Petition of Reliance Marine Transp. Const. Corp., 206 F.2d 240, 243 (2d Cir. 1953); Miller v. Union Barge Line Corp., 299 F. Supp. 718 (W.D.Pa. 1969). This warranty is non-delegable, The Louise, 54 F. Supp. 157, 161 (D.Md. 1943), and shipowner has the burden of proving that the ship was seaworthy at that time. A finding of excessive rust on cargo resulting from the seepage of seawater through the hatch covers of the No. 3 hold would justify the presumption of the unseaworthiness of the S.S. CRYSTAL GEM, which, remaining unrebutted, would entitle plaintiff to a decree against shipowner and charterer for such damage.
Thus, if the voyage is prematurely terminated because of "the unseaworthiness of the [vessel] by reason of [the owner's] lack of due diligence," it is clear that plaintiffs have satisfied their burden under Section 594 as to the impropriety of their discharge. The Louise, 54 F. Supp. 157, 159 (D.Md. 1943). Accord: The Heroe, 21 F. 525 (D.C.Del. 1884); Davis v. Faucon, Fed. Case No. 3, 632b (S.D.N.Y. 1843).