See rZDBBÀli BSPOBTEQ. ���Thb m. s. Bacon v. The Erib & Western Tbans- �POBTATION Co. {Oireuit Court, W, -D. Penntylvania. —, 1880.) �1. Demubragk — Affreightment. — ^An express stipulation forderaurrage, in a contract of affreightment, is not necessary to eutitle the owner of a vessel to compensation for his unnecessary or improper detention in loading or unloading. �X Bamb — Unloadisg Vessïhi un its Turn. — ^If the custom of the port requires that vessels of a certain character should be unloaded in theii tnrn, such vessels must await their turn for a reasonable time, mea- sured by the ordinàry volume and exigencies of trade at the place of discharge, and it is not within the province of an owner of such a vessel, by notice to a consignee, to deflne an arbitrary period within which the cargo must be discharged. �8. Bamb — Samb. — Demurrage is not recoverable from the ahipperand con- signee of a cargo of wheat, where a vessel was detained four days at the port of Erie, near the close of navigation, while waiting, in ac- cordance with cuatom, to be unloaded in its turn at an elevator, where there was nothing to indicate that the number of vessels consigned to the respondent, and in port at the same time, was eztraordinary, or that the delay in unloading the vessel was at ail unreasonable. �In Admiralty, Appeal from the decree of the district court. �J. M. Stoner, for libellant and appellee. �F. F. Marshall, for respondent and appellant. �McKennan, C. J. An express stipulation for demurrage, in a contract of affreightment, is not necessary to entitle the owner of a vessel to compensation for her unnecessary or improper detention in loading or unloading. Eeasonable promptitude in delivering a cargo at its point of shipment, and in receiving it at its destination, is a duty implied in such , contracts, and for a violation of it damages in the nature of demurrage are recoverable, This is too well settled, both in England and in this country, to need discussion or authority. �Whether the consignee of a cargo, who is not its owner, is chargeable wi*b such damage, it is unnecessary to consider, because the respondent is admitted to have been the shipper of the cargo, and heuce, as a party to the contract of ����
