56 zmumsu. ssrosrns.
force, which prevents the entrance of the ship to her port, the cap-
tain, if he has not received orders, or if the orders received cannot
be executed, must act for the best interests of the shipper, either in
unloading in some neighboring port, or in returning to the port of
departure." By section 572, if the ship be obliged to return without
unloading, she will be entitled to her outward freight only, though
chartered for an outward and return voyage.
Article 92 of the Belgian law of August 21, 1879, is to the same
effect. For the provisions of numerous other codes on the same sub·
ject see 3 Desjardins, Droit Com. Mar. §§ 789-792, 808, 809.
The general questions here involved were recently discussed in the
privy council in the case of A Cargo ex Argos, L. B. 5 P. C. 134, 161,
167. In that case the Argos, carrying petroleum from London to
Havre, on arrival at Havre, was not allowed to land the petroleum,
because prohibited by the local regulations; and the ship proceeded
to the ports of Honfleur and Trouville, hoping to be able to unlade
the petroleum there, but without success. She then returned to
Havre, and obtained permission to deliver the petroleum on board a
vessel or lighter, to remain for a few clays within the port; but not to
land it. The consignee refused to accept it except upon the wharf
where goods were usually landed ; the vessel was afterwards required
by the authorities to reship the petroleum, which she thereupon
brought back to London. Upon a libel filed against the petroleum
for outward and return freight, demurrage, and expenses, the ship
was allowed her freight, on the ground that she had been able to make
a sufficient delivery of the petroleum within the port of destination,
upon lighters at Havre, and that the defendant was bound to receive
it upon lighters there; but that the ship was not entitled to any de-
vnurrage or expenses for her detention in previously going to and from
Honfleur and Trouville in the endeavor to effect a delivery, or other-
wise, up to the time she received permission to make a delivery upon
lighters at Havre, and offered to do so. The general authority of the
master, under the maritime law, to act for the best interests of the ship
and cargo in unforeseen emergencies, was held to be applicable to
the case. Referring to some of the authorities on this subject the
court say, (page 165:)
"It results that not merelyis a power given,but aduty is cast, on the mas-
ter, in many cases of accident and emergency, to act for the safety of the cargo
in such manner as may be best under the circumstances in which it may be
placed, and that, as a correlative right, he is entitled to charge its owner with
the expenses properly incurred in so doing. Most of the decisions have related
to cases where the accident happened before the completion of the voyage;
but their lordships think it ought not to be laid down that all obligation on the
part of the master to act for the merchant ceases after a reasonable time for
the latter to take delivery of the cargo has expired. It is well established that
if the ship haswaited a reasonable time to deliver goods from her side, the
master may landand warehouse them at the charge of the merchant; and it
cannot be doubted that it would be his duty to do so rather than to throw them
overboard. In a case like the present, where the goods could neither be landed