McANDREWS
v.
THATCHER.
Supreme Court of United States.
*352 *353 Mr. Alexander Hamilton, Jr., for the plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Daniel Lord and Mr. George D. Lord, contra, for the ship-owners.
*364 Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.[]
Views of the defendants are, that the case, as stated, is not a case for contribution in general average, and that the court erred in instructing the jury that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover.
Primary proposition maintained by the defendants is, that expenses incurred in a voyage, although they were necessary and proper, are not to be carried into general average unless they were of an extraordinary character, nor unless it appears that they were incurred for the joint benefit of the ship and cargo; and that inasmuch as it appears in this case that the cargo had been stored in safety, at the place of destination, before the expenses, for which the suit was commenced, *365 were incurred, the claim of the plaintiffs cannot be sustained.
Decision and judgment in the case must depend upon the question, whether the several sums expended by the agent of the underwriters of the ship, after he went on board and took charge of the vessel and the men and means employed to save her, were properly carried into the adjustment; because it is plain that if those sums are not properly included in the expenses of general average the judgment should be reversed.
I. Sacrifices, voluntarily made in the course of the voyage, of part of the ship or cargo, to save the residue of the adventure from an impending peril, or extraordinary expenses incurred for the joint benefit of both ship and cargo, and which became necessary in consequence of a common peril, are usually regarded as the proper subjects of general average.
All losses which give a claim to general average contribution, says a standard writer upon the law of insurance, may be divided into two great classes:
1. Those which arise from sacrifices of part of the ship or part of the cargo, purposely made in order to save the whole adventure from perishing.
2. Those which arise out of extraordinary expenses incurred for the joint benefit of both ship and cargo.[*]
Present case, if the defendants are liable at all, falls within the latter class, and, consequently, it will not be necessary to remark upon the former class, although cases of jettison are much more frequently presented for decision than cases growing out of the stranding of the vessel. Stranding in this case was involuntary; but it cannot be doubted that the ship and cargo were jointly exposed to a common peril, and were in imminent danger of being wholly lost. Such being the fact, it is clear that the expenses of saving the ship and cargo were a proper subject of joint and ratable contribution in general average by vessel, freight, and cargo, provided the vessel and cargo were saved by the same series of measures *366 during the continuance of the common peril which created the joint necessity for the expenses.[*]
Undoubtedly, the community of extraordinary peril commenced with the stranding of the vessel; but the question is, where it terminated? Three theories may be suggested:
1. That it terminated when the cargo was separated from the ship, and was transported to the port of destination and delivered to the consignee.
2. That it terminated when the master, acting in good faith as the agent of all concerned, yielded to the necessities of his situation and abandoned the endeavors to save the ship, and left her where she was stranded, in charge of the agent of her underwriters.
3. That it did not terminate until the ship was got off from the bank where she was stranded, and arrived at the marine railway for repairs in her port of destination.
Theory of defendants is substantially expressed in the first proposition; but the plaintiffs insist that the community of peril did not terminate until the arrival of the vessel at the port of destination; and if not, then the charge of the court was correct, and the judgment of the court must be affirmed.
Natural justice requires that where two or more parties are in a common sea risk, and one of them makes a sacrifice or incurs extraordinary expenses for the general safety, the loss or expenses so incurred shall be assessed upon all in proportion to the share of each in the adventure; or, in other words, the owners of the other shares are bound to make contribution in the proportion of the value of their several interests.[]
Courts universally admit that the Rhodian law was the parent of maritime contribution, although, in terms, it made no provision for any case of general average, except for that of jettison of goods as the means of lightening the vessel. But the rule, as there laid down, has never been understood as being confined to that particular case, but has always *367 been regarded as a general regulation, applicable in all cases falling within the principle on which it is founded.
Principle of the rule is, that "what is given for the general benefit of all, shall be made good by the contribution of all;" and hence it is that losses, which arise out of extraordinary expenses incurred for the joint benefit of ship and cargo, are as clearly to be carried into the adjustment as those which arise from sacrifices of part of the ship or part of the cargo.
Settled rule, also, is, that when a vessel is accidentally stranded in the course of her voyage, and by labor and expense she is set afloat, and completes her voyage with the cargo on board, the expense incurred for that object, as it produced benefit to all, so it shall be a charge upon all, according to the rates apportioning general average.[*]
In case of accidental stranding, says Mr. Phillips, the expenses incurred for getting off the vessel, as far as they are incurred for the purpose of saving the ship, cargo, and freight, and are common to all those interests, are a subject of contribution by all. Expenses, however incurred for any separate interest, he says, are wholly chargeable to that interest, and there can be no doubt that the proposition, as stated, is correct as a general rule, and yet it is apparent that there will often be difficulties in its application. Foreseeing those difficulties, the same author attempts to obviate them by three practical illustrations, which it becomes important to notice:
1. That if the ship is got off without discharging the cargo, or by discharging only a part of it, then the whole expense is general average, unless the vessel needs repairs; but if she needs repairs, those are particular average.
2. That if the vessel does not float when the whole cargo is discharged, the subsequent expenses do not concern the cargo, but are particular average on the vessel in the same manner as repairs.
*368 3. That goods, when landed from a stranded ship, and delivered to the consignee, cease to be liable to contribute for expenses subsequently incurred.
Unquestionably, the rule enunciated in the first illustration is correct; but grave doubts are entertained whether the second and third can be admitted in all cases without important qualifications.
Although the stranded vessel may not float, as a consequence of the unlading of the goods, still she may be so lightened by the operation, that the usual appliances at hand may be amply sufficient to enable the master to rescue the vessel without much expense or delay, and put her in a condition to receive back the cargo and transport it to the port of destination; and, in the case supposed, it cannot be doubted that the expense of saving the vessel, as well as the expense of preserving and reloading the cargo, would be the proper subject of general contribution.
So, where the cargo consists of various consignments, and the vessel is stranded in the harbor of the port of destination, it will seldom or never happen that all the consignments will be delivered at the same time. On the contrary, some of necessity will be delivered before others; and yet, if the unlading of the cargo has the effect to make the vessel float, and the whole adventure is saved by one continued, unremitted operation, under the directions of the master, as the agent of all concerned, it would seem that the case was one falling directly within the equitable principle of general average, which requires that all the interests shall contribute for the expenses incurred to save the whole adventure from common peril.[*]
Unless the rule is so, a new statement of the adjustment would be necessary upon each respective part of the cargo delivered as they successively reached a safe destination, which would be impracticable, and contrary to the usual course of adjusting such losses.
On the other hand, it is an undoubted rule that goods, or *369 any interest, are not liable to contribute for any general average or expenses incurred subsequently to their ceasing to be at risk; because all that was not actually at risk at the time the sacrifice was made or the expense incurred was not saved thereby, and no interest is compelled to contribute to the loss or expense which was not benefited by the sacrifice.[*]
II. Light is shed upon this inquiry by referring to the duty of the master, who, in case the vessel is stranded, becomes the agent of all concerned. Duties remain to be performed by the master, as the agent of the owner or of all concerned, after the voyage is suspended by the stranding of the vessel. His duty is, if practicable, to relieve the ship and prosecute the voyage; and his obligation to take all possible care of the goods still continues, and is by no means discharged or lessened while it appears that the goods have not perished with the wreck. Safe custody is as much the duty of the carrier as due transport and right delivery; and when he is unable to carry the goods forward to their place of destination by the stranding of the vessel, he is still bound by the original obligation to take all possible care of the goods, and is responsible for every loss or injury which human skill and prudence could prevent.[]
Conscious of the nature and extent of his obligations, the master accepted the services of the several steamers which went to the relief of the ship, and continued his endeavors to save both ship and cargo until the latter was safely delivered at the port of destination, and until the consignees of the ship declined to authorize any further expense.
Evidence, as reported, is satisfactory that the master acted throughout in good faith, and there is not the slightest ground to conclude that he was wanting either in personal energy or in nautical skill. Take the circumstances as detailed in the statement of the case, and it is clear that he *370 could not have been justified in doing less than he did; but the question is, whether or not he was required to do more? Plainly his duty was not ended when the vessel was stranded, nor even when the cargo had been removed for the double purpose of saving it and of lightening the ship, as a part of the means adopted to get her off.
Means devised on the occasion were such as are usually employed for the purpose, and not a doubt is entertained that if the master had been successful in saving the ship as well as the cargo, the whole expense, inasmuch as it was the result of one continuous, unremitted operation, would have been properly regarded as a general average expenditure. Where the ship is stranded, much is necessarily confided to the discretion of the master; and if the ship had been saved through the means which he employed, it is clear that the expenditure would have fallen directly within the definition of general average, as given by the best writers upon the subject.
III. General average denotes that contribution which is made by all who are parties to the same adventure towards a loss arising out of extraordinary sacrifices made, or extraordinary expenses incurred, by some of them, for the common benefit of ship and cargo.
Usual conditions annexed to such a loss, in order that it may be the object of such contribution, as generally stated, are, that it must have been of an extraordinary nature, advisedly incurred, under circumstances of imminent danger, for the common benefit of ship and cargo; and it must have aided at least in the accomplishment of that purpose.[*]
Suggestion is, that the cargo was separated from the ship; but the mere fact that the cargo is unladen, although it is done in part for the purpose of saving the goods, yet, if it is also done for the purpose of lightening the vessel, and as a means of causing her to float, and of saving her from the common peril, will not necessarily divest the transaction of *371 its character as an act performed for the joint benefit of the ship and cargo.
Except when the disaster occurs in the port of destination, or so near it that the voyage may be regarded as ended, the master, if the goods are not perishable, has the right, and if practicable, it is his duty to get off the ship, reload the cargo, and prosecute the voyage to its termination.
Where the whole adventure is saved by the master, as the agent of all concerned, the consignments of the cargo first unladed and stored in safety are not relieved from contributing towards the expenses of saving the residue, nor is the cargo, in that state of the case, relieved from contributing to the expenses of saving the ship, provided the ship and cargo were exposed to a common peril, and the whole adventure was saved by the master in his capacity as agent of all the interests, and by one continuous series of measures.
Ship and cargo were in imminent danger from a common peril, and, under those circumstances, it was the duty of the master, as the agent of all concerned, to use his best endeavors and employ his best exertions to save the whole adventure.
Viewing the matter in that light, his first efforts were directed to the object of relieving the vessel by means of the steamers which came alongside; but, finding that the ship was too fast in the sand to be got off by those means, he commenced to discharge the cargo, to save the goods and lighten the ship as, apparently, the best possible measure which could be adopted to save the whole adventure.
IV. None of these propositions are controverted by the plaintiffs; but they insist that the subsequent expenses incurred by the agent of the underwriters of the ship should also be carried into the adjustment, and that the cargo saved by the master should be adjudged liable to contribute towards the expenses incurred by the agent of the underwriters of the ship in accomplishing, at the end of six weeks, what the master abandoned as hopeless and as a total loss.
Before the last-named agent came on board, the master, ascertaining that the consignees of the ship would not authorize *372 any further expenditure, had dismissed the steamers that went to the aid of the ship and had sent back to the port all the steam-pumps and wrecking apparatus he had employed in his endeavors to save the ship as well as the cargo, and had, in fact, decided to abandon the ship as a total loss, and left her in charge of the agent of her underwriters.
Prior to that decision the cargo, except a few remnants of small value, subsequently found in the lower hold, had been discharged into lighters and transported to the place of destination, and had been delivered into the possession of the consignees.
Having saved the cargo, and finding that further efforts to save the ship with the means at his command were fruitless, he relinquished his endeavors and abandoned the undertaking.
Such are the undisputed facts of the case, and, under the circumstances, it is not possible to hold that the ship, as subsequently got off, was, as matter of fact, saved by a continuation of the same series of measures as those by which the cargo was saved.
Complete separation had taken place between the cargo and the ship, and the ship was no longer bound to the cargo nor the cargo to the ship.
Undoubtedly the doctrine of general average contribution is deeply founded in the principles of equity and natural justice, but it is not believed that any decided case can be found where the liability to such contribution has been pushed to such an extent as that assumed by the plaintiffs.[*]
V. First case cited for the plaintiffs is that of Bevan v. United States Bank,[] which is the strongest reported case in their favor. Plaintiffs were the owners of the vessel, and the defendants were the owners of a certain quantity of specie, which constituted a part of the cargo. Voyage was *373 from New Orleans to Philadelphia; and the vessel was stranded in Delaware Bay in a situation of imminent peril. Statement of the case shows that the specie was among the first articles landed, and it was immediately sent overland to the port of destination, and on the following day was delivered to the defendants. Eight weeks afterwards the vessel reached the same port in safety with the remainder of the cargo, which had been discharged into lighters and was afterwards reshipped. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the defendants were liable to contribute in general average to the charges and expenses incurred subsequently to the landing of the specie.
Much stress is laid, in the opinion of the court, upon the fact that the vessel and the residue of the cargo left on board, were subsequently brought into port by the extraordinary exertions of the master; and if the conclusion can be sustained at all, it must be upon the ground that the whole adventure was saved by a continuous series of measures, prosecuted by the master as the agent of all concerned, which commenced with the saving of the specie, and ended with the saving of the vessel and the residue of the cargo. Stranding in that case was outside of the harbor of the port of destination, and there was no abandonment of the vessel, nor any suspension in the endeavors of the master to save the entire adventure. But the statement of the case shows that the master and mariners remained on board, and that they saved the ship, and having returned the residue of the cargo to the ship, the same was duly transported to the place of destination.[*] Standard text-writers have doubted the correctness of that decision;[] but it is unnecessary to determine the question at the present time, as it is clearly distinguishable from the case before the court.
Second case cited is that of Bedford Com. Ins. Co. v. Parker et al.,[] which can scarcely be reconciled with the preceding *374 case. Insurers of the ship were the plaintiffs, and the defendants were the owners of the cargo. She was stranded nine miles from the port of destination. Part of the cargo was saved by men employed by the owners of the same, at their own expense. Other parts of the same were subsequently saved by the underwriters of the ship; and it appears that at one time the latter had a hundred men employed in efforts to save the cargo, and the sails and rigging of the vessel. They afterwards entered into a contract with a third party, and agreed to pay a certain sum if he would save the ship and the residue of the cargo.
Reported facts show that the contractor ultimately succeeded, and brought the ship and such part of the cargo as remained on board, safely into the harbor; and the court held, and well held, that only that part of the cargo which was on board when the contract was made, was liable to contribute in general average to pay the amount as stipulated in the contract. Clear inference, from the statement of the case, is, that the master had abandoned the ship, and that he had no participation in the previous endeavors to save the cargo. Decision was, that everything which is saved in such a case, by common expense and labor, shall contribute to pay that expense in proportion to its value; but the court decided that the part of the cargo taken from the vessel by the owners, before the contract was made, was not saved by the successful efforts of the contracting party, and there can be no doubt that the decision was correct.[*]
Earliest case upon the subject is that of Shepherd v. Wright,[] which was an appeal from a decree in the Court of Chancery. Appellants shipped a part of the cargo, and were the owners of the ship, and the residue of the cargo belonged to the respondents. Ship sailed from Messina, bound to London, and on the voyage she was chased by an armed vessel into Malaga. Advised of the danger, the factor of the ship sent lighters to the master, to save what he could of the cargo; *375 and as the goods of the respondents were silks, they were first carried on shore. Night came, and the armed vessel left, and as the danger no longer continued, the master for-bore to land any more of the goods. Six days afterwards the armed vessel returned, and captured the ship and the goods on board, belonging to the appellants.
They brought the bill of complaint against the respondents, to compel contribution; but the chancellor dismissed the bill of complaint, and the decree was affirmed in the House of Lords. Ground of the decree was, that the appellants' loss did not contribute to the preservation of the respondents' shipment. Whole adventure was saved from the first peril, and the shipment of respondents was not exposed to the second, by which the ship and the appellants' goods were lost. Evidently the case was rightly decided, and it is perfectly consistent with the views herein already expressed.[*]
Third case cited by the plaintiffs is that of Nelson v. Belmont,[] which has an important bearing upon the question under consideration. Plaintiff in that case being the owner of the ship, claimed general average contribution of the defendant, as the shipper of a certain amount of specie. Intended voyage was from New Orleans to Havre; but the ship was struck with lightning in the Gulf Stream, and was obliged to make a port of distress. Unable to extinguish the fire, the master signalled a vessel in sight, and accepted assistance. He transferred the specie to the other vessel, and the arrangement was, that the other vessel should accompany the vessel in distress to Charleston; but after arriving in the harbor, and before the vessels reached the wharf, the master took back the specie, and subsequently deposited it in bank. Damage was done to the residue of the cargo by the fire; and the means adopted to extinguish the fire, after the vessel reached the wharf, caused her to sink, and the master was obliged to incur expense to raise the vessel, in order to prosecute the voyage. Judgment of the Court of Appeals was, that the specie was liable, in *376 general average, for the amount paid for the services of the other vessel, and for the expenses incurred at the port of distress.
Precise doctrine advanced was, that the liability to general average continues until the property has been completely separated from the rest of the cargo, and from the whole adventure, so as to leave no community of interest remaining. Majority of the court went farther, and held that if the voyage is not abandoned, and the property, although separated from the rest, is still under the control of the master, and liable to be taken again on board for the purpose of prosecuting the voyage, the common interest remains, and whatever is done for its protection, is done at the common expense. Correctness of that decision cannot be doubted; and yet the question may often arise in practice, whether in a given case the separation is, or is not so complete as to justify the conclusion that no community of interest remains. Close cases may doubtless arise, but it is believed that in general there will not be much difficulty in ascertaining the true line of distinction.
VI. Where a ship was stranded by perils of the sea, and in order to lighten the vessel, the cargo was discharged and forwarded in another vessel, and subsequently new measures were adopted, and additional expenses were incurred in getting the ship off and taking her into port for repairs, it was held that the expenses incurred from the misadventure until the cargo was discharged, constituted a general average, but that the subsequent expenses were particular average, and chargeable only to the ship.[*]
Statement of facts shows that it became necessary to cut a channel for the vessel, and employ a steam-tug in order to get the vessel off; and the view of the court was, that the goods had been previously saved by a distinct and completed operation, and that afterwards a new operation began for the benefit of the ship-owner.
*377 Judgment, in that case, was given by Lord Campbell, and in a subsequent case he repeated and enforced the reasons on which the former judgment rested.[*] Voyage, in the last case, was from Liverpool to Callao. Ship was driven on a bank by a storm, near the port of departure. Cargo was discharged and transported back to the port whence it came, and some days afterwards the ship was got off, taken to the port, and repaired, and again took the cargo on board and proceeded on the voyage; and it was held that the saving of the ship and of the cargo was one continued transaction, and that the expenses were general average, to which the ship, freight, and cargo must contribute. Considering that the goods remained under the control of the master until the ship was got off, repaired, and was enabled to take the goods on board and prosecute her voyage, it is clear that the decision was correct, and entirely consistent with the previous adjudication.[]
Applying those principles to the present case, we are of opinion that there was no community of interest remaining between the ship and the cargo when the master, as declared in the statement of the case, abandoned the ship, and left her in charge of the agent of the underwriters, after the consignees of the ship had declined to authorize the master to incur any further expense.
Judgment of the Circuit Court is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to issue a
NEW VENIRE.
NOTES
[] Field, J., not having sat.
[*] 2 Arnould on Insurance, 881.
[*] Benecke & Stevens on Average, 96; Baily on Average, 45, 71; Birkley v. Presgrave, 1 East, 220; Addison on Contracts, 490.
[] 2 Phillips on Insurance, 65; Holt on Shipping, 482.
[*] Bedford Commercial Insurance Company v. Parker, 2 Pickering, 7; Benecke & Stevens on Average, 139.
[*] Benecke & Stevens on Average, 141, and note.
[*] 2 Phillips on Insurance, § 1407; 2 Arnould on Insurance, § 338.
[] The Propeller Niagara, 21 Howard, 27; King v. Shepherd, 3 Story, 358; Elliot v. Russel, 10 Johnson, 7.
[*] M. & P. on Ship. 320; Maclachlan on Shipping, 556; Smith's Mercantile Law, 6th ed. 336; Barnard v. Adams, 19 Howard, 270.
[*] Slater v. Rubber Co., 26 Connecticut, 129; Nemick v. Holmes, 25 Pennsylvania State, 371.
[] 4 Wharton, 301.
[*] Lewis v. Williams, 1 Hall S.C., 436; Gray v. Waln, 2 Sergeant & Rawie, 239.
[] 1 Parsons' Mercantile Law, 326; 2 Phillips on Insurance, § 1407.
[] 2 Pickering, 1.
[*] Columbia Insurance Co. v. Ashby, 13 Peters, 331.
[] Showers's Parliamentary Cases, 28.
[*] Benecke & Stevens on Average, 61.
[] 21 New York, 38.
[*] Job v. Langton, 6 Ellis & Blackburne, 779; M. & P. on Ship. (3d ed.), 322.
[*] Moran v. Jones, 7 Ellis & Blackburne, 532.
[] Maclachlan on Shipping, 573, 576.