arriving in the districts to which the exception does apply, it says, "and the powers and duties of the officers of the customs shall be exercised and discharged in the districts last mentioned [that is, in the districts to'lllich the exception does apply] in like manner as is prescribed in: respect to merchandise imported in vessels from the sea. ,. Showing, I think, conclusively that the exception does not apply to vessels that do make their voyages by the open seas. The conclusion is that the penalty of forfeiture was incurred as claimed in the libel, and is adjudged accordingly.
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D.
CoHMONCAnRIER-REPBElmNTATI()NS 01J' AGENT-THROUGH TrCKET-LoBEl Oll' LUGGAGE BY OTHER CARRIER OPERATING PAR'1' 01J' RoUTE. '
A steam-ship company, operating a line of ocean steam-ships from Europe to America, but selling through tickets from various points in Europe, is liable for the 108s of a passenger's luggage by an inder:endent carrier by whose vehicles it is the passenger from the point where he purchased his ticket to the port of embarkation, if the passen!!:er purchased his through ticket upon the faith of representations made by the steam-ship comt>any's local agent, who sold ticket, that the company undertook the safe carriage of such luggage over the whole route. 2. 8AHE-OONTRACT BY AGENT IN ExCESS 01J' AUTHORITY.
In such case it is no defence for the company to show that the agent in making SUch representations exceeded his instructions.
Motion for New Trial. This was an action at law brought to recover the value of a trunk. On the trial, before McKennan, C. J., the following facts appeared: Plaintiff purchased at Berlin, Prussia, from William Strecker, who advertised himself as agent of the American Steam-ship Company, a ticket from Hamburg to Philadelphia. Before paying his fare he received from Strecker a printed circular headed "American Mftil Steam-ship Company, (American line,) carrying passengers regularly to Philadelphia, New York, Baltimore, and Boston. Leaves Hamburg every Friday and every second Tuesday. Tickets for the passage are issued by the authorized general agent, W. Strecker, in Berlin." The circular also contained printed conditions stating that the passage money included "complete free transportation and maintenance from Hamburg
.Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
MASKOS V. AMERICAN STEAM-SHIP CO.
in the following way: .(a) Passage 'per steam-ship to Hull. (b) Passage per train from Hull to Liverpool. The passengers arriving in Hull are taken care of by officers especially appointed for the purpose of transferring passengers to the first train that leaves for Liyerpool. From the departure from Hamburg the passenger will have no expenses whatever for lodging or provisions until they arrive in America. · · · (c) Leave Liverpool with one of the regular equipped steamers of the American line." The circular also stated that "for unloading and transportation of baggage in Hull and Liverpool passengers have nothing to pay." Plaintiff testified that Strecker made in verbal representations to him to the same effect as the the circular; that he thereupon purchased from Strecker a ticket entitling himself and wife, with their luggage, to transportation by the American Steam-ship Company from Hamburg to Philadelphia; that he went to Hamburg and there received from the agent of the steam-ship company tickets to use on the steamer between Hamburg and Hull, and on the train between Hull and Liverpool; that his luggage reached Hull, and he there saw it placed on the train for Liverpool, but that at Liverpool the trunk, on account of which this suit was brought, was missing, and plaintiff sailed for America without it. Defendant produced testimony to show that it did not operate or -control the steam-ship line between Hamhurg and Hull, nor the railroad between Hull and LiverpOOl; that Strecker was not a general .agent of the company, but a local agent, and was also agent for variOus other steam-Ship and railway lines, and that he had no authority to make the representations or issue the circular testified to by plaintiff. The court charged the jury that if they were satisfied that the person selling the through ticket at Berlin was the agent of the defend.ant company, the latter were liable for any contract or representations he may have made binding the company as carriers over the whole route from Hambnrg to Philadelphia. The jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $222.60. Defendant moved for a new trial. The motion was argued before McKENNAN and BUTLER, JJ.. Morton P. Henry and Henry G. Ward, for motion:
No such contract as is alleged here arises from the sale of a through ticket. Lawson, Carriers; Hutchinson, Carriers; Redfield, Carriers. This contract is governed by the American law. Wharton, Contl. of Laws, § 471. The company were not responsible for loss by an independent carrier, nor could its
ticket agent at Berlin impose such liability upon it. NQJac v. Poston If L()I/j)ell Ry. Co. 7 Allen 329; Robinson v. Memphis & Charleston R. Co. 9 FED. REp. 129.
John Thompson Spencer, contra;
The steam-ship company was bound by the contract madE by itsagellt in the line of its business. Balt. & Phila. S. Co. v. Brown, 54 I'a. St. 77; Railroad Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 123; Harding v. Int. Nav. Co. 39 Leg. Int. 150; Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357. Defendant company having undertaken to perform an entire service, the other carriers employed by it were its agents, and not the agents of the plaintiff. Bank a/Ky. v. Adams E';l;. Co. 93 U. S. 174.
McKENNAN, C. J. It is very clear that there was evidence sufficient to submit to the jury as to whether the contract was made with the defendant to carry him and his baggage from Hamburg. If a part of the carriage was performed by other corporations, the plaintiff was justified in inferring that they were the agents of the defendant in the matter, not his agents. He had not made any contract with the subordinate carriers. New trial refused.
In re W. R. BLUMER & Co., Bankrupts.(District Oourt, E. D. Pennsylvania. January 10, 1882.,
BANKRUPTCY-TRANSFER OF BANK STOCK TO WIFE-ACCEPTANCE BY EVIDENCE.
A bankrupt, whq was indebted to his wife, transferred to her name, shortly beforehis bankruptcy, certain bank stork. At the time of the transfer the stock had a market value above par, but immediately thereafter the bank went into liquidation and was found to be insolvent. The bankrupt testified that he told his wife. of the transfer after the bank was discovered to be unsound, and that she said she would rather not have the stock. Held, that the evidence was not sufficient to show acceptance of the stock by the wife, and that its value could not be deducted from the claim proved by her against the bankrupt's estate.
SAME-PRESUJlfPTION AS TO ACCEPTANCE IN PAYMENT OR AS COLLATERAL.
Whether, if the evidence had been held sufficient to establish acceptance of the stock, the latter must have been regarded as accepted in payment or as collateral security merely, quw'f'e.
Exceptions to report of register upon a proof of debt for $59,379.09, presented against the separate estate of Jesse M. Line, one of the partners of the firm of W. H. Blumer & Co., bankrupts, by his wife, ' Mary L. Line.
-Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Plliladelpl1ia bar.