saldBteatn'l$bips,andr fllrther,to ator,l! llnd.keepsaid all board of .. pnti! the,stel:!-m-sbips were ready to receive the cargoes, and to pay detnilrraJ!'e ,to of the port for the time such cargoes, respecti velr, Were kept' a'iidsootedon Bucb lighters until said steam-ships were ready and did receive the same."
The answer denies the contract set forth in the libel, and sets up by way of defense an between the libelant and the company that the Ocean StE-.am-Ship·Coinpany was'ib. no case to be responsible for the demurrage ofitbe libelant'slighters. , ,,' , The testimony presents a conflict of testimony in regard to the agreeas in regard to theagreen,lentset n.p iii' the answer. 'J.1helibelant testifies to the making, of the agreelUent ,set 'f9rth lottie lipdwith the,agent ofthesteam-ship company. Mr. 'Walket1 denieshavmg 'made any such agreement, and as!'Elrtsthat the was to look to theJore!gn steam-ship lines,for; the, detention of his .lighters, and: not to Ocean Ste,am-$bip Cpmpany·. <thetestimon:t0f the libelant in Iegardto the <iontract set lip in, the liq.e[is,.hmyev.er, corroborated by the testimoby of another witness, and the probabilitiesofthe case seem to me tof8vor the position of the libelant. It will be noticed that the libelant had no contract with the steam-ship lines. Thecottbn delivered'fram,the libelant's lighters to the foreign by stich steamers fron1 the Ocean Compahy i'npursuanceof contracts riuide with the CPJ?pap:y, by whJcp, that" pOtn p/l:ny, cont,racte,d ,to deliver, seen, steam-, to the fw, the demprrage questign·. This bW;Dg, lin RElJhe,defendanteets up \Vould !?,e by: of any to "demurrage; to bet.we,en $5,000 and $8,090, by the he took the cott9n.on bQ8,rd hIS highly he would mlil1}ean agreement Jmn;Qf any.:compensatio,n for such 4etention. th.e Ols,de 1? eacq t?e Ogllax:x l,'egl}1l:\rly J,t() thatcoOlPllny tp? and tge S8 01: not quesT: tlone(l;pythe Ocean"Stea9bShIp ColllPliny,nor made at tpneip'l,'eiard. to is 'ihait of, tlle pl?mpany made out ihthis form
m, e.l:,',rQ"',m th, e, ,t,e,a, l,mes",l>)'}.qe"o,cea,',n, ComplUlY, this by the :libelant's An ar.rangement 'soanomalol,ls. requires a C?f,t,h,e l,i,ghte"fs.;h,,er,einsu,ed,':,for,'," not paId by: the CoIl)." pany, nor was he informed of the fact of 8uch collection until after this suIt was brought. ,Thiscircumatance, accord with the sta,teD)ent
that thi:l'defendant waS to collect the delDurrage from the foreign steamship lines as the agent of the libelant. Had such been the case, the muneys 'Would have ,been at once paid oveno the libelant. Still furtherj the agent of thesteam-shipcompany,as'I understand his urged the foreign steam-ship lines to pay the Ocean Steam-Ship Company for the detention ·of the light(ira,upon the ground that the Ocean SteamShip Company was liable therefor to 'the ·lioelant. I have not looked the evidence which shows that, with regard to similar bills not here sued for, the Ocean Ste'am-ShipCompanyacceptedof the foreign lines 50 per cent. 'Of the amount of the Hbelant'sbill after having obtained the libelant's consent to receive that amount for them in full of the bill. But this fact does not seem to me to be inconsigtent'with the testimony of the libelant. ," Looking at all the circumstances, my opinion is that the weight of the testimony is with the libelant, and that he is entitled toa dedree. The parties can no doubt agree upon theamount.< Hoot, let a reference be had.
(O£rcwU Court, S. D. New Yor1c. September 29, 1890.)
SUIPPING-ltISTAXB IN BILL OFLAllING-AGBN1S' OPTION-LIAJlILITY OF
U.; ,the common agent,of several di1ferent steam-ships, owned by ditferentowners. and ruuning independently on stated w,.ya, forming the "auion Line, If agreed with libelallts to transport 800 bales of cotton per steamer A. W., agent's option. A part were sent by the A., the rest by the W·· a we.ek later·.. U. only had authority tOdeterm ine by w.hich vessel' goods should 11:0. Without bis knowledge or con.. "ent, shippiIlg receipts were delivered to libelants, through some mistake of the subemployes, apparently induced in part by the libelauts' ships. The receipts stated that.the .goods were to go ,by the A. only; upon the faith of which. without U.'s ki:lowledge, bills of lading were iSSUlild at bis office, for all the cotton per ste,a:rp.er A. The cotton shipped by the W; alTivedabout 10 days later than that bytlie A.· and. the price falling in. the mean time, the libelantllsued.the owner of the fOI) ,the loss. Held. that there was no liability on the part of the owner to libelants,except for the amount of insuranoe paid by the latter on cotton on the A., which wasllDt carried by that vesseL ,
In Admiralty. On appeal from district court. Evarts, Ohoau &- Beaman, for libelants. Wilcoz, AdamS &- Macklin, for respondent.
See 37 Fed. Rep. 432.
, First." During the months of August and September, 1887,.the libelants ,were, and have sinceoontinued to be, partners in business 'in the city of· New York, doing business under ,the firm name of Crenshaw & Wisner. , c,' Second:. During such times the respondent was, and is now, of thes.team-:-ship Arizona. '. :(, '