5.  In  Morse  «.  Slue,  the  ship  was  apparently  employed  as  a  Application

to  a  ship
employed  by

{k)  Cf.  the  judgments  of  Cookbum,  p.   272.    He  can  require  payment  in  one  freighter.
0.  J.,  and  Brett,  J.,  in  Nugent  J).  Smith,  adyanoe,   per  Parke,   B.,   in  Wyld  ».
1  C.  P.  D.  19,  423  ;  Liver  Alkali  Co.  ■•>.  Piokford,  8  M.  &  W.  443,  p.  458  ;  and

Johnson,  L.  R.,  7  Ex.  267 ;  9  Ex.  338.  he  is  not  bound  to  charge  aU  equally,

See  Parsons'  Shipping,  oh.  -ni.  per  WiUes,  J.,  in  Branley  v.  S.  E.  Rail.
(?)  Cf.  Liver  Alkali  Co.  v.  Johnson,  Co.,  31  L.  J.,  C.  P<  286,  p.  290;  per

supra;  Soaife  «.  Earrant,  L.  E..,  10  Ex.  Blackburn,  J.,  in  G-.  W.  EaU.  Co.  o.
■358  ;  Brind  ».  Dale,  2  Mood.  &  Bob.  80 ;  Sutton,  L.  E.,  4  H.  L.  p.  237.
Nugent  V.  Smith,  1  C.  P.  D.  at  p.  27.  („j  q^^^  ^_  Bristol  and  Exeter  KaU.
(m)  Eiley  v.  Home,    5    Bing.    217,  q^^  gg  ^  j.^  q.  b.  273.
p.  220 ;  per  Parke,  B.,  in  Johnson  v.
Mid.  Rail.   Co.,    18   L.   J.,  Ex.   366,  ip)  Crouch «;.  L.  &  N.  W.  Eail.  Co.,

p.  369.    See,  as  to  railway  companies,  23  L.  J.,  C.  P.  73  ;  cf.  Benett  v.  P.  &  0.
.Dickson  v.  Gt.  N.  EaU.  Co.,  18  Q.  B.  D.  Co.,  18  L.  J.,  C.  P.  85.
176.  (?)  Per  Brett,  J.,  Nugent  v.  Smith,  1

(«)  Harris  v.  Packwood,  3  Ta\int.  264,  C.  P.  D.  19,  p.  28.
THE  CONTRACT.
