REFERENCES FOR READING
Charter-Parties, XVI American Law Review, 6330.
Charter-Parties and Bills of Lading, T. E. Scrutton. London, 1899; Clowes and Cons, Ltd.
Shipping and Admiralty, Parsons, 274-337.
Shipping and Admiralty, Desty, §§ 217-286; 196-285.
Crossman v. Burrill, 179 U. S. 100.
Moore v. Sun Ass'n, 183 U. S. 642.
Boskenna Bay, 36 Fed. 697.
Majestic, 56 Fed. 244.
Centurion, 57 Fed. 412.
Shipping and Admiralty, Parsons, Vol. I, Chapter VIII.
Admiralty, Hughes, Chapters VII, VIII.
Francis, 21 Fed. 715.
Sprott, 70 Fed. 327.
Ronalds, 109 Fed. 905.
Burrill, 65 Fed. 104.
Dene, 103 Fed. 983.
Ely, 110 Fed. 563.
Dixie, 46 Fed. 403.
Mencke v. Sugar, 187 U. S. 248.
Charter-Parties and Ocean Bills of Lading, Poor.
[16] It may be inferred, however, that, if it had appeared that the requisition necessarily rendered the performance of the entire contract impossible, the charter would have been held to be dissolved. In this case, it was the owner, who saw a chance to make more money, who wanted the charter annulled; not the charterer whose adventure was being frustrated in a manner advantageous to him. It is a little difficult to suppose that the court would have required the charterers to go on paying charter hire, had they been unwilling to do so, for a vessel of which the government had deprived them of the use. Still, that conclusion is deducible from the language of the several lords who wrote opinions in the case.