50 t   FEDERAL nE1>osrEr..
In Admiralty. ` ‘
W. H. Condon, for libelant.
Robert Rae, for respondent. '
Dmnumouo, C. J. The schooner American was at Oswego in the fall
of 1872, and took in a cargo of coal for Chicago, leaving Oswego on
_ the tenth of November. A general bill of lading was given, and at
_ l high price charged for the transportation of the coal from Oswego to ‘
Chicago, being $2.75 per ton. The schooner met with adverse winds
and did not arrive at Port Huron until November 29th. The weather,
r 4 according to the testimony of the witnesses, was very inclement that
fall, and the captain concluded that the safest course was to strip the
vessel and lay up at Port Huron. The schooner accordingly re-
mained there with her cargo during the winter, and the coal was not
delivered in Chicago or received by the consignees until May 8, 1873,
when the spring freight was paid by the consignees on the coal, being
much less than that charged in the bill of lading. After the coal
had been thus delivered by the schooner to the consignees, a libel was
filed claiming the amount of freight stated in the bill of lading, the
consignees having refused to pay any more than the spring price of
freight., The casewent to proof before the district court, where the
libel was dismissed; but a cross-libel having been filed claiming that
the captain of the American was negligent in wintering at Port
Huron, and that the vessel should have come on in the fall of 1872,
the district court gave a decree on the cross-libel for damages
against the libelants in consequence of the supposed negligence of
the captain. From these decrees the libelants have appealed to this
court, and the question is whether the decrees of the district court ‘
are right. -
The first question is on the decree of the district court dismissing
the libel. That decree, I think, was right. The rule laid down by
the supreme court of the United States in Bags of Linseed, 1 Black,
‘ 108, is that in order that the ship-owner should retain a lien on the cargo
for the freight, it should not be delivered to the consignee. The rule-is
absolute, and there may be circumstances where a cargo may be de- I
livered to the consignee and the lien of the ship-owner re.tained. . But
· the supreme court declares that in all such cases, when the goods are
delivered to the consignee, there must be an understanding between
the parties that the lien of the ship-owner remains upon the cargo;
or it must appear there is an established local usage of the port
where the cargo is delivered, that the lien shall remain. I do not
think this case is brought within any of the rules laid down