MASON V. CLIÏTOBD. 177 �before the 20th. The Castalia reported the 18th. If her cargo had been in readiness for her she could have been loaded in 24 hours. The bargain between these parties was fixed and definite as to the time the vessel was to be ready for her cargo, and the cargo provided for her. It was not, therefore, at ail dependent upon any raies of the coal company as to loading vessels in tum. �These plaintiffs, by express agreement, stipulated that the ehip should be loaded by a certain day, and they must abide by their contract; and the faet that the coal was to be pro- cured by the plaintiffs from athird party, by whose rules ves- sels were to be loaded in turn as they reported, can have no effect upon the rights of the parties here in court. Such rules may, perhaps, exonerate the coal company from liability to the plaintiffs, if the plaintiffs were cognizant of them, and by their dealings with the company assented to and became bound by them. It is not shown that the defendant, at the time he purchased this coal of the plaintiffs, had any knowl- edge of the aUeged custom of the coal company in this respect. �It cannot, therefore, be considered as in any way modifying the express contract between these parties, that the vessel should be loaded by the 20th, and the plaintiffs must be held aceountable for the delay, and must make good to the defend- ant the damages he has thereby sustained. �The claim in set-off is therefore allowed. ���Mason, Eeceiver, etc., v. Clifpobd. [Circuit Court, W. D. Wf^ontin. November4, 1880.) �1. Lease. — Neither the reservation of rent nor any partlcular fonn of �words is essential to the creation of a lease. �2. CoNTBAOT— Mabteb AND Teïnant. — Contract construed, and hdd, under �the circumstances of the case, not to create the relation of master and servant between the parties. Fislc V. Far-mington Manufg Co. 14 Pick. 491, followed. WatTuy V. Oîifford, 46 Wis. 168, construing same contract, disap- tjroved. v.4,no.3— 12 ����
