1. Shipping (§ 132*) — Liability foe Loss of Cargo — Seaworthiness of Yesse d — Pres umption.

Where disaster overtakes a vessel at the beginning of her . voyage, without stress of weather or other adequate cause appearing, the presumption is that she was unseaworthy when the voyage commenced, and the burden rests on the owner to avoid liability for cargo lost or injured to overcome such presumption by showing affirmatively that the ship was seaworthy.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Shipping, Cent. Dig. § 482; Dec. Dig. § 132.*]

2. Shipping (§ 121*) — Liability fob Loss of Cargo — Seaworthiness.

A ship is not seaworthy when from her improper loading she is rendered unfit to encounter the ordinary perils of navigation which could reasonably have been anticipated on the projected voyage.

I'Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Shipping, Cent. Dig. § 450; Dec. Dig. § 121.*]

3. Siupping (§ 138*) — Liability fob Loss of Cargo — Exemption ündek Harter Act.

Section 3 of the Harter act (Act Feb. 13, 1893, e. 105, 27 Stat. 445 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2946]), which exempts the owner of a vessel from liability for loss or injury to cargo resulting from faults or errors in navigation or in the management of the vessel if he has exercised due diligence to make the vessel in all respects seaworthy and properly maimed, equipped, and supplied, applies only to the vessel after the voyage has commenced, and cannot be invoked by an owner to relieve him from liability for cargo lost while the vessel is loading, through the nogligence of those in charge in permitting her to settle on the bottom and list until deck cargo fell overboard.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Shipping, Cent. Dig. § 492; Dec. Dig. § 138.*

Statutory exemptions of shipowners from liability, see notes to Nord-Deutscher Dloyd v. Insurance Co. of N. A., 49 C. C. A. 11; Ralli v. New York & S. T. S. S. Co., 83 C. C, A. 294.]

4. Appeal and Error (§ 1011*). — Review of Yerdict — Conflicting Evidence —“Faplt in Navigation.”

A steamer loaded with a cargo of shingles, both below and on deck, as she was being towed out of Humboldt Bay, Cal., where she loaded, on making a turn to enter the jetty listed heavily to port, shifted her deck load, and it was necessary to jettison a part of it before she could be righted. There were no unusual conditions of weather or tide. Held, that a finding would not be disturbed made by the trial court on conflicting evidence that the accident was due to the unseaworthiness of the vessel by reason of the manner in which she was loaded, rendering her unstable, and not to a peril of the sea, within the exemption in the bill of lading, nor to a fault in navigation within Harter Act Feb. 13, 1893, c. 105, § 3, 27 Stat. 445 (IJ. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2946).

TEd. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3983-3989; Dee. Dig. § 1011.*]

5. Shipping (§ 131*) — -Loss of Cargo — Decree—Interest.

An admiralty rule fixing the rate of interest to be allowed on judgments entered on a bond or stipulation for the release of property libeled has no application to a judgment for breach of a contract of carriage, in which ease the legal rate of interest of the state may properly be allowed.

[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Shipping, Dec. Dig. § 131.*] .

6. Shipping (§ 131*) — Loss of Cargo — Decree—Interest.

The fact that a decree against a shipowner for loss of cargo includes interest to the date of its entry does not make it error to award interest on the entire decree from that time forward.

[Ed. Note. — -For other cases, see Shipping, Dec. Dig. § 131.*]

7. Carriers (§ 125*) — Action for Loss of Goods — Effect of Payment of Loss by Insurer.

The fact that a cargo insurer has paid a loss due to fault of the ship does not.preclude a recovery against the vessel owner who is primarily liable therefor, and it is immaterial whether the action is brought in the name of the insurer or of the insured for its benefit.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. §§ 552-556; Dec. Dig. § 125.*]