Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/942

$28 FEDUBAIi BEPOBTEB. �apportion them accordingly; that is, a moiety of theaggregate against each of the parties. Exceptions by libellant are that the expenses from port of departure to place of collision and return to port of repair (which is port of departure) have net been allowed. The rule is "restitutio in integram;" but, to ascertain under that rule what is allowable, the courts have been compelled to exclude the inquiry into speculative or pos- sible profits. �It may seem that the fuU restitution against a maritime tort should cover ail the expenses of a voyage ; yet it may be that the voyage was a losing one, and hence its interruption v?as no actual loss. Where loss of freight occurs, — that is, net loss, — the amount may be included; but there is no sueh item here. Hence the libellant's exceptions must be over- ruled. The Baltimore, 8 Wall. 377; The Cayuga, 14 Wall. 270; The Atlas, 93 U. S. Eep. 302. �None of the cases cited do more than state the general rule ; yet that rule, in its application, must control. Eespond- ent, on the other hand, excepts on the ground that the demur- rage is fixed at too high a rate. An examination of the testi- mony shows that $100 par day would be a fair rate for a charter-party, instead of $140 per day. �The exceptions of respondent are sustained; and, instead of sending the cause back to the commissioner, the amount of damage wiU be reduced accordingly. �NoTB. See Ouibert de Son. v. Tke British Ship George Bell, 3 Fkd. Rbp. �fiSl. ���END OF CASES IN VOL. 4 ����