Wieland

(after stating the facts as above). [1] It is the contention of the plaintiff that the goods before the time of their destruction had been delivered and accepted by the defendant, as a carriei-, for immediate transportation, that the fact that the goods were destroyed while in the government warehouse, in the exclusive custody of the Belgian customs officials, in no way limits or varies or changes the responsibility of tile defendant, and that it is liable for the goods as an insurer thereof. It is the contention of the defendant that the goods were never at any time before their destruction in its possession, custody, and control, but that, on the contrary, being in the exclusive custody of the Belgian customs officials in the government warehouse of the kingdom of Belgium, they were in custodia *674 legis, and, Being there destroyed without fault on the part of the defendant, it is relieved from liability for their loss as an insurer.

In support of its contention that the goods were not delivered to the defendant, it cites St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 139 U. S. 223 , 11 Sup. Ct. 554, 35 L. Ed. 154 In that case cotton had been destroyed by fire while in…