Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-11-14
Androscoaain County.

Jonas Edwards vs.. American Express
Co. Rescript, Whitehouse, G. j.
This is an action to recover damages
for an alleged breach of the defendants
contract with the plaintiff who resided
at Auburn, Maine, to transport %
horses from East st. Louis. ILL.,, to De-
There was no express requirement that
this car should go by the way of Au-
burn, Me, and there was no provision
in the contract requiring the shipment
to be made by any particular route.
The plaintiff complains in his declaration
that the horses were transported by a
route which did not pass through Au-
burn and that they We're not unloaded,
fed and watered at Auburn in accord
ance with the eonsignees request and
he ayers that in consequence of the de-
fendants failure to transport the horses
by way of Auburn he was deprived of
his lawful right to accept delivery of
them at Auburn and to excuse the de-
PENDANT from the further performance
of the contract. 1t appears that in fact
the plaintiff desired and intended IN
have IS of the horses left at Auburn
and Y only actually delivered at Detroit
and he claims to recover damages for
the express paid for re-shipping Is horses
from Detroit back to auburn and foI
plaintiffs loss of time and expenses OF
man besides 81 oVercharge of $50 mad
vertently made.
1t is n well settled and familiar rule
IN the law 81 carriers that where a bill
of lading contains no stipulation pre-
the shipment of goods shall he made,
the carrier has the option to select any
one OF the ordinary routes of travel
which IS reasonably safe as Well as eN-
peditious and not excessive in its
charges
But it is contended in behalf of the
plaintiff in the case al bar that the con-
signee.s request that the horses be I'M
loaded, watered and fed at Auburn be-
came a part of the contract and imposed
upon the defendant the obligation to
IL. .sl,sV r.f.
of Auburn. II has been seen however
that all of the q horses We're consigned
TO Jonas Edwards at Detroit, Maine, and
the defendant had no knowledge of the
plaintiffs secret purpose to nave Is Of
them unloaded and retained at Auburn
until the evening of MAY II. when there
was discussion between the plaintiff s
agent and the defendants express agent
at Lewiston respecting the rule author
izing the defendant to make a charge IL
$40 n head for every horse unloaded and
then existing, and even then it does not
appear that the express agent was re-
quested by the plaintiff or mis- represent
tative to instruct the conductor of the
train, then near Boston, to have the
car containing the horses sent through
Auburn.
But the plaintiff further contends that
in view of the confident claim of the
tiff would be chargeable with $40 for
every horse unloaded and retained at
Auburn, he decided on the evening of
May II. to accept delivery of all the
horses at Auburn and relieve the defend
ant of the further performance OF its
contract The express agent denies that
any such decision was made known to
him on the evening of May II, and states
that the first knowledge he had of it
was on the morning of May II, after the
horses had arrived at Detroit. There is
sharp conflict of testimony upon this
question. and it is sufficient TO say that
the plaintiffs contention does not seem