Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/188

 ITe 4fEDEBAL EEPORTir.. The -defendant does not dispute either of the items claimed in the present suit, but the controversy between the parties ia upon the defendant's right to a set-oflf of the sum of $317.22, paid by him to the master of the Castalia for demarrage at Weeha'wken, together with the expenses of counsel. On the arrivai of the Castalia at this port a libel was liled by her master against her cargo of coal, claiming damages in the nature of demurrage. The cargo was seized by the marshal, and af terw'ards bondcd by the defendant. Seasonable notice of the libel was given to the plaintiffs by the defendant, and they were requested by him to give instructions as to the matter, to which they replied, "they had no advice to give." The defendant notified them that he should hold them chargeable, and that they were bound to indemuify him from such suit, but they did not appear in defence of the cause, or in any way render any aid to the defendant. The case went to trial in the district court, and after a fuU hearing that court decreed to the libellant the sum of $260 as damages, on account of the improper detention of said vessel, together with the costs, which amount was subse^uently paid by this defendant. The judgment of the district court in that suit was not only conclusive upon the defendant, but also upon the plain- tiffs in this suit, both as to the validity of the claim there presented and the amount of damages. This is fuUy settled by the supreme court of the United States in Robbins v. T^^e City of Chicago, 4 Wall. 657. The only remaining question îs whether the plaintiffs are bound to indemnify the defendant against the claim of the ship, by roason of the cargo being subjected to this liability through their fault. The bargain for the coal was made wholly by telegraph and letter. Quite a number of such communications passed be- tween the parties on the sixteenth and seventeenth of February, and it is, sufficient to say that the resuit was, that on the 17th a bargain was coneluded between them, by which the plaintiffs sold and the defendant purchased the cargo, the same to be loaded before the 20th. The same day the defendant char-