826 FEDERAL REPORTER. �charges, which would necessarilyfaave been incurred in eam- ing the same, and which were saved to the owner by the acci- dent, tôgether with interest on the same from the date of the probable termination of the voyage;" referring to and adopt- ing the rule as stated by the registrar in The Canada, before cited.- The Gayuga, 14 Wall. 278; 4 Fbd. Eep. 928. Resti- tutio in, iittegrum being the rule in cases of this nature, and the wrong-doer, by the weight of authority, being held to make good ail the damages sustained by reason of hia îault, whether th€ loss of the ship was total or partial, in the opinion of the court, the net profits which the libellants woiiH have realized from the agreement for her employment, for the season under wMeh she was mailing, were properly allowed by the assessor as part' of the damages. This contract was obligatory on both parties, according to the report of the assessor and the additional testimony, and neither party could refuse to com- plete itwithout subjecting himself to a claim for damages. The rtspoH'finds "it was a profitable contract for the Hope to the estent of $460," if she had not been prevented from eam- ing it bytbe wrong-doingof the Freddie L. Porter. The case, therefofe, is within the principle of The Canada and The Con- sett, arçd the claim for the net profits of the contract for em- ployment for the season was rightfully allowed. �The only distinction between these cases and the present, waiving the question of total or partial loss, is that here the hiring of the Hope was for a fixed term of time instead of her being cbartered for a single trip. This contract she had en- tered upon and in part completed; nearly one-half of the time of her employment had expired, and she was in the per- formance of it at the time of her destruction, while in the other caseS" the vessel was at the time of the loss sailing on an intermediate voyage to a port of destination, where her charter was to commence, and she was to receive a cargo in accordance with her charter. In the opinion of the court, this difference does not afford any support to the claim of the schooner that the right to recover for the loss of freight is too remote and contingent to be allowed, but rather tends to sua- ����
