MBERIOK V. CERTAIN BUSHELB 07 WHBAT, ETO, 843 �more appropriately to express just such a contraet than was emplojed in that case. The stipulation is that the deficiency or excess to be deducted or paid for shall be that in the cargo, as specified in the bill of lading, not in that to be ascertained from other sources of inquiry ; and unless this was just the meaning of the stipulation it means nothing, because every- thing else is covered by the other branch of the stipulation, which provides that the consignee may deduct from the freight ail damages to the cargo caused by the carrier. �In the present case the parties stipulated that a deficiency in a cargo, described as 20,000 bushels of wheat, should be deducted from the freight by the consignee, while an excess should be paid for to the carrier. It seems to me plain that the parties intended what they said, and expressed what they intended; and, while I am reluctant to differ from a court of such high authority as that -which decided abbe v. Eaton, I am constrained to believe that, even were that case preoisely like the present, it would be my duty to give effeot to what seems to me plainly to have been the meaning of the contraet. �Upon the ground that the carrier was bound by his stipu- lation to deduct the deficiency from the cargo, as described in the bill of lading, and upon this ground only, I am of opinion the reeovery of the libellant should be limited to the amount of his freight, less the value of the shortage, and order judgment aecordingly, with costs to the claimants. ����
