468 PEDEBAL ilEPOBTER. �The FEEBEBr. {District Court, E. D. New York. November 19, 1881.) �1. CoNVEneioN— JuKiSDicTiosr op THE DrsiuicT Court. �Wheregoods, that had been sold to be paid for on delivery, were shipped in the name of the vendors, a shipping receipt given to them, and a bill of lading subsequent!/ given to the vendee, who then absconded, held, tiiat upon the refusai of the master to give the vendors a bill of lading, they could recover against the vessel the value of the goods without a demand ; and that, as the vessel was in navigable waters, the tort vras maritime iu its character, for which an action could be brought in the district court. �W. W. Goodrich, for libellants. �L. Ullo, for claimant. �Benedict, D. J. The facts in this case are as follows : �In September last one Theodore Michel agreed, through a broker, to pur- chase of the libellants 167 barrels of resin, the resin to be shipped on the bark Ferreri in the name of the libellants, they to take the ship's receipt and de- liver the same to Michel upon his paying for the goods. Accordingly, the libellants directed Johnson & Hammond, the keepers of a yard where the libellants had resin stored, to deliver 167 barrels of resin to the bark Ferreri on their account. Johnson & Hammond sent the goods to the bark, where they were received by tho mate, who gave in return a shipping receipt stating the receipt of the goods in question in good order from Johnson & Hammond on board the bark Ferreri for account of Tolar & Hart. After the goods had thus been placed on board the bark, Michel, who Was agent for the bark in this port, procured the master to issue to him, as shipper, a bill of lading for the goods so delivered, and then absconded without paying the libellants for them, although payment had been demanded, accompanied by a tender of the shipping receipt. After the departure of Michel, Tolar & Hart demanded of the master that he issue to them a bill of lading for the goods iii question, a<3companying the same with a tender of the shipping receipt. The master refused, upon the ground that he had already issued a bill of lading for the goods to Michel, whereupon iolar & Hart libelled the vessel. �Upon these facts it is plain to be seen that Tolar & Hart had no intention to part with their goods until the same were paid for. This intention they carried into eiiect by causing the goods to be placed on board the vessel in their name, and by taking the shipping receipt for the goods as received by the vessel on their acconnt. The deliv- ery of such a receipt to Tolar & Hart bound the ship-master to exe- cute or withhold the bill of lading according to their direction, and left the title to the property unchanged. Brown v. Peabody, 3 Kern. 121. When, therefore, after Michel had absconded, the master re- fused to issue a bill of lading for the goods to Tolar & Hart, assign- ��� �
