ship alongside. The agent of the defendant, the charterer, told the master that the consignor would require the hay to be delivered at a particular wharf in Deptford Creek, and that he should proceed there on his arrival in London, which he promised to do. On arriving in the Thames, he was informed that by an order in Council made under "The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869," it was illegal to land in Great Britain hay brought from France. The order in Council was in existence when the charter-party was entered into, but neither of the parties knew of it, nor did the shipowner contemplate any violation of the law. The defendant after a time exported the hay, and the shipowner brought an action against him to recover damages in respect of the detention of the ship:-Held, that under these circumstances the defendant could not set up as a defence that the voyage was an illegal voyage.1 If the vessel is disabled by a tempest, or is otherwise physically incapacitated from performing her destined voyage, the shipowner is entitled, in the event of the goods being forwarded by the master to the port of discharge in another vessel, to the full amount of the freight originally contracted for, although the freight paid by the master for the completion of the voyage by another vessel was less than that agreed on in the original bill of lading." Where a salving ship takes a crew off a vessel in distress and puts men on board of her, refusing Waugh v. Morris, L. R. 8 Q. B. 202; 42 L. J. Q. B. 57. 2 Shipton . Thornton, 9 A. & E. 314; Matthews v. Gibbs, 30 L. J. Q. B, 55, to allow her own crew to return, and the two vessels are in company navigated into port, there is no such abandonment of the ship as to put an end to the contract of carriage, and consequently there will be freight due upon the consignees requiring delivery of the cargo, such freight being pro rata, assuming the port not to be the port to which the cargo ought to have been taken under the contract of carriage.1 If the outward and the homeward voyages are intended by the contract to be distinct, then the freight for the outward voyage will become due upon its completion, and will not be affected by the non-completion of the homeward voyage." As freight is payable upon the right and true delivery of goods at their port of destination, the circumstance of their being in a damaged condition, whether by the fault of the master or crew on the voyage, or they have become damaged from an intrinsic principle of decay naturally inherent in the commodity itself, whether active in every situation, or only in the confinement and closeness of a ship, freight will become payable for the same upon their delivery to, and acceptance by, the merchant. Thus, in the case of the ship "York," which was stranded off Margate and sank under water, whereby a great portion of her cargo, consisting of pepper, was greatly damaged by sea water, but was got out of the ship by persons sent down 1The Leptir, 5 Asp. M. L. C. 411. 2 Smith v. Wilson, 8 East. 437. Buckle v. Knoop, L. R. 2 Ex. 333, by the charterers and taken to London in vessels; the ship was subsequently raised and brought to London with a small portion of the cargo still on board. The merchants were held liable to pay the freight of the pepper delivered to and received by them, though greatly damaged by a peril of the sea.1 So, where tobacco was saved from shipwreck and accepted by the merchant, he was held liable to pay the freight, although part was so much damaged as to be of no value.2 3 In Garrett v. Melhuish, it was held that freight was payable upon a cargo of bricks which had been crushed up by heavy machinery stowed on top of them. In Moorsom v. Page, an attempt was made to avoid payment of freight on the damaged outside skins in which packages of hides were contained; but Lord Ellenborough held that there was ground for exempting them. If the consignee of goods accepts any benefit by the carriage, he cannot defend himself from the payment on the ground that the goods have been damaged by the master in carrying them, though the damage exceed the amount of the freight.5 Where, by a charter-party, a ship was to load at Colombo or Cochin, from the charterer's agents a full and complete loading, and proceed to Lon Hotham v. East India Co., cited in Abbott on Sh. 576. Lutwidge v. Grey, cited in Abbott on Sh. 591; Davidson v. Gwynne, 12 East. 381. Shields v. Davis, 6 Taunt. 65. 34 Jur. N. S. 943. * 4 Camp. 103. don and discharge there, fire and other dangers of the sea excepted, and a lump sum freight of 5,000l. was to be paid after entire discharge and right delivery of the cargo. Part of the cargo was lost by fire, without any default of the master or crew, and the remainder was delivered in London. It was held, that the shipowner was entitled under the charter-party to the full lump sum freight.' Where freight is made payable by the contract at a fixed rate, for a fixed period, as at so much per month, week, &c., the general rule is, that freight accrues due at the expiration of each of the periods specified, and continues payable if the ship is detained during the voyage, if such detention does not discontinue the voyage or suspend the contract, and does not proceed from the default of the shipowner.2 If the shipowner is guilty of unreasonable delay he does not thereby lose his right to the freight, or his lien on it; he is only subject to a cross action.3 In such a case, if a ship freighted on time is captured and detained some time, and afterwards recaptured and liberated, and the voyage is then completed, the shipowner may recover freight for the whole period, as if the voyage had never been discontinued, and as if the detention had arisen from contrary winds.1 The stipulation in a charter-party, that freight shall be paid "subject to insurance," means merely, Merchant Shipping Co. v. Armitage, L. R. 9 Q. B. 99; Robinson v. Knights, L. R. 8 C. P. 465. Havelock v. Geddes, 10 East. 555; Moorsom v. Greaves, 2 Camp. 627; Ripley v. Scaife, 5 B. & C. 167. 3 Per Williams, J., in Blasco v. Fletcher, 32 L. J. C. P. 284. Cases in which it has been held freight is not payable. that freight is to be paid subject to deduction for premiums on insurance; but not that insurance by the owner is a condition precedent to his recovery of freight.1 Although readiness to deliver the goods at the place of destination is, in general, necessary to entitle the shipowner or master to the freight, yet with respect to living animals, whether men or cattle, which may die during the voyage, without fault or neglect on the part of the persons belonging to the ship, it is said, that if there is no express agreement whether the reward is to be paid for lading, or for transporting them, freight is payable as well for the dead as for the living. If the agreement was to pay for lading and undertaking to carry them, their death will not deprive the shipowner or master of the reward. But if the agreement was to pay freight for transporting them, then no freight is due for those that die on the voyage, because as to them the contract is not performed.2 If the shipowner fails to carry the goods for the merchant to the destined port, the freight is not earned.3 If freight is made payable upon the performance of a condition as the right delivery of the cargo at a port named, no freight becomes due until the performance of such condition, unless the consignee dispenses with the performance of such condition, 1 Jackson v. Isaacson, 27 L. J. Ex. 392. 2 McLach. on Sh. 397; Kay on Sh. 297; Abbott on Sh. 534. |