It is seldom that this question occurs in practice. If the sacrifice be without necessity, he who causes it must be responsible for his folly or his wickedness.

It must be remembered, however, that the necessity for the sacrifice may be either real or apparent; for if it seemed real at the time, and existing circumstances justified a master possessed of honesty and reasonable discretion in making the sacrifice, it would be sufficient to found a general average claim, although subsequent circumstances might show that it was in fact unnecessary. (k)

Formerly, to guard against wasteful and unnecessary loss, the law-merchant required the master to consult formerly his officers and crew, and only with their consent make a jettison. But, whether because sailors have grown worse or masters better, or for some other reason, the rule is now no longer recognized, (l) and

(e) Smith v. Wright, 1 Caines, 43; Lenox v. United Ins. Co. 8 Johns. Cat. 178; Cram v. Aiken, 12 Maine, 229; and cases infra.

(f) Lawrence v. Minturn, 17 How. 100; Sayward v. Stevens, 3 Gray, 97; Sproat v. Donnell, 26 Maine, 186.

(g) The Paragon, Ware, 822; Barber v. Brace, 8 Conn. 9; Creery v. Holly, 14 Wend. 26; Gould v. Oliver, 2 Man. & G. 206, 4 Bing. N. C 134.

(h) Gould v. Oliver. 4 Bing. N. C. 184, 2 Man. & G. 208; Hurley v. Milward, 1 Jones & C. Irish Exch. 224; Harris v.

Moody, 4 Bosw. 210; Gillett v. Ellis, 11 Ill. 579.

(i) Heyliger v. N. Y. Ins. Co. 11 Johns. 86; Peters v. Warren Ins. Co. 1 Story, 468; The Mary, Sprague, 61.

(j ) Peters v. Warren Ins. Co. 8 Sumner, 389,1 Story, 463.

(k) Lawrence v. Minturn, 17 How. 100. 110; Dupont de Nemours v. Vance, 19 id. 166; Crocker v. Jackson, Sprague, 141.

(l) Birkley v. Presgrave, 1 East, 220; Sims v. Gurney, 4 Blnn. 513; Col. Ins. Co. v. Ashby, 18 Pet 343; Nimick v. Holmes, 26 Penn. State, 372.

the practice its very unusual. Indeed a resort to it now might almost excite suspicion, for the law merchant clothes the master with absolute authority in all such cases, and lays upon him a corresponding responsibility.

3. The Sacrifice Must Be Successful

On this point it might be enough to say, that if the property be not saved, there is nothing for which contribution should be made. If there is nothing which is benefited by the sacrifice, the whole foundation of the claim of general average has no existence. (m)

* Questions under this principle have arisen chiefly, if not altogether, where expenses have been incurred and contribution demanded for them. It is enough to say, in regard to such questions, that where expenses are incurred for repairs, (n) or wages and provisions, (o) or to prevent condemnation in case of forfeiture or capture, (p) or to rescue and recover a ship or cargo, in all such cases, if the cargo be saved, or if the ship be enabled to resume her voyage, these expenses may be averaged; and otherwise not.