Thomas Johnson Michie.

A treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) online

. (page 142 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 142 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

to the pro^■isions of the act.^

Of Common Control or Management. — In a prosecution for receiving re-
bates from carriers on an interstate or foreign shipment of property over the
lines of more than one carrier, any evidence tending to show that the shipment
was made under a through bill of lading or upon a contract for continuous car-
riage by the several carriers is admissible for the purpose of proving that such
carriers were used for the purpose of the shipment under a common control,
management, or arrangement for a continuous carriage, and the schedules of
rates filed with the interstate commerce commission by the several carriers are
admissible for the purpose of showing the lawful rate on such shipment.^

7. Variance. — United States v. Camden 9. Of common control or management.

Iron Works, 150 Fed. 214. — United States v. Camden Iron Works,

8. Evidence. — United States v. Camden 150 Fed. 214.
Iron Works, 150 Fed. 214.



Carriage oi^ Property.

I. General Considerations, § 4245.

II. Contracts of Affreightment, §§ 4246-4265.

A. Defined, Classified and Distinguished, § 4246.

B. Persons Who May Make, § 4247.

C. Contents, Form and Requisites, §§ 4248-4249.

a. In General, § 4248.

b. Requisites of Contract, § 4249.

D. Interpretation, Operation and Effect, §§ 4250-4260.

a. Rules of Construction, §§ 4250-4256.

(1) General Rules, § 4250.

(2) What Law Governs, § 4251.

(3) Qualifications Imposed by Law, § 4252.

(4) Knowledge of Course of Trade, § 4253.

(5) Aids to Construction, §§ 4254-4255.

(a) Admissibility of Parol Evidence, § 4254.

(b) Opinion Evidence, § 4255.

(6) Construction of Particular Words, Phrases, etc., § 4256.

b. Conditions Precedent and Independent Covenants, Representations and War-

ranties, §§ 4257-4260.

(1) In General, § 4257.

(2) Stipulations as to Time and Place of Shipment, § 4258.

(3) Stipulations as to Tonnage or Measurement, § 4259.

(4) Warranty of Seaworthiness, § 4260.

E. Cancellation, Modification and Release, § 4261.

F. Performance, Discharge or Breach, §§ 4262-4263.

a. In General, § 4262.

b. Who Liable on Contract, § 4263.

G. Abandonment of Contract, § 4264.
H. Assignment of Contract, § 4265.

III. Bill of Lading, §§ 4266-4275.

A. Definition, § 4266.

B. Form and Contents, § 4267.

C. Issuance and Acceptance, § 4268.

D. Validity of Bills of Lading, § 4269.

E. Construction, Operation and Effect, § 4270.

F. Transfer, § 4271.

G. Effect on Connecting Carrier, § 4272.
H. Modification or l^escission, § 4273.

I. Surrender, Discharge or Release, § 4274.
J. Actions on Bills of Lading, § 4275.

IV. Transportation and Delivery, §§ 4276-4337.
A. General Consideration, §§ 4276-4277.

4 Car— 48

CARRIERS. ' 3860

a. Title, Custody and Control of Goods, § 4276.

b. Liability as Warehouseman, § 4277.

B. Duties and Liabilities as to Transportation and Delivery, §§ 4278-4288.

a. In General, § 4278.

b. Loading Goods, § 4279.

c. Deviation and Delay, §§ 4280-4281.

(1) Deviation, § 4280.

(2) Delay, § 4281.

d. Failure or Refusal to Deliver, §§ 4282-4283.

(1) In General, § 4282.

(2) Short Delivery, § 4283.

e. Notice of Arrival of Goods, § 4284.

f. Mode and Sufficiency of Delivery, § 4285.
g. To Whom Delivery May Be Made— Misdelivery, § 4286.
h. Failure or Refusal of Consignee to Receive Goods, § 4287.
i. Transshipping and Forw^arding, § 4288.

C. Loss or Injury, §§ 4289-4311.

a. Liability as Insurer, §§ 4289-4296.

(1) In General, § 4289.

(2) Exceptions and Excuses, §§ 4290-4296.

(a) Act of God or Public Enemy, § 4290.

(b) Jettison, § 4291.

(c) Humidity and Dampness of Ship, § 4292.

(d) Seizure under Legal Process, § 4293.

(e) Fault of Shipper or Owner, § 4294.

(f) Inherent Infirmities of Property, § 4295.

(3) Commencement and Termination of Liability, § 4296.

b. Losses during Deviation or Delay, § 4297.

c. Losses during Loading of Goods, § 4298.

d. Stowage of Goods, §§ 4299-4301.

(1) In General, § 4299.

(2) Stowage on Deck, § 4300.

(3) Dunnage, § 4301.

e. Unseaworthiness or Unfitness of Vessel, §§ 4302-4304.

(1) In General, § 4302.

(2) Improper Stowage or Overloading, § 4303.

(3) Incompetency or Insufficiency of Crew, § 4304.

f. Navigation of Vessel, § 4305.

g. Negligence in Discharging or in Caring for Goods after Discharge, § 4306.
h. Acts of Employees or Third Persons, § 4307.

i. Duties after Injury or Disaster, § 4308.
j. Effect of Insurance, § 4309.

k. Estoppel to Deny Liability to Deliver in Good Order, § 4310.
1. Persons and Vessels Liable, § 4311.
D. Actions, §§ 4312-4327.

a. By Carrier, § 4312.

b. Against Carrier. §§ 4313-4327.

(1) In General, § 4313.

(2) Pleading, § 4314.

(3) Issues, Proof and Variance, § 4315.

(4) Evidence, §§ 4316-4326.

(a) Presumptions and Burden of Proof, §§ 4316-4319.
aa. In General, § 4316.

bb. Cause of Loss or Injury to Goods, § 4317.
cc. Stowage of Goods, § 4318.
dd. Seaworthiness or Fitness of Vessel, § 4319.


(b) Necessity of Producing Bill of Lading, § 4320.

(c) Admissibility of Evidence, § 4321.

(d) Weight and Sufificiency of Evidence, §§ 4322-4326.
aa. In General, § 4322.

bb. Delivery to Carrier, § 4323.
cc. Condition of Vessel, § 4324.
dd. Evidence as to Sea Perils, § 4325.
ee. Short Delivery, § 4326.
(5) Trial, § 4327.

E. Damages, §§ 4328-4336.

a. Failure to Receive and Carry According to Contract, § 4328.

b. Failure to Deliver or Misdelivery, § 4329.

c. Delay in Transportation or Delivery, § 4330.

d. Loss or Injury, §§ 4331-4336.

(1) In General. § 4331.

(2) Measure and Elements of Damage, § 4332.

(3) Determination of Damages, § 4333.

(4) Apportionment of Damages, § 4334.

(5) Deductions, § 4335.

(6) Evidence as to Value or Damage, § 4336.

F. Lien of Shipper against \'essel, § 4337.

V. Freight, Lighterage and Demurrage, §§ 4338-4378.

A. Freight, §§ 4338-4354.

a. In General, § 4338.

b. Persons Entitled to Collect Freight, § 4339.

c. Persons Liable for Payment of Freight, § 4340.

d. When Freight Earned, §§ 4341-4343.

(1) In General, § 4341.

(2) Freight Pro Rata Itineris, § 4342.

(3) Goods Lost or Abandoned, § 4343.

e. Amount Recoverable, § 4344.

f. Deductions and Offsets, § 4345.
g. Change of Rates, § 4346.
h. Lien for Freight, §§ 4347-4353.

(1) In General, § 4347.

(2) Time Lien Attaches. § 4348.

(3) Property Subject to Lien, § 4349.

(4) Displacement and Waiver of Lien, § 4350.

(5) Preserving and Enforcing Lien, § 4351.

(6) Subrogation to Lien, § 4352.

i. Actions to Recover Freight, § 4353.
j. Recovery Back of Freight, § 4354.

B. Lighterage, § 4355.

C. Demurrage, §§ 4356-4378.

a. In General, § 4356.

b. Charter Party Provisions, § 4357.

c. Right of Vessel to Charge in General, § 4358.

d. Delay Fault of Vessel or Owner, § 4359.

e. Delay Caused by Act of God, § 4360.

f. Negligence or Wrongful Acts of Third Persons, § 4361.
g. Liability of Charterer of Ship, § 4362.

h. Liability of Consignee, § 4363.
i. Lial)ility of Purchaser of Cargo, § 4364.
j. Delay in Loading or Sailing, § 4365.
k. Delay during Voyage, § 4366.

§ 4245 CARRIERS. 3862

1. Delay in Unloading, § 4367.
m. Effect of Custom and Usage, § 4368.
n. Demand for Demurrage, § 4369.
o. Rate and Amount, § 4370.
p. Lay Days, § 4371.
q. Indemnity, § 4372.

r. Waiver and Release of Demurrage, § 4373.
s. Lien, § 4374.
t. Actions, §§ 4375-4378.

(1) Libel, § 4375.

(2) Defenses, § 4376.

(3) Presumptions and Burden of Proof, § 4377.

(4) Limitations and Laches, § 4378.

§ 4245. General Considerations. — Carriers by Water Common Car-
riers. — A carrier by water, whether by inland navigation or coastwise, from port
to port, or to and from foreign countries, is a common carrier.^ If the shipowner
directly and publicly offers to carry for all persons indiscriminately, or by his
conduct and manner of business holds himself out as ready to carry for all on
such trips as the boat makes, he is a common carrier.^ If he has not offered to
carry for all persons indiscriminately, etc., but merely carries in pursuance of
special employment, he is not a common carrier.^ The law is that a ship chartered
for a special cargo or to a special person, is merely an ordinary bailee for hire,
and not a common carrier.'* Under the rule of the American courts of admiralty
a lighter hired exclusively to convey the goods of one person to a particular place
for an agreed compensation is not a "common carrier" with respect to such goods,
but a "private carrier," and liable only as a bailee for hire.^

Control and Regulation. — As to control and regulation of common carriers,
see ante, "Control and Regulation," Chapter 2.

Rules and Regulations of Carriers. — For a general treatment of the rules
and regulations of carriers, see ante, "Rules and Regulations of Carriers,"
Chapter 3.

Duty to Receive and Carry — Duty in General. — Generally as to the duty
of a common carrier to receive and carry for all alike, see ante, "Duty to Receive
and Carry," Chapter 4. The common-law obligation of a carrier by sea is to
receive goods which it is able and accustomed to carry, in the order of their ten-
der, without preference to any shipper.'^ And the carrier is liable for any loss or
injury resulting from the wrongful refusal to receive and carry goods properly
offered for shipment.' A navigation company, whose charter confers no power
of eminent domain, nor imposes any public duties, is not a public or quasi public
corporation, and is not bound to provide sufficient facilities to carry all goods of-
fered, but may decline to receive goods in excess of its transportation facilities.^

1. Common carriers. — Hastings v. Pep- 6. Failure to receive and carry. — Ocean
per (Alass.), 11 Pick. 41. Steamship Co. v. Savannah, etc., Supply

As to who are common carriers, see Co., 131 Ga. 831, 63 S. E. 577, 20 L. R.

ante. "Who Are Common Carriers," A., N. S., 867, 15 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas.

Chapter 1. 1044.

2. Holding out to public alike. — Bassett 7. Liability for loss, etc., resulting. — A
V. Aberdeen Coal, etc., Co., 120 Ky. 728, steamboat carrier is liable for the loss by
27 Ky. L. Rep. 1122, 88 S. W. 318. theft of goods temporarily stored in its

3. Special employment. — • Bassett z'. warehouse, upon its wrongful refusal to
Aberdeen Coal, etc.. Co.. 120 Ky. 728, 27 receive them for shipment; the shipper
Ky. L. Rep. 1122, 88 S. W. 318. having had no reasonable opportunity to

4. Ordinary bailee. — Sumner v. Caswell, make a safer disposition of the goods.
20 Fed. 249; The Dan. 40 Fed. 691; The Seasongood v. Tennessee, etc.. Transp.
Fri, 154 Fed. 333, 83 C. C. A. 205; The Co.. 54 S. W. 193, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1142,
Wildenfels. 161 Fed. 864. 49 L. R. A. 270.

5. Lighter hired exclusively. — The Wild- 8. Duty as to providing facilities. —
enfels, 161 Fed. 864. Ocean Steamship Co. v. Savannah, etc.,

3863 CARRIAGE OF PROPERTY. §§ 4245-4246

But a carrier by sea can not reject goods which it professes to carry and there-
after receive other goods where at the time of tender there is room in the vessel
for the goods, and the vessel's safety will in no wise be imperiled.^

Privilege of Booking Ahead. — The common-law obligation of a common car-
rier by sea to serve the public impartially in the receipt and transportation of
goods does not inhibit a carrier from making "bookings" of freight — that is, from
making specific arrangements for the transportation of goods by a particular
vessel in advance of its sailing day, provided this privilege is extended to all, or
if the grant of this privilege to shippers of one commodity does not interfere with
the carrier's duty to shippers of other commodities. i" But where a carrier by
sea, b}' "booking" cotton going foreign, contracts away its space in advance and
declines to receive lumber tendered for shipment before arrival of the booked cot-
ion for transportation, because of its prior booking contracts, and refuses lumber
dealers the privilege of booking their commodity solely because it is a domestic
shipment, this is an unjust discrimination, for the reason that the booking of
cotton going foreign prevents the carrier from discharging its common-law ob-
ligation of impartially serving the public. ^^

As Dependent on Quality of Goods. — Cotton does not possess such inherent
qualities as to permit a preference to be given to that commodity over all other
articles which a steamship customarily carries.^ -

Commodity for Foreign Shipment. — The fact that a commodity is destined
to a foreign port can not justify a carrier by sea in giving a preference to it
over another commodity because the latter may be a domestic shipment. ^^

Authority of Agent. — Where one, whom a steamboat carrier had permitted to
act as its agent in receiving freight for such a length of time as to justify the
belief that he was an authorized agent, wrongfully refused to receive freight
offered, the carrier can not escape liability on the ground that he had no authority
to receive freight for shipment. i'*

Stipulation as to Amount or Value of Cargo Shipped. — The owner of a
line of lake steamers can lawfully make a special contract with the shipper not to
place more than a specified number of dollars worth of goods on any one of the
vessels at one time, and having made such contract, he is bound to perform the
same, notwithstanding his common-law duty as a carrier to forward all goods as
received. ^-^

When Liability Commences. — As to the commencement of the carrier's lia-
bility for goods shipped, see ante, "When Liability Commences," Chapter 5.

Special Contracts. — As to special contracts made by carriers for the trans-
portation of goods, see ante, "Special Contracts," Chapter 8.

§§ 4246-4265. Contracts of Affreightment— § 4246. Defined, Classi-
fied and Distinguished. — The object of this treatment is to consider contracts
of affreightment as distinguished from contracts chartering a vessel for a voyage,
a certain period of time, or a particular purpose, in which the liability is shifted

Supply Co., 63 S. H. 577, 131 Ga. 831, 20 12. As dependent on quality of goods.—

L. R. A., N. S., 867, 15 Am. & Eng. Ann. Ocean Steamship Co. 7'. Savannah, etc..

Cas. ]044. Supply Co., 131 Ga. 831, 63 S. E. 577, 20

9. Must carry for all alike.— Ocean L. R. A., N. S., 867, 15 Am. & Eng. Ann.
Steamship Co. v. Savannah, etc., Supply Cas. 1044.

Co., 131 Ga. 831, 63 S. E. 577, 20 L. R. 13. Commodity for foreign shipment,—

A., N. S., 867, 15 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. Ocean Steamship Co. v. Savannah, etc.,

1044. Supply Co., 131 Ga. 831, 63 S. E. 577, 20

10. Privilege of booking ahead.— Ocean L. R. A., N. S., 867, 15 Am. & Eng. Ann.
Steamship Co. v. Savannah, etc.. Supply Cas. 1044.

Co., 131 Ga. 831, 63 S. E. 577, 20 L. R. 14. Authority of agent.- Seasongood v.

A., N. S., 867, 15 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. Tennessee, etc., Transp. Co., 54 S. W. 193,

1044. 31 Ky. L. Rep. 1142, 49 L. R. A. 270.

11. Prevention of impartial service. — 15. Amount or value of cargo. — Hood
Merchants', etc., Transp. Co. v. Granger, Ruhl)cr Co. z\ Rutland Trans. Co., 161
63 S. E. 700, 133 Ga. 167. Fed. 790.

§ 4246



to the charterer. And in order that this distinction may be more thoroughly un-
derstood at the outset, it may be well to consider the two classes together for
a while. A charter party is defined to be a contract by which an entire ship, or
some principal part thereof, is let to a merchant for the conveyance of goods
on a determined voyage to one or more places. i*^ A contract of affreightment is
a contract with a shipowner to hire his ship, or part of it, for the carriage of
goods or other property. i' And such contracts are distinguished from towage
contracts, in that towage service is aid rendered in the propulsion of a vessel. It
is the employment of one vessel to expedite the voyage of another vessel. ^^

Classification of Charter Parties. — Charter may be divided into two general
classes, a demise of the vessel or a simple contract of afifreightment.^^ Shipping
agreements are also classified according to their difference in the objects and
purposes for which they are made. Thus, there is a class of shipping agreements
which amount to a demise of the vessel, the charterer being deemed the owner
for the time being even so far as third persons are concerned.-" Where the pos-
session, command and navigation of the vessel is retained by the general owner,
contracting to convey the cargo for the voyage, the charterer has not the legal
responsibility or the character of ownership. Such an agreement is a mere con-
tract of afifreightment.-^ And in the absence of a plainly manifested intention

16. Definition. — Vandewater v. Mills (U.
S.), 19 How. 82, 15 L. Ed. 554; Ward v.
Thompson (U. S.), 22 How. 330, 16 L.
Ed. 249. See Spring v. Gray (U. S.), 6
Pet. 151, 8 L. Ed. 352.

Partnership contract. — A contract
wherc1)y certain parties joined together
to carry on and advertise in trade for
their mutual benefit — one contributing a
vessel, and the other his skill, labor, ex-
perience, etc. — and there was to be a
community of profits on a fixed ratio, is
not a charter party but a partnership con-
tract of which a court of admiralty has no
jurisdiction. Ward v. Thompson (U. S.),
22 How. 330, 16 L. Ed. 249.

An agreement between owners of ves-
sels to form a line for carrying passen-
gers and freight between New York and
San Francisco, is but a contract for a
limited partnership, and the remedy for
a Ijreach of it is in the common-law courts.
Vandewater v. Mills (U. S.), 19 How. 82,
15 L. Ed. 554.

17. Contract of affreightment. — The
Nettie Quill, 124 Fed. 667.

The owner and master of a steamer en-
gaged in making regular trips between
river ports contracted to transport from
one of such ports to another, for a stated
charge, a locomotive engine. The barge
owned and used by him on such trips not
being suitable, it was agreed that the
owner of the engine should furnish a
barge on which to load the same, which
was to be returned by the steamer. The
steamer issued a bill of lading in the
usual form for the barge and engine, and
lashed the barge to her side for the voy-
age. Held, that the contract was one of
affreightment, and not of towage. The
Nettie Quill, 124 Fed. 667.

18. Towage service. — The Nettie Quill,
124 Fed. 667; McConnochie v. Kerr, 9
Fed. 50.

19. Classification of charter parties. —

United States v. Shea, 152 U. S. 178, 38
L. Ed. 403, 14 S. Ct. 519; Mclntyre v.
Bowne (N. Y.), 1 John's 229.

20. Agreement amounting to demise. —
English.— Frazev v. Marsh, 13 East. 238.

United States. — Marcardier v. Chesa-
peake Ins. Co., 8 Cranch 39, 3 L. Ed. 481.

California. — Oakland Cotton Mfg. Co. v.
Jennings, 46 Cal. 175, 13 Ain. Rep. 209.

Massachusetts. — Taggard v. Loring, 16
Mass. 336, 8 Am. Dec. 140.

Michigan. — First Nat. Bank v. Stewart,
26 Mich. 83.

Nczv York.— Hagar v. Clark, 78 N.
Y. 45.

North Carolina. — White v. Norfolk, etc.,
R. Co., 115 N. C. 631, 20 S. E. 191, 44
Am. St. Rep. 489.

South Carolina. — Ross v. Charleston,
etc., Transp. Co., 42 S. C. 447, 20 S. E.

Wisconsin. — Sheriffs v. Pugh, 22 Wis.
273, 94 Am. Dec. 600.

Miscellaneous cases testing nature of
agreement. — Baunwall, etc., Co. v. Fur-
ness (Eng.), 1 Q. B. 253, afiirmed in Ap-
peals 8 ; The Erie, Fed. Cas. No. 4512, 3
Ware 225; Certain Logs of Mahogany,
Fed. Cas. No. 2559, 2 Sumn. 589; Urann v.
Fletcher (Mass.), 1 Gray 125; The India.
14 Fed. 476.

21. Mere contract of affreightment. —
United States. — Leary v. United States, 14
Wall. 607, 20 L. Ed. 756; Shaw v. United
States, 93 U. S. 235, 23 L. Ed. 880.

Louisiana. — Slark v. Broom, 7 La. Ann.

Missouri. — Adams v. Homeyer, 45 Mo.
545, 100 Am. Dec. 391.

Nezv York.—Hagar v. Clark, 78 N. Y. 45.

Where space reserved by owner. — Swift
V. Tatner, SO Ga. 660, 15 S. E. 842, 32 Am.
St. Rep. 101.



§§ 4246-4247

to transfer the possession and ownership to the charterer, such an agreement will
not be treated as a demise of the vessel, but will be considered as a mere contract
of affreightment.22 Again, there are cases where a master hiring a vessel on
shares may become the owner pro hac vice during the period which the contract
exists; as where he agrees to man the vessel and employ her at his own discre-
tion, having the possession and command of the vessel, and not being subject to
the orders or directions of the owner of the vessel. ^^ However, this rule is not
applied in some jurisdictions and the master in such cases is not considered as
the owner pro hac vice.-^ But where a part owner of a vessel takes it under such
a contract he should be deemed the owner pro hac vice, he being in no sense the
agent of his co-owners.-^ There is another class of charter parties known as
time charter. They are made for a certain length of time.^*^ or, as is usually the
case, to cover such period as may be required for a certain voyage or number of
voyages.2'^ ji-i ^ time charter a month will be held to mean a calendar month un-
less it is otherwise stipulated, ^^ and where a charter is made without any time
limit it will be held to be an hiring for all voyages undertaken prior to notice by
the owner of his intention to end the contract. -** Where vessels are chartered by
the government, the government has the same rights, and is subject to the same
rules and liabilities as other charterers. ^^

Releting- Vessels by Charterer. — Where it is so provided by the charter
party, the charterer may relet the vessel and such subcontracts made by him are
binding upon the vessel. ^^

§ 4247. Persons Who May Make. — A contract of affreightment may be
executed by the parties themselves or by duly authorized agents acting for and
in their behalf, provided there is a sufficient meeting of the minds. 3- Thus, it
may be executed by the managing owners,^^ the ship's husband, whether he be a
part owner of the vessel or not,-''-* or the master of the vessel in a foreign part,

22. Presumption against demise. — Urann
V. Fletcher (Mass.), 1 Gray 125; Ross v.
Charleston, etc., Transp. Co., 42 S. C. 447,
20 S. E. 285; Reed v. United States (U.
S.), 11 Wall. 591, 20 L. Ed. 220; Hagar
V. Clark, 78 N. Y. 45.

23. When master owner pro hac vice. —
Thomas v. Osborn (U. S.), 19 How. 22,
15 L. Ed. 534; Thorp v. Hammond (U.
S.), 12 Wall. 408, 20 L. Ed. 419; Mar-
shall V. Boardman, 89 Me. 87, 35 Atl. 1024,
56 Am. St. Rep. 392; Tucker v. Stimson
(Mass.), 12 Gray 487.

24. Rule not applied. — Steel v. Lester
(En?.), C. P. Div. 121; McCready v.
Thorn (N. Y.), 49 Barb. 438.

25. Rule applied to part owner. — Wil-
liams V. Hays. 143 N. Y. 442, 38 N. E.
449, 2r. L. R. A. 153, 42 Am. St. Rep. 743.
See the case of Fox v. Holt, Fed. Cas.
No. 5012, 30 Conn. 558, 4 Ben. 278.

26. Time charters. — Reeve v. Davis
(Eng.), 1 Ah. & El. 312, 28 E. C. L. 95;
Winter v. Simonton, 3 Cranch C. C. 104,
Fed. Cas. No. 17,894; Swift v. Tatner, 80
Ga. 660, 15 S. E. 842, 32 Am. St. Rep. 101;
Hunt V. Mctcalf, 47 Fed. 73.

27. Voyage charters. — Loary v. United
States (U. S.), 14 Wall. G07, 20 L. Ed.
756; Mactier v. Wirgman (Md.), 4 Har.
& J. 568; Cutler v. Lennox, 137 Mas."

28. Month defined.— Jolly v. Young
(Eng.), 1 Jvsp. N. P. 186.

29. No limit specified. — Sproat v. Don-
nell, 26 Me. 185, 45 Am. Dec. 103, citing
Cutler V. Winsor (Mass.), 6 Pick. 335, 17
Am. Dec. 385.

30. Government charters. — White v.
United States, 154 U. S. 661, 26 L. Ed.
178, 14 S. Ct. 1192; Reed v. United States
(U. S.), 11 Wall. 591, 20 L. Ed. 220.

31. Releting vessels by charter. — The T.
A. Goddard, 12 Fed. 174.

32. Who may execute. — Prentice v.
United States, etc.. Steamship Co., 58
Fed. 702; Terry v. Brightman, 132 Mass.

Authority given an agent by a ship-
owner, who was a nonresident, to "look
after" certain barges employed in the gen-
eral carrying trade, to make contracts for
their services, collect freight, etc., is not
to be so narrowly construed as to render
invalid a charter for the carrying of five
cargoes by two of the barges, to be per-
formed within two months, which was ac-
cepted and acted upon by the charterer in

Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 142 of 214)