Shipping storm freight. sued by the owners of a sailing vessel bound 2. Provisions in a bill of lading is for the war zone that the carrier shall not be liable for loss, damage, delay, or default "by causes beyond the carrier's reasonable control; by arrest or restraint of governments, princes, rulers, or peoples; by prolongation of the voyage," justify the shipowner in regarding the adventure as frustrated, so as to relieve it from further obligation to carry the cargo, and in refusing to refund the prepaid freight, where, after the vessel had been compelled by a storm to return to port for safety and repairs, the Federal government repeatedly refused to permit a second departure, it having decided while the ves ALLANWILDE TRANSPORT CORPORA- sel was at sea to refuse clearances there TION V. storm freight. frustrated adventure embargo retention of 1. The Federal government's repeated refusal, conformably to its decision to refuse clearances to sailing vessels destined to proceed through the war zone, to permit a second departure of such a vessel which had been compelled by a storm to return to port for safety and repair, frustrated the adventure, relieving the carrier from further obligation to carry the cargo, and justifying it in refusing to refund the prepaid freight, where the bill of lading incorporated by reference all the conditions and exceptions of the charter party, and the latter instrument contains, inter alia, the provisions, "freight to be prepaid net on signing bills of lading "freight earned, retained, and irrevocable, vessel lost or not lost," since the government embargo must be regarded as being so far permanent as naturally and justifiably to determine business judgment and action depending upon it, and the contract regarded a sailing ship only, not some other kind of ship or means. [For other cases, see Shipping, IV. c, 1, in D1 gest Sup. Ct. 1908.] Note. On the rights of party to a contract the performance of which is interfered with or prevented by war conditions or acts of government in the prosecution of war-see note to the report of this case in 3 A.L.R. 21. after to sailing vessels bound for the war zone. [For other cases, see Shipping, IV. c, 1, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.] [Nos. 449 and 450.] Argued December 12, 1918. Decided January 13, 1919. ON A CERTIFICATE from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit presenting questions as to whether a carrier by water was relieved from further obligation to carry the cargo by the government embargo under which clearance was refused to a sailing vessel bound for the war zone which had been compelled by a storm to return to port for safety and repairs, and whether the carrier was justified in refusing to refund the prepaid freight. Answered in the affirmative. The facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. Oscar D. Duncan argued the cause, and, with Messrs. Russell T. Mount and Courtland Palmer, filed a brief for the Allanwilde Transport Corporation: A contract for personal services is excused by the death or physical disability of the promisor. Boast v. Firth, L. R. 4 C. P. 1, 38 L. J. C. P. N. S. 1, 19 L. T. N. S. 264, 17 Week. Rep. 29; Robinson v. Davison, L. R. 6 Exch. 269, 40 L. J. Exch. N. S. 172, 24 L. T. N. S. 755, 19 Week. Rep. 431; Whincup v. Hughes, L. R. 6 C. P. 78, 40 L. J. C. P. N. S. 104, 24 L. T. N. S. 74, 19 Week. Rep. 439; Poussard v. Spiers, L. R. 1 Q. B. Div. 410, 45 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 621, 34 L. T. N. S. 572, 24 Week. Rep. 819; Johnson v. Walker, 155 Mass. 253, 31 Am. St. Rep. 550, 29 N. E. 522; Spalding v. Rosa, 71 N. Y. 40, 27 Am. Rep. 7; Lacy v. Getman, 119 N. Y. 109, 6 L.R.A. 728, 16 Am. St. Rep. 806, 23 N. E. 452; Scully v. Kirkpatrick, 79 Pa. 324, 21 Am. Rep. 62; People v. Globe Mut. L. Ins. Co. 91 N. Y. 174. A contract is dissolved where the subject-matter of the contract or something essential for its performance is destroyed. Taylor v. Caldwell, 3 Best. & S. 826, 122 Eng. Reprint, 309, 32 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 164, 8 L. T. N. S. 356, 11 Week. Rep. 726, 6 Eng. Rul. Cas. 603; The Kronprinzessin Cecilie (North German Lloyd v. Guaranty Trust Co.) 244 U. S. 12, 61 L. ed. 960, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 490; Appleby v. Myers, L. R. 2 C. P. 651, 36 L. J. C. P. N. S. 331, 16 L. T. N. S. 669; Walker v. Tucker, 70 Ill. 527, 8 Mor. Min. Rep. 672; Field v. Brackett, 56 Me. 121; Thomas v. Knowles, 128 Mass. 22; Johnson v. Lyon, 75 Mich. 477, 42 N. W. 993; Dexter v. Norton, 47 N. Y. 62, 7 Am. Rep. 415; Western Hardware & Mfg. Co. v. Bancroft-Charnley Steel Co. 53 C. C. A. 548, 116 Fed. 176; The Tornado (Ellis v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co.) 108 U. S. 342, 27 L. ed. 747, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 746; Krell v. Henry [1903] 2 K. B. 740, 72 L. J. K. B. N. S. 794, 89 L. T. N. S. 328, 19 Times L. R. 711, 52 Week. Rep. 246. A contract is dissolved where circumstances supervene which render performance of the contract in the manner or in the time contemplated by both parties impossible. further performance, and dissolved the contract. Baily v. De Crespigny, L. R. 4 Q. B. 180, 38 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 98, 19 L. T. N. S. 681, 17 Week. Rep. 494, 15 Eng. Rul. Cas. 799; The Kronprinzessin Cecilie (North German Lloyd v. Guaranty Trust Co.) 244 U. S. 12, 21, 61 L. ed. 960, 964, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 490; Jones v. Judd, 4 N. Y. 412; 2 Parsons, Contr. 9th ed. p. 827; Brewster v. Kitchell, 1 Salk. 198, 91 Eng. Reprint, 177. We are here concerned with the case which goes to the very foundation of the contract, or, as it has been termed, "frustrates the adventure." Jackson v. Union Marine Ins. Co. L. R. 10 C. P. 125, 44 L. J. C. P. N. S. 27, 31 L. T. N. S. 789, 23 Week. Rep. 169, 2 Asp. Mar. L. Cas. 435, 6 Eng. Rul. Cas. 650; Bork v. Norton, 2 McLean, 422, Fed. Cas. No. 1,659; Bensaude v. Thames & M. Marine Ins. Co. [1897] A. C. 609, 66 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 666, 77 L. T. N. S. 282, 46 Week. Rep. 78, 8 Asp. Mar. L. Cas. 315; The Spartan, 25 Fed. 44; Guiseppe v. Manufacturers' Export Co. 124 Fed. 663; Adler v. Galbraith, B. & Co. 156 Fed. 259; Buffalo & L. Land Co. v. Bellevue Land & Improv. Co. 165 N. Y. 253, 51 L.R.A. 951, 59 N. E. 5; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v Hoyt, 149 U. S. 1, 15, 37 L. ed. 625, 630, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. German Lloyd v. Guaranty Trust Co.) 779; The Kronprinzessin Cecilie (North 244 U. S. 12, 61 L. ed. 960, 37 Sup. Ct. Geipel v. Smith, L. R. 7 Q. B. 404, 41 Rep. 490; The Eros, C. C. A., 251 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 153, 26 L. T. N. S. 361, Fed. 45; Day v. United States, 245 U. 20 Week. Rep. 332, 1 Asp. Mar. L. Cas. S. 159, 62 L. ed. 219, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 268; Jackson v. Union Marine Ins. Co. 57; Taylor v. Caldwell, 3 Best. & S. 826, L. R. 10 C. P. 125, 44 L. J. C. P. N. S. 122 Eng. Reprint, 309, 32 L. J. Q. B. N. 27, 31 L. T. N. S. 789, 23 Week. Rep. 169, S. 164, 8 L. T. N. S. 356, 11 Week. Rep. 2 Asp. Mar. L. Cas. 435, 6 Eng. Rul. Cas. 726, 6 Eng. Rul. Cas. 603; Baily v. De 650; Baily v. De Crespigny, L. R. 4 QCrespigny, L. R. 4 Q. B. 180, 38 L. J. B. 180, 38 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 98, 19 L. T. N. S. 681, 17 Week. Rep. 494, 15 Eng. Rul. Cas. 799; Krell v. Henry [1903] 2 K. B. 740, 72 L. J. K. B. N. S. 794, 89 L. T. N. S. 328, 19 Times L. R. 711, 52 Week. Rep. 246; Scottish Nav. Co. v. W. A. Souter & Co. [1917] 1 K. B. 237, 115 L. T. N. S. 812, 33 Times L. R. 71, 61 Sol. Jo. 85, 22 Com. Cas. 154; Anson, Contr. 14th ed. p. 384; The Kronprinzessin Cecilie (North German Lloyd v. Guaranty Trust Co.) 244 U. S. 12, 61 L. ed. 960, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 490; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Hoyt, 149 U. S. 1, 15, 37 L. ed. 625, 630, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 779. Q. B. N. S. 98, 19 L. T. N. S. 681, 17 Week. Rep. 494, 15 Eng. Rul. Cas. 799; Krell v. Henry [1903] 2 K. B. 740, 72 L. J. K. B. N. S. 794, 89 L. T. N. S. 328, 19 Times L. R. 711, 52 Week. Rep. 246; Horlock v. Beal [1916] 1 A. C. 486, 85 L. J. K. B. N. S. 602, 114 L. T. N. S. 193, 32 Times L. R. 251, 60 Sol. Jo. 236, 21 Com. Cas. 201; Tamplin S. S. Co. v. Anglo-Mexican Petroleum Products Co. [1916] 2 A. C. 397, 115 L. T. N. S. 315, 85 L. J. K. B. N. S. 1389, 32 Times L. R. 677; Shipton v. Harrison [1915] 3 K. B. 676, W. N. 304, 84 L. J. K. B. N. S. 2137, 31 Times L. R. 598; Scottish Nav. The governmental order prohibiting Co. v. W. A. Souter & Co. [1917] 1 K. the sailing of the vessel, and the govern- B. 237, 115 L. T. N. S. 812, 33 Times ment's refusal to grant her clearance, L. R. 71, 61 Sol. Jo. 85, 22 Com. Cas. rendered the performance of the contract 154; Anglo-Northern Trading Co. v. Emillegal, and released the carrier from any lyn [1917] 2 K. B. 78, 116 L. T. N. S. 34 Times L. R. 296, 87 L. J. K. B. N. S. 767; De Silvale v. Kendall, 4 Maule & S. 42, 105 Eng. Reprint, 750, 16 Revised Rep. 373. Mr. John C. Prizer argued the cause and filed a brief for the Vacuum Oil Company and A. W. Pidwell: "Freight" is the compensation payable by the shipper for the carriage and proper delivery at destination of the cargo. 414, affirmed in [1918] 1 K. B. 372, 8 B. R. C. 546, 87 L. J. K. B. N. S. 309, 23 Com. Cas. 231, 118 L. T. N. S. 196; E. Hulton & Co. v. Chadwick & Taylor, 33 Times L. R. 363; Lloyd Royal Belge Société Anonyme v. Stathatos, 33 Times L. R. 390, affirmed in 34 Times L. R. 70, 144 L. T. Jo. 42; Metropolitan Water Board v. Dick, K. & Co. [1917] 2 K. B. 1, affirmed in [1918] A. C. 119, 8 B. R. C. 483, 117 L. T. N. S. 766, 87 L. J. K. Scrutton, Charter Parties & Bills of B. N. S. 370, 23 Com. Cas. 148, 34 Times L. R. 113, 16 L. G. R. 1, [1917] W. N. ed. 422; Kirchner v. Venus, 12 Moore Lading, art. 136; 2 Parsons, Contr. 9th 352, 82 J. P. 61; Scrutton, Charter Par- P. C. C. 361, 14 Eng. Reprint, 948, 5 Jur. ties & Bills of Lading, 8th ed. p. 91; Gei-N. S. 395, 7 Week. Rep. 455; Tirrell v. pel v. Smith, L. R. 7 Q. B. 414, 41 L. J. Gage, 4 Allen, 245. Q. B. N. S. 153, 26 L. T. N. S. 361, 20 Week. Rep. 332, 1 Asp. Mar. L. Cas. 268; The Gracie D. Chambers, C. C. A. 253 Fed. 182. The contract remains perfectly valid down to the time when the unforeseen event occurs. Any payments made under it, for instance, or any rights which may have become vested, are left untouched, and it is only from the time in question that the parties are excused from further responsibility. Chandler v. Webster [1904] 1 K. B. 493, 73 L. J. K. B. N. S. 401, 52 Week. Rep. 290, 90 L. T. N. S. 217, 20 Times L. R. 222; The Saratoga, 2 Gall. 178, Fed. Cas. No. 12,355; Scott v. Libby, 2 Johns. 336, 3 Am. Dec. 431; The Tutela, 6 C. Rob. 177; MacKinnon, Effect of War on Contr. Oxford, 1917, p. 18; Civil Service Soc. v. General Steam Nav. Co. [1903] 2 K. B. 756, 72 L. J. K. B. N. S. 933, 52 Week. Rep. 181, 89 L. T. N. S. 429, 20 Times L. R. 10; Lloyd Royal Belge Société Anonyme v. Stathatos, 33 Times L. R. 390; Metropolitan Water Bd. v. Dick, K. & Co. [1917] 2 K. B. 1; Appleby v. Myers, L. R. 2 C. P. 651, 36 L. J. C. P. N. S. 331, 16 L. T. N. S. 669; Oriental S. S. Co. v. Tylor [1893] 2 Q B. 524, 63 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 128, 4 Re: ports, 554, 69 L. T. N. S. 577, 42 Week. Rep. 89, 7 Asp. Mar. L. Cas. 377; The Gracie D. Chambers, C. C. A., 253 Fed. 182; 7 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 246; Carver, Carriage of Goods by Sea, 5th ed. p. 726; Greeves v. West India & P. S. S. Co. 22 L. T. N. S. 615; The Queensmore, 51 Fed. 250; Portland Flouring Mills Co. v. British & F. M. Ins. Co. 65 C. C. A. 344, 130 Fed. 860, certiorari denied in 195 U. S. 629, 49 L. ed. 352, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 787; Burn Line v. United States & A. S. S. Co. 89 C. C. A. 278, 162 Fed. 298; National Steam Nav. Co. v. International Paper Co. 154 C. C. A. 563, 241 Fed. 861; A. Coker & Co. v. Limerick S. S. Co. 118 L. T. N. S. 726, than the fault of the shipper, the cargo If, for any reason whatsoever, other fails to arrive at destination in merchantable condition, no freight is earned. Asfar v. Blundell [1896] 1 Q. B. 123, 65 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 138, 73 L. T. N. S. 648, 44 Week. Rep. 130, 8 Asp. Mar. L. Cas. 106; The Harriman, 9 Wall. 161, 19 L. ed. 629; The Kimball (Duncan v. Kimball) 3 Wall. 37, 44, 45, 18 L. ed. 50, 54; Willett v. Phillips, 8 Ben. 459, Fed. Cas. No. 17,683; Burn Line v. United States & A. S. S. Co. 89 C. C. A. 278, 162 Fed. 298. Where the voyage is interrupted by any cause, even by a peril excepted in of forwarding the cargo by another vesthe contract, the vessel has the privilege sel in order to earn its freight; but unless it does so forward the cargo to destination no freight is payable. Eng. Reprint, 818, 10 Revised Rep. 328; Hunter v. Prinsep, 10 East, 378, 103 The Tornado (Ellis v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co.) 108 U. S. 342, 347, 27 L. ed. 747, 749, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 746; 1 Parsons, Admiralty & Shipping, 231. frequently does provide that freight A contract of affreightment may and shall be prepaid upon shipment. In such a case, if the arrival of the cargo at destination is thereafter prevented by some cause excepted in the charter party (as English law differ upon the right of the by a peril of the sea), the American and vessel to retain the freight. The American and Continental law require the freight to be returned to the shipper, since it has not in fact been earned. The Kimball (Duncan v. Kimball) 3 Wall. 37, 44, 18 L. ed. 50, 54; National Steam Nav. Co. v. International Paper Co. 154 C. C. A. 563, 241 Fed. 861. Even under the English rule, the amount of the prepaid freight can be recovered as an item of damage if the vessel has failed to perform the voyage in consequence of a cause against which | 7,672; Braithwaite v. Aikin, 1 N. D. 455, it has not provided in its contract. 48 N. W. 354. M'Bride v. Marine Ins. Co. 5 Johns. 308. An embargo does not render performance illegal within the usual meaning of the term "illegality" Great Indian Peninsular R. Co. v. An embargo is almost inevitably inTurnbull, 53 L. T. N. S. 325, 1 Cab. & El. definite as to duration. 595, 33 Week. Rep. 874, 5 Asp. Mar. L. Cas. 465; Dufourcet v. Bishop, L. R. 18 Q. B. Div. 373, 56 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 497, 56 L. T. N. S. 633, 6 Asp. Mar. L. Cas. 109; Weir v. Girvin [1900] 1 Q. B. 45, 69 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 168, 48 Week. Rep. 179, 81 L. T. N. S. 687, 16 Times L. R. 31, 5 Com. Cas. 40, 9 Asp. Mar. L. Cas. 7. The clause, "the ship lost or not lost," is now very usual. This clause only refers to losses through excepted perils. Scrutton, Charter Parties & Bills of Lading, 7th ed. p. 304, note (f). Impossibility of performance is no excuse for the nonperformance of the obligations of a maritime contract. Wald's Pollock, Contr. p. 356; 1 Parsons, Contr. 9th ed. p. 603; Scrutton, Charter Parties & Bills of Lading, art. 79; Carver, Carriage of Goods by Sea, 6th ed. § 74, p. 102; Anson, Contr. p. 325; Spence v. Chodwick, 10 Q. B. 517, 116 Eng. Reprint, 197, 16 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 313; Hills v. Sughrue, 15 Mees. & W. 253, 153 Eng. Reprint, 844; Kearon v. Pearson, 7 Hurlst. & N. 386, 158 Eng. Reprint, 523, 31 L. J. Exch. N. S. 1, 10 Week. Rep. 12; Jacobs v. Credit Lyonnais, L. R. 12 Q. B. Div. 589, 53 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 156, 50 L. T. N. S. 194, 32 Week. Rep. 761, 1 Eng. Rul. Cas. 338; Budgett v. Binnington [1891] 1 Q. B. 35, 60 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 1, 39 Week. Rep. 131, 6 Asp. Mar. L. Cas. 592; Thiis v. Byers, L. R. 1 Q. B. Div. 244, 45 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 511, 34 L. T. N. S. 526, 24 Week. Rep. 611, 9 Eng. Rul. Cas. 225; Empire Transp. Co. v. Philadelphia & R. Coal & I. Co. 35 L.R.A. 623, 23 C. C. A. 564, 40 U. S. App. 157, 77 Fed. 919. It has long been regarded as an established principle of maritime law that an embargo does not abrogate but simply suspends the performance of a charter party. Lorent v. South Carolina Ins. Co. 1 Nott & M'C. 509; 2 Parsons, Contr. 9th ed. p. 828. The law upon the subject of embargo, as above stated, has the decided merit of treating the parties alike, and placing them upon an equal footing for the purpose of any negotiations looking toward the cancelation of the suspended charter, or the use of the vessel and specific cargo during the period of the embargo. A substitute voyage can be agreed upon, or the vessel may consent to discharge the cargo and return the freight, if prepaid, upon receiving from the shipper its obligation to furnish a substitute cargo at the same rate of freight as soon as the restraint shall be removed. If freight has not been prepaid, the vessel, before surrendering the cargo, is in a position to demand security that it will subsequently be given an opportunity to earn the freight. That the shipper, upon giving such security, may compel the surrender of his cargo, is suggested in the case of Palmer v. Lorillard, 16 Johns. 348. See also Braithwaite v. Aikin, 1 N. D. 455, 48 N. W. 354. The principle of "frustration of venture," in the sense in which it is urged by appellant, is a principle properly applicable only to contracts, or the severable portions thereof, remaining executory on both sides. Carver, Carriage of Goods by Sea, 6th ed. § 232, pp. 308, 309, 319; Admiral Shipping Co. v. Weidner, 114 L. T. N. S. 175. The cases relied upon by appellant to support its doctrine of frustration of venture either remained wholly executory on both sides, or were severable contracts which remained mutually executory as to the obligations in question. Horlock v. Beal [1916] 1 A. C. 486, 114 L. T. N. S. 193, 85 L. J. K. B. N. S. 602, 32 Times L. R. 251, 60 Sol. Jo. 236, 21 Com. Cas. 201; Tamplin S. S. Co. v. The William King, 2 Wheat. 148, 153, 4 L. ed. 206, 207; Hadley v. Clarke, 8 T. R. 259, 101 Eng. Reprint, 1377, 4 Revised Rep. 641; Carver, Carriage of Goods by Sea, 6th ed. § 242, p. 324; Abbott, Merchant Ships & Seamen, 14th ed. p. 874; 2 Parsons, Contr. 9th ed. 828; Odlin v. Insurance Co. of Pa. 2 Wash. C. C. 317, Fed. Cas. No. 10,433; M'Bride | Anglo-Mexican Petroleum Products Co. v. Marine Ins. Co. 5 Johns. 308; Palmer v. Lorillard, 16 Johns. 348; Baylies v. Fettyplace, 7 Mass. 324; Tirrell v. Gage, 4 Allen; 245; Lorent v. South Carolina Ins. Co. 1 Mott & M'C. 509; Kelly v. Johnson, 3 Wash. C. C. 45, Fed. Cas. No. [1916] 2 A. C. 397, 115 L. T. N. S. 315, 85 L. J. K. B. N. S. 1389, 32 Times L. R. 677; Scottish Nav. Co. v. W. A. Souter & Co. [1917] 1 K. B. 236, 115 L. T. N. S. 812, 33 Times L. R. 71, 61 Sol. Jo. 85, 22 Com. Cas. 154; Anglo-Northern Trad ing Co. v. Emlyn [1917] 2 K. B. 78, 116 | tered the vessel to carry a cargo of oil L. T. N. S. 414; Admiral Shipping Co. in barrels at the rate of $16.50 a barrel v. Weidner, 114 L. T. N. S. 175. (changed afterwards to $15.25). The following, among other of the cases principally relied upon by appellant under "frustration of venture," contained a "restraints of princes, rulers, and peoples," or similar exception. Geipel v. Smith, L. R. 7 Q. B. 404, 41 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 153, 26 L. T. N. S. 361, 20 Week. Rep. 332, 1 Asp. Mar. L. Cas. 268; Anglo-Northern Trading Co. v. Emlyn [1917] 2 K. B. 78; Scottish Nav. Co. V. W. A. Souter & Co. [1917] 1 K. B. 222, 115 L. T. N. S. 812, 33 Times L. R. 71, 61 Sol. Jo. 85, 22 Com. Cas. 154; Tamplin S. S. Co. v. Anglo-Mexican Petroleum Products Co. [1916] 2 A. C. 397, 85 L. J. K. B. N. S. 1389, 115 L. T. N. S. 315, 32 Times L. R. 677; E. Hulton & Co. v. Chadwick & Taylor, 33 Times L. R. 363; Lloyd Royal Belge Société Anonyme v. Stathatos, 33 Times L. R. 390, 34 Times L. R. 70, 144 L. T. Jo. 42. By failing to insert any exceptions in its charter party or bill of lading (other than the dangers of the seas), the Allanwilde, in the principal case, assumed an absolute obligation to deliver the cargo at Rochefort, France, from which obligation it will not be absolved by the court. Hills v. Sughrue, 15 Mees. & W. 253, 153 Eng. Reprint, 844; Budgett v. Binnington [1891] 1 Q. B. 35, 60 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 1, 39 Week. Rep. 131, 6 Asp. Mar. L. Cas. 592; The Harriman, 9 Wall. 161, 19 L. ed. 629; Empire Transp. Co. v. Philadelphia & R. Coal & I. Co. 35 L.R.A. 623, 23 C. C. A. 564, 40 U. S. App. 157, 77 Fed. 921. Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court: The questions in the cases arise upon libels filed against the Allan wilde to recover prepaid freight for the transportation [382] of certain goods and merchandise to designated ports in Europe. The solution of the questions turns upon (1) the asserted prevention of the adventure by a storm at sea which the vessel encountered, requiring her return to port for repairs, and (2) afterwards by the restraining power of the government. On November 1, 1917, the Allanwilde, owned by the Allanwilde Transport Corporation, was seized upon libels filed by the Vacuum Oil Company and A. W. Pidwell, respectively, each of which had shipped certain goods to be carried from New York to Rochefort, France. In May, 1917, the Oil Company char The charter party contained inter alia the following provisions: 66 freight to be prepaid net on signing bills of lading in United States gold or equivalent, free of discount, commission, or insurance. Freight earned, retained, and irrevocable, vessel lost or not lost." On August 25, the oil having been loaded, the vessel issued a bill of lading containing inter alia the following provision: "All conditions and exceptions of charter party are to be considered as embodied in this bill of lading." Pidwell was permitted to ship certain kegs of nails on the vessel, and on August 15 a bill of lading was issued to him. Inter alia it provided that the carrier should not be liable for loss, damage, delay, or default "by causes beyond the carrier's reasonable control; . . . by arrest or restraint of governments, princes, rulers, or peoples; by prolongation of the voyage; It is provided in 15 of the bill of lading that "full freight to destination, whether intended to be prepaid [383] or collected at destination, and all advance charges. are due and payable to (the Allanwilde Transport Corporation) upon the receipt of the goods by the latter and any payment made in respect of the goods shall be deemed fully earned and due and payable to the carrier at any stage before or after loading of the service hereunder without deduction (if unpaid), or refund in whole or in part (if paid), goods or vessel lost or not lost, or if the voyage be broken up; In pursuance of the contracts thus attested the oil and the nails were shipped on the Allan wilde and the freight was paid in advance,-$49,745.50 for the oil and $3,128 for the nails. The vessel was seaworthy and properly manned and equipped, and set sail September 11. After she had been out about fourteen days and was about 500 miles from New York, she encountered a storm so severe that her boats were carried away and she sprang a leak so threatening that the water in her hold was 3 or 4 feet deep and was gaining on the pumps. Thereupon the master properly decided that he must seek a port of refuge for safety and repair. Halifax was about 500 miles away, but in that direction the wind was against him, while it was favorable for New York, and on this account as well as for |