The Edwin

SPRAGUE, District Judge.

It is contended by the counsel for the claimant: first, that the bill of lading has no validity, as it was signed after the disaster; second, that the libellants cannot sue upon the original contract because that was merged in the bill of lading; third, that no lien ever existed upon the vessel; and fourth, that there was no liability, if the steamer was fit and suitable.

The first position is sustained. The master could not, after the loss had occurred, create a liability by signing the bill of lading. The rights of the parties had been previously fixed, and the bill…