Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/420

 WILLIS V. STEAMSHIP CITY OF ATJSTIN. 413 �of the bill of lading. The bill of lading contained the follow- ing clause : "It is expressly understood that the articles named in this bill of lading shall be at the risk of the owner, shipper or consignee thereof, as soon as delivered from the tackles of the steamer at her port of destination ; and if not taken away the same day by him they may, at the option of the steamer'a agents, be sent to store, permitted to lay where landed, or return to the port of shipment at the expense and risk of the aforesaid owner, shipper or consignee." The steamer carried upon the same voyage over 1,000 cases and packages for a firm called L. & H. Blum, and some 700 for the libellants. Both the libellants and L. & H. Blum were merchants. doing business at Galveston, Texas, and the voyage was from New York to Galveston. �It is claimed on the part of the steamer that, under the bill of lading, the ship is not liable for the loss of the goods if it happened after they were landed on the wharf at Galveston ; that the consignees, these libellants, had notice of the time and place at which the ship was to discharge her cargo, and actu- ally attended at the wharf by their agents during the discharge before this partieular case was put out on the wharf; that they, therefore, had due notice of the landing. In the case of The Santee, 2 Ben. 595, 7 Bl. 186, a construction was given to a bill of lading similar to this, except that in that case the bill of lading also provided that the goods should be received by the consignee "package by package, as so delivered," i. e.^ "from the tackles of the steamer." It was held that under such a bill of lading the ship's liabliity ceased when the goods were put on the wharf from the the tackles of the ship, and that the fact that the mate afterwards attempted a separation of the goods of the several consignees, and took receipts for them, did not affect the question. �.1 do not think there is any material distinction between the two cases. The words held, in the case of the Santee most distinctly to show the purpose of the parties to limit the liability of the ship to the time when the goods were placed on the wharf from the tackles of the ship, was that clause which provides that if the goods, after being so deliv- ����