, 1879-01-12
sive that the Russians intend to annex Yesso
one Of the largest islands of the Empire
RAILROADS.

INTERESTING TO STOCK SHIPPERS.
Judge BlodEctt has been engaged the past two
OF three days in hearing the case of Myrick vs..
the Michigan Central Raitroad Company, which
involves some questions Of good deal Of inter-
est to shippers Of stock and TO railroads. The
suit was brought to recover the value Of two
shipments Of 400 head Of cattle from Chicago to
Philadelphia, and was brought On q receipt
which was treated rs bill! Of lading, anu was
filled out "Consigned to Paris .Myrck.
Notify J. & ". Blaker for transportation"
This receipt also referred to certain rules Of trans
Dortation printed on the back Of the receipt, one
OF which provided that the Company should
only be liable as carrier to the end of its own
line, and that it would deliver the property to
the next carrier as the ageut OF the consgnee.
The plaintiff claimed that by this receipt the
Michigan Central made a contract to carry the
cattle through to Philadelphia, aud deliver them
to the Bakers, aud, not having done SO, it was
liable for their value. The defendants. on the
other hand, held that Its contract only com-
PEELED It to come to Detroit the end of its line,
aud that its obligation was fully performed
when it delivered the cattle to the connecting
carrier there, that it it was responsible for The
whole transportation, its undertaking vas fully
performed when It delivered the cattle to the
North Philadelphia Drove Yards Com pany. The
cattle, it appeared, we're shipped by the aiichi-
gan Central to Detroit; thence BY tho Great
Western. the Lrie, nnd the Lehlgh Valley Roads,
and reached Philadelphia BY tue North Pcnnsyl-
vania Road. The latter road delivered them to
the North Philadelphia Dtovc-Yards Company
and they in turn delivered them over to J. Il W.
bills Of lading which the defendant had issued
to tie Commercial National Bank to
obtain money. The North Pennsylvania
Company. the last carrier, bad no facilities
for caring for the stock: but it had
been its uniform custom to deliver the cattle
thus transported to the Philadelphia Drove
Yards Company, and the plaintiff had been max
ing similar shipments for months, the custom
being to deliver cattle immedIately on their ar
rival to this Drove-Yards Company.
The principal question was whether the re-
ceipt Ia question was through bill OF la0ing.
The Judge instructed. the jury that the bill OF
ladiug was through contract, whereby the de-
cago to Philadelphia aud then deliver them to
tbe:ordcr Of Paris Myrick aud to notify yJ: q W.
Blaker OF their arrival. If the Michigan Central
did not reach to the place. OF destination
Of tue property shipped under the receipt,
it should have properly notified each of the car
riers beyond It's own terminus, and the terms Oh
which the shipment was made, anu each Of such
carriers was, for the purpose OF executing the
contract, the agent OF the defendant aud as
COMPLETELY bound to carry out the contract, as
il the defendants railroad extended from Chi
cago to the place OF destination, and the agents
Of the last carrier who transported the cattle
were the agents OF the Michigan central Road
for the purpose OF executing the contract
Another defense was that there was a usage
between plaintiff and the defendant to have the
cattle delivered as they were delivered in the
present Instance The Judge instructed the
Jury that in order to warrant delivery contrary
satisfactorily that the plaintiff knew the terms
had been changed ut the terminus, and no mere