[151] 247-Crew Hired Aboard a Vessel for a Percentage of the Profits

A patron who is sailing with a crew hired on the basis of a percentage of the profit shall make all these agreements and promises in writing with all the members of the crew who had agreed to sail with him for a percentage of the profit the vessel will make. In addition, he shall cause these written agreements to be made in the presence of the majority or all of the crew, and shall state what part of the profit will accrue to the vessel, what part to the crew, who shall get a larger portion, and specify the amount. All this shall be done in order to prevent a chance of any dispute between the patron and the crew at the time the profit is divided.

Further, the patron shall show all or the majority of the sailors collectively, if all of them cannot be assembled at the same moment, all the equipment aboard the vessel in order that should the crew together with the patron agree and decide that the equipment needed repair or reinforcement, the patron shall authorize the clerk to expedite this, so that later on there shall not be a possibility of a dispute between the patron and the crew over this matter, and above all so that the crew could not make any accusations, if part of the equipment should have been lost, that they had not seen any such equipment aboard the vessel, which they are asked to share in the cost of purchasing.

If the master of the vessel proceeds in the manner outlined above, the crew shall sail with him and perform all the tasks as if it was being paid a set sum of money. Furthermore, the crew cannot make any kind of reservations or objections except those that had been discussed in the previous articles. Thus, the patron of a vessel shall honestly and fairly divide any profits that he had made due to the goodness of God, giving each sailor his share as had been agreed between them and entered into the ship's register.

[152] The navigator under the penalty of perjury shall estimate and ascertain the exact amount due to the crew in order that the members of the crew be paid fully and honestly whatever the patron of the vessel promised each one of them at the time of the enlistment. The clerk under the threat of the same penalty as had been prescribed for the navigator shall declare the amount due to the vessel and shall not do anything that would be more beneficial to the vessel than to the crew, but be very vigilant in order that the vessel as well as the crew receive and be given its just and honest share of the profit.

In addition, the clerk and the navigator should receive the amount that had been agreed upon when the enlistment of the crew was made. If there had been no agreement made concerning these matters, the clerk and the navigator shall receive one share each as a token of the trouble and care they had given to the welfare of the crew. However, these two shares shall be taken from the whole amount of the profit earned by the vessel.

Let us now discuss the various situations that may arise. If a vessel while sailing loses a mast, sailing-yard, or any of its sails, the crew shall not be required to pay for any of these damages, if the patron or the navigator had not issued an order to furl the sails before the mast, the sailing-yard, or sails were damaged or lost. If, however, the patron had given an order to furl the sails and the sailors failed to obey his order and as a result the equipment mentioned was lost, the crew shall be held responsible for this damage, which means that the whole crew shall share the payment for these damages.

If the patron of a vessel had given an order to drop the anchor at the spot where the vessel was located, and the crew informed him or the navigator that the anchor chains that he had ordered them to lower were not sufficiently strong to hold the anchors and due to this the anchors were lost, and the patron as well as the navigator although informed about the condition of the anchor chains had not ordered that anchor chains be replaced, the sailors should not be held responsible for the damages that resulted, because they had informed the patron and the navigator about this matter. If, however, the crew had not apprised the captain nor the navigator about the poor condition of the anchor chains and subsequently the anchors were lost, they shall be held responsible for the damage, because they had dropped the anchors without informing those in authority that the anchor chains were too weak and worthless.

Further, if due to a misfortune the vessel shall be wrecked or founder on the shoals, and the profit made by the vessel shall be sufficient to pay for the repairs of whatever damage had been caused, the patron may use the money for this purpose. Should the patron be unwilling to undertake the repairs, it should be evaluated and submitted [153] to an auction between the patron and the crew members, and the minimum bid shall be the amount the vessel is estimated to be worth after it had been wrecked. If the master and the crew could not agree on the value of the vessel, the dispute should be turned over for adjudication to two Elders who are well versed in all the phases of the art of sailing, and whatever they declare shall be carried out.

If some of the equipment had been salvaged, it and all other salvage shall be evaluated and given to the patron. After the patron's claim had been satisfied, and there should remain some of the mutually earned profit, it shall be divided among all others in accordance with the predetermined arrangements.

If it should happen that the mutually made profit will not be sufficient to pay for the damage to the vessel, which had been partly or totally wrecked, the crew shall not be required to pay any of the damage whatsoever, since they themselves had lost enough, namely their time and their labor. Nevertheless, the crew is required to aid the master fully and loyally in salvage operations and return to him everything that had been salvaged.

Further, if it should happen that the vessel had earned no profit, the crew shall be obliged to pay the patron for their food rations the full amount he expended for it from the day of their enlistment until the day they leave the service of the vessel. They shall repay him this expense without any delay and opposition, for he has lost enough of his personal wealth using his vessel and his time. The patron can bring charges against the sailor who would refuse to pay him for these rations in the same manner that he would do if he had entrusted some money to the sailor and had written proof of it, and such a sailor should be imprisoned as long as he will not satisfy the patron and will not pay him the full amount owed to him, or until he makes some other agreement with the patron.

Further, if the patron can see and knows that the sailor who is refusing to pay for his rations is not doing this moved by hate or malice but only due to the fact that he has no means with which to pay the patron, the latter shall be willing to wait and give the sailor sufficient amount of time to make it possible for him to pay what he owes, provided that the sailor makes this obligation valid in writing or procures a guarantor, in order that the patron and his beneficiaries shall be safeguarded.

Further, if a member of the crew should lose some object while serving aboard the vessel and the vessel had earned a profit, the sailor shall be compensated for the lost article provided he can prove his claim. If he cannot prove his loss, no compensation shall be paid him. If it should happen that the vessel had earned no profit, no one will be required to pay for any lost articles, regardless of how many [154] witnesses can testify to the validity of the claim, for everyone aboard had already lost enough, namely, his time and the labor he had performed aboard the vessel.

This article was written because there are many patrons who command old and decayed vessels , well aware of the fact that the crew shares in the damages to a vessel, would take steps so that they would at the slightest opportunity see to it that the vessel would be wrecked and in this manner recover more in damages than the worth of two such vessels.

For this reason, therefore, sailors hired on share basis in the profit the vessel will earn are responsible in case the vessel is wrecked for the damage only to the amount of the profit the vessel had earned, as had been stated and explained in the preceding article. ⁽¹⁾

248-Marine Equipment Commandeered by Armed Vessels

If a vessel sailing with a crew hired on share in the profit basis is unfortunate to meet armed ships and these ships take their sail or sails, lines or a line, anchor or anchors, or any other equipment, the whole crew shall share in the payment for this loss, meaning that every member of the crew shall share in paying for them. It should also be understood that if the vessel had earned any profit, it shall be used to pay for the equipment taken by the armed vessel.

If it should happen that the earnings made by the vessel are insufficient to pay for the cost of the lost equipment, the crew hired to serve aboard the vessel on percentage of profit basis are not required to participate in the payment for the lost equipment, because neither these sailors nor anyone else who leaves his home in order to earn money by sailing with someone does this with a conviction that if a vessel on which he agreed to serve should meet with a misfortune, his property left at home should be used to help to pay for the damage that the vessel on which he serves may suffer; if he were obliged to do so, it would have been better for him if he had remained at home. In addition, there is still another reason, and that is that such a sailor had lost enough already, namely, his time, the labor he put in aboard the vessel, and the clothing he has worn out.

Further, if the profit made by the vessel is sufficient to pay for the equipment taken off the vessel, the patron who shall be paid for the damage should take an oath in the presence of the entire crew that he shall do everything in his power and as soon as possible to make up [155] these losses. If he is able to make up the loss, he shall repay the sailors the amount he had received in damages for the equipment taken forcibly by the armed vessels, and he shall do this without any opposition.

If it should happen that some of the sailors would assert that the loss of the equipment commandeered by the armed vessels should not be replaced at the expense of the money earned by their vessel, since the loss occurred due to fate, such a proposition cannot and should not be accepted. If these sailors or others by act of God or stroke of good luck found a chest filled with money or other very valuable items or a chest of equal value or other such items from which they could derive great benefit, there would be not one who would not like to take a share of such a find and would be eager to take even a larger share than would be due them, if this was possible.

Under such circumstances it is proper that in a situation where everyone wants to share without hesitation in the profit, similarly all should also share mutually in the damage that has occurred due to ill fate.

This article was written for the reasons stated above.

249-Waterlogged Cargo Carried in an Open Boat

If the merchants engaged an open vessel to ship their cargo ⁽²⁾ and after the cargo had been loaded aboard, it had become waterlogged or spoiled due to sea water that had seeped into the vessel or rain, the patron shall not be held accountable to the merchants in any degree, because this had not happened by his negligence; both he and the merchants knew very well that the vessel that they had cargoed was a vessel without any decks. ⁽³⁾

If a patron of an open boat was located in a place where he could procure and place a canopy over the cargo, and the weather did not prevent him from accomplishing this, but he failed to take this precaution, the merchants can demand that he pay them damages for the spoiled cargo if they can prove his negligence for not protecting their cargo with a canopy.

Further, if the patron was located in an area where the volume of the sea waves and the power of the wind prevented him from spreading a canopy over the cargo or it rained so hard that the canopy could not hold the accumulation of the rain water, he shall not be obliged to pay for the damages to the cargo, which had become waterlogged or spoiled under the circumstances discussed above.

[156] Further, if, however, the vessel was swamped by sea water that poured over the gunwales and the cargo was damaged, the master of the vessel shall pay the damages suffered by the merchants to whom the cargo belonged. If, however, the cargo is damaged by water that seeped in below the gunwales even though the vessel was well tarred, the patron shall not be required to pay damage to the merchants to whom the cargo belonged, because his vessel was properly and well tarred.

Further, if a patron had promised some merchant that he would store his cargo well protected by a good canopy, but he did not protect it with such a canopy, and in spite of the promises given stored the cargo in some other location and the cargo became waterlogged or spoiled, the patron shall pay the merchant to whom the cargo belonged damages, because he did not store the cargo under a canvas as he had agreed with the merchant.

If the patron had stored the cargo as he had promised, but the cargo became waterlogged or spoiled in spite of all the precautions, he shall not be obliged to pay for the damage, because he had proceeded as he had promised the merchant that he would, and the merchant had agreed to provide the cargo under these conditions. Therefore, if the cargo should become waterlogged or spoiled when it is stored under a canopy, the patron will not be required to pay any damages because he had not been negligent.

Let, therefore, every patron be most careful in the promises he makes to the merchants, because he shall be bound to keep these promises.

This article was written for the above named reasons.

250-Employment of a Pilot

A patron who had leased a vessel for the purpose of sailing into waters unknown to him or any other person aboard the vessel should hire an experienced pilot; the pilot shall inform and satisfy the patron that the waters into which they shall sail are well known to him.

If the patron had been informed by the pilot that the latter knows every part of the waters to which the patron intends to sail in order to deliver the cargo he was engaged to carry, and if the pilot fulfills faithfully and diligently all the promises he had made to the patron, the patron shall pay him the full amount he had promised him without any hesitation, and should even pay him more than he had promised him, depending on the degree of knowledge he had of those waters and the type of service he had given, for the pilot had kept all the promises he had made to the patron.

Further, all the agreements that the patron had concluded with the [157] pilot should be according to the custom entered in the register of the vessel, in order that no disputes would be likely to issue between the patron and the pilot.

If it should happen that the pilot would not know the waters in the locality that he had claimed he knew well and will not be able to perform the services that he had agreed to perform, he should be immediately decapitated, and no mercy or leniency should be given him. The patron of the vessel may order that his head be cut off without taking this matter before any tribunal of justice if he does not wish to do this, because the pilot lied to him and exposed him, all those who are in his company aboard the vessel, as well as the vessel and everything aboard it.

It shall not, however, be within the exclusive determination of the master of the vessel whether the pilot is decapitated. Such a decision shall be reached after consultation and examination of the issue by the navigator, the merchants, and the rest of the crew. If the majority or all of those mentioned above have determined that the pilot shall be decapitated, the sentence shall be carried out; if they should decide otherwise, he will not be executed. Their verdict and no other punishment shall be inflicted upon the pilot, for if the pilots were left entirely to the disposition of the patrons, it could happen that the pilots would be decapitated merely to satisfy the hate that the patrons bore toward them, or in order to pocket the wages that were due to the pilots. Among the patrons as well as among other people there are those who lack all proper judgment, and there are also many patrons of vessels who do not know how to sail the vessel forward or backwards, and do not even have a conception of what the sea is. It would, therefore, be a great injustice that a person should lose his life due to some perversion or willfulness of a patron.

Let, therefore, all who enlist aboard a vessel as a pilot beware before they agree to such service that they are able to perform the service they had agreed to in order that the punishment prescribed above or some other punishment would not be inflicted upon them.

251-Security Personnel Aboard a Vessel

Every master of a vessel shall immediately, after unfurling the sails and departing from the port where the voyage began, appoint proper security personnel to watch over the vessel while it is under sail as well as when it is anchored in a port, near a shore, or in a canal, both in friendly as well as unfriendly territory.

If the vessel security guard should fall asleep while the vessel is under sail, he shall be deprived of wine rations for a single day as his punishment. If the guards fall asleep while on duty and the vessel [158] is moored near the shore, in a port, or in a canal, they shall be deprived of their wine rations and meat, fish, or cheese rations that they get with their bread rations for one day. If it should happen that the guard falls asleep while on duty in an enemy territory, and the guard who fell asleep was guarding the prow portion of the vessel, in addition to being deprived of the rations mentioned above , he shall be whipped by the whole crew, or dunked in the sea three times while tied to a line; it will depend upon the patron and the navigator which of the two punishments will be inflicted upon him. If the offending guard fell asleep while guarding the stern of the vessel, he shall be deprived of his rations and drenched from head to foot with a bucket of sea water.

If one of the guards mentioned above had fallen asleep more than three times while on duty, he should be deprived of his wages for the entire voyage. If he had already been paid, he shall return his wages or be dunked in the sea, depending on the choice of punishment decided upon by the patron and the crew, because he had endangered his own life as well as the lives of all aboard the vessel.

For this reason the above article was written.

252-Salvaged Cargo

If some cargo is salvaged in the shallows, in port, or on the shore, regardless of whether it has been floating on the water or has been washed ashore, anyone who salvages such a cargo in the shallows, in port, or on the shore, if the waves had washed it ashore, shall be allowed to keep half of such cargo, provided he has notified the local civil authority about it. The governmental authorities shall place such cargo on public display for a year and a day. If the salvaged cargo would be of a variety that might spoil, it shall be sold and the money received for it shall be kept for the above mentioned period.

If after this period of time the owner of the cargo or the money received for it is not discovered, the local authorities shall present the finder of such cargo half of it. The remainder shall be divided into two equal parts. One part shall be retained by the local civil authority, and the other part shall be offered for the glory of God to an institution that shall be in need and where they will pray for the soul of the original owner of the cargo.

If the cargo that had been salvaged had been washed ashore, the finder shall be allowed to keep it, as will be decided by the Elders of the locality where the cargo was found. The same procedure shall be followed as had been explained above, and the share retained by the civil authorities shall also be divided in the same manner.

Further, should such cargo be found in the bay or on the open seas, [159] it should be divided in the manner prescribed in one of the preceding articles, and there is no need to repeat or explain this at the present moment.⁽⁴⁾ If it should happen that the cargo should be found at the bottom of the sea because it is too heavy to float on top of the water, it should not be sold or disposed of in any other manner, because cargo salvaged from the bottom of the sea shall be kept until claimed by its owner. The party who salvaged such cargo shall be amply rewarded according to the determination made by the local civil authority and two members of the Sea Guild who are trustworthy and who will be capable of arbitrating the issue judiciously. The civil authority shall place the cargo on public display and retain the money realized from the sale of such cargo, if such cargo was in danger of spoilage, as had been stated above.

If after the time set by the local authority or established by custom the rightful owner does not appear to claim such cargo, and no other person presents a claim against such a cargo, the town crier shall be ordered to make a daily announcement of this matter for thirty days. If the owner of this cargo appears to claim it within this thirty-day period, the cargo shall be given to him. Otherwise the cargo shall be divided in the manner prescribed in the article dealing with salvage of floating cargo; this should be done because the time set by the authorities for claiming of such a cargo by its rightful owner had passed.

Further, the above should be understood as follows: that the finder or finders of such a cargo had made acknowledgement of this to the local authorities within three days after finding such a cargo, provided that they shall be in a locality where such civil authority exists. ⁽⁵⁾

If the finders of such cargo failed to report this matter within three days, they shall do it within a period of six days; if they are unable to make this report in six days, they shall be required and must do it within a period of ten days in order to avoid damages, losses, and deceit. If they should fail to report this matter to the proper authority within ten days, they shall be compelled to surrender the salvaged cargo under the circumstances mentioned before and treated as thieves in order to prevent them from disposing of the cargo in an arbitrary manner. They shall also lose all the rights they formerly had to the cargo that they had salvaged.

[160] Further, if the finder or finders of the goods did not report the matter to the proper authority within the ten-day period, but they can establish justifiable reasons why they failed to do this within the period prescribed by law, they shall be adjudged innocent of any attempt to deceive the local authority. They shall, however, be required to prove the circumstances that prevented them from fulfilling this obligation; otherwise action shall be taken against them by the authorities as had been mentioned above.

Further, if the cargo had been found and salvaged after an interval of one year and a day from the date it had been lost, its owner cannot make any claim upon it, and it should be adjudged the property of the party or parties who found it. This is just and proper, for with the exception of iron, steel, and other metals, any cargo that had been lost and remained underneath the sea, floating on the sea, or near the edge of the sea for a period of one year could hardly be identified by any markings or signs by which the owner could pretend or claim that this cargo belonged to him, unless he should be able to do this with the help of opportunistic people. Therefore, cargo found under such circumstances shall belong to the party who found it.

Further, if a party claims that such cargo had belonged to him and makes a deposition under oath that such cargo is his and had belonged to him, it shall be given to him provided that the party who found and salvaged the cargo is willing to return it to him and is given an award the amount of which shall be decided by the finder; if the finder refuses to return the cargo to the party who claims he is the rightful owner, he cannot be forced to do this by the authorities, unless the claimant would be able to prove with the aid of trustworthy witnesses that the cargo had belonged to him.

If, as had been stated above, he shall be able to prove that the cargo had belonged to him and is anxious to recover all of the salvaged cargo, he shall pay the finder all the expenses and costs incurred in recovering this cargo, and the amount shall be determined by the local authorities and arbitrated by two trustworthy Elders.

If the finder or finders of such cargo used it as a collateral for some transaction and made a profit, but in spite of this demanded that they be allowed to retain the salvaged cargo, they shall be rewarded as the custom directs. Any profit they made by the use of the cargo as a collateral or in some other manner shall be subtracted from the amount of their award.

This article has been written for the reasons mentioned above.

253-Agreements Concluded in a Bay or on the Open Sea

If an agreement is made or a promise given or an obligation assumed [161] while the vessel is in a bay or on the open sea or any other part of the sea, it shall not be binding, regardless of the reason why such an agreement or promise was made, unless at the time such an agreement or promise was made the vessel was moored to the shore by a mooring line or some other line. This is due to the fact that very often there are aboard a vessel that is under sail merchants and other people of stature who are affected by the sea and become seasick. Such persons in order to reach land where they could be relieved and return to normal health, would, if they had one thousand silver marks, pay them to anyone who would demand them in return for landing them ashore. For this reason any such promise shall have no validity.

In addition, in case of a meeting with armed vessels, in order to protect themselves from the consequences and to avoid any potential danger, they would be willing to make agreements and give promises even beyond their ability to keep; therefore, all agreements made and promises given due to fear or force do not have and cannot have any validity.

If, however, the vessel was moored to the shore by a hawser or some other line, all the agreements entered into by both parties, regardless of how they were concluded, do have and shall have validity.

Further, if the vessel is in the bay, on the open sea, or on any other body of water, regardless of whether it will be moored to the shore by a hawser or not, and if aboard this vessel there are persons reaching agreements and making promises, such agreements or promises will be valid under four circumstances, namely: when the cargo must be thrown overboard, when the vessel is wrecked by the storm or some other unfortunate accident, when the merchants agree to pay damages suffered by the vessel due to some specified reason, or in case the course if altered, provided that the clerk will be present when such agreements are concluded and provided that as soon as the vessel is moored, he will not forget to make an entry into the ship's register of these matters.

For the reasons mentioned above, no agreement concluded in the bay, on the high seas, or in any other part of the sea shall be considered valid except under the four conditions mentioned and attested to in the previous paragraph.

If the vessel is anchored in the middle of the mouth of a river or in territorial waters, all the agreements concluded by the parties aboard the vessel shall be binding, whether or not the vessel was held ashore by a hawser because it is in a similar situation as if it were on shore, for the storm cannot drive it away or damage it in any way.

[162] 254-Agreements Concluded Between the Master of the Vessel, Merchants, and the Crew

The patron shall carry out all the agreements he had concluded with the merchants, the crew, or any other parties who are or will be interested in the vessel in any manner, and this shall be done without any reluctance or delay. If it should happen that a patron of a vessel would refuse to carry out any agreements or commitments he entered into, he will be required to pay all the damages suffered by the injured parties or that they may suffer in the future, and he shall do this without any opposition, even if it was necessary to sell the vessel in order to repay the damages , with the exception of a situation when the patron was unable due to well established practices or obstacles to carry out the agreements he had concluded with the persons mentioned above.

Similarly, the merchants, crew, as well as all other persons connected with the vessel are required to fulfill all the agreements that they had concluded with the master of the vessel without any delay. If they should refuse to carry out these agreements and promises, and they have any property, it shall be sold to pay the damages that had resulted by their refusal to carry out such agreements without any delay. If their wealth is not sufficient to pay these damages, it is proper, if it is possible, to arrest them, turn them over to the proper authorities, and imprison them for so long as they will be unable to pay the patron for the damages he had suffered or until the patron agrees to reach another agreement with them. The only exception would be if fate had prevented them from fulfilling the promises they had made the patron, since this did not take place as result of any negligence on their part.

This article was written for the reasons given above.

255-Responsibility for Cargo Entrusted to a Party According to the Customs of the Sea

If any person entrusts another in full confidence with his property (and by property we should understand it to be cargo) whether the agreement was made in writing or not, and without any other conditions than that the one who accepts care of such cargo accepts it according to the recognized customs of the sea, and with the restrictions that he shall not be held accountable for it if due to stormy seas or acts of pirates he had lost such cargo, the party who accepted such cargo shall sell it at the port of destination as designated at the moment he had accepted care of such cargo and shall try to dispose of it to the best advantage of the person who entrusted such cargo to his care.

[163] However, if at the time they mutually agreed to this arrangement there was no mention made of the amount of money the one who accepted the care of the cargo would be given for the performance of this task, the latter should not deduct anything for his trouble, for he was not allowed to do this , but should immediately after the return from the journey for which he had undertaken the care of the cargo, report to its owner and give him the full amount he had received for the cargo. The owner of the cargo shall pay the party who had taken care of his cargo for his trouble and care proportionally to the amount he had received for the cargo. The amount shall be determined by the owner of the cargo, and the party who had been commissioned to care for and sell the cargo cannot force him to any additional obligation.

Therefore, let every person who accepts care of another's cargo be most careful when he takes this obligation that he shall not be left to the disposition of the person who entrusted him with the care of such cargo and be dependent for his wages upon the whim of the former.

The same principles shall apply to persons who accept care of money entrusted to them by another party, as apply in case of a cargo entrusted to their care.

256-Vessel Sold by the Patron Without the Knowledge of Its Shareholders

A patron who shall sell the vessel that he commands without the approval and knowledge of the shareholders is required immediately after the sale has been completed to return to the locality where the shareholders reside and make an account of the transaction and pay each of the shareholders the full amount due him in proportion to his investment in the vessel, if the shareholders wish to accept this. If, on the other hand, the shareholders refused to accept the money, the patron must return and surrender the vessel to them because he had sold it without their knowledge and authority.

If he could not return their own vessel to them, he shall return one of the same value, and in addition, the profit that he had made with that vessel, unless he can reach an agreement with the merchants more advantageous to him, if they cannot agree mutually to any settlement on this issue, it should be submitted to two trustworthy Elders who shall arbitrate the dispute; whatever they decide and order shall be carried out.

Further, if the patron had sold the vessel in the manner discussed above, and this sale is satisfactory to the majority of the shareholders, he shall only be obligated to pay each of them the amount due, [164] because the majority had agreed that what he did was proper.

If it should happen that the patron after the sale of the vessel failed to return, in order to report on the matter to the shareholders and pay each of them the amount due [to each] from the sale of the vessel, but proceeds to another country, he shall be forced if he is apprehended to return and pay the shareholders the money due them plus the profits that the vessel could have had made, as estimated in their deposition made under oath. If he would be unable to pay them and end this matter to their satisfaction, he shall be held, turned over to the judicial authorities, and be imprisoned until he is able to repay the shareholders or reach a satisfactory agreement with them.

If the patron who sold the vessel cannot be located, but the shareholders locate the vessel that he had sold, they may seize it and institute legal proceedings. The court shall hear the case and award them judgment, provided that they can prove by submitting documentary evidence or witnesses who will testify that the vessel belongs to them, and if the purchaser cannot prove that the seller had the authorization from these shareholders to sell the vessel as he saw fit. Let, therefore, everyone be most careful that in purchasing a vessel he shall not suffer a loss.

Further, if the patron sold the vessel because it was over age or if the loan makers had it sold in order to collect their money that they had advanced the patron to purchase some essential equipment for the vessel, the patron shall be held accountable by the shareholders only in the manner and degree that has been described and explained in the article that discussed repairs of a vessel. ⁽⁶⁾

257-Cargo Loaded Secretly Aboard the Vessel

If a merchant or several merchants conclude an agreement with the master of a vessel to ship bales or chests or other containers filled with cargo and, without informing the patron, attempt to secrete in these bales, crates, or other containers gold, silver, money, or other valuables without showing them to the master of the vessel or informing him, the navigator, or the clerk about this, and do not tell them specifically what they had hidden in these crates and other containers, and if due to some unfortunate accident it shall be necessary to throw cargo overboard, or the vessel will be wrecked or will founder in the shoals, the above mentioned crates, bales, chests, and other containers in which the valuables had been secreted shall be evaluated for damages only in the amount they were valued at the time [165] of shipment, even if these merchants were able to produce witnesses who would testify that they had seen the merchants secrete these valuables within these containers, and this shall be done because the merchants failed to inform the patron, navigator, clerk, or the officer of the guard about this matter, and also because they had not insisted that this would be entered into the ship's register. If the vessel foundered in the shoals and such cargo was lost, they should be compensated only for the cargo that had been declared when the contract to ship such cargo was made.

If it should happen that the bales and crates into which valuables had been secretly placed, as had been discussed above, are not lost or thrown overboard, but it shall be discovered that other items were hidden in them, such bales and crates with all their contents, declared and undeclared, shall be assessed for the loss of the cargo thrown overboard or lost due to shipwreck.

Further, if the above mentioned items or cargo were lost by the negligence of the patron of the vessel or the clerk, they shall be liable for the damage in the amount the cargo had been evaluated at the time it was loaded aboard the vessel. This is done because there are some merchants who, if one believed everything they say when they suffer loss under circumstances mentioned above, of any crate or bale of cargo, would claim that its contents exceeded a thousand marks of gold or silver. For this reason no one shall be obligated to pay them any damage above the amount they declared that the cargo was worth at the time its value was declared when arrangements to ship it were made.

Let, therefore, every merchant be most careful that he declare everything when he is making arrangements to ship his cargo. Otherwise he may suffer a loss, as had been stated above.

258-When a Patron of a Vessel Authorized a Representative to Negotiate Shipment of Cargo

If a patron of a vessel authorized his representative to conclude shipment contracts for his vessel, whether this would amount to a portion of the cargo the vessel will carry or a capacity load, if the representative had concluded such a contract within the period of time he was given to accomplish this task, all the agreements he concluded shall be as valid and binding as if the patron himself concluded these contracts, for the representative acted in the person of the patron who had empowered him to conclude such agreements. Thus, an agreement concluded by a person who was authorized by the patron and given a specific time to accomplish this must be carried out, regardless of the fact whether such a contract shall prove to be profitable [166] for the vessel.

If the patron after giving authority to his representative to contract for cargo within a given period of time would also himself contract for other cargo and as a result would have contracted for so much cargo that he would be unable to take aboard the cargo contracted for by the party whom he authorized to do this, he shall be required to carry the cargo contracted for by his deputy within the time limit that had been set, and will have to leave behind the cargo he personally had contracted for, or will be required to reach another agreement with the merchants who had made shipment agreements with his deputy. It is necessary that the party whom he authorized to procure shipment of cargo shall not be exposed to damages, even if the vessel had to be sold to prevent this.

Further, if the patron authorized another person to arrange for shipment of cargo without setting the date by which this should be accomplished, and before he had been advised by his representative that he did contract to ship cargo , the patron himself had also made agreements with others to take their cargo aboard, the patron shall be obliged to proceed in the manner described above.

Further, if the patron had ordered that his representative should be informed not to contract for any cargo, and the latter had been informed of this before he actually had made any contracts, he shall follow these instructions and not negotiate any such agreements. However, should he disobey the patron and proceed to contract for cargo, the patron shall not be held liable for any damages and shall not be liable to the merchants who had signed a contract with the representative, because the latter had been ordered not to negotiate any such contracts, for no person has more claim upon the wealth of another than that which the rightful owner will allow, if, however, such a representative had made shipment agreements before he had been notified by the patron, all such agreements will be binding, as had been stated above.

In addition, a patron who had authorized another person to contract for cargo should not personally conclude binding contracts until he is aware of the action that had been taken by his representative, in order that the damages mentioned above would not result.

259-When a Patron Attempts to Attach a Towing Line to a Raft Contrary to the Wishes of Merchants Aboard His Vessel

If a master of a vessel took on cargo at some point of his voyage and while sailing to the port of destination would come upon a raft, masts, sails, or other wooden objects floating in the sea, and would attempt to attach a line or would order that a line be attached to the [167] flotsam in order to tow it as salvage, the merchants aboard his vessel are within their rights to demand that he abandon such salvage operations. If he should refuse to bow to their demands, and if these merchants announce and inform him that if he does not abandon the salvage, he shall be wholly responsible for any damage to their cargo aboard his vessel, and the patron in spite of the warning by the merchants pays no heed to their demands, such a patron shall be held liable for all the damage that may result to their cargo due to his negligence.

Should he be unable to reimburse them for the damage, the vessel shall be sold, and no one can oppose this action with the exception of the crew, which shall be paid its wages. If the amount of money realized from the sale of the vessel should be insufficient to pay for the damages, and the patron possesses any other wealth, it shall be sold and the merchants shall be paid the amount due them, for the damages occurred by his negligence. If his property is insufficient to pay these damages, and if he can be apprehended, he should be imprisoned and kept in prison until he has paid the claims of the merchants or has reached another agreement with them.

If it should happen that the patron would wish to take a few bales off the floating raft, he may do so if the merchants agree. Should he, however, attempt to take some cargo off the raft against their wishes, he shall be liable for all the damages as if he had taken the raft in line, as had been stated above.

If it should happen that there are no merchants aboard when the patron comes upon a floating raft and attaches a hauling line to it or if he takes several bales of cargo off the raft, and the merchants can prove that due to this they had suffered some damage, the patron shall be liable for all the damages in the same manner as prescribed above.

Patrons therefore should act in a manner that would not result in any damages.

260-When a Vessel Is Engaged to Deliver Cargo to a Specified Destination

If one or several merchants journeyed into a foreign country and had contracted with a patron of a vessel to come to that country in order to pick their cargo and deliver it to a specified location, and he should fail to arrive there on the date or within the period of time agreed to to pick up such cargo, the patron shall be liable for all the damages, expenses, and losses that they had suffered by his negligence.

If it should happen that the merchants had engaged another vessel because the vessel that had been contracted for first to pick up their [168] cargo at a specified time had failed to arrive, and they should be forced to pay higher lading fees than agreed upon with the patron of the first vessel and thus suffered a loss, the latter should be forced to reimburse them for the amount in excess of the amount they had agreed upon originally, because the patron of the first vessel engaged failed to arrive to pick up their cargo as had been agreed.

If it should happen that the vessel originally engaged should arrive to pick up their cargo after the expiration of the date agreed upon, the merchants shall not be held liable to the patron of the first vessel if in the meantime they had engaged another vessel, because the patron of the first vessel had failed to arrive at the agreed time to pick up their cargo.

Further, if, however, the first vessel should arrive before these merchants had engaged another vessel, even though it was past the date they had agreed upon, the merchants are required to furnish the cargo to the first vessel as had been agreed. This resolution should be understood in this manner: that the patron of such a vessel shall be liable for all the damages, expenses, and losses they had incurred while waiting for him, if the merchants desire this. Their deposition under oath as to the amount of such damages shall be accepted as valid.

This should also be understood in this manner: that if the patron of the vessel with whom the merchants had originally agreed to ship their cargo was unable to arrive on the date they had agreed, not due to his fault but to some obstacles that were visited upon him by God, heavy winds, turbulent seas, or civil authorities, he shall not be liable for any damages, expenses, or losses incurred by these merchants because this had not been by his negligence. Should the merchants engage another vessel in the meantime, they are obliged to provide the cargo to the patron with whom they had originally concluded an agreement as well as cargo his vessel and dispatch him on the date agreed in the original contract.

If these merchants will be unable to provide him with cargo, they shall be liable for the lading charges that had been agreed upon between them, unless they suggest some other compromise to him and he is agreeable; should he refuse such a proposal, no one can force him to proceed against his will. In addition, if the patron had expended any money or had suffered some damage by the action of the merchants who did not dispatch him or refused to dispatch him on the agreed date, the merchants shall be liable for all damages suffered by the patron, and the amount of such damages shall be ascertained by him in a sworn affidavit that will be accepted as valid proof.

This article is written for this reason: no one is able to overcome [169] the obstacles placed in his path by God, the sea, winds, or authorities. Therefore, let all beware to proceed in a manner by which they could avoid causing harm to themselves.

261-Death of a Merchant Who Contracted for a Shipment of Cargo in a Foreign Country

If a merchant engaged a vessel while in a foreign country with the understanding that such a vessel would arrive at a specified time at a specific destination to pick up such cargo, and if the merchant should die in the location where he had engaged such a vessel, regardless of whether or not the merchant left a will, the patron of the vessel that had been engaged should before sailing out from the place where he had been engaged and where the merchant who had engaged him had died, and before the patron incurs any expense, proceed to the partner of the merchant whether he lives in that vicinity or nearby and demand in writing or through a special messenger whether the partner wishes that the vessel engaged prior to the death of the other partner shall proceed on the agreed journey.

If the partner should approve of the agreement, the vessel shall sail, because the second partner had agreed to honor the original contract, which the deceased had concluded and obligated himself to before his demise.

If the patron should have proceeded to the place agreed with the deceased to pick up cargo without first receiving the approval of the partner of the deceased merchant, the latter shall not be obligated by the contract signed by his deceased partner, for a deceased person has no partners, and on the day of his death a partnership is dissolved. However, if the deceased merchant had obligated his partners in any agreement with the patron relating to shipment of cargo, and such an agreement had been executed in writing, such partner or partners must fulfill the terms of the contract.

The above should be interpreted in the following way: that the deceased merchant had been authorized by his partner to conclude shipping contracts in his name also, that is to say, that the latter gave him the power of attorney in writing or in the presence of witnesses, that he shall be obligated by everything his partner would do. If the patron would be able to substantiate such an arrangement either in writing or by creditable witnesses, the remaining partner shall be obligated in the same degree as the deceased partner who had engaged the vessel if he would still be alive.

Should the patron be unable to prove this either by written documentary evidence or witnesses, the remaining partner shall not be bound by any agreements concluded by the deceased, even if the patron [170] could prove that the deceased had mentioned his name in the agreement made when the shipment of cargo was contracted, because the deceased had acted without authority from his partner. It would certainly be an injustice that any person could obligate another without his knowledge and agreement, and it would be evil if such a statement of obligation should be binding, because if this were allowed, one person could ruin another. It would be unjust and in defiance of all customs that anyone could legally obligate another, as has been stated above.

If it should happen that the deceased merchant who had contracted for a shipment of cargo should leave a testament by which he would leave his wealth to his sons, relatives, or some other persons as he had pleased, and had named one of these his beneficiary, the patron of a vessel, aware of the fact that the merchant who had concluded an agreement with him is ill and has made his last will, should, in the presence of witnesses, if he is able, ask the merchant before he dies what should be done with the agreement they had concluded. If it pleases God the merchant will be called to Him, and persuade the merchant to decide on a course that would not be a source of trouble, should God please to take him unto Himself.

If the ailing merchant would inform the patron to proceed quickly on the agreed journey and assured him that with the help of the Almighty he shall protect the patron from any losses, and that his illness will not prevent him from carrying out all of the promises made, and the patron departs from the ailing merchant with such assurances and a document, that is, a written statement sealed and directed to the living partner, if he had one, or to a person who in his place will accept the cargo at the designated location where the vessel will deliver it, and after this had been accomplished, news is received that the merchant had died, and the person who had been authorized by the merchant to provide another shipment of cargo for the vessel declines to do this, any damages and expenses suffered by the patron shall be paid out of the estate of the deceased merchant. This procedure must be followed because the patron had made an agreement with the merchant before the latter died and before the patron had undertaken the original journey, therefore he acted with the approval and consent of the merchant and had received a letter from him, in which the merchant had called upon his partner or some other person authorized by him to expedite the shipment of cargo in conformity with the promise he had made to the patron.

If it should happen that the patron of a vessel engaged by a merchant had not sailed before the merchant died from the locality where the agreement had been concluded, he shall not begin the voyage until [171] he has notified the partner of the merchant or the party whom the merchant authorized to act in his name by letter or a messenger, asking him to come to the location where the vessel is berthed and make arrangements to dispatch it, as had been agreed. Only after one of these persons mentioned had fulfilled the terms of the agreement made by the deceased by notifying the patron through a special messenger or a written letter sealed with their official seal that the vessel should attempt the voyage and that these persons or one of them are ready and willing to fulfill all the terms of the agreement entered into by the deceased in writing relating to the shipment of the cargo, the patron shall depart with his vessel to fulfill his obligation.

If the patron should suffer any damage or losses due to the fault of the parties who notified him by letter or messenger, the guilty parties shall be liable for the damage and shall also provide him with the cargo, because he journeyed only upon their demand and approval.

If a patron had arrived at the place where he was to pick up the cargo or left the locality where the vessel was engaged to carry cargo after the death of the aforementioned merchant, and the latter had left a will in which he named his beneficiary, the patron, as had been stated, will arrive at the locality where he was to pick up the cargo on the date designated in the written agreement concerning the shipment of cargo; and if in addition the deceased merchant had made a change and had ordered his beneficiary to release the cargo that he had himself promised to provide for the vessel, the beneficiary named by the merchant shall fulfill his wishes. Should he refuse to do this, he shall be forced to do this by the local courts. It is absolutely necessary that the will of the deceased be carried out.

Further, if the deceased had not made such a change and did not specify this in his last will, the party whom he named as his beneficiary will not be obligated if he does not wish to carry out the terms of the agreement. The above resolution should be understood in the following way: that the beneficiary will not attempt to ship the cargo elsewhere but will sell it where it is located, in order to carry out the wishes of the deceased as expressed in his last will, and also because the patron had arrived with his vessel without the knowledge and approval of the party who had been constituted the beneficiary.

Further, if the party who had been designated the beneficiary would not wish to sell the cargo where it was located, but rather to ship it to the location where the deceased had intended it shipped before he died and for which he had made the necessary arrangements, if, in addition, the beneficiary refused to load the cargo aboard the vessel that had been contracted for by the deceased who had summoned the vessel, and instead loaded the cargo aboard another vessel, the estate of the deceased shall be held accountable for the obligations [172] he had assumed during his life with the patron of the vessel that he had engaged to ship this cargo, if the patron on his part had fulfilled all the provisions that he had promised to fulfill at the time he agreed to carry this cargo.

However, if the patron of this vessel failed to carry out his promises, neither the estate of the deceased nor his beneficiary shall be obligated in any manner to the patron, unless the patron shall be able to show and prove that his inability to carry out the terms of the agreement was not due to any negligence on his part and that these obstacles prevented him from the fulfillment of his responsibilities. If the patron should be unable to show and prove this, the estate of the deceased merchant as well as his beneficiary shall be freed from any obligation toward the patron, because it was the patron who failed to fulfill his obligations toward the merchant. If, however, the patron shall demonstrate and prove that this did not happen due to any fault of his, the estate of the deceased as well as his beneficiary shall be held liable.

262-When illness Prevents a Merchant from Fulfilling His Agreement to Ship Cargo

If a merchant who engaged a vessel and promised to dispatch it cargoed on a specified day had become ill and notified the master of the vessel that due to his illness he will not be able to fulfill his promise and advised the master to seek another cargo wherever he can, and further informed him that had not illness interfered, he would have gladly fulfilled his contractural obligations, and the patron of the vessel shall demand a reimbursement for the expenses he had incurred, the merchant shall not be required to reimburse him for these expenses, because the inability to carry out the terms of the agreement had not occurred by neglect on his part, and also because he had notified the patron about this matter before the date they had agreed on for dispatching of the vessel, and finally, because it was his full intention to carry out this agreement if on his part the patron would be willing to wait for the cargo until he would recover from his illness, there is still another reason why the merchant is no longer obligated to carry out the terms of the agreement, namely, that no one can interfere with the will of God

Further, if the former merchant had become ill after making arrangements to ship cargo and failed to notify the patron within the time limit that the latter was to wait for the cargo, but after the expiration of that time informed the patron that he should look for work wherever he can find it, and the patron of the vessel had incurred some expense because he was not notified within the period of time [173] agreed between them, the merchant shall reimburse him for the full amount he expended because he had waited without being notified. If the patron suffered other damage or loss, the merchant will not be required to reimburse him because he did not fail to embark on the journey by his own will or with the intention of causing harm to others, but fate visited illness upon him.

Further, if the merchant had been ill at the moment he had contracted to ship cargo and on this basis he wanted to withdraw from this obligation, notifying the patron within the agreed period of time during which the patron was to wait for his cargo, he will be allowed to do this only in a situation where his illness had become more severe and when he is doing this in good faith; otherwise he shall be compelled to reimburse the master of the vessel for all the damages and expenses that the latter had suffered at the hands of the merchant, the amount of which shall be made in a deposition under oath by the patron of the vessel, and accepted as binding. It is the merchant's fault that while ill he was engaging a vessel to ship cargo and obligated himself in this manner by concluding an agreement with the patron.

In addition, if the merchant did not notify the patron within the period of time the patron was to wait for the cargo, but only after the time agreed upon had elapsed he had informed him that he will not undertake the voyage, the merchant shall be held liable and will be required to repay the patron of the vessel all the costs, losses, and expenses incurred by the patron.

Further, the amount to be awarded in damages to the aggrieved party shall be given to arbitration by two Elders of the Sea Guild, who will arbitrate the matter justly, taking into consideration the worsening illness of the merchant as well as other circumstances. If the merchant had not suffered a relapse and his illness was no worse than at the time he made the agreement, the issue should not be given to adjudication by anyone, and the patron should be reimbursed by the merchant for all the damage he had suffered, and this should be done without any opposition, because he had suffered such damage by action of the merchant.

The patron of a vessel is obligated in same manner toward the merchants with whom he makes agreements for the shipment of cargo, as had been discussed in the previous article.

263-If a Merchant Should Die After Engaging a Vessel but Before He Had His Cargo Loaded Aboard the Vessel

If a merchant who had engaged a vessel to carry his cargo should die before all or part of his cargo is loaded aboard the vessel, both [174] the merchant and his estate shall be free from any liability toward the patron of the vessel engaged, because a deceased person cannot be obligated by any contract that he concluded while alive , with the exception of a loan or some action that would cause damage to another person. In such cases these obligations shall be met from the proceeds of his estate, if he left any property, regardless where such property may be located.

Further, if the merchant died after cargoing the vessel partly or fully within the period of time agreed upon, he shall not be held liable for any damages or losses suffered by the patron of the vessel, because it should be anticipated that had he remained alive, he would have most likely wished to fulfill all the provisions of the agreement he made with the patron. It is not his fault that death prevented him from carrying out such obligations, for no one can be held responsible for the consequences of death.

However, if the latter merchant had cargoed the vessel completely after the date agreed upon and then died, any damage suffered by the patron of the vessel shall be paid out of the estate of the deceased, because the merchant had failed to cargo and dispatch the vessel within the time agreed and thus had failed to provide the patron with an opportunity to look for other cargo, while he was unable and did not intend to carry out his promise to the patron.

Further, if the merchant had loaded the vessel with his cargo, and the vessel had set sail, and subsequently the merchant died, the patron shall, depending on where the death of the merchant occurred, return to the place where he picked up the cargo and return the cargo to the relatives of the deceased, if there are relatives resident in that locality. If, however, there are no relatives there or other persons from whom the deceased merchant accepted the cargo in his care, the patron shall unload the cargo that had belonged to the dead merchant and store it in a safe place on land. After the cargo had been stored ashore, the patron of the vessel shall dispatch a letter or a message by a trusted messenger to the locality where, as far as he knows or can tell, the persons from whom the patron had received the cargo or his relatives reside. All the expenses that the patron had incurred in unloading the cargo shall be assessed against the cargo.

In addition, if some relative of the merchant or one of the parties who had entrusted him with the cargo should reach the locality where the patron of the vessel had unloaded the cargo, the former shall pay all the expenses of the patron in connection with the necessity of making the return voyage.

If the patron was unable to reach an agreement with the relatives of the merchant or the parties who had entrusted their cargo to the deceased merchant, any dispute arising due to such a misunderstanding [175] shall be submitted to the examination and arbitration of two reliable Elders well versed in the matters of marine commerce , and whatever these two declare shall be accepted as valid and carried out.

If the patron had been paid part of the lading charges for carrying such cargo, the wages of the crew shall be paid proportionally to the amount he had received.

Further, if the relatives of the deceased merchant or the persons who entrusted their cargo to his care should be living at the place from which the patron had undertaken the journey and to which he had returned to unload the cargo and should decide that the vessel that had been cargoed by the merchant while he was still alive should complete the journey as had been agreed by him, the patron of the vessel is required to complete such a voyage provided that the above mentioned persons reimburse him for all the expenses and losses due to the fact that he had to return with this cargo due to the death of the merchant, or they may reach a new agreement with the patron In addition, they shall give the patron a written promissory note that each of them and all of them shall fulfill all the terms of the agreement made by the deceased merchant while he had been alive. The patron shall be required to proceed on the journey previously mentioned only after all these conditions had been met by all or even one of the parties mentioned above.

Further, if the patron cargoed his vessel in the territory of the Saracens or other dangerous location and was to proceed to a friendly territory to unload such cargo, he cannot be forced to return to the territory where he had loaded the cargo aboard his vessel. He shall rather be required to sail only to the port of destination agreed upon with the merchant while the latter was still alive. However, before he unloads such a cargo, he shall notify the local judicial authority about this matter, and in the presence of merchants and a representative of the local court he should store the cargo in a safe place in the name of the parties having an interest in the cargo.

The judicial authorities, after taking counsel with the local merchants, shall order that a portion of the cargo be sold in order to pay the patron of the vessel all the lading charges due him as well as all other expenses connected with this cargo; the above procedure shall be followed only if in that locality none of the relatives of the deceased merchant or any of the parties who entrusted their cargo to his care reside.

If none of these persons reside at the port where the patron had brought the cargo, the local authorities and the patron should dispatch a letter concerning this matter to the place where they believe his relatives or cargo owners reside; and the local authorities with the approval of the Elders of the locality where the cargo had been unloaded [176] shall safeguard such cargo until the relatives or the parties, whose cargo they are holding that had been entrusted to the deceased merchant, shall arrive to claim the cargo or send their representative to claim it.

Further, if the cargo was of the variety that it was feared that it might spoil, it should be sold, and the amount received shall be deposited in an institution where it will be readily available to its rightful owners if they come to claim it and shall be able to prove that they have a rightful claim to it.

This article was written for the reasons mentioned above.

264-Death of a Patron of a Vessel That Had Been Engaged but Had Not Been Cargoed

If a master of a vessel died before it had been partly or fully cargoed by the merchant who had engaged the vessel in order to ship his cargo, such a vessel will not be required to proceed on the agreed journey, unless the relatives of the deceased master or the shareholders in the vessel express a desire that this be done, or if the majority or all of the shareholders were present at the time the agreement was made and all of them or even a single one had obligated himself to the merchant who had engaged the vessel that the cargo will be shipped, this must be done, because a deceased person is not and cannot be considered a patron of a vessel anywhere in this wide world, with the provision that all the damages and injustices the deceased had been guilty of shall be remedied, if such a patron left a sufficient estate to make this possible.

Further, if such a vessel had been partly or fully cargoed before the death of its master, it shall proceed and complete the voyage contracted for by the merchant who engaged the vessel for this purpose. This is due to the fact that neither the shareholders in the vessel nor the relatives of the patron had made any objections when the vessel was being cargoed; for this reason the vessel shall complete the voyage contracted. In addition, the shareholders are required, after taking counsel with the relatives of the deceased patron, to appoint a person who shall take command of the vessel and replace the patron, and who shall take upon himself all the obligations that the original patron had assumed, and shall in the presence of the merchant make these commitments that he will carry out all the agreements that the deceased would have carried out had he remained alive, and this must be done because neither the relatives nor the shareholders had made any objection to the vessel being cargoed although they knew that the patron was ill and actually was fatally ill.

Further, had the shareholders or the relatives of the patron who [177] had been in command of the vessel while he was alive informed the merchant that they were opposed to the cargoing of the vessel because they feared that the patron will die, and in case of his death the vessel will not undertake the journey, but in spite of the warning that, "if the patron dies, the vessel shall not be able to undertake the voyage," neither the shareholders, nor relatives, nor the beneficiaries of the deceased patron shall be liable for any damages to the merchant who had engaged and cargoed the vessel, regardless of the amount of damages, simply because he had refused to stop the cargoing of the vessel in spite of the warnings and protests that had been made and given to him.

Further, if a vessel after being cargoed unfurled its sails and departed from the place where it had been cargoed and then the patron should die, regardless of the fact if he was or was not in good health prior to the departure of the vessel, his death shall not prevent the completion of the voyage. If aboard this vessel one of the shareholders or relatives was present, he should be designated the new patron of the vessel, provided that the navigator, clerk, the merchants aboard, and the whole crew will agree that he is a fit person to assume the command of the vessel. Should they decide that he is incapable of such a task, and there is aboard the vessel either an officer of the prow or an officer of the stern, adjudged to have proper qualifications for this position, one of them shall be constituted the patron of the vessel. This should be understood in the following manner: that the newly appointed patron shall only exercise this position until the journey is completed, as had been agreed with the merchants by the deceased patron.

Immediately after the completion of this journey, the vessel shall be surrendered to the shareholders and relatives of the deceased patron, and the clerk of the vessel shall make an accounting of all the profits and losses, if there were any losses, to the relatives and shareholders of the vessel, as would have been done by the patron of the vessel had he been alive at the time the vessel left the port where it was cargoed and where the relatives and shareholders resided.

Further, if the vessel had picked up cargo in a location where none of the relatives or shareholders of the patron resided, they shall return, after making the voyage, to the place where the voyage had originated, provided this was not a dangerous territory, if the port of origin should be located in a dangerous domain, they shall proceed to another, a safer location, after which the clerk together with the navigator shall write a letter and send it by a trusted messenger to the place where according to the information they have on hand the relatives and the shareholders of the deceased patron reside, in order [178] that these parties could come and take possession of the vessel whose patron had died.

The clerk and the navigator are not permitted to leave or abandon this vessel until the relatives and the shareholders of the deceased arrive to claim it, and until they had been reimbursed for all their expenses and paid for all their care and trouble to maintain the vessel.

This article was written for the reasons listed above.

1. Reference is made to the next and not to the preceding Article.

2. More detail given in Article 186.

3. Whaleboat, skiff, sloop, rowboat, etc.

4. Reference is made here to Article 160.

5. Cargo found on uninhabited shores and islands was property of the finder unless a special agreement had been made aboard the vessel regarding such cargo.

6. Reference made to Article 245.