Blackburn, J., in the case of Kopitoff v. Wilson,1 that in whatever way a contract for the conveyance of merchandise be made, where there is no agreement to the contrary, the shipowner is by nature of the contract impliedly and necessarily held to warrant that the ship is good, and is in a condition to perform the voyage then about to be undertaken; or in ordinary language is seaworthy, that is, fit and meet to undergo the perils of the sea and other incidental risks, to which she must of necessity be exposed in the course of the voyage. The facts in this case were that the plaintiff had shipped at Hull on board the defendants' ship "Walamo," for Cronstadt, three armour plates weighing from eighteen to fifteen tons each. The defendants' servants stowed the ship, placing the armour plates on the top of a quantity of railway iron, and then secured them by wooden shores. At sea the vessel encountered bad weather, with high wind and rough seas causing her to roll heavily. being at sea some hours one of the armour plates broke loose and went through the side of the ship, which in consequence foundered in deep water and was totally lost with all her cargo on board. After Where cattle were shipped on board a vessel to be carried from London to New York, and it appeared that on the voyage immediately preceding that by which the plaintiff's cattle were carried, certain cattle affected by foot and mouth disease had been L. R. 1 Q. B. D. 377. on board, and which the plaintiff's cattle caught owing to the negligence of the defendant's servants in not properly cleansing and disinfecting the ship before the cattle were received on board. It was held, that the shipowner was liable for not having provided a ship reasonably fit for the reception of the cattle on board.1 Seaworthiness is well understood to mean that measure of fitness which the particular voyage, or particular stage of the voyage, requires. A vessel seaworthy for port, and even for loading in port, may be, without any breach of warranty, whilst in port unseaworthy for the voyage: but if she put to sca in that state the warranty is broken. The degree of seaworthiness which the merchant requires is seaworthiness for the voyage, and the most natural period at which the warranty is to attach is that at which the perils are to be encountered, and which the ship is to be worthy to meet. The ship is, during her stay in port and whilst loading, and when she sets sail on the voyage, in the custody and possession and under the control of the master and crew, and the duty of ascertaining her condition at that critical time when she is about to meet the perils, which it is the object of all parties that she should be prepared to meet, is imposed upon those who have the best means of knowing such condition. Blackburn, J., in the case of Burges v. Wickham,3 citing the judgment delivered by Parke, B. in Dixon Tattersall v. The National S.S. Co., L.R.12 Q.B.D. 297; 53 L.J.Q.B. 332. * Annen v. Woodman, 3 Taunt. 299. 33 L. J. Q. B. 17, 25. v. Sadler,' said:-" by seaworthiness, it is meant that she shall be in a fit state as to repairs, equipment, and crew, and in all other respects fit to encounter the ordinary perils of the voyage insured at the time of sailing upon it." And in Readhead v. Midland Railway Company, Blackburn, J. observed:-"I have only to add that I do not think that the duty to supply a seaworthy ship, or a sufficient vehicle by land, is equivalent to a duty to provide one perfect, and such as never can, without some extraordinary peril, break down, which would have the effect of making the carrier an insurer against all losses, arising from any failure in the vehicle which cannot be shown to arise from some unusual accident. I had occasion, in the case of Burges v. Wickham,3 to consider what was the meaning of 'seaworthy' as applied to a ship, and I see no reason to change the opinion which I then expressed, that it meant no more than that degree of fitness which it would be usual and prudent to require at the commencement of the adventure." Under his implied warranty of seaworthiness, the shipowner contracts, not merely that he will do his best to make the ship reasonably fit, but that she shall really be reasonably fit for the voyage. Thus, where the shaft of a steamer broke down. owing to a latent defect in it, without negligence on the part of the owners or their servants, it was held that the ship was unseaworthy when she started on her voyage. 15 M. & W. 405. 2 L. R. 2 Q. B. 412, 440. See also Amies v. Stevens, 1 Str. 127. 3 33 L. J. Q. B. 17. The Glenfruin, L. R. 10 P. D. 103; 54 L. J. Ad. 49. By the terms of a charter-party made between the plaintiff and the master of a ship belonging to the defendants then lying at the port of S., the ship was to proceed to a good and safe place in the South Dock, as ordered, and there take on board a cargo of cement and proceed to D. to discharge. At the time the charter-party was executed, the plaintiff ordered the ship to load at a wharf in the river (which is part of the port of S.) where cement is often loaded, but where vessels of necessity ground at every low tide. The ship having loaded as ordered was towed out to sea and set sail; but though seaworthy when she commenced taking in cargo, she was found on starting to have made about eighteen inches of water, which gradually increased. Notwithstanding this, the ship proceeded on her voyage but foundered before reaching the port of destination, the water having overpowered the pumps. There was no negligence either on the part of the defendants in sending the ship to sea in the condition in which she was, or on the part of the master in not returning to the port of S.-Held, that the unseaworthiness at the time of setting sail from the wharf was a breach of the implied warranty on the part of the defendants, that the ship was not in a condition to perform the voyage, and that the plaintiff was accordingly entitled to recover the value of the cargo.1 In an action for breach of contract in not ship 1Cohn v. Davidson, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 455; 46 L.J.Q.B. 305; Lyon v. Mells, 5 East. 428. ping certain goods, the defendants pleaded the unseaworthiness of the vessel. It was found that the ship was unseaworthy at the time of sailing, and that the defendants had placed part of the goods on board. Held, that it is a condition precedent that a vessel shall be in a proper state to take the goods on board for the purpose of the particular voyage; or in such a state that she may be made fit for the voyage, with the goods on board, without such a delay as to frustrate the object of the merchant in shipping his goods, and that the putting part of the goods on board, without knowledge of the unscaworthiness of the vessel, was not a waiver of the performance of the condition." Where the voyage is divided into different stages of navigation, the ship must at the commencement of each stage be seaworthy for that stage. 2 In Thin v. Richards, the charter provided that the "Westphalia," then on passage to Savona, "being tight, staunch, and strong, and every way fitted for the voyage," should proceed to Oran and there load and from thence proceed to Garston Dock, &c., any act, neglect, or default whatsoever of pilot, master, or crew in the management or navigation of the ship, and all and every the dangers and accidents of the seas, &c., and of navigation of whatever nature or kind, always mutually excepted. The vessel to have liberty to call at any ports in any order." It was usual for vessels partly loaded 1 Turner, Morrison v. Ralli & Mavrojani, 2 Ben. L. R. O. C. J. 127. |