Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/647

CRAWFOED V. MELLOE. t)39 �then ûled to recover from respondents $32 damages for the detention of the vessel. �John A. Toomey, for libellants. �The delivery of the bill of lading to respondents' agents was a delivery of the cargo, and created a privity between these parties. The Schooner Mary Ann Guest, Olcott, 498 ; Oriffitha v. Ingledew, 6 S. & E. 429 ; Conrad v. Ins. Co. 1 Pet. 446; King v. Meredith, 2 Camp. 639. �Where the consignee is owner of the cargo he is liable for the detention in unloading. B. Co. v. Northam, 2 Benediot, 1; RobUns v. Welsh, 9 Phila. R. 409. �James 8. Williams, for respondents. �The consignees had no interest in this cargo until it came "along-side" the wharf. The delivery of the bill of lading to the respondents' agents, who were authorized merely to "un- load, store and deliver" the coal, could in no way affect their rights under the contract of purchase. �Even if the consignees were the owners of the cargo they are not liable here, because they were not the freighters. Sprague v. West, 1 Abb. Adm. Eep. 548; Donaldson v. Mc- Dowell, 1 Holmes, 290 ; Jesson v. Solley, 4 Taunt. 52. �Further, they are not liable, because the detention was merely owing to the crowded state of the dock, and in no manner their fault. Clendaniel v. Tuckerman, 17 Barb. 191; Cross V. Beard, 26 N. Y. 85; Trans. Co. v. Hawley, 1 Daly, 333; Rodgers y. Forrester, 2 Camp. 483; Dobson Y.Droop, 1 Moody & Malkin, 443. �Butler, J. From the time the bill of lading was received by the respondents' agent, at least, they were owners of the coal. They could, thereafter, have transferred it to whom they pleased, and if the libellants had carried it away they could have sustained an action for its value. It was kept near the wharf in pursuance of their order, and they are justly responsible for the use of the vessel during the time it was thus detained. If not satisfied to be so responsible they should have designated another place, when this was found to be occupied. �The difficulty respecting privity between the parties, dis- ��� �