Year: 1866

merchandise stored II provided BY these regulations
that all bills for storage and labor must be collected by the
proprietor OF the bonded warehouse the Collector looks to
the safe custody the merchandise only for the security OF
the and it h also declared that all goods deposited in
bonded store shall be the sole and exclusive " OF the
propIieor and importer For these regulations see Ihe
aware in Tracy vs. Baester Peter o. Rep So that in
srucon from the Secretary Of the Treasury IN accordance
with Inc law afford no Justification for illegal acts by coec
tor but the right OF the Secretary give Instructions the
collector ministerial Officer for the due enforcement OF
the revenue laws Is asserted The regulations rece herein
may such legal vitality in all to bind the


attendant but IS reasonable 10 presume that they knew OF
them and we're advised by them Interpretation given


the under which tey obtained leave to conduct the
business OF warehOuseen and Of the obligations assumed But
whether this presumption not is not perhaps
to perform oil the labor upon the goods AZ his own expense
He acquires for his charges secured by the provisions
OF the act and occupies toward the importer


gnee OF tho goods the relation in reference to his lien
that exists upon the deposit OF goods directly IN any ware
house by any His compensation is not paid by the
Government 1t is extracted from the merchandise aud he Is
dealing with the Government in reference TO the property de-
posted which he assumes TO guard as ven on oehe OF he
Government as on behalf OF the owner Inc oeer OF tne ou
toms placed In conjunction with the werehousenen
% the position ne occupies to secure the import duties 70 oe
paid 70 the Government and to protect the GoyeFnnen
against frauds Ii may be that be regarded


sentinel the waieh0usemen to protect the property de-
posted In tho store which might DC IN some manner n1eTefea


His custody Of the goods limited one and for purposes
connectedwith the merchandise when deposited whe the
WarchOuseman providing the store and performing all bor In
and depOsng II well when ordered so to do
has the more absolute possession OF the thing itse IL passes
his manual possession and is deposited by him and his
at his expense Having this possession and being com
trouble and expenses incidental 10 IT, he duty to the
owner. which sufficient consideration OF promise to
guard tho merchandise with reasonable and to establish
pryy of contract for that purpose Bat that view be not
susanabe the circumstance detailed establish baimen
namely deposit for hire 10 be paid by the owner which i'm
poses duty upon the warehouenan TO protect the merchan
disc deposited in his store by the exercise of all care
the failure 10 perform that duty gives TO the injured
owner right Of action The bament nures to the benefit
the congnec OF the goods lie has right TO ava
himself Of the privilege Of having his merchandise placed
in the warehouse and the warehouseman receives the amo ad
vantage from the deposit under neh crcumstances as II
mad bv he act
under consideration makes distinction between the
oeaons assumed and rights secured by the
merchandise is deposited with him. whether by the i'm
porter voluntarily under the provisions OF the act or by the
order of the Collector la either the warehouaman
be paid charges before the merchandise can b. delivered
and no is collect these charges himself Under the pro-
visions the Of March 1872 the Collector was required
10 goods Of by him with due and reason
able care OF stoehouscs under that act
yey different om'that which has been naugutated by sub
Of Congress and completed under the provisions
OF tho Of 1854 The merchandise deposited in the defend
ants warehouse was in the oH custody oi the oceI o me
Customs assigned and the defendants each having dis


nol and separate duty to perform aud object TO accomplish
There is In my Judgment therefore no authority 10,
the proposition that the Collectors obligations created
BY tho act Of lIs9 sui contains Ho has no persona
charge Of tho merchandise lie is not reqsired TO IN
himself with IT, He is to designate an officer to act
10 union with the WarehOuseman, but chiefly as think
for the purpose Of securing the import duties and prevent
violations Of and frauds The revenue laws hink tne
is an authority proposition that the collector would not
be liable like tins in the absence OF proof ofpsrsona
repOEdea superior If It's application be warranted cannot
apply much the United States the superior aud the



power. BrOOmes Legal Maxim. -.


These considerations lead 10 the concluonfhat
the defendants liable the antif for tho goods lost by
then belonging TO him the aI having found against them
question and having found other
fact which my construction Of the 40. OF Congress con
sderd and the various kindred thereto excuse tho de-
endAnts from their liability Tho operation o the statute OF
under the circumstances disclosed by the special hnd
ng established the relation Of baor and baiee between tho
plia defendants and imposed upon the latter the du
ties OF warehousemen, which they have failed TO discharge
The plaintiff i for these reasons entitled TO Judgment and
the motion for q trial l. deRiod.


Malcolm Campbell FOR the plaintiff jeremiah Laroc3le ioF
the defendants