The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-11-10
TWO WE'RE REVERSED.
Railway Company Gets the Benefit
of One.

halfway company Uets the heheht
of One.
The Ontario & Western Railway
company secured a reversal Of YER
dict against 1T, in favor of E. O..
Davis, as assignee of Arnott & Corbett,
and there are some important rulings
in the syllabus.
The suit was brought to recover for
damages alleged to have been sustain
ed to a consignment of lemons, shipped
over the road of the defendant COM
pany, and the attorney for the COM
pany was required by the court, to
produce certain letters and kilograms
entrusted to him by his client, with
out having obtained the consent of the
client.
Justice Collins, in reversing the de-
cision of the lower court in this case,
says:
/. The rule laid down in Stokoe VS.. Rail-
road Company, 40 Mimi. 545, that an attorney
is not obliged to produce a writing entrusted
TO him by his Client or to disclose its con-
tents without the clients consent applied in
this case. Held that the trial court erred
when it compelled defendants attorney to
produce certain writings that they might be
introduced in evidence.
2. This rule does not extend to writings
obtained by attorneys from other sources
than their clients, or from third persons,
whether strangers or opponents.
s. Defendants attorney received certain
kilograms and letters in relation to the mat
ters Ia controversy from one B., who had
been defendants attorney in the case. but
/. for whom the attorneys first mentioned had
been substituted. A part of these communi-
cations were addressed to defendants general
freight agent and a part to the officials of
another common carrier Held, that the pre-
sumption is that those addressed to the de-
PENDANTS agent were entrusted to B. by his
client and defendant And that those adj
dressed to the officials Of the other carrier
1yaTa oh ioed ID hon,
entrusted to- him by his client.
4. The bill of lading involved in this action,
there being number Of connecting carriers
contained a stipulation that no carrier should
be liable for loss of damage to the described
property not occurring on its own road or its
portion of the through route. Held, that il
the injury or damage to the property in ques-
tion-boXes of lemons-resuIted as plaintiff
claimed, from the unskillful, improper and
negligent manner in which defendant the
initial carrier, piled the boxes in the cars in
which they were transported to their destina-
ton, it would be liable for the total injury
or damage.
D. The bill of lading also contained con-
dftion that the amount of any loss or damage
for which any carrier became liable should
be computed at the value of the property at
the place and time Of shipment a condition
Identical with that construed in Shea vs.
Railway Company, 60 Mimi, 22S. and there
held to be unjust, unreasonable and contrary
to public policy because freight charges paid
or incurred by a consignee had been ig-
nered. Held, modifying Shea Vs. Railway
Company, that in this condition there is moth
ing which excludes from a computation of
damages, charges for transportation paid or
incurred by or on behalf of consignee And
that such charges-paid or unpaid-may be
taken into consideration when fixing the
damages. And that so interpreted the condi-
ton is not on its face unjust. unreasonable
or opposed to public policy.
The other reversal was in the matter of the
estate of Alexander D. Stuart, deceased.
Murdoch Stuart. appellant, vs. Sophia Stuart
executrM Of the estate of Alexander D.
Stuart, respondent.
Held that a complaint made in district
court upon an appeal from an order disalIow-
ing claim filed in probate court against ths
estate OF deceased person, sufficiently con-
formed to the claim as filed. Order reversed.
Collins, j.