their' Ibles," db ·not':miU,'tate'aga.inst the above'vieWs; .for :botonly does,j:hatpr6vision manUei;ltly:refer to the act of.load'ing'theship aft,er,&cepta:ncebythe'bharterer, but it strongly that, if the part'iek,meant to have the ahip's readiness for cargo depend on a surveyor's ,oorti.fliat.e1 theyw(>uld' lilivegiven eXpression to that intention. Hating thus reached the conclusion that the sl1ip Was ''ready for cargq1' on 'Jap.nary 31st, it is not necessary for us· to· express an opinion nponthequestion whether under the general rule oflawthat, where th.e,:tUhelof ·performande ofa contract falls on Sunday, it is legally pe'Df6rmable the:next da¥i Ifih.e ship's adinittedreadinessthe next morning:MIiSisUfDCient comphianoowith the charter pal'tr.. below isaJtiliDied.
(l)iltrict ;0. New York.
LA. ClIAMPAGNE. November 28; 1892.)
A;realodbleamountipMd. in settlement of a lalvageclatm agaInst a vessel ill wq!l(re the went to suit on disputed facts, and. tb.erll no, reascw. fOr supposing that the settlemelltwascollusive, is a damage to be cliarged agai'net the vessel in fault for the colli.lon.: ." " , and was makin( her sound,v&,lu!l b;r this, method $16;ltib. ·Es.tlmates ' as' tuher value by witnesses tor one. party varied from *12;OO(ho $14;000, for 1ib:e'JOther party from *22,000 to $25,000. The commisIlcmllr adopted the va)u,;1\r" above given. .Held. that his finding would not .' > \ ,., .. ' i:, ' :
.. BaE"+A.sCBBTAININ9VALUE OJ' VBSSEL,BEJllOItlll COLLISION.,· A..'Y;' M .a. r C011.ISIO,.,11.·.. Wa. SilO.ld in he. l' damaged .c.aD. dit.iO .for. $6,650. .. . . ... ..
Where of a 'de,maged by collision elect to have, her sold in her damaged condition. they'dannot recover demurrage; for intetestis the legal inthe delayio the hlance of her original value from the . "',i ' . ' ". ' wrong oer."
. Iriteres'. sliould be added on the amo"ntpaid for the wreck by the porchaser>duriI1g the' ·period' occupied by him in repairing. when that mode il adopt4d ,settJ,iQg ,thlly-.Iue of the vessel,. Sillce. in otde;rto tepair. it is necessary amount,pould lie idle. during that period. On a Voyage broken' up by collision, an 'allowance, al a.nltem of damagel, of the wbol,6'amount fllelght, less the 'expenses of the vessel duriol the time it Wil),qldh&,ve h,r to complete her voyage, ill proper.
EXPENSES. .". "
FOR WaECx-WHJ$N RECOVERABLE.
Owen,Q:ray& Jones &
On libelanta., cla»nants.
The darilages from collision in tIle above (43 Fed. Rep. 444,) and the report of the commisslonel'! assessing thedamages1lled. exceptions have been taken to the' anlounlt! allowed fforthe datna.ges +,0 the vessel, for demurrage, tot' salvage"for :freight, and for some' other items. BROWN;, DiStrict Jndge.
use: of the rii6ney, instead of the use of the vessel. They have receiV'eq the $6,650 proceeds. of sIde, and had the benefit of the use of that' To alloW for· a supposed loss of· the use of the .schooner of this 'money would be to allow double payment, pro tanto, for the same thing. The Belgenland, 36 Fed. Rep. 504. 'l'hemoneythus the libelants were at liberty to employ eithe\ in the ipurchase of another vessel in place of the one damaged and sold, or in any other way they saw fit. The City of 40 Fed. Rep. 697, ,760. 'They call11ot:claim for the-loss of the use of that particular vessel, because, as I have said, theyeIected not to use her; but to sell her aDd lise the proceeds. For the delaty in receiving the balance of her preVious .value over the proceeds of sale, interest is the legal indemnifty. ,Interest, therefore, and not· demurrage, should, in a case liketlte1present, be a:llowed.The Amiable Nancyi' 3 Wheat. 560; The Rhroe Island, 2 Bla.tchf. 113. 'See Fabre v. Steamship Co., 1 U. 53 288. This 'should be given (1) for the <lelay in the receipt of the $6,'650 up to Apri180, 1890; and '(2) for the various:btb.eHtems up to the present date..· 4:.HFrei:gh't;The amount allowed;by :the commissioner f6r the loss of:trei:ghtis, as I understand, the whole amount of freight that would have become due on the cargo of lumber upon its delivery at Bath, Me.r,where'it is found the cargo would have been delivered in the or.dinary:course, but for/this IliCcident, by the 15th of March, 1890. The evidepce :shows that this freight would have been: earned by.the but wascwholly lost ili:1'tmgh the collision. The libelants are, therefore, clearly entitled to ,this amount, less the additional eXpense of the ship in earning irtduring 'the 17 remaining days after the accivoyage Was broken up by the collision and all items of loss arecompensatedfol\ including ship's stores, the ship's expenses for those 17 days, whether for wages, provision.s;pilotage, wharfage, or any oLer expense of delivering cargo in order to earn the freight, should be deducted, in order to arrive at the net loss on freight. As the' earning of this freight, moreover, includes the use of the vessel ;up to the supposed arrival, and the completion of the deli'\'eryGf the eatgo,rviz., March 15,1890, interest on all the damages allowed should run: from that date. 5.'.fhe commissioner has found that 75 days was a reasonable time for dOing the repairs. Although demurrage as a separate item is disallowed; yet in estimating the cost of repairing there should be included the interest on the $6,650, the value of the wreck, and the amount paid for it. 'FloI' in order to get the vessel repaired, it was necessary that so much capital should be invested and lie idle during that period. This inMrestamounts 00$83.12, andehould be allowed like any 'other actual; cmtlay in repairing. the schooner, when that method of ascertaining her value is adopted.' The exMptionsas.to the items of chandlery, furniture, ship's stores, ltnd peIisonal 'effeCts, are· overruled. Besides interel'lt on thel,lsum of $9,583.12 from· March 15, 1890, the libelants are entitled, also, to interest on. the sum of $6,650 from the same'dateuntu"April 30, 1890, wheh they received:that amount as the proceeds.of·sale. ' . The other exceptions are overruled.
DEVEREUX v. FLEMING, (DEVEREUX, Intervener.) (Circuit Court, D. South Carolina. December 30, 1892.)
WAREHOUSEMEN-IMPLIED CONTRACT OF STORAGE-EVIDENCE.
'.rhe. father of a resident member of a firm, presumably from the personal interest which he took in the firm's success on account of his son's connection therewith, <Jaused a warehouse to be built at his own expense, in immediate connection with ll. system of railroads, thus facilitating the hand· ling, delivery, and storage of the bulky and heavy articles which the firm dealt in. During the building of the warehouse the son wrote numerous letters to his partner, using expressions which would indicate that the warehouse was being built by the firm, and was of 'an inexpensive character, and that it would reduce the expense of the goods stored therein to the cost of handling only. The father, however, had no financial interest in the firm, never authorized such statements, and was ignorant of them. He made his son superintendent of the warehouse, and, the firm having stored large quantities of goods therein, the business. of the two became somewhat mixed. No contract was made as to the terms of the storage, and, although the father had several settlements with. the firm as to other matters, he never said anything in regard to the charges for storage, but he regularly entered such charges on his own books. A receiver, having been appointed for the firm, attempted to remove the stored goods, whereupon the father claimed a lien for storage. Held, ,that thl'! presumption that a man intends to ohtain reu,uneration for the use of his property was not overcome by the'le facts, and it must be herd' that there was an implied contract of storage. Under the circumstances the firm should be allowed the best rates given by other warehouses of equal capacity and facilities.
SAME-LIEN FOR GENERAL BALANCE DUE FOR STORAGE.
The father as warehouseman was entitled to a lien on goods remaining in the war<>house for a general balance of due on all goods stored under the implied contract, for a warehouseman is entitled to a lien for llllCh general balance for all goods stored nuder a single contract. A warehouseman who retains !!oods for a general balance of storage un· .der a single contract is entitled to storage at the same rate after the of asserting his lien until payment is made, and he cannot be deprived of the same on the theory t.hat the storage from that t.ime on is for his own benefit. Somes v. Shipping Co., 8 H, L. Cas. 338, distinguished.
SAME-LIEN-GOODS RETAINED-CONTINUANCE OF STORAGE.
In Equity. Suit by John II. Deyereux, Jr., against Howard Fleming, for the dissolution of the firm of Devereux & Fleming. A receiver was appointed, an accounting ordered, and creditors called in. J. H. Devereux, Sr., intervened by petition, setting up the claim foran unpaid balance on a storage contract. Subsequently, on defendant's (Fleming's) application, the assets of the concern were ordered transferred to him by the receiver, the former giving bond for the and satisfaction in full of all creditors holding properclaim!! against the firm. See 47 :b'ed. Rep. 177. Intervener's claim !!ustained. F. J. Devereux, for petitioner. J. N. Nathans, for defendant, I<1eming.
for the dissolution of the firm of Fleming & Devereux, a copartner-
SfMONTON, Dllitrict Judge.
The bill in the main cause was filed
ship account, and the appointment of a receiver. v.53F.noA-26
The receiver· was