Mylroie

(after stating the facts as above).

In support of the decree below the proctors for the appellee insist that, even though the evidence be held to show that the stranding of the barge and the consequent damage was caused by the negligence of the tug, yet its owner cannot be held liable therefor because of that clause of the contract between the parties reading: “The tug company is not to be held liable for any damage which might happen to the said barge Bangor or its cargo while in tow or at anchor.”

The contention of the appellant that there was a contrary verbal agreement cannot be sustained. In view of the record, we regard it as clear that that clause must be taken as appears in the written contract.

But the point also made for the appellant that the tug was not allowed by law to avoid by contract the consequences of its own negligence remains to be considered and determined. This court said in effect that it would not be in the case of Alaska Commercial Co. v. Williams, 128 F. 362 , 63 C.C.A. 92 , citing in support thereof The Steamer Syracuse, 12 Wall. 167 , 20 L.Ed. 382 , In re Moran (D.C.) 120 F. 556 , The Somers N. Smith (D.C.) 120 F. 569 , The M. J. Cummings (D.C.) 18…