Freight

In Maritime Law. The sum agreed on for the hire of a ship, entirely or in part, for the carriage of goods from one port to another.

13 East 300.

All rewards or compensation paid for the use of ships.

Giles V. The Cynthia, 1 Pet. Adm. 206, Fed. Cas. No. 5,424; 2 B. & P. 321; Sansom v. Ball, 4 Dali. (U. S.) 459, 1 L. Ed. 908; Cheriot V. Barker, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 346, 3 Am. Dec. 437; Chitty, Com. L. 407.

The price to be paid for the actual transportation of goods by sea from one place to another.

Hagar v. Donald.son, 154 Pa. 242; The Norman Prince, 185 Fed. 169.

It is an inherent element in a contract of affreightment that a vessel shall enter on the voyage named and begin the carriage of the goods shipped, or, as it is technically called, “break ground,” before a claim for freight can arise, unless the shipper of the goods, the vessel remaining ready to enter on the voyage, undertakes to reclaim the goods. The circumstances under which the contract was entered into continuing the same, so far as respects the vessel, the shipper cannot reclaim the goods without paying the full freight; The Tornado, 108 U. S. 342, 2 Sup. Ct 746, 27 li.

Ed. 747; The Norman Prince, aupra.

The amount of freight is usually fixed by the agreement of the parties; and if there is no agreement, the amount is to be ascertained by the usage of the trade and the circumstances and reason of the case; 3 Kent 173. See Rates. When the merchant hires the whole ship for the entire voyage, he must pay the freight though he does not fully lade the ship; Chitty, Com. L. 407; Heckscher v. Mc Crea, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 304; he is, of course, only bound to pay in proportion to the goods he puts on board, when he does not agree to provide a full cargo. If the merchant agrees to furnish a return cargo, and he furnishes none, and lets the ship return in ballast, he must make compensation to the amount of the agreed 7 freight; Giles v. The Cynthia, 1 Pet. Adm. 207, Fed. Cas. No. 5,424; 2 Vem. 210.

See 3 L. R. 6 Q. B. 528; Dead Fkeioht.

The general rule is that the delivery of the goods at the place of destination, in fulfilment of the agreement of the charter-party or bill of lading, is required, to entitle the master or owner of the vessel to freight: Frith V. Barker, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 327; China Mut. Ins. Co. V. Force, 142 N. Y. 90, 36 N. E. 874, 40 Am. St. Rep. 576; Thibault v. Russell, 6 Harr. ( Del. ) 293; Brittan v. Bamaby, 21 How. (U. S.) 527, 16 L Ed. 177. If prepaid, It may be recovered back on a failure to make delivery unless expressly provided otherwise in the contract; Burn Line v. U. An interruption ot the regular course of the voyage, happening without the fault of the owner, does not deprive him of Ills freight if toe ship afterwards proceeds with the cargo to the place of destination, as in the case of capture and recapture; 3 C. Rob. 101; 3 Kent 223; but where a voyage is broken up by reason of the Inexcusable delay of the ship, resulting in damage to toe shippers, he need not pay the freight; Hoadley V. The Lizzie, 39 Fed. 44. In case of the blockade of, or the Interdiction of, commerce with the port to which the cargo is destined, and the return of toe goods to the owner, no freight will be due; Scott v. Libby, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 336, 3 Am. Dec. 431; 10 East 526; but see Morgan v. Ins. Co., 4 Dali. (U. S.) 455, 1 L. Ed. 907. A shipowner, who is prevented from performing the voyage by a wrongful act of the charterer, is prima facie entitled to the freight that he would have earned, less what it would have cost him to earn it; The Gazelle, 128 U. S. 474, 9 Sup. Ct. 139, 32 L. Ed. 496. When the ship is forced into a port short of her destination, and cannot finish toe voyage, if the owner of the goods will not allow the master a reasonable time to repair, or to proceed in another ship, the master will be entitled to the whole freight; and if, after giving his consent, the master refuses to go on, he is not entitled to freight. See Deviation. When the merchant accepts of the goods at an intermediate port, it is the general rule that freight is to be paid according to the proportion of the voyage performed; and the law will imply such contract; Bork v. Norton, 2 Mc Lean 423, Fed. Cas. No. 1,659; Robinson v. Ins. Co., 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 323. The acceptance must be voluntary, and not one forced upon the owner by any illegal or violent proceedings, as from it the law implies a contract that freight pro rata parte itineris shall be accepted and paid; 2 Burr. 883; Gray v. Wain, 2 S. & R. (Pa.) 229, 7 Am. Dec. 642; Caze v. Baltimore Ins. Co., Cra. (U. S.) 358, 3 L. Ed. 370; Welch v. Hicks, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 504, 16 Am. Dec. 443; Kent 182; Com. Dig. Merchant (E3), note, pi.

43.

If the master refuse to repair his vessel and send on the goods, or to procure other vessels for that purpose and the owner of the goods then receives them, such an acceptance will not be such a voluntary one as to make him liable for freight pro rate,; Welch v. Hicks, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 504, 16 Am. Dec. 443; Atlantic MuL Ins. Co. v. Bird, 2 Bosw. (N. Y.) 195; and where toe port designated In the charter-party was unsafe, the master was held justified in discharging part of his cargo at another port In order to be able to proceed with toe rest to the point designatvoyage, and has brought only a part of her cargo to the place of destination, there is a difference between a general ship and a ship chartered for a specific sum for the whole voyage. In the former, case, the freight is to be paid for the goods which may be delivered at their place of destination; in the latter, it has been questioned whether the freight could be apportioned; and it seems that in such case a partial performance is not sufficient, and that a special payment cannot be claimed except in special cases; Post v. Robertson, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 24; 2 Campb. 466. Proof that a vessel received the number of cases of oil stated in the bills of lading, that none were stolen during the voyage, and that all on board were delivered alongside by her tackles into lighters, entitles her to freight on all shown by the bills of lading, though there may have been a shortage when the oil reached its destination; Steamship Den of Ogll Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 189 Fed. 1020. Where a cargo owner is allowed, as damages against a vessel, for loss of cargo, its full value at the port of delivery, he is not entitled to a reduction in freight on account of the loss; Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Anderson, 186 Fed. 145, 108 C. C. A. 257. If goods are laden on board, the shipper is not entitled to their return and to have them relandcd without paying the expenses of uploading and the whole freight and surrendering the bill of lading or indemnifying the master against any loss or damage he may sustain by reason of the non-delivery of the bill; Bartlett v. Carnley, 6 Duer (N. Y.) 194. In general, the master has a lien on the goods, and need not part with them until the freight is paid; Brittan v. Barnaby, 21 How. (U. S.) 627, 16 L. Ed. 177; and when the regulations of the revenue require them to be landed in a public warehouse, the master may enter them in his own name and preserve the lien; Abb. Ship. pt.

3, ch. 3, § 11.

His right to retain the goods may, however, be waived either by an express agreement at the time of making the original contract, or by his subsequent agreement or consent The refusal of a master to deliver a cargo until security is furnished for the freight gives no right of action to the charterer, as the cargo is subject to a lien for freight; The Ira B. Ellems, 48 Fed. 591. See Lien; Maritime Lien; Average. If freight be paid in advance and the goods are not conveyed and delivered according to the contract, it can, in all cases, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, be recovered back by the shipper; Phelps V. Williamson, 6 Sandf. (N. Y.) 578. The captor of an enemy’s vessel is entitled to freight from the owner of the goods if he perform the voyage and carries the goods pro rata is entirely rejected; 4 Rob. Rep. 278; 6 W. 67; 6 id.

269.

See Common Cabmers; Harter Act; Ship; Sbawobtht; Impairing the Obligation of Contracts; Rates; Inter-State Commerce Commission.