she is run a-ground, and becomes stationary, it is immaterial whether this be on piles, on the muddy bank of a river, or on rocks on the sea shore: but a mere striking will not do, wherever that may happen. I cannot look to the consequences without considering the causa causans. There has been a curiosity in the cases about stranding not creditable to the law. A little common sense may dispose of them more satisfactorily.

But in the case of Harman v. Vaux (a), it was held, where a ship is forced on shore, or is driven on a bank, and remains on the ground for any time, this constitutes a stranding, without reference to the degree of damage which she thereby sustains.

In another case of Carruthers v. Sydebotham (b), in the King's Bench, the question of stranding was much considered. By the 52 Geo. 3, c. 39, the general Pilot Act, the captain of every ship is obliged to take licensed pilots, where they can be had, under a penalty. But sect. 30 provides that no owner or master of any ship shall be answerable for any loss, nor prevented from recovering upon any insurance, by reason of any neglect, default, &c., of any pilot taken on board under any provisions of that act. Thus where a ship, under the conduct of a pilot, in her course up the river to Liverpool, was, against the advice of the master, fastened at the pier of the dock basin by a rope to the shore, left there, and she took the ground, and when the tide left her she fell over, by which seed (the subject-matter insured) was damaged: the Court held this to be a stranding, it not being essential to constitute a stranding that it be the consequence of storms, it being a sea peril, and immediately occasioned by sea water upon the strand (c).

(a) 4 Camp. 429, and see Barrow t. Bell, 4 B. & C. 736. In Baring v. Harkle, at Guildhall, 1801, 1 Marsh. 232, Lord Kenyon held, that where a ship was run foul of by two others and driven aground,

where she remained an hour, this
was not a "stranding."

(b) 4 M. & S. 77.

(c) See Thompson v. Whitmore, 3 Taunt. 227.

Where a ship shore and remains for any on the ground, this is a stranding.

is driven on

Where a ship duct of a pilot was fastened at the pier of a dock and left

under the con

there and took

the ground this

was held to be a "stranding."

But where by the natural course of the

navigation, the vessel by the

flux and reflux

of the tide
would be left
on the ground,
this is not a
"stranding."

And the Court held, that though this pilot was appointed under a local Liverpool Act of 37 Geo. 3, c. 78, yet the general Pilot Act, above referred to, expressly refers to pilots duly appointed within particular districts. This man was regularly appointed; and sect. 30 of the general act decides, that the misconduct of such an one shall not prevent the assured from recovering upon any insurance.

But it was decided in the case of Hearne v. Edmunds (a), where it is certain that, in the ordinary course of the navigation, the vessel would, by the flux and reflux of the tide, be left on the mud, that this is not a stranding within the meaning of that term in the policy.

And in a subsequent case of Rayner v. Godmond (b), Lord Chief Justice Abbott takes notice of this distinction. The circumstances of this case were as follows:-In the course of the voyage the ship arrived at a place called Beal Lock, and whilst she was there it became necessary, for the purpose of repairing the navigation, that the water should be drawn off. The master placed the vessel in the most secure place he could find, alongside of four other vessels. The water being then drawn off, all the vessels grounded, and the ship in question unfortunately grounded upon some piles in the river which were not known to be there, and the cargo received considerable damage. The part of the navigation where she took the ground was one in which vessels usually were placed when the water was drawn off. At the trial, Best, J., was of opinion that these facts amounted to a stranding, and the plaintiff had a verdict. Upon a motion for a new trial, which was refused, Abbott, C. J., said, "The case of Hearne v. Edmunds has relieved my mind from the only remaining difficulty which I felt in this case, which was, lest it should follow from our decision, or from that of Carruthers v. Sydebotham, that every settling on the ground by a vessel should be deemed a stranding; but that case was decided on a distinction, which leaves Carruthers v. Sydebotham a valid

authority; for there the accident happened in the ordinary course of the voyage; and on that ground the underwriters were held not to be liable. Here the loss did not so happen, for we cannot suppose that these canals are so constantly wanting repair, as to make the drawing off of the water an occurrence in the ordinary course of the voyage."

And in the more recent case of Bishop v. Pentland, (a) where the ship in the course of her voyage was compelled to put into a tide harbour, and was there moored alongside a quay, in the usual place for ships of her burthen, it became necessary, in addition to the usual moorings, to fasten her by tackle to posts on the shore, to prevent her falling over upon the tide leaving her. The rope with which she was thus fastened not being of sufficient strength, (b) broke when the tide left the vessel, and she fell over upon her side, and was thereby stove in and greatly injured. It was held, that this was a stranding within the meaning of that word in the policy. But that if she had merely taken the ground, without falling over by accident on her side, and been stove in, it would not have been a stranding. And Littledale, J., says, "There seems to be some contrariety of opinion as to the meaning of the term 'stranding.' That term, in its ordinary sense, means taking the ground, or being on the strand; but that is not the meaning of the word in a policy of insurance. For this vessel's taking the ground in the first instance was not a stranding within the meaning of the policy. I think it is immaterial whether a vessel takes the ground when she is in the course of, or at the end of the voyage. But when a vessel is on the ground, or stranded, in such a situation as she ought not to be in while prosecuting the voyage on which she is bound, that is a stranding within the meaning of the policy. In Hearne v. Edmunds, (c) the taking the ground

(a) 7 B. & C. 219.

(b) But though the accident was to be traced to the negligence of the crew as a remote cause, yet as the proximate cause of the loss

was one of the risks insured against the underwriters were held liable. See ante, p. 269.

(c) 1 Brod. & Bing. 388.

was no more than was usual with vessels of the same class proceeding up the river to Cork. When the vessel was on the ground, she was in that situation in which such a vessel proceeding on that voyage usually is in when the tide is low. So here, as long as the vessel lay on the ground, fastened to the shore by the rope, she was not stranded; but when the rope broke, and she fell over on her side, and lay on the ground, in that position, I think she was stranded within the meaning of the policy, because she then ceased to be in a situation in which a vessel driven by stress of weather into the port of Peele usually is."

In the late case of Wells v. Hopwood, (a) the question as to what constitutes a "stranding" was fully considered, and all the cases on the subject commented on by the learned Judges, in giving their opinions.

It was held by Lord Tenterden, C. J., Littledale, J., and Taunton, J., that the facts stated constituted a "stranding," within the meaning of that word in the policy. Parke, J., (now Mr. Baron Parke,) was of a different opinion.

The facts of this case were these. The ship sailed from London in June, and on the 21st of that month arrived at Hull harbour, which is a tide harbour, and proceeded to discharge her cargo at a quay on the side of it: this could be done at high water only, and could not be completed at one tide. At the first low tide the vessel grounded on the mud ; but on a subsequent ebb, the rope by which her head was moored to the opposite side of the harbour stretched, and the wind blowing from the east at the time, she did not ground entirely in the mud, which it was intended she should do, but her fore part got on a bank of stones, rubbish, and sand near the quay, and the vessel having strained, some damage was sustained by the cargo, but no lasting injury done to the vessel.

Lord Tenterden, C. J.-" Several of the cases hitherto decided on this subject are, as to their facts, very near to

(a) 3 B. & Ad. 20.

each other, and not easily distinguishable. But it appears to me that a general principle and rule of law may, although not explicitly laid down in any of them, be fairly collected from the greater number. And that rule I conceive to be this: where a vessel takes the ground in the ordinary and usual course of navigation and management in a tide river or harbour, upon the ebbing of the tide, or from natural deficiency of water, so that she may float again upon the flow of tide or increase of water, such an event shall not be considered a stranding within the sense of the memorandum. But where the ground is taken under any extraordinary circumstances of time or place, by reason of some unusual and accidental occurrence, such an event shall be considered as a stranding within the meaning of the memorandum. According to the construction that has been long put upon the memorandum, the words 'unless general, or the ship be stranded,' are to be considered as an exception out of the exception as to the amount of an average loss, provided for by the memorandum, and, consequently, to leave the matter at large according to the contents of the policy; and as every average loss becomes a charge upon the underwriters, where a stranding has taken place, whether the loss has been in reality occasioned by the stranding or no, the true legal sense of the word 'stranding' is a matter of great importance in policies upon goods. It appears to me, that upon the facts of this case, the event which has happened to this ship is within the second branch of the rule as above proposed. If the rope had not slackened, and the wind had not been in such a direction as it was, the vessel would have remained safe during the night; for, although raised by the influx of the tide, she would at its ebb have grounded again on the soft and even bottom over which she had been placed. The events that occurred, unusual and accidental in themselves, caused the vessel to quit that station, and go in part to another, where, upon the ebbing of the tide, her fore part rested on a stony bank, so as to be above her remaining part,