and elaborate argument of complainants' counsel, any such new re sults in the use of the Booth process as would warrant the court in sustaining the patent on this ground. Bills dismissed. THE EGYPT.1 ACKER and others v. THE EGYPT HOUSTON v. SAME. PERSON and others v. SAME. (District Court, S. D. New York. October 6, 1885. 1. FIRE ON WHARF-BURNING OF CARGO LANDED, BUT NOT DELIVERED-STATE MENT. The steamship E., of the National Line, arrived in the port of New York about 1 o'clock P. M. of January 31, 1883. She at once obtained from the collector of the port a general order for discharge on the dock, a further special permit for continuing the discharge after sunset, and a permit for goods not entered to remain on the dock 48 hours after discharge. These permits were obtained under section 2871, Rev. St., and regulations prescribed by the secretary of the treasury. This was the customary method pursued by the steamship company. The discharge of cargo was immediately commenced and continued until about 2 o'clock A. M. of the following night, when fire broke out on the wharf from some unknown cause, and, so far as appeared on the trial, without the fault or negligence of any one, and libelants' goods, which had been landed on the wharf, were consumed. 2. SAME-FIRE COMMUNICATING WITH STEAM-SHIP-SECTION 4282, REV. ST. Where goods on a wharf are destroyed by a fire that originates on the wharf and is communicated to the vessel along-side, from which they were discharged, the ship will not be relieved from liability under section 4282, Rev. St., as for a "loss by reason of a fire happening to the ship," if it does not appear that the firing of the ship contributed to the burning of the goods on the wharf. 3. BILL OF LADING "GENERAL ORDER" FOR DISCHARGE NOTICE TO CON SIGNEE. The bills of lading under which the goods burned were shipped, were partly of the National Line and partly of the Inman Line. Both bills of lading con tained the stipulation that "the collector of the port is hereby authorized to grant a general order for discharge_immediately after entry of the ship;" also that the goods are to be taken from along-side immediately the vessel is ready to discharge, or otherwise they will be landed and deposited at the expense of consignee, and at his risk of fire," etc. Under the “general order" the cargo had been partly discharged when the fire occurred. Libelants urged that without notice of the discharge, or opportunity to remove their goods, the discharge was not a valid discharge, and that the stipulations of the bill of lading did not come into effect until after such notice. Held, that the meaning of the bill of lading was that the parties agree that the ship shall be authorized to procure permission from the collector to land the goods instanter, without notice to the consignees, and that if consignees are not there to receive them, the ship may nevertheless land the goods at once, and that they shall then be at consignee's risk. 1 Reported by R. D. and Edward G. Benedict, Esqs., of the New York bar. 4. SHIP'S AGREEMENT WITH COLLECTOR TO PAY FOR GOODS BURNED-NO ONE BUT COLLECTOR CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT-ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION SECTIONS 2872, 2959, 2960, REV. ST. To procure a permit from the collector for the goods to be left on the wharf 48 hours after the granting of the general order to unload, the agents of the steam-ship signed an application, the form of which is prepared and exacted by the collector, by which request was made to allow the cargo to remain on the wharf 48 hours "at the sole risk of the owners of said steamer, who will pay to the consignee or owner the value of such cargo respectively as may be stolen, burned, or otherwise lost." Under this clause libelants claimed to recover. Claimants objected that this agreement was not within the jurisdiction of the admiralty, and, moreover, that no one but the collector could take advantage of it. Section 2872, Rev. St., declares that " any liability of the ship-owner to consignees shall not be affected by the granting of such special license, (to land at night,) or of any general order," etc. Held, that the agreement in question, if available to the consignees, would be a maritime contract of which the admiralty would have jurisdiction; that the agreement, however, would be valid only for the collector's benefit, to indemnify him for loss, if any, through want of the due and reasonable care required by sections 2959 and 2960. Beyond that, the statute would seem to make it invalid, as exacted without authority. 5. BILL OF LADING-RIGHTS OF PARTIES FIXED BY ITS TERMS - EXCEPTIONS AGAINST FIRE. The bills of lading of both steam-ship companies contained exceptions against loss by fire; the National Steam-ship Company's bill of lading excepting fire before loading in the ship or after unloading;" the Inman bill excepting "fire at any time and place.' Held, that these and the above-recited stipulations of the bills of lading had been framed in view of the usage and custom of discharging that had long prevailed at this port, and in anticipation of the agreement subsequently made with the collector in the usual form; that the stipulations were reasonable and valid, and had fixed the rights of the consignees, which were not varied by subsequent agreement with the collector; that this agreement with the collector was not to be construed as designed for the benefit of the consignees, and was not available to them; and the steam-ship, therefore, was exempted from liability for this loss, and the libels should be dismissed. 6. SAME-EXEMPTION FROM LOSS CAPABLE OF BEING COVERED BY INSURANCEEVIDENCE NECESSARY. The bill of lading contained a further exemption from any loss “capable of being covered by insurance." Held, a reasonable and valid exception, but not to excuse loss by carrier's negligence. Proof that insurance is procurable is necessary to make the exemption available. 7. DISCHARGE BY NIGHT NOT NEGLIGENCE-USAGE. A discharge by night under a permit from the collector, in accordance with long-established usage, is as lawful and valid as a discharge by day, and is not, ipso facto, negligence, any more than a discharge by day. In Admiralty. The above three actions were brought to recover $11,250, the value of merchandise imported from Europe, consigned to the libelants, and destroyed by fire at the Inman Company's pier, North river, on the night of January 31, 1883. Numerous other actions are pending in this court growing out of the same fire. The steamer arrived about 1 P. M. of January 31st. She obtained at once, from the collector of the port, a general order for her discharge upon the dock, a further special permit for continuing the discharge after sunset, and a permit for goods not entered to remain on the dock for 48 hours after discharge. These permits were obtained under section 2871, Rev. St., and under regulations prescribed by the secretary of the treasury, v.25F,no.6-21 and elaborate argument of complainants' counsel, any such new re sults in the use of the Booth process as would warrant the court in sustaining the patent on this ground. Bills dismissed. THE EGYPT.1 ACKER and others v. THE EGYPT HOUSTON v. Same. PERSON and others v. SAME. (District Court, S. D. New York. October 6, 1885. 1. FIRE ON WHARF-Burning of Cargo Landed, but not DELIVERED-State MENT. The steamship E., of the National Line, arrived in the port of New York about 1 o'clock P. M. of January 31, 1883. She at once obtained from the collector of the port a general order for discharge on the dock, a further special permit for continuing the discharge after sunset, and a permit for goods not entered to remain on the dock 48 hours after discharge. These permits were obtained under section 2871, Rev. St., and regulations prescribed by the secretary of the treasury. This was the customary method pursued by the steamship company. The discharge of cargo was immediately commenced and continued until about 2 o'clock A. M. of the following night, when fire broke out on the wharf from some unknown cause, and, so far as appeared on the trial, without the fault or negligence of any one, and libelants' goods, which had been landed on the wharf, were consumed. 2. SAME-FIRE COMMUNICATING WITH STEAM-SHIP-SECTION 4282, REV. ST. Where goods on a wharf are destroyed by a fire that originates on the wharf and is communicated to the vessel along-side, from which they were discharged, the ship will not be relieved from liability under section 4282, Rev. St., as for a "loss by reason of a fire happening to the ship," if it does not appear that the firing of the ship contributed to the burning of the goods on the wharf. 3. BILL OF LADING SIGNEE. "GENERAL ORDER" FOR DISCHARGE-NOTICE TO CON 66 The bills of lading under which the goods burned were shipped, were partly of the National Line and partly of the Inman Line. Both bills of lading con tained the stipulation that the collector of the port is hereby authorized to grant a general order for discharge immediately after entry of the ship;" also that the goods are to be taken from along-side immediately the vessel is ready to discharge, or otherwise they will be landed and deposited at the expense of consignee, and at his risk of tire," etc. Under the "general order" the cargo had been partly discharged when the fire occurred. Libelants urged that without notice of the discharge, or opportunity to remove their goods, the discharge was not a valid discharge, and that the stipulations of the bill of lading did not come into effect until after such notice. Held, that the meaning of the bill of lading was that the parties agree that the ship shall be authorized to procure permission from the collector to land the goods instanter, without notice to the consignees, and that if consignees are not there to receive them, the ship may nevertheless land the goods at once, and that they shall then be at consignee's risk. 1 Reported by R. D. and Edward G. Benedict, Esqs., of the New York bar. 4. SHIP'S AGREEMENT WITH Collector to Pay for Goods BURNED-NO ONE BUT COLLECTOR CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT-ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION SECTIONS 2872, 2959, 2960, REV. ST. To procure a permit from the collector for the goods to be left on the wharf 48 hours after the granting of the general order to unload, the agents of the steam-ship signed an application, the form of which is prepared and exacted by the collector, by which request was made to allow the cargo to remain on the wharf 48 hours "at the sole risk of the owners of said steamer, who will pay to the consignee or owner the value of such cargo respectively as may be stolen, burned, or otherwise lost." Under this clause libelants claimed to recover. Claimants objected that this agreement was not within the jurisdiction of the admiralty, and, moreover, that no one but the collector could take advantage of it. Section 2872, Rev. St., declares that "any liability of the ship-owner to consignees shall not be affected by the granting of such special license, (to land at night,) or of any general order," etc. Held, that the agreement in question, if available to the consignees, would be a maritime contract of which the admiralty would have jurisdiction; that the agreement, however, would be valid only for the collector's benefit, to indemnify him for loss, if any, through want of the due and reasonable care required by sections 2959 and 2960. Beyond that, the statute would seem to make it invalid, as exacted without authority. 5. BILL OF LADING-RIGHTS OF PARTIES FIXED BY ITS TERMS AGAINST FIRE. EXCEPTIONS The bills of lading of both steam-ship companies contained exceptions against loss by fire; the National Steam-ship Company's bill of lading excepting fire before loading in the ship or after unloading;" the Inman bill excepting "fire at any time and place." Held, that these and the above-recited stipulations of the bills of lading had been framed in view of the usage and custom of discharging that had long prevailed at this port, and in anticipation of the agreement subsequently made with the collector in the usual form; that the stipulations were reasonable and valid, and had fixed the rights of the consignees, which were not varied by subsequent agreement with the collector; that this agreement with the collector was not to be construed as designed for the benefit of the consignees, and was not available to them; and the steam-ship, therefore, was exempted from liability for this loss, and the libels should be dismissed. 6. SAME-EXEMPTION FROM LOSS CAPABLE OF BEING COVERED BY INSURANCE— EVIDENCE NECESSARY. The bill of lading contained a further exemption from any loss "capable of being covered by insurance." Held, a reasonable and valid exception, but not to excuse loss by carrier's negligence. Proof that insurance is procurable is necessary to make the exemption available. 7. DISCHARGE BY NIGHT NOT NEGLIGENCE-USAGE. A discharge by night under a permit from the collector, in accordance with long-established usage, is as lawful and valid as a discharge by day, and is not, ipso facto, negligence, any more than a discharge by day. In Admiralty. The above three actions were brought to recover $11,250, the value of merchandise imported from Europe, consigned to the libelants, and destroyed by fire at the Inman Company's pier, North river, on the night of January 31, 1883. Numerous other actions are pending in this court growing out of the same fire. The steamer arrived about 1 P. M. of January 31st. She obtained at once, from the collector of the port, a general order for her discharge upon the dock, a further special permit for continuing the discharge after sunset, and a permit for goods not entered to remain on the dock for 48 hours after discharge. These permits were obtained under section 2871, Rev. St., and under regulations prescribed by the secretary of the treasury, v.25F,no.6-21 dated May 5, 1877. These regulations provided that goods landed, for which no permit for delivery to their owners had been obtained, should be sent by the collector to the general order store, but that the collector might, at the request of the master, etc., allow goods landed, but not "permitted" to remain on the docks, "at the sole risk of the owner of the vessel, not longer than 48 hours from the time of the discharge, upon the production of evidence that the owner of the vessel assumes the risk of the goods allowed to remain, and agrees to pay the duties on any goods that may be lost by so remaining;" also that, in order "to continue the discharge of the cargo after sunset, a special license must be obtained in accordance with section 2871, Rev. St." That section provides that, to obtain such a special license, the collector must be indemnified against any loss, and also that "the liability of the master or owner of any such steam-ship to the owner or consignee of any merchandise landed from her, shall not be affected by the granting of such special license or of any general order; but such liability shall continue until the merchandise is properly removed from the dock whereon the same may be landed." Section 2969, Rev. St., provides that "all merchandise of which the collector shall take possession under the provisions relating to the time for the discharge of a vessel's cargo, shall be kept with due and reasonable care at the charge and risk of the owner." To obtain the benefit of the above permits, the agents of the steamer signed the following applications, the forms of which were prepared and exacted by the collector: "Request is made to allow the cargo of the steamer Egypt, Sumner, from Liverpool, England, unladen, but not permitted, to remain upon the wharf for forty-eight hours from the time of granting general order, at the sole risk of the owners of said steamer, who will pay to the consignee or owner the value of such cargo, respectively, as may be stolen, burned, or otherwise lost; and who will also pay all duties on cargo which may be in any way lost by so remaining." "Application is hereby made for a special license to unlade upon the wharf, after sunset, the cargo of the S. S. Egypt, master, which arrived at this port on the thirty-first day of January, 1883, from Liverpool, England. This application is made in consequence of want of time, and the undersigned have given a bond to the collector of the port in conformity with sections 2871 and 2872 of the Revised Statutes, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, and have deposited ten dollars per night for each inspector whose services may be required under the license, namely, for two inspectors for one night, being the night of January 31st." A bond was given to the collector in the sum of $20,000, conditioned to "indemnify and save harmless the said collector from any and all losses and liabilities which may occur or be occasioned by reason of the granting of such special license." Under the three permits thus obtained, the immediate discharge of the steamer's cargo was commenced at 1: 30 P. M. of January 31st, and continued during the night. At about 2 o'clock A. M. a fire broke out upon the dock from some unknown cause, and, so far as appears, |