delivery of distillery slop at distiller's cattle-feeding lot contemplated that lot be supplied with pens, troughs and pipes; Portland etc. Co. v. British etc. Ins. Co., 130 Fed. 863, 65 C. C. A. 344, refusing evidence of custom of doing business where bill of lading is unambiguous; The Cargo of the Joseph W. Brooks, 122 Fed. 884; holding charter provision "despatch for discharging" construed with reference to custom of port where discharge made; Turnbull v. Bank, 4 Woods, 195, 16 Fed. 147, holding where contract provided consignees were to take goods "from alongside," evidence was inadmissible to show that goods were to be delivered otherwise than where ordinary appliances of ship would leave them in discharging; Louisville etc. Packet Co. v. Rogers, 20 Ind. App. 599, 49 N. E. 972, holding evidence of usage not admissible to vary positive stipulations in bill of lading.

Right to contradict terms of express contract by custom or otherwise. Note, 8 E. R. C. 359.

Parol evidence is inadmissible to vary plain terms of written contract; therefore inadmissible to show that a shipper consented that goods be stowed on deck, bill of lading being clean.

Approved in Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. Buchanan, 141 Fed. 889, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 758, 73 C. C. A. 111, applying rule to conditions in insurance policy relating to use and occupancy of building; Ronan v. 155,453 Feet of Lumber, 131 Fed. 348, 349, memorandum delivered by carrier to master of barge after lumber loaded thereon, apparently to be signed by consignee as receipt, and which contained incomplete provisions as to demurrage, but was unsigned, does not exclude evidence of parol agreement with respect thereto; Union Selling Co. v. Jones, 128 Fed. 677, 63 C. C. A. 224, excluding parol evidence of prior negotiations to vary ordinary meaning of written contract for binder twine "quality guaranteed"; De Sola v. Pomares, 119 Fed. 374, holding bill of lading binding carrier to refund freight not earned unvaried by parol agreement not to refund; The Kirkhill, 99 Fed. 578, 581, 39 C. C. A. 658, holding master justified refusing to give clean bill of lading for cotton stored in alley-ways in exposed condition; Walter v. Bloede Co., 94 Md. 87, 50 Atl. 434, holding memorandum for sale of goods, mentioning time for delivery, subsequent verbal agreement as to different time invalid; Williams v. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 85 Mo. App. 108, holding contract of re-employment silent as to compensation, law implies reason able one, parol evidence inadmissible to show specific sum; Blake Mfg. Co. v. Jaeger, 81 Mo. App. 243, holding parol evidence inadmissible, contract silent as to time of payment, specific time verbally agreed upon; Basnight v. Southern Jobbing Co., 148 N. C. 357, 62 S. E. 422, defendants sued on their written guaranty that corporation would pay

plaintiff specified sum for his stock could not show that it was agreed they would not be personally liable; Smith Land & Gravel Co. v. Corbin, 81 Wash. 498, 142 Pac. 1165, holding where written contract is incomplete, parol evidence of collateral contemporaneous agreement not inconsistent with writing is admissible; Grace v. Am. Central Ins. Co., 109 U. S. 283, 27 L. Ed. 934, 3 Sup. Ct. 210, holding insurance contract, embodying in clear and positive terms the intention of parties, cannot be varied by evidence of usage or custom; Seitz v. Brewers' Refrig. Mach. Co., 141 U. S. 518, 35 L. Ed. 840, 12 Sup. Ct. 48, holding silence of contract on point which might have been embodied therein will not admit parol evidence in regard thereto; Robinson v. Memphis etc. Ry. Co., 9 Fed. 136, Espey v. Blanks, 9 Fed. 432, Louisville etc. Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 119 Ind. 355, 4 L. R. A. 246, 21 N. E. 342, and The Golden Rule, 9 Fed. 334, all applying rule to bill of lading; The New Orleans, 26 Fed. 46, following rule; The Augustine Kobbe, 37 Fed. 699, and County of Johnson v. Wood, 84 Mo. 515, where written contract was held to have merged all previous oral agreements; Meyer v. Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 58 Fed. 925, where exceptions were sustained to answer setting up mutual mistake in terms of bill of lading; Gibbons v. Robinson, 63 Mich. 153, 29 N. W. 536, so far as bill of lading is an undertaking to transport and deliver goods as therein stipulated, in absence of fraud or mistake, its terms cannot be altered by parol proof; Wells-Fargo Co. v. Fuller, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 222, 23 S. W. 413, holding where bill of lading is silent as to route by which goods are to be sent, parol evidence that shipper directed a different route than one selected by carrier is inadmissible; Eells v. St. Louis etc. Ry. Co., 52 Fed. 905, arguendo.

Modified in Witzler v. Collins, 70 Me. 301, 35 Am. Rep. 333, holding, as between parties to bill of lading, evidence is competent on part of carrier to contradict the admission in the bill that goods were received in good condition.

Distinguished in Vanderbilt v. Ocean S. S. Co., 215 Fed. 888, 132 C. C. A. 226, holding where bill of lading contained words "weight subject to correction," recital as to quantity does not bind ship, but leaves question open.

Parol evidence to contradict written instrument. Note, 11 E. R. C. 229, 233.

Who liable as common carriers. Note, 47 Am. Dec. 652.

What contracts will support maritime lien. Note, 70 L. R. A. 452.

Miscellaneous. Cited in Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. McFadden, 154 U. S. 161, 38 L. Ed. 946, 14 Sup. Ct. 991; The Queen of the Pacific, 75 Fed. 78; Leitch v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 66 N. Y. 110.

14 Wall. 607-613, 20 L. Ed. 756, LEARY v. UNITED STATES.

Where entire vessel is let to charterer with transfer to him of its command and possession, the charter-party is contract for lease of vessel, and charterer will be considered as owner for the voyage or service stipulated. Approved in United States v. Hvoslef, 237 U. S. 16, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 286, 59 L. Ed. 820, 35 Sup. Ct. 459, holding where tax is on charterparty which is practically bill of lading for entire cargo, it is a tax on exportation and invalid; Hahlo v. Benedict, 216 Fed. 305, 132 C. C. A. 447, holding stranding of yacht on known shore in daytime was due to fault of master, who under charter was servant of charterer and not of owner; Gibson v. Manetto Co., 194 Fed. 333, 114 C. C. A. 291, holding time charter of small schooner, "including three of her men," to be used by charterer in business stated for monthly hire, constitutes demise of vessel which rendered charterer liable for her loss through his, or master's or crew's, negligence; Golcar S. S. Co. v. Tweedie Trading Co., 146 Fed. 569, charter of vessel at monthly hire for vessel and crew, captain appointed by owners to be under charterer's orders, is demise of ship; The Del Norte, 111 Fed. 544, holding charterer under time charter with full charge of vessel barred from proceeding in rem against vessel for master's wrongful act; The Livingstone, 104 Fed. 924, holding charterer leasing vessel having complete control thereof entitled to recover as cargo owner in case of loss; Grimberg v. Columbia Packers' Assn., 47 Or. 264, 265, 83 Pac. 196, 197, construing charter-party giving charterer sole use of vessel except master's cabin, and providing that no goods shall be laden except for charterer is not a demise; United States v. Shea, 152 U. S. 186, 38 L. Ed. 406, 14 Sup. Ct. 521, where government was held liable for compensation for vessel so hired during time it was being repaired because of a collision while under control of officers of government; Somes v. White, 65 Me. 546, 20 Am. Rep. 721, holding general owners of vessel not liable for damages occasioned by a collision, happening through fault or negligence of master who controls her pro hac vice and is sailing her "on shares"; The Daniel Burns, 52 Fed. 160, where owners have let canal-boat and have sent a man therewith, he having nothing to do with control thereof, they will not be held liable for a shortage in a cargo of grain; The New York, 93 Fed. 497, holding further as to liability of charterers where vessel has been demised to them; The Bombay, 38 Fed. 513, holding ship liable for coal furnished in a foreign port, parties furnishing same having no knowledge of charter-party.

Which of two or more is master of person conceded to be servant of one. Note, 37 L. R. A. 56, 57.

Liability of owner of hired vessel. Note, 13 Am. Dec. 89.

Where charter-party merely provides for the let of vessel, owner retaining possession and command, contract is for special service to be rendered by owner of vessel.

Approved in The Beaver, 219 Fed. 140, 135 C. C. A. 37, holding where contract is not demise of ship, but of affreightment, charterer is not responsible for vessel's faults of navigation, and where she is sunk in collision through fault of both vessels, he may recover his entire loss from other vessel; The Boveric, 167 Fed. 522, 93 C. C. A. 156, winchman employed by ship held not fellow-servant of stevedore employed by charterer; McCormick v. Shippy, 119 Fed. 229, holding under charter charterer relieved from liability for loss by express stipulation; The Del Norte, 119 Fed. 119, 55 C. C. A. 220, holding charter constituted demise of vessel relieving owner from liability for wrongful act of master or steward; Stevenson v. Steamship Boveric, 3 Alaska, 466, holding libelant, in employ of contracting stevedore, being injured by employee of vessel in operating winch, was not fellow-servant and vessel was liable; Adams v. Carey, 60 Or. 159, 118 Pac. 556, holding where tug was "chartered and let," all expenses, supplies and wages to be borne by owner, tug to remain in command of owner, it was not demise of tug but contract of affreightment; Grimberg v. Columbia Packers' Assn., 47 Or. 263, 114 Am. St. Rep. 927, 8 Ann. Cas. 491, 83 Pac. 196, charterparty held to be mere contract of affreightment when owner provided master; The T. A. Goddard, 12 Fed. 178, holding such a charter-party constituted a contract of affreightment only, and not a demise of vessel to charterers; The Craigallion, 20 Fed. 750, holding owners of vessel, under such charter, liable for negligence of master and crew which resulted in injury to cargo; Hagar v. Clark, 78 N. Y. 51, and Ross v. Charleston etc. Transp. Co., 42 S. C. 452, 20 S. E. 287, both following rule; The L. L. Lamb, 31 Fed. 32, where vessel was chartered to be accompanied by owner and master, but crew to be paid by charterers, seamen do not lose their lien on ship for wages even if they had knowledge of contract between owner and charterer; The Nicaragua, 71 Fed. 726, and The Terrier, 73 Fed. 267, owners must part with possession, command and navigation of vessel in order that the letting be considered a demise of her; Bramble v. Culmer, 78 Fed. 502, 24 C. C. A. 182, when owners have retained control of vessel they are liable for damages caused by acts of an incompetent pilot furnished by charterer; M'Gough v. Ropner, 87 Fed. 535, holding owners liable for injuries to stevedore caused by negligence of crew hired by them and under their control.

Demise of vessel by charter-party. Note, 5 Ann. Cas. 623, 624.
Requisites of charter-party. Note, 5 E. R. O. 630.

Prima facie evidence of ownership of ship from register. Note, 24 E. R. C. 215.

14 Wall. 613-620, 20 L. Ed. 745, ERSKINE v. HOHNBACH.

Collector cannot refuse to enforce an assessment regularly made by assessor within his jurisdiction.

Approved in Haffin v. Mason, 15 Wall. 675, 21 L. Ed. 198, holding the warrant of the assessor is a justification to collector for distraining and selling taxpayer's property, on his refusal to pay assessment; Harding v. Woodcock, 137 U. S. 46, 34 L. Ed. 581, 11 Sup. Ct. 7, and In re Tyler, 149 U. S. 187, 37 L. Ed. 697, 13 Sup. Ct. 791, the duty of the collector is purely ministerial.

Where ministerial officer acts on an order or process which is regular on its face and comes from an officer or tribunal having jurisdiction to issue it, the officer is protected in its regular enforcement, although officer or tribunal in reaching conclusions upon which order was issued may have committed serious error.

Approved in Bryan v. Ker, 222 U. S. 114, 56 L. Ed. 118, 32 Sup. Ct. 26, holding marshal protected in executing process in rem apparently valid, and not disclosing on face that it was issued in personal action; Kercheval v. Allen, 220 Fed. 267, 135 C. C. A. 1, holding internal revenue officers not liable for punitive damages in executing search warrant regular on its face; Anderson v. Elliott, 101 Fed. 615, 41 C. C. A. 521, discharging on habeas corpus United States marshal arrested by State authorities for executing process; State v. King, 30 Ind. 395, 396, 66 N. E. 87, holding no recovery against sheriff selling property under execution, though suit pending to review judgment; Holdredge v. MeCombs, 8 Kan. App. 667, 56 Pac. 537, holding sheriff protected by process making wrongful seizure, but not for negligently allowing goods. to be damaged; Rush v. Buckley, 100 Me. 329, 70 L. R. A. 464, 61 Atl. 777, holding magistrate issuing warrant and trying case and officer serving warrant not liable for false imprisonment though ordinance violated by plaintiff was void; Stutsman County v. Wallace, 142 U. S. 309, 35 L. Ed. 1024, 12 Sup. Ct. 232, and Tyler v. Cass County, 1 N. D. 394, 48 N. W. 238, in holding county treasurer free from liability when he had sold land for taxes under warrant erroneously issued by assessor; First Nat. Bank v. Waters, 19 Blatchf. 248, 7 Fed. 157, Moss v. Cummings, 44 Mich. 362, Bird v. Perkins, 33 Mich. 32, Nowell v. Tripp, 61 Me. 430, 14 Am. Rep. 575, and Dixwill v. Jones, 2 Dill. 185, Fed. Cas. 3937, all applying rule to collection made by tax collector on assessment apparently regular; Mehlin v. Ice, 56 Fed. 16, 5 C. C. A. 403, holding sufficiency of evidence to warrant the issuance of a writ of ejectment cannot be inquired into in action against officer for enforcing same;