Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/353

8e6 7BDEBAL BEPOBTEB. �elevators; in fact, you have got to wait your turn whereyer yougo." �And, again, J. G. Van Scoter says : "It is the usage and custom throughout the lakes for grain-bearing vessels, con- signed to the same elevators, to wait their turns to be unloaded in the order ot their arrivai. Of course, where an elevator ia disabled, the consignee bas more time," �AU the testimony, on both sides, is concurrent with this, and in view of so well-established and so reasonable a custom it is not within the province of ship owners, by notice to a consignee, to define an arbitrary period within which his cargo must be discharged. If he must unload in his turn, he must await it for a reasonable time, to be measured by the ordi- nary volume and exigencies of trade at the place of discharge, and it would be a solecism to affirm that the consequent necessary delay can be treated as a wrong upon which to found a claim for damages. �The subjeet is fuUy discussed, and the resuit of the cases touching it is clearly stated, by Chief Justice Denio, in Cross V. Beard, 26 N. Y. 85, 89, 91. After speaking of the effect of an agreement for demurrage in a charter-party, he says : "But the rule is somewhat different when no period of delay is fixed by the oontract. There a reasonable time is implied, and this is to be determined upon by a regard to ail the circnmstances legitimately bearing upon the case, and it is a question for the jury. * * * * If it be conceded that the defendant had a right to require that the eoals should be delivered upon his own dock he was guilty of no fault or breach of contract in delaying the plaintiff's vessel until she could come up to the dock by taking her turn among the other vessels, which were also waiting to be discharged, unless he was gtiilty of some fault in suffering such an accumulation of craft, laden with cargo for himself, for the same wharf, at the same time." See, also, Rogers v. Forrester, 2 Camp. 183, and Burmester v. Hodgson, Id. 488. �The only question, then, is, was there a culpable detention of the vessel for an unreasonable time ? She reported to the consignee in the afternoon of October 26th, and the discharge ����