the time of sailing with the cargo. It is not sufficient that the ship was fit for the voyage while the cargo was being taken on, if she became unfit before she started. The warranty in truth appears to be a double one, viz., that the ship shall be fit to receive the cargo when receiving it and shall be fit to sail at the time of sailing.

The Court proceeded:

The warranty that the vessel is tight and fit for the employment for which she is offered,- that is, for the contemplated voyage on which she is to carry cargo,—is the very foundation and substratum of the contract of charter. The exception in a charter party as to dangers of the seas and navigation is not applicable to the perils and dangers which arise from the breach of the owner's obligation. Consequently it does not apply to the warranty of seaworthiness. Undoubtedly in cases where, under the language of the charter party, the warranty is satisfied if the vessel is seaworthy at the commencement of a voyage preliminary to her being laden, the shipowner is relieved by the exception from liability for any peril of the seas or navigation which are subsequently encountered without fault or negligence on his part. . . In all of these adjudications, the question was as to the meaning of the contract of the parties. This must be decided in each case by applying the rules of interpretation to the contract on hand.

3. Deviation. The ship must cover the proposed voyage without deviation. Deviation is defined to be "a voluntary departure without necessity or reasonable cause, from the regular and usual course of a voyage" (Hostetter v. Park, 137 U. S. 30). Deviation makes the carrier liable for losses occasioned thereby as an insurer notwithstanding any limitation of liability in the contract of carriage. It may be excused for the purpose of saving life or avoiding perils if the master acts in accordance with sound judgment, and it is excused if it be the custom of the trade to put in at a particular port on similar voyages. The consignee, if he intends to insist upon the deviation as a defense to his liability for freight, should refuse to receive the cargo.

An instructive discussion of the rule with regard to deviation is found in the case of the Indrapura, 171 Fed. 929, where a vessel bound from Hong Kong to Portland, Oregon, was placed on a drydock at Hong Kong without maritime necessity and there caught fire, whereby the cargo was injured. The owners of the cargo libeled the ship for their damages, alleging that the unnecessary docking of the ship was a deviation. The Court said:

The term "deviation" in the law of shipping has at the present day

a varied meaning and wide significance. It was originally employed no doubt, for the purpose its lexicographical definition implies, namely, to express the wandering or straying of a vessel from the customary course of voyage; but it seems now to comprehend in general every conduct of a ship or other vehicle used in commerce tending to vary or increase the risk incident to a shipment. Thus delay in starting a shipment when unreasonable or unexcused came to be regarded as a deviation, not because the vehicle employed departed from the usual route of travel, but because the risk of shipment was changed or increased, and became, in effect, not the same as the one with reference to which the parties contracted.

And in Bulkley v. Insurance Co., Fed. Cas. No. 2,118, it was said:

The shortness of time or distance of deviation is immaterial if voluntary and without necessity, and not justified by usage.

The contract of carriage frequently purports to give the ship liberty to make deviation. This is construed strictly against the owner of the vessel. She may make only "reasonable deviation." She may call at a port lying directly on the route of her voyage, but may not go out of her way to any considerable degree, and if she does so and the shipper is damaged the exemption will not avail to protect her owner.

4. Perils of the Sea.- Almost every contract in respect of employment of the ship contains an express or implied exception of perils of the seas. This provides an exemption of liability on account of losses caused by these perils. These casualties cannot be accurately defined. The expression denotes accidents peculiarly incident to navigation, whether on lake, river, or the deep sea, not attributable to any human agency or intervention. It is rather more comprehensive than the "acts of God," but by no means includes all the dangers which may occur while journeying on the sea. Collision is a peril of the sea if it occurs without fault of either ship but not if by reason of the negligence of the carrying ship. Tempests, rocks, shoals, icebergs and other obstacles are within the expression; so are incursions of sea water, which damage the goods, as well as such bad weather as prevents ordinary ventilation and causes the cargo to heat and sweat. Where the peril is the proximate cause of the loss, the shipowner is excused. 5. Fire. Sec. 4282, U. S. Rev. St., is as follows:

No owner of any vessel shall be liable to answer for or make good to any person any loss or damage which may happen to any merchandise whatsoever, which shall be shipped, taken in, or put on board any such vessel, by reason or by means of any fire happening to or on

board the vessel, unless such fire is caused by the design or neglect of such owner.

It will be noticed that while this statute provides complete protection against fire on shipboard it does not protect against liability for damage by fire occurring on shore. To cover this it is common to insert in the contract of carriage an exemption from loss "before loading in the ship or after unloading." Such an exception is upheld by the courts where fire is not attributable to the neglect of the owner of the ship. Such a case was that of Constable v. National Steamship Co., 154 U. S. 51, where goods were delivered on the pier of the Steamship Company and injured by fire before they were laden. The Court held that the clause in the bill of lading, excepting loss by fire "before loading in the ship or after unloading," was a valid defense.

6. Restraint of Princes. The contract usually contains a provision exempting the shipowner from liability for damage due to "restraint of princes." This quaint phrase means any kind of governmental action which interrupts the voyage, or otherwise prevents the performance of the contract. These restraints occur most often during war, although they may happen in time of peace, as in the case of detention in quarantine. If the restraint results from some action taken by the shipowner, such as the taking on of contraband goods, the clause will not relieve him from liability.

A simple illustration of the restraint of princes clause appears in Allanwilde Transport Corp. v. Vacuum Co., 248 U. S. 377, where a sailing vessel, the Allanwilde, was chartered to the libellants for the transportation of a cargo of oil and nails to Rochefort, France. The freight was prepaid. She started on the voyage and while she was at sea the government prohibited sailing vessels departing from the United States on voyages which would carry them through the war zone. The vessel ran into bad weather and was obliged to put back to the United States for repairs. By reason of the governmental order she did not resume her voyage. The owners of the cargo libeled the vessel to recover the prepaid freight. They also presented a claim for damages. The Court held that the restraint of princes clause of the charter party was a valid defense to the suit. Thus the vessel retained the freight which had been prepaid, although the voyage did not take place, and the cargo-owners did not recover their damages.

7. Freight. (a) Dead Freight.-In case the charter party provides for the shipment of a full cargo by the charterer and compensation to the owner of the ship is payable per unit of cargo, the shipowner will be entitled to recover from the charterer the amount of freight which would have been payable by so much cargo as could have occupied the space left vacant. This is called dead freight.

On the other hand cases arise in which the owner has to pay dead freight to the charterers. This occurs where the compensation for the ship is a lump sum and the owner fails to load a full cargo.

(b) When Freight is Earned.- Freight is earned when the goods have been carried to their destination and not until then. If it be paid in advance and the goods do not arrive at destination it must be refunded. Of course, the parties may by their express stipulations in charter parties, bills of lading and other forms of agreement change these rules, and frequently do so. For example it is sometimes provided that prepaid freight shall be considered earned on the shipment of the goods, or if the ship be lost the freight shall not be refunded. Such bargains are, of course, entirely legal and will be enforced by the courts according to their

tenor.

Charters sometimes provide for the carrying of cargo out and back. Here the terms of the contract with reference to the outbound and homeward-bound voyage are inseparable. No freight is earned until the ship returns with the homeward-bound cargo. But if the contract can be construed so as to regard each voyage separately, the freight for the outbound voyage will be earned at destination whether the ship returns with cargo or not.

8. Contracts of Affreightment.- Where the contract is not plainly a demise of the ship, i.e., a conveyance which turns over her full operation and control, it will not be so interpreted, and the owner will be in a position of a carrier of goods or as himself contracting for such other service by the ship as the charter requires, that is to say, the contract is one of affreightment.

Thus in Hagar v. Clark, 78 N. Y. 45, it was held:

If it remains doubtful whether the charterers were to have sole possession and control of the vessel during the voyage or were to be constituted owners pro hac vice, then the general owners must be deemed such for their rights and authority continue until displaced

by some clear and definite transfer of them. The legal presumption is in favor of continuance of ownership and against any transfer of the ship to the charterer for the voyage, and is said to be so strong that, if the end sought to be effected by the charter party can conveniently be accomplished without the transfer of the vessel to the charterers, courts of justice are not inclined to regard the contract as a demise of the ship, although there may be express words of grant in the formal part of the instrument.

owner.

The master remains the agent of the owner under any contract falling short of a demise, and the owner is bound by all his acts and omissions within the scope of his authority as in the ordinary relation of carriage by sea. If the instrument amounts to a demise, the master is the charterer's agent, and not that of the Bills of lading or other contracts of affreightment signed by the master bind the owner or the owner pro hac vice on the theory of the master's agency. This subject is discussed in the case of Freeman, 18 How. 182, quoted extensively in Chapter III, § 10, supra. Charter parties frequently contain a clause whereby the charterer agrees to indemnify the shipowner against any liability arising from the signature of bills of lading by the master. Probably this clause would be implied in a charter party if not expressed therein. This gives the owner of the ship a right of action over against the charterer on account of any liability to which the shipowner or ship may have been subjected at the hands of the shipper. Thus if the charter party contained covenants for the protection of the shipowner under certain circumstances and the bill of lading issued by the master did not contain these restrictions and the shipper recovered under the bill of lading against the ship or her owner, the latter in turn could recover against the charterer (Field Line v. South Atlantic Co., 201 Fed. 301).

9. Bills of Lading. The forms differ greatly in contents and legal effect but have the common features of an acknowledgment of the receipt of the goods; a description by which they may be identified; an agreement to carry to destination and deliver; the rate of freight and an exception of certain perils. In addition to these features it has been usual to include more or less elaborate provisions tending to a diminution or limitation of the ship's liability, sometimes extended to great length in small or illegible type, and the attempt to take advantage of these is sometimes described as "fine print and coarse work." These stipulations, in