Consignment of ship. Address not. voyage-comes within the meaning of the word 'necessaries.' As I understand it, it certainly would This being brokerage on a charter-party, effected not for a voyage then in course of prosecution, nor when the ship was in port and about to sail on the voyage, but in a case where the ship was on the high seas in the performance of another contract-the charter-party being for the hire of the ship after the existing voyage terminated. I think I should be carrying the definition of the word far beyond what any of the Courts have done if I held this claim to come within the meaning of the word 'necessaries.' That being so, neither this nor any other division of the High Court has power to entertain the suit against the ship in rem. I therefore set aside the writ and subsequent proceedings, with costs." Charters frequently provide that the ship shall be consigned, at the loading or discharging ports, to agents of the charterer or to some named persons. Customary commissions are payable for doing the business of the ship at those places, and the charterer may sue the shipowner for the loss of commissions through a breach of this term of the contract, although that loss be sustained not by the charterer himself but by the person named. In Robertson v. Wait, the agreement was that the vessel should be "consigned to Messrs. E. & Co., merchants, at Calcutta, on the usual and customary terms," and it appeared that one of the usual terms 122 L. J. Ex. 209. was, that the consignees should procure the vessel's homeward freight, and receive 5 per cent commission for doing so. The vessel was consigned to E. & Co., but before she arrived at Calcutta the defendants contracted with another person to supply a homeward cargo. It was held, that the charterer might sue for the full commission on behalf of E. & Co., without showing that they were interested in it. Where the ship was chartered for an outward voyage to China, to be consigned to the charterer's agents there, "free of commission on this charter," it was held, that the charterers could not import a custom to the effect that it was the right, under these circumstances, of their agents as consignees of the ship, to procure a charter or cargo for the ship outward from the Chinese port, and to be paid the usual commission for doing so, or to be paid the commission, if the owners, without default of the agents, should procure a cargo otherwise.1 If the consignment to the charterer's agents is to be "free of commission," the charterer is liable for expenses incurred by the shipowners in consequence of their being unable to clear her." In Cross v. Pagliano," the ship was chartered for a voyage to San Francisco, where she was to be "consigned to charterer's agents, inwards and outwards, paying the usual commission." The voyage ended at San Francisco and the ship, after discharg 1 Phillipps v. Briard, 25 L. J. Ex. 233. 2 Russell v. Griffith, 2 F. & F. 118. Per Bramwell, B., L. R. 6 Ex. 13. ing her cargo, proceeded to Selina Cruz, in Mexico, to take in a cargo for Hamburg, under a charterparty which had been made prior to the other. The plaintiff's agents were not employed in obtaining this; but they had offered the Captain a homeward cargo at San Francisco. It was held, that the clause did not compel the shipowners to pay commission as if they had taken a cargo outwards from San Francisco. "Whatever would have to be done by a ship's broker if a cargo had been taken on board outwards at San Francisco, the plaintiff's agents were to do; or if the ship should sail in ballast, as in fact she did, any services required in connection with her so sailing were to be performed by those agents." Where a ship was addressed to the charterer's agents at London, her port of discharge, a special jury found that they might claim to collect the freights, and earn a commission for doing so.1 .. per (plain In Hibbert v. Owen,2 a charter made by London shipbrokers on their own account, for an outward voyage, contained the clause, "a commission of 5 cent. on this charter to be paid to tiffs) to whom the vessel is to be addressed on her return to London." The plaintiffs contended that on the ship's return, the work of reporting her and the ordinary business of her homeward cargo, such as making out the freight notes and collecting the freight should be done by them; and that they should receive from the shipowners an address commission 1 Bradley v. Goddard, 3 F. & F. 638. 22 F. & F. 502; Meibuhr v. Prichard, cited McLach. on Sh. 181. of 21 per cent. on the homeward freight. It was left to the Jury to say what the meaning of the clause was in mercantile usage, and they found that it related to the homeward voyage, and gave the plaintiffs a commission (apparently 1 per cent. on the homeward cargo), and reporting fee. Charterer's agents to whom the ship is consigned are to be regarded as acting for the shipowner, as well as the charterer, when collecting freights. But they have no power as against the owner, without special authority to give up part of the freight in compromise of a claim for damage of the goods.' If a charter-party stipulate that "the charterer Where the shall provide and pay for coals," it will be the duty charterer agrees to provide and of the charterer to provide and pay for the same; pay for coals. and should the master whilst in a foreign port be under the necessity of obtaining coals, his remedy for the recovery of any sums so expended by him will be against the charterers and not his owners; as any disbursements he may make must be limited to such disbursements as he has a right to make on the credit of the owners of the ship, and will not extend to disbursements made by him for purposes for which the charterers ought to make provision, even though in one sense it may be said these disbursements are made on account of the ship. The owners of a steamship chartered her for a round voyage. By the terms of the charter-party Broadhead . Yule, 9 Sc. Sess. Ca. (3rd) 921. it was provided that the owners "were to provide and pay for all . . . oils, paints, and stores for the vessel, and for all provisions," and were to maintain the ship in a thoroughly efficient state of hull and machinery. The charterers were to provide and pay for all coals and fuel. It was also provided that in the event of the ship, in consequence of deficiency of men or stores, collision, want of repairs, breakdown, or other causes, putting into any port or ports, other than those to which she was bound, port charges, pilotages and other expenses at those ports were to be borne by the owners. The charterers were to appoint the Captain, whose wages were to be paid by the owners. During her voyage the steamer, owing, as was alleged, to a leakage of her condenser, put into Vigo, which was not one of the ports to which she was bound, and there took in a quantity of coals, which, it was alleged, was necessary in consequence of the deviation caused by the leakage of the condenser. In an action by the master against the owner for recovery of monies disbursed for wages and the coal taken in at Vigo, it was held, that even assuming that the vessel had put into Vigo in consequence of the leakage of the condensers, the owners were not liable to pay for the coal, and the charterers were the persons to whom the master should look to reimburse him.1 Where a ship was chartered under a charter which provided that the Captain should be appointed The Durham City, L. R. 14 P. D. 85; 58 L. J. Ad. 46. |