472 FEDERAL REPORTER. �eontract was that a bill of lading should be delivered to the owner of the goods. It would seem, therefore, that upon the master's refusai to give the libellants a bill of lading, they became entitled, either to enforoe the delivery of the bill of lading, or to bring their action for the damages caused by such refusai; or, at their option, to waive the eontract and sue for a wrongful conversion of the property. But, however this may be, I entertain no doubt of their right to maintain an action for conversion, and in such action recover the value of their goods. That value is shown by the sum they agreed to take from Michel, to-wit, $553.96, and for that sum a decrce mil be entered herein. �The record shows that af ter the seizure of the vessel in this action the claimants procured her disoharge from custody by giving a stipu- lation to perform any decree that might be entered herein, and at the same time depositing in court, subject to the order of the court, a bill of lading, duly executed, such as had been demanded by the libellants and refused by the master. This bill of lading must, of course, be returned to the claimauts, and an order to that effect will form part of the decree. ���MiTCHELL V. Langdon and others. �(District Court, N. B. Illinois. November 26, 1881.) �1. CoAii Trade— Usages of the Port op Chicago. �The consignee of s cargo of coal is ^ntitled by the usage of the port of Chi- cago, which this court will recognize, to a full day of 24 hourg after the vessel reports, in which to f urnish her with a dock and to begin unloading. �In Admiralty. �W. H. Condon, for libellant. �C. E. Kremer, for respondents. �Blodoett, D. J., Corally.) This is a libel for demurrage in unrea- sonably delaying the unloading of the schooner Sam Cook in this port. The schooner Sam Cook, with a cargo of 564 tons of coal, eon- signed to respondents, Langdon, Eichardson & Co., arrived in this port Saturday, October 23, 1880, and reported at consignees' dock at 9 o'elock in the morning. Consignees did not commence unload- ing until the morning of the 25th, and did not conclude unloading until 5 o'cloek in the afternoon of the 28th. The proof shows that they could have unloaded the schooner, with the appliances in use on ��� �
