the materials had 
 been sent there from M. ; but this would have 
 caused expense and possibly delay. One of the 
 vessels was ready to leave M. some days before the 
 others, but was detained in order to have their 
 company, on the alleged ground of safetj'. They 
 all left M. on the 23rd. which was as soon as 
 was practicable after their certificates had been 
 granted ; and they were subsequently lost at 
 sea : — Held, that as the nature of the voyage 
 required different j)reparations for different poi'- 
 tions of It, and the vessels had been properly 
 equi])])ed for each portion, the warranties of 
 seaworthiness had been complied with, and the 
 ves.seLs had " sailed on their voyage " before the 
 15th of Aueust. BimiUon v. Lupton, 15 C. B. 
 (N.S.) 113 ; 33 L.J.. C. P. 37 : 10 Jur. (N.S.) 422 ; 
 8 L. T. 575 ; 11 W. R. 966. 
 
 Held. also, that the delay of the third vessel 
 was reasonable. Ih. 
 
 Though there are different degrees of sea- 
 worthiness, according to the nature of the voyage, 
 yet. where there are several stages in a voyage, 
 which involve different equipments, a vessel 
 must be seaworthy for each stage at the com- 
 mencement of each stage. Qufher, Marine 
 IniinriiHce Co. v. Commercial Bank of Canada, 
 infra. 
 
 Eules of Association.] — The rules of an 
 
 insurance association jtrovided that, '-should any 
 vessel entering the association proceed on an 
 American voyage, her insurance should cease." 
 Another rule was, that the managing under- 
 writers should survey each ship insured, in hull 
 and mateiials, once a year, without distinction, 
 and order such stores and repairs as they might 
 rleem necessary, which stores must be got and 
 repairs done on due notice being given, other- 
 wise the ship should not be insured. The policies 
 were all to be time policies for one year : — Held, 
 that the effect of not complying with an order of 
 the managing underwriters was, that the ship 
 must be considered unsea worthy, and the policy 
 wliich had before been effected on her vnid. 
 Stficart y. Wilxon, 12 M. i: W. 11 ; 13 L. J., Ex. 
 27 : 7 .Jur. 1020. 
 
 Inland Policy. J — A policy headed "Inland 
 
 Hull j)olicy" iii--iiicd the ship "West" against 
 perils of lakes, rivers, canals, fii'cs, jettisons, 
 except damage from rottenness, inherent defects, 
 and other unseawfutliiiiess," "at and from Mon- 
 treal to Nova Scotia." At the commencement of 
 the voyage the boiler was defective, and after 
 leaving Quebec, and on getting into salt water, 
 the " West " met with ba<l weather and was lost : 
 — Held, that the warranty of seaworthiness at 
 the commcJiccriK^nt of the voyage applied, 
 although the |)olicy was an inland ]iolicy, the 
 voyage being expressed by the policy to be from 
 Montreal to Halifax. Quphec Marine Immranre 
 Co. V. Commerrial JianU of Canada. 31) Ti. J., P. C. 
 53; L. K. 3 P. C. 234; 22 L. T. 55'J; 18 W. R. 769. 
 
 Express Warranty.] — The express pro- 
 vision as to SI awoitliiness in the policy did not 
 exclude the implied warranty. ///. 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 Inland Vessel used for Ocean.] — When a 
 
 vessel built for inland navigation is insured for 
 an ocean voyage, there is an implied warranty 
 that she shall be made as seaworthy for the 
 voyage as such a vessel can be made by ordinary 
 available means. Turnbull v. Jansoit, 36 L T. 
 635 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 433— C. A. 
 
 A steamer of light construction, built for inland 
 navigation in Trinidad, was insured for the voyage 
 out. On the voyage she broke in two at sea,' and 
 went down. In an action on the policy, the 
 jury found that the vessel was not seaworthy a.s 
 an ocean-going vessel, and was not made as sea- 
 worthy as she might have been by ordinary 
 available means : — Held, that on these findings 
 the defendant was entitled to judgment. Ih. 
 
 PoUcy on Salvage.] — In a voyage policy on 
 salvage there is an implied condition or warranty 
 of seaworthiness. Knill v. Hooper, 2 H. & N 
 277 : 26 L. J., Ex. 377 ; 5 W. R. 791. 
 
 It being now well established as a rule of law 
 that in an insurance for a voyage, either on ship 
 or on goods, or on freight, a warrant of sea- 
 worthiness, for the voyage of the ship insured, or 
 of the shij) in which the goods are carried, is to 
 be implied, but seaworthiness being a relative 
 term, and the question of what it involves in 
 each case being one of fact, there is no exception 
 to the rule in the case of an insurance on sal- 
 vage, that is, on ship and cargo, in respect of the 
 lien of the insured for salvage service rendered, 
 there being no exclusion of such a warranty ; and 
 words in the policy, reciting that the ship and 
 cargo must have been abandoned by the original 
 crew and taken into port by the salvor, the 
 insured, in whose interest the insurance is 
 effected, do not amount to an implied exclusion 
 of it, being merely explanatory of the interest 
 insured. Ih. 
 
 The question to what extent the vessel, umler 
 such circumstances, is to be seaworthy, is for the 
 jury, wlio will say whether the ship was, at the 
 commencement of the voyage, in such a state as 
 to be reasonably capable of performing it. ///. 
 
 b. On Time Policy. 
 
 No Implied Condition.] — By the law of Eng- 
 land, in a time policy effected on a ship then at 
 sea. tliere is md iniplie<l comlition that the ship 
 shall be seaworthy on flu; day when the policy is 
 intended to attach. Gih.snn v. Siiutll, 4 H. L. Cas 
 353 ; 1 C. L. R. 363 ; 17 Jur. 1131. 
 
 In a time policy, there is not an implied 
 warranty that the ship is seaworthy wherever 
 she may be, or however situated, at the com- 
 mencement of the risk ; but only that she is 
 seaworthy so fai' as the assured could piovide for 
 her being so when the risk commenced ; e.g. if 
 she was in a port at the time that she was in a 
 pro))er cf>ndition for such a port : if at sea, that 
 she was seaworthy when the particular voyage 
 comtnenced ; the term "seaworthy" in a policy 
 for time, as in a voyage policy, im|)lyiiig not 
 necessarily fitness to go to sea, but fitness to 
 encounter the hazards of the situation in which 
 she is placed when the risk attaches. S. C, in 
 the exchequer chamber, 16 Q. B. 128 ; 20 L. .!., 
 Q. B. 152; 15 .Jur. 325. 
 
 A time policy contains no implied warranty 
 of seaworthiness, either at the commencement 
 of the risk or at any other time. Per Willes, .1., 
 ill Thompson v. Hopper. El. Bl. <fc El. 1049 ; 27 
 L. .!.. <l P.. 411 ; 6 W. K. 857. 
 
 37
 
 1155 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUBANCE—VI. Warranties. 
 
 1156 
 
 To a declaration on a policy alleged to have 
 been made on the 1st of May, 1852, -'at and 
 from the meridian of the day of sailing from 
 Suez, to the meridian of the 20th of March, 1853," 
 averriiifr that afterwards the ship set sail and 
 departed from Suez, and that the day of her so 
 sailinsi from Suez was after the 20th of March, 
 1852, and before the 20th of March, 1853, and 
 that after the meridian of the day of sailing from 
 Suez, and before the meridian of the 20th of 
 March, 1853, the ship was by the perils of the 
 sea wholly lost, the defendant pleaded that the 
 ship was not at the time of sailing from Suez, or 
 at any time on the day of sailing from Suez, or at 
 any time afterwards during the continuance of 
 the risk in the insurance mentioned, seaworthy : 
 — Held, that the plea was no answer to the 
 action, the policy being in substance a time 
 policy ; and, consequently, there being no implied 
 warranty that the vessel was seaworthy on the 
 day when the policy was intended to attach. 
 Michael v. Trcdwin, 17 C. B. 551 ; 25 L. J., 
 C. P. 83. 
 
 In a time policy the law, in the absence of 
 special stipulations in the contract, does not 
 imply any warranty that the vessel should be 
 seaworthy. Dudgeon v. Peml>rolu\ 46 L. J., Q. B. 
 409 ; 2 App. Cas. 284 ; 36 L. T. 382 ; 25 W. R. 
 499 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 393— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Continuing Obligation.] — In an action brought 
 for a total loss, by stranding, within the time of 
 the running of a time policy, after leaving an 
 intermediate port, the defence was that at the 
 time of the loss the vessel was unseaworthy by 
 reason of an insufficient crew, she having sailed 
 from the intermediate port without sufficient 
 hands to work the vessel, although she had 
 sufficient crew at the time she started for the 
 voyage : — Held, that the warranty of seawor- 
 thiness in a time policy, at the commencement 
 of the risk, is not a continuing obligation cast 
 upon the assured while the risk is running. 
 Jenhhis v. Heyeock, 8 Moore, P. C. 351 ; 1 C. L. R. 
 406 ; 5 Moore Ind. App. 361. 
 
 Weather proximate cause of Loss — Construc- 
 tive Total Loss.] — A wooden barque, over twenty 
 years old, just past her half-time survey, was 
 insured for twelve months from December 2nd. 
 She sailed on December 3rd, reached Rio, and 
 sailed again for Astoria. She met with heavy 
 weather off the Horn, and had to run for Bar- 
 bados, in consequence of straining and leaking. 
 She was found to be not worth repairing, her 
 timbers foi- the first time being found to be 
 rotten, and it was found that the leakage v\-as 
 due to her defective state and the weather : 
 — Held, that the proximate cause of the loss 
 being weather, the underwriters were liable 
 for a constructive total loss ; no finding as to 
 whether she was seaworthy when the risk began. 
 Ki'iinetJi V. Moore, 10 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 
 547. 
 
 c. Carrying Goods. 
 
 Implied Condition.] — To an action by a ship- 
 owner against a shipper of goods to recover his 
 proportion of average loss, he pleaded that his 
 promise was subject to a condition, viz. that the 
 ship was seaworthy at the commencement of the 
 voyage, and that she was not seaworthy : — 
 Held, a bad plea. Srhloss v. Heriot, 14 C. B. (N.s.) 
 59 ; 32 L. J., C. P. 211 ; 10 Jur. (n.s.) 76 ; 8 L. T. 
 246 ; 11 W. R. 596. 
 
 He also pleaded, that there never was any 
 express promise to the effect in the declaration 
 mentioned ; that the ship was unseaworthy at 
 the commencement of the voyage, and that the 
 average loss was occasioned and arose from and 
 in consequence of such unseaworthiness : — Held, 
 a good plea, inasmuch as it shewed that the 
 shipowner's actionable negligence and miscon- 
 duct produced the very damage for which he 
 sought to recover contribution from the shipper. 
 11). 
 
 Ship and Cargo,] — A policy was made "on 
 wine in casks, on or under deck," in a named 
 ship. The wine was stowed wholly on deck, and 
 so loaded the ship was unable to stand the rough 
 weather which she encountered, except by jetti- 
 son of the wine ; she was, however, in respect of 
 herself and the underdeck cargo, at no time in 
 very real danger, on account of the facility with 
 which the deck cargo could be got rid of, which 
 was effected by staving in the casks of wine. 
 The weather was of the rough character to be 
 expected at the time of Ihe year. In an action 
 against the underwriters for the loss of the wine : 
 — Held, that the warranty of seaworthiness 
 implied on voyage policies extends to the ship 
 including the cargo, and is not fulfilled if the 
 ship only can be made safe on an ordinary voyage 
 by the destruction of the insured cargo. Ddniells 
 or Darnels v. Harris. 44 L. J., C. P. 1 ; L. R. 10 
 C. P. 1 : 31 L. T. 408 ; 23 W. R. 86 ; 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 413. 
 
 Deck Cargo.] — A ship sailing from British 
 North America for a port in the United Kingdom, 
 with part of the cargo on deck, in violation of 
 16 & 17 Vict. c. 107, ss. 170, 171, 172, is not a 
 statutory unseaworthiness. Wilson v. Bankin, 
 35 L. J., Q. B. 87; L. R. 1 Q. B. 162; 13 
 L. T. 564 ; 14 W. R. 198— Ex. Ch. See, post, 
 col. 1207. 
 
 Warranted no Iron — Steel.] — A policy of 
 insurance on a ship contained a clause, " War- 
 ranted no iron, or ore, or phosphate cargo, 
 exceeding the net registered tonnage." In an 
 action on the policy against the underwriters : — ■ 
 Held, that the warranty was broken by shipping 
 a quantity of steel in excess of the net registered 
 tonnage. Hart v. Standard Marine Insurance 
 Co., 58 L. J., Q. B. 2S4 : 22 Q. B. D. 499 : 60 
 L. T. 649 ; 37 W. R. 366 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 368— 
 C. A. 
 
 Condition as to Goods.] — It is not a condition 
 precedent to the attaching of a policy on goods 
 against sea risks, that the subject of insurance 
 should, at the commencement of the voyage, be 
 fit to encounter the ordinary vicissitudes of a 
 voyage. Koehel v. Sannders, 17 C. B. (N.s.) 71 ; 
 33 L. J., C. P. 310 ; 10 Jur. (n.s.) 920 ; 10 L. T. 
 695; 12 W. R. 1106. 
 
 Ship Overloaded — Discharge.] — Aship insured 
 at and from a port, sailed on her voyage in an 
 unseaworthy state, in consequence of having 
 a greater cargo than she could safely carry. The 
 defect was discovered before any loss accrued, 
 and part of the cargo was discharged, and a loss 
 subsequently accrued, in no degree attributable 
 to her having been overladen in the early part 
 of the voyage : — Held, that the underwriters were 
 liable for such loss. Weir v. Aberdeen, 2 B. & Aid. 
 320 ; 20 R. R. 450.
 
 1157 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—YI. Warranties. 
 
 1158 
 
 d. Crew. 
 
 Negligence of.] — Undei-writers are responsible 
 for the misconduct or negligence of the captain 
 and crew, but the owner, as a condition prece- 
 dent, is bound to provide a crew of competent 
 skill. Sfiore v. Beutall 7 B. & C. 798, n. : 1 
 M. Ac Rj'. Ill ; 31 R. R. 302. n. 
 
 Where, in a policy on a voyage up the Medi- 
 terranean, on the coast of Spain, the underwriters 
 stipulated that they would not be liable higher 
 up the Mediterranean than Tarragona, the 
 assured could not recover, where the captain of 
 the ship, through entire ignorance of the coast, 
 which the occasion and the terms of the policy 
 required him to distinguish, went into Barcelona, 
 an enemy's port, which is higher up than 
 Tarragona ; for this was either a deviation with- 
 out any just cause, or there was a failure of an 
 implied warranty on the part of the assured, 
 that a captain and crew of competent skill and 
 knowledge for the declared purpose of the voyage 
 ••should Vje provided. Taif v. Lcri, 14 East, 481 ; 
 13 R. R. 289. 
 
 Insufficiency.] — The underwriters were not 
 liable where the crew was insufficient, in not 
 having a person on board able to take the 
 captain's place on his being dangerously ill, and 
 the ship was conseciuently obliged to deviate 
 from her course to find a person to direct her. 
 Clifford V. Hunter, M. k. M. 103 ; 3 Car. k. P. 16. 
 
 'J'he question, whether a ship, on a voyage 
 from Madras to London, is not seaworthy if she 
 has no person on board her, besides the captain, 
 who is capable of navigating her, is a question of 
 fact for the jury, and not a question of law to be 
 determined by the judge. Ih. 
 
 As a full complement of men is not necessary 
 in harbour, a ship does not seem to be seaworthy 
 for want of a crew till she sails on the voyage 
 without a crew. An/w/i v. M'dodm/in. 3 Taunt. 
 •2'.l'.) : 12 R. R. 6(i3. 
 
 Where a ship sailed on her outward voyage 
 from Liverpool to Cuba, with a crew of thirteen 
 men, and, on her arrival at tlie latter place, three 
 had die<l and two deserted there, and the captain 
 coul<lf)nIy procure eight men for the whole of tiie 
 homeward voyage, and two for Montego Bay in 
 Jamaica (ten men being a competent crew to 
 navigate the vessel) : and he accordingly touched 
 at Montego Bay fur the sole purpose of landing 
 those two men and procuring others in their 
 stea<l, which he did ; and the vessel was lost by 
 the pei'ilsof the sea in proceeding fiom thence on 
 the voyage to I>iverpooI : — Held, that on a policy 
 from Cuba to IviveriJool, the ship was not sea- 
 worthy as to her crew for the whole of iiei- 
 homeward voyage wlien she sailed from Cuba ; 
 or that, even if she then had a sufficient crew, 
 the touching at Montego Bay was a deviation ; 
 iiud th.'it the circumstances of her having become 
 seaworthy by having a sufficient crew at the time 
 of the loss did not entitle the assured to rec.over 
 against an underwriter on the policy. Forxluiin 
 v. Chihert, 6 Moore, \W) ; 3 Br. & B. ] .■)8 ; 23 
 R. R. .")9(;. Sec also Grahim v. Jiarran, i)ost, 
 <;ol. ]U\:\. 
 
 Absence.] — Where the assui'cd have once pro- 
 vided a sufficient crew, the negligent absence of 
 all the crew at the time of the loss is no breach 
 of the implied warranty that the ship should be 
 properly manned. Jiimk v. Jfiii/rd Erchanqr 
 Axmrancc. Co., 2 B. ic AM. 73 ; 20 li. R. 3.50. And 
 
 see Bishop v. Pentlaml, 7 B. & C. 214 ; 1 
 M. & Ry. 49 ; 6 L. J. (O.S.) K. B. 6 ; 31 R. R. 
 177. 
 
 Where no Contract.] — A plea to an action on 
 a policy that the master of the vessel on which 
 the policy was effected had not entered into an 
 agreement in writing with the seamen, pursuant 
 to .5 <k 6 Will. 4, c. 19, s. 2, wherefore the voyage 
 was illegal, is ill, as the non-compliance with the 
 statute by the master did not make the voyage 
 itself illegal or the vessel unseaworthv. Redmond 
 V. Smith, 2 D. & L. 280 ; 8 Scott (n.r.) 250 ; 
 13 L. J.. C. P. 1.59 ; 8 Jur. 711. 
 
 Number of.] — A warranty on the margin of a 
 policy, " thirty seamen besides passengers," means 
 thirty persons belonging to the ship's company, 
 including cook, surgeon, bovs, k.c. Bean v. 
 Stupart, 1 Dougl. 11. 
 
 e. Pilot. 
 
 Absence of.] — A ship, homeward bound to the 
 l^ort of London, received a jjilot at Orfordness, as 
 directed by o Geo. 2, c.20, and dropped him before 
 she reached her moorings in the river Thames, 
 after which, before she was safely moored, an 
 accident happened and the vessel was sunk ; the 
 underwriter on the shij) and cargo was held dis- 
 charged from his liability, there not being a pilot 
 on board at that time, though it did not appear 
 that the loss was directly imputable to want of 
 skill in those who navigated the vessel. Laio v. 
 IloUimjxworth, 7 Term Rep. 1(50. See Dixon v. 
 Sadler, n M. & W. 415 ; 9 L. J., Ex. 48 ; and 8 
 M. & W. 895— Ex. Ch., supra, col. 1101. 
 
 A captain neglecting to employ a pilot where 
 necessary, dischaiges the insurers. Holling- 
 worth or HolUngHWorth v. Brodrich, 7 A. & E. 
 40 ; 2 N. & P. 608 ; 8 L. J., Q. B. 80 ; 1 Jur. 43(>. 
 
 f. Repairs. 
 
 Insufficient. ] — Where a vessel had been 
 lengthened, and insured for a foreign voyage, but 
 the new parts were not fastened with hanging 
 knees : — Held, that she was not seaworthy for 
 such a vo3^age at the commencement of the risk. 
 Watt V. Morris, I Dow, 32. 
 
 To a declaration upon a policy for twelve 
 months, which stated that the vessel was lost by 
 the perils of the sea, a plea that, after the policy, 
 the ship became unseaworthy, that she couhl 
 have Ijcen rendered seaworthy, that the pl.aintiff 
 neglected to repair her, and tliat by reason of the 
 premises, she remained in an unseaworthy state 
 until the time of the loss, is Ijad, as it should, jvt 
 all events, have stated that the plaintiff knew of 
 the unseaworthiness, and that lie iiad an oppor- 
 tunity of re|)airing her. Ilollin/jsworth v. Jirod- 
 ric/t; supi-a. 
 
 Wheie a vessel is sent to sea in a state not (it 
 for (he pari icul.ar voyage, an<l wi(hf)Ut encounter- 
 ing any more than ordinary risk is obliged, owing 
 to the defective state in which she sailed, to \nit 
 into a port for repair, the shi])owner, though the 
 defects were not known to liim, and he has acted 
 without fraud, cannot recover against the insurer 
 the exiH-nses of such repairs as were I'cndered 
 necessary in consequence of the unseaworthy 
 state of the vessel, though there is no war- 
 ranty of seaworthiness. Fmori/n v. S(ir.tfield, 
 6 El. & Bl. 192 ; 25 L. J., Q. B. 249 ; 2 Jur. 
 (X.8.) 605. 
 
 37—2
 
 1159 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— VI. Warranties. 
 
 1160 
 
 g:. Tackle and Furniture. 
 
 Cables.] — Under the implied wanaiity ns to 
 seawoi-thiness, it is iieeessary not only that the 
 liuU of the vessel should be tight, stauneh, and 
 sfcroug, but that she should be also furnished 
 with ground-tackling sutHcient to encounter the 
 ordinary perils of the sea : anil therefore, where 
 it appeared that the best bower-anchor and the 
 cable of the small bower-anchor were defective, 
 the vessel was not seaworthy. W/Mie v. Gedden, 
 H Dow, 57: 15 E. H. 17. 
 
 In a policy by a member of a mutual insurance 
 club, there was a memorandum that " all ships 
 were to be inspected and approved by a com- 
 mittee of the club, and that all chain-cables 
 were to be properly tested" : — Held, in an action 
 for a loss, that it was not a condition precedent 
 which made it necessary for the insured to pjove 
 that a chain-cable had been tested previously to 
 the vovage. ILirrixo/i v. Boui/ltix. G K. & M. 
 180 : :iA. & E. 39(5 ; 1 H. & W.'SSO. 
 
 Medicines.] — When the sickness of the master 
 or crew is set up as an excuse for deviation, it is 
 incumbent on the assured to shew that proper 
 medicines and necessaries for the voyage were 
 on board, in a case where the nature of the 
 voyage requires that there should be a surgeon 
 on board. M'lxi/f x. C'lar/f/cff. 8 Esp. 257; 6 
 R. R. 830. 
 
 Warranted to have twenty Guns — Insufficient 
 Men to man them.] — Warranty that a ship 
 had twenty guns. It is no breach of warranty 
 that she has twenty-five men only, sixty being 
 required to man the guns. Jftrlr v. Jintce, 3 
 Dough 213. 
 
 h. Lighters. 
 
 On an insurance of goods on a voyage policy, 
 until the same are safely landed at the port of 
 discharge, " including all risks to and from the 
 ship," there is no- implied warranty that the 
 lighter used at the end of the voyage to convey 
 the goods from the ship to the shore shall be 
 seaworthy for that purpose. Ltoic v. JiLron, 
 35 L. J., C. P. 243 : L. 11. 1 C. P. -tI2 ; 12 Jur. 
 (N.s.) 392 : 14 W. li. fi41. 
 
 Where there is a warranty that a ship shall set 
 out upon a voyage seaworthy, the insurer is to be 
 liable for the ordinary incidents in the usual 
 course of the voyage. If the hiring of lighters 
 at the end of the voyage is one of the usual 
 incidents, the insurer must take the consequence 
 of the local lighters being unfit to put the goods 
 on shore. lb. 
 
 i. Proof. 
 
 Opinion.] — Upon a question concerning the 
 seaworthiness of a ship, after the evidence of 
 persons who have been examined as to her con- 
 dition, experienced shipwrights, who never saw 
 her. may be called to say, whether, iipon the 
 facts sworn to, she was, in their opinion, sea- 
 worthy or not. BucUimth v. Sydehofham, 1 
 Camp. 117; 10 R. R. 6.52. S. P., Thornton v. 
 Royal Ejscliange Co., Peake, 25. 
 
 Onus of Proof.] — In an action on a policy of 
 insurance it was proved at the trial that the 
 vessel put back from inability to proceed eleven 
 
 uuilerwriters, and make it incumbent on the 
 assured to prove that the unseaworthiness arose 
 from causes occurring subsequently to setting 
 sail : — Held, a misdirection. Pickup v. Tlunncs 
 Marino Insurance Co., 47 L. J., Q. B. 749 ; 3 
 Q. B. D. 594 ; 39 L. T. 341 ; 2G W. R. 689 ; 4 
 Asp. M. C. 43— C. A. 
 
 It is a clear and established principle, that if 
 a ship is seaworthy at the commencement of the 
 risk, though she becomes otherwise in one hour 
 afterwards, the warranty is complied with, and 
 the underwriter is liable. Watson v. Clark, 1 
 Dow, 344; 14 R. R. 73. 
 
 But where the inability of a ship to perform 
 the voyage insured appears in a short time from 
 the period of her setting sail, the presumption 
 is, that the inability arose from causes existing 
 previously to the commencement of the voyage, 
 and that she was not then seaworthy. lb. 
 
 The age of a ship is not of itself any proof of 
 unseaworthiness, but is of weight in evidence. 
 Ih. 
 
 Where a ship sailed, and soon afterwards- 
 encountered a storm, became leaky, put back, 
 and was found, on survey, to be materially 
 decayed, and a damage was discovered which 
 could not fairly be considered as the effect of 
 the storm :— Held, that she was not seaworthy 
 when she sailed on the voyage insured ; and that, 
 on a question as to seaworthiness, honesty of 
 intention is no answer, but the fact of seaworthi- 
 ness must appear, or otherwise the underwiitei- 
 is dischargetl ; and though a vessel, after sailing, 
 encounters a storm, yet, unless the damage which 
 renders her unfit for the voyage can be fairly 
 considered as the effect of such storm, the 
 implied warranty is not complied with. Bouqlas 
 V. Scovgall, 4 Dow. 269 : 16 R. R. 69. 
 
 A ship, soon after her sailing on a voyage- 
 insured, was found to be unfit for sea ; the 
 (luestion whether she was seaworthy at the com- 
 mencement of the risk or the voyage (when not 
 otherwise ascertained) must be decided by 
 rational inference from the circumstances. And 
 a ship is prima facie to be deemed seaworthy ; 
 but if it is found, soon after her sailing, that she 
 is not sound, without probable and adequate 
 cause, by stress of weather or otherwise, to- 
 account for it, the rational inference is, that,^ 
 notwithstanding appearances, she was not sea- 
 worthy. Parker v. Potts. 3 Dow, 23 ; 15 R. R. 1.. 
 
 Estoppel by Agreement.] — In an action 
 against the underwriters of a policy for a total 
 loss, the declaration stated that they agreed that 
 the ship should be considered, and was thereby 
 allowed to be, seaworthy in her hull, tackle and 
 materials for the voyage, the insured declaring, 
 that, to the best of their belief, and according to 
 their knowledge and information, the ship, at 
 the time of the insurance, was, in all respects,, 
 .seaworthy for the voyage ; that the vessel, 
 diiring her voyage, by stormy winds and tem- 
 pestuous weather, and by the force and violence 
 of the winds and waves, became leaky, strained, 
 riven and damaged, insomuch that by means 
 thereof it became necessary for her preservation 
 for her to sail to the nearest port of safety ; that 
 she accordingly sailed to the nearest port of 
 safety ; that on her arrival there, she was unfit 
 to prosecute her voyage without being repaired 
 
 days after she started on her voyage : the judge and refitted ; that she was found to be unsea 
 directed the jury that the time which elapsed worthy and unfit to prosecute her voyage, unless 
 between setting sail and putting back was sufii- 1 great repairs were done upon her : that such 
 ciently short to shift the onus of proof from the ! repairs could not be done ; that it was not
 
 1161 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— YI. Warranties. 
 
 1162 
 
 possible to obtain any repairs sufficient to enable 
 her to procee<l on her voyage, or to proceed to 
 any other jjort to be repaired ; that it became 
 expedient and necessary to abandon the voyage 
 and to sell the ship, and that the ship was sold : 
 by means of which premises the voyage was not 
 performed, and the vessel was wholly lost to the 
 assured : — Held, that, whether the loss of the 
 vessel was occasioned by unseaworthiness or by 
 perils of the sea, the underwriters were bound by 
 their admission, and could not dispute the sea- 
 worthiness. Parfitt V. Thomp.w7i, 13 M. & W. 
 392 : 14L. J.. Ex. 73. 
 
 Held, also, on motion in arrest of judgment, 
 that it sufficiently appeared that the loss of the 
 vessel was occasioned by the perils insured 
 against. Ih. 
 
 Verdict against Evidence — Second new Trial 
 
 refused.] — In an action on a pulley of insurance, 
 the jury having fouiul a verdict for the plaintiff 
 on a question of seaworthiness, the court gi'anted 
 a new trial on the ground that the verdict was 
 against the weight of the evidence. A second 
 jury having found a verdict for the plaintiff on 
 the same evidence, the court refused to grant a 
 second new trial (Vaughan, J., and Coltman, J., 
 dissentientibus). Fuiitcr v. Steele, 3 Bing. (N.c.) 
 892 ; 5 Scott, 25 ; (5 L. J., C. P. 265. 
 
 Consolidation — Refusal to open.] — The court 
 haviiit: Lfi-aiited a new trial on the gi'ound that 
 the verdict was against the evidence in aquestion 
 of seaworthiness, and liaving refused a second 
 new trial upon a verdict the same way, upon the 
 same evidence : refusetl also to open the consoli- 
 dation rule and re-try the question in another 
 action against another underwriter on the same 
 policy. F,mter v. Ahrz, 3 Bing. (N.c.) 896 ; 4 
 .Scott, 535. 
 
 4. Position of ship. 
 
 Safety on a given Day.] — A policy on a ship 
 at and from H. to \'., with a warrant}' that the 
 ship wa.s " in port" on a previous day, means the 
 port of H., and it is not sufficient tiiat she was 
 safe in some other port on that <la}'. Colhy v. 
 Hunter, M. ct .M. SI : 3 Car. & P. 7. 
 
 In a representation tliat a shij) was seen safe 
 on such a day. and had performed two-tliii-ds of 
 her voyage, if it turns out that she had got as 
 far as was repiesented, but was lost two days 
 before the day mentioned, the mistake is material, 
 ami makes tlie jiolicy void. MarditiraUw Fmsrr, 
 I iJougl. 260. 
 
 Time of Day.] — (ioods were insure<l from 
 
 the lading of tlHjni on bf)ard tlie ship, lost or not 
 lost, and wananted well on a ])articular day ; 
 the ship was lost on that <lay. before tlie policy' 
 was underwritten : and it was liolden that the 
 jinderwritcr was liable, for the warranty is com- 
 plied with if the ship was safe at any time of 
 that day. Jilnrkliurxt v. f'nrkrll, 3 Term Hep. 
 360; 1 K. K. 717. 
 
 Not to enter St. Lawrence after certain 
 Date.] — When a ship is insured on a time policy 
 at and from Montreal, to trade between the 
 Island of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Cuba, 
 and Quebec and Montreal, and the policy con- 
 tains a stipulation in the following words : " Not 
 allowed under this ])olicy to enter the (iulf of 
 St. Lawrence before the 25th Ajiril, nor to be in 
 the (rulf after the 15th November ; nor to ]jro- 
 ceed to Newfoundland after the Ist December, 
 
 or before the 15th March, without jjayment of 
 additional premium, and leave first obtained, 
 war, risk, and sealing voyages excepted " ; the 
 ))olicy is not to be construed as declaring that 
 the vessel may proceed from any of the ports 
 named in the policy to Newfoundland on or 
 before the 1st December, notwithstanding it 
 might have to pass through the Gulf after the 
 15th November ; but luiderthat clatisethe vessel 
 is neither to be in the Gulf after the 15th 
 November, nor to i)roceetl to Newfoundland 
 from any port after the 1st December ; and if 
 the ship enters the Gulf after the 15th November 
 she commits a breach of warranty within the 
 words of the policy, and the underwriters are not 
 liable for any loss occurring in consequence of 
 that breach, unless they accept abandonment 
 with a knowledge of the breach. Provincial 
 Insurance Co. of Canada v. Lediic, 43 L. J., 
 P. C. 49 : L. R.6 P. C. 224 ; 31 L. T. 141 ; 22 
 W. R. 929 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 338— P. C. 
 
 A time policy of marine insurance on A.'s 
 ship, from the 29th of May. 1878, to the 28th of 
 May, 1879, contained the words "warranted no 
 St. Lawrence between the 1st of October and 
 the 1st of April." The vessel was lost on the 
 voyage home. The underwriters refused A.'s 
 claim for a total loss on the ground of breach of 
 warranty, inasmuch as the vessel had navigated 
 in the Gulf of St. Lawrence during the pre- 
 scribed period. A. contended that the above 
 words referred exclusively to the river St. Law- 
 rence. Admittedly no general custom of mer- 
 chants could be proved : but the facts established 
 that the great river which discharges the waters 
 of the North American lakes, and the gulf into 
 which it flows, both bear the name of " St. 
 Lawrence" : that the navigation of both, though 
 01 the gulf in a less degree than of the river, was 
 within the prohibited period dangerous : — Held, 
 that the evidence disclosed no ambiguity or 
 uncertainty sufficient to prevent the application 
 of the ordinary rules of construction ; and 
 according to those rules the whole St. Lawrence 
 navigation, both gulf and river, is within the 
 fair and natural meaning of these negative wonls, 
 and therefore prohibited during the months in 
 question. Jiirrell v. Drifer, 9 Ap[). Cas. 345 ; 
 51 L. T. 130 ; 5 Asp. M. V. 267— H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 Evidence as to.] — If an insuiance broker 
 states hy way of inference and computation that 
 a ship is at a certain place at the time of effect- 
 ing a policy, it is not a grouiul of avoiding the 
 l)olicy, though the broker was utterly nnstaken ; 
 the underwriter not takitig tlic pains to incjuire 
 what were the facts on which the broker formed 
 his conclusion. Urine v. Frafhcrstoue, 4 Taunt. 
 K69 ; 14 11. n. f.S'.i. 
 
 In Dock — Liberty to go into dry Dock.] — 
 
 A time policy !igainst lire waseffecte<l on a steam- 
 ship. The policy described it as then " lying in 
 the Victoria Docks," but g.-ive it " liberty to go 
 into dry dock. an<l light the boiler fires om^e or 
 twice <iuring the currency of this policy." The 
 only dry dock into which the sliip could go was 
 Lungley"K Dock, at some distance up the river. 
 To go there it was necessary to remove the 
 l)addlc - wheels : they were removed in the 
 Victoria Docks, and the ship was then towed up 
 to Lunglcy's Dock. The necessary repairs there 
 having been coinplete<l, the ship was brought 
 out and moored in the river, ])reparatory to 
 replacing the paddle-wheels. This operation
 
 1163 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUKANCE— VI. IVarranties. 
 
 1104 
 
 coukl have been perfectly performed in tlie 
 Victoria Docks, but it -was found that in such 
 case it was customary, as the moie economical 
 course, to replace the paddle-wheels while the 
 ship lay in the river. Before the wheels had 
 been replaced the ship was burnt : — Held, that 
 the policy covered the ship while in the N'ictoria 
 Docks, and while passing from them to the dry 
 docks, and while directly returning from the dry 
 dock to the Victoria Docks ; but did not cover 
 the vessel while moorwl in the river for a colla- 
 teral purpose. Pearson v. Commrrcial Union 
 Assio'ii nrr Co., i'> L. J.. C. P. 761 ; 1 App. Cas. 
 498 ; 35 L. T. 44.", ; 24 W. R. 9.51 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 275— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Question for Jury.] — Whether a vessel war- 
 ranted free from capture in port was in port or 
 not at her capture is for the jury. Rci/ner v. 
 Pearson, 4 Taunt. 662 ; 13 R. R. 723. 
 
 Warranted safe in Port — What Port.] — A 
 
 policy on sliip contained the words "lost or not 
 lost at Cardiff to Ballyshannon beginning the 
 adventure from loading thereof at Cardiff " ; 
 and subsequently " that the said vessel was 
 warranted safe in i)ort " ; — Held, that ''port" 
 meant the port of dei^arture ; and that the vessel 
 being iu another port the warranty was broken. 
 Kernnhan v. National Assurance Co., 10 L. R., 
 Ir. 319. 
 
 Safely moored in Harbour — Change of Moor- 
 ings.] — Action on policy of insurance against 
 fire on the ship '• H." for one month on the terms 
 that the ship should be safely moored in Ports- 
 mouth harbour during the month. The ship was 
 burned within the month. She had been shifted 
 about in the harbour for cleaning her bottom, 
 taking in cargo, and other purposes ; but had 
 been in the harbour all the time : — Held, that 
 the plaintiff could recover. Clarke v. West- 
 more ; cited, Selw. Nisi Pr. (11th ed.) 1003. 
 
 5. To Sail on a given Day. 
 
 Departure— What is.]— A warranty to sail on 
 or before a particular day is not fulfilled if the ship 
 does not completely unmoor on that dny, though 
 she then has her cargo and passengers on boartl, 
 and is quite ready to sail, and is only prevented 
 doing so by stress of weather. Nelson v. Salva- 
 dor. M. & M. 309 ; 31 R. R. 733. 
 
 The warranty to " depart " before a certain 
 day, which is used by the Royal Exchange 
 Assurance Company in their policies, does not 
 mean mearly to break ground, but fairly to set 
 forward upon the voyage ; therefore, where a 
 ship in complete sea-reacKness weighed anchor 
 with some little prospect of more favouiable 
 weather, but in half an hour was beaten back, 
 and came to anchor within the bar, half a mile 
 nearer to the sea than the place of loading : — 
 Held, that this was not a departure within the 
 warranty. Moir v. Boijal Fxehange As.turancc 
 Co., 6 Taunt. 241 ; 1 Marsh. 570 ; 3 M. c^ S. 4(;i ; 
 4 Camp. 84 ; 16 R. R. 330. 
 
 Insuflacient Crew.] — A warranty to sail 
 
 on or before a particular day is not complied 
 with by leaving the harbour on that day, with- 
 out having a sufficient crew on board, although 
 the remainder of the crew is engaged and ready 
 to sail. Graham, v. Barras, 3 N. & M. 125 ; 5 
 B. & Ad. 1011 
 
 Nature of Port— Loading.] — Policy on goods 
 by ship or ships, from Demerara to London, 
 warrantetl to sail fi'om Demerara on or before 
 the 1st of August. 1823 ; usage found for small 
 vessels to load and unload all their cargo in 
 the river of Demerara, and for large vessels to 
 load and unload part of their cargo on the out- 
 side of a shoal off Demerara, about ten miles at 
 sea. The insured goods were loaded on board a 
 small vessel, which completed her cargo in the 
 river, the captain of which, having obtained his 
 clearance, set sail on the 1st of August, proceeded 
 down the river, and about two miles out to sea, 
 and there anchored at low water, by the advice 
 of his pilot. On the 3r(l of August he crossed 
 the shoal, and proceeded on his voyage, in the 
 course of which the vessel was lost by perils of 
 the sea : — Held, that the vessel sailed from 
 Dcnerara on the 1st of August within the 
 meaning and in satisfaction of the terms of the 
 policy. Lanq v. Anderton, 5 D. & R. 393 ; 3 
 B. & 0.495 ; i Car.& P. 171 ; 3 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 
 62 : 27 R. R. 412. 
 
 — Dropping down Eiver.] — A policy con- 
 tained a warranty "not to sail for B. N. A. after 
 the 15th of August." The vessel on the morning 
 of the 15th of August, was cleared at the custom- 
 house of D., and ready for sea. She was then 
 lying in the Custom-house Dock, which opens 
 into the river L., which forms part of D. harbour. 
 She was afterwards, on the same daj', hauled out 
 of dock and warped down the river L. about half 
 a mile, towards the mouth of the harbour, wliich 
 was some miles distant, for the purpose of ju'o- 
 ceeding on her voyage to Q. in B. N. A. At the 
 time of so moving the vessel, the master and 
 crew knew it to be imjjossible to get to sea that 
 da}'. The next day she was warped a little 
 farther down the river, and on the 17th, when 
 the wind changed she got to sea. The jury 
 having found that the master and crew fully 
 intended to sail for Q. on the 15th of August, if 
 it had been possible, and did all they could, and 
 used every means and exertion so to do, and that 
 they intended by so doing to put themselves in 
 a better situation for the prosecution of the 
 voyage, and not merely and solely to fulfil the 
 warranty : — Held, that the vessel was in the 
 prosecution of her voyage on the 15th of August, 
 and that the warranty not to sail to B. N. A. 
 after that day had been complied with. Coch- 
 rane V. Fisher. 1 C. M. & R. 809 ; 5 Tyr. 496 ; 4 
 L. J., Ex. 328— Ex. Ch. 
 
 A policy on freight antl goods, per ship named 
 at an<l from Portneuf to London, warranted to 
 sail on or before the 28th October ; and on the 
 26th the ship dropi)ed down from Portneuf with 
 an incomplete crew for the voyage, and on the 
 28th reached Quebec, which was the nearest 
 place where she could obtain a clearance, and 
 there completed her crew, and on the 29th 
 obtained her clearance, and sailed the next day : 
 — Held, that the dropping down from Portneuf 
 to Quebec on the 26th was not a compliance with 
 the warranty. Ilidsdale v. Newnham, 3 M. & S. 
 456 : 4 Camp. Ill : 15 R. R. 327. 
 
 A plaintiff' effected an insui'ancc on freight by 
 a ship, subject to certain regulations, which pro- 
 vitled that the vessel should not sail from ports 
 in Ireland after the 1st September ; and that the 
 time of clearing at the custom-house should be 
 deemed the time of sailing, ])rovided tlie sliip 
 was then ready for sea. The plaintiff's ship 
 being iu the port of Sligo, dropped down the
 
 1165 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUKANCE—YL Warranth 
 
 1166 
 
 river before the 1st of September, in readiness 
 for sea, except that she had not her full quantity 
 of ballast, there being a bar at the mouth of the 
 river, which the ship could not have crossed with 
 that quantitj- on board. Boats were in waiting 
 on the outside on the 1st September to ship the 
 remainder of the ballast, and the vessel crossed 
 the bar on that day, but struck in doing so, and 
 the master, to ascertain what damage she had 
 received, put into an adjacent port without 
 taking the rest of his ballast, which was not 
 done till the 4th. and the vessel proceeded upon 
 her voyage on the 8th : — Held, that the ship's 
 dropping down the river, and crossing the bar 
 without her full ballast, was not a sailing ; and 
 that, until her ballast was completed, she was 
 not ready for sea, within the rule referred to 
 bv the policy. Pdtirjrcw v. Priitr/le, 3 B. & Ad. 
 514. 
 
 Embargo.] — If a ship, warranted to sail on or 
 before a particular day, is prevented from 
 sailing on the day by an embargo, the warranty 
 is not compUed with. Ilure v. Wltitmure, Cowp. 
 784. 
 
 On a warranty to sail from Jamaica, on or 
 before a day certain, if the ship departs from her 
 port on that da}-, with all her cargo and clear- 
 ances on board and proceeds to the place of 
 rendezvous in the island, expecting to find con- 
 voy and proceed immediately, but is detained 
 there by an embargo till after the day, the 
 departure is a compliance with the warranty, 
 although the captain knew of the embargo when 
 he sailed, the embargo being only till convoy 
 should be ready. \Earlc v. Ilarrix, 1 Dougl. ;3o7. 
 
 Even though the place of rendezvous is out 
 of the direct course of the voyage, it is no 
 deviation. Bond v. Xutt, Cowp. (Jul ; 1 Dougl. 
 3(17, n. 
 
 Delay for Convoy.] — A ship being insured at 
 and from Siiiinani, and all or any of the West 
 India islands to London, a warranty to sail on 
 or before the 1st of August is satisfied by the 
 ship sailing from Surinam, her last port of land- 
 ing, before the 1st of August, and going into 
 Tortola on the 4th to seek convoy, though she 
 did not sail from Tortola, which is one of the 
 West India islands, <lire('t for London till after- 
 wards. Writ/ht v. S/ii/f'/irr, 11 East. ">!.'>; 2 
 Camp. 247 ; 11 U. K. 2(i'3. 
 
 A French ship being warranted to sail from 
 Guaflaloupe on or before the Hist December, if 
 she takes in all her loading and papers, and 
 leaves her pf)rt of loading Ijefore that day, and 
 sails to anotiier port of the island in the direct 
 course of her voyage, and merely in tiie iiopes 
 of joining convoy, and to take tlie governor's 
 dispatches for Fiance, the warranty is complied 
 with, though the governor tiiere should detain 
 her beyond the day, it Ixiing a condition inserted 
 in one of her clearances, that she should pass 
 that way to take the or<lers of government. 
 ThrllvHHOH V. FrriiiixHiui, I Dougl. 'M'>\. And see 
 Thrllujmiin v. Pif/nii, 1 Dougl. MU't, u. ; Tliellvs- 
 Kdii V. iStdjplcs, iVjid. 
 
 Nature of Eepresentation as to Time of 
 Sailing.] — A repiesentalion that the >hip is 
 expected to sail from the coast of Africta on such 
 a day is not material, so as to vitiate the policy, 
 although it should turn out that she actually 
 sailed six months before. Jiurikr v. Fletcher, 1 
 Dougl. 30.-). 
 
 A., a merchant in London, having an order in 
 1810, from B., a merchant in Perth, for goods, to 
 be shipped from London for Dundee, sent the 
 goods to the wharf on Saturday. 24th February, 
 the vessel then taking in goods being the " K." 
 (unarmed), which had been substituted by the 
 shipping company for the '• D." (armed), the 
 company announcing on the 23rd and 24th 
 February to all that inquired that the " K." and 
 not the •' D." was to sail on the 2oth (Sundays 
 and Thursdays being the regular sailing days). 
 A. despatched the invoice on the 27th February, 
 dated on that day, with advice that the goods 
 had been sent by the " D." not naming the 24th 
 as the day when the goods were sent to the 
 wharf, and leaving it to be inferred from the 
 date of the invoice that the furnishing was made 
 on the 27th, and that the sea risk did not com- 
 mence till the 1st March. The " K." sailed with 
 the goods on the 2.5th February, and was 
 captured on the 2nd March by a privateer. In 
 an action by A. against B. for the price of the 
 goods : — Held, that he could not recover, the 
 Lord Chancellor being of opinion, that if B. had 
 insured upon the representation sent him, he 
 could not have recovered from the underwriters. 
 Arnot V. Stewart. 5 Dow, 274 ; 16 R. R. 123. 
 
 The agents to the owners of a ship instructed 
 their correspondents by a letter, stating '■ that 
 the " Brilliant " will sail from Nassau for Clyde 
 on the 1st May. a running ship," to effect an 
 insurance, which they accordingly did, at the 
 same time showing the letter to the underwriters. 
 The ship in fact sailed on the 23rd April, on 
 account of a favourable opportunity of convoy, 
 and was captured on the 11th May : — Held, that 
 the expression in the letter was positive, and not 
 a mere statement of expectation ;and that being 
 a material representation, the fact of its being 
 untrue vitiated the policv. Deiinistuun v. Lillie, 
 3 Bligh, 202 : 22 K. K. 13. 
 
 A rei)resentation to the underwriters at the 
 time of effecting a policy by the owner of goods 
 (m board a ship as to the time of her .sailing 
 being made, Iwiul fide, upon proljable expecta- 
 tion, does not conclude him. Jfoicdrnw. Vdinihnn, 
 10 East, 41.5 ; 10 11. R. 340. 
 
 In effectinga ])olicy from Russia to this country, 
 while the shi[) was on the outward voyage, the 
 bnjker re|)resented to the underwriters that a 
 caigo was iea<ly for her, and she was sure to bo 
 an early ship : — Held, that this amounted ordy 
 to a representation of what was exfjccted on the 
 part of the insured, and that the underwriters 
 were liable, although from tliedelay in beginning 
 to load the cargo, the voyage home was changed 
 from a summer to a winter risk. JIuhhnrd v. 
 (ilorcr, 3 Camp. 313. See Jir'nw v. Feather' 
 Htonr, 4 Taunt. .HOD ; 14 R. R. CSD. 
 
 Construction of Rules.] — A ])Iainliff effected 
 ;i |)olicy. subjrci to certain rules, one of which 
 was, that ships were not to sail from any port 
 on the cast (loast of (iieat Britain to any port 
 in the Belts, between the 20th I)cccml)ei' and 
 the ir)th February. The plaintiff's vessel sailed 
 from Newcastle-upon-Tyne on the Hth February 
 for a port in the Belts, and was lost in the B;dtic 
 on the Hth February: — Held, that the rule 
 in f[uestion was a warranty, and not an exce|)- 
 tioii ; and that the word "to" in the ride 
 meant "towards" and not "arriving at,"' and 
 consequently that the plaintiff was not entitled 
 to recover in respect of the loss. Colledrje v, 
 J fart, I, (5 Ex. 20.5 ; 20 L. J., Ex. 146.
 
 1167 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— VI. Warranties. 
 
 1168 
 
 Order of Voyages.] — Insurance on a voj-aijc 
 from C. to D.. on a reprcsicntation that the ship 
 was first to sail from A. to B., and from B. to C. ; 
 the voyage from A. to B. was jierformed, but that 
 from B. to C. being unavoidably prevented, the 
 ship returned to A., and thence ])roceeded imme- 
 diately to C, and in performing the voyage from 
 r. to D. was lost : this was held a good com- 
 mencement of the voyage insured. Drisrul v. 
 Paxsniore, 1 Bos. &: P. 200 : 4 R. K. 782. 
 
 Words in Margin — Date of Sailing.] — On 
 the policy was written in the margin •' In port 
 2t)th July, 1776":— Held, to be a warranty. 
 Xenijon v. Jirrflion, 1 Dougl. 12, n. 
 
 In the Month of October —Meaning.] — The 
 
 meaning of a statement that a ship insured 
 would sail " in the month of October" from the 
 West Indies explained by evidence of merchants 
 to mean after October 25th. Chanrand v. 
 Angcrstein, Peake. 61. 
 
 Warranty to Sail after a Day named — Sailing 
 before the Day.] — Policy on goods " at and from 
 Martinico to Havre de Grace with liberty to touch 
 at Guadaloupe, warranted to sail after 12th 
 January, and on or l^efore 1st August, 1778." 
 The ship having performed her outward voyage, 
 sailed from Martinico on the 6th November, 
 1877, for Guadaloupe, where she took in all her 
 cargo without returning to Martinico. She sailed 
 fiom Guadaloujje on 26th June, 1778, and was 
 captured : — Held, that the warranty was not 
 complied with as she sailed from Martinico 
 before 12th January, 1778. Vezian v. Grant, 
 2 Park, Ins. (8th ed.) 671. 
 
 6. To Sail with Convoy. 
 
 What Convoy.] — The term "convoy" in a 
 policy means such convoy as shall be appointed 
 by government. D' Equ'ino v. Bnoie'ke. 2 H. Bl. 
 .5.51 ; 3 R. R. 503. 
 
 A policy was effected on a ship, on a voyage 
 from A. to C, warranted to depart with convoy 
 for the voyage. The convoy appointed was to 
 B., a port in the course, and near to C. This was 
 a compliance with the warrant}', and the under- 
 writers were liable, the ship being captured in 
 the passage from B. to C. Ih. 
 
 Where there is a warranty in a policy that 
 the ship shall sail with convoy, she may sail 
 without convoy from her loading port to the 
 place of rendezvous for convoy for the voyage, 
 although there be convoy for ships on other 
 destinations between the loading port and place 
 of rendezvous. Warwlch v. Scott, 4 Camp. 62. 
 
 Sailing Orders.] — Sailing orders are necessary 
 to the performance of a warranty to depart with 
 convoy unless particular cii'cumstances exempt 
 the insured from the general rule. Wchb v. 
 TJiovijmin. 1 Bos. & P. 5 ; 4 R. R. 757. 
 
 A warranty to depart with convoy is not 
 complied with unless sailing instructions are 
 obtained before the ship leaves the place of 
 rendezvous, if by due diligence of the master 
 they can be then obtained. Anderson v. Pitcher, 
 2 Br. & B. 164 ; 3 Esp. 134 ; Stark. 262 ; 5 R. R. 
 565. 
 
 Performance.]— It is not sufficient to sail with 
 a convoy appointed for another voyage, though 
 it may be bound upon the same course for a great 
 
 part of the way. Cohen v. Uincldcij, 1 Taunt. 
 24i» ; 1 1 R. R. m). 
 
 If a convoy has sailed, a ship cannot legally 
 endeavour to overtake it. Ih. 
 
 Where there are no convoys appointed at the 
 port from which a ship commences her homeward 
 passage, she is not bound to call for convoy at a 
 port in the course of the voyage, from wliich 
 convovs are appointed. Parli v. Ilinnniond, 
 
 4 Camp. 344 ; 2 Marsh. 189 ; 6 Taunt. 495 ; 
 Holt, ,S() ; 16 R. R. 658. 
 
 A ship cannot legally proceed without convoy 
 from port to port to join convoy, unless she has 
 obtained a licence to sail without convoy. 
 Hlnfltleij V. Walton, 3 Taunt. 131. 
 
 A bill of lading signed bj' the captain, stating 
 the shij) to be bound to the port of destination 
 with convoy, amounts to an undertaking, binding 
 on the owner, that the ship shall .sail with 
 convoy. Sanderson v. Busher, 4 Camp. 54. n. 
 
 On a re})resentation that a ship will sail with 
 convoy, whereby the plaintiff was induced to put 
 his goods on board, the promise is comjilied with 
 if she follows the convoy and joins it, so as to 
 prevent the plaintiff from maintaining an action 
 against the owner for a loss from another cause 
 after she had joined. Aliter, if, by reason of this 
 representation, the owner of the goods in an 
 insurance made thereon was induced to warrant 
 that she would sail with convoy. Christin v. 
 Ditchcll, Peake's Add. Cas. 141 ; 4 R. R. 898. 
 
 A vessel which sails with convoy, and is driven 
 back by weather into her port of clearance, may 
 lawfulh' sail thence again with her cargo on the 
 voj'age, without waiting for the next convoy 
 from the same i>ort, or joining convoy from any 
 other port. Laing v. Glorer, 5 Taunt. 49. 
 
 She must keep with the convoy unless separated 
 by necessitv. WaWunn v. Tltonipson, Marsh. 
 Ins. (4th edO 294. 
 
 Convoy Dispersed by Weather.] — Policy on 
 the "Ceres" at and from Oporto to Lynn, with 
 liberty to touch at any port on the coast of 
 Portugal, to join convoy particularly at Lisbon, 
 at twelve guineas, to return %l. if she sail with 
 convoy from the coast of Portugal and arrive. 
 The " Ceres " sailed from Oporto with a sloop 
 and cutter appointed to protect the trade to 
 Lisbon, from which place she was to sail with a 
 larger convoy to England. Between Oporto and 
 Lisbon the fleet was dispersetl by weather, and 
 the " Ceres " ran for England and arrived :^ 
 Held, that the assured was entitled to a return 
 of premium. Audlcij v. Duff', 2 Bos. & P. Ill ; 
 
 5 R. R. 54!». 
 
 Customary Rendezvous — The Downs.] — War- 
 ranted to depart with convoy means from the 
 customary place where convoys are to be had, as 
 the Downs. The general usages of merchants 
 are taken notice of by the courts in construing 
 policies. Lethidier's Case, 2 Salk. 443. 
 
 During Passage to Join Convoy.] — A ship 
 warranted to depart with convoy is at the 
 insurers' risk during her j^assage to join the 
 rendezvous for convoy. Gordon v. Jlorley, 2 
 Str. 1265. 
 
 A ship warranted to dejiart with convoy was 
 captured on her way from the Downs to join the 
 convoy at Si)ithead : — Held, the assurers were 
 liable. Caviphcll v. Jiordini, 2 Str. 1265 ; 
 Gordon v. Morley, supra. 
 
 Ship and goods insured from Gothenburg to
 
 1169 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—YI. Warranties. 
 
 1170 
 
 London warranteil to depai't with convoy from 
 Flechery. The ship sailed from Gothenburg, 
 and after waiting at Flechery for two months, 
 joined the convoy off the port in bad weather, 
 and was captured before she could get her sailing 
 orders : — Held, that the warranty was complied 
 with. Victiirut v. Cleere, 2 Str. 12r)0. 
 
 A ship warranted to sail with convoy was 
 captured after sailing from Tortola with a vessel 
 sent by the admiral to bring up merchant ships 
 to join convoy at St. Kitts ; she fell to leeward, 
 and was captured whilst on her passage to 
 England by herself : — Held, that the warranty 
 ■was complied with. Manning v. Gid, 3 Dougl. 
 84. And see 'J'hrllus,son v. Fergvssun, and Cases, 
 supra, col. llfi."). 
 
 No Sailing Orders.] — A shij) held to have 
 sailed with convoy though she arrived so late at 
 the rendezvous th.at she had no sailing orders, 
 she having in fact sailed with the convoy. 
 Verdun v. Wilviut, 2 Park, Ins. (8th ed.) 696, n. 
 
 The Convoy may be one or different Ships.] — 
 A warranty to sail with convoy means sucli a 
 convoy as the government pleases to ap])oint ; 
 whether of one or different ships for diifcrent 
 ])arts of the voyage is immaterial. Sinitlt v. 
 lieadghaw, 2 Park, Ins. (8th ed.) 708. 
 
 Convoy for the Voyage.]— A ship warranted to 
 depart with convoy must sail with convoy the 
 whole voyage. JJlli/ v. Eicer, 1 Dougl. 72 ; 
 .frferyen v. Leqrndra, 1 Show. 320 ; 3 Lev. 320 ; 
 2 Salli. 443 ; 4 Mod. 48. 
 
 Breach of Warranty — Policy never Attaches.] 
 — If the shi]) insured is wairanted to sail with 
 convoy, and does not. the policy never attaches, 
 and the jnemium must be returned. Long v. 
 Allan, 4 Dougl. 276. 
 
 Void Licence to Sail without Convoy.] — An 
 
 ailmiralty licence t'oi- a shi]) to sail without 
 Convoy, describing her as on a voyage to Gib- 
 raltar, wlufii, in fact, she snilcd with instructions 
 to make for Palermo without touching at Gib- 
 raltar unless oideied into the bay by cruisers — 
 is fraudulent and void ; and an insurance on 
 such ship and goods on board from hence to 
 Palernu). without convoy, is void, and will not 
 <;over a loss during tlie last part of the voyage, 
 though the ship did, in fact, put into Gibraltar, 
 l>eing driven in by stress of weatliei". Ingham 
 V. Agiiru), 1", Kast, :,\~ ; 13 1!. Jl. .')ir,. 
 
 Protection of Armed Ship not Appointed by 
 Government. — Sailing umlcr the pniic<-ii(,n nf 
 an aniicd ship not a|)poiiiled by the goveinnieni 
 as convoy is not a compliance with a warranty 
 to sail with convoy. As a general rule, sailing 
 orders must be obtained to comi)ly witli such 
 warranty. Jfihhfrt v. Pigon, 3 Dougl. 224. 
 
 Action by Goods Owner for Losing Benefit of 
 Policy. J — I'liecliarluiciof a ship put her up as a 
 general sliij) with notice Hint she would sail 
 with convoy. The plaint iif shipped goods by 
 her, and insmcd them with warranty that the 
 ship woidd sail with convoy. I'eace having been 
 ni;ide, .'ind no convoy ap|iointed, tlic ship saile<l 
 without convoy, and was hist l)y collision. The 
 policy being void, the i)laintiff sued the charterer 
 for breach of contract, whereby the plaintiff lost 
 the benefit of his policy and recovered. Phillij)/! 
 V. Jiaillie, 3 Dougl. 374. 
 
 Change of Convoys.] — Ship insured at and from 
 Cadiz to Amsterdam warranted to sail with 
 convoy for the voyage. The ships sailed from 
 Cadiz with British convoy, and were lost before 
 reaching the Downs, where thej^ were to have 
 fresh convoy for Amsterdam. Underwriters held 
 liable, this being the usage. De Garray v. 
 Claggct, 2 Park, lins. (8th ed.) 708. 
 
 Separated from Convoy — Weather.] — A ship 
 
 warranted to sail with convoy was separated 
 from her convoy hj a gale, ami whilst she was 
 endeavouring to reach her destination, and to 
 fall in with her convoj', she was captured. The 
 untlerwriters were held liable. Ilarringtou v. 
 Ilalkdd, 2 Park, Ins. (Sth ed.) 63i). 
 
 Delay by Plaintiff's Fault.]— The shij) was 
 delayccl in taking on board the plaintiff's goods, 
 and afterwards made all possible effort, biit failed 
 to join the convoy with which she ought to have 
 sailed : — Held, that the assured could recover on 
 the policy. Maqalharns v. Busker, 4 Camp. 
 .".4. 
 
 Fault of Assured — No Convoy.] — Where by 
 the neglect of the insured the ship failed to sail 
 with convoy the insurers are discharged. Taylor 
 V. ]\'oodnen, 2 Park, Ins. (8th ed.) 707. 
 
 7. Neutrality. 
 
 And .see 2, NATIONALITY. 
 
 At what Time,] — Under a warranty in a policy 
 that the ship and cargo are neutral property, 
 it is sufficient that they are neutral when the 
 risk commences. JMen v. Parh'nisoii, 2 Dougl. 
 732. 
 
 If goods are insured from A. to P>. in a neutral 
 ship, it is sufficient to charge the underwriters 
 that the ship was neutral when she sailed. 'J'g.sun 
 v. Gurneg, 3 Term Rep. 477. 
 
 Any forfeiture of neuti'ality by the wilful act 
 of the assured, or of the master, after the com- 
 mencement of the voyage insured, is a bieach 
 of warrantv. Garrrlx v. Krn,sin'/ti)n, S Term Uej). 
 230 : I 1!. k. OH.-). 
 
 Ownership.] — A ship having American papers, 
 and bchmging to a person born in America, but 
 resident in Kngland, was not a neutral suHicicnt 
 to satisfy a warranty of her Ijeiiig American, and 
 protected bj' the American Hag, during the 
 American war. Tahhn v. Jicndriarlt, 3 Bos. k. P. 
 207, n, ; 4 Esp. 108. 
 
 To prove a warranty, that a shij) insured was 
 of a i)articular nation, it is ])riina fai^ie evidence 
 th.-il she carried Hie tlag of that nation at times 
 when she wjis free from all danger of cajjture, 
 and that the captain addressi'd himself to the 
 consul of that nation in a foreign port. Arc<iii- 
 gelo v. Thompxon, 2 Camp. 620 ; 12 11. R. 7.")S. 
 
 'J"he Merchant Shipjiing Act, 18r)i, s. 107, 
 makes the register prima facie proof of disputed 
 nationality, but such inference may lie ovci'- 
 borne l\v circumstantial evidence to the con- 
 trary. The Prini-ixn Charlotte, Br. iV: Lush. 
 75. 
 
 Insuring .a >\\'\\\ by an I-higlish nana: does not 
 amount to a warranty or a representation that 
 she is English. Clajiham v. Cologan, 3 Camj). 
 382. .SVv rV/«'.«, cols. 11 4i», 1 1 .■.0. 
 
 Documents.] — An assured upon an Aincnicaii 
 shi|i and cargo, provide 1 with such ;i pass|)(jrt as
 
 1171 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUKANCE— VI. Warranties. 
 
 1172 
 
 was required by the treaty between America 
 ami France, and with all other usual American 
 papers ami documents, was entitled to recover 
 against an underwriter of a policy on such ship 
 and goods, in case of a capture by a French 
 lirivateer, notwithstanding a sentence of con- 
 demnation of the same as lawful prize by a 
 Freneli coui't of admiralty. Price v. UpU, 
 1 East, 6(;H. 
 
 Goods insured on board a shij) generally by 
 her name, without any addition of country, and 
 not represented to be of any particular country 
 at the time of the policy subscribed, though the 
 broker had said she was an American when the 
 ship was subscribed, and though she was in fact 
 an American, need not be documented as such. 
 Dawson v. Attji, 7 East, 367 
 
 neutral, a sentence of a foreign court of admi- 
 ralty, condemning her for a violation of the 
 laws of neutrality, is not evidence to falsify the 
 representation. Von Tungdii v. Dubois, 2 Camp. 
 151. 
 
 The protest is of itself evidence only to con- 
 tradict the captain's evidence, not to shew a 
 variance between it and the condemnation. 
 ChfistidH V. Cooinbe, 2 Esp. 490. 
 
 A sentence of condemnation of a neutral by a 
 British vice-admiralty court abroad is sufficient 
 evidence from which to presume that the ship 
 condemned had been engaged in some illegal 
 transaction, though the ground of condemnation 
 does not appear in the sentence. Gibso/iY. Mnir, 
 1 Marsh. 8!) ; 15 R. R. 668. 
 
 A sentence of condemnation in a French court 
 
 If an insured vessel was warranted to carry a i of admiralty is admissible in an action here 
 
 French licence, it was not sufticient to shew that 
 the captain of the vessel in 1818, before the 
 vessel sailed from Dantzic, received a document 
 which purported to be a French licence, without 
 shewing that he received it from some officer or 
 jjerson in authority under the French govern- 
 ment ; but proof that, after the arrival of the 
 vessel at Bordeaux, she was allowed to remain 
 there for upwards of a month after an inspec- 
 tion of the French licence and other documents 
 by the officer of the P'rench government, was 
 prima facie evidence that the document was 
 genuine. Everth v. Tunno. 1 Stark. 508 ; 1 
 B. & Aid. 142. 
 
 A neutral vessel is not seaworthy unless she is 
 jirovided with documents to prove her neutrality. 
 Steel V. Larn, 3 Taunt. 285 ; 12 R. R. 658. 
 
 Sentence of Foreign Court— Effect of Con- 
 demnation.] — The sentence of a foreign admi- 
 ralty court is evidence only of what it expressly 
 aftii-ms in its adjudicative part, not of what may 
 be gathered from it by way of inference. Fisher 
 V. Ogle, 1 Camp. 418 (overruled by Baring v. 
 JRogal Exchange Assurance Co., infra.) 
 
 Where a foreign court of prize professes to 
 condemn a shij) and cargo on the ground of an 
 infraction of treaty in not being properly docu- 
 mented, as required by the treaty between the 
 captors and captured ; such sei^tence is con- 
 clusive in our courts against a warranty of 
 neutrality of such ship and cargo in an action 
 upon a policy against the underwriter ; although 
 inferences were drawn in such sentence from ex 
 parte ordinances in aid of the conclusion of such 
 infraction of treaty. Baring v. Jluyal Exchange 
 Assurance Co., 5 East, 99 ; 7 R. 'R. 657. See 
 Price V. Bell, supra. 
 
 On a policy of insurance, a condemnation by 
 a foreign court of admiralty is not conclusive 
 evidence that the ship was not neutral, unless 
 it appears that the condemnation went upon 
 that ground. Bernardi v. Motteux, 2 Dougl. 
 575. S. P., Saloiicci v. Johnson, 4 Dougl. 224, 
 infra. 
 
 A warranty of Danish property (Denmark 
 being then a neutral power), in a policy on shij) 
 and goods, was holden to be conclusively dis- 
 proved by a sentence of the court of admiralty, 
 condemning the ship and cargo, because the 
 master and crew had broken their neutrality in 
 the course of the voyage insured, bj' forcibly 
 
 between the assured and underwriters of a policy 
 containing a warranty of neutrality. Lothian 
 V. Henderson, 3 Bos. & P. 499 ; 7 R. R. 829. 
 
 A warranty of neutrality in a policy is not 
 falsified by a sentence of a foreign court of 
 admiralty, condenniing a ship for navigating 
 contrary to the ordinances of that belligerent 
 state, to which the neutral country had not 
 assented. Pollard v. Bell, 8 Term Rep. 434; 
 5 R. R. 404. S. P., Bird v. Appleton, 8 Term Rep. 
 562 ; 5 R. R. 468. 
 
 Goods were insured, warranted neutral, on 
 board the " Thetis," " a Tuscan ship." The ship 
 and goods were captured by Spaniards and con- 
 demned :— Held, that the sentence was con- 
 clusive that the goods were not neutral. Saloucci 
 V. Woodman, 3 Dougl. 345. 
 
 By sentence of a French admiralty court, it 
 appeared that the ship warranted American had 
 been condemned as enemy's property, because 
 she had not on board a role d'equipage, in 
 accordance with a treaty between France and 
 America: — Held, that the sentence was con- 
 clusive evidence against the warranty of neu- 
 trality, though the ship was in fact American. 
 Geyer v. Aguilar, 7 Term Rep. 681 ; 4 R. R. 
 543. 
 
 The sentence of a foreign admiralty court, 
 that a ship warranted Dutch was English, is 
 conclusive against the assured. Barzillai v. 
 Lewis, 3 Dougl. 126. 
 
 If it can be discovered, upon the face of a 
 sentence of a foreign prize court, that the con- 
 demnation was on the ground that the property 
 was enemy's property, the sentence is conclusive 
 evidence in this country that the property was 
 not neutral. Bolton v. Gladstone, 5 East, 155 ; 
 7 R. R. 674. On appeal, 2 Taunt. 85 ; 11 R. R. 
 532. 
 
 In an action upon a policy in which the goods 
 were warranted American, the sentence of a 
 foreign prize court condemning goods as English, 
 is not conclusive evidence of their ownership, 
 if the grounds assigned in the sentence do not 
 warrant the conclusion drawn from them. 
 Calvert v. Bovill, 7 Term Rep. 523 ; 4 R. R. 
 517. 
 
 A ship was warranted Portuguese. She was 
 captured by a French privateer and condemned 
 for having an English supercargo on board, con- 
 trary to a French ordinance : — Held, that the 
 warrantv was not broken. Meyne or Mayne v. 
 Walter,'! Park. Ins. (8th ed.) 730. 
 
 rescuing the ship, which had been seized and 
 carried into port by a belligerent power for the 
 purpose of search. Garrels v. Kensington, 8 1 Sentence of Belligerent Adnuralty Court 
 Term Rep. 230 ; 4 R. R. 635. sitting in Neutral Country.]— The sentence ot 
 
 If a ship insured is merely represented as an admiralty court sitting under a commission
 
 1173 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— VI. IVarranties. 
 
 1174 
 
 from a belligereut in a neutral country is not 
 recognised in this country. Diuuddson \. Thomp- 
 son, 1 Camp. 429 ; 10 E.'R. 717. 
 
 A sentence of condemnation given by the 
 consul of the captor's country in the port of an 
 ally and an enemy of this country, where the 
 prize lay, is valid and conclusive as to the pro- 
 perty being British. Odihi v. Bovill, 2 East, 
 473 ; 6 E. R. 482. 
 
 Neutral Goods in Enemy's Armed Ship.]— 
 
 Neutral goods on board enemy's armed ship are 
 liable to capture. The Faiuiij, 1 Dods. 441. 
 
 Neutral carrying on Enemy's Colonial Trade.] 
 
 — It is a breach of neutrality for the neutral to 
 carry on, during war, trade between the mother 
 country and her colonies from which the neutral 
 is excluded in time of peace. The Immatiud, 
 2 C. Eob. 18(5. 
 
 Neutral Ship carrying Despatches.] — A 
 
 neutral ship does not violate her neutrality by 
 carrying despatches from an ambassador of a 
 belligerent from the neutral country to the 
 belligerent sovereign. The Caroline, Lush. 334 ; 
 5 L. T. 81). 
 
 Contraband Goods.] — See The Jonge Marqu- 
 rethii, 1 f. Eob. ls<j ; The Jonge 2'ohias, 1 C. Eob. 
 32'.t. 
 
 Breaking Blockade. ^— See The Juffrow Maria 
 Sehroeder, 3 C. Eob. 147. 
 
 8. Against Confiscation. 
 
 Seizure with Permission of Government.] — A 
 
 warranty from loss by coiifiscatinn of the govciii- 
 nient in the ship's port of discharge, does not 
 apply to a case where, u|)on the arrival of the 
 ship in the roads of Pillau within the Prussian 
 dominions, she was boarded by two different 
 parties, one of Prussian soldiers, and the other 
 the crew of a French privateer, who disputed the 
 possession of her, but agreed to take her into 
 Pillau, in order to settle tlieir claims ; upon 
 which the Prussian government referred the 
 matter to the P'rench government at Paris, 
 where the ship was condemned as prize to the 
 French CH])tors, and afterwards given up to 
 them. For the terms of the warranty import 
 something more to be done on behalf of'thc local 
 government at the port of discharge, than the 
 mere act of seizure by or with tiie permission of 
 such local government. Leri v. Allnuff, \:, East 
 2(;7. 
 
 " In Port of Discharge." j 
 a warranty l>v the Jissurcd 
 
 -A policy contained 
 
 pilot ; a pilot-boat, in consequence, came out 
 with douaniers on board, who carried him into 
 the harbour, where the cargo was seized and con- 
 demned : — Held, that this was a seizure in her 
 port of discharge, within the meaning of the war- 
 ranty. Oimi V. Taylor, 3 Camp. 204. 
 
 Though a policy on goods contains a clause of 
 warranty freeing the underwriter from seizure 
 in the ship's port of discharge ; yet the assured 
 having declared generally as for a loss by hostile 
 seizure without negativing that it was in the 
 shij)'s port of discharge, is no cause for arresting 
 the judgment after verdict. Riicker v. Green., 
 15 East, 288. 
 
 Under a policy on goods from London to any 
 ports or places in the Baltic, backwards and for- 
 wards, with leave to touch, stay and trade at all 
 places for all j)urposes, and to take in and dis- 
 charge goods wheresoever the ship might touch 
 at ; and in case it should be found dangerous to 
 enter such ports and i)laces, or the captain was 
 not allowed to discharge the cargo, with leave to 
 return, until he found a port which he could 
 enter with safety : the insurance to continue 
 until the ship and goods arrived at as above ; 
 upon the ship until moored at anchor twenty- 
 four hours in safety, and upon the goods until 
 the same should be there discharged and safely 
 landed ; at a premium of fourteen guineas, to 
 return 11. per cent, for arrival ; with warranty 
 of the goods free from capture or seizure in the 
 ship's port or ports of discharge : — Held, that 
 the ship having arrived in the outer road of 
 Pillau, which is a bar harbour, where large ships 
 like this are obliged to discharge part of their 
 cargoes into lighters, to enable them to go over 
 the bar into the inner harbour, where they dis- 
 charge the remainder ; and the caj)tain having 
 anchored two miles and a quarter farther out 
 than ships usually lie for this purpose and having 
 gone on shore to report his ship and cargo, 
 and to obtain permission to discharge his cargo, 
 and to give directions for it ; and having returned 
 in live or si.\ days, when he was accompanied 
 by Prussian soldiers and a pilot, who took pos- 
 session of the ship and cargo, and discharged 
 part of it into a lighter in the jilace where the 
 ship remained at anclior, and afterwards carried 
 her over the bar into tlie inner harbour, where 
 the goods were finally confiscated ; this was an 
 arrival in the captain's elected i)ort of discharge, 
 so as to discharge the underwriters from the loss 
 by seizure there, within the meaning of the 
 l)olicv. Dalqleish v. liroohe, 15 East, 2'J5 ; 13 
 E. E." 47(1. 
 
 British goods on board a neutral shij), being 
 insured from London to atiy ports or ])laces of 
 discharge f>n the continent, with lil)erty to carry 
 simidatcd papers, &c.. free of capture or seizure 
 
 ler port or jioi'ts of (Mscharge ; and the shij), 
 
 by tlie government in the ship's |)t)rt oi discliarge 
 A vessel destined to discharge at Pillau aiicliored 
 two German miles from I'lilau, three English 
 miles without tlic roadstead, wiiere vessels unload, 
 in order to cume over tlie bar into the inner 
 harlx)ur ; and was captured at iier moorings by 
 soldiers coming off in a boat from Pillau : — HchJ. 
 that this loss was not within tiie warijinty. 
 Lenj v. VaiKjhnn. 4 Taunt. 387 : 13 E. E. f;43. 
 
 Where goods insured were warranted free from 
 seizure in the jiort of discliarge, the captain, 
 havinf; arrived within about two miles and a half 
 
 igainst confiscation j having received instructions to proceed to the 
 
 river Jahde with a supercargo, who, when arrived 
 there, was to go to Vai'el, wliich lies thirty-nine 
 miles up the river, and there give notice to a 
 coirespondent of the ship's arrival, and receive 
 directions wliere the goods nn'ght most safely 
 be landed, Varel and the wiiole adjacent 
 countiy being then occu])ie<l by flic enemj' : 
 — Held, that a seizure by the enemy in boats 
 fioin tiie shore, while the ship was lying on 
 and off in the middle of the river, fifteen miles 
 up, where it is two miles wide, waiting for 
 directions from the supercargo, who had gone 
 
 from the harbour of the ])laee to which he was i \\y to Varel to get instructions where to lantl 
 destined, cast anchor and made a signal for a | the cargo, was a seizure in a port of discharge
 
 1175 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— VI. Wan-antics. 
 
 1176 
 
 within tlio exemption in the policy. Jarmnn 
 V. (\<,ij>,\ 115 East, :VJ4 : 2 Camp, tilo ; 12 R. R. 
 371. 
 
 Free from Capture and Seizure — Barratry.] 
 — In a time policy of marine insurance on ship 
 the ordinary perils insured against (including 
 ■"barratry of the master") were enumcratetl, 
 and the ship was warranted "free from capture 
 and seizure, and the conse(iuences of any attempts 
 thereat." In consequence of the barratrous act 
 of the master in smuggling, the shij) was seized 
 by Spanish revenue officers, and proceedings 
 were taken to procure her condemnation and 
 confiscation. In an action on the policy to 
 recover expenses incurred by the owner in 
 obtaining her release : — Held, that the loss 
 must be imputed to "capture and seizure," and 
 not to the barratry of the master, and that the 
 underwriter was not liable. Cory v. Burr, .">2 
 L. J.. Q. B. 6.-)7 ; 8 App. Cas. 393 ; 49 L. T. 
 78 : 31 W. R. 8it4 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 109— H. L. 
 <E.) 
 
 Where previous Stranding.] — An American 
 ship, insured from New York to London, 
 warranted free from American condemnation, 
 having for the purpose of eluding her national 
 embargo, slipt away in the night, was by force 
 of the ice, wind and tide, (h'iven on shore, 
 where she sustained only j^artial damage, but 
 was seized the next day, and afterwards, with 
 great difficulty and expense, got off, and finally 
 condemned by the American government for 
 breach of the embargo : — Held, that as theie 
 was ultimately a total loss by a jieril excepted 
 out of the ]3olicy, the assured could neither 
 recover for a total loss, nor for any previous })ar- 
 tial loss arising from the stranding, which in 
 the event became wholly immaterial to the 
 assured. Aliter, in case of actual disbui.se- 
 ments made for repair of damage occasioned by 
 sea perils before the total loss, which appeared 
 to be governed by the general authority given 
 to the assured to " labour and travail," &c. for 
 the defence, safeguard and recovery of the pro- 
 }3erty insured. Lirie v. Ja/ineti, 12 East, 648 ; 11 
 R. R. .-)13. 
 
 Stranding — Seizure by Enemy.] — Where, on a 
 policy on goods warranted free from capture and 
 seizure, the ship when within eight or nine 
 miles of port was obliged to come to an anchor for 
 want of a pilot, and afterwards drifted on to a 
 sand, and was totally wrecked ; and whilst she 
 remained on the sand, she was seized bj' persons 
 acting under the authority of the Spanish 
 government, and the goods were taken on shore 
 by them in a damaged state, and confiscated ; 
 and no portion of them ever came into the 
 possession of the assured : — Held, that this was 
 a loss by the perils of the seas, and not by cap- 
 ture or seizure, the proxima causa being the 
 loss of the ship. ILilin v. Corhett, 9 Moore. 
 390 ; 2 Ring. 20.5 ; 3 L. J. (O.S.) C. P. 2.-)3 ; 27 
 R. R. .590. 
 
 "Warranted to have Passes — Passes granted 
 to Ship under another Name.] — Warranty that 
 the ship should have four passes, English, French, 
 Polish and Dutch ; the goods to be of a Polish 
 subject on board the " City of Warsaw." The 
 passes were dated in April or May and the shij) 
 did not receive the name of " City of Warsaw" 
 until August : — Held, that the underwriters were 
 not liable. Anon., Skinner, 404. 
 
 9. Against Capture. 
 
 Generally.] — A ship to be seaworthy must be 
 rendereil as secure as possible from capture as 
 well as fi-oni perils of the sea. Wcdderhuni v. 
 Bell, 1 Camp. 1 ; 10 R. R. 615. 
 
 By whom.] — A }iolicy on a foreign ship must 
 be understciod as containing an exception of all 
 captures made by the authority of our (jwn 
 government. Kcllnir v. Lp Me-surier, 4 East, 
 396 ; 1 Smith, 72 ; 7 R. R. 581. 
 
 Emigrants on Board.] — Action on a 
 
 voyage policy from Macao to Havana " war- 
 ranted free from capture and seizure and the 
 consequences of any attempt thereat." Tlie 
 clause stating the jierils insured against included 
 enemies, pirates, rovers, thieves, surprisals, takings 
 at sea, and barratry of the masters and mariners. 
 The insurance was declared to be on 7,300/. 
 expended in provisions for emigrants, and 
 advances on freight. While the ship was on 
 her voyage the emigrants piratically seized and 
 carried away the ship : — Held, that such taking 
 l)ossession of the vessel was a seizure within the 
 meaning of the warranty, and that the assurers 
 were not liable. Klchiwort v. Shejxird, 1 El. & El. 
 447 ; 28 L. .J., Q. B. 147 ; 5 Jur. (N.S.) 863 ; 7 
 W. R. 227. Sre (dso Cases ante, cols. 1104, seq. 
 
 Whether in Port.] — Whether a vessel, war- 
 ranted free of capture in port, is in a port or not 
 at the time of her capture, is purely a question 
 of fact for a jury, lieijner v. Pearson, 4 Taunt. 
 662 : 13 R. R. 723. 
 
 Whether the place where a vessel casts anchor 
 is within her jiort of discharge, is a fact for the 
 jurv, not a question of law. Levin v. Xew/ihani, 
 4 Taunt, 722 ; 14 R. R. 648. 
 
 A warranty in a policy against capture in port 
 does not protect the underwriters from a loss 
 happening from capture in a place which is not 
 within the limits of any port, although it may be 
 within the headlands at the mouth of a river. 
 Barin/j v. Vaii.r, 2 Camp. 541 ; 11 R. R. 791. 
 
 If a vessel is taken at her moorings, being 
 neither within the caput portfis, nor within that 
 part of a haven where ships imload, the under- 
 writer is not discharged by a wananty against 
 capture in the ship's port of destination. Keyser 
 V. Scott, 4 Taunt. 660 : 13 R. R. 721. 
 
 If a ship is warianted free of capture or of 
 seizure in port or ports, a capture by an enemy's 
 ship, while the vessel insured is lying in an 
 open road, outside a harbour, is not within the 
 warranty. Brown v. Tierney, 1 Taunt. 517 : 10 
 R. R. 599. 
 
 A warranty against capture in the ship's i)ort 
 of di-scharge, does not include capture in the 
 ojjcn sea on the outside of the port, by a force 
 issuing from the port of discharge. Mellish v. 
 Staniforth, 3 Taunt. 499. 
 
 Ship warranted free from capture in port. A 
 letter announcing her capture in port was 
 received by tlie assured and the premium was 
 returned. The capture was in fact not in port : 
 — Held, that tiie return of the premium did not 
 prevent the assured recovering on the policy. 
 Rcijner v. Hall, 4 Taunt. 725 ; 14 R. R. 650. 
 
 Goods warranted free from cajiture or seizure 
 in the port of discharge were seized whilst the 
 shiji was lying in Pillau roads outside the river 
 bar, about' three miles from Pillau, the port of
 
 1177 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— TIL Concealment, dV. 
 
 discharge : — Held, that the warranty was broken. 
 Minjdhfw V. Scott. 3 Camp. 20.5. 
 
 Deviation to avoid Capture.] — Where a policy 
 contains no warranty against seizure in port, if 
 the ship, to avoid such seizure, runs to sea before 
 she is i^roperly loaded, and is in consequence 
 obliged to go to a port out of the direct course of 
 the voyage insured, the underwriters are liable 
 for a subsequent loss. O'Reilly v. Gonne, 4 
 Camp. 249; 16 K. K. 788. 
 
 Otherwise where the policy contains a war- 
 ranty against seizure in port. O'Reilhj wRui/dJ 
 Eu-cliiDKir Asxurtincc Co.. 4 Camp. 24(j : 16 
 R. K. 786. 
 
 10. As TO Cargo. 
 
 Misrepresentation.] — Where an agent of a 
 shipowner, effecting a policy on a ship, misrepre- 
 sented the nature of the cargo which she was 
 to carry, but this was not inserted in the policy, 
 and it did not. appear that the underwriter was 
 induced by the misrei)resentation to accejjt the 
 risk : — Held, that the jury was warranted in 
 finding that the misrepresentation was not 
 material, and that it did not vitiate the jwlicy. 
 FUnn v. Hciullnm or Tohin. 9 B. & C. 698 
 S. C, M. & M. 367 ; 81 R. R. 789. 
 
 Meaning of "The Cargo."]— An insurance 
 declared to be on "the cargo,"' being 1.081 hhds. 
 wine, does not amount to a warranty that the 
 wine constitutes the whole cargo, and that no 
 other goods will be taken on board. Midler v. 
 Thompson. 2 Camp. 610 : 12 R. R. 7r)8. 
 
 Contraband.] — Whilst war was existing be- 
 tween the L'nited States of America and the 
 Confederate States, goods were insured on a 
 voyage from London to Matanioras by a jiolicy 
 which contained a warranty against contraband 
 of war. Matanioras was a neutral port behmg- 
 ing to Mexico, but the intention of the insured 
 from the beginning was to send the goods on to 
 the Confederate States by transhipping them at 
 Matamoras. and conveying them across the river 
 which divided Mexico from the territory then in 
 the possession of the Confederate States. Some 
 of the goo<ls which were so insured consisted of 
 artillery harness : — Held, that such goods were 
 contraband of war, and that there was tlierefore 
 a breach of the warranty, which avoideil the 
 wliolc insurance. Seijinonr v. London ii nd Pro- 
 rhiriiil ^f(n■hlt^ InKiinnirr Co.. H \j. .)., C. P. 
 193 : 27 L. T. 417 ; I Asj). .M. C. 423. 
 
 Condition of Goods.] — It is not a condition 
 ])ivici|i.Mit to the attaching of a policy on gofxls 
 against sea risks that tlie subject of insurance 
 should, at flic connnencement of the voyage, be 
 fit to encounter the ordinary vicissitudes of a 
 voyage. Korhrl v. Hmnidvrit, 17 C. R. (N.S.) 71 ; 
 33 L. J., C. P. 310 ; 10 .Jur. (N.S.) 920 ; 12 W. R. 
 1106. 
 
 II. r.NINStUIOD. 
 
 "Hull and Machinery" — " Warranted Unin- 
 sured"— "Honour " Policy.]— A time policy of 
 marine insuiance ctTiM't(.<| upon the "hull "and 
 machinery" of a steaiii>lii[) df)es not. in tlie 
 absence of i)roof tliat in marine insurance the 
 words "hull and machinery" have acquired a 
 special meaning, cover fiisbursements : — Qua;re, 
 whether the effecting of a p. p. i. or "honour" 
 policy, wliich is null and void under 19 Geo. 2, 
 
 1178 
 
 c. 37, is a breach of a warranty to stand un- 
 insured. Rnddick V. Indemnity Mutnal Marine 
 Innnrnnce Co., 64 L. J., Q. B. 788 ; [189.5] 2 
 Q. B. 880 : 14 R. 516 ; 72 L. T. 860 ; 44 W R 
 27 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 24— C. A. 
 
 Valued Policy— Warranty that Part of Ship's 
 Value remain Uninsured.] — A shipowner, whose 
 sliij. is valued at 12,000/., who insures her for 
 9,6U0L, and warrants that as to 2,400/. he will 
 be his own insurer, commits no breach of his 
 warranty by taking out a further insurance to 
 cover such portion of the original sum insured 
 as he has notice is likely to become ineffective 
 by reason of the insolveucv of underwriters. 
 
 General lunurancc Co. of Trie.itc 
 L. J., Q. B. 318 ; [1897] 1 Q. B. 88.5 
 
 V. Cory, 66 
 
 12. Free from Average. 
 See X. Losses, infra, cols. 1247, seq. 
 
 VII. 
 
 CONCEALMENT AND 
 SENTATION. 
 
 MISREPRE- 
 
 1. }\'hen Material Generally, 1178. 
 
 2. Knowledge of Agents, 1185. 
 
 3. Known Course of Prueecding, 1188. 
 
 4. Intelligence at Lloyds', 1189. 
 
 5. State and Condition of Shipand Cargo, 1191. 
 
 6. Time of Sailing. \Y,\\. 
 
 7. Ship's Xame when in Danger. 1196. 
 
 8. Port or Place of Sailing or Loading, 1197. 
 
 9. Commeneement of Hostilities, 1198. 
 
 10. Terms of Insurance. 1199. 
 
 11. Proof, 1199. 
 
 12. Chancery Jurisdiction, 1200. 
 
 1. When Material Generally. 
 
 Fraud.] — The suppression or concealment of 
 material intelligence respecting a matter of 
 insurance, whether bj' principal or agent, ami 
 whether fraudulent or not, vitiates the policy. 
 Thompson v. Ruchanan, 4 Bro. P. C. 482. 
 
 Correction.] — Where parties are contracting, 
 either of them, unless he is under a duty to- 
 the other, may keep silence even as to facts 
 which he believes woidd be operative on the 
 mind of the other : if, however, one of them has 
 made a statement which he believes to be true, 
 but which in the course of the negotiation he 
 discovers to be false, he is bound to correct his 
 erroneous statement. Paries v. London and I'ro- 
 vlnclal Marine Insurance Co.. 47 L. .1., Ch. .5] 1 ; 
 8 Ch. I). IC.I ; 3S L. T. 4 78 : 26 \V. U. 791. 
 
 All due Information.] — hi maiine insurance 
 the basis of the contract between the untler- 
 writer and tiie assured is that the latter will 
 connmuiicate to the former infoi'mation of every 
 material fact of wlnCh fht; assured has or in the 
 ordinai-y course of business ought to have know- 
 ledge ; and that tlie latter will take the necessary 
 measures by the employmeni of coni|)etenl and 
 hfniest agents to obtain through the ordinary 
 channels of intelligence in use in the mercantile 
 wr)rld all due information as to the sid)j(>(rt- 
 matter of the insurance. Proudfoot v. Monte- 
 fiorc, 8 B. .S: S. TjlO : 36 L. .].. Q. 15. 22.5 ; L R 2 
 Q. P.. .511 : 16 L. T. 585 ; 15 W. R. 920. 
 
 A person at Sunderland effected a ])olicyof in- 
 stirance. aiul said no accounts had been recf.'ived 
 of theshii). His counting-house was at Belfast, 
 and at the time of saying this accounts had been
 
 1179 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— VII. Concealment, d-c. 
 
 1180 
 
 received there, though this was unknown to 
 hini : — Held, that his statenieiit was not false or 
 frau(hdent. GimucrU v. y'lrholxoii, 1 Jur. ^.S'l. 
 
 Upon ctfectiii!,^ a policy of marine insurance, 
 the assured is bound to disclose everything which 
 would affect the judgment of a rational under- 
 -n-riter governing himself by the principles and 
 •calculations on "which underwriters in practice 
 act. lonUles v. Pcndrr, 43 L. J., Q. B. 227 : 
 L. R. 9 Q. B. r.31 ; 30 L. T. ",47 ; 22 W. R. 8S4 : 
 1 Asp. M. C. 2f)(;. 
 
 The concealment by the assured at the time of 
 effecting a marine policy of insurance of a fact 
 which is material to enable a rational under- 
 writer, governing himself by the principles on 
 which underwriters in practice act, to judge 
 whether he shall accept the risk at all, or at 
 what rate, will vitiate the policy, although the 
 fact may not be material with regard to the risk 
 insured. Rivaz v. Gerussi, 50 L. J., Q. B. 176 ; 
 6 Q. B. D. 222 ; 44 L. T. 79 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 377. 
 
 Rumours.] — It is the duty of the assured not 
 •only to communicate to the underwriter articles 
 of 'intelligence, which may affect his choice, 
 whether lie will insure at all, and at what pre- 
 mium he will insure, but likewise all rumours 
 and reports which may tend to enhance the 
 magnitude of the risk. Lynch v. Haviiltoit, 3 
 Taunt. 37; 12 R. R. 591. 
 
 Knowledge of Underwriter.] — A person pro- 
 posing a mariTie insurance is bound to commu- 
 nicate every fact within his knowledge that is 
 material ; though, if a particular fact is known 
 to the underwriter at the time, he cannot after- 
 wards set up as a defence to an action on tlie 
 policy that the fact was not communicated : but 
 if a material fact is not communicated, which, 
 though known to the underwriter once, was not 
 present to his mind at the time of affecting the 
 • insurance, the non-communication affords a good 
 defence to the underwriter ; and it is not enough 
 for the assured to shew that the particulars 
 supplietl by the assured, coupled with the 
 underwriter's previous knowledge, would, if 
 the underwriter had given sufficient considera- 
 tion to the subject, have brought to his mind 
 the material fact not communicated. Bates v. 
 Hewitt, 36 L. J., Q. B. 282 ; L. R. 2 Q. B. 595 ; 
 15 W. R. 1172. 
 
 Knowledge of, or concealment from the par- 
 ticular underwriter may be material, but not the 
 Ivnowledge or ignorance of subsequent under- 
 writers of a different policy. Folcij v. Tahor, 
 2 F. & F. 663. 
 
 On a condition in a policy, that it should be 
 void if the assured should omit to communicate 
 any matter material to be made known to the 
 insurer : — Held, that this meant some matter, 
 not only material, but also unknown to the in- 
 surer ; and that it did not apply to something 
 which it might well be presumed was well known 
 to the insurer or his agents. Pimm v. Lewis, 2 
 F. & F. 778. 
 
 Letter leading to Inquiry.] — A material con- 
 cealment is a concealment of facts, which, if 
 communicated to the underwriter, would induce 
 him either to refuse the insurance altogether, or 
 not to effect it except at a greater premium than 
 the ordinary premium ; and a letter containing 
 facts, which, if communicated, would lead to an 
 inquiry, which would produce important informa- 
 tion, ought to be shewn by the assured to the 
 
 underwriter. Elton v. Larliins, 8 Bing. 198 ; 1 
 M. & Scott, 323 ; 5 Car. & P. 86, 385. 
 
 Facts coming to Knowledge of Assured after 
 
 Slip.] — When underwriters have (as by initialling 
 a slip) matle a contract of assurance, which, 
 although invalid at law and in equity for want of 
 statutory requisites, is nevertheless, in practice, 
 and according to the usage of those engaged in 
 marine insurance, a complete and final contract 
 binding upon them in honour and good faith 
 whatev'cr events may subsequently happen, the 
 assured need not communicate to the under- 
 writers facts which afterwards come to his know- 
 ledge material to the risk insured against ; and 
 the non-disclosure of such facts will not vitiate 
 the policy of insurance afterwards executed. 
 Cory V. Patton, 41 L. J., Q. B. 195, n. ; L. R. 7 
 Q. B. 304 ; 26 L. T. 161 ; 20 W. R. 364 ; 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 302. See S.C, 43 L. J., Q. B. 181 ; L. R. 
 9 Q. B. 577 ; 30 L. T. 758 ; 23 W. R. 46 ; 1 Asp. 
 M.C. 225. 
 
 At the time of signing a slip the assured was 
 aware of but did not communicate a material 
 fact. The underwriter afterwards became ac- 
 (juainted with this fact, and signed a policy in 
 conformity with the slip under protest : — Held, 
 that the policy was vitiated by the concealment. 
 Nicholson V. Power, 20 L. T. .580. 
 
 A proposal for insurance on freight was made 
 and accepted on the 1 1 th of March. On the 1 6th 
 the ship was lost. On the 17th, the assured, with 
 knowledge of the loss, but without communi- 
 cating it to the insurers, demanded a stamped 
 policy. The insurers then, for the first time, 
 required to be informed as to the amount of the 
 insurance ujion the hull, and inserted in the 
 policy (which the assured accepted), the follow- 
 ing warranty : " Hull warranted not insured for 
 more than 2,700Z. after the 20th of March." The 
 vessel was then insured for an additional 500/. 
 in an insurance club, by the rules of which all 
 ships belonging to members were insured from 
 the 20th of March in one year to the 20th of March 
 in the following year, "and so on from year to 
 year unless ten days' notice to the contrary 
 be given" ; and in the absence of notice the 
 managers of the club were to renew each policy 
 on its expiration : — Held, that the risk having 
 been accepted by the insurers on the 11th of 
 March, the addition on the 17th of a term for 
 their benefit, and not affecting the risk, did not 
 prevent the policy from being one drawn up in 
 respect of the risk accepted on the 11th, and, 
 therefore, the concealment of the loss was not 
 a concealment of a material fact ,so as to avoid 
 the policy. Lishiiuin v. Xorthern Maritime In- 
 sv ranee Co.. 44 L. J., C. P. 185 ; L. R. 10 C. P. 
 179 : 32 L.'t. 170 ; 23 W. R. 733 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 504— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Underwriter, Estoppel by Conduct.] — Where 
 
 the assui-er discovers the concealment of a 
 material fact between the initialling of the slip 
 and the issuing of the stamped policy, but issues 
 the pohcy without protest, he is not estopped from 
 disputing his liability, nor is the burden of proof 
 thrown on him to shew that the assured was not 
 misled into treating the contract as still subsist- 
 ing. Morrison v. Universal Marine Insurance 
 Co., 42 L. J.. Ex. 115 ; L. R. 8 Ex 197 ; 21 W. R. 
 774— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Underwriters having agreed upon the terms 
 for a marine insurance with the broker of the 
 assured, initiallcil the slip and debited the broker
 
 1181 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE -YII. Concccdment, dc. 
 
 1182 
 
 with the premium, in ignorance of facts mnterial 
 to be communicated to them, and known to 
 the broker. Shortly afterwanls the underwriters 
 <liscovered the concealment, and mentioned it to 
 the broker, but raised no objection, and after- 
 wards, at the usual time, executed and tlelivered 
 to the broker in silence a stamped policy in 
 accordance with the slip. News of a total loss 
 having arrived, they repudiated their liability 
 on the ground of the concealment, and the 
 assured sued them on the policy. It is the usage 
 to issue a stamjied policy in accordance with the 
 slij). no matter what might happen after the 
 slil) was initialled : — Held, that since the assured 
 had not been induced to alter his position by a 
 belief that the underwriters had elected to treat 
 the contract as binding, the delivery of the 
 stamped policy was not an act of estoppel, nor 
 even prinu\ facie evidence of an election, so as to 
 make it incumbent on the underwriters to shew 
 that the assured diil not understand, or had no 
 right to understand, the conduct of the under- 
 writers as an election. lb. 
 
 Materiality a Question for Jury.] — If facts not 
 disclosed by the broker for the insured, in a 
 representation of the state of the ship, appear 
 material to the jury, though they did not to the 
 broker, who merely on that account abstained 
 from mentioning them, the insurance is void. 
 ."^hirlrij V. WiWiLsoii. 1 Dnugl.3n0,n. ; aDougl.il. 
 
 Non-disclosure — Seaworthiness.] — As an as- 
 sured impliedly warrants the ship insured to be 
 seaworthy, whatever forms an ingredient in 
 seaworthiness is not necessary to be disclosed by 
 the a.ssured to the underwriter, in the first 
 instance, unless information on the subject be 
 jjarticularly called for, and then the assured must 
 <lisclose truly what he knows. Tlierefore, where 
 the assured of a ship had received a letter from 
 his cajjtain informing him that he had been 
 obliged to have a survey on the ship at Trinidad, 
 on account of her bad charactei', but the survey 
 which accompanied the letter gave lier a good 
 character : — Held, tliat the non-disclosure of the 
 letter and survey did not avoid the policy, 
 although, if disclosed, tlie premium would have 
 been higher. Jfti iiioihhI v. llodqcrs, 4 East, ilKO ; 
 7 K. K.'(i:5.s. 
 
 Insurance after Loss.] — Action for deceit, 
 shipowner fibtaining iru^rease of policy after 
 ship lost. New tiial. Aniiii., Lf)fFt, 212. 
 
 Goods of Enemy insured as Goods of Friend.] 
 
 — If g(pi>ils an; insured as the goods of a 
 Hamburgher who is an ally, and the goods arc 
 tlie goods of a Frenchman, an enemy, the policy 
 is void for fraud. Anan.. Skinner, H27. 
 
 Fact material under Foreign Law.] — The 
 insured is not Ijound to ilisclosc a fact made 
 material by a foreign ordinance of which he is 
 ignorant. Meyiw or Mmine v. Walter, 1 Park, 
 ins. 431 (Hth cd.) 730. 
 
 Change of Nationality.] — A shi]) was trans- 
 fei'rcd liy liriiiimw s;d(' from the British to the 
 Belgian flag, in oider tf) escape board of trade 
 inspection. She was afterwards insured, and tlie 
 fact of her change f»f flag was not cominuriicate<l 
 to the insurers : — Held, that the concealment 
 was of a material fact, although the ship was 
 not suggested to be unseaworthy. JIiitrhiiiKnn, 
 V. Ahprdrrti Sea InnuruHCC Co., 3 Ct. of Hess. Cas. 
 (4th. scr.) 682. 
 
 Enemies' Cruisers in Neighbourhood.] — If the 
 assured has heard tliat privateers are cruising in 
 the neighbourliood of his ship it is his duty to 
 communicate the fact to his underwriters. Becli- 
 wa'itc V. Ndhjfnr.e, cited, 3 Taunt. 1. 
 
 The assured had information that there were 
 enemies" cruisers in the neighbourhood of his 
 ship, and did not communicate the fact to his 
 underwriters : — Held, that he could not recover 
 on the ])olicy. Duri-M v. Brderlcy, Holt, 283 ; 
 8 R. R. 73'J. " And see 11 R. R. 63!t.' 
 
 Ship in Danger.]— A merchant having heard 
 that his shij) was in great danger, if not lost, 
 insured her without communicating his informa- 
 tion to his untlerwriters. Upon bill in chancery 
 to be relieved against the insurance as fraudulent, 
 a decree was made that the policy be delivered 
 up and the premium returned. De Conta v. 
 Seii/idret, 2 P. Wms. 170. 
 
 The assurer concealed the fact that from a ship 
 in company with the ship insured he had heard 
 that she was leaky and had been lost sight of in 
 a hartl gale ; she was afterwards captured by 
 Spaniards : — Held, that the concealment vitiated 
 the policy. Scainiiii. v. Fonerenu, 2 Str. 1183. 
 
 If a person insure a ship when on a 
 voyage, knowing her to be in extraordinary peril, 
 or to have suffered damage, and does not com- 
 municate it to the insurer, it is a fraud. Pole v. 
 Fdzqemld, Ambl. 214 ; 4 Bro., P. C. 43i). 
 Wilies, 461. 
 
 Time Policy — Voyage — Cargo.] — When effect- 
 ing a time policy the insurance broker represented 
 to the underwriter that the ship was to sail for 
 Pernambuco with coals and home with sugar. 
 She was in fact chartered for Imbituba with 
 iron ; but it was not proved that the broker knew 
 this : — Held, that there had ibeen no misrepre- 
 sentation of material facts, irarrei/ v. Seligman, 
 10 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th. ser.) 1180. 
 
 The ship was lost by shipwreck at her port of 
 discharge, which was an open I'oadstead : — Held, 
 that, the port not being notoriously dangerous, 
 and the shipowner not knowing that it was so, 
 and iron not being an exceptionally dangerous 
 cargo, tlu^re had been no concealment of material 
 facts. Ih. 
 
 Direction to Jury.] — By the rules of Lloyds', 
 a vessel classed for seven yeais is bound to undergo 
 a "half-time survey" in her fourth year, and 
 upon the report of such survey, tlie committee of 
 M<iyds' determine whether she is to retain her 
 chissification or not. If .she has satisfactorily 
 undergone the survey and retains her classifica- 
 tion, the letters " H. T." are i)laccd op])osite 
 to her name in the book, with the date of the 
 sui'vey. If the n;port is not satisfa<;tory, she is 
 degraded, and if a siu'vey is not had, or is 
 declined, sin; is struck out of the register. Each 
 suljscriber to Lloyds' is furnished with a copy of 
 this Ijook, which is corrected from time to time, 
 and he can get further information from the 
 secretary of Lloyds'. Notice was given to an 
 owner of a ship classed A l,aiid ijuiltin 18(ir), by 
 the surveyor, on the 22nd of Oetoljcr 18(>!», that 
 she was due for half-time survey, and he was 
 asked when she would he. I'cady for survey. He 
 replied on the 23r(l of October, that he had 
 decided not to contimie her in Lloyds' book. On 
 th(! 28th of October, his agent inquired of an 
 underwriter at what rate an insurance could be 
 effected upon the ship, and the book being looked
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— YII. Concealment, d-c. 
 
 1183 
 
 at in which she stood A 1, seven yeai's from 
 1 Sfi'j, a (]iiotation was given to him. On the 1 "jth 
 of November she was initialled for insurance, and 
 the policy was issued, dated the 1st of Decem])er. 
 1 Stilt. On the l()th of November she had been 
 struck out of the book, and the owner was so 
 informed on tlie 17th. The ship was wrecked, 
 and became a total loss on the 31st of December. 
 An action having been brought upon the policy, 
 it was pleaded that there had been concealment 
 of material facts by the owner and his agents. 
 'Die jiulse. at .the trial, asked the jury, first, was 
 the siiip on the 15th of November, in the ordinary 
 business sense degraded from her class .' To this 
 question the jury answered -'No." Secondly, 
 was the fact that the owner had resolved not to 
 continue the ship on the list, and had so stated 
 to the surveyor, a material fact .' To this question 
 the jury answered "No." Thirdly, ought the 
 underwriter to have known on the 15th Novem- 
 ber that the continuance of the class must depend 
 on whether the ship had been then lately surveyed 
 and passed, or would within a few days be 
 surveyed and passed or repaired, and if " Yes," 
 ought the knowledge to have put the underwriter 
 to "ask whether the ship had been surveyed, or 
 was about to be surveyed .' To this question the 
 jury answered '• Yes," and a verdict was entered 
 ■for the plaintiff :— Held, by Mellor, J., Lush, J., 
 and Hannen, J., first, that the judge was not 
 bound to direct the jury as matter of law, that 
 the verdict must be found" for the underwriter ; and 
 secondly, that there was no misdirection. By 
 Cockburn. C.J., that there was no misdirection, 
 but that there was proof of the concealment of a 
 material fact, which ought to have been commu- 
 nicated to the underwriter, there being positive 
 knowledge on the part of the owner that he had 
 refused to have the ship surveyed, while there was 
 only a possible inference on the part of the under- 
 writer that there had been such refusal. Gandij 
 V. Adelaide Murine Insnraxce Co., 40 L. J.. Q. B. 
 239 ; L. R. 6 Q. B. 74G ; 25 L. T. 742 ; 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 188. 
 
 On effecting an insurance on freight from 
 Belize to Rendez-vous Point on the Honduras 
 coast (the exact locality of which was not 
 known to either party) and thence to London, 
 the agent of the assured read to the agent of 
 the assurers a letter which the owner of the 
 ■vessel had received from the captain from Belize, 
 in which Rendez-vous Point was thus described : 
 " It is considered by the pilot here as a good 
 and safe anchorage, and well sheltered. I have 
 been out and seen the place, and consider it quite 
 safe." It was admitted that this statement of 
 the captain was made bona fide : but there was 
 evidence that Rendez-vous Point was not at the 
 particular season a safe anchorage. In an action 
 upon the policy, for a total loss, the judge told 
 the jury that in his opinion the letter did not 
 amount to a statement of a fact, but merely 
 of an opinion ; and he left two questions to 
 them: First, was the letter read to the agent 
 of the assured .' Secondly, did the captain and 
 the pilot consider that Rendez-vous Point was a 
 safe anchorage .' The jury answered both ques- 
 tions in the afiirmative, and a verdict was entered 
 for the plaintiff : — Held, no misdirection, and 
 that the verdict was warranted by the evidence. 
 Anderson \. Poci fie Fire and 3Iarine htsvranee 
 Co , L. R. 7 C. P. fi5 ; 26 L. T. 130 ; 20 W. R. 
 280 : 1 Asp. M. C. 220. 
 
 The question for the jury in such a case is 
 whether the facts connected with the captain's 
 
 1184 
 
 letter, its date and contents, the time of its 
 receipt and so forth, were such facts as would 
 have proiierly infiuenced the judgment of a rea- 
 sonable underwriter in determining whether to 
 accept the risk. Strihleij v. Imperial Marine 
 In.vrranee Co. 45 L. J., Q. B. 396 ; 1 Q. B. D.507 ; 
 34 L. T. 281 ; 24 W. R. 701 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 134. 
 See Riehardx v. Murdoch, anil Machintoxli v. 
 Marxhall, post, col. 1199. 
 
 Misrepresentation — Onus Proband!.] — Where 
 payment of a I'isk is resisted by insurers on the 
 ground of misrepresentation, the onus is on 
 them to prove very clearly that such misrepre- 
 sentation has been made. Daries v. Xatinnal 
 Fire and Marine Inaurnnee Co. of New Zealand, 
 m L. J., P. C. 73 ; [1891] A. C. 485 ; 65 L. T. 
 560— P. C. 
 
 Ship entitled to sail without Convoy — 
 
 Materiality.]— Tlie fact that a ship being foreign 
 built, was entitled to sail without convoy : — 
 Held, not to be material to be communicated to 
 underwriters. Lonr/ v. Duff, 2 Bos. & P. 209. 
 
 Reinsurance — Appropriation. ] — The plaintiffs 
 were the London agents of an insurance com- 
 pany, who had also an agent at Calcutta. The 
 company issued policies on cargoes proceeding 
 from Calcutta to the United Kingdom, reinsur- 
 ing the excess above 5,000Z. on any one ship, 
 through their agents, the plaintifEs, with the defen- 
 dants, lost or not lost, in any one ship as might 
 be declared. From time to time the ]ilaintiffs 
 received advices from the agent at Calcutta, 
 stating the names of the ships, and particulars 
 of the excess o f 5,000Z. upon each, whereupon 
 they declared the ships to the defendants, to- 
 gether with the amount of the excess, indorsments 
 of which were made upon the back of the policy 
 which was thereby appropriated to the particular 
 risk. By a letter of the 15th February, 1860, 
 the Calcutta agent informed the plaintiffs of an 
 excess insured by the company on the ship " R." on 
 the 16th March ; both the plaintiffs and defen- 
 dants had information, as the fact was. that the 
 " R." had been destroyed by fire. On the 17th 
 March, the plaintiffs appropriated the whole 
 of the amount remaining on the then current 
 policy to other ships. On the 19th March, the 
 plaintiffs effected a fresh policy with the defen- 
 dants in continuance of the former one ; and on 
 the 21st the plaintiffs received the letter of the 
 Calcutta agent of the 15th of February ; where- 
 upon they" immediately declared to the defen- 
 dants that the i)olicy of the 19th would be 
 appropriated to the excess of 5,O00Z. on board 
 the •' R." ; and on the 26th March made an 
 indorsement thereof upon the policy, the defen- 
 dants disputing their right to do so : — Held, that 
 the fact of the loss of the " R." being known to- 
 both plantiffs and defendants at the time of the 
 issuing of the policy was immaterial, as it was 
 not at that time known to either party that the 
 company had undertaken any risk with respect 
 to the ship : and that the declaration and appro- 
 priation were sutficient. Gledxfaneii v. Boijal 
 ExeUanije Inxuranee Corporation, 5 B. & S. 797 ; 
 34 L. j!, Q. B. 30 ; 11 Jur. (N.s.) 108 : 11 L. T. 
 805 ; 13 W. R. 71. 
 
 Craft Risk— Employment of Lightermen with 
 Restricted Liability— Notice.]— On ])olicics of 
 marine insurance on goods, which included risks 
 on crafts and lighters, underwriters to the know- 
 ledge of the plaintiffs charged a higher rate of
 
 1185 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—YII. Concealment, d-c. 
 
 1186 
 
 premium where the insurance was with no 
 recourse against lightermen (which meant where 
 the lighterage was done on the terms that the 
 liability of the lightermen was to be less than 
 that of common carriers, namely, for negligence 
 only), than they charged where there was such 
 recourse, and the liability of the lightermen was 
 to be that of common carriers. The plaintiffs 
 effected with the defendant, a Lloyd's under- 
 writer, a policy of marine insurance on goods 
 which included risk on craft and lighters, and 
 was not with no recourse against lightermen. 
 At the time of effecting such policy the plaintiff's 
 had an arrangement with one H., by which he 
 was to do all the plaintiff's lighterage on the 
 terms that he was only to be liable for negli- 
 gence : — Held, that if the plaintiffs intended 
 that the goods so insured should be landed under 
 such arrangement with H., it was a fact which 
 a prudent and experienced underwriter would i 
 take into consideration in estimating the ! 
 premium, and that therefore a jury would be i 
 justified in finding that the non-communication 
 of it to the defendant was the concealment of a 
 material fact which vitiated the policy. A mere 
 disclosure of the existence of such arrangement 
 to the defendants' solicitor is not notice of it to 
 the defendant. Tate v. Hysloj). 54 L. J., Q. B. 
 592 ; 15 Q. B. D. 3G8 : 53 L. T. 581 : 5 Asp. M. C. 
 4S7— ('. A. 
 
 Policy "on Profit on Charter" — Destruction 
 of Merchantable Character of Cargo — Loss of 
 Freight — Total Loss — Concealment by Assured,] 
 — The plaintiff's, who had chartered a steamship 
 at a lump-sum freight of 3,000?., insured her 
 with the defendants, who were underwriters. 
 The interest insured was described in the policy 
 as"2.000Z. on profit on charter . . . warranted 
 free from all average." The plaintiffs did not 
 inform the defendants that the vessel was char- 
 tered for a lump-sum freight, nor of the amount 
 of their bills of lading freights. During the 
 voyage the vessel came into collision with 
 another ship, and was submerged for twenty-four 
 hours. A large [)OJ'tion of the cargo, consisting 
 of dates, was condemned hy the sanitary autho- 
 rities, and not allowed to be delivered to the 
 consignees. The dates were, however, sold, 
 transhipped, and exported for distilling pur- 
 poses. In an action l>rought by the phiintiffs 
 upon the policy to recover for a total loss : — 
 Held, that the dates being unmercliantable as 
 such, no freight was payable in respect of them ; 
 that there was, therefore, no profit on the 
 charter, and tliat the plaintiffs were entitled to 
 recover. Held, also, that there had been no 
 concealment by the plaintiffs. Asftir v. Jilini- 
 (hll. 05 L. J., Q. I'.. 13,S : [IS'.MI] 1 Q. J',. 123 ; 73 
 L. T. G48 ; 44 \V. II. 130; « Asp. M. C. lOG— 
 C. A. 
 
 2. Knowi,i;i)gi; ok A(;i;,\ts. 
 
 Duty to Disclose — To Underwriters.] — Any 
 
 person acting \>y the <irders of the insured, and 
 who is anywise instrumental in procuring the 
 insurance, is bnund to disclose all he knows to 
 the undcrwiiter. Itefore tlie jiolicy is effected. 
 Fitzhrrhrrt v. Mather, 1 Term Rep. 12 ; 1 R. R. 
 134. 
 
 To Principal.] — An agent, whose duty it 
 
 is in the ordinary course of business to com- 
 municate information to his principal as to the 
 state of a ship and cargo, ought to do so by 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 electric telegraph, where that mode of commu- 
 nication is in general use ; and if the agent 
 omits to discharge this di^ty, and the jjrincipal, 
 being thus left in ignorance of a fact material to 
 be communicated to the vinderwriter, effects an 
 insurance, the insurance is void, on the ground 
 of concealment or misrepresentation. Proudfoot 
 V. MoHh'iiore. 8 B. & S. 510 ; 36 L. J., Q. B. 225 : 
 L. R. 2 Q. B. 511 : 16 L. T. 585 ; 15 W. R. 920. 
 S. P.. Ilolhnid V. BuxifeU, post, col. 1263. 
 
 The plaintiff, in Liverpool, employed an agent 
 at Smyrna to buy madder on his account, and to 
 ship and consign the cargoes to him ; the agent 
 purchased and shipped a cargo of madder, and 
 advised the plaintiff on the 12th of January, and 
 sent the shipping documents on the 19th of 
 January. The ship sailed on the 23rd of January, 
 but was stranded in the course of that daj', and 
 the cargo became a total loss. Intelligence of 
 the loss was communicated to the agent on the 
 24th of January, and on the 26th, the next post 
 day, he wrote to the plaintiff announcing the 
 loss, but purposely abstained from telegraphing, 
 in order that the plaintiff might not be pre- 
 vented from insuring. The plaintiff, on the 21st 
 of January, after the receipt of the letters of the 
 12th and 12th, but before the receipt of the letter 
 of the 26th, and without any knowledge of the 
 loss — which, however, had been telegraphed and 
 posted in Lloyd's lists — effected an insurance : — 
 Held, that the plaintiff could not recover against 
 the underwriter. lb. 
 
 Where the plaintiffs, on 25th October, 1811, 
 effected an insurance on a ship, at and from her 
 port of lading to her port of discharge, and on the 
 25th of July pi-eceding, the ship, whilst in her 
 port of lading, was driven on a rock by a stnrm. 
 but got off' without a)i])eai-ing to have suft'ered 
 material damage, and the cajjtain afterwards 
 wrote a letter to the plaintiffs, without commu- 
 nicating the accident, which letter leached them 
 on the 5th October ; and the ship afterwards 
 arrived at her port of discharge, where the 
 captain made a i)rotest. detailing the accident, 
 and stating that the planks of her bottom must 
 have been chafed, and her bottom otherwise 
 injured, by sti'iking on the rock : — Held, that the 
 plaintiffs could not recover as for an avei'age loss 
 arising from the accident : for the captain was 
 bound to comnninicate the accident, and, for 
 want of such communication, the antecedent 
 damage was an implied exception out of the 
 policv. (iUtdxtunc V. K'uk/, I M. i: S. 35; 14 
 R. \l. 392. 
 
 Af,'tif)n by sliipf)wner on two policies of insu- 
 rance on the "Jessie" and her freight, lost or 
 not lost, at and from Mazagan to the United 
 Kingdom. The " Jessie " had arriveil at Mazagan 
 after a seventeen days' voyage on the 27lii nl' 
 December. Shortly afterwards she lost an anchor 
 in a storm, as to which loss the captain made a 
 protest. On the 9th of January he wrote to the 
 assured, 1o the effect that he had commenced 
 loading, did not know when he would tinisli. but 
 wouhl write again, lie made no mention of the 
 loss of the anchor. This letter was received on 
 the 24th of January. No sidjsetiueiit letter was 
 receivetl by the assured. The " Jessie " sailed on 
 the 15th of January, and was never heard of 
 again. On the 24th of February the assured 
 wrote to his agents to insure the ship and freight, 
 saying, " I do not know when he was ready to 
 sail. I have not had the sailing letter yet." No 
 I mention was made of the letter of the 9th of 
 I Januarv, or of its contents. The agents on the 
 
 38
 
 1187 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— VII. Concealment, d-c. 
 
 1188 
 
 2(>th of February eflEected the policies which 
 were sued on : — Held, first, that the mere fact 
 that when the policy was effected there was an 
 ^antecedent average loss, which the captain had 
 omitted to communicate to the owner, and the 
 owner, therefore, coulil not communicate to the 
 underwriter, was not enough to avoid the policy 
 altogether. Strlhley v. Inijjcrial Marine Inxu- 
 riince Co.. 45 L. J., Q. B. 396 ; 1 Q. B. D. 5()7 ; 
 3i L. T. 281 ; 24 W. R. 701 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 134. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the question which ought 
 to have been left to the jury was not whether the 
 "Jessie" was at the time when the })olicy was 
 effected an overdue or missing ship, but whether 
 the facts connected with the letter of the 9th of 
 January, its date and contents, the time of its 
 receipt, and so forth, were such facts as would 
 have properly influenced the judgment of a 
 reasonable underwriter in determining whether 
 to accei)t the risk. Ih. 
 
 A merchant resident at Sydney shipped goods 
 for England on board the ship " C," and, by 
 another ship that sailed after her, wrote to an 
 agent in England, and desired him if he received 
 that letter before " C." arrived to wait for thirty 
 days, in order to give every chance for her 
 arrival, and then effect an insurance on the goods. 
 The letter was received, and the agent having 
 waited more than thirty days, employed a broker 
 to effect an insurance, and handed the letter to 
 him. The broker told the underwriters when the 
 " C." sailed, and when the letter ordering the 
 insurance was written, but he did not state when 
 it was received, nor the order to wait thirty days 
 after the receipt of it before the insurance was 
 effected. The " C." never arrived. In an action 
 on the policy, no fraud was imputed to the plain- 
 tiff ; but several underwTiters were called for the 
 defendant, who stated that in their opinion the 
 matters not communicated were material ; and 
 the jury being of opinion that a material part of 
 letter had been concealed, found a verdict for 
 the defendant : — Held, that the jury was bound 
 to find that the part of the letter not communi- 
 cated to the underwriters was material, and, 
 consequently, the policy was void. JRirkurds v. 
 Murducli, 10 B. & C. .527 : 8 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 210. 
 
 A ship on an African voj-age, the common 
 duration of which is several months, and some- 
 times extends to twelve months or more, arrived 
 on the coast in August, 1799 ; and in February, 
 1800, her then commander wrote a letter to his 
 owners, mentioning an attack on her at another 
 place on the coast by the natives, who killed the ' 
 captain and several of the crew, and wounded 
 others ; by means of which and of a fever, the 
 crew were reduced to five, and all those sickly, 
 and not a man to be procured at hand ; that ttiey 
 had been plundered of their clothes, <fcc., their 
 cabin stores were exhausted, and they did not 
 know what to do. A second letter, dated 21st 
 April, 1800, from Gaboon river, mentioned their 
 arrival there on the 24th March ; that the 
 natives, finding them weakly handed, and their 
 goods taken from them, did as they pleased : 
 that they had then nine men on board, but their 
 provisions run very low ; that he had mentioned 
 certain parts of the cargo in his last letter, and 
 expected to ship the rest, and to sail at the end 
 of the next month. An insurance was effected 
 )n September, 1800, on the production of the last 
 letter only, " at and from the ship's arrival at her 
 first place of trade on the coast of Africa," &c. : — 
 Held, sufficient, that the last letter truly stated 
 the then condition and circumstances of the ship ; 
 
 which, though better than when the first letter 
 was written, was yet no fraudulent concealment 
 of former circumstances ; the second letter, both 
 in its terms and contents, referring to a former 
 letter, which it was the fault of the underwriters 
 not to have called for, if they thought that a 
 particular knowledge of former difficulties, in 
 part subdued, and to the extent truly stated in 
 the second letter, would have varied the risk. 
 Freeland v. Glover, 7 East, 457 ; 3 Smith, 426 ; 
 6 Esp. 14 : 9 R. R. 803. 
 
 Concealment by Agent through whom Policy 
 not effected.] — The plaintiffs instructed a broker 
 to reinsure an overdue ship. Whilst acting for 
 the plaintiff the broker received information 
 material to the risk, but did not communicate it 
 to them, and the plaintiffs effected a reinsurance 
 for 800L through the broker's London agents. 
 Afterwards the plaintiffs effected a reinsurance 
 for 700^., lost or not lost, through another broker. 
 The ship had in fact been lost some days before 
 the plaintiffs tried to reinsure, but neither the 
 plaintiffs nor the last-named broker knew it, and 
 both he and the plaintiffs acted throughout in 
 good faith : — Held, that the knowledge of the 
 first broker was not the knowledge of the plain- 
 tiffs, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to 
 recover upon the policy for 700?. Fitzlierhert v. 
 Mather (supra, col. 1185), Glad.it one v. King 
 (supra, col. 1186), Stribley v. Imperial Marine 
 Iiisia-ance Co. (supra), and Proudfoot v. Monte- 
 fore (supra, col. 1186) commented on. Black- 
 hum V. Vigors, 57 L. J., Q. B. 114 ; 12 App. Gas. 
 531 : 57 L. T. 730 : 36 W. R. 449 : 6 Asp. M. C. 
 216— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Concealment of Facts by Agent through whom 
 Policy not effected.] — The pkdntiffs, underwriters 
 in Glasgow, employed there a firm of insurance 
 brokers to reinsure a ship which was overdue. 
 The brokers received information tending to shew 
 that the ship, as was the fact, was lost. Without 
 communicating this information to the plaintiffs, 
 they telegraphed in the' plaintiffs' name to their 
 own London agents, stating the rate of insurance 
 })remium which the plaintiffs were prepared to 
 pay. Communications followed between the 
 [ilaintiffs and the London agents, and the Lon- 
 don agents, through a firm of London insurance 
 brokers, effected a policy of reinsurance at a 
 higher rate of premium, whicli policy was under- 
 written by the defendant : — Held, that the policy 
 was void on the ground of concealment of material 
 facts by the agents of the assured. Blackhurn 
 V. Vigors (supra) considered. Blackhurn v. 
 Ha.mm, 57 L. J., Q. B. 479 ; 21 Q. B. D. 144 ; 
 59 L. T. 407 ; 36 W. R. 855 ; 6Asp. M. C. 326. 
 
 Capture Known to Clerk of Insured.] — An 
 
 insurance was effected in consequence of intelli- 
 gence that the ship had been captured, commu- 
 nicated to the clerk of the insured, but not 
 proved to have been communicated to the 
 insured : — Held, that the policy was void. 
 Stewart v. Dunlop, 4 Bro. P. C. 482. 
 
 3. Known Course of Proceeding. 
 
 Public or Private Facts.] — The concealment 
 of private facts, not of public facts, or conclu- 
 sions from facts, will vacate a policy. Carter v. 
 Biwhm, 1 W. Bl. 593 ; 3 Burr. 1905. 
 
 Nature of Trade.] — An underwriter is bound 
 to know the nature and peculiar circumstances
 
 1189 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— VII. Concealment, d-c. 
 
 1190 
 
 ■of the branches of trade to which the policy 
 relates, ynhlex. Kcuiiawiy, 2 Dougl. olO. 
 
 Underwriters are not entitled to notice of the 
 part of a ship where goods are stowed, whether 
 on deck or otherwise. Bacosta v. Edmund, 2 
 'Chit. 227 : 4 Camp. 142 ; 16 R. E. 763. 
 
 Policy on forty carboys of vitriol : they were 
 ■carefully stowed on deck, but caught tire, and 
 were necessarily thrown overboard during the 
 voyage. Carboys of vitriol are sometimes stowed 
 on the deck, and sometimes bedded in sand in 
 the hold, where they are considered safer : — 
 Held, that the underwriters were liable, although 
 there was no communication to them that the 
 carboys were to be stowed on deck. Ih. 
 
 Where, on an insurance on goods from London 
 to Jamaica generally, the goods insured were 
 ■destined to a particular plantation in that island ; 
 and the usual course in such a case was for the 
 «hip to proceed to an adjoining port, and there 
 tranship her cargo into shallops ; but no com- 
 munication of this fact was given to the under- 
 writers : — Held, that they were still liable for a 
 loss which occurred after such transhipment on 
 board the shallops. Stewart v. Bell. 5 B. & Aid. 
 238 : 24 K. E. 342. 
 
 According to the usage of the Newfoundland 
 trade, when ships arrive on the coast, they are 
 •either employe<l for some time in fishing (called 
 banking), or they make an intermediate voyage 
 in the American seas, before beginning to take 
 in their homeward cargo, during which they arc 
 protected by a separate policy ; therefore, in 
 effecting a policy, " lost or not lost, at and from 
 Newfoundland to a ])Ort in Europe," although 
 the ship is to be employed in baidcing, it is not 
 necessar\' to disclose the fact to the umlerwriters, 
 as their risk only commences from the time 
 when the banking or intermediate voyage ends, 
 and they are bound to know the nature and 
 circumstances of the branch of trade to which 
 the policy relates. Vallance v. Beioar, 1 Camp. 
 .503 ; 10 E. E. 738. 
 
 An insurance on a vessel engaged in the African 
 wood and ivory trade, without stating to the 
 underwriters the fact of her intended mutual j 
 or combined trading with another ship on the 
 African coast : such mutual trading was proved { 
 to have occasionally jirevailed in such African 
 voyages, Ijut the usag(! was not so general or 
 well known as to render it unnecessary to 
 communicate the fact expressly to the under- 
 writers, and the omission to do so was held to 
 be fatal to the policies, f>n the ground that the 
 mutual trailing varied the risk and altered the 
 nature "f the voyage. Tiniunit v. Jfendn-xoii, 1 
 I)<.w, 324. 
 
 \. iNTELMfUCNCE AT LlOYD'S. 
 
 Necessity of Communicating.] — In effecting a 
 policy, a i;ircuiii-lani-i' nf inti'lligcncc in Lloyd's 
 lists need not be cinriinuiiicated to the umler- 
 writers, however important it may be to the 
 computation of the lisk ; for it is to Ijc presumed 
 within their knowledge, and to be taken into 
 account. Fr'iere v. WaodhoiiKc, Holt, .572 ; 17 
 E. E. fi3!>. 67'.t. And see M' Andrew v. Bell. \ Esp. 
 373 ; Proiidfoot v. Moiifejiure. ante, col. I1S6. 
 
 In an action f)n a policy, Lloyd's shipping list 
 is admissilile against the un<lerwriter. without 
 proof of his having seen it, and is prima facie 
 evidence of the time of sailing. I>ut where there 
 was a concealment \i\- the insurer of material 
 facts, and an allegation of facts which were 
 
 untrue, viz. as to the time of sailing, and the 
 underwriter had acted thereon, without, in fact, 
 seeing the list at Lloyd's : — Held, that the under- 
 writer was not bound thereby, and that the 
 judge ought to point out to the jury, as material, 
 such concealment and misrepresentation. Mack- 
 intosh V. Marshall. 11 M. & W. 116; 12 L. J., 
 Ex. .337. 
 
 Where it was known at Lloyd's that the 
 " Sophia " of Bristol was at sea without convoy, 
 and the broker inquired of the plaintiff at 
 Bristol, whether tliat was the ship insured, and 
 was informed it was, and tlrat tire plaintiff sup- 
 posed she had been prevented by adverse winds 
 from joining convoy at Falmouth, but the broker 
 got the policy altered without disclosing tliis 
 answer to the underwriters : — Held, that this con- 
 cealment vacated the policy. Saivtellv. Luwdon, 
 o Taunt. 359 ; 1 Marsh. 99. 
 
 Private Intelligence. ] — The announce- 
 ment in tire foreign lists tiled at Lloyd's of the 
 sailing of a sliip out of the port from which she 
 is insured, does not, where such communication 
 is material, dispense with the assured's dis- 
 closing a letter received from his captain before 
 the policy is effected, announcing the day 
 of his intended departure. Elton v. Larkhis, 
 8 Bing. 198 ; 1 M. & Scott, 323 : 5 Car. & P. 86, 
 385. 
 
 Two prizes being carried into Liverpool, the 
 captor gave orders to effect an insurance on 
 them in London. One of the prizes arriving on 
 Sunday, the owner sent a despatch to his agent 
 in London, stating that fact, and expressing 
 fears as to the other ship. The express reached 
 tlie broker on Tuesday, and on that day an entry 
 was made at Lloyd's of the arrival of the vessel 
 at Liverpool. On Wednesday the captor's agent 
 effected an insurance on the other vessel, at a 
 premium of fifty guineas per cent., without 
 communicating to the underwriters the fact of 
 the express : — Held, that this was not a conceal- 
 ment which vitiated the policy. Court v. Mar- 
 tl/wau, 3 Dougl. 1(!1. 
 
 L. was accustomed to insure at Lloyd's upon 
 floating policies quantities of cochineal shipped 
 for him from the Canaries; he declared the name 
 of tlie ship upon receipt of each bill of lading. 
 He received information that a large quantity 
 would be shii)ped in the " Candida," and by 
 the same mail an anonymous letter reached 
 Lloyd's containing a statement that the owners 
 intended to lose tliat ship on her next voyage, in 
 order to make tlie underwriters pay. A notice 
 of this letter was openly atlixed to a boai'd at 
 Lloyd's: and L. was aware of the contents of 
 the letter, but considered them unworthy of 
 credit. At this time L. reasonaljly expected 
 that the Vjills of lading by the " Candida" would 
 be the next to be declared by him, and in that 
 ease they would becovere<l by policies previou.sly 
 made. He entered into the policy sued u)ion 
 without communicating to the undcrwritci' his 
 intelligence of a cai'go to be shipped by the 
 " Candida," or the contents of the anonymous 
 letter. By accident the bills of lading of the 
 " Candida" came to L. after those of later ship- 
 ments, and this i)olicy wa.s declared upon the 
 " Candida " : — Hehl, in an action to iccovcr for 
 a total loss (if ]iai-t of the (;ochincal which had 
 been jettisoncfl from the " Camlida," that he had 
 j been guilty of a concealment which invalidated 
 I the policy. LeUfli v. Adamg, 25 L.T. 566 ; 1 Asp, 
 I M. C. 147. 
 
 38—2
 
 1191 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— VII. Concealment, d-c. 
 
 1192 
 
 r>. State and Condition of Ship and 
 
 I'AKGO. 
 
 Grounding of Ship.] — A iilaiutifE, as agent for 
 the owners, who were foreigners, of a steamer, 
 insured her for twelve months, beginning from the 
 21st of January, 1857, through H., an insurance 
 broker. On the l")th January, 1857, H. applied 
 to the defendant to become the insurer. On the 
 same day the plaintiff received a letter from the 
 master, stating that she had been aground, had 
 received some heavy blows, and had made her way 
 in a sinking state into the port of C. This letter 
 the plaintiff communicated to H. the same day, 
 but H. did not communicate it to the defendant. 
 On the 22nd January the defendant wTote to H. 
 saying, having heai'd that the ship had been on 
 shore, he considered his risk did not commence 
 until she had been surveyed and repaired. To 
 this letter no reply was made by H. ; but H., 
 having been debited for the whole premium in 
 the books of the defendant, remained so debited 
 till after the loss, which took place on the 'Jth 
 October. 1857 : — Held, tirst that the concealment 
 of the fact of the ship having been aground was 
 the concealment of a material fact, and vitiated 
 the policy. Russell v. Thornton, i\ H. & N. 140 ; 
 30 L. J.,*Ex. 69 ; 6 Jur. (N.S.) 1080 ; 2 L. T. 574 ; 
 8 W. R. 615— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Held, secondly, that there was no waiver, by 
 the defendant, of this, nor any evidence of the 
 parties having entered into a new contract of 
 insurance, commencing from the date of the 22nd 
 January. lb. 
 
 Age of Ship.] — If a representation is made by 
 the assured to an underwriter, however honestly 
 or innocently, that a ship is new when in fact she 
 is old, a policy on goods on board of her made by 
 him will be vitiated, for the age of the vessel 
 must be material in considering the premium. 
 Ion'i(les\. Pacific Fire and Marim' Imnrance Co., 
 41 L. J., Q. B. 190 ; L. R. 7 Q. B. 517 : 26 L. T. 
 738 : 21 W. R. 22 : 1 Asp. M. C. 330— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Seaworthiness.] — Whatever forms an ingre- 
 dient in seaworthiness need not be disclosed by 
 the assured to the underwriter unless informa- 
 tion upon the subject is particularly called for, 
 and then the assured must fully disclose what he 
 knows. Haywood v. B.ogers, 1 East, 590 ; 1 
 Smith, 289 ; 7 R. R. 638. 
 
 New Metalling.] — A shipowner stated in a 
 proposal for insurance that his ship had been 
 last metalled in 1867. The bottom was then 
 overhauled, and new metal put where required : 
 — Held, that he had not made a material mis- 
 statement so as to vitiate the policy. Alexander 
 v. Campbell, 41 L. J., Ch. 478 ; 27 L. T. 25. 
 S. C, 27 L. T. 462 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 447, post, 
 col. 1357. Reversed by L.J J., on another {)oint. 
 
 Delay for Repairs.] — If the owner of a ship 
 receives a letter from the captain, written on 
 her arrival at a foreign port, giving such an 
 account of her as to render it probable that she 
 must remain there for the purpose of being 
 repaired, beyond the time that would be neces- 
 sary for her to take in her cargo ; this letter need 
 not be communicated to the underwriters, in 
 effecting a policy of insurance upon her, at and 
 from the foreign port to a port in Englantl, unless 
 information on the subject is particularly called 
 
 for. Bcclncith v.Sydchotlnnn, 1 Camp. 116 ; 10' 
 R. R. 652. 
 
 Overloading — Discharge.] — A ship insured at 
 and from a port saileil on her voyage in an unsea- 
 worthy state, in consequence of having a greater 
 cargo than she could safely carry ; the defect 
 was discovered before any loss accrued ; and part 
 of the cargo was discharged, and a loss subse- 
 quently accrued in no degree attributable to her 
 having been overladen in the early part of her 
 voyage : — Held, that the underwriters were liable- 
 for such loss. Weir v. Aberdeen, 2 B. & Aid. 
 320 : 20 R. R. 450. 
 
 The vessel having sailed and put back to the 
 Downs, and then sailed again, and laboured and 
 strained much from being overloaded, and then, 
 put back a second time : and upon an application 
 to the underwriters for liberty for the ship to go 
 into port to discharge part of her cargo, it was. 
 only communicated to them that the ship was 
 too deep in the water : — Held, that as the sub- 
 sequent loss had not in any degree arisen from 
 her having so strained and laboured, the com- 
 munication of that fact was immaterial, and that 
 the communication made was quite sufficient.. 
 lb. 
 
 Nature of Cargo — Bad Stowage.] — As a policy 
 on a shi]) may be avoided, by unseaworthiness, 
 caused either by overloading or bad stowage,, 
 tending to increase the danger or difficulty of 
 navigation, and so to enhance the rate of pre- 
 mium, the not mentioning the nature of the 
 cargo, if the proportion of dead weight in it 
 must lead to bad stowage, may be such a conceal- 
 ment as will vitiate the policy. But it will not 
 be so if the underwriter knew, or had reason to- 
 believe, that the cargo would include some pro- 
 portion of dead weight, and the agent of the 
 assured, when he effected the insurance, did not 
 know what proportion. Foley \. Tabor, 2 F. & F.. 
 663. 
 
 Declaration of Name of Ship.] — The 
 
 contract of an underwriter who subscribes a 
 policy on goods by ship or ships to be declared 
 is, that he will insure any goods of the descrip- 
 tion specified which may be shipped on any 
 vessel answering the description in the policy to 
 which the assured elects to apply the policy ;. 
 the object of the declaration of the vessel's name 
 is to identify the particular adventure, and the 
 assent of the underwriter is not required to the 
 declaration, for he has no option to reject any 
 vessel which the assured may select. lonides v. 
 Pacific Fire and Murine Insurance Co., 41 L. J., 
 Q. B. 190 ; L. R. 7 Q. B. 517 ; 26 L. T. 738 ; 21 
 W. R. 22 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 330. See ante, col. 1034. 
 If the description in the policy designates the 
 subject with sufficient certainty, or suggests the 
 means of doing it, a mistake as to the name of 
 the ship or as to other particulars, will not annul 
 the contract, and a mistake in the name of the 
 vessel, which does not prejudice the underwriter, 
 does not defeat the policy. lb. 
 
 Name of Ship uncertain — Usage at 
 
 Lloyd's.] — When an assured expects, but is not 
 certain, that goods will come by a particular ship, 
 the name of such ship is not a material fact the 
 non-disclosure of which prevents the policy from 
 attaching ; nor in such a case is there any usage 
 of underwriters at Lloyd's compelling the assured 
 to disclose it. Kniglit v. Cotesicortli, 1 Cab. & E.. 
 48.
 
 1193 
 
 SHIPPING-INSUEANCE— YII. Concealment, d-c. 
 
 Materiality of Misstatement.] — Where 
 
 an agent of a shiitowner eflEecting a policy on a 
 ship misrepresented the nature of the cargo she 
 was to carry, but this was not inserted in the 
 policy, and it did not appear that the under- 
 writer was induced by the misrepresentation 
 to accept the risk : — Held, that the jury was 
 warranted in finding that the misrepresentation 
 was not material, and that it did not vitiate the 
 policy. Flinn v. Ileadlam or Tobin, 9 B. & C 
 «93 : M. i: M. 3(57 ; 31 E. R. 739. 
 
 Contraband.] — A policy contained a warranty 
 against contraband. Part of the goods consisted 
 ■of artillery harness, and were shipped during the 
 war between the United States of Americaand 
 the Confederate States, with the intention of 
 sending them on from a neutral port to the 
 Confederate States : — HeUl, that such goods were 
 contra Vjand of war, and the whole insurance void. 
 ■Seymour v. London and Pronnclul Murine Imuv- 
 ance Co.. 41 L. J.. C. P. 193; 27 L. T. 417; 1 
 Asp. M. C. 423. 
 
 An insurance was effected on goods at a pre- 
 mium of ten guineas per cent., to return 5 per 
 cent, for convoy and arrival. The assured con- 
 cealed from the underwriter that the vessel was 
 to be a running ship, although he was aware of 
 it : — Held, that this was a concealment of a fact 
 material to the risk, ami avoided the policJ^ 
 Mfid V. Jliirvt'ii, 4 Dow, 97 ; 16 E. R. 38. 
 
 Cargo to be Shipped — Anonymous Letter.] — 
 L. was accustoniwl to insuic at Lldvd's upon 
 floating policies (juantities of cochineal shipped 
 for him from the Canaries : he declared the name 
 of the ship upon receipt of each bill of lading. 
 He received information that a large quantity 
 would be shipped in the ■' Candida," and by the 
 same mail an anonymous letter reached LloN^d's, 
 containing a statement that the owners intended 
 to lose that ship on her next voyage in order to 
 make the underwriters pay. A notice of this 
 letter was openly affi.xed to a board at Lloyd's ; 
 anrl L. was aware of the contents of the letter, 
 but considered them unworthy of credit. At 
 this time L. reasonably expected that the bills 
 of lading by the "Candida' would be the next to 
 be declared by him, and in that case they would 
 be covererl by policies previously made. He 
 ■entered into the policy sued upon without com- 
 municating to the underwriter his intelligence 
 of a cargo to be shipped by the " Candida,"' or the 
 contents of the anonymous letter. P,y accident 
 the bills of lading of the "Candida'' came to L. 
 after those of later shipments, and this policy 
 was declared upon the "Candida": — Held, in aii 
 action to recover for a total loss of part of the 
 cochineal whidi had been jettisoned from the 
 " Candida," that he had l>ecn guilty of a conccal- 
 ment wliich invalidated the policy. Lriiih v. 
 Adams, 2."> L. T. .">«;« ; I Asji. M. C. 1 17. 
 
 Deck Cargo.] — In an action upon a policy the 
 <lef.'nd;int j. leaded tliat the fact that the sliip 
 insurcrl w:is to carry a deck cargo was not dis- 
 closed, and it was <-ontcnded that such conceai- 
 ment avoided the policy : — Held, that it did not 
 avoid the policy entirely, but only as regarded 
 the cargo caixicd on deck. (Jlarlixon, v. Yoinxi, 
 21 I,. I. II. 
 
 Over-valuation of Goods.]— Upon effecting a 
 policy of marine insurance the assured is bound 
 to disclose everything wliich would affect the 
 judgment of a rational underwriter governing 
 
 1194 
 
 himself by the principles and calculations on 
 which underwriters in practice act. When, 
 therefore, in an action on a policy of marine 
 insurance, it appeared that goods had been 
 insured at a value very greatly ovei- their real 
 value, without disclosing the over-valuation to 
 the underwriter ; and it was proved that under- 
 writers do, in practice, act on the principle that 
 it is material to take into consideration whether 
 the over- valuation is so great as to make the risk 
 speculative : — Held, that" this practice is rational ; 
 and that it was proper to leave to the jury, 
 whether the valuation was so excessive, and 
 whether it was material to the underwriter to 
 know of such over- valuation. lonide.t v. Pender, 
 43 L. J., Q. B. 227 ; L. R. 9 Q. B. 531 ; 30 L. T. 
 .547 ; 22 W. E. 884 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 266. 
 
 Goods Shipped after Clearance.] — It is no 
 
 objection to the assured on goods recovering for 
 a lossby a ])eril within the policy, that after the 
 captain had obtained his manifest and custom- 
 house clearances, as retjuired by 13 & 14 Car. 2, 
 c. 11. s. 3, goods of the assured were put on board 
 by the packer, who had previously made all the 
 necessary entries at the custom-house. Carri/thers 
 V. Grai/, 15 East, 3.5 ; 3 Camp. 142. 
 
 Cotton on Deck— Damaged Cotton— Conceal- 
 ment.] — The plaintiffs, who had insured a cargo 
 of damaged cotton, re-insured the same with the 
 defendant, but did not inform him that it was 
 damaged cotton. The slip contained the terms, 
 " cotton on deck, f. p. a. ice. including jettison 
 and washing overboard." When the" policy of 
 re-insurance was tendered to the defendant for 
 signature it differed from the slip, for, instead of 
 the words "f. p. a. and c," kc, it was "f. p. a. 
 k.c., as in original policy," antl in that policy the 
 risk was described as " *f. p. a., but including risk 
 of jettison and washing overboard"; but he 
 signed it without inquiry or objection. The 
 quantity of cotton insured " on deck " amounted 
 to 7,500/.: — Held, that the instructions being to 
 insure such a quantity "on deck" clearly 
 shewed that it was damaged cotton, and that, 
 undei' the circumstances, there was no conceal- 
 ment ; also, that, although an attemj)t had been 
 made to establish that the course of business was 
 to nay that cotton was damaged, no such course 
 of business was established. Jiritixh and Foreign, 
 Mariw In.<iitranre Co. v. Sfi/n/c. 77 L. T. 2(^8 ; 8 
 Asp. },l. 0. 303. 
 
 6. TiMK OP S.MLING. 
 
 Duty to Disclose.] — The time of a ship's sail- 
 ing is nut, in general, a ciicumstancc necessary 
 to be communicated to the underwritei's. except 
 in the case of a missing sliij). Fnlni v. M(di?ie, 
 1 Marsh. 117 ; 5 T.aunt. 430 : 1.5 R. i{. r)41. 
 
 It is not neccssaiT to disclose to the luider- 
 writers on a i)olicy at and from London, wiietlicr 
 the ship has s;iile<l or not. Forf v. Iji>\'.\ T;umt. 
 3K1 : 12 R. R. 67(1. 
 
 Where a vessel has been a long time at sea, it 
 is a fraudident concealment if that circumstance 
 is not coniminn'cated to the underwriter. Wfh- 
 Mrr V. Foxli'v, 1 Ks]). 4(l7. 
 
 So, if it is not coniniuin'cated to the broker 
 employed, wliereby he could not answer the 
 inquii-ics of the underwriters on that point. Ih. 
 
 Knowledge as to other Ships.] — The assured 
 is not liouiid to comnnuiicate any knowledge he 
 m.ay have of the time of sailing of another ship
 
 1195 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—VII. Concealment, d-c. 
 
 from the same place, either before or at the same 
 time as his own, miless he knows of something 
 pai-ticular having happened to such other vessel, 
 which might alfect the insurance of his own. 
 Elton V. Larkhix, .S Bing. Ii»8 ; 1 M. & Scott, 828 ; 
 5 Car. & P. 8(j, 38.'). 
 
 Where a ship had sailed from Elsineur on her 
 voyage home six hours before the owner, who 
 followed in another vessel on the same day, and 
 having met with rough weather in his passage, 
 arrived first, and then caused an insurance to be 
 effected on his own ship : — Held, that the cir- 
 cumstances were material to be communicated 
 to the underwriter, and that it was not sufficient 
 to state merely that the ship insured " was all 
 well at Elsineur on the 26th July," the day of 
 her sailing. Kirh// v. Smith. 1 B.ic Aid. 672': 1!) 
 E. R. 412. 
 
 In effecting a policy on the Sth of January at 
 Whitehaven, on a ship at and from Barbados to 
 Liverpool, a broker's letter was produced, stating 
 that the ship insured was not coppered, but a 
 slow sailer ; was expected to have sailed on the 
 28th November ; and that the " Barton," a 
 coppered vessel and very fleet, which had sailed 
 on the 2-lth from Barbados, had arrived on the 
 5th January ; but no notice was taken of the 
 " Agreeable."' another coppered and fleet vessel, 
 which sailed 29th November, having also arrive(l 
 on the same day as the " Barton." After verdict 
 for the plaintiff, the court refused to grant anew 
 trial on the ground of concealment. LHtUdaU 
 V. Dixon, 1 Bos. & P. (n.r.) 151 ; 8 R. R. 774. 
 
 Two prizes being carried into Liverpool, the 
 captor gave orders to effect an insurance on thena 
 in London. One of the prizes arriving on Sun- 
 day, the owner sent a despatch to his agent in 
 London, stating that fact and expressing fears as 
 to the other ship. The express reached the 
 broker on Tuesday, and on that day an entry was 
 made at Lloyds' of the arrival of the vessel at 
 Liverpool. On Wednesday the captor's agent 
 effected an insurance on the other vessel at a 
 premium of fifty guineas per cent., without com- 
 municating to the underwriters the fact of the 
 express : — Held, that this was not a concealment 
 which vitiated the policy, (hurt v. JLi/ihieau, 
 3 Dougl. 161. 
 
 A policy on a ship called the " King George," 
 at and from Malaga to London, warranted tosail 
 on the 10th of October, was effected on the 8rdof 
 November following. The insurer communicated 
 to the underwriters that the " King George" and 
 another vessel called the " Fruiter," both sailed 
 for Malaga on the 10th of October, and the 
 underwriters knew that the " Fruiter " had 
 arrived at London some days before ; but the 
 insurer knew also that the captain of the 
 "Fruiter" had seen the "King George" oft' 
 Oporto on the 21st October, when they had 
 parted company by reason of a gale coming on ; 
 and this fact he did not communicate to the 
 underwriters. The '• King George " was lost in 
 a storm at the entrance of the Channel on the 
 25th October. In an action on the policy, the 
 jury having found for the i)laintiff, and that the 
 fact not communicated was not a material one, 
 the court granted a new trial. Wexthnry v. 
 Aherdrin. 2 M. & W. 267 ; M. & H. 49 ; 6 L. J., 
 Ex. 88 ; 1 Jur. 201. 
 
 If it appears that a plaintiff did not intend to 
 insure imtil he believed her to be missing, and 
 then not until another ship which had sailed at 
 the same time had arrived in safetv, the conceal- 
 ment of this fact is fatal. M'Amireicg v. Bell, 1 
 
 119(> 
 
 Esp. 373. And see Fricre v. Woodhon.te, Holt. 
 572 ; 17 R. R. 679. 
 
 Communications as to.] — A policy was effected 
 on goods from Berderygge to London, by the con- 
 signees on the 13th December, without communi- 
 cating a letter received by them the day before, 
 but dated the 30th November, informing them 
 that the captain would sail the next day. and 
 directing them, if he should not be arrived, to 
 effect the insurance as low as possible : — Held,, 
 a material concealment, though the ship did not 
 in fact set sail until the 24ih'^December. Willcs 
 v. Glover, 1 Bos. & P. (n.r.) 14 ; 8 R. R. 739. 
 
 The concealment of letters, stating that the 
 vessel is about to sail next month, is a material 
 concealment, and avoids the policy. Shhirij v. 
 Wilirnison, 3 Dougl. 41 ; 1 Dougl. 306, n. 
 
 When the plaintiffs effected a jjolicy on wines,, 
 from Oporto to London, on the 12th November, 
 at which time they were in possession of two- 
 letters from their correspondents at Oporto ; the 
 first of which, dated 11th October, stated thus, 
 •' we are loading the wines on the " Stag," Cap- 
 tain Wheatley, who intends to sail after to-mor- 
 row " : the other, dated the 13th October, enclosed 
 the bills of lading which were filletl up '• with 
 convoy " ; whicli letter the plaintiffs did not com- 
 municate to the underwriters : — Held, that it was 
 a material concealment. Brtdqes v. Hunter, 1 
 M. & S. 15 ; 14 R. R. 380. 
 
 In effecting an insurance the shipowner's cor- 
 respondent shewed the underwriter a letter 
 written by the shipowner's agent abroad, stating 
 that the ship would sail from Nassau for the 
 Clyde on May 1st. The ship in fact sailed on 
 April 23rd. On May 11th she was captured : — 
 Held, that the statement in the letter was 
 material to the risk and positive, and that, not 
 being true, it vitiated the policv. Dennistoun y. 
 LiUie, 3 Bligh, 202. 
 
 Keady to Sail— Ship had Sailed. ] — The broker's 
 instructions stated the ship to be ready to sail 
 on December 24th. The broker represented the 
 ship to be in port, when in fact she sailed on 
 December 23rd : — Held, to be a material misre- 
 presentation. Fillis V. Brvtter, 1 Park, Ins. 
 (8th ed.) 414. 
 
 "Wrong Statement as to Sailing.] — A letter 
 receivctl stated that the ship sailed from Jamaica, 
 on the 24th November. The agent afterwards 
 insured the ship, stating that she sailed in 
 December : — Held, fraudulent ; verdict for under- 
 writer. Rohertu v. Fonnereav, 1 Park, Ins. (Sth 
 ed.) 405. 
 
 The assured, knowing that his ship had sailed 
 from the coast of Africa on a certain day, stated 
 that she was on the coast on that day, and nothing 
 as to her sailing : — Held, that this was a material 
 concealment and avoided the policv. Batd'ife 
 V. Shoolhred, 1 Park, Ins. (Sth ed.) 413. 
 
 7. Ship's Name, when in Danger. 
 
 Not stating.] — If a ship is advertised to be in 
 danger, and the insurer effects a policy on ship 
 or ships, knowing that the ship in danger is 
 one of them, without stating the ships' names, 
 this is a concealment which avoids the policy, 
 although the rumour was false. Li/iwh v. 
 ILimilton, 3 Taunt. 37 ; 12 R. R. 591. 
 
 An insui-ance was effected on goods on board 
 ship or ships from the Canary Islands to London, 
 and at the tinte theassured's agent, who effected
 
 1197 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—YII. Concealment, d-c. 
 
 the policy, knew that one of the ship or ships 
 was named the •• President" ; and at the same time 
 there was a paper of communication stuck up at 
 Lloyd's, that " the ' Howard,' Marsh, arrived off 
 Dover from Teneriffe : sailed 24th ult. ; on the 
 27th off the Salvages, fell in with the ' President,' 
 Owens, from Lanzarette, deep and leaky " ; but 
 the agent did not communicate his knowledge of 
 the ship's name to the underwriters : — Held, 
 that the policy was thereby avoided, though the 
 intelligence afterwards turned oitt to be false. 
 Lync?t V. Dunsford, 14 East, 494 ; 13 K. R. 29.-). 
 
 Underwriter's Means of Identifying.] — 
 
 During the American war of lSti8-4, the 
 '• Georgia '' screw steamer obtained notoriety as a 
 cruiser in the service of the Confederate States ; 
 in May, 18()4, she put into Liverpool, where she 
 was dismantled, and this was also a subject of 
 public notoriety, and, as such, known to the 
 defendant, an underwriter at Lloyd's ; at Liver- 
 pool she was bought by the plaintiff at public 
 auction, and converted by him into a merchant 
 vessel. In August, 1804, the plaintiff, through 
 his broker in London, effected with the defendant 
 an insurance of the vessel for six months. The 
 particulars furnished by the plaintiff were, 
 " Georgia," s.s., chartered on a voyage from 
 Liverpool to Lisbon and the Portuguese settle- 
 ments on the west coast of Africa and back. The 
 vessel sailed from Liverpool, and was imme- 
 diately captured by a frigate of the United 
 States. In an action on the policy to recover for 
 the loss, the defendant set up as a defence the 
 concealment of the fact that the " Georgia " 
 proposed for insurance was the late Confederate 
 war steamer, aud therefore liable to capture hy 
 tlie United States. The jury found that the 
 defendant was not aware tliat the " Geoi'gia " 
 which he was insuring was the Confederate 
 steamer, but that he iiail, at the time of under- 
 writing, abundant means of iilentifying the ship 
 from his previous knowledge coupled with the 
 particulars given by the plaintiff': — Held, that 
 the defenflant was entitled to the verdict. 
 Jiutt'x V. Ill Witt. 3(; L. .J., Q, B. 282 ; L. K. 2 
 Q. B. :>'dr, ; ].-> W! K. 1172. 
 
 8. Port or Place of Sailing or Lo-'^ding. 
 
 The concealment of the true port of loading 
 will vitiate a policv. Ifiuhixnn v. R'lrluirilxoii, 
 
 1 w. Bi. 4<;:{. 
 
 If a ship is insured at and frtjm a certain place, 
 where in fact she is not at the time, but arrives 
 there after some interval (but the fact is not 
 communicated to the underwriteis, who do not 
 call for infonnation f>n the subject), it is a ques- 
 tion for the jury, wlietlier the delay which 
 intervened materiallv varied tlie risk. Hull v. 
 ('iw],n\ 14 East, 47'.)'; \\\ II. 11.287. 
 
 The owners, in isfd, effected with an under- 
 writer a jiolicy f)n bone and bone ash fiii board a 
 vessel, at and from Buenos Ayres and port or 
 ports of loading in the province of I'uenf)s Ayres, 
 to port or ports of call and discliargc in the 
 United Kingdom. The assureil knew, at that 
 time, that the vessel was going from Buenos 
 Ayres to L., a port in the i)rovince, to complete 
 her cargo ; but this fact was not communicated 
 to the underwriter, and he did not know that L. 
 was a port in the jiroviiice. L. was a place where 
 a trade in hides, bone ami Ixtne ashes was carried 
 on between that place and Buenos Ayres ; but 
 vessels could not clear from L. to Europe, but 
 
 1198 
 
 had to return to Buenos Ayres to obtain a clear- 
 ance. There was no artificial port, but only a 
 roadstead protected by natural headlands forming 
 a kind of ba3\ L. was unknown in 18(J1 to 
 underwriters as a place of loading : and if under- 
 writers, on a policy as above, had been informed 
 that the vessel was going to load there they 
 would have required a higher premium than the 
 sum charged. The vessel went from Buenos 
 Ayres to L., but being unable to get cargo, she 
 left that place to return to Buenos Ayres, and 
 was lost on her way thither : — Held, that the 
 non-communication of the fact that the vessel 
 was going to L. to complete her cargo was a 
 concealment of a material fact, which vitiated 
 the policy : — Held, also, that L. was a port of 
 loading within the policy. Ilarnncer v. Hiit- 
 chhimn, 10 B. & S. 469 ; 39 L. J., Q. B. 229 ; 
 L. K. .5 Q. B. 584; 22 L. T. 684— Ex. Ch. 
 Reversing 17 W. R. 731. 
 
 By a charterparty it was agreed that a ship 
 then being at M. V., should proceed to F., and 
 thence to S. C, where she was to load a complete 
 cargo, and then proceed to E. ; 2h0l. per month 
 for freight, to be paid thus : 2oOZ., one month's 
 freight, at F., and balance on delivery of the 
 cargo at port of discharge. The vessel sailed, 
 and 2.50Z. was paid. She arrived at S. C, but, 
 instead of proceeding to E., returned to M. V. 
 A policy was effected, by which 450Z.. freight 
 advanced, was insured on the voyage from M. V. 
 to H. A second charterparty was entered into 
 whilst the vessel was still at M. V., by which she 
 was to proceed to H. with the cargo then on 
 board, a part of which she brought from S. C. ; 
 freight 251 iZ. per month, allowing a "deduction 
 of 2~)0l., which the captain has already received 
 on account of the charter." The first charter- 
 jjarty was not expressly cancelled or annulled. 
 The ship sailed and was lost. At the time of 
 effecting the policy, nothing was said as to the 
 vessel having been to S. C. : — Held, that it was 
 competent for the parties to enter into the second 
 charterparty, and tliat there was no misi'Cpre- 
 sentation or concealment. EIUk v. Lnfouc, 8 
 Ex. r)46 ; 22 L. J., Ex. 124 ; 17 Jur. 213 ; 1 W. R. 
 200— Ex. Ch. 
 
 9. COMMENCKMENT OF HOSTILITIES. 
 
 Common Knowledge.] — If an insurance is made 
 Vjefore the cummeuccment of hostilities, but when 
 everybody expects a war immediately, the insured 
 is not bound to give the underwriters notice, 
 though the ship does not sail till after tlie war 
 takes place, and tlie underwriter is liable in case 
 of a capture. PLiiirhc or Phinrhef v. Flctrlicr, 
 1 Doiigl. 2.-.1 ; 1 Park, Ins. (8th ed.) 860. 
 
 Nationality of Assured.] — On a policy effected 
 after a dcclar.it ion of war by Anu'rica, but Ix'fore 
 it was known in this country, where it was not 
 stated in the j)olicy, nor communicated to the 
 underwriter, that the assured was an American 
 subject, and the loss happeneil in consei]iieiu'e of 
 a seizure by that government, for a forfeiture for 
 a breach of their non-iinimrtation act : — Held, 
 that tlie unilerwriters were not liable, and that 
 no action could be maintained, even after the 
 termination of the war. Citviphi'll v. Jnnr.i, 4 
 B. & Aid. 423 ; 23 R. R. 238. 
 
 Special Information. J — The assured, on a 
 policy- at ami trnin Riga, were in the possession 
 of a letter from their correspondent there, stating 
 that an order for sending the papers f)f all 
 ships arriving at that port to Petersburgh had
 
 1199 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—YII. Concealment, dx. 
 
 1200 
 
 jiroduced a great sensation, intimating that the 
 papers of the ship insured had been sent to 
 reterslnirgh accordinglj^, and expressing con- 
 siderable apprehensions for her safety. This 
 letter was not communicated to the under- 
 writers ; but the broker informed them of the 
 fact of the ship's papers having been sent to 
 Petersburg!! : — Held, that the policy was not 
 vitiated on the ground of concealment, by the 
 non-communication of the letter. Bell v. Bell, 
 2 Camp. 479; 11 R. R. 769. 
 
 10. Terms of Insurance. 
 
 A Loudon merchant, insuring at Leith, repre- 
 sented (contrary to the fact) that he had done 
 some insurances at Lloyd's upon the same voyage, 
 at the same premium given to the Leith under- 
 writers, who (not being well acquainted with the 
 nature of the risk themselves) subscribed the 
 policy from their contidence in the skill and 
 judgment of the London underwriters : — Held, 
 that this was a fraud which vitiated the policy, 
 though the misrepresentation was not such as 
 affected the nature of the risk. Sihbuld v. Hill, 
 2 Dow, 263 ; 14 R. R. 160. 
 
 11. Proof. 
 
 List at Lloyd's.] — The shipping list at Lloyd's, 
 stating the time of a vessel's sailing, is prima 
 facie evidence against an underwriter as to what 
 it contains, as the underwriter must be presumed 
 to have a knowledge of its contents, from having 
 access to it in the course of his business ; but 
 where the insurer, in a letter written for the 
 purpose of effecting the insurance, made a false 
 statement and concealment as to the time of 
 the vessel's sailing, and the underwriter, relying 
 upon that representation, did not in fact look at 
 the list, but acted upon the representation in 
 making the insurance : — Held, that the under- 
 writer was not bound by the contents of the list, 
 so as to render the misrepresentation and con- 
 cealment by which he was misled immaterial ; 
 and that it was the duty of the judge to have 
 pointed out to the jury that misrepresentation 
 and concealment. Mackintosh v. Marshall, 11 
 M. & W. 116 ; 12 L. J., Ex. 887. 
 
 Evidence as to Materiality— Opinion.] — Evi- 
 dence of underwriters' opinion as to the materiality 
 of information received by the assured and not 
 communicated to his underwriters not admitted. 
 Buvvell V. Bederlnj, Holt, 2S8 ; 8 R. R. 789 ; 17 
 R. R. 639. S. P., Carter v. Boehm, 3 Burr. 1909 ; 
 1 W. Bl. .593. But see, aliter, Chaurand v. Am/er- 
 stein, Peake (N.P.) 43 : Richards v. Murdoch. 10 
 B. .t C. 527 ; 8 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 210 ; Elton v. 
 Larkins. h Car. & P. 592 ; Chapman v. Walton, 
 10 Bing! 57 .; 3 M. cV Scott, 389 ; 2 L. J., C. P. 210 ; 
 Littledale v. Bijum, 1 Bos. & P. (n.r.) 151 ; 8 K. R. 
 774 ; Haywood v. Jiod[/ers, 4 East, 590 ; 7 R. R. 638. 
 
 A merchant abroad shipped goods for England 
 on board the shij) "C." and by another ship that 
 sailed after her wrote to an agent in England 
 desiring him if he received the letter before the 
 "C." arrived to wait thirty days in order to give 
 her every chance to arrive, and then to insure the 
 goods. The agent did as instructed ; the broker he 
 employed to insure did not tell the underwriters 
 of the order to wait thirty days before insur- 
 ing. The " C."' never arrived. The assured sued 
 the underwi-iters on the policy, but failed on 
 account of the suppression of fact by the broker. 
 In an action by the assured against the broker 
 for negligence in effecting the policy : — Held, 
 
 that the eviilence of underwriters and brokers 
 as to the materiality of the suj^pressed facts was 
 not admissible. Campbell v. li'ickards, 5 B. & Ad. 
 840 : 2 N. .V M. 542 ; 2 L. J., K. B. 204. 
 
 The opinion of one conversant with insurance 
 business as to the materiality of facts not com- 
 municated to underwriter with regard to the 
 amount of the premium is admissible in evidence. 
 Berthon v. Louf/h/iian, 2 Stark. 258. 
 
 Question for Jury.] — The materiality of the 
 intelligence or rumours, which the assured is 
 charged with having suppressed, is a question 
 for the jury, under the circumstances of the case. 
 Richards v. Murdoch, supra. 
 
 Onus.] — In an action on a policy on a ship, 
 where the defendant pleads, that, at the time of 
 making the policy, the plaintiff wrongfully con- 
 cealed material facts and information, the defen- 
 dant is bound to prove all the allegations in the 
 plea. Elhin. v. Jansen, 13 M. & W. 655 ; 14 L. J., 
 Ex. 201 ; 9 Jur. 353. 
 
 On proof that the facts were material, and 
 known to the assured, slight evidence of non- 
 communication to the underwriter will shift the 
 burden of proof. lb. 
 
 12. Chancery Jurisdiction. 
 
 Fraud — Cancellation of Policy — Jurisdiction 
 of Court of Equity.] — If a policy is liable to be 
 completely avoiiled, as on the ground of fraud or 
 misrepresentation, a court of equity has jurisdic- 
 tion to direct its delivery up and cancellation, 
 but it has no jurisdiction to direct the cancella- 
 tion of a policy to any claim on which there is a 
 good legal defence, or to declare that there is 
 no liability u]Jon it. If there is danger of the 
 evidence for the defence being lost, the remedy 
 is, not an action for cancellation, but an action 
 to perpetuate testimony. Broohing v. Mavdslay, 
 57 L. J., Ch. 1001 ; 38 Ch. D. 636 : 58 L. T. 852 ; 
 36 W. R. 664 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 296. 
 
 Where four of many actions against the various 
 underwriters on policies on several ships (indi- 
 vidually) had been tried, and verdict passed for 
 plaintiffs at law, the court granted an injunction 
 to restrain them (the plaintiffs at law) from pro- 
 ceeding further in a case where there was a strong 
 suspicion of fraud in the assured, on the money 
 being paid into court ; on the ground of answer 
 of one of <lef endants not having come in. Xensitig- 
 ton V. W/iitc, 3 Price, 164. 
 
 A merchant having a doubtful account of his 
 ship insures the ship without acquainting the 
 insurers what danger the shij) was in : — Held, to 
 be a fraudulent insurance, and the court relieved 
 against the ijolicy. Be Costa v. Scarulrct, 2 
 P. Wms. 170. 
 
 Bill by underwriter of a policy of marine 
 insurance, the ship insured having been lost, to 
 restrain an action brought by the insured for the 
 amount of the policy, and to have the policy 
 itself delivered up to be cancelled, on the ground 
 of deviation and delay in the voyage and the 
 unseaworthiness of the ship. A verdict was given 
 for the defendant in the suit (jilaintiff at law), 
 on the ground of deviation. He then brought 
 the suit to a hearing, insisting that the jjolicy 
 ought to be delivered\ip : — Held, that the whole 
 case turning upon a mere (juestion of fact, and 
 there being no fraud, there was no equity, and 
 the bill was dismissed, with costs. Thornton v. 
 A'nie/ht, 16 Sim. 509 ; 13 Jur. 180.
 
 1201 
 
 SHIPPING— IX SUEAXCE—YIII. Voyage. 
 
 1202 
 
 YIII. VOYAGE. 
 
 1. General Lef/aliti/, 1201. 
 
 2. Simulated Ptiperx, 1205. 
 
 3. Clcaruncp. 1206. 
 
 4. Btch Ciiffjo. 1207. 
 
 5. TloxtUc Ports. 1208. 
 
 (!. Ports under Einhartio.VIOSi. 
 
 7. Xeutral Trud'nifi. 12(l!l. 
 
 8. Abandonment of ]\ii//if/r, 1211. 
 
 1. General Legality. 
 
 Part of Voyage.] — If there is any illegality in 
 the commencement of an inteoral voyage, and 
 an insurance is effected on the latter part of the 
 voyage, which, talcen by itself, would be legal, 
 still the assured can7iot recover on the policy. 
 Marryutt v. W'lUon. 8 Term Eep. 31 ; 1 Bos. & P. 
 430 ; Bird v. Pigou. 2 .'^elw. X. P. (1 1th ed.) 96fi, n. 
 
 If a master sails under a charterparty, stipu- 
 lating for a voyage of which a part is illegal. 
 Semble, that this does not ])revent his insuring 
 on, not subject him to forfeiture for, the part 
 antecedent to the illegal act : for as he cannot 
 be compelled to perform, nor enforce the pay- 
 ment of freight on the illegal part of the adven- 
 ture, it may be presumed that he will abandon 
 it. Sewcll V. Itoi/al Ej:cliunge Co., 4 Taunt. 
 856. 
 
 If a ship is insured "at and from A. to B.," 
 ami there is an illegality in the traffic during 
 her stay at A., the assured cannot recover on the 
 policy for a loss happening Vjetween A. and B. 
 Bird V. Applrton, 8 Term Kep. 5(;2 ; 5 R. R. 468. 
 
 Yet an insurance on a ship for a jjarticular 
 voyage is legal, though she may have (lone some 
 act in a former voyage for which she was liable 
 to seizure ; and the goods may be insured though 
 purchased with the proceeds of a former illegal 
 cargo. Ih. 
 
 Letters of Marque.] — After an assurance on a 
 ship on a trading voyage, the assured applied to 
 the underwriters for leave to take in guns and a 
 letter of mar<)ue, the latter of which was positively 
 refused ; notwithstanding which, the ship sailed 
 with the general letter of marque : this vacated 
 the policy, although the assuied did iKjt in fact 
 make use of the letter of manjue for the j)urpose 
 of cruising, or intend .so to do, but merely took it 
 on lx)ard for the purpose of cruisintr on the voyage 
 home. JJenimn v. Moditjliani. »"> Term Kep. 5S0. 
 
 The assured upon a trading voyage, taking out 
 a letter of marque {\>\\\. without a certificate, 
 which was necessjiry to its validity), unknown to 
 the underwriters, solely with a view to encourage 
 seamen to enter, and without any intention of 
 using it for the ])urpose of cruising, though the 
 vessel was armed for self-defence, is not su(;h an 
 alteration of circumstances as will avoid the 
 policy. MoxH V. Jiijroiii, 6 Terra Rcii. 37'.» ; 3 
 K. R. 208. 
 
 Voyage prima facie Legal.] — Where a policy 
 does iini ;i|i|pi;(i- ciip the face of it to be legal, the 
 court will not grant a new trial in or<ler to let 
 the defendant into proof that it was so. Quaere, 
 whether trading with an enemy and insurance of 
 an enemy's goo<ls are illegal, frixt v. Maxon. 
 1 Term Rep. 8S ; 1 R. R. 154. 
 
 In an action ujion a jtolicv it will be presumcil 
 that the ^hip cumplied with the law. as tosailing 
 with convo}-, until the contrary is prove<l. Thorn- 
 ion V. Lance, 4 Camp. 231. 
 
 Sailing Contrary to Embargo.] — Policy on 
 neutral ship engaged, contrary to embargo, in 
 supplying provisions West Indies, held invalid. 
 Balmady v. J/otteux, 1 Term Rep. 89, n. : 1 R. R. 
 155. n. 
 
 Navigation Laws — Illegality.] — A Swedish 
 ship iii>uied at and from <a loading port in the 
 West Indies to GotteuVjurg. took in part of her 
 cargo at a British West Indian port : — Held, that 
 the assmed could not recover, the voyage being 
 iUesal under the navigation laws. Chalmers v. 
 Bell, 3 Bos. & P. 604. 
 
 Policj" on a ship engaged in trade to the w'est 
 coast of America without South Sea licence held 
 void, notwithstanding 45 Geo. 3, c. 34, repealing 
 the navigation act as to foreign-built ships. 
 Bunlop v. Gill. 1 B. k. Aid. 334. 
 
 Where a British subject, purchasing by the 
 king's licence a hostile-built vessel, which was not 
 entitled or required to have a British register, 
 chartei'ed her on a voyage out to the Azores and 
 home, and sent her to sea with a crew in which 
 there was not the proportion of British mariners 
 required by 12 Car. 2, c. 18, s. 14, this did not 
 avoid a policy on the outward part of the voyage. 
 Xor was it an objection to the same policy, that 
 she was foreign built ; for the 49 Geo. 3. c. 60, s. 1, 
 authorised the ships of any country in amity, by 
 the king's licence, to bring foreign produce to 
 England, though not English built or registered, 
 contrary- to the 12 Car. 2, c. 18, ss. 3 & 10, and 
 that a ship purchased b}' a British subject from 
 an enemj- with licence, was the ship of a country 
 in amity. Srwdl v. Royal Exchange Assurance 
 Co., 4 Taunt. 85(). 
 
 It was illegal to export manufactures, the 
 produce of Eui'ope, from the Cape of Good Hope 
 to any port to the castwaid in his majesty's pos- 
 sessions under 15 Car. 2, c. 7, s. 6. Gray v. Lloyd, 
 4 Taunt. 136. 
 
 The 3 c*c 4 Will. 4, c. 54, did not prohibit the 
 importation for home consumption (except in 
 British vessel>) of any goods the produce of 
 Europe, excepting those specifically ctiumerated 
 ill s. 2. Thomson v. Irrinq, 7 M. &: W. 367 ; 10 
 L. .1., Ex. 118 : 5 Jur. 103. 
 
 The navigation laws were not l)inding on the 
 crown so as to i)revent transportation of public 
 stores from one colony to another. The Sivift, 1 
 iJods. 32<i. 
 
 Illegality as to Part of Goods.] — Where a party 
 insured to a (•criaiii aiiiouiit. in one policy, goods 
 to he thereafter spei'ificd. and in the specilications 
 afterwards made by him were included some 
 goods, the ex]iortation of which was jjrohibited 
 under (lain of forfeiting the goods themselves and 
 treble their value, and which also induced the 
 forfeiture of the shijt — the ])olicy was avoided in 
 toto. Parkin v. Dirh, 11 East, .")02 ; 2 Camp. 
 221 : 11 R. R. 2.-)8. 
 
 Crew not British.] — The assured can recover 
 upon a -lii|) policy altiioiigh the sliip had not on 
 board the nuinln'r of I'ritish seamen reqwired by 
 6 (ieo. 4, c. lo'.t. and altli<pugli no certificate of 
 inability to ])rocure them waso))tained. Suart v. 
 Poivrll'l r.. A; ,\d. 266 : K L. .J. (o.s.) K. B. 391. 
 
 Voyage Contrary to Statutes.] — An assurance 
 of a voyage exjircssiy )ii(p|iibited l)y the laws of 
 tills country is voiil. ,John.4on w Sutton. 1 Doiigl. 
 254. 
 
 Non-certificated Master — Slave Trade.] — 
 Action on poiic}'. Defence that the master of
 
 1203 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUKANCE— VIII. Voyage. 
 
 1204 
 
 the sliip, :i slave ship, was not certificated in 
 acconlance with 31 Geo, 8, c. 'A. s. 7. Nonsuit 
 upon proof of want of certificate. Farmer v. 
 Leai], 7 Term Rep. 186. 
 
 Voyage legal hy Licence — Expiration of 
 Licence before Voyage ended.] — Insurance on 
 voyage made legal Ijv licence : — Held, valid, 
 although the time specified in the licence had 
 expired. Sclinx'drr v. Van.v, 15 East, .52 ; 18 
 E. R. 758, n. 
 
 Licence to G. F. & Co. of London, merchants, 
 on behalf of themselves and others to export on 
 board a ship named, bearing any flag except the 
 French, to a hostile port and to import from 
 thence specified goods, notwithstanding all the 
 documents may represent the ship to be destined 
 to a neutral or hostile port, and to whomsoever 
 such property may appear to belong authorises 
 an enemy, subject of the hostile country to 
 which the ship is licensed legally to export from 
 London, and insurance on such a voyage by 
 his agent here is lawful, and recovery may be 
 had on the policy for a loss occasioned by the 
 act of the trader's own state. Flindt v. Scott, 
 FUndt V. Crohntt, 5 Taunt. 67-t : 15 R. R. 615. 
 
 Licence to export to Baltic though not 
 legalising exportation of goods of Russian 
 enemies afterwards seized by the Russian 
 government, enables plaintiff to recover on 
 policv in respect of goods exported by himself 
 and neutrals. Hnqedorn v. Bazett, 2 M. & S. 100. 
 Licence to export, a certain proportion of the 
 goods to be British : — Held, that exportation of a 
 majority of Spanish goods was in fraud of the 
 licence. Gordon v. Vau/jhan, 12 East, 302, note. 
 Licence applied to ship and voyage sufficient 
 proof of legality without connecting it with 
 plaintiff. Butler v. Allnntt, 1 Stark. 223. 
 
 Where a ship, bound to Cagliari, with liberty 
 to touch, unload, and load at Gibraltar, sailed 
 with a licence to Gibraltar only, arrived there, 
 and departed without obtaining an extension of 
 the licence from the person authorised to grant 
 licences at Gibraltar : — Held, that an insurance 
 on goods fi'om London to Cagliari was void. 
 
 Darhij v. Aeivton, 2 Marsh. 252 ; 6 Taunt. 544. 
 
 A ship was permitted by a licence to proceed 
 from D. to L., and thence to B., there to load to 
 the port of destination from which she departed. 
 The vessel proceeded on her voyage from D. to 
 L., and from L. to B. : — Held, that she was not 
 protected by the licence on a further voyage 
 from B. to L. Frcrt/i v. Tinuto, 1 B. & Aid. 
 142 ; 1 Stark. 508. 
 
 Action on policy on gunjiowder at antl from 
 London to Pernambuco. A licence to exj^ort 
 gunpowder hatl been granted to A. B., the manu- 
 facturer, upon condition that the exporter should 
 give certain security. A. B. sold the gunpowder 
 to C. D., and contracted to deliver it on board 
 ship : — Held, that the licence was not complied 
 with by A. l'>. giving the security mentioned, and 
 that the itlaintiff could not recover on the policy. 
 Caiiielo V. Britten, 4 B. &: Aid. 184. 
 
 Licence to Trade — Wrong Description of 
 
 Grantee.] — A wrong descri[)tion of the person 
 to whom a licence to trade with the enemy is 
 granted avoids it ; and a policy on his goods is 
 void. Klinqender v. Bond, 14 East, 484 ; 13 
 E. R. 292. 
 
 Duration of Licence.] — A licence was granted 
 to the plaintiff to take a cargo from London to 
 
 Archangel, and to return thence with grain or 
 other lawful goods, and the licence was limited 
 to 2!lth Septeudjer, and afterwards extended ta 
 1st January, 1811. The ship took in a cargo of 
 pitch at Archangel, and started for home, but 
 was driven back by weather to Archangel, where 
 the pitch was sold and the ship laid up for the 
 winter. In August, 1811, she took on board a 
 cargo of wheat and sailed for home : — Held, that 
 the licence covered the voyage with the wheat 
 cargo and that the unilerwriters were liable for 
 a loss on that voyage. Siffken v. Allmitt, 1 
 M. & S. 39. 
 
 Voyage legal in Commencement may be legal 
 after Licence Expired.]— A voyage legal in its 
 commencement by a licence for four months 
 which expire during the voyage may be legal 
 throughout, if by special circumstances the 
 voyage is protracted ; but the assured must 
 prove the special circumstances. Leevin v. 
 Connae. 4 Taunt. 483, n. 
 
 Licence obtained by Fraud.] — An admiralty 
 
 licence obtained for a ship to sail without 
 convoy, describing her as bound on a voyage to- 
 Gibraltar, when "in fact she sailed hence with 
 instructions to make the best of her way direct 
 to Palermo, without touching at Gibraltar, unless 
 ordered into the bay by any cruisers which she 
 might meet in passing by it, is fraudulent and 
 void, and will not legalise an insurance by the 
 charterer of such ship sailing without convoy, 
 ujion goods put on board and insured from hence 
 to Palermo, with liberty to proceed to any ports- 
 to seek convoy. Ini/ham v. Arfitcw, 15 East, 517 ;. 
 13R. R. 516." 
 
 Plaintiff an Alien Enemy.] — Action on ship- 
 policy ; plea that plaintiff is an alien enemy ; 
 replication that plaintiff is resident in the country 
 by the king's licence. The replication is not 
 supported by proof of a licence during peace to- 
 trade to a foreign country and back to England, 
 war having broken out before the end of the 
 voyage, and the plaintiff went about in this 
 country without molestation. Boulton v. Dohrae, 
 2 Camp. 162. 
 
 Trading with Enemy.] — The plaintiff, a British 
 born subject, domiciled in America, effected a 
 policy onship freight and goods from Virginia to- 
 any Baltic port. The ship was captured on her 
 voyage to Elsinore, in Denmark, then in amity 
 with America, but at war with England : — 
 Held, that the plaintiff could recover. Bell v. 
 BeUl, Bell v. Bullcr, 1 M. & S. 726 ; 14 E. E. 
 557. 
 
 Trading to ports in Hayti, a French colony 
 partly emancipated from France, then at war 
 with "England, the ports in question not being 
 under the dominion of France :— Held, legal, and 
 recovery had upon a policy on cargo. BlacUhurn 
 V. Thoiiijixon, 3 Camp. 61 ; 13 R. R. 382. 
 
 Trade with Enemy — Insurance of Enemy's 
 Ship.T — Senible. all trading with enemies is not 
 unlawful ; nor is insurance of enemies' shii)S 
 f luring war. Ilenkle v. Royal E.vchuii(je Asxur- 
 anee Co., 1 Ves. Sen. 317. 
 
 Recovery on Policy by one wbo became 
 Enemy after the Loss.] —The British agent effect- 
 ing a policv on Ijehalf of alien enemies, who 
 became eneniies after the loss but before action
 
 1205 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—YIII. Voyage. 
 
 1206 
 
 brought, is entitled to recover against the under- 
 writer, who had only pleaded the general issue. 
 Flindt V. Waters, 15 East, 260 ; 3 K. R. 457. 
 
 Convoy Act.] — To vacate a policy for an 
 infraction of the Convoy Act, i'd Geo. 3, c. 57, it 
 was not enough to shew that the ship sailed 
 without convoy by the instrumentality of agent 
 of the assured, unless it appeai'ed that the agent 
 had authority from his ])rincipal for this purpose. 
 Carstatrts v. Alni/tt, 8 Camj). 497. 
 
 And it was necessary to prove that it happened 
 with the privitv of the owner. jVetcalfv. Parry, 
 4 Camp. 125 ; 15 R. R. 734. 
 
 Every person who shipped goods on board a 
 vessel which sailed without convoy, did it at his 
 own jjcril of her having a sufficient licence for 
 the whole of the voyage, without which all insttr- 
 ances on his goods were void, by 43 Geo. 3, c. 57. 
 Wfiuihmtsc V. Coicie, 4 Taunt, 17S. 
 
 In order to shew that a voyage without convoy 
 from a foreign port was illegal, it was incumbent 
 on the underwriter to prove that there was con- 
 voy occasionally appointed from that port, or 
 some one resident there authorised to grant 
 licences to sail without convov. W((lie v. Attij, 
 4 Taunt. 4'J3 ; 13 R. R. CtJO. 
 
 Omission to Sign Manifest.] — Omission to sign 
 manifest in accoidance with 26 Geo. 3, c. 40, s. 1, 
 held to make the whole voyage illegal. Freurd 
 V. Lairson, Marsh. Ins. (4th ed.) 136. 
 
 Breach of Revenue Laws of Foreign Country.] 
 
 — A voyage is not illegal because it infringes the 
 revenue laws of the foreign countrv. Per Mans- 
 field. C.J. Lerer v. Fletcher, 1 Park, Ins. (8th 
 ed.) 506. 
 
 And nee XIII. PREMIUMS, 1. RETURN OF, post, 
 coLs. 1303, seq. 
 
 2. Simulated Papers. 
 
 Leave to Carry.] — A shij) not having leave to 
 carry siiiiulatr<| |ia|)ers, altliough without such 
 she would certaiidy have Ijcen seized and con- 
 demned as coming from an enemy's countiy, the 
 underwriters were not liable for a loss which 
 ensued from the act of tlie assured himself. 
 Jlorneyer v. Luxlibuiton, 15 p]ast, 46 ; 3 Camp. 
 85 ; 13 R. R. 759. 
 
 An assured upon a policy on ship, not having 
 leave to caiTy siiimlaled pajiers, cannot I'eeover 
 for a loss by ca|)tuie; if it ai)])ears by the sen- 
 tence of the foieign priz.e court that one of the 
 caases stated for tlie condemnation was the 
 cariTing of simulated jtapers. Oxirell v. Vif//iei/, 
 15 East, 70 ; 13 R. R. 375. 
 
 American goods in an American sliip liaving 
 been insured mi a voyage from America to tlie 
 Baltic, with liberty to carry simulateil |)!ipers, 
 and the ship having heeii caiituied ;ind con- 
 demned )>y a Danish sentence, which, after 
 suggesting a doubt as to the P^nglish chai'acter 
 of the f)wncr, stated that the documents i'en<lered 
 it imjiossible to iicknowledge the ship and cargo 
 as neutnil ; and the cf)urt of ap|)eal, afterwards 
 alleging as grounds of coiifirm.-itidii, first, tliat 
 the dociunents were not in (huj order ; that the 
 sea-letter was infoiinal. and no cre<iit cfiuld be 
 given to it as a ])ublic document ; secondly, tliat 
 the sliip hatl false documents ; thirdly, that the 
 documents disagi'ced with regard to theii' con- 
 tents ; fourthly, that a person on board who 
 seemed to be interested in the ship and cargo, 
 
 hail been set on shoi'C in England ; fifthly, that 
 false French certificates d'origine were found on 
 board : — Held, that, taking the whole together, 
 the ground of condemnation was the having on 
 board simulated papers, which, with other cir- 
 cumstances, led to the conclusion that the shij) 
 and cargo were hostile British and not neutral 
 American jtroperty ; and the not having a sea- 
 passy^ort on board, verified in the manner stated 
 in the sentence, was only a circumstance to shew 
 that the ship carried simulated pajjers : even if 
 such a pass])orc was required by any treaty 
 Vjetween the United States and Denmark, which 
 did not appear ; and consequently, that the loss 
 was attributable to a cause which the under- 
 writer had sanctioned by the leave to carry 
 simulated papers ; and not from the ship's not 
 being properly documented, as an American ship, 
 for which the assured, as owner of the ship, as 
 well as of the goods insured, would have been 
 answerable ; neither was the condemnation bad, 
 on the ground that the papers had not been 
 properly simulated, so as to attribute the loss to 
 the mere negligence of the assured in the mode 
 of exercising the liberty reserved to them, sup- 
 posing that would have varied the case. Hell v. 
 Hru infield, 15 East, 364. 
 
 Policy on shiiis and goods at and from London 
 to any ports in the Baltic, with liberty to carry 
 simulated papers and clearances, and until safely 
 warehoused in the warehouses of the consignees, 
 at the port of discharge, at forty guineas per 
 cent, premium : — Held, that the underwriter 
 was liable for a loss arising from confiscation 
 by the Prussian government, notwithstanding 
 the persons in whom the interest was averred 
 were Prussian subjects, Prussia not being at war 
 with this country ; it being found that, at the 
 time of effecting the policy, all direct commerce 
 Ijctween this country and the ports in the Baltic 
 was prohibited by the jjowers jjossessiug ports 
 there ; but that, notwithstanding, an extensive 
 cour.sc of commerce was carried on between this 
 country and tliose parts by means of simulated 
 papers and clearances, which was well known to 
 all descri))tions of persons, sucli as plaintiffs and 
 defendants. Siiiifun v. Jiazrtt, 2 i\I. ^: S.'.ll. 
 
 Negligence of Insurance Brokers.] — Insur- 
 ance brokei's are not iial)le t(i an action for 
 neglecting to insert in a policy a liberty to carry 
 simulated i)apers, if the written instructions 
 given them contain nodii-ection for that purpose, 
 although it may have ))een verbally communi- 
 cated to them that simulated papers were to be 
 used ill the Vovage. Fniiihi v. OmreU. 3 Camp. 
 357. 
 
 Condemnation of Ship.] — False pai)ers for the 
 purpose of prdtrcting coiitraliand goods by a 
 false destination are cause of condemniition of 
 the ship. 'J7ie Edward, 4 C. Rob. 68. 
 
 3. f'LKAK.VNCE. 
 
 Goods Shipped after.] — It is no objection to 
 the assured on goods recovering for a loss by a 
 peril within tlie iiolicy, that, after the captain 
 liad obtained his manifest and custom-house 
 clearances, as requireil by 13 i: 14 Car. 2, c. 11, 
 s. 3. goods of the assured were put on board by 
 the i)acker, who had ]irevi()ii>ly made all the 
 necessary entries at the custom-house. Car- 
 ruthcrn v. Graij, 15 East, 35 ; 3 Canqi. 142.
 
 1207 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—VIII. Voyage. 
 
 1208 
 
 4. Deck Cargo. 
 
 Privity of Owner Insuring.] — A master of a 
 ship, whose cargo consists of timber and wood 
 goods, clearin-? out and sailing from a British 
 port of North America for a port in the United 
 Kingdom, with part of the cargo on deck, in i 
 violation of the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 107, ss. 170, 171, | 
 172, does not vitiate a policy by the owner of the 
 ship and cargo, unless at the time of the insur- 
 ance he was privy to the act. Wihvn v. Btiiihin. 
 3.0 L. J., Q. B. 87 ; L. R. 1 Q. B. 162 ; 13 L. T. 
 .564 ; U W. R. 198— Ex. Ch. 
 
 What are.] — Where on such a voyage the 
 whole of the cargo on freight is stowed below 
 deck, but the captain took on deck a quantity 
 of spars and other articles for the owTier with 
 the object of saving expense, in obtaining the 
 materials necessary for refitting the vessel after 
 the voyage, it is a violation of the statute. Ih. 
 
 Illegality of Whole Voyage.] — A ship sailing 
 upon such a voyage without having obtained a 
 certificate of having cleared out with no cargo 
 on deck is not a statutory unseaworthiness. 
 ir//.S()rt v. Rdnliin. supra. 
 
 By 16 & 17 Vict. c. 107, s. 170, before any 
 clearing officer permits any ship, wholly or in 
 part laden with timber, to clear out from any 
 British port in North America after the 1st 
 September and before the 1st May, he shall ascer- 
 tain that the whole of the cargo is below deck, 
 and give the master a certificate to that effect. 
 By s^ 172, the master shall not sail without such 
 certificate, or i)lace or permit to be upon the 
 deck any part of the cargo, under a penalty of 
 100?. In an action irpon a policy of insurance 
 on the cargo and freight :— Held, that a plea 
 that the master had acted in contravention of 
 s. 172, " a.s the plaintiff well knew before and at 
 the time of loading and of sailing," was no 
 answer, inasmuch as the statute did not by 
 reason thereof make the voyage illegal, and the 
 plea did not shew privity and consent of the 
 plaintiff. Ctinard v. Hyde., El. Bl. & El. 670 ; 27 
 L. J., Q. B. 408 ; h Jur. (N.s.) 40. 
 
 After 1st September, 18r)(), orders were given 
 for an insurance on cargo and freight by a ship 
 from a port in North America to a port in the 
 United Kingdom, and the insurance was effected 
 thereu])on. Both when the orders were given 
 and when the insurance was effected, it was 
 known to the jjersons interested in the cargo 
 and freight, and who gave the orders, that much 
 of the cargo was loaded on deck ; they intended 
 the ship to sail, so laden, from Miramichi for the 
 United Kingdom before 1st May, 18.57 ; and they 
 ordered the insurance to be effected with an 
 express purpose to cover the whole cargo and 
 freight, including the portion of cargo above 
 deck. On the 10th September, 1856, the ship 
 sailed on the voyage insured, deck laden, and 
 without a certificate to the master from the 
 clearing officer, and the cargo was totally lost : — 
 Held, that the wiiole voyage was illegal ; that the 
 illegality vitiated the insurance with respect to 
 the wiiole cargo, not merely as to so much of it 
 as was loaded on deck : and that the assured, 
 who were privy to the illegality, could recover 
 nothing from the underwriters. Cunard v. Hyde, 
 2 El. & £L 1 : 2'J L. J., Q. B. 6 ; 6 Jur. (N.s.) 14. 
 In an action upon a jjolicy the defendant 
 pleaded that the fact that the shii) insured was 
 to carry a deck cargo was not disclosed, and it 
 
 was contended that such concealment avoided 
 the policy : — Held, that it did not avoid the 
 policy entirely, but only as regarded the cargo 
 carried on deck. Clark/ion v. Yovn/j, 22 L. T. 41. 
 
 An insurance broker effected an open policy 
 on a cargo of cotton on board the ship of his 
 principal. It was intended to shi}) the cotton 
 on board at the shipper's risk, which should have 
 been expressed in the bill of lading, but by a 
 mistake of the shipowners' agent in the foreign 
 l)ort at which the cotton was put on board, a 
 clean bill of lading was given. On the voyage 
 the vessel encountered heavy weather, and the 
 cotton, owing to its being carried on deck, was 
 compelled to be jettisoned. The broker gave 
 notice to the insurance company of the loss, but 
 other open policies having been effected with the 
 same insurance comiiany by the same shipowners 
 for cotton shipped subsequently, and declarations 
 having been matle on these policies by the broker, 
 although no declaration had been made in respect 
 of thecotton that had been lost, he, on discover- 
 ing that a mistake had been made, and that, 
 contrary to his instructions, a clean bill of lading 
 had been given instead of one expressing that 
 the cotton was shipped at the shipper's risk, 
 altered the declarations on the policies by sub- 
 stituting for certain cotton therein the cotton 
 which had been jettisoned : — Held, that the ship- 
 owners being liable for the loss of the goods by 
 jettison through their being carried on deck, had 
 an insurable interest in respect of which they, 
 and therefore their agent, were entitled to 
 recover. Stephens v. Australasian Ins. Co., 42 
 L. J.. C. P. 12 : L. R. 8 C. P. 18 ; 27 L. T. 585 ; 
 21 M^ R. 228 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 458. 
 
 Held, also, that in the absence of proof of 
 fraudulent intent, the assured's right to recover 
 was not prejudiced by his having altered the 
 declaration even after loss, a usage to that effect 
 having been proved to exist, and wiiich the court 
 would not pronounce to be unreasonable. lb. 
 
 '). Hostile Ports. 
 
 Legality.] — A policy to any port or ports in 
 1 the Baltic was legal, though some of those ports 
 1 were then in a state of war with this country, 
 and though no licence had been obtained, pro- 
 vided the shi}) was not sailing to a hostile port, 
 Wright V. Welhie, 1 Chit. 49 : 22 R. R. 792. 
 I A policy is not vitiated by giving leave to the 
 I ship to proceed to any port in a particular sea. in 
 wliich there are both hostile and neutral ports, 
 unless it can be shewn that it was intended the 
 shii) should, in fact, proceed to one of the former. 
 Midler v. Thovq)son, 2 Camp. 610 ; 12 R. R. 753. 
 An order of council permitting the consignee 
 of goods coming from an enemy's country, with- 
 out a licence, to land them here on condition 
 of immediately re-exporting them, does not so 
 legalise the voyage as to enable the master of a 
 ship to recover his freight. Midler v. Gemon, 
 3 Taunt. 394. 
 
 Expected Hostilities.] — Insurance on pro- 
 visions •• fniin Loiidnn to Helsinburgh, the Sound, 
 Copenhagen, all or either' ; which provisions 
 were intended for the supply of the British fleet 
 and army engaged in the expedition against 
 Copenhagen, of which they were then in posses- 
 sion, but were about to evacuate it, and were 
 consigned to merchants there and at Elsinore — 
 was good ; although, in consequence of expected 
 hostilities with Denmark, an order of the king
 
 1209 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—YIII. Voyage. 
 
 1210 
 
 in council had issued, prohibiting the clearing 
 out of any British ships to a Danish port, and a 
 clearance was in consequence taken out for Hel- 
 sinburgh, a Swedish and neutral port in the 
 neighbourhood of Denmark, the adventure being 
 legal, and not contravening the spirit of the 
 oixler of council. Afkinxon v. Ahhitt, 11 East, 
 135 ; 1 Camp. 53.5. 
 
 Evidence.] — A licence to sail to a hostile port 
 is prima facie evidence that when a ship left 
 her port of outiit she sailed upon the voyage 
 insured. Jlar.shaU v. Parker. 2 Camp. 69 ; 11 
 K. R. 6t;5. 
 
 Illegality — Onus on Defendant to Prove,] — If 
 an insurance is made to a port or ports within 
 a district of which part is hostile and part 
 neutral, the presumption is that a neutral port 
 was intended. Anvn., 1 Chit. 53. 
 
 6. Poets under Embargo. 
 
 Voyage to, Illegal.] — A voyage contrary to 
 the regulations of an embargo laid on ports by 
 the king in time of war is illegal, and cannot be 
 the subject of a policv. Delmuda v. Motttii.v. 
 1 Term Rep. 85, n. 
 
 Knowledge of Blockade.] — A policy on goods 
 from Liverjjuol to any port in the river Plata 
 was effected, after notification in the "London 
 Gazette" that such ports were blockaded. The 
 ship, after such notification, sailed from Liver- 
 pool, and was taken : — Held, that the voyage 
 insured was not illegal, as the vessel might sail 
 for Buenos Ayres without contravening the laws 
 of nations for the purpose of incjuiring wliether 
 the blockade continued. Xaylor v. 'I'uijlor, 4 
 M. & Ky. 526 ; 9 B. & C. 718. ' 
 
 A ship was destined to a port which was 
 notified to be under blockade : — Held, that the 
 voj'age was not illegal in its inception, as the 
 vessel might have sailed for the purpose of 
 inquiring whether the blockade existed. Dal- 
 (IIpihU v. Iludfixoii. 5 M. & P. 407 ; 7 Bing. 495 ; 
 9L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 13H. 
 
 If a shi[), the cargo of which is insured, sails 
 from a British port, and notice is aftcrwartis 
 given in the fJazette that the foreign jiort to 
 which she is bound is hlcjckaded, it is a question 
 of fact for the jury, in an action upon the policy, 
 the ship having been captuied, whether the 
 captain knew of the blockade or not. Hurra tf 
 V. WlHfl, 4 M. A: Ily. 5l'1 ; 9 I'.. cV: C. 712 ; 7 L. J. 
 (O.S.) K. B. 309. 
 
 7. NEUTKAI- TitADlXG. 
 
 Documents.] — A neutral vessel is not sca- 
 wnrtiiy, unless she is provided with df)cuments 
 to prove her neutrality. Strrl v. A^/ry, 3 Taunt. | 
 285 ; 12 11. II. 05.S. 
 
 I 
 
 fieceiving Contraband.]— If a neutral, in con- i 
 sequence of an .■igricment made in England, , 
 meets a British vessi'l ahro.ad, for the jiurjiose of 
 receiving gunpowder and ai'ms, the vtiyage of 
 the neutral is thereljy 7eridered illegal and incap- 
 able of insurance, though the British vessel has 
 had a licence to expctrt such articles for tlic! pur- \ 
 poses of trade. (Hhsim. v. SrrvU'p, 1 Marsh. 119; 
 5 Taunt. 433: 15 K. II. 541. S. P., Gihxon v. 
 :\Iau\ 1 Marsh. 39 : 15 If. II. 668. 
 
 I 
 
 Carrying to Hostile Country,] — It is no | 
 
 breach of neutrality for a neutral ship to carry | 
 
 enemy's property from its own to the enemy's 
 country : the voyage and commerce not being of 
 a hostile description, nor otherwise expressly or 
 impliedly forbidden by the law or policy of this 
 country : though the neutral thereby subjects his 
 ship to be detained and carried into a British 
 port for the purpose of search ; and therefore a 
 British underwriter after condemnation of the 
 enemy's goods found on board, and liberation of 
 the ship and the rest of the cargo, is liable to tire 
 neutral owner of goods insured in the same ship, 
 whose voyage was so interrupted, either as for a 
 total loss, if notice of abandonment upon the 
 loss of the voyage is given in reasonable time, 
 or for an average loss, if such notice is given 
 out of time. Barlirr v. Blulten, 9 East, 283 ; 
 9 R. R. 558. 
 
 Declaration on a policy on goods from London 
 to Matamoras, alleging a loss in the course of 
 the voyage h\ a peril insured against. A plea, 
 that the goods were contraband of wai', and 
 were shipped for the purpose of being sent to 
 and imported into a port in a state engaged in 
 hostilities, and were liable to be seized by the 
 cruisers of a state at war with that state as con- 
 traband of war ; and that the ship was carrying 
 goods and papers which rendered her liable to 
 seizure by such cruisers, and- that the ship and 
 goods were seized accordingly ; which is the loss 
 complained of ; of all which the defendant, at 
 the time of subscribing the policy, was wholly 
 ignorant : — Held, that the plea was no defence 
 to the action ; that the plea did not deny that 
 the goods were sent from a neutral port to a 
 neutral port in a neutral ship ; that the allega- 
 tion that the ttltimate destination of the goods 
 was an enemy's port was an allegation of a 
 mental process only ; and that the allegation 
 that the ship was carrying goods and papers 
 which made her liable to seizm-e was immaterial, 
 it not being alleged that the goods were the 
 plaintiff's goods, or that the (jlaintiff was in any 
 wav responsible for the ship's pa])ers. JMihx v. 
 Jlcnnhiq. 17 C. B. (n.S.) 791 ; 34 L. J.. C. P. 117 ; 
 11 Jur. (N.S.) 223 ; 12 L. T. 205 ; 13 \V. R. 431. 
 A policy contained a wari'anty against contra- 
 band. Part of the goods consisted of artillery 
 harness, and were shipped during a war between 
 j the United States of America and the Confede- 
 rate States, with the intention of sending them 
 I on from a neuti-al port to the Confederate States : 
 j — Held, that such goods were contraband of war 
 \ and tliat the whole insurance was void. Seipiiour 
 V. London and Prorinrlal Marine I nKitruncr Co., 
 41 L. J.. C. P. 193 : 27 L. T. 417 ; 1 Asp. M. C, 
 423. 
 
 Neutral Goods to Hostile or Neutral Port.] — 
 Sendile, that .-m insurance on goods, the property 
 of a neutral, to a port occupied by the enemy, is 
 void. P>ut though a neutral slioulil himself be 
 resident in a place occupied l>y the enemy, an 
 insurance on goods (his |)ioperly) to a neutral 
 or friendly port, is valid, liromlrij v, Ilcxsd- 
 finr. 1 (■:iinp. 75 ; in H. R. 6:?5. 
 
 Confiscation by Neutral Government.] — A 
 
 neutral insuring against all risks until safely 
 warehouseil in the warehouse of the consignee, 
 an adventure, in furtherance of the objects of 
 British commerce, was ])rotected by the policy 
 against confiscation by the act of his own govern- 
 ment under the Berlin and .Milan decrees. 
 Bazett V. Meyer. 5 Taunt. 824. 
 
 Two neutral Prussians, one of tliem resident
 
 1211 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— IX. Deviation. 
 
 1212 
 
 in EiiE^land, the other at Kihiissberg, haviug a 
 licence to export to all Baltic ports, some 
 whereof were hostile, were not precluded from 
 recovering on an insurance on goods exported, 
 and confiscated by an act of the Prussian govern- 
 ment, then neutral. A/tthoni/ w.MoUne, ."> Taunt. 
 711. 
 
 Policy covering Illegal Adventure.] — If a 
 
 pnlicy is in its language large enough to com- 
 prise" an illegal adventure, the undei'writer is 
 not entitled to sue for the premium ; therefore, 
 •where a broker effected a policy with the plain- 
 tiff on goods on board a Spanish ship, at and 
 from New Orleans and Pensacola, both or either, 
 to her port of discharge in the United Kingdom, 
 with a memorandum of receipt of the premium 
 from P. (a merchant in London), which policy 
 was on behalf of a Spanish merchant at Vera 
 Cruz, and at the time of effecting it New 
 Orleans belonged to the Americans, who were 
 at war with this country, and Pensacola to the 
 Spaniards, who were neutrals ; and the object of 
 the assured was to cover an importation of cotton 
 wool in Spanish ships from New Orleans to 
 Great Britain :— Held, that the underwriter 
 could not recover from the broker the premium, 
 inasmuch as such adventure from New Orleans 
 with cotton wool was illegal ; and if the plaintiff 
 intended to protect it, his subscription was 
 illegal ; and if he did not, it was void. Jenkins 
 Y.Power, 6 M. & S. 282 ; 18 R. R. 375. 
 
 Colonial Trade of Enemy.] —Carrying on, by 
 neutral, the colonial trade of the enemy, is 
 illegah The Maria, o C. Rob. 36.5. 
 
 8. Abandonment of Voyage. 
 
 Unreasonable Delay.]— Mere length of time 
 •elapsed between the signing of the policy and 
 the sailing is not sufficient to avoid a policy ; it 
 is matter of evidence to be left to the jury, if 
 such a time has elapsed as amounts to an aban- 
 donment. Grant v. Kinci, 4 Esp. 27.5 ; 6 R. R. 849. 
 
 Though unnecessary delay may avoid a policy, 
 that will not be deemed so which is employed m 
 necessary repairs, if the policy is " at and from 
 the place." Smith v. Surridge, 4 Esp. 2.5 ; 6 
 R. R. 837. 
 
 The defendant underwrote a policy on a 
 pleasure yacht, on the 2.5th .January, " at and from 
 Bristol to London." The vessel was not got ready 
 for sea untd the 17th May :— Held, that this, if 
 unaccounted for, was an unreasonable delay on 
 the part of the insured. Palmer \. Fennin(/,'ii 
 Bing. 460 ; 2 M. & Scott, 624. 
 
 Variation of Risk.] — A defendant exe- 
 cuted, 2Sth February, 1824, a policy on freight 
 from Singapore to Europe, with liberty to sail to, 
 touch, ami stay at any places whatsoever to load, 
 unload, reload, and for all necessary purposes 
 whatever. The ship sailed from London in 
 September, 1823, and having been detained by 
 the captain for his own purposes at Van Diemen's 
 Land, did not arrive at Singapore till the 3(»th 
 March, 1825 : she sailed thence on the voyage 
 insured, on the 3rd May, 1825 :— Held, that by 
 so long a postponement of the risk, the defendant 
 was discharged, a jary having found the delay 
 unreasonable. Mimnt v. Larldns. 8 Bing. 108 ; 
 1 M. & Scott, 165 : 1 L. J., C. P. 20. 
 
 Insurance on a voyage from A. to B., from B. 
 to C, and fi-om C. to A. ; the voyage from A. to 
 
 B. was performed, but that from B. to C. being 
 unavoidably prevented, the ship returned to 
 A., where "the captain wrote to his Vjroker in 
 London, requesting him to obtain the opinion 
 of the underwriters as to his proceeding directly 
 to C, if the charterer should insist upon it ; and 
 was answered by him that he thought the policy 
 at an end : at the instance of the charterer the 
 captain did proceed to C, and on his return from 
 thence to A. the ship was captured : — Held, that 
 the voyageinsured was never abandoned. Driscol 
 V. Bovil^l Bos. & P. 313. 
 
 A determination made by an agent duly autho- 
 rised, not to sail upon the voyage insured, but 
 upon a different voyage, is an abandonment of 
 such voyage, and discharges the underwriters. 
 Tanker v. Ounningliam, I Bligh, 87 ; 20 R. R. 33. 
 A policy on a ship at and from Bristol to Lon- 
 don attaches during the vessel's stay at Bristol ; 
 therefore, when the assured did not sail till three 
 months after the execution of the policy : — Held, 
 that the delay was a material variation of the 
 risk, and avoided the pohcy. Palmer v. Mar- 
 sJiall, 8 Bing. 79, 317 : 1 M. & Scott, 161, 454 ; 
 1 L. J., C. P. 19. 
 
 The underwriters on a policy are not discharged 
 by an act on the part of the assured, which to a 
 certain degree increases the risk, if it does not 
 amount to culpable negligence. Toulmin v. Iiiglis, 
 1 Camp. 421 ; 10 R. R. 715. 
 
 In an action on a policy it appeared that the 
 ship stayed at a particular place for a period of 
 109 days, and whether this was an unreasonable 
 time is a question of fact for the jury. Bain v. 
 Case, 3 Car. & P. 496 ; M. & M. 262. 
 
 IX. DEVIATION. 
 
 1. Generalh/, 1212. 
 
 2. Stress of Weather, 1215, 
 
 3. Hostile Ports, 1215. 
 
 4. Bestraint, 1216. 
 
 5. Tradinr/, 1217. 
 
 6. Libert i/ to Touch at Ports, 1219. 
 
 7. Seeking Conroy, 1223. 
 
 8. Cruising, 1223. 
 
 1. Generally. 
 
 Intention.] — A mere intention to deviate, not 
 effected, will not vitiate the policy. Eewleg v. 
 Bgan, 2 H. Bl. 343 ; 3 R. R. 408. 
 
 And an intention to deviate, if the ship is 
 taken before the dividing point, does not vacate 
 the policy. Thellusson v. Fergusson, 1 Dougl. 361. 
 
 Goods were insured from Heligoland to Memel, 
 with liberty to touch at any ports and to seek, 
 join and exchange convoy ; warranted free from 
 capture in the port of Memel. The ship sailed 
 with orders to go to Gottenburg to get orders 
 for Anholt or Memel, and was captured on her 
 passage to Gottenburg, which is in the track 
 either for Anholt or Memel :— Held, that this 
 was to be considered as a voyage to Memel, and 
 that the risk had attached ; and that the mere 
 intention to deviate which did not avoid the 
 policy ; and that the underwriter was liable. 
 Heseltori v. Allmdt. 1 M. & S. 46. 
 
 Intention to deviate does not avoid the policy, 
 when the loss is before deviation. Kingston v. 
 Phelps, cited, 7 Term Rep. 165. 
 
 What Voyage.] — If a ship insured for one 
 voyage sails upon another, though she is taken 
 before the dividing point of the two voyages, the
 
 1213 
 
 SHIPPING— IN SUEANCE— IX. Deviation. 
 
 1214 
 
 policy is discharged. Wooldi-idge v. Bmjdell, 1 
 Dougl. 16. 
 
 If the voyage described in a policy is " from 
 A. to B. and C." and the ship goes to C. before B. 
 (though C. is nearer to A. than B. is), it is a 
 deviation, and the plaint i£E cannot recover for 
 any subsequent loss, if it is not the regular and 
 settled course of the voyage to go to C. first. 
 Beatson v. IIaivortli,6 Term Eep. 533 ; 3 R. R. 258. 
 
 In an action on a voyage policy of insurance, 
 it was proved that the loss occurred in the coiu'se 
 of a voyage which was only collateral to, and 
 not necessarily incident to, the voyage described 
 in the policy : — Held, that the assured was not 
 entitled to recover. Wlnqute v. Foster, 47 L. J.. 
 <l B. 525 ; 3 Q. B. D. 582 : 38 L. T. 737 ; 26 
 "\V. R. 650 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 598— C. A. 
 
 Premature Sailing.] — If a ship, insured 
 from a certain time, sails before the time on a 
 different voyage from that insured, the assured 
 cannot recover though she afterwards gets into 
 the course of the voj'age described in the policy, 
 and is lost after the day upon which the policy 
 was to have attached. ir«y v. Mudigliani, 2 
 Term Eep. 30 ; 1 R. R. 412. 
 
 Calling for Pass.] — Policy on goods for a 
 voyage from Dunkirk to Leghoin. The ship 
 calleil at Dover for a Mediterranean pass : — Held, 
 a deviation. Townxim v. Guijoii, 2 Park, Ins. 
 (8th ed.) 620. 
 
 Putting into Port on Voyage.] — A ship on a 
 voyage from ])artmiiuth to Liverpool put into 
 Looe, which she must necessarily pass on the 
 voyage, and was afterwards lost at sea : — Held, a 
 •deviation, and underwriter not liable. Fox v. 
 Bluch, 2 Park, Ins. (8th ed.) 620. 
 
 Necessity.] — A ship insured from A. to B., 
 sailed with intent to touch at C, an intermediate 
 point ; to a certain ijoiiit the voyage was the 
 «ame, from that point there were three tracks to 
 B., one Vjy the way of C, the two others by 
 different courses ; there were advantages and 
 disadvantages attending each, and the captain 
 must elect according to circumstances. The ship 
 took the track Vjy ('., with intent to jmt in tliere. 
 but was taken before she actually came to the 
 point where she must have turned out f)f the track 
 to B., by the way of C, for the purpose of putting 
 into the harbour of C, yet the underwriter was 
 discharged, V>L-cause he was entitled to the advan- 
 tages of the captain's judgment in electing wliich 
 of the three tracks it was best to pinsiie when 
 he came to the first dividing point. MiddlcLCOud 
 v. nialuK, 7 Term Rep. 162 ; 4 R. R. 405. 
 
 If an insured ship ijuits the courses described 
 in the polic}-, from necessity, she must pursue 
 such new voyage of necessity in the direct course 
 and in the shortest time, otherwise the under- 
 writers will be discharged. Lavahre v. Wllmm, 
 1 Doud. 2H4. 
 
 Implied Contract.] — The law implies a con- 
 tract l>y the owner of a vessel, whether a general 
 ship, or hired for the special liurjiose of the 
 voyage, to proceed without unnecessary <lcviation 
 in the usual anrl customary couixe. Darin v. 
 Onrrrtt, 4 M. & P. 540; 6 P,ing. 716 ; 8 L. J. 
 (O.s.) r. p. 253. 
 
 For Necessary Repairs.] — If a ship needs 
 repairs and goes to the nearest port for that pur- 
 pose this is not deviation. Motteiix v. London 
 AKxirranrr (^(rovcrnor, ^-c. of), 1 Atk. 545. 
 
 Where a ship in distress put into a port to refit 
 and took in 500 rolls of tobacco for ballast : 
 — Held, not a deviation to avoid the policy. 
 Gulbert v. Readhaw, 2 Park, Ins. (8th ed.) 
 637. 
 
 Policy determined by.] — A wilful deviation in 
 the course of the voyage insured determines the 
 policy ; for a loss after the deviation from what- 
 ever cause, the insurers are not liable. Elliot v. 
 Wilson, 4 Bromi, P. C. 470. 
 
 Partial Loss before Deviation.] — If a loss 
 happens before deviation, the assured shall 
 recover : for the policy is discharged from the 
 deviation only. Green v. Young, 2 Salk. 444. 
 S. P.. Carter v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., 
 cited 2 Str. 124;». 
 
 Coming back on Voyage Insured after Devia- 
 tion.] — A shij) insured •• from London to her jjort of 
 discharge within the Straits as high as Messina" 
 sailed for Marseilles, but ^^^th instructions to go 
 also to Genoa, Leghorn and Naples. On arriving 
 off Marseilles, the wind was foul for going in, and 
 she went on to Genoa and Leghorn, and was on 
 her way from there back to Marseilles when she 
 was captured. It was found by the jury that 
 the going no further up the Mediterranean 
 than Leghorn was a deviation, and that the 
 insurance was determined at Leghorn. Clason 
 v. Sintinonds, 6 Term Rep. 533, n. ; 3 R. R. 260. 
 
 Delay.] — A ship from Stockholm to New York 
 was by the course of the voyage to touch at 
 Elsinore for convoj' and to pay Sound dues ; and 
 the owner of sheep on board took a short stock 
 of provinder for them at Stockholm and laid in 
 the rest at Elsinore before the Sound dues could 
 be paid : — Held, that the policy was not avoided, 
 the voyage not having been delayed ; and that 
 the underwriters were liable for a subsequent 
 loss. Corniack v. Gladstone, 11 East. 347 ; 10 
 R. R. 518. And see Parhinxon v. Collier, post, 
 col. 1219. 
 
 Goods shipped during the Voyage.] — Goods 
 
 were insurtil "at ami fi-uni (i. to a port or ports 
 in the Baltic, with liberty in case of non- 
 admittance to unload at Carlshawn." After the 
 ship had sailed with convoy anil while she was 
 lying in a roailstead under orders of the convoy, 
 siie took on board some goods which were no part 
 of the original cargo. They were i)ut on board 
 without delay to the ship : — Held, no deviation, 
 Larorhe v. (Jsa^in, 12 Kast, 131 ; 11 i{. R. 337. 
 
 Ship employed as Receiving-ship for Slaves,] 
 
 — insurance on ship at and from the coast of 
 Africa to the West Indies, with liberty to ex- 
 change goods for slaves. 'l"he sliip stayed on the 
 coast of Africa sevcr.al months, and w.as employed 
 as a receiving-sliip for slav(;s. who were after- 
 wards ])Ut on board other shii)s, l)eing emi)loyed 
 as a factory sliip : — Held, tiial this was a devia- 
 tion. Ilurtlrg v. Bnggin, 3 Dougl. 39. 
 
 Master compelled by Crew to deviate.] — If the 
 
 master is tdrciij l)ylli(; crew Id gi> out of his 
 course, that is not (leviation to avoid the policy ; 
 nor is it bariatry. Eton v. Brogden 2 Str. 1264. 
 
 Knowledge of Deviation by the Underwriter.] 
 
 — Gtiiirorii liiiprinurk Co. V. Fleming, 5 Gt. of 
 Sess. Gas. (3rd ser.) 501.
 
 1215 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— IX. Deviation. 
 
 1216 
 
 2. Stress of Weather. 
 
 If a ship is driven out of her loading port into 
 another port, and being there she does the best 
 she can to get to her port of destination, she is 
 not oljliged to return to the port whence she was 
 (h'iven. Neither is it a deviation if she completes 
 her lading at the port into which she was driven. 
 Such a deviation may a fortiori be justified 
 under a custom. Delaney v. Stnddnrt, 1 Term 
 Eep. 22; IK. R. 139. 
 
 Where the captain, being delayed by adverse 
 winds and danger, jiuts into a place of safety in 
 his course, and sends ashore for provisions, it is 
 not a deviation. Thomas v. Roijal Exchangr 
 Assurance Co., 1 Price, 195. 
 
 If a ship is forced by stress of weather into 
 any port, she is not protected in breaking bulk 
 while at such port ; if she does, it avoids the 
 policy. Stift V. Warden, 2 Esp. 610. 
 
 3. Hostile Ports. 
 
 When Driven away,] — If a ship insured, on 
 arriving oft her port of destination, is prevented 
 from entering it by its being in the hands of 
 tire enemy, or by being ordered away by the 
 English commander there, the policy does not 
 remain in force till she reaches a ^jort of safety. 
 Parkin v. Tunno, 2 Camp. 59 ; 11 East, 92 ; 10 
 E. E. 422. And see Keilson. v. De La Conr, 2 
 Esp. 619, and P7idj)sv. Anldjo, 2 Camp. 350 ; 
 11 R. E. 725, infra. 
 
 Embargo.] — If a ship with goods on board 
 insured to a foreign i)ort, learning, in the course 
 of her voyage, that an embargo is there laid on 
 all ships of her nation, waits at some place as 
 near thereto as she safely can, till the embargo 
 is removed, the goods will in the meantime be 
 protected by the policy, while the voyage re- 
 mains legal. Blaclit'iikaqoi v. London Assnr- 
 ancc Co., 1 Camp. 454 ; 10 E. E. 729. 
 
 But if she might upon such an occasion put 
 into a fi-iendly port adjoining to her port of 
 destination, and instead of doing so she sails 
 back for her port of outfit, and is lost, she will 
 be considered as having abandoned the voyage 
 insured, and the underwriters will be discharged. 
 II. 
 
 Final Port — Transhipment.] — Action on a 
 policy upon goods on board the " P.," from Liver- 
 pool to Macao, Hong Kong, Canton and other ports 
 in China, with leave to tranship and reship the 
 goods on board the same or any other vessel, and 
 with leave for the " P.," or other vessel on board 
 of which the goods might have been transhipped, 
 to proceed from any port in China, to any other 
 port in China, and discharge at anj^ or all of the 
 said places, or remain at the same until it should 
 be deemed expedient to proceed to the port of 
 discharge, and continuing the risk until the 
 goods should be arrived at their final port of 
 destination. The premium was hi. os. per cent., 
 to return half if the ship discharged at a port in 
 China in the usual course, the port being open. 
 Plea, that whilst the " P." was lying at Hong 
 Kong, it was determined by the agents of the 
 assured that the goods should be finally discharged 
 at Hong Kong ; and thereupon the goods were 
 discharged out of the " P." into another ship, 
 appointed and used by them as a warehouse for 
 receiving the goods ; and that Hong Kong became 
 the final place of destination of the " P.," and 
 the goods were discharged at their final place of 
 
 destination. The " P." was much inj*ed by a 
 storm on the voyage, and upon arrival at Macao, 
 the consignees sent her to Hong Kong with the 
 "J. L." which was chartered by them for the 
 purpose of transhipping the cargo. On 21st July, 
 1841, whilst the cargo was in progress of tran- 
 shipment, the "J. L." was wrecked, and all the 
 goods on board of her were lost. There was no 
 market at Hong Kong : the object of tranship- 
 ping the goods was, in the first place, to examine 
 them ; in the next place to have them in a place 
 of safety till they could be sent to Canton, or 
 any other market. At that time there was great 
 exasperation against the English. There had 
 been no declaration of war by England against 
 China. After the storming of Canton by the 
 English, on the 24th of May, there was a sus- 
 pension of hostilities. The English naval com- 
 mander had no authority to prevent British ships 
 going up to Canton, if they thought fit ; they 
 went at their own risk. In July, the " P." was 
 advertised for England : — Held, that these facts 
 did not prove that Hong Kong was made the 
 final port of destination of the goods ; that the 
 voyage was not terminated by the transhipment, 
 because it was within the terms of the policy ; 
 nor by the hostilities with the Chinese, because 
 thei'e would have been no infraction of British 
 law in the -'P." going to Canton. Oliversofiv. 
 Briqhtman, 8 Q. B. 781 ; 1 Car. & K. 360 ; 15 
 L. J., Q. B. 274 ; 10 Jur. 875. 
 
 In an action upon a similar policy upon other 
 goods in the " P.," which did not give leave to 
 tranship them, a case stated the same facts and 
 evidence : — Held, that the transhijnnent was not 
 necessary, and constituted a complete deviation 
 not warranted by the i^olicy. Bold v. Rotheram, 
 8 Q. B. 781 ; 1 Car. & K. 360 ; 15 L. J., Q. B. 
 274 ; 10 Jur. 875. 
 
 4. Eestraint. 
 
 In what Cases.] — It is a deviation if the mas- 
 ter leaves a port for a particular purpose, by 
 the command of the captain of a king's ship 
 lying there, without any remonstrance. Plielps 
 V. Auldjo, 2 Camp. 350 ; 11 E. E. 725. And see 
 Parliln v. Tunno, supra. 
 
 Policy on goods on board a particular ship 
 from A. to B. " against sea risk and fire only" ; 
 in the course of the voyage from A. to B. the 
 ship was carried out of the course of the voyage 
 by a king's ship ; but being afterwards released, 
 she proceeded on the voyage insured, and while 
 so proceeding the goods insured sustained sea- 
 damage : — Held, that the underwriters were 
 liable for this loss. Scott y. TJiomjjson, 1 Bos. & P. 
 (N.R.) 181. And see Tait v. Levi, 14 East, 481 ; 
 13 E. E. 289. 
 
 Fear of.] — A British ship insured from Hull to 
 St. Petersburg, having sailed under convoy to 
 the Sound, was afterwards stopped in her course 
 by a king's ship in the Baltic, from an apprehen- 
 sion of hostilities, for eleven days, and then pro- 
 ceeded to a point of rendezvous for convoy, where 
 she waited seven days longer, and then sailed 
 under convoy, till the king's orticer received 
 intelligence that a hostile embargo was laid on 
 British ships at St. Petersburg, when he ordered 
 the fleet back to the rendezvous, from which 
 place the ship returned to Hull : — Held, that 
 this loss of the voyage was not attributable to 
 the arrest or detainment of the king's officers : 
 but immediately to the fear of the hostile em- 
 bargo in the port of destination, and therefore
 
 1217 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— IX. Deviation . 
 
 1218 
 
 not within the policy ; thoiigh, if the ship had 
 not been detained in the first instance hj the 
 king's officers she would have arrived in time at 
 St. Petersburg to have delivered her cargo before 
 the embarsro. Forster v. Christie. 11 East. 205 ; 
 10 R. R. 470. 
 
 6. Trading. 
 
 What is.] — By the terms of a policy the insur- 
 ance was expressed to be an insurance on a vessel 1 
 and cargo " at and from Liverpool to the west j 
 and (or) south-west coast of Africa during her j 
 stay and trade therein and back to a port of call j 
 or (and) discharge in the United Kingdom.'" j 
 The premium was eight guineas per cent, on the j 
 value insured. Twenty per cent, of the premium , 
 was to be returned for the risk ending in ten 
 months and forty per cent, for the risk ending in j 
 eight months ; and there was written in the 
 margin "held covered at 13.$. 4<^. per cent, per 
 month if longer than twelve months out." The j 
 vessel having stayed a month on the African 
 coast for the purpose of earning salvage, and 
 having been damaged there, and afterwards 
 stranded on her voyage home, the owner sued 
 for a total loss : — Held, that the words " stay and 
 trade " meant " stay for the purpose of trade " ; 
 and that — no evidence being given that staying 
 for salvage intrposes was staying for an ordinary 
 purpose of the South-West African coast trade — 
 the risk had been substantially varied, that there 
 was in the absence of such evidence no question 
 for the jury, and that the jury was properly 
 directed to find for the underwriters. African 
 Mp-rchantii Co. v. Briti.sli and Foveiqn Marine Ins. 
 Co.. 42 L. J.. Ex. 60 : L. R. S Ex.'l.-)4 : 2S L. T. 
 1X\ : 21 W. R. 4S4 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 588— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Implied Condition as to.] — It is not an implied 
 condition in a common policy on ship and freight, 
 that the ship shall not tiade in the couise of her 
 voj'age, if that may be done without deviation 
 or delaj'. or otherwise increasing the i-isk of the 
 insurers ; and, therefore, where a ship was com- 
 pelletl in the course of her voyage to enter a port 
 for the purpose of obtaining a necessary stock of 
 provisions, which she could not obtain befoi-e in 
 the usual course by reason of a scarcity at her 
 landing ports, anfl during her justifiable stay in 
 the port so entered for that puiposc, she took on 
 lx)ai'd bullion there on fieight, which the jury 
 found did not occasion any delay in the voyage : 
 — Held, not to avoid the jwlicy. llaiite v. JJell, 
 9 East, 1!»5 : \) R. R. 5:53. 
 
 On a policy at and from London to New South 
 Wales, and from tiieiice to the ship's loading 
 port or ports in the East Indies, and elsewhere. 
 and that she might proceed and sail to, and 
 touch and stay at any poi-tsor places whatsoever 
 and wheresoever and for any purjiose whatso- 
 ever : the ship sailed from London with convicts 
 to New Soutii Wales, where, having discharged 
 them, slie jii-ficeedc'd in ballast to I'atavia, where 
 she took on Vjoard a quanity of iron, and dis- 
 charged the same at SouraV)aya, and was there 
 loaded with a full cargo of rice, witli which slie 
 proceeded to the Mauritius, where it was dis- 
 covered that she had sustained an injury, and 
 she W!i,s accordingly liroken u)) : — Held, to be no 
 deviation, although it was insisted that, by the 
 terms of the policy, the shii) was only wairantcd 
 to go to her loading ports and not to trade or 
 take in a fresh cargo. Armet v. Innex. 4 Moore, 
 150 ; 21 R. R. 737. 
 
 Policy on a ship "from London to New South 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 Wales, and from thence to all parts and places 
 
 in the East Indies or South America, with liberty 
 
 ' to take in and land goods and passengers and to 
 
 trade backwards and forwards, and forwards and 
 
 backwards." On arriving at New South Wales 
 
 the captain was ordered by his owners to proceed 
 
 ! on a trading voyage to New Zealand, and thence 
 
 I direct to South America. He proceeded to New 
 
 I Zealand with passengers, and was returning from 
 
 I thence to New South Wales, when the shij) was 
 
 totally lost : — Held, that the sailing from New 
 
 South Wales to New Zealand and "back was a 
 
 deviation from the voyage insured, by whiclr the 
 
 insurers were discharged. Bottomley v. Borill. 
 
 7 D. .t R. 702 ; 5 B. & C. 210 ; 4 L. J. (O.s.) 
 
 K. B. 237 ; 29 R. R. 221. 
 
 Seeking a Cargo — Ports " from thence."] — In- 
 surance on ship at and from Liverpool to ports 
 and places in China and Manilla, all or any, 
 during the ship's stay there for &ny purposes, 
 and from thence to her port or ports of calling 
 and discharge in the United Kingdom, with 
 liberty to call and stay at all or a.\\j ports or 
 places on either side of and at the Cape of Good 
 Hope. The ship sailed from Liverpool direct to 
 a port in China, having on board a cargo for that 
 port and Manilla ; and from thence she proceeded 
 to Manilla, and there discharged the remainder 
 of her outward cargo. At Manilla the captain 
 took on board, on freight, 230 chests of opium, 
 for Tongoo, another port in China (not being 
 thereby a tenth part laden), and sailed for Ton- 
 goo, there to seek a freight for the United 
 Kingdom and on her voyage thither was lost by 
 perils of the sea. Tongoo is quite out of the 
 direct course from Manilla to the United King- 
 dom : — Held, that the words " from thence," in 
 the policy, meant not from Manilla only, but 
 "from ports or places in China and Manilla, all 
 or any," and that the sailing from Manilla to 
 Tongoo for the purpose of seeking a homeward 
 cargo was not a deviation. Pratt v. A.^Iileij. 1 
 Ex. 257. Attii-ming S. ('.. sub. noni. A,\/ih'i/ v. 
 Pratt, 16 M. i: W. 471 ; 17 L. J., Ex. 135. 
 
 Delay at Port.] — In a policy on a seeking 
 
 ship, a delention for a I'casonable time, for the 
 purposes of the seeking adventure, must be 
 alloweil ; ami whether the time is reasonable, is 
 to be deternuned by the state of things at the. 
 port where the ship happens to be. PhiUip.i v. 
 Irving, 7 Man. & G. 325 ; 8 Scott (N.R.) 3 ; 13 
 L. J.,'C. P. 145. 
 
 A ship insured, with liberty to touch, stay and 
 trade at several ])orts, arrived at one of them on 
 the 3i-d ,lune, when some necessary rei)aiis were 
 dcjiie to her. On the 2nd Se|)tember she was 
 ready to take in cargo, but, owing to the state of 
 the freight-market and other difficidties, no cargo 
 wjis put on board till the 10th .Tanuary follow- 
 ing : — Held, that the delay was not unreasonable, 
 so as TO amount to a deviation. Jli. 
 
 Taking Goods on Board during Voyage.] — Sec 
 Laroehe v. Oxirin, 12 East, 131 ; 11 K. R. 337 : 
 ante, col. 1214. 
 
 Convoy missed by Trading.] — Insurance on 
 ship from London to lierbice. with liberty to 
 touch and trade at all places. The ship put into 
 Madeira and stayed there to land and ship goods 
 after her convoy hail sailed : — Held, a deviation 
 which avoide<l the jiolicv. WiUiumii v. Slice, 3 
 Canq). 46!» : 14 R. R. 811. 
 
 39
 
 1219 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUKANCE— IX. Deviation. 
 
 1220 
 
 Delay in Landing Goods during Barter.] — 
 
 M'lK're the policy was on i;oo(l.s until " dis- 
 chari^ed and safelj' landed," and the ship arrived 
 on the coast of Africa on May 6th, and during 
 the barter of the cargo in ordinarj' course the 
 ship was captured on June 4th : — Held, that 
 there had been no deviation. P/irkinson v. 
 CoUier, 1 Park, Ins. (8th ed.) 653. 
 
 6. Liberty to Touch at Ports. 
 
 For what Purpose.] — Liberty to touch at a 
 port for any purpose whatever includes liberty to 
 touch for the purpose of taking on board part of 
 the goods insured. Violctt v. Allnuft, 3 Taunt. 
 4U( : 13 R. R. 676. 
 
 Under a liberty to touch and stay at all ports 
 for all purposes whatsoever, the stay must be for 
 some purpose connected with the furtherance of 
 the adventure. Laiighorn v. All mitt, 4 Taunt. 
 511 : 12 R. R. 660. 
 
 Whether the pirrpose is within the scope of the 
 policy is a question for the court. lb. 
 
 The policy not limiting the time of stay, 
 whether a ship has stayed .an unreasonable time 
 for the purpose is purely a question for the jury. 
 Ih. 
 
 If liberty is given to touch at a port, the con- 
 tract not defining for what purpose, but a com- 
 munication having been made to the underwriter 
 that the ship was to touch for a purpose of trade, 
 it will be intended as a liberty to touch for that 
 purpose. Urquliart v. Barnard, 1 Taunt. 450 ; 
 10 R. R. 574. 
 
 A permission to touch and stay at a place con- 
 fers no privilege to the insured to break bulk or 
 to unload any part of the cargo, and if he does 
 the policy is avoided. Stxtt v. Warddl, 2 Esi). 
 610. 
 
 Policy on voyage at and from Africa to Cana- 
 ries, Madeira and Lisbon, with liberty to touch, 
 stay, and tr.ade at all ports, &c., in the voyage : 
 — Held, that, after mooring twenty-four hours on 
 the African coast, proceeding south w^ould be a 
 deviation, the leave given being only upon the 
 northwards voyage to Europe. Ranken v. Reeve, 
 1 Park. Ins. C8th ed.) 627. 
 
 So, a vessel having liberty to discharge goods 
 at a particular place, is not at liberty to take in 
 anywhere. Sheriff \. Potts, 5 Esp. 96. 
 
 On a policy at and from Para to New York, 
 with leave to call at all or any of the Windward 
 and Leeward Islands and colonies on her passage 
 to New York, and to discharge, exchange and 
 take on board the whole or any part of any cargo 
 or cargoes at any ports or places she might call 
 at or proceed to, particularly at all or any of the 
 Windward and Leeward Islands, without being 
 deemed any deviation : — Held, that the ship 
 having proceeded to two of the Leeward Islands 
 for a purpose totally unconnected with the 
 voyage, it was a devi.ation. Hammond v. Rcid, 
 4 B. & Aid. 72 ; 22 R. R. 629. 
 
 Where a ship, insured to Martinique, and all 
 or any of the Windward and Leeward Islands, 
 landed the greatest part of her cargo at Marti- 
 nique, and sailed with the rest to Antigua, where 
 she w.as wrecked while stopping, partly to dispose 
 of the residue of the outward cargo, and partly to 
 obtain a homeward cargo : — Hekl, that the under- 
 writers were not liable. Inglis v. Vaux, 3 Camp. 
 447. See also ante, cols. 1055, 1058, seq. 
 
 What Ports.]— Where a vessel sailing from 
 London to Grenada was insured on freight at 
 and from Grenada to London, and arrived in 
 
 safety, and proceeded to deliver her outward 
 cargo in different bays of the island (where there 
 is but one custom-house), and was lost in enter- 
 ing a b,ay, to which she was going for the double 
 })urpose of delivering the remainder of her out- 
 ward, and taking in a homeward, cargo :— Held, 
 that this was not a devi.'ition, and that the under- 
 writers were liable for the loss of the homeward 
 freight. Warre v. Miller, 7 D. & R. 1 ; 4 B. & C. 
 538 ; 1 Car. & P. 237 ; 4 L. J. (O.S.) K. B. 8. 
 
 Under a policy on goods at and from London 
 to any port or ports, place or places, in the 
 Baltic, backwards and forwards, with leave to 
 touch and stay at any ports and places, for all 
 purposes whatsoever ; the assured may wait at 
 any port for information as to what port in the 
 Baltic the ship might safely proceed to to dis- 
 charge her cargo ; that being one of the objects 
 of the adveiiture arising out of the troubled and 
 shifting state of the different governments on 
 the Baltic shore from the pressure of the French 
 arms. Ruelier v. Allnutt, 15 East, 278 ; 13 R. R. 
 465. 
 
 Policy on a ship " at and from Antigua to 
 England, with liberty to touch at all or any of 
 the West Indi.a islands," Jamaica included : — 
 Held, that the shij), under the protection of this 
 policy, might touch at any of the West India 
 islands, although not in the direct course from 
 Antigua to England, and stay at such as she 
 visited the time necessary to complete her home- 
 ward cargo. Metealfe v. Parry, 4 Camp. 123 ; 
 15 R. R. 734. 
 
 What is a Port.] — Under a policy insuring a 
 brigantine " at and from L. to S., and thence to 
 Barcelona, and at and from thence and two 
 other ports in Spain to a port in Great Britain ": 
 — Held, that Salve, a place lying in a bay, having 
 warehouses and a jetty, with a depth of water 
 sufficient for feluccas but not for large ships, and 
 a good roadstead anchoi'age, where ships lie and 
 are loaded by means of small craft, having also 
 a custom-house and officers, is a port within the 
 meaning of the policy. Sea Insurance Co. of 
 Scotland v. Gavin, 4 Bligh. (N.s.) 578 ; 2 Dow 
 & C. 129. 
 
 Loading Port.] — A policy was effected "at 
 and from Singapore, Penang, Malacca, and 
 Batavia, all or any, to the ship's port of dis- 
 charge in Euroi^e, with leave to touch, stay and 
 trade at all or any ports or places whatsoever and 
 wheresoever, in the East Indies, Persia, or else- 
 where, upon goods in certain vessels, beginning 
 the adventure from the loading there of the 
 ships as above." The ship took in part of her 
 cai'go at Batavia, then went to Sourabaya, 
 another port in the East Indies (not in the 
 course of a voj-age from Batavia to Eurojie, and 
 not specified by name in the policy), and took in 
 other goods, then returned to Batavia, whence 
 she afterwards sailed for Europe, and was lost by 
 perils of the sea : — Held, that going to Sourabaya 
 was no deviation, and that the goods there taken 
 on board were protected, as that was a loading 
 port within the policy. Hunter v. Leatlileji, 10 
 B. & C. 858 ; 8 L. J. (O.S.) K. B. 274. Affirmed, 
 Leathley v. Hunter, 5 M. & P. 457 ; 7 Bing. 517 : 
 1 C. & J. 423 ; 1 Tyr. 355 ; 9 L. J. (O.S.) Ex. 118 
 —Ex. Ch. 
 
 Insurance on a ship " at and from her port of 
 lading in North America to Liverpool." She 
 took in part of her cai'go at K., in New Bruns- 
 wick, and then sailed from thence to B. in the
 
 1221 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— IX. Deviation. 
 
 1222 
 
 same province, seven miles distant, on the same 
 bav of the sea. She thei'e completed her cargo, 
 and then returned to K. to receive provisions, 
 &c. ; after which she sailed for England, and 
 was lost on the voyage. B. was not in the w^ay 
 from K. to Liverpool. B. and K. were situate 
 on creeks, opening into the bay, and were spoken 
 of by some persons as ports, but neither of them 
 had a custom-house. They had custom-house 
 officers, and were under the jurisdiction of the 
 custom-house of St. John, New Brunswick : — 
 Held, that after the ship had begun to load at 
 K.. that was her port of lading : that the term 
 '■ port of lading " in the policy did not allow of 
 her afterwards going to B., and that her doing 
 so was a deviation. Bnnvn. v. Taijlcur, 4 A. & E. 
 241 : o N. ct M. 472 ; 1 H. & Walms. 578 ; 5 
 L. J., K. B. 57. 
 
 On a policy at and from Pernambuco or any 
 other port or ports in the Brazils to London, 
 " beginning the adventure from the loading the 
 goods on board ship, on the termination of her 
 course, and preparing for her voyage to London." 
 The ship on the termination of her cruise touched 
 at Pernambuco, but failing to procure a cargo 
 there, she proceeded for St. Salvador, and was 
 lost on her voyage thither : — Held, that the 
 ship's proceeding for St. Salvador, was no devia- 
 tion. Lamheii v. Liddard, 1 Marsh. 149 ; 5 
 Taunt. 480 ; 15 R. R. 557. 
 
 Where a ship was insured at and from Hull to 
 her port or ports of loading in the Baltic Sea 
 and Gulf of Finland, with liberty for her to 
 {)roceed and sail to and touch and stay at any 
 ports or places whatsoever, for all purposes, 
 particularly at Elsinore, without being deemed 
 a deviation ; and she touched and stayed at 
 Elsinore and Dantzic to deliver goods, Pillau 
 being her place of loading : — Held, that this 
 ■was a deviation. Sulhj v. Whit more, 5 B. &; 
 Aid. 45 ; 24 R. R. 274 : and see Forxhaio v. 
 Chahert, 6 Moore, S6i) ; 3 Br. iV: B. 158 : 28 R. R. 
 596. 
 
 Loss, at what Time.] — A policy on pearl- 
 asht-'s contained the u-ual clause, that the goods 
 were to be free from average under three per 
 cent., and the voyage was described to he from 
 Liverjjool to London. The captain also took in 
 goods at Liverpool for Southam|)ti)n. The vessel 
 met with bad weather before she reached South- 
 amjiton, and the water pum])ed up took the 
 colour out of the captain's clothes, which shewed 
 it was much impregnated with the pearl-ash. 
 On arriving at Lonflon (afteitlischai-ging part of 
 the cargo at Sonthaiiiiiton), the pearl-ashes were 
 for the first time e.xaiuined. and it was discovered 
 they had sustained a loss of sixty per cent., and 
 were in a state of solution, which it was proved 
 could not take place in less than three or four 
 weeks. The vessel had fine weather, and was six 
 days going from Southampton to London : — 
 Held, first, that the voyage was the same as 
 flescribed in the policy up to the time of the 
 ship's deviating from the direct course from 
 Liveri)Ool to Lon<lf)n. in order to put in at 
 Southampton ; secondly, that it was properly 
 left to the jury to say, whether, jjreviously to 
 the point of deviation, the j^earl-ashes had 
 suffered a loss of about three percent. Hare v. 
 Trn rh. 7 ]'.. & (j. 14; it 1 ). c*c R. 748 ; 5 L. J. 
 (o.s.)K. B..S4.S : :^l K. R. Wj. 
 
 Employment as Tender.] — Action on a policy 
 ■on the goods of a vessel called the " Clipper," 
 
 fi'om Liverpool to any ports or places of loading 
 and trade on the coast of Africa and African 
 islands, during her stay and trade on that coast 
 and islands, and thence to her jjort or ports of 
 discharging in the United Kingdom, with leave 
 to call at all ports and places, both backwards 
 and forwards, without being deemed any devia- 
 tion ; with liberty for the ship on that voyage to 
 proceed, and sail to and stay at anj' ports what- 
 ever : and with leave to load, unload, &c., goods 
 wheresoever she might proceed to, with any ships, 
 boats, &c., in loading and unloading included ; 
 particularly with liberty to tranship on board 
 any vessel or craft in the same employ, with an 
 agreement that the vessel might be employed or 
 used as a tender to any other vessel or ship in the 
 same employ. The vessel arrived at Benin, in 
 Africa, and stayed there thirteen months, during 
 which time she was employed in conveying 
 goods from a vessel in the same employ, at the 
 mouth of the river, to the Cameroons, and putting 
 them on board another vessel, also in the same 
 employ, but on her return with a homeward 
 cargo, was lost : — Held, that the judge who tried 
 the cause was right in telling the jury, that the 
 voyage to the Cameroons was a deviation, and 
 that it was not an acting as a tender within the 
 meaning of the policy. Hamilton v. Shcddon, 3 
 M. A: W. 49 ; M. & H. 334 ; 7 L. J., Ex. 1. 
 
 Held, also, that it was a proper question for 
 the jury, whether her stay at Benin was unreason- 
 able or not ; and they having found in the 
 affirmative, that it was warranted by the evi- 
 dence. Ih. 
 
 Beginning of Adventure.] — In a policy at and 
 from Loudon to Derbice, after the clause "be- 
 ginning the adventure," <!cc. were inserted the 
 words " at sea " ; and at the bottom of the policy, 
 the words '• on ship " : the ship without express 
 leave so to do, stopjjed at Madeira, by which 
 means she lost her convoy, and was captured 
 on her way from thence to Berbice : — Held, 
 that the insertion of the above words did noli 
 imjjlj"^ that the risk commenced at sea, so as to 
 justify the deviation ; though, at the time of 
 effecting the insurance, the underwriters were 
 informed that the ship had been at Madeira. 
 Ih'dnian v. London or Lowdim, 1 Marsh. 136 ; 5 
 Taunt. 462 ; 3 Camp. 503. 
 
 In what Order.] — Under a policy from London, 
 to tlie ship's discharging j)ort or ports in the 
 P.altic, with liberty to touch at any port or ports 
 for orders, or any other purpose ; the ship, in 
 touciiing for orders Vjefore she has selected her 
 port of discliarge, is not confined to take the 
 ports in the successive order in which they lie in 
 the course of the voyage, but may return to a 
 |iort she has (piittcd for orders as to her port of 
 discharge. Andrrivs v. Melli.ih. 5 Taunt. 496 ; 2 
 M. & S. 27 ; 16 East, 312. And sec Drixcol v. 
 Jioril, 1 Bos. & P. 313. 
 
 After she has selected her port of discharge, 
 she must touch at ports only in tlicir .successive 
 or<lcr. Ih. 
 
 If ports of call are named in a policy in a suc- 
 cessive order, the sliip must take them in the 
 same succession in which they are named. 
 Gnirdncr v. Srnhovxr, 3 Taunt. 16 ; 12 R. 11. 573. 
 And see liraqq v. Andermn, 4 Taunt. 229 ; 13 R. R 
 584. 
 
 Under a policy on goods from A. to B., C. and 
 D., the risk attached, where the ship, v/hich was 
 captured before the dividing point, snilwl with 
 
 39—2
 
 1223 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—X. Losses. 
 
 1224 
 
 intention to proceed directly to D., without first 
 visiting tlie intermediate places. Though, if she 
 meant "to go to more tlian one of the places so 
 named, she nuist visit them in the order in which 
 they stand in the policy. Marxdcn v. RcUl, 3 
 East, 572 ; 7 R. K. 516. 
 
 Intermediate Voyages.] — Liberty to touch and 
 stay at any jiort, &c., in the voyage ; by usage 
 of the trade may cover intermetliate voyages. 
 Farquharson v. Hunter, 1 Park, Ins. (8th ed.) 
 105. 
 
 7. Seeking Convoy. 
 
 It is not a deviation for a ship to leave the 
 regular track for the purpose of seeking convoy, 
 when bona fide for the benefit of all concerned, 
 unless expressly prohibited by the terms of the 
 policv. D'Aqnilar v. Tohiii, Holt, N. P. 185 ; 2 
 Marsh. 265. 
 
 Deviation for the purpose of joining convoy 
 does not avoid the policv. Gordon v. JMorley, 2 
 Str. 1265. S. P., Bond'v. Gon.s(dt'S,2 Salk. 445 ; 
 Holt, 469. 
 
 8. Cruising. 
 
 Out of Course of Voyage.] — Whether an insur- 
 ance of a ship with or without letters of marque 
 upon a certain voyage and commercial adventure 
 from A. to B., enables her to chase for the pur- 
 pose of hostile attack and capture any vessel she 
 may happen to descry in the course of the voyage 
 insured, in whatever direction, or to any limit, 
 and whether known at the commencement of 
 sirch chasing to be an enemy or not ; or whether 
 those words are to be confined to a leave to em- 
 ploy force only for the purpose of defence (in- 
 cluding a liberty of attack and chase only as far 
 as they may be fairly supposed to promote 
 ultimate security), must, in the absence of any 
 legal decision as to their construction, depend 
 upon the received practice and known sense of 
 commercial men, if there is any such received 
 practice in use among them. 15 ut at any rate 
 such words do not appear to authorise direct 
 cruising out of the course of the voj^age in search 
 of prize. Parr v. Anderson, 6 East, 202 ; 2 
 Smith, 316 ; 8 R. E. 461. 
 
 A policy on a ship on a certain commercial 
 voyage, with or without letters of marque, giving 
 leave to the assured to chase, capture, and man 
 prizes, however it may warrant him in weighing 
 anchor, while waiting at a place in the course of 
 the commercial voyage, insured for the purpose 
 of chasing an enemy, who had before anchored 
 at the same place in sight of him, and was then 
 endeavouring to escajie, will not warrant him, 
 after the capture, and in the course of the further 
 prosecution of the voyage, in lying-to, in order 
 to let the prize keep up wnth him, for the purpose 
 of protecting her as a convoy into port, there to 
 have her condemned ; though such port was 
 within the voyage insured. Lawrence v. Sydc- 
 buthai/K 6 East. 45 ; 2 Smith, 214 ; 8 R. R. 385. 
 
 Repairing Prize.] — Leave granted in a policy 
 on a fishing voyage to see prizes into port does 
 not authorise the ship to remain in port till a 
 prize receives necessary repairs, which she could 
 not otherwise have had : and at most extends to 
 seeing the prize moored safely, and giving the 
 necessary orders for her final destination. Jar- 
 ratt V. XVard, 1 Camp. 263 ; 10 R. R. 677. 
 
 Lying in Wait.] — Liberty given in a policy on 
 a fishing voyage, to chase, capture, and man 
 prizes, iloes not authorise the ship to lie by nine 
 days off a jiort, waiting for an enemy's ship to 
 come out when she should have completed her 
 cargo ; although she lay in wait during that 
 time within the limits of her fishing ground. 
 Hibhertw. Halliday, 2 Taunt. 428 ; 11 R. R.633. 
 
 Time.] — A liberty to " cruise six weeks," in a 
 policy, means, "six weeks successively from the 
 commencement of the cruise." Si/eres v. Bridye, 
 2 Dougl. 527. 
 
 Chasing Enemy.] — Semble, a ship may chase an 
 enemy, but may not cruise, without being guilty 
 of deviation. Jully v. Walker, 2 Park, Ins. (8th 
 ed.) 630. 
 
 X. LOSSES. 
 
 1. Total Loss, 1224. 
 
 2. Constructive Total Loss, 1236. 
 
 3. Averaye Loss. 
 
 a. General, Average, 1240. 
 h. Warranty against, 1247. 
 
 4. Ajustment. 
 
 a. Persons adjusting, 1253. 
 h. Computation, 1255. 
 
 c. Effect of, 1262. 
 
 d. Payment, 1266. 
 
 5. E.rjienses — Sue and Ltihour Clause, 1267. 
 
 1. Total Loss. 
 
 Destruction of Vessel.] — A vessel is totally 
 lost within the meaning of a policy, when it 
 becomes as a ship of no use or value to the 
 owner, and is as much lost as if it had gone to 
 the bottom of the sea, or had been broken to 
 pieces, and the whole or a great part of the 
 fragments had reached the shore as wreck. 
 Irrinii v. Mannhui, 1 H. L. Cas. 287 ; 6 C. B. 
 391. 
 
 When Repairs Possible.] — A loss is also to be 
 considered as total, where a prudent owner, if 
 uninsured, would not have repaired. Ih. 
 
 A ship was insured in a policy, in which the 
 value was stated at 17,500Z. The ship was in- 
 jured by storms, was surveyed, and the repairs 
 were estimated at 10,500Z. When repaired, the 
 vessel would have been of the marketable value 
 of 9,000Z. The assured abandoned, and claimed 
 as for a total loss. The jury found, that, under 
 the circumstances existing in the case, a prudent 
 owner, uninsured, would not have repaired the 
 vessel : — Held, that the assured could recover as 
 for a total loss. Ih. 
 
 A Dutch ship, valued in the policy at 8,00(lZ, 
 was injured on a voyage from Rotterdam to 
 Java and Sumatra and back again to a port of 
 discharge in Holland. After commencing her 
 voyage she was stranded on the Goodwin Sands, 
 and plundered : she was ultimately removed to 
 London, and notice of abandonment was given 
 to the underwriters. It was proved, that, at the 
 time she was cast away, she was worth 5,833?., 
 that her value as she lay was 70()Z., and that the 
 salvage was 420Z. The expense of repairing the 
 ship in England would have been 4,615Z. ; if she 
 had been entitled to an English register she 
 would have been worth, when repaired, from 
 4,500Z. to 4,700Z. ; and if she had been a British 
 ship, it would have been prudent for a British 
 owner to repair her. It was proved by Dutch
 
 1225 
 
 SHIPPING— IXSUEANCE—X. Losses. 
 
 1226 
 
 witnesses, that the expense of repairing her in , 
 Holland would not have exceeded 2,915Z. ; and 
 that the trading companies in Holland would 
 not employ a vessel that had been stranded in 
 the manner in which this vessel was stranded, 
 however perfectly she might have been repaired, 
 and that this circvrmstance would have affected ] 
 her value in Holland. The judge told the jury 
 that, in considering whether this was the case of 
 a partial or total loss, they ought not to take into 
 account the value stated in the policy : and that, 
 in considering the same question, they ought to 
 look at all the circumstances attending the ship, 
 and to judge whether, under all those circum- 
 stances, a prudent owner, if uninsured, would 
 have declined to repair the ship : and that, if so, 
 they might find it a case of total loss : — Held, 
 that this direction was right. Young v. Turing, 
 2 Scott (x.E.) 752 ; 2 Man. & G. 593.' 
 
 A ship insured in a valued policy for 2,000Z. 
 was damaged by the perils of the sea ; she might 
 have been repaired for 1,400?., but she was not 
 worth repairing : — Held, a total loss. Allen v. 
 Sugrue, 3 Man. k. Ry. 9 ; 8 B. & C. 561 ; 7 L. J. 
 (O.s.) K. B. 53. 
 
 When a vessel, in consequence of a storm, is 
 injured to such an extent that the cost of her 
 repair would come to more than her value when 
 repaired, the assured is entitled to recover as for 
 a total loss, although the vessel, from the decayed 
 state of some of her timber, requires it to be 
 replaced with new timber, instead of fresh fast- 
 enings only ; there being no reason to doubt but 
 that the decayed parts were strong enough for 
 the vessel to have safely performed her voyage, if 
 she had not encountered severe weather. Phillips 
 V. Xair/te, 4 C. B. 343 ; 1(> L. J., C. P. 194; 
 1 1 Jur. 455. 
 
 A ship which was insureil ran aground and 
 was much damaged. She was sui-veyed, and, in 
 consequence of the refjort of the surveyors, was 
 sold as she lay : — Held, that, to entitle the 
 assured to recover for a total loss, they must 
 satisfy the jury, that, as prudent men and exer- 
 cising a sound discretion, they would, if they had 
 been uninsured, have sold the vessel as they did : 
 and that the jury must be satisfied, not oidy that 
 the assured, if uninsured, would have acted as 
 they did. but that they did prudently in so 
 acting. Domett v. Young, Car. Ac M. 4(55. See 
 Fleming v. Sinitli. 1 H. L. Cas. 513; Mosx v. 
 Smith, 9 C. B. 94: 19 L. J., C. P. 225: 14 Jur. 1003. 
 
 It is the duty of a inaster, in case of damage 
 to tlie ship, to do all that can be reasonably done 
 to repair it. bi-ing home the cargo, and earn the 
 freight. JieuHon v. (iKipmun, 2 H. L. Cas. 696 ; 
 8 C. B. 95(» ; 13 Jur. 969. 
 
 The assure<l is never bound to abandon, he 
 can always repair if lie chofises, and refrain from 
 insisting on a total loss. Pitman v. I'nirriKdl 
 Marini' Inxuranrc Co., 51 L. J.. Q. B. 561 : 9 
 <l. B. I). 192: 46 L. T. 863; 30 W. II. 906; 
 4 Asp. M. C. 544— f;. A. 
 
 Seizure and Sale of Ship.] — Where a ship is 
 seized fuiii fitidiiinird by a foix-ign state, and 
 purchased by (Ik- master on behalf of his owTier, 
 the owner can oidy lecnver as for a ])artial loss ; 
 for tlie pro])crty in the ship is not divested out 
 of him. Wilson v. Fontei-, 1 Marsh. 425 ; 6 
 Taunt. 25 ; 16 R. R. 560. 
 
 Ship Stranded and not worth Repairing — 
 Subsequent Loss by Fire.] — See Wnoilxidr v. 
 Glohr Marine Imunuice Co., ante, Cf>l. 1 lo4. 
 
 Cargo— Destruction of.] — Policy on fruit from 
 Cadiz to London, with the usual memorandum : 
 in the course of the voyage the fruit was so 
 much damaged by sea water, that it became 
 rotten and stunk ; and on the ship's arrival at an 
 intermediate port, into which she was driven, 
 the government of the place prohibited the land- 
 ing of the cargo : the ship also being too much 
 damaged to proceed on the voyage, was sold, and 
 the cargo necessarily thrown overboard : — Held, 
 that the assured were entitled to recover for a 
 total loss. Dyson v. Rowcroft, 3 Bos. & P. 474 ; 
 7 R. R. 8U9. 
 
 Injury to.] — A vessel was chartered for 
 
 a voyage, and the cargo was insured against 
 total loss. In the com-se of the voyage the 
 vessel went aground, became hogged and sus- 
 tained other injuries, and surveyors recommended 
 her to be stripped with dispatch, and steps to be 
 taken to save the cargo, but no attempt was 
 made to do so ; and after several days the 
 master, fearing bad weather, sold the vessel and 
 cargo for the benefit of all concerned. The 
 vessel remained for some days in the same state, 
 and the weather proving fine, the purchasers 
 saved a large part of the cargo : — Held, that 
 the charterers were not entitled to treat the 
 cargo as having been totally lost. Currie v. 
 Bomhay Kative Insurance Co., 6 Moore, P. C. 
 (N.S.) 302 ; 39 L. J., P. C. 1 ; L. R. 3 P. C. 72 ; 
 22 L. T. 317; 18 W. R. 296. 
 
 When a ship is obliged to put back, and the 
 damage she has sustauied is of such a nature 
 that she cannot pursue her voyage, and other 
 shii)s cannot be procured to take the cargo, it is 
 a total loss of ship, cargo and freight, however 
 inconsiderable the damage sustained may be, for 
 the voyage in contemplation is lost. Wilson v. 
 lloiial E-fchangc Assurance Co., 2 Camp. 623 ; 
 12 R. R. 760. 
 
 Insurance on ship, cargo and freight from 
 Tortola to London : the ship was driven back to 
 Tortola ; and, being found unfit for the voyage, 
 and it being impossible to repair her, was sold. 
 There wei'C no vessels at Tortola by which the 
 cargo could be forwarded, and it was accordingly 
 sold for nearly the sum insured ; the insured 
 having aljandoned : — Held, that this was a total 
 loss. Manning v. Xcwnham, 3 Dougl. 130 ; 2 
 Camp. 624, n. '; 12 R. R. 761. 
 
 A ship insured arrived in port a meie wreck, 
 and was oljliged to l)c lashed to a hullv to avoid 
 siidving, and in attempting to remove iicr to the 
 sliore a few days afterwards she saidv : — Held, 
 that the assurecl might recover as for a total loss, 
 though her cargo was save<l and brouglit to a 
 profitable market. Shaw v. Felt on, 2 East, 100. 
 See also Cases, post, col. 1226. 
 
 Cost of Drying and Warehousing — 
 
 Freight.] — Where goods havi' V)eeii daiuagecl by 
 perils insured against and are lying at a place short 
 nf their destination in such a state that they may 
 be (h-ied and cariied on, then; is a total loss if 
 the cfist of (h-yiiig and warehousing and other 
 ex])enses conseijucnt upon the sea damage exceed 
 what tliey are worth ; but tlie freiglit payable 
 upon their arrival at their destination is not to 
 be reckoned in this calculation, that being pay- 
 able in any case. If the shipowner elects not to 
 (lariy the goods to their ilestinatioii, his own ship 
 being damaged by sea jierils an<l incapable, the 
 excess oidy of the cost of carrying the goods 
 from the port of distress to their destination
 
 1227 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—X. Losses. 
 
 1228 
 
 over the cost of carriage, if there had been no 
 sea daniase, is to be considered. Farmoorth v. 
 Hiide, -66 L. J., G. P. 33 : L. E. 2 C. P. 204 ; 
 11 Jiir. (N.S.) 349 ; 15 L. T. 395 ; 15 W. E. 34(1 
 —Ex. Ch. 
 
 Injury to Electric Cable.] — An electric tele- 
 graph comiiany )»ein,n' about to lay down an 
 electric cable between Ireland and Newfound- 
 land, a shareholder in the company effected an 
 insurance in the form of a, marine pohcy of insur- 
 ance, with the following words in the margin of 
 the policy : ''And to continue until the cable be 
 laid in one continuous length between Ireland 
 and Newfoundland, and until 100 words shall 
 have been transmitted from Ireland to New- 
 foimdland, and vice versa. The risk of this 
 policy then to cease and determine. This policy, 
 in addition to all perils and casualties herein 
 specified, shall cover every risk and contingency 
 attending the conveyance and successful laying 
 of the cable from and including its lading on 
 board the "Great Eastern" until 100 words be 
 transmitted from Ireland to Newfoundland, and 
 vice versa. And it is distinctly declared and 
 agreed that the transmission of the 100 words 
 shall be an essential condition of the policj'." 
 The ship sailed from Ireland with a cable on 
 board of the length of 2,20() miles : and after 
 about 1,200 miles of it had been laid down, in 
 consequence of the electric current not acting, 
 some of it was drawn back into the ship ; and 
 whilst this was being done a part of the cable 
 which was on board broke, and the broken end 
 fell into the sea. Some fruitless endeavour was 
 made to raise it, but ultimately the ship returned 
 with the remainder of the cable, about 1,200 
 miles in length, on board : — Held, first, that 
 the insurance was not on the cable, but on 
 the risk and contingency of successfully laying- 
 it down. WiUoii V. Jonen, 36 L. J., Ex. 7S ; 
 L. E. 2 Ex. 139 ; 15 L. T. 669 ; 15 W. E. 435 
 —Ex. Ch. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the insured was entitled 
 to recover for a total loss. Ih. 
 
 A person possessed of a share in a telegraph 
 com pan J', established for the purpose of laying 
 down a cable between the United Kingdom and 
 America, insi^red the same by a policy in the 
 form of a policy of marine insurance. The iiisui-- 
 ance was expressed to be "at and from the 
 United Kingdom, say from London, and where- 
 soever the risk may commence, to the Atlantic 
 Ocean, and at and thence, by or in one or more 
 ship or ships, or steamer or steamers, to the place 
 or places of destination, both in the United 
 Kingdom ~ the continent, island, or peninsula 
 of America, ^~ the British or other possessions 
 of America, including and containing all and 
 every accident, danger and risk that may be 
 incurred at sea or on land, in all or any boats, 
 ships and craft whatsoever and wheresoever, 
 until the final, complete and successful laying 
 down of the Atlantic telegraph cable from shore 
 to shore." The blank for the name of the ship 
 was filled up thus : " any shij) or ships, or 
 steamer or steamers, or craft as above " : and in 
 the valuation clause the subject of insurance 
 was to be taken as "on one l,OooZ. share in the 
 Atlantic Telegraph Company', share valued at 
 1,1 OoZ. In case of loss the part saved to be sold 
 or appi'aised for the benefit of the underwriters." 
 The insurance contained the common memoran- 
 dum, with the adtlition of a special agreement, in 
 
 a memorandum annexed to the policy, that the 
 insurance should "cover and include the success- 
 ful working of the cable when laid down." A 
 cable was finally laid down after a previously 
 abortive attempt, during which a portion of it 
 was lost by perils of the sea ; and on the second 
 attempt, during which some more cable was lost, 
 a quantity of sui)erfluous cable was taken out to 
 meet contingencies. It was, however, found 
 impossible to maintain electrical communication, 
 and the telegraph was abandoned. The cause of 
 the failure was the imperfect insulation of the 
 copper wire, arising from defect in the outer 
 covering, occasioned by accident prior to the 
 shipment of the cable, and the commencement of 
 the risk, aggravated by the chemical action of 
 the sea water on the interior of the cable, and 
 not from any mischief done by the mechanical 
 action of the sea : — Held, with respect to the 
 portion of the cable lost by perils of the sea, that 
 the assured was entitled to recover as for a 
 partial loss. Paterxon v. Harris, 1 B. & S. 336 ; 
 30 L. J., Q. B. 354 ; 7 Jur. (n.s.) 1276. And see 
 S. a, 2 B. & 8. 814 ; 9 Jur. (x.s.) 173. 
 
 Where several Packages.] — By a marine policy 
 of insurance the insurance was described to be 
 "on 1,711 packages teas, valued at one sum, on a 
 voyage from New York to London," by a ship 
 " warranted by the assured free from damage 
 from dampness, change of flavour, or being 
 spotted, or mouldy, except caused by actual 
 contact of sea water with the articles damaged, 
 occasioned by sea perils." In case of partial loss 
 by sea damage to certain goods, not including 
 tea, " the loss shall be ascertained by a separation 
 and sale of the portion only of the contents of 
 the packages so damaged, and not otherwise ; 
 and the same practice shall obtain as to all other 
 merchandise as far as practicable." The ship 
 met with very bad weather during the voyage, 
 and 449 of the 1,711 packages of the tea were 
 seriously damaged by actual contact of sea water. 
 The rest of the packages arrived sound and in 
 good condition, except by the injury to their 
 reputation from having formed part of a ship- 
 ment of which 449 packages had been damaged 
 by sea water, and which was the cause, as was 
 usual in such cases, of these packages, though 
 sound and uninjured, not realising so high 
 prices as they would have done if the 449 pack- 
 ages had not been damaged by sea water : — Held, 
 that the packages insvrred by the policy were 
 divisible, and that the assured was entitled to 
 recover only in respect of the 449 packages which 
 were actually damaged. Cater v. Great Western 
 Insurance Co. of JVeiv York, 42 L. J., C. P. 266 ; 
 L. E. 8 C. P. 552 ; 29 L. T. 136 ; 21 W. E. 850 ; 
 2 Asp. M. C. 90. 
 
 Where memorandum goods of the same species, 
 shipped in i)ackages, are insured, and it is not 
 expressed, by distinct valuation or otherwise, in 
 the policy, that the packages are separately 
 insured, the ordinary memorandum exempts the 
 underwriters from liability for a total loss or 
 destruction of part only (not being general 
 average), if there is no stranding, though oue or 
 more entire package or packages is or are entirely 
 destroyed or otherwise totally lost, by the specified 
 perils. Ja/iso/iv. Ralli, 6 El. & Bl. 422 ; 25 L. J., 
 Q. B. 300 ; 2 Jur. (N.s.) 566 : 4 W. E. 568— 
 Ex. Ch. 
 
 An insurance was efl:'ected on " master's effects, 
 valued at 100^., free from all average." Home of 
 the articles thus insured were totallv lost bv the
 
 1229 
 
 SHIPPING— IXSURA^X'E—X. Losses. 
 
 1230 
 
 perils insured against, but others were saved : — 
 Held, that the assured was entitled to recover in 
 respect of the goods which had been totally lost, 
 the word " effects " being obviously employed to 
 save the enumeration of the different articles of 
 which the subject-matter of insurance con- 
 sisted. Dtilf V. Muchenzic. 3 C. B. (n.s.) 16 : 26 
 L. J.. C. P. 313 ; 3 Jur. (N.S.) 1025. 
 
 By a policy of any kind of goods in a vessel, 
 and which were stated to be valued at one entire 
 sum. •• the goods so valued " were insured 
 '■ against total loss only." The goods which 
 were shipped were, in fact, of different kinds and 
 descriptions, and packed in separate packages : — 
 Held, that it was not necessary that the insurer 
 should be informed that it was intended to ship 
 gootls of different kinds, and separately [jacked, 
 as he ought to have expected that all the goods 
 would not be of the same kind ; and that he was 
 liable for a total loss of each separate package, 
 although some of the packages shipped were 
 saved. Wilhiimiii v. Hyde. 3 C. B. (x.s.) 3i) ; 
 27 L. J., C. P. 116 ; -i Jur. (X.S.) 482. 
 
 Separate Insurances of Parts.] — On 
 
 an insurance of goods in " ship or ships," 
 which were declared to be, and to be valued 
 '■ on rice to be declared free from particular 
 average," the insurer cannot, by indorsing a 
 declaration of interest with a separate valuation 
 of each bag of rice, create a separate insurance 
 on each bag. Entwidc v. Ellis. 2 H. & X. 54'J ; 
 27 L. J., Ex. 105 ; 6 W. R. 76. 
 
 A policj' having been effected on goods " in 
 ship or ships," declared to be •■ on rice, to be 
 declared free from particular average," the 
 insured indorsed on the policy a declaration, 
 which was aft(;rwards marked with the initials of 
 the underwriters as follows : — [R.] 5un bags rice, 
 per " Laidmans," at 8.v. '^d. per bag, 206/. ").y. ; 
 [R.] 4,500 bags rice, jjcr ''Margaret Skelly," at 
 8*. Ad. per Vjag, 1,856Z. 5*. From each ship 
 certain of the bags of rice were safely landed at 
 their port of destination, others were jettisoned, 
 being ca.st into the sea to save the ship ; otheis, 
 in the " Laidmans," on arriving at their port of 
 destination, were cast into the sea, being unfit 
 for consumption ; others in the " Margaret 
 Skelly," were so nmch injured by sea damage as 
 to be sold at the port of (leparture, to which that 
 ship was obliged to put back. The underwriters 
 had iiaid the loss on the goods jettisoned : — 
 Held, that the assured were not entitled to recover 
 the value of the bags f)f rice cast into the sea at 
 the port of destination, or sold at tlie port of 
 departure. ///. 
 
 Mixture of Cargo.] — Several shippers res|)ec- 
 tively shipped bales of cotton on board a general 
 shi|i. I'art of the bales were lost on the voyage, 
 part arrive<l with the marks obliterated, so that 
 their respective owners could Tiot be a.sceitained, 
 and part ari'ived so as to be distinguishable and 
 deliverable to the respective owners : — Held, as 
 respects each shipper whoso full number <if bales 
 could not be distinguished an<l <lelivered, that he 
 must be taken to have sustained a total loss of 
 })art of his cotton, and a partial loss of the 
 remainder, according to a calculation of the i)io- 
 portioii that would be a]i])licable to his cotton, 
 with reference to the wholu number <if Ijales lost, 
 and the whole number of bales which arriveil 
 indistinguishable, lipence v. Union Marine Inxiir- 
 anrr Co., 37 L. J., G. P. UJ'J : L. R. 3 C. P. 427 ; 
 18 L. T. 632 ; 16 W. K. lOlii. 
 
 Confiscation and Sale of Cargo.] — A cargo 
 on board a ship bound from Liverpool to Mata- 
 moras was insured against the usual perils, 
 including " takings at sea, arrests, restraints, and 
 detainments of all kings, princes and people." 
 The ship sailed and had nearly reached her 
 destination when she was captured by a United 
 States cruiser and taken into Xew Orleans, 
 where a suit was instituted in the prize court 
 for her condemnation. The insurers contested 
 the suit, electing to treat the loss as a partial 
 one. They obtained the judgment of the court, 
 whereupon the captors appealed. The insured 
 gave a formal notice of abandonment, which the 
 insurers refused to accept. Upon the applica- 
 tion of the captors, the ship and cargo were 
 ordered to be sold unless bail were given by the 
 insm-ed. Upon receiving intelligence that this 
 order had been made, they applied to the in- 
 surers for assistance in giving bail to prevent the 
 sale. The insurei's refused to give any assist- 
 ance, and in the end the ship and cargo were 
 sold by order of the prize court. The insured 
 brought an action to recover from the insurers, 
 as for a total loss: — Held, that they were entitled 
 to recover the whole amount at which they were 
 insured under the policy, inasmuch as the decree 
 of the prize court, with the sale of the goods 
 under it. was a deprivation of the ownership of 
 the goods, and amounted to a total loss. Stringer 
 Y.Emilish and Scottish JIarinr In.itiraitce Co., 10 
 B. cV: S. 770 ; 39 L. J.. Q. B. 214 : L. R. 5 Q. B. 
 oy.t ; 22 L. T. 802 ; 18 W. R. 1201— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Partial Confiscation.] — A cargo insured by a 
 valued pdlicy was confiscated and sold ; but the 
 enemy permitted the foreign consignee to retain 
 from the proceeds the amount of his accept- 
 ances ; the assured not having abandoned, the 
 loss became partial only, and the assured was 
 entitled to recover from the underwriter a sum 
 bearing the same i)roporti<in to his subscription 
 as the loss ultimately sustained bore to the whole 
 value in the policj-. (Told.tinid v. (rillics, 4 
 Taunt. 803 ; 14 R. R. 671. 
 
 Goods insured upon a valued policy having 
 been seized, confiscated, and sold, by onler of the 
 enemy's government on their own account, but 
 the necessary documents to verify the loss not 
 having arrived here, tlie underwriters, on appli- 
 cation to pay their subscriptions, agreed to 
 adjust and pay immediately 50/. per cent, on 
 account, but no aVjandonment was made by the 
 assured ; and in the meantime the foreign con- 
 signees of the goods, in consequence of remon- 
 strances to the enemy's goverinncnt, obtained a 
 restoration of half the jn'oceeds of tlie goods 
 which had been so seized and sold, which half 
 amounted to more than the whole sum at which 
 they were valued in the policy : yet held, that 
 the' underwriters were not entitled to recover 
 ])ack the 50/. per cent, they had jjaidon account ; 
 the assured having in fact sustained a loss of 
 lialf his goods, for which he was no more than 
 indemnified by the 5t)/. percent, he had received; 
 and tlierc having been no abandonment to the 
 underwriters; and the superior value of the 
 proceeds arising from tiic benefit of the market, 
 in which the underwriters had no concern. 
 7'intno v. h'dirard-s, 12 East, 488 ; 11 R. R. 458. 
 
 Sale of Cargo by Court.] — A cargo of salt, of 
 
 , the value with prc'iiaid freight of about 1,900/., 
 
 was insured from Liverpool to Calcutta, the 
 
 I policy containing the memorandum warranting
 
 1231 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUKANCE—X. Losses. 
 
 1232 
 
 "corn, fish, salt, &c., free from average unless 
 general or the ship be stranded." Having en- 
 countered bad weather, lost both her anchors, 
 and had her masts cut away, the ship was taken 
 in tow by salvors and placed on a bank out of 
 tlie ordinary course of the voyage, where she lay 
 on her jiort side for several tides, and sustained 
 considerable further injury. The salt was landed 
 in a damaged state, and the ship repaired, though 
 at an expense which exceeded her value when 
 repaired. About one-fifth of the salt might 
 have been made salable, but would have 
 realised no profit. Suits were instituted by the 
 salvors in the admiralty court, and the salt 
 sold under a decree, the entire proceeds being 
 absorbed by the costs : — Held, that there was a 
 partial loss of the salt, but not a total loss, the 
 seizure and sale under the decree of the admir- 
 alty court not being a natural or necessary 
 consequence of a i)eril insured against ; and that 
 there was a stranding within the meaning of the 
 memorandum. Ue Mnttos v. Saunders, L. R. 
 7 C. P. 570 ; 27 L. T. 120 ; 20 W. R. 801 ; 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 377. 
 
 Insurers not Concluded by erroneous Judg- 
 ment of Foreign Court.] — A cargo of rye, shipped 
 on an Austrian ship for carriage from ^Enos, a 
 Turkish port, to Schiedam, was insured by a 
 policy warranted free of particular average. The 
 ship meeting with stormy weather, a portion of 
 the cargo was damaged, and the ship had to 
 put into the port of La Rochelle. Proceedings 
 were taken, at the instance of the captain, in 
 the tribunal of commerce at that port, and in 
 consequence the cargo was landed and ware- 
 housed. It was necessary to sell a portion of 
 the cargo immediately, which was accordingly 
 done. On the 21st of February, the court, on 
 the petition of the captain, ordered a sale of the 
 residue, and notice of abandonment was given 
 to the insui-ers on the ground that, in the opinion 
 of the experts or surveyors, the rye could not be 
 forwarded to its destination. This notice the 
 insurers refused to accept ; and on the .5th of 
 March they summoned the captain before the 
 tribunal of commerce for the purpose of having 
 it decreed that there was no occasion to sell the 
 residue of the rye. The court accordingly 
 ordered the residue of the rye to be surveyed, 
 and the surveyors reported that it could be 
 reshipped and convej'ed to its destination. This 
 report was confirmed by the court, and notice of 
 it given to the assured, together with notice that 
 any course pursued with tlie cargo would be for 
 their account and on their responsibility. The 
 rye, however, was not forwarded, and remained 
 until December warehoused at La Rochelle, 
 although the captain might have procured a ship 
 to carry it on. The captain having in the mean- 
 time procured advances to meet the expenses 
 caused by the interruption of the voyage, was 
 summoned, by the parties who had made the 
 advances, before the tribunal of commerce ; 
 and on the 14th of September the court decreed 
 a sale of the ship, and a statement of general 
 and particular average of the ship and cargo to 
 be drawn up, which was accordingly done. On 
 the 21st of December the tribunal of commerce 
 decreed the sale of the rest of the cargo, on the 
 ground that the weather was unfavourable for 
 its preservation. On the 25th of January the 
 tribunal of commerce decreed that the full 
 amount of the freight due upon the whole 
 voyage was chargeable upon the proceeds of 
 
 such sale ; and an amended average statement, 
 which proceeded on this footing, was confirmed 
 by the court. If the proportion of freight so 
 payable was to be added to the extra expenses 
 incurred in respect of the residue of the cargo so 
 sold, by reason of the interruption of the voyage, 
 including the extra freight in respect of for- 
 warding to the port of destination, the amount 
 would exceed the value of the rye at the port of 
 destination. It was admitted that neither the 
 law of France nor of Austria was in accordance 
 with the decree of the 25th of January, and if 
 the proper proportion of freight had been charged 
 to the residue of cargo sold, the value at the 
 port of destination would have exceeded the 
 expenses : — Held, that there was no constructive 
 total loss of the cargo ; inasmuch as the decree 
 for the sale of the residue of the cargo was not 
 due to the perils insured against, but was made 
 for the purpose of paying advances incurred 
 through the captain's breach of duty in not for- 
 warding such rye to its destination ; and the 
 insurers were not concluded by the judgment of 
 the French court from denying that there was 
 no total loss, because it was admitted that such 
 judgment was erroneous according to the law 
 wliich it professed to administer. Meyer v. 
 BalU, 45 L. J.. C. P. 741 ; 1 C. P. D. 3.58 : 35 
 L. T. 838 ; 24 W. R. 963 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 324. 
 
 Fruit Cargo destroyed by Port Authority.]— 
 
 Where a fruit cargo being damaged by sea 
 water, was, l^y order of the authority of the port 
 to which the ship was driven, thrown overboard: 
 — Held, that the assurer was liable for a total 
 loss. Dij.wn V. Eowcroft, 3 Bos. & P. 474 ; 7 
 R. R. 809. 
 
 Election.] — When it is uncertain whether the 
 damage done to a cargo by a peril insured 
 against will result in a partial or total loss, the 
 assured is not bound to make his election how 
 to treat it as soon as some incipient damage 
 has occurred : and his right to claim indemnity 
 for a total loss does not mature till the facts 
 constituting such a loss are ascertained. Bnnvn- 
 ing V. Prorincial Insurance Co. of Canada, L. R. 
 5 P. C. 263 ; 28 L. T. 853 ; 21 W". R. 587 ; 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 35— P. C. 
 
 Of Freight.] — When by the terms of a charter- 
 party a part of the freight is made jiayable in 
 advance, the charterer has a right to deduct the 
 whole amount so paid by him from any freight 
 which may actually be earned, in case of a loss 
 of part of the cargo, and not only a proportionate 
 part of it. Allison, v. Bristol Murine Insurance 
 Co., 1 App. Gas. 209 : 34 L. T. 809 : 24 W. R. 
 , 1039 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 178— H. L. (E.) 
 
 A shipowner chartered his ship for a voyage 
 to Bombay. The charterparty provided that 
 freight was to be paid on unloading, and right 
 delivery of the cargo at the rate of 42.?. per ton 
 on the quantity delivered, " such freight to be 
 jjaid one-half in cash on signing bills of lading, 
 the remainder on right delivery of the cargo." 
 Half of the estimafed amount of freight was 
 j)aid in London, and the shipowner insured the 
 unpaid freight. The ship was lost, but half the 
 cargo was saved, and delivered without any 
 additional payment by the charterer. The ship- 
 owner then claimed as for a total loss of the unfiaid 
 half of the freight :— Held, that on the proper 
 construction of the charterparty and policies he 
 was entitled to recover as for a total loss. lb.
 
 1233 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—X. Losses. 
 
 1234 
 
 Freight may be insured bj' a time policy, 
 though" for a period short of the time necessary 
 to complete the voyage on which such freight is 
 to be earned : and there is a total loss of freight 
 if the cargo is so damaged by a peril of the sea 
 in the course of the voyage as to render it impos- 
 sible (except at an expense which would greatly 
 exceed its value on arrival) to carry it to its port 
 of destination. Michael v. GiUcxj/y, 2 C. B. (N.S.) 
 627 : 26 L. J., C. P. 306 ; 3 Jur. (N.s.) 1211). 
 
 If a ship whose freight is insured against 
 perils of the sea suffers sea damage, and can be 
 repaired, so as to bring home her whole cargo, 
 for a sum which, though it exceeds the amount of 
 freight, is not more than a prudent owner, look- 
 ing to the value of his ship, alone would incur, 
 the underwriters are not liable as for a loss of 
 freight by perils of the sea. Mons v. Sin it /i, 9 
 C. B. 9-i :" 19 L. J., C. P. 22.5 ; 14 Jur. 1003. 
 
 A ship valued at 12,000Z. was insured from 
 Valparaiso to England : the freight, valued at 
 4,000Z., was also insured by a separate policy. 
 The ship having sailed with a full cargo, con- 
 sisting of 8U0 tons of merchandise, was compelled 
 by stress of weather to put back to Valparaiso, 
 where the master, finding upon survey that to 
 repair her. so as to enable her to bring home the 
 entire cargo, would cost a sum exceeding the 
 value of the fi'eight, though less than the value 
 of the ship when rei)airc<l, sold her : — Held, not 
 a t'ltal loss of either ship or freight. Ih. 
 
 Freight under a charter was insured, for a 
 voyage from the Cape of Good Hope to Honde- 
 klip Bay, an open loadstead 180 mile.s up the 
 coast, there to load a cargo of copper ore, to pro- 
 ceed therewith to Swansea, at a freight of 40.s-. 
 per ton. Arrived at Hondeklip Bay, the master 
 received on board a part of the cargo (the whole 
 being readj'), when a storm coming on, he was 
 compelled to put to sea with the loss of an 
 anchor and an injury to his windlass ; and after 
 beating about the offing, he deemed it expedient 
 to sail for St. Helena, a distance of about 1,800 
 miles. Finding, on his arrival there, that he 
 could not get an additional anchor or the requisite 
 rejiairs, the master discharged the portion of the 
 outward cai'go which he had not landed at 
 Hondeklii) Bay, and proceeded to Swansea with 
 tlie homeward cai'go, shoi-t by about 120 tons of 
 a full cargo. The jury, although the master did 
 not run for the Cape, where the necessary repairs 
 miglil have Ijeeii obtained, found that the master 
 acted throughout as a piudent owner, uiiinsuied, 
 would have done : — Held, that the underwriters 
 were not responsible as for a total loss of the 
 freight of the 120 tons by perils of the sea. 
 Phil pott v. Sirann, 11 C. B. (N.S.) 270 ; 30 L. .J., 
 C. v. .3.5H ; 7 .Jur. (X.S.) 1291 ; Ti L. T. 183. 
 
 See also llmihiii v. Putter, post, col. 1278. 
 
 Where, in case of damage to a sliij). the master 
 elects to repair it, the men; fact that the exi)ense-; 
 of repair ultiniatelj' ])rove to be greater than the 
 value of the shiji, will not be suHicient to shew 
 that he acted beyond the scope of his authority, 
 or to entitle the owner, in an action on a policy 
 of freight, to recover as for a tf)tal loss. Jienxan 
 V. Chiiiniiini. 2 H. L. Cas. 696 : 8 C. B. 950 ; 13 
 Jur. 969. 
 
 Bights of Underwriter on.] — In all cases of 
 insurani-e on sliip. in which the subject is not 
 actually annihilated, the assured, claiming as for 
 n total loss, must give up to the underwriters all 
 the remains of the i)roperty recovered, together 
 with all the benefit or advantage incident to it ; 
 
 or rather such property vests in the underwTiters. 
 Sfeicurt V. Greenoeh Marine InKuratice Co., 2 
 H. L. Cas. 1.59 : 1 Macq. H. L. 382. 
 
 Freight, while the ship is in the course of 
 earning it, is a benefit or an advantage incident 
 to the ship, and therefore becomes the property 
 of the underwriters, paying for a total loss. Ih. 
 
 Ship Condemned by Process of Law.] — There 
 is no remedy upon the policy where the ship has 
 been seized and condemned by process of law. 
 Anon., 1 Ld. Raym. 724. 
 
 Sale of Ship by Court — Proceeds less than 
 Salvage.] — -To constitute a total loss it is not 
 necessary that a ship should be actually annihi- 
 lated or destroyed. If it is lost to the owner by 
 an adverse valid transfer of his right of property 
 and possession to a purchaser by sale under 
 decree of a court of competent jurisdiction in 
 consequence of a peril insured against, it is as 
 much a total loss as if it had been totally 
 annihilated. Co.s.iman v. We.^t or British 
 America A.s-.mrance Co., .57 L. J., P. C. 17 ; 13 
 App. Cas. 160 ; .58 L. T. 122 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 233 
 —P. C. 
 
 Where a ship had been deserted by her master 
 and crew, having been previously placed by 
 them in a sinking condition, but had been sub- 
 sequently taken possession of by salvors, towed 
 into port, and there sold together with the cargo, 
 by order of the admiralty court, for less than 
 the actual cost of the salvage services : — Held, 
 in actions upon policies on the ship and freight 
 respectively, that, assuming the possession by 
 salvors of a derelict vessel to be only a construc- 
 tive total loss, the subsequent sale constituted an 
 actual total loss of both ship and cargo. Ih. 
 
 Salvage less than Freight.] — Where salvage 
 falls sliort of tlie freight i)ayable by tlie assured 
 there is a total loss. Poi/Jield v. Brotrn. 2 Str. 
 1065. 
 
 Right to Compensation paid by Sovereign 
 
 State.] — The respoiuients etVected witli under- 
 writers valued policies of insurance (including 
 war risks) on a cargo, which was afterwards 
 destroyed by the "Alabama," a Confederate 
 cruiser, and the underwriters paid to the respon- 
 dents as on an actual total loss the valued 
 amounts, which were less than the real value. 
 The United Stales, out of a compensation fund 
 created after the loss and distributed under an 
 act of congress ])assed subsequently to the loss, 
 ])aid to the resixmdents the difference between 
 their real total loss and the sum received from 
 the underwriters. Under the act of congress no 
 claim was allowed for any loss for which the 
 l)arty injured shnuld have received coTiipensaticm 
 from any insurer, but if such coiiipeiisation shouhl 
 not have been equal to the loss actually suffered, 
 allowance might be made for the difference ; 
 and no claim was allowed by or on behalf of 
 any insurer either in his own rigiit or in that of 
 the party insured : — Held, that the underwriters 
 were tm't entitle<l to reeover the conii)ensatir)n 
 from the respnndents. Bi/rnniid v. liiulocaiiachi, 
 .51 L. J.. Q. B. r)4H ; 7 Api). Cas. 333 : 47 L. T. 
 277 ; 31 W. 11. 6.5 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 576— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Missing Ship.] — If a shiji, Jui wliiiOi liie under- 
 writers have paiil as for a total loss, should 
 chance to turn u]), she is to be considered a3 
 abandoned and will belong to the; underwriters. 
 llnixtman. v. Thoriitiui. Molt. 212 ; 17 1!. 1!. 632.
 
 1235 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— X. Losses. 
 
 1236 
 
 Abandonment— Goods partly Saved.] — Insur- 
 ance on 1, ;».")() 1k»xcs of soap, at and from Liver- 
 pool to Oporto. The ship grounded on tlie 
 bar at Oporto, and was bilged ; seventeen boxes 
 of soap were lost, and the rest were carried 
 ashore in barges, the damage not excelling 20 
 per cent. The underwriter being sued, paid into 
 court 20 per cent, upon his subscription : — Held, 
 a total loss, without abandonment, the ship having 
 never arrived. liuller v. Christie, cited, 2 M. & fS. 
 37tt ; 15 R. R. 277 (not now law). 
 
 Capture and Recapture— Recovery as for Total 
 Loss.] — See Friiujlc v. Ilartlnj. post. col. 12'.t2. 
 
 Warranty against Particular Average— Part 
 of Goods Saved.] — Upon a policy upon hogs- 
 heads of sugar warranted against particular 
 average, some part of the sugar in every hogs- 
 head "being preserved, though less than 3 per 
 cent, on the cargo, it was held that this could not 
 be a total loss." Hedburg v. Pearson, 7 Taunt. 
 15i. 
 
 Part of Cargo Damaged — Whole Sold.] — 
 
 Bales of silk were insuretl free from average from 
 Leghorn to Liverpool. The ship put into Gib- 
 raltar from stress of weather, and the cargo was 
 necessarily unloaded. Some of the bales were 
 damaged by water, and the master, acting reason- 
 ably, sold tire whole. No one bale was so damaged 
 as to be worthless. All might have been brought 
 to England and sold as silk, though some was 
 much damaued : — Held, not a total loss. JVarone 
 V. Iladdoii. ''J C. B. m. 
 
 Fruit Cargo Damaged 80 per cent.]— Where 
 a cargo of fruit was captured and recaptured 
 and brought to its port of destination, but 
 damaged 80 per cent, by delay : — Held, to be a 
 partial loss. M'Andrews v. J'diiqhan, 1 Park, 
 Ins. (8th ed.) 253. 
 
 Advances for Supplies for Passengers — 
 Mutiny.] — Advances made for supplies to (Jhinese 
 passengers were insured. On the voyage the 
 Chinese mutinied, seized the ship, and refused to 
 go to their destination : — Held, a total loss of 
 the sums insured. Xaijlor v. Palmer, 8 Ex. 739 ; 
 10 Ex. 382. 
 
 Total or Partial Loss— Suing and Labouring 
 — Conditioning Damaged Goods — Method of 
 ascertaining Partial Loss.] — A Thames lighter- 
 man had eii'ected a i)olicy at Lloyd's on goods as 
 interest might appear to cover risk of transit in 
 his lighters between Tilbury and Hammersmith. 
 A barge laden with bags of rice of the declared 
 value of 450^ sank in the Thames, and was 
 submerged for two tides. The consignees refused 
 to takedelivery. and the rice was kiln-dried at a 
 cost of mi. and sold for 111/. :— Held, that this 
 was a partial, and not a total loss. The partial 
 loss was to be ascertained by comparing the value 
 of the rice when sound with the value of the 
 damaged rice after it had been kiln-dried, and 
 not with its value as it arrived damaged at Ham- 
 mersmith. Under the suing and labouring clause 
 the underwriter was liable for costs reasonably 
 incurred in conditioning tlamaged goods, and as 
 between him and the assured the loss for which 
 he was liable was not to be calculated on the 
 value of the goods when unconditioned. Franeis 
 T. Boultoii, 65 L. J., Q. B. 153 ; 73 L. T. 578 ; 44 
 W. R. 222 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 71). 
 
 2. Constructive Total Loss. 
 
 What Damage.] — Where a ship, in conse- 
 quence of the inability of the master to get it off 
 the rocks where it has struck, has been actually 
 sold, or where a cargo of a perishable nature has 
 been so damaged by the sea that its substance is 
 gone, and it can never reach the destined port in 
 specie, the loss in each instance is an actual, and 
 not a constructive, total loss. Fleniin;/ v. SniitJi,. 
 1 H. L. Cas. 513. 
 
 Where a prudent owner uninsured would have 
 sold, the case amounts to one of actual total loss. 
 Ih. 
 
 Sale of Injured Cargo.] — Where the under- 
 writer was not answerable for an average loss- 
 upon certain hides insured, and in the course of 
 the voyage the hides became so damaged by one 
 of the'perils insured against, that they could not 
 have been carried to the place of their destination 
 (in consequence of their state of putridity),, 
 whereupon the hides were sold at the nearest 
 port : — Held, that it amounted to a construc- 
 tive total loss. Rtnu- v. Salvador, 1 Bing. (N.c.) 
 526 ; 1 Scott, 491 ; 1 Hodges, 49 ; 4 L. J., C. P. 
 156. See Po)ix v. Salvador, 4 Scott, 1 ; 3 Bing. 
 (N.c.) 266 : 2 Hodges, 209 ; 7 L. J., Ex. 328. 
 
 As a general rule, where the whole or any part 
 of a cargo (having suffered sea damage) is practi- 
 cally capable of being sent in a marketable state 
 to its port of destination, the master cannot 
 sell, nor can the assured recover as for a total 
 loss. Rosetto V. Guvneij, 11 C. B. 176 ; 20 L. J., 
 C. P. 257 ; 15 Jur. 1177". 
 
 If the damage cannot be repaired without 
 laying out more money than the thing is worth,, 
 the reparation is impracticable, and therefore,, 
 as between the underwriters and the assured, 
 impossible ; if it can, the cargo is then practically 
 capable of being sent in a marketable state ta 
 its port of destination, the master cannot sell 
 it. and the assured cannot recover as for a con- 
 structive total loss. The same rule applies, if a 
 part only of the cargo can be saved. Ih. 
 
 Insurance confined to "absolute Damage 
 caused by the Perils insured against."]— A 
 
 policy of marine insurance on ship effected 
 with' a mutual insurance company incorporated 
 certain by-laws of the company indorsed thereon. 
 The policy (inter alia) expressed it to be thereby 
 declared that the acts of the assurer or assured 
 in recovering, saving, or preserving the property 
 insured should not be considered a waiver or 
 acceptance of abandonment. One of the by- 
 laws provided that, in the event of any ship being 
 stranded or damaged, and not talicn into a place 
 of safety, it should be lawful for the directors of 
 the company to use every possible means in their 
 power to procure the safety of the said ship, the 
 owner bearing his proportion of the expense 
 incurred ; anil that no acts of the company or its 
 agents under or in pursuance of the power thereby 
 reserved to the company should be deemed or 
 taken to be an acceptance or recognition of any 
 abandonment of which the assiu-ed might have 
 given notice to such company ; and the com- 
 pany, under any circumstances, should only pay 
 for 'the absolute damage caused by the perils 
 insured against, which was in no case to exceed 
 the sum insured :— Held, that the effect of the 
 by-law was not to exclude a constructive total 
 loss, but that it contemplated a partial loss only, 
 and was intended to deprive the assured of the
 
 1237 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—X. Losses. 
 
 1238 
 
 right he would otherwise have to claim extra- 
 ordinary expenditure, by way of salvage or other- 
 wise in'ad(Ution to the cost of repairs. Foricood 
 V. North Wales Mvtwil Marine Insurance Co.. 
 or Foricood v. Provincial Mutual Marine Insur- 
 ance Co.. 49 L. J., Q. B. .5'J3 : 9 Q. B. D. 732 : 42 
 L. T. 837 ; 28 W. K. 938 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 293— C. A. 
 
 " Total Loss only."] — A policy on a ship was 
 against •• total loss only." During the voyage 
 the ship sustained damage, which amounted to 
 constructive total loss : — Held, that a construc- 
 tive total loss was ^Aithin the terms of the policy. 
 Adam.^ v. MacJu-nzie, 13 C. B. (N.s.) 442 : 32 
 L. J.. C. P. 92 ; 9 Jur. (n.s.) 849 ; 7 L. T. 711 ; 
 11 W. E. 342. 
 
 Time of— Effect on Valued Time Policy.] — A 
 time policy is not prevented from attaching by 
 there having been a constructive total loss of the 
 vessel before commencement of the risk insured. 
 Barlter v. Jan.^on. 37 L. J., C. P. IO.t ; L. R. 3 
 C. P. 303 : 17 L. T. 473 ; 16 W. R. 399. 
 
 Sale by Foreign Tribunal — Cause of.]— A sale 
 of the subject-matter of insurance ordered by a 
 foreign tribunal within whose jurisdiction It has 
 been originally thrown by perils insured against, 
 does not amount to a constructive total loss where 
 the sale is not due to perils insured against, such 
 perils having ceased to operate, but is made for 
 the purpose of repaying advances incurred 
 through the captain's breach of duty in not 
 transhipjjing the subject-matter of insurance to 
 its destination. Mei/cr v. Ralli, 4.5 L. J., C. P. 
 741 ; 1 C. P. D. 3.")8 ; 3.5 L. T. 838 ; 24 W. R. 
 903 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 324. 
 
 Unnecessary Sale by Master — SMp not irrepar- 
 ably Damaged.] — A ship was (hiven from her 
 mooring-^ h\ ice, went ashoie, and was much, but 
 not irreparably, injured. In the course of repairs 
 a ditticulty ai'ose for want of materials, and the 
 master sold her : — Held, not a total loss. Fur- 
 iieaux V. Bradley, 1 Park, Ins. (8th ed.) 3G.5. 
 
 On Bottomry Bonds.] — The condition of a 
 bottdiiny bund inovided for its defeasance on 
 payment uf the aniouiit of tlie bond, "or, in case 
 of the loss of the ship or vessel, such an average 
 as by custom shall have become due on the 
 salvage, or if on the voyage the ship or vessel 
 should be utterly lost, cast away, or destroyed." 
 The ship having become a cfinstiuctivc total Inss, 
 the boinlholder, by a decree in the admiralty 
 C'jurt, obtained payirient to him of the pi'oceeds 
 of the ship, which had been paid into cnurt, and 
 which were iiisiithcient ; the cimit hohhng that 
 a bottomry Ixiiid was oidy discliarged by pay- 
 ment or by an absolute total loss, and that the 
 condition providing for defeasance on i)ayment of 
 such average as \)y ciistoin shoidd have- become 
 due, diti Tiot refer to the case of a constructive 
 total lo^s. In an action by the bondholder on a 
 policy of insurance upon the bond : — Held, tliat 
 the doctrine of constructive total loss was nfit 
 applicable to a pfilicy of insurance on bottomry, 
 and that the condition of defcjusance <lid not 
 apply to tlie case of a constructive total loss. 
 Jirooinfield v. Southern Inxurmicc Co., 39 L. .1., 
 Ex. 18(; : L. U. .5 Ex. 192; 22 L. T. 371 : IM 
 W. R. 810. 
 
 Cost of Repairs.] — In .June, 18.59, the owners, 
 of a ship valued at 17,U0U/. caused themselves to 
 be insured by policies for 16,0U0/. from Bombay 
 
 to Liverpool. When off Algoa Bay she encoun- 
 tered \evy severe weather, and such damage that 
 it became necessary to put into Port Louis, in the 
 Mauritius, where she arrived on the 21st August. 
 She was sold by auction under the captain's 
 orders, and afterwards broken up, notice of aban- 
 donment being given. The owners had bought 
 the ship in 1855 for 20,OOOL, and 20 per cent, 
 would be a reasonable deduction in respect of 
 wear and tear at the time when the policy 
 attached. The cost of building such a ship at 
 that time would have been 20.000Z., and the cost 
 of repairing her lO.oOOZ. Her value, after she 
 had been rej^aired would have been 7,500?., she 
 being a vessel of exceptional size and class ; but an 
 owner wanting such a ship for the particular 
 purposes of his trade, and having to elect either 
 to sell, or to repair, or to purchase, would have 
 elected to repair her, for such a vessel could not 
 have been built or purchased at that time for so 
 small a sum as 10,500Z. : — Held, that there was 
 onlv an average loss, and not a constructive total 
 loss. Grainger v. Martin. 4 B. & S. 9 ; 8 L. T. 
 79(5 : 11 W. R. 758— Ex. Ch. Affirming 31 L. J., 
 Q. B. 18(5 ; 8 Jur. (n.s.) 995. 
 
 Questions for Jury.] — Action on a policy as 
 for a total loss of freight to be earned in carry- 
 ing a cargo of coals and iron from Rio to San 
 Francisco. On the voyage the ship received 
 damage from heavy seas, which compelled her to 
 put into Monte Video, having previously, for 
 safety's sake, thrown overboard some portion of 
 her cargo and landed another portion at the 
 Falkland Islands. On the ship being surveyed 
 at Monte Video, she was found to be incapable 
 of pursuing the voyage with the cargo on board, 
 and no otlier vessel could be found to take the 
 cargo on. The cost of warehouse room was so 
 great at Monte Video, that in a few months it 
 would have etpialled the value of the cargo, 
 and owing to the town being in a state of siege 
 and political revolution, it was unsafe to land 
 the cargo and leave it unwarehoused ; under 
 these circumstantes, the captain, Ijeing in want 
 of money, sold the cargo, and api)lied the pro- 
 ceeds to' the ship's pur])oses, and afterwards 
 brought her back in ballast to Liverpool for 
 rci)airs. At the trial the judge left two questions 
 to the jury : first, was there a constructive total 
 loss of the ship ? and secondly, was there a con- 
 structive total loss of tlie goods .' The jury 
 answered both (piestions in tiie negative, and 
 found a verdict generally for the defendant : — 
 Held, that there was no misdirection, and that 
 the two (lueslions submitted to the jury were, 
 under tiie circumstances, proper for the deter- 
 mination of the case. KVuKjcnder v. Jlovie and 
 Colonial In.iurtinee Co., 15 L. T. Ki. 
 
 The rule is, that to entitle the assured to 
 recover upf)n a policy, the loss must be the direct 
 and innnediate consequence of the peril insured 
 against, and not a remote onr. J l>. 
 
 On Abandonment.]— iSVr Xi. Auandon.mknt, 
 pfist, cols. 1277, se<|. 
 
 On Sale by Master.]— .SVr XII. Sale, by M.\.s- 
 
 TKH Of Sllll' A.Nl) (.'AUQO, l)OSt, Cols. 1297, SCq. 
 
 Continuous Perils.]- Tlie mortgagees of a ship 
 agreed with tiie mortgagors to effect an insur- 
 ance on the >-liip at the mortgagors' expense, the 
 policy to be lield by them as jiart of their 
 security. After the "ship had sailc<i. tlie niort-
 
 1239 
 
 SHIPPING— IN SUE ANCE—X. Losses. 
 
 1240 
 
 gagees effectrd an insurance against absolute 
 trttal loss only. On the voyage the ship was 
 <liivcn ashore in a gale, and having become a 
 constructive total loss, notice of abandonment 
 was given by the mortgagees to the underwriters. 
 The moi-tgagois immediately gave notice that 
 they would look to the mortgagees as if they 
 were their underwriters for a full insurance, and 
 recovered from them the full value of the ship. 
 The ship remained for two months exposed to 
 the perils of the sea, when she became a com- 
 plete wreck, and was then sold without prejudice 
 to the rights of the parties. After the sale, but 
 before this action, the mortgage was paid oil • — 
 Held, in an action by the mortgagees against the 
 underwriters claiming for an absolute total loss, 
 that as the shij) when sold had become an 
 absolute total loss from perils which were con- 
 tinuous, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover. 
 Lfi-tj V. Meycluintg 3Iarine Imunince Co., 1 Cab. 
 A: E. 47-t : .".2 L. T. 263 ; .") Asp., M. C. 407. 
 
 Notice of Abandonment — Reinsurance.] — 
 Upon a constructive total loss happening to the 
 ship insured, notice of abandonment need not be 
 given to the underwriters of a policy of rein- 
 gurauce. The owners of a ship insured her for 
 twelve months in an ordinary Lloyd's policy, 
 which contained a suing and labouring clause. 
 The underwriters of the Lloyd's policy reinsured 
 themselves with a French company which rein- 
 sured itself with the defendants. The policy 
 underwritten for the French company by the 
 defendants was for 1,000?. ; bound them to pay 
 the sum that might be paid on the original 
 policy : was to cover the rislc of total loss only, 
 antl contained a suing and labouring clause. 
 AVhilst the policy was in force, the ship went 
 ashore and was much damaged. Her owners 
 gave notice of abandonment to the underwriters 
 of the Lloyd's policy, but notice of abandonment 
 was not given to the defendants ; the under- 
 writers of the ship ultimately settled with her 
 owners at 8<S per cent. They expended more 
 than 5,000?. in floating the ship, and sold her to 
 a builder, who repaired her at a cost of 9,000?., 
 and resold her for 11,200?. The cost of floating 
 the ship (after deducting the price paid by the 
 shipbuilders) being added to the 88 per cent, 
 represented a loss of 112 per cent. In an action 
 by the French company as reinsurers against the 
 defendants : — Held, that a constructive total loss 
 had occurred, and that as the defendants had 
 bound themselves to pay as might be paid on the 
 original policy, they were liable to the extent of 
 l.obo?. ; but that they could not be held liable 
 for more, as the underwriters of the Lloyd's 
 policy were not the " factors, servants, or assigns " 
 of the plaintiffs within the meaning of the suing 
 and labouring clause, and that the defendants 
 were not liable, at least by virtue of that clause, 
 for any part of the expenses incurred in floating 
 the ship. T'zielU v. Buxton MarhiP Imnrance Co., 
 h\ L. J., Q. B. 142 : 1.5 Q. B. D. 11 ; 52 L. T. 787 ; 
 33 W. R. 293 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 405— C. A. 
 
 Loss of Voyage, not of Ship.] — ^Insurance on 
 ship at and from .Jamaica to any port or ports, 
 cruising, kc for four months, without further 
 account, &c., and free from average (before 
 19 Geo. 2, c. 37) ; the insured had interest in the 
 fihip to the amount insured. During the four 
 months the crew mutinied, and the cruise 
 (privateer's) was prevented. At the end of the 
 four months the ship was at Jamaica in safetj- : 
 
 — Held, that the assured could not recover. 
 Pole V. FUzgeraU, Willes, 641 ; Ambl. 311 ; 4 
 Bro. P. C. 439. 
 
 Insurance of jirivateer for two months. The 
 ship was captured ami recaptured without 
 material injury ; but the cruise was lost : — 
 Held, that the underwriter was liable. Jenhins 
 V. Muclu'inif, 4 Bro., P. C. 447, n. S. P., Fltz- 
 qerald v. Wdinhani. Ih. ; Whitehead v. Bance, 
 4 Bro. P. C. 440, n. ; Stone jj v. Brown., 4 Bro. P. C. 
 445, n. ; Barclay/ v. Collier. lb. ; Haniury v. 
 King. III. 
 
 Capture and Recapture.] — If a ship insured 
 be taken by the enemy and after a possession of 
 nine days, but before she is carried infra prEBsidia, 
 be retaken by an English man-of-war the property 
 is not changed. Asuededov. Cambridge, 10 Mod. 
 77. See, per Lord Manstteld, 2 Burr. 695. 
 
 Ship Derelict— Salvage Claim — Ship Sold 
 Abroad.] — The cargo on board the s.s. 
 '• Celestina," owned by a merchant at Chili and 
 insured for 3,300?., took fire, and the ship was 
 abandoned on high seas by her crew. She was 
 soon after picked up by another English ship 
 and towed into Rio, where, the fire being 
 extinguished, she was placed in the hands of 
 the judge to enforce a claim for salvage. This 
 claim was at once settled in England, the under- 
 writers on the cargo contributing the agreed sum 
 of 1,250?. in various proportions, and the several 
 policies were indorsed " Settled a claim on 
 account without prejudice." Instructions were 
 sent to Rio for the shi[)'s release, but the 
 Brazilian court refused to release her, and 
 having sold both ship and cargo, retained the 
 proceeds : — Held, that the underwriters must 
 pay a total loss, and were not entitled to deduct 
 the sum paid in settlement of the salvage claim. 
 Bnehanan v. London and Provineial Marine 
 Lmirance Co., 65 L. J., Q. B. 92. 
 
 3. Average Loss. 
 a. General Averag-e. 
 
 Mast Cut away — Question for Jury.] — A ship 
 
 being caught in a storm, jjortions of the rigging 
 gave way to such an extent that the mainmast 
 began to lurch violently. Whereupon, fearing 
 that the mast would rip up the deck and thereby 
 endanger the ship, the captain ordered it to be 
 cut away, which was done. In an action by the 
 owner of the ship to recover from the owners of 
 the cargo their proportion of general average 
 loss incurred by the sacriflce of the mast, the 
 judge left to the jury the following questions : 
 first, are you of opinion that the mast was vir- 
 tually a wreck, and gone at the time it went 
 over / secondly, do you find it was hopelessly 
 lost .' The jury answered both questions in the 
 affirmative : — Held, that there had been no mis- 
 direction, and that substantially the right ques- 
 tions had been left to the jury. Shepherd v. 
 Kottyen, 47 L. J., C. P. 67 : 2 C. P. D. 585 ; 37 
 L. T. 618 ; 26 W. R. 120 ; 3 Asp., M. C. 544— 
 C. A. 
 
 If anything on board a ship which is cut or 
 cast away because it is endangering the whole 
 adventure is in such a state or condition that it 
 must itself certainly be lost, although the rest 
 of the adventure should be saved without the 
 cutting or casting away, then the destruction 
 of the thing gives no claim for general average. 
 lb.
 
 1241 
 
 SHIPPING -INSUEANCE—X. Losses. 
 
 1242 
 
 Tackle.] — An action lies by a shipowner to 
 recover from the owner of the cargo his pro- 
 portion of general average loss incurred by 
 sacrificing the tackle belonging to a ship for an 
 unusual purpose, or on an extraordinarj' occasion 
 of danger, for the benefit of the whole concern. 
 Birhleij v. Prcsgrace, 1 East, 220 ; 6 R. R. 256. 
 
 Eepairs and Expenses.] — A ship, in the course 
 of her voyage, was run foul of by another ship, 
 and damaged, and the captain was in conse- 
 quence obliged to cut away part of the rigging, 
 and to return to port to repair the damage and 
 cutting away, without which the ship could not 
 have prosecuted her voyage or safely kei)t the 
 sea : — Held, that the expenses of repairs, so far 
 as they were absolutely necessary to enable the 
 ship to prosecute the voyage, but no farther, 
 and of unloading the goods for the purpose of 
 making the repairs, were a general average. 
 Secus, the master's expenses during the unload- 
 ing, repairing and reloading, and crimj)age to 
 replace deserters during the repairs. J'lnnimrr 
 V. Wlldwaiu 3 M. & S. 482 ; 16 R. R. 384. See 
 also Grainger v. Martin, ante, col. 1238. 
 
 Where, for the safety of the ship, it becomes 
 necessary, during the voj'age, to put into a port 
 to refit, the expense of refitting is not a general 
 average. .Jacl(son v. Char nock, 8 Term Rep. 509 ; 
 5 R. R. 425. 
 
 But where a ship is obliged to put into port 
 for tlie benefit of the whole concern, the charges 
 of loading and unloading the cargo, and taking 
 care of it, and the wages and provisions of the 
 workmen hired for the i-epairs, become general 
 average. Ua Coxfa v. JVi-wnluiin. 2 Term Rep. 
 407. Sec also Caaes post, col. 1247. 
 
 The wages and provisions of the crew, while 
 the ship remained in port, whither she was com- 
 pelled to go for the safety of ship and cargo, in 
 order to repair a damage occasioned by tempest, 
 were held not to be the subject of general average : 
 nor the expenses of such rejiair ; nor the wages 
 and [jrovisions of the crew during her detention 
 in port, to which she returned, and was detained 
 there on account of adverse winds and tempest ; 
 nor the damage occasioned to the shij) and tackle, 
 by standing out to sea with a press of sail in 
 temjicstuous weather ; which press of sail was 
 necessary for tliat purpose in oider to avoid an 
 impending peril of Ijciiig diiven on shore and 
 stranded. Power v. Wliitinnre, 4 M. (.V. S. 141 : 
 16 R. R. 416, 
 
 Tlie expenses of the wages and ])rovisions of 
 the crew of a ship while detained in repairing 
 sea <lainage arc excluded by the usual warranty 
 as to average. JJe Wnir v. Salrador, 4 A. iSo E. 
 420 : 6 N. ^: M. 713: 1 H. & VV. 751 ; 5 L. J.. 
 K. I!. 131. 
 
 Chartered Freight —General Average Charges 
 payable as per Foreign Statement if required.] 
 — \\ lieie tlic i;liiiil(tr( il I'leiglil nl' ii vcnscI \ivn- 
 ceeding in ballast to a loading ])Oit in pursuaiire 
 of a chartcrparly is insured, and the only 
 persons interested in the vessel and the freight 
 insured arc the owners of the vessel, there 
 caiinot be any general average loss, r)r any loss 
 to be treated as a general average loss, for which 
 the undcnvritcrs are liable, and this is so even 
 though the policy contains a clause providing 
 that general average charges should be payable 
 as per foreign statement if rcfjuired. I'he 
 Jirir/rll(/.i\2 L. .J., Adm. 81 : [1H93J p. 189 ; 1 R. 
 616'; 69 L. T. 834 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 337. 
 
 Ransom from Pirates.] — If goods be given up 
 to pirates to save the rest, the loss is general 
 average ; aliter, where iiart are taken by pirates. 
 Hicks V. Palington, Sir Francis Moore, 297. 
 
 Expenses of Steaming.] — A clipper sailing 
 ship, fitted with an auxiliary screw, being on her 
 voyage fi-om Melbourne to England, came into 
 collision with an iceberg, and received such 
 damage that her sailing power was practically 
 destroyed. 'S>y means of her screw and her 
 steam power she reached Rio. The expense of 
 repairing her at Rio would have been bo great 
 that the master properly determined to have her 
 temporarily repaired, so as to bring her home 
 under steam. It was necessary for this purpose 
 to purchase coals at Rio and at Fayal, and the 
 ship eventually reached home. An action was 
 brought against the owners of a quantity of gold 
 on board by the shipowner, to recover the con- 
 tribution to general average alleged to be due 
 from them in respect of the expense incurred in 
 obtaining coals at Rio and at Fayal : — Held, 
 that the action was not maintainable, as there 
 was no right to charge this expense to general 
 average. Wilson v. Sank of Victoria, 36 L. J., 
 Q. B. 89 ; L. R. 2 Q. B. 203 ; 16 L. T. 9 ; 15 
 W. R. 693. 
 
 A sailing ship sailed from Melbourne, bound 
 for London, properly fitted and manned, and 
 seaworthy for the voyage, with coal enough for 
 an ordinary voyage. She had on board, as was 
 usual for such ships on that voyage, a donkey- 
 engine equivalent, for the purposes of pumping 
 and working the ship, to ten men. Without the 
 engine ten more men would have been required. 
 On the voyage severe weather caused the ship to 
 spring a leak, which could oidy be kei)t down by 
 constantly working the engine at the pumps. 
 When the engine had thus consumed all the coal 
 except one and a half ton, the cajitain, acting 
 prudently for the preservation of the shij), cut 
 up and used with the coal some sjiare spars and 
 wood, part of the ship's stores, not intended to 
 be used as fuel. There was no sudden emer- 
 gency which rendered the cutting up of the 
 spars and wood necessary, and the ship was 
 exijosed to no serious risk from the water she 
 made while there was sufficient fuel on Vjoard to 
 work the engine, but it would liavc been impos- 
 sible to have kept the ship atloat with the crew 
 alone without working the engine. The cajjtain 
 afterwards bought coal from another vessel, and 
 also in a port into which he ran for that pur- 
 pose, just enough coal to enable the vessel to 
 reach London in safety. AVithout the aid of the 
 engine the vessel coidd Tiot have continued her 
 voyage. The shii)Owner having sued a shipper 
 of cargo for a general average cotitributioii in 
 res|)ect of the cost of the spare spai's and wood, 
 and also of the bought coal : — field, first, that 
 the cost (jf the bought coal could not be charged 
 to gcnei'al average. Ifurrison v. Hunk of Aitx- 
 trahisia, 41 L. .1., Ex. 36: L. R. 7 Ex. 39 ; 25 
 L. ']'. 944 ; 20 \V. 11. 385 ; 1 Asj). M. C. 198. 
 
 Held, secondly, by Kelly, C.B.. I'ramwell, B., 
 dissentientibus Martin, 1'.., and Clcasl)y, B., tliat 
 the cost of the spars and wood could be charged 
 to general average. Il>. 
 
 Coals consumed in working Stranded Ship off 
 the Ground.] — Where ii shi|i or her lackle are 
 intentionally put to an abnornal use involving 
 an extraordinary risk of injury for the purpose 
 of saving ship and cargo from imminent peril,
 
 1243 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUKANCE—X. Losses. 
 
 1244 
 
 any consequent loss to the ship is the subject of 
 general average contribution. Working the 
 engines of a shi|) whilst she is fast ashore is an 
 abnormal use of them. Consequently, coal con- 
 sumed in so working the engines is the subject 
 of general average contribution. Per curiam : 
 Injury to the engines in so working them is the 
 subject of general average contribution. 2' he 
 Bona, English, and American Shippimi Co. v. 
 Indrtiin'dii Mutual .Varine Inxurancp Co., 64 L. J., 
 Adm. 62': [1895] 1'. 125; 11 U. 707 ; 71 L. T. 
 870 : 48 W. 11. 21)0 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 557— G. A. 
 
 Resisting Attack.] — A ship being unable to 
 escape from a privateer, resisted the attack, beat 
 off the privateer, reached her port, and delivered 
 her cargo in safety : — Held, that neither the 
 expense of repairing the shij), nor of curing the 
 wounds of the sailors, nor of the ammunition, 
 was the subject of general average. Tui/lor v. 
 Curti.s, 2 Marsh. 309 ; 6 Taunt. 608 ; Holt, 192 ; 
 4 Camp. 337 ; 16 R. R. 686. 
 
 If a ship, in order to escape from a privateer, 
 carries an unusual press of sail, and succeeds in 
 getting awaj', but sustains damage in so doing, 
 this is a sea risk, not a general average loss. 
 Covimifon V. Roberts, 2 Bos. & P. (N.E.) 378 ; 9 
 E. R. 669. 
 
 Expenses of getting oif Stranded Ship.] — 
 Extraordinary expenses incurred in getting off a 
 stranded ship, after the cargo has been removed 
 to a place of safety, are not (in the absence of 
 exceptional circumstances) general average to 
 which the owner of cargo is liable to contribute, 
 although the goods remain in the control of the 
 shipowner's agents. Walthew v. 3Iarrojani, 39 
 L. J.. Ex. 81 : L. R. 5 Ex. 116 : 22 L. T. 310— 
 Ex. Ch. 
 
 Semble, that such exi)enses may, as against 
 the owner of cargo so removed be general 
 average, if the goods cannot be otherwise carried 
 forward, or only at a great expense, or after a 
 delay which would deteriorate the goods. lb. 
 
 A ship laden with cargo, while in port, was 
 driven ashore on the 5th of October ; the cargo 
 was unshipped, and by the 19th was landed and 
 warehoused in safety under the superintendence 
 and control of the shipowner's agents ; an attempt 
 was then made to float the vessel, which was 
 abandoned on the 24th of November. Subse- 
 qirently a second attempt was made, which, on 
 the 31st of December, succeeded ; the ship was 
 taken into port and repaired, and after reshi])i)ing 
 the cargo, proceeded to its destination : — Held, 
 that the expenses of getting the vessel off were 
 not general average to which the owners of cargo 
 were bound to contribute. lb. 
 
 Expenses incurred in getting off a stranded 
 ship, and taking her to a port for repair, after 
 the entire cargo has been discharged and in 
 safety, are not chargeable to general average, 
 but are chargeable to a particular average on 
 the ship alone. Job v. Lawjton, 6 El. & Bl. 779 ; 
 26 L. J., Q. B. 97 ; 3 Jur. '(n.s.) 109 ; 4 W. R. 
 641. 
 
 A ship was chartered to proceed from Liver- 
 pool to a foreign port, and there load a return 
 cargo, for freight, payable on delivery of the 
 home cargo. She took on board an outward 
 cargo, sailed and was driven on a bank by a 
 storm near Liverpool, and the cargo was rescued 
 from her, and cariied to Liverpool, and there 
 warehoused ; the ship still remaining ashore in a 
 situation of peril. Some days afterwards, the 
 
 ship was got off and taken to Liverpool, where 
 she was repaired, and again took the cargo on 
 Vjoard and proceeded on her voyage. It was 
 agreed between the insured and the underwriters 
 on chartered freight, that the freight was to be 
 taken as liable to contribute to general average ; 
 and the only c[uestion for the court was, whether 
 the expenses, incurred after the goods were in 
 Liverpool, in getting the ship off without which 
 she could not have proceeded on her voyage or 
 earned the chartered freight, were general average 
 to which the shij), freight and cargo were to con- 
 tribute, or were chargeable to ship alone, or were 
 chargeable on any other principle : — Held, that 
 as the ship and freight were both in peril, and 
 both saved, the freight must contribute as well 
 as the ship, supposing the cargo not to contribute. 
 Morun v. Jones, 7 El. & Bl. 523 ; 26 L. J., Q. B. 
 187; 3 Jur. (n.s.) 663 ; 5 W. R. .503. 
 
 But the court drew the inference of fact, that 
 the whole saving of the cargo and ship was one 
 continued transaction, and on that hypothesis : — 
 Held, that the expenses were general average, 
 to which ship, freight and cargo must contribute. 
 
 Raising Sunken Vessel.] — The remuneration 
 which the shipowner is obliged to pay for ser- 
 vices rendered in raising and repairing a sunken 
 ship gives a claim to a general average contribu- 
 tion provided such services appear to be for the 
 joint benelit of the ship and cargo. Kenij) v. 
 IlalUday, 6 B. & S. 723 ; 35 L. J., Q. B. 156 ; 
 L. R. 1 Q. B..520 : 12 Jur. (n.s.) 582 ; 14 L. T. 
 762; 14 W. R. 697— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Scuttling Ship to extinguish Fire.] — Damage 
 to cargo by scuttling a ship to put out a fire is 
 the subject of general average contribution. 
 Ac-hard v. Rlng,'d\ L. T. 647 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 422. 
 
 There is no valid custom excluding the loss 
 from general average. lb. 
 
 The plaintiff chartered a ship from the defen- 
 dant, and by the charterparty it was provided, 
 " all questions of general average to be settled 
 according to the custom of the London under- 
 writers at Lloyd's." A fire broke out on board, 
 the ship was scuttled to extinguish it, and the 
 cargo was damaged thereby. The loss was 
 adjusted as general average, and the plaintiff 
 brought his action to recover from the defendant 
 the ship's contribution. The judge directed the 
 jury that the loss was general average according 
 to law, and the question was whether there was 
 a valid custom excluding such loss from general 
 average. The jury found that no such custom 
 existed, and the verdict was entered for the 
 plaintiff. lb. 
 
 Ship on Fire in Harbour — Termination of 
 
 Adventure.] — To pour water upon the cargo, 
 pursuant to the master's orders, for the purpose 
 of extinguishing a fire which had broken out in 
 a ship's hold, is a general average act ; and if the 
 cargo is thereby injured, the owner is entitled to 
 a contribution. Whilst the cargo remains on 
 board a ship after her arrival at the port of 
 destination, the maritime adventure is not 
 terminated so as to absolve the owners of the 
 cargo and the ship from mutual rights and 
 liabilities. The defendants were the owners of 
 the " H.," which, having arrived at her port of 
 destination at the end of a voA'age, unloaded 
 about 1,300 tons of her cargo ; about 100 tons 
 remained on board. Whilst she was lying at a
 
 1245 
 
 SHIPPING— IN SUEANCE—X. Losses. 
 
 1246 
 
 wharf, a lire broke out in her hold : and, in 
 order to extinguish it. lier master caused water 
 to be poured into her. whei-eby some goods, 
 forming part of the cargo and belonging to the 
 plaintiffs, were damaged. The " H." might have 
 been scuttled and raised again ; but if the fire 
 had not been extinguished, she would have been 
 in peril of partial destruction : — Held, that the 
 defendants were liable to contribute by way of 
 general average for the damage done to the 
 plaintiffs goods. WhltecnLss Wire Co. v. Savill, 
 51 L. J.. Q. B. 426 : 8 Q. B. D. 653 ; 46 L. T. 
 «4.3 ; 30 W. R. 588 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 531— C. A. 
 
 Sale of Cargo.] — A claim for contribution to 
 general average arises only where a part of the 
 cargo is sacrificed for the preservation of the ship. 
 and the rest of the cargo from an impending 
 danger : not where a part of the cargo is sold to 
 raise money at a port to which the ship has put 
 back for the repair of damage incurred by ordinary 
 perils of the sea. Ilallett v. Wu/ram, 9 C. B. 
 580 : 19 L. J.. C. P. 281. 
 
 Deck Cargoes — General Principles as to Jetti- 
 son.] — Where goods are jettisoned for the com- 
 mon good, the loss, as a rule, comes within 
 general average, and must be borne proportion- 
 ally " bj' those interested." To this rule there is 
 an exception, viz. that deck cargo jettisoned is 
 not entitled to general average contribution. To 
 this exception, however, there are two exceptions, 
 viz. that coasting vessels are without the excep- 
 tion, and also those cases where by custom the 
 deck cargo is one customary in the trade, and, 
 perhaps, also from the port. It is said that there 
 is a further exception, viz. where by agreement 
 with the shipper the cargo is shipped on deck. 
 We are of a different opinion. Per cur. in Wrir/Jit 
 v. Marwnocl 50 L. J., Q. B. 643 ; 7 Q. B. D. 62 ; 
 45 L. T. 297 ; 29 W. R. 673 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 451— 
 €. A. 
 
 Legality.] — A declaration by shipowners, 
 
 against an underwriter of a time policy, upon 
 the hull and stoi-es, alleged that on a certain 
 voyage certain jjigs were shipped on board the 
 vessel, and that, from stress of weather, it became 
 necessary, for the preservation of the vessel and 
 her cargo, to throw the pigs overboanl. Ijy leason 
 whereof the plaintiffs, in respect of their interest 
 in the hull, had to pay a pro])Ortionable jvart of 
 the value f)f the pigs, and sustained a general 
 average loss. A plea, that the pigs thrown over- 
 board had been stowed on the deck, by reason 
 whereof the defentlaiit was not liable to contri- 
 bute any average loss sustained by their jettison, 
 is bad, as the mere fact of stowing the pigs on 
 <ii'ck is no answer to the action. Milliourd v. 
 Hihheii, 2 G. A: U. 142; 3 Q. B. 120 ; 11 L. J., 
 g. B. 137 ; 6 Jur. 706. 
 
 Deck-cargo (timber) lawfully laden, pursuant 
 to (•harteri)arty, having broken adrift in conse- 
 • jueiice of stormy weather, and impeding the 
 navigation and endangering the safety of the 
 vessel, was necessarily thrown overboard : — 
 Held, that the shipper was entitled tf) claim 
 general average in respect thereof, as against the 
 shipowner. Johumn v. ('luipman, 19 C B. (N..S.) 
 563; 35 L. J., C. P. 23; 15 L. T. 70; 14 W. R. 
 264. 
 
 In order to make the jettison of cargo the sub- 
 ject of a general average contribution, the facts 
 must be established that there was a maritime 
 peril; that the sacrifice made was to avert a 
 
 danger common to the whole adventure, and that 
 such sacrifice was voluntary. H. 
 
 The plaintiffs shipped certain cattle as a deck 
 cargo on board the defendant's vessel ; during 
 the voyage a storm arose, and owing to stress of 
 weather the master jettisoned the deck cargo by 
 throwing the cattle overboard. The act of jetti- 
 son was proper and necessary on the part of the 
 master for the safety of the defendant's vessel : 
 — Held, that the plaintiffs could not recover 
 from the defendants a general average contribu- 
 tion for the loss of the cattle. Johnson v. Chap- 
 man (19 C. B. (N.s.) 563) commented on. Wright 
 V. Marwood. supra. 
 
 Custom as to Liability in respect of.] — A 
 
 custom that underwriters are not liable, under 
 the ordinary form of policy, for general average 
 in respect of the jettison of goods stowed on deck, 
 is a valid custom, and does not contradict the 
 terms of the policy. Miller v. Tetherington, 7 
 H. & N. 954 : 31 L. J., Ex. 363 ; 8 Jur. (x.s.) 
 1039 ; 9 L. T. 231 ; 10 W. R. 356— Ex. Ch. See 
 also Hurley v. Millioard, 1 Jones & C. 224. 
 
 Deck Cargo at Merchant's Bisk.] — Bur- 
 ton V. Un^/n.s-h. .-.3 L. J.. Q. B. 133 ; 12 Q. B. D. 
 218 ; 49 L. T. 7G8 ; 32 W. R. 655 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 187, ante, col. 587. 
 
 Custom as to Deck Cargo.] — Da Coxta v. 
 
 Edmvnd.s. 4 Caiiip. 112 : 2 Chit. 227 ; 16 R. R. 
 763. Gould V. Olircr. 4 Bing. (x.C.) 134 ; 5 
 Scott, 445 ; 7 L. J., C. P. 68 ; 2 Man. & Gr. 208 ; 
 2 Scott (N.E.) 241 ; ante, col. 503. 
 
 What Recoverable — "According to British 
 Custom."] — A ship was lying at anchor in port 
 with a general cargo on board, when a fire broke 
 out in the forehold. Every effort was made, but 
 without success, to extinguish the fire by throwing 
 water down the hatchways and upon the cargo. 
 Finall.v, a hole was cut in the side of the vessel, 
 and her fore compartment filled with water. This 
 extinguished the fire, and if it had not been done 
 the cargo would have been destroyed, and the ship 
 seriously damaged if not rendered a total wreck. 
 Part of a (juantity of bark shipped on board 
 was damaged or destroyed by the water which 
 was poured or let into the vessel to extinguish 
 the fire. The bark was shipped under a bill of 
 lading, which contained the words, "average, if 
 any, to be adjusted according to British custom." 
 It is the practice of British average adjusters in 
 adjusting losses to treat a lo.ss occasioned by 
 water in the manner above described as not a 
 general average loss : — Held, whether or not the 
 loss was, according to the general l;iw of England, 
 t lie subject of a general average contribution, that 
 the words " British custom " in the bill of lading 
 must be taken to mean the |)ractice of Biitisli 
 average adjusters, so that the claim for general 
 average was expressly excluded. Stewart v. West 
 Indian and, I'aeitie Stranixhip ^'((.,42 \j. J., Q. B. 
 191 : L. U. H Q. j{. 362 ; 2S L. T. 742 ; 21 W. R. 
 953 ; 1 Asp. M. (J. 528— Ex. ("h. 
 
 On Foreign Insurances.] — An insurer of 
 
 goods in a foreign country is not liabh; to indem- 
 nify the assured (a subject of that country) who 
 is obliged by the decree of a court there to pay 
 contribution to a general average, whi(;h by the 
 law of this country could not have been demanded, 
 where it docs not apjjcar that tlie parties con- 
 tracted upon the footing <>f some usage among 
 merchants obtaining in the foreign country, to
 
 1247 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—X. Losses. 
 
 1248 
 
 treat the same as general average, but such usage 
 is to be collected merely from the recitals and 
 assumjition made in the decree. Power v. Whlt- 
 VH»r, 4 M. & S. 141 ; 16 R. R. 416. 
 
 Practice of Average Adjusters is not Evidence 
 of Custom of Trade.] — A lung continued practice 
 of average adjusters who prepare their state- 
 ments according to the law as laid down by the 
 courts is no evidence of such a custom or usage 
 of trade as can be iniyjliedly incorporated in a 
 contract between a shipowner and owner of 
 cargo. The defendants, who were the owners of 
 cargo, in an action against them by the ship- 
 owner to recover a general average contribution 
 in respect of esjienses caused by the ship putting 
 into a port of refuge, landing, storing, and reship- 
 piug the cargo, and leaving the port, alleged a 
 custom of trade that in such a case the expenses 
 incurred in and about warehousing the cargo 
 were apportioned among the owners of the cargo 
 alone, and the expenses of reshipping the cargo, 
 port dues. &c., were borne by the owners of the 
 ship and freight. Several witnesses were called 
 wiio gave evidence to the effect that for sixty or 
 seventy years the practice of average adjusters 
 had been as stated by the defendants, but that, 
 in consequence of the decision in Attioood v. 
 Sellar, infra, some average adjustei's had altered 
 their mode of adjustment in such a case : — Held, 
 that this was not evidence of a custom of trade 
 which could be left to the jury. Srenxdsen v. 
 Wallace, 46 L. T. 742 : 30 W.'R. 841 : 4 Asp. 
 M. C. .5,oO. 
 
 Expenses of Warehousing, &c., and 
 
 Charges on Vessel leaving Port.] — Where a 
 vessel goes into a port of refuge, in consequence 
 of an injury to her which is itself the subject of 
 general average, the expenses of warehousing 
 and reloading goods necessarily unloaded for the 
 purpose of repairing the injury, and expenses 
 incurred for pilotage and other charges on the 
 vessel leaving the port, are the subject of general 
 average. The practice of average adjusters to 
 the contrary held to be contrary to law. Att- 
 ivood V. Sellar, 49 L. .J., Q. B. 51.5 ; n Q. B. D. 
 286 ; 42 L. T. 644 ; 28 W. R. 604 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 283— C. A. 
 
 A ship on her voyage began to leak dangerously. 
 The master, for the good of all concerned, put 
 into a port of refuge for repairs ; where the 
 cargo was for the benefit of all concerned, landed 
 for repairs. It was then reloaded and the voyage 
 completed : — Held, that the cargo owners were 
 not chargeable with general average contribu- 
 tion in respect of the expenses of reshipping the 
 cargo. Srensdrn v. Wallaee, 54 L. .J.. Q. B. 497 : 
 10 App. Cas. 404 ; 52 L. T. 901 ; 34 W. R. 369 ; 
 5 Asp. M. C. 453— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Wages and Expenses in Port of Distress, not 
 General Average.] — Extraordinary wages and 
 piovisions expended whilst a ship is in a port of 
 distress for repairs are not the subject of general 
 average, except in case of urgent necessity. 
 Latewavdy. Curling. 1 Park, Ins. (8th ed.) 288 ; 
 and see Fletcher v. Poole, ante, col. 1130. 
 
 Sue and Labour Clause.] — See 5, Expenses — • 
 Sue and Laboue Clause, infra, col. 1224. 
 
 b. "Warranty ag'aiust. 
 
 Extent of.] — An insurance free from average, 
 unless general does not extend to the damage 
 
 received by goods in a storm. Wilson v. Smith, 
 1 W. Bl. 507 ; 3 Burr. 1550. 
 
 Memorandum — Rice.] — Rice is not corn within 
 the meaning of the usual memorandum of a policy. 
 Seott V. Bourdillon, 2 Bos. & P. (N.E.) 213. 
 
 Partial Loss — Memorandum — Peas — Corn — 
 
 Malt.] — Peas arrived damaged and were sold for 
 three-fourths less than the freight : — Held, that 
 as the goods mentioned in the memorandum 
 arrived the underwriters were not liable. 3Iasoii 
 V. Skurray, 1 Park, Ins. (8th ed.) 253. 
 
 But the word " corn " includes peas and beans. 
 Ih. 
 
 And malt is corn within the meaning of the 
 clause in a policy to be free from average, &c. 
 Moody V. Surridge, 2 Esp. 633 ; 5 R. R. 575. 
 
 On the memorandum " free from average under 
 3Z. per. cent.," the underwriter is liable for the . 
 amount of the aggregate of several partial losses, 
 each less than 3Z. per cent., but amounting 
 together to more. Blachett v. Roifal Exchatigc 
 Axmrance Co., 2 C. & J. 244 : 2 Tyr. 266 ; 1 L. J., 
 Ex. 101. 
 
 Insurance on goods with the usual memo- 
 randum, "corn, fish, &c., warranted free from 
 average, unless general, or the ship should be 
 stranded." A quantity of fish, part of the goods 
 insured, was so much damaged by the perils of 
 the sea, that, on putting into the {jort of Lisbon, 
 on a survey by the board of health at that place, 
 the fish was declared to be, and in fact was, of 
 no value : — -Held, that this is not a total loss of 
 the fish. Cocking v. Fraser, 4 Dougl. 295. 
 
 Under a similar memorandum in a policy of 
 insurance on an electric cable, the subject of 
 insurance in the valuation clause being expressed 
 as " on one 1,000?. share in the A. B. Telegraph 
 Company, said share valued at 1,100Z. " : where 
 a portion of the cable was lost by peril of the 
 sea, and a portion by perils not insured against : 
 — Held, that the warranty against partial average 
 was applicable, and consequently that the assured 
 could not recover unless a loss of M. per cent, 
 had been sustained. Paterson v. Harru, 1 B. 
 & S. 336 ; 30 L. J., Q. B. 354 ; 7 Jur. (n.s.) 1276 ; 
 5 L. T. 53 ; 9 W. R. 743. 
 
 Held, also, that in assessing the damages, the 
 value of the whole cable that ever was exposed 
 to peril, including tire portion lost, must be 
 ascertained according to its cost, when shipped 
 free on board ; and that the ]5roportion between 
 that value and the loss actually incurred by the 
 perils insured against would give the percentage 
 payable by each underwriter on his subscription. 
 Ih. 
 
 Held, also, that in applying this principle, 
 that portion of the cable which was lost in a 
 first attempt to lay down the cable, and which 
 it became necessary to replace by new cable, 
 should be estimated at the cost of the substi- 
 tuted cable ; but, as regarded a portion of the 
 lost cable which was taken out as superfluous 
 cable, by way of a provision against accident, it 
 might be reasonable to consider how far such 
 cable, if not lost, would have been depreciated 
 in marketable value by having been coiled in the 
 hold of a vessel or by other circumstances. Ih. 
 
 Damages for Collision.] — Insm-ance on a ship 
 " v.," with tln' usual warranty as to average. 
 The sliip having come into collision with another 
 ship, and proceedings being instituted for the 
 damage done to the other ship, the matter was
 
 1249 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUKANCE—X. Losses. 
 
 1250 
 
 referred to arbitrators, who awarded that each 
 ship should bear half of the aggrejrate loss. The 
 ship '■ v.," on the settlement, had to pay a 
 balance to the other ship : — Held, not to be a 
 loss to which the underwriters were liable. De 
 VtiiLf V. .Sfilrudor. 4 A. & E. 420 : (> N. ct M. 713 ; 
 1 H. .vc W. 7:>1 : r, L. J., K. B. 134. 
 
 Expenses of Crew.] — Held, also, that the 
 expense of the wages and provisions of the crew 
 of the '• v.," during the time she was detained in 
 repairing damage done to herself by perils of 
 the sea, was not such a loss. Ih. 
 
 Stranding — Goods Insured in Ship and in 
 Craft — Construction of Valued Policy — Advanced 
 Freight included.] — By a policy of insurance 
 certain maize was insured, as to part, from San 
 Xicolas, and, as to the remainder, from Buenos 
 Ayres, for a voyage to the United Kingdom, free 
 from particular average, unless the ship or craft 
 should be stranded. The policy included all 
 risks of steam navigation, and in craft, tranship- 
 ment, or while waiting ti-ansit. The maize was 
 valued in the policy at 7,!)4U/. " (included l,3tJlZ. 
 <i.v. t'xl. for advance on freight)." Between San 
 Nicolas and Buenos Ayres the ship stranded, 
 and a portion of the cargo was discharged into 
 lighters, and part was wetted and part lost. 
 The ship got off, and at Buenos Ayres was sur- 
 veyed, and w'as admitted by both parties to be 
 seaworthy to continue her voyage, and there- 
 upi )u the discharged cargo was reshipped, together 
 with the Buenos Ayres portion of the maize, 
 which had been awaiting the ship in lighters. 
 On the voyage to Europe a large part of the 
 cargo was lost and the i-emainder damaged owing 
 to ])erils of the seas. In an action raising the 
 question as to the amount of damage recoverable 
 by the assured under the policy : — Held, that, 
 the stranding having occurred before the Buenos 
 A)'res portion of the maize was on board, the 
 a.ssured were not entitled to recover for particular 
 average lo.ss in respect of it, but only in respect 
 of the maize shi{)i)ed at San Nicolas : — Held, 
 also, that the assured were not entitled to have 
 the particular aveiage loss calculated on the 
 valuation stated in the policy, without dethietion 
 of the amount f)f the freight advanced. Thaiiirs 
 and MerxPij Marine Inxnrnncc Co. v. Pitts, 
 [IHysj 1 Q. B. 47(i : 5 11. KIS : (IS I.. T. :.24 ; 41 
 W. K. 346 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 302. 
 
 Damage to Goods, j — Where articles essentially 
 ditfcrent in nature ami kind are insured under a 
 general description, as "masters effects," war- 
 ranted free from all average, the wananty is 
 divisible, and means that the insurers are not to 
 be liable for any partial li>ss. hut are to be liable 
 for a total loss of any of the sjjecrific articles 
 insured under that description. Dnff v. .!/«/•- 
 hrnzii% 3 C. P.. (.\.S.) 10 ; 2<; L. J., C." P. 313 ; 3 
 Jur. (N.S.) 102.",. 
 
 In-:urance at and from ('. to '[,. fni goods in 
 SI shi|) by luinie, until the same should be there 
 safely disfhargeil and landed, rice free of par- 
 ticular average, and the ship, with rice and otht;r 
 goods, arrived within the limits of the port of 
 L. : but before she could be brought to her moor- 
 ings, or Vjc at all urdoaded, ran aground and 
 was wrecked, and the wh(^le cargo was greatly 
 damaged, and was taken out of licr iti craft, an<l 
 carried to the consignees at L. ami sfild, .-uid juo- 
 duced upon the whole little moie than sidKcient 
 to pay freight and salvage ; but the rice did not 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 produce sufficient to pay the freight : — Held, 
 that this was a case of particular average oidy, 
 and therefore, as to the rice, the underwriter 
 was exempted by the warranty. Glenu'w v. 
 London Assurance Co., 3 M. i: S. 371 : 15 R. R. 
 275. 
 
 Upon a policy on goods free from particular 
 average, no damage short of the absolute destruc- 
 tion of the thing insured will amount to a total 
 loss. Nurone v. Haddun, 9 C. B. 30 ; 19 L. J., 
 C. P. lt!l. 
 
 A cargo of corn was insured free from average, 
 on a vovage from Dantzic to Hull, by the ship 
 " Isabella." In the course of the voyage the 
 vessel and cargo su.stained damage by the sea. 
 and in consequence the vessel was obliged to put 
 into a port in Norway, and there the corn was 
 taken out for the purpose of drying it, and 
 repairing the vessel, and so enabling her to pro- 
 ceed to England with the corn when dried. The 
 corn, however, when taken out appeared to have 
 received considerable damage ; and the master, 
 after calling in advice, resolved to sell it, and it 
 was accordinglj' sold (after having been par- 
 tially dried) as damaged corn, in the port in 
 Norway : — Held, that the insured could not 
 recover as for a total loss, unless the corn was in 
 such a state in the port in Norway as that, when 
 brought home, it could not have been sold for 
 an amount exceeding the expense of drying and 
 bringing it home : and that it was not a proper 
 question to leave to the jury, whether a prudent 
 uninsured owner would, under similar circum- 
 stances, have sold the corn at the port in Norway. 
 Rehuer v. Rin^ro.<ie, 6 Ex. 263 ; 20 L. J., Ex. 175. 
 
 An insurance was effected upon wheat shipped 
 in bulk, and valued at 1,(300?., warranted free 
 from average except general, or the ship weiii 
 stranded. On the voyage the ship met with 
 tempestuous weather, and made considerable 
 water ; and in pumping it out, wheat to the 
 value of about 75Z. was pumped out with the 
 water and lost : — Held, that the assured could 
 not recover as for a total loss of the part so lost. 
 Illlh V. Jjondon ^i.s.ii/ ranee Corjjoration, 5 M. &: 
 W. 5(;9 : 9 L. J., Ex. 25. 
 
 A jiolicy was effected on a shi[) and her cargo 
 of guano, which contained the following clause : 
 — '• free frcmi all average or claim arising from 
 jettison or leakage, unless consequent upon 
 stranding, sinking, or fire." Dui'ing the voyage 
 the ship, by tempestuous weathei-, became leaky, 
 and was compelled to j)Ut into port, and wa.s 
 there found uidit to proceed on her voyage, 
 which was abandoned, and the ship and goods 
 sold : — Held, that the assured were entitled to 
 recover as for an average loss. Carr v. lloijul 
 E.rrhmaie A.i.t>iranee Corj/oration, 5 B. & S. 433 ; 
 33 r.. .[.', Q. P.. (13 : 10 .lur. (N.S.) 31 (J ; 10 L. T. 
 2(;5 : 12 W. U. 127. 
 
 Freight.] — A jiolicy containetl a stipulation 
 that '* fi(Mght was warranted free fiom average 
 under U. per cent, uidcss general." The interest 
 assured was di'scribed as "money advanced to. 
 the assured as owner of the ship, on account of 
 freight of the cargo loade<l on board her and 
 subject to the risk of the voj'age" : — Held, that 
 this was an insurance of freight and li;il)le to 
 general average. I/n/l v. Jnnxon, 1 El. & Bl. 
 .500 ; 3 C. L. !{. 737 : 24 L. J., Q. P.. 97 : 1 .lur. 
 (N.S.) 571 : 3 W. K. 213. 
 
 As to what is a Stranding.] — See ante, 
 col. 1093. 
 
 40
 
 1251 
 
 SHIPPING— IN SUEANCE—X. Losses. 
 
 1252 
 
 " Fi'ee from Average under 3 per cent, unless 
 general " — Time Policy — Losses on separate 
 Voyages.] — In .i valueil tiiiie-iiolicy of marine 
 iii-;uranee the ship and freight were warranted 
 free from average under 3 per cent., unless 
 general, or the ship be stranded, sunk, or burned. 
 The ship made several voyages during the period 
 insured, and incurred particular average losses. 
 Such losses on any one voyage did not amount 
 to 3 per cent., but the total of all the losses on 
 all the voyages exceeded 3 per cent. In an 
 action bj^ the assured on the jiolicy : — Held, that 
 the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover, for 
 although the separate losses on each voyage 
 could be added together, yet the losses occurring 
 on distinct and separate voyages could not be 
 ailded together so as to bring the amount of the 
 losses up to 3 per cent. Stewart v. Mcrcluait 
 Marine Imurance Co., .55 L. J., Q. B. 81 ; l(i 
 Q. B. D. (il9 ; 53 L. T. 892 ; 34 W. R. 208 ; 
 5 Asp. M. C. 506— C. A. 
 
 "Free from Particular Average unless the Ship 
 be stranded " — Insured Goods not on Board at 
 Time of Stranding.] — The stranding referred to in 
 a policy on gooils in the usual memorandum 
 " warranted free from particular average unless 
 the ship be stranded" is a "stranding of the 
 ship " whilst the insured goods are on board her. 
 The Alsace-Lorraine, 62 L. J., Adm. 107 ; [1893] 
 P. 209 ; 1 R. 632 ; 69 L. T. 261 ; 42 W. R. 112 ; 
 7 Asp. M. C. 362. 
 
 Where, therefore, rice insured under a policy 
 containing the above memorandum, was un- 
 loaded from the shiji in which it had been 
 originally shipped and taken on shore at a port 
 of refuge in order that the ship might be re- 
 paired, and the ship stranded whilst the cargo 
 was on shore : — Held, that the warranty pre- 
 vented the underwriters being liable for a 
 particular average loss on the rice occurring 
 when the rice had been transhipped and was 
 being carried to its destination in another 
 bottom. Ih. 
 
 Free from Average under £3 per cent, unless 
 Ship be "burnt."] — A ship was insured unfler a 
 Lloyd's policy containing the usual form of 
 memorandum — -viz. : " And all other goods, also 
 ship and freight, are warranted free from average 
 under 3Z. per cent., unless general, or the ship be 
 stranded, sunk, or burnt '" : — Held, that a ship is 
 not " burnt " within the meaning of the memo- 
 randum where fires that have broken out in the 
 coal bunkers have consumed some of the ship's 
 coals, and done some slight damage to the 
 structure of the ship itself, but have occasioned 
 no interrui)tion of the voyage and no interference 
 with the navigation of tlie ship. The Glenliret 
 «3 L. J.. Adm; 45 ; [1.S94] P. 48 ; 6 R. 665 ; 69 
 L. T. 706 ; 42 W. R. 97 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 395— C. A. 
 
 It cannot be laid down as a definition ap- 
 plicable to every case that a ship is " burnt " 
 within the meaning of the memorandum, when- 
 ever the injury by fire is sufficient to render 
 the ship temporarily unnavigable. Whether a 
 partial burning does or does not constitute the 
 ship a '• burnt " ship is an inference to be drawn 
 in each particular case by the jury (or judge 
 sitting as a jury) from the actual facts in each 
 particular case. Ih. 
 
 Free from Average under Three per cent, 
 unless General — General and Particular Average 
 not added together.] — Under tlie memorandum 
 
 in a marine policy by which the subject-matter 
 of insurance is warranted free from average 
 under a certain amount per cent., unless general, 
 or the ship be stranded, sunk, or burnt, a general 
 average loss cannot be added to a jiarticular 
 average loss to make up a loss amounting to the 
 specified percentage. A ship was insured by a 
 policy expressed to be against all losses which 
 could not be recovered under an ordinary Lloyd's 
 policy by reason of the insertion therein of the 
 memorandum against average under three per 
 cent., unless general, or the ship be stranded, 
 sunk or burnt. The ship while covered by the 
 l>olicy through stress of weather; incurred a par- 
 ticular average loss ; and further damage to her 
 was incurred under such circumstances as to 
 constitute a general average loss. The particu- 
 lar average loss did not amount to three per cent, 
 of her value, but the general and particular 
 average losses taken together did amount to such 
 percentage : — Held, that the assured were en- 
 titled to recover the particular average loss under 
 the policy. Priee v. ^1 Shijjs' Small Damage 
 Inxurance Adsociation, 58 L. J., Q. B. 269 ; 22 
 Q. B. D. 580 ; 61 L. T. 278 ; 37 W. R. 566 ; 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 435— C. A. 
 
 Mode of ascertaining whether Loss ex- 
 ceeded 3 per cent.] — A time policy on ship con- 
 tained the warranty " free from average under 3 
 per cent." During a voyage covered by the policy 
 the ship sustained (without its being discovered) 
 a fracture of her stern-post owing to perils of the 
 sea, being a particular average loss within the 
 policy. The voyage having been completed and 
 the cargo delivered, the ship was put into dry 
 dock for the purpose only of being cleaned, 
 scraped, and painted, being in such a state that 
 no prudent owner would have put to sea again 
 without having her cleaned and scraped. When 
 the sliip was put into dry dock the injury was 
 for the first time discovered, and the necessary 
 repairs were then effected, and the ship was dis- 
 chai'ged from dry dock on the eighth day, 
 repaired, cleaned, scraped, and painted. Had 
 she required nothing but cleaning, scraping, and 
 painting, she might have been discharged on the 
 evening of the third day. The repairs alone, 
 without cleaning, &c., would have taken the 
 whole eight days. If the whole or half of the 
 dock dues for the first tlnee days ought to be 
 charged against the underwriters in account, 
 there was a particular average loss exceeding 3 
 per cent. If the cost of the repairs plus the dock 
 chai'gea for the last five days were alone to be 
 charged against the underwriters, there was not 
 a particular average loss of 3 per cent. If the 
 dock charges for the first three days ought to be 
 attributed partly to the repairs and partly to the 
 cleaning, &c., then (so far as the apportionment 
 was a question of fact) it was to be taken that 
 one-half of those charges should be attributed to 
 each purpose : — Held, that although a contract of 
 marine insurance is a contract of indemnity, and 
 though the result would be that the shipowners 
 would be relieved of part of the dock charges 
 which they would otherwise have had to pay 
 themselves, they were entitled to have the dock 
 charges for the first three daj^s aitportioncd 
 between the repairs on the one hand and the 
 cleaning, &c., on the other ; that the apportion- 
 ment should be one-half to each purpose, and 
 that there had therefore been a particular average 
 loss exceeding 3 jier cent. Ma ri ne Inxx ra nee Co. v. 
 China Trans-Pacijic Steamshij) Co., 56 L. J., Q. B.
 
 1253 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—X. Losses. 
 
 1254 
 
 100 ; 11 App. Cas. r,73 : 55 L. T. 491 : 35 W. R. 
 lf.il : C. Asp. M. C. C.S— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Ship Docked for Repairs — Survey in Dock — Ap- 
 portioninent of Expenses.] — Duiiu.Ej a voyage 
 covered by a policy umlerwritten by the de- 
 fendants a vessel sustained damage, and was 
 subsequently put into dry dock for the purpose 
 of effecting repairs. The survey of the vessel 
 for the purpose of renewing her classification in 
 Lloyd's Register was not due for some months, 
 but the owners took advantage of her being in 
 dry (lock to have the survey made, and her 
 classification was renewed : — Held, that the dock 
 expenses, so far as they were common to the 
 repaii-s and to the survey, ought to be appor- 
 tioned in equal moieties between the ownei's 
 and the underwriters. Marine Inmrance Co. v. 
 China Traiis-Parifir Stcainxhip Co. (supra) fol- 
 lowed. Ituahon Stcamshij) Co. v. London. A.%suv- 
 nnre, 6G L. J.. Q. B. 841 ; [1897] 2 Q. B. 45(; ; 77 
 L. T. 402. 
 
 Average Payable upon Separate Packages — 
 Loss on whole exceeding 3 per cent.] — By the 
 terms of a policy the assurer binfls himself to pa.y 
 average separately on each package of the goods 
 insured. This stipulation does not preclude the 
 assured from recovering an average loss uiK)n the 
 whole exceeding 8 per cent, under the usual clause 
 in the policy. And in such case, although several 
 ))ackages remain uninjured, they are to be in- 
 cluded in the average. IfiKjedorn v. W/iifinore, 
 1 Stark. 157. 
 
 Goods part saved — Warranty against Particu- 
 lar Average. ' — See /fri//ii/r// V. I'rarxon. 7 'i'aunt. 
 154, and •■asi's >upia C. ToT.XL \a>>>. 
 
 Warranted free from Damage except by Contact 
 with Sea Water— Goods part wetted, part sold 
 under suspicion of Damage.] — See Cator v. 
 (Ircat W'r.'it (■ I'll J n,s lira lire Co. of yew 3'«/7.'. ante, 
 col. 1228. 
 
 Memorandum — Salt.] — Semble, '• salt " in the 
 meiiHiiaiidum ddcsnot incluile saltjietie. Joiirnu 
 V. Jioiiidii-n, 1 I'ark, Ins. (8th cd.) 245. 
 
 Warranted free from all Average and without 
 Benefit of Salvage — Wagering policy.] — See 
 l\iitli V. I'rnli'ctioii Muri/ir J iisii ra iicr Co. ante. 
 
 col. 11:58. 
 
 I. .\D.iusr.Mi:.\T. 
 a. Persons Adjusting-. 
 
 Agent.] — If it is cstalilished that an agent lias 
 authnrity to sign ;i policjy fur ;in und(M\vritcr, 
 it follows that lie has authority to adjust if. 
 Itirhard.foii v. Aiidriwini. 1 ('ainp. 43, li. ; 10 
 K. U. (;28. u. 
 
 So, if a person allows his agent to underwrite 
 and settle loss(!S for him, lie gives him an imidied 
 authority to refer a dispute about a loss to arbi- 
 tiation. anil is bound by such act of tlie agent. 
 (iooihon V. Hfoohr, 4 ("amp. 1(13. 
 
 A ])lea of payment to an action by A., upon a 
 poli(-y effected by A. as agent, is supporteil by 
 an indorsement (tn the policy by A., purporting 
 that the loss had been adjusted, and the balance 
 <lue fiom the defenilant to A. paid, although the 
 princii.al has not authorised sucli a settlement. 
 (iihion V. Wnitrr. 2 N. A: .M. 737 ; 5 B. i: Ad. '.)«. 
 
 Insurance Broker.] — if an insurance broker 
 keeps a policy he has effected in his hands, he is 
 
 Vjound to use reasonable diligence to procure the 
 underwriters to settle and pay any loss that may 
 ha})pen u[)on it. Bouittield v. Creswell, 2 Camp. 
 545 : 11 K. R. 794. 
 
 Where a policy was delivered to a broker for 
 the purpose of settling a loss, which was adjusted 
 by the underwriter, payable at a month, and the 
 broker charged such underwriter in account for 
 the loss, and transmittetl an account to the 
 assured, in which he stated himself to be debtor 
 for the amount of the loss, and for the balance 
 of that account, and the assured drew a bill on 
 the broker, which the latter accepted, but did 
 not pay, and the underwriter's name was not 
 struck off the policy : — Held, that he was not 
 discharged. Jiu-'i.sell v. Bamjleij, 4 B. & Aid. 395. 
 
 Insurance brokers holding a policy for the 
 purpose of adjusting a loss, suffered an under- 
 writer's name to be struck out, upon his signing 
 the adjustment ; he gave them credit in his 
 books for the loss, and became bankrupt ; but 
 they never took credit for the amount in their 
 books ; on the contrary, they gave the assured 
 notice of the bankruptcy ; and there was after- 
 wards a settlement of accounts between the 
 brokers and the assured, comprehending the 
 policy in question, on which no demand was 
 made upon them in respect of the bankrupt's 
 subscription : — Held, that they were not liable to 
 the assured for the sum due from the bankrupt 
 on the policy. Or.ington v.Iicll. 3 Camp. 237. 
 
 Insurance brokers, after a total loss and an 
 adjustment, and whilst the policy remained in 
 their hands, erased the name of the underwriter 
 from the policy, debited him with the loss, and 
 gave the assured credit for it ; but the latter 
 never recognised the adjustment: — Held, that 
 the underwriter still continued liable to him for 
 the loss. Benttoii v. Maitland, tiow, 205. 
 
 Liability for Negligence.] — Wlun parties, in 
 order to ascertain average conti-ibution in dis- 
 pute, agree that an average adjuster for reward 
 shall ascertain and adjust the amount, and agree 
 to abide by his decision, such average adjuster, 
 having given his decision, is not liable to an 
 action for carelessness, negli.gence and uiiskilful- 
 ness, if he lias acted in good faith. Thar.'iis 
 Siilplnir and CopjnrCo. v. Lof'ti/.\-. 12 L. .)., C. 1'. 
 t; : L. R. 8 C. I>. 1 ; 27 L. T. 51'.) : 21 W. 1!. Iii9 : 
 1 Asp. M. C. 155. 
 
 Duty of Shipowner.] — Where a general average 
 loss has occurred, a shipowner may be liable to 
 ati action for damages foi' delivering uj) the cargo 
 without taking the necessary steps to ])i(M_'ure an 
 a<ljustment of tlie general average and to secure 
 its payment. The plaintiff shipped goods on 
 board a steamer belonging lo tlic ilel'en<lanls 
 under a bill of lading by which the detrndiints 
 undertook to delivei' tlie goods at tiie jiort of 
 Montreal unto the (Jrand Truidc Railway, by 
 them to be forwarded (upon the conditions before 
 and after expressed) thence per railway to the 
 station nearest to Toronto, ice. ami among the 
 conditions was the following: "The shiiiowiier 
 or railway comitany is not to be liable for any 
 damage to any gooils wliich are capable of being 
 covere<l by insur:uice," iVic. In the coui'seof the 
 voyage the i>lairitifT's goods su.staiiu^d damage, 
 whicii came under tlie heading of general average. 
 'I'hc sliiji retuined to Liverpool, and the cargo 
 was discharged and handed over by the defen- 
 dants to a company to be distributed and dis- 
 posed for the benefit of llic^ ].arties C(jncerned, 
 
 40—2
 
 1255 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— X. Losses. 
 
 1256 
 
 without giving any assistance to the bailees, the 
 underwriters, or the persons whose goods were 
 damaged to get an average statement made out, 
 or taking any stejjs to enable the jjlaintift' to 
 recover coTitriVnition : — Held, that tlie bill of 
 lading did not relieve the defendants from con- 
 tribution to general average ; and that they were 
 liable to an action by the plaintifi's for their 
 omission to secure an adjustment and ):)ayment 
 of the genci'al average. Croohes v. Allen, 49 
 L. J., Q.B. 201 : 5 Q. li D. 38 ; -11 L.T. 800 ; 28 
 W. K. 304 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 216. 
 
 Notice.] — Where bj- a mcmorantlum on a 
 policy, the underwriter was to adjust a loss in 
 three mouths after notice, a direct notice from 
 the assured is not required, if he has had notice 
 bv other means. Ahel v. Potts, 3 Esp. 242 ; 6 
 E. K. 820. 
 
 b. Computation. 
 
 By what Law.] — A loss by a general average 
 is to be calculated according to the law of the 
 port of dischaige. Therefore, an action will not 
 lie in this country to recover back money paid 
 upon an average loss adjusted at St. Petersburg, 
 according to the law of Russia (the consignor 
 and consignee of the goods and the owner of the 
 vessel being British subjects), although by the 
 law of England an average loss would not be 
 payable under the circumstances. Sivumds v. 
 White, 4 D. & R. 37.-> ; 2 B. & C. 805 ; 2 L. J. 
 (O.S.) K. B. 1.59 ; 2fi R. R. 560. And see Smith 
 T. llacndl, 2 Dow, 538. 
 
 Foreign Average Statement of Loss, binding 
 Nature of.] — A cai'go of rye was insured for 
 4,160/. from Taganrog to Bremen. The policy 
 contained the usual memorandum, "Corn, &c. 
 are warranted free from average unless general 
 or the ship be sti'anded," &c. and in the margin 
 were the following conditions, — " To pay general 
 average as per foreign statement, if so made up. 
 Warranted free from particular average unless 
 the ship or craft be stranded, sunk, or burnt : 
 but this warranty not to exonerate the under- 
 writers from the liability to pay any special 
 charges for mats, warehousing, forwarding, or 
 otherwise, if incurred, as well as partial loss 
 arising from transhipment. Warranted free 
 from capture and seizure and the consequences 
 of any attempt thereat." After leaving Taganrog, 
 the vessel encountered severe weather, and was 
 compelled to put into two several ports for repair, 
 at each of which the captain, in order to enable 
 him to obtain funds to j)ut her in a condition to 
 continue her voyage, gave a bottomry bond on 
 shij), freight, and cargo, the aggregate of which, 
 with interest, on the arrival of the ship at 
 Bremen, amounted to 2,818/. lO.v. od. The 
 captain being unable to discharge this obliga- 
 tion, the consignees of the cargo, in order to 
 obtain delivery, paid the amount. On the 3rd 
 of August, 1868, a statement was prepared by 
 an average-stater iii Bremen, in which the loss 
 arising upon the Ijottomry bonds was apportioned 
 between the ship and freight and tlie cargo as 
 follows :—],0S8/. 14.S'. U(L ns falling upon the 
 cargo, and 1,185Z. ll-v. upon the ship and freight. 
 The captain being unable to pay or give security 
 for the 1,18.")Z. ll.y., so charged upon the ship and 
 freight, the vessel was sold under an order of the 
 Tribunal of Commerce of Bremen, and produced 
 729/. 10s. 2d., leaving a balance due to the holders 
 of the bonds (the 1,088/. 14*. lid. having been 
 
 paid) of 663Z. 2.y. 10^, On the 3rd of October, 
 a further or supplemental average-statement was 
 made by the average-stater, in which the last- 
 mentioned sum was stated as " the amount which 
 the cargo had to i)ay as adcUtional bottomry 
 debt" to the holders of tlie bonds. These average 
 statements were admitted to be accurate, and 
 correctly made up in accordance with the law in 
 force in Bremen : and it was further admitted 
 that " such a loss as that which occurred in this 
 case is treated at Bremen as a general average 
 loss, and not as a particular average loss": — 
 Held, that the underwriters were bound by the 
 average-statements so made, and consequently 
 that the assured were entitled to recover the 
 663/. 2.?. 10^7. Harris v. Scaramanga, 41 L. J., 
 C. P. 170 ; L. R. 7 C. P. 481 : 26 L. T. 797 ; 20 
 W. R. 777 : 1 Asp. M. C. 339. 
 
 Sugars (consisting of bags in series) were 
 insured from Java to Holland by an English 
 policy which contained this clause, " To cover 
 only the risks excepted by the clause ' warranted 
 free from particular average unless the vessel be 
 stranded, sunk, or burnt' : to pay all claims and 
 losses on Dutch terms and according to statement 
 made up by official dispacheur in Holland." 
 There was already a policy effected in Holland 
 on the same goods ; but of this the English 
 underwriters had no notice, except so far as it 
 could be implied from the above words. On her 
 voyage to Holland the vessel took the ground 
 under circumstances which would amount to a 
 stranding according to English, but not according 
 to Dutch, law ; and a Dutch average-stater (a 
 particular average loss having been incurred) 
 made up a statement of average, which state- 
 ment it was admitted was properly made up 
 according to the facts, and according to the law 
 of Holland : — Held, that the terms of the policy 
 sued on did not amount to notice to the insurers 
 of an existing Dutch policy, and therefore it was 
 to be construed as if it stood alone, and according 
 to English law. Hcndrirhs v. Australasia?!. 
 Insurance Co., 43 L. J., C. P. 188 ; L. R. 9 
 C. P. 460 ; 30 L. T. 419 : 22 W. R. 947 ; 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 44. 
 
 Held, also, that, by the latter words of the 
 clause, the defendants were bound to pay 
 according to the foreign avei'age statement, 
 and consequently that the i)laintiiJ was entitled 
 to recover. Ih. 
 
 A policy on a cargo of wheat shipped from 
 Varna to Marseilles contained the usual memo- 
 randum against average unless general, and the 
 following term "general average as per foreign 
 statement." The ship, after starting from Varna,, 
 met with heavy weather, and was forced to carry 
 a great press of canvas to avoid a lee shore. This 
 caused her to strain very much, and having sprung 
 a leak and become otherwise disabled, she was 
 brought to the port of Constantino{)le. It was 
 found, on a survey, that a fifth of the wheat had 
 been damaged ; and the surveyors recommended 
 that the voyage should end at Constantinople, 
 and the damaged part of the wheat shoukl be 
 sold, and the rest transhipjied to Marseilles. The 
 repaii's necessary for the ship would have taken 
 from one to two months. Under these circum- 
 stances, the recommendation of the surveyors 
 was carried out and an adjustment of average in 
 respect of ship and cargo was made at Con- 
 stantinople, in such adjustment the damage 
 which the cargo of wheat had sustained was 
 treated as general average, and in accordance 
 with such average adjustment a certain sum of
 
 1257 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUKANCE—X. Losses. 
 
 1258 
 
 money became payable Ijy the underwriters upon i 
 the pohcy. The law by which the adjustment 
 ought to have been regulated according to the 
 law and usages prevailing at Constantinople 
 under the circumstances was the law of l^^rauce. 
 and the average adjustment was made up in all 
 respects in conformity with such law. In an 
 action on the policy by the owners of the wheat, 
 the underwriters paid into court suificient to 
 cover the claim on all the items of the average 
 adjastment except the damage to the wheat 
 which, by the law of England, would not under 
 the circumstances be a general average loss : — 
 Hekl, that the voyage was rightly brought to an 
 end at Constantinople, and the average adjusted 
 there, anil that the underwriters were liable in 
 respect of the damage done to the wheat. J/arro 
 V. Ocean Murine Inxnnince Co., 44 L. J., C. P. 
 22!) ; L. R. in C. P. 414 ; 32 L. T. 743 ; 28 W. K. 
 758 : 2 Asp. M. C. .5'J(J— Ex. Ch. 
 
 The insurer of goods to a foreign country is 
 not liable to indemnify the assured (a subject of 
 that .country), who is obliged by the decree of a 
 court there to pay contriVjution to a general 
 average, which by the law of this country could 
 not have been demanded, where it does not 
 appear that the ]jaities contracted ui)on the 
 footing of some usage among merchants obtain- 
 ing in the foreign country, to treat the same as 
 general average ; but such usage is to be collected 
 merely from the recitals and assumption made in 
 the decree. Poirrr v. Wliitntarr. 4 ]M. & S. 141 ; 
 
 k; k. 11. 4i(;. 
 
 The plaintiff, on Ijchalf of the tinaiicc minister 
 of tlie Sultan of Turkey, on the 2(;tli of November. 
 18.")H, effected an insurance with the defendant, in 
 London. u})on a (|naiitity of gold in a ship called 
 the •■ Dutchman." belonging to Waterford, and in 
 the ])ort of London. The next day she was sold 
 by her owners to a llussian company, her name 
 being changed to the " Dniepei'" : and an entry 
 of the sale was made in the registry at Waterford, 
 but neither the plaintiff nor the defendant knew 
 of the sale, or of her name being changed, utitil 
 the termination of her voyage. The gold was 
 put on l>oard on the 4th of December, and while 
 tlie sliip was on hei- way to her destination at 
 Coiistantino|)le she grounded on a s]io:d witliin 
 the jurisdiction of that port. The gold was sent 
 on shore before any expense was incurred in 
 respect of saving the cargo, and the ship Ijccame 
 a tfttal wreck. The gold was deposited with tlie 
 Kussian consul, and the owner was forced, in 
 • irder to gt-t possession of it, to give security for 
 tlie jiayment of any claim which might be made 
 upon it according to the law which prevailed at 
 Cuiistantinople. The sin')) being llussian was 
 siibjertf to llussian law, which autlioiised tlie 
 <leterminatioii of maritime causes at Coiistanti- 
 noi)le by refi'ren<'(! to the l''i'cn''h code de com- 
 UKM-ce. A ciiurl was didy a|ipi)intcd by the 
 consul-g(Mieral. and it was a(ijudged that the 
 ca.so was one whi(;li required a settlement of 
 salvage, and ordered that the gold should contri- 
 bute 7,149/. (>*. \tl. towaifls the expense of saving 
 the cargo. I'ndor Knglivh law the owner of the 
 gold coidd Tiot have been called u])on to ]iay a 
 great ]iait of that amoutit, nor would hi; hav(! 
 had to ])ay it if the ship had l)een under an 
 English flag : but the assured was forced to pay 
 it : — Held, in an action to recover from the 
 defendant tlu; amount of his proportion of the 
 sum so ]iaiil, that the court could not consider 
 whether the ilccision of the court at Constanti- 
 nople was correct or not. Dent v. Smith, 38 L. J., 
 
 Q. B. 144 ; L. Pi. 4 Q. B. 414 : 20 L. T. 868 ; 17 
 W. R. (J4(;. 
 
 Sue and Labour Clause — Stranding — 
 
 Expense of Ee-shipping Cargo.] — See Tlir Mdnj 
 Thoitiii.y^ infra, cnl. 12(i."i. 
 
 Recovery of Sum paid under Foreign 
 
 Sentence.] — Tlie plaintiff having been compelletl 
 to pay under the sentence of a foreign court 
 general average bej'oiid what he would have had 
 to pay by English law, held entitled to recover 
 that sum against his insurer ; usage to that effect 
 being proved. Xcivnuin v. f'n'ulrf, 2 Park, Ins. 
 (8th ed.) 900. 
 
 Contributory Value.] — A policy effected 
 
 on cargo valued at 82.")/. and 2'yl. cash advanced 
 on freight, contained a clause : " General average 
 payable according to foreign statement, if so 
 made up." The ship was damaged on the voyage, 
 and the master bottomried the ship and cargo 
 for repairs and other expenses. At the port of 
 destination, a general average statement was 
 made up, in which 1,293/. was fixed as the con- 
 tributory value of the cargo. The ship and 
 freight being unable to pay their share of the 
 bond, the residue was by German law payable 
 by owners of cargo "on principles of general 
 average" : — Held, that the assured were entitled 
 to recover from the underwriters the whole sum 
 (being under 8.5U/.) paid by them in respect of 
 the bottomry bond. Jiuhinmvs v. J'Jioin/fx 'fnixtrcx, 
 3 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 1134. 
 
 Payment in respect of Bottomry Bond.] 
 
 — A [jolicy of marine insurance was effected with 
 English underwriters by an Knglish merchant 
 upon goods shiiiiied in a French ship, and it was 
 thereby provided that general average was to be 
 payal^le as i)er judiciat foreign statement. The 
 ship was damaged by a collision and put into 
 port for repairs, the cargo, however, being unin- 
 jured. The master, not having funds to do the 
 necessary rejjairs, gave a bottomry bond on .ship, 
 freight and cargo. The slii)) and freight proving 
 insutticient to satisfy the l)ond. the assured had 
 to i)ay the deficiency in order to obtain possession 
 .)f his goods : — Helil. that the policy was not to 
 be con.strued according to French law, exeejit so 
 far as the jiarties ha<l expressly stipulated that 
 it should be, and tlial tlieie i)eing no loss liy 
 l)erils of the sea accoiding to English law, the 
 assured could not recovci- from the underwriters 
 the amount which he had jiaid as above men- 
 tioned. O-rrri- V. Pnn/r. 19 L. .1.. Q. P.. lt)3 ; r, 
 Q. P. 1). 272: 42 L. T. t;s7 : 2S W. 11. .■.S2 ; I 
 Asp. M. C. 30(1. 
 
 By Foreign Agent of Lloyd's.]— The cert ilicatc 
 of an agent for Lloyd's at a foieign purl, ascer- 
 taining an average loss on ;i ciirgo damaged by 
 sea-water, is not of itself admissihle as to the 
 amount of the loss in an action by the assureil 
 against the underwriters in this country. Dnike 
 V. Mdi-rijiitt. 2 I>. iV I!. C.'.IC, : 1 P.. .VC. 473; 1 
 L. .J. (o.s.) K. I'.. H'.l : 2.-, 11. K. U\. 
 
 Amount on Ship— Several Valued Policies.] — 
 
 Where; several valued policies are elVeeted u|)on 
 the same vessel valued differently, and upon a 
 total loss, the assured receives under some of the 
 IKilieies i)art of the sums insured, in an action 
 upon another policy he is only entitled to recover 
 the difference between the amount received and 
 the agreed value in that policy. JSnice v. Jones,
 
 1259 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—X. Losses. 
 
 1260 
 
 1 II. .V: {'. TC.'.t : S2 L. J.. Ex. i;?2 : '.t Jur. (N.s.) 
 (li'S : 7 L. T. 74.S ; 11 W. K. :?7I. 
 
 Limit of Liability.]— The liability of the 
 
 underwriter is not restricted to the single amoimt 
 of his subscription, but he may be subject either 
 to several average losses, or to an average loss 
 and a total loss, or to money exjiended and labour 
 bestowed about the defence, safeguard and 
 recovery of the ship to a much greater amount 
 than the subscription ; and it will l)e recoverable 
 as au average loss. Le Chpiiiiiinnf v. Pr(ii\son. ^ 
 Taunt. 367 ; 13 R. R. 68(j. 
 
 When Accounts Complicated.] — In an 
 
 action on a pulicj' for au average loss, if the 
 account is so comjilicated that it cannot be 
 adjusted in court, the jury, by consent of the 
 parties, may find for a total loss, the plaintiff 
 entering into a rule to account upou oath for 
 what part of the insured proi)erty he may recover. 
 Burler v. French. 1 Dougl. 29-1.* ^ce also Cases 
 3. AvERAaE Loss, ante, cols. 1240, seq. 
 
 Amount on Freight.] — A jjolicy contained a 
 stipulation that " freight was warranted free 
 from average under bl. per cent., unless general." 
 The interest assured was described as " money 
 advanced to the assured as owner of the ship, on 
 account of freight of the cargo loaded on board 
 her, and subject to the risk of the voyage " : — 
 Held, first, that this was an assurance on ifreight, 
 and liable to general average. Hull v. Janson, 
 4 El. .^: Bl. 500 : 3 C. L. R.'^737 : 24 L. J., Q. B. 
 97 ; 1 Jur. (n.s.) .571 ; 3 W. R. 213. 
 
 Held. also, that a custom alleged by plea to 
 exist in London, where the policy was effected, 
 that assurers of money advanced on freight were 
 not liable to make good a general average loss, 
 was no answer to such a policy, which, according 
 to the iirevious interpretation, expressly stipu- 
 lated that the assurer should be liable to make 
 good such a loss. Ih. 
 
 Action on a policy on shi() at and from London 
 to the East Indies, until her arrival at her port 
 of discharge on the outward voyage. Loss by 
 perils of the sea. Ship was chartered from 
 London to the East Indies, there to deliver her 
 outward cargo, and return thence with a cargo 
 for England into the Thames, and there make a 
 true delivery, kc. ; and it was agreed that the 
 charterers should, upon condition that the shii) 
 performed her voyage and arrived at London, 
 and not otherwise, pay freight for every ton of 
 goods that should be brought home, at so much 
 per ton : the ship sailed on the voyage insuied, 
 and in the course of her outward voyage incurred 
 an average loss, but was rejtaired, and afterwaids 
 performed her voj'-age and the freight was 
 received :— Held, that" the freight was "liable to 
 contribute to general average, and that the 
 undervviiter was entitled to deduct in lespcct of 
 such contribution. Will in ins v. London Assiir- 
 uncc Co.. 1 M. c^c S. 318 : 14 R. R. 441. 
 
 Nett or Gross.] — The general principle, 
 
 that the assured shall recover no more tiian an 
 indemnity in case of loss, may be controlled by 
 a mercantile usage clearly established to the 
 contrary. Therefore, a usage, that the loss in an 
 open policy on freight shall be adjusted on the 
 gross and not on the nett amount of the freight 
 is a legal usage. Palmer v. Blachhtirn. 1 Bi'ng. 
 61 : 7 Moore, 339 : 1 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 1 : 25 
 R. R. 599. 
 
 In the case of a total loss, ()n an open policy 
 on freight, the assured is entitled to recover for 
 the gross freight, free from all deductions ; and 
 evidence is admissible to shew that, although 
 open policies on freight are of rare occurrence, 
 still, that it is the practice at Lloyd's to pay the 
 assured the amount of the gross and not of the 
 nett freight. Ih. 
 
 Amount on Ship and Goods.] — A policy was 
 effected for twelve months on ship and goods 
 from Liverpool to the coast of Africa and back, 
 on a barter voyage. The policy contained a 
 stipulation that " outward cai'go should be con- 
 sidered homewanl, interest twenty-four hours 
 after arrival at first port or place of trade " ; 
 and by a memorandum the insurance was stated 
 to be " upon ship valued at 2,000^., and cargo 
 8,000?.. with liberty to increase the valuation 
 of the homeward cargo." The ship sailed to 
 Kinsembo, on the African coast, and there 
 discharged a third of her cargo, and after a 
 stay there of more than twenty-four hours, pro- 
 ceeded towards other ports in order to take in 
 homeward cargo, and was totally lost, together 
 with the two-thirds of the outward cargo which 
 remained on board : — Hekl, that the valuation 
 apidied to what was substantially a full cargo, 
 and not to anj' quantity of goods substantially 
 less than a full cargo, and entitled the assured to 
 8,000?. in the event of the total loss of a sub- 
 stantially full cargo, or to an indemnity in case of 
 a partial loss, not in any case exceeding 8,000/. ; 
 and that the principle for the valuation of a 
 partial loss was this : — If the value of the whole 
 of the intended cargo was a datum, the partial 
 loss would be adjusted to the common propor- 
 tion : but where the value of the whole of the 
 intended cargo could not be ascertained, the 
 proportion which the part lost bore to the whole 
 could not be known, and the mode of estimating 
 a partial loss under a valued policy coukl not be 
 adopted, and, consequently, that, under the 
 circumstances, the assured would be entitled to 
 the ordinary indemnity as under an open policy 
 underwritten for 8,000?. 'Iol>in v. Ilnrfurd. 17 
 C. B. (N.s.) 528 : 34 L. J.. C. P. 37 ;" 10 Jur. 
 (N.s.) 8.59; 10 L. T. 817: 12 W. R. 1062 
 — Ex. Ch. And see Forhe.i v. Aspinnll. 13 East, 
 323 : 12 R. R. 352. 
 
 Amount on Goods.] — A partial loss on a policy 
 on goods by reason of sea damage is to be cal- 
 culated by ascertaining the dift'ei'ence between 
 the respective gross proceeds of the same goods 
 when sound and when damaged, and not the nett 
 proceeds. Hiirrij v. Itoyal E-rrlia ntje Axximincc 
 Co., 3 Bos. cV P. 308 : 6 R. R. 804. 
 
 The I'ule for estimating any loss of goods 
 insured by an open policy is to take the invoice 
 price at the loading port, together with the 
 premium of insurance and commission, as the 
 basis of the calculation of the value of the 
 goods : and the rule for estimating a partial loss 
 in the like case is (the s-nne as upon a valued 
 policy) by taking the proportional difference 
 between the selling price of the sound and that 
 of the damaged pait of the goods at the port of 
 delivery, and applying that proportion (be it 
 half, a (juarter, an eighth, &c.) with reference 
 to such estimated value at the loading poit. to 
 the damaged portion of the sroods. C.slier v. 
 Xoble. 12 East, 639: 11 R. R. 5i)5. S. P., 
 Lam/lioni v. Allnvfl, 4 Taunt. 511 : 13 R. R. 
 663."
 
 1261 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—X. Losses. 
 
 1262 
 
 Where goods were injured by perils insured 
 against: — Held, that the loss "in value of the 
 goods depended on their value at the time of 
 their arrival at the port of destination, and not 
 at the time of sale, and the underwriters were 
 
 j Valuation of Goods— Advance Freight— Memo- 
 
 : randum — Amount on which particular Average 
 
 Loss calculated.] — Insurance on goods vuIulmI at 
 
 7,'.i-lU/. '• inchuliug 1,361Z. fo. for advance on 
 
 freight : with warranty against particular averao-e 
 
 therefore not liable for a fall in the market price unless the ship be stranded. There was a strand 
 
 between such arrival and the time of sale. Cater 
 V. Gri'td Western Inmrance Co., 42 L. J., C. P. 
 266 : L. R. 8 C. P. 552 ; 29 L. T. 136 ; 21 W. R. 
 850 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 90. 
 
 Where goods are shipped on an invoice, an 
 average loss upon a policj' must be calculated 
 upon the invoice price, and not upon the price 
 of the market at which the damaged goods 
 arrived. Wulihvii v. Coumbe, 3 Taunt. 162 : 12 
 R. R. 629. 
 
 Average loss of a valued policy is to be esti- 
 mated by the real value of the goods on board. 
 IlamUton v. Mrndez or Mendex, 1 W. Bl. 279 ; 2 
 Burr. 1198. 
 
 The rule by which to calculate a partial loss on 
 a policy on goods, by reason of sea damage, is the 
 difference between the respective gross proceeds 
 of the same goods when sound and when damaged, 
 and not the nett proceeds ; it being settled that 
 the undenvriter is not to bear any loss from 
 fluctuation of market or port duties', or charges 
 after the arrival of the goods at their port of 
 destination. Johnson v. SheddoH, 2 East, 581 ; 
 6 R. R. 516. 
 
 In ascertaining the general average contribu- 
 tion to be paid by the shipowner in respect of 
 goods jettisoned, the value of such goods is to be 
 taken to be the sum which it may fairly be 
 assumed they would have been worth to the 
 owner at the port of adjustment. If, from the 
 circumstances, and the damaged condition of the 
 rest of the cargo, it may fairly be assumed that 
 the jettisoned goods would, ifthey had not been 
 thrown overboard, have anived in the like 
 damaged condition, their value is to be taken to 
 be the sum they would liave realised as damaged 
 goods. Flrteher v. Alr.ni iider, 37 L. J.. C. P. 193 ; 
 L. R. 3 C. P. 375 ; IS L. T. 432 : 16 W. R. 803. 
 
 A ship sailed from Livei-pool foi' Calcutta with 
 2,000 tons of salt on board, all belonging to one 
 mercliant. The <lay after she sailed the ship struck 
 on a bank on the Irish coast, and after throwing 
 overboard 1.000 tons (if the salt, was got off and 
 put back to Jjiverpool, wlieie the remainder of 
 tlie cargo was uidoaded and found to l>eall (with 
 the exception of altoiit loo tons) so damaged as 
 to be nearly unfit to be forwarded, and worthless. 
 'I'he charterer luui jiaid ] ,2.">o;. in advance for, 
 freight. In an action by the owner against an 
 underwriter on the ship, to recover a general 
 average contril)ution in luspect of the salt so 
 jettisoned : — Held, that in asceitaining tlie con- 
 tribution to Vx; paid by the .shipowner to the 
 owner of the cargo, in respect of the salt jetti- 
 soned, it Wius to be valued at the price which it 
 would have Ixicn worth at Liverpool had it been 
 brought l)ack there, the average-stater taking 
 into account tiie |)robability of its arriving at 
 the port of adjustment in a sound or damaged 
 state, or in a state in which it could iiave been 
 forwarded, so as to take advantage of the jne- 
 paid freight. J h. 
 
 Stores.] — Provisions and stores for the use of 
 convicts on l>oard a ship chartered for their con- 
 veyance to New South Wales are not subject to 
 general average. Jiromn v. Stajdeton, 12 Moore, 
 C. P. 334 ; 4 Bing. 119 ; 5 L. J. (o.s.) C. P, 121 : 
 29 1{. U. 524. 
 
 ing, and particular average loss : — Held, that the 
 policy was one policy upon valued goods, and 
 not a policy on advanced freight, and that the 
 particular average loss was to be calculateil upon 
 the whole 7,940^. Thames and Mersei/ Marine 
 Insurajice Co. v. Pitts, [1893] 1 Q. B. 476 ; 5 R 
 168 : 68 L. T. 524 ; 41 W. R. 346 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 302. 
 
 Invoice Price.]— The value of the goods 
 
 for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of 
 an average loss is their fair invoice price — per 
 BuUer, J. B/ek v. Allen, 1 Park, Ins. (Sth ed.) 
 226. 
 
 Premiums included in Value of Goods.] 
 
 — An assure)- has goods worth 80Z. 14.v. ; he pays 
 premium 17/. 6.y., which makes his interest 98Z. 
 He may insure for lOOl., abating 21. per cent. ; 
 so that upon a loss he recovers 98Z., the value of 
 his interest including premium. 7'i(ite v. Roijal 
 Exchancje A.ssuranre Co.. 1 Park. Ins. r8th ed.) 
 224. 
 
 Amount of Loss — Expenses of Sale of Damaged 
 Cargo— Question for Jury.] — Where, in an action 
 on a policy of assurance, the jury found a verdict 
 for an average loss, the court will not interfere 
 or grant a new trial on the ground that it should 
 have been left to the jury to determine whether 
 the expenses of the sale of the damaged cargo 
 should be borne by the underwriters or not ; 
 that fact being in the discretion of the arbitrator, 
 bj- whom the amount of the loss was to be 
 ascertained. Jfndsun v. Jfajorihanks, 7 Moore, 
 463. 
 
 c. Effect of. 
 
 Condition precedent to Action.] — Where losses 
 wei-e to be paid in three ninntlis after an adjust- 
 ment by conunittee of the insurers, and the com- 
 mittee refused to adjust upon the request of the 
 insured : — Held, he might sue on the policy, 
 notwithstanding there had been no adjustment. 
 Strontf V. Jlarrei/. 3 Bing. 3U4 ; 11 Moore, 72 ; 4 
 J>. J. (o.S.) (.'. P'. 57. 
 
 "Where Fraud or Concealment.] — An adjust- 
 ment is not binding on an underwriter, although 
 at the time of signing it he had the means of 
 rendering himself aciiuainted with the history of 
 the voyage and th(! manner of the loss, if his 
 intention was not then drawn to circumstances 
 he afterwards learns, by which the underwriters 
 were discharged. Shepherd v. Chea-ter, 1 Camp. 
 274 ; 10 R. R. 6SI. 
 
 Although an adjiisl nienl is not conclusive evi- 
 (lence against an UTiderwritcr, it is so unless fraud 
 oi' a miscoiicept ion of I he law oi' facts upon which 
 it is made is proved. Christian v. Cooniln\ 2 l']sp. 
 489. Itoijers v. Maijlor, Peake's Add. ('as. 37. 
 Anil see Sheriff \. Potts, 5 Esp. 2(). 
 
 A., us agent for a foreign owner, entered into 
 a policy on a shij). At tlie time of effecting the 
 insurance, A. was in jiosscssion of a letter from 
 the captain, iid'orniing him that the shij) had 
 receive<l injury, which fact he, without frautlulent 
 intention to deceive, omitted to disclose to the 
 I uiulerwritcrs. The ship was lost, and B., one of 
 I the underwriters, paid to A. his amf)unt of the
 
 1263 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— X. Losses. 
 
 1264 
 
 insurance; but having subsequently become 
 nc(iuainted witli the above circumstance brought 
 an action against him to recover it back. A., 
 before lie was aware of B.'s intention to dispute 
 the policy, ami acting bona tide throughout, 
 transmitted to his principal the money he had 
 received from the various underwriters ; with the 
 exception of a certain amount for which he had 
 allowed the principal credit in a settled account, 
 ami of another which, with the authority of the 
 jirincipal, he had expended in a suit brought by 
 liim on behalf of the principal against C, another 
 iinderwriter on the policy : — Held, first, that in 
 consequence of the concealment from the under- 
 writers of the fact stated in the captain's letter, 
 the policy was voidable at the election of the 
 underwriters. Ihilhtnd v. Bvfi.scll, 4 B. & S. 14 ; 
 ;^2 L. J., Q. B. 21(7 : 8 L. T. 468 ; II W. R. Ihl— 
 Ex. Ch. Affirming 7 Jur. (N.S.) 842. 
 
 Held, secondly, that A. being only an agent, of 
 which B. was aware, and having, without notice 
 of B.'s inteiition to repudiate the contract, paid 
 over to his principal the amount received from 
 the underwriters, B. was not entitled to recover 
 back from A. his amount of the insurance. Ih. 
 
 Held, thirdly, that there was no difference in 
 this respect between the money actually paid 
 over by A. to his principal, and the moneys which 
 had either been allowed in account Vjetween them 
 or expended in the suit against C. lb. 
 
 Estoppel.] — An underwriter, who upon 
 
 full disclosure of facts, has signed his initials to 
 an adjustment on the policy, without paying the 
 loss, is not precluded afterwards from taking 
 advantage of circumstances with which he had 
 been made acquainted before signing the adjust- 
 ment. Herheii v. Chunip\o)i, 1 Camp. 134 ; 10 
 R. R. 657. 
 
 After a total loss and an adjustment, and 
 whilst the policy remained in the hands of the 
 broker, the initials of the insurer were struck out 
 of the adjustment to indicate payment, and the 
 broker debited the insurer with the loss : — Held, 
 that the insurer was still liable to the assui'cd, as 
 the principal was never estop[>ed from recovering 
 the amount, unless there was actual payment to 
 the broker, or a credit given. Jell v. Pratt, 2 
 Stark. 67. 
 
 A ship was insured warranted free from capture 
 in })ort. A letter announcing her capture stated 
 it to be in port, on which the underwriter and 
 assured adjustetl, the former returned, and the 
 latter received back the premium. It afterwards 
 a})peared the capture was not in port : — Held, 
 that the assured was not precluded by the adjust- 
 ment and repayment from recovering on the 
 policy, whether the underwriters name had been 
 struck off the adjustment only, or off the jfolicy 
 also. Reyner v. Hall, 4 Taunt. 725; 14 R. R. 650. 
 
 Proof of Satisfaction.] — If a i>olicy is produced 
 by the agent of tlie jdaintiff, through whom it 
 was effectetl, ami the defendant's name is struck 
 out, and has written against it, " adjusted the 
 general and jjarticular averages at 30Z. y.s-. jjcr 
 cent. " ; this is proof that the policy had been 
 adjusted, but not that it had been satisfied : but 
 the plaintiff will not be allowed to go into evi- 
 dence to shew that some of the sums allowed at 
 the time of the adjustment were too small. 
 Adams v. Saunders, 4 Car. &; P. 25 ; M. & M. 373. 
 
 Compensation. ] — An insurance was effected 
 on goods on board a ship consigned to Buenos 
 
 Ayres. The shij), with the cargo, was captured 
 by the Brazilian government, and condemned for 
 an attempted breach of blockade. Notice of the 
 capture was given by the insured to the under- 
 writers, and an offer was made by the insured to 
 abandon. The underwriters declined the offer of 
 abandonment ; and after some negotiation it was 
 arranged that, on payment by the underwriters 
 of 35/. per cent, on the sum insured, the policy 
 should be delivered up to be cancelled. The per- 
 centage was accordingly paid, and the policy 
 cancelled. Some years afterwards, in pursuance 
 of a convention between Great Britain and the 
 Brazilian government, the goods were ordered by 
 the latl (•!■ L'nvennnent to be restored to the owners, 
 and c(iiiipi'iis:it inn to be made. A claim was made 
 by the un<ler\vi-iters to the whole or a part of the 
 sum awarded for compensation ; but held, that 
 the underwriters having declined the offer of 
 abandonment, the payment of the 35Z. per cent, 
 was a compromise of their liability under the 
 policy, and that they were not entitled to any 
 portion of the sum awarded for compensation. 
 Broults V. MacDunudl, 1 Y. & C. 502. See also 
 Burnand v. Rodocandchi, 51 L. J., Q. B. 548 ; 7 
 App. Cas. 833 : 47 L. T. 277 ; 31 W. R. 65 ; 4 
 Asp. M. C. 576— H. L. (E.) 
 
 A. insured goods at Canton by a policy which 
 included jettison amongthe perils insured against. 
 The goods wei-e jettisoned under circumstances 
 which entitled him to a general average contribu- 
 tion from the owners of the ship anrl of the rest 
 of the cargo, which arrived safely at London, the 
 port of discharge. A. having sued the under- 
 writers for the whole amount insured, without 
 having first collected the contributions to which 
 he was entitled from the other owners of the ship 
 and cargo : — Held, that he was entitled to recover ; 
 and that the underwriters having paid him would 
 be then entitled to stand in his place with respect 
 to the general average contribution. Dickenson 
 V. Jardlne, 37 L. J., C. P. 321 ; L. R. 3 C. P. 639 ; 
 18 L. T. 717 ; 16 W. R. 1169. 
 
 Held, also, that the liability of the underwriters 
 under the policy could not be varied by a custom, 
 alleged to exist in the port of London between 
 merchants and underwriters, to hold the latter 
 liable oidy for the share of the loss cast upon the 
 owner of jettisoned goods in the general average 
 statement. ///. 
 
 Settlement — Parol Evidence.] — By a memo- 
 randum indorsed on a policy, it was stated that 
 a particular average loss of 54Z. per cent, had 
 been settled between the plaintiff (an under- 
 writer) and the defendant : — Held, that parol 
 evidence was admissible to shew, that by a 
 previous anangement it was agreed that, if the 
 other underwriters paid a less sum, the surj)lus 
 should be repaid. Bugaell v. Dunsltetj, 6 Moore, 
 233. 
 
 Conditional or Absolute.] — The defendant, 
 with several other underwriters, in August, 1814, 
 subscribed a policy on hides from Buenos Ayres 
 to London ; the ship was captured, and the plain- 
 tiffs abandoned the cargo to the underwriters 
 and claimed a total loss. Some time aftei- the 
 ship was recaptured, and all the underwriters but 
 the defendant, on the 19th October, 1814, adjusted 
 a salvage loss, deducting short interest, to the 
 amount of t!4/. LS.v. 'M. ])er cent., which they jiaid. 
 The defendant, on the 7th February, 1815, adjusted 
 33Z. per cent, on account of the subscription to 
 the policy, until the account of the goods insured
 
 1265 
 
 SHIPPING— IN SUEANCE—X. Losses. 
 
 1266 
 
 could be made up, when a final loss was to be 
 paid to the same amouut as by the other under- 
 writers, and if the same exceeded 33/. jier cent, 
 the defendant was to pay the excess ; if short, the 
 insured to return the difference : — Held, in an 
 action to recover such loss, that this was a 
 conditional, and not an absolute adjustment, and 
 as the jdaintiffs had not proved that the account 
 of the goods insured had been made up, they were 
 not entitled to recover ; and that the defendant 
 was not bound by the former adjustment of the 
 other underwriters. Gainmuii v. Beverley, 1 
 Moore, r)63. 
 
 General Average payable per Foreign State- 
 ment — Sue and Labour Clause — Stranding— 
 Expense of Discharging, Warehousing and 
 Re-shipping Cargo.] — Two pdlicius (if iusuiances 
 were effected by the owners on ship and freight 
 lespectively. Each policy provided that general 
 average should be ))ayable according to foreign 
 statement if in accordance with contract of 
 affi'cightment.and incorjjoratetl the ordinary sue 
 and labour clause. On a voyage from Nicho- 
 laiefl to Rotterdam the vessel stranded on the 
 island of Malta. The cargo was discharged into 
 lighters and the ship was towed into Malta, 
 repaired, re-loaded and subsecjuentlj' I'cached her 
 destination. A general average statement was 
 prepared in Holland, and the proportions due 
 according to the law of Holland in respect of ship, 
 cargo and fieight were all<icated. The under- 
 writers paid their proportions in respect of ship and 
 freight, but the shii)owners failed to recover the 
 cargo's projiortion from the owners of the cargo, 
 the courts in Holland having decided that the 
 latter were not liable to contriljute, inasmuch as 
 the sti-anding had been occasioned by tlie negli- 
 gence of the master, notwithstanding that tlie 
 policy on the ship covered loss from such negli- 
 gence : — Held, that the shipowners were not 
 entitled to lecover frf)m the insurers either as a 
 jjartial hjss or under the sue and labdur clause, 
 the portion debited according to foreign statement 
 to cargo in respect of the expenses incurred in 
 the operations at Malta and in warehousing and 
 )e-sliip])ing the cargo. The Mtinj 'I'Ikiiiki.s. ()3 
 L. .J., Adm. 4!i ; [1894] P. 1(»S:"(; It. 7'.I2 ; 71 
 L. T. 104 ; 7 .Vsp. M. C. 4!).-,— ('. A. 
 
 Part of Goods Saved — Adjustment of Salvage 
 LoBS.^ — Indigo was in>ured on a valued jiolicy at 
 and from the loa<hiig poit to the port of delivery. 
 Tlie ship sank at the lojuliiig port, and the indigo 
 being wetted, was sold by auction at a loss of 
 71/. percent. A verilict was found fnr the iilain- 
 tiff as for a total loss, subject to a rcfcience to 
 an arbitration to jiscertjun the amounl of such 
 loss. The arbitiatoi' awarded a loss of 41/. \'>x. \^)d. 
 l)er cent, on the defemlant's subscription. The 
 court refused to set aside this award, although 
 it ajipeared that the indigo was dried by tlu; 
 ))urchaKeis and shipped to the port of delivery, 
 where it was soli! at a small kiss on its value as 
 uninjured. Jhtrihi v. Ju/iex, (J Moore, o74 ; 23 
 
 i;. i;'. c.iio. 
 
 Adjustment — Recovery on. j — The underwriter 
 signed an indorsement on the policy :" Adjusted 
 this loss at fifty pounds jier cent., to jjay in one 
 month "— the word '"fifty" being struck out and 
 "forty " inserted by the undei writer, the assuied 
 jirotesting against the alteration : — Held, thai 
 the assured could recover the 4(l jier cent, loss 
 up<in the adjustment. Ilnrett v. Fle-nieij. L'eawes, 
 J.ex Mercator (ntli e<I.J 333. 
 
 Adjustment prima facie Evidence of Loss.] — 
 
 An underwriter adjusts a loss in these words : 
 — ''Adjusted the loss at 98 per cent., whieli 1 
 agree to pay one month after date "' : — Held, 
 that no proof of loss was necessary. Hog<j v. 
 Gouldiiey^ Beawes, Lex Mercator. 310 ; 1 Park, 
 Ins. (Sth ed.) 2«(j. 
 
 d. Payment. 
 
 See ahn XYIT. INSURANCE P)ROKERS AND 
 Agents, post, cols. 1340. seep 
 
 Discharge of Underwriter — Custom as to 
 Settlement with Broker.] — An assured residing 
 at Ghisgow employed an insurance broker in 
 London to recover a loss from the underwriter. 
 The loss was settled in part by the underwriter 
 setting off in account against it a debt due to 
 him from the broker for premiums, and as to the 
 residue, by his paying the broker in cash, and 
 the underwriter then erased his name from the 
 policy. The broker became baidxrupt, and never 
 paid the loss to the assured. Evidence was given 
 of a usage, that an adjustment payment was 
 generally in a month, and that the practice 
 between the broker and the underwriter was to 
 set off in account between them the amount of 
 premiums due to the underwriter against the 
 loss : — Held, first, that the underwriter was not 
 entitled to treat the set-off in account between 
 him and the broker as ]iayment to the assured, 
 the latter not being bound by a usage which he 
 did not know oL Seutt v. Irvhai. 1 P>. & Ad. (JOo ; 
 9 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 89. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the assured could not 
 recover the sum which the underwriter had 
 })aid in money to the broker within the month, 
 that being ma.(\e to the l)roker pursuant to the 
 general authority given to liim by the assured. Ih. 
 
 So held in another case, where the assured 
 lived at Plymouth, that the set-off in account 
 iK'tween the underwriter and the broker was not 
 ]iayment t(i the assured, inasmuch as the broker 
 lia'd oidy authority to receive payment for the 
 assured in money : that the custom which ])re- 
 vailed at Lloyd's coffee house was not binding 
 on the assured, who were not proved to be cog- 
 nisant of it, or to have assented to it ; and that 
 the erasure of the name of the underwriter from 
 the policy, not having been done with the consent 
 of the assured, did 7iot discliaige the fornu'r. 
 Jiiirtlett \. reiithiiid. in P.. .V <'. 7(i() : S L. .). 
 (O.S.) K. 15. 2(14. 
 
 An insuraTU-e broker, as agent of the assured, 
 is only entitled to received payment for them 
 from the underwriters in money ; and a custom 
 to set off the general balance due from such 
 broker to the underwriters in the settlement of 
 a particular loss is illegal, as it in fact aniounis 
 tojiii attempt to jiiiy the debt (ildne |ierson with 
 the monev of anollier. 'I'luld v. Hciil. I P.. A; -Md. 
 210. 
 
 'J'he iilaintiff, a shiiiownei-. eniiiloyed brokers 
 to effect an insurance ujion his shiii. and the 
 brokers acconlingly insured the ship at Lloyd's 
 (•(,ffee lionse with "the defendant. The policy 
 wiis left with the lirokers for safe custody. The 
 shij) was lost. Afterwards the i)l:untitt' took the 
 ship's papers to the brokers for the imriiosc of 
 having the loss adjusted with the luiderwriters. 
 The loss was !uljiisted. and the sum payable by 
 the ilefenilant, amounting to less than ."lO/.. was 
 jilaccd to his debit by thelirokcrs in their books, 
 in an account current between them. TIk! 
 defendant jilaccd the like sum to tlie credit of
 
 1267 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— X. Losses. 
 
 1268 
 
 the brokers in his books, and afterwards, before 
 the end of the year, gave them fresh credit to an 
 amount excccchnjx ii"/. A credit note was sent 
 to the phxintiff by the brokers. It was admitted 
 that thei'e was a custom oi' usasfc at Idoyd's, 
 between the brokers and underwriters, to settle 
 losses in this manner, and the jur_v foniid that 
 the custom was generally known to mercliants 
 and shipowners effecting insurances, and it was 
 admitted on behalf of the defendant that the 
 plaintiff was ignorant of the custom : — Held, that 
 the plaintiff was not bouiul by the custom, and 
 therefore he was entitled to recover the amount 
 of the policy from the defendant as underwriter. 
 SweetiiKi x.'Pr/irn; 9 C. B. (N.S.) 584 ; 30 L. J., 
 C. P. KJ'.t : 7 Jur. (N.s.) SOU ; 5 L. T. 7t) : ".) W. E. 
 343— Ex. Ch. 
 
 When an insurance broker has been emi)loyed 
 to receive money for his principal in the general 
 course of his business, and where the known 
 general course of business is for the bi-oker to 
 keep a running account with the jtrincipal, and 
 to credit him with sums which he may have 
 received bj' credits in account with debtors (with 
 whom he also keeps running accounts), and not 
 merely with moneys actually received, the origi- 
 nal debtor is discharged, and the broker becomes 
 the debtor according to the meaning and inten- 
 tion and with the authoritv of the principal. 
 Sfncarf v. Ahpvdein, 4 M. & W. 211 ; 1 H. & H. 
 284 : 7 L. J., Ex. 2i»2. 
 
 The agents of the assured liaving, in accord- 
 ance with the usage, adjusted the amount of the 
 loss with the broker of the underwriter, and 
 received fiom him a credit note for the amount, 
 to be paid in a month, the broker having funds 
 of the underwriter in his hands sufficient to meet 
 the amount, but after it was due becoming 
 insolvent : — Held, that the underwriter was not 
 discharged. Mncfadani' v. GianiiarKjntlo, 3 
 H. & N. S(iO ; 28 L. J., Ex. 72. 
 
 Set oiF — Premiums due to Executors of 
 
 Assured.] — Tliere is no right either at law or in 
 equity tode(hict a loss on a policy, underwritten 
 by H testator with a broker, from the amount due 
 to the executors for premiums from the same 
 broker, though the circumstances are such as in 
 case of bankruptcy would support a plea of mutual 
 credit. Beckwith v. linllpn, 8 El. & Bl. 683 ; 27 
 L. J., Q. B. 162 ; 4 Jur. (N.s.) .558 ; 6 W. R. 286. 
 
 A custom that, in case of the death of an 
 underwriter, the premiums should be retainetl 
 till all the risks had run off, might give such a 
 right. Ih. 
 
 But the court, where it had i)ower to draw 
 inferences of fact from the evidence, drew the 
 inference that such a custom did not exist at 
 Lloyd's. Ih. 
 
 Contract between Shipowner in Ireland and 
 Underwriter in England.] — The plaintiff', owner 
 of a vessel beldiiging to the port of Belfast, 
 instructeil X., a Belfast insurance agent, to effect 
 a policy of insurance on the vessel ; the insurance 
 agent, through his London agent R., effected the 
 policy in London with the defendants, and the 
 owner paid X. the premium in Belfast, and there 
 received the policy from him. The defendants 
 alleged that they carried on business at Lloyd's, 
 in the city of London only ; that they neither 
 accepted risks, received premiums, paid losses, 
 nor had any agents out of London ; that the policy 
 was underwritten at Lloyd's in consequence of a 
 proposal made by R. at Lloyd's ; that the pre- 
 mium was paid and the policy delivered by and 
 
 toll, in Londdii : that tlicy did not. nor did N. 
 or any other person ou tlieir behalf, receive the 
 premium or deliver the policy at Belfast, and 
 that, in accordance with a well-known custom of 
 Lloyd's, any money which might become due 
 under the policy was payable at Lloyd's, and not 
 elsewhere. The plaintiff alleged that he had no- 
 notice or knowledge of that custom before effect- 
 ing the policy. The defendants refusal to pay 
 the amount of the policy to the plaintiff : — Held. 
 tliat the plaintiff, who had no knowledge or 
 notice of the alleged custom before effecting the 
 policy, was not bound thereby : that the defen- 
 (hxnts were bound to pay the amotint (if any) 
 due on the polic,yto the plaintiff in Belfast ; that 
 the nonpayment constituted a breach of their 
 contract with the plaintiff, within the jurisdic- 
 tion, and that he was entitled to an order for 
 leave to serve a writ to recover the amount of the 
 policy on the defendants out of the jurisdiction. 
 Ward V. Ilarrix^ 8 L. R., Ir. 365— C. A. 
 
 Payment by Mistake — Recovery back.] — If the 
 
 amount due upon a loss has been paid with full 
 knowledge of the facts, it cannot be recovered 
 bnck u^jon the ground of mistake of law. Bilbie 
 V. Liimh'U, 2 East, 4(;y ; 6 R. R. 47!). But see 
 Biiller V. II((rrhon, post, col. 1341. 
 
 5. Expenses — Sue and Labour Clause. 
 
 Cattle — "Mortality from Any Cause whatso- 
 ever" — Extra Fodder at Port of Refuge.] — Live 
 cattle were insured under a policy of marine 
 insurance against " all risks, including mortality 
 from any cause whatsoever." During the voyage 
 the vessel on which the cattle were shijjped was 
 compelled by perils of the sea to put into a port 
 of refuge for repairs, and in consequence of the 
 delay so occasioned it became necessary to pro- 
 vide an additional supply of fodder for the cattle. 
 In an action against the underwriters to recover 
 the expense of the extra fodder, under the suing- 
 and labouring clause in the policy : — Held, that 
 the assured were entitled to recover. The Ponicra - 
 Hian, 65 L. J., Adm. 39 ; [1895] P. 349. 
 
 Drying Rice.] — See Francis v. Boulton. supra, 
 coL 1235. 
 
 Salvage and Repairs.]— General average and 
 salvage ilo not come within either the words or 
 the object of the suing and labouring clause of 
 a policy of marine insurance. Altchison v. Lohre, 
 49 L. J., Q. B. 123 ; 4 App. Cas. 755 ; 41 L. T. 323 ; 
 28 W. R. 1 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 168— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Salvage expenses are not assessed upon the 
 quantum meruit principle, but on the general 
 principle of maritime law, rewarding persons 
 who by great and perhajjs dangerous exertions 
 bring in a ship, for which exertions, if not suc- 
 cessful, nothing would have been paid. lb. 
 
 'J'he assured who had not abandoned, but had 
 elected to repair, after damage sustained from 
 ))erils of the sea, was held, therefore, not entitled 
 to recover under that clause the expenses of 
 salvage. Ih. 
 
 Deduction of One-third.] — But held that, up to 
 the amount insured, lie was entitled to recover 
 the cost of repair, with the reduction of one- 
 third new for old, even although the amount cal- 
 culated upon that principle should exceed the 
 amount that would be payable upon a total loss 
 with benefit of .salvage, and should equal the 
 whole sum insured. Ih. 
 
 k
 
 1269 
 
 SHIPPING— IN SUE ANCE—X. Losses. 
 
 1270 
 
 The ship " Crimea" was insured with the de- 
 fendant for 1,20U/., being valued in the pohcy at 
 2,f>UO/. It encountered very bad weather ami 
 %\ as in danger of sinking : it was rescueil bj' a 
 steamer, which obtained from the Irish court of 
 a(hniralty 800?. as salvage money. The owner 
 ditl not "abandon, but elected to repaii-. The 
 defendanfs proportion of the repair expenses 
 amounted (after the deduction of one-third new 
 for old) to 1,200/.. the full sum he had insured, 
 ami he was helil liable to that amount ; but was 
 held not to be liable to any part of the salvage 
 expenses. Ih. 
 
 The expenses which may be recovered by the 
 assured under the suing and labouring clause in 
 a policy free of particular average, are contined 
 to the expenses which are necessary to avert a 
 total loss, for which the insurer would be liable. 
 Metier V. liulli. 4.-) L. J., (.'. 1'. 741 : 1 C. P. L>. 
 3.58 ; 35 L. T. 83s ; 24 W. K. 9(J3 : 3 Asp. M. C. 
 324. 
 
 When a shij) partially damaged has been re- 
 paired by the owners, the insurers are only liable 
 to the amount of two-thirds of the cost of repair, 
 unless circumstances are shewn to take the case 
 out of the ordinary rule of deductic>n of one-third 
 for the benefit of the owners fi-om the repairs. 
 I'uingde.strc v. Roijul E.vchumje A.sxur((ncc Co., 
 lly. A: M. 378 ; 27 it. R. 7.5'J. 
 
 Where a ship has been repaired, the under- 
 writers are not entitled to the usual deductions 
 of one-third, new for old, the ship not having 
 been put iuto the free possession of the owner 
 again. JJu Coxtu v. J\'eitui/niiii, 2 Term Kep.407. 
 
 If a new sliip is insured " on a voyage from 
 Bristol U) New York, during lier stay there, and 
 back to her port of discharge," and on her passage 
 back from New York to England sustains an in- 
 jury, which requires repairs, the underwriter is 
 not entitled to deduct one-third new for old, as 
 tlie wliole is to be considered only one voyage. 
 J''eiiwirk v. JinhrnxoH, 3 Car. Ac P. 323. 
 
 A new ship was chartered and insuied from 
 London to New South Wales, and the freight 
 made payable on her ariival there. I'eing un- 
 atile to procure homeward fieight, she went to 
 Madras, and tliere took in freight to England, 
 and a fiesh (lolicy was entered into. The ship 
 was lost on the homeward voyage ; tiie route 
 being a common one for ships chartered to New 
 Soutli Wales : — Held, that tlie sliip was on her 
 first voyage, and tiiat, consequently, the under- 
 writers were not entitled to a new-foi--old deduc- 
 tion of one-third. J'^'rir \. Steele, 2 M. ^V Kul). 
 4'J ; H Car. A: 1'. 2(H). 
 
 The nile of deducling one-third new for old. 
 :.I'ki the first voyage, has giown up lo iiii\ent 
 controversy. 1 h. 
 
 A policy contained the follow ing clause : " 'I'hc 
 usual deductifjii of one-thiid of the amount of 
 repaiis will not be made by this company in the 
 case of ships built wit liin tlie limits ol the rnitcd 
 Kingdom, until after eighteen UKjiiths, or in tlic 
 case of colonial-built ships until after twelve 
 niontlis from the date of the builder's certiticate, 
 but after such dales respectively the deduction 
 will Ijc made."' I'y custom underwriters make a 
 deduction of one-ttiii'd new forold oidy in respect 
 of repaiis made after the tirsl voyage of a vessel : 
 — Held, that the expression '• usual deduction," 
 had reference to the (luantum only, and tiiat in 
 the case of a colonial-built ship the underwriters 
 were entitled to make the deduction of one- 
 third after twelve months from the date of the 
 builder's certiticate althougli the ship hail not 
 
 completed her first voyage. Bijnw v. Mcrcaniile 
 Insurance Co., 4 H. & C. 50(3. 
 
 An Irish policy is not controlled by a practice 
 prevailing in the Humber, that all ships are con- 
 sidered new ships, so as to exclude the rule of 
 deducting one-third new for old, if they are less 
 than twelve mouths old. Thoiiip.nni v. Hunter^ 
 cited, 2 M. & Rob. 51. 
 
 Owner Selling instead of Repairing — Mode of 
 estimating Liability.] — Where a ship that is in- 
 sured is injured by perils insured against, and the 
 owner instead of repairing sells her during the 
 continuance of the risk, the loss to be made good 
 by the underwriters depends on the depreciation 
 in the value of the ship, and not on the amount 
 that it would have cost to repair her with an 
 allowance in respect of new materials for old. 
 The estimated cost of repairs, though rejected as 
 a direct measure of loss, might be the measure 
 of the difference between ttie ship's sound and 
 damaged values, if no other means can be found 
 for arriving at the loss really sustained. The de- 
 preciation in value is to be ascertained by taking 
 the value of the ship (if sound) at the port of 
 distress, and her value tliere in her damaged con- 
 dition. To ascertain the liability of the insurers, 
 the proportion so arrived at should be applied to 
 the real value of the ship at the commencement 
 of the risk, if the policy be oi)en, or to the agreed 
 value if tiie policy be valued (Brett, L.J., dis- 
 senting). Pitman v. i'nlreraal Marine Innurance 
 Co., 51 L. J., Q. B. 561 ; ii Q. B. D. 192 ; 4(5 
 L. T. 803; 30 W. il. 906; 4 Asp. M. C. 544— C. A. 
 
 Held, by Brett, L.J., that the matter against 
 which the owner was indemnihed was the cost of 
 repairs, and not any diminution in the salable 
 value of the sliip. and that therefore loss or gain 
 by the sale of the ship was outside the contract 
 of insurance, and was not a matter to be con- 
 sidered between the assured and the underwriter 
 in adjusting either a total or a partial loss on the 
 slii[). Ih. 
 
 On Sale by Court.]— A ship, the " M.," was 
 insured -including the risk of running down or 
 doing damage to any other vessel, the same as 
 the Indemnity Company's policy."' valueil at 
 3,(100/. The "indemnity Company's running- 
 down clause is, that if the ship, by negligence, 
 shall run down any other vessel, "and the 
 ass\iied shall thereby become liable to pay, an(l 
 shall pay, any sum not exceeding the value of 
 tlie ship or vessel" (assured) '-and her freight, 
 by or m i»ur.suance of judgment of any court of 
 law or equity," the insurers shall pay "such 
 proportion of three-fourths of the sum so paid 
 as aforesaid, as the sum hereby assured sliall 
 bear lo the value of Ihc sliip "r vessel hereby 
 assured, and licr lieighl." 'I'lie " M.," through 
 negligence, ran <lovvn another vessel. She was 
 sold under a deiMce of the coiiit of admiralty, 
 and the proceeds paid over for satisfying the 
 damage. It was jidinitled that the in.sured lost his 
 ship, which was of the value of 3.000/. and up- 
 wards, il being sold against his will, but that the 
 proceeds which were paiil over were only 
 2,ll(t/.:— Held, that the undcrwrilcrs were bound 
 lo make gooil threc-fourllis of the i)roceeds 
 actually paid. viz. 2,llit/., and not three-fourths 
 of the value of the ship. 'Jluinij).'<on v. Jtei/nvUh, 
 7 Kl. \: I'.l. 172 : 26 L. .)., t^ 1'.. 93 ; 3 .Jur.(N.S.> 
 46 I. 
 
 Costs of Salvage.] — The pl.iintilV agreed with 
 one \V. for a sum of lo.oiM)/. lo transport the
 
 1271 
 
 SHIPPING— IN SUEANCE—X. Losses. 
 
 1272 
 
 obelisk kmnvn as "Cleopatra's needle" from 
 Alexandria to London, and there to erect it 
 upon some public site to be afterwards selected. 
 To cover the expenses (about 4,000Z.) plaintiff 
 caused two policies to be effected with the re- 
 spective defendants "upon the goods and mer- 
 chandises in the good ship or vessel called the 
 "Cleopatra" iron vessel containing the obelisk 
 , . . valued at 4,0OOZ. . . . against the risks of 
 total loss onlj^" ; the risks insured against being 
 the ordinary' sea-risks, and the suing and labour- 
 ing clause being in the usual form. Tu the 
 course of the voyage the "Cleopatra" got adrift 
 in the Bay of Biscay ; and was ultimately picked 
 up by another steamer and carried into Fcrrol, 
 where the salvors detained her under a claim of 
 salvage. The admiralty division awarded them 
 2,000^. and costs. In actions upon the policies : — 
 Held, that under the suing and labouring clause, 
 the assured was entitled to recover the 2M()0l. 
 awarded to the salvors, but not the costs of the 
 proceedings in the admiralty court, nor the 
 expenses incurred by him in refitting the 
 " Cleopatra " at Ferrol and towing her to London. 
 DLron v. Whitworth, 48 L. J., C. P. 538 ; 4 
 C. P. D. 371 : 40 L. T. 718 ; 28 \V. E. 184 ; 4 
 Asp. M. C. 32(;. 
 
 Life Salvage— Lloyd's Policy— Liability of 
 Underwriter.] — Life salvage paid by a ship- 
 owner under s. 544 of the Merchant Ship- 
 ping Act, 1894, cannot be recovered from an 
 underwriter under a Lloyd's ]iolicy in the usual 
 form with the running down clause attached. 
 Xinirxe v. Linrpoal Stiilhif/ ShipownerK Asso- 
 ciation, (i5 L. J., Q. B. 507 : [1896] 2 Q. B. 16 : 74 
 L. T. 548 : 44 W. R. 5U() ; 8 Asp. M.C. 144— C.A. 
 
 Owner altering Obsolete Ship at less Cost 
 instead of Reinstating.] — A ship, insured on a 
 Time ]i(ilicy. h;id above her main deck a saloon 
 deck for I'lassungers. During the time covcretl 
 by the policy, the saloon deck was destroyed by 
 fii-e. At tlic time of the fire the ship was engaged 
 in carrying cargo, being obsolete as a passenger 
 ship and useless for passenger traffic. After the 
 expiration of the policy the shij) was converted 
 into a cargo-carrying ship, and the saloon deck 
 for ])assengers was not reinstated. The cost of 
 converting the ship was less than the cost of the 
 reinstatement of the saloon deck would have 
 been. The ship, after the alteration, was as 
 valuable for sale or use as she was before the 
 accident. In an action by the shipowners 
 against the underwriters, to recover the cost of 
 reinstatement of the saloon deck : — Held, that 
 as the shipowners were not entitled to recover 
 more than they had lost, they were not entitled 
 to recover the cost of reinstatement, but only 
 the actual cost of converting the ship. liritttol 
 ,'<teai)i Navifjatlou Co. v. Indriiiuitu Miitiuil 
 Marine Inxnnnicr Co., 57 \j. T. lol ; G Asp. M. C 
 173. 
 
 Costs and Damages.] — The sliip '-A.."' insured in 
 a club, by one of the conditions of which it was 
 provided, that, " in case of damage or loss by 
 contract which any shij) in this association may 
 tlo to others, this society shall be liable to con- 
 tribute its i»roportion, but not beyond the sum 
 insured, and also law costs given in any suit or 
 action defended by the previous consent in 
 writing of the managers upon this policy," ran 
 into, and damaged the shij) " B." The owners of 
 the injured vessel caused the ship " A." to be 
 
 arrested under process from the admiralty court ; 
 whereupon her owner and the club, in order to 
 procure her release, agreed that they or one of 
 them woukl i)ay them " the amount of damage 
 which the shij) ' B.' had received from the col- 
 lision, and also the costs of the proceedings in 
 the court of admiralty against the ship," to be 
 ascertained, in case of dispute, by Mr. Richards, 
 the average-stater : — Held, that the ship " B.," 
 meant the owners of the ship " B.," and that they 
 were entitled to recover the same measure of 
 damages under the agreement that thej^ would 
 have been entitled to in the proceedings in the 
 admiralty court ; viz. the expenses of repairing 
 their vessel, the costs incurred in the arrest and 
 detention of the "A." and the loss of freight 
 during the time the "B.'s" repairs were going 
 on. lieanl v. Ilolman, 19 C. B. (N.s.) 1 : 34 
 L. J., C. P. 239 ; 11 Jur. (N.S.) 544 ; 12 L. T. 455 ; 
 13 W. R. 745. 
 
 A policy on a vessel in the ordinaiy form of a 
 Lloyd's policy, with the usual suing and labour- 
 ing clause, had a collision clause attached to it, 
 by which the assurers agreed that in case the 
 vessel should by accident or negligence run down 
 or damage any other vessel, and the assured 
 should thereby become liable to i)ay and should 
 ])ay as damages any sum not exceeding the value 
 of' the vessel assured and her freight, by the 
 judgment of any court given in a suit defended 
 with the previous consent in writing of the 
 assurers, they would pay such proportion of three- 
 fourths of the sum so paid by the assured as the 
 sum insured on the vessel bore to the value of 
 such vessel ami her freight. The assured having 
 afterwards successfully def endeil, with the written 
 consent of the assurers, a suit in a consular court 
 abroad, in which the assured vessel was charged 
 with negligence in running down another vessel, 
 brought an action against an underwriter of such 
 policy f(ir liis j)r()portion of the costs incurred by 
 the assured in defending such suit : — Held, that 
 the assured was not entitled in such action to 
 recover such costs, either on the policy under the 
 collision, or suing and labouring clauses, or on 
 the common count for monev paid. Xcnosw Fo.r, 
 38 L. J., C. P. 351 : L. R. 4 C. P. 665 ; 17 W. R. 
 893- Ex. Ch. 
 
 Costs of Compromise.] — Insurers are liable to 
 pav the charge uf a compromise bona fide made 
 to prevent the ship from being condemned as 
 lawful prize. Bcrcn.s v. Rucker, 1 W. Bl. 313. 
 
 Cargo in Separate Packages — Damage to cer- 
 tain Packages only — Expense of examining 
 sound Packages.] — Where a cargo of several 
 packages is insured, and some of the packages 
 are damaged by a peril of the sea. the shipper is 
 not entitled to recover from the underwriters the 
 expense of examining the whole cargo to ascer- 
 tain whicli of the packages have been damaged. 
 His claim must be restricted to the packages 
 which have in fact been damaged and the expenses 
 incurred in the examination and sale of them ; 
 the underwi'iters are accountable only for the 
 direct opeiation of sea damage and not for con- 
 sequential results : they do not guarantee that 
 the uoods shall be free from suspicion. Ly.^((<jlit 
 V. Colniuni. 64 L. .1.. Q. B. 175: [1895] 1 Q. B. 
 49 : 14 R. 22 : 71 L. T. 830 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 552 — 
 C.A. 
 
 Expenses of Preserving and Forwarding 
 Goods.] — A sliip. witli a cargo of jialm oil for
 
 1273 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—X. Losses. 
 
 1274 
 
 Liverpool, was stranded near Pwllheli, on the 
 coast of Wales. It became necessary to land 
 the carsTo there, and this was properly done. 
 The ship, after some temporary repair on the 
 beach, was towed to Carnarvon, the nearest port, 
 and there repaired so as to be seaworthj' for the 
 completion of the voyacre. The oil was forwarded 
 by railway to Liverpool, at a cost to the ship- 
 owner of 212/. l.").s-. 1^/. ; and the freitrht was 
 received by him. The oil might have been kept 
 at Pwllheli until the ship was repaired, and then 
 re-shi])ijed at T., a place about .seven miles from 
 Pwllheli. This would have been a reasonable 
 coui-se to adopt, and it would have cost 70?. In 
 an action against the insurers on freight : — Held, 
 that the shipowner, having incurred expense for 
 the purpose of averting a loss of freight, was 
 entitled to recover, under the .suing ami labour- 
 ing clause, .so much thereof as was reasonably 
 incurred ; and that the proper measure was the 
 sum it woidd have cost to re-ship the oil at T. 
 Lee V. Soiithrrn I/iMi/ruiire Co.. H',» L. J.. C. P. 218 : 
 L. R. .) C. P. -Ml : 22 L. T, 448 : 18 W, E. 
 863. 
 
 In a jiolicy under the suing and labouring 
 clause, may be recovered all expenses which have 
 been incurred for the purpose of averting a loss 
 or damage to the subject-matter of insurance, 
 and not merely those exi)eiises which are incurred 
 where the insured abandons the subject-matter 
 in.sured, and tries to save what has become the 
 property of the insurers : and the effect of a 
 warranty against particular average is merely to 
 limit the operation of the insurance to a total 
 loss of the subject-matter, and is not to prevent 
 a recovery under tlie suing ami labouiing clause 
 of extraordinary expense which may be incurrcil 
 in preserving it. KlfLsfim v, Enipirt' Marine 
 Inxvnince Co.. H6 L. J.. C. P. 156 : L. R. 2 C. P. 
 3.-,7 : 12 Jur. (N.s.) 665 ; 16 L. T. ll'.i : 15 W, R. 
 769— Ex. Ch, 
 
 A., having chartered his vessel for a voyage, 
 insured tlie chartered freight with P>. Ijy a policy 
 containing a warranty against particular aveiage 
 and the usual suing and labouring clause. The 
 ship was lost, and the goods landed, warehoused, 
 and .sent on at a less freight from an intermediate 
 port : — Held, that there was a total loss of 
 freight at the intermediate port, unless it couhl 
 be averted by such forw.'uding ; 1 liat such for- 
 warding was a pai'ticulai' chai'ge within tlie suing 
 and labouring clause, and did not convert the 
 total into a partial loss within the warranty 
 against j)articular average, and tiiat A. was 
 thcreff)re entitled to recover tlie expense of such 
 fonvanling from H. in an action on the policy. 
 Jh. 
 
 A shipduring her voyage from fiitlia to London 
 was stranded on the coast of France. The shi|t- 
 owner dispatched his man.'iger and other persons 
 to take |)art in the nc-ccssary salvage operations, 
 and the whole of the cargo was saved. traiiship|)cd. 
 and brought forwaid to London ;nid the ficiglit 
 earned. Part of tlie cargo which could not be 
 identified was sold by the sliipowtiei' by arrange- 
 ment with the consignees through a l)roker, who 
 received his brokcMage. The shipowner incurred 
 considerable troid)le in chartering sliips to carry 
 on the cargo from France to Lr>ndon, and in 
 sending out lighters and necessary appliances to 
 France, and in the identification of the cargo, 
 preparing for the sale, ami answering the inquiries 
 of and arranging with the consignees. In the 
 average statement a remuneration to the ship- 
 owner for " arranging for salvage operations. 
 
 receiving cargo, meeting and arranging with 
 consignees, and receiving and paying proceeds, 
 and generally conducting the business," was 
 charged partly to genez-al average, and partly as- 
 particular average on the several interests rat- 
 ably, the average-stater thinking that the amount 
 was a reasonable remuneration to the shijjowner 
 for his services and for commission on the sale 
 of unidentified cargo, and on disbursements : — 
 Held, that under the circumstances the amount 
 was improperly charged and could not be re- 
 covered, there being no contract on the part of 
 the owners of the cai-go to remunerate the ship- 
 owner for his services, a great part of which had 
 been rendered witli the object of earninir his- 
 freight. ,SW( ii.ster v. Fletcher, 47 L. J.. Q. B.580 : 
 8 Q. B. D. 418 : 88 L. T, 605 : 20 W. R. 756 ; 
 8 Asp. M, C. 577. 
 
 Where goods are insured by a policy in the 
 ordinary form, the expression " warranted free 
 from particular average " is not confined to lo.sses- 
 arising from injury to, or deterioration of, the 
 gooils themselves, but is equivalent to a stipula- 
 tion against total loss and general average only ; 
 and, consetjuently, includes expenses incurred in 
 relation to the sjoods. Great Indian Peninxiihir 
 Rij. V. SiiHiKh-rx, 2 B. & S. 266 : 81 L. J., Q. B. 
 206 ; 9 Jur. (x.S.) 198 : 6 L. T. 297 : 10 W. R. 
 520— Ex. Ch. 
 
 A quantity of iron rails was shipped to be 
 carried to a certain place, for a sum to be paid 
 here, ship lost or not lost. The shippers insured 
 them by a policy " warranted free from particidar 
 average, unless the ship be stranded, sunk, or 
 burnt" : with a clause authorising the assured to 
 •■sue. labour, and travel for, in. and about, the 
 defence, safeguard and recovery of the goods." 
 The ship was neither stranded, sunk, nor burnt ; 
 but there was a constructive total loss of her by 
 perils of the sea. The rails were saved, and sent 
 on in other vessels to their destination, for which 
 the assured was compelled to pay freight to an 
 amount not exceeding the value of the rails: — 
 Held, that this freight was not recoverable under 
 the policy. Ih. 
 
 A cargo of bacon was insured from Liveriiool 
 to New York by a policylcontaining the excep- 
 tion •' warranted free from avei-age. unless general,, 
 or the ship be stranded, sunk, or burnt." and a 
 suing and labouring clause in its ordinary form. 
 The ship in the couisc of its voyage was disabled 
 and the cargo discharged. Part of the bacon was 
 condemned and sold, and tlu> remainder sent on 
 in two vessels ; all of which was ])i()i)er under 
 the circumstances : — Held, that neithei- the extra 
 freight incurrcil by reason of the transhipment, 
 nor the cost of wareliousinir, surveying and 
 cooperage of the goods, could be recovered under 
 the policy, liooth v. 6V///-, 15 0, B, (N,S,) 291 ; 
 88 L. J.. (!, P, 99 : 9 Jur, (n.s.) 1826 ; 9 L. T. 
 8M6: 12 W. R. Ktii. 
 
 Parol Evidence — "Particular Charges."] 
 
 — Evidence was given to shew tiiui expenses- 
 incurred in saving llie subjcct-maltrr of insur- 
 ance were, by usage, called " p.articular charges " 
 and not "particular average" : — Held, that such 
 eviden<;e was admissible, but that it was in 
 atfirmanceof the coininon law, and did not con- 
 trol or vary the policy, and left the case exactly 
 in tlie same position as if it had not been given, 
 Kidxfon V. Enijiirr Marine I ii.'turaiu'e ^'«., supra. 
 
 Question for Jury.] — Where goods are in con- 
 sequence of the [)erils insured against lying at a
 
 127i 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—X. Losses, 
 
 1276 
 
 ]ilace (lifforent from the place of their destiiia- 
 lidii, tlainajied, biit in such a state that they can 
 at some c<ist be i)ut intoaconchtion to be carried 
 to their destination, the jury, in order to ascer- 
 tnin whether there is a constructive total loss of 
 t he uoods. nuist determine whether or not it is 
 ]iraetically jiossible to carry them on, — that is, 
 wliether to do so will cost more than they are 
 worth : and, in determining this, the jury is to 
 take into account all the extra expenses conse- 
 (juent on the perils of the sea, such as drying, 
 landing, warehousing, and re-shipping the goods ; 
 but they are not to" take into account the fact 
 that, if" they are carried on in the original 
 bottom, or by the original shipowner in a substi- 
 tuted bottom, they will have to pay the freight 
 contracted to be paid ; that being a charge to 
 which the goods are liable when delivered, 
 whether the perils of the sea affect them or not. 
 Farnworth v. Iliidc, 3« L. J., C. P. 38 : L. R. 2 
 € P. 204 : 15 L. T. 39.5 : 15 W. R. 340— Ex. 
 Cii. Affirming, 1 H. & R. 433 ; 12 Jur. (N.s.) 
 997. 
 
 When the original bottom is disabled by the 
 perils of the sea, so that the shipowner is not 
 bound to carry the goods on, and he iloes not 
 choose to do so, the jury is not to take into 
 account the whole of the cost of transit from the 
 place of distress to the place of destination 
 which must be incurred by the goods owner if 
 he carries them on. but only the excess of that 
 cost above that which would have been incurred 
 if no peril had intervened. ///. 
 
 Damage by Fire.] — In a policy upon a steamer, 
 in the ordinary form, the hull and the machinery 
 were separately valued, with a clause, "average 
 on the whole or on each as if separately insured." 
 The steamer had discharged her cargo at C, and 
 whilst she lay there without any cargo on board, 
 her hull was damagetl by tire. The cost of 
 repairs to the hull amounted, after a deduction 
 of the usual one-third, to 386Z. 12.\\ &(!., including 
 9^. 0.?. id. of Lloyd's surveyors' fees. An addi- 
 tional sum of hU. ns. 10^/. was expended in 
 extinguishing the tire. It was proposed to add 
 this to the other sum, so as to take the ease out 
 of the common three per cent, memorandum : — 
 Held, that these expenses must be apportioned 
 to the hull and machinery according to their 
 respective values, and that only the sum due for 
 the hull could be added to the direct loss on the 
 hull. Oppcnhrim v. Fnf, 5 B. & S. 348 ; 33 
 L. J., Q. B. 267 : 10 L. T. 539 ; 12 W. R. SSI- 
 Ex. Ch. And see Acliard v. Ill mi. 31 L. T. (547 ; 
 2 Asp. M. C. 422. 
 
 Replacing Copper when Vessel damaged and 
 Sold.] — A vessel insured on a time policy started 
 from Calcutta for England. While }noceeding 
 down the river Hooghly, she sustained some 
 damage by an accidental collision with a steam- 
 vessel, and after a few days was found to leak so 
 much, as to render it necessary to return. She 
 underwent some re])air, and was re-coppered, and 
 again set sail for England : but she was again 
 compelled to return, was i)ut into dock, her 
 wales, &c. removed, for the purpose of examining 
 the condition of her timbers, and was ultimately 
 found so defective as to render it inexpedient to 
 repair her, and consequently she was sold as she 
 lay, for the purpose of being broken up. The 
 assured claimed for an average, and also for a 
 total loss ; the jury negatived the latter, and, as 
 :to the former, returned the following verdict : — 
 
 " Verdict for the plaintiflE on the first issue, suffi- 
 cient not having been paid into court to cover 
 the expense of slrijtping off and replacing the 
 copper, for all tlic rejiairs and charges on Ixith 
 occasions of the return of the vessel to Calcutta 
 actually incurred, and also what would have 
 been necessary for replacing the wales, which we 
 consider was the consequence of the collision " : — 
 Held, that the plaintiff was not entitled to 
 recover anything in respect of the replacing of 
 the wales, that exj)ense not having been actually 
 incurred. Stncartw. Steele, 5 Scott (N.R.) 927. 
 
 On Loss of Freight.] — The plaintiffs, ship- 
 owners, entered into a charterparty which pro- 
 vided for payment of freight at a specific rate, 
 and that " If any portion of the cargo be 
 delivered sea damaged, the freight on such sea- 
 damaged portion to be two-thirds of the above 
 rate." They effected an insurance with under- 
 writers, " To cover only the one-third loss of 
 freight in consequence of sea damage as per 
 charterparty." Sea damage happened, and one- 
 third of the freight on the sea-damaged portion 
 of the cargo was deducted by the charterers 
 from the total amount of freight : — Hekl, that 
 the subject-matter of insurance was •' the one- 
 third loss of freight in consequence of sea 
 damage," and that the plaintiff's were entitled to 
 recover from each underwriter only such propor- 
 tion of the amount of the loss as the amount of 
 his subsrrijition bore to the total sum for which 
 the underwriters subscribed the policy, (rritfifh.^ 
 V. Brawley-Moore, 48 L. J., Q. B. 201 ; 4 Q. B. D. 
 70 ; 40 L. T. 149 ; 27 W. R. 480 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 66— C. A. 
 
 Advances.] — A policy was effected at and 
 
 from the river Plate to Canton and back, on 
 specie shipi)ed in the river Plate, and on the 
 returns thereof, in any description of merchan- 
 dise, with liberty to declare and value thereafter. 
 The assured chartered a vessel on a voyage from 
 Buenos Ayres to Canton and back, and they 
 were to pay for the voyage 10,000 dollars, in 
 manner following : viz. " in China, all the sums 
 that might be necessary for the payment of the 
 port charges, and other incidental expenses, the 
 latter not exceeding 2,000 dollars, and the 
 balance at thirty days after the vessel's return to 
 Buenos Ayres." The underwriters had no notice 
 of the terms of the charterparty. The assured 
 shipped on board this vessel at Buenos Ayres a 
 quantity of specie, consigned to an agent at 
 Canton, who, on the ship's arrival there, advanced 
 to the captain a sum of money, being the 
 amount of the port charges, and a further sum 
 of incidental expenses : and he shipped other 
 goods on board the vessel, on account of his 
 principals, for the homewartl voyage. No valua- 
 tion was ever made in pursuance of the liberty 
 reserved by the policy. The vessel, on her return 
 voyage, was lost : — Held, that the assured weie 
 not entitled to recover the two sums paid by 
 their agent at Canton, for port charges and 
 other incidental expenses, as part of the value 
 of the merchandise shipped at Canton, and insured 
 by the policy, inasmuch as the money agreed to 
 be paid there was not properly freight, anil had 
 no distinct relation to the goods shipped. Winter 
 V. HuJdlminuh 2 B. & Ad. 649. 
 
 A. let his ship to freight and charter to B. for 
 a voyage, the probable duration of which was 
 eight months, at lOOZ. per month, and, by the 
 charterparty, B. was to make the advances for
 
 1277 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— XL Ahandonmcnt. 
 
 1278 
 
 sailing charges, on account of the money payable 
 for the hire of the ship, miscalled freight ; B. 
 insured 300/. with C, for money atlvanced on 
 sailing charges, and A., at the same time, insured 
 ■with C. 40oZ. on freight. Ujjon a total loss : — 
 Held, that C. was not entitled to consider A.'s 
 policy as effecteel on gross freight, and that, the 
 amount being 80nZ., A. was his own insurer 
 for a moietv of the risk. Etchea v. Aldan, 1 
 ^I. i: Ky. 1(;.5 ; 31 R. R. 309 ; G L. J. (O.S.) 
 
 K. B. t;:,.' 
 
 A ship was chartered to iiroceed to Cardiff, 
 there load a cargo of coals, and •• therewith pro- 
 ceed to San ?"'rancisco, and deliver the same on 
 being paid freight at the rate of il. 10.s-. per ton, 
 the freight to be paid by good and approved 
 bills on London, at six months' date from the 
 date of sailing, less cost of insurance, to be 
 effected hj charterer at ship's expense, or in cash. 
 less 8<t0/., which is to be paid on delivery of 
 cargo." The charterer, under the terms of the 
 charter])arty. loaded the coals, and gave in pay- 
 ment of freight two bills of exchange. During 
 the voyage the ship sustained damage, for the 
 repair of which expenses were incurred, and 
 these were admitted to be general average 
 charges : — Held, that the fieight paid in advance 
 was not recoverable, and that the charterer was 
 liable to contribute general average in respect of 
 it. Triiiirg v. WunuK, W) C. B. (N.S.) 15!) : 34 
 L. J., a P. 274; 11 Jur. (x.s.) 639; 12 L. T. 
 .",47 ; 13 \V. R. 898. See also Palmer v. Blach- 
 lurn, ante, col. 12.",9. 
 
 XI. ABAXDONMEXT. 
 
 1. Xotict'. 
 
 (I. Form of. 1277. 
 /'. By whom (Jiven, 1278. 
 e. Time for Xotice. 1278. 
 (I. Acceptance of, 1282. 
 
 2. Ill whut r,i.srx, 1283. 
 
 3. On Ij)xx hij Prr'iU of Sea, 1288. 
 \. Oil ('apt lire, 12S;). 
 
 ."). Kiiihtirtio uiul ('iiiifisriifiini. 1292. 
 
 <i. On LonK hij (itlier Mennx. 1294. 
 
 7. Effect of, on Fre'iijlit dial Carga. 12'.H 
 
 1. Xotice. 
 a. Form of. 
 
 " Abandon " — Use of Word.] — The word 
 
 ••abaiiddncd '" is not necessary in a notice of 
 abandonment ; any expressions which inform 
 the underwriters that it is the intention of tlie 
 assured to give up to them the proi)erty insured, 
 on the ground of its haviiiL' Ijceii totally lost, is 
 sufficient. Ciirric v. Jiomlmii \iitirr Inxiiraiirr 
 ('(I.. (\ Moore, 1*. C. (N.S.) 3(12: 39 L. .1., 1'. (]. I ; 
 I.. R. 3 1'. C. 72 : 22 L. T. 317 ; IH W. R. L'9(i. 
 •See also Kiiiij v. Wdlhrr. po>t, col. 1279. 
 
 Insurance Broker— Notice to Settle for Total 
 Loss. —If ;iii in-niaiiee In,, !<,■:• ic|iiiics the 
 underwriter.", to settle as for a total lo.s.s and to 
 give directions as to the disposition of the pro- 
 perty insured, this does not amount to an 
 abandonment. Pnvmetir v. 'J'lidlunilrr. 1 Camn 
 541. ' ' 
 
 Where the goods exist, there must be an 
 iibaiKJunment of freight, although the ship is 
 incapable of prosecuting her voyage. Ibid. 
 
 b. By -whom Given. 
 
 If one of several, jointly interested in a cargo, 
 effects an insurance for the benefit of all, he may 
 give notice of abandonment for all. Hunt v. 
 Poijdl E.vchange Assurance Co., 5 M. & S 47 ; 
 17 R. R. 264. 
 
 The deposit of a policy on a ship at sea, which 
 is afterwards injured by perils insured against 
 and condemned, does not invest the depositary 
 with an implied authority to give notice to the 
 underwriter of abandonment as for a total loss. 
 Jardine v. Leathleii, 3 B. k. S. 700 ; 32 L. J., 
 Q. B. 132 : 9 Jur. (x.S.) 1035 ; 7 L. T. 783 ; 11 
 W. R. 432. 
 
 0. Time for Notice. 
 
 Nature of Delay.]— The assured mu3t not 
 delay to give notice of abandonment, but suffi- 
 cient time must be allowed to enable the assured 
 to exercise their judgment whether the circum- 
 stances entitle them to abandon. Currlc v. 
 Bomhaij Xat'ive Insurance Co., supra. 
 
 A ship sailed on its outward voyage to Xew 
 Zealand. More than a month afterwards the 
 owners chartered it to M. to Ijring home a cargo 
 from Calcutta. By this charterparty, after dis- 
 charging at Xew Zealand, it was to sail to 
 Calcutta, and being there tight, staunch and 
 strong, and every way fitted for the voyage, the 
 charterer bound himself to jjut on board a speci- 
 fied cargo for England at a stipulated freight. 
 The owners then effected a policy, in the usual 
 form, against perils of the sea, upon the freight 
 to bo earned on this homeward voyage. Tiie 
 ship was seriously injured in the outward 
 voyage ; it was repaired as well as the master, 
 with insufficient funds, and at a place not cap- 
 able of making full examination and effecting 
 complete repairs, could get it repaired : and 
 with tlie sliip thus partially re[)aiied he sailed 
 from the place where the ship then was, and 
 arrived at Calcutta, where the fullest examina- 
 tion and the conipletest repairs could be had. 
 He immediately tendered the ship to the agents 
 of the charterers for the homeward cargo. They, 
 on the ground that the charterer had become 
 bankrupt, refused to load a cargo. The master 
 then had the shij) fully examined, and it was 
 found that the injuries on the outward voyage 
 had been such that the complete rei)air of the 
 ship, to render it fit for the voyage home, would 
 exceed the value of the ship when repaired, and 
 the amount of freight to lie earned. Theowneis, 
 on receiving this intelligence, aljandoiu'd : — 
 Held, tiiat this was a loss of freight occasioned 
 by the perils of the sea, that no notice of 
 abandonment to tlie undeiwriters on freight was 
 necessaiy. and that if ti notice of aljandonment 
 to the underwriters on freight had been neces- 
 saiy, the notice liere would not, inider the 
 circumstances, have Ijcen too late. Itiiuh'ui v. 
 Potter, 42 \,. J., C. 1'. 1(59 ; L. R. 6 H. L. S3 ; 
 29 \j. T. 142 ; 22 W. R. I ; 2 Asp. M. C. K^. 
 
 On the 8th Se])tcmber the master wrote to the 
 owners at I'-elfast a letter, which they received 
 about tlie iDtli (Ictober. giving a detailed account 
 of the damage which his shij) hail met with, and 
 estimates of the probable expenses of rci)airing 
 and refitting her. On the 15th the owners wrote 
 a letter to the captain, in which they left him to 
 act as he considered best for the interests of all 
 concerned. On the 8th December the cai)tain 
 wrote a letter to the owners, which they received
 
 1279 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— XI. Ahandonmcnt. 
 
 1280 
 
 on the Dth January, 1^(50. statiTit-; that he had 
 maile up his mind to abandon and sell the hull, 
 &c. on account and for the benefit of all con- 
 cerned. On the 18th December he attended 
 before a notary j)ublic, and formall}^ ileclaretl 
 that he abandoned the ship to the underwriters. 
 On the 7th January, ]8(i(), the ship was sold by 
 auction under his orders, and was afterwai'ds 
 broken up : — Held, that the notice of abandon- 
 ment was not in time. Giuiinqcr v. Mdrfin, 
 4 B. & S. 1) : 8 L. T. DtJ : 1 1' W. K. 7.-)8— 
 Ex. Ch. 
 
 Duty of Assured after Information.] — Wlien 
 the assured receives full and reliable information 
 that the subject-matter of the insurance is in 
 imminent danger of becoming a total loss, he is 
 bound, in order to enable him to recover as for a 
 constructive total loss, immediately to give notice 
 of abandonment to the underwriter, and his 
 omission to do so will not be excused because 
 afterwards the subject-matter of the insurance 
 is justifiably sold. Knltpnlxicli v. Miickenzip, 
 48 L. J., C. P. 9 ; 3 C. P. D. 4«7 : 8'J L. T. 215 ; 
 26 W. R. 844 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 3!)— C. A. 
 
 Notice must be given in Reasonable Time.] 
 
 — A shiji, having been ashore, was got off 
 and taken to Dunediu, her jtort of destination, 
 where she remained from 4th July to the 14th 
 April following. She then sailed f(5r Calcutta to 
 be repaired, and to carry out a charter. On 
 arrival at Calcutta, it was found that it would 
 cost more to repair her than she was worth ; and 
 on 2nd August notice of abandonment was 
 given : — Held, that the abandonment was too 
 late, and that the underwriters were liable only 
 for the partial loss by stranding. Potter v. 
 Camphrll. Kl W. R. 401. 
 
 Where the captain of a vessel, which had been 
 damaged by stormy weather, arrived in London 
 on the 25th April, where his owners resided : 
 and the latter received the ship's papers on the 
 8rd May following, and the broker who effected 
 the policy gave verbal notice of abandorunent to 
 the underwriters on the 5th : — Held, that such 
 notice was given in ilue time. Brad v. linnhinn, 
 (J Moore, 3it7 ; 3 Br. & B. 147 ; 23 R. R. 587. 
 
 On the 23rd of September, 185!), a shij) having 
 been compelled by sea-damage to put into a port 
 near the Cape of Good Hope, the master had her 
 surveyed, and on the 18th of October, 1859, 
 wrote to the shij/s husband at Liverpool des- 
 cribing what had happened, and telling him to 
 give the underwriters notice. On the 18th of 
 November he again wrote, describing the dam- 
 aged state of the ship, and stating that, in the 
 opinion of the surveyors, she could not go home 
 with a partial repair, but that she would not be 
 worth the amount it would take to repair her. 
 This letter was forwarded to the underwriters. 
 On the 24th of November the master executed a 
 notarial act of abandonment, and on the 9th of 
 December sold, the ship. On the 20th of Decem- 
 ber he again wrote to the ship's husband stating 
 that it would be for the interest of all concerned 
 to abandon and sell instead of repair, and that 
 he had accordingly sold the ship, and he re- 
 quested due notice to be given to the under- 
 writers, who were then infoimed of the sale. 
 The ship would not in fact have been worth 
 the expense of rejjair : — Held, that there was 
 sufheient notice of abandonment to make a 
 constructive total loss, and that the notice was 
 in time. King v. Walker, 3 H. & C. 209 ; 33 
 
 L. J., Ex. 325 : 11 Jur. (n.S.) 43 ; 13 W. R. 232 
 —Ex. Ch. 
 
 A ship insured in a valued policy, having 
 sustained damage such as to retiuire repaii's, put 
 into Falmouth on the 12th November for tliat 
 ])urpose. She was tliere moored with part of 
 her cargo on board, the residue having been 
 taken on shore. After the repairs were com- 
 menced, and before they were completed, she 
 was, on the 2nd December, sunk by a peril of 
 the sea, and lay submerged, with the portion of 
 the cargo on board, until raised by the ship's 
 agents. On the arrival of the ship the master 
 appointed B. her agent, and on the day after she 
 sank A. arrived at Falmouth with full authority 
 from the assured to act for him in all matters 
 concerning the ship as according to the best of 
 his judgment would be best for all concerned. 
 A., having come to the conclusion that it would 
 cost more to raise and repair her than she would 
 be worth when repaired, gave notice of abandon- 
 ment to B. on the 4th December, and on the 
 same day the captain, by instruction of A., gave 
 notice to the brokers who had effected the policy, 
 who on the 9th December gave notice to the 
 underwriter : — Held, that if this was such a state 
 of things as would constitute a total loss, the 
 notice of abandonment was given in time. 
 Kemi> V. Hallidai/, 6 B. & S. 723 ; 35 L. J., 
 Q. B. 1.5fi; L. R. 1 Q. B. .520; 12 Jur. (N.S.) 
 582 ; 14 L. T. 762 ; 14 W. R. 697— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Upon the first notice of a total loss the assured 
 are bound to abandon ; but it must appear that 
 they had notice, or the policy will not be vitiated. 
 AM V. Potts', 3 Esp. 242 ; 6 R. R. 826. 
 
 Where the assui-ed receive intelligence of such 
 a loss as entitles them to abandon, they must 
 make their election in the first instance ; and if 
 they abandon, they must give tlie underwriters 
 notice in a reasonable time ; otherwise they 
 waive their right to abandon, and can only re- 
 cover as for an average loss. Mitchell v. Edie or 
 Edi; 1 Term Rep. 608 ; 11 A. & E. 888 : 9 L. J., 
 Q. B. 187 ; 3 P. & D. 513 ; 1 R. R. 318. 
 
 The assured are bound to give notice of aban- 
 donment at the earliest opportunity ; notice 
 given live days after they received intelligence of 
 the loss, held too late. Hunt Y.Poyal E.cchange 
 A-wxrance Co., 5 M. & S. 47 : 17 R.' R. 264. 
 
 An insui'ed vessel arrived damaged at Kinsale 
 on November 24th : surveys were held on Decem- 
 ber 2nd and December 14th, when it was found 
 that repairs would exceed the value of the shij). 
 Notice of abandonment was given in London on 
 January 6th : — Held, the notice was too late. 
 Aldrieh v. Bdl, 1 Stark. 498 ; 18 R. R. 814. 
 
 Election.] — The insured is entitled to a 
 reasonable time for examining into the state of 
 a damaged cargo, before he makes his election 
 on the question of abandonment. Gemon v. 
 Royal Exclianfje Assnranec Co., 2 Marsh. 88 ;. 
 6 Taunt. 383 ; Holt, 49 ; 16 R. R. 630. 
 
 A vessel sailing with corn, insured from 
 Waterford, in Ireland, to Liverpool, by a policy 
 with a memorandum to be free from all but 
 general average, was stranded near Waterford 
 on the 28th of January, and the vessel continued, 
 at high tide, under water for near a month, 
 during which time, from the 31st, the assured, 
 at low water, were employed in saving the cargo, 
 the whole of which was damaged, but the greater 
 part recovered, and kiln-dried : but no notice of 
 abandonment was given to the underwriters in 
 London till the 18th February, though there is a
 
 1281 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— XL Abandonment. 
 
 1282 
 
 constant regvilar intercourse between Waterford 
 and Liverpool, where some of the assured lived : 
 which was holden to be out of time ; for, whether 
 or not, upon such a policy, where there was an 
 opportunity of sending on the corn which was 
 saved to the place of its destination within two 
 months after the accident, in another vessel, 
 the assured were entitled to abandon as in case 
 of a total loss : at all events they ought to have 
 made their election to abandon within a reason- 
 able time, and they cannot take the chance of 
 endeavouring first to save and make the best of 
 the cargo on their own account, and afterwards 
 abandon when they find that they cannot turn 
 it to their advantage. An(lei:son v. Royal Ex- 
 change Aumrance Co.. 7 East, 38 ; 3 Smith, 48 ; 
 8 K. R. 589. 
 
 When it is uncertain whether the damage done 
 to a cargo by a peril insured against will result 
 in a total or partial loss, the assured is not bound 
 to make his election how to treat it as soon as 
 some incipient damage has occurred ; and his 
 right to claim indemnity for a total loss does not 
 mature till the facts constituting such a loss are 
 ascertained. Browning v. Provincial Assurance 
 Co. of Canada, L. R. .5 P. C. 263 ; 28 L. T. 853 ; 
 21 W. R. 587 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 35— P. C. See also 
 Fleming v. Smith, post, col. 1285. 
 
 Embargo.] — The blockade of Havre being 
 publicly notified here on the 6th September, 
 and no notice of abandonment given till the 
 14th October, nor any excuse substantiated for 
 not giving it sooner for want of competent 
 authority before nor any new authority shewn 
 for giving it then : — Held, that the notice was 
 out of time ; and this, though the plaintiff's 
 agents in this country had no notice till the Nth 
 October of the decree f(ir restoration of the ship 
 and goods in question, which had been pronounced 
 on the 8th of October. Jiarhcr v. BlakcH, 9 
 East, 283 ; 9 R. R. 558. 
 
 The owner of a cargo of flax-seed, insured " at 
 and from America to Limerick," himself residing 
 at that i)lace, on the 11th February, 1808, 
 received information that the ship, with the flax- 
 seed on h)oard,had Vjcen detained at l'hiladel|)hia 
 by the American embargo : but did not give 
 notice of abandonment till the 11th June 
 following : the flax-seed was intended for sowing, 
 and might have been employed for that purpose 
 had it arrived befoie the lOtli of May, but after- 
 wards would have Vjeen scarcely of any value : — 
 Held, how(!ver, that the plaintiflE niight have 
 waited till the 10th of May Ijcfore abamioning ; 
 but the abandormient on the lltli June was out 
 of time. Kfillg v. Walton, 2 Camp. 155. 
 
 The assured of goofls having received intelli- 
 gence on the Hth of January, IKII, that the ship's 
 papers were taken away on the 7th of December 
 prece<ling, by tlie Swedish govcrnmcTit, within 
 whose i)ort she was. did not give notice of aban- 
 donment to the <lefendaiit underwriter till the 
 17th of January : but though such notice was too 
 late, 8up]»osing an abandftnment to be necessary, 
 yet, <is the gf)ods were finally seized, and unlatlen 
 by orders of tliat goveriniieiit on the 30th of 
 April following: — Held, that the inellectual 
 notice of abandonment before given did not 
 preclude the assured from recovering as for a 
 total loss, without any abandonment. J/rl/i.\h v. 
 Andrews, 15 East, 13 ; 13 R. R. 351. 
 
 By Scots Law.] — Consideration of the rjues- 
 tion whether in Scotland constructive total loss 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 is to be taken from the date of notice of aban- 
 donment, or from the date of commencement of 
 action. Shepherd v. Hender.^on, 7 App. Cas. 49 ; 
 9 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 1— H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 d. Acceptance of. 
 
 Effect.] — If notice of the abandonment of a 
 ship is given by the insured to the insurers, and 
 the insurers then say and do nothing, the con- 
 clusion is that they do not mean to accept the 
 abandonment. But if they, by their agent, take 
 possession of the ship, and then repair it and 
 retain it in their possession for some time without 
 repudiating the notice or informing the insured 
 .as to the character in which they are acting, 
 then there is a constructive acceptance of the 
 abandonment by the insurers. Procincial Insiir- 
 ance Co. of Canada v. Leduc, 43 L. J., P. C. 49 ; 
 L. R. 6 P. C. 224 ; 31 L. T. 142 ; 22 W. R. 929 ; 
 2 Asp. M. C. 338. 
 
 And a constructive acceptance produces the 
 same effect on the rights of the parties as an 
 express acceptance. Ih. 
 
 When the agent who took possession of the 
 ship, &c. was instructed to look after the interest 
 of the insurance company, his acts in pursuance 
 of those instructions, coupled with the non-repu- 
 diation of the notice of abandonment, having 
 tieen such as to be evidence from which an 
 acceptance might be inferred, the company was 
 bound by his acts. Ih. 
 
 After the acceptance by the insurers of the 
 abandonment of a ship, they become liable as for 
 a total loss. Ih. 
 
 Estoppel.] — Underwriters intending to resist 
 an abandonment are bound to do so within a 
 reasonable time ; where, therefore, the assured, 
 four days after a notice of abandonment had 
 been given, called a meeting of the underwriters 
 at Lloyd's, three of whom attended, and autho- 
 rised the assured to act as if no insurance had 
 been effected (the shij) having been wrecked, 
 and three-fourths of her cargo, consisting of 
 wines, either lost or impregnated with salt water), 
 and the damaged wines were accordingly adver- 
 tised for sale ; but, previously to its taking i)lace, 
 some of the underwriters forbade it, and rejected 
 the notice of abandonment, after more than two 
 months had elapsed, during which time they had 
 not interposed : — Held, that their silence for so 
 long a time was such an acquiescence by them 
 as to amount to an acceptance of the abandon- 
 ment ; and that they could not afterwards pre- 
 vent the sale. Hudson v. Ilarri.ion, 3 Moore, 
 288 ; 3 Br. & B. 97 ; 23 R. R. 575. 
 
 Evidence of.] — The question whether the 
 uiidii writers accept the abaiulonment or not is 
 a (piestion of fact ; init the circumstances of the 
 case may Ijc such tliat a jury niay be told, as a 
 matter of law, that if they think the under- 
 writers have done certain acts which arc consis- 
 tent only with their having accepted the aban- 
 donment, tlien they ought to find that the 
 abandonment has been acce])tcd. Shrjthcrd v. 
 Ilrndvrxon, 7 Ajjp. Cas. 49 — H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 When a sliip sustains a partial loss, the insured 
 cannot abandiui, nor is the answer of the under- 
 writers, flesiring them "toilo the best they can 
 with the damaged property," evidence of their 
 assent to make it a total loss, Thellusson ^ . 
 Fletcher, 1 Esp. 73 ; 1 Dougl. 315. 
 
 Where there was a loss bycai)ture, intelligence 
 
 41
 
 1283 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— XI. Ahandonment. 
 
 1284 
 
 of which was received, and an abandonment 
 made, and a recapture took place before the 
 notice of abandonment was given, but there was 
 no intelligence received of such recapture until 
 after some steps had been taken by the under- 
 writers : — Held, to amount to an acceptance of 
 the abandonment by them. Smith v. Jiohertson, 
 2 Dow, 474 ; 14 K. K. 174. 
 
 Acceptance by some Underwriters, Rejection 
 by others— Right to Share of Ship.]— The owners 
 of a ship abandoned her as a constructive total 
 loss, and some of the underwriters paid .500^ on 
 that footing. Other underwriters resisted the 
 claim, and were held liable for a partial loss to 
 the extent of 20 per cent, on the ship's value. 
 Some years afterwards the first set of under- 
 writers sued the shipowner for 700L, as the 
 value of their share of the ship, which had been 
 repaired, and for 7001. as their share of her earn- 
 ings :— Held (by the Lord Ordinary), that the 
 pm-suers were entitled to 400Z., being their share 
 of the ship, less 20 per cent., with interest. The 
 shipowner appealed, tendering a share in the 
 ship on the footing that the underwriters were 
 liable for their share of losses : — Held, that the 
 tender came too late, and that the judgment 
 below must be affirmed. Whitworth Brothers v. 
 Shepherd, 12 Ct. of Sess. Gas. (4th ser.) 204. 
 
 2. In What Cases. 
 
 Purpose of Voyage.] — The owner may abandon 
 
 if the voyage is not worth pursuing. Hamilton 
 V. Mcndc^: or Mendes, 1 W. Bl. 279 ; 2 Burr. 1198. 
 
 Insurance on Freight.] — Abandonment is not 
 necessary upon a loss in an insurance on freight. 
 Mount V. Harrison, 4 Bing. 388 ; 1 M. & P. 14 ; 
 6 L. J. (O.s.) C. P. 6. 
 
 There need be no abandonment of freight, 
 where the goods specifically exist, although the 
 ship is incapable of prosecuting the voyage. 
 Idle V. Royal Exchaiuje Insurance Co., 3 Moore, 
 115 ; 8 Taiint. 75.5 ; 21 R. R. 538. 
 
 Where Unnecessary.] — It is a principle of 
 insurance law that no abandonment is necessary 
 where there is nothing which, on abandonment, 
 can pass to or be of value to the underwriters. 
 BanUn v. Potter, 42 L. J., C. P. 169 ; L. R. 6 
 H. L. 83 ; 29 L. T. 1 42 ; 22 W. R. 1 ; 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 65— H. L. (E.) 
 
 When, therefore, there was a policy on ship, 
 and also on charterparty freight (that is, freight 
 to be earned by the carriage homeward of a 
 cargo chartered to be put on board at a distant 
 port), and the ship was so injured on the out- 
 ward voyage that the shipowner abandoned to 
 the underwriter on ship, there was nothing to 
 pass to the underwriter on charterparty freight, 
 and, consequently, there was no necessity for 
 abandonment to him. Ih. 
 
 Voluntary Acceptance.] — Where a ship policy 
 contained a provision that the ship should not be 
 within the Gulf of St. Lawrence within a pre- 
 scribed period, and the ship went into the gulf 
 within the prohibited time and was wrecked ; 
 and notice was given of an abandonment, and 
 was accepted by the insurers, it was contended 
 by them that the ship was not insured when she 
 was lost, as the insurance did not extend to a 
 h»ss in the gulf within the prohibited time, and 
 that an abandonment can be of no avail where 
 
 there is no insurance : — Held, that the vessel 
 was in fact insured, that the loss occurred during 
 the time and upon a voyage described in the 
 policy, but there was a breach of one of the 
 warranties ; and if, after a constructive total 
 loss and notice of abandonment, the insurers, 
 with full knowledge of all the facts, accept the 
 notice, they cannot, when called on to pay the 
 amount insured, resile and rely on a breach of 
 warranty. By the voluntary acceptance of the 
 notice of abandonment, an agreement is entered 
 into which closes the whole matter. Provincial 
 Insiirance Co. of Canada v. Leduc, 43 L. J., P. C. 
 49 ; L. R. 6 P. C. 224 ; 31 L. T. 142 ; 22 W. R. 
 929 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 338. And see Cammell v, 
 Sewell, 5 H. & N. 728 ; 29 L. J., Ex. 350. 
 
 On Sale of Ship and Cargo.] — A vessel was 
 insured on a voyage from Saigon to Hong Kong. 
 The ship sailed from Saigon on 14th January, 
 1871, and on the 22nd she struck upon a bank 
 and was damaged. On the 24th she was towed 
 to Saigon and discharged her cargo. She was 
 then surveyed, and the surveyors recommended 
 she should be sold. On 7th February the owners' 
 house at Singapore made up their minds to sell, 
 and wrote to the captain to that effect. On 11th 
 February the ship was condemned, and on the 
 23rd was sold. On 27th February the Singapore 
 house wrote to their agents in London, stating 
 the survey, and that the ship had been sold, and 
 directing them to inform the underwriters in 
 London. On 11th March the insured firm 
 claimed for a total loss against theiunderwriters : 
 — Held, that notice of abandonment was neces- 
 sary, that no such notice was given, and that the 
 assured was consequently not entitled to recover. 
 Kaltenhach v. Mackenzie, i'i L. J., C. P. 9 ; 3 
 C. P. D. 467 ; 39 L. T. 215 ; 26 W. R. 844— C. A. 
 A vessel was stranded and frozen in the St. 
 Lawrence in the beginning of the winter ; and 
 on the breaking up of the ice in the spring, she 
 was found to be in imminent peril ; and after 
 several surveys, both ship and cargo were sold 
 under circumstances which the jury found to 
 constitute a reasonable necessity for an imme- 
 diate sale, the expense of getting the ship afloat 
 and repairing her, and of forwarding the cargo 
 (timber) to its destination (Liverpool) being 
 greater than their value when so respectively 
 repaired and carried : — Held, that the under- 
 writers on cargo were liable as for a total loss, 
 without notice of abandonment ; the informa- 
 tion of the loss and of the sale having both 
 reached the assured at the same time. Farn- 
 ivorth V. Hyde, L. R. 2 C. P. 204 ; 18 C.B. (n.s.) 
 835 ; 34 L.'j., C. P. 207 ; 11 Jur. (N.S.) 349 ; 12 
 L. T. 281 ; 13 W. R. 613. 
 
 A ship was so much damaged by perils of the 
 sea, that in order to render her seaworthy it 
 would cost more to repair her than she would be 
 afterwards worth, and the captain sold her to a 
 purchaser who partially repaired her, and sent 
 her upon a voyage, which she never completed 
 in consequence of her infirmity : — Held, that the 
 assured was entitled to recover as for total loss 
 without giving notice of abandonment. Cam- 
 hridqe v. Anderton, 2 B. & C. 691 ; 4 D. & R. 
 203 ;■ R. & M. 60 ; 1 Car. & P. 213 ; 2 L. J. (O.S.) 
 K. B. 141 ; 26 R. R. 517. 
 
 A vessel was driven into a port where there 
 was no dock to receive her. It appeared that 
 she had suffered so much by sea perils, that, 
 upon examination and survey, it was judged 
 expedient to break her up, and to sell her for
 
 1285 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— XL Abandonment. 
 
 1286 
 
 old timber : — Held, that the assured was bound 
 to abandon before he could call vipon the under- 
 writers for a total loss ; the ship not being a 
 wreck, but, however maimed ami damaged, 
 existing in specie as a ship. licll v. Xtxon, 
 Holt, 423. 
 
 Converting Partial into Total Loss.] — 
 
 A ship being obliged to put into a place of 
 safety in the course of her voyage, in conse- 
 quence of damage incurred by a sea peril ; if the 
 owner does not abandon, but merely applies to 
 the underwriters for directions how to proceed 
 upon an estimate of the expenses of repair, 
 who decline interfering, he cannot afterwards 
 convert it into a total loss on account of the 
 expenses of the salvage being found in the 
 result to have exceeded the value of the shij;, 
 which was ultimately sold in the place into 
 which she had been driven by distress ; though 
 the sale was directed by the assured to be made 
 on account of all concerned. Martin v. CroUatt, 
 1-t East, 465 ; 18 R. R. 281. 
 
 A vessel insured under a time i)olicy, from 
 August, 1841, to August, 1842, encountered very 
 severe weather in the Indian seas, and was com- 
 pelled in May. 1842, to put into the Mauritius. 
 The master wrote to the owners, telling them of 
 tlie injuries which the vessel had received, of 
 the necessity to make extensive repairs, of his 
 intention to borrow money on bottomry for that 
 purpose, of the sum retiuired, and of the impos- 
 sibility of getting the money, except on the 
 undertaking to return direct to England, instead 
 of proceeding to Bomba}^ as oiiginally intended. 
 He further stated, that on account of the very 
 low state of freights in India, this would be 
 better for their interests, which he said he con- 
 sulted in everything he did. The agents for 
 Lloyd's at the Mauritius, who were employed by 
 the cajjtain to act for him, wrote letters to the 
 same effect. These letters were received at in- 
 tervals between September and December, 1842. 
 and in the latter month the owners wrote to the 
 agents, expressing their surprise at the amount 
 required, but saying at the same time that they 
 supposed what was done was the best that could 
 be (lone under the unfortunate circumstances in 
 which the ship was jilaced. Tlie owners wrote 
 to the agents in London, apprising them of the 
 e.Npeeted arrival of the vessel, and directing 
 them to do what was needful. The vessel did 
 arrive on the 27th March, and was at first taken 
 liossession of by the agents for the owners. On 
 the 30th March the owners al>an<loned to the 
 underwriters : — Held, that they wei'e not entitled 
 to recover as for a total lr)ss ; for, fii'st, assuming 
 notice fif abandf)nnient to be necessary in a case 
 of constnictive total loss, the notice here had not 
 been given in time ; and, secondly, the conduct 
 of the owners on the receipt of the letters 
 amounted to an election to treat tin's as a partial 
 loss, and they could not afterwards, on the 
 arrival of the vessel, when they found that the 
 cost of repairs much excee«led the niaiket value 
 of the vessel itself, convert this partial into a 
 total loss. Fli-ininfi v. Smith, 1 H. L. Cas. r»13. 
 
 Notice of abandonment is necessary in order 
 to convert a constructive into an absolute lo.ss. 
 Ih. 
 
 Contested Suit — Appeal.] — A cargo on 
 
 board a ship bound from Liverpool to Jlata- 
 moras was insured again.st the usual perils, 
 including " takings at .sea, arrests, restraints and 
 
 detainments of all kings, princes and people." 
 The policy also contained a suing and labouring 
 clause, by which, in case of misfortune, it was 
 provided that " it shall be lawful to the insured, 
 their factors, servants and assigns, to sue, labour 
 and travel for, in and about the defence, safe- 
 guai'd and recovery of the subject-matter of this 
 nisurance, or any part thereof, without prejudice 
 to this insurance, the charges whereof the com- 
 pany will bear in proportion to the sum hereby 
 insured." It was also provided that the " acts 
 of the insurer or insured, in recovering, saving 
 or preserving the property insured, shall not be 
 considered a waiver or an acceptance of abandon- 
 ment." The ship sailed on her voyage, and being 
 captured by a United States cruiser, was taken 
 into New Orleans, where the captors instituted 
 a suit for her condemnation in the prize court. 
 The insured contested the suit, electing to treat 
 the seizure as a partial loss. They obtained the 
 judgment of the court in their favour. Against 
 this judgment the captors, on the 1st of July, 
 1864, appealed, and the judgment was suspended. 
 On the 12th of September, the insured gave a 
 formal notice of abandonment, which the in- 
 surers refused to accept. They also subse- 
 quently informed them that endeavours were 
 being made to sell the ship and cargo, that they 
 were resisting such sale, and tliey requested 
 them to assist in giving bail to prevent it. They 
 refused to interfere. The sale of the goods could 
 have been prevented by depositing the full 
 value of the goods, or by giving bail for them, 
 and the insurers had opportunity for taking 
 either of such steps but declined to do so. The 
 shij) and cargo were then sold by onler of the 
 prize court, and the insured gave a fresh notice 
 of abandoiunent, which was again refused. The 
 insured could not. under the circumstances, by 
 any means which they could reasonably be called 
 upon to adojjt, have prevented the sale : — Held, 
 that although the insured had at first elected to 
 treat the loss as a partiivl one, and although the 
 fact of the appeal against the judgment would 
 not justify them in changing their election, and 
 claiming for a total loss, yet that the .sale of the 
 cargo by order of the prize court did amount 
 to such a change of facts as would give them a 
 right, if they chose, to maintain an action uptm 
 the policy for a total loss. StriiKjcr v. Kiiiilish 
 (did iScdftinh JJariiic I/inuninrc Co., 10 15. iS: S. 
 770 : 35) L. J., Q. B. 214 ; L. R. 5 Q. B. .-)«.);) ; 22 
 L. T. 802 ; 18 W. R. 1201— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Master electing to Repair.] — A shiimwner 
 iuMUed >liiii and Lreiglit. On leaving I'ernambuco 
 in .lune, l.'^3',l. the ship struck on a rock and put 
 hack. After survey, she was repaired at a cost 
 exceeding the value of ship and freight. The 
 master was comi)elletl to borrow on bottomry of 
 ship, freight and cargo. In Decemlier, 1839, the 
 ownei', on being shewn a letter addressed to the 
 ' lenders on bottomi'V, in which the great expense 
 I of the rejiairs was staled, gave not ice to his under- 
 writers of abandonment of siiipand freight. The 
 ship arrived, and the freight was paid uiuler an 
 order of the admiralty court to the bottonn-y 
 bonilholders. The owner sued his underwriters 
 on the policy as for a total loss. The jury found 
 that the master acted bona tide in rejiaiiing the 
 ship: — Held, that the master might have aban- 
 dotied at I'ernambuco, but having elected to 
 repair, he must be taken to have so elected as 
 the owner's agent, and that the owner, being 
 bound Ijy his election, could not lecover. Uenno/t 
 
 •41—2
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— XI. Ahandonmcnt. 
 
 VlS'i 
 
 V. Chiipmnn, 2 H. L. Cas. (590; 8 C. B. 950 ; 13 
 Jar. '.itUt— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Mutiny — Abandonment.] — Ship insured at and 
 from Liverpool to the coast of Africa, iScc. and 
 from thence to the West Indies and America. 
 The crew mutiny, and propose to take the ship 
 to an enemy's port ; the boatswain, who is put 
 in charge, against the orders of the mutineers 
 takes the ship to Barbados, where the mutineers 
 are seized and the ship and cargo sold by the 
 government agent for the benefit of all parties : 
 —Held, that the assured was entitled to abandon 
 and recover for a total loss. Brown v. Smith, 
 1 Dow. 819 ; 14 R. R. 7S. 
 
 Condemnation for Illegal Slave Trade— Re- 
 versal of Decree — Abandonment — Total Loss.] — 
 
 See Luzdiio v. Jaii.'<on, ante, col. 11U.S. 
 
 Of Substituted Vessels.] — In an action upon 
 a policy ui>on gooils from Cadiz to Monte Video 
 and Buenos Ayres, and also " on cash on account 
 of freight, 216/'.," the declaration alleged the 
 shipment of the goods and the prepayment of 
 the 21t'>L on account of freight ; and that, whilst 
 prosecuting the voyage, the vessel encountered a 
 storm, and sustained so much damage that she 
 became and was disabled from proceeding with- 
 out being repaired, and could not be repaired so 
 as to proceed without incurring an expense 
 greater than her value would have been when 
 repaired, together with the freight which she 
 would have earned on the voyage ; that the 
 master was obliged to ami did abandon the voyage 
 and the earning of the residue of the freight ; 
 that the freighter procured two other vessels to 
 carry the goods on, at a rate of freight exceeding 
 the freight originally payable under the charter- 
 party : and that the sum so paid in cash on 
 account of the freight, by reason of the premises, 
 became and was wholly lost to the plaintiff. 
 That one of the substituted vessels sustained so 
 much damage that she was obliged to put back 
 to Gibraltar and there unload, and the goods 
 were sent on to Monte Video by the other : and 
 that, by reason of the premises, the plaintiff 
 sustained a total loss of the sum so paid in cash 
 on account of the freight, and was put to charges 
 in transhipping the goods : — Held, that the 
 declaration disclosed a sufficient justification 
 for the master's abandoning the voyage, and 
 conse(iitently that the plaintiff was entitled to 
 recover as for a total loss of the prepaid freight. 
 Be Cuiulra v. Swann, 16 C. B. (N.s.) 772. 
 
 A plea, that the substituted vessel into which 
 the goods were first transhipped, at the time the 
 goods were first at risk on board of her, was not 
 seaworthy, is a bad plea. Ih. 
 
 Duty of Captain to await Answer of Insurers.] 
 
 — In an action on a policy on an iron steamer, on 
 which the owners claimed to recover a construc- 
 tive total loss, by reason of necessary abandon- 
 ment and sale at a distant port, not a repairing 
 port, but within thirty days' post of London, on 
 account of a hole in one of the plates at the 
 bottom, and also a supposed starting of rivets 
 and plates caused by a strain sustained by the 
 vessel in a severe gale : it being admitted that a 
 mere hole in the bottom may be repaired, and 
 the case therefore turning on the supposed 
 injuries to plates and rivets ; the jury was 
 directed to consider whether the ascertained 
 state of the jilates and rivets was such as either 
 itself shewed or raised a reasonable presumption 
 
 1288 
 
 and jirobability that the state of the rivets and 
 plates outside was such as to be unsafe, and 
 their real state could not be ascertained without 
 a heaving down for external examination, which 
 could not be done except in a repairing port ; 
 and whether, even if so, the only alternative was 
 abandonment, and whether the captain ought 
 not to have awaited an answer from the under- 
 writers before abandonment. Lindsay v. Leath- 
 Icy, 3 F. & F. 902 ; 11 L. T. 194. 
 
 Effect of Sale of Cargo.] — In an action against 
 underwriters on a policy upon a cargo of coals to 
 Yokohama, it was proved that the ship received 
 such damage as to render it necessary to put into 
 Hong Kong : and that when there competent 
 persons decided that the cargo should be sold, as 
 there would be great danger of spontaneous 
 combustion if conveyed to its original destination. 
 No notice of the abandonment of the cargo was 
 given to the underwriters until the claim was 
 made for the total loss, but the coals had been 
 jjublicly sold at Hong Kong. The proceeds of the 
 sale had been handed over to the shipowners, and 
 they had offered them to the charterers, less a con- 
 siderable sum which they withheld in payment 
 of pro rata freight, on condition that they should 
 receive a receipt in full of all demands. This 
 the charterers declined to give. The underwriters 
 refused to pay, ui)on the ground that the char- 
 terers had not abandoned the cargo : — Held, that 
 the public sale, per se, vested the proceeds of the 
 sale in the underwriters, and that the charterers 
 had done nothing subsequently which shewed an 
 election on their part to take the proceeds.. 
 Sainulevs v. Baring, 34 L. T. 419 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 133. 
 
 Amount Recoverable.] — An insured who aban- 
 dons can only recover for the actual loss at the- 
 time of his abandonment. Hamilton v. Mendez 
 or Mendes, 1 W. Bl. 276 ; 2 Burr. 1198. 
 
 Upon a policy on flax, valued at so much, and 
 warranted free of particular average, if the vessel 
 is wrecked and the assured does not abandon, 
 but labours to save the cargo, and in fact saves 
 a part (one-sixteenth), though much damaged, 
 he is entitled to recover as for a total loss of that 
 part which was in fact totally lost, but not for 
 the rest which was saved to him in specie, though, 
 deteriorated. Bary v. Milford, 1.5 East, 559. 
 See 15 R. R. 279, 'n. See Balli v. Janson, 6 
 El. & BL 422 ; 25 L. J., Q. B. 300. 
 
 Ship and Cargo Sold.] — Notice held to be 
 necessary though the ship and cargo have been 
 sold and converted into money when the notice 
 was received. Hodgson v. Blachiston, 1 Park. 
 Ins. (8th ed.) 400, n. 
 
 3. On Loss by Perils of Sea. 
 
 Nature of Loss.]— Owners of ships are not 
 entitled to abandon unless at some period of the 
 voyage there has been a total loss ; and where 
 the jury has found only an average loss occa- 
 sioned by the perils of the sea, the court is 
 precluded from saying there has been a total 
 loss. Cazalct v. St. Barhe, 1 Term Rep. 187 ; 1 
 R. R. 178. 
 
 A loss of voyage for the season by perils of the 
 sea is not a 'ground of aljaudonment upon a 
 ])olicy on goods, with a clause of warranty, free 
 from'average, where the cargo is in safety, and 
 not of such a perishable nature as to make the
 
 1289 
 
 SHIPPING— IN SUEA^XE— XL Abandonment. 
 
 1290 
 
 loss of voyage a loss of the commodity, although 
 the ship is rendered incapable of proceeding in 
 the vovage. Hunt v. Hoifal Exchawje Assurance 
 Co., 5 Mr& S. -17 ; 17 R.' R. 264. 
 
 Where damage to the ship from perils of the 
 sea during the voyage, covered by the policy on 
 ship, was such as to justify abandonment to the 
 underwriter on ship before the cargo was put on 
 boaril. the insured freight could not be earned : 
 — Held, that there was therefore a total loss on 
 the policy on freight. Rankin v. Putter, 42 L. J., 
 C. P. 169 : L. R. 6 H. L. 83 ; 29 L. T. 142 : 22 
 W. R. 1 : 2 Asp. M. C. 65. 
 
 Goods Damaged.] — Where a ship was wrecked, 
 but the gooils were brought on shore, though in 
 a very damaged state, so that they became 
 unprofitable to the assured : — Held, that the 
 underwriters on the goods, who were freed bj- 
 the policy from particular average, could not be 
 made liaVjle as for a total loss by a notice of 
 abandonment. Thoinpxo/t v. Royal Exchange 
 Assurance Co., 16 East, 214. 
 
 Policy on goods (copper and iron) at and from 
 L. to Q., warranted free of particular average, 
 and the ship, owing to sea damage in the course 
 of her voyage was obliged to run into port and 
 undergo repair, and some part of the goods was 
 damagetl, and the repairs detained her so long as 
 to i)revent her reaching Q. that season, and no 
 other ship could be procured at that or a neigh- 
 bouring port to forward the cargo in time, so that 
 the voyage was abandoned, and the ship after- 
 wards sailed on another V(i}'age : — Held, that this 
 was not a total loss of the goods, and that the 
 assured could not abandon. Anderson v. Wallis, 
 •2 M. & S. 240 ; 3 Camp. 440. 
 
 A ship was wrecked on the 21st December, and 
 three-fourths of her cargo, consisting of wines, 
 were either lost or impregnated with salt water ; 
 and the assured gave notice of abandonment as 
 for a total loss on the 23rd (Vjeing the day on 
 which they heard of the loss), and before the 
 remains of the cargo were brought on shore : — 
 Hold, that it amounted to such a loss as warranted 
 the notice of abandonment. Ilufhuu v. Harrison. 
 € Moore, 2S8 ; 3 Br. i: B. 97 ; 23 U. R. TuTk 
 
 Desertion by Crew.1 — A shij) being 
 
 ileserted at sea by the ciew for the jjreservation 
 <}i their lives, the as.sured on goods abandoneil. 
 She was afterwards towed into port, but the 
 goods were so much <lamaged as not to be worth 
 sending to their jdaee of destination : — Held, a 
 total loss. Parr II v. Ahrrilrm. 4 ^M. A: Ry. 343; 
 9 B. i: C. 411 ; 7 L. J. (o.S.) K. B. 260. 
 
 4. o.\ CAPTURK. 
 
 Total Loss.] — An insured ship being taken, the 
 insured may demand as for a total loss, and 
 abandon to the insurer. Goasv. ]\'itherx,2 Burr. 
 6K3 ; 2 Ld. Ken. 32r,. 
 
 Recapture.] — An abaiKlnnment offered to be 
 made by the assured to the underwiiter, upon 
 intelligence brought of the cajiture of the goods 
 in^ure^l, which the underwriter refused to accept, 
 does not entitle the assured to recover as for a 
 total loss, where, before action Vjrought, the 
 goods were recajitured, and arrived at the place 
 of destination, l>y which a partial loss only was 
 sustained; for the assured can only recover an 
 indemnity for such loss as he has sustained at 
 the time of action. Pafferson v. Ililchir. 4 
 31. ic .S. 393 ; 16 R. U. 498. 
 
 On an insurance on shij) from Rio de Janeiro 
 to Liverpool, she was cajjtured, and afterwards 
 recai)tured ; but in the interval, the assured, 
 having received intelligence of the capture, 
 gave notice of abandonment : and after the re- 
 capture the shi}) arrived at Liverpool, having 
 sustained a partial damage : — Held, that the 
 assured could only recover as for a i)artial loss. 
 Rrotlicr-ston v. Barher, a M. & S. 418 ; 17 R. R. 
 378. 
 
 Where there was a loss by capture, intelligence 
 of which was received, and an abandonment 
 made, and a recajjture took place before the 
 notice of abandonment was given, but there was 
 no intelligence received of such recapture vintil 
 after some steps had been taken by the under- 
 writers : — Held, to amount to an acceptance of 
 the abandonment bv them. Smith v. Rohertsoa, 
 2 Dow, 474: 14 R.' R. 174. 8ee also J/iUer v. 
 Fletcher. Uiulrrwoodx. Robertson, post, col. 1301. 
 
 Partial or Total Loss.] — A ship insured 
 
 from Jamaica to Liveri)Ool was captured in the 
 course of her voyage, and recapturetl in a few 
 days ; and the assured having received intelli- 
 gence of the capture, but not of the recapture, 
 gave notice of abandonment ; and soon after 
 receiving intelligence of the recapture, and that 
 the ship was safe in the possession of the re- 
 captors, in a port in Ireland, but without any 
 further knowledge of her state and condition, he 
 persisted in his notice of abandonment ; but the 
 ship was afterwards restored to his possession 
 without damage, and arrived at Liverpool, and 
 earned her freight ; the salvage and charges of 
 the recapture amounting only to loZ. 4.y. 8rZ. 
 per cent. : — Held, that he was not entitled to 
 abandon ; it ajjpearing in tlie result, that, at the 
 time when the notice of abandoTiment was given, 
 it was in fact only a j^artial and not a total loss, 
 as the assured sujjposed ; and there being no 
 subsequent circumstances, such as the loss of 
 voyage, high salvage, kc, to continue it a total 
 loss. Pafnhr/df/e v. Mclson, 10 East, 329 ; 1 
 Camp. 237 ; 10 R. R. 316. 
 
 A ship insured under a valued policy was sunk 
 in deep water. On April ir)th, the insuretl gave 
 notice of abandonment, which the insurers de- 
 clined to accept. In July, the insurers, at great 
 cost, raised the ship. The insured in December 
 sueii the insurers for a constructive total loss. 
 The insurers pleaded that the loss was partial 
 only. It was admitted that the ship could not 
 have been raised and refitted at an e-xpense equal 
 to her value when tit for sea ; but it was also 
 admitted that at the date of the action, the 
 expense of fitting her for sea would be less than 
 her value when ready for sea : — Meld, that the 
 loss was partial only : the date of the action 
 being the material time. Jlainhridtjc v. JMrlsmi 
 (supra) and Falknrr v. Ritchie (2 M. A: S. 290) 
 followed. Jilairmorc Co. v. Macredie, 24 Ct. of 
 Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 893. 
 
 An assurance was etfecteil at and from (^lebec 
 to Teiierifle, on a cargo consisting ol' wiieat, tish, 
 and staves, and there was the usual nienioriinduni 
 in the iiolicy as to " corn and tish being free from 
 average unless geiierar" ; and the shi)) was cap- 
 tured, and afterwards recaptured, and sent by the 
 recaptois to Bermuda, where a scarcity prevail- 
 ing, an embargo was laid on the export of i)rovi- 
 sions ; and the caigo being laiulcd, it was found 
 that a considerable quantity of the wheat was 
 so damaged by sea-water, that it was thrown 
 overboard by order of the magistrates, for the
 
 1291 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— XI. Abandonment. 
 
 1292 
 
 sake of the public health : ami the other part of 
 it, being also damaged, was sold by the captain, 
 as well as the fish, at a profit ; and he put up 
 the ship for sale, which he purchased at one- 
 fourth of her value, for the benefit of the owners ; 
 and having repaired her. and being refused per- 
 mission to ship the remaining quantity of wheat 
 toTenerilfe. he directed it to be solil.and bought 
 it for the benefit of those concerned ; and by 
 leave of the governor, the embargo being then 
 raised as to the West India Islands, he shipped 
 the same for Madeira, where he arrived and 
 delivered it and took in a cargo of wine for 
 London, with which he arrived : — Held, that the 
 assured, who had abandoned the ship on receiv- 
 ing intelligence of the circumstances which had 
 happened previously to the time of her being 
 permitted to proceed to Madeira, was entitled to 
 recover as for a total loss on the whole of the 
 goods insured. Colofjan v. London Assurance Co. 
 5 M. & S. Ul ; 17 R'. R. 31)0. 
 
 Expense of Refitting.] — Insurance on a 
 
 ship, which, during her voyage, while loading 
 her homeward cargo, was seized by the crew and 
 carried away to a distant country, and the cargo 
 plundered and the ship deserted, but was after- 
 wards retaken by another ship, and was brought, 
 with a small remaining jiart of her cargo, to an 
 English port (not the i)ort of her destination), 
 and part of her rigging was gone, and she could 
 not be made fit for a voyage again without con- 
 siderable expense in providing a crew and stores : 
 — Held, that this was not a total loss, so as to 
 entitle the assured to abandon after notice of the 
 recapture. Fullmer v. Eltchie, 2 M. & S. 290 ; 
 15 R. R. 253. 
 
 Running Blockade.] — Goods were insured 
 
 at and from L. to any port in the river P. ; the 
 policy was effected, and the ship sailed, after 
 notification that those ports were blockaded : the 
 ship was captured by the blockading squadron in 
 the river P., but was rescued by her own crew, 
 and brought back with the goods itndamagetl to 
 L. ; notice of abandonment was given in the 
 interval between intelligence of the capture and 
 of the rescue ; but, after the rescue, in fact, 
 there was no intention to violate the blockade : 
 — Held, that the voyage as insured was not 
 illegal ; but that the assured had no right to 
 recover for a total loss hy reason of their having 
 offered to abandon, because the abandonment 
 must be viewed with regai'd to the ultimate state 
 of facts at the time when the offer to abandon 
 was made. Xaylor v. Tdi/lor, y B. & C. 718 ; -1 
 M. >k Ry. 526. 
 
 Restitution.] — An abandonment made after 
 capture, vmder circumstances which would entitle 
 the assured at the time to recover as for a total 
 loss, is not defeated so as to become an average 
 loss only, by the mere restitution and return of 
 the ship's hull, before action brought, if the 
 restitution is under such coTidition as to make it 
 uncertain whether the assured may not have to 
 pay more than its worth. 3r It-fir v. Henderson, 
 4 M. & S. 576 ; 16 R. R. 550. 
 
 Payment of Ransom by Master.] — A 
 
 vessel chartered to Oporto, St. Ubes, and Gotten- 
 bui'g, being taken at Oporto by the enemy, was 
 liberated on i)ayment by the master of a sum of 
 money, and on condition of his bringing home 
 in her to England, Etiglish prisoners to be ex- 
 changed for an equal number of French : upon 
 
 the news of the capture, but after the time of 
 the ship's liberation, the owners abandoned the 
 ship to the insurers ; upon her arrival at Ports- 
 mouth, the captain refused to deliver her, unless 
 on repayment of the ransom, which the owner 
 refused : — Held, that the owner being entitled to 
 retake his ship, which was safe at Portsmouth, 
 the loss of the voyage did not enable him to 
 recover upon a policy on the ship as for a total 
 loss, nor could he recover, as for an average loss, 
 the sum which had been paid by the master for 
 the ship's ransom, and which being an illegal 
 payment, the plaintiff was not bound to repay 
 to the master. Parsons v. Scoff, 2 Taunt. 363 ; 
 11 R. R.610. 
 
 Purchase after Sale by Captors.] — Where a 
 shiji insured had been captured, and brouglit into 
 a neutral port, and sold by the captors, and the 
 captain bought her for the benefit of the owners : 
 —Held, that they were only entitled to recover 
 on a policy the sum paid by the captain, and 
 what was expended on her outfit, and could not 
 recover for a total loss. Jl'J/asfers v. Shoolbred, 
 1 Esp. 237 ; 5 R. R. 735. 
 
 Capture and Recapture — Recovery as for 
 Total Loss— Salvage.] — A ship being insured 
 from London to Carolina, was taken by a 
 Spaniard, and retaken by an English privateer,, 
 who carried her into Boston, where no person 
 appearing to give security she was condemned 
 and sold, and, after the recaptors had their 
 moiety, the residue remained in the court of 
 admiralty at Boston. Defendant brought au 
 action at law on the policy and recoveretl, and 
 plaintiff, by his injunction-bill, insisted, that 
 defendant ought to have recovered no more than 
 a moiety of the loss. The court refused the in- 
 junction, for, as defendant had offered to relin- 
 quish the salvage, he was entitled to recover the 
 whole money insured. By 13 Geo. 2, c. -4, s. 18,. 
 the recapture of a ship is the revesting of the 
 owner's property ; so that it is doubtful whether 
 the act can operate when insurances are made, 
 interest or no interest. Salvage must be de- 
 ducted out of the money recovered by the- 
 policy, if come to the hands of the assured. 
 Pringle v. Hartley, 3 Atk. 195. 
 
 Abandonment — Ship Restored before 
 
 Action Brouglit ] — See Puys v. Roijal Excliange 
 Assurance Corporation, ante, col. 1108. 
 
 5. Embargo and Confiscation. 
 
 Position of Consignees of Foreigner.] — A 
 
 foreigner, insuring in this countiy his ship or 
 goods on a voyage, is not obliged to abandoa 
 upon an embargo laid on the property in the 
 ports of his own country, as his assent is virtually 
 implied to every act of his own government, 
 and makes such embargo his own voluntary 
 act ; and goods having been consigned by such 
 foreigner on his own account and risk, to British 
 merchants here, who in conseqitence of such 
 consignment made advances to the foreigner, 
 and made insurance on his account, debiting him 
 with the premiums, the goods were afterwards 
 abandoned in consequence of such embargo : — 
 Held, that, as the foreigner could not recover 
 against the underwriters, his consignees could 
 not recover their advances under a {>olicy made 
 for the benefit of the foreigner, though made in 
 their names, as interest might apjiear ; however,.
 
 1293 
 
 SHIPPING— IXSUEANCE— XI. Abandonment. 
 
 1294 
 
 they might have insured their separate interests 
 by a policy made on their own account. Oni- 
 way V. Gray, lU East, 536. overruled by Auhert v. 
 Gray, ante, col. 101)1. And see Conway v. Forhfs, 
 10 East, .539 ; and Jfavry v. Sheclden, 10 East, 540. 
 
 Inability to Discharge.] — If a cargo of a 
 perishable nature is insured from A. to B., with 
 the usual memorandum, and in the course of the 
 voyage information is received by the master 
 that the port of B. is shut against ships of his 
 nation, in consequence of which the commander 
 of the convoy orders the ship to proceed to 
 another port, and the cargo is there sold by 
 ordei-s of the vice-admiralty court for a very 
 small sum of money, the assured cannot abandon 
 as for a total loss. Hadkinwn v. Bubhuvn, 3 
 Bos. & P. 388 ; 7 R. R. 786. 
 
 In a case of insurance upon goods consigned to 
 a particular port, if, on the arrival of the ship 
 there it is found to be in the hands of an enemy : 
 that circumstance does not warrant the assured 
 to abandon. Lvhhucli v. lioiccroft, 5 Esp. 50 ; 
 8 R. R. 830. 
 
 A party, having ship]ied goods on an adventure 
 to St. Petersburg on board a vessel chartered 
 for the purpose, made insurance on ship and 
 gootls in the common printed form in blank ; 
 and by a written memorandum in the policy, 
 the underwriters agreed to pay a total loss 
 in case the ship should not be allowed by 
 the Russian government to discharge her cargo 
 at St. P., on which voyage the vessel had then 
 sailed, chartered by the (daintiff : — Held, that 
 the insured was entitled to recover upon this 
 policy on an allegation that the vessel on her 
 arrival at St. P. was not allowed by the Russian 
 government to discharge her cargo, but was 
 obliged to return back with it, by which the 
 value of the cargo was reduced below the amount 
 of the invoice price, together with the charges 
 paid thereon, and the premiums of insurance. 
 Puller V. Glover, 12 East, 124. 
 
 Where a neutral ship, bound from America to 
 Havre, was detained and Imuight into a British 
 port, and pending proceedings in the admiralty, 
 tlie king declared Havre in a state of blockade, 
 by which the further prosecution of the voyage 
 was i)iohibited : — Held, a total loss of the voyage. 
 which entitled the neutral assured to abandon. 
 liarher v. Jilaltex, 'J East, 2H3. And xce Ca/tr.i 
 ante. col. 123'J. 
 
 Sale — Condemnation Reversed. ] — An American, 
 priipi-ily licens(,'d in (■xpnrt saltpetre from Cal- 
 cutta to America, having insured it for the 
 voyage, the sliip was seized Vjy the captain of a 
 P.ritisti ship of war at the ('ajjC of Good Hope, 
 and the cargo condemned, unshipped, and sold 
 by order of the court of a<lniiraUy there, wliose 
 sentence was afterwards reversed on api)eal here, 
 and the property oniered to be restored, or its 
 value jiaid to the owner, thougii upon payment 
 of the captor's costs: — Meld, tliat the assured 
 might recover as for a total loss, without notice 
 of abandonment, the thing insured being wholly 
 lost to the owner by the unshipi»ing and sale of 
 the comnio(Hty at "the ('a|)e, under the order of 
 the court there ; and that such loss was recover- 
 able against the underwriters, on a count alleging 
 it to have happened by the unlawful seizure 
 and detoition of a British sliip of war ; however 
 questionable it might have been, if notice of 
 abandonment had been necessary, whether such 
 a notice, not given till after the receipt of a 
 
 second letter from the Cape, announcing the 
 condemnation, landing, and sale of the goods, 
 was in time, when a prior letter of advice had 
 stated the seizure and detention, on which no 
 notice had been given ; and the court of appeal 
 allowing the ca])tor his costs, on the reversal of 
 the sentence of condemnation, did not the less 
 shew the original seizure and detention to be 
 unlawful. MuUett v. Shcdden, 13 East, 304 ; 
 12 R. R. 347. 
 
 6. Ox Loss BY Other Means. 
 
 Desertion by Crew.] — A ship received con- 
 siderable damage from tempestuous weather, and 
 the crew, completely exhausted, deserted the 
 ship on the high seas for the mere preservation 
 of their lives ; and the ship was then taken 
 possession of by a fresh crew, who succeeded 
 in conducting her safely into port. The ship 
 having been sold under the decree of the 
 admiralty court to pay the salvage, and it not 
 appearing that the assure<l had taken any means 
 to prevent such sale : — Held, that they had no 
 right to abandon, and that there was no more 
 than a partial loss. Thorncly v. Hebson, 2 B. & 
 Aid. 513 ; 21 R. R. 381. 
 
 A ship being deserted at sea by her crew for 
 the preservation of their lives, the assured on 
 goods abandoned. She was afterwards towed 
 into port, but the goods were so much damaged 
 as not to be worth sending to their place of 
 destination : — Hekl, a total loss. Parry v. 
 Aberdeen, 4 M. ic Rv. 343 ; 9 B. & C. 411 ; 7 L. J. 
 (O.S.) K. B. 260. 
 
 Barratry.] — Barratry of the master is a ground 
 of abandonment as for a total loss, though the 
 goods ultimately reach their destination through 
 the agencv of stransersto the assured. D'l.ron v. 
 Reid, 1 D. k. R. 207 ; 5 B. ct Aid 597 ; 24 R. R. 
 481. 
 
 7. Effect of, on Fueight and Caroo. 
 
 Charterparty Freight.] — Wheie there was a 
 policy on shiii and also on charterparty freight 
 (that is, fi-eight to be earned by the carriage 
 homeward of a cargo chartered to be i)ut on 
 board at a distant port), and the ship was so 
 injured at the outward port that the shipowner 
 abandoned to the underwiiter on shiii, tliere was 
 nothing to pass to the underwriter on charter- 
 l)arty freight, and conscfiuently there was no 
 necessity of abandonment to him. Itanlihi v. 
 Potter, 42 h. J., C. P. Ki'.t : L. R. li H. L. 83 ; 29 
 L. T. 142 ; 22 W. K. 1 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 65. 
 
 Priorities.] — A shii)owner having first insured 
 his shij) with A., and his freight with B., for a 
 certain voyage, and having notice of an embargo 
 laid on the shiji in a foreign port, aljfindoned the 
 ship and freiglit to the respective underwriters, 
 and reeeiveil from tliem the wliole amount of 
 their sutiseriptions as for a total loss of both ; 
 first undertaking, by a memorandum on the sliip 
 policy, to assign to the underwriters thereon his 
 interest in the ship, and to account to them for 
 it ; and afterwards undertaking, by a similar 
 memorandum on tlie freight policy, to a.ssign 
 to those underwriters all right of recovery, 
 compensation. A:c. The ship being afterwards 
 liberated, and earning freiglit, which was 
 received bv the assured :— Held, that however
 
 1295 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUKANCE— XL Abandonment. 
 
 1296 
 
 the (luestion of priority as to the title to the 
 freight might have been as between the different 
 sets of underwriters litigating out of the same 
 fund, and however the weight of argument 
 might prepontlerate in favour of the uniler- 
 writers on the ship ; yet that the assured, who 
 had received the freight from the shippers of 
 gooils, was at all events liable on his express 
 undertaking to pay it over to the underwriters 
 on freight ; and that, without deducting the 
 expenses of provisions, wages, &c., which were 
 charges on the owner before the abandonment, 
 and on the underwriters on ship afterwanls. 
 Thompson v. Rowcroft, -t East, 34. S. P., Lcatham 
 V. Terry, 3 Bos. & P. 479. 
 
 Freight Earned.] — Upon a hostile embargo in 
 a foreign i)ort the owner, who had separately 
 insured ship and freight, abandoned them to the 
 respective underwriters, which abandonment was 
 accepted by them ; after which the embargo was 
 taken off. and the ship completed her voyage and 
 earned freight : — Held, that the assured could 
 not recover as for a total loss of freight, the 
 freight having been in fact earned ; or, supposing 
 it to have Ijeen in any other sense lost to the 
 assured by the abandonment of the ship to the 
 underwriters thereon, it was so lost, not by any 
 peril insured against, but by the voluntary act 
 of the assured, in making such abandonment. 
 McCarthy v. Ahel, 5 East, :-;88 ; 1 Smith, r)24 ; 
 7 R. R. 711. 
 
 An abandonment to the underwriters on ship 
 transfers freight earned subsequently to such 
 abandonment, as incident to the ship. D((vidson 
 V. Case. 5 Moore, 116 ; 8 Price, 542 ; 2 Br. i: B. 
 379 ; 5 M. & S. 79 ; 17 R. R. 280. 
 
 Ship and freight were insured by separate 
 underwriters. The ship was captured, and ship 
 and freight abandoned to the respective under- 
 writers, who each paid a total loss. The ship was 
 recaptured, jjeiformed her voyage and earned 
 freight : — Held, that the underwriters were 
 entitled to the freight. Ih. 
 
 Captain acting as Agent of Insurers.]— A ship 
 having been chartered to cany troops to Calcutta, 
 by a charterparty, under which a portion of the 
 freight was made payable on the completion of 
 the voyage, when about 700 miles bej'ond the 
 Mauritius caught fire. The ship put back to the 
 Mauritius, where, being found to be greatly 
 damaged, she was abandoned to the under- 
 writers as totally lost, and the abandonment was 
 accepted. The captain having chartered another 
 ship and forwarded the troops to Calcutta, the 
 freight was received by the shipowners' agents : 
 —Held, that, in forwarding the troops, the 
 captain acted as agent for the owner and not foi' 
 the underwriters ; and that the underwriters, to 
 whom the ship had been aVjandoned, wei'c not 
 entitled to any benetit from the freight so 
 received. Ilu-ltie v. B.odocanHchi, 4 H. &N. 4.55 : 
 28 L. J., Ex. 278 : 5 Jur. (N.S.) 550 ; 7 W. R. 545. 
 
 Compensation.] — Owners of a ship effected 
 policies of insui'ance on freight and on ship for a 
 voyage from St. John's, New Brunswick, to 
 Liverpool, the goods on board being their 
 jiroperty. The ship was stranded off the port of 
 Liverpool, and notice of abandonment was given 
 to the underwriters on the ship : part of the 
 cargo was then brought in lighteis to Liverpool, 
 and the ship, having been so lightened, was 
 brought with the remainder to Liverpool : this 
 
 was done by the owners at their expense : sub- 
 sequently the abandonment was accepted by the 
 underwriters : — Held, that nothing in the nature 
 of freight for the entire voyage passed to the 
 underwriters on the ship on the abandonment of 
 the ship, but that they were entitled to compensa- 
 tion in the nature of freight from the owners of 
 the ship, as owners of the goods, for so much of the 
 cargo as was brought in it from the place of 
 stranding to Liverpool, and that the principle on 
 which it was to be calculated was the sum for 
 which that part of the cargo might have been 
 forwarded to Liverpool in another shii) at the 
 current rate of freight. Miller v. Woodfall, 8 
 El. & Bl. 493 : 27 L. J., Q. B. 120 ; 4 Jur. (N.S.) 
 302. See Burnand v. Rodocanuchi, 51 Ij. J., 
 Q. B. 548 : 7 App. Cas. 333 ; 47 L. T. 277 : 31 
 W. R. 65 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 576— H. L. (E.) 
 
 Title to Cargo, when Accruing.] — The title of 
 underwriters to a cargo of an abandoned vessel 
 does not date from the acceptance of an abandon- 
 ment, but has relation back to the time of the 
 loss. Cammell v. Seivell, 5 H. & N. 728 ; 29 L. J., 
 Ex. 350 : 6 Jur. (N.S.) 916 ; 2 L. T. 799 ; 8 W. R. 
 639— Ex. Ch. 
 
 A foreign vessel sailing with a cargo of timber, 
 consigned from a foreign port to Hull, went 
 ashore on the coast of Norway. The captain, 
 without waiting for instructions from the con- 
 signee, and without any absolute necessity, made 
 sale by auction of the timber, in the manner pre- 
 scribed by the law of Norway, and the purchaser 
 consigned the timber to the defendants for sale 
 in his behalf. The agents of the plaintiffs' under- 
 writers, who had received notice of abandonment 
 before, but had accepted it after the sale, in the 
 meantime instituted a suit in the superior 
 diocesan court of Drontheim against the captain 
 and the purchaser to set aside the sale, and to 
 compel the purchaser to deliver up the cargo to 
 the underwriters. That court confirmed the sale. 
 On trover subsequently brought by the plaintiffs 
 against the London consignee of the purchaser 
 for the recovery of the cargo : — Held, that they 
 were entitled to maintain an action for the 
 conversion, but that they were estopped by the 
 judgment of the Norwegian court. lb. 
 
 On abandonment, the owner becomes trustee 
 for the underwriters on ship, and is bound to 
 assign. Scottish Marine Insurance Co. v. Turner, 
 1 M'acq. H. L. 334 ; 17 Jur. 631 : 1 W. R. 527. 
 
 Where a ship has received injuries entitling 
 the owner to treat her as totally "lost, and where 
 he conseiiucntly abandons her to the under- 
 writers on ship, they are entitled to all freight 
 afterwards earned. / b. 
 
 Upon such constructive loss and abandonment 
 the freight, if earned, will belong, not to the 
 owners, but to the underwriters on ship. lb. 
 
 Freight, while the ship is in the course of 
 earning it, belongs to the underwriters paying 
 for a total loss. Stewart v. Greenoch Marine 
 Insurance Co., 2 H. L. Cas. 159 : 1 Macq. H. L. 
 382. 
 
 Deduction of Expenses.] — While a ship was 
 forciblv detained in a foreign port, the owner 
 abandoned first the ship and then | the freight, to 
 the different sets of underwriters thereon, who 
 paid as for a total loss ; after which the ship was 
 liberated, reshipped her cargo, which had been 
 taken out, and returned home, earning freight, 
 which was received by the assured. Assuming 
 that the assured after an abandonment of the
 
 1297 
 
 SHIPPING— IN SUEANCE— XII. Sale hi/ Master, cCc 
 
 1298 
 
 ship, might abandon the freight to another set of 
 underwriters, the ship and freight are salvage to 
 the different underwriters after deducting the 
 following expenses, which must be apportioned 
 between them according to their several interest : 
 1. The expenses of the ship and crew in the 
 foreign port, including port-charges, besides the 
 expense of shipping the cargo, which exclusively 
 belongs to the underwriters on freight : 2. Insur- 
 ance thereon : 3. Wages and provisions of crew 
 from their liberation in the foreign port till their 
 discharge here : 4. Wages (provisions were sup- 
 plied by the foreign government) to the crew 
 during their detention. But the assured was not 
 entitled to deduct out of the freight received, 
 payable to the underwriter on freight : 1. 
 Charges paid at the port of discharge on ship 
 and cargo : 2. Insurance on ship : 3. Diminution 
 in value of ship and tackle by wear and tear on 
 the voyage home. S/tat-j) v. Gladstone, 7 East, 
 24 ; 3 Smith, 39 ; 8 R. R. 583. 
 
 XII. SALE, BY MASTER, OF SHIP AND 
 CARGO. 
 
 1. SJiiji. 1297. 
 
 2. Cur;/ (I, 13U1. 
 
 1. Ship. 
 
 When Allowed.] — The master of a vessel has 
 no power to sell her so as to affect the insurers, 
 except under circumstances of stringent neces- 
 sity ; such circumstances as, after sufficient 
 examination of her condition, after every exertion 
 in his power, within the means at his disposal, 
 to extricate her from peril or to raise funds foi' 
 the repair, leave him no alternative but to sell 
 her as she is. Cohcqiiid Mdriiw Insiirance Co. v. 
 Jiartpaux, L. R. 6 l\ C. 319 : 32 L. T. .510 ; 23 
 W. R. 892 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 536—1'. C. 
 
 In cases of extreme necessity, and where the 
 ship, having got agrfiund, cannot, in the ojiinion 
 of persons competent to judge, be raised, the 
 captain may sell her for the benefit of the owners : 
 but it can only be in cases of extreme necessity ; 
 and the survey, ice. must be made on the best 
 information, and with the most i)ure good faith. 
 Iluiimua V. Jfolfo/i, 5 Esp. 54 ; 8 R. R. 837. 
 
 A vessel struck u])Oii a rock outside a harbour, 
 and it was necessary to lighten her in order to 
 get her off at the next high tide, and for that 
 purpo.se her master eiitereil into a contract with 
 one C>., who was the only person at the i)lace 
 who had a sufficic7it number of men to render 
 effectual a.sKistance, to fiml the laVxiur refpiirerl 
 for that )iurpose. G. sujiplied only a small 
 iiimilicr of nu-ii, who worked very languidly in 
 discharging the cargo for twooi- three houis, and 
 at the end of that time (i. persuaded the master 
 to cancel tliis contract, and to call a survey of the 
 vessel and sell her. (J. and .some men he br<iught 
 accordingly made a survey, and by it found the 
 mainmast raised one inch, tlic main combings 
 l)arte(l. the <\v<;k plank opening, and tlie vessel 
 unseaworthy, and advised that the ship and 
 cargo should be sold for the benefit of all con- 
 cerned. The master then s(»l<l her to G. foi' a 
 very small sum of money. When the vessel 
 struck on the rock there was a strong breeze 
 blowing, but it aftei'wards got calmer, and at 
 the time of the sale the weather was good, ami 
 the vessel lying on her bilge with no more 
 danger than she had been in from the time she 
 
 struck, but there was evidence that if the wind 
 veered round to the south or west the sea would 
 have heaved in and the vessel would have broken 
 u|) in a short time. As a fact, directlj- after the 
 sale G. brought a number of hands to discharge 
 tlae cargo, and so got the vessel off and floated 
 her at the next high tide, and he afterwards 
 repaired and made her seaworthy at a trifling 
 expense. In an action against the underwriter 
 on a policy of insurance on the vessel for a con- 
 structive total loss, the judge ruled, on the above 
 facts appearing at the end of the plaintiff's case, 
 that there was no evidence upon which the jury 
 could reasonably find the urgent necessity for 
 the sale of the vessel at the time she was sold, 
 and he accordingly withdrew the case from the 
 jury and directed the verdict to be entered for 
 the defendant : — Held, by Lord Coleridge. C.J., 
 that such ruling was right. Utill v. Jujje. 49 
 L. J., C. P. 721 ; 43 L. T. 411 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 328. 
 
 Held, by Grove, J., that it was wrong, and 
 that the case should not have been withdrawn 
 from the jury. lb. 
 
 A captain of an insuretl ship, which has been 
 injured by perils of the sea, is not justified in 
 selling the ship instead of repairing it, unless he 
 either has not the means of getting the i-epairs 
 done at the place where the vessel is obliged to 
 [lut in ; or cannot get them done except at such 
 an expense as would render it undoubtedly im- 
 proper to repaii', if the ship were not insured ; or 
 has not money in his possession sufficient to pay 
 for the repairs, and is not in a situation to raise 
 it by loan or otherwise, except at such an extra- 
 vagant rate as would prevent a i)rudent man, 
 in the e.xercise of a sound and vigorous judg- 
 ment, from undertaking the repairs under such 
 circumstances. Sonirs v. Sur/rue, 4 Car. (S: P. 
 276. 284. 
 
 Where a ship received damage by striking on 
 a i-ock, which rendered her unsafe for another 
 voj'age utdess repaired ; and she was twice sur- 
 veyetl and condemned l)y the authorities of the 
 place to whicli she was insured ; and the captain 
 bona fide sold lier for firewood ; and she might 
 have been rei)aired but for the negligence of the 
 resident agents of the owners : — Held, that the 
 underwriters were not liable for a total loss. 
 Ttiiiiier V. Bnnictt, R. & M. 182 ; 27 R. R. 743. 
 
 A ship Iteing wrecked, was sold by the owner 
 an<l master, and soon after got off by the i)ur- 
 chaser and repaired, tliough at a great expense. 
 The ownei' could not treat this as a total loss, 
 unless the sale at the time, in the exercise of a 
 sound judgment, a])peared most beneficial for all 
 parties. Doijlr v. Dnllus, 1 M. ^: Rob. 4S. 
 
 Jf the sliip was likely to be repairable, so .as to 
 come to England with any cargo, wliieh u|)on 
 her arrival would be worth the sum laid out on 
 her, it cannot be treated as a total loss, though 
 she cannot be made fit to carry the cargo origin- 
 ally intended for her. Ih. 
 
 Freiglit was insm'ed from A. to I'.. The ship 
 sailed. Ijut was ol)liged to ]iul baik from stress 
 of weather, when she was found to be incapable 
 of complete repair, and the cargo was accordingly 
 ludoaded and the siiip sold. In an action on 
 the policy for a total loss : — Held, that the insured 
 was bound to use all leasonable cndc'avours to 
 repair the ship, so as to have carried the cargo, 
 or part of it. which woidd have operated as a 
 salvage, (ircrn v. Uoiitil K.rrUtt iiifi' Axxiiiuuico, 
 Co.. 1 Marsh. 447 : 6 Taunt. CS ; 16 R. R. 571. 
 
 Where, by means within the reach of the
 
 1299 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— XII. Sale h/ Master, dec. 
 
 1300 
 
 mastei'. a ship can be so treated as to retain the 
 character of a ship, he cannot, hj selling her even 
 bona fide, convert the average into a total loss, 
 but the underwriters are entitled to have those 
 means used on their account. Gardner v. Sal- 
 vador, 1 M. & Kob. 116. 
 
 "Where it was proved that the master sold bona 
 fide, and professedly for the benefit of all con- 
 cerned, yet, since it was not further proved that 
 the sale was absolutely necessary, and really for 
 the benefit of all, the assured were not entitled 
 to recover as for a constructive total loss, without 
 notice of abandonment. Rn'ujlif v. Faith, I't 
 Q. B. 61'.) : 19 L. J., Q. B. 509 ; U Jur. IIU. .See 
 Eosftto v. Gurneij, ante, col. 1286. 
 
 When Eepairs Effected.] — Freight was insured 
 on shi[i and cargo of timber from Quebec to 
 London, and the ship sailed from Quebec, and 
 on her voyage down the River St. Lawrence 
 sprung a leak, and it became necessary for the 
 preservation of the lives of the master and crew 
 to run her on shore, where she took the ground 
 on the outside of a reef of rocks, and was there 
 fixed, and exposed to the full force of the stream, 
 and in the way of the drift ice then forming and 
 floating down the river. One of the part-owners 
 and agent for the others resided at Quebec, and 
 after two surveys, in which the survej'ors stated, 
 as their oi>inion, that it would be prudent to sell 
 the ship and cargo, the master, under the direction 
 of such part-owner, sold the same ; the ship. 
 however, survived ; was rei)aired by the pur- 
 chasers, and afterwards brought a full cargo to 
 London. In an action on the policy against the 
 iinderwi'iters on freight for a total loss : — Held, 
 that the master was warranted in selling the ship 
 and cargo. Idle v. Boyal E.rcliange Inxurunce 
 Co., 3 Moore. 11.5 ; 21 R. R. 538. 
 
 Where ship, freight, and passage-monej' where 
 insured for 13,000/., at and from London to the 
 East Indies and back ; and the ship sailed sea- 
 worthy from Calcutta on her homeward voyage, 
 and afterwards received considerable damage by 
 stormy weather, so as to render it necessary for 
 the ca})tain to put back there ; and immediately 
 on his arrival, he gave notice of abandonment to 
 the agents for Lloyd's resident there, and desired 
 that their surveyor might be present at the sur- 
 veys of the ship ; and the agents replied, that 
 they had no authority to accept abandonments ; 
 and after three several surveys of the ship by 
 competent persons, at two of which the surveyor 
 for the agents attended, and it was found that 
 the expense of repairing her would be from 
 4,001 )Z. to 5,0(101. ; and the captain, having 
 ineffectually attempted to raise money by hypo- 
 thecation of the ship (having no funds to repair 
 her himself), sold her for 1,200Z. : and the jury 
 found that what had been done by him was for 
 the benefit of all concerned, and gave a verdict 
 for the assured as for a total loss : — Held, that 
 the sale was justifiable ; and the court refused a 
 new trial. Hmd v. Bonhani, 6 Moore, 397 : 3 
 Br. & B. 147 ; 23 R. R. 587. 
 
 Where a vessel was so much injured by perils 
 of the sea, that, in order to render her seaworthy, 
 it woulil cost as much to repair her as she was 
 originally worth, or as much as would build a 
 new ship, and the captain sold her to a purchaser, 
 ■who repaired her and sent her on a voyage, 
 which she never completed in consequence of her 
 infirmity : — Held, that the underwriters were 
 liable as for a total loss, although the vessel 
 remained in sjiecie at the time she was sold. 
 
 Canibridr/r v. Andcrfo/i. 4 D. & R. 203 : 2 B. &C. 
 691 ; 1 Car. & P. 213 ; R. & M. 60 ; 2 L. J. (o.s.> 
 K. B. 141 ; 26 R. R. 517. 
 
 Where a ship was so shattered in a storm, that 
 it was found, on survey, that the expenses of 
 repairing her would far exceed her original value, 
 and the captain sold her bona fide for the benefit 
 of all concerned, and the purchaser shortly after- 
 wards broke her up : — Held, that this was such 
 an urgent necessity as justified the sale. Bohcrt- 
 .wn V. Clarlu; 8 Moore, 622 ; 1 Bing. 445 ; 2 L. J. 
 (O.s.) C. P. 71 ; 25 R. R. 676. 
 
 If a vessel is so much injured by a storm, that 
 in the opinion of the master, who exercises a 
 fair and honest discretion on the subject, she 
 cannot be repaired but at an expense exceeding 
 the amount of a total loss, and he accordingly 
 sells her, the owner may recover from the insurer 
 as for a total loss, although it eventually turns- 
 out that the vessel might possibly have proceeded 
 on her voyage. Bohertson v. Carufhers, 2 Stark. 
 571 ; 20 R. R. 738. 
 
 Where a vessel was driven by tempestuous 
 weather into a foreign port, and in order to defray 
 the expenses of repairing (without which she 
 could not have proceeded on her voyage), the 
 captain was obliged to sell part of the cargo : — 
 Held, that the underwriters on a policy on goods 
 were not liable for a total loss by perils of the sea. 
 Sarquij v. IIoh.wn, 3 D. & R. 192 ; 2 B. & C. 7 ; 
 4 Bing. 131 ; 12 Moore, 474 ; 1 Y. & J. 347 ; 1 
 L. J. (o.s.) K. B. 222 : 26 R. R. 251. S. P.,, 
 Porvell V. Gudqeon, 5 M. & S. 431 ; 17 R. R. 
 385. 
 
 Cause of Loss— Stranding.] — A ship insured in 
 1,000/. for a year, ending 23rd September, was 
 •stranded, got off, and brought into the harbour 
 of Santa Cruz, on September 16th. She remained 
 there with her crew on board till the middle of 
 October, and during that time was pumped, and 
 her cargo was discharged into other vessels. 
 Being then beached and surveyed, she was found 
 so mirch damaged by the accident that the neces- 
 sary repairs could not be done at Santa Cruz, 
 there being no dockyard, workmen, or materials, 
 there : nor could she be taken to any port where 
 she could prudently have been repaired. After- 
 wards, in October, the master (who was a part 
 owner, and interested in the policy) sold her for 
 the benefit of those whom it might concern, and 
 she fetched 72/. Xo notice of abandonment was 
 given. A special case, in an action against the 
 underwriters, set forth these facts, stating also 
 that the vessel " received her death-ljlow " by the 
 perils of the sea, on September 16th, but that the 
 damage was not ascertained till the 24th : — 
 Held, that the assured were entitled to recover 
 for partial loss by the stranding before September 
 23rd, though the loss was not ascertained till 
 after that day ; tlie proximate cause of loss, the 
 injury by stranding, having taken place during 
 the year covered bv the insurance. Knajht v. 
 Faith. 15 Q. B. 649 ; 19 L. J., Q. B. 509 ; 14 Jur. 
 1114. 
 
 Held, also, that the ultimate loss did not 
 prevent such recovery, for that the partial loss 
 by stranding caused an actual prejudice to the 
 assured, which was not merged in the final loss- 
 resulting from the sale, even assuming this to 
 have been a total loss necessarily consequent 
 upon the stranding, the loss being one, which, 
 as total, the insurers were not liable to pay for. 
 Ih. 
 
 A ship and goods being insured for a voyage.
 
 1301 
 
 SHIPPING— IXSUEAXCE— XII. Sale by Master, dec. 
 
 1302 
 
 if the ship is taken ami recaptured, and, on the 
 recapture, the captain, acting fairly for the 
 benefit of his employers, sells the ship and cargo, 
 and thereby puts an end to the voyage, the 
 insured will recover as for a total loss. Jlilles v. 
 Flefchi'i\ 1 Dougl. 231. 
 
 Underwriters on goods insured from London 
 to Demerara were held liable for an average loss, 
 where the ship, being captured and recaptured, 
 was sent into St. Thomas's stripped of all her 
 hands, and the captain, not being able on his 
 arrival there to procure a fresh crew, or to raise 
 money to pay the salvage, immediatelj' sold the 
 ship and cargo, and broke up the adventure. 
 Undetnoood v. Bobertson, 4 Camj). 138 ; 16 R. R. 
 760. 
 
 Evidence of Condemnation. ] — A notarial cojjy 
 of the condemnation of a ship as not being 
 worth repairing, is onh' evidence of the fact of 
 her having been condemned, not of the par- 
 ticular defects on which the condemnation was 
 grounded. \\'ri(iht v. Burnaril. 2 Esp. 700 ; '•> 
 R. R. 767. 
 
 Authority of Vice-Admiralty Court.] — The 
 vice-admiralty courts abroad have no authority, 
 ujion the mere petition of the captain of a shiji. 
 bound on a foreign voyage, to decree the sale of 
 such ship reported upon survey not to be sea- 
 worthy' or repairable, so as to carry the cargo to 
 its place of destination, but at an expense 
 exceeding the value of the ship when repaired. 
 Behl V. Diivhii, 10 East, 143. 
 
 Where the master of a ship on a voyage from 
 Calcutta to London, laden with indigo, was 
 obliged to put into Mauritius from unseaworthi- 
 ness, and there abandoned ship and cargo, which 
 were bona fide sold by public auction, under the 
 orders of the vice-admiralty couit : — Held, in 
 an action by the owner against the purchaser of 
 the intligo ; 1st, that there being no pressing 
 necessitj' for the sale, the master could confer no 
 title upon the vendee ; 2nd, that a judgment in 
 tort against the ownei- of the vessel for not 
 delivering the cargo, pursuant to the bill ofilading, 
 was no bar to this action ; and 3r(l, that an 
 unavailing demand of the pioceeds in the vice- 
 admiralty court did not prevent tlie plaintiff 
 from recovering the full value of the indigo fiom 
 the defendant. J/orrix v. Bohinniiii, '> 1). & R. 
 :^5 ; 3 B. ic C. Vjr,; 27 U. R. 322. And sec 
 Ilitiitrr V. Prinxip, 10 East, 378 ; 10 R. R. 328. 
 
 TJnnecesBary Sale by Master.] — Sec Alcork v. 
 
 Boifdl K.rrhiiiiiir Axxii ni iirr < 'orpoviltion, 13 Q. B. 
 292; 18 L. ./., Q. I!. 121 ; 13 .Iiir. 44."., post, 
 col. 1321. 
 
 '1. <"ak(;o. 
 
 Duty of Master to Communicate.] — A master 
 of a vo-scj cannot at an inlciMii'iliatf; port sell 
 goods wliicli are dan):igcd, anil c;innnt be carrieil 
 to the port of di.scliarge. without communicating 
 with their owner. Aratnx v. Jivrnx, 47 L. J., 
 Ex. .■>«« : 3 Ex. D. 282 ; 26 W. K. 624— (J. A. 
 
 The authority of the master to sell goods of an 
 absent owner is derived from the necessity of 
 the situation in which he is placed ; ami conse- 
 quently to justify his selling, he must establish a 
 necessity for the sale, and an inability to com- 
 municate with the owner. Avutrulian Stcitiii 
 Kavigdtioti Co. v. Morxc, 8 Moore, P. C. (x.s.) 
 482 ; L. R. 4 P. C. 222 ; 27 L. T. 3.57 ; 20 W. R. 
 72H. 
 
 A captain of a ship is not justified in selling 
 
 the cargo at a foreign port, although it is impos- 
 sible to prosecute the original voyage, and 
 although a sale of the goods is the most bene- 
 ficial course for the owner of them. WiUnn v. 
 Millar, 2 Stark, 1 ; 19 R. R. 670. S. P., Jonejjh 
 V. Knox, 3 Camp. 332. 
 
 Liability of Shipowner.] — Although the cap- 
 tain of a ship finds it impossible to reach his- 
 port of destination, he has no implied authority 
 to sell, for the benefit of the shippers, the cargo 
 in a foreign port into which he is driven : and if 
 he does so, though acting bona fide for the 
 interest of all concerned, this is a tortious conver- 
 sion for which the shipowner is liable. Van 
 Uiiipron V. Boivick, 2 Camp. 42. 
 
 Where the captain of a ship, which was in a 
 sinking state from the eilects of tempestuous 
 weather, put into a port short of his destination, 
 and believing that the expense of repairs would 
 frustrate the owner's adventure, he sold the 
 cargo under the order of a vice-admiralty court, 
 but it appeared that he might have forwarded it 
 to its port of destination by another vessel, and 
 rejiaired his own ship at a great expense : — Held, 
 that he ought either to have done the one or the 
 other ; and that he had no authority to sell the 
 cargo : and that, consequently, the shipowners 
 were liable to the owners of the cargo for the 
 non-deliver}' thereof, although the bill of lading 
 merely stipulated for a conveyance, "the dangers 
 and accidents of the seas and of navigation, of 
 what kind soever excepted." Cannan v. Meahurn, 
 8 Moore, 127 ; 1 Bing. 243 ; 2 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 60. 
 
 The master of a vessel is not justified in 
 selling any part of the cargo for the repairs of 
 the ship in a foreign port, except in the case of 
 urgent necessity. Cumphcll v. Thompson, 1 
 Stark. 490. 
 
 A., having slii])j)ed goods on board of a vessel 
 which was driven into a foreign port by stress of 
 weather, part of these goods was sold by the cap- 
 tain to defray the expenses of repairing the 
 vessel ; A. is entitled to ileduct from the demand 
 for the freight the sum for which the goods have 
 been sold ; and the circumstances of the ship- 
 owners, having, during the voyage, assigned the 
 freight to a third jierson, makes no liiflFerence. Ih. 
 
 The master of a ship, which is completely 
 wrecked in a foreign port, has no authority to 
 sell goods on freight saved from the wreck, uidess 
 there is an absolute necessity for such sale ; 
 though he ads bona fide, and according to the 
 best of his ju<lgnient ; and wliei'c the goods 
 ai'e sold bj' juiblic auction, such sale is, at all 
 events, not liinding on the owner of the goods, 
 where the conduct of the vendee imports know- 
 ledge of the weakness of the captain's title to 
 .sell. Frrrman v. I'yixt India Co., 1 D. & R. 234 ; 
 
 5 B. & Aid. 617 ; 24 R. R. 497. 
 
 Sale of Part.] — Where a vessel, having saijeil 
 from her jujrt of lading, with a cargo of goods, 
 was obliged to i)Ut back in consequence of a 
 peril of the sea, and it being discovered that 
 part of the cargo which was taken out was 
 damaged l)y sea-water, and could not be ic- 
 shippcd without a delay f)f six weeks, the cap- 
 tain, in the exercise oi a sound discretion, sold 
 the damaged goods, sailed with the remainder, 
 and arrive<l in safety : — Held, that the under- 
 writers were not liable jiro tanto for the loss of 
 the freight of the goods sold. Mordy v. Jones, 
 
 6 D. & R. 479 ; 4 B. Ac C. 394 ; 3 L. .J. (o.s.) 
 K. B. 2h0 ; 28 R. R. 30.5.
 
 1303 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUKANCE— XIII. Premiums. 
 
 1304 
 
 Consignee or Purchaser.] — Where a captain 
 without absohite necessity or authority sold a 
 cargo, and the sale was contirmed by a foreign 
 court, on a suit by the underwriters to set aside 
 the same : — Held, that though the underwriters 
 might otherwise have been entitled to maintain 
 an action for conversion, they were estopped by 
 the judgment of the foreign court. Vammdl v. 
 JSeiccU, ante, col. 1296. 
 
 XIII. PREMIUMS. 
 
 1. Bet urn of. 
 
 a. Policy Void, 18()S. 
 h. Voyage Illegal, VMV.^. 
 
 c. Risk not Commenced or Incomplete, 18U5. 
 
 d. Ship in Safety, 1806. 
 
 e. Other Matters, 1808. 
 
 2. Ftiyiucnt — Action fur, 1809. 
 
 1. Return oi'\ 
 a. Policy "Void. 
 
 If a policy is avoided by misrepresentation 
 without fraud, the assured is entitled to a return 
 of the 'premium. Fcise v. Parkin.wn, 4 Taunt. 
 640 ; 18 R. R. 710. 
 
 Where a policy contained a warranty that the 
 ship was in port on a previous day, and it was 
 held to mean the port whence she departed, and 
 not any port, and the ship was on that day safe 
 in another port : — Held, that the insured was 
 entitled to a return of the premium. Colbi/ v. 
 Hunter, M. & M. 81 ; 3 Car. 6: P. 7, 
 
 To an action on a policy, a plea that the 
 insurer was induced to enter into the policy by 
 a false representation of a material fact made by 
 the assured and their agent, such misrepresenta- 
 tion being, at the time it was made, false, to the 
 knowledge of the insured and their agent, is 
 supported by proof, either of concealment or of 
 misrepresentation, not fraudulent. Anderson v. 
 Thornton, 8 Ex. 425. 
 
 Where a policy is avoided by concealment or 
 by misrepresentation, not fraudulent, the assured 
 is entitled to a return of the [jremium, and the 
 policy is conclusive evidence of the receipt of 
 the premium by the insurer. lb. 
 
 B. effected a policy in the name of M. There 
 being no goods of M. on boar<l, and the policy 
 therefore void, M. may sue to recover the pre- 
 mium. Mart'uL V. Sitwell, Show. 156. 
 
 Policy entered into by Fraud.] — Policy entereil 
 into by fraud of assure<l : premium returned. 1I7Z- 
 .wnv.Uitrl/et, 8 Burr. 1861. Aliter, now. Tyler v. 
 Borne, 2 Marsh. Ins. 661, infra ; Cha2}vian v. 
 Frascr, ibid. 
 
 Insurance after Loss known.] — Where the 
 assured had heard of the loss before the ortler to 
 insure was given : — Held, that the premium 
 should be returned. Tijlcr v. Home, 1 Park, Ins. 
 <;8th ed.) 455. 
 
 Non-communication of Accident by Master.] 
 
 — See Gliid.stone v. Kin<i. ante. col. lisij. 
 
 b. Voyag-e Illeg-al. 
 Cannot be Recovered.] — The premium paid on 
 an illegal insurance to cover a trading with an 
 enemy, cannot be recovered back, though the 
 underwriter cannot be compelled to make good the 
 loss. Vandi/ck\. Hewitt, 1 East, 96 ; 5 R. R. 516. 
 
 A foreigner cannot recover back the premium 
 paid by him upon a policy, if the voyage is in 
 contravention of the British laws. Marck v. Ahel, 
 8 Bos. & P. 85. 
 
 Prize taken before Declaration of War.] — 
 
 After a proclamation by the king in council to 
 detain and bring into port all Danish vessels, a 
 hired armed ship of his majesty took and carried 
 into Lisbon a Danish vessel, and sold her cargo 
 there towards defraying in part the expense of 
 necessary repairs, but without the authority of a 
 court of admiralty ; and afterwards took in a 
 cargo on freight for England, and sailed on the 
 3rd November for Lisbon, on which day hos- 
 tilities were declared against Denmark, by 
 another proclamation of the king in council ; 
 after which an assurance was made on the 
 ship ami freight by order and on account of 
 the captors : — Held, that a statement in a case 
 reserved, that the insurance was on account 
 of the captors, precluded the consideration 
 whether a count in the declaration could be 
 sustained, averring the interest to be in the 
 crown, and the insurance to be made on account 
 of his majesty ; and that the captors had no 
 insurable interest, as they could claim nothing of 
 right, but only ex gratia of the crown, the 
 " Dane " having been seized and detained before 
 any declaration of war against Denmark, and the 
 captors having no claims to prize under the prize 
 acts. But as "there was no fraud in the captors 
 in effecting the policy, nor anything illegal in 
 the voyage or insurance : — Held, that the assured 
 were entitled to recover back the premium, which 
 had not been paid into court. Ronth v. Thomp- 
 son, 11 East, 428 ; 10 R. R. 539. 
 
 Agent Paying in Ignorance.] — An insurance 
 having been made on goods at and from a port in 
 Russia to London, by an agent residing here, 
 for a Russian subject abroad, which insurance 
 was in fact made after the commencement of 
 hostilities by Russia against this country, but 
 before the knowledge of it here, and after the 
 ship had sailed and been seized and confiscated : 
 — Held, that the policy was void in its inception ; 
 but that the agent of the assured was entitled to 
 a return of the premium paid under ignorance of 
 the fact of such hostilities. Oom v. Bruce, 12 
 East, 225 ; 11 R. R. 367. 
 
 Delay in obtaining Licence.] — Where a licence 
 was (obtained and insurance effected from Riga 
 to Hull, on goods the produce of Russia, on board 
 a Swedish ship, but the ship sailed three days 
 before the letter directing the licence to be 
 obtained reached the agent ; the letter having 
 been delayed by contrary winds beyond the 
 usual time, the licence was obtained two days 
 afterwards, and the insurance effected subse- 
 quently to that :— Held, that though the voyage 
 was in its inception illegal, being contrary to 12 
 Car. 2, c. 18, s. 8, nevertheless the assured might 
 recover back the premium. Ilentig v. Staniforth, 
 5 M. & S. 122 : 17 R. R. 298. 
 
 Renunciation.] — An assured, upon a policy 
 effected in terms sufficiently large to compre- 
 hend an illegal adventure, and who intends 
 thereby to cover an illegal adventure, cannot 
 recover back the premium without some formal 
 renunciation of the contract made known to the 
 underwriter before the bringing the action, 
 although the adventure is never entered upon. 
 Palijart v. Lcckic, 6 M. & S. 290 ; 18 R. K. 381.
 
 1305 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE-XIII. Premiums. 
 
 Navigation Laws.] — A policy upon ship and 
 cargo for a voyage illegal under the navigation 
 laws held void ; and the premium cannot be 
 recovered back. Luhlwcli v. Pottn, 7 East, 4-19. 
 
 Licence to Trade^Retrospective Operation.] 
 
 Policy on a ship ar and from a place within the 
 limitsof the South Sea Company's charter, the ship 
 not having a licence from the company to trade 
 at the date of the policy or up to her "loss. The 
 assured not being aware that she had no licence, 
 procured a licence before they knew of the loss 
 and as soon as they could, the licence purporting 
 to apply to a time before the loss : — Held, that 
 the licence could not operate retrospectively, and 
 that, the ship being forfeited, the premium was 
 not returnable, dmle v. Barber, 4 M. & S. 163 : 
 16 R. K. 368. 
 
 Insurance Illegal as to Part of the Goods.] — A 
 
 policy was made upon the supposed efficacy of 
 a licence granted contrary to the navigation laws 
 covering British and enemy's goods. As to the 
 former the licence was good, as to the latter void : 
 — Held (the assured not resisting the claim to 
 that amount), that the premiums in respect of 
 the British interest insured should be paid to the 
 underwriter. Sh/[f/u-rv. Gordon. 12 East, 296. 
 
 c. Risk not Cominenced or Incomplete. 
 
 Risk not Begun.]— Where the risk has not 
 begun, to wliatsoever cause it may be owing, the 
 premium must Ije returned : but wherever it has 
 once Vjegun. although it ceases immediately, there 
 will be no apportionment in return of premium. 
 Upon a policy at and fiom London to Halifax, 
 warianted to depart with convoy fiom Ports- 
 mouth, the contract and risk are divisible at 
 Portsmouth, as two independent contracts and 
 risks. Ti/r'ip. v. Flptchrr, Cowp. 608. 
 
 Upon a policy "at and from such a port to 
 any other port or place whatsoever, for twelve 
 months, at 9^. per cent., warranted free from 
 capture," the risk is entire ; and therefore, if once 
 begun, there can be no return of premium. Ih. 
 
 If a risk is not run, the insurer shall I'cturn 
 only a proportionate part of the ]jremium. 
 Sfrrt'tmin V. Snuiv, 3 Burr. 1237 : 1 W. Bl. 31.5, 
 318. 
 
 If an insurance is made on two distinct risks, 
 and one of them is not run, the insurer refunds 
 a ratable part of the premium. lb. 
 
 Where the ca|)tors of a ship insure their 
 interest therein, they are not entitled to a return 
 of premium, though afterwards adjudged to be 
 no prize, and restitution is awarded. Jloclnn v 
 Jirll, 8 Term liei). l-"'^ ; ^ I^- li- «^0. 
 
 "Warranty not Complied with.]— If a shij), 
 seaworthy ti, lie in j.uit. sails without Ijcing reii- 
 lered seaworthy for tlie voyage, ujion a jxilicy 
 '.at and from." there can be no return of pre- 
 mium. AiiiiPit, V. Woodmini. 3 Taunt. 299- 1 '> 
 R. R. 663. 
 
 In an insurance on a ship at and I'lnm Hull In 
 Bilboa, warranted to dei)art from Kngland with 
 ;onvoy, the voyages from Hid! to Portmouth. 
 ,vhere she meets the convoy, and them;e to 
 Billjoa. may be considered as distinct : and in 
 :ase of a loss between the two latter places, an 
 tpportionment and a return of ])remiuin mav be 
 lemanded. Rothircll v. Coolir, 1 Bos. & P. 172. 
 
 "Whether Entire Contract. ]— An insurance on 
 I ship and goods at and from A. to B., during 
 
 1306 
 
 her stay and trade there, at and from her port 
 or ports of dischaige in C, and at and from 
 thence back to A., is an entire contract ; and if 
 the loss happens at any time after the commence- 
 ment of the risk, there shall be no return of 
 premium. Bernsou v. Woodbridge, 2 Dougl. 781. 
 By a policy on a ship for a year, the under- 
 writer stipulated to return a part of the premium 
 if sold or laid up for every uncommenced month : 
 — Held, that the words " lying up " meant a lying 
 up for the season without being employed for the 
 current year, and therefore, that where a vessel, 
 insured for one year had been laid up for several 
 months during the year, but was employed again 
 within the year, that was not such lying up as 
 entitled the assured to a return of the premium. 
 Hunter v. Wriqlit. 10 B. & C. 714 ; 8 L. ,J. fo S > 
 K. B. 2.59. 
 
 Premium for Convoy.]— Where a total loss is 
 recovered, there cannot also be a return of 
 premium for convoy, because the total loss 
 includes the entire premium added to the invoice 
 price. Lanqhorn v. Allmttt, 4 Taunt, oil ; 13 
 R. R. 663. 
 
 Return of Premium — Average Loss.] — Insur- 
 ance on goods to be shipped on boartl a certain 
 ship, part of the premium to be returned " if she 
 sails with convoy and arrives " : — Held, that the 
 whole of the specified part of the premium was 
 to be returned if the ship arrived, though there 
 was an average loss on the goods. S'unond v. 
 Boijdell, 1 Dougl. 268. 
 
 If Ship Arrives — Capture and Recapture 
 
 — Salvage.] — The insurer on fi-eiglit agreed to 
 return part of the premium '■ if the ship sailed 
 with convoy and arrived": — Held, that the 
 assured were entitled to tliat return, the ship 
 having sailed with convoy and arrived, though 
 she had been captured and recaptured and the 
 assured had had to i)ay salvage. Aguihir v. 
 llodgcr.^, 1 Term Rep. 421 ; 4 R. R. 478. 
 
 Arrival, where.]—" To return .5 per cent. 
 
 if the ship sails with convoy for Gottenburg and 
 arrives, and o per cent, more if she sails for her 
 port of delivery and arrives" : — Semble, a return 
 of ])remium may be due for her arrival at Gotten- 
 l)Ui-g although she never arrives at her |)oi't of 
 deliveiy. JA'crin v. CornMC, 4 Taunt. 483, n. ; 
 13 R. U. 6.-.I. 
 
 Risk not Divisible.] — Policy of insurance 
 
 " at and lioni .Jamaica to Livei-jjool ; wan-anted 
 to sail before the 1st August." The siiip <lid not 
 sail before the 1st August : — Held, that the risk 
 was not divisiljle and that the assured was not 
 entitled to a return of any part of the premium. 
 Mryrr v. Grcgxon, 3 Dougl. 402. 
 
 d. Ship in Safety. 
 
 No Interest.] — An insurance being made with- 
 iMit interest, and the jiremium paid, the insured 
 camiot recover back the j)remium after the sln|) 
 has arrived safe. Lowrif v. Bonrdleu. 2 Dougl. 
 468. 
 
 Where tliere is an insurance on siiiji ;nid 
 freight, ami the shij) arrives in safety, and earns 
 freight, the assured cannot afterwards claim a 
 return of premium on the ground that he had 
 no insurable interest on account of a defect in his 
 title to the ship. M^fhilloch v. Bogtil K.nrluinge 
 A.sKnranrr Co., 3 Camp. 406 ; 14 R.R. 760.
 
 1307 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— XIII. Premiums. 
 
 1308 
 
 Over Insurance.] — An insurance wns effected 
 on the 12th April on a cargo of cotton, then at 
 sea, by tive several i)olicies at the rate of fifty 
 guineas per cent. : and on the 13th, news of 
 the vessel's safety having arrived, a further 
 insurance was bona fide effected by six different 
 piolicies, at ten and five guineas per cent. The 
 latter insurance, added to the former, exceeded an 
 amount tlie value of the subject-matter insured, 
 but the former of itself did not : — Held, that the 
 assured were entitled to a return of premium on 
 the amount of the over-insurance, to which the 
 underwriters who subscribed the policies of the 
 13th April were to contribute ratably, in i)ro- 
 l)ortion to the sums insured by them respectively 
 (the amount of over-insurance to be ascertained 
 by taking into account all the policies), but that 
 no return of jiremium was to be made in respect 
 ■of the policies effected on the 12th. Fi.<ik v. 
 JMasterman, 8 M. & W. 165 ; 10 L. J., Ex. 306. 
 
 Short Interest.] — Where there is an insurance 
 •on freight, if the ship is chartered for the voyage 
 and is guilty of a deviation after sailing upouit 
 and before any goods are loaded, the assured are 
 not entitled to any return of premium for short 
 interest. Moses v. Pratt, 4 Camp. 297 ; 16 K. E. 
 IM. 
 
 Where a ship is insured for twelve months, at 
 the rate of so much i)er month, though the risk 
 ceases at the end of two months, there will be no 
 .apportionment nor return of premium. Loraine 
 V. Tomllmon, 2 Dougl. .585. 
 
 "Arrival."] — A clause in a ship policy at and 
 from Lisbon to Cadiz, and at and from thence 
 to Flushing, at a premium of 20Z. per cent., to 
 return 8Z. per cent, if the ship insured sailed with 
 ■convoy from Cadiz for England, and 21. jier cent, 
 more for convoy from England to Flushing, or 
 lOZ. per cent, if with convoy for the voyage, and 
 arrived, does not entitle the assured to a return 
 •of premium of 8Z. per cent, in consequence of the 
 ship's arrival merely in England with convoy 
 from Cadiz, she being afterwards captured before 
 the arrival at Flushing, for "arrived " means at 
 the ultimate port of destination. Kellner v. Le 
 Ji/emrier, 1 East, 396 ; 1 Smith, 72 ; 7 R. R. 581. 
 
 Under a policy on goods from London to any 
 ports or places in the Baltic, backwards and 
 forwards, with leave to touch, stay and trade at 
 all places, for all purposes, and to take in and 
 discharge goods wheresoever the ship might touch 
 at ; and in case it should be found dangerous to 
 enter such ports and places, or the captain was 
 not allowed to discharge the cargo, with leave to 
 return, until he found a port which he could 
 enter with safety ; the insurance to continue 
 until the ship and goods arrived at as above ; 
 upon the ship until moored at anchor twenty- 
 four hours in safety, and upon the goods until 
 the same should be there discharged and safely 
 landed, at a premium of fourteen guineas, to 
 return 71. per cent, for arrival ; with warranty of 
 the goods free from capture or seizure in the ship's 
 port or ports of discharge : — Held, that the assured 
 were entitled to a return of 71. per cent, premium 
 " for arrival," under circumstances which dis- 
 charged the underwriters from any loss. Dalffleish 
 v. Brooke, 15 East, 295 ; 13 R. R. 476. 
 
 Re-Insurance.] — The defendant, who had 
 insured a cargo by a certain vessel lost or not 
 lost for a certain voyage, believing such vessel 
 to be overdue, effected a policy of reinsurance 
 
 with the plaintiff on the same cargo and risk. 
 Before effecting the policy of reinsurance, the 
 vessel and cargo had in fact arrived safely at the 
 port of destination : but this was not known to 
 either the plaintiff or defendant at the time the 
 policy was effected : — Held, that the policy had 
 attached, and that therefore the plaintitl was 
 entitled to the premium at which it had been 
 effected. Bradford v. Sijiiiond.wn, 50 L. J., Q. B 
 582 ; 7 Q. B. D." 456 ; 45 L. T. 364 ; 30 W. R. 27 
 — C. A. 
 
 After Receipt.] — Where the assured claims 
 and receives the return premium due upon the 
 arrival of the vessel, and the policy is adjusted 
 upon that footing, he cannot, without an express 
 stipulation, resort again to the underwriter in 
 any contingency of the adventure. May v. 
 Chi'istie, Holt, 67 ; 17 R. R. 608. 
 
 Return of Premium — Policy Effected after 
 Ship's Arrival.] — Action by insurance brokers 
 to recover the premium in respect of a war risk, 
 jiolicy effected after the arrival of the ship at 
 her destination, both parties being ignorant of 
 the fact : — Held, that the premium was not 
 returnable. Xatmch v. Symoiid.wn, 7 Q. B. D. 
 4(;0, n. 
 
 e. Other Matters. 
 
 Winding up— Set off— Claims on Policies and 
 unpaid Premiums.]— The official liquidators of 
 an assurance comj)any admitted that a certain 
 amount was due from the company on a claim 
 made before the winding-up order, upon the loss 
 of a ship insured : — Held, that the policy-holder 
 was entitled to set off against the amount sums 
 due from him for unpaid premiums. Bates 4' Co., 
 E.V parte, Proqre.^s Assurance Co., In, re, 39 L. J., 
 Ch. 496 ; 18 W. R. 722. 
 
 Evidence of Receipt — Policy.] — Tn an action 
 by the assured against an underwriter for a 
 return of premium, the policy is conclusive 
 evidence of the receipt of the premium by him. 
 Dalzell v. 3Iair, 1 Camp. 532. And see Be 
 Gaminde v. Pigou, 4 Taunt. 246. 
 
 Return of Premium under Mistake — Recovery 
 
 on Policy.]— See Reyner v. Hall, 4 Taunt. 725; 
 14 R. R. 650, ante, col. 1263. 
 
 Action for— At Law or in Chancery.] — On 
 
 the 16th of September, A. (since dead) insured a 
 cargo of wheat at Lloyd's in 5,400Z., at the rate 
 of 60*. per cent., which policy was duly subscribed 
 by the agent of the defendant for lOOZ. A. 
 forged bills of lading for the cargo, and on the 
 oth of October obtained an advance of 5,000Z. 
 from the plaintiff's agents on the security of the 
 bills. On the 28th of October the plaintiff dis- 
 covered the forgery, and subsequently applied to 
 the defendant and the other underwriters for 
 repayment of the premiums on the policy, on the 
 ground of no interest having attached, but repay- 
 ment was refused. After the death of A. (whose 
 representatives could not be found) the plaintiff 
 filed a biU, praying that it might be declared 
 that he was entitled to be repaid the 60*.: — 
 Held, that a court of law was the proper tribunal 
 to decide the question as to whether the defendant 
 was liable to rejiay the premium, as the fact of a 
 person being only the equitable assignee of a 
 legal demand was not a ground for changing the 
 forum. Hoskins v. Holland, 44 L. J., Ch. 273 ; 
 23 W. R. 477.
 
 1309 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— XIII. Premiums. 
 
 1310 
 
 Custom as to Order of Liability of Under- 
 writers.] — Plea aiul i)roof of a custom that 
 underwriters shall be liable in the oi\ler in which 
 they subscribe the policj' for the amount of the 
 loss, and that subsequent untlerwriters shall 
 return the premium, less J per cent., and bear 
 none of the loss. African Co. v. Ihdl. 1 Show. 132 
 
 Policy Assigned — Assignor Bankrupt.] — Right 
 to sue for return of premium. See Castellt v. 
 Boddimjtun. 1 El. & Bl. 66, 879 ; 22 L. J., Q. B. 5, 
 post, col. 1313. 
 
 2. PaY.MEXT — ACTIOX FOR. 
 
 Credit given for Receipt.] — Although gene- 
 rally an underwriter, having subscribed a policy, 
 and thereby confessed the receipt of the pre- 
 mium, is estopped from afterwards claiming the 
 liremium against the assured, yet, where by the 
 fraud of the assured the underwriter is induced 
 to give credit for the premiums to the broker, 
 and the broker to give credit to the assured, the 
 underwriter is entitled to receive the premiums 
 from the assured. Foy v. Bell, 3 Taunt. 493 ; 
 12 R. R. 691. 
 
 An underwriter, after executing a policy, and 
 giving credit to the broker for the premium, 
 may recover the premium, if it api)ears that the 
 assured (to cover a balance due from the broker 
 to himself) jirocured him to effect the insiu-ance, 
 deljiting the assured in account with the pre- 
 miums, and lodging the jjolicies in the hands of 
 the assured, to enable him to receive the losses. 
 Mdror V. Siiiieuit. 3 Taunt. 479, n. 
 
 The broker effecting the policy, being the 
 common agent of the a.ssured and of the under- 
 writer, while the premium remains in his hands 
 for the one party, and the policy for the other, 
 and having received notice of events which 
 entitled the assured to a return of premium 
 before action by the underwriter to recover the 
 full premium, is authorised to deduct such 
 return, and only to pay over the difference to 
 the underwriter. Shrc v. Clarkson, 12 East, 
 507; 11 R. R. 473. 
 
 On Bankruptcy — Deductions by Brokers.] — In 
 an action by a»i<fnefs of a hankiiipi iiiidciwriter 
 against the defendants, insurance brokers, for 
 the balance of an adjusted account between the 
 bankrupt and the defendants, and also for pre- 
 miums of insurance on policies underwritten by 
 the bankruift with them as brokers, before the 
 V>aid{ruptcy, the brokers are not entitled to 
 <le<kict for retum.q of premium due on policies, 
 the premiums of which policies formed a part of 
 the a<ljusted account, except where the events 
 entitling them to such returns were not known 
 till after such a<ljustnient ; nor can they deduct 
 foi- returns f>f premium on some of t lie policies, 
 for the |)rcniiums of which the action is brought, 
 the events entitling them to such returns having 
 hapjiened before tlie bankruptcy, though the 
 returns were not adjusted ; nor can they deduct 
 for returns on other policies for the premiums of 
 which the actif)n is brought, the events entitling 
 them to such returns having hapjiened since the 
 bankrujitcy, but before the commencement of 
 the action ; the brokers not having a commission 
 lei credere, nor being personally interested in 
 my of the insurances. Parker v. fimitli, 16 East. 
 ^82; 14 R. R. 366. 
 
 Action on a jiolicy on goods, alleging an 
 iverage loss. By the policy, a portion of the 
 
 l)remium was to be returned if the risk ended in 
 England. Pleas, set-off, and bankruptcy of the 
 plaintiff. Replication, that before the bank- 
 ruptcy the ijlaintiff transferred the goods and 
 the policy, and his right to recover for the loss 
 to F. Rejoinder, that before the bankruptcy 
 the risk had ended in England, whereby the 
 plaintiff became entitled, under the policy, to a 
 return of the premium :— Held, first, that the 
 first idea was bad, as the action was for unliqui- 
 dated damages. Boddiufiton v. CastellL \ 
 El. & Bl. 879 ; 1 C. L. R. 281 : 23 L. J., Q. B 31 • 
 17 Jur. 781 ; 1 W. R. 3.59— Ex. Oh. 
 
 Held, secondly, that the rejoinder to the repli- 
 cation was no answer to the second [ilea, because, 
 although the beneficial interest under the policy! 
 so far as related to the return of the premiums^ 
 passed to the assignees, and though there was 
 only one contract, yet that the bankrupt was 
 entitled to sue on the policy as a trustee for F., 
 to recover for the loss, as two separate actions 
 on the policy were maintainable, one for the 
 return of the premium and another for the loss. 
 Ih. 
 
 Order and Disposition.] — A. and B. were 
 
 members of a partnership ; A. died, and B. 
 became bankrupt :— Held, that premiums due on 
 policies effected in A.'s name during his lifetime 
 were not in the order and disposition of B. Brett 
 V. Becliwith, 26 L. .J., Ch. 130 : 3 Jur. Cn.s.) 31 : 
 5W. R. 112. 
 
 Held, also, that the joint creditors of A. and 
 B. were entitled to have the separate estate of 
 the deceased partner administered, and to an 
 account of the joint estate in the hands of the 
 executors of A. and the assignees of B. Ih. 
 
 Description "as Agents."]— Insurance brokers 
 who, without a del credere commission, effected 
 l)olicies in their own names, in which they were 
 described " as agents." cannot, in an action for 
 premiums by the assignees of a bankrupt under- 
 writer, who had subscribed these policies, set off 
 a total loss which had happeneil before the bank- 
 ruptcy, but which had not been adjusted, 
 although the policies had always remained in 
 their hands, and they had actually paid the 
 amount of the loss to their jirincipal. Jialwr v. 
 La/ifjhorn, 4 Camp. 396 ; 2 Marsh. 21.5 ; 6 Taunt. 
 .".19 ; 16 R. R. 662. 
 
 In an action by assignees of a bankrupt under- 
 writer against brokers for premiums due to the 
 bankiupt, the brokers may set off. under 12 i: 13 
 Vict. c. 106, s. 171, a loss which occurred before 
 tlie bankrui)tcy, on a policy underwritten })y the 
 bankrupt, and effected by them in tlieir own 
 names, '' ^^r' ^^ agents" for a principal for 
 whom tiiey were acting on a del credere connnis- 
 sion. without the bankrupt's knowledge. Lee v. 
 B alien, 8 El. A: HI. (;92, n. ; 27 h. J., Q. ]$. 161 ; 
 4 Jur. (N.S.) o57. 
 
 When Insurance Illegal].— Where credit was 
 given by in.suiancc biokers, in an account 
 delivered in by tliein to an underwriter for the 
 liremiums of reassurances dcclare< I illegal by 19 
 (ico. 2, c. 37, after which tiic assured gave notice 
 to the brokers not to pay tlie money over to the 
 underwriter, anrl indenniificd them for with- 
 holding it : — Field, that the underwriter could 
 not maintain an action against the brokers to 
 recover such premiums as for money had and 
 received by them to his use, the transaction 
 being illegal, ami the money not having been
 
 1311 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE— XIV. Assignment of Policy. 1312 
 
 actually paid, but only credit given for it on 
 account. £(I(/(rr v. Fowler, 3 East, 222 ; 7 R. R. 
 433. 
 
 Set-ofF — On Death of Underwriter.] — In an 
 
 action by the executors of an underwriter against 
 a broker, for premiums due on policies, subscribed 
 by the testator, the broker cannot set off returns 
 of premium, which returns became due after the 
 testator's death. Tlouxfimn v. Rohcvtstm, 2 
 Marsh. 138 ; 6 Taunt. 448 ; 4 Camp. 342 ; Holt, 
 88 ; 16 R. R. 655. 
 
 Even when the })olicies were effected under a 
 commission del credere. Tloustovnv. Bordenave, 
 2 Marsh, 141 ; 6 Taunt. 451 ; 16 R. R. 657. 
 
 Express Promise by Assured to pay Premiums 
 — Liability of Broker — Custom.] — The rule of 
 law based upon the recognised custom in the 
 ordinary course of business of marine insurance, 
 by which the broker and not the assured is held 
 liable to the underwriter for payment of the 
 premiums upon a policy of marine insurance, is 
 not rendered inapplicable by the fact that the 
 policy contains an express promise by the 
 assured to pay the premiums to the underwriter. 
 Unlverso Insurance Co. of Milan v. Merchant); 
 Marine Insurance Co.. 66 L. J., Q. B. 564 ; 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 93 ; 76 L. T. 748 ; 45 W. R. 625— 
 C. A. 
 
 XIV. ASSIGNMENT OF POLICY. 
 
 After Interest Ceased.] — When the interest of 
 the insured has ceased before loss, a subsequent 
 assignment of the policy is ineffectual. jVoi-th of 
 England Pure Oilcahe Co. v. Archangel Mari- 
 tiiiir IJanhand Insuravce Co., 44 L. J., Q. B. 121 ; 
 L. R. 10 Q. B. 249 ; 32 L. T. 561 ; 24 W. R. 162 ; 
 2 Asp. M. C. 571. 
 
 The plaintiffs purchased linseed, to be delivered 
 at a destined port in the United Kingdom, and 
 paid for in fourteen days from being ready for 
 delivery by cash, less discount, or at seller's 
 option (which was not exercised) on handing 
 shipping documents less interest. The sellers, 
 before the sale to the plaintiffs, by policy made 
 with the defendants, insured the linseed, includ- 
 ing all risk of craft and boats to and from the 
 ship or vessel, and also any special lighterage, 
 each lighter or craft being considered as if sepa- 
 rately insured. The vessel containing the linseed 
 arrived at a port in the United Kingdom, and 
 the cargo was landed by means of public lighters 
 employed by the plaintiff, one of which was sunk 
 when loaded, and the linseed on it partly lost 
 and partly damaged. This loss, which was within 
 the terms of the policy, occurred before delivery 
 of the cargo had been completed, and before the 
 plaintiffs had paid the price. After the cargo had 
 been completely delivered, the sellers assigned the 
 policy to the plaintiffs, who sued the defendants 
 in respect of the loss above mentioned : — Held, 
 that as there was no express contract that the 
 policy should pass to the purchaser on the sale of 
 the linseed, and as none could be implied from 
 the terms of the sold note, the interest imder the 
 policy remained in the sellers until delivery ; anil 
 as on delivery on board the lighter the plaintiff's 
 interest ceased and the policy lapsed, no interest 
 under it could pass to a subsequent assignee. 
 lb. 
 
 After Loss.] — A policy of marine insurance 
 can be assigned, under 31 & 32 Vict. c. 86, s. 1, 
 
 after loss, so as to entitle the assignee to sue 
 upon it in his own name. Lloijd v. Fleming, 
 
 41 L. J., Q. B. 93 : L. R. 7 Q. B.' 299 ; 25 L. T. 
 824 ; 20 W. R. 296 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 192. 
 
 In an action upon a policy of marine insur- 
 ance by the executors of E., deceased, against an 
 underwriter, the declaration alleged that a policy 
 on goods in a ship was irnderwritten by the 
 defendant, that the goods were lost by the perils 
 insured against, and that after the loss, '' the 
 policy of insurance, together with all rights 
 accrued under and by virtue thereof," was, by 
 the assui'ed, for good consideration, tluly assigned 
 to E. in his lifetime : — Held, that although the 
 assignment was made after loss of the goods, yet 
 as the policy, " together with all rights accrued 
 under it," had been duly assigned to E., he 
 became '• entitled to the property thereby in- 
 sured," within the terms of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 86, 
 s. 1, and was entitled to sue upon the policy in 
 his own name, and that the declaration was 
 good. Ih. 
 
 Set-oif.] — The assured had, subsequently to 
 the date of a policy of insurance on goods exe- 
 cuted a deed of inspectorship under the Bank- 
 ruptcy Act (24 &25 Vict. c. 134), s. 192, and was 
 suing on behalf of third persons who had made 
 advances upon the shipping documents : — -Held, 
 that he was entitled to recover, and that the 
 underwriters were not entitled to set oft' the 
 amount of a debt due from the assured to them, 
 under the mutual credit clause of 12 & 13 Vict, 
 c. 106, s. 171. Be Mattos v. Saunders, L. R. 7 
 C. P. 570 ; 27 L. T. 120 : 20 W. R. 801 ; 1 Asp. 
 M. C. 377. See Boddiiiqton v. Castclli, I 
 El. & Bl. 879 ; 1 C. L. R. 281 : 23 L. J., Q. B. 
 31 ; 17 Jur. 781 : 1 W. R. 359— Ex. Ch., infra, 
 col. 1313. 
 
 In an action by the assignee of a policj' of 
 marine insurance, the insurers are not entitled to 
 set off a debt incurred with them by the assured 
 for premiums on jiolicies effected with them by 
 the assured after the date of the assignment ; for 
 the claim under a policy for a loss is for unliqui- 
 dated damages to which no set-off could be 
 l)leaded at law, under the statutes of set-off in an 
 action by the assured, nor in equity in a suit by 
 the assignee, and therefore the debt incurred by 
 the assured is not a "defence" open to the 
 insurers under 31 & 32 Vict. c. 86, s. 1, that 
 statute being intended merely to amend proce- 
 dure and not to alter the rights of the parties to 
 the policy ; nor is the debt incurred by the assured 
 the subject of "set-off" or "counter-claim" 
 within the meaning of the rules of the supreme 
 court, Ord. XIX. r. 3. Bellas v. Neptune Marine 
 Insurance Co., 49 L. J., C. P. 153 ; 5 C. P. D. 34 ; 
 
 42 L. T. 35 ; 28 W. R. 405 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 213— 
 C. A. 
 
 Who Entitled to Policy Moneys.] — A cargo of 
 wheat, fully insured, having fallen in value, was 
 sold, including the freight and the full insurance 
 at a reduced price, to be paid in cash, in exchange 
 for the bills of lading and policies effected with 
 approved underwriters. The policies were trans- 
 ferred to the purchaser, but with an indorsement 
 limiting the transfer to an amount sufficient 
 only to cover the price at which the cargo was 
 sold. The cargo having suffered a total loss, 
 Wood, V.-C, held that the sellers were entitled, 
 as against the purchaser, to the balance of the 
 insurance moneys in excess of the amount for 
 which the policy was transferred. But upon an
 
 1313 SHIPPING— IX SUEANCE—XY. Siihwfjation—X\l. Action, cC-c. 1314 
 
 appeal : — Held, that the purchaser was entitled 
 to the whole proceeds of the policy. Ralli v. 
 Uiiirersal Marine Insurance Co.. -1 De G. F. & J. 
 1 : 31 L. J.. Ch. 813 : 8 Jur. (x.s.) 4'J5 ; 6 L. T. 
 34 : lU \\. K. 27S. 
 
 Sale on London Floating Conditions^Suffi- 
 ciency of Policy Delivered.] — Upon the sale of a 
 tld-.itiii'^ raiL'ii upnu LdUilon float ing^ conditions. 
 the question wlicther the ])olicy assigned is suth- 
 cient in amount is for the jurv. Tamvaco v. 
 Lvcait. 3 B. ^ S. 89 : 31 L. .J.. Q."B. 2% ; 6 L. T. 
 61(7 ; 10 AV. R. 733— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Goods sold at Sea — Policy Assigned — Recovery 
 on Policy by Assignor.] — (JihmU were insui-ed 
 troni H. to a market in Europe, jjart of i)remiuni 
 to be retuined if risk ended in United Kingdom. 
 The assured sold the goods at sea, and assigned 
 the policy. An average loss occurred, anil the 
 goods were delivered in England. The assignor 
 after vvards became bankrupt : — Held, that he 
 could nevertheless sue upon the policy for the 
 average lo.ss as trustee for the purchaser, although j 
 the right to sue for return of premium had vested ' 
 ill the assignees in bankruptcy. Caatelli v. Bod- 1 
 (Ihufton. 1 El. i: Bl. 879 : 1 C. L. R. 281 ; 23 L. J.. 
 Q. B. 31 ; 17 .Jur. 781 ; 1 W. R. 3.59— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Sale — Interest of Third Parties — Policy 
 Moneys.] — A. sold minerals to B. at 4iJ.s'. [ler ton. 
 B. agreeing to resell at the best price. and incase ! 
 the selling pi-ice exceedal 'Mn. per ton, to pay 
 lialf of the difference between that price and 40.v. 
 to A. B. insured the minerals for lOO.OUUZ. A ' 
 jiart of the minerals was consumed by fire, and 
 B. agreed witli the insurance coini)any to aban- 
 <lon t ) them the entire heap (about lu.OOi) tons, 
 less the part consumed), the insurers paying B. 
 58«. per ton for the whole, the market price being 
 tlien higher : — Held, that A. was entitled to 
 lecovcr from B. half the sum received from the 
 insurers in excess of r>(j*. per ton. (Tlllcupic v. 
 Miller, 1 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 423. 
 
 Agreement to Insure — ^War Bisk.] — See Bir- 
 hiit v. EnijlKilm. ante, col. "j4fj. 
 
 XV. sur.uo(;ATiON. 
 
 Subrogation of Assurer to Rights of Assured. ] 
 — llif iii--iiier. at'iir paynienl to tlii :i->ured of 
 tiic money due under his policy, stands in tlie 
 place of the assured in respect of the proiicrty in 
 and rights to the shi|) or goods insured ; but the 
 ovvnei-s, and not the insurers, must take proceed- 
 ings for restitution before commissioners for 
 prizes. Itanilul v. Cochrtin, 1 Ves. Sen. 98. 
 
 So lie is entitled to freight earned by the 
 
 abandoned sliip. Steirnrt v. Greeniich Marine 
 Innuriincc Co., 2 H. Ji. Cas. ir)9. S. P., Ciixe v. 
 iJaiidxon, 8 rrice. .'>42 : 5 Moore, 110; 2 Br. i; B. 
 379 : ITU. R. 2.S0. Athrming. 5 M. & S. 7'.). 
 
 As to the right of tlic luiderwiiter to recover 
 damages payable by the owner cif a ship that has 
 damaged the insui'id ship in collision, see iSca 
 Inxiiranre fn. v. llaiUhn, 53 L. .J.. Q. 1$. 2r)2 : 
 13 Q. B. D. 71 If! ; .".O L. T. r,.-)7 ; 32 W. R. 841 ; Ty 
 Asp. M. C. 230. jiost. col. 1332 ; Yutrx v. ]l'/n/fr. 
 4 Bing. (N.c.) 272 : ', Scott. 040; 7 L. .J., c'. I'. 
 110. ante, col. 729; Niirth of Entjland. Iron 
 SfeaniKliij) Inxvra nre Co. v. Arnixironif, 39 L. .J.. 
 Q. B. 81 ; L. R. .•. Q. B. 244 ; 21 L.T. 822 ; is 
 W. R. .")20. ante, col. 1141 ; Siinpxon v. Thompson. 
 3 App. Cas. 279 ; 38 L. T. 1 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 507, 
 ante, col. 725. 
 
 VOL. XIII. 
 
 Right to Salvage and Compensation.] — 
 
 Satisfaction having been made under a royal 
 commission for distribution of prizes to the 
 insured, such of the insurers as had paid held 
 entitled to restitution, though foreigners ; but 
 not those who had com])Ounded and renounced 
 salvage. Bhimncpof v. Da Co.sta. 1 Eden. 18<i. 
 
 Advances to Master at Port of Loading— Con- 
 structive Total Loss — Freight collected at Port of 
 Discharge — Deductions — Advanced Freight.] — 
 By charterparty it was proviiled that •• suthcient 
 cash for ship's ordinary disbursements at port of 
 loading to be advanced to the master by char- 
 terers or their agents . . . ship paying 2 J per 
 cent, including insurance. Master to give his 
 draft on owners or consignees as required and 
 customary to cover same, which shall be paid 
 out of the first freight collected." Advances 
 were made and the ship proceeded on her voyage, 
 but became a constructive total loss when close 
 to her port of destination. She was subsequently 
 brought to her port of destination, where she 
 discharged her cargo. The master's draft for 
 advances ultimately came into the hands of the 
 consignees. The freight was collected by the 
 shipowners. In an action by the underwriters 
 on hull and machinery against the shipowners to 
 recover the whole of the freight so collected : — 
 Held, that the shipowners were entitled to deduct 
 the sum advanced at the port of loading from the 
 freight collected by them, inasmuch as the under- 
 writers were only entitled to the charterparty 
 freight earned from the use of the ship after 
 abandonment. 7'/ie Bed Sea, 05 L. .1.. .-\ilm. 9 ; 
 [1890] P. 20 : 73 L. T. 462 ; 44 W. li. 3U0 ; 8 
 Asp. M. C. 102— C. A. 
 
 And .see infra, cols. 1331, seq.. XVI. Action 
 ON Policy ; 2. Rights of Underwkiters. 
 
 XVI. ACTION ON POLICY. 
 
 1. Generalb/. 
 
 a. Parties. 1314. 
 h. Time for, 1317. 
 e. Evidence, 1317. 
 
 d. Consolidation, 1321. 
 
 e. Payment into (Jourt, 1323. 
 /. Arbitration. 1323. 
 
 0. Pleading. 1325. 
 
 2. Bi(iht.sof Insurer.'!. 1331. 
 
 3. Jianlnniteii. 1334. 
 
 4. Interest lleoorerahle, 1334. 
 
 5. Ch(ineer\i Jurisdiction, 1334. 
 
 (). Karlij Actions on Policies. 1335. 
 
 1. (JEXKHAI-I.V. 
 
 a. Parties. 
 
 Contract by Agent. • — L.. an agent of B.. 
 insured gooils belonging to P.. that were being 
 sent by ship from Montreal to St. .Jolur.s, New- 
 foundland. Tiie insurance comi)any"s agent issued 
 to L. a '•certificate of insurance," which stated 
 that L. had insured the goods. It was the cus- 
 tom of the company to issue subseiuently a 
 policy stating that " X. Y., as well in his own 
 name as in the name of every person to whom 
 the same shall ajipertain," hail insured the goinls. 
 On a loss occurring :— Meld, tiiat the omission in 
 the certificate of the words -as well as in his 
 own name," ice, did not, either by the Canadian 
 or by the English law, preclude B. from suing 
 the insurance company in his own name. Broirti 
 V. Provincial Insurance Co. of Canada, L. R. 5 
 
 42
 
 1315 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— XYI. Action on Policy. 
 
 1316 
 
 r. C. 2<)3 ; 28 L. T. 8.J3 ; 21 W. R. 587 : 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 338. 
 
 Au agent, who insures for another with his 
 authority, may sue for the insni'aiice money in 
 his own name. I'vorhicial Insurdnce Co. of 
 CtDuula V. Lednc, 43 L. J., P. C. 4<) : L. R. 6 P. C. 
 224 ; 31 L. T. 142 ; 22 W. R. 920. See also Snu- 
 (levland Jlarinr Insiir<nicc v. Krarneij, post, 
 col. 1327. 
 
 Pledgee of Bill of Lading.] — Where a con- 
 signee of goods pledges the bill of lading with 
 another pei'son, as a security for advances made 
 by him, and upon an agreement that the con- 
 signee shall effect an insurance on the goods for 
 the benefit of the ])ledgee. and dejiosit the policy 
 with him, the pledgee may sue on the policy in 
 his own name. Suthcrlnnd or Sintderland v. 
 Pratt, 12 M. & W. IG ; 13 L. J., Ex. 246. 
 
 Assignee.] — A person who assigns away his 
 interest in a ship or goods, after effecting a i)olicy 
 upon them, and before the loss, cannot sue upon 
 the policy, except as a trustee for the assignee, 
 in a case where the policy is handed over to him 
 upon the assignment, or there is an agreement 
 that it shall be kept alive for his benefit. Puwles 
 V. Iiuies, 11 M. & W. 10 ; 12 L. J., Ex. 163. 
 
 Indorsee of General Policy.] — S., a shipbroker, 
 was directed by tlie jilaintiff, a shipowner, who 
 was liable for loss by jettison, to take out an 
 open policy against jettison on deck goods, and 
 S. shortly afterwards received from the plaintiff 
 a notice declaring the shipment to be on deck 
 per " La Plata," from Grimsby to Ostend, of cer- 
 tain specified goods. S. not being able to effect 
 such a policy as the plaintiff required, caused a 
 declaration as to tlie risk insured against, similar 
 to the notice which he had so received from the 
 plaintiff to be indorsed on a general policy, which 
 had been effected a month previously by S.'s 
 agents in their own names, and in that of any 
 other person to whom it might appertain, from 
 any port on the east coast of Great Britain to 
 any port on the continent between Hamburg 
 and Havre, upon any kind of goods, " to be 
 valued and declared as interest might appear." 
 The defendant underwrote this policy, and also 
 put his initials to such declaration. There were 
 other goods in other vessels belonging to other 
 persons, in which the plaintiff had no interest, 
 also declared by indorsement on the policy. The 
 plaintiff was duly informed by S. that the risk 
 by the "La Plata" had been covered not upon 
 the plaintiff's own yiolicy, but on S.'s general 
 one :— Held, that the j)laintiff could not sue the 
 defendant on such policy, as it had never been 
 made with the plaintiff, nor with any one on his 
 behalf, nor had it ever been ratified by him. 
 Watxon V. Swtinn, 11 C. B. (N.S.) 7.56 ; 31 L. J., 
 C. P. 210. 
 
 Third Parties — Claim for Indemnity — Under- 
 writers — Suing and Labouring Clause.] — The 
 
 defendant insured his ship under a policy con- 
 taining the usual suing and labouring clause. 
 In an action to recover for work alleged to have 
 been done and expense.? incurred by the plaintiffs 
 for the defendant, at his request, in respect of 
 attempting to save the ship during the continu- 
 ance of the yiolicy : — Hekl. that the defendant 
 was not entitled to bring in the underwriters as 
 third parties under Ord. XVI. r. 48, because they 
 did not, by the suing and labouring clause, con- 
 tract to indemnify the defendant in respect of 
 
 any contract made by him with the i)laintiffs. 
 John.stoH V. Salr/tf/r Atixociatinii, 19 Q. B. D. 
 458 ; 57 L. T. 218 '; 36 W. R. 56 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 167— C. A. 
 
 Service of Writ out of the Jurisdiction — 
 Underwriters Kesident Abroad.] — The plaintiff 
 brought an action in England oir a policy of 
 insurance against several underwriters. Having 
 served his writ of summons on two of the under- 
 writers who were within the jurisdiction, he 
 obtained leave under Ord. XL r. 1 (g) to serve his 
 writ on the other defendants who were residing 
 out of the jurisdiction. Thaneinnre Steumghiji 
 Co. V. ThomiixoH. 52 L. T. 552 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 398. 
 
 Plaintiff Bankrupt.] — The assured sold the 
 goods at sea and assigned the policy ; afterwards 
 an average loss took jilace, and the assured became 
 bankrupt. Held, that he could sue on the policy 
 as trustee for the purchaser. Cittttelli v. liod- 
 dinqton, 1 El. & Bl. 879 ; 1 C. L. R. 281 : 23 L. J., 
 Q. B. 31 ; 17 Jur. 781 ; 1 W. R. 359— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Bankruptcy of Insured — Subsequent Loss — 
 Eight of Assignees.] — The benefit of a i>olicy of 
 insurance, jirevious to the bankruptcy of the 
 insured, upon a loss after it passes ; and gives a 
 right of action to the assignees, not capable of set- 
 off against a debt from the bankrupt. BbK/dcn, 
 Ex pcuic, 19 Ves. 466 ; 2 Rose. 249. 
 
 Policy Moneys in hands of Stakeholder.] — 
 
 Money alleged to be payable under a policy was 
 by consent of assurer and assured handed to a 
 third person to hold as trustee for the person 
 entitled. The person so entitled can recover 
 from the stakeholder only and not from the 
 original debtor. Kir v. Osborne, 9 East, 378. 
 
 Tug and Tow. — Contract by tug owner to 
 insure against collision and indemnify tow : who 
 must sue underwiters. See The Lord, of the Idcx, 
 supra, col. 681. 
 
 Mutual Insurance Society — Some Members 
 sued on behalf of all.] — A member of a mutual 
 shiitping insurance club, whose members are 
 numerous, and whose affairs are managed hy the 
 members generally, assisted by the treasurer and 
 secretary, may maintain a suit in equity against 
 some of the members, as representing the whole, 
 to recover, by contribution among the members, 
 the amount of his loss. The treasurer and sec- 
 retary of such a club are properly made co- 
 defendants, there being no committee of manage- 
 ment, and they being the acting managers of 
 the association. Bromley v. Williams, 1 N. K. 
 413 ; 8 Jur. (N.S.) 240 ; 8 L. T. 78 ; 11 W. R. 392. 
 
 Subscription by Syndicate — Partnership — 
 Joint or Several Liability.] — The defendants, 
 the " Shipowners' Syndicate," a group of under- 
 writers not members of Lloyd's, authorised their 
 manager to underwrite policies of marine insur- 
 ance on account of the several persons forming 
 the syndicate. The jdaintiffs, who were under- 
 writers at Lloyd's, effected a policy of re-insur- 
 ance with the manager. The policy was in the 
 ordinary form of a Lloyd'.s policy, except that it 
 contained the following special clause : " It is 
 specially agreed that the assured are hereby 
 entitled, by way of further security for the per- 
 formance of the obligations of the subscribing 
 underwriters and of each and every of them, to 
 the benefit by way of first charge of the policies
 
 1317 
 
 SHIPPING— INS UEAXCE—XYI. Action on Policy. 
 
 1318 
 
 of reinsurance eflEected. or to be effected, and all 
 moneys received thereunder." The subscription 
 was as follows : '• The Shipowners' Syndicate 
 (Reassured)." Then followed the names of 
 the members of the syndicate, of whom the 
 manager was one, with the respective \)V0- 
 portions underwritten by them set against each 
 name, and it concluded in the following terms : 
 '• of 79,800/., seventy-ninethousand three hundred 
 ])Ounds, 4th March, 189.5. The Shipowners' 
 Syndicate, Reassured. John M. Corderoy. Mana- 
 ger" : — Held, that the liability of the members 
 of the sj'ndicate on the jiolicy was several onlj- 
 and not joint. Tijxcv v. Slupmcmn-H' Syiidicdtp, 
 <;.■) L. J.. Q. B. 238 : [lS9(i] 1 Q. B. 13.5 ;' 73 L. T. 
 60.5 ; 44 W. R. 2(i7 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 81. 
 
 b. Time for. 
 
 Delay.] — When goods are insured for a voj'age, 
 the time of the loss occurring is not necessarily 
 the time when the peril is encountered and the 
 vessel driven ashore. lirow/ziiu/ v. Provliic'inl 
 liiKiirunce Co. of Cati'idit, L. R. .5 P. C. 2(!3 ; 28 
 L. T. 8.53 : 21 W. R. .587 : 2 As)). M. C. 35. 
 
 A shij). with flour as part of her cargo, was 
 seen in the Gulf of St. Lawrence on the 22nd of 
 November. 1S(!7. and nothing more was hearfl of 
 her until May. 1S(;8. when she was found ashore 
 at Anticosti. all hands having been lost. On the 
 2Uih November. 18()7, a violent storm had com- 
 menced in the (Julf. and there was a strong pro- 
 bability that the ship was capsized and driven 
 ashore in that gale. Part of the flour insured 
 was subsecjuently saved and sold by an agent of 
 the insurance company. The action to recover 
 on the policy was not brought until March, 1869. 
 Tlie jtolicy containing a proviso that no action 
 should be brought on it uidess within a year after 
 the loss was incurred, the insurance company 
 conten<led that the assured was too late to bring 
 an action : — Held, tliat the loss was not in its 
 inception total, and only became so when it was 
 found that it was impossible to carry the flour to 
 its destination, and that it was necessary to sell 
 it. Consequently the assured was not ])rccluded 
 by lai)se of time from bringing his action. Ih, 
 
 c. Evidence. 
 
 Discovery of Ship's Papers in Actions on 
 Policy. — In an ai-linn against an nndrrwrilcr 
 1)1' a policy of marine insurance for liis piDjioi- 
 tion of the amount insui'ed, he applied for a stay 
 of proceedings till disc(tvei"y of ship's papers 
 should be made by a person on whose belialf tlie 
 ])olicy luul been effected, but who had ceased to 
 be interested in it. and was not under the control 
 of the i)laintiffs, real or nominal, and was out of 
 the juri.sdiction of the court : — Held, tliat as the 
 person from wliom discovery was ic<|uire<l was 
 not interested in the action, and the persons 
 by and for wliom resi)ectively tlie action was 
 brought had no power over him, the defendant 
 was not entitled to tlie order. Fnixrr v. JSiirrmrs, 
 Ai\ L. J., Q. B. nOl ; 2 l^ B. I), f.24. 
 
 An action liaving Ijcen brought on a policy <if 
 marine insurance by the mortgagees of tiiirty-two 
 sixty-fourths of the sliip, atid it appearing that the 
 l)laintiffs had no shi|)"8 papers, but tliat the sliip 
 hail been .'failed by the mortgagor, who w.-is the 
 managing owner, and wlio had since died, tlie 
 4lifendants applied for an order that not only 
 the jilaintiffs, but the mortgagor or his repre- 
 sentatives, and also all person.s interested in the 
 
 proceedings and in the insurance on the ship, 
 should produce ujion oath the ship's papers, and 
 that in the meantime all the proceedings should 
 be stayed : — Held, that the old practice had not 
 been supersedeil by the Judicature Act, 1875, 
 Ord. XXXI. rr. 11—18, and that the defendants 
 were entitled to the order, which must remain 
 in force, until, at all events, the plaintiffs had 
 satisfied the court that thej^ had applied to the 
 mortgagor and done all in their power to pro- 
 duce the ship's papers. Wrxt of England and 
 SiiiifJi Wah'x Dixtrict Jiank v. Canton Insurance 
 Co.. 2 Ex. D. 472. 
 
 Eisk not wholly Marine.] — In an action upon 
 a policj' of insurance, in which the risk was of a 
 mixed nature, the transit being partly by sea and 
 partly by land, ami in which perils of ''transit or 
 conveyance" had been substituted for "of the 
 seas," the defendants had, before delivering their 
 defence, applied for the usual order for discovery 
 of "ship's papers" under the old practice: — 
 Held, that the peculiar practice of granting 
 discovery of ship's papers was applicable to 
 actions brought upon marine policies alone, and 
 could not be extended. Ilendi'v.wn v. T'nder- 
 wntinq Axxociation, 60 L. J., Q. B. 406 ; [1891] 1 
 Q. B. 557 : 64 L. T. 774 ; 39 W. R. 528. 
 
 Letters between Assured and Master.] — In an 
 
 action on a ]iiilicy. tlie defendant is entitled to 
 inspection of all papers in jiossessiou of the 
 plaintiff, relative to the issue, including letters 
 between the jilaintiff and the master, llaiiwr 
 V. Eitson, 6 B. ct S. 888 ; 35 L. J., Q. B. 59'; 14 
 W. R. 81. 
 
 Ship's Log.] — I>og of ship insured ordered to 
 be jiroduced for inspection in an action upon 
 the policy. KcllocU v. Home and Colonial Inxnr- 
 ance Co., 12 Jur. (N.s.) 653. 
 
 Log Book of Man-of-'War Convoying.] — 
 
 Action on jiolicy, to prove the time of sailing of 
 a ship under convoy, the log book of the man-of- 
 war which convoyed the fleet is evidence. 
 JJ'lxracU v. Jowett, 1 Esp. 427. 
 
 "All Persons Interested" — Form of Order for 
 Discovery.] — In an action on a puliey of niaiinc! 
 insurance to I'ccover the amount of a particular 
 average loss, the defendant is entitled, without 
 an aliidavit, and under the old practice, which 
 has not been affected by the Judicature Act. to 
 an oi'der staying proceedings until the ship's 
 papei's and other documents have l)een produced 
 bj' the plaintiff and all persons interested in the 
 inriceedings and in the insurance, the subject- 
 matter of the action. Chlmt Tra nx]>aci fie Sfea ni- 
 xhip Co. v. Commrrrlal (biion Axx lira nee C(>., 51 
 I.. J., Q. B. 132 ; S Q. B. D. 112 ; 15 I.. T. 647 ; 
 30 W. R. 224— C. A. 
 
 TJsage.] — In an action on a iiolicy in the usual 
 form on ship, boat, iic, evidenci; of usagi; that 
 the underwriters never jiay for the loss of l)oats 
 on flu; outside of a ship, slung upon the (juaiter, 
 is in;idmissiblc. Jilackctt v. Itoi/dl F,.rehan(ir 
 Axxnraure Co., 2 C. it J. 24 I : 2 TvV. 266 : I L. .1., 
 Ex. 101.' 
 
 Usage is admissible in evidence to explain the 
 construction of a policy in the jiarts written liy 
 the ])arties as well as in the ))rin(cil form. J'rcx- 
 ton V. (rrreno'ood, 4 Doiigl. 2.S. 
 
 Action on a polic}' on fisli, by the sliip 
 "Duchess of (iordoii,'' at and from Newfound- 
 
 42—2
 
 1319 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— XVI. Action on Policy. 
 
 1320* 
 
 luTul to a ]i(^rt ill rortui^al : the ship carried out 
 a cargo of salt from Lisbon, with which she 
 arrived at Newfouiidlaiid on the 21st July. As 
 soon as she was unloaded she proceeded in ballast 
 to Sydney, where .she arrived on the 2r)th August, 
 and took in a cargo of coals. This she carried 
 back to Newfoundland, and delivered there in 
 the beginning of October. Between the 21st of 
 that month and 8th November, she was loaded 
 with a cargo of fish, which was the subject of the 
 insurance, and soon after sailed with convoy for 
 Oporto, but was totally lost : — Held, that evi- 
 dence of the usage of the trade was admissible 
 to .show that tlic risk began from the loading of 
 the shi]) with fish, and not from the loading of 
 the first cargo. Oiujior v. Jrnning.s; 1 Camp. 
 50."), n. 
 
 A custom of Liverpool that underwriters are 
 not liable, under the ordinary form of policy, for 
 general average in respect of the jettison of 
 goods stowed on deck is a valid custom, and in 
 an action upon a policy in the ordinary form, 
 the defendants pleaded the custom above as to 
 so much of the declaration as related to the 
 jettison of the goods : — Held, that the custom 
 might be imported into the contract, and that 
 the underwriters were 7iot liable. Miller v. 
 Titherington, 7 H. & N. !).54 : SI L. J., Ex. 86.S : 
 8 Jur. (N.s.) 103'.» ; 1) L. T. 231 : 10 W. K. 3.-)(j— 
 Ex. Ch. 
 
 Nature of Eisk — Amount of Premium.] — If 
 
 the question is whether the adtUtiou of a jjlace, 
 by name, in a j)olicy, would have varied the risk, 
 or whether, on the other hand, such ])lace was 
 implied in the words actually used, it is material 
 evidence, in favour of the latter construction, 
 that the lu'cmium in either case would have 
 been the same. Preston v. Greenwood, 4 Dougl. 28. 
 
 Lloyd's Lists.] — In an action on a policy. 
 Lloyd's shipi(ing list is admissible against the 
 underwriter, without proof of his having seen it, 
 and is prima facie evidence of the time of 
 sailing. But where there was a concealment by 
 the insurer of material facts, and an allegation 
 of facts, which were untrue, viz. as to the time 
 of sailing, and the underwriter had acted thereon, 
 without, in fact, seeing the list at IJoyd's : — 
 Held, that the underwriter was not bound 
 thereby, and that the judge ought to point out 
 to the jitiy, as material, such concealment antl 
 misre])resentation. Jlarhintn-s'h v. Jliirshall, 11 
 M. & W. 116 ; 12 L. J., Ex. 337. 
 
 Lloyd's register of shipping is not admissible 
 to show that a vessel is considered as copper- 
 fastened. Fre.finan v. lialier, h Car. & P. 475. 
 
 In an action on a policy of insurance, Lloyd's 
 list is evidence against the assured, it being 
 shown that the broker had read it before the 
 policy was effected, liain v. Case, 3 Car. &: I'. 49(3. 
 
 Lloyd's books are evidence of a capture ; but 
 not of notice of a loss to any person in par- 
 ticular ; but, coupled with other evidence, they 
 may go to the jury. Abel v. Putts, 3 Esp. 242 ; 
 6 R. E. 826. 
 
 Evidence of Interest.] — See ante, col. 114."). 
 
 Of Loss.] — See ante, col. 1U87. 
 
 Of Seaworthiness.] — See ante, cols. 11.")!). 
 
 1087. 
 
 Of Eeceipt of Premium.] — See Dahcll v. 
 
 Mair. ante, col. 1808. 
 
 Signature of Policy.] — Proof of signatui-e of 
 the policy b_y an authorised agent satisfies an 
 allegation of signature by the defendant. jVie/ml' 
 son V. Croft, 2 I'.urr. ,1188'. 
 
 Contemporaneous Agreement.] — In an action 
 on a policy on a shij), alleging a loss by capture,, 
 it is comi)etent to the defendant to show, under 
 the general issue, that, by a written agreement 
 entered into by the parties contemporaneously 
 with the policy, the risk was to be confined to a 
 capture in time of war. He.'ith v. Ditrriint, 
 1 I). & L. .-)71 ; 12 J\I. & W. 438 ; 13 L. J., Ex. 
 y.-) ; 8 Jur. 131. 
 
 Parol Evidence.] — Parol evidence of 
 
 what passed at the time of efi^ecting a policy is 
 not a(lmissible to restrain the effect of the polic}'. 
 Wtston V. Eines, 1 Taunt. 115. 
 
 Slip.] — The slip on which underwriters take- 
 down the risks they insure is not evidence of 
 insurance, lingers v. M-Cartluj, 3 Esp. 107. And 
 see eases, ante, col. 1032. 
 
 Of Agency.] — In an action on a i)olicy sub- 
 scribed by the defendant's agent, under a (lower 
 of attorney, it is sufficient \n-oot of the agency 
 that the defendant is in the habit of paying 
 losses upon policies so subscribed by the agent 
 in his name, without producing the power of 
 attorney. Iluughton v. Eiehanlt, 4 Camp. 88. 
 
 An admission of the subscription of the under- 
 writer to a policy does not dispense with ])roof 
 of the agency of the party effecting the insur- 
 ance. Palmer v. Marshnll, 1 M. i.t Scott, 161 ; 
 8 Bing. 79 : 1 L. J.. C. P. 19. 
 
 Evidence that one who signed the policy was 
 accustomed to sign policies for the insurer : — 
 Held, not sufficient proof of agency. Conrteen 
 V. Touse, 1 Camp. 43 ; 10 II. II. "627. 
 
 Injunction to Stay — Commission to "West 
 Indies.]— Injunction to staj' proceedings at law 
 on polic.v, and commission for examining wit- 
 nesses in the West Indies, granted, as the voyage 
 was at and from Carthagena to Porto Bello, and 
 the facts must necessarily arise in the West 
 Indies. Chlttij v. Selwijn, 2 Atk. 359. 
 
 Certificate of Lloyd's Agent,] — A certificate 
 as to damage of goods insured made by a Lloyd's- 
 agent abroad is not admissible in evidence as 
 proof of damage in an action by the assured 
 aii'ainst the underwriter, a member of Llovd's. 
 ijrahe v. Marri/at, 1 B. & C. 473 ; 1 L. J. (b.S.)- 
 K. B. 161 ; 25 \\. R. 464. 
 
 Proof of Ownership.] — Ownership in an action 
 on a policy may be proved bv i>arol evidence.. 
 Robertson v.Fre'neJi, 4 East, 130 ; 7 R. R. 535. 
 
 In an action upon a policy, ownership of the 
 vessel ])roved by evidence that A. had ordered 
 and paid for stores for her. Thomas v. Foi/le, 
 5 Esp. 88. 
 
 Plaintiff, in an action for loss of goods on a 
 policy, i)roduced a bill of parcels receipted by 
 one Gardiner, of Petersburgh, and proved his 
 handwriting : — Heltl, that this was admissible 
 against the mulerwriters. Pi/s,sell v. Jiohenie, 
 2"Str. 1127. 
 
 Discontinuance — Costs — Examination of 
 "Witnesses before Master.] — In an action on a 
 ])olicy, owing to the plaintiff's delay in pro- 
 ducing pajters ordered to be produced, the defen- 
 dant did not plead until a year after declaration..
 
 1321 
 
 SHIPPING— IN SUE A^X'E—XYI. Action on Policy. 
 
 1322 
 
 Meanwhile, to save expense, the defendant 
 examined witnesses before the master, under 
 1 Will. 4, c. 23, s. 4. The defendant pleaded 
 uiisea\vorthine.ss, ice. and paid '2')l. into court 
 on the money counts for the premium. The 
 plaintifif took the money out of court and joined 
 issue on the other pleas, but afterwards discon- 
 tinued : — Held, that the defendant was entitled 
 to the costs of the witnesses examined as incurred 
 before instructions for plea, within Ketr.-Cien.. 
 H. T., 1853, r. 12. Pn-vite v. Adelaide Fire and 
 Murine Iii.titrcifice Co., 32 L. T. 7(J8 : 2 Asp. M. C. 
 
 Unnecessary Sale by Master — Evidence of 
 Drunkenness.^ — On an is>ue between a ship- 
 owner and the insurers whether the ship has 
 been totally lost, it appeare<l that she had gone 
 ashore, and when on shore had been solil bj" the 
 captain to a person who succeeded in getting her 
 afloat. The defendant's case being that, if 
 proper judgment had been exercised, a total loss 
 might have been avoided : — Held, that he might 
 give evidence of habitual drunkenness on the 
 part of the captain, shortly before he sailed. 
 Alcock v. lloijal Ejcchaitge Ax.si'ruitcc Corjwra- 
 tliin, 13 Q. B. 292. 
 
 Perils of the Sea — Salvage not by reason of 
 Perils Insured against — Judgment in rem, 
 effect of.j — The master of a steamsliip that hail 
 run short of coal employed another to tow her to 
 her destination. The owner of the latter 
 recoveretl salvage against the former in admi- ! 
 ralty. In an action by the owner of the salved j 
 vessel against an underwriter, who had insured 
 against perils of the sea, to recover the money 
 paid for salvage : — Held, that the defendant was ' 
 not concluded by the admiralty judgment from , 
 showing that the loss did not arise from perils 
 insure<l atrainst. Bulhintyne v. Mneklnnun, d't , 
 L. J., Q. B. «1« ; [isyc] 2 Q. B. 4.55 ; 75 L. T. i 
 li5 ; 45 W. 11. 70 ; .S Asp. M. C. 17:^— C. A. 
 
 d. Consolidation. \ 
 
 Opening Rule.] — Wlierc several underwriters; 
 fntere<l into a consolidaticjii rule, to abide by the | 
 tletcrmination of the cfiurt on a i)oint reservetl ' 
 for their consideration at tlie trial of a cau.se, I 
 viz. as to whetlier a notice of abandonment had j 
 been given in due time, the court would not 
 allow such rule to be <ipene<l, on an attidavit '• 
 stating that the owner had received letters from 
 the captain abroad, informing him of the loss and 
 sale f>f the ship Ijefore the arrival of the latter in 
 Ix)ndon : as notice should have been given to the i 
 plaintiff to produce sucli letters at the trial ; or 1 
 they should, at all events, liave been adverted to 
 by affidavit, when the motion was made to tlie 
 court on the point reserved. Read v. Ixaacx, (i | 
 Moore, 437. See also Fimter v. Alrrz, 3 Biiig. 
 (N.c.) K'J2 ; 4 Scott, 535, ante, col. lUJl. 
 
 Reference to Arbitrator.] — Wlierc several 
 uiideiwriters eiiteied into a consolidation rule, ' 
 by which they undertook to abide the event of | 
 the venh'ct, and the cause was referred by con- j 
 sent before trial, and the arbitrator awarded the 
 aggregate sum due to the assured from the i 
 underwriters at large — tlie court woid<l not onh/r 
 it to be referred back to the arbitrator to insert 
 the amount of the sum due an<l payaljlc from 
 each underwriter individually, without tlie con- | 
 sent of such underwriters. Kiputstoa v. Llddcll, 
 8 Moore, 223. 
 
 Actions having been brought against eigiit per- 
 sons upon mutual instu-ance policies, the court, at 
 their instance, granted a rule for consolidating 
 them, upon the terms that they should admit the 
 amotmts for which they were respectively liable, 
 in case their liability should be established, and 
 should consent, if necessary, to an order, referring 
 it to the master to settle the same. Lrivii v. 
 Burken or Bunks. 4 C. B. (N.s.) 330 : 27 L. J., 
 C. P. 247 ; 4 Jur. (x.S.) 6G3 ; 6 W. R. 652. 
 
 Compulsory.] — Two actions having been 
 
 brought by the same plaintiff against different 
 defendants, on the same jwlicy, the court 
 consolidated them, after a declaration had been 
 delivered in one, and an appearance entered 
 t in the other, at the instance of the defendant 
 in the latter action, though the plaintiff 
 objected. HoUlngwurth or Hulll nq.twurth v. 
 Brodcrlck. 4 A. & E. 646 ; 6 N. & 'M. 240 ; 1 
 H. *: \V. 691. 
 
 Where a plaintiff brings several actions upon 
 i the same policy against several underwriters, the 
 [ court will not, withotit his consent, make a con- 
 [ solidation rule upon the terms of both plaintiff 
 and defendants being bound in all the actions by 
 the event of one. Doijle v. Anderson, 1 A. & E. 
 ('.35 : 4 X. & M. 873. 
 I Wliere two actions were brought by the same 
 plaintiffs against different defendants, on diffe- 
 rent policies on the same ship, the court refused, 
 at the instance of the defendants, to compel the 
 plaintiffs to consolidate, and to be bound by one 
 of the actions, without their consent. M'Greijor 
 V. Horsfall. 3 M. & W. 320 ; 6 D. P. C. 338'; 7 
 L. J.. Ex. 71:2 Jur. 257. 
 
 Where upwards of forty actions were brought 
 against underwriters of the policies of insurance, 
 one of which had been assigned by memorandum 
 of transfer signed by some of them, before the 
 bankruptcy of the assured, the court made an 
 order for consolidation, the general principle laid 
 down being, that all actions should be stayed 
 except such as might be really necessary to deter- 
 mine the liability of distinct defendants in each 
 class of cases, the defendants to l)e bound by 
 the result, but not the plaintiffs. Sijers v. 
 PicJicrsf/ill, 27 L. J., Ex. 5 : 6 W. K. 16. 
 
 The court ultimately settled that there were 
 two classes of cases, and that two actions should 
 be allowed to i)roceed. Jh. 
 
 Actions against separate underwriters of the 
 same i)olicy were usually consolidated — per 
 Tindal, C.J. Sharp v. Lethhridgr. 4 Man. \: (!. 
 37 ; 4 Scott (N.s.) 722 ; 11 L. J.," C. 1". is;). 
 
 Restraining Second Action.] — Where actions 
 against uiidcrwritcis have Ijeen consolidated by 
 rule, and the defendant has obtained a verdict in 
 one, the court will not restrain the jilaintiff from 
 trying a second cause, included in the rule, till the 
 costs of the first are i)aid. Jhii/le v. Dongluss, 4 
 B. A: Ad. 544. 
 
 Payment into Court. j — Where sixty actions 
 were pending on a policy on a ship, which 
 had been insured to a veiy laige amoinit, and 
 a consolidation rule had been entered into, in 
 which tlic plaintiff and the other defendants 
 agreeil to b(! bound by thedecision in this action ; 
 the jilaint iff liaving recovered a verdict, on which 
 a rule nisi had been obtained for a new trial, the 
 court refused to order the defendant to pay the 
 amount recovered against liim into court, or to 
 invest the same upon the ground that the great
 
 1323 
 
 SHIPPING-INSURANCE— XVI. Acti< 
 
 Policy. 
 
 1324 
 
 arrear of causes on the new trial paper would 
 prevent the rule nisi comintj on for argument for 
 a long time, and that the losses and risk of the 
 plaintiff were thereby greatly increased. Ohrli/ v. 
 Ihinhar. 1 X. A: \\2U\ 5 A. & E. 824 ; 2H. &W. 
 t:.l ; (; L. .).. K. B. 15. 
 
 e. Payment into Court. 
 
 Effect of.] — In an action on a policy, with a 
 count for money had and received, if the defen- 
 dant pays no money into court, but establishes as 
 a defence tliat the risk never commenced, the 
 plaintiff is entitled to a verdict for the premium, 
 though no demand of premium was made by his 
 counsel in opening tlie case. Pensoti v. Lei^, 2 
 Bos. eV: P. 330 : 5 K. K. 614. 
 
 Payment of money into court in an action on a 
 policy admits that the ship was seaworthy. 
 JLirrixoH V. Boiii/ltis, N. & M. 180 ; 3 A. & E. 
 396 : 1 H. & W. 380. 
 
 Where, by the term of a policy in a mutual 
 insurance club, the amotint of the loss is not to be 
 drawn before a specified day, the defendant, by 
 paying money into court, precludes himself from 
 objecting that the action is brought too soon. 
 lb. 
 
 A plaintiff, having declared on a policy, with a 
 count for money had and received, the defendant 
 paid the amount of the premiums into cotirt on 
 that count, pleading to the count on the policy so 
 as to raise that of unseaworthiness. The plaintiff 
 took the money oitt of court in satisfaction of the 
 claim under the count for money had and 
 received. At the trial, the defence of unsea- 
 worthiness having been given up, a special case 
 was stated for the opinion of the court, which 
 was afterwards taken to the exchequer chamber, 
 and in both courts it was held that the plaintiff 
 was entitled to recover as for an average loss. 
 The amount of the average loss was referred to, 
 and ascertained by, average-staters, but this not 
 being done before the argument of the case, a 
 nominal judgment for 3,500/. was entered up for 
 the ptirpose of taking the case into error : — Held, 
 that the plaintiff was not entitled to enter judg- 
 ment and take otit execution for t he entire amount 
 of the average loss, witliottt giving credit to the 
 defendant for the amount paid into court, and 
 taken out by the plaintiff. Curr v. lloyal 
 Exclianqc AsiMirancc Corjwrution, 5 B. (k S. 941 ; 
 34 L. j".. Q. B. 21 : 11 Jur. (n.s.) 265 ; 11 L. T. 
 595 ; 13 W. R. 204. 
 
 Payment of money into court to the amount of 
 a valued policy is not an admission of a total loss. 
 Mucker y. Pahgrave, 1 Tatxnt. 419 ; 1 Camp. 557. 
 In an action on a valued policy, the payment of 
 money into court upon a count for a total loss is 
 not an admission of such total loss by caj)ture. Ih. 
 But it admits the interests of the ])]aintiff as 
 averred. Bell y. A/islei/, 16 East, 146 ; 14 K. K. 
 322. 
 
 After Consolidation.] — See OJtrli/ v. Dunhdr, 
 supra. 
 
 f. Arbitration. 
 
 Condition precedent.] — A. effected in a mutual 
 insurance company a policy on ship, one of the 
 conditions of which was, that the sum to be 
 paid to any insurer for loss should, in the first 
 instance, be ascertained by the committee ; but 
 if a difference should arrive between the insurer 
 and the connnittee, " relative to the settling of 
 any loss, or to a claim for average, or any other 
 
 matter relating to the insurance," the difference 
 was to be referred to arbitration, in a way 
 pointed out in the conditions : — " provided 
 always, that no insurer who refuses to accept 
 the amount settled by the connnittee shall be 
 entitletl t(j maintain any action at law or suit in 
 ecjuit}^ on his t)olicy," until the matter has been 
 decided by the arbitrators, and " then only for 
 such sum as they shall award " ; and the obtain- 
 ing the decision of the arbitrators was declared 
 a condition precedent to the maintaining of an 
 action : — Held, that these conditions were lawful, 
 and that (even shotild the difference relate to 
 other matters than those of mere amount) till 
 award made no action was maintainable. Scutt 
 V. Arcrti, 5 H. L. Cas. 811 ; 25 L. J., Ex. 308 ; 2 
 Jur. (N.'s.) 815 ; 4 W. R. 746. 
 
 A policy was subject to the following rule : — 
 " All average claims and claims of abandonment 
 shall be adjusted and settled, conformably to 
 the custom of Lloyds' or the Royal Exchange, 
 by a professional average-stater ; but should the 
 committee or the assured be dissatisfied with the 
 adjustment, they may refer the same to two 
 professional average-staters, or to other com- 
 petent persons, with power to such two persons 
 to api)oint an umjjire, and the award of such 
 two persons shall be final ; and all other cases 
 of dispute, of whatever nature, shall be referred 
 in like manner ; but the committee or assured 
 by mutual consent may refer all such adjust- 
 ments or disputes to one person only, whose 
 award shall also be final ; and no action at law 
 shall be brought until the arbitrators have given 
 their decision" : — Held, that no action could be 
 maintained on the policy for a total loss until 
 the claim had been adjusted and settled by 
 arbitration in pursuance of the rule. Treclwen v. 
 Ilolmun, 1 H. & C. 72 ; 31 L. J., Ex. 398 ; 8 Jur. 
 (N.S.) 1080 ; 6 L. T. 127 ; 10 W. R. 652. 
 
 Bar to Action.] — A mutttal insurance society, 
 registered pursuant to 25 & 26 Vict. c. 89, issued 
 to one of its members a policy of insurance on 
 his ship " Hermione," which was afterwards lost. 
 The policy referred to the articles of the asso- 
 ciation, the 39th of which provided that the 
 directors should have full power to decide and 
 determine all disputes, kc, arising between the 
 society and its members concerning insurances, 
 &c., antl the decision of the directors should be 
 final and conclusive, and no member of the 
 society should be allowed to bring any action, 
 &c., exce})t as was provided, ice, and the 
 directors might, if they thought fit cause any 
 claim or demand to be submitted to an average- 
 adjuster, "and in every such case the decision or 
 award of such average-adjuster shall be final 
 and conclusive on the society and claimant, and 
 every person interested in such claim, and no 
 a^jpeal shall be allowed therefrom." By the 
 84th article, a means was proviiled by which any 
 member who was dissatisfied with the decision 
 of the directors might obtain a reconsideration 
 of his claim. The " Hermione " having been lost 
 the assured made a claim, but the directors 
 decided that he had no claim upon the society. 
 He then brought an action : — Held, that the 
 decision of the claim by the directors, subject 
 to the right of obtaining a reconsideration, under 
 the 84th article, was" not binding, and that 
 the action was maintainable. J'Jdmirdx v. 
 Ahertn/rii/i Mnfiiid Ship InxKraiire Co., 1 Q. B. D. 
 .5(;3 ; 3-t L. T. 457 : 3 Asp. iM. ('. 154— E.x. Ch. 
 Reversing 44 L. J., Q. B. 67 ; 23 W. R. 304.
 
 1325 
 
 SHIPPING— IXS^EA^X^E—XYI. Action on Policy. 
 
 1326 
 
 Arbitration Clause — Jurisdiction of Court.] 
 
 — A clause in a policy that in case of dispute the 
 umtter shall sro to arbitration does not oust the 
 jurisdiction of the courts. Xill v. JloUixter, 1 
 Wds. U'J. 
 
 g. Pleading. 
 
 Claims — Voyage.] — On a policy- at and from 
 Pernambuco, or any other port or ports in the 
 Brazils to London, "beginning the adventure 
 from the loading the goods on board the ship on 
 the termination of her cruise, and preparing for 
 her voyage to London." The ship, on the termi- 
 nation of her cruise, touched at Pernambuco : 
 but failing to procure a cargo there she proceeded 
 for St. Salvador, and was lost on her voyage 
 thither. The voyage is well described in a 
 declaration on the policy as from Pernambuco to 
 Loudon. Lambert v. Liddard, 1 Marsh. Ii9 ; .o 
 Taunt. 480 : 15 R. R. .557. 
 
 In an action on a policy, the declaration stated 
 tliat after the making of the policy the ship 
 sailed : the evidence was, that she sailed before : 
 — Held, that the variance was immaterial. 
 Pippin v. Solomons, 5 Term Rep. 49(5. 
 
 Goods were insured at and from Mogadore to 
 London ; the declaration averred '• that after 
 the loading of the goods the ship departed on 
 her intended voyage, and while in the course 
 of her voyage was lost by perils of the sea " : 
 — Held, that this was a material allegation, and 
 therefore tiie ship having been lost while at her 
 moorings, and before the cargo was completed, 
 the insured could not recover. Ah/folv.Jirisfmc, 
 2 Marsh. 157 ; 6 Taunt. 4G4. 
 
 Losses.] — Where a declaration states a 
 
 total loss occasioned by the sale of the .ship in a 
 port of refuge, to which she had been driven 
 through injuries by storms, and at whicli port 
 the captain sold her, because he hatl no suffi- 
 cient funds to repair her: — Held, that the 
 declaration was good as sufficiently stating a 
 loss by perils of the sea; and that tlie i)laiiitifl:, 
 the insuicfi, might recover for a partial loss on 
 such a declaration. J)cv(Iu.b v. Axtc/l, 4 .Jur. 1 1:^5. 
 
 In an action on a jiolicy, tlie court refused to 
 allow a count on a loss by perils of the sea 
 together with a count on a loss by barratry, or 
 to restrain the defendant from setting up, as a 
 defence to the former count, that the loss was 
 occasioned by l)ariatrv. Jlli/fh v. Slirjihi-rd. 1 
 D. (N.S.) .S«0"; <J M. A: V. 7(i:{'; 11 L. .1.. Kx. 2!l3 ; 
 (i Jur. 489. 
 
 A partial loss of freight may be recovcri'd ui)on 
 a declaration alleging a total loss. Jienxoii v. 
 Chapman, 8 C. B. 950 ; 2 H. L. Cas. G9G ; 13 Jur. 
 9f;9. 
 
 In an action against an insurer for a total loss 
 of the ship, the plaintiff may recover for a i)artial 
 loss, frordinrr v. CruKxdfdr, 1 W. I'.!. IL'S; 9 
 Burr. 904. 
 
 A declaration on a policy stated that the defen- 
 dants were iussurersof ships, and " thereu|)on the 
 plaintiffs by certain persons, using and carrying 
 on lousiness and in tlie pnliey dcsignati'd l)y liie 
 names, style and firm of Dewar iV Culiiford, the 
 agents of tlie plaintiffs in tliat behalf,'' made 
 with the defendants a policy purporting that 
 the pei"sons so using, and in the i)olicy desig- 
 nated an<l described by the name, style and firm 
 of Dewar Ac Culiiford. as agents, as well in their 
 own names as fnr otlicrs, so <lid make assur- 
 ance. The declaration then stated that the 
 ship was stranded, that the waters flowed over 
 
 the corn, goods, <fcc., which became thereby 
 wetted, ilamaged and spoiled, whereby the 
 plaintiffs sustained an average loss on the corn 
 to a large amount, and thereby the corn, k.c., 
 became of no use and value to the plaintiffs : — 
 Held, that it was not bad on the ground that it 
 did not show the amount that the defendants 
 became liable to pay by reason of the average 
 loss, nor on the ground of its not stating, with 
 certainty, whether the plaintiffs meant a total or 
 onlv a partial loss. Sturr/e v. ILihn, 4 Ex. 646 ; 
 19 L. J., Ex. 119. 
 
 Traverse in Conjunction.] — Assumpsit upon a 
 policy of insurance wherein the defendant 
 assured, lost or not lost, from Loudon to the 
 Mediterranean and back to London upon the 
 '•M." and her tackle, Ace, valued at 3U0/. The 
 declaration averred that the said ship, tackle, 
 apparel, ordnance munition, artiller\' boat, and 
 other furniture were by perils of the sea, suidc 
 and destroyed. The defendant pleaded in bar 
 that the ship and her api)arel arrived, and tra- 
 versed without this, that the said ship, tackle, kc. 
 were sunk and destroyed. The plaintiff demurred 
 in law, on the ground that the traverse was in 
 the conjunctive, that the said ship and &c., was 
 sunk and destroyed. Judgment for the plaintiff. 
 Gorinii V. Siccetiw), 2 Wms. Saund. 2U2, 205. 
 
 Conditions precedent.] — K. and X. de- 
 clared in an action against a company for insur- 
 ance on the freight of goods to be carried in a 
 ship, on a deetl-poll, sealed with the seal of the 
 company ; which deed recited that K. had repre- 
 sented to the company that he was interested in 
 or authoriseil as owner, agent or otherwise, to 
 make the assurance after mentioned with the 
 company, and had covenated to pay 12?. 12.s'. to 
 them as a premium at four per cent, for the 
 assurance ; and it was agreed that in considera- 
 tion of the \2l. 12.V. the cajjital stock and funds 
 of the company should, according to the jirovi- 
 sions of the deed of settlement of the company, 
 be lialile to make good and be applied to pay 
 all such losses and damages thereinafter de- 
 scribed, as might happen to the subject-matter 
 of the jiolicy in respect of the sum of ;U)0/. ; and 
 it was (leclarcd that touching the adventures and 
 perils which the capital stock and funds of the 
 company were maiie liable to by the assurance, 
 they were of the sea, ice. ; and the capital stock 
 an(i funds of tlie company should hear the 
 charges of assurance in jiroportion to the sum 
 assured, and that the interest of theassuied was 
 on freiglit ; provided, nevertheless, that the capi- 
 tal stock and the funds of the company siiould 
 alone be liable according to the provisions of the 
 deed of settlement, to answer and make good ail 
 claims and demands wiiatsoever under ur by 
 virtue of the policy, and that no shareiinlilcr of 
 the company, iiis oi' her heirs, exet-utois or ,id- 
 niinistrators, siiould be in anywise subject or 
 liiilile to any claims or demands, or be in anywise 
 chargrd by reason of fiie Jiolicy, Vicyond the 
 amount of his or her shares in the capital stock 
 of the company ; it bcingone of the original ;uid 
 fundamental principles of the company, that tiie 
 responsibility of the individual proprietors should 
 in all casus be limited to their shares in the capi- 
 tal stock. That thereu])on the company became 
 insurers to the (tlaintiffs for 800/. on the freight 
 to the amount of ail the money insured ; and 
 tliat the vessel with the goods on board was 
 wholly lost by perils of the sea ; and tiie
 
 IS^I 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— XYI. Action on Policy. 
 
 1328 
 
 ])laiiitiffs thereby lost the freight of the goods. 
 Jiuigment was entered for 300/. in their favour : 
 — Hel(h first, that tlie declaration was not deli- 
 eient for omitting to allege that the company 
 had funtls ; for that (1), it ai)i)earing that 
 defendants were a corporation, the remedy against 
 them would only be upon the corporate funds, 
 and the proviso made no difference in this 
 respect, but the action lay whether there were 
 funds or not. And (2), if the existence of the 
 funds had been a condition necessary' to the 
 maintenance of the action, it lay upon the com- 
 jiany to deny, and not ujjon the plaintiiis to 
 assert, the existence of the funds, which, in 
 default of denial, would be presumed to exist. 
 Sunderland Marine Iiisnriince Co. v. Kearney, 
 K; Q. B. !t25 ; 20 L. J., Q. B. 417 ; 15 Jur. 1006 ; 
 —Ex. Ch. 
 
 Held, secondly, that it was not a valid objec- 
 tion that the contract appeared to be collateral, 
 and the demand not liquidated, and an action of 
 debt therefore not maintainable ; for that (1). 
 the liability of the action was direct, and not 
 merely contingent on the existence or non-exist- 
 ence of the funds : and (2), the declaration 
 claiming 300/. for a total loss, which after ver- 
 dict must be assumed as a fact, the claim was for 
 the liquidated sum of 300/. Ih. 
 
 Held, thirdly, that the action was maintain- 
 able by K. and 2Si. jointly, because the deed poll 
 enured to the benefit of all interested in the 
 assui'ance, and the declaration showed the interest 
 to be in K. and N. jointly. Ih. 
 
 The rules of a society established for mutual 
 assui'ance of traders against bad debts, after 
 stipulating for the payment of jiremiums, i)ro- 
 vided that, " if the premiums on any policy 
 should not be paid within fifteen days after the 
 same should fall due, the directors might with 
 the approbation of the council, either declare 
 such policy void, or enforce the payment of the 
 jiremiums." In a declaration on a policy, the 
 j)laintiff averred that he had done all things 
 necessary on his ]iart, and had been ready and 
 willing to do all things according to the policj', 
 rules and regulations, which it was necessary that 
 he should Vje ready and willing to do, and that 
 all things had happened which it was necessary 
 should happen, to entitle him to be paid by the 
 society the loss after mentioned, and that a 
 reasonable time for payment thereof had elapsed. 
 It then went on to aver tliat a loss had been 
 incurred, and that the society had refused to 
 pay : — Held, that this general averment was 
 sufficient, without showing the various steps 
 required by the rules of the society to entitle 
 the assured to recover. Bamlivrqcr v. (\\mmev- 
 c'ud Credit Mutval A.ssnranep Co. or Soeicti/, 14 
 C. B. 076 ; 3 C. L. E. .568 ; 24 L. J., C. P. lio ; 1 
 Jur. (x.s.) nOO. 
 
 The society fjleaded, that after the making of 
 the policy and more than fifteen days before 
 action, a ijremium became payable by the plain- 
 tiff and was not duly jjaid, whereupon the 
 directors of the society, with the ajjiirobation of 
 the council, cancelled the policy and declared 
 the same void, whereof the ])laintiff had notice : 
 — Held, that the plea disclosed a sufficient 
 answer to the claim. Ih. 
 
 The defendant, and four others, were jointly 
 sued upon a policy upon a ship and cargo for a 
 total loss. The declaration was in ■ the usual 
 form, and alleged an agreement between the 
 plaintiff and the insurers, " that the capital 
 stock and funds of the company should alone 
 
 be liable to answer and make good all claims 
 and demands whatsoever under or by virtue of 
 the policy ; " and that no proprietor of the 
 comiiany should in anywise be lialile. or charged, 
 by leason of the policy, beyond the amount of 
 his shares in the capital stock of the company. 
 There was an express averment that sufficient 
 capital, stock and funds of the company existed 
 to ])ay the amount of the policy : — Held, that 
 notwithstanding the above stipulation, the 
 (U'claration showed that the policy had been 
 proi)erlv declared upon as a joint contract. Dou-- 
 dall v.^HalJett, 18 Q. B. 2 ; 21 L. J., Q. B. 98 ; 
 16 Jur. 462— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Partial Loss — Unliquidated Damages.] — An 
 
 action for a partial loss under a {jolicy of insur- 
 ance, even after adjustment, is an action for 
 unliquidated damages, so that set-off cannot be 
 pleaded. CasteUl v. Boddini/fon, 1 El. & Bl. 66 : 
 22 L. J., Q. B. .5 ; 17 Jur. 457 ; 1 W. R. 2n. 
 Affirmed on other points, 1 E. & B. 87i» ; 23 L. J., 
 Q. B. 31 ; 1 C. L. R. 281 : 17 Jur. 781 ; 1 W. R. 
 359— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Semble, unliquidated losses on a policy of 
 insurance cannot be made the subject of set off. 
 Thomp.'<on v. Jledman. 11 M. i: W. 487 ; 2 D. (N.S.) 
 1028 ; 12 L. J., Ex. 310. 
 
 Policy under Seal — Simple Contract.] — Declar- 
 ation on a polic}' sealed with the insuring com- 
 pany's seal as upon a simple contract. Semble, the 
 declaration is good. See It ope r v. JSntfli-s-h and 
 SroffixJi Marine In.suratiee Co., cited, 1 Arn. 
 Insurance (6th ed.) 157, n. 
 
 Evidence of Cost of Salvage.] — Although it is 
 not particularly laid in the declaration, the 
 expense of salvage may be given in evidence in 
 an action on the policy. Carij v. King, see Ca. 
 t. Hard. 304. 
 
 Averment of Order to Effect Policy— Proof] — 
 
 Plaintiffs declared on a policy averring that they 
 were persons resident in Great Britain who 
 received the order for and effected the insurance ; 
 this held to be a material averment and not sus- 
 tained by a letter received by them after the 
 policy was effected, directing them to insure ; 
 although the policy was oi-iginally on goods 
 on board the "Ann," or ships, or by what- 
 soever other name the ship should be named ; 
 and the plaintiffs upon receipt of the letter pro- 
 cured a memorandum to be made on the policy 
 signed by the defendant, declaring the interest 
 to be on board the " Herald," the ship mentioned 
 in the letter. Hell v. Ja/min, 1 M. i: Sel. 203. 
 
 Insurance by Agent — Declaration.] — Action on 
 policy by plaintiff' as agent f(.)r owner of cargo 
 insured ; there being an indorsement that the 
 ])olicy was effected in trust for the cargo owner : — 
 Held, that a declaration on the policy generally, 
 without setting out the agency, could be proved 
 by evidence of the above facts. Peron v. Frone, 
 2'Barnard. 304. 
 
 Pleading — Release.] — Declaration on a policy 
 on board a ship at the suit of D., W. and A. ; W. 
 alleged that the policy was made by them as 
 welt in their own names, as for and in the name 
 of every other person to whom the same did 
 appertain ; and it was averred that one T. L., 
 and the plaintiff A. W., or one of them, were or
 
 1329 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— XYL Action on Policy. 
 
 1330 
 
 was then and from thenceforth until the loss 
 interested in the goods. Defendant pleaded a 
 release by I). W. for himself and his partner 
 A. W. 'Ihe plaintiffs replied setting out on oyer 
 the deed of release, by which it appeared that 
 the intention of the parties was to release only 
 the sums set opposite to their names, and the 
 declaration averivd that such moneys were 
 due upon other contracts. Semble, that the 
 replication was bad as argumentative. Held, 
 also, that the plea was good. Wilk'ntsunx.Lindo. 
 7 M. .»c \V. 81. 
 
 Defences.] — A declaration stated that the 
 jilaintifE made a policy with an assurance com- 
 pany, upon the goods, body, tackle, apparel, (Sec, 
 of a ship valued at .5,000^. ; that the ship and 
 freight were warranted free from average, under 
 3Z. per cent., uidess general, or the ' shiji was 
 stranded ; that the capital stock and funds of the 
 company shoidd alone be liable to make good all 
 claims and demands under that policy, and that 
 no proprietor of the company should be charged 
 by reason of that policy beyond the amount of 
 his share in the stock of the company ; that the 
 company became insurers to the plaintiff for 
 l.oOUZ., and the policy was signed by the defen- 
 dants as directors of the company, and in con- 
 sideration of the jiayment df the premium, at 
 their request, the clefendants undertook that the 
 company should perform all things contained in 
 the policy to be performed by them : the declara- 
 tion alleged that the ship ran aground, that it 
 was necessary for her safety to let go the larboard 
 bower anchor and kedge anchor, and to cut away 
 the cables from the anchors ; that the anc^hors 
 and cables were left in tlie sea, and lost to the 
 pLaintifif ; that afterwards the ship was further 
 fiti'ained, damaged and broken, whereby the 
 plaintiff sustained a general average loss. Second 
 breach, that the ship being stranded and damaged, 
 the jilaintiff sustained an average loss on the 
 ship, her masts, rojws and cables, to a larger 
 amount than 'il. per cent, on all the moneys 
 insured thereon, to wit, to the amount of 'ii)l. Ijy 
 the hundred for each and every hundred insured 
 thereon, whereby the company became liable to 
 pay to the plaintiff a certain sum of money, to 
 wit, 2(JU/., being their jiropoition of the average 
 loss in respect of the l..",OU/.. and that tli(iug:i tlio 
 funds of the company were sullicient, the defen- 
 dants had not paid the liases. Tlie defendants 
 pleaded that tlie anchors and cables were not 
 left in the sea, and lost; also that the plaintiff 
 had not suffered an average loss on the ship or 
 vessel, her masts, roi)es and cables, to theaniuiinl 
 of :{/. per cent. on all the moneys issued thereon : 
 — Held, first, that the jdeas were Ijad, the 
 traverses being too large. JJiiirmn v. Wrfiirh^ 'A 
 Ex. S.-.y : fi D. ic L. 474 ; 18 L. J.. Ex. 221). 
 
 Mel<[, secondly, that the sti|»ulation that the 
 ship and freight should be free from average 
 under 3/. per cent, was not a proviso whicii 
 repiired to be p]eade<!, an<l that the second 
 breach was bad, as it (hd not distinctly aver thiit 
 the loss was nioie than 'M. per cent, on the value 
 of the ship. ///. 
 
 Held, thirdly, that the defendants wereeiditled 
 to judgment on the second breach, notwithstand- 
 ing the plea was bad. Ih. 
 
 Held, lastly, that the defendints were person- 
 ally lesponsilile, it Iteing averred that the funds 
 were surticient, and that it was not necessary to 
 allege notice to them of the loss. //;. 
 
 'lo a declaration on a valued time policy. 
 
 averring a total loss, the defendant pleaded only 
 a plea of fraudulent concealment : — Held, that a 
 total loss was not admitted ; for if that allega- 
 tion had Ijeen traversed the plaintiff might have 
 recovered as for a partial loss. Klnri v. Wullicr, 
 3 H. & C. 20y : 33 L. J., Ex. 32.5 ; il Jur. (N.S.) 
 43 : 13 W. R. 232— Ex. Ch. 
 
 To a declaration on a policy alleging that tlie 
 insurance was made by A., as agent for the plain- 
 tiff, and on his account, and for his use and 
 benefit, and that A. received the order for and 
 effected the insin-ance as such agent, the defen- 
 dant pleaded the policy was not made by A. as 
 agent for the plaintiff, or on his account, or for 
 his use an<l benefit, and that A. did not receive 
 the order for or effect the insurance as such 
 agent : — Held, bad. on special demurrer, as 
 amounting to non assumpsit. liednioudY. Sniifli, 
 7 Man. .t G. 457 ; 2 D. & L. 280 ; 8 Scott (x.K.) 
 25U ; 13 L. J., C. P. l.-)9 ; 8 Jur. 711. 
 
 'Die two companies, incorporated pursuant to 
 6 Geo. 1, c. 18, for the purpose of granting 
 marine insurances, are empowered b}' 11 Geo. 1, 
 c. 30, s. 43, in all actions of covenant, on any 
 policy of assurance under their common seal, to 
 pleacl generally that they have not broken the 
 covenants of the policy : — Held, that this right 
 of pleading was not taken away by 5 &, 6 Vict, 
 c. 97, s. 3. which repeals so much of any act, 
 commonly called public, local ami personal, or 
 of any act of a local or personal nature, whereby 
 a party is enabled to j)lead the general issue, and 
 give any special matter in evidence. C(/rr v. 
 Mtii/al J'J.rchanqc Asxii ra nrc ('(irj)orntion. 1 V>.k. S. 
 'dhis : 31 L. J., g. B. '.13 ; 8 Jur. (N.s.) 384 ; (J L. T. 
 105 ; 10 W. 11. 352. 
 
 In an action on a policy, with the common 
 memorandum, on a share in the Atlantic Tele- 
 graph Company, alleging a total loss of the cable 
 Vjy perils of tlie seas, the defendant pleaded that 
 the subject-matter of the insurance was not, nor 
 was any part thereof, during the continuance of 
 tlie risk covered by the policy, lost by the jjciils 
 insured against or any of them. Issue having 
 been joined on this plea, the plaintiff recovered 
 in respect of a small jiortion of the cable only, 
 the rest not having been lost by the perils insured 
 against, the damages on the portion recovered 
 exceedingly, per cent, on the value of thei«)licy : 
 — Held, that the plea might be taken distriliu- 
 tively, and that the verdict should accordingly 
 be entered for the defendant as to all the claim, 
 except so far as related to the loss of the portion 
 of the cable on which the plaintiff succeeded. 
 /'ritrmoH V. J/iirris, 2 B. & S. 814 ; 1» Jur. (N..S.) 
 173. 
 
 Replications.] — A declaration slated tliiil S., 
 before his bankruptcy, nia<ie a policy on tlu' ship 
 " Defiance," that the ship and goods sliould be 
 value<l at 2,50U/., and averred a loss and non- 
 l)ayment by the defendant of the sum insured. 
 I'lea, that the otlicial assignee of S. madeaiiotlier 
 policy ujioii the ship and goods, valued at 2,50(1/., 
 in case of loss on average, tlie ailjustnienl lo be 
 made irrespective of any other a.ssuraiiie. and 
 averring the identity of the ship, the inti rest, 
 the risk, the amount of the interest and loss and 
 that the insurers had paid the jilaintiffs, wliohad 
 accepted 2,500/., as the agreed imlemnity for the 
 loss, anrl which was a full inilciiinity. Replica- 
 tion, dc injuriil : — Held, that. the njplication was 
 bad, as the i)lea amounted to a discharge, and not 
 to an excuse. Jfort/tm v. Price. 4 Ex. G15 ; 11) 
 L. .).. Ex. 201.
 
 1331 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—XYI. Actio,, on Pol in/. 
 
 1332 
 
 2. KiuHTs OF Insurers. 
 
 Action by Assignee of Policy — Setoff by 
 Insurers of Claims against Assured.] — In an 
 
 iK'timi by the assium-e <if a policy of marine 
 insurance, the insui'ers are not entitled to set off 
 a (lel)t incurred with tlu'ni by the assure<l for 
 lireniiums on policies effected with them by the 
 assured after the date of the assignment ; for the 
 t'laim under a jiolicy for a loss is for unliquidated 
 ilauiages to which no set-off could be pleaded at 
 law under the statutes of set-off in an action 
 by the assured, nor in eijuity in a suit by the 
 assignee, and therefore the debt incurred by the 
 assured is not a "defence" open to the insurers 
 under 31 & 32 Vict. c. 86, s. 1, that statute 
 being intended merely to amend procedure and 
 not to alter the rights tif the parties to the 
 jxilicy ; nor is the debt incurred by the assured 
 the subject of "set-off" or "counter-claim" 
 within the meaning of the Rules of the Supreme 
 Court. 1876, Ord.^XIX. r. 3. Pcllag v. The 
 SVrj)tu/ie Murine IiisHraywc Co., 49 L. J., C. P. 
 1.^3 ; .5 C. P. D. 34 : 28 W. R. 40.") ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 21.5— C. A. 
 
 Cancellation of Policy.] — Two actions were 
 brought by the same plaintiff against an insurance 
 company upon two marine insurance policies. 
 After issue had been joined, an order was made 
 staying one action until the other had been tried, 
 on the terms of the defendants being bound 
 in both by the result of the one which should be 
 tried. But the j)laintift' was not to be bound. 
 The company, who resisted payment upon the 
 allegation that the policies had been obtained by 
 f laud, afterwards filed a bill in equity to restrain 
 the actions, and to have the policies delivered 
 up and cancelled. No injunction was moved for. 
 An order was made in the suit staying the 
 pioceedings until after the decision of the action. 
 Ultimately the action which was tried was 
 decided in favour of the company, on the ground 
 that the policy had been obtained by fraud. 
 The plaintiff at law then delivered up both 
 policies to the company. Upon the suit coming 
 on for hearing : — Held, that a decree must be 
 made for cancellation of both policies ; an<l that 
 the defendant must pay the costs of the suit. 
 London and Prorinr'ial Inmivance Co. v. Seijniour, 
 43 L. J.. Ch. 120 ; L. R. 17 Eq. 88 ; 2'J L. T. 
 041 ; 22 W. R. 2UI ; 2 Asp. M. C. 1(59. 
 
 After Payment of Valued Policy.] — Compen- 
 saticjn paid aliunde to the assured, in respect 
 of a loss not covered by a valued policy, cannot 
 be recovered by an underwriter who has paid as 
 for a total loss : since the loss insured against 
 is not diminished by the compensation, anil the 
 assured is not estopped from alleging that there 
 was an excess in value above the amount agreed 
 in the policy, liurnand v. liodocanachi, .51 
 L. .J.. Q. P,. .548 ; 7 App. Cas. 333 ; 47 L. T. 277 : 
 31 W. R. 65 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 576— H. L. (E.) 
 And see lilaanwiiot v. Ba Costa, 1 Eden, 130. 
 
 Insurer, after satisfaction, stands in place of 
 the assured as to the goods, salvage and restitu- 
 tion in piO))Ortion for what he paid. Itandal v. 
 Coclivan. 1 Ves. 98. 
 
 And sve XI. ABANDONMENT, supra, cols. 1294 
 seq., XV. Subrogation, supra, col. 1313. 
 
 Salvage.] — A ship being insured from London 
 to Carolina, was taken by a Spaniard, and retaken 
 by an English jjrivateer, who carried her into 
 
 Boston, where no person ajjpearing to give 
 securit}', she was condemned and sokl, and after 
 the recajjtors had their moiety, the residue 
 remained in the court of admiralty at Boston. 
 Defendant brought an action at law on the 
 policy and recovered ; and jilaintiff by his 
 injunction bill insisted that defendant ought to 
 have recovered no more than a moiety of the 
 loss. The court refused the injunction, for as 
 defendant had offered to relinquish the salvage, 
 he was entitled to recover the whole money 
 insured. By 13 Geo. 2, c. 4, s. 18, the lecapture 
 of a ship is the revestingof the owner's property, 
 so that it is doubtful whether the act can 
 operate, when insurances are made, interest or 
 no interest. Salvage must be deducted out of 
 the money recovered by the policy, if come to 
 the hands of the assuied. Pr'ingle v. Hartley., 
 3 Atk. 195. 
 
 Separate Policies on Ship and Freight — Pay- 
 ment for Total Loss on Ship— Right of Under- 
 writers on Ship to Damages recovered by Assured 
 for Unearned Freight.] — The defendants effected 
 a policy of insurance on their ship for l.OOOZ. 
 with the plaintiff's ; but insured the freight with 
 other underwriters. The ship, while proceeding 
 to her port of loading under a charterparty, was 
 run into and damaged by another ship. The 
 defendants abandoned her to the plaintiffs, who 
 settled with them as for a total loss. The defen- 
 dants afterwards recovered in the admiralty 
 division against the owner of the other ship, 
 damages in respect of the loss of the ship, and 
 also of the freight which had not been earned : 
 — Held, that the plaintiffs were not entitled to 
 recover the damages recovered in respect of the 
 loss of freight, such damages being in the nature 
 of salvage on freight ; for freight which has not 
 been earned is not an incident of the ownership 
 of the shifi, and does not therefore pass to the 
 underwriters, who have paid as for a total loss 
 on the ship. Sea I/isn ranee Co. v. Iladdcn or 
 Hodden, 53 L. J., Q. B. 252 ; 13 Q. B. D. 706 ; 
 50 L. T. 657 ; 32 W. R. 841 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 230— 
 
 C. A. 
 
 Underwriter after Payment under Policy en- 
 titled to Damages for Collision recovered by 
 Assured.] — A."s ship damaged B.'s. B., after he 
 had received a sum of money under a policy 
 which he had effected on his ship, brought an 
 action against A., and recovered damages for the 
 injury done to his ship : — Held, that the under- 
 writer was entitled to the amount recovered for 
 the sum paid on the policy. White v. Dohinson, 
 14 Sim. 273. 
 
 Ships of same Owner in Collision — Right of 
 Action in own Name.] — There is no independent 
 right in underwriters to maintain in their own 
 name, and without reference to the person 
 insured, an action for damage to the thing 
 insured. Sini-ion v. Thomson, 3 App. Cas. 279 ; 
 38 L. T. 1 : 3 Asp. M. C. 567. 
 
 Although the underwriters have paid for a 
 total loss, and are entitled to all the rights in 
 the injured ship which belong to its owner, yet 
 if that owner cannot assert a right for damages 
 against the wrongdoer, neither can the under- 
 writers. Ih. 
 
 Two ships, the property of tlie same owner, 
 colliiled ; the underwriters paid tlie insurance 
 effected on the lost ship, and then claimed to 
 rank pari passu with the owners of cargo
 
 1333 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—XYI. Action on PoUcij. 
 
 1334 
 
 tlestroyeil, in the distributiou of the fuud lodgetl 
 in court by the owner as {)ro})rietor of the ship 
 which did the damage : — Held, that the under- 
 writere had no such right under the circum- 
 stances of the case. Ih. 
 
 The underwriters' right must be asserted in 
 the name of the person insured, but if he is the 
 [lerson who has caused the damage, the right 
 cannot be maintained against himself — Per Lord 
 Cairns. Ih. 
 
 The underwriters of the lost ship have no right 
 of action against the owner of the ship that did 
 the mischief, as he himself had no such right, 
 inasmuch as. being the owner of both vessels, 
 any right of action he had must be a right of 
 action against himself, which is an absurdity, 
 and a thing unknown t(j the law — Per Lord 
 Penzance. lb. 
 
 Damages.] — Underwriters have been held to 
 be entitled to the damages recovered from a col- 
 liding vessel in case of a valued policy, though 
 the amount insured is less than the actual value 
 of the vessel insured. Xorth of Eiujlund Iron 
 Stciiiiiiihij) Imuruiicp Co. v. Armsfroiiii. 'i'd L. J., 
 Q. B. 81 ; L. Pt. o Q. B. 81 : 21 L. t! 822 ; 18 
 W. K. .520. 
 
 Interest Vesting in.] — In all cases of insurance 
 \\\)<)\\ a sliip, in which the subject is not totally 
 annihilated, the assured claiming for a total loss, 
 must give up to the underwriters all the remains 
 of the {irojierty recovered, together with all the 
 benefit or advantage incident to it ; or rather 
 such property vests in the underwriters. Stewart 
 V. Greenock Marine Insurance Co., 2 H. L. Cas. 
 l.VJ ; 1 Maci. H. L. :582. 
 
 Defence of Suit in Admiralty.] — Insurers 
 admitted tti defend a suit in admiralty, in default 
 of appearance by the master or owners. The 
 HeijuKi del Mnre. Br. iV Lush. 81"). 
 
 Policy set aside for Fraud — First Under- 
 writer signing as Decoy Duck.] — Where the i 
 first undcjrw Titer signs the pulicy as a decoy! 
 duck, under an agreement between himself ami j 
 the a.s.sured that he shall not Vjc called upon to 
 jiay in case of loss, the policy will be set aside 
 for frautl. W'ilnon v. Ducket, S Burr. IHtil. 
 
 Action by Underwriters to restrain Holders 
 from Proceeding on Policy.] — ^If a policy is 
 h;ibk' til be cniiipictiiy avoided, as on tlie ground 
 of fraud or misrepix-sentation, a coint of equity 
 lias jurisdiction to direct its delivery up and 
 cancoUaf ion, but it has no jurisdiction to direct 
 the cancellation of a policy to any claim on 
 wliich tliei'c is a good legal defence, or to declare 
 that there is no liability upon it. if there is 
 flangcr of tlie evidence for the defence being 
 Inst, tlie remefly is, not an action for cancelliitioii. 
 but an action to perpetuate testimony. Jirooh'i nif 
 v. MiiiuIkIuii. ".7 I.. .1.. eh. ItlUl ; 8.S Cli. D. OHti'; 
 58 L. T. H.-.2 : :{t; W. It. tWH ; G Asp. M. C. 2'Jfi. 
 
 Contribution between Insurers — Wharfingers' 
 and Merchants' Policies. ^ See .Xnrlli lliiti.'di 
 II ml .Mrrrinil lie / iixii rn iirr Co. v. Loinloii. J/iirr- 
 jioot mill (rlolir I ii.sii riuice Co., \i\ L. .1., Ch. 't'M ; 
 .-. Ch. 1). .".C.'.i : :it; L. T. 02'.)— ('. A. 
 
 Assignment of Right of Action — Use of Name 
 — Subrogation. j — A [.iiyment lionestly made by 
 insurers in satisfaction of a claim by tlie insuied 
 under a policy grained by the insuiers is such a 
 settlement of a claim made umler the policy as 
 
 entitles the insurers to the remedies available to 
 the insured. And when the insured have given 
 a formal assignment of all their rights and 
 causes of action in respect of the property 
 insured, with the stipulation that the assign- 
 ment shall not authorise the use of the name of 
 the insured, such an assignment is a legal chose 
 in action under the Queensland Judicature Act 
 (40 Vict. c. 8(5), which follows the English 
 .Judicature Act, 1873, s. 2.5, sub-s. 6. A'///// v. 
 Victoria Insvriince Co., 65 L. .1., P. C. 88 ; 
 [1896] A. C. 250 ; 74 L. T. 206 ; 44 W. H. 592— 
 P. C. 
 
 The respondents paid a claim in respect of a 
 loss occasioned by the negligence of the govern- 
 ment, represented by the api)ellant. The insured 
 assigned to them, on receiving the amount of 
 the claim, an assignment of all rights of action 
 against the government, subject to the stipula- 
 tion that the assignment should not authorise 
 the use of the insured's name in legal pro- 
 ceedings : — Held, that there had been a valid 
 assignment of a legal chose in action, and that 
 it was not comjietent for the appellant to plead 
 that the loss was not within the risks covered 
 by the policy. lb. 
 
 8. Bankruptcy. 
 
 Proof of debts arising upon insurance of ships 
 must be against the separate, not joint estate. 
 Anrierstcin, Ex parte. 1 Bro. C. C. 899. S. P., 
 Lc!; Ex parte, 1 Bro. C. C. 400. 
 
 Upon separate commission of bankruptcy the 
 benefit of an insurance effected by bankrupt on 
 his own account on joint property is not liable 
 to joint creditors. Browne, Ex parte, 6 ^'es. 
 186. 
 
 Upon a separate commission of bankruptcy, 
 the benefit of an insurance efi'ected by the bank- 
 rupt upon his own account on a ship of which he 
 was joint owner is not liable to the joint credi- 
 tors. Purr 11, Ex parte, 5 Ves. 575. 
 
 4. IKTEUEST llECOVEKABLE. 
 
 Before 8 &; 4 Will. 4, c. 42. s. 29, an under- 
 writer on a policy was not liable to pay interest 
 on the amount of his subscription, although he 
 had no colourable ground for lefusing to pay the 
 loss, unless a distinct demand of the monej' had 
 Vjeen made at an earlier period for that purpose. 
 liain v. Ca.v', M. & M. 262 ; 8 Car. & P. 496. 
 S. P., Kinijxton v. Mcintosh, I Cami). 518. 
 
 5. ClIANIKllV .IritlSDIC'TION. 
 
 Action on Policy — Jurisdiction in Chancery — 
 
 Demurrer.^ — To a \)\\\ lirouglii t<> recover a sum 
 due upon a policy of insurance the dei'endant.s 
 demurred, because the plaintiifs remedy was at 
 law. Demurrer allowe<l. De (ih ct off y. London 
 AxKin'iiiicc Co.. 4 Bro. P. C. 486. 
 
 Chancery Jurisdiction.] — A bill was filed by 
 the underwriter of a policy of insurance on a 
 ship, to have the policy delivered up, on the 
 ground of deviation and unseaworthiness, butonly 
 deviation being proved, tiie bill was dismissed. 
 Thornton v. hiii'jltl, 16 J^ini. 509 ; 18 Jur. 180. 
 
 In Case of Fraud.] — See Wilnon v. liuchety 
 ante, col. 18;{8.
 
 1835 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— XVII. Brokers and Agents. 1336 
 
 (•). Eaely Actions on I'olicies. 
 Early Actions on Policies of Assurance.] — 
 Li(xfi-r V. CoirrU. 2 Kcb. -VM). (,'onim v. 
 I\iii/u: 2 Keb. 722. 
 
 Mayor's Court of Bristol— Custom— Trial by 
 Tales Jury.] — Action on policy in mayor's court 
 <>i Hiistol. There being a deticieucy of jurymen, 
 i\. tales was awarded and verdict for the plaintiff : 
 — Held, ill error, that the custom alleged as to 
 trial bv tales was not good. J'tnil v. Knight. 2 
 Keb. 222. 
 
 Court of Policies of Assurance.] — Prohibition 
 refused where the defendant hada[ipeared in the 
 court of policies of assurance. Oijlcs v. JI/ii\s/iiil!, 
 Style, 418. 
 
 Kule nisi for i)rohibition to court of assurances. 
 Delhijc V. Pnmdfout, 1 Show. 89(i. 
 
 Plea of actioii brought for same cause in the 
 court of assurances : — Held, no bar to an action 
 at common law. Ccnne v. Moy. 2 Sid. 121. 
 
 XVII. INSURANCE BROKERS AND 
 AGENTS. 
 
 1. Bctainrr (uitl Eiiiploijiiicnt. VA'A't. 
 
 2. JJutij and Litihilifi/, VS'M). 
 8. Autlioritii til Piiij end Ih-ceirc Lo)<se.x, 1340. 
 
 4. !<et-0,tf\ 1342. 
 
 5. Liahility for Policy JToncys, 1344. 
 <3. Re nninc ration, 1344. 
 7. Lien, 1346. 
 
 1. Retainer and Employment. 
 
 Joint and Several.] — Where a power of attor- 
 ney, signed by the defendant, was given to fifteen 
 persons by name, " jointly or separately, to sign 
 and underwrite all such policies of assurance as 
 they or any of them should jointly or separately 
 think proper" : — Held, that this was to be con- 
 strued as a joint and several authority ; and that 
 the ijlaintiff might maintain an action on a policy 
 underwritten by four of the persons therein 
 named. GvtJiric v. Armstrong, 1 D. & R. 248 ; 
 5 13. .t Al.l. <;28. 
 
 Delegation.] — Semble, that under a power of 
 attorney by A. to B. " to underwrite any policy 
 of insurance not exceeding 100/., and to subscribe 
 to the same his (A.'s) name, and to settle and 
 adjust losses," although B. cannot delegate his 
 wliole authority to another, yet, having signed a 
 slip for the policy, the signature of his clerk for 
 him, and in his absence, to a policy made in pur- 
 sance thereof, is a good execution of the power, 
 that being only a ministerial act, which he might 
 authorise another to do for him, but he must 
 himself execute the power in all matters in which 
 his judgment and (liscretion are requisite. In 
 the present case, the ])olicy, after it was so exe- 
 cuted by the clerk of B., having been shown to 
 A., who then offered terms of settlement : — Held, 
 that A. had adopted the act of B. Mason v. 
 Joseph, 1 Smith, 406. 
 
 Where a party gave an order to a -firm, consist- 
 ing of several persons, to effect an insurance : — 
 Held, that he was bound by an insurance effected 
 by another firm, where both firms had several 
 partners in common. Dichson v. Lodge, 1 Stark. 
 226 ; 18 R. R. 764. 
 
 Nature of Authority.] — A person, who has 
 several times allowed an agent to subscribe poli- 
 
 cies in his name, is bound by such signature; ; 
 and evidence of his so liaving allowed it to be 
 done, is suflflcient without producing a power of 
 attorney. Seal v. Erring. 1 Esp. 61 ; .5 R. R. 720. 
 
 The authority of a broker employed to effect a 
 policy may be revoked after the imderwriters 
 have'signed the slip, till such time as they have 
 actually subscribed the policy ; and if the broker, 
 having' procured a slip to be written, on terms 
 within the scojie of his original authority receives 
 an intimation from his principals, that they will 
 not submit to these terms, and afterwards effects 
 the policy, and pays the premiums to the under- 
 writers, he can maintain no action against his 
 principals for commission or for mone}'- jiaiil. 
 Waricicli V. Slade, 3 Camp. 127 ; 13 R. R. 772. 
 
 A broker at Liverpool was authorised by his 
 principal in London to underwrite in the name 
 of the latter policies of marine insurance not 
 exceeding lOOZ. on any one vessel. The broker 
 underwrote a policy for ITM. It is well known 
 in Liverpool that the amount for which a broker 
 can underwrite the name of his principal is 
 limited, but the limit is not disclosed. In an 
 action on the policy : — Held, that the broker 
 having exceeded his authority, and the contract 
 being indivisible, the policy was voi<l. Baines v. 
 Eiring, 4 H. & C. .511 ; 35 L. J., Ex. 194 ; L. R. 
 1 Ex. 320 ; 14 L. T. 733 ; 14 W. R. 732. 
 
 To Cancel.] — The authority given to a 
 
 broker, when he is to effect a policy, does not 
 extend to warrant him in cancelling it. Xenos 
 V. Wicliham, 36 L. J., C. P. 313 ; L. R. 2 H. L. 
 296 : 16 L. T. 800 ; 16 W. R. 38. 
 
 After the broker had prepared a slip, and the 
 proi)Osed insurer had acceijted it, and had pre- 
 pared a policy in accordance with it, a desire was 
 expressed by him and assented to by the under- 
 writer, that' the policy should be cancelled, on 
 which a cancellation was in form effected : — 
 Held, that this was not effectual as to the 
 assured, who had not, in fact, given the broker 
 any authority to cancel the policy. Ih. 
 
 Usage as to Cancelling — Written Contract 
 excludes.] — The usage of insuiaiice brokers at 
 Liverpool is that if, on the occasion of a policy 
 for time being cancelled before the expiration of 
 the time, the premium, or a part of it, is 
 to be returned ; the return made only in 
 respect of unbroken months ; but a contract 
 made by a proposal in these terms : " We will 
 thank you to render us a credit note for unex- 
 pired term, say from the 12th instant to the 
 date of the expiration of the policy," and an 
 acceptance in these : " Please to hand bearer 
 stamped policies, &c., to put forward terms for 
 cancelling," must be construed as having been 
 made irrespective of and excluding the usage. 
 Baines v. Wood fall, 6 C. B. (N.S.) 657 ; 28 L. J., 
 C. P. 338 ; 6 .lur. (N.S.) 19. 
 
 2. Duty and Liability'. 
 
 Negligence in Effecting.] — A broker who has 
 neglected to insure the premium according to 
 the directions of his principal, cannot set up as 
 a defence, that he was directed also to insure 
 against British capture ; for that is not a crime 
 so as to render the whole insurance illegal, 
 though it would be void pro tanto. (ilaser v. 
 Coivie, 1 M. & S. 52. 
 
 An agent who acts bona fide in effecting an 
 insurance for his principal is not liable to be
 
 1337 SHIPPING— IN SUE A^X'E— XVII. Brokers and Agents. 
 
 1338 
 
 called upon by him because the insurance might 
 possibly hive been effected on better terms. 
 J/norr V. Jlourf/ue. Cowp. 471). 
 
 It is gross negligence in an insurance broker 
 employed to insure goods from a certain point in 
 their voyage home, to effect a policy "at and 
 from" that point, "beginning the adventm-e 
 fnim the loading thereof on board." PurJi v. 
 Ifiimmond. 6 Taunt. 49.") : 2 Marsh. 189 ; 4 Camp. 
 844 ; Holt! SU : 16 R. K. fi.58. 
 
 Insurance brokers were ordered to effect a 
 ]iolicy "at and from Teneriffe to London": — 
 Held, that they were liable for not inserting in 
 it a liberty " tn touch and stay at all or any of 
 the Canary Islands." that being usually inserted 
 in policies from Teneriffe. Mulloiujh \. liarher. 
 4 Camp. l.")(>. 
 
 It is the duty of a broker, vuider an under- 
 taking to effect a particular insurance, to give 
 notice to his principal of his inability to effect 
 it. Culhindcr v. Oclricltx, (> Scott, 7(11 ; "> Bing. 
 (X.C.) .58 : .s L. J., C. V. 25. 
 
 A broker, in pursuance of instructions pre- 
 viously received fiom Sunderland, effected a 
 jiolicyat Lloyd's at a time when a letter lay on his 
 table at the coal exchange unopened, announcing 
 the ship's loss : — Ilelil, that the jury was war- 
 rantetl in finding that this was no such want of 
 diliirence as avoided the policy. Wahe v. Atfij, 
 4 Taunt. 493 ; 13 K. K. (itiU. 
 
 A broker effecting an insurance, omitted to 
 conmiunicate a material letter, bj- reason whereof 
 the assured failed in actions against some under- 
 writers, and offered the broker the defence of 
 others : and on his refusal, without further 
 consulting him. made I'estitution to oiheis who 
 had jjaid the losses without suit : — Held, that 
 tlie assured might recover against the broker as 
 well the amount of these losses so unpaid, as 
 of the otliers. Minjde.w v. ForiTxter, 5 Taunt. 
 (;i.-> ; 15 K. R. r>97. 
 
 If a merchant ordei-s an insurance broker to 
 effect a poli(-y for time, on a cargo of corn, with- 
 out giving any direction as to tliose with wlioni 
 tiie policy is to be effected, and the insurance 
 broker effects the jiolicy with one of the char- 
 tered companies, by whose policies corn is war- 
 ranted against partial losses, although the ship 
 is stranded : ui)on a large ])aitial loss hapjjcning 
 upon tills cargo after a stranding of the slii|), the 
 merchant cannot maintain an action against the 
 insurance broker for not effecting tlie policy 
 with private underwi-iters, who, by tlie common 
 form of a policy, would have been liable for 
 this partial loss. Comher v. Anderson, 1 Camp. 
 .-)2:{. 
 
 Merchants in London receive from a stranger 
 living abroad a bill of lading aiul letter request- 
 ing them to insure the goo<ls. They decline to 
 receive the goods or to do business for the con- 
 sig^nor, but acting l)oni\ fide with a view to liis 
 interest indorse the bill If) a frien<l of his, who 
 afterwards fails with the )irf)ce('ds in his hands: 
 — Held, that the nierchaiits were liable to the 
 consignor for the .-imount. Curlctt v. Gordon, 
 3 Camp. 472 ; If K. K. si:{. 
 
 Indorsing Memoranda — Alteration of Voyage.] 
 
 — \\\ ilisuranri' hrnkcr li:ic| ln'fii i-iii|iloyi'i| Ijy u 
 merchant to procuic policies lo be uiiderwiil ten 
 upon a shij) and cargo from L. to St. T., with 
 leave to call at M. and T. On the arrival of 
 the ship at M., the supercargo advised the mer- 
 chant of an alteration in the course of the 
 voyage. The merchant put the lettercontaining 
 
 the information into the hands of the broker, 
 with instructions to do the needful with it. The 
 broker accordingly procured memorandums to 
 be indorsed on the policies, containing permis- 
 sion to call at certain places not mentioned in 
 the policies. The vessel was lost at a place not 
 covered by the memorandums. In an action 
 against the broker for negligence in not having 
 procured alterations conformable with the 
 instructions containeil in the letter : — Held, that 
 the evidence of insurance brokers and under- 
 writers as to what alterations of tlie policies a 
 skilful insurance broker ought, in their judg- 
 ment, to have procured, having in his possession 
 the policies, the invoices of the goods, and the 
 bills of lading, and also the letter of the su])er- 
 cargo. and being instructed to do the neeilful, 
 was admissible. Cliapnian v. Wnlton. 3 M. & 
 Scott, 389 ; 10 Bing. hi : 2 L. .J.. P. C. 210. 
 
 Negligence in not Eff'ecting — Measure of 
 Damages.] — A., a merchant at Seville, wrote to 
 U., Ills agent at Liverpool, desiring liim to insure 
 a cargo of fruit to that place. B., acting bona 
 fide, instructed one C, a person who had occa- 
 sionally acted as A.'s agent in London, to get a 
 policy effected there. C. for that purpose 
 employed one D.. an insurance Ijroker, who 
 effected the insurance in his own name, and 
 afterwards received the amount of a loss from 
 the underwiiters, but retained it, claiming a lien 
 for a debt due to him from C. in respect of 
 luemiums and commission on former transac- 
 tions. In an action by A. against B. for 
 negligently omitting to effect a good and avail- 
 able insurance upon the cargo, and neglecting to 
 take steps to get the money, the judge, treating- 
 it as immaterial whether the letter of instruc- 
 tions from B. to C. had been shown to D. or not, 
 ruled that B. hail violated his dut_y as agent, by 
 employing another agent in liOiidon instead of 
 effecting the jiolicy himself, and that he was- 
 responsible for the whole amount I'eceived from 
 the underwriters by D. : — Held, that this was. 
 not the true measure of damages ; for that if 
 B.'s letter of instructions had been shown to U. 
 at the time he was emjiloyed to effect the policy, 
 he could acfpiire no lien upon the proceeds for 
 the debt due to him from C., and his unlawful 
 detention of the money could not give A. a right 
 of action against B. for the whole amoiuit so 
 received by D., though B. might be liable for 
 some nominal damages in respect of the bi'cach 
 of his duty as agent, and therefore that fact 
 ought to have been ascertained. Cahill v. Dnie- 
 son, 3 C. B.Cn.S.) lUtJ ; 2i; L. J., C. 1'. 253 ; 3.1ur. 
 (N.S.) 1128. 
 
 Question for Jury — Time for Effecting.] — In 
 an action against an insurance liiokcr lor not 
 effecting an insurance pursuant to his retainer, 
 the declaration, after stating his emiiloyment to 
 cause an insurance to be made on the plaintiff's 
 ship tackle, in:., and his acceptance of such 
 employment, alleged, by way of breach, that, 
 although a reasonable time had elapsed, atid 
 Ijcfore the loss of the slii[), yet he did not nor 
 would within such time cause to be made, 
 according to the custom of merchants, insurance 
 u|ion the shijt, tackle, &c. ; nor cause tlic same 
 to be insured ; noi' a policy of insurance to be 
 made, subscribed, aiul underwritten thereon from 
 and against the perils of the sea and otiicr risks 
 usually borne by underwriters : nor did nor would 
 cau>e I lie jilaintiff to be insured in rcsiiect of the
 
 1339 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—XVII. Brokers and Agents. 1340 
 
 shij), tackle, kc, from and against such perils ; 
 nor (lid nor would cause to be made thereon any 
 insurance or jiolicies of insurance subscribed or 
 underwritten ; but he so to do, wrongfully and 
 in breach of his duty and retainer, wholly 
 neglected and refused. It appeared that the 
 broker had, shortly after he had been so 
 cMuployed. contracted with the Newcastle Com- 
 mercial Insurance Company for an insurance on 
 the jilaintifE's ship, kc, and shortly afterwards 
 obtained froui the secretary of the company 
 wliat purported to be copies of the policies. 
 Stamped policies were afterwards subscribed, 
 but not given out, it being the practice of the 
 ■comiiany to retain them in their possession until 
 wanted in consequence of a loss. There was no 
 precise evidence as to the time when the stamped 
 policies were actually executed ; the evidence 
 being, that it was usual to execute them very 
 shortly after the order. To a demand for the 
 policies on the part of the plaintiff after the loss 
 ■of the vessel, the broker sent an evasive reply. 
 It was left to the jury to say, whether or not the 
 broker had procured the jiolicies to be executed 
 within a reasonable time. The jury having found 
 for the plaintiff, and the judge being satisfied 
 with the verdict, the court lefused to grant a 
 new trial. Turpi n v. Bilton, 6 Scott (n.r.) 447 ; 
 5 Man. i: G. 4r).5 ; 12 L. J., C. P. 167 ; 7 Jur. 9.50. 
 
 Agents,] — An agent emjiloyed to ship and 
 insure goods having wilfully omitted to insure 
 them is liable to the same extent as an under- 
 writer would have been had he insured. Smith 
 Y. Prlre. 2 F. & F. 748. 
 
 The owners of the goods having, after a partial 
 loss, agreed with the agent to sell to him the 
 goods at a price less than the invoice price, 
 asserting that they were worth the invoice price, 
 and also that the loss was total : — Held, that as 
 these were matters rather of opinion than of 
 fact, the statements would not, even if untrue, 
 amount to fraud, which would avoid the agree- 
 ment. Ih. 
 
 Nature of Authority.] — On the employ- 
 ment of any mercantile or commercial agent, it 
 is for the jury, in the absence of any express 
 evidence of the nature of his duties on such 
 ■employment, to judge, from their own knowledge, 
 what those duties are ; and thus, on the employ- 
 ment of an insurance agent to effect an insurance, 
 or get it effected, it is for the jixry, in the absence 
 ■of any exjtress evidence, to judge whether he was 
 employed to get the insurance effected, or only to 
 place the business in the hands of brokers to 
 ■effect it ; and whether he is responsible for their 
 neglect or default, especially in not getting it 
 effected with responsible insurers, and in not 
 informing his employer, the insured, who they 
 iire. in order to enable him to sue them. Ilurrell 
 V. Bullard, 3 F. &; F. 44.5. 
 
 Correspondents.] — A merchant abroad, having 
 ■effects in the hands of his correspondent here, 
 may compel him to procure an insurance for him. 
 Smith V. LanceUcs, 2 Term Hep. 187 ; 1 il. K. 
 4.57. And see Wallace v. Tullfalr, 2 Term Rep. 
 188, n. ; and Smith v. Cullogan, 2 Term Rep. 
 28.S, n. 
 
 If a merchant here has been accustomed to 
 procure insurances for his correspondent abroad 
 in the usual course of trade, the latter has a 
 right to expect an insurance at the hands of the 
 former, unless some i)revious notice is given to 
 the contrary. Ih. 
 
 If a merchant abroad sends bills of lading to 
 his correspondent here, and at the same tiuie 
 gives directions to procure an insurance, the 
 latter cannot accept the bills of lading without 
 obeying the orders to insure. Ih. 
 
 If a merchant abroad, interested in goods and 
 the freight of a cargo, mortgages them to his 
 creditor here, for payment of money at a certain 
 day, and by letter, inclosing the bills of lading, 
 directs him to insure : the latter will be liable to 
 an action for not insuring, notwithstanding the 
 mortgage has become absolute before the letter 
 is received. Ih. See also as to neglect in rein- 
 suring. Great Weiftern Insurance Co. of Keni 
 York V. Cintliffc, post, col. 184.5. 
 
 Liability of Broker for Premiums — Promise by 
 Assured to Pay]. — See Unicersc Insurance Co. of 
 Ml III// v. Merchants Marine Imurance Co., ante, 
 coL 1311. 
 
 3. Authority to Pay and Receive Losses. 
 
 To Pay — Not Implied.] — An insurance broker 
 has no implied autliority to pay the assured 
 losses, either total or partial, for the underwriter 
 who employs him. Bell v. Auldjo, 4 Dougl. 48. 
 
 If an insurance broker, when a loss happens 
 upon a policy which he has effected, pays the 
 assured the full amount of the money subscribed, 
 he cannot recover back any part of it, upon the 
 ground that, before the loss happened, one of 
 the underwriters upon the policy had become 
 insolvent, and that he was not aware of the fact 
 when he paid the monev. Edqar v. Bumstead, 
 
 I Camp. 411 ; 10 R. R. 713. 
 
 If an insurance broker, living at a distance 
 from his principal, upon a loss happening, gives 
 him credit in account for the money due from 
 the underwriters, he cannot a considerable time 
 after make a demand upon him for the amount 
 of the sums subscribed by several of the under- 
 writers who have become insolvent without 
 jjaying. Jameson, v. Sivaiitstone, 2 Camp. 546, n. ; 
 
 II R. R. 794, n. 
 
 The plaintiff instructed a broker to insure his 
 ship ; the broker signed a policy on behalf of the 
 defendant, an underwriter. The ship was lost, 
 and the plaintiff" received from the defendant a 
 credit note for payment in respect of the loss. 
 Credit notes are usually paid within a month 
 from their date. At the time of signing the 
 policy, and also of the adjustment, the broker 
 had money of the defendant sutlicient to pay the 
 loss. Nearly three months after the credit note 
 was given tlie broker stojiped payment. The 
 l)laintiff then applied to the defendant for the 
 amount of the loss : — Held, that the plaintiff 
 had not induced the defendant to believe that 
 he looked to the broker for payment, and that 
 the defendant was liable. Macfarlaiie v. Giiin- 
 nacvjjolo, 8 H. & N. SCO ; and see X. LOSSES, ante, 
 cols. 1266 secj. 
 
 ■ Notice on whose behalf Policy Effected — 
 
 Overplus.] — Insurance brokers wlui have effected 
 a policy, witlmut notice that it is not on account 
 of the person from whom they receive the or<ler. 
 have no right to pay the overplus of the policy 
 moneys remaining after deduction of their balance 
 to the agent, and if they tlo so the amount may 
 still be recovered by the princii)al. Mann v. 
 Forrester, 4 Camp. 60 ; 15 R. R. 724. 
 
 Policy Money paid by Mistake — Recovery 
 
 from Agent of Assured.] — Action by underwriter
 
 1341 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— XYII. Brokers and Agents. 1342 
 
 against apent of insured for money had and 
 received, being money paid to the agent by under- 
 Avritei's for a loss, which afterwards was ascer- 
 tained to be a foul loss. The money had been 
 passed in account to the principal, but no bills 
 accepted or new cretlit jrivcn in respect of it : — 
 Held, that the plaintiff could recover. BuUer 
 V. Ilarrigun. 2 Cowp. 56."). 
 
 To Keceive.] — An action is maintainable by 
 an assuretl part owner of a vessel, against an 
 insurance broker, who has received from the 
 underwriters the full amount of the sums sub- 
 scribed on a total loss, although there are several 
 othei- persons interested as part owners, and who 
 had given the broker notice of their interest, 
 where the plaintiff insured on the whole ship 
 generally, by means of his captain, who gave 
 the order for effectinsr the insurance. Huberts v. 
 Of/i/hi/. 9 Price, 269 r23 R. R. 761. 
 
 ^^'here a person employed by shipowners, as 
 their agent, effected a policy, and rei>resented 
 himself as the principal to the brokers, who 
 cause such insurance to be effected : — Held, that 
 where the brokers received the amount of the 
 loss from the underwriters, and paid it over to 
 the agent, thej- were not liable to the owners 
 for money had and received, although part of the 
 money was paid to the agent after they were 
 informed of his having acted in that capacitv. 
 Jirl/ V. Jiitthui. 1 Moore, C. P. 1.55 ; 19 R. R. 533. 
 
 Where a broker in whose name a policy under 
 seal was effected, brought an action thereon, and 
 the defendants pleaded jiayment to the plaintiff, 
 according to the tenfir and effect of the policy, 
 and the proof was, that, after the loss happened, 
 the assurers paid the amount to the broker by 
 allowing him credit for jjremiums due from him 
 to them : — Held, that, although that was no 
 payment as between the assured and assurers, it 
 was a good payment as between the plaintiff on 
 the record and the defendants ; and, therefore, 
 an answer to the action. Gibrnm v. ^'iiiter, 5 
 B. i<c Ad. 96 ; 2 X. i: M. 787. 
 
 Authority to take Payment by Bill.] — 
 
 An insurance brokci', who is aiUhoi'ised to receive 
 payments from underwriters on behalf of his 
 principal, has no authority to receive a three 
 months' bill in payment of a loss. A bill given 
 under such circumstances then and forthwith 
 <liscountcd by the agents and honoured at 
 maturit}', is not good payment to the |)rincii)al. 
 The ycthcr Ilolnir, ll'inc y. Stranixhip Inxurance. 
 Siindirate, 11 K. 777 ; 72 L. T. 79 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 ;,r,H—V. A. 
 
 Castom. — 'I'he plaintiff, a shiptmildcr, in 
 
 London, employed W., an insurance broker, to 
 effect a |)f)licy upon a ship at Lloyd's, and aftei- 
 the haf)pening of a loss, gave W. the shifi's 
 jiajiers. for the pur]ioseof eiuibling him to adjust 
 the loss witli tlie underwiiteiJi. 'J'lie jioiicy was 
 effected in W.'s name and he retained possession 
 of it. An adjustment having taken place, the 
 loss was settled, in accf)rdance with a usage 
 prevailing at Lloyd's, which was found to be 
 generally known to merchants and shijiowners, 
 but which the jury found was not known to the 
 plaintiff, who had merely left the policy in W.'s 
 hands for safe custody, by the uiulcrwriter setting 
 off the amount pay;ible by him upon the policy 
 against the balance due to him from the brf)kcr, 
 for premiums on other jiolicics effected by hini : 
 — Held, that although the plaintiff was cstojipeil 
 
 from denying that the broker had authority to 
 receive the amount due from the underwriter on 
 the policy in money, he was not bound by the 
 usage, and conse juently that he was entitled to 
 recover the amount of the policy against the 
 underwriter, notwithstanding such settlement. 
 Sicertlnq v. Pran-i\ 9 ('. B. (N'.s.) 534 : 30 L. J., 
 C. P. 109 : 7 Jur. (N.s.) «06 : 5 L. T. 79 : 9 \V. R. 
 343— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Collecting Policy Moneys.]— If a broker keejis 
 the policy in his possession he is presumed to 
 have promised to collect, and he is bound to use 
 diligence in collecting the policy moneys upon 
 the happening of a loss. Bousjield v. CresKwdl, 
 2 Camp. 545 \U R. R. 794. 
 
 4. Set-Off. 
 
 Bankruptcy.] — Where defendants, insurance 
 brokers, effected policies, some in the name and on 
 account of their own firm, others in the name of 
 their own firm but on account of principals, and 
 others in the name and on account of principals, 
 for whom they acted under a del credere commis- 
 sion without the knowledge of the underwriters : 
 — Held, in an action brought against them for 
 premiums by assignees of one of the underwriters 
 who had become bankrupt, that the defendants 
 might set off losses and returns upon all such of 
 the policies as were effected in the name of their 
 own firm, but not upon the others ; such losses 
 and returns having become due before the bank- 
 rupt stopped payment, though thej' had never 
 been adjusted by the bankrupt, but only by the 
 other underwriters between the time of his stop- 
 ping payment and committing the act of bank- 
 ruptcy, on which adjustment the defendants had 
 given their principals cretlit for the amount. 
 Koxter V. Eai^on. 2 Al. & S. 117 ; 14 R. R. 603. 
 
 Where brokers effected in their own names 
 policies on goods on account of principals, and 
 acce[)ted bills drawn on them on account of the 
 goods which were consigned to them and lost 
 before arrival : — Hekl, that they might set off 
 such losses in an action brought by the assignees 
 of the underwriter, since a bankrupt, for premiums, 
 although they lia<l no del credere connuisiiun. and 
 the Itjsses were not adjusted. Parhcv v. Jifd-ilci/, 
 2 M. cS: S. 423 ; 15 R. R. 299. 
 
 Where a broker, indebted for premiums on 
 policies subscribed by an underwriter, since bank- 
 rupt, hail a del credere connnission on one of the 
 policies effecte<l in the name of the assured, and 
 expressed in the liody tiiercof, whereon a loss 
 happened before the bankruptcy, the broker being 
 entiusted with the policy, though the broker paid 
 the loss to the assured before the commission : — 
 Held, that he couhl not set off that loss against 
 premiums due to the assignees of the baidcrupt. 
 I'ecle V. Xort/inift; 7 Taunt. 478 : 16 R. R. f;55. 
 
 A commission del creilere is an absolute engage- 
 ment to the priiuupal from the broker, and makes 
 him liable in the first instance. A bi-oker with 
 such a commission may, under the general issue, 
 set off a loss upon a policy hapitcning before a 
 bankruptcy, to an action by the assignees of the 
 bankrupt for premiunis upon various jxtlicies 
 uiKJi'rwritten by him, and for which he ha<l 
 debited the broker : but such a loss cannot be 
 proved under a notice of set-off. Cirurr v. Dubois, 
 1 Term Rep. 112 ; 16 R. R. 664. n. 
 
 A broker who is indebted to the assignees of a 
 ))nnkru]it f(ir premiums iluetothem upon policies 
 subscribed by the bankrupt before his bankruptcy
 
 1343 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— XVII. Fyrokers and Aficnts. 1344 
 
 is not entitled to set off returns of pvemiuui due 
 upon the arrival of ships whicli have arrived since 
 the bankrujitev. (lohhrhmidt v. J^ijoii, 4 Taunt. 
 niU ; i:^H. R."()7(). 
 
 Where a bankrupt lias underwritten a policy 
 to a broker aetini^underadel credere commission, 
 and a loss ujion the policy happens before, but is 
 not adjusted until after the bankruptcy, the 
 broker may deduct the amount of the loss from 
 his debt to the bankrupt's estate. Jilze v. Dichcn- 
 xun, 1 Term Kep. 285. 
 
 Return of Premium.] — An insurance 
 
 broker who is indebted to theassigneesof a bank- 
 rupt cannot, without special authority, set off 
 atrainst that debt sums due from the underwriter 
 for returns of pi'emium, whether due before or 
 after the bankruptcy. Minctt v. Forrester, 4 
 Taunt. 041, n. ; IH K K. 670. 
 
 A., as agent for various persons, not under a 
 del credere commission, effected policies with B. 
 for his principals, upon which various losses and 
 returns of premium were due. B. having become 
 bankrupt : — Held, that m an action by his 
 assignees against A. for the amount of the 
 premiums, A. could set off the amounts of losses, 
 or the returns of premium. Wilxon v. Creif/htiui, 
 3 Dougl. 132 ; cited, 1 Term Rep. 113. 
 
 Salvage Received— Losses on Other Policies.] 
 
 — An underwriter at i.loyd's having become 
 bankrupt, the assignee of the trustee in the bank- 
 ruptcy sought to recover from the defendants, a 
 firm of insurance brokers who had effected policies 
 with the underwriter, moneys received by them 
 as salvage in respect of losses paid in account by 
 the underwriter before his bankruptcy. The 
 defendants sought to set off a sum due to them 
 from the underwriter for losses after the bank- 
 ruptcy on other policies effected with him, which 
 they had been comjielled to pay to their principals, 
 to whom they had guaranteed his solvency : — 
 Hekl, that the plaintiff wixs entitled to recover 
 the amount of tlie salvage as being part of the 
 estate of the bankrupt, and that the defendants 
 had no right of set-off in respect of the amount 
 of the losses paid bv them. J'Jh/uod v. ILirritt, 
 (;»•> L. J.. Q. B. 58 ; [1896] 2 Q. B. 491 : 75 L. T. 
 419 ; 45 W. R. 158 ; 3 Manson, 332 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 
 206. 
 
 Liability for Premiums on Policy Subscribed 
 by Plaintiff.] — Defendant, an insurance broker, 
 being sued for ])remiums received by him on 
 iKjlicles subscribed by the plaintiff, was allowed 
 to set off a loss on one of those policies effected 
 in the name of the defendant at the request of 
 T. on goods in which T. was interested, but on 
 which the defendant had a lien to a greater 
 amount than the set-off claimed. iJarics v. 
 Wilhinsun, 4 Bing. 573 ; 1 M. >Sc P. 502 : G L. J. 
 (O.S.) C. P. 121 ; 29 R. R. 634. 
 
 Advances by Shipowner — Receipt of Policy 
 Money — Passage Money — Freight.] — B., the 
 
 owner of the ship in wliich A. was a passenger 
 and owner of cargo, advanced 250?. to B. and took 
 his receipt for the same. The ship w^as lost, and 
 B. received from underwriters on A.'s cargo, 429Z. 
 
 A. sued B. for the same, and B. claimed to set off 
 95^. for A.'s passage money, lOZ. for freight on the 
 goods, and commission on the 250Z. : — Held, that 
 he could set-off the 95Z. which had been paid by 
 
 B. to the captain, unless it was proved to belong 
 to B., but not the lOZ. or commission. Lemaii v. 
 Gordon, 8 Car. & P. 392. 
 
 5. Liability fok Policv Moneys. 
 
 Liability to pay Policy Moneys — Credit in 
 account with Underwriter.] — As soon as an 
 insurance broker has received credit in account 
 with an underwriter for a loss upon a i)olicy, 
 his principal may maintain money had and 
 received against him to recover the amount ; and 
 in such action if the uiulerwriter's name is. 
 erased from the policy, the defendant can neither 
 dispute the liability of the underwriter for tlie 
 loss, nor his own receipt of the sum subscribed. 
 Andreiv v. llohhmm. 3 Campb. 199 ; 13 R. R. 
 788. 
 
 If an insurance broker debit the underwriter 
 with a loss, and take his acceptance for the 
 balances of account between broker and under- 
 writer, payable at a later date, then the loss. 
 would be payable in cash, the assured may sue 
 the broker for money h.ad and received, although 
 the acceptance was dishonoured and the broker 
 never received the money. Wllhinson v. ('Idijy 
 6 Taiuit. 110 ; 4 Camp. 171 ; It) R. R. 591. 
 
 Insurance by Mortgagee of Ship — Agent 
 for Owners — Liability.] — A ship originally 
 belonged to one of two partners and had been 
 conveyed to B. for securing a debt, and B. became 
 the sole registered owner of the ship, and after- 
 wards as agent for both partners, insured the 
 ship and freight, and charged them with the 
 premiums : and on a loss hajipening received 
 the money from the underwriters : — Held, that 
 he was accountable to the assignees of the sur- 
 viving partner for the surplus, after payment of 
 his own debt, and not to the executors of the 
 deceased iiartner. Dlxun v. Ilamuiul, 2 B. & Aid. 
 310. 
 
 Illegal Insurance — Moneys received b^ 
 Brokers. ]^A broker having received the moneys 
 payable under an illegal policy effected by him 
 on" behalf of his jirincipal shall not be allowed to 
 set up the illegality of the contract as a defence 
 to an action for money had and received brought 
 against him by his principal. 'Tenant v. Elliott, 
 i Bos. & P. 3 ; 4 R. R. 526. 
 
 Bankruptcy— Mutual credit— Broker's lien.] 
 — A. employed B., a broker, to effect insurances. 
 and to sell goods, and left the policies iu his 
 hands. A. being indebted to B. for premiums 
 and having obtained an advance upon goods in 
 B.'s hands for sale, and also upon his general 
 credit, became bankrupt. Afterwards a loss 
 happened and B. received the amount from tlie 
 underwriter :— Held, that this was a mutual 
 ciedit within 30 Geo. 2, c. 5, and that H. might 
 retain the sum in liquidation of his advances as 
 well as of the balance due for premiums. O/ive 
 V. Smith, 5 Taunt. 56. 
 
 6. Remuneration. 
 
 Commission— Usage.]— An insurance broker is 
 not entitled, upon the ground of any usage of 
 trade, to a commission of 12Z. per cent, on the 
 balance which he pays over to the underwriters 
 who employ him. Such allowance, however 
 general it has been, is a gratuity merely, and 
 not a demand of right. Leri v. Banten, Holt, 
 412. 
 
 In an action by insurance brokers to recover 
 their comnn!;,sion, evidence was admitted of a 
 custom for the broker to be allowed discount by
 
 1345 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— XVII. Broh-rs ami Anads. 
 
 134G 
 
 the underwriters, and to retain it as against 
 their emplovei-s, the insurers. Bucher v. Lutit, 
 3 F. & F. 959. 
 
 Neglect to Re-insure.] — A marine insur- 
 ance company in New Vork appointetl a firm 
 of merchants in Ijondon their agents for settling 
 claims in England and for effecting re-insur- 
 ances. For settling the claims the agents were 
 to receive a fixed percentage, but nothing was 
 provided as to remuneration for re-insuring. 
 According to the custom as between under- 
 writei"S and brokers, the agents were allowed by 
 the underwriters 5 per cent, on each re-insi;rance ; 
 and also at the end of the year, on tlie general 
 balance between the underwriter and the broker, 
 1 2 per cent, on the profits of the year, if there 
 were profits. The firm in London was in the 
 habit of receiving both these percentages, but 
 only tlie 5 per cent, was mentioned in their 
 accounts sent to the insurance company. The 
 company discovered this in 1866, but made no 
 objection to it until 1868. In 1869 the company 
 filed a bill against the firm in London for an 
 account in which the 12 per cent, should be 
 accounted for : claiming also repayment of 
 certain sums at interest ; and praying that the 
 firm in London niiglit in the account be held 
 liable for neglect in nut le-insuring a certain 
 vessel : — Helil, that under the circumstances the 
 firm in London was entitled to retain the 12 per 
 cent, icceived by them as remuneration ; and 
 was also entitled to the interest charged by 
 them, f Treat }\'rsferii. Iiixuvance Co. of Xew 
 York V. Cindlfp. 43 L. J., Ch. 741 ; L. Ill 9 Ch. 
 r>2.-) ; 30 L.T. 661 : 2 Asp. M. C. 208. 
 
 Held, also, that the loss sustained by the 
 alleged neglect of tiie firm in London could only 
 l>e recovered at law, and that the bill must there- 
 fore be dismissed. Ih. 
 
 Del credere.] — Imlebitatus assumpsit lies 
 
 to recover del ciedere commissions for guarantee- 
 ing sums insured upon policies, such commissions 
 Ijeing due upon entering into the contract of 
 guarantee ; and after judgment by default, the 
 (lefendants cannot he allowed, on a writ of 
 inquiry, to set off, in leduction of damages, tlie 
 amount of losses not indemnified. Ctirutlicrx 
 V. (iriilniiii. 14 East, '>!'>>. 
 
 Discount on Premiums.] — A sliipowner had 
 fur several yeais employed merchants as his 
 geneial agents at a icnnuneration, and they had 
 cffe(;tcd insinaiices on his ships. In their accounts 
 they cliarged him with the full insurance pre- 
 miums, although they were allowed by the 
 underwriters to retain out of the piemiums "j per 
 cent, brokerage, and 10 per cent, discount for 
 ready money, in accordance with the custom of 
 the trade : — Held, that as these allowances were 
 usually made, and as the sliijiowner had for 
 years assented to them, he could not oljject to 
 allow them to retain tliesc allowances on taking 
 the accounts in a suit with regard to a mortgage 
 on certain ships of his. //«/•///// v. Sfuutoii, 3 
 »'li. 1). r,02 : 35 F>. T. 6.-,2 ; 2:1 W. K. 237; 3 
 Asp. M. C. 29t— C. A. 
 
 On Bankruptcy.] — In an action Ijy assignees 
 of a bankrupt, the declaration stated tliat the' 
 defendants wen; indebted to the bankrupt before 
 his baid<ruptcy for work and laliour as an insur- 
 ance broker, and for divers premiums of insurance ! 
 due an<l payable from the defendants to the 
 
 S. 
 
 bankrupt, for and in respect of his having under- 
 written and subscribed, and caused and procured 
 to be underwritten and subscribed, divers policies 
 for the defendants, at their request. The plain- 
 tiff's, bj' tiicir particulars of demand, claimed to 
 recover for insurance. The company woukl have 
 allowed the broker, when he paid the premiums, 
 to deduct 31Z. \s. as commission : — Held, that his 
 assignees were entitled to recover that sum under 
 the words in the declaration, " work and labour 
 done" by the broker, and under the word 
 '• insurance " in the particulars of demand. 
 Power V. Butr-lier, infra. 
 
 Held, also, that the assignees were entitled to 
 recover the amount of the premiums which the 
 bankrupt had become liable to pay to the com- 
 pany under that part of the count which charged 
 that the defendants were indebted to the plain- 
 tiffs for premiums due to the bankrupt for and 
 in respect of his having caused and procured to 
 be underwritten divers policies, but that the 
 plaintiffs were not entitled to recover such sums 
 under the count for money paid, because the 
 broker hatl not actually ])ai(l the sums, nor done 
 any thing which was equivalent to payment. Ih. 
 
 Claim for Premiums.] — By the custom of 
 Lloyd's, premiums of insurance are matters of 
 account between the underwriter and the broker, 
 and between the broker and the assured, without 
 any privity between the assured and the under- 
 writer. The broker has therefore a claim upon 
 the assiu'ed for the amount of the premium, as 
 the policy is effected whether he has jiaid the 
 underwiiter or not, and whether the under- 
 writer has, bj' the policy, confirmed the pi'c- 
 mium to Vje paid, or has taken the covenant of 
 the broker to pay it. Power v. JJi/tvIier, 5 
 M. ifc Ry. 327, supra. 
 
 If a plaintiff agrees to effect an insurance on 
 the goods of a defendant, witli sucli names as 
 may be to the defendant's satisfaction, the defen- 
 dant cannot refuse to reimburse the premium, 
 on the ground that the names of the under- 
 writers had not been ))revii)usly su])mittcd to 
 him for his ap|)roval. JJi-m/i v. Ifovill, 1 JI. & P. 
 (\:a\ : 4 liiiii;. t;6.") ; 6 L. ■). (0..s.) C. 1'. 155 ; 29 
 11. K. 6,S(). 
 
 7. Li KX. 
 
 Of Broker or Sub-Agent for Premiums.] — The 
 lien which an insurance broker has on a policy 
 for the amount of the premium paid by liini 
 extends to a sub-agent. Fisher v. Smiffi, 48 
 L. .J., Ex. 411 ; 4 App. Cas. 1 ; 39 L. T. 430 ; 27 
 W. II. 113—11. ],. (E.) 
 
 Whei'e the course of business was to make out 
 monthly accounts, and to settle the amounts of 
 the following month, the broker meanwhile 
 retaining the ])olicy : — Held, that this course 
 of business was not inconsistent with the reten- 
 tion cf his lien Ijy the sub-agent, even though 
 the intermediary had Ijcen paid by tlie princii)al. 
 Jh. 
 
 The plaintiff, a shipowner, who h.ad on several 
 occa-sions during three years previously employed 
 S. & Co. as insuran(;e brokers to effect m.arine 
 insurances for him, authoriscil tlKsm to effect an 
 insui'ancc for him on a crirgo by a shiji of his, 
 which they accordingly did through the sub- 
 agency of t he defendant, also an insurance broker, 
 who i)aid the premiums on the policies, and who 
 had on previous occasions, by the instructions of 
 >S. & Co., effected policies for the plaintiff and 
 other persons. The defendant had notice through- 
 
 43
 
 1347 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—XVII. Bmlrrs and Agents. 1348 
 
 out that S. &. Co. were actinjj as brokers, and 
 that the plaintiff was their principal ; but the 
 ])laintiff did not know nntil after the policies 
 had ])een eilVcted that they had been effected 
 t hroujjh the tlefendant, or "by any other person 
 than S. i: Co. The plaintiff, who had mont'nly 
 accounts with S. & Co. in such matters, paid 
 them in due and usual coitrse of business between 
 them their monthly accounts, in which, in usual 
 cdurse. they debited him with the amount of the 
 l)remiums on tlie policies in question, but he 
 neither asked for nor received the policies at 
 tluit time. The defendant, who was aware of 
 the course of dealing between the plaintiff and 
 S. & Co., paid the premiums in usual course to 
 the underwriters on effecting the policies, and, 
 in accordance with the usual course of business 
 between him and S. & Co., sent a debit note of 
 such premiums to S. & Co., with whom he had 
 monthly accounts for insurances effected by him 
 under their instructions for the ])laintiff and 
 other persons ; but he kept the policies in his 
 own hands, as was his usual practice, until the 
 premiums should be repaid him by S. & Co. He 
 subsequently delivered his monthly account to 
 S. &; Co., which included, among other items, 
 the premiums on the policies in question, but 
 S. & Co. never settled such account, nor repaid 
 him the premiums paid by him as above men- 
 tioned. A loss having occurred, the plaintiff 
 brought an action of detinue for the policies 
 against the defenilant, who, in answer, set up 
 a lien on the policies for- the premiums paid by 
 him upon them : — Held, that the defendant had 
 such a lien. Ih. And see Boxanqiief, Mv jxirfc, 
 
 I De G. 432. 
 
 If an agent employed to effect an insurance 
 on goods represents himself as the owner of the 
 goods to another person, whom he employs to 
 effect the policy, the latter has not a general lien 
 on the policy for the balance due to him from 
 the agent. Lanyon v. Blancliayd, 2 Camp. .597 ; 
 
 II R. R. 808. 
 
 So where A., a merchant, at different times 
 employed C, an insurance broker, to effect 
 policies for him. C, without A.'s concurrence, 
 employed B., another insurance broker, to effect 
 these policies, informing him that they were 
 for a correspondent in the country ; B. got the 
 policies effected in A.'s name, and clelivered them 
 all except one to C. ; C. became bankrupt, with- 
 out having paid B. any part of the i)remiums, 
 A. being indebted to his estate beyond the 
 amoitnt : — Held, that B. had not a lien on the 
 ])olicy he detained for the general balance due 
 to him from C. Snooh v. Daridxon, 2 Camp. 
 218 : II E. R. Clir,. 
 
 Obtaining Policy again.] — Although a broker 
 may have parted with the ]jossession of a policy, 
 still, if he becomes repossessed of it, he has a 
 lien on it for the jiremiums which may be unpaid. 
 Lccii V. Barnard., 2 Moore. 34 ; 8 Taunt. 149 ; 
 19 R. R. 484. 
 
 Evidence as to Interest of Employer.] — Where 
 an English subject, in time of war, who had 
 received orders to effect an insurance for a 
 neutral foreigner, opened the policy with his 
 usual broker in his own name, but informing 
 him at the same time tliat the ])roi)erty was 
 neutral : — Held, to be a sufficient indication to 
 the broker that tlie party acted as agent, and 
 not on his own account ; and, therefore, the 
 broker had no lien on the policy so effected, for 
 
 Ins general balance against such agent, as between 
 such broker and the principal. Maanns v, Hen- 
 derson, I East, 33.5. 
 
 Where the plaintiff being resident abroad, 
 ordered B. & Co., in London, to effect an insur- 
 ance on his account ; who, not being in the habit 
 of effecting theirown insurances, or those of their 
 correspondents, delivered the order to the defen- 
 dant, being their broker, who accordingly effected 
 it in their names, when lie handed over the policy 
 and debited them with the premiums : the plain- 
 tiff paid the amount of those premiums to 
 B. & Co., without the defendant's knowledge ; 
 a loss being subsequently claimed by the plain- 
 tiff, the policy was redelivered by B. & Co. to 
 the defendant for the purpose of his procuring 
 an adjustment. There was an open account 
 between the defendant and B. & Co., and in 1813 
 they were indebted to him in 21,000?. in such 
 open account, including the premiums in ques- 
 tion, and in 1814 they paid him 33,000?., on 
 account of losses and returns on insurances 
 effected for them : and in the latter jiart of that 
 year the defendant was a considerable creditor 
 on such account : — Held, that under these cir- 
 cumstances, the defendant had not a lien on the 
 policy, either for premiums or his general balance. 
 Lei-u V. Barnard, 2 Moore, 34 ; 8 Taunt. 149 ; 
 19 R. R. 484. 
 
 Where no Notice of Agency.] — Insurance 
 brokers who have effected a policy, without notice 
 that it is not on account of the person from whom 
 they receive the order, have a lien upon it for 
 their general balance due from him. and have a 
 right to apply in satisfaction of that balance 
 money received upon the policy, as well after as 
 before notice that it belongs to a third person. 
 Mann v. Forreder, 4 Camp. 60 ; 15 R. R. 724. 
 
 A broker having effected an insurance in his 
 own name on behalf of his principal, had tlie 
 policy left in his hands for the purpose of his 
 receiving the proceeds : and, having, upon advice 
 of the loss, pledged the policy with another 
 broker, obtained an advance thereon, received as 
 on account of the loss : — Held, that the latter 
 might retain the amount so advanced, and that 
 the principal could not recover it from him, but 
 must resort to his own broker for it. Callow v. 
 KfiUon, 10 W. R. 193. 
 
 The owner of six ships by a deed to which he 
 and two trustees alone were parties, and which 
 was duly registered, assigned them to two trus- 
 tees for securing sums of money expressed to be 
 lent to him by them (but which in fact had been 
 lent by the plaintiffs), and covenanted to insure 
 each vessel in 1,500/. at the least, and on recjuest 
 to assign the policies to the trustees. He did 
 insure "the ships in his own name through the 
 agency, and in the name of a broker who had 
 notice of tiie mortgage, but who had been 
 informed by the owner that the insurances had 
 been effected by the trustees in respect of their 
 interest, and who trusted him in the belief that 
 the insurances were on the owner's own account 
 in respect of his interest as mortgagee. One of 
 the ships insured for 1,000Z. was lost. The owner 
 subsequently became bankrupt. The broker was 
 a creditor of the owner for premiums on the 
 insurance policies and for 1,000/. cash advanced 
 after the policies had been effected, and he 
 brought an action against the underwriters for 
 the moneys secured by the policies: — Hehl, that 
 the broker was not entitled to a general lien for 
 the whole balance due to him from the bankrupt,
 
 1349 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—XVIIL Companies, cCc. 
 
 1350 
 
 but only on each policy for the sums }>aid in 
 respect of that policy. Ladhrolie v. Li-c, 4 De 
 <T. cV: S. 10(i. 
 
 D. effected an insurance for A., not knowing it 
 was in fact for the ))laintift' : — Held, that B. had 
 a lien on the jiolicv for a balance due to him by 
 A. WrxtwiwI V. JirU. 4 Camp. 849; 1(! R. R. 800. 
 
 As against Assignee.] — The assignee of a 
 jiolicy on goods, who became such by the indorse- 
 ment to him of the bill of lading of the goods by 
 the consignor, after he liad directed his corres- 
 ])ondent to make the insurance, takes it subject 
 to the lieu of the correspondent of the consignor 
 for his general balance ; and can only claim, 
 subject to that lien, the money received on such 
 policy by the broker in whose hands it was 
 deposited for that purpose by the corresjjondent. 
 But the broker has no sub-lien on the i)olicy for 
 the general balance of his own account with such 
 correspondent, if he knew at the time that the 
 policy was effected for another person. Man v. 
 Shifiwr, 2 PJast, .528. 
 
 Policy left for Safe Custody.] — If a policy is 
 left in rlie hands of an agent for safe custody 
 onl}', although he advances money to the assured, 
 without any other security than the policy, the 
 agent acquires no general lien on the instrument 
 for such advances ; but it is otherwise if it was 
 left with him as a securitv generally. Jlidr v. 
 F/emhiff, D. & R., N. P. C.'2'J ; 2.-> R. R. 77"). 
 
 Pleading — Trover for a Policy of Insurance.] 
 
 — Defendant, after stating the existence of 
 mutual accounts between liim and llie assured, 
 pleadeil a lien for a general balance due to liim 
 as an insurance Ijroker ; the plaintiff replied, a 
 bill of excliange taken as j)ayment for this 
 l>alancc, and not due at the time of the conver- 
 sion. Ujion demurrer : — Held, that the defen- 
 dant could not, without pleading it as a defence, 
 lelyalsoon the mutual credit between the parties 
 Id jusi ify his detention of tlie pcjlicy. J/ricixun 
 V. (hith'rir. 2 P.inLT. (N.C.) l^ut ; 8 Scott, 2'.)S ; T* 
 I>. .1.. ('. 1'. 2S8. 
 
 Broker's Lien on Policies — Promise to clear 
 Lien — Statute of Frauds. J — 'I'iic ]iiaintiff. a| 
 liruker, liaving a lici] un certain [jdlicics etft'cted 
 for his principal, for whom he liad given iiis 
 acceptances, the defendant ju-omised that lie 
 would provide for the; payment of these accept- 
 ances as tliey became due, if the i)laintiif would 
 give liim up llie policies, in ordci- tiiat lie might 
 collect for ills princi|)al tlie moneys due from the 
 nnderwi'iters ; wiiich accordingly was done, and 
 the money was afteiwards received by the 
 defendant: — Held, tliat this was not a ju-omise 
 for the debt or default of anotiicr within the 
 Statute of P'rauds : and that the plaintilf niiglil 
 recover against the defendant as well for the 
 breacii of agreement in not pifividing for pay- 
 ment of the acceptances, as also upon a count for 
 money had and received. ('(iKti'iiKj v. Anhrrt, 2 
 Jvust, 82."). 
 
 Factors' Lien on Policy.] — A. i"t Co., who 
 •cairiedon Ini'-inessat Hull as merchants, factors, 
 sliip and insmance brokers, and general agents, 
 had had various dealings as factors with 15. A: Co. 
 of l^ondon. In the course f)f these dealings 
 r.. A: Co. wrote to A. &; Co. requesting them to 
 insure tlie ship " E." for a voyage from the 
 Downs to South America and the West Indies. 
 A. & Co. did so, and P.. ic Co. remitted the 
 premiums to them. The jiolicy remained with 
 
 A. & Co. : — Held, that A. & Co. were entitled to 
 hold the policy as a lien for the general balance 
 due to tliem as factors from B. A; Co. DLi'on v. 
 Stnmfchl, 10 C. B. 898. 
 
 An assurance made by a factor, who has a lien 
 upon the goods of his (irinciiial, does not pass by 
 a consignment of the goods insured to a third 
 person by the principal. Godin v. London 
 Assuram-o d., I Burr. 4.S9 : 1 Ld. Ken. 254 ; 1 
 W. Bl. 108. 
 
 XVIII. INSURANCE COMPANIES AND 
 MUTUAL MARINE INSURANCE ASSO- 
 CIATIONS. 
 
 1. Lrfj/dif//, 1850. 
 
 2. Act'onx for Cmtrihuf/tm, 1852. 
 8. J.'nir.y. 1857. 
 
 4. Wl iidhui-vp, 1868. 
 
 1. Legality. 
 
 Under 6 Geo. 1, c. 18.]— The (i Geo. 1, c. 18 
 (under which no company or partnership but 
 the two thereby authorised (the Royal Exchange 
 and the London Assurance Companies) could 
 insure shii)s or lend money on bottomry) did not 
 extend to Scotland. Patfixon v. Mills. 2 P>ligh 
 (N.s.) 519 : 1 Dow & Clark, 842 : 81 R. R. 49. 
 
 Nor prevent partners from lending money on 
 respondentia. Gore v. Wi/nnr, M. & M. 393. 
 
 Where one of two partners underwrote policies 
 upon ships, in his own name, but upon their joint 
 account, contrary to Geo. 1, c. 18, s. 12, no 
 action could be maintained to recover the 
 premiums upon such jiolicies from the assured. 
 Brantoti v. Taddij, 1 Taunt. (>. 
 
 Nor, where the brokers received the premiums, 
 could the jiartners in whose name the insurances 
 were effected recover them from such brokers. 
 Jiooth V. l[od(jHon, (J Term Rep. 405. 
 
 A jiolicy of insurance on a Itottoiury bond, 
 made to two [jcrsons in i)artnershi[), was voiil. by 
 () (Jeo. 1, c. 18, as well as the l)ond. JCrcrth v. 
 Jilarhhnrn, ti M. & S. 152 : 2 Stark, (id. 
 
 Unregistered Company — Illegality — Companies 
 Act, 1862, s. 4. J — A inulual marine iiisuraii''.e 
 association, consisting of more than twenty mem- 
 bers being uni-egistered, is illegal luuler the Com- 
 panies Act, 18(i2, s. 4. An order for its winding 
 iqi discharged. I'tid.sfoin Total Lox.t diid CoUixioii 
 A.ixorlaflon, hi rr, 51 L. .1.. Cli. 844 : 20 Ch. D. 
 137 ; 45 L. T. 774 ; 80 \V. K. WH). 
 
 Registration.] — P.y the rules of a mutual 
 marine insurance association formed in 1S(;7. the 
 memijcrs severally and respectively agreed to 
 insure each other's shijis for a year from tiie day 
 named as the commencement of the risk. The 
 two managers were tosigntlie policies, and their 
 signatures were to bind the members as if each 
 iiK'niber had signed. The premiums were to be 
 paiil in advance, losses were to be i)aid <iut of 
 the i-cservc fund thus created, and if it proved 
 insufticicnt, the members were to contribute the 
 delicieiKiy pro ratil accortling to tlie anuiunts for 
 which they were insured. Tlie managers were 
 authorised to issue ])olicies to members for 
 jieriods less than .a year, or for special risics 
 i;itlicr in time or voyage ]iolicies at special rates 
 of premiimi, to which the leserve fund should in 
 no way apply. The association was not regis- 
 tered or incorporated, and persons became mem- 
 bers by effecting a nnitual policy. Its policies 
 
 43—2
 
 ia5i 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—XYIII. Cominmics, ,(V. 
 
 1352 
 
 wine signed only by the managers " per procura- 
 tion of the several members of the Arthur 
 Average Association for insuring each other's 
 ships." The managers issued special rate poli- 
 cies to a large amount to persons who had not 
 taken mutual policies. In 1S70 an order was 
 made for winding up the association. H. & Co., 
 who were holders of special rate policies, but 
 had not taken out any mutual policies, were found 
 creditors to a large amount on their special rate 
 policies. On an application by a contributory 
 to vary the certificate by cxi)unging their debt : 
 — Held, that the association caiue within the 
 Companies Act, 1862, s. 4, and ought to have 
 been registered : that it was therefore an illegal 
 company, and that an order for winding it up 
 ought not to have been made, but that this objec- 
 tion could not be entertained on the present appli- 
 cation. Arthnr Arrniqe A.^suciiitiii)i, In /r, Conj, 
 E.r2)arte, 44 L. J., Ch. 309 : B2 L. T. 718 : 23 
 ■\V. R. 'j:?'J ; 2 Asp. M. C. 570— L.JJ. 
 
 Policies Void or Valid.] — Held, secondly, that 
 the policies of H. eV Co. were void under 80 Vict. 
 c. 28, s. 7, because they did not specify the name 
 of the subscribers or underwriters. 1 h. 
 
 Held, thirdly, that those ])olicies were also 
 void as being vdtra vires, for that the rules only 
 authorised the managers to issue special rate 
 policies to persons who were already members 
 by having taken out policies of mutual insur- 
 ance. IJ>. 
 
 Policy incorporating Rules.] — Where the 
 
 l)Olicy incori)orates the rules of an association 
 so as to be a sufficient compliance with the 
 Stamp Act, 1867, s. 7, see Ediranl.sx. Abenu/nn/ 
 3fuhi(d SJi/j) /Hxinmire Sariffi/, 1 Q. 1>. D. i")68 : 
 34 L. T. 4.J7 ; 8 Asp. M. C. ir)4— Ex. Ch. 
 
 Clubs or Associations.] — A company of ship- 
 owners engaged to insure each other's ships, and 
 covenanted severally, antl not jointly, to pay a 
 certain sum in case of loss, in proportion to 
 their respective shares, but in case of the in- 
 solvency of any one of the members all the 
 others were to be responsible : — Held, that this 
 contract was void by 6 Geo. 1, c. 18, s. 12 (re- 
 pealed by 5 Geo. 4, c. 114). Leps v. Smith, 7 
 Term Rep. 888. 
 
 Since the "> Geo. 4. c. 114, where a marine 
 insurance is effected by an insurance company, 
 it is necessary that the name of each member of 
 the company should be expressed in the policv. 
 Jieid v. Alltin, 4 Ex. 826 : I'J L. J., Ex. 8!) ; 18 
 .Jur. 1082. S. P.. Ikncdall v. Clark, lit L. J.. 
 (.1 v.. 41 : 14 Jur. 81. Ihdlpft v. DoiahiU, 18 
 (,). B. 2 : 21 L. J., Q. B. 1)8 : 16 Jur. 462. 
 
 A secret partnership between A. and B. to 
 underwrite pohcies in their separate names on 
 their joint accottnt is not void, as against the 
 insured, under 35 Geo. 8. c. 68, s. 11. JJrcft x. 
 Jirrl'iritJi, 26 L. J.. Ch. 130 ; 3 Jur. (n.s.) 31 ; 
 5 W. 11. 112. 
 
 An association formed of a tiumber of persons 
 for the mutual insurance of their ships against 
 loss, and for mutual contribution in the event of 
 such loss, is not an illegal association, within 
 85 Geo. 3, c. 68, s. 11, although no policies are 
 issued by such a.ssociation. linmilptj v. WilliaiiDi. 
 82 Beav. 177 : 1 N. R. 418 ; 82 L. J., Ch. 716; 
 W Jur. (N.S.) 240 ; 8 L. T. 78 ; 11 W. R. 892. 
 
 An association of shipowners for the mutital 
 insurance of each other's ships, in which each 
 member was onlv liable to the extent of his sub- 
 
 scription, was not illegal under 6 Geo. 1, c. 18. 
 Stntmi v. JLtrvpii, 3 Bing. 304 ; 11 Moore, 72 : 
 4 L. J. (O.S.) C. i\ 57. 
 
 So, if a number of shipowners subscribe a joint 
 fund, proportioned to their property, and under- 
 write each other's property respectively, and are 
 only liable to losses in their proiwrtions of the 
 fund, the insurance is not illegal. JIarrixon v. 
 Milhtr.2 Esp. 518 ; 7 Term Rep. 840. n. 
 
 A policy in the common form by an insin-ance 
 club, where the members are not responsible for 
 the solvency of each other, is valid, although 
 the sums which they respectively insure are not 
 specified on the face of the policy. DoicpH v. 
 Moon, 4 Camp. 16(1, 
 
 Life Insurance Company — Marine Insurance 
 Policies — Ultra Vires.] — A company was formed 
 to carry on life insurance business. Afterwards, 
 at an extraordinary general meeting, resolutions 
 were passed to enable it to carry on marine 
 insurance business. A deed extending the i)ur- 
 poses of the company was executed by some of 
 the shareholders, and notices were sent to all 
 upon winding up of the company : — Held, that 
 there had been no such acqitiesceuce by share- 
 holders as would entitle holders of marine policies 
 to prove in respect of thevn. Pluvn'i-v Life A.isitr- 
 anc.P Co.. In rp. liHnjPx (ind SforV.^ Cn-sp. 2 J. t^ H. 
 441 : 31 L. J.. Ch. '74'.) ; 10 W. R. 816. 
 
 A life insurance company cannot by a resolu- 
 tion at extraordinary general meeting enable 
 itself to issue marine policies. Hamhro' v. Hull 
 and London F'lrp Angiiranpe Co., 3 H. & N. 78S) : 
 28 L. J., Ex. 62. See also PhoinU- L\fp Amiirancp 
 Co.. I)t pp. supra. 
 
 2. Actions for Coxtributiox. 
 
 Manager cannot maintain Action,] — An asso- 
 ciation of shipowners was formed for the mutual 
 assurance of ships belonging to its members. 
 The regulations, subject to which the policies 
 were effected, provided for the creation of a 
 general fund by payment of premiums by the- 
 several members, and when these should be found 
 insufficient, by payment of contributions in the 
 shape of a percentage on the sums insured, and 
 a manager (not a member of the association) was 
 appointed by a power of attorney which author- 
 ised him to sign i)olicies for and in the names of the 
 members of the association, and. •' in their several 
 auil respective names,'' to demand and sue for all 
 sums wliieh shoukl become due and payable for 
 l)remiums and contributions from them : — Held, 
 that the manager could not maintain an action 
 against a member for premiums due from such 
 membei', or for moneys paid by the manager out 
 of the funds of the association in respect of such 
 member's share of losses due to other members. 
 (iraij v. Pparmn. L. R. 5 C. P. 568 ; 23 L. T. 
 41C).' 
 
 The manager of a mutual insurance associa- 
 tion cannot maintain an action for contributions 
 due under the rules from any member, although 
 those rules have been agreed to by the member 
 and profess to give such a power. Ernns v. 
 llooppr. 45 L. J.; (.1. B. 206 : 1 Q. B. D. 45 ; 33 
 
 >pp 
 L. T. 871 
 
 24 W. R. 226— C. A. 
 
 Jurisdiction of Court of Chancery.]— In a 
 mutual marine insurance company, where the 
 members arc luimerous. a court of equity has 
 jurisdiction, on a loss, to enforce contribution 
 "anil payment of it, cither where the amount has
 
 1353 
 
 SHIPPING— IXSUEAXCE—XYIII. Companies, ,C; 
 
 1354 
 
 already been ascertained, under the rules, by 
 arbitration, or where it has not been so ascer- 
 tained. Tuijhu- V. Dean. 22 Beav. 429. 
 
 Where the rules of a mutual insurance com- 
 pany provide that a member making default in 
 payment of contributions shall forfeit all claims 
 for losses or avera.Lre under his policies, but shall 
 remain liable for contributions, a member making 
 tlefault cannot in an action for contributions 
 counterclaim for losses and averages sustained 
 bv him. Murine Mitfual In.sitrancc Co.y. Young, 
 43 ].. T. 441 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 357. 
 
 Tlie policj^ coupled with the rules and articles 
 of the company constituted a contract between 
 the defendants and the company, and not only 
 with the members mentioned in the policy. Ih. 
 
 Condition Precedent.] — A policy with a mutual 
 assiK'iation contained a regulation providing that, 
 if a sliip insured in the association should be 
 mortgaged for any debt, the owner, being a 
 member of the association, should not have any 
 claim by virtue of the policy, nor should any 
 assignee of such jjolicy have any claim for anj' 
 loss, unless previously to such loss such member 
 should have delivered to the secretary an under- 
 taking in wi-iting of the mortgagee oi* assignee 
 to pay all sums wliich might tliereafter become 
 (hie from sucli member in respect of such ship. 
 In an action upon the jiolicj' for a total loss, the 
 defendant pleaded that the ship was mortgaged, 
 and that the plaintiff did not, ])reviously to the 
 happening of the loss, deliver to the seci'ctary 
 an undertaking of the moitgagees to pay all 
 )noneys which might thei-eaftcr become due from 
 the plaintiff in respect of the shi)>. The i)laiiitiff 
 replied that the defendant had notice of the 
 mortgage, and afterwanls, without recjuiring the 
 undertaking, from time to time demanded and 
 reeeive<l from the mortgagees all sums which 
 Ijecame due from the plaintiff in lespect (jf tlie 
 ship, and the contributions for which the plain- 
 tiff, as a member of the association, ))ecame 
 liable : — Held, that the replication was no answer 
 to the plea, tiie giving of the undeitaking required 
 liv tlie regulation being a condition precedent. 
 IhiifUrx V. Tindoll, 18 C. B. 98. 
 
 Neglect to Adjust.] — The lules of a mutual 
 -lii|iping as>urancc association provided that 
 • in ca.se of its Jjccoining necessary to make any 
 payment in resjiect of any loss (jr damage hap- 
 jiening to any ship insured, the amount to be 
 borne and ])aid by ca(;li mendjcr of the associa- 
 tion should, upon each and evciy such occasion, 
 l»e a-^sessed an<l ajijiorl ioncd by the committee, 
 upon and amongst tlie mcnibeisof the association 
 liable to (contribute thereto." In an action foi' 
 loss the declaration set out the jiolicy and this 
 iiilc, and alleged that the )ilaintiff had always 
 lieen ready .'ind willing that the anKHinl to \)v 
 borne and jiaiil by each member of the associa- 
 tion in respect of the loss shf)uld be assessed and 
 apportifined by the comiiiittee of the association 
 according to the regulations of the policy, and 
 that the jilaintiff had leq nested the defendant and 
 ilie committee to assess and ap]iortion the same, 
 but they had neglcctcil atid refused m) to do. 
 although a )-easonable time for that pui])ose had 
 long since elapsed, and alleged as a breach the 
 nonpayment Ijy flic defendant of his ))roi)ortion 
 of the Sinn insmed : — Held, that the (Icclaration 
 <lid not shew anv liability on his part. \\'rii//if 
 V. Wtn-fl. 24 L.'T. 439 ; 20 W. K. 21 : 1 A>p. 
 
 Adjustment — When a Condition Precedent to 
 Action.] — To this declai'ation the defendant 
 pleaded, tirst, that by the regulations annexed to 
 the policy it was declare<l that a committee 
 should be appointed, who should meet quarterly, 
 at the discretion of the managers, to audit the 
 accounts, settle claims, and order payment of the 
 same liy the managers' draft ; and that the 
 managers should have full power to settle all 
 claims on policies ; and that the claim of the 
 [ilaiutiff had not been settled in manner pro- 
 vided, nor had paj^ment of the same by the 
 managers' draft been ordered ; and, secondly, 
 that by the regulations it was declared that all 
 average claims should be adjusted by a profes- 
 sional average-stater, according to the usage of 
 Lloyd's ; and that the onlj' claim of the plaintiff 
 was an average claim within the meaning of the 
 regulation, and that it had never been adjusted 
 as provided for, and the plaintiff had never been 
 ready and willing to have tiie same adjusted : — 
 Held, that the pleas were good. lb. 
 
 Pleading — Setting out Regulations.] — Where 
 the regulations of an association of shipowners, 
 combined for the mutual assurance of each 
 others ships, were indorsed on the back, and 
 were declared to form part of a policj'. to which 
 the sliipowners were subscribers : — Held, that 
 the declaration in an action for a loss under the 
 policy ought to set out the regulations as well as 
 the policy. Strong v. Jtiih: 3 I'iiig. 31."> ; 11 
 Moore. 86 ; 4 L. J. (o.S.) C. P. 73. 
 
 Member of Society by Estoppel.] — E. had an 
 equitable interest in a ship, and afterwards 
 leceived a transfer of the legal interest from the 
 registered owner, who was a member of an insur- 
 ance society. The owner insured the ship witli 
 the society in E.'s name by a policy incor- 
 porating tiie i-ules of the society, and providing 
 among other things that every insurance effected 
 should Ixi valid and binding from noon on that 
 day until noon of the 1st January then next fol- 
 lowing. l*y the rules persons became members 
 only by signing the articles, and none l)ut mem- 
 bers could insure their ships. The rules also 
 required certain notice upon sale of a ship or 
 shares thereof. K. had never signed the articles 
 nor given notice of the tiansfer to him of the legal 
 interest, but had i)aid contributions claimetl from 
 him as owner l)y the society. It was also \)vo- 
 vided by the rules that the directors sliould 
 decide claims and dis]>utes of members, and that 
 aggrieved menibcis might appeal for reconsidera- 
 tion of decisions, first to the directors themselves, 
 and then to tin; whole society : and also that no 
 mendjcr should be allowed to bring or have atiy 
 action, snii, or proceeding, or otiier remedy 
 against the society for any claims or demands 
 upon or in lespcct of the society or the members, 
 except as therein provided. IqMni lo-- of the 
 sliip, K. was refused liis claim upon this policy 
 by the directors twice, but made no a|)peal to 
 the whole society : — Held, that the society was 
 estoi)i)ed from disputing K.'s interest in the 
 policy, and his right as member to claim iqion 
 it. J-jhrnrilK v. A/nrin/ni/i Mulinil Shiji Insiir- 
 iinrr Siirirt,/. 1 (). ]>,. 1 ). .-,(;3 : 31 L. T. b".7 ; 3 
 Asp. M. C. 154— ( '..A, 
 
 Articles of Association forming part of Policy 
 
 — Amount Insured not to exceed Four-fifths of 
 
 I declared Value — Vessel of greater Value thaa 
 
 I declared.] — A policy issued by the respondents,
 
 1355 
 
 SHIPPING— INSURANCE— XYIII. Comjuinles, aV. 
 
 135lv 
 
 a mutual marine insurance corporation, stipulated 
 that the provisions contained in the articles of 
 association should be deemed part of the policy. 
 Among the provisions, purporting to be articles, 
 indorsed on the policy was the following : — " The 
 sum insm-ed on any one steamer shall ... in no 
 case exceed four-tifths of the value of such 
 steamer . . . and it shall be a condition of this 
 insurance that the assured shall keep one-fifth 
 nninsured."' This was part of an article, which 
 had been registered, but which, for want of 
 compliance with the formalities of the Com- 
 panies Act, was inA'alid. The respondents can- 
 celled the i)olicy because the appellant had 
 insured his steamer with them and another 
 insurance comjjany to a greater amormt than 
 four-fifths of her value as declared in their policy. 
 The vessel was lost. In an action on the pohcy : 
 — Held, that the meaning of the policy was that 
 the insixrer should be his own insurer to the 
 extent of one-fifth : — That the condition was 
 binding as a contract, notwithstanding the 
 invaliitity of the article on which it was 
 founded ": — That it was not open to the appellant 
 to show that the vessel was worth more than the 
 value declared by the policy. Muii-head v. Furth 
 and JVorfh Snt Sfpainhoat Mutual Inxnrance 
 Asm., [1891] A. C. 72 ; 6 K. r)'.)_H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 Action against Association by Person not a 
 
 Member.] — By a policy of marine insurance in 
 the form of a deed-poll, the defendants, a 
 mutual insurance association, covenanted to pay 
 losses upon a steamship with a firm described in 
 the deed as ''a member." Under the policy 
 members having ships entered were to make 
 good losses on the ship, according to the provi- 
 sions of the articles of association and the rules. 
 One rule was an arbitration clause, by which the 
 sum to be paid by the association upon any claim 
 was to be settled by the committee ; and if the 
 member agreed to accept the sum so settled, he 
 was entitled to be paid in the mode of payment 
 customary to the association ; and in case of 
 ditierence the matter was to be decided by 
 arbitrators, to be appointed by the committee 
 and the member, the obtaining of a decision from 
 whom was to be a condition precedent to the 
 right of the member to maintain an action on 
 the policy. The memorandum of association set 
 out that the association was established for the 
 '• insurance of ships of members, and of ships 
 which the members may be authorised to assure 
 in their own names." It was provided by the 
 articles of association that " every person who, 
 on behalf of himself or any other person, 
 insures for the piotection of any ship . . . shall, 
 as from the date of the commencement of such 
 insurance or protection, be deemed to be a 
 member of the association " : and, further, that 
 '• all claims in respect of insurance or protection 
 shall be made and enforced against the associa- 
 tion itself, and not against any member thereof ; 
 but the association shall not be liable to any 
 member or other person for the amount of any 
 loss, claim or demand except to the extent to 
 which the association is able to recover fronr the 
 members or persons liable for the same." The 
 plaintiffs were part owners of the ship insured in 
 question, and brought, in their own names, an 
 action on the policy against the defendants to 
 recover a loss on the ship : — Held, that this action 
 could not he maintained, since, under the policy, 
 the defendants were expressly excluded from 
 liability to any otlier person than the firm therein 
 
 descri])cd as a " member." JJoiifr/iniicrlr v. 
 United Kiitjdoiit Mi/tiial Stefivi.shij) A-ssiiranre 
 Ami., 60 L. J.. Q. B. 429 ; [1891 J 1 Q. B. 870 ; 
 64 L. T. 823 : 39 W. K. 351 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 19. 
 
 Liability to Member who has Sold his Ship.] 
 — Agreement between shipowners for mutual 
 assurance of each other's ships ; a withdrawing 
 member to give six months' notice ; action 
 against one for a loss. Plea, that the plaintiff 
 had parted with his interest in the ship before 
 the loss. Eeplication, that the plaintiff by agree- 
 ment with the purchaser had agreed to pay him 
 500L if the ship was lost within three months : 
 — Held, that as the plaintiff remained contribu- 
 tor}', the other members were liable for his loss. 
 Itced V. ''.'ole, 8 Burr. 1512. 
 
 Action for Contributions— Managing Owner- 
 Principal and Agent.] — The managing and part 
 owner of a steamship became a member of a 
 mutual insurance association, and took out a 
 policy on behalf of himself and his co-owners in 
 respect of the ship. By the articles of association 
 every person was deemed to be a member '' who 
 in his own name, or in his name as agent, insures 
 any ship in i)ursuance of the regulations of the 
 comi)any," and they also provided that the f umls 
 reiiuired for the payment of claims should '-be 
 raised by contributions from all the members." 
 By the policy it was agreed between the assureil 
 and the company, " that without prejudice tO' 
 the rights and remedies of the company against 
 the sakl person or persons effecting this insurance, 
 as a member or members of the comi^any, in 
 respect of this insurance, the assured shall pay to 
 the company, in lieu of premiums, all the sums 
 and contributions which the company are entitled 
 to call upon the said person or persons effecting 
 this insurance, as a member or members of the 
 company, to i)ay to the comyiany in respect of 
 this insurance according to the articles of asso- 
 ciation of the company, and that the provisions 
 contained in the said articles of association shall 
 be <leemed and considered part of this policy, 
 and shall, so far as regards this insurance, be as. 
 binding upon the assured as upon the said person 
 or persons effecting this insurance." Certain 
 contributions having, in accordance with the 
 articles of association, become payable by the 
 managing owner in respect of the ship, and the 
 managing owner being bankruijt, the association 
 sued the other owners to recover the contribu- 
 tions : — Held, that, under the terms of the policy, 
 they were liable, although the policy was effected! 
 by the managing owner alone. Oce-in Iron 
 Stranixliip Inxnrance As.wcintio)i v. Ledic, 22 
 Q. r.. D. 722 : 57 L. T. 722 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 22C.. 
 
 Insurance by Managing Owner — Liability of 
 other Owners for Contribution.] — H. and U., the 
 
 managing owners of a steamship, insured her in 
 a mutual assurance association in their own 
 names, and the policy was expressed to be " as 
 well in his or their own names as for and in the 
 name or names of all and every other i)erson or 
 persons to whom the same doth, may, or shall 
 appertain in part or in all subject to the pro- 
 visions hereinafter contained." The consideration 
 stated in the i)olicy was the contributions to be 
 paid from time totime by the assured for losses 
 and averages on other steamships. Such contri- 
 butions having become payable, the association 
 sued the part owners other than H. and G. to 
 recover the same : — Held, that these part o\\Tiers
 
 1357 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—XYIII. Companies, dc. 
 
 1358 
 
 were liable, because the policj' was made or 
 their behalf, and they were " assured " within 
 the meaning of the policy, and were expressly 
 bound by the consideration clause to pay these 
 contributions. Quffire. whether they became 
 members of the association. Great Britain lOU 
 A 1 SteaiiixJii/j InxuvancP Association v. Wyllie, 
 r.S L. J.. Q. B. (!U : 22 Q. B. D. 710 : 60 L. T. 
 916 ; 87 W. K. 407 : 6 Asp. M. C. 398— C. A. 
 
 Claims against Association — Enforcement in 
 Equity — No Policy.] — A. effected an insurance 
 (in a ship with an association by executing the 
 deed of settlement in conformity' with the rules, 
 but dill not obtain a policy : — Held, that his 
 remedy against the association for the amount 
 due upon tlie insurance was not by action, but 
 by a bill in equity, to obtain a declaration of iiis 
 right to specific performance of the engagement 
 bv the committee to j)av. Harin/ v. lin-lncith. 
 2"H. k M. 429 ; 10 L. T.'632 ; 12 W. 11. Syc. 
 
 Undisclosed Principal not Member of Associa- 
 tion.^ — T., the manager and ]iart dwiier of a ship, 
 l)ecame a mendier of a mutual insuiance associa- 
 tion, and took out a policy with such association 
 in resjiect of the ship. Tlie articles of association 
 gave power to the committee, in order to provide 
 funds for the business of the association, from 
 time to time to direct sums to be paid by the 
 members ratabl}'. V>y the policy, which was 
 made by the association under their seal, the 
 association agreed with T. that the members 
 thereof should according to the articles of asso- 
 ciation ])ay and make good losses and damages 
 to the ship occasioned by the risks insured 
 against, subject to a jiroviso that the association 
 should Ijc liable only to the extent of so much of 
 tlic funds as they were able to recover from the 
 members liable for the same, and which were 
 applicable for the purpose of pajing claims under 
 tlie policy. Certain conti-ibutions to the finids 
 of the association having, in accordance with the 
 articles, become payable by 'J", in respect of the 
 ship, and T. Ijcing bankrupt, the association sued 
 N.. another part owner of the ship, for sucli con- 
 tributions as an undisclosed princii)al of T. : — 
 Held, that the effect of the aiticles of association 
 and the jKilicy being that the liability for such 
 contributions was imposed on nu'iuliers f)idy. and 
 N. not being a meudjci' of the association, he 
 could not Ix; sued for such contrilnitioiis as an 
 undisclosed piiiicipal fif T. I'liitrd Kiiajdom 
 Miiivnl Sti'<iiiixliii> Axxti r/i iit'f Axmu-iiitiiin, v. 
 \rrill. :,i\ L. J., Q. B. r,22 : 19 Q. P.. D. 110 : X, 
 W. 11. 7M; : 6 A>p. M. C 22f,. u.—V. A. 
 
 Ship Insured without Stamped Policy.^ — See 
 Jlamni^Miitiial S/ii/i liixnni nrv Co. v. Axliliii riar. 
 ante, col. 1030. 
 
 And xen 3, Uiri,K.'^, infra. 
 
 ;'.. Itn.Ks. 
 
 Mortgages by Members.^ — A rule rif a nnitu.-d 
 marine iiisur;iiice association provideil that in 
 case of a mortgage <jr an assignment of any 
 vessel insured in the association, the niortg-'igt-e 
 must make liiTnsclf personally liable to pay 
 jiremiums : — Held, that the rule was applicable 
 to a depositee who was assignee of the policy 
 within tlu; meaning of the rule. Alcj-andrr v. 
 C'anijiMI, 27 I.. T. 462 : 1 Asp. M. C. 447— C. A. 
 Kevcrsing. 41 L. J.. Ch. 47s. 
 
 The rule was not set up as a defence by answer : 
 — Held, that at the hearing a certificate of the 
 
 ship's register could not be produced to shew 
 that there was a mortgage of the ship itself. lb. 
 
 A shipowner entered into an agreement 
 through an agent with air association for the 
 insurance of his ship, and by the agreement, 
 signed by himself, he agreed to abide by the 
 rules and regulations of the association, a copy 
 of which rules was not sent to him. One of 
 these rules was that no member, whose share in 
 a ship insured in the association should be 
 mortgaged, should have any claim to insurance, 
 unless ])reviously to loss such member or mort- 
 gagor should have delivered to the manager of 
 the association a deed with a covenant as therein 
 mentioned. The ship was lost at sea, no such 
 delivery of a deed, as required by the stipula- 
 tion, had taken place, and it was not until the 
 shijiowner sent in his claim for insurance that 
 he had actual knowledge of the rule : — Held, 
 that the owner nutst have imputed to him a 
 knowledge of the rules of the company and the 
 onus was therefore upon him to apply to the 
 mortgagees for the guarantee : and as there was 
 no time fixed for the performance of that duty, 
 there was no waiver by the company of the rule. 
 Tiirnhiill V. Woolfe, 9 Jur. (N.S.) 57 ; 7 L. T. 
 483; 11 W. R. .55. 
 
 One of the rules of a mutual marine assurance 
 society provided that ■• no vessel which is mort- 
 gaged shall be insured, unless the mortgagee give 
 a written guarantee to the satisfaction of the 
 committee for payment of all demands on tlie 
 vessel" : — Held, that this ajiplied only to a ship 
 mortgaged at the time of effecting the insurance, 
 and that it did not render a guarantee necessary 
 when a shi)) was mortgaged after having been 
 insured. Ilutchinxun. v. Wriqlit. 25 Beav. 444 ; 
 27 L. J., Ch. 834 ; 4 Jur. (N.S.) 749 ; 6W. R.475. 
 
 Double Insurance — Mortgage on Ship, Notice 
 of by Member — Estoppel. j — r>y one of the rules 
 of a mutual marine insurance society it was 
 provided that vessels of a certain class should 
 not be insured for more than three-fourths of 
 their value, and that 'Mf any member insure or 
 attempt to insure elsewhere any ship share or 
 shares in any ship already insured in this society, 
 he shall be liable to immediate expulsion and to 
 forfeiture of any claim or demand he may have 
 against the society." By another rule it was 
 provided as follows : '-If it comes to the notice 
 of any member that any vessel or sluire of a 
 vessel insured by the society is mortgaged, he 
 shall immediately give notice in writing of the 
 name and address of the mortgagee. The board 
 of directors nuiy then retpiire the mortgagee to 
 give such security as they <leein necessary for 
 the i>aymeiit to them of all sums which arc or 
 may become due f)n account of such insurance. 
 If such notice is not given, or if the mortgagee 
 refuse to give such security as the society 
 reriuires, the memlx;r in whose name the insur- 
 ance is registered shall during the existence 
 of siu-h mortgage forfeit all claims upon the 
 .society in respect of such vessel or share to the 
 extent of such mortgage thereon." 1'.. on Iji'half 
 of the owner of the ship " Bolina," insured her 
 in the defendant .society for 600Z. 1'. was 
 entered in the society's books as the policy- 
 hohler, and the policy was issued to him. The 
 '• Bolina " was at the time when the insurance 
 was effected insured in another society for 300/., 
 of which insurance the defendants liad know- 
 ledge, and the sum of 300/. together with the 
 600/. above-mentioned amounted to more than
 
 1359 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—XYIII. Companir,, <('r 
 
 1B60 
 
 tluvo-fourths. but less than the whole amount at 
 whieh the directors of the defendant society 
 valued her. During the subsistence of the policy 
 r. became aware tliat the "Bolina" had been 
 niort,L;:aged by the owner for 800/., but no notice 
 of the mortgage was ever given to the society. 
 In an action by the representatives of the owner : 
 — Held, that the society, after issuing the policy 
 of insurance on the "Bolina" with the know- 
 ledge that she was insured elsewhere, was 
 estopped from relying on the rule as to double 
 insurance ; but that as P., who was a member of 
 the society, had not given notice of the mortgage 
 of which he had knowledge, the amount of that 
 mortgage must be deducted from the sum pay- 
 able under the policy. Jonca v. Bdiujor Mutual 
 iSItij)p'nui Iitftu ranee Socicfi/, Gl L. T. 727 ; G Asp. 
 M. C. 450. 
 
 Expulsion of Member.] — A member received 
 notice of expulsion from this society upon the 
 ground that his conduct was suspicious without 
 having an opportmiity of meeting any charge 
 lirought against him. The committee who sent 
 the notice, had power to expel any member 
 whose conduct they deemed to be suspicious. 
 The member brought an action for damages 
 against the members of the committee, alleging 
 tliat he had thereby lost the benefit of his insur- 
 ance and had suffered other damages : — Held, 
 by Kelly, C.B., Tollock and Amphlett, BB., that 
 the declaration shewed no cause of action on the 
 ground that the expulsion was void, if the allega- 
 tions were true : by Cleasby and Pollock. BB., 
 on the ground that the declaration did not 
 sufficiently charge mala fides. Wood v. li'oad, 
 43 L. J., Ex. 153; L. R. 'J Ex. 190; 30 L. T. 
 815 ; 22 W. R. 709 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 289. 
 
 Notice.] — Bj' the rule of a mutual assurance 
 society, the insured was bound to give notice to 
 the directors of any change of the captain of 
 his vessel, and, in ease of default, the society 
 was not to be liable for any subsequent loss. By 
 another rule, notices to members sent by post 
 were to be effectual, though not actually received : 
 — Held, that the directors of the society were 
 members within the latter rule, and that a notice 
 of a change of ca])tain sent to tliem by post was 
 valid, though not actually received by them. 
 Brunford v. Howard, 35 Beav. G13. 
 
 Contribution by Members.] — ^A mutual insur- 
 ance association. Ijy wliich the members wei'e to 
 insure each other's ships, ami to bear the loss in 
 proportion to the premiums charged against each 
 member, and by which the manager was autlio- 
 rised bj' power of attorney to recover the pre- 
 miums, to settle all losses, and to draw on 
 members for their several {proportions of such 
 losses, issued to its members a policy, in the 
 ordinary form of a Lloj'd's policy, with the rules 
 of the association indorsed on and incorporated 
 with the policy. There were i)rinted in the 
 }iolic_y, in a line bj' themselves, the words " twenty 
 pounds per centum " immediately after the 
 acknowledgment " confessing om'selves paid the 
 consideration due mito us for this assui-ancc by 
 the assured, at and after the rate of." The rules 
 indorsed contained nothing to limit the liability 
 of the memoers to 20/. per cent.: — Held, that 
 notwithstanding those words in the policy, the 
 lia1)ility of members to contribute the payment 
 of losses was not limited to 20/. i)cr cent. Gray v. 
 Gilmm. m \.. .^ .. V . 1'. '.'9: L. P. 2 V. P. 120; 
 15 W. R. 70. 
 
 A. and 15. were members of a mutual insurance 
 society, and B., with the other members of the 
 society, was insured to A. upon his shij) in a sum 
 sjiecitied in a policy, subscribed by B. and the 
 other membei's of the society. Annexed to the 
 policy, and forming part of it, were the following 
 rules :— The members of this association shall 
 severally, and not jointly or in partnership, or 
 the one for the other of them, but each only in 
 his own name, insure each other's ships fi-om the 
 dale of entry of each until noon of the 20th of 
 February then next, and from that time until 
 noon of the 20th of February in the next suc- 
 ceeding year-, and so on from year to year, against 
 all losses. In order moi'C readily to provide for 
 the payment of claims, the managers are em- 
 powered to levy contribution of one-fourth part 
 of the fixed animal premium, Avliich shall be 
 drawn for in a prescribed manner. Provided 
 always, that if the gross amount of losses and 
 expenses during the year shall happen to exceed 
 the amount of the i)remiums so realised, the 
 deficiency shall be made good by an additional 
 percentage which the members, during the year, 
 shall be bound to contribute and pay to the 
 managers ; but should the premiums so realised 
 exceed the losses, then the surplus shall be re- 
 turned in pro[)ortiou to the amount of premium 
 respectively contributed by them. The managers' 
 drafts on the members of the association for 
 their proportion of the annual fixed premium, 
 and for any additional ])ercentage, shall be duly 
 accepted, and punctually i)aid when due ; and 
 if any member shall neglect to accept any such 
 drafts, or to pay his contributions, on receiving 
 notice from the managers, his respective shi}) or 
 ships shall immediately cease to be insured in 
 this association, and he shall thenceforth forfeit 
 all claims in respect of any loss, under his policy ; 
 but he shall still remain liable to contribute to 
 all losses and averages which may occur during 
 the period for which any such policy was origi- 
 nally granted, and the amount due from any 
 defaulting member shall be considered as a debt 
 due to the managers, and shall be recoverable 
 by them at law : — Held, that, on the true con- 
 struction of the rules and under the circumstances 
 as they appeared on the record, B. was not indi- 
 vidually liable. Redicay v. Stcceti/ir/, 3G L. J., 
 Ex. 185: L. II. 2 Ex. 400; IG L. T. 495: 15 
 W. R. 908. 
 
 S. made an apjjlication in writing to become a 
 member of a mutual assurance association in 
 respect of an insurance for 300/. upon his ship : 
 the ship was accepted and an unstamped copy 
 of a iiolicy returned to him. By the regulations 
 of the association he would have to contribute 
 to losses upon the ships of oth<?i- members. No 
 stamped policy was ever executed by him. He 
 contributed to losses ui)on some ships of various 
 members. His own ship sustained an injury, but 
 before the amount of the loss could be estimated, 
 the association was ordered to be wound up : — 
 Held, that he was not a contributory, as the un- 
 stamped i)olicy could not, under 35 Geo. 3, c. (i3, 
 be receivetl in evidence of his agreement to 
 become a member. London Marine Inai/ranrr 
 Axxociation, In ri\ Smith. Ex parte. 'i^ L. J., Ch. 
 G81 ; L. R. 4 Ch. GU ; 21 L. T. 97 ; 17 W. R. 941. 
 
 Repayment of Premiums.] — An association 
 was not registered under the companies acts 
 Persons became members by effecting mutual 
 |)olicies : members were empowered also to effect 
 •• s[)ccial rate policies." 'The aiiplicants were not
 
 18G1 
 
 SHIPPIXG— IXSUriAXCE— XYIII. Companies, dc. 
 
 1362 
 
 members, but had taken out a '• special rate 
 policy," signed per procuration by J. and S., the 
 mauagei-s. who gave and accei)ted on their per- 
 sonal liability a bill of exchange for the amount 
 assured. In a similar case, the amount assured 
 had been disallowed by the a^ipeal court as a 
 claim made on the association. J. and S. became 
 insolvent, and their acceptance was dishonoured. 
 De W. k. Co. claimed that the amount of the 
 lu'emiums should be repaid them by the mem- 
 bei-s of the association : — Held, that they were 
 not entitled to have the premiums repaid, be- 
 cause, fii-st, as they well knew, J. and .S. had no 
 power, as agents, to grant such a policy to non- 
 membere ; and secondly, there was no failure of 
 consideration, as J. and S. had made themselves 
 pei-sonally liable. Arthur Areraqe Asxociation. 
 Ill rp. J)i' Wmtoiis CuKC. 34 L. t. 042 : 3 Asp. 
 M. C. 24.5. 
 
 Arbitration — Proper Hearing.] — In an 
 aciiiiu for colli.-ioii.it apiieaifil that the plain- 
 tiff's vessel and the defendant's vessel were 
 iiisurcil in a mutual insurance company, by the 
 rules of which it was provided that, in the event 
 of a collision occurring between two vessels 
 insured in the company. iS:c., the owners of 
 such vessels should immediately submit a state- 
 ment of the whole circtimstances of the collision 
 . . . and the directors, after receiving such 
 >tatenient, should have power to arbitrate on 
 the matter, and their decision should be final. 
 The plaintiff gave notice of the collision to 
 the secretary of the company. The secretary 
 obtained statements as to the collision from the 
 master of the plaintiff's vessel, and from the 
 master of the defendant's vessel. A meeting of 
 <h'rectoi's was held, at which the defendant's 
 master was ])resent, but no one on behalf of the 
 plaintiff, and a resolution was passed that the 
 <Iefcndant's vessel had not been in collision with 
 that of the plaintiff :— Held, that there had 
 never been a proper hearitig of the case by the 
 ilirectors ; that the resolution i>asse<l by them 
 was therefore not an arbitration within the 
 meaning of the rule, and that the plaintiff was 
 not estopped by it from bringing an action for 
 damage. Senible, that the rule mitst be taken 
 to mean that it should be a condition precedent 
 to an arbitration tliat both parties had agreed 
 as to the fact of a collision liaving taken place. 
 nr Wurwirh; 15 V. D. 18'J ; 03 L. T. .5(31 ; (i Asp. 
 M.C. r.4.-,. 
 
 Estoppel — Condition Precedent.] — A. 
 
 effected in a mutual iiiMirain'e coiiij)aiiy a jiolicy 
 of insurance on ship, one of the conditions of 
 wliich was, tliat the sum to be paid to any 
 insurer foi' loss .should, in tlic fiist instance, lie 
 ascertained by tlic committee : but if a difference 
 should arise between tlie insurer and tlie com- 
 mittee, " relative to the settling «jf any loss, or 
 to a claim for average, or any other matter 
 relating to tlie insurance." the difference was to 
 be referi'(Ml to arbitration, in a way pointed out 
 in the conditions: '"provided always, that no 
 insurer who refuses to accept tlie amount 
 settled by the committee shall be entitled to 
 maintain any action at law or suit in eijuity 
 on his ])olicy," until the matter has been 
 <lecidcd by tlie arbitratoi-s. and ''then only 
 for such sum as tliey shall awaid'' ; and the 
 obtaining the decision (pf the arbitrators was 
 declared a condition iPicccdent to tlic main- 
 taining of an action : — Held, that these con- 
 
 ditions were lawful, and that (even should 
 the difference relate to other matters than 
 those of mere amount) till award made no 
 action was maintainable. Scott v. Avery. .5 
 H. L. Cas. 811 ; 2.'-> L. J.. Ex. 308 ; 2 Jur. (>r.s.) 
 815 ; 4 W. R. 740. But see as to fraud on 
 questions of law. Ale.r/iudcr v. C'aiiijjhell, 27 
 L. T. 402 : 1 Asp. M. C. 447— C.A. Keversing 41 
 L.J., Ch. 478. 
 
 Limited by Guarantee — Limitation of Liability 
 — Members having Twofold Liability.] — A 
 mutual marine insui'ance association was incor- 
 poratetl, under the Companies Act, 18(52, as an 
 association limited by guarantee. The memo- 
 randum of association declared that every mem- 
 ber undertook to contribute to the assets of the 
 association, in the event of its being Avound up, 
 a sum not exceeding 5?. for the jmyment of the 
 debts and liabilities of the association, and the 
 costs, charges and expenses of winding it up, 
 and for the adjustment of the rights of con- 
 tributories amongst themselves. The defendant 
 entered his ship to be insured in the association, 
 and b}^ the rules of the association he, by so 
 doing, also became an insurer of the ships of 
 other members of the association who entered 
 their ships in the same class. While the defen- 
 dant continued to be a member the association 
 was wound up. In an action brought, pursuant 
 to the rules of the association, to recover from 
 the defendant a sum of 35Z. as contribution 
 towards losses incurred by other members insured 
 in the same class as that in which he had 
 entered his ship, the defendant contended that 
 his liability was limited bj- the memorandum of 
 association to a sum of '>!. : — Held, that the limit 
 of ')l. only ajiplied to the liabilities incurred by 
 the defendant as a member to the association, 
 and that his liability as an insurer towards the 
 other members of the association who entered 
 their ships in the association was not limited to 
 that amount. Linn Miitnnl M//r//ir Inxiinuivr 
 Ai>/«)riufiim V. Tiirlicr. .58 L. .J.. <>. 15. 185: 12 
 Q. 15. D. 17G ; 49 L. T. 704 ; 32 W. It. 510—0. A. 
 
 Annual Policies — Forfeiture for Nonpayment 
 of Contribution — Set-off of Contribution against 
 Loss.] — By the rules of a marine insurance asso- 
 ciation the members insured each other's ships 
 from noon of February 2(1 in any year, or from 
 the date of entiy of a vessel until noon of 
 February 20 in the succeeding year: and the 
 managers were empowered to levy contributions 
 of one-fourth i>art of the estimated annual 
 premium quarterly in each year, such premiums 
 of insurance to form a fund for the payment of 
 claims, and if any member slionld ici'use to pay 
 his conlril)Utic)iis thereto, his ship should cease 
 to be insured, an<l he should thenceforth forfeit 
 all claims in resjiect of any lo.ss. On ilic 5ili 
 April, is.sl, a loss, incurred in the year js.so-i 
 upon a shijt belonging to the jihiintiff, and 
 insured in the association, was fixed by an 
 average-.'idiuster at ISO/. A call of 41/! 10.«., 
 made on thei.hiintiff on the 5tli May, 18S1. for the 
 second <iuarter of lHKl-2, was by mutual consent 
 set off against the loss. On the 13th May. ISSI, 
 the as.«ociation jiaid the plaintiff lOO/. on further 
 account of tin; loss. On the 23ril June, 1881, a 
 call was matle on the )»laintiff of 52/. 16.v. 8^7., 
 and on the 5tli July, IHK], another call of 31/. 4.v. 
 The plaintiff having tenderc<l the balance due 
 from him. the association refused to accept it, 
 and dining the pendency of an action to recover
 
 1363 
 
 SHIPPING— INSUEANCE—XVIIT. CompaincH, c(-c. 
 
 1364 
 
 tlie full amount of the two calls one of the 
 plaintiff's ships insured in the association was 
 wholly lost : — Held, on case stated, that the 
 plaintiff's ship did not ce<ise to be insured, and 
 that he had not forfeited his claim in respect of 
 the loss. ]]'iini/ Ills' V. lirifix/i Murhie Mutual 
 Inxitraiice A.isori'ifioii. .")7 L. T. 27 : (> Asp. M. C. 
 184. .I«r7 .srr 1. Actions fou Contkibution, 
 supra. 
 
 4. Winding-up. 
 
 Claim by Creditor — Admission in Books.] — A. 
 
 insured a ship in a mutual insurance assciciation 
 in 18G:5, and the policy, which was not stamped, 
 was annually renewed up to the year enfling 
 March, 1808. In February, 1868, the shi}i, with 
 A. on board, was lost at sea. The loss of the ship 
 was reported to the association, and from entries 
 in the minute books the money due upon the 
 policy was raised by order of the committee, but 
 retained by the secretary until a personal repre- 
 sentative to A. had been appointed. The company 
 was ordered to be wound up in January, 1870, 
 and A."s widow obtained letters of administration 
 to him in December, 1871. Upon a claim by the 
 widow under the windin^'-up for the amount 
 secured by the policy : — Held, that there was a 
 sufficient admission of liability in the books of 
 the company to enable the widow to recover as a 
 creditor for the amount secured by the policy, 
 although, from the absence of a stamj), the policy 
 itself, upon which the claim arose, could not be 
 given in evidence, 'feignnumth and General 
 Mutual Shipjying Anxociatiim. In re. MarthCs 
 Claim, 41 L. J.,'Ch. 679 ; L. E. 14 Eq. 148 ; SC 
 L. T. 684 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 325. 
 
 Contributories — Evidence.] — B. &; Co.. by letter, 
 authorised tlic managers of a mutual marine 
 insurance association to insure a ship with the 
 association, and undertook to abide by the rules 
 and regulations thereof. By the rules, each 
 insurer became liable to contribute to the losses 
 of any other insurer in certain proportions. In 
 pursuance of the authority given by B. & Co., 
 a duly stamped policy was issued to them, which, 
 however, contained no reference to the rules : — 
 Held, that the letter, although not stamped, was 
 
 admissible in evidence, and that B. <fc Co. were 
 contributories. Albert Areraqe Asxociation, In 
 re, Hl!/th\s Case, L. R. IS Eq. 529 ; 20 W. H. 504. 
 
 Bemoval of Contributory.] — An unregistered 
 mutual marine assurance association was ordered 
 to be wound uj) in 1870. A rule of the associa- 
 tion provided that any policy-holder should cease 
 to be a member forty-eight hours after the loss 
 of his ship. A. had ceased to be a member under 
 this rule in 1867, but a part of tlie sum insured 
 by his policy was still due at the date of the 
 winding-np. A. proved his debt in the winding- 
 up, was put upon the list of contributories, and 
 paid a call. In 1875 all the policies were hehl to 
 be illegal, and all the debts of the company were 
 consequently exjjunged, except 42Z. (kie to outside 
 creditors. On an application by A. to have his 
 name removed from the list of contributories : — 
 Held, that it could not be so removed, and that 
 he was liable to contribute to the costs of the 
 winding-up. Queen's Acerar/e Assuciafion, In re, 
 Lynes, Ex parte, 38 L. T. 90 ; 26 W. E. 432 ; 3 
 Asp. M. C. 576. 
 
 Mutual Marine Insurance Association — Rights 
 of Creditors and Contributories inter se.J — Order 
 matlc for winding up an unregistcreil mutual 
 marine insurance association : — Held, that the 
 I order did not affect the contract made between 
 1 the parties ; that the liability of each member 
 extended only to the payment of such propor- 
 ', tions as the rules prescribed of the various losses 
 I that occurred during the subsistence of his policy : 
 ! that payment to the secretary discharged each 
 j member to the extent of such payment ; that 
 ; outside ci'editors were creditors, not of the asso- 
 ciation or of the members collect ivelj', but of the 
 persons who onlered goods or services ; that the 
 ct)Sts of winding-up were to be borne by payers 
 and receivers ratably according to the amounts 
 paid or received by them respectively. London 
 Marine Assurance Assoriation, In re, Andrew's 
 and Ale.rander's Case. Chaffs Case, CooJi's Case, 
 Crew's Case, L. E. 8 E(i. 176 : 20 L. T. 943 ; 17 
 W. E. 784. 
 
 And see A rt/inr Arerat/e Assoriation, 45 L. J.- 
 Ch. 346 ; 3 Ch. D. 522 ; 34 L. T. 388 ; 24 W. E. 514 : 
 supra, col. 1035.
 
 INDEX OF HEADINGS 
 
 ABANDONMENT, 
 
 freight, payment of, on, 384 
 
 insurance, generally, 1277 — 1297. <SV(- Insviianci:. 
 
 notice of. 1277—1283 
 
 of voyage, 1211 
 
 ACCEPTANCE, 
 
 of notice of aljiindonnu-nt, 1282 
 
 ACCIDENT, INEVITABLE, 
 collision, 703 
 
 costs, 8o8 
 
 ACTION, 
 
 for collision, 837 — 864. Sec Collt.siux. 
 
 contriljution, insurance company, 1352 
 
 demurrage, 4r»2, 4'.t3 
 
 damage to cargo, SaO, 968 
 
 freight, 427 
 
 limitation of liability, 749 
 
 mortgage money, 188 
 
 jiremiums, ] 30S> 
 on charterparty, 297 
 
 polic)-, 1314 — 1330. Sec Insikance. 
 
 ADJUSTMENT UF LOSS, 
 computation, 1255 
 efiect of, 12(52 
 persons adjusting, 1253 
 
 ADMIHALTY, LAW AND I'KACTKE; 
 amendment, 975, 1001 
 appeals, to Court of Appiai, 1010 
 Privy Council, 1012 
 from County Court, 1014 
 appearance, 974, 975, (Addenda) 975, 1014 — lOlG 
 ai)praisement, 984 
 anest, 97t! 
 assessors, 849, 998 
 l.ail, 981 
 beaconage, 951 
 
 bottomry, 929. yij/r^ .src I'aittcmkv. 
 brcacli of contract, 9(58 
 breaking arrest, 981 
 
 Chancery jurisdiction in Admiralty, 46, 52, 291, 93(; 
 consolidation, .salvage suits, 1001 
 co-ownership, 929, 957. And sec Qwsv.w^. 
 costs, cidlision, 855 — 863 
 
 generally, 1017, (Addenda) 1020 
 of appeal, 1024 
 reference, 1022 
 colours, ilh-gal, 951 
 Courts of Admiralty, Ciiir|ue Ports, 915 
 
 Consular Courts, 946 
 High Court, 948 
 Passage Court, 915 
 Vice Admiralty Courts, 946 
 damage to cargo, 968
 
 180(5 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 
 
 AD.MIKAI.TV, ].AW AND VllACnVK—contiumd. 
 (Iclault i)rocci;diiigs, 987 
 ilisbursi'iuciits, Sd, 952 
 (liscoviay, 995 
 droits, 950 
 
 enlistment, foreign, 951, (Addenda) 951 
 evidence, lOOH 
 execution, 1007 ' 
 
 inspecttion, 995 
 
 interrogatories, 997, i;Addendu) 997 
 judgment and decree, 1007 
 jurisdiction, assault, 925 
 collision, 837 
 
 foreigners, foreign ships, 124, 758, J;o8, 921, 
 locality, 922, (Addenda) 922 
 loss of life. 925 
 
 maritime lien, 923. And sec Golmsion. 
 mortgage, 193, 925. ^ind see Moi!T(!Ai;k, 
 ]iei-sonal injuiy, 925 
 }iroliibitionH, 926 — 936 
 salvage, 593, 660 
 
 subject-matter of, 921 
 jury, 1002 
 
 law applicable in Admiralty, 948 
 necessaries, 960 — 967. Sec N]':cEssAiiiES. 
 ])articulars, 995 
 parties, 973 
 piracy, 930, 971 
 
 pleadings, 226, 993. And sec Cou.isiox. 
 possession, 53, 955 
 practitioners, 971 
 preliminary Act, 842, 992 
 prize, 931," 951 
 
 ])roceedings in actions, various, 1004 
 prohibitions, 926 — 936 
 reference, 1005, (Addenda) 1005 
 registrar, ofRee of, 948 
 restraint, 54, 953 
 right to begin, 1003 
 •stile, 164, 984 
 
 .security for costs, 864, 1009 
 .slave trade, 971 
 stay, 989 
 tender, 669, 1003 
 transfer, 989 
 
 wages, 89, 93, 106, 126, 952. See Wages. 
 wreck, 94 S 
 
 writ, 975, (Addenda) 840, 975 
 wi'ongfuUy suing in Adm'iralty, action tor, 926 
 
 ADVANCt: NOTE, 117, 125 
 
 ADA'ANCES, 
 
 building ship, 1 7 
 
 insurance ot, 1130 
 
 to seamen, advance note, 117, 125 
 
 ACxEKT, 
 
 insurance by, 1046 
 
 knowledge of, concealment, insurance, 1185 
 
 salvage by, 621 
 
 AGREEMENT, 
 
 apportionment ol' salvage, 651 
 
 salvage. 653 
 
 unfair, setting aside, salvage, 652, 653 
 
 seamen's wages, 118, 137 
 ALTERATION, 
 
 of chailerparty, 254 
 policy, 1041 
 
 AMENDMENT, 
 
 Admiralty ])ractice, 633, 1001 
 of writ, (Addenda) 840, 976
 
 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 1367 
 
 ANCHOR, 
 
 collision, when at, 695 
 
 coming to an, 602 
 ready to let go, 693 
 
 AXCHORAGE DUES, 88.", 
 
 APPEAL, 
 
 Admiialty, to Conrt of Appeal, 1010 
 
 Privy Council or House of Lords, 1012, (Addenda^ I01-'> 
 
 from County Court, 1014, (Addenda) 1016 
 
 costs, 860, 1024 
 salvage award, amount, 644 
 
 APPEARAXCK, 
 
 Admiralty piactire, 97") 
 
 defiiult of, 841, (Addenda) 97;', 
 
 APPOKTIOXMKXT, SALVAGE, 647 
 agreement to a]ii>ortion, 651 
 
 APPRALSEMEXT, 632, 984 
 
 APPREXTICES, 
 
 salvage, entitled to, 621 
 
 ARIJITRATIOX, 
 
 insurance, actiim on i>olicy, l:'.2-j 
 ARREST. 
 
 Admiralty practice, 976 
 breaking," 981 
 cargo, 720 
 
 ASSAULT, 
 
 Admiralty jurisdiction, 9:^5 
 
 ASSESSORS, 849, 998 
 
 ASSIGNMENT, 
 
 of l)ill of lading, 343 
 cargo, 541 
 freight, 3'.t2. H:; 
 ])olicy, 1311 
 salvage, 653 
 
 ship, right to freight, 392 
 wages. 111 
 
 ASSOCIATION, 1XSI:|;aXCK. 1350, 1363. AVr Comi-axv, IxsrRANc.c. 
 ATTORXEV. 
 
 sale of ship by, 159 
 
 AUTHORITY, 
 
 of master over .seaman, 136 
 
 to sell .ship, 87, 16(i, 1297 
 cnrgo, 87, 523, l:!fi] 
 to bottomry, 200 
 
 .\VEltA(;E, GKNEItAL, 
 action for, praitice, 591 
 .\dmiralty jurisdiction, 592 
 average act, 580 
 bond. 590 
 statement, 590 
 bill ofl.-iding, provisions as to. 313, 327 
 cargo sold fdr repairs, 582 
 
 forwarding and .salving, 5.S2 
 contribution, law :ipj)licnble, 58M 
 m.'inner, 588 
 what (-ontributcs, 5SS 
 who contiiliutes, 5^^ 
 (ire. 585 
 
 insurance, general average, loss, 1240 
 
 ji'ttison, 586 
 
 port of refuge expenses, 583 
 
 spars sacrificed, 581
 
 1368 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 
 
 A V K i; AG E, P ART IC UL AR, 
 warranty against, l'Ii7 
 
 AWARD, SALVAGE, 631, 644. Sec Salnagk. 
 
 liAlE, 
 
 collision, 841 
 generally, 981—984 
 insufficient, 8r>0 
 release on, (Addenda) S.'il 
 
 BANKRUPTCY, 
 
 of builder of ship, 20 
 
 ])urchaser, 21 
 insurance, action on policy, 13:34 
 ' broker, 1342, 1344 
 
 BARRATRY, 
 
 liy uiaster, 105 
 insurance, effect of, 1100 
 
 proof of, 1100 
 
 what is, 1097 
 
 who can couiinit 1099 
 
 BEACONAGE, 951 
 
 BILL OF EXCHANGE, 
 
 bill of lading, drawn against, 358, 359, 363 
 fruiglit, payment by, 413 
 
 BILL OF LADING, 
 
 assignment of, 343 
 
 bill of exchange, drawn against, 359 
 
 charterparty, provisions in, as to, 278, 308, 317 
 
 construction, 306 
 
 currency, 305 
 
 effect, 314 
 
 evidence of usage, 307 
 
 exceptions in, 
 
 generally, 325—343 
 
 negligence, 333 
 
 perils of the sea, 328 
 
 various, 338 
 forged, 366 
 form, 304 
 freight, provisions as to, 310. So: Fimcicht. 
 
 payable by indorsee, 402 
 indorsement, conditional, 359 
 
 effect of, demurrage, 451. Sec Dr.MURUAGE. 
 
 freight, 402 
 generally, 313, 34-3—350 
 liabilit}^ statutory limit, 328 
 lien for demurrage, 491 
 
 freight, 428—443. See Fi;f.I(;iit. 
 
 of shipping agent, 366 
 master, signature by, 314 
 mate's recei])t, 318 
 uon-production of, denmrrage, 479 
 pledging, 365 
 presentation, 313 
 pro]ierty passing by, 350 
 revocation, 305 
 statements in, 
 
 date of shipment, 319 
 
 ipiality of goods, 319 
 
 quantity of goods, 319 
 transfer of, 343 — 350 
 
 BOARD OF TRADE PROCEEDINGS, 
 Marine Board inrpiiries, 876 
 unseaworthy ships, detention of, 877 
 Avreck inquiries, 874 
 
 BOTTOJIRY, 
 
 Admiralty jurisdiction, 225, 929. ,See Bottom Kv. 
 costs, 228
 
 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 
 
 1369 
 
 BOTTOM RY~con(im(cd. 
 
 instruments aniountincr to, 195 
 
 validity, 198 
 interest, 223 
 items allowed, 214 
 .iurisdietion, 225 
 law applicable, 213 
 loss or repayment, condition of, 221 
 marshalling, 220 
 
 master, autlioritj^ to bottomry, 206 
 practice, 225 
 priorities, 216 
 
 BROKER, 
 
 insurance broker, 
 
 autliority to pay loss, 1340 
 
 receive loss, 1340 
 
 duty of, 1336 
 
 employment, 1335 
 
 liabilit}', generally, ];J3(; 
 
 for policv-iiioiK'vs, 1344 
 
 lien of, 1346 " ' 
 
 retainer of, 1335 
 
 remuneration, 1344 
 
 set-off by, 1342 
 passa^'e broker, 873 
 shipbroker, 914—920 
 
 l^'ILDIXG OF SHIP, 
 advances for, 17 
 bankruptcy of builder, 20 
 
 purchaser, 21 * 
 
 contract for, 14 
 
 CAX'CELLATIOX, 
 
 of bill of lading, 305 
 cliarterpaitv, 254 
 policy, 1040, 1303 
 
 CAPACITY OF SHIP, 
 
 warranty of, 270 
 
 CAPTURE, 
 
 abandonment on, 12Sn 
 freight payable on, 375 
 insurance against, 1176 
 proof of, 1108 
 what is, 1104 
 
 CARGO, 
 
 action for loss or damage, 550, 555, 968 
 
 damages, 558 
 
 parties, 550 
 
 jiroof of loss, 553 
 
 negligmicH, 553 
 receijiT. 552 
 .Admiralty jurisdiction, 555, 968 
 arrest of, 720 
 assignment of, 541 
 
 autliority of mastwr to sell, 87, 523, 1301 
 bottomry of, 195—239. .SVv; Bottomry. 
 damage to cargo, action foi-, 550, 555, 968 
 
 deck cargo, 502, 1130, 1207 djtJU-^^f^ , uAcJ. u> ">^f^' » R<^". Jfrp. 
 
 discliarge, manner of, 527 
 
 place, 535 
 
 time, 527 
 fitness for shiitnient, 501 
 freiglit. ,SW: Fkkic.mt. 
 fnli and complete, 494 
 insurance, abandonment, effect of, 12'J4 
 
 condition of, concealment as to, 1191 
 
 interest of assured, 1118 
 
 sale of, by master, 1301 
 
 warranty as to. 1177
 
 1370 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 
 
 CARGO — continued. 
 ietlison, 541, 1130 
 lieu, 24, 428, 491, 561 
 loading, custom as to, 50S 
 
 lighters, 510 
 
 manner, 50S 
 
 place, 511 
 
 refusal or neglect to li.ad, 513 
 
 return cargo, 511 
 mortgage of, 541 
 
 notice of arrival, ready to load, 504 
 receipt, proof of, 55"J 
 redeliver}', denaauded hy shipper, 519 
 reshipmcnt, 520, 521 
 refusal to receive, 537 
 return cargo, 511 
 sale of. 87, 523, 541, 1301 
 short delivery, freight, 380 
 
 stoppage in transitu, 565 — 580. Sec Stoltage in Tuaxsitl', 
 sto»/age, duty of master, 516 
 
 by stevedore, 515 
 sufficiency of, 494 
 transhipment, 520, 521 
 various matters as to, 564 
 warehousing, 538 
 
 CARRIER, 
 
 liability of shipowner, as common, 74, (Addenda) 74 
 
 upon contract, 74. See Chauteri-ahty, Bill of Ladinc 
 to passengei', 78. Sec Passengek. 
 
 CERTIFICATE, 
 
 of mastei-, 106 
 
 ship's register, 30, scq. 
 seaman, character, 137 
 
 CESSER CLAUSE, 
 
 charterparty, demurrage, or freight, 402, 446 
 
 CHANCERY, 
 
 jurisdiction. Admiralty, 46, 52, 291, 936 
 insurance, 1200, 1334 
 
 CHARACTER, CERTIFICATE OF, 137 
 
 CHARTERER, 
 
 liability of, generally, 292 
 
 for demurrage, 446 
 freight, 400, 402 
 salvage, right to, 620 
 
 CHARTERPARTY, 
 
 alteration of, 254 
 
 liill of lading, jirovisions as to, 278 
 
 cancellation of, 254 
 
 cesser clause, 402, 446 
 
 conditions, 256 
 
 construction of, 236, 252 
 
 damages, breach of, 297 
 
 demise of ship, 294 
 
 enforcing in equity, 291 
 
 evidence, 252, 297 
 
 exemptions from liability, 273 
 
 form of, 236 
 
 frost preventing Inading, 245 
 
 law applicable, 240 
 
 legality of, 235 
 
 liability of agent, 292 
 
 charterer, 292 
 loss of, collision, damages, 732 
 parties, 230 
 performance of, 
 
 deviation and delay, 286 
 
 hostile or blockaded port, 281 
 
 nominating jiort, 280
 
 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 1B71 
 
 CHARTKRP ARTY— conUnimL 
 pleadiiif^s, 297 
 
 proeeediug to a port, or as near thereto, ki:., 24"j! 
 provisions of, various, 247 
 sailing, 246, 265 
 Avarraut}' of ship's capacit}-, 270 
 
 fitness of ship, 257 
 
 generally, 256 — 273 
 
 position of ship, 260 
 
 sailing, 260 
 
 seaworthiness, 257 
 
 CLEARANX'E, 
 
 goods shipped after, insurance, 1206 
 
 COASTGITAHDSMEX, 
 salvage by, 622 
 
 COLLISIOX, 
 
 anchor, coming to an, 692 
 ready to let go, 693 
 when at, 695 
 bail, 841, 850 
 
 compulsory ]nlot, 763 — 765. Sec Pii.or. 
 duties of crew, 774 
 pilot, 771 
 proof of ])ilot's fault, 77u 
 crew, sufficiency of, 689 
 costs, 855 — 864. Sec Costs. 
 cross action, security for costs, 841 
 damages, 726 — 738 
 demurrage, 731 
 loss of profits, 732 
 interest, 729 
 salvage expenses, 730 
 default of appearance, (Addenda) 975, 9SS 
 division of loss, 735 
 foreign ship, 758, 837 
 foul berth, 694 
 getting under way, 696 
 going about, 697 
 inevitable accident, 703 
 .jurisdiction, 837, 922 
 launch, collision at, 696 
 law ap])lical)le, foreign shij), 758 
 liability of harl)0ur authority, 722 
 pilotage authority, 722 
 ship, 717—721 
 shipowner, 714 
 limitation of, 738 — 754 
 lieu, damage, 717 — 721 
 limitation of liability, 738 — 754 
 local rules of navigation, 827 — 836 
 look-out, 691 
 
 negligence, generally, 685 — 7"1 
 proof of, 701 
 Viirious (!ases, 698 
 ))ilot, action against, 839, (Addenda) 839 
 jiractice, 
 
 costs, 8.'>5— 864 
 evidence, 847 
 generally, 837 — 855 
 insjiection, 846 
 interrogatories, 840 
 ].arties, 72.'>, 840, (Addenda) 841) 
 1.1.,'adings, 843 
 preliminiiry Act, 842 
 proof of negligi-nce, 701, 77<^> 
 recovery, persons entitled to, 725 
 regulations, generally, 785 
 
 cases on specific, 787 — 827, (Addenda) 790 
 res insufficient, 850 
 running-down clause, insurance, 1082 
 speed, 690, 799 
 
 S. 44
 
 1372 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 
 
 COLLISION — continued. 
 
 sunken ship, damage by, 689, 721 
 
 tug and tow, 754 
 
 wrong act of other ship, 698 
 
 COLOURS, ILLEGAL, 951 
 
 COMMISSION, 
 
 insurance broker, 1344 
 sliipbroker, 167 
 
 COMPANY, INSURANCE, 
 
 contribution, winding-up, 1352 
 legality, 1350 
 rules, 1357 
 winding-up, 1363 
 
 CONCEALMENT, 
 
 insurance, 1178 — 1201 
 
 CONDITIONS. 
 
 bill of lading, 306, seq. And sec Bill of Lading. 
 charterparty, 256 
 
 CONFISCATION, 
 
 insurance, abandonment, 1292 
 
 warranty against, 1173 
 
 CONSIGNEE, 
 
 demurrage, payment by, 451 
 freight, payment by, 397 
 
 CONSOLIDATION, 
 
 Admiralty, practice as to, 1001 
 insurance, actions on poHcy, 1321 
 salvage, 668 
 
 CONSTRUCTION, 
 bill of lading, 306 
 charterparty, 236, 252 
 policy, 1043, 1318 
 
 CONTRACT, 
 
 breach of. Admiralty jurisdiction, 927, 968 
 
 passengers, conveyance of, 866 
 
 salvage, 647, 651, 653 
 
 seamen's wages, 106, 118. ,S'cc Wages. 
 
 CONTRIBUTION, 
 
 general average, 588 
 salvage, 626 
 
 CONTRIBUTORY, 
 
 insurance company, winding-up, 1352 
 
 CONVOY, 
 
 insurance, seeking, deviation, 1223 
 
 warranty to sail with, 1167 
 
 CO-OWNERS. See Paut Owners. 
 
 COSTS, 
 
 Admiralty practice, 1017—1027; (Addenda) 1020 
 
 bottomry, 228 
 
 collision, 
 
 appeal, 860 
 
 both ships in fault, 859 
 
 compulsory pilot, 856 
 
 High Court or Countj' Court, 861 
 
 inevitable accident, 858 
 
 reference, 862 
 
 security for, 841, 864 
 mortgage, 194
 
 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 1373 
 
 ■COSTS — contiii Kcd. 
 
 of ajipeal, StjO, 1024 
 
 of reference, 1022 
 
 salvage, 674 
 
 security for, 841, St34, 1009 
 
 COURT, 
 
 Admiralt)'. Sec Admiualty Law and PiLVCTicr 
 
 Cimiue Ports, Adminilty, 945 
 
 Consular, 946 
 
 County Court, Admiralty, 837, 839, 937, (Addenda) 1014-1016 
 
 collision, (iosts, S61 
 
 salvage, 664 
 
 wages, 92 
 Passage, 839, 945 
 Vice- Admiralty, 946 
 
 €REW. feSKAMEX. 
 
 duties of, collision, compulsory piiota"-p 774 
 injiiry to, liability, 73 ' " ' 
 
 sulticieucy, warranty of seaworthiness, 1157 
 
 •CROSS ACTIOX, COLLISIOX, 841 
 
 CRUISIXG, 
 
 insurance, deviation, 1223 
 
 CUSTOM. Andscc\]>^AG\-. 
 
 insurance, concealment, 1188 
 
 of i)ort, loading and discharging, 470 
 
 •.ontrary to collision regulations, 786 * 
 
 DESERTION, 128 
 
 DA^^IAGE TO CARGO, 
 
 action for, 550, seq., 968 
 damages, 519, 557 
 freiglit. payment of, on, 380 
 proof of, 553 
 
 DAMAflES, 
 
 Ijad stowage, 519 
 
 charterparty, 297 
 
 ilamage to cargo, 557 
 
 collision, 726—738. Sec Gcjlli.sidx. 
 
 demurrage, 731 
 
 loss of profits, 732 
 
 salvage expenses, 730 
 non-deliveiy of cargo, 558 
 
 DECK CARGO, 
 generally, 502 
 insurance, 1207 
 jettison, 1130 
 
 DEFAULT, 
 
 proceedings, in Admiralty, (Addciidaj 975, 987 
 
 DELA^'. Sec Demiiirai;!:. 
 charterparty, 286 
 
 DELIVERY, SHORT, 
 
 li.iynient of freight, on, 380 
 
 DE.MISE OF SHIP, 294, 714, 720 
 
 DEMURRAGE, 
 
 ca\ises of delay, 
 
 hill of lading, non-).roductioii of, 17'J 
 
 strikes, 480 
 
 various causes, 482 
 
 weatiier, 476 
 cesser clause, 446 
 collision, ilamages for, 731 
 
 11— -2
 
 1374 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 
 
 DEMURRAGE— cohZ/h^^/. ' 
 
 jurisdiction, 492 
 'liability for, 440—156 
 
 charterer, 446 
 
 consignee or iiulorscr of bill of lading, 451 
 lieu for, 491 
 notice of arrival, 456 
 place of arrival, 461 
 
 discharge, 461 
 pleading, 493 
 practice, 492 
 rate, 491 
 
 rules of port, loading and discharge 470 
 time, calculation of, 457 
 
 DERELICT, 
 
 salvage of, 629, 641 
 wreck, 629, 948 
 
 DETENTION, 
 
 restraint of princes, insurance, 1089, 1216 
 payment of freight, 377, 384 
 unseaworthy ships, 877 
 
 DEVIATION, 
 
 charterparty, 286 
 
 insiu-ance, 1212—1224. Sec iNsruANCE. 
 
 DISBURSEMENTS, 
 
 Admiralty jurisdiction, 89, ,952 
 lien for, 97 
 priorities, 101 
 
 DISCHARGE OF CARGO, 
 lighters, 510 
 manner, 535 
 place, 535 
 
 refusal to receive, 537 
 warehousing, 538 
 
 DISCOVERY, 995, 1317, (Addenda) 997 
 
 DISSOLUTION OF CONTRACT, 
 
 insurance, 1303—1309 
 seamen's wages, 118 
 salvage, 652, 653 
 towage, 612 
 
 DIVISION OF LOSS, 735 
 
 DOCKS, 
 
 dock-master, duties of, 913 
 
 dock-owners, liabilities of, 908, (Addenda) 910 
 
 regulation of, 903 
 
 repairs of, 903 
 
 tolls and dues, 906 
 
 DOCUMENTS. .SW; Evidence. ^ ^_ /HjlJUjl jib" 
 
 inspection and discovery, 995, 998, 1317 v 
 
 insurance, warranty, 1170 
 provisions in charterparty as to, 278 
 
 DROITS, 950. And sec AVreck. 
 
 EilBARGO, 
 
 insurance, abandonment, 1292 
 voyage, 1209 
 
 EMIGRANT SHIP, 873 
 
 ENLISTMENT, FOREIGN, 951, (Addenda) 951
 
 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 13^ 
 
 EQUITY. Sec Chaxckiiy. 
 
 enforcement of chartei-paity, 291 
 
 EYIDEXCE, 
 
 Adniiraltj', 1000 
 cliarterparty, 252, 297 
 collision, 847 
 insnrance, action on iiolicy, 1317 
 
 of loss, 1087 
 of ownersliip, 42 
 of usage, 307, 252, 1318 
 on appeal, (Addenda) 1016 
 salvage, 67-i 
 
 EXCEPTIONS, 
 
 in 1)111 of lading, 32.')— 343 
 negligence, 333 
 perils of the sea, 328 
 various, 338 
 ill <diarterpart}% 273 
 
 EXEMPTION FROM LIAHILITV. Sec Excevtiox> 
 
 FITNESS, 
 
 of ship, warranty, cliarterparty, 257 
 cargo, for sliipuieiit, 501 
 
 FOREIGNERS, FOREIGN SHIP, 
 
 collision, 724, 758 
 
 jurisdiction, generally, 924 
 
 necessaries, 9ti5 
 
 possession, 924 
 
 registration, 29 
 
 wa^es, 124 
 
 writ, service of, (Addenda) 975 
 
 FORFEITURE, 
 
 of Wiigt's, of master, 103 
 suaiiK'n, 128 
 
 FOUL l^KKTH, 
 
 collision, 094 
 
 FREIGHT, 
 
 abandonment of sliip, effect of, 348, 1294 
 
 action for, pleadings, 427 
 
 advance freight, 408 
 
 assignment of, 392, 443 
 
 damage to cargo. 380 
 
 generally, 307-^388 
 
 guaranteed, 427 
 
 insurance of, 
 
 duration of risk, 10ti8 
 interest of a.ssured, 1110 
 lien for, 
 
 against as.'^ignee of hill of lading, 440 
 
 charterer or agent, 43'i 
 creation of lien, 428 
 loss of ship, 384 
 liiortgagi- of, 395 
 
 •ship, riglit to freight, 175, 17.^, 395 
 natuii- of, 3()7 
 
 on a.ssignnicnt on or .sale of .shiit, 392 
 caj)ture of ship, 395 
 cargo damaged, 380 
 
 short delivered, 380 
 l)rohiliited, 377 
 traii.shippfd, 371 
 over-j)ayment, recovery of, 42i) 
 payment of, 
 
 by agent, 400
 
 1376 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 
 
 FREIGHT — continued. 
 
 payment of — continued. 
 
 by assignee or indorsee of lull of lading, 402 
 
 bill of exchange, 413 
 
 broker, 400 
 
 charterer, 400 
 
 consignee, 397 
 
 consignor, 397 
 
 factoi-, 400 
 manner, 408 — 414 
 time, 368, 406 
 to whom payable, 388 — 395 
 2n'o rata freight, 373 
 rate and amonnt, 415 
 restraint of princes, 377 
 tender of, 426 
 
 FROST, 
 
 preventing loading, charterparty, 245 
 
 GOING ABOUT, 
 
 collision, 697 
 
 HARBOUR, 
 
 obstrnction to, 890 
 regulation of, 824, 883 
 tolls, dues, 896 
 
 HARBOUR AUTHORITY. And see Ccilltsiox ; Dock. 
 collision, liability, 722 
 
 HOSTILITIES, 
 
 commencement of, concealment, insurance, 1198 
 
 HULL, 
 
 property in, imflnished, 19 
 
 HUSBAND, SHIP'S, 55 
 
 IMPRESSMENT, 138 
 
 INDORSEMENT. See Bill or Lading. 
 of bill of lading, 343 — 365 
 
 conditional, 359 
 
 INFANT, 
 
 guardian of, sale of ship by, 160 
 
 INFRINGEMENT OF REGULATIONS, 
 
 presumption of fault, 707 — 712 
 
 INJURY, 
 
 personal. Admiralty jurisdiction, 925 
 to crew, 73 
 
 INSPECTION, 
 
 Admiralty practice, 995 
 
 of ship, lights, collision, 847, 997 
 
 INSURANCE, 
 
 abandonment, 
 
 notice of, 1277—1283, (Addenda) 1279. Sec Notick 
 on capture, 1289 
 
 confiscation, 1292 
 embargo, 1292 
 effect of, 1294 
 
 loss by perils of the sea, 1288 
 various causes, 1294 
 action on policy, 1314 — 1330. Sec Action.
 
 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 1377 
 
 I'^SU'RA:sCE—co„ii,iucd. 
 
 action on policy— covtumed. 
 arbitration, 1323 
 consolidation. 1321 
 evidence, 1317 
 parties, 1314 
 
 payment into Court, 1323 
 pleading;;, 1325 
 time, 1317 
 agent, insurance b}', 1016 
 associations and companies, 1350—1364 
 brokers and agents, 1335—1350. See Bi;okei: 
 Olianceiy jurisdiction, 1200, 1334 
 concealment and misrepresentation, 
 agent, knowledge of, 1185 
 cargo, condition of, 1191 
 Chancery jurisdiction, ] 200 
 hostilities, commencement of, 1198 
 known course of proceeding, 1188 
 Lloyds, intelligence at. llsK 
 niateriality, 117S 
 ]tlace of loading or sailing, 1197 
 proof, 1199 
 ship, condition of, 1191 
 
 name of, 1196 \ 
 
 terms of insurance, 1199 
 time of loading or sailing, 1194 
 deviation, 
 
 ciui.sing, 1223 
 generally, 1212 
 hostile jiort, 1215 
 liberty to touch, 1219 
 restraint, 1216 
 seeking convoy, 1223 
 stress of weather, 1215 
 double insurance, 1039 
 duration of risk, 
 
 on shiji, extent of liability, 1058 
 
 termination of, on mooring. 1064 
 time i)olicy, 1067 
 on goods, 
 
 loading or landing goods, 1050, 1054 
 what good.s, 1048 
 port, 1055 
 interest of assured, 
 
 advances for ships use, 1130 
 avermcTit of, 1145 
 bottomr}-, 1132 
 commission, 1136 
 cargo and goods. Ills 
 deck cargo, 1130 
 ffeight, 1110 
 hostile proi)erty, 1142 
 legal or e(ptitable, 1145 
 losses, expected, 1136 
 mortgage, 1132, 1344 
 neutral properly, 1142 
 lia.ssage-money, 1125 
 prize, 1143 
 
 prolit.s, expecteil, 1]-J6 
 proof of, 1145 
 rfs/iDiifd'nfia, 1132 
 •ship and fuiniture, 1 129 
 valued itolicy, ll;j,s 
 wagering policv, 1137 
 wages, 112, 1126 
 losses, 
 
 adju.stment of, 1253-1266. <SVr Aimu.stment 
 average expenses, 1268 
 
 gi'Ueral, 1240 
 
 particular, warranty against, 1247 
 con.structive total, 1236, 1277, 1299 
 total less, 1224
 
 1378 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 
 
 INSURANCE— cwi<ni»«?. 
 
 mortgagee, iusuvaiice by, 1132, 1344 
 uationaUty of ship, 1149, 1170 
 jiart owners, insurance by, 1047 
 policy, alteration, 1041 
 assignment, 1311 
 construction, 1043 
 issue, 1040 
 property in, 1046 
 memorandum, 1092 
 ratification, 1046 
 stamping, 1028—1035 
 premiums, 1303 — 1311. See Premiums. 
 reinsurance, 1036 
 lisk, duration of, 1048—1073 
 
 nature of, perils of the sea, 1073—1089 
 sale by master, ship, 1297 
 
 cargo, 1301 
 subrogation, 1313 
 trustee, insurance by, 1046 
 usage, evidence of. 1247, 1318 
 voyage, 
 
 abandonment of, 1211 
 deck cargo, 1207 
 
 clearance, goods shipped after, 1206 
 embargo, port under, 1209 
 hostile port, 1208 
 
 legality, 1201, (Addenda) 1202, 1209 
 neutral trading, 1209 
 simulated papers, 1205 
 warranties, 
 
 against capture, 1176 
 
 confiscation, 1173 
 as to cargo, 1177 
 average, free from, 1247 
 construction of, 1148 
 convoy, sailing with, 1167 
 nationality, 1149 
 neutrality, 1170 
 seaworthiness, 1150 — 1161 
 ship, position of, 1161 
 
 sailing, date ot, 1163 
 irninsured, 1177 
 
 INTEREST, 
 
 bottomry, 223 
 
 of assured, 1110 — 1148. .fe Insurance. 
 on damages, collision, 729 
 policy-moneys, 1334 
 
 INTERROGATORIES, 
 
 Admiralty practice, 997, (Addenda) 997 
 collision, 846 
 non-delivery, 553 
 
 JETTISON, 541 
 
 deck cargo, 1130 
 
 JURISDICTION, 
 
 Admij-alty, 921 — 936. Sec Ai).mii!ALTy Law and Pracjice. 
 bottomry, 225 
 
 Chancery, in Admiralty matters, 936. Aivl sec Miit;t(;a(;e. 
 collision, 837 
 
 County Court, 92, 664, 837, 839, 937 
 demurrage, 492 
 foreign master, wages, 104 
 seamen, wages, 124 
 ship, wages, 124 
 salvage, 660—664 
 
 JURY, 
 
 right to, in Admiralty, 1002
 
 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 1:379 
 
 I.AUXCH, 
 
 collision at, 696 
 
 LEGALITY, 
 
 c'liaiterparty, 2o'j 
 insurance company, 1350 
 
 voyage, 1201, (Addenda) 1202, 1209 
 
 LIABILITY, 
 
 lor collision. .SVc CoLi.isio.v. 
 
 injury to crew, 73 
 limitation of. AVc Limitation of Liaijii.itv. 
 of dock-owners, 908, (Addenda) 90S 
 
 charterer, 292 
 
 insurance broker, 1336, 1344 
 of master. Sec Mastei;. 
 
 owner, 61, scq. See Ownki:. 
 
 part owners, mutual, 45 
 
 pilot, 144 
 
 shipbroker, 919 
 
 LICENCE, 
 
 pilot's, 145 
 
 to trade, insurance, 1203 
 
 LI EX, 
 
 for danuige, collision, 717 
 
 demurrage, 491 
 
 disbursements, of master 97 
 
 Ireight, 428—443 
 
 necessaries, 964 
 
 salvage, (Addenda) 662, 665 
 
 wages, master, 97 
 seamen, 119 
 maritime, 923 
 of engineers, machinery sup])lied, 25 
 
 insurance broker, 1344 
 
 shipwright, 23 
 on cargo, 428, 491, 561 
 priorities, 97, 101, 119, 216, 719,967 
 
 LIFE, 
 
 loss of, Admiralty jurisdiction, 925 
 salvage, 607 
 
 LICHTEI.'S, 
 
 insurance, warranty of seaworthiness, 1159 
 
 gooils damaged in, 1054 
 Inading from, 510, 1054 
 
 LiGHTSHIPiMEX, 
 
 siilvagi; by, 622 
 
 LI.MriATIOX OK LIAIlIIdlY, 
 action for, 719 
 bill of lading, 328 
 collision, general law, 738 
 
 under 53 Geo. 3, c. 159. ..738 
 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. ..739 
 subsc(|ucnt Acts, 740 
 LLOVD.S 
 
 classification at, 38 
 
 intelligence at, concealment, 1189 
 
 LOADIXG. And sec Carcjo. 
 custom and manner, 508 
 general Iv, 501 
 lighters,"' 510, 1054 
 notice of ship's arrival, 504 
 jilace of, 511, 1197 
 rcfu.sal to loa<l, 513 
 return cargo, 511 
 rules of poit, as to, 470
 
 1380 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 
 
 LOSS, 
 
 broker, authority to receive, 1340 
 
 pay, 1340 
 evidence of, 1087 
 
 Ireiglit, payable on loss of ship, 384 
 payment of, insurance, 1266 
 
 MARINE IJOAltD, INQUIRY, 876 
 
 IMARSHALLING, BOTTOMRY, 220 
 
 MASTER, 
 
 authority over x:)asscngers, 81 
 
 to bind owners, 83, 117 
 bottomry, 206 
 punish seamen, 136 
 sell cargo, 87, 523, 1301 
 ship, 87; 160, 1297 
 barratry by, 105 
 certificate of, 106 
 
 common employment, with crew, 73, (Addenda) 83, 135 
 disbursements by, 89, 952 
 lien for, 97 
 duties of, generally, 80 
 
 to preserve cargo, 520 
 reship cargo, 520 
 stow cargo, 515 
 tranship cargo, 521 
 foreign master, wages, 104 
 liabilities of, 80 
 premiums, 89 
 jjrimage, 89 
 
 signature of bill of ladini;-, 314 
 wages, 89 
 
 forfeiture of, 103 
 lien for, 97 
 
 MEMORANDUM, POLICY, 1092 
 
 MISREPRESENTATION, INSURANCE. 1178—1201. Se 1n.sli:a>-ce, 
 
 MORTGAGE, 
 
 Admiralty Court, jurisdiction, 193, 925 
 
 costs, 194 
 
 equitable, 173 
 
 generally, 169 — 195 
 
 insurance by mortgagee, 1132, 1344 
 
 legal, 168 
 
 mortgagee in possession, 175 
 
 liabilities of, 191 
 
 rights of, 177 
 
 action by, 188, 194 > 
 
 of cargo, 541 
 
 freight, 395 
 priorities, 189 
 
 NATIONALITY OF SHIP, 26 
 insurance, 1149, 1170 
 
 NECESSARIES. And t^cc Rei'AIi:s. 
 Adnuralty jurisdiction, 960 
 foreign sliip, 965 
 liability of owners for, 61 
 lien for, 964 
 
 priority of liens, 967. »SV.r I'liimaTV of Liens. 
 what are, 961 
 
 NEGLIGENCE, 
 
 collision, various cases of, 685 — 701 
 exception of, in bill of lading, 333 
 presumption of. collision, 707 — 712 
 proof of, 701, 770
 
 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 1381 
 
 XEUTEALITY, 
 
 warrant}' of, iusurauct', 1170 
 
 NOTICE, 
 
 of abandonment, insurance, 1277 — 1282 
 acceptance of, 12S2 
 by whom given, 1278 
 time for, 1278, (Addenda) 1279 
 
 of ship's arrival, demurrage, 45G 
 loading, oOl 
 
 OBSTKUCTIOX, 
 
 by sunken ship, 689, 721 
 
 wharf, 879 
 to liarbonr, 890 
 M'harf, 879 
 
 OWNERS, 
 
 cargo, duties and liabilities as to. Sec Bii.i, of Lapinc; ; Cai;g( 
 
 collision, personal liability of, 69, 714 
 
 co-owners. Admiralty jurisdiction. 47, 957 
 
 evidence of ownership, 42 
 
 generally, 39 — 80 
 
 liability of, 
 
 as carrier, 74 
 
 crew, injury to, 73 
 generally, 133 
 
 damage done by siiip, 69, 714 
 
 for necessaries, 61. And sec Necessaries ; Rei'aii:s. 
 
 limitation of, 79. Sec Li.mitation of LiABii.rrv. 
 
 on contract, 61. Src Bill of Ladixg ; GHAUTEui'Airrv. 
 
 overloading, 73 
 
 passengers, 78 
 
 unseaworthiness, 73 
 
 various, 68 
 managing owner, 55 
 
 master, authority of, to bind, S3. Sec JIastek. 
 offences by, 73, 79 
 
 part owners, 44. See Vwvv Ow.\i;i;s. 
 ratification of sale by, 1 63 
 salvage payable to, 622 
 who are. 40 
 
 I'Al'KII.S, SLMCLATKI), 1205 
 
 I'AKTKJL'LAKS, 
 
 Admiralty j'lactice, 995 
 
 rAilTIKS, 
 
 Admiralty practice, (Addenda) 840, 973 
 action for collision, 840 
 
 damage to cargo, 550 
 
 non-delivery, 550 
 
 salvage, 667 
 
 PAUTNERS, 
 
 sliip owned by, registration, 3(i 
 
 i'ART OWNERS, 
 
 Adiniralty jurisdiction, 957 
 lialiility of, for repairs, 66 
 
 necessaries, 66 
 between tliemsclves, 45 
 refusing to navigate, 52 
 rights, between themselves, 45 
 tenants in common, 44 
 
 PASSAGE BROKER, 873 
 
 PASSAGE-MONEY, 
 insurance of, 1145
 
 1382 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 
 
 PASSENGER, 
 
 authority of nuistor, 81 
 coiivoynuct' of, eoutmct, 80(3 
 finigraiit ship, S7o 
 liabilitj' of sliipowiiei', 78 
 passage broker, 873 
 ship, qualification, S6-i 
 
 PAY^AIENT INTO COURT, 
 action on policy, 1323 
 
 PENALTY, 
 
 not taking pilot, HI 
 
 PERILS OF THE SEA, 
 
 bill of lading, exception of, in, 328 
 insurance, 
 
 barratry, 1097 
 
 capture", 1104—1109 
 
 collision, running-down clause, 328, 1082 
 
 fire, 1102 
 
 injury consequential on, 1073 
 
 jettison, 1101 
 
 loss by, abandonment, 1288 
 evidence of, 1087 
 
 missing ship, 1087 
 
 stranding, memorandum, 1092 
 
 various, 1087, 1109 
 
 whilst under repair, 1085 
 
 PIER. And sec 'Whava'. 
 generally, 886 
 injury to, 889 
 
 PILOT, 
 
 collision, action against, 839, (Addenda) 839 
 
 compulsory, when and where, 77»J— 785. And sec Collisiox. 
 duties ot, 144, 771 
 employment of, 147, 1158 
 fees, recovery of, 141 
 liabilities of, 144 
 licence, 145 
 penalties, 141 
 salvage by, 614 
 
 PILOTAGE AUTHORITY, 
 
 liability for fault of pilot, 722 
 
 PIRACY, 
 
 Admiralty jurisdiction, 930, 971 
 
 PLACE, 
 
 insurance, representation, place of loading or disrharce, 1197 
 of discharge, 461, 535 
 
 loading, 461, 511 
 position of ship, warranty, 260 
 
 PLEADING, 
 
 action on policy, 1325 
 for collision, 843 
 demurrage, 493 
 freight, 427 
 salwage, 671 
 Admiralty practice, 993 
 
 POLICY. And see I.nst'han-ce. 
 action on, 1314—1335 
 alteration of, 1041 
 assignment of, 1311 
 construction of, 1043, 1318 
 issue of, 1040 
 
 moneys, liability of bi'oker, 1344 
 pro[ierty in, 1046
 
 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 1383 
 
 TOLlCY—confniucd. 
 ratification, 1046 
 stamping, 1028 
 time policy, duration of lisk, 1067 
 
 ■warranty of seaworthiness, 1151 
 void, return of preniiums, 130-3 
 
 rORT, 
 
 blockaded, bill of lading, 281 
 embargo, under, insurance, 1209 
 genei-ally, 882, scq. 
 hostile, bill of lading, 281 
 
 insurance, 1208 
 liberty to touch, 1219 
 nominating, charterparty, 280 
 rules of, loading and discharging, 470 
 tolls and dues, 883 
 what is a port, 1055 
 
 POSSESSIOX, 
 
 Admiralty jurisdiction, 955 
 co-owners, 52 
 
 PRACTICE. 
 
 Admiralty, 971 — 1024. So- ADMiitAi.TY Law and riiAcTicK. 
 
 bottomry, 225 
 
 cargo, non-delivery, loss, kc, 550 — 561 
 
 charterpartv, 297 
 
 collision, 837—864 
 
 demuirage, 492 
 
 limitation action, 749 
 
 policy, action on, 1314 — 1335 
 
 salvage, 666—679 
 
 seamen, proceedings against, 132 • 
 
 wages, 126 
 
 wreck enquir)', 874 
 
 I'KKLI.MIXARV ACT, 842, 992 
 
 IMJEMIOl, 
 
 insurance, broker and underwriter, 1545 
 
 master's, 89 
 
 payment of, action for, 1309 
 
 return of, policy void, 1303 
 
 ri-sk incomplete, 1305 
 
 not commenced, 1305 
 
 ship in safety, 1306 
 
 various cases, 1308 
 
 voyage illegal, 1303 
 
 PRESKNTATIOX, BILL OF LADING, 313 
 
 I'UKSUMPTION OF XKGLIGKXCF, COLLISION, 707-712 
 
 I'RIMAOE, 89 
 
 PRIZE, 
 
 Adniiridty jurisdiitioii, 931. 951 
 
 PKIOIIITV OF LIENS, 
 bottom) y, 216 
 damagf, 719 
 disbursements, 97, 101 
 mortgages, 189, 218 
 neccs.saries, 967 
 wages of master, 97, 101, 120 
 seamen, 119 
 
 PROFITS, 
 
 division of, seamen's wagfs, 115 
 expected, insurance of, 1126 
 loss of, collision, damages, 732
 
 1384 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 
 
 PROHIBITIONS, !)liG— 936 
 
 PROOF, 
 
 of damage to cargo, 553 
 
 inisreitresi'iitatioii, insurance, 1199 
 iifgligeiici', collision, 701 
 pilot's fault, collision, 770 
 receipt of cargo, 552 
 seaworthiness, insurance, 1159 
 
 PROPERTY, 
 
 in unfinished hull, 19 
 passing by bill of lading, 350 
 
 PROVISIONS, 
 
 allowance for, short, 117 
 
 PURCHASER, 
 
 of ship, liabilities, 165 
 
 RECEIPT, 
 
 of cargo, proof, 552 
 
 REDELIVERY, 
 
 of cargo, demand by shipper, 519 
 
 REFERENCE, ADMIRALTY, 
 
 costs of, 862, 1022 
 generally, 1005 
 
 REFUSAL, 
 
 to load, 513 
 
 navigate, part owners. 52 
 receive cargo, 537 
 
 REGISTRAR, ADJIIRALTY, 
 
 and merchants, (Addenda) 1005, 1015 
 office of, 948 
 
 REGISTRATION, 
 
 repealed Acts, 36 
 certificate of, 30 
 equitable interests, 34 
 foreign owners, 29 
 
 ships, 29 
 improper, 32 
 Lloyds, 38 
 
 partners, ship owned by, 30 
 title by, 28 
 various points, 38 
 
 REGULATIONS, COLLISION, 
 
 cases on, 787 — 827 
 generally, 785 
 infringement of, 707 — 712 
 local rules, 827 
 
 REINSURANCE, 1036 
 
 REPAIRS. And see Necessaiue.s. 
 of dock, liability, 903 
 ship, advances for, 17 
 contract for, 14 
 
 insurance, warranty of seaworthiness, 1158 
 liability of owners, 61 
 lien for, of cargo owner, 24 
 
 purchaser without title, 25 
 shipwright, 23 
 master, authority and duty of. 17, 85 
 
 RESHIP.MENT OF CARGO, 520
 
 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 1385 
 
 EESTRAINT, 
 
 Admiralty jurisdiction, part owners, 52, 953 
 insurance, deviation, 1216 
 
 risk, 1089 
 of princes, payment of freight, 377, 384 
 
 KETUEX, 
 
 of premiums, 1303 — 1309. .Sec Premivms. 
 
 RETURN CARGO, 511 
 
 REVOCATION. 
 
 of l)ill of lading, 305 
 
 chartcrparty, 254 ~ 
 
 RISK, 
 
 duration of, on freight, 1068 
 
 goods, 1048—1058 
 ship, 1058—1068 
 
 none, or incomplete, return of premium, 1305 
 
 RULES, 
 
 collision, local, 827 — 837 
 docks, regulation of, 903 
 insurance com])anies, 1357 
 of port, loading, 470 
 
 SAILING, 
 
 representation as to time of, insurance, 1191 
 
 SALE, BILL OF, 
 title to ship, 154 
 
 SALE OF CARGO, 
 generally, 541 
 
 power of master to sell, 87, 523 
 • insurance, 1301 
 
 stoppage ill transitu, 565 — 579 
 
 >SALE OF SHIP, 
 bill of sale, 154 
 by Admiralty Court, 164, 9S4 
 
 attorney, 159 
 
 guardian of infant, 160 
 
 master, 87, 160, 1297 
 
 managing owner, 158 
 
 part owners, 159 
 
 slierilf, 100 
 commission on, 167, 911 
 contract for. 147 
 l)nrcha.ser, liabilities of, 64, 165 
 ratification of, by owner, 103 
 registration, 28—39 
 who can sell, 153 
 
 SALVAGE, 
 
 agreements, 653 
 
 unfair, setting a.side, 652, 653 
 ajiportionment, 647, 651 
 assignment of liglit to, 653 
 award, 631 — 644 
 
 reviewing, 6-14 
 by agents, 621 
 
 ajijirentices, 621 
 coa-stguardsmen, 622 
 H. ]\1. sliijts and erews, 617 
 lightsliiprnen, 622 
 various salvors, 623 
 right to .salvage, charterer of .salving sliip, 620 
 owner of .salving sliip, 622 
 
 and of salved sliiji, the same, 619 
 collision, salvage expenses after, 730 
 contribution to, 626
 
 138(; INDEX OF HEADINGS. 
 
 SXhX ACxV.—coi)triii(C(/ . 
 derelict, 629, 041 
 jurisdietion, High Court, 662 
 County Court, 664 
 justices', 662 
 liability to pay, who liable, 626 
 lien for, (Addenda) 662, 665 
 life salvage, 607 
 pilotage or salvage, 614 
 practice, consolidation, 66S 
 costs, 674 
 evidence, 673 
 parties, 667 
 l^leadings, 671 
 tender, 669 
 towage converted into salvage, 612 
 
 or salvage, 611 
 who may be salvors, 617. srq. 
 wreck, 629 
 
 SEAMEjST, 
 
 advance note, 117, 125 
 certificate of character, 137 
 contract to serve, dissolution of, 118 
 
 unreasonable, US, 137 
 desertion, 128 
 impressment, 138 
 injury to, 73 
 lien of, 119 
 master, authority to punish, 136 
 
 duty and liabilitv as to, 73, 133 
 misconduct, 128 
 
 owner, duty and liability as to, 133 
 proceedings against, 132 
 protection from imposition, 118, 137 
 provisions, allowance for short, 117 
 supplying without licence, 139 
 wages, generally, 106 
 
 additional, 115 
 
 division of profits, 115 
 
 foreign seamen, 124 
 
 forfeiture of, 128 
 
 lien for, priorities, 119 
 wills of seamen, 138 
 
 SEAWORTHINESS, AVARRANTY OF, 
 in bill of lading, 325 
 charterpart}', 257 
 insurance, 
 
 capacity, carrying goods, 1155 
 
 crew, 1157 
 
 lighters, 1159 
 
 pilot, 1158 
 
 proof, 1159 
 
 repairs, 1158 
 
 sufficienc}^ generally, 1150 
 
 tackle and furniture, 1159 
 
 time polic}% 1154 
 
 SECURITY FOR COSTS, 
 Admiralty practice, 1009 
 collision, 841, 864 
 
 SEIZURE, 1104. And sec Cwwim. 
 
 SET-OFF, 
 
 by insurance broker, 1342 
 
 SHERIFF, 
 
 sale of ship by, 160 
 
 SHIP, 
 
 building of, 14—25. Sec Buii.dixo. 
 capacity and fitness of, warranty, 257, 270
 
 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 1387 
 
 SUlF—coutlaucd. 
 
 damage done by, lial)ility, 69 And sec Collision. 
 
 lien, 717 
 demise of, 294 
 emigi'ant ship, S73 
 foreign ship, collision, 7"24, 758 
 necessaries, 965 
 registration, 29 
 wages, 124 
 H. M. ship, damage by, 723 
 husband, ship's, 55 
 insurance. And sec Ix.'m'RAXcE. 
 
 condition of, concealment, 1191 
 
 date of sailing, warranty, 1163 
 
 duration of risk, 1058 — 1063 
 
 interest of assured, 1129 
 
 loading, place of, concealment, 1197 
 
 missing, 1086 
 
 mortgage of, 168 — 195. Sec Mortgage. 
 
 name of, concealment, 1196 
 
 nationality of, 1149, 1170 
 
 position of, warranty, 1161 
 
 safety of, return of premium, 1306 
 
 sailing, misrepresentation, 1194, 1197 
 
 seaworthiness, 1150 — 1161. See Seaavouthiness. 
 
 under repair, 1085 
 master's authority to sell, 87, 160, 1297 
 nationality, 26 
 passenger shijj, 864 
 
 registration, 28 — 39. Sec Registuatiox. 
 sale of, 147 — 168. See Sale. 
 
 seaworthiness, warranty, bill of lading, and charterparty, 257, •i2.> 
 sunken ship, damage by, 689, 721 
 title to, 154, tier/. 
 tonnage, 25, 747 
 unseaworthy sliip, detention, 877 
 
 SHIP AGENT, 
 
 lien of, liill of lading, 366 
 salvage by, 621 
 
 SHIP BROKER, 
 
 commission, 014 
 employment, 914 
 liability, 919 
 
 SHIPOWNER. Src OwNEi:. 
 
 SHIPWRIGHT, 
 
 lien for repairs, 23 
 
 SLAVE TRADE, 971 
 
 SLIP, 
 
 stamping, 1032 
 
 STA.MP, 
 
 mariners' contract, 106 
 polii^. necessity for. 1028 
 on alteration, 1030 
 slip or informal contract, 1032 
 
 STANDING 15Y, 
 
 after collision, 712 
 
 STAY OK PROCEEDINGS, 
 Admiralty jn-actice, 989 
 on appeal, (Addenda) 1012 
 
 stevedorp:, 
 
 eiiijdoyment of, 515 
 
 VOL. XIII. 45
 
 1388 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 
 
 STOPPAGE IX TRANSITU, 
 general! 3', 565, scq. 
 part delivery, 574 
 transfer of bill of lading, 568 
 (ransUus at an end, 576, (Addenda) 576 
 
 not at an end, 571 
 wharfinger, goods in hands of, 575, (Addenda) 576 
 
 STOWAGE OF CARGO, 
 damages for bad, 519 
 dutj' of master, 516 
 employment of stevedore, 515 
 
 STRANDING, 
 
 operation of memorandum, 1092 
 what is, 1093 
 
 STRIKE, 
 
 delay by, demurrage, 480 
 
 SUBROGATION, 1313 
 
 SUE AND LABOUR CLAUSE, 1268 
 
 TENDER, 
 
 Admiralty practice, 1003 
 
 salvage, 669, (Addenda) 674 
 
 THAMES WATERMEN, 139 
 
 TIME, 
 
 abandonment, notice of, 1278 
 action on policy, 1317 
 demurrage, calculation of, 457 
 
 TOLLS, 
 
 docks, 906 
 harbours, 896 
 ports, 883 
 
 TONNAGE, 
 
 measuren^ent, 25 
 
 limitation of liability, 747 
 
 TOW, 
 
 and tug, collision, 754 
 
 compulsory pilotage, 769 
 
 TOWAGE, 
 
 contract, 679—684 
 converted into salvage, 612 
 salvage or towage, 611 
 
 TRADING, 
 
 insurance, deviation, 1217 
 neutral, insurance, 1209 
 
 TRANSFER, 
 
 Admiralty practice, 989 
 of bill of lading, 343 
 ship, 147—167 
 
 TRANSHIPMENT, 
 of cargo, 521 
 payment of freight on, 371 
 
 TRANSITU, STOPPAGE IN, 565-580. Sec SrorrAOE ix Tiiaksitt- 
 
 TUG, 
 
 and tow, collision, 754 
 
 compulsory pilotage, 769 
 
 contract of towage, 679—684. And sec Towaok.
 
 INDEX OF HEADINGS. 1389 
 
 UNSEAWORTHINESS. Ami sec Seaworthixess 
 liability of owners, 73 
 
 USAGE, 
 
 evidence of, bill of lading, 307 
 charterjiarty, 252 
 insurance, 1247, 131S 
 
 VOYAGE, 
 
 abandonment of, insurance, 1211 
 illegal, return ofiireniiiim, 1303 
 insurance, 1201 — 1212. ,Sec IxsriiAXCE. 
 
 "WAGES, 
 
 additional, 115 
 
 Admiralty jurisdiction, 90, 126, 931, 952 
 
 advance note, 117, 125 
 
 contract, mai-iners', 113 
 
 stamp, 113 
 division of profits, 115 
 foreign ntaster, 104 
 
 seamen 124 
 
 ship, 124 
 forfeiture of, 103, 128 
 insurance of, 1126 
 liability for, 121 
 lien, of ntaster, 97 
 
 seamen, 119 
 recovery of, 89, 121, 952 
 
 WAREHOUSING CARGO, 538 
 
 WARRANTY, 
 
 cliarterpaity, 256 
 
 insurance, 1148 — 1178. See IxsriJAXCE. 
 
 WATERMEN, THAMES, 139 
 
 WEATHER, 
 
 delay by, ilemunage, 476 
 
 deviation by stress of, insurance, 1215 
 
 collision, inevitable accident, 703 
 
 WHARF, 
 
 ob.struction to, 879 
 by, 879 
 
 WHARFINGER, 
 
 landing and slii]i]iing goods, 878 
 
 stoi>i)age iiL trunaUv, 575. Sec Stoi-taoe ix TRANsrrr, 
 
 WILL OF SEAMAN, 138 
 
 WINDIN(;-U1', 
 
 insunince company, 13G3 
 niiiritinie lien, 97 
 
 WRECK, 
 
 Admiralty jurisdiction, 934, 948 
 in<iuiiy, s;.j 
 
 WRIT, 
 
 Admiralty practice, (Addiiida) 662, 975 
 
 THE END. 
 
 BnADBUnT, AONF.W, & CO. LI)., PniNTr.RS, LONDON AND TOXDniDGI.
 
 -.TEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON. 
 
 Arnould on the Law of Marine Insurance and Average. — 
 
 Euihth Edition. By EDWAllD LOUIS de HART aud RALPH ILIFF SIMEY, 
 Barristers-at-Law. " I'lro Toh. Itoi/al ^vo. 1909. Frice 31. 3s. clot/i. 
 
 Pollock's Digest of the Law of Partnership. — With Forms 
 
 aud au Ax>peiidix on the Limited Partnerships Act, 1907, together with the Rules 
 and Forms, U)07, 1909. By Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK, Bart., Barrister-at- 
 Law. Bewi/ Svo. 1909. Price lOs. cloth. 
 
 Pollock's Law of Torts : A Treatise on the Principles of 
 
 Obligations arishig from Civil Wrongs in the Common Law. Eighth Edition. By 
 Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK, Bart., Barrister- at-Law, Author 'of "Principles of 
 Contract," "A Digest of the Law of Partnersliip," &c. Demi/ 8vo. 1908. Frice 
 II. OS. cloth. 
 
 Harnett's Handbook on the Law of Mortgages. — By 
 
 E. St. CLAIR HARNETT, Barrister-at-Law. Eoyal l2)no. 1909. Frice 6s. cloth. 
 
 Martin's Record Interpreter. — A Collection of Abbrevia- 
 tions, Latin words and names used in English Historical Manuscripts and Records. 
 Compiled by C. T. MARTIN, B.A., F.S.A. Second Edition. Demy 8ro. 1910. 
 Frice 15s. cloth. 
 
 Burge's Commentaries on Colonial and Foreign Laws 
 
 Generally and in their Conflict with each other and with the Law of England. — 
 Ncic Edition. By A. WOOD RENTON, Puisns Judge, Ceylon, and G. G. PHILLI- 
 MORE, Barrister-at-Law. Seven Vols. Royal %vo. {Vols. J. cj- //., 1907—1908, 
 ■)wic ready.) Frice, net, 10/. 10,s. cloth. 
 
 Aske's Law relating to Custom and the Usages of 
 
 Trade.— By ROBERT WILLIAM ASKE, LL.D. Demy 8i'o. 1909. Frici IQs. cloth. 
 
 Lawes' Law of Compensation for Industrial Diseases. — 
 
 By THORNTON LAWES, Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8ro. 1909. Frice Is. M. cloth. 
 
 Hall's Children Act, 1908.— Being a Third Edition of the 
 
 Law relating to Children. By W. CLARKE HALL and ARNOLD H. F. PRETTY, 
 Barristers-at-La\v. Demy 8ro. 1909. Frice 6s. cloth. 
 
 Dicey' s Conflict of Laws. — A Digest of the Law of England 
 
 with reference to the Conflict of Laws. Second Edition. By A. V. DICEY, K.C., 
 Hon. D.C.L. Foyal Svo. 1908. Frice 11. 10.s. cloth. 
 
 Deal's Cardinal Rules of Legal Interpretation. — Second 
 
 Edit. By EDAVARD BEAL, Barrister-at-Law. Foyal Svo. 1908. Frice 20s. cloth. 
 
 Jolly's Restrictive Covenants affecting Land. — By 
 
 W. ARNOLD JOLLY, Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1909. Frice bs. cloth. 
 
 Wrottesley and Jacobs' Criminal Appeals. — The Law and 
 
 Practice of Criminal Appeals. By FREDERIC JOHN WROTTESLEY and 
 BERTRAM JACOBS, Barristers-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1910. Frice 20s. cloth. 
 
 Roscoe's Digest of the Law of Evidence on the Trial of 
 
 Actions at Nisi Prius. Eighteenth Edition. By MAURICE POWELL, Barrister- 
 at-Law. Tivo Vols. De/hy Svo. 1907. Frice 21. 2s. cloth. 
 
 Roscoe's Digest of the Law of Evidence and the Practice 
 
 in Criminal Cases (chiefly on Indictment). — Thirteenth Edition. By HERMAN 
 COHEN, Ban-ister-at- Law. Demy Svo. 1908. Frice II. Us. 6d. cloth. 
 
 Talbot and Fort's Index of Cases Judicially Noticed, 1865 
 
 to l90o.Second Edition. By M. R. MEHTA, Barrister-at-Law. Foyal Svo. 1908. 
 Frice 11. 18.S. cloth. 
 
 Digest of Cases, Overruled, Approved, or otherwise 
 
 speciallj^ considered in the English Courts. — "\\'ith extracts from the Judgments. By 
 W. A. G. WOODS and J. RITCHIE, Barristers-at-Law. Three Vols. Royal Svo. 
 1907. Frice bl. bs. cloth. 
 
 Decennial Digest (The). — Being the Digest of English 
 
 Case Law from 1898 to 1907, inclusive, forming a Supplement to Mews' Digest of 
 English Case Law, 16 vols. By EDWARD MANSON, Barrister-at-Law. Ttvo 
 jp Vols. Royal Svo. 1908. Frice 31. 3s. cloth. » 
 
 ^ ^_____ __^ _« 
 
 %* A Catalogue of Neiv Law Works gratis on application. 
 ( 3 )
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 119 & 120, CHANCERY LAXE LONDON. 
 
 Chalmers' Digest of the Law of Bills of Exchange, 
 
 Promissorj- Notes, Cheques and Necrotiable Securities. — Seventh Edition. By 
 Su- M. D. CHALMERS, K.C.B., C.S.I., Draughtsman of the Bills of Exchan/e 
 Acts. Uemi/ Hro. 1909. Price 'Ifis. cloth. ^ 
 
 Sj^ncer's Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, with the 
 
 ^ "'''. ?-'^^?fT??-'^ /"/l?* '*^''*°'^ ^•'^ ^^® ^o'l^''^ of Agriculture. Fourth Edition, Re-Issue. 
 By AlBREl J. SPENCER, Barrister-at-Law. Demy %ro. 1909. Prk-e 6s. cloth. 
 
 Spencer s Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, with 
 
 ExplanatoiT Notes.— Also Circular Letters and Rules and Regulations of the Board 
 ot Agriculture and Fisheries, and Treasury Minutes, and Forms for use under the 
 Act. By A. J. SPEXCER, Banister-at-Law. Urnii/8ro. 1909. Price 7«. 6d. cloth. 
 
 Macdonell's Law of Master and Servant— By Sir John 
 
 ^^4v^A*i^^V^\?;^-PT-TrPv?-' "" ^^''''*^'' °f ^^'^ Supreme Court. Second Edition. By 
 ED^A ARD A. MITCHELL IXNES, K.C. Poyol Sro. 1908. Price ^bs. cloth. 
 
 Ingpen on the Lawof Executors.— A Concise Treatise on the 
 
 Law relating to Executors and Administrators. Bv ARTHUR ROBERT IXGPEN. 
 
 L..C. PoyalUvo. 1908. Price 'ir-is. cloth. 
 
 Macnamara's Law of Carriers of Merchandise and Pas- 
 sengers hy Land-By WALTER HENRY MACXA.MAR.\, Bamster-at-Law, 
 Registrar to the Rai^way Commission, a Master of the Supreme Court. Second 
 fonc"'"-7> By the AUTHOR and W. A. ROBERTSOX, Banister-at-La^y. Roy. Sfo. 
 1908. Prtce 11. lO,:.'. cloth. 
 
 Bisney's Law of Carriage by HsLilwsiy. —Seco7id Edition. 
 
 By HEXRY W. DLSXEY, Barrister-at-Law. Jjemy Sro. 1909. Price's, ed. cloth. 
 
 Petrides' Students' Cases, illustratiYc of all branches of the 
 
 Law.-Bv PHILIP B. PETRIDES, Barrister-at-Law. Ucnu/ Svo. 1910 Price 
 
 lO.y. Of/, r/oth. 
 
 Stringer's Oaths and Affirmations in England and Ireland. 
 
 -Thud Edition. By FRANCIS A. STRINGER, of the Central Office, Royal 
 Courts of Justice, assisted by J. JOHNSTOX, of the Royal Courts of Justice. 
 Crown Hi-o. 1910. Price -Is. cloth. 
 
 Williams' Law and Practice in Bankruptcy.— AV/i^/e 
 
 EdUton. By EDWARD \VM. HANSELL, assisted by A. ROMER MACKLIN 
 Bamster-at-Law. Poycil Svo. 1908. Price II. 10*. cloth. ' 
 
 Robertson on the Crown.— The Law and Practice of Civil 
 
 ?''''<'rT'?Si-l^^rfTVTl;'p-'i''^^ tlie Crown and Departments of the Government. By 
 G. SIL ART R0BLRl.>O^, Barrister-at-Law. PoyulSvo. 190S. Price II. ISs. cloth. 
 
 Shirley's Selection of Leading Cases in the Common Law. 
 
 --\Vith Notes y.VyA/A 7^V/,7.o« By RICHARD WATSON, Barristor-at-Law. 
 Demy 8vo. 1908. Price 16*. cloth. 
 
 Warburton's Selection of Leading Cases in the Criminal 
 
 L:,w.-\Vitl, Not.'s. I-ourth K.lilio,,. Byl[i;xi;y WARBUKTO.V, l!arrister-at- 
 Law. JhwyHro. V.m. Price Vls.Qd. cloth. 
 
 Strahan's General View of the Law of Property.— iV/M 
 
 Edition. By J. A. STRAIIAN and J. SINCLAIR BAXTER, Barristers-at-Law. 
 Demy Svo. 1908. Price lis. Cd. cloth. 
 
 Smith's Practical Exposition of the Principles of Equity 
 
 SMITH I'''' ■*'.''■ ''';';''"^' '";i-i""- ihrv.uu— Fourlh Kd.uon. Bvil. AKriIl'R 
 .^.\M I H, I,.uri-.t.i-at-Law. Itcmy Svo. i;i().s. J'nce \l. Is. cloth. ' 
 
 Smith's Analysis of the Principles of Equity. — Bv 
 
 Jl. AIM IIII; SMITH, I!arristcr-at-Law. Jinny Sn,. 1909. PriFc bs. floth. "^ 
 
 Theobald's Concise Treatise on the Law of Wills.— Seventh 
 
 Midon. ByH. S. 'J-IIE(MJALD, K.C. Royal Svo. 1908. Pncc \l. lbs. cloth. 
 
 Woodfall's Law of Landlord and Tenant.— Witli a full 
 
 r..ll..cti.,„ of Pn.c,dents. Kiyhlaulh Ehl..n. liy W. II. AGGS, B.'.irister-at-Law. 
 ^ Royal Svo. 1908. Price U. ISs. cloth. -j. 
 
 yt hirar Kinrh of Second-hand Law Reports and Tcxt-bwhs on Sale. 
 ( 4 )
 
 11 
 
 ffi^m. mm