264 FEDEBAIi BEPOBXEE. ���Weibyb V. Deessel, Eauschenbergeb k Co. (District Court, D. Maryland. April 27, 1880.) �ADMTRALTT — CHAIiTER-PARTY — BliEAOH OF — BliOKER — DAVAOER. — A �cliarter-party stipulated that a vessel should be consignee! to certain brokers free of commission ; penalty for non-performance, estimatcd amount oî freight. The only benefit to a broker in case of such con- signment would have been a probability of employment to procure for the vessel an outward freight, but he would have acquired no legal righl to render such service. There was a breach of the charter-party in the consignment of the vessel to a broker other than the one stipulated. Held, that the mere loss of a probable opportunity for employment was too uncertain and speculative a damage on which to hase a claim for Buch breach by the broker named in the charter-party. �In Admiralty. �Marshall & Fisher, for libellant. �A. Stirling,Jr,, for respondents. �MoKRis, D. J. This is a libel in personam by the libellant, •who is the master of the Norwegiau brig Gazellen, for the freight on a cargo of sait brought by the ship from Hamburg to Baltimore, and delivered to the respondents as indorsees of the bills of lading therefor. The ship received the cargo under a charter-party executed in Hamburg between the libellant and a merchant of that place named Kleimbst, who shipped that sait. �The answer alleges that the freight had been forfeited, for the reason that, by a stipulation contained in the charter- party, the ship was to be consigned at Baltimore to the re- spondents, who are ship-brokers, and that the libellant did not consign the ship to the respondents, but consigned her to another firm of ship-brokers at Baltimore, in breach of the charter-party, and without cause, in consequence •whereof the respondents lost the fees and commissions for clearing the vessel, and proeuring lier a new charter for her homeward voyage, which thoy would otherwise bave earned and re- ceived. �The answer alleges that by a well-known usage and agree- ����
