(f) "It has long been settled," says

1 On this ground in transactions in stocks through brokers who are members of the stock exchange, its rules and usages become part and parcel of such transacthe meaning of * words; (g) giving even to such words as those of number a sense entirely different from that which explanation by the general usage and custom of the country, or of the district where the land lies. Per Story, J., id. 148. See also Senior v. Armytage, Holt, N. P. 197; Webb v. Plummer, 2 B. 6 Ald. 750; Holding v. Pigott, 7 Bine. 465; Roberts v. Barker, 1 Cromp. & M. 808; Wilcox v. Wood, 9 Wend. 346. - The common carrier is bound to deliver goods according to the usage of the business in which he is engaged. Hyde v. Trent and Mersey Nav. Co. 5 T. R. 389. See also ante, p. * 187, et seq. - Before an "incident" can be "annexed" to a contract, the contract itself, as made, must be proved. Doe v. Eason, 11 Ired. 568. -The cases we have been noticing are those in which the custom or usage of trade has been brought in to affect the construction of written instruments. There is another class of cases in which the usage is not brought in to vary the construction of the contract, but to "substitute in the particular instance a rule resulting from the usage, in place of that which the law, not the contract of the parties, would prescribe." 1 Duer on Ins. 200. Thus, in the case of a policy of insurance, if the risks and premium are entire, and the policy has once attached, so that the insurer might in any case be liable for a total loss, the law entitles him to retain the whole of the premium. By particular usages, however, the insurer may in such cases be obliged to return a part of the premium. Long v. Allan, 4 Doug. 276. Where it is the usage of the underwriter to settle according to the adjustment of general average in a foreign port, such usage will be permitted to affect the rights of the parties, although the adjustment in the foreign port is different from what it would have been at the home port. 2 Phillips on Ins. (3d ed.) p. 163 et seq.; Power v. Whitmore, 4 M. & S. 141. See also Vallance v. Dewar, 1 Camp. 503. -In Halsey v. Brown, 3 Day, 346, evidence was admitted of a custom of merchants in Connecticut and New York, that the freight of money received by the master is his perquisite, and that he is to be personally liable on the contract, and not the owners of the vessel. This case is cited and approved in Renner v. Bank of Columbia, 9 Wheat. 591. See also The Paragon, Ware, 322; Ougier v. Jennings. 1 Camp. 505, n.; Barber v. Brace, 3 Conn. 9; Stewart v. Aberdein, 4 M. & W. 211; M'Gregor v. Ins. Co. of Penn. 1 Wash. C. C. 39; Trott v. Wood, 1 Gallia. 448; Cope v. Dodd, 13 Penn. St.37; Cutter v. Powell, 6 T. R 820; Raitt v.

Parke, B.f in Button v. Warren, 1M. & W. 476, "that in commercial transactions, extrinsic evidence of custom and usage is admissible to annex incidents to written contract in matters with respect to which they are silent. The same rule has also been applied to contracts in other transactions of life, in which known usages have been established and prevailed, and this has been done upon the principle of presumption that in such transactions the parties did not mean to express in writing the whole of the contract by which they intended to be bound, but a contract with reference to those known usages." Thus, a usage among printers and booksellers, that a printer, contracting to print a certain number of copies of a work, is not at liberty to print from the same types while standing an extra number for his own disposal, is admissible. Williams v. Gilman, 8 Greenl. 276. So, where bought and sold notes were given on a sale of tobacco, in an action for the price of the tobacco, it was permitted to be shown, that, by the established usage of the tobacco trade, all sales were by sample, though not so expressed in the bought and sold notes. Syers v. Jonas, 2 Exch. 111. See also Hodgson v. Davies, 2 Camp. 530; The Queen v. Inhabitants of Stoke-upon-Trent, 6 Q. B. 808; Connor v. Robinson, 2 Hill (S. C), 354; Whittaker v. Mason, 2 Bing. N. C. 359. -Where goods are consigned to an agent for sale, with general instructions to remit the proceeds, it is a sufficient compliance with such instructions if the agent remit by bill of exchange, without indorsing or guaranteeing it, provided such is the usage at the agent's place of business. Potter v. Morland, 3 Cash. 884. See Putnam v. Tillotson, 13 Met. 517. But see Gross v. Criss, 3 Gratt. 282. - The influence of local customs is particularly manifest in the cases that arise between landlord and tenant." The common law does so little to prescribe the relative duties of landlord and tenant, since it leaves the latter at liberty to pursue any course of management he pleases, provided he is not guilty of waste, that it is by no means surprising that the courts should have been favorably inclined to the introduction of those regulations in the mode of cultivation, which custom and usage have established in each district to be the most beneficial to all parties." Per Parkey B., in Hutton v. Warren, 1 M. & W. 476; Legh v. Hewitt, 4 East, 154. In Wigglesworth v. Dallison, Doug. 201, the tenant was allowed an away-going crop, although there was a formal lease under seal. "The custom," says Lord Mansfield, "does not alter or contradict the agreement in the lease, it only superadds a right which is consequential to the taking, as a heriot may be due by custom, although not mentioned in the grant or lease." So also a custom to remove fixtures may be incorporated into a lease. Van Ness v. Packard, 2 Pet 137. "Every demise between landlord and tenant, in respect to matters in which the parties are silent, may be fairly open to tions. Bowring v. Shepherd, L. R. 6 Q. B. 309. In an action against fruit brokers, who contracted for a "principal," but did not name him, evidence of a custom in the London fruit trade, that if the brokers did not give the names of their principals in the contract, they were to be held personally liable, is admissible; and also evidence of a similar custom in the London Colonial market, being evidence in a similar trade in the same place, and as tending to corroborate the evidence as to the existence of such a custom in the fruit trade. Fleet v. Murton, L. R. 7 Q. B. 126; Hutchinson v. Tatham, L. R. 8 C. P. 482. Where a master claimed freight on the gross weight of cotton delivered, a custom that it should be collectible only on net weight was admissible, the charter-party containing no words of exclusion. McPherson v. Cox, 86 N. Y. 472. A custom among merchants to charge interest on capital invested in business is not admissible in favor of the defendant in an action by a salesman on an agreement that he should receive a certain portion of the net profits. Paine v. Howells, 90 N. Y. 660.