“proper delivery.” See Tan Hi v. United States, 94 F.Supp. 432, 434-35 (N.D.Cal.1950). Notwithstanding the aforementioned obligations, there is a well-recognized and longstanding exception, which has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court and has, in time, come to modify the common law obligations of the carrier. The well-recognized exception can be articulated as follows: if the delivery is according to the custom and usage of the port, such delivery will discharge the carrier of his responsibility. Constable v. National Steamship Co., 154 U.S. 51, 63, 14 S.Ct. 1062, 38 L.Ed. 903 (1894); Tan Hi v. United States, 94 F.Supp. 432, 435 (N.D.Cal.1950) (emphasis added). See also Servicios-Expoarma, C.A. v. Industrial Maritime Carriers, Inc., 135 F.3d 984, 993 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Tapco Nigeria, Ltd. v. M/V Westwind, 702 F.2d
holding that local delivery drivers operate in interstate commerce when they drive vehicles loaded with goods that were shipped to texas from another state temporarily stored at a warehouse in texas then delivered to a texas customer via local delivery drivers holding that pursuant to venezuelan port of destination carrier delivered goods from first shipment when it transferred it to authorized customs warehouse holding that delivery of citation is proper when delivered to a party capable of receiving it holding that proper delivery occurred under harter act when the carrier relinquished custody and control of the goods to the national port authority of monrovia holding that warehouse companys sale of customers goods for nonpayment of storage charges did not constitute state action though authorized by state statute