Daily Kennebec journal., 1901-12-24

!
deranging titla from the same anc"s-
tor, and disclaimcd the other two
ninths.
! After 4 careful consideration OF all
the evidence reported and full consG
Grafton Of the situation and the ell
cumstances of the parties it is consjd-
cred by the court that there is not
only no affirmative testimony Of an &c
tual del!*ery of the deed from tie.
r;other to her daughter. %" To- any
agent or attorney of the daughter but
no competent evidence from which any
presumption of d,]ivery arises.
1t is admitted that the attorney Who
Witnessed and took til" acknowird=-
nlent OF the mother ana daughter, the
grartors in the two dceCs. resnocl;Vr.
has no knowledge Of their ,iel\ er.-.
The original deed from Ann Haley to
her daue'ht-r. under which the plain
tif. claims. was not produced in court
and there is no evidence that it was
ever in the poSSc csSion Cf either ne
y plaintiff or her mother: while GA the
/ oticr hand. il Goes appear that ih:s
Iced was in the possession Of the ad-
y n1iuiStrator Of the @rantor, Ann Haley
/ and was delivered bV hiE, tu the de
ftndant Callahan. who is rot shown to
have been notified To produce :: III
court.
{. Held: in this case. t.Iat there is
l no contradictory testimony and moth
! ing in the situation and circumstances
! of the parties having any necessary
/ tendency to rerel the presumption that
the deed in question. shown to have
B in tho nn.ScGGin, Of bn t.,,.',.
( representative. h?d not been delivered
to the grantee.
! Judgment for the plaintiff for two
/ undivided ninth parts OF the premises
described in the writ
Cumberland county. Portland e. Rum
ford Falls Railroad Company vs.
Rumford Falls Paper Company Re-
script by Wiswell. C. J.
(No opinion
The only question involved in this
cas- is one Of fact. The action is
aSSumpsIt upon an account annexed.
covering a Very large number of items
fCf freight charges upon merchandise
carried by the plaintiff for the de-
fendant between April t. 1S93 and
May 20. 1S9J
The case was first sent to an auditor
who, after Il hearing extending over a
period of forty-four days. made re-
port in which he found a balance due
the plaintiff on Jan. I. 1898. including
the balance of interest to that date. of
Et25So6S
i trial was subsequently, com
menced before a jury. The plaintiff
introduced in evidence the auditor :
.,,1 l,n,l ,,
evidence. After the testimony was
closed the case was reported 10 the law
court upon the stipulation that this
court should order such judgment as
The rights Of the parties might re-
tiurc.
The only contention now is as to the
freight charges upon merchandise car
lied by the plaintiff both ways be
tween the defendants mill at Rumforti
Falls and Portland. upon full carload
Its. Both parties agreed that upon
materials that Went into the cunstruc-
zion of the defendants mill. the freight
charges. by contract, should be five
cents per hundred pounds in CARLOAD d
ots, and the amount allowed by the
auditor, upon such materials was
based upon this rate. l-non all other
merchandise carried by the plaintiff
between these points. the auditor al
lowed seven cents per hundred
pounds. in carload lots, except upon
soft coal. for which the rate of sl..d
per ton Of e2i0 pounds was allowed by
him.
Uppn january L.. 1899 before this ac-
count commenced. and before the d.
f. ndantS mill was completed. the
treasurer of the railroad company
wrote tu the treasurer of the paper
{ ompany "A letter giving the freight
charges on the product Of the mill from
1:umford Falls to different points upon
its road. in which the freight charge
TO Portland on carload lots. was dis
tirctly stat ii to bc seven cents per
hundred pounds. In this letter the
ties. surer also quoted the then existing
rates upon paper from Portland. by
otl.or lines. to various New England
points. and closed his letter by saving:
In making rates from Rumford Fails
to points named beyond Portland
nd to such rates from Portland. the
rate from Rumford Falls to Portland.
The treasurer Of the paper compa ny
acknowledged the receipt of this let
ter. and expressed himself as very
much obliged therefor. 1t appears that
he never subsequently made any OBJ
lection to the rates named in this let
ter.
Again. on July u. 1923. shortly after
the commencement Of the account
sued the superintendent of the railroad
company wrote to the president of the
paper company letter in which he
said: I'VE quote you rates. commence
irg July 1st. as follows: Carload rates
on paper given in letter of Jan. nth.
by Il. c. Bradford. (the plaintiff s
treasurer who wrote the letter of that
date) to apply to a minimum carload
weight Of 10000 pounds. Soft coal.
Portland to Rumford Falls. S12D per
ton Of o240 pounds" The remainder
of the letter referred to rates not now
in controversy. On Aug. 18th. 1898.
the superintendent again wrote to the
president in regard to an error In his
letter of July 14th in relation to rates
on less than carload lots. The presi-
dent Of the paper company did not re-
ply to the letter of July 18th, but on
Aug. 18th he answered the latter letter.
l.