made by the master for use of the ship. United States Ins. Comp. v. Scott, 1 John. Rep. 106.

Owners of ships are responsible to the injured party, for the acts of the pilot, the parties who suffer are not under the necessity of resorting to the pilot, from whom redress is not always to be had—owners are left to recover against him. Dodson's Adm. Rep. 467.

Part owners of privateers are in like manner liable as part owners of merchant ships, and are also responsible for the conduct of their agents, officers and crew. 5 Rob. Adm. Rep. 260. 1 Dall. Rep.

95.

Where a ship's bottom is injured by worms in the course of the voyage, and incapable of completing the voyage, the loss is not a loss by perils of the seas. Rhl v. Parry, 1 Esp. N. C. c. 444.

Dissolution of Contracts. If before the commencement of a voyage, war or hostilities should take place between the state to which the ship or cargo belongs, and that to which they are destined, or commerce between them be wholly prohibited, the contract for conveyance is at an end, the merchant must unlade his goods, and the owners find another employer for their ship; but if war or hostilities break out bẹtween the place to which the ship or cargo belongs, and any other nation to which they are not destined, although the performance of the contract is thereby rendered more hazardous, yet the contract is not in itself dissolved, and each of the parties must submit to the extraordinary peril, unless they mutually agree to abandon the adventure.— So if the government of the country, to which the ship and cargo belong should prohibit the exportation of the particular commodities which compose the cargo, or by the particular terms of the contract are destined to compose it, which is often the case by all states with regard to provisions in a time of scarcity, in this case it also seems that the law of the country would give no damages to the owners against the merchant, who had been thus compelled by the law of the same country to abandon his engagement: on the other hand, if a merchant hire a ship to go to a foreign port, and covenant to furnish a lading there, a prohibition by the government of that country to export the intended articles neither dissolves the contract, nor absolutely excuses a non-performance of it, for the laws of one nation do not give effect to the positive institutions of another inconsistent with its own. But in such case it would be the duty of the master, upon his arrival at the port of lading, to obtain another cargo, if possible from other persons, and not imme

diately to hoist sail and depart, in order to charge the merchant with the whole freight. But although contracts of this nature are dissolved by the breaking out of war or hostilities in the manner before mentioned, of which no person can foresee the termination, yet they are not dissolved by an embargo or temporary restraint upon their performance.

If the port to which the ship is by charter party bound to proceed, be blockaded, this produces a dissolution of the charter party. Scott v. Cobby, 2 Johns. Rep. 336.

Duties of the merchant or Shipper with respect to the Owner. The merchant must lade no prohibited or uncustomed goods by which the ship may be subjected to detention or forfeitures in general; even in case of affreightment by charter party, the command of the ship is reserved to the owners, or the master appointed by them, and therefore the merchant has not the power or opportunity of detaining the ship beyond the stipulated time, or employing it in any other than the stipulated service. If a ship is detained beyond the limited time, the amount of the compensation, if the parties cannot agree, is in all cases to be ascertained by a jury, who will form their estimate upon consideration of all the circumstances of the case, and of the real injury sustained by the owners, which cannot be properly settled by positive rules. Freight, Shipping, and Ship Masters.

STOPPING GOODS IN TRANSITU.

See

When the merchant

has consigned goods to a person who is in suspicious circumstances with respect to his credit, the owner, whilst such goods are on the passage, and before they came into the actual possession of the consignee, may recall the possession, and prevent the delivery. This is termed stopping in transitu, or whilst the goods are on their passage, and not actually in the possession, or within the power of the consignee.

When goods have been delivered into the actual or constructive possession of the buyer, they cannot be reclaimed; but they may, if found remaining unsold in the hands of a solvent factor.

Delivery of goods on board a ship chartered by the consignee, is considered into the possession of the consignee, and the consignor cannot retake them out of such ship; but a delivery to a common carrier, whether by land or water, even if specially named and appointed by the consignee, although such delivery vests the property in the consignee to many purposes, leaves to the consignor this equitable right of stopping the goods; and the law is the same in the case of delivery to a packer appointed by the buyer. So if the

goods are sent by sea to a certain port, to be forwarded from thence by land to the residence of the consignee, and upon the ship's arrival at the port, are delivered to a wharfinger, who receives them on the part of the consignee to be forwarded to him accordingly, they are subject to this right of the consignor in the hands of the wharfinger, yet in a case of goods sent by a wagon, which arrived at an inn in London, where the wagon usually puts up, and which were attached by a creditor of the vendee, according to the custom of London, and which in that situation were claimed by his assignee, he having become bankrupt, it was held that the vendor could not afterwards countermand the delivery of the goods, being deemed to have arrived at the end of their destined journey, and the consignee to have done that which was equivalent to taking actual possession, the removal of the goods being impracticable on account of the attachment; and where a ship ought to have performed quarantine, came into port without doing so, and the assignee of the consignee, who had received the bill of lading, and had become bankrupt, went on board immediately, and claimed the goods, and opened some of the chests, and put a person on board to keep possession, and the ship being the same day ordered out of port to perform quarantine, an agent of the consignor having received another bill of lading, claimed the goods of the master during performing quarantine. It was held by Lord Kenyon, at the trial of an action brought by the consignee against the assignees, who afterwards obtained possession of the goods, that the right of the consignor to stop the goods in transitu, cxisted when the claim was made on his behalf, because the voyage was not at an end until the performance of the quarantine, and the consignee had no right to divest the right of stopping in transitu by taking possession before the conclusion of the voyage; and the plaintiff obtained a verdict accordingly.

If the consignor indorses, and transmit the bill of lading, in pursu ance of an agreement, and in trust, to indemnify against acceptances or the like, he cannot countermand the delivery and take back the goods, while the trust and object of the consignment remained unsatisfied, nor must the master re-deliver them to him; and if the master has began to unload, and delivered part of the cargo to the consignee, the consignor's right to countermand is solely at an end, and cannot be exercised over the residue of the cargo. Slubey and another v. Heyward and others, 2 Hen. Black. 504. The right of stopping goods in transitu does not, however, belong to a person who had only a lien without a property in them.

The right of stoppage in transitu is limited to cases of the insolvency of the consignees, and the goods cannot be countermanded on any other event. The Constantia, 6 Rob. Adm. Rep. 321.

Where a general agent is authorized to export goods to such markets as he thinks fit, purchases goods in the name of the merchant, his employer, and directs them to be sent to the house of a packer, and afterwards had some of the goods repacked and sent away, and remainder repacked before news arrived that the merchant had failed, it was held that the right of stopping in transitu was gone, and that the delivery to the packer was a delivery to the agent, and that the ulterior destination depended on him, so that he could have disposed of the goods according to his general authority. Leads v. Wright, 3 Bon. and Pull, 320.

Where part of goods sold by an entire contract, are taken possession of, the vendee has taken possession of the whole, and they cannot be stopt in transitu. Hammond and others v. Anderson, 1 New. Rep.

69.

Where goods are consigned on the joint account of the consignors and consignee, and the bill of lading sent to deliver the goods to the consignee or his assigns, who afterwards indorsed and delivered it to a third person, upon condition of their making an advancement on it, which they omitted, and retained it as security for prior advances. It was held that such indorsement and delivery of the bill of lading, did not divest the consignor's right to stop the goods in transitu upon his insolvency. Newsom and another v. Thornton and another, 6 East, Rep. 17.

The property of goods passes by the indorsement and delivery of the bill of lading, by the consignee to a bona fide purchaser, for a valuable consideration, and without collusion, although the purchaser at the time knew that the consignor had received only acceptances, payable at a future day, from the consignees for the amount, and that therefore in such case the consignor's right of stopping in transitu was divested. Cumming v. Brown, 9 East, Rep. 506. See Lien.

SUPERCARGOES, are persons employed by commercial companies, or private merchants, to take charge of the cargoes they export to foreign countries to sell them to the best advantage, and to purchase returning cargoes, as the case may be. The supercargoes generally go out and return in the same ship, and therein differ from factors, but they are liable to the same laws and regulations as factors. See Factors, Agents.

TRADE, a word used in many cases to signify commerce, also traffic and manufacturing of goods, so that it is a very general and compre hensive term. Most kind of industry, excepting agriculture, are comprehended under the general appellation of trade, and all sorts of dealing, by way of selling or exchanging, constitute trading. If selling, bartering, or exchanging, constitute trading, all men who make articles for which they either receive money, or other things in exchange, must be men in trade, or traders; but as language is sometimes superior to all rule, and is what custom makes it, we do not call a farmer a tradesman, but we speak of the corn trade. Artisans, as well as those who employ them, are called tradesmen, and men in the highest lines of commerce, are called men in trade: but to call them tradesmen, would be highly improper, according to the received usage of the word. Few words are more generally applied, and universally used, and consequently there are scarcely any term so difficult to define in a complete and unacceptionable manner. It will perhaps be sufficient for the present work to consider it as implying commerce on the extensive and wide scale from nation to nation, as well as the exchange and barter made between individuals in the same place or nation. The art of making and manufacturing different articles is the great foundation of trade, or the necessity of exchanging one thing for another, of the fruits of the field, the same person, particularly in an early and simple state of society, raises such a variety as to want nothing that the ground produces from another; whereas on account of the talents of one man being most advantageously employed in producing only one article, he is under the necessity of selling nearly all he makes or produces, and buying and receiving every thing he wants in exchange. Trade and agriculture, though blended together in a certain degree, yet preserve distinctive characteristics, and comprehend between them almost every species of productive industry; of trading countries there are, however, two different sorts: those which deal chiefly in exporting and importing the commodities produced in other countries; and those which carry on manufacture to a great extent, dealing chiefly in their own productions. A bond not to carry on a

trade in a certain place, for any number of years, on a good consideration, is good; but a bond conditioned not to set up a trade generally, although there be a consideration, is void.

In great undertakings, where there are many partners, notwithstanding the old age, infirmity, or insanity of one of the partners, the busipess may still be carried on for the benefit of the family; but in small