Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 156 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 156 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


sale may properly be taken as its value for the purpose of making adjustment
between the several parties in interest, although the proceeding by the cargo own-
ers was unwarranted, and the cargo was sold for less than its actual value. ^^

§ 4334. Apportionment of Damages. — Where it appears that the greater
part of the damage to a cargo resulted from sea perils for which the ship is not
liable, but further damage occurred through the negligence of the master in fail-
should have been delivered, which the jury 22. The Berengere, 155 Fed. 439.
is authorized to ascertain by taking the 23. Expenses of owner. — See ante, "Ex-
price at the place of shipment and adding penses of Owner," § 1075.
thereto the cost of carriage. Northern 24. The Protection, 102 Fed. 516, 42
Commercial Co. v. Lindblom, 162 Fed. CCA 489

250, 89 C. C. A. 230; The Olympia, 156 25.' Profits.— See ante, "Profits," § 1078.

Fo'r r''A'^!l'o P'-^t^^tion, 102 Fed. 516, ^^ Northern Commercial Co. v. Lind-

-.o:" r^' A 1 \ u r u • blom, 162 Fed. 250, 89 C. C. A. 230.

19. Goods lost before voyage begins - ^^ ^^^ Berengere, 155 Fed. 439.
Lakeman 7'. Grmnel, 18 N. Y. buper. Ct. .^ . . . , „,
625; Krohn v. Oechs (N. Y.), 48 Barb. ^ ^8. Determination of damages.— The
127; Dusar v. Murgatroyd, Fed. Cas. No. Earnwood 83 Fed. 315. See ante, In
4,199, 1 Wash. C. C. 13. General, § 1070.

20. Price fixed by contract.— White v. 29. The Eliza Lines, 114 Fed. 307, 52 C.
Toncray, 46 Va. (5 Gratt.) 179. C. A. 195, modified on another point, 132

21. Injury to goods. — The Berengere, Fed. 242, 65 C. C. A. 538, and reversed
155 Fed. 439; United Steamship Co. v. on another point, 26 S. Ct. 8, 199 U. S-
Haskins, 181 Fed. 962; United Steamship 119, 50 L. Ed. 115, 4 Am. & Eng. Ann-
Co. V. Schilling & Co., 181 Fed. 965. Cas. 406.



3935 CARRIAGE OF PROPERTY. §§ 4334-4335

ing to put into port to make repairs, it would be inequitable to hold the ship lia-
ble for the entire damage, although it can not be separated, and the loss should
be divided.-^" Where a cargo has been damaged by independent causes, for only
a part of which the ship is liable, the loss will not be equally divided nor cast
wholly upon the ship except as a last resort, and when all means fail of making
an approximate apportionment of the loss to the several causes of damages. ^^
It has been held that where both the carrier and the shipper are in fault for
damage to the cargo, the damage will be equally divided between them.^^ Where
a shipment of wool was wetted and injured by contact with other wet wool on
the lighter or the terminal steamship, and it was impossible to determine how
much of the damage each contributed, they would be required to share the loss
between them.^^

§ 433 5. Deductions. — Deduction of Freight Charges. — See ante,

"Freight, Allowance and Deduction," § 1073. Under a bill of lading for cotton,
which provided that loss or damage to the cotton should be computed on the
basis of its 'value at the time and place of shipment, where it was delivered at
destination in a damaged condition, the shipowner is not entitled to have the
amount of the freight deducted from its value as ascertained pursuant to such
j.rovision.-'-*

Deduction of Salvage Expenses. — It is the duty of a carrier of cargo which
meets with disaster through the fault of the vessel to do what he can to minimize
the damage, by which he profits as well as the cargo owner, and he is not entitled
to a deduction of expenses so incurred from the damages recoverable by the
cargo owner by reason of his loss.^^

Deduction of Value of Damaged Goods — Determination of Value. —
Where a ship carried a cargo of cotton from Charleston to New York, from
which place it was to be forwarded to Liverpool, but under a separate and inde-
pendent contract of affreightment, and the bill of lading provided that in case of
loss or damage the value of the cotton in Charleston at the time of shipment
should be taken as the basis for computing the damage to the cotton, which was
mjured before its delivery in New York through the unseaworthiness of the
ship, it was held, that the contract of carriage terminated in New York, and the
ship was entitled to credit for the value of the cotton in its damaged condition
in that market, and not in the Liverpool market, and that it was error to give
credit for the proceeds of its sale in Liverpool, less the freight from New York,
the amount being materially less than would have been realized by its sale in
New York.^«

30. Apportionment of damages. — The 33. Sanbern v. Panama R. Co., 205 Fed.
Musselcras-, 12.". Fed. 786. 348, 123 C. C. A. 423.

31. The Shand. 16 Fed. 570, distinguish- 34. Deduction of freight charges.— The
ing Speyer v. The Mary Belle Roberts. Oneida. 12S Fed. 687. <i:} C. C. A. 239, re-
2 Sawv. 1. Fed. Cas. No. 13,240, and versm.e in lOs Fed SS6

Snow f. Carruth. Fed. Cas. No. 13,144, 1 35. Deduction of salvage expenses.—

3pr 324 Ralli V. New York, etc., bteamship Co.,

32. fin was shipped from New York to 154 Fed. 286, 83 C. C. A. 290.

Bviffalo in an open boat, contrary to cus- 36. Deduction of value of damaged

torn, and, l)y reason of heavy rains and goods — Determination of value. — The

some leaking of the boat, was delivered Oneida, 128 Fed. ('>87, 63 C. C. A. 239,

damaeed. The evidence indicated that reversing 108 Fed. 886.

there had been a complete misunderst'md- Error of surveyors. — The cotton was

ing between libelant and claimant as to shipped to Liverpool for sale in compli-

the hatches of the boat, the libelant sup- ance with the recommendation of the sur-

posing they were to be used, the claimant veyors who adjusted the loss, and with

supposing the libelant waived the use of the knowledge of the shipowners, who

them. Held, that both were in fault for made no objection. Held, that they were

the damage, and that libelant shotdd re- not bound by the erroneous decision of

cover half his damage. Stillwcll v. The the surveyors, nor estopped to claim

J. D. Hall, 34 Fed. 904. credit for the New York value of the cot-



§§ 4336-4337



CARRIERS.



3936



§ 4336. Evidence as to Value or Damage. — See ante, "Evidence as ta
\'alue or Damage," §§ 1082-1084; "Admissibility of Evidence," § 4321.

§ 4337. Lien of Shipper against Vessel. — Shippers have a lien by the
maritime law npon the vessel employed in the transportation of their goods and
merchandise from one port to another, as a security for the fulfillment of the
contract of the carrier, that he will safely keep, duly transport, and rightly deliver
the goods and merchandise shipped on board, as stipulated in the bill of lading
or other contract of shipment, ^"^ unless the lien is waived by some express stip-
ulation, or is displaced by some inconsistent and irreconcilable provision in the
charter party or bill of lading.^^ But the law creates no lien on a vessel as
security for the performance of a contract to transport a cargo, until some lawful
contract of affreightment is made, and the cargo to which it relates has been
delivered to the custody of the master or someone authorized to receive it.-^^ Sa



ton, where they at no time gave a posi-
tive assent to the substitution of the Liv-
erpool value. The Oneida, 128 Fed. 687,
63 C. C. A. 239, reversing 108 Fed. 886.

37. Liens of shipper against vessels. —
Schooner Freeman v. Buckingham (U.
S.), 18 How. 182, 15 L. Ed. 341; The
Keokuk (U. S.), 9 Wall. 517, 19 L. Ed.
741; The Delaware (U. S.), 14 Wall. 579,
20 L. Ed. 779; The Belfast (U. S.), 7
Wall. 624, 19 L. Ed. 266; The Bird of
Paradise (U. S.), 5 Wall. 545, 18 L. Ed.
662; The Eddy (U. S.), 5 Wall. 481, 18
L. Ed. 486; 4,885 Bags of Linseed (U.
S.), 1 Black 108, 17 L. Ed. 35; The Mag-
gie Hammond (U. vS.), 9 Wall. 435, 19
L. Ed. 772; Bulkley %'. Naumkeag Steam
Cotton Co. (U. S.), 24 How. 386, 16 L.
Ed. 599; Miners' Co-Op. Ass'n v. The
Monarch, 2 Alaska 383.

Usually the charter party contains a
clause binding the ship to the merchan-
dise and the merchandise to the ship, but
the law merchant imposes that mutual
oliligation even if it be omitted. The
Bird of Paradise (U. S.), 5 Wall. 545, 18
L. Ed. 662.

38. Waiver of lien. — The Delaware (LT.
S.), 14 Wall. 579, 20 L. Ed. 779.

39. Commencement of lien. — The Keo-
kuk (U. S.), 9 Wall. 517, 19 L. Ed. 744;
Vandewater v. Mills (U. S.), 19 How. 82,
15 L. Ed. 554; Schooner Freeman v.
Buckingham (U. S.), 18 How. 182, 15 L.
Ed. 341; The Lady Franklin (U. .S.), 8
Wall. 325, 19 L. Ed. 455; Bulkley v.
Naumkeag Steam Cotton Co. (U. S.), 24
How. 386, 16 L. Ed. 599; The Hiram, 101
Fed. 138.

"Bills of lading when signed by the
master, duly executed in the usual course
of business, bind the owners of the ves-
sel if the goods were laden on board or were
actually delivered into the custody of the
master, but it is well-settled law that the
owners are not liable, if the party to
whom the bill of lading was given had
no goods, or the goods described in the
bill of lading were never put on board or
delivered into the custody of the carrier
or his agent." The Delaware (U. S.), 14
Wall. 579, 20 L. Ed. 779.



The goods need not have been actually
placed on the deck of the v.essel. Pol-
lard V. Vinton, 105 U. S. 7, 9, 26 L. Ed.
998; Bulkley v. Naumkeag Steam Cotton.
Co. (U. S.), 24 How. 386, 16 L. Ed. 599.

Delivery within reach of ship's tackle^
— Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Callender, 183 U.
S. 632, 46 L. Ed. 362, 22 S. Ct. 257.

Delivery to lighter. — • Where goods
were delivered at a steamboat company's
dock for shipment, and it was thereafter
found necessary to transport the goods
to the steamer on a lighter, and they
were damaged by the partial sinking of
the lighter before reaching the steamer,,
the steamer was liable for the loss. The
Pokanoket, 161 Fed. 383, afifirmed in Pe-
tersburg, etc.. Steamboat Line v. Norfolk-
Virginia Peanut Co., 172 Fed. 321, 96 C.
C. A. 383, 24 L. R. A., N. S., 569. See
Insurance Co. v. North German Lloyd
Co., 106 Fed. 973, affirmed in 110 Fed.
420, 49 C. C. A. 1.

In ports where it is necessary for a
vessel drawing much water to He outside
of the bar and have her cargo brought
to her by lighters, and the usage is for the
lighterman to be engaged and paid by
tlie captain of the vessel, to give his re-
ceipt to the factor for the cotton, and
to take a receipt from the captain when
he delivers it on board of the vessel, de-
livery of goods to the lighterman is a
delivery to the master, and the transpor-
tation by the lighter to the vessel the
commencement of the voyage, in execu-
tion of the contract by which the master
engages to carry. Where a lighterman,
thus employed, was conveying bales of
cotton to a vessel lying outside of the
bar, but before they were put on board,
an explosion of the boiler threw the bales
into the water, by which the cotton was
damaged, the vessel was held responsi-
ble for the loss upon being libelled in a
court of admiralty, the master having in-
cluded these bales in the bills of lading
which he signed. Bulkley v. Naumkeag
Steam Cotton Co. (U. S.), 24 How. 386,
16 L. Ed. 599.

Insufficient delivery. — A contract of af-
freghtment can not be implied against a



3937



CARRIAGE OF PROPERTY.



§ 4337



the owner of a cargo has no Hen upon a vessel for injury to such cargo resulting
from delay in preparing the vessel for loading which occurred before the cargo
was received by the owners or their agents.^^ The lien to the shipper arises alike
whether the contract of affreightment be by charter party, by bill of lading, or
by parol.41 The fact that a steamer was being operated under a charter, even
if known to shippers, does not relieve her from a lien arising from default in her
obligation to the cargo>- Bills of lading given by mistake,^'^ or fraudulently
obtained,'*^ create no lien on the vessel.

Priorities. — The vessel is, by the maritime law, hypothecated to the shipper
for his damages, from the time that the misfortune happens, and his claim against
it is preferred to the right of the general creditors of the owners.'*^ The ship-
per's right of preference may be lost by unreasonable delay ; ^^ but his lien is
not defeated by a bona fide sale, before he has had an opportunity for enforcing
it, and still less when the purchaser has knowledge of the claim. ■*''■ The owners
of a cargo of brick with which a barge sunk and which were not recovered for
several months, did not, by delaying the making of a formal claim for damages
against the vessel until after she had been raised and the cargo recovered, so that
the extent of the loss could be definitely known, lose the right to assert a lien
therefor as against the insurer of the barge, which in the meantime had bought
and raised her, such purchaser having knowledge that there would be damage to
the cargo, and being chargeable with notice of the legal rights of the owners.-* ^

Enforcement of Lien. — The shipper may enforce his lien by process in rem
against the vessel in the admiralty. ■*'-* Where the maritime lien or privilege is



transportation company from the fact that a
man has loaded a barge belonging to the com-
pany, by means of his own men, without any
knowledge by the company of what he
has done, and then delivered bills of lad-
ing to the agent of a steamer of the line,
the agent at the moment being very much
engaged with other matters, just before
the steamer, which it was expected by the
shipper would tow the barge, sets off; no
sufficient statement being made by the
shipper, when so delivering the bills, what
bills they are, and the agent himself hav-
ing no knowledge of what has been done
in the particular case, nor of the con-
tents of the bills. The Keokuk (U. S.),
9 Wall. 517, 19 L. Ed. 744, distinguishing
Bulkley v. Naumkeag Steam Cotton Co.
(U. S.), 24 How. 386, 16 L. Ed. 599.

Where, at the time complainant deliv-
ered goods on the wharf of a transporta-
tion company under a bill of lading re-
citing that the goods were to be shipped
on board defendant company's vessel or
vessels "now" lying at the port of S.,
complainant had knowledge that defend-
ant's chartered vessel, the R. D., by which
it was expected to ship the goods, was
then either on the high seas or in a dis-
tant port, and the goods were never de-
livered to the master or officers of such
vessel, the vessel was not subject to a
maritime lien for defendant's breach of
the contract of affreightment. Guffey v.
Alaska, etc., Steamship Co., 130 Fed. 271,
64 C. C. A. 517.

40. The Hiram, 101 Fed. 138.

41. Miners' Co-Op. .Ass'n v. The Mon-
arch, 3 .Maska :i83.

42. Steamer operated under a charter.
— The Seaboard, 119 Fed. 375, citing



Schooner Freeman v. Buckingham (U,
S.), 18 How. 182, 15 L. Ed. 341.

43. Bills of lading given by mistake.
—The Lady Franklin (U. S.), 8 Wall. 325,
19 E. Ed. 455.

44. Bills of lading fraudulently obtained.
— So held as to false bills of lading signed
by the master without knowledge of the
shipowner. Pollard v. Vinton, 105 U. S.
7, 26 L. Ed. 998; Schooner Freeman v.
Buckingham (U. S.), 18 How. 182, 15 L.
Ed. 341; The Lady Franklin (U. S.), 8
Wall. 325, 19 L. Ed. 455.

45. Priorities. — The Rebecca, Fed. Cas.
No. 11,619, 1 Ware 187, cited in Cole v.
The Atlantic, Fed. Cas. No. 2,976, Crabbe
440; The E. Benjamin, Fed. Cas. No,
8,582, 4 Clark 25; The Planter, Fed. Cas.
No. 11,207a, 2 Woods 490; The Illinois,
Fed. Cas. No. 7,005, 2 Flip. 383; The
Witch Queen, Fed. Cas. No. 17,916, 3'
Sawy. 201.

46. Unreasonable delay. — The Rebecca,
Fed. Cas. No. 11,619, 1 Ware 187, cited
in Knox v. Ninetta, Fed. Cas. No. 7,912^
Crabbe 534; Packard v. The Louisa, Fed.
Cas. No. 10,652, 2 Woodb. & M. 48.

47. The Rebecca, Fed. Cas. No. 11,619,
1 Ware 187, approved in Cole v. The
Atlantic, Fed. Cas. No. 2,976, Crabbe 440;
Edwards v. The Robert F. Stockton, Fed,
Cas. No. 4,297, Crabbe 580.

48. The G. B. Boren, 132 Fed. 887.

49. Enforcement of lien. — The Rebecca,
Fed. Cas. No. 11, (HO, 1 Ware 187, cited
in New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. Mer-
chants' Bank (U. S.), 6 How. 343, 12 L.
Ed. 465; The Maggie Hammond (U. S.),
9 Wall. 435, 19 L. Ed. 772; The T. A.
Goddard, 12 Fed. 174.



§§ 4337-4339 carriers. 3938

created by the lex loci contractus, it will generally, although not universally, be
respected and enforced in all places where the property is found or where the
right can be beneficially enforced by the lex fori.^^

§§ 4338-4378. Freight, Lighterage and Demurrage— §§ 4338-4354.
Freight — § 4338. In General. — The shipper, consignee, or owner of the
cargo contracts to pay the freight and charges. ^^ "Freight" is the hire or com-
pensation paid for the use of a ship for carrying goods. ■'5-

§ 4339. Persons Entitled to Collect Freight.— The owners of a vessel,
and not the master, have the right to collect the freight money, if the master has
no claim ngainst the owners for his services or otherwise. ^•'^

Under Agreement between Consignee and Charterer. — Whatever stip-
i;lations may have been made between the consignees of a cargo and the char-
terer of a vessel which transports them for the appropriation of the return
freights, the right of the master to collect them from the consignees, after de-
livery to them of the goods, at least to the amount due on the charter party, can
not be questioned. The delivery of the goods to the consignees, and their ac-
ceptance of them under the bill of lading, raises an assumpsit against them to
pay freights according to the stipulations of the bill, and this implied obligation
becomes a positive one when the goods are received with notice that the freights
must be paid to the master, and not to the charterer.^-*

Purchasers at Sale in Admiralty Suit. — After the owners of a cargo which
liad been loaded on a vessel had advanced money on the bill of lading signed by
the master and the advance credited thereon, the vessel was sold in an admiralty
suit. The new owners, without notice to or negotiations with the cargo owners
and without a new bill of lading being executed by the master, ordered the vessel
to proceed with the cargo to the destination, afterward presenting to the cargo
owners a new bill of lading signed by themselves but not by the master, and
having no credit thereon, which the cargo owners refused to accept. There was
no implied contract of carriage in such case, but that the vessel owners in pro-
ceeding without further agreement to carry out the contract made by their
predecessor were bound by its terms, which they knew, and were entitled to
collect only the balance of freight due thereon/"''

Right of Neutral Ca.rrier of Enemy's Property. — The general rule is that
the neutral carrier of enemy's property is entitled to his freight. The captain
takes the ])roperty cum onere, being substituted in lieu of the owners.^"

Vessel Suijchartered and Cargo Consigned under Special Bills of Lad-
ing. — Where a vessel was chartered for a voyage to a foreign port and back, and
the agents of the charterers at the foreign port subchartered her to other persons
there, who loaded her with goods consigned to parties in the home port, under
special bills of lading, which did not refer to the original charter party; the

50. The Maggie Hammond (U. S.), 9 51. Freight, lighterage and demurrage.

Wall. 435, 19 L. Ed. 772. —The Delaware (U. S.). 1-1 Wall. 579, 20

Lien existing only by some local stat- L- Ed. 779.

ute.— The Maggie Hammond (U. S.), 9 52. The Norman Pnnce, 185 Fed. 169.

Wall. 435, 19 L. Ed. 772. 53. Persons entitled to collect freight.

T -u 1 1 . ^-.^1 J r J u A.U — Richardson z'. Whiting (Mass.), 18 Pick.

Libelant not entitled to remedy by the ^3^ ^^^ ^^^.^ Hancock, 11 Mass. 72.

lex loci contractus or place where cause g^ ^^^^^ agreement between consignee

Tn? c;^"o"^?;"M^^,^^ ^oT\}^''^^o and charteren-Adams v. Homeyer 45
mond (U. S.). 9 Wall. 435. 19 L. Ed. 772. ^^ ^^,^ ^^^ ^^^^_ ^^^ 3^^

Libelant citizen of country whose 55. Purchasers at sale in admiralty suit,

courts can not give same remedy to citi- —Chadwick 7-. Five Hundred and Sev-

zens of United States.— The Maggie enty-Six Granite Blocks, 178 Fed. 140.

Hammond (U. S.), 9 Wall. 435, 19 L. Ed. 56. Right of neutral carrier of enemy's

'^'^~- property.- The Fanny (U. S.), 9 Wheat.

Where court of admiralty not invested 058, 6 L. Ed. 184. But see The Com-

with jurisdiction. — The Maggie Hammond mercen (U. S.), 1 Wheat. 382, 4 L. Ed.

(U. S.), 9 Wall. 435, 19 L. Ed. 772. 116.



3939 CARRIAGE OF PROPERTY. §§ 4339-4341

rights of the shipowners to the freight, payable by the consignees, and their
lien for it upon the goods, depended entirely on the contract expressed in the
bills of lading, and not upon any thing contained in the charter party. ^''^

§ 4340. Persons Liable for Payment of Freight. — Where Goods Sur-
rendered to Insurer. — The fact that the master on the wreckage of the vessel
surrendered the cargo to the insurer without notice to respondent did not relieve
the latter of liability for the freight; the insurer being responsible under its policy
for the freight as well as the value of the cargo. •'•■-

Under Stipulation for Payment in Case of Loss. — The respondent shipped
a cargo of flour, consigned to its own order under bills of lading providing that
freight should be deemed earned, vessel or cargo lost or not lost. The flour was
shipped under contracts of sale, and was insured by respondent in its own name
for sufficient to cover the invoice price and freight. Respondent then indorsed
the bills of lading and policies in blank, and attached them to drafts drawn on
the purchasers for the selling price and cost of insurance, which were forwarded
for collection. The vessel having been lost, that respondent was liable for the
freight, whether its interest in the cargo was that of owner, or whether it merely
retained a lien, since in either case the purchasers were to have possession only
on payment of the drafts. ^^

Assignee of Consignee of Goods. — Where shipowners deliver the goods to
the assignee of the consignee, the assignee, and not the consignee, is liable for
the freight.^*'

§§ 4341-4343. When Freight Earned— § 4341. In General.— The gen-
eral rule is, that the delivery of the goods at the place of destination, according
to the bill of lading, is necessary to entitle the ship to freight. Till then the
freight is not earned. The conveyance and delivery is a condition precedent, and
must be fulfilled.<^i

Offer of Delivery. — The freight is earned where a cargo is carried to the
port of delivery, and the master oft'ered to deliver it to the consignee who re-
fused to receive it, on the ground that his government prohibited the landing of
the cargo.^2

Delivery of Part. — The master of a ship has no right to demand the freight
upon the whole shipment when he is ready to deliver only a part of it.^^

Delivery at Wharf. — Where plaintifif agreed to transport a cargo of goods
and deliver them at a certain wharf, and on arrival at the designated place no

57. Vessel subchartered and cargo con- L. Ed. 220; Caze v. Baltimore Ins. Co.
signed under special bills of lading.— (U. S.), 7 Cranch 358, 3 L. Ed. 370;
4,885 Bags of Linseed (U. S.), 1 Black Burn Line v. United States, etc., Steam-
108, 17 L. Ed. 35. ship Co., 162 Fed. 298.

58. Persons liable for payment of Consignment of goods and passenger
freight.— British, etc.. Marine Ins. Co. v. niust be landed, else the carrier is not
Portland Flouring Mills Co., 124 Fed. 855, entitled to freight or fare. Ex parte Eas-
afifirmed in 130 Fed. 860, 65 C. C. A. 344. ton, 95 U. vS. 68, 24 L. Ed. 373, citing The

59. Under stipulation for payment m j^jdy (u. S.), 5 Wall. 481, 18 L. Ed. 486.
case of loss.-Decree British, etc., Ma- g ^^^ American law freight is due
r"' io"/vS°-«^-. ^T \ • ?on"^'^^ «rn' ""ly if the goods are carried to destination,
^?-C c A -^44 ' '" '" ^"d- even if prepaid, may be recovered

-It' St' . ■ . . t A hack on a failure to make delivery unless

60 Assignee of consignee of goods.- expressly otherwise provided in the con-
Burton V. Strachan (N. Y.), 3 E. D. Smith ^^^'^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ 423^ reversed in

61. When freight earned.-Brittan v. ^,"'-" ^^"^5;; v"i''po«*^'''' '''" ^''^""

T3 1 /TT c N oi tj ro.r ,• r xt A ship Co., 162 t cd. 298.

Barnaby (U. S.), 21 How. 527, ib L. Ed. ^L r , ,. T>r t

177; The Eliza Lines, 199 U. S. 119, 50 62. Offer of delivery.— Morgan v. In-

L. Ed. 11.5, 26 S. Ct. 8, 4 Am. & Eng. surancc Co. (Pa.;, 4 Dall. 455, 1 L. Ed.



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 156 of 214)