
    Henry C. Howe & another vs. Augustus Hardy.
    In an action between a manufacturer of window frames and a dealer in them, on an issue whether the former should pay freight on frames sold and delivered by him to the latter, evidence of a usage between manufacturers and dealers, in the place where the goods were made and sold, that the manufacturers should pay the freight, is admissible.
    Contract for a balance of the price of window frames made by the plaintiffs and sold and delivered by them to the defendant, who filed a declaration in set-off for money paid to the use of the plaintiffs.
    At the trial in the superior court, before Wilkinson, J., without a jury, it appeared that the plaintiffs were manufacturers of window frames in Lowell, and the defendant a dealer in them in Boston, and a question was raised whether the plaintiffs or the defendant should pay the freight on the frames. The plaintiffs having testified that it was not their usage to pay freight, the defendant, against the plaintiffs’ objection, was allowed to offer evidence “ of a general usage at Lowell, where the frames were made and sold, among manufacturers and dealers, for the manu facturera to pay the freight.” The judge found for the defend ant, and the plaintiffs alleged exceptions.
    
      A. B. Brown, (F. A. Alger with him,) for the plaintiffs.
    
      S. J. Thomas, for the defendant.
   By the Court.

The usage as to the payment of freight was competent, for it related to what the vendor was to do in respect to the delivery of the goods in the absence of an express stipulation, Putnam v. Tillotson, 13 Met. 517.

Exceptions overruled.  