632 FEDEBAIi BSPOBTEB. �parties, — invoked by the libellant. The doctrine bas no ap- plication here. Whether it would avail the libellant if it had, need not be considered. �It is much to be regretted that Funch, Edye & Co. did not immediately communicate Peter Wright & Sons' repudiation of the paper, to the libellant, on receiving notice of the fact. The ship had not then sailed, and no serions loss would have resulted, had this been done. The position they assumed, — that th,eir agency closed with the signing of the charter, — rests on a very contracted view of their duty,— the adoption of which they may yet, possibly, have occasion, to regret. �The libel must be dismissed, with costs. ���The Vesta. �{District Court, D. Massachusetts. Febraary, 1881.) �1. Chabter-Pabty— QooD Bea Ribii:. ' �A vessel was chartered for the transportation of wl^at in bulk; �under a ■warranty thiat she should be tight, stauncb, and stroog, and �in every way fltted for the voyage. SM, under the circumstances of ' �this case, that it was essential that the vessel shouid be a ^ood sea �. tisfe for the marchandise specifled as caTgo.— [Ed. �Shattuck, Holmes e Monroe,, for libellant, a �11. S. Dabney, for respondent. �Nelson, D. J. The libellant, being the charterer of the Russian bark Vesta, then on her way from Friedland to Del- aware breakwater, by a charter-party dated October 22, 1879, rechartered her to the respondent for a voyage from Boston to either of certain specified ports in the United Kingdom and on the continent of Europe. By the terms of the char- ter-party the respondent engaged to provide and fumish to the vessel a fuU and complete cargo of wheat "^f Indian corn. The libellant engaged that the vessel should prepare for bulk ^^^ bag grain at her expense ; that she should be tight, staunch, and strong, and in every way fitted for ��� �
