Watkins. Comet, The... Crescent City, &c. Co., Live Stock, &c. Asssociation v...... Crowell, Potter ¤....... Cuyler. Ferrill Ferrill, Cuyler v... Fideliter. The..... Fifty-six barrels of Whiskey, United States v... Finlay, United States v.. Fox, Avery ...... 302 185 474 451 388 89 169 440 74 140 169 577 93 364 246 Mayor, &c. of Baltimore v. Pittsburgh & Connellsville R. Pittsburgh & Connellsville R. R. Co., Mayor, &c. of 9 Pittsburgh, &c. R. R. Co., Haight .. 81 Thirty-three barrels of Spirits, United States v..... 311 Twelve thousand three hundred and forty-seven bags of United States v. One hundred and twenty-three casks of United States v. Thirty-three barrels of Spirits. 311 United States v. Three Horses.... 426 United States v. Three Railroad Cars.. 196 DECISIONS OF THE CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 1865-1870. THE MARY WASHINGTON. Circuit Court, Fourth Circuit; District of Maryland, April T., 1865. CARRIERS.-ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION. The duty of a common carrier by water is not fulfilled by simple transportation from port to port. The goods must be delivered; or at least landed, and a reasonable opportunity given to the consignee to inspect them. The general rule requires the carrier to notify the consignee of the arrival of the goods. If a carrier relies on circumstances as excusing this duty, he must prove them. To show that the carrier was accustomed to store goods in his warehouse, on their arrival, and let them remain there until the consignee should learn from the consignor that they had come, without showing that the consignor knew of and assented to this practice, is not enough to excuse the carrier from the duty of giving notice himself to the consignee. He will continue liable as carrier, until the consignee has received, from some quarter, information of the arrival of the goods and an opportunity to remove them. The fact that after receiving such notice the consignee refuses to take the goods, cannot relieve the carrier from liability for injury sustained by them before that time. The courts of the United States have not jurisdiction of actions against warehousemen, as such, prosecuted between citizens of the same State. |