Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/335

 320 FEDERAL REPORTER. �I am satisfied that neither ordinary care, caution, nor nautical skill could have prevented the occurrences whieh resulted in the damages of which libellant oomplains. When a collision takes place by any inevitable accident, or by any vis major, the loss is to be borne by the party on whom it falls. See Desty, Adm. § 384, and authorities cited in note 11. �This conclusion reached, renders it unnecessary to go further into the case ; but, having caref ully examined the -whole evidence, I may say that I have been forced to the conclusion that the damages actu- ally suffered by libellant, growing out of the collision with his wood- boat and the Allen, have been enlarged and magnified, and, if he had otherwise a case, he could not recover over some $40, with costs doubtful. The custom of selling wood by short measurement is not lawful, reasonable, or moral, and, if proved, cannot be invoked to prove more cords of wood on a flat-boat than the boat will hold, so as to enhance damages in a case of collision. �Let a decree be entered dismissing the libel, with costs. ���ToENBiffiL, Martin & Co. v. Eighty-Seven Blocks of Marblb. �{District Court, E. D. Louisiana. JWarch 24, 1881.) �]. Bill of Lading— Unloading Cakgo. �The ship-owners can recover from the consignees the expense incurred by them in unloading the vessel, where the bill of lading provides that the cargo should be delivered from the ship's deok, when the ship's responsibihty should cease. �In Admiralty. �E. W. Huntington, for libellants. �T. C. W. Ellis and Emmet D. Graig, for claimants. �BiLLiNGS, D. J. The amount daimed by the libellants in this cause is made up of three items, viz. : freight, $1,476.97; demur- rage, at $150 par day, $450; and expenses for labor, $445.50. It is admitted by the claimants that the amount claimed for freight is due, and that sum has been tendered and deposited in the registry of the court. As to the second item, demurrage, it does not appear by preponderance of evidence that the delay in unloading was caused by the fault of the consignees. The claim for this item is therefore rejected. As to the third item — $445.50 expenses in unloading the marble. This expense was incurred in transporting the marble from the ship over the wharf to the firm land or shora. It is not ��� �