TSO FEDERAL BBPOETBR. �ping clerk replied that they were going to take their Iron on ligbters; that that dock would suit them ; and inquired when the vessel would be ready for the lighters, andwas told in four or flve days. The vessel thereupon went to the Atlantic dock, and by the 18th or 19th was ready to discharge the iron ; but owing to great diflaculty in proauring lighters at that time none was sent to receive it until the 26th, when one lighter was sent alongside and received about half the iron. On December Ist a berth for the vessel was obtained by the respondents at Merchants' Stores, to which the vessel was removed, and the rest of the iron was discharged there upon the wharf by December 6th. Four days were admitted to be a reasonable time for dis- charging the iron. The freight was paid December 8th, leaving the claim for (leinurrage, which had previously been rendered, unadjusted. This libel was thereafter filed on December 19, 1879, claiming 14 days' demiirrage, viz., from the nineteenth of November to December 6th, less four days for delivery, and also claiming $630 special damages for loss of more favorable return freights, which it is alleged the vessel would have obtained but for this detention. �It is the duty of the vesael to make delivery of the cargo. If the consignee will not receive it she must unlade it where she can, and store it suitably for the shipper's account. Kennedy v. Dodge, 1 Ben. 311; Vose v. Allen, 3 Blatchf. 289; The Eddy, 5 Wall. 481; Arthur V. Schooner Cassius, 2 Story, 81; Ostrander v. Brown, 15 Johns. 39; 1 Pars. Shipp. & Adm. 225; Brittan v. Barnaby, 21 How. 527. �Where, as in this case, the bill of lading is silent as to the particu- lar place or mode of delivery, it must be made according to the usages and regulations of the port, or the arrangements made with the con- signee. It is competent for the ship's agent to make such arrange- ments with the consignee, and any specifie agreement so made by him in regard to the delivery will bind the ship. The Grafton, 1 Blatchf. 173. �The libellant sought to prove an established custom and usage at this port making it the duty of the consignee of iron, though it con- stituted but a minor part of the cargo, to provide a berth where the vessel could unlade it ; and when a berth was so provided, that the ship was bound to go there to unload, although the rest of the cargo might be diseharging elsewhere. Several witnesses testified with more or less distinctness to this custom ; but it was denied by others having nearly equal opportunities of knowledge. As the force of such a custom depends upon the general knowledge of it and acquaintance in it, I must find, upon testimony so conflicting, that the alleged cus- tom is not proved, although there is stronger support for such a usage in the case of the consignment of a whole cargo of iron to a single consignee. ��� �
