46 mnmur. imromnn.
and no mention is made of other marks or notices. It is very doubt-
ful, therefore, whether parol evidence to show any other marks would
be admissible. However, as proof of the said notices as attached to
the packages has been made, without objection, it is necessary to de-
termine what effect such attached notices had on the responsibility
of the carrier. The proof does not show that the notices were called
to the attention of any one of the carrier’s agents. In the course of
loading and stowing the packages aboard the ship the notices might
or might not be seen by the stevedore and freight-handlers. The no-
tice -"Must not be put in the ho1d" is the only one that, under the
evidence, it is clear was not complied with.
· Under the authority of The Delaware, supra, if the case were one
where the goods had been stowed above decks, and had been lost or
damaged, the carrier would not be allowed to prove by parol the no-
tice, so as to show a consent by the shipper to the deck stowage. No
authorities are cited to show what effect should be given such notices
_ when they are not called to the attention of the carrier, and are not
referred to in the bill of lading. The conclusion I reach is that, as
such notice will not protect the carrier, it should not bind him, and
I am satisfied that a notice marked on goods, not called to the atten-
tion of the carrier, and not mentioned in the bill of lading, ought not
to increase the carrier’s responsibility. A decree will be entered dis-
- missing the libel, with costs.
Comzmemm and others v. SWITZERLAND Maamm Ins. Co. and
others}
(Distric! Court, B. D. New York. December 31, 1885.)
1. MARINE Insonmon — Exrsmsns or Lrrrearron-Sum Ann Luzon Cmiusm-
Pnmvioos SUITS—SEAWORTHINESS or Vnssnn-Esrorrmn.
Certain insurance companies, in con']_unction with cargo owners, defended
against a claim ona bottomry bond. he cargo was finally released from the
claim. Afterwards, on suit brought by the cargo owners against the insur-
ance companies, under the “sue and labor” clause in the policies, to recover
the expenses of defending the bottomry suits, the company set up the unsea-
* worthiness of the vessel, which they had not utilized as a defense in the pre-
vious suits. It appearing that such a defense would not have availed in the
former suits, and that in part, at least, at the time of the former litigation the
condition of the vessel was unknown to the companies, and that libelants
were not misled in any way by the former assistance of the companies, held,
that the companies were not ostopped in this litigation from using such a
defense, nor was there anything in the above facts to prevent an inquiry
in this suit into the question of unseaworthiness.
2. B.mm——UNsmswoarm¤nss or- Vnssm.-Pomcr or Insmuncm.
The evidence showing that there were facts tending to indicate unsea-
_‘ worthiness, unless explained, and no explanation being offered, held, that, as
illeported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar. l l I