1. Insurance — Marine Insurance — Admiralty Jurisdiction.

Sums paid out to avert a loss, which, if it had occurred, would have fallen upon the underwriter, may fairly be regarded as in the nature of salvage expenses, and may be brought within the meaning of the sue and labor clause of a marine policy; and the fact that there were expenses incurred to save the cargo alone, and that these expenses were incurred on land, cannot defeat the jurisdiction of a court of admiralty of a suit for their recovery under the policy.

2. Same — Sue and Labor Clause — Expenses oe Salvage of Cargo.

Respondent issued a marine policy insuring libelant on a cargo of perishable goods which were to be shipped from Tacoma to Dawson, Yukon Territory, in vessels having refrigerating compartments. The policy insured against ordinary sea perils, including stranding or collisions with any other vessel or with ice, and contained the usual sue and labor clause. The cargo was shipped in one vessel to St. Michaels, and there transferred to another, both owned by the libelant, for transportation up the Yukon river. The latter vessel was delayed several days by stranding, and, owing to the very low stage of water and the lateness of the season, the master telegraphed libelant’s manager at Dawson, and had a light draft steamer sent down, to which a portion of the cargo was transferred. On reaching Circle City in October, the river above had become partially closed by ice, and navigation was dangerous. After consultation between libelant’s master and manager, the refrigerating vessel was there laid up and the lighter one proceeded until frozen in 70 miles from Dawson. The latter vessel had no refrigerating plant. Both vessels wore in danger of being crushed or disabled when the ice broke up in the spring, and in that event both cargoes would have been lost, owing to the nature of the goods and the impossibility of transporting them at that season, without refrigeration, even if not destroyed. After consultation between libelant and a representative of respondent, with the latter’s consent, both cargoes were transported to Dawson by land during the winter. Held, that the cargo was in a position of peril from risks insured against, and that the expense of such transportation was within the sue and labor clause of the policy.

[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 28, Insurance, § 1255.]

3. Same.

In such case libelant was not required to jettison a part of the cargo for the purpose of lightening the vessel, instead of transferring a part to another vesselthe latter course not being in violation of any provision of the policy.

4. Same — Peril to Cargo Through Delay — Stranding.

The vessel used for the Yukon voyage having been seaworthy when such voyage commenced, the fact that her boilers afterward developed leaks owing to her frequently stranding, by reason of which she was somewhat delayed, did not invalidate the policy, where hut for the delays caused by stranding, which was a peril insured against, she would have completed the voyage in safety.

[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 28, Insurance, § 1111. Marine insurance. — Perils of the sea, see note to 19 C. C. A. 465.]

5. Same.

The fact that respondent dealt with libelant with knowledge that It was the owner of both the cargo and vessel did not warrant the claim that it was its duty to deliver the goods at their destination at its own expense, which could not have been required of it as carrier after the continuance of the voyage became impossible.

-6‘. Same — Adjustment op Loss.

While an adjuster of a ■ loss under an insurance policy cannot- decide questions of law where they are the sole questions in controversy, he is required to pass on such as are incidentally necessary to a determination of the items which are within the terms of the policy.