In  The  Teutonia  (A),  a  Prussian  vessel  under  charter  had  been
ordered  by  the  charterer  to  discharge  at  Dunkirk ;  but  war  had
broken  out  between  France  and  Germany  after  the  order  was
given,  and  it  thus  became  illegal,  and  practically  impossible,  for
her  to  go  there.  She  was  therefore  taken  to  Dover.  But  the
master  refused  to  deliver  the  cargo  to  the  charterers  at  that  place
unless  they  paid  the  freight.  The  charter  party  provided  that  the
discharge  might  be  at  any  safe  port  in  Great  Britain,  or  on  the
Continent  between  Havre  and  Hamburg.  It  was  held  that  the
contract  was  not  dissolved  by  the  impossibility  of  delivering  the
cargo  at  Dunkirk,  and  that  the  shipowner  had  not  lost  his  chartered
freight,  nor  his  lien  for  it.
683.  The  general  rule  of  law  is,  that  one  who  has  a  H^n  on  Expenses  of
goods,  and  incurs  expenses  in  keeping  them  in  order  to  preserve  ^en  not
that  lien,  is  not  entitled  to  claim  those  expenses  from  the  owner  of  recoverable,
the  goods  («■).     So  that  a  shipowner  is  not  necessarily  entitled  to
charge  the  consignee  of  goods  with  the  warehousing  charges,  or
other  expenses  he  may  have  incurred  in  preserving  his  Hen.
But  where  goods  are  in  a  bailee's  hands,  under  a  contract  which
requires  the  bailor  to  pay  for  the  place  in  which  they  are  lodged
according  to  the  time  they  remain  there,  it  seems  that  the  bailee
may  charge  for  the  whole  time  during  which  the  goods  remain,
although  that  may  be  prolonged  by  his  claims  to  a  lien  for  charges
under  the  contract  (A).     And  thus  it  would  seem  that  where  a

(/)  Nelson  v.  Association  for  the  Pro-  Co.,  27  L.  J.,  Q.  B.  397  ;  28  L.  J.,  Q.  B.
