Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/637

 THE MAGGIE MOORE. 62 g, �there. If the consignee refused to receive the delivery at that place, he would be chargeable with the extra expanse incurred by the vessel on that account. ,Such I understand to be the effect of the cases. Capper v. Wallace, L. E. 5 Q. B. 163 ; and The Alhambra, in the court of appeal,, London, decided on the twenty-flfth of March last, a news- paper report of which bas been fumished me. By signing the bills of lading the owner, through the master, agreed with the charterers that Calais was a port to which the vessel might be sent under the charter. His compensation, after that, was confined to sudh as he was entitled to upon the delivery of the cargo whicii he thus conceded the charterers had rightfully shipped. �It is contended, however, that, as the master w'as ignorant of the exact character of the port to which the shipment was made, the owner is not bound by his acceptance. The master was the agent of the owner to receive the shipments under the charter and sign the bills of lading. He could not alter the terms of the charter-party, but he was the representative of the owner in performing what it had been agreed should be done. If the owner would have been bound if he had personally accepted Calais as a safe port under the charter, he is bound by what has been done bythe master; The m^stei: c^iild not change the charter-party and agree, in express terms, to go to an unsafe port ; but when a shipment was tendered him under the char- ter, for delivery at a well-known commercial port like Calais, to which vessels were accustomed to go, it was his duty to decide for the owner whether to sign the bills of lading or not. If he refused to accept the shipment and carry under the charter, his refusai wa^ a breach of the contract, and bound the owner for darnages in case the designated port was in fact a safe one. So, in my opinion, if ia^ accepted, he bound the owner to deliver as the charter required. ,It was the duty of the owner to decide when the- shipment was made whether it should be accepted under the charter. He deputed the master to perform that duty. The master decided to accept. ; That decision bound him. The risk of the incompetenoy pf the.masteCjWas on the owner and not the charterers. �I am entirely satisfied that the court below was right, and a decree may be prepared dismissing;the libel. ��� �