CAMPIOB V. CANADIAB PAC. BY.
each made with the knowledg·e and assent ofthe deceased director. The case will also bar any further projudgment ultimately rendered in ceedings oli account of ally oithe Ibans :mentioned in the exhibits. We' fail to see, therefore, how the' method of pleading that has been adopted will put the defense to any disadvantage. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the statute creates a right of action for making advances be" yond a given limit, we think it is sufficient to aver that loans were ingly made to certain parties by the deceased director to a given amount beyond that limit, which resulted in a loss to the bank, and that no ob-' ligation rests on the pleader to count upon each loan as a separate cause: of action. The dates and amounts of the several loans are matters of idence to be established at the trial. In support of this view; we may fairly invoke the rule of pleading under the Missouri Code; 'which permits a plaintiff in a suit on a bond or a contract to assign any number of breaches,' 'although they occurred at different times, in one and the same count ofthe declaration. ' State v. DaviB, 35 Mo. 407. Upon the whole, we conclude that the motions to compelanelectiOl'l should be overruled, and it is so 'ordered. Justice. I fully concur in the foreg,oing opini()n.
CAMPION t1. CANADIAN:
(O-LreuUCourt, ,N. D. Illtno1.B. Septem1;ler 29, 1800.)
OI.BBmR OP GooDs-LIABILITY FOR Loss.
Wbere a carrier, after informing tbe owner of goods delivered to, it for traI)50 portation tbat theY will be at place of receipt till the freight charges are paidJ ships the goods without payment, and without notil18 to the owner, it is lial)le for aamages resulting from such prematureallipmellt.. ' .' ,
John S. Oooper, for plaintiff. ,Walker «- Eddy, for defendant:.
GRESHAM, J. Having determined to remove from Chicago to Seattle with her family, (two daughters,) the plaintiff,on May 14, 1888,visiited the office of the defendant to arrange for the shipment of' heltfur. niture,books, pictures, clothing, and other household goods. . The ·de-. fendant's agent agreed to receive and forward the goods, and informeq the plaintiffth'at from Chicago to St. Paul they would be cimied"(l)",er the Chicago; St·. Paul & Kansas City road, thence to Vancouver o:vertl:!e defendant's road, and thence to their destination bY' the Nonhern Pacific Navigation Oompany. 1'he defendant knew tbat the plaintiff desirecl..td receive andcarfl for her good!! when they reached their destination, that she expected to start 09 her journey that day. 'Alter deliveringihar
property at the freight depot of .the Kansas City Company.at Chicago, and receiviJ;rg l1-memorandum receipt Jor it, the plaintiff ,went to the de.fendant's office, showed her receipt,and was informed. that an agent of the defendent was at the freightoflice of the other com pany, expecting to meet her there. The plaintiff went. to the latter office, and met an agent of the defendant in company with an agent of the other company . and was informed by them that her goods would not he forwarded until the freight charges, $105, were paid, the rr.gulations of the defendant requiring payment in advance for carrying such property. Having hut $75 with her, the plaintiff left, /Saying she ,would return in a day or two with. money enough to pay.the freight bill; but beforl! leaving she handed the receipt to the defen<iant's agent, who promised to have again called a bill of lading ready for :her. Two days later· the at the defend,ant's office, and informed a i)clerk or employe, he being the only person present, that she was detained by the illness of one of her daughters, and some busi,ness matter, and that her goods would 1<>, remain in. the freight house for the present, The employe said he supposed that would be sat,isfactory, and that he would inform the Aefendant's freight agent of her situation, which he did. The plaintiff informed then went t() the freight office of the Kansas .city.company, its agent of the cause of her detention, who told her that, under the circumstances, her goods could remain where they were without storage charges. The following week the plaintiff again visited the defendant's office, and informed its agent that she was still detained at Chicago by the illness of her daughter; and some days later the plaintiff had an opportunity to ship her goods to Seattle over line, at a lower rate, in a car which had been obtained by a friend, his goods not filling the car. The plaintiff accordingly went to the Kansas City Company's freight depot for her goods, and was for the first time informed by an agent that they had been forwarded the evening of the day she delivered tliem,and ):lad not notified her Qfthe when she called before, because he did not then knowo! the shipment. The plaintiff immediately went to the defendant's office and asked its agent if her goods had been forwarded, and, if so, why she had not been notified of the fact. The agent replied that it was true her goods had been shipped the day she delivered them at the other company's freight warehouse; that one of the defEmdant's agents in charge of such matters, on his own· responsibility, had ordered the shipment; and that the defendant had not notified her of the fact because her address could not be found. The plaintiff then saw the latter agent, and told him she had given hi;nher address, and had seen him put it on his file, and he replied that her address had heen lost, and for that reason she could not be notified·. The goods arrived at Seattle on May 30, and, no one toreceivethem, they were stored ina warehouse, and. six days later 'were destroyed by fire. The. plaintiff testified that if she had known her goods· had been forwarded she would have Seattie in time to receive; them, and that when they were destroyed she believed they· were still in Chicago.
If there had been no agreement or nnderstanding that the goods should be held until the defendant's demand was complied with, the defendant would have been bound to forward them at once, or without nnreason· able delay; but, having agreed to hold the goods until the charges were paid, it was a breach of the contract to forward them without notice to the plaintiff. She believed, as she well might, that her goods would not be forwarded until she complied with the defendant's demand, and that she could and would reach Seattle in time to care for them on their ar· rival. She was prevented from doing this by the neglect of the defendant to discharge a plain duty that it owed her. Her goods were destroyed 2,000 miles away, when, owing to the misleading conduct of the defendant, she Ilupposed they were still at Chicago. If a carrier receives goods for transportation, agreeing to hold them until a future date, or until the happening of an event, and forwards them at once, damages resulting from a breach of the agreement may be recovered. !twas clearly the defendant's duty to hold the goods, or notify the plaintifIthat it was willing to forward them, waiving prepayment of the , carrying charges. Finding and judgment for the plaintiff tor $1,650·
et ,oZ. v.
(CVcuU Oourt, B. D. Georgia. April Term, 1890.)
O1:l'sTOJI-RlilASONABLENESS-PRINCIPAL AND AGENT-8HIPPING.
A custom that an agency, to act for a ship in distress is irrevocable Is Invalid, as being unreasonable, A custom that the agent of a ship in distress shall receive In all cases a custody commissibn per cent. upon the value of the cargo discharged, and an attendance fee in the dfscretion of the agent, is void as to the attendance fee for want of uniformity, but valid as to the commission. Where a defendant has acted in bad faith, and has been'stnbbornly litigious, the jury may allow plaintiff an attorney's fee as an element of damage.
SAME-CoMPENSATION OP AGENT.
S. VERDICT-ATTORNEYS' FEES.
At Law. This was an action by A. Minis & Sons to recover for services as ship agents. The jury found for plaintiff in the snm of $4,316.78. Chisholm Erwin and Wm. Bignon, for plaintiffs. George A.Mercer, for defendants. SPEER,J., (oraUy chargingtlte jury.) This suit is broup;ht by A. Minitl &: Sons, fOI"$5,573.45, besides interest from thtl 16th clay of December, 1887.' This sum is made up of several charges, to which the court 'will preseritly' refer )'ou. The plaintiffs' are commission and shipping mel\chants Rnd;brokers in Savannah. The defendants are owners o( the British The plaintiffI!' were the agents or oJnsignees