Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/216

^S8 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. case of average, there is no contract express or implied in an ordinary sense. This shows that contribution is founded on equality, and established by the law of all nations." General average is applied in all maritime countries to many cases besides jettison ; for instance, to the sacrifice of mast or rigging, extraordinary expenses in a port of necessity, and many others. When water was poured into the hold of a vessel to put out a fire, or the ship was scuttled for that purpose, adjusters in Eng- land, until the year 1873, refused to consider damage to goods by water, or to the vessel by cutting holes in the deck or hull, as a subject for contribution. It is now, however, held in all European countries, and in the United States and England, to come within the principle. This was established by the courts of the United States in 1855 and 1856, and in England in 1873. Among extraordinary expenses must be reckoned money paid for salvage. Such payment, whether voluntary or by order of the court, is a general average charge, and is properly so declared on in an action.^ This does not arise from any contract between the parties to the adventure, nor because the master is the agent of all parties, nor is the expense always voluntarily incurred. In a case of derelict where contribution in general average was claimed, one defence was that the expense was not incurred volun- tarily, meaning that no one connected with the adventure had ordered it, but judgment was given for the claim.^ So of military salvage decreed and paid for a recapture by the navy.^ No one can doubt that naval officers are as much servants of the govern- ment as fire companies are servants of a municipality. In one case, the House of Lords held that money paid by the master under a contract, which he had made with a salvor, was not binding on the owner of the cargo as a contract, but that a reasonable share of the salvage money might be recovered by the shipowner from the cargo-owner, and that the determination of the amount should have been left to the jury.* These decisions show that a general average sacrifice need not 1 Briggs V. Traders' Association, 13 Q. B. 167 ; Akerblom v. Price, 7 Q. B. D. 129; Ocean S. S. Co. v. Anderson, 13 Q. B. D. 651. 2 Briggs V. Traders' AssociatioH, 13 Q. B. 167. 8 The Racehorse, 3 Rob. loi. 4 Anderson v. Ocean S. S. Co., 10 App. Cas. icy.