The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 250: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, August-October, 1918. Page: 69

AKTIESELSKABET STAVANGEREN V. HUBBARD-Z. S. S. CO. Ul
of $4,104.14, with 5 per cent. per annum interest from judicial de-
mand until paid, and all costs of suit.
[1] The provisions of the charter party, which constitute some of
the grounds relied upon by appellant's counsel to defeat the claims of
damages asserted by the cross-libel, are the following:
"3. That in the event of loss of time from deficiency of men or stores, break-
down of machinery, or damage preventing the working of the steamer for more
than 24 hours at sea, the payment of hire shall cease until she be again in an
efficient state to resume her service, redelivered at place of accident, or al-
lowance therefor; and should she in consequence put into any port other
than that to which she is bound, the port charges and pilotages at such port
shall be borne by steamer's owners. Also if any loss of time from crew or
stores not being on board in time, or from repairs to hull and machinery,
which are for owners' account, not being complete after cargo and coals are
on board and hour of sailing has been fixed by charterers, and notice given to
captain, the time is lost to the owners' account. Steamer to be allowed one
to two days every four months for cleaning boilers without loss of hire."
"19. That, should vessel be lost, any hire paid in advance and not earned
(reckoning from the date of her loss) shall be returned to the charterers with
6 per cent. interest from date of loss; the act of God, the king's enemies,
fire, restraints of princes, rulers, and people, and all other dangers and
accidents of the seas, rivers, machinery, boilers, and steam navigation
throughout this charter party, always excepted."
It seems that the only subject dealt with in clause 19 is the obligation
of the owner, in the event of the loss of the vessel, to repay, with in-
terest, what had been paid in advance and was not earned, and that
this provision has no bearing on the question of the owner's liability
to the charterer for the vessel's loss of time, whatever may be the
cause of it. Clause 3 deals specifically with that subject. It seems
that that clause so provided for the case of loss of time from damage,
including such as is attributable to negligence of the owner's engineer,
preventing the working of the vessel for more than 24 hours at sea, as
to make the cessation of hire, until the vessel is again in efficient state
to resume her service, the agreed compensation the charterer was to be
entitled to for a loss of time so occasioned, and that the appellee, hav-
ing received the benefit of a compliance with that provision, was not
entitled to anything more because of loss of time so caused.
But it may be assumed, without being decided, that neither of the
provisions quoted stands in the way of the appellee's recovery of any
damages claimed in the cross-libel. It failed to show the existence of
a state of facts entitling it to recover from the appellee the difference
between what the cargo sold for and what it would have brought if
most of the advance orders for parts of it had not been canceled be-
cause of the delayed arrival. The appellant hired the vessel, manned
by its officers and crew, for a specified time, to be employed, on condi-
tions stated, in carrying lawful merchandise and passengers between
any safe ports in stated parts of the world, as directed by the charterer
or its agents. It did not undertake to make the particular voyage in
which the delay in question occurred. It did not obligate itself to de-
liver the cargo of bananas and cocoanuts at New Orleans within any
stated time.
Furthermore, the losses due to the cancellation of advance orders