this contract of insurance, that we are in danger of being misled, rather than guided, by the construction of the word in such widely different circumstances."

Where, however, the act of putting cargo into a hold so saturated with a tarry substance that the whole cargo was tainted and damaged, it was held distinguishing the above cases, that the damage was occasioned by the bad management of the vessel as a receptacle or warehouse for the goods, which did not affect her qualities as a ship, and did not come within the term "improper navigation,” and, further, that it was a case of improper stowage within the meaning of the rules of the defendants' Association, and that on both these grounds, the defendants were protected from liability.'

The words "dangers of the river" signify the natural accidents incident to the navigation, not such as might be avoided by the exercise of that discretion and foresight which are expected from persons in such employment."

In Alabama, where inland water transportation is very great, there seems to be no disposition to make any distinction between "dangers of the river" and dangers of the sca." And it is considered that the perils of the sea and of the river" are so nearly allied that they may be considered the same except in the few instances in which the reason differs. That there is a settled distinction between perils of

1 The Canada Shipping Co., Ld. v. The British Shipowners' Mutual Protection Association, Ld., L. R. 23 Q. B. D. 342; 58 L. J. Q. B. 462, Ang. on Car. s. 168.

"the navigation" and the "Act of God" is considered to be settled.1

Dangers of the road," if applied to land, must be construed of dangers of the kind that are properly caused by roads, such as overturning of the carriages.2

The following losses have been held to be included in the term "dangers or perils of the sea," &c. :Loss by pirates.3

From collision when it is loss by foundering, owing to collision with another ship, if it occurs without fault in the carrying ship.*

By the common risks of navigation, from rocks, sands, rapids, and the like, when the loss occasioned thereby happens without negligence or default in the master or crew.5

Damage by sweating when not occasioned by bad stowage or negligence."

Animals being killed or damaged by the motion of the ship during a storm.7

Where the ship is stranded."

Loss by the wilful, but not barratrous, act of the crew, in throwing the ballast overboard."

1 Ang on Car. s. 168.

2 De Rothschild v. The Royal Mail Steam Packet Co., 21 L. J. Ex. 273. 3 Pickering v. Barclay, Styles. 132; 2 Roll. Ab. 248; Kay on Sh., Vol. 1, 411. Buller v. Fisher, 3 Esp. 67; Smith v. Scott, 4 Taunt. 125; The Xantho, L. R. 12 App. Cas. 503.

7

Fletcher v. Inglis, 2 B. & A. 315.

Clark v. Barnwell, 12 How. 272; 19 Curtis 131.

Gabay v. Lloyd, 3 B. & C. 793; Lawrence v. Aberdein, 5 B. & Ald. 107. 8 Hahn v. Corbett, 2 Bing. 205.

Dixon v. Sadler, 9 L. J, Ex. 48.

A ship loaded with hides and tobacco whilst on her voyage encountered bad weather and shipped much sea-water, whereby the hides were wetted and rendered putrid. Neither the tobacco nor the packages containing it were immediately in contact with nor directly damaged by sea water, but the tobacco was damaged and deteriorated in flavour by the foetid odour proceeding from the putrid hides.1

Loss by jettison rendered necessary by storms or tempests.2

Where a vessel for the purpose of discharging her cargo was fastened by tackles to a barge on one side, and a lighter on the other, but the lighter's tackle breaking, water got into her port holes and damaged the cargo.3

While a steamer was loading in a harbour, her draught was increased by the weight of the cargo, until the discharge pipe was brought below the surface of the water, which then flowed down the pipe under the valve, and some cocks or valves in the machinery having been negligently left open, water flowed into the hold and injured the goods.*

Loss occasioned by hidden obstructions in the river, newly placed there, and of a character that human skill or foresight could not have discovered and avoided.5

Thus, running on a recent snag which could not be seen, is within the exception "dangers of the river."

1 Montoya v. The London Ass. Co., 6 Ex. 451; 20 L. J. Ex. 254.
2 The Milwaukee Belle, 21 L. T. 801.

3 Laurie v. Douglas, 15 M. & W. 746.
Davidson v. Burnand, L. R. 4 C. P. 117.

Ang. on Car. s. 168.

Parsons on Sh., Vol. 1, 257n. 3,

Where a vessel was chartered to proceed to Newport and there load for San Francisco, the freight of which voyage was insured, but before reaching Newport, she got ashore, and the time necessary for getting her off and repairing her so as to be a cargo carrying ship, was so long as to put an end, in a commercial sense, to the commercial speculation, and the charterers abandoned the contract, and hired another vessel; it was held, that there had been a total loss of the chartered freight by perils of the seas within the meaning of the policy.1

The following losses have been held not to be included in the term dangers or perils of the sea, &c.:

Collision arising from the negligence of master and crew navigating the vessel which carries the goods.2

Fire has never been regarded as a peril, danger, or accident of the sea, within the meaning of those terms as known to mercantile usage or the law.3 Injury by rats to cargo, although every possible precaution is taken to prevent it.*

Damage by cockroaches."

A loss arising from rats eating holes in the ship's bottom is not within the perils insured against by the common form of a policy of insurance."

1

1 Jackson v. The Union Marine Insurance Co., L. R. 10 C. P. 125.

2 Lloyd v. Gen. Iron Screw Collier Co., 33 L. J. Ex. 269; Grill v. Gu. Iron Screw Collier Co., L. R. 3 C. P. 476.

The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation v. Baker, 7 Bom. H. C. Rep., O. C. J. 203.

Kay v. Wheeler, L. R. 2 C. P. 302; Laveroni v. Drary, 22 L. J. Ex. 2. The Carlotta, 3 Asp. Mar. L. C. N. S. 456; Dale v. Hall, Wils. 261. The Miletus, cited in Parsons on Sh., Vol. 1, 258n.

Hunter v. Potts, 4 Camp. 203.

Loss caused by worms which have destroyed the ship's bottom.1

Loss by lightning, though an act of God, is not a peril of the sca.

2

Loss by heat.3

If a ship be driven by stress of weather on an enemy's coast and there captured.*

Where a vessel, about to sink from the effects of bad weather, puts into an intermediate port and the master sells the ship and cargo without necessity."

way

If a ship, hove down on a beach within the tidefor repairs, be thereby bilged and damaged." Meat shipped at Hamburg for London was delayed on the voyage by tempestuous weather, and solely by reason of such delay became putrid, and was necessarily thrown overboard at sea; this was held not a loss by perils of the sea, or within the words "all other perils, losses and misfortunes" in the policy."

Stoppage of

Where it was agreed by charter-party that the char- Neaps and terer should not be liable for delay in loading caused Navigation. by neaps and stoppage of navigation, and the lay-days were exceeded in consequence of the lighters which were bringing the cargo (one of salt) down the rivers Weaver and Mersey to Birkenhead, the place of

1 Rohl v. Parr, 1 Esp. 445.

2 The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation v. Baker, 7 Bom. H. C. R., O. C. J. 204.

3 The Freedom, L. R. 3 P. C. 594.

* Groon v. Elmslie, Peake's N. P. 278; Hahn v. Corbett, 2 Bing. 211; Livie v. Janson, 12 East. 648.

"Cannan v. Meaburn, 1 Bing. 243. Thompson v. Whitemore, 3 Taunt. 227. Taylor v. Dunbar, L. R. 4 C. P. 206.