The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-08-17
Impo,ta 10 Immigrants and Carriers.

ImpOy tant Ia Inlm1 grants and Carriers
~ MARINE coUaT-GENzKAL TERM
Before Hon Judges Maynard. Mccarthy and Thomson
yodmeyr IS Loschcr.rhe plaintiff in this suit (Caro-
line Nordmeye cry September 1865, purchased ticket
in Hamburg tor this city, per ship Waterloo from one
Hlorschman with the Nreis agreement that her
baggage 81 oud be sent IN The ship with her, and
paid TOR in atvance-all Of which Herschman agreed
to. Hlerschman, in violation OF this agreement trans
ferred her baggage TO berg Hamburg, who con-
signed here together WITH other bag
gage Of Other persons Some months after the PLAINTIFF
arrived here, the ship Waterloo, her baggage in
another vessel The defendant received under bill of
adpg from Iberg without the know ledge consent OF
the plaintiff TO give up until she pays TO-
him $50 for his ano expenses, that being the
charge OIL her baggage the baggage OF other PERSONS
shipped with hers by iberg.
MAYNARD Hers 'hman the special agent or
the plaintiff do IA specific act, in specified manner.
BE bad no discretionary power whatever He violated hs
Rreemsbt, and acted Without authority ron MS principal,
ntransferripa the olains bapgagsto Iberg Herscnman
ad ne IL this baggage. He could have none, for hc
ad received his hoe paw in advance and being spe.
'iai agent Of III plant u perform specific act In
pecie6 manner without discretionary power what
ever be ranlo, bnd his principal by act he may de-
bey oni me fc"p- OF Gs authority lberg should have
ookfd into the author ~ Of fIerschmau He knew the
baggage DID Iot belong "a Herschmau, for marked
70 the plant IN New York Whoever deals with such
an agent rays CbsDcecr Kent his peril when
he agent passes the precise limits OF his power per-
gence b. does not the scope his authors
~ In the ~ aaory Burri,, (Smith's Common
Pleas Reports the Coat The did not autho
them Common carrers) tn anything save CARRYING
the goods according 10 their cotract aud that others
aiding them In the portit, " presumed },
know the course OF the ordinary business and the limit
ed authority u COZ ferret mat the might insist
upon bis contract against all other persons employed
assist The ue, that the line company contracted
with bad no right 10 deliver the property other
independent carriers for aop,rtston, or f delivered
the ohcr carries Ct IL subordnaton n the contract;
and il they acquire any rights against the II is only
az the agent o' 'he inal contracting line. Ii this
ruling be law Ibcfq the defendant act only as the
agents OF Eierschmsn aha claim any more than
their prncpa (H chn1n) coi claim by virtue of his
ccntrac, with the painn me case OF fitch vs. Goola
cited in Angel On common O. 365) the court held
that the doctrine of ealor applies with the same
force to commor carriers 20 other persons, and if
Of property without consent OF the owner
they, Ike other We compelled to it
ry goods offered rarIet TO the condition that the
person oienv III goods had authority do In that
case the psirtr. ~ their agent shipped goods Port
Kent Oh Lake Cham an consigned TO hem at Marshall,
Michigan, care o. u x Co, Detroit, aud paid the
before hey reschra Rriao tey into tue possess
sion OF carriers another lne without the knowledge
or ass nj Of 10 papn aad were by them transported
TO Detroit, ana consigned T. 2 Co., to the care Of
the defendants, and delivered to the defendants who
were ignorant OF The ma. ner the goods into the
possession OF tLis lice Of the of the plain.
IFS with the ether Ire TIE defendants being warehouse
men and iorwarcsrs advanced the freight receipt Of
the goods from Troy, New YORK, TO Detroit. On
demand Of he gods by the PLAINTIFFS the
defendants refused De liver them until the
freight advanced by tr.m an1 their charges, were
paid, claiming hen the goods for such freight and
charges II was hsij iu ton of replcvn brought
for the goods that the pisptTs were entitled to Their
goods With the at such charges and that the
defendants bad eD the goods for the same: in
ether words that the defendants were the agents of the
be contracting to carry the goods and acted subor
dnston TO such contract Liens may be created In three
ways-lst by express contracts I'd. BY implied contracts
3D. by legal relation II Is not pretended that the de-
PENDANT acquired lien b. express implied contract
with the plaintiff contract consent aud the
plaintiff endants receiving her goods
lnnkeerers, usds~mrn and builders, in certain clses
have lien by legal relation by statute. Consignees
60 not come Within u these rules where goods
come Into their POSSESSION thant the consent OF the
owner Liens regarded wnL jealousy by courts and
are never favored, they innovations COM
mon Law (Augcl On Common Car iefs, gee. 357) The
defcncart bad 70 right q hen ny legal relation aud
ing the painns property without her consent he can
not retain fot has charges % Chty, Common Law
biI; Cross or li.Ls. ISL Ia iecd. IL IL uGdenablc
principle at.qItS sell a aw. that II agent tor
tuousy deliver the octsp h., principal b. third per-
son Tor uanstofiat 'nr tie pnrposc 81 being
'actured alter * Improved. such third person cannot
equine len, AM c 6Nbrr may ia rover, with.
u tender nr n t.orle. Gross on Ilers D. 30)
C1ahne. Mass Rer y. l37.)-Fnally the case Of
Hitch W Goo ar u Michigan aud the case of Robinson
vs.. Baker Nh. -Mhrc.ts rave justly, 50 eauitably
nj 50 truly = ACCORDANCE with all general we'll
tued principles ~ R.iahlis he'd a ruls not 10 be
kiuTbtd, that where 200 though inno-
vner expr,st iupi 4 he d.iaiu them against
he tue owner r-ti ~" trcielt Is paid. Judgment
. irmcd, with rtxtr
Judge NcCaithv ,-@etio f.om his associates on cer-
ain lega propcs 80, cuncurred In the decision "a
the merits 81 tle c.0r