rnm smnrau. , .45
per, he must act for the best interests of all concerned; he will receive freight
or no freight, according to the beneficial services rendered, and neither party
can claim damage for delay or defeat of the voyage under the original contract.
Wliethera specilic contract among neutrals to run a blockade should be en-
forced in the absence of any municipal law or treaty forbidding it, quwre. V
6. Sims-Dnnivsrvr EIlSEWHHRE—CONSTllUCTION or- CnA1z·rnn—To·rAr.1.v Dir-
rniznrrr Pnscn or- DISCHAltGE—REASONABLE Drmomzcn.
lf, on blockade of the port of destination, a delivery of the cargo is made
elsewhere, it will be a question of construction whether the new place of deliv- ..
ery is to be deemed a mei·e substitute for the former, or whether the minor in-
cidents of the charter are to be deemed superseded. Such delivery elsewhere
is pro lanto a new contract, and, under the compulsory selection of a totally
diiferent place of discharge from the place named in the charter, in order to
prevent a defeat of the voyage, the incidental stipulations of the charter, as re-
spects demurrnge or rate of discharge, will not necessarily be deemed preserved
by mere implication at the substituted place of delivery. Audwhere the ci1·-
cumstances make such an implication unreasonable, it will be rejected, and the
* obligations of ea ch party construed to be to use reasonable diligence onlyin the
delivery and receipt of cargo. ~ » V
7 SAME—MABTEH—UNREASONABLE REFUVSAL. . , . .
The master, in pi·oceeding from one port to another that lacked necessary
i launches for discharge, having refused to take in tow for his use a launch
· tendered by the charterersagents, held an unreasonable refusal that barred
_ any claim for delay until othei· arrangements were made. .
8. Dnmoruzncn. Amlownn ron Ninn Diws. , _
ln view ofthe disturbed state of affairs on the coast, held, on the evidence in
this case, that the consignees hud, in general, used reasonable diligence, with
the exception of nine days, for which demurrage was allowed .·._ -
In Admiralty. _ _ A-
This libel was filed to recover demurrage for the detention of the
bark Spartan at various ports in the region of Arica and Callao, Peru,
in the summer of 1880, arising out of the blockade of the Peruvian
ports by the Ghilian fleets during the late war.
_ On the third of December, 1879, the respondents chartered the bark
Spartan, under a charter-party eirecuted by the 1ibelant,as master, for
a voyage outward Urom New York to Arian, with the privilege of asecond
ort in Peru, not north o Callco, on the terms followin : * *‘ *
P _ 8 _
The respondents shall be allowed twenty running lay days for loading
"' * * and customary dispatch for discharging the cargo, com- A
mencing the day after the captain reports the vessel in the berth
ready to receive or discharge the cargo; demurrage £15 per day; the
cargo to be received and delivered within reach of the vessel’s tackles
at ports of loading and discharging; lighterage, if any, at expense of
cargo. * * * Should the port of Arica be blockccled, and the vessel
not be able to get into that port, the vessel is to proceed to the next near-
est open port to discharge her cargo. * *‘ * If second port be used,
the cargo to be discharged at that port to be so stowed that it will
come out of the vessel last."
The Spartan sailed from New York on the hrst of January, 1880,
with a general cargo of provisions and lumber, being about 1,100
tons measurement and 800 tons weight. She arrived oil Arica. on
the Hlth of April following, and found that port effectively blockaded,
and was ordered off by the blockading squadron. Instructions antici-