Where  doch  ®2^'  ^^^^  ®^^^  ^'i  '^'^  older  cases  the  rule  that  the  ship  must  be

named.  ^^  ^  usual  loading  or  discharging  place  was  not  followed  out

strictly.  If  a  ship  is  to  be  loaded  or  discharged  in  a  particular
dock,  or  if,  a  port  being  named,  some  particular  dock  there  is  the
usual  place  for  loading  or  discharging  such  a  cargo,  it  will  also
generally  be  the  case  that  the  work  is  habitually  done  at  the  quays
of  the  dock,  or  even  at  some  one  part  of  the  quays — as  where  coal
is  loaded  at  "  spouts  "  or  "  tips."  Yet  it  has  been  repeatedly
decided  that  the  lay  days  in  such  cases  commence  as  soon  as  the
ship  gets  into  the  dock,  ready  for  her  cargo.
(z)  (1879),  4  Ex.  D.  at  p.  268.     See  (a)  (1879),  12  Ch.  D.  668.
this  case  explained  in  Tharsis  Co.  v.  (J)  12  Ch.  D.  at  pp.  590,  591.
Morel,  (1891)  2  Q.  B.  647.  (c)  12  Ch.  B.  at  p.  582.
DEMUERAGE.  751

"  The  rule  is  that  where  a  port  is  named  in  the  charter  party  as  Sect.  634.
the  port  to  which  the  vessel  is  to  proceed,  the  lay  days  do  not  com-
mence upon  the  arrival  of  the  vessel  in  the  port,  but  upon  her
arrival  at  the  usual  place  of  loading  in  the  port:  not  the  actual  berth
at  which  she  loads,  hut  the  dock  or  roadstead  tvhere  loading  usually
takes  place  "  {d).  And  this  view  is  in  accord  with  the  earlier  case
of  Brown  v.  Johnson  (e).
But  it  is  difficult  to  resist  the  conclusion  that  it  is  not  logical.
