lEZO V. PBB.CINS. 781 �I caunot doubt that at the interview between the agent of the Eoma and the shipping clerk of the respondents, on the tenth of November, a complete understanding for the time being was had for the delivery of the iron at the Atlantic dock in lighters, to be sent by the respond- ents to receive it. The conversation then had was not, it is true, in form, a specifie contract, like that in the case of The Grafton, 1 Blatchf. 173. They did not agree that the iron should absolutely and at all events be delivered into lighters and not otherwise. But both parties must have been aware of the difficulty in procuring a berth for unloading iron upon a wharf, as well as the greater econ- omy of unloading in lighters; and when unloading on a wharf was first spoken of , the greater cost of doing so was a matter of objection by the respondents. The inquiry by the ship's agent on the tenth of November, before the ship had gone to a berth, was obviously in ref- erence to these facts ; and in answer to his inquiries it was expressly stated by the respondents that they would take the iron on lighters. The Atlantic dock was agreed upon as the place, and the time when the lighters were to be sent was approximately fixed. Both parties acquiesced in this arrangement. It was calculated to influence, and was manifestly designed to influence, the action of both parties in ref- erence to the place and mode of delivery of the iron ; and both par- ties immediately acted upon it, — the ship in going to the Atlantic dock, and in waiting for the lighters where she could not put iron on the wharf ; and the respondents in taking steps with more or less dili- gence to get lighters, one of which was finally sent on the 26th. Such an arrangement, so long as it is unrevoked and is acted on by either, is, ex œquo et bono, binding upon the other. Had the respondents pro- cured and sent lighters at the time specified, and found the iron already put upon some wharf elsewhere, without previous notice to t'ie respondents, the ship must have been held answerable for the damages to the respondents, if any, in obtaining lighters upon the faith of the previous arrangement. And as the Eoma, upon the faith of the same arrangement, went to a dock where iron could not be put upon the wharf, and waited for lighters to be sent by the respond- ents, the latter are estopped from denying that the detention of the ship was by their procurement and for their benefit. �In such cases the consignees must be held liable for demurrage in personam, notwithstanding the payment of freight, as much as the shippers would have been held upon any arrangement of their own in respect to the delivery. Donaldson v. McDowell, 1 Holmes, 290; Stafford v. Wallon, 1 Biss. 437. ��� �
