Majority
Headnote
1. Charterpaiity—Liability of consignee for freight.The plaintiffs’ alleged cause of action is that they are owners of the barque “ Giulio R.,” that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiffs on an account for work, labor and services of the plaintiffs and their servants, in carrying in their barque, “ Giulio R,” from the port of Rosario, Argentine Republic, South America, to the port of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a cargo of bones, which were consigned to the defendant, and by the plaintiffs’ servants delivered to him, and by liim accepted on or before February 23, 1889, in the sum of two hundred and ten dollars and forty-three cents ($210.43) and interest thereon from the said 23rd day of February, 1889, according to the account annexed hereto and marked exhibit “A,” and that no part of the said balance of two hundred and ten dollars and forty-three cents has been paid.
The exhibit “A” annexed to the complaint is an account stated. by the defendant to T. Romana, of the bark “ Giulio R,” and shows that defendant is indebted for $210.45, the balance due for the freight of the cargo of bones mentioned in the complaint. This account is marked exhibit “ B ” in the case, and is shown to have been made and sent by defendant to the agent of the owners of the vessel. Months thereafter defendant writes that he “ will pay over the amount,” and again one year after he stated the account lie writes “ as soon as the proper person appears who can show that he is the legal receiver of freight for “ Giulio R” it will be paid promptly." See exhibits “0” and “D,” which are proven to be in the handwriting of the defendant. The plaintiffs prove that they are the proper persons to receive this balance of freight admittedly owing by defendant Moreover, the defendant assumed full control of this cargo of bones and sold it to Baugh & Sons Co., and directed its delivery to them from the vessel. The defendant’s counterclaim is specifically based upon the charter party, which lie now claims should not have been marked in evidence by the plaintiffs, and it was his counsel who objected to this question:
“ Q. To whom was the cargo consigned ? ”
-Defendant’s counsel: “The contract in writing will be the best evidence.”
Plaintiff’s counsel: “I ask the defendant to produce the charter-
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
Fitzsimons, J., concurs.