490 kedebal bbpobtbb. �Ths Enbique. �[Diitriet Court, D. Maryland. May 12, 1881.) �1. CONTBAOT OF AFFBBIGHTJIBNT. �A Mil of ladiug for live beef cattle shipped by agreemeot on the deck of a steamer for a voyage from Baltimore to Liverpool, in De- cember, 1880, contained, in addition to usual exceptions, a clause exempting ship-owners from any loss that might arise through cattle being jettisoned. �Eeld, to mean that the ship-owner was not to be liable for contri- bution if the cattle should be thrown overboard for the safety of the ship. �HM, that with regard to a deck load of live cattle this limitation of the ship-owner's liabUity was not unreasonable or against public pol- icy. �HM, If the cattle were thrown overboard because, during a pro- longea storm, and without any fault of the ship-owner, they had got loose and were imperilling the ship, that under the limitation in the bill of ladlng the ship is exempted from contribution. �In Admiralty. �0. F. Bump and I. S. Eosenihal, for libellant, cited the �following cases : �The agreement is a charter-party. Dixon on Shipping, 198 ; 1 Parsons on Shipping, 284 ; 1 Parsons on Maritime Law, 229 ; 3 Kent's Com. 201 ; The Tribune, 3 Sumn. 144 ; Drinlcwater v. The Spartan, 1 Ware, 149. A charter-party is not aflected by a bill of lading. Dixon on Shipping, 202 ; 1 Parsons on Shipping, 286 ; 1 Parsons on Maritime Law, 240 ; Perkim v. Eill, 2 Woodbury & Minot, 158 ; Larnb v. Parkman, 1 Sprague, 343 ; The JSUea'aOargo, 1 Low. 83 ; The JSJthd, 5 Ben. 154 ; Oapper v. Wallace, L. R. 5 Q. B. Div. 163 ; Oaughey v. Gordon, L. R. 3 C. P. Div. 419 ; Gledstanes V. Allen, 12 C. B. 202; Kern v. Deslandes, 10 0. B. (N. 8.) 205; Willett v. Phillips, 8 Ben. 459 ; Sandeman v. Sourr, L. E. 2 Q. B. 86 ; The Patria, L. R. 3 A. & e. 436. A eontract limitiiig the liability of a, carrier must be strictly construed. New Je/rsey Steam Jffav. Co. v. Mer. Bank, 6 How. 344. Contribution is founded on natural justice, and not on contraot. Stwrges v. Cary, 2 Curt. 383. An exception to the liability of a carrier as sucli does not relieve him from contribution. Crooks v. Allen, L. R. 5 Q. B. Div. 38 ; Schnidt v. Steam-Bhip Oo. 45 L. I. Q. B. Div. 646. An attempt to exempt from liability to contribution is void as against public policy. Bailroad Go. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 367; Bailroad Co. v. Platt, 22 Wall. 123 ; Bank v. Adams Exp. Co. 93 U. 8. 174. An agent to load has no power to alter the terms of a charter-party. Liekens v. Irving, 7 C. B. (N. 8.) 165 ; Bich v. Parrott, 1 Sprague, 358 ; A Cargo of Sait, 4 Blatchf. 225. A deck-load cargo is entitled to contribution. 2 Parsons, Marine Ins. ��� �
