The warranty of seaworthiness is by far the most important of the warranties implied by law. It enters as its very foundation into every contract of insurance on a ship. The general meaning of seaworthiness is, that a ship is in every particular of her condition competent to encounter safely the ordinary risks to which she must be exposed, at the place where, or during the period, or the voyage, for which she is insured. (p) l This warranty comprehends in its requirement everything used in the structure and fitting of the ship; her build and fastenings, (q) spars, sails, rigging, (r) boats, cables, and anchors, (s) all usual and proper papers and documents; food and water of sufficient quality and quantity; (t) fuel, charts; and such furniture and implements as are needed for safe navigation; (u) ballast, (v) pilotage, (w) and proper stowage of the cargo; (x) and a master, officers and crew, competent in number and ability. (y)

(k) See Ingraham v. South Carolina Ins. Co. 3 Brev. 622.

(kk) Bates v. Hewitt, Law Rep. 2 Q. B. 696.

(l) Sibbald v. Hill, 2 Dow, P. C. 263; Livingston v. Maryland Ins. Co. 7 Cranch, 606.

(m) Steel v. Lacy, 8 Taunt 285; Kirby v. Smith, 1 B. & Ald. 672.

(n) Chase v. Wash. Ins. Co. 12 Barb. 595; Suckley v. Delafield, 2 Caines, 222; Pawson v. Watson, 2 Cowp. 785; De Hahn v. Hartley, 1 T. K. 345. See Sawyer v. Coasters Ins. Co. 6 Gray, 221.

(o) Alsop v. Coit, 12 Mass. 40; Murray v. Alsop, 8 Johns. Cas. 47; Steel v. Lacy, 3 Taunt. 285; Houghton v. Manuf. Ins. Co. 8 Met 123.

1 That the disclosure of a material fact, coming to the knowledge of the insured after the acceptance of the risk and the binding the underwriter in honor, but before the issuing of the policy, is unnecessary, see Cory v. Patton, L. R. 7 Q. B. 304; 9 Q. B. 577; and Lishman v. Northern Maritime Ins. Co. L. R. 8 C. P. 216; 10 C. P. 179. As to the non-disclosure of an over-valuation so great as to make the risk speculative, see Ionides v. Pender, L. R. 9 Q. B. 531. See Gandy v. Adelaide Ins. Co. L. R. 6 Q. R 746.

* The warranty of seaworthiness must be fully complied with; but a defect or deficiency may exist in some one or other of the things above enumerated, and yet not be sufficient in extent or character to constitute a breach of warranty; and whether it be so or not, is generally a question of fact for the jury. Thus, few ships go to sea without some rot in some part of the wood, or some weakness or deficiency in the sails or rigging; and this may be wholly unimportant or extremely dangerous, or

(p) Dixon v. Sadler, 5 M. & W. 406; Knill v. Hooper, 2 H. & N. 277; Myers v. Girard Ins. Co. 26 Penn. State, 102; Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. May, 20 Ohio, 211.

(q) Watt v. Morris, 1 Dow, 32; Parker v. Potts, 8 id. 82; Bell v. Reed, 4 Binn. 127; Douglas v. Scougal, 4 id. 269.

(r) Wedderburn v. Bell, 1 Camp. 1.

(s) Wilkie v. Geddes, 8 Dow, 57.

(t) Fontaine v. Phoenix Ids. Co. 10 Johns. 58; Moses v. Sun Ins. Co. 1 Duer, 150; Kettell v. Wiggin, 18 Mass. 68. But a non-compliance with the provisions of a statute requiring the carrying of a certain quantity of water under deck, does not of itself render the vessel unseaworthy. Warren v. Manuf. Ins. Co. 18 Pick. 518; Deshon v. Merchants Ins. Co. 11 Met. 200. And the mere fact that all the water on board is carried on deck, does not, it has been held, of itself, as matter of law, render the vessel unseaworthy, but it is a fact tending to prove unseaworthiness. Deshon v. Merchants Ins. Co. 11 Met. 208.

(u) As to a medicine chest, see Woolf v. Claggett, 8 Esp. 267.

(v) Deblois v. Ocean Ins. Co. 16 Pick. 303. See Dixon v. Sadler, 6 M. & W. 405.

(w) Gibson v. Small, 4 H. L. Cas.

863; Dixon v. Sadler, 6 M. A W. 416, 8 M. & V7. 895; Law v. Hollingsworth, 7 T. R. 160; Phillips v. Headlam, 2 B. & Ad. 880; Stanwood v. Rich, 1 Phillips, Ins. § 716; Keeler v. Firem. Ins. Co. 8 Hill, 250; M'Millan v. Union Ins. Co. Rice, 248; De Pau v. Jones, 1 Brev. 437; Flanigen v. Wash. Ins. Co. 7 Barr, 306; Whitney v. Ocean Ins. Co. 14 La. 485.

(x) Chase v. Eagle Ins. Co. 6 Pick. 51; Weir v. Aberdeen, 2 B. & Ald. 320; Cin. Ins. Co. v. May, 20 Ohio, 211.

(y) Forshaw v. Chabert, 3 Brod. & B. 158; Walden v. N. Y. Ins. Co. 12 Johns. 136; Tait v. Levi, 14 East, 481; Draper v. Com. Ins. Co. 4 Duer, 234; Dow v. Smith, 1 Caines, 82; Silva v. Low, 1 Johns. Cas. 184; Cruder v. Phil. Ins. Co. 2 Wash. C. C. 262; Cruder v. Penn. Ins. Co. id. 880; Hucks v. Thornton, Holt, N. P. 80; Busk v. Royal Exch. Ass. Co. 2 B. & Ald. 73. It is generally necessary to have an officer on board competent to take the master's place in case of an emergency. Clifford v. Hunter, 8 Car. & P. 16; Gillespie v. Forsyth, 2 Law Rep. 257; Walden v. N. Y. Ins. Co. 12 Johns. 136; Treadwell v. Union Ins. Co. 6 Cow. 270; Copeland v. New England Ins. Co. 2 Met 432.

1 That it is not a compliance with the warranty of seaworthiness, that the ship is fit to encounter ordinary rough weather with safety to herself, because the deck cargo is such as may be readily jettisoned in such weather, was declared in Daniels v. Harris, L. R. 10 C. P. 1.

anywhere between these extremes; and whether it renders her unseaworthy, depends upon the test, whether it makes her unfit to encounter the ordinary perils to which she will be exposed; and the same rule applies to the sails and rigging, and everything else. Upon the trial of such questions, after evidence is received to determine as exactly as possible the facts of the case, experts are usually called to give to the jury their judgment, as to the influence of these facts.

It is obvious that seaworthiness must differ greatly under different circumstances. A ship may be insured only while in a certain port, (z) or for a coasting voyage, or a voyage to Europe, or a voyage round the world, or during a tempestuous season or a quiet one; and the seaworthiness required in every case is the seaworthiness of that vessel (a) for that place, time, or voyage. (b)