Loudon free press. (Loudon, Tenn.) 1852-1855, 1853-10-28

KI-s .--Rafiier, DoaHelly d. Co., OicIte, Of
Si.dmer Sdlem, Va. CJmIbeH, RuSsei d Co
1t was agreed in the. above cause that Sin lie
ton ( Son urlrred fr.m--a quantity Of
goods. with directions to ship them t. Paiucah,
Nv, via Cincinnati; that sail goo,!s were ship
ped Srcnr,,ing to car. of defendants, who re-
ceiv- The same At Little Miami Railroad, and
paid railroad char res amounting to 5000.
That defendants. aS A gents, shipped said
goods u Sin -leton 4 Son, Paducah, by stea-
mer Salem, the owners of said boat. paving
defendants commission, and gave them bill
of lsdng in the ordinary form. The goods
were rendered hy said boat to the consi Inees at
Paducah, who refused to receive the same or
pay charges, freight, &c.
The goods we're then returned to defendant
at Cincinnati, and demand made for charges
and freight, which was refused and this suit
was brought to recover same.
Collins for plaintiff ketcnum and Heading
ton for defendant
The Court, Judge Carter, decided, that upon
the above facts the defendants were not respon-
sible for fire. hit to the plaintiffs: that the true
criterion of responsibility in all questions srs-
ing upon the ri 5lts of third parties; against
agents or their principals. was, to whom was
the credit given; that applying this principle to
this case, it was plainly perceptible that the
plaintiffs gave the credit to the conSi gnpes-cer-
tsinly not to the defendants; on the contrary,
they treated the defendants as agents merely
When taking the goods from them THE defen-
dante to carry, they paid the former CHARGES
of $40 40 Of the railroad company. beside the
commission of the defendants and the dravage.
How then can it be said that the plaintiffs had
any expectation Of looking TO the defer dAnts
for the pay of the freight? Not following the
usual course of trade in this country, the plain
tifs expected TO get their freight and the char
ges they had advanced to the defendants as
commission merchants, from the consignees,
and, Of course, to them was the credit given.
Nor does it make any difference in the case
that these agents, the defendants, did not dis
close the name of any principal; (perhapS they
did not know who were the owners nf the goods,
IT acting for them as ayents.) The conclusion
being inevitable, from the facts, that the credit
was not given to the defendants, this is conclu-
81 - Of the case, and beside. the consignces, as
pin i;.als,were equally well known to the plain
tlfs, from the goods them selves as to the dtfen-
dants; and ifthe owners or shippers of the goods
are to be taken as principals, still we fall back
npon the test, to whom was the credit given by
the plaintiffs? IF the plaintiffs did not give
credit tn the orr 'iual shippers or owners of the
goods, thew certainly di not give credit to the
COMMISSION mnr HITS, whp were mere agents;
and II matters not whether for the owners or
consigness. since the credit was not given to
them. 1.-THE delenda' ts.)
The remedy of the plaintiffs is then accor-
ding t. the usa,.es of trade in this country,
against the consi tnees if they had not order
e! the goods were not the owners, then
a ,ainst II. ri ginal, shippers OF owners.
The jalsmeat here must be for the defen-
dants.