390 FEDEEAL REPORTEE. �Sfcoddard Bros., Liverpool, by whoin the ateam-ship is to be reported at the custom-house on her arrivai at Liverpool, or by their agent at aiiy ottier port of dlsciiarge." �(2) That the said chartered sbip Komulus did not proceed with all con- venient speed with liberty to take outward cargo, etc., to the South-west pass, or Key West, at captain's option, for orders from said Maury & Co., but did proceed to New .York, and from New York to Rouen, France, and from Rouen to Penarth, Wales, and from thence, October 29, 1879, to South-west pass, arriving there November 18, 1879, and then reporting to libellant for orders. �(3) That the defendants made from time to time varions propositions to the libellant to furnish him a sbip under the charter-party, as foilows: �September 1, 1879, an ofEer was made to send the Komulus, then in New York, to arrive in September. This was declined as too soon. The same day an ofEer was made of the Deronda, then in Liverpool, to arrive in September. It does not appear whether the Deronda answered the charter or not. This offer was also declined, as the arrivai would be too soon for libellant's engage- ments. �September 18, 1879, an offer was made of the Douro, to arrive at the end of October, which was declined as not complying with charter. �(4) That the defendants, Culliford & Clark, except as above set forth, made default and did not furnish the sbip Romulus, or a boat of similar size, to the said Maury & Co., as by the aforesaid contract they had bound themselves to do. �(5) That by the failure of said Culliford & Clark to comply with the terms of their said contract the said Maury & Co. were compelled to pay, and did pay, higher rates of freight on the cargo contracted to be shipped on said Eomulus, or boat of similar size, to-wit, on 4,500 baies of cotton, and suffered other damages as set forth on the libel flled in this case. �Thefirst objection argued to the court is that the said charter-party is a mere preliminary or preparatory contract, having reference to services of a maritime nature to be rendered ; and the case of The Tribune, 3 Samn. 144 is quoted. An examination of this case shows that while Judge Story admitted the proposition that the admiralty has no jiirisdiction over preliminary contracts leading to maritime contracts, he held that the juriadiction of the admiralty does not de- pend upon the name of the instrument, -whether it imports to be a maritime contract. He further held that an agreement for a char- ter-party to be made at a later period might amount to a present charter-party, notwithstanding ft more formai instrument was con- templated. �In the charter-party recited in this case there is a complete con- tract for maritime services to be rendered ; and no other instrument v?as contemplated at a later period, nor of a more formai character. ��� �
