Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/564

 550 rËDKBAL BEPOBTEB. �V �and requesting libellant to discontinue the suit and send bill of costs. The market priee of skins having f allen, Schmidt refused to discontinue the suit unless the steam-ship company would pay to him the diiïerence between the then market price o^ the skins and the price at which he had sold them to Keene, ■which difference amounted to $1,090.51, but offered to accept the goods at such market price if the steam-ship company •would pay said difference. This the company refused to do, but afterwards, on March 5, 1878, by agreement in open court, the skins were delivered without prejudice, the court reserving the question of the liability of the vessel for dam- ages. �It appeared from the testimony that owing to the failure in January, 1878, of a large dealer in skins the market at the time of the arrivai of the steam-ship was unsettled; some of libellant's -witnesses estimating the market value of the skins at that time to be as high as 27 cents per pound, and some of respondent's witnesses placing it as low as 20 cents. It clearly appeared, however, that during February, 1878, the price of skins fell, and that on March 5, 1878, when delivery was actually made, the market value, if there was a market, was but 20 to 22 cents per pound. �The libellant contended that the vessel was liable for the difference between the contract price with Keene and the market value on March 5, 1878. Eespondents contended that as the master of the vessel had acted in good faith, in obedience to an order of stoppage in transitu, the vessel was not liable at ail, and that even if any liability existed it could only be for the decline in market value between the arrivai of the vessel and the offer to deliver the goods made February 19, 1878. The district court entered a decree in favor of libellant, Cadwalader, D. J., delivering the foUowing opinion : "The detention of the skins by the defendants was wrongful. There could be no rightful stoppage ira transitu by reason of the former owner's insolvency. Through this wrongful deten- tion, and the consequent inability to deliver the goods to the purchaser in Philadelphia, the benefit of the sale to him was ����