with L. came to nothing, but L., from the knowledge thus acquired, informed M. that the defendants had a ship in want of a charterer, and M. became the charterer of the ship of the defendants. In an action by the plaintiff's to recover broker's commission from the defendants on the charter of this shipHeld, that the plaintiffs' services in the transaction were too remote.' Pollock, C. B., said :-" To allow the plaintiffs to recover under these circumstances would be to allow them to enforce a claim one step beyond the most extravagant claim ever made by a broker. A custom that one man is to be paid for another man's work may be a good custom, if there be a direct connexion between one of the principals in the transaction and the broker who claims to be paid; but if a broker gives to the principal the name of another person, who names another, who alludes to another, and so on, and the principal employs the last named, that the broker should have any claim on the principal in such a case is simply preposterous, even though a custom be alleged in support of such claim. No usage could make such a custom a good custom."

Where the plaintiff, a shipbroker, introduced one of the defendants to another broker, B., who was a merchant and shipowner, and through B. defendants were introduced to a third shipbroker, C., and through C. defendant's ship was chartered by S. & Co. The plaintiff sued defendants for commis1 Gibson v. Chick, 31 L. J. Ex. 301,

sion in respect of that charter; the question being left to the jury, a verdict was found for the plaintiff.'

L. a shipbroker, informed S. & Co., shipbrokers, of two steamships belonging to the G. & N. Y. Co. as available for the purposes of a foreign Government. S. & Co. communicated this information to P. the authorized agent of the foreign Government, and P. in the first instance, chartered one of the ships for his Government for six months. This charter was continued for another six months without communication with L., at the expiration of which time a renewed charter-party was entered into for another six months, S. & Co. receiving their commission on these transactions; the original charter-party containing no provision as to renewal, P. subsequently, and without communication with L., chartered the other ship also on behalf of his Government, S. & Co. receiving their commission, and they paid to L. his commission according to agreement between them, on the charter of the first ship for the first six months. In an action by the assignees of L. against S. & Co. for broker's commission on the charter of both these ships, L. gave evidence, written and verbal, of an agreement between himself and S. & Co., under which he claimed to be entitled to half of the commission to be received by S. & Co. on the charter of both ships, and tendered evidence of a custom among brokers by which he, as "introducing broker," would be entitled to share commission on a renewal of the Kynaston v. Nicholson, 8 L. T. 671.

charter, without any special agreement to that effect:-Held, that there was evidence for the jury that the agreement made respecting the first ship applied to the other also, and that the question whether it did so apply ought to have been left to the jury; and that the evidence as to the alleged custom ought not to have been rejected. Per Pollock, C. B.,That when parties enter into a special agreement, or one out of the ordinary course of business, a custom to control or vary such agreement does not attach.1

-

In Wilkinson v. Martin,2 it was held, that 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 foundation on which the negotiation proceeded, the parties cannot afterwards, by agreement between themselves, withdraw the matter from the broker's hands, and deprive him of his commission.

The broker will be entitled to his commission, if he was, up to a certain time, the agent or middleman between the parties, although the contract be afterwards completed without his instrumentality or interference.

Where several brokers, and among others the plaintiffs, in whose hands a ship has been placed for sale, have, unknown to each other, been in communication with the same party who ultimately purchases, and with whom the seller himself,

1 Allan v. Sundius, 31 L. J. Ex. 307.

8 C. & P.

before any of them, had communicated, but the plaintiffs had first introduced the parties in the particular transaction, and the principals completed the negotiation. The evidence being that, according to usage, the broker who first introduced the purchaser would be entitled to commission, and this being in effect the contract between the plaintiff's and the defendant:-Held, that the question was whether the purchaser was found through the plaintiffs' introduction, and if so, they would be entitled to receive the commission.1

It is the common practice for a charter-party effected through a broker to have in the margin a clause that a certain commission "is due on the execution of this charter-party" to the broker. This commission is payable by the ship, but the broker, not being a party to the charter-party, cannot enforce it by action upon that contract. He cannot, therefore, proceed for it against the ship under the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Amendment Act, as a claim arising out of an "agreement made in relation to the use or hire of any ship." 3

The M., while 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 commission on obtaining the charter-party :-Held, that the commission in question did not come within the mean

1 Cunard v. Van Oppen, 1 F. & F. 716.

32 & 33 Vict. c. 51 s. 2.

3 The Nuova Raffaelina, L. R. 3 A. & E. 483.

1

ing of the term "necessaries."

Butt, J. said: "I

am of opinion that the writ and subsequent proceedings in this case must be set aside. The claim is based on the 6th section of the Act of Parliament, 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65, which gave the Court of Admiralty jurisdiction to decide certain claims, amongst others, claims for necessaries supplied to any foreign ship. The question is whether this Court, or any division of the High Court, has jurisdiction to entertain such an action as this. Now it is perfectly true that, a very long time ago, the claim for necessaries appears to have been limited to repairs, equipment, anchors, chains, &c., actually furnished to the ship herself, as a necessary part of the ship and her equipment. It is true that in recent times. the Courts have gone beyond that, and there are, no doubt, claims for necessaries in cases of money paid for the purpose of the ship which have been held to be, and are properly, necessaries. I very much doubt whether a sum expended, not for the purpose of the voyage in course at the time, nor for the voyage immediately to be undertaken, has ever been held to come within the meaning of the term 'necessaries.' Even had it been so held, I should very much doubt whether a broker's commission on a charter-party would be held to come within the definition. I do not believe that any Court in this country has yet decided that a claim of this sort-nor in respect of a voyage in progress or just about to commence, or for the purpose of such

The Marianne, 60 L. J. Ad. 39.