the respondents' correspondence at the time shows that they did not 80 understand it. The interest manifested, therefore, must be attributed to the respondents' zeal in the shippers' or consignees' welfare. The libel must be dismissed with cOsts. I
(DiBtrict Court, E. D. PennslJlvania.
March 21. 1882,)
1n a suit, ):)y a tug for the contract price for services, and for daIll1lges for detention under a contract for towage services stipulating that the vessel might stop to sheathe, the evidence held not to sustain the allegation of unreasonable delay insheathing. 2. SAME- WIJ,J,.INGNESB TO PAY FOR TOWAGE-COBTS. It appearing that respondents had at all times willing to pay the contraft price for the towage, the costs were put upon the libellant, notwithstandmg the fact that no technical tender had been made.
Libe.1 by the master of the tug Juno against the bark Sebastian Bach, to recover compensation for towage services, and damages for detention. The facts were as fQllows:
, The tug spoke the bark as the latter was entering the capes of the Delaware about,noon on January 25, 1881, and it was then agreed between the master of the bark and the master ·of the tug that the tug s!:lOuld tow the bark to Philadelphia, but that the latter should have the privilege of stopping at the breakwater to sheathe, as'the river was fnll of ice. About an hour afterwards the bark anchored at thebteakwater, and during the'afternoon obtained and sawed lumber with which the next morning sh6 was sheathed, the work being cOlIlpleted about 11 o',clock A. M. It Wa.$ then too late in the daY to start, and it was resolved to wait u,ntil 3 o'clock the next morning, 'Which was done. The tug, on the arrival of the. vessel at presented two bills,one for the service. 'alld one, for $150. for detention, alleging that the bark ought to have had the sheathing completed in to have started early on the morning of tneday after her arrival at the The respohdent Qerlined to pay fol'! ,the detention, but was willing to pay the bill for towage, although no tender was made.
R. G. Ward, fodibel1ant. Cur,tis and:Henry Flande'l'fJ, for responaent., BUTLER, D;J:',The claim is no.t At the next ontset it was rested on a11 expr.ess contract to he rea!lyt,<> at'S' o·clo6k.Failing in this .it 'is, now put upon an
(,rL .' '
-Reported by FrankP. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphiab3r.
implied contract to be ready within a reasonable time, and an allegation that the respondent was not so ready. It certainly was his duty to suffer no unnecessary delay in getting ready. But the evidence fails to show that he did suffer any unnecessary delay. To discuss it would be useless. It is true that the Whiting, which entered the Breakwater near the same time with the "Bach," got ready much earlier-working until about 12 o'clock' at night. She was a smaller vessel, however, and had all her preparations made for the work when she entered, while the "Bach" had to seek and procure materials. But that it is not usual to make such haste, and do such work at night, as the Whiting did, would seem to be shown by the tug. He says: libellant's witness Minford, master of the "The Whiting sheathed that night, because I told the captain the way the weather was I thought if he would sheathe his vessel that night he would get up without trouble, and mak'e. an early start in the morning, which he did." If the habit or custom was to do this work at night, Mr. Minford would have expected it to be done, and said nothing on the subject. He clearly recognized the option of the not expect the work Whiting to do it or not. That the libellaIit on the Bach to be done earlier than it was, .would seem quite clear from his failure to hurry it up, or complain, at the time. Although the compensation for tOWing is 'included in the suit,the only subject of controversy is the one The respondent has at all times been willing to pay this compensation, and the libellant has so understood. It is not very important whether a technical tender was made or not. It was the demand !oralleged detention, alone, that caused the litigation. While therefore the libellant must have a decree for the towage, the respondent should ha.ve costs. He has succeeded as respects the only subject in 'controversy.
. TIlE T. A. GODDARD.
York. May 5, 1882.}
ClURTER-PARTy-LIABILITY OF OwimR--:DAMAGE
to CARGO. The Owners of a chartered 'Vessel, retaining control of her navigation, are liable for injuries to a part oUhe cargo oCl,1asioned by unaccustomed and dangeraboard. ous goods subsequently
2. SAME-GENERAL SHIP-CARGO OF-LIABILITY FOR TAKING DANGEROUS GOODS. A general ship may carry such goods as are usually carried if due care is exercised in properly separating and stowing articles which might naturally injure each other; but the ship will be held to take at her peril goods known to be dangerous to merchandise previously shipped, or not usually carried in the same cargo. 3. SAME-BILL OF LADING-RECITALS IN, BINDING AS TO ExTERNAL CONDITION. The scent of camphor in teas so strong as to be readily perceived in handling ,the packages 'is an 6:»t6rnaZ mark of their condition; and the in the bill of laqing that such teas were" reeeived in good order," istherefore prima facie evidence that they were not so scented when shipped aboard. 4. CARRIER OR FORWARDER-As BA.ILEE. A carrier or forwarder of goods as bailee is not the, general agent of the owner; his is, ;0,0 indicia ,ownership or of any general authority .over the goods Elxcept sncp as is strictly incident to his, duties as carrier, and third persons dealing with him do so at th'eir peril. After delivery, pursuant to contract, to' another carrier who has notiee ,thereof. hehaa no authority subsequently to diapensll any of the conditions for safe transportation, and the sllipper will not be bound thereby.
CmRTER-PARTY':'-AuTHORITYTO RELET VEBBEL.
Where a charter-party authorizes the ch.arterer II to relet the vessel in whole or ill part," the charterer to make subcontracts of affreightment :and to sign bills of lading of goods from other ports which he may procure to be forwl'rded by oth9r be upon the chartered vessel pursuant to the charter; and thesliip will be botilld thereby from the time they are received on board with knowledge of the ifaets. Such bill of ladlug isa reiettiilg of tM·s4\p ,in part.
RIGHTS. . . CIU.RGEMJL]ll.WITH KNOwr,EDGEOJ' SIIIPI'IilBS' .. . . .
Where R. & Co. chartered the bark T. A. G. under such a charter-party for a voyage from Hong Kong to New York, and thereafter procured teas to be Ihipped by P. & Co. at }<'oochow on board the steamer 0" to be carried to Hong Kong, and there transhipped on board the T. A. G., and thereafter carried to Ncw York, for which a bill of lading was accordingly given at Foochow for the whole voyage, signed by H. & Co. and the master of the steamer upon terms in conformity with the charter-party, and the teas were afterwards duly transhipped on board the T. A. G. lit Hong Kong, and the master gave a bill of lading therefor to R. & Co. which recited the amount of the freight as "through rate from Foochow," and the master thereafter took eamphor aboard at the of R. & Co., being dangerous goods and unaccustomed to be taken with teas, by which the teas were damaged during the voyage to New York, held, that the master was chargeable with knowledge of the shippers' rights Rnd that the bark was liable in rein for the damage to the teas, and that. the request of R. & Co. to take the camphor aboard was no defencc._