CLIFFORD, Circuit Justice.
Thirteen days elapsed in the efforts to secure a berth and in discharging the cargo, without reckoning the day of the arrival or the day the discharge was completed. Prior to the directions given to proceed to the wharf at'South Boston, it may reasonably be inferred that the master acquiesced in the neglect to designate a place for the discharge of the cargo; and if so, then the day of the arrival of the schooner and the Friday and Saturday following should be deducted. Perhaps Sunday was spent in getting to the wharf and in preparations for unlading. Whether the second notice to the charterers was given on Sunday afternoon or Monday morning does not appear; but computing the delay in the most favorable light for the respondents, it is clear that there was a loss of three, if not four, full days for the want of a place to discharge and deliver the cargo before the stevedores were able to commence the work. They also lost one day afterwards for the want of teams to take the coal away, making at least four days of unnecessary delay, for which the respondents are clearly responsible, unless the defence set up in the answer can be maintained. Payment for six days’ delay is claimed in the libel, but it seems to the court, for the reasons already suggested, that none of the time prior to the arrival of the schooner at the wharf in South Boston should be reckoned against the respondents. The defence set up in the answer is, that the schooner on her arrival was directed to a certain wharf to discharge, that she had a berth at that wharf in her regular turn, and that the master was enabled to commence the discharge of the vessel within the time and in the manner established by the usage and custom of the port for uie un-lading of vessels engaged in the coal and other coasting trade. The admission of the answer also is, that the schooner, when she proceeded to the wharf where she was directed to discharge, found the berth occupied by another vessel, and was obliged to wait for a turn until that vessel completed her discharge, and the period of delay, as stated in the answer, is somewhat longer than is shown in the proofs. A delay beyond what is ordinarily necessary during the discharge of the vessel is also admitted in the answer, but it is ascribed to the inability of the consignees to obtain stevedores, in consequence of the extreme heat and large arrival of coal, and not to the want of teams to remove the coal, as alleged in the libel. The respondents in argument make two points of defence on which they chiefly rely; First, they contend that the consignees had a right to select the wharf where the schooner was to discharge, and that if the berth was occupied by another vessel when she arrived there, she was bound to wait her turn without any charge for demurrage; second, that vessels arriving at this port loaded with coal not previously sold by the consignees are, if requested, obliged by the usages of the port to wait three days, before commencing to discharge, to give the owner's of the coal an opportunity to effect a sale. Whether the consignees effected a sale of the coal before they designated a place for discharging the same does not appear, but it does appear that the wharf designated belonged to a third person, and was not one occupied by the consignees. Undoubtedly the consignees, as the agents of the charterers, had a right to designate the place where the vessel should discharge the cargo, but it must be one within the terms of the charter-party. They could not go out of the port of destination, nor could they select one within the port which would involve greater delay in discharging than the charter allowed. Express reference was made in the bill of lading to the charter-party, so that the consignees had no greater rights than the charterers. The charterers were allowed “three working days to load” at the port of departure, and they stipulated to make [185]*185“quick despatch in discharging at” the port of destination; and the consignees had the same rights and were bound by the same obligations. Reference is made by the respondents to the stipulation in the charter-party that the cargo “shall be received and delivered at the ports of loading and discharging as customary.” But it is evident that that clause refers to the manner of receiving and delivering the cargo, and that it has nothing to do with the question under consideration. Where there is no special 'contract, the usage of the port in respect to the reception and delivery of the cargo, in controversies between the ship-owner and the consignee, is frequently a very material •consideration; but demurrage is a matter of contract, and it is well-settled law that usage cannot prevail over or nullify the express provisions of a contract. Bliven v. New England Screw Co., 23 How. [64 U. S.] 431; Add. Cont. 970. Proof of usage is admitted either to interpret the meaning of the language of •the contract or to ascertain its nature and effect in the absence of express stipulation, and where the meaning is equivocal or obscure; but the proof of usage is not admitted to contradict express stipulations, or to vary the language employed by the parties where their meaning is expressed in plain and unambiguous terms. The Reeside [Case No. 11,657], Such delay as occurred before the schooner arrived at the wharf designated by the consignees will be left out of view at present, and will be separately considered in examining the second ground of defence. First defence is, that the schooner was properly required to wait her turn at the wharf where she was directed to discharge by the consignees. By the terms of the charter-party the schooner was entitled to quick despatch at. the port of discharge; and the libellant contends that the proposition of the respondent is in direct conflict with the stipulation of the charter-party. Demurrage is the sum fixed by the contract of affreightment as a remuneration to the ship-owner for the detention of the ship beyond the lay-days allowed for loading or unloading the vessel. Maude & P. Shipp. 176; Pars. Mar. Law, 261. Stipulations are usually inserted in charter-parties and bills of lading, to prevent disputes and define the rights of parties in case of unforeseen delays in loading or unloading, specifying that a certain number of days called running or working days are allowed for that purpose, and it is frequently stipulated that the charterer or freighter may delay the ship for a further specified time at an agreed price per day for such over-time. Sometimes the contract is, that the vessel shall be loaded and discharged in the usual time, or within a reasonable time after her arrival in port, or that the freighter shall be allowed the usual and customary time to load or unload at the port of loading or discharge. In other cases the contract of af-freightment is without any such definite condition; but even in those cases the owner, if the ship is improperly detained, may frequently have a special claim to damage in the nature of demurrage. The settled rule is, where the contract of affreightment expressly stipulates that a given number of days shall be allowed for the discharge of the cargo, that such a limitation is an express stipulation that the vessel shall in no event be detained longer for that purpose, and that if so detained, it shall be considered as the delay of the freighter, even where it is not occasioned by his fault, but was inevitable. Field v. Chase, Hill & D. 51. Where the contract is, that the ship shall be unladen within a certain number of days, it is no defence to an action for demurrage that the overdelay was occasioned by the crowded state of the docks, or by port regulations, or government restraints.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
CLIFFORD, Circuit Justice.
Thirteen days elapsed in the efforts to secure a berth and in discharging the cargo, without reckoning the day of the arrival or the day the discharge was completed. Prior to the directions given to proceed to the wharf at'South Boston, it may reasonably be inferred that the master acquiesced in the neglect to designate a place for the discharge of the cargo; and if so, then the day of the arrival of the schooner and the Friday and Saturday following should be deducted. Perhaps Sunday was spent in getting to the wharf and in preparations for unlading. Whether the second notice to the charterers was given on Sunday afternoon or Monday morning does not appear; but computing the delay in the most favorable light for the respondents, it is clear that there was a loss of three, if not four, full days for the want of a place to discharge and deliver the cargo before the stevedores were able to commence the work. They also lost one day afterwards for the want of teams to take the coal away, making at least four days of unnecessary delay, for which the respondents are clearly responsible, unless the defence set up in the answer can be maintained. Payment for six days’ delay is claimed in the libel, but it seems to the court, for the reasons already suggested, that none of the time prior to the arrival of the schooner at the wharf in South Boston should be reckoned against the respondents. The defence set up in the answer is, that the schooner on her arrival was directed to a certain wharf to discharge, that she had a berth at that wharf in her regular turn, and that the master was enabled to commence the discharge of the vessel within the time and in the manner established by the usage and custom of the port for uie un-lading of vessels engaged in the coal and other coasting trade. The admission of the answer also is, that the schooner, when she proceeded to the wharf where she was directed to discharge, found the berth occupied by another vessel, and was obliged to wait for a turn until that vessel completed her discharge, and the period of delay, as stated in the answer, is somewhat longer than is shown in the proofs. A delay beyond what is ordinarily necessary during the discharge of the vessel is also admitted in the answer, but it is ascribed to the inability of the consignees to obtain stevedores, in consequence of the extreme heat and large arrival of coal, and not to the want of teams to remove the coal, as alleged in the libel. The respondents in argument make two points of defence on which they chiefly rely; First, they contend that the consignees had a right to select the wharf where the schooner was to discharge, and that if the berth was occupied by another vessel when she arrived there, she was bound to wait her turn without any charge for demurrage; second, that vessels arriving at this port loaded with coal not previously sold by the consignees are, if requested, obliged by the usages of the port to wait three days, before commencing to discharge, to give the owner's of the coal an opportunity to effect a sale. Whether the consignees effected a sale of the coal before they designated a place for discharging the same does not appear, but it does appear that the wharf designated belonged to a third person, and was not one occupied by the consignees. Undoubtedly the consignees, as the agents of the charterers, had a right to designate the place where the vessel should discharge the cargo, but it must be one within the terms of the charter-party. They could not go out of the port of destination, nor could they select one within the port which would involve greater delay in discharging than the charter allowed. Express reference was made in the bill of lading to the charter-party, so that the consignees had no greater rights than the charterers. The charterers were allowed “three working days to load” at the port of departure, and they stipulated to make [185]*185“quick despatch in discharging at” the port of destination; and the consignees had the same rights and were bound by the same obligations. Reference is made by the respondents to the stipulation in the charter-party that the cargo “shall be received and delivered at the ports of loading and discharging as customary.” But it is evident that that clause refers to the manner of receiving and delivering the cargo, and that it has nothing to do with the question under consideration. Where there is no special 'contract, the usage of the port in respect to the reception and delivery of the cargo, in controversies between the ship-owner and the consignee, is frequently a very material •consideration; but demurrage is a matter of contract, and it is well-settled law that usage cannot prevail over or nullify the express provisions of a contract. Bliven v. New England Screw Co., 23 How. [64 U. S.] 431; Add. Cont. 970. Proof of usage is admitted either to interpret the meaning of the language of •the contract or to ascertain its nature and effect in the absence of express stipulation, and where the meaning is equivocal or obscure; but the proof of usage is not admitted to contradict express stipulations, or to vary the language employed by the parties where their meaning is expressed in plain and unambiguous terms. The Reeside [Case No. 11,657], Such delay as occurred before the schooner arrived at the wharf designated by the consignees will be left out of view at present, and will be separately considered in examining the second ground of defence. First defence is, that the schooner was properly required to wait her turn at the wharf where she was directed to discharge by the consignees. By the terms of the charter-party the schooner was entitled to quick despatch at. the port of discharge; and the libellant contends that the proposition of the respondent is in direct conflict with the stipulation of the charter-party. Demurrage is the sum fixed by the contract of affreightment as a remuneration to the ship-owner for the detention of the ship beyond the lay-days allowed for loading or unloading the vessel. Maude & P. Shipp. 176; Pars. Mar. Law, 261. Stipulations are usually inserted in charter-parties and bills of lading, to prevent disputes and define the rights of parties in case of unforeseen delays in loading or unloading, specifying that a certain number of days called running or working days are allowed for that purpose, and it is frequently stipulated that the charterer or freighter may delay the ship for a further specified time at an agreed price per day for such over-time. Sometimes the contract is, that the vessel shall be loaded and discharged in the usual time, or within a reasonable time after her arrival in port, or that the freighter shall be allowed the usual and customary time to load or unload at the port of loading or discharge. In other cases the contract of af-freightment is without any such definite condition; but even in those cases the owner, if the ship is improperly detained, may frequently have a special claim to damage in the nature of demurrage. The settled rule is, where the contract of affreightment expressly stipulates that a given number of days shall be allowed for the discharge of the cargo, that such a limitation is an express stipulation that the vessel shall in no event be detained longer for that purpose, and that if so detained, it shall be considered as the delay of the freighter, even where it is not occasioned by his fault, but was inevitable. Field v. Chase, Hill & D. 51. Where the contract is, that the ship shall be unladen within a certain number of days, it is no defence to an action for demurrage that the overdelay was occasioned by the crowded state of the docks, or by port regulations, or government restraints. Detention of the vessel for loading or discharging longer than the time allowed by the contract entitles the owner to the stipulated demurrage, although it was impossible to complete the work within that time by natural causes. Randall v. Lynch, 2 Camp. 352; Barret v. Dutton, 4 Camp. 333; Hill v. Idle, Id. 327; Furnell v. Thomas, 5 Bing. 188. Much reliance is placed by the respondents upon the case of Rodgers v. Forresters, 2 Camp. 483; and also upon the case of Burmester v. Hodgson, Id. 488; but it is quite clear that they are not applicable to the present case, unless it be held that the words “quick despatch in discharging” have no meaning whatsoever. Stipulations, express or implied, that the ship shall not be detained beyond the period or periods specified in the contract of affreightment are not controlled by the usage of the port where the vessel is to load or discharge; and if the freighter detains the vessel beyond the time specified, he is liable to an action on the contract adapted to the nature of the instrument and the practice of the jurisdiction where the suit is brought. Abb. Shipp. 303; Clendaniel v. Tuckerman, 17 Barb. 184. Just prior to the arrival of the plaintiff’s vessel an unusual number of other vessels arrived at the defendant’s wharf for the purpose of discharging their cargoes. They had been held, back for a time by a storm, but being first at the wharf they were entitled to priority in turn. The consignee had but one wharf, and he offered to prove the circumstances at the trial, as an excuse for the delay, but the judge excluded the evidence, and the court of appeals held that it should have been admitted. A direct admission, however, is made in the opinion that the defendant would be liable, if he was in fault, in suffering such an accumulation of craft, laden with cargo for himself, for the same wharf, at the same time. But the court also ruled that where there is an express contract, the parties are held strictly to its terms, and that no excuse, as a general rule, is available in such eases for delay; considering that the whole delay in that case did not exceed two days, [186]*186it may be that the decision is correct, upon the ground that the discharge, in view of the circumstances, was within a reasonable time. Conceding the correctness of that decision, still it cannot affect the case at bar, as by the express terms of the charter-party the owners of the vessel were entitled to quick despatch in discharging, and it cannot be admitted that thirteen days’ delay was not a violation of that provision. Parties may contract as they please, but their contracts must be construed and executed as they are made. They may contract that the ship shall wait any number of days before commencing to load or discharge, and that the freighter- shall have any number of lay-days, with or without charge, or none at all, or that the ship shall load or discharge in turn; but any such special arrangement, enlarging the time for loading or discharging, is matter of special contract. Even the covenant to load with usual despatch excludes every delay on the part of the shipper beyond “the ordinary-time for bringing the cargo to the place of landing and loading.” Kearon v. Pearson, 7 Hurl. & N. 386. Viewed in the most favorable light for the respondents, it must be understood that the stipulation for quick de-spatch in discharging excludes all delay- save the time employed in unloading and delivering the cargo, except what is occasioned by natural causes beyond the control of the party contracting. Such exception was denied in the ease of Kearon v. Pearson, and it is clear that it cannot be admitted where the covenant is only for usual despatch; it cannot be admitted in cases like the present. The power to designate the place of discharge belongs to the consignee, but he is bound to select a place where the ship will encounter no delay beyond the time necessary for the unloading of the vessel where the delivery and reception of the cargo is required by law. The Eddy, 5 Wall. [72 U. S.] 490; The Bird of Paradise. Id. 545. Delay beyond that, if occasioned by natural cause over which the defendant has no control, may, perhaps, be excused in a case where there is no express contract as to time, but that question does not arise in this case, and no decided opinion is expressed upon the subject. Enough has already been remarked to show that, in the view of the court, the second question presented by- the respondents does not arise in the ease, for the reason that the master appears to have acquiesced in the delay without complaint or notice to the respondents that he should hold them responsible. When told that the coal was not sold, and requested to call on the following day-, if he did not intend to acquiesce in the consequent delay, he ought to have said so, or in some maimer to have signified to the consignees that he did not waive the right of the ship-owner. Nothing appears in the record to warrant the conclusion that the delay at that time was claimed by the consignees as matter of right; but in view of the cireum-stances it is much more reasonable to infer that it was but a request, and as such was. voluntarily acceded to by the master. .Regarded as a claim of right, very strong doubts are entertained whether it could be-sustained in any case, and it is quite clear that such a usage, if proved, can never avail as a defence where it comes in conflict with the terms of the contract Usage is never held to make a contract, and proof of it will never be admitted to contradict a contract expressed in clear and unambiguous terms. The libellant is entitled to recover for four days’ unnecessary delay of the schooner in discharging at the port of destination.
The decree of the district court is reversed, and let a decree be entered for the-libellant.