DIBBOLT V. CANAli-BOAT CHESTER HAIB. 571 �does not preclude the parties to an agreement from varying or construing its terms by a subsequent writing. These let- ters constitute such a subsequent written admission as to the meaning of the contract. The testimony of the witness Big- ler, in reference to this letter which he wrote himself, illus- trates the untrustworthy character of his testimony as above ref erred to. In any view of the transaction the libellants are entitled to rccover the balance of their freight according to the charter-party. The defendants are admitted to be entitled to the interest claimed, $e61.42. Deduoting this from $1,326.56, the balance of the freight, there remains due to libellants $865.14, with interest from April 4, 1874, $341,—- in ail, $1,206,14, — ^for which sum, with costs, the libellants are to have a decree. ���DiBBOLT V. Canal-Boat Chbstkb Haib. �(Digtriet Court, 8. D. Nm Ywk. , 1880.) �1 BsTOPPEi. — Possession — Sale. — An authorized but long-continued pos- session does not estop the owner of a boat from claiming title against a IcyrM fde purchaser under an unautborized sale. �2. Bamb— Inactiost.— 8uch estoppel cannot be based upon mere inaction, not amounting to an actual or intended abandonment of the boaU �in Admiralty. �W. R. Beebe, for claimant. �J. A. Hyland, for libellant, wa? stopped by the court. �Choatb, D. J. I do not wish to hear the other sida. I have no doubt whatever about the case. Diebolt was the owner of the boat, and the question is whether he has lost hia title. It is claimed that he is estopped. He put the boat in possession of this man Highland under a contract which ex- pressly reserved the title in Diebolt, and he gave Highland no authority to sell her. Dufresne got no better title than High- land got by his purchase from him. �In the first place it is claimed that Diebolt is estopped ����
