THE PRINCE LEOPOLD.
A different opinion as to the application of this statute baying been expressed by the attorney general, (April 28, 1881,) I have given the matter more careful consideration, and stated at greater length than I might otherwise have done the reasons that have constrained me to come to the conclusion I bave reached. The exceptions to ·the libel are, therefore, sustained.
THE PRINCE LEOPOLD.(Oircuit Court, E. D. Louisiana. 1881.)
Towage service must be rendered to aatrya1ien ;. an unexecuted contract t6 perform towage service is not enough.
In Admiralty. I. R. Beckwith, for libellant. ; Emmet D. Craig, for claimants.' PARDEE, C. J. An unexecuted contract of affreightment gives no maritime lien. 18 How. 188; 19 How. 90. An unexeeuted contract for furnishing supplies carries no The Gabarga, 3 Blatchf. 75.. ' An unexecuted contrMt for wages, where the voyage' was never begun and no services rendered; furnishes' 'rio lien. 1W. cited in 19 How. 90. Admiraity;and maiitilhc Hensaro not given by implication. 19 How. 89. No reason is given why an unetectited contract to furnish towage to a vessel should stand onahybetter footing tha:nthough the contract related to freight, wages, or mateHals. It is claimed that!'towage is a part of the voyage, (22 How. 244;) but that must be understood as towage actually fufuished. The owners may have contracts with a dozen different tow-boats that shall tow the ship, but it is only the ones actually towing the tlch vessel that help begin or complete the voyage. Let there be a decree maintaining the exception filed, and dismissing the libel, with costs.
"'Reported by Joseph P. Horner, Esq., of the New Orleans bal'.
TJ:lE GOLDEN RULE.·
D. Louisiana. November 18, 1881.)
Parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of a written contract.
OOMMON OARRIER-DELAY IN DELIVERy-DAMAGES·.
In the ordinary case of delay by a common carrier in delivering goods, the measure of damages is the difference in their market value at the time when actually delivered and when they should have been delivered.
In Admiralty. 1. R. Beckwith and E. D. Craig, for libellant. B. Egan, for claimants. PARDEE, O. J. This isll. suit brought on a bill of lading to recover damages for the failure to deliver in time the goods shipped. The first question is as to whether the defendants had the right to disregard the bill of lading because of representations said to have been made by the drayman who delivered the goods to the steam-boat, to clerk, following which the goods were stowed as through .freight for New Orleans, and not as way freight; so that when the landing was reached the gopds could not be landed without ,great trouble and delay. . The goods were, therefore, notlanded on the down trip of.the boat, but were landed on the return trip, causing a delay of about eight days. Such a defence cannot be listened to, as :otheJ.'wise !'lvery bill of lading could be altered or varied by the recollections. of a. steam-boat mate, or the. interference of disinterested p&xties. .The carrying contract, reduced to writing in a bill of lading, can no more be altered ,or varied by parol evidence than a'ny other written contrll.ct. See The Delaware, 14 Wall. 579. But, outside of this, ,unauthorized parties certainly cannot change the contract between the ship and the shipper. , The other question is. as to the rule of damages. The freight ,shipped was about 140 wheelbarr0ws, and the libellant claims. that, at the place of landing, he had a contract or job to repair or build a levee, with 125 men in waiting to use the wheelbarrows; and that during the delay the men could not work; and that libellant was compelled to keep and support the men at an expense of $1.25 each per day, thereby being damaged to that extent by the negligent failure of the defendant boat to deliver the freight in time. A statement of libellant's claim seems to decide it against him, particularly as there is no showing whatever that the defendant boat was in anywise
'lfHeported by Joseph P. Horner, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.