Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/489

 474 FBDEBAL BBPOBTER. �hatches opposite the pile corresporiding to that left on board, and then unloaded the balance. This mode of unloading was evideutly adopted without regard to the interests or rights of the vessel, and solely because it suited the purpose of the consignees. The vessel had the right, under the law and her charter, to quick dispatch, and this was not given her. �My conclusion, then, is that the consignees had the right to take 24 hours, excluding Sunday, in which to furnish a dock and begin un- loading, and as the Gook arrived Saturday morning, they were not obliged to begin unloading until Monday morning, so there is no ground for complaint against the respondents for not beginning to iinload earlier than Monday morning. But I further find from the proof that there was an unreasonable delay of two days after the unloading commenced, for which the libellants should be compen- sated; and, from the proof in the case, I fix the rate of compensation at $60 a day. There will, therefore, be a decree in favor of the libel- lants for $120, and the costs of the case. ���The Waltee M. Fleming. (District Court, E. D. New York. September 28, 1881.) �1. Equitt— Djelat. �Delay defeata equity. So Tida, where one slept on his rights for seven years, and then invoked the aid of the court against a purchaser for value who had been in possession of the property for nearly that length of time with the knowledge of the libellant, and without objection on his part. �Jj. E. Stegman and E. G. Davis, for libellant, �Benedict, Taft d Benedict, for respondent. �Benbdict, D. J. The libel in this case, by reason of its curions and uncertain averments, presents questions that I pass over to deter- mine the question raised by the evidence ; namely, whether, upon the facts proved, a case is made calling for the interposition of this court to take the possession of the canal-boat Walter M. Fleming from Cornelius Vanolinda, who now bas the same, and give it to the libellant. �The facts are largely in dispute, according to the libellant's testi- mony. He being the owner and in possession of this boat in July, 1874, at Eochester, New York, made an agreement with one Charles Vanolinda to sell the boat for a certain sum — $150 down, and the bal- ance within 30 days. The $150 was then paid by the buyer, and ��� �