WOLD". KEYSER.
169
working days were allowed within which to load the vessel, a lesser rate of demurrage. and that the cargo to be furnished was sawn pitch pine timber. in which last respect the calle is still stronger than that of Sorensen v. Keyse1', as it is clear that the charterers had not only to procure the timber, and ha've the same floated to the place for storage. but the timber was additionally to be passed through the mills prior to shipment. From the demurrage days claimed, and ordinarily expiring on ]<'ebl'uary 1st, we deduct January 10th. 11th. 13th, and 14th as stormy days. leaving 36 days for which demurrage is due. at .£9 per day. For the reasons given in Sorensen v. Keyser, it is ordered -that the decree of the district court appealed from be and the same is hereby reversed; that this cause be remanded to the district court. with instructions to enter adacree in favor of libelants for the sum of $1,576.58, and costs, together with the cost$ of this appeal. .
WOLD et al.
'D.
KEYSER.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. June ro, 1892.) No. 88.
Appeal from the United Statl's Distl'ict Court for the Southern Division of the Southern District of Mississippi. In Admiralty. Libel by Hermann Wuld and others. owners of the bark Foldin, against W. S. Keyser, for demurrage. Libel dismissed. Libelants appeal. Reversed. J. D. Rouse and Wm. arant. for appellants. E. H. McCaleb and J. C. Avery, for appellee. Before. PARDEE and MCCORMICK, Circuit Judges, and LoCKE, District JUdge. PARJ!)EE, Circuit Judge. On the 14th of Novemher, 1889. the Norwegian bark Foldin, then lying at Stettin, waS chartered to W. S. Keyser to tak:e,a cargo of hewn or sawn pitch pine timber from Ship island to the port of Liverpool. The charter contained the usual general clauses, together with the following special clause, which is the subject of dispute in this case, viz.: "Twenty-two running days, Sundays and holidays excepted, are to be allowed * * *in Which to load the ship at port of loading. * * * In the computation of the days allowed for delivering the cargo shall be excluded any time lost by reason of floods, droughts, storms. or any extraordinary OCCUfrenee beyond the control of the charterers. Demurrage to be paid for each working day beyond the days allowed for loading at .£12 per day. and the charterers may keep the ship on demurrage ten days." The lilJel alleges. and the answer admits, that the vessel arrived and was ready to rl'ceive cargo on the 21st day of January, 1890. and that the lay days in due course expired February 15. 1890, at which date DO cargo had been furnished. Delivery of cargo did not begin until February 20th, and the loading was not cOIDpleted until March 27, 1890. As an excuse for this delay the defendant alleges in hjs answer "that. at the time the said bark reported for cargo under the terms of said charter, there was an unusual, general, and extensive drought prevailing throughout" the whole section of country from which timber is obtained for the loading of ships at Ship island, Moss point, and other points in
,;170 this obtflo/Dmg c;argo for lhe Sll.JI1 notwithstandmg he had made. arrangements forprocutiQg ;in ample time to have loadedIler the period twenty-two nUlningdajs,'but for said drought and storQis." .,. . "'.,. . . . ,. '; , " '. 1:'his caSe also{ssimilitr'totliat of Soren,senv: lteyseJ'; ;52 Fed. Rep. 163. (just decided.)1'he differences are that, the lay days for loading cargo are as "running days! and legal holidays excepted." instead of worklllg days. a lesser rate of dem urrage, and that the cargo to be furnished was, to ,be bewn orsawnpitcp pine timber. :rrotIlthe demurrage days claimed. and.;Or<iillarily expliingon j'ebruarylst. we deduct February l::Ith. a stormy leaVing 35. days for which demurr/l:ge is due at £12 per day. :E'or the,reasoll given inSu1'6fI,$en ,v. Keyser. it is ordered that the decree of the distric!tcollrt appealed from be and the same Is hereby reversed; and that this cause be remanded to the district court. with instructions to enter a de· cree In favor of libelants In the Bum of $2.043.72, and coots. together with the costs of this appeal. the
MARK
et al.v. HOME INs. CO. OF NEW YORK. SUE V. ORIENT INS. OF HARTFORD, SAME 11. BRITISH-AMERICA INS. Co. OF TORON',ro, CANADA. Co. , :, :(1Ji.trlet Court, S.D.,New York. Jul,y 28. 1892.) ,l\B-RlDlI:R-;:-CONBTRlJOTION-EXC!ll'TION OF PARTICULAR
.
J4,aINli
..· An fnsurance iDlluted'a 'VesselagMnst fire on" all inland waters lIlI" far .', 'iouth as'Norfolk;Va," Afterwards l\ rider was attaebed.t;O the policy, jl;iving permission to the tug to go as far south as Charleston. "but.not to cover on trips either way between Norfol1l:>:anf!.' .Charleston. " On b.er .wfloY from Norfolk to Cbarlest{)n. and while north of Norfolk·.the tug caught fire and ",as burned. HeW ,tba,t, being Ilot the time on atrip':!:Ietween 'Norfolk and Oharleston, the wording of .Jthe rider prevented· al11receW$'y' on the pollo)'. even1t the loss 0c:curred on "'nland waters." .
TRIP;
In Adinitalty. Libel on policies of marine'insurance. Libel dismissed. .' .....; !Benedict, .for .' Carpenter & Mosher, for respondel1 ts.,·
In 'about Janllary.1890, thuespondents issued policies of marine insurance by which they insured the libelant for one yea1'sgainst loss by fire, etc., on the tug D. L. Flanagan, in tpe,llbays and harbor of New York, East and' North or Hudson rivers, whtersofNewJeraey, Long Island soun&andshores. and as far as New ·. and alZirdand waters as far. south' as NorfQlk, Virginia, and all wate1'$ a.djl:l.Cent, 'or 'tributary to apy of the above waters." descripti.onof the waters Rp.<lplaces privileged to be used wasta print, clause in, italics, which was in writing. , Oil JUDEl'12pS90, a rider waS atta(lhed to the policy as follows: .... "l,'ermills!<>nfs·herebY given L.Flanagan touse port and harbor of Qh"rl,estQn,and to go ll.star as the jetties at bilt not to cover on trips either way bt:tweenNorfolk a!ldCharleston." . ,BROWN, District