FREIGHT. In Maritime Law. The sum agreed on for the hire of a ship, entirely or in part, for the carriage of goods from one port to another. 13 East 300. All rewards or compensation paid for the use of ships. Giles v. The Cynthia, 1 Pet. Adm. 206, Fed. Cas. No. 5,424 ; 2 B. & P. 321; Sansom v. Ball, 4 Dall. (U. S.) 459, 1 L. Ed. 908; Cher iot v. Barker, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 346, 3 Am. Dec. 437 ; Chitty, Com. L. 407. The price to be paid for the actual transportation of goods by sea from one place to another. Hagar v. Donaldson, 154 Pa. 242; The Norman Prince, 185 Fed. 169.
It is an inherent element in a contract of affreightment that a vessel shall enter on the voyage named and begin the carriage of the goods shipped, or, as it is technically called, "break' ground," before a claim for freight can arise, unless the shipper of the goods, the vessel remaining ready to enter on the voyage, undertakes to reclaim the goods. The circumstances under which the contract was entered into continuing the same, so far as respects the vessel, the shipper cannot reclaim the goods without paying the full freight ; The Tornado, 108 U. S. 342, 2 Sup. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 747 ; The Norman Prince, supra.
The amount of freight is usually fixed by the agreement of the parties; and if there is no agreement, the amount is to be ascer tained by the usage of the trade and the circumstances and reason of the case ; 3 Kent 173. See RATES. When the merchant hires the whole ship for the entire vdyage, he must pay the freight though he does not fully lade the ship ; Chitty, Com. L. 407; Heckscher v. McCrea, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 304; he is, of course, only bound to pay in propor tion to the goods he puts on board, when he does not agree to provide a full cargo. If the merchant agrees to furnish a return cargo, and he furnishes none, and lets the ship return in ballast, he must make com pensation to the amount of the agreed freight ; Giles v. The Cynthia, 1 Pet. Adm. 207, Fed. Cas. No. 5,424; 2 Vern. 210. See L. R. 6 Q. B. 528 ; DEAD FREIGHT.
The general rule is that the delivery of the goods at the place, of destination, in ful filment of the agreement of the charter-Party or bill of lading, is required, to entitle the master or owner of the vessel to freight; Frith v. Barker, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 327; China Mut. Ins. Co. v. Force, 142 N. Y. 90, 36 N., E. 874, 40 Am. St. Rep. 576 ; Thibault v. Rus sell, 5 Harr. (Del.) `293; Brittan v. Barnaby, 21 How. (U. S.) 527, 16 L. Ed. 177. If pre paid, it may be recovered back on a failure to make delivery unless expressly proVided otherwise in the 'contract; Burn Line v. U. S. & A. S. S. Co., 162 Fed. 298, 89 C. C. A. 278.
An interruption of the regular course of the voyage, happening without the fault of I the owner, does not deprive him of his freight if the ship afterwards proceeds with tlie cargo to the place of destination, as in the case of capture and recapture ; 3 C. Rob. 101; 3 Kent 223; but where a voyage is broken up by reason of the inexcusable de lay of the ship, resulting in damage to the shippers, he need not pay the freight ; Hoad ley v. The Lizzie, 39 Fed. 44. In case of the blockade of, or the interdiction of, commerce with the port to which the cargo is destined, and the return of the goods to the owner, no freight will be due ; Scott v. Libby, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 336, 3 Am. Dec. 431; 10 East 526 ; but see Morgan v. Ins. Co., 4 Dall. (U. S.) 455, 1 L. Ed. 907.
A shipowner, who is prevented from per forming the voyage by a wrongful act of the charterer, is prima facie entitled to the freight that he would have earned, less what it would have cost him to earn it; The Gazelle, 128 U. S. 474, 9 Sup. Ct. 139, 32 L. Ed. 496.
When the ship is forced into a port short of her destination, and cannot finish the Voyage, if the owner of the goods will not allow the master a reasonable time to repair, or to proceed in another ship, the master will be entitled to the whole freight; and if, after giving his consent, the master refuses to go on, he is not entitled to freight. See DEVIATION.