Seaworthiness.

testimony being taken, the charterer's claim was disallowed.12

Sometimes the voyage and time form is combined as "one round trip to the West Indies of about six weeks." Under such a charter it was held that the provision as to time controlled.13

§ 3. Seaworthiness.

A time charter commonly describes the ship as being tight, staunch and strong and fitted for the voyage. The test of seaworthiness is the same as with regard to other charters-namely, the ship must be reasonably fit for the service.1 There is also an implied warranty that the vessel is seaworthy at the commencement of each voyage undertaken under the charter.2

The seaworthiness of the ship is under the absolute control of the master. Neither he nor his owners are excused because the charterers load the ship in such a way as to make her unseaworthy.3

12. Glasgow S. S. Co. v. Tweedie, 143 Fed. 184, 154 Fed. 84. 13. The Helios, 115 Fed. 705, C. C. A. This was, however, a rather unusual case, the ship being used for wrecking services. 1. Phila., etc. S. S. Co. v. McCaldin, 198 Fed. 328, affd. 202 Fed. 735.

2. The Julia Luckenbach, 235 Fed. 388, C. C. A., affd. 248 U. S. 139, 63 L. Ed. 170.

3. Olsen v. U. S. Shipping Co., 213 Fed. 18 C. C. A. See Brit. & For. Mar. Ins. Co. v. Kilgour, 184 Fed. 174, where the mas

Lawful cargo.

The owner also often agrees to maintain his ship in a thoroughly efficient state in hull and machinery during the service. For the breach of this obligation, for instance, for failing to keep the winches in repair so that the handling of cargo is delayed, the charterer may have damages. When the charter contemplates the carriage of bananas, and there is a custom to cut the bananas before the vessel arrives at her loading port, the owner will be liable for damage to a cargo so cut, owing to the vessel's failure to arrive on time because of unseaworthiness.5

§ 4. Lawful cargo.

The clause providing for the carriage of "lawful cargo" only, does not prevent the loading of contraband,' nor asphalt in bulk,2 nor iron ore. The ship can be used as a newspaper despatch boat in time of

ter failed to take enough coal which was held a breach of the owner's duty. In The Centurion, 57 Fed. 412, where, over the master's protest, cargoes were so stowed as to injure each other, the liability fell upon the charterers.

4. Munson v. Miramar, 166 Fed. 722, C. C. A.

5. The George Dumois, 115 Fed. 65, C. C. A. See The Ask, 156 Fed. 678; The Banes, 221 Fed. 416, C. C. A.

1. Atl. Fruit. v. Solari, 238 Fed. 217.

2. Dene v. Tweedie, 133 Fed. 589, 143 Fed. 854.

3. Worrall v. Davis Coal Co., 113 Fed. 549, affd. 122 Fed. 436.

Safe ports.

war, and it can be sent in ballast, the expense of procuring extra ballast, if any is needed, falling upon the owner.5

§ 5. Safe ports.

A safe port is a port where the conditions are such as not to menace the ship's physical safety, nor to expose her to forfeiture or penalty. Under rate charters difficult questions arise as to who must pay for lighters, when lay-days begin, etc., when a vessel is ordered to a port with a bar across the mouth which cannot be passed when a full cargo is loaded. These questions, however, do not arise under time charters.

Instances of ports being found physically unsafe appear in The Antonio Zambrana1 where Barracouta, which is up the Magdalena River, was held unsafe because of the dangers of river navigation and The Gazelle2 where a port was held unsafe when a vessel had to unload outside a dangerous bar. In Johnston v. Saxon Queen S. S. Co.,3 it was held that the port must be reasonably safe in bad weather as well as in good and accordingly, that a port on the east coast of England, entirely exposed, was unsafe.

4. The Ely, 110 Fed. 563, affd. 122 Fed. 447.

5. Weir v. Union S. S. Co., L. R. (1900), A. C. 525.

1. 70 Fed. 320.

2. 11 Fed. 429, affd. 128 U. S. 474, 32 L. Ed. 496. 3. 12 Asp. M. C. 305.

Safe ports.

If the port is in contemplation of the parties at the time the charter is made, the master must be prepared to face such dangers as are known to exist there.1

The following cases illustrate the political side of the question. A port where a ship will be forfeited is unsafe.5 Amsterdam was held safe for an English ship in 19146 and Newcastle was held safe for a British ship in 1915 even though she was likely to be sunk on the way by submarines."

With regard to physical safety, much was left in a recent case to the master's discretion. The court intimated that if the master honestly considered the port unsafe, his judgment would not be reversed.' But the master's judgment has been set aside.

In case the vessel goes to an unsafe port and is damaged, the owner will desire to recover his damages from the charterer. If, however, he has accepted a port as safe with full knowledge of its dangers, this cannot be done.10 On the other hand, if the claim is not thus barred, damages are recover

4. The Helios, 115 Fed. 705, C. C. A.

5. Ogden v. Graham, 1 B. & S. 773.

6. East Asiatic S. S. Co. v. Tronto, 31 T. L. R. 543.

7. Palace Spg. Co. v. Gans Line, 21 Com. Cas. 270.

8. Tweedie Tra. Co. v. Clan Line, 207 Fed. 70, C. C. A.

9. Christopherson v. Donald, 175 Fed. 1002,affd. 187 Fed. 975.

10. Atkins v. Fibre Co., 2 Ben. 381, F. C. 601, affd. 18 Wall. 272.

The owner shall pay for all provisions, etc.

able." Where the charterer ordered the steamer to an unsafe anchorage, and the master, although realizing the danger, failed to move away, half damages were allowed.12

§ 6. The owner shall pay for all provisions, wages, and consular shipping and discharging fees of the captain, officers, engineers, firemen and crew; shall pay for the insurance on the vessel, also for all the cabin, deck, engine-room, and other necessary stores. (See section seven.)

Insurance clause. This insurance is not to be regarded as taken by the owner for the benefit of the charterer. It protects the owner only.1 In The Barnstable, a steamer, while operating under a demise charter, adapted from the time charter form, ran down a sailing vessel. The owners of the steamer had taken out insurance containing a "running down clause," and settled the collision liability. It was held that the underwriters could sue in the name of the owners, and hold the charterers liable for the sum they had been forced to pay because of

11. Crisp v. U. S. & Aust S. S. Co., 124 Fed. 748.

12. Constantine v. West India S. S. Co., 199 Fed. 964. See The Northman, 189 Fed. 33, C. C. A.; The Crown of Galicia, 232 Fed. 305, C. C. A.

1. Aira Force S. S. Co. v. Christie, 9 Times, L. R. 104.

2. 181 U. S. 464.