The  elevator  belonged  to  independent  persons,  who  were  paid  by
the  Dock  Company.  Bigham,  J.,  held  that  the  receipt  of  the
grain  into  the  elevator  was  a  receipt  by  the  Dock  Company  as
agent  for  the  consignee,  and  that  it  discharged  the  shipowner.
Port  regula-  So  where  goods  were  delivered,  at  Dundee,  to  harbour  porters,  whom
the  consignee  was  obliged  by  the  harbour  regulations  to  employ
and  pay  for  the  purpose  of  receiving;  this  was  held  to  be  a  delivery

[h)  As  to  the  practice  and  rule  in  the  (t)  20  T.  L.  E.  386.    See  also  The
U.  S.,  see  Ang.  Carr.  ss.  310,  311 ;  and  Asiatic  Prince,  108  Fed.  Rep.  287,  de-
Cope  V.  Cordova,  1  Kawle,  203,  there  ,-         l    r^    ^  ^  a     i
./,                     '                 '        '  livery  to  Customs  at  Santos,
cited.
tions.
THE  DISCHAEGE.  651

to  the  consignee,  and  tlie  shipowners  were  not  responsible  for  sub-    Sect., 468.
sequent  damage  to  the  goods  by  rain  while  on  the  quay  (k).
Ilj  The  Emilien  Marie  (/),  it  was  held  that  delivery  of  the  whole
cargo  to  a  master-porter  at  Liverpool,  in  accordance  with  the
regulations  of  the  port,  did  not  discharge  the  shipowner  from
liability  for  short  delivery  to  a  bill  of  lading  holder,  the  cargo
having  been  insufficient  to  satisfy  all  the  bills  of  lading.
469.  Unless  the  shipowner  is  in  some  way  excused  by  statute  (m),  Delivery  must
or  custom,  from  the  responsibility  of  making  the  actual  delivery,  ^itht  person.
he  must  deliver  the  goods  to  the  right  person  (w) :  to  the  person
who  is  entitled  to  them  as  owner,  or  as  holder  of  the  bill  of  lading.
