eer's claim ants' said furniture, fittings, and effects, for the sum of £2300, Auctionand thereupon there became due and payable by the defendants for commisto the plaintiff the sum of £115 commission at 5 per cent. on sion. the aforesaid purchase-money. 5. The said rate of 5 per cent. is the usual and customary rate of commission on valuations and sale in similar cases. 6. All conditions have been fulfilled, all times elapsed, and all things happened necessary to entitle the plaintiff to be paid the aforesaid sum of £115, but the defendants have not paid the same nor any part thereof. 7. The plaintiff will also in the alternative claim the same sum as due for work done, journeys taken, and money expended by him on behalf of the defendant at his request. The plaintiff claims : Claim for Commission by an Army Agent for effecting a commission by an army 1. The plaintiff is an army exchange agent carrying on Claim for business at The defendant is now a captain in the Foot, and was at the time he employed the plaintiff, as herein- agent. after mentioned, a captain in the Fusiliers. 2. In or about September, 1876, the defendant negotiated with the plaintiff with the view of effecting an exchange from the defendant's then regiment, at that time stationed at M., and gave the plaintiff a written authority to act as his agent in the matter of the exchange; and it was thereupon agreed by and between the plaintiff and the defendant that the exchange should be left entirely in the hands of the plaintiff, and that when the exchange should have been carried out, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the sum of £20 in addition to the customary fee of £20 which would have been payable to the plaintiff on the completion of the negotiations. 3. In pursuance of the said arrangement, the plaintiff introduced the defendant to several officers in the army, and among them to a Captain M., then of the regiment; and the plaintiff for some time carried on negotiations on behalf of the defendant with the said Captain M. with the view of effecting an exchange. 4. In December, 1876, after the negotiations had been for some time carried on by the plaintiff as stated in the last pre Claim for by an army agent. ceding paragraph, and although the plaintiff was ready and commission willing to continue the said negotiations, the defendant wrongfully and without any reasonable cause, and in breach of his agreement with the plaintiff (mentioned in the 2nd paragraph hereof), withdrew the plaintiff's authority to act on his behalf in the matter of the said exchange. Commis contract 5. Shortly after having withdrawn the said authority the defendant effected an exchange of regiments with the said Captain M., and the said exchange was duly notified in the Gazette. The plaintiff claims: (1.) £40, being the amount due to him by the agreement mentioned in the 2nd paragraph, or (2.) In the alternative £40 damages for the breach of the said agreement by the defendant set out in the 4th paragraph hereof. Commission upon a valuable Contract procured by the help of the Plaintiff. 1. The defendant, at all times material to this pleading, was sion upon a the agent of Messrs. R. & Sons, the manufacturers of the R. rifle in America, and was employed by the said Messrs. R. & Sons to obtain contracts for and to promote the sale in Europe and elsewhere of the R. rifles. procured by the plaintiff. 2. In July, 1874, the defendant was desirous of obtaining for the said Messrs. R. & Sons a contract with the Spanish government for the supply of 130,000 R. rifles. 3. The defendant applied to the plaintiff for advice and assistance in the matter, and in consideration that the plaintiff would use his best endeavours and exertions to procure for the defendant the said contract, the defendant promised the plaintiff that if such a contract should be procured, and if the said Messrs. R. & Sons should, under the said contract, be entitled to any margin or surplus moneys over and beyond a certain figure then named, the defendant would pay from time to time to the plaintiff any moneys from time to time received by the defendant from Messrs. R. & Sons in respect of such margin or surplus moneys until the plaintiff should have received (1) a sum equal to the amount of three francs per arm on the number of guns included in the said contract; and (2) if the said margin or surplus moneys should be sufficient to Commisadmit of the payment thereof, a further sum equal to the sion on a amount of one franc more per arm on the number of guns so included. 4. The plaintiff thereupon exerted himself to procure the said contract for the defendant, and ultimately through the plaintiff's exertions, the said contract was procured by the defendant from the Spanish government. The rifles in respect of which the said contract was made have all been delivered by Messrs. R. & Sons to the Spanish government, and the moneys payable by the Spanish government to Messrs. R. & Sons have all been paid. 5. Under the said contract, Messrs. R. & Sons became and were entitled to a certain margin or surplus moneys over and beyond the said figure. 6. On the 15th day of June, 1875, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant (which action is still pending) to recover, amongst other things, moneys from time to time received by the said defendant from Messrs. R. & Sons in respect of the said margin or surplus moneys. 7. Since the issuing of the writ in the said action, divers further moneys have been from time to time received by the defendant from Messrs. R. & Sons in respect of the said margin or surplus moneys, which said further moneys are applicable to the payment by the defendant to the plaintiff of the sums mentioned in paragraph 3 of this statement of claim. The said moneys are however still due and unpaid. 8. The plaintiff in this action does not seek to recover in respect of any of the moneys recoverable by him in the said former action, but only in respect of so much of the said moneys as have been received by the defendant since the said writ in the former action, and are not recoverable by the plaintiff in the former action on that account. The plaintiff claims: (1.) £20,000 in respect of the premises. (2.) Such further or other relief as he may be entitled to. contract procured by the plaintiff. Against carrier for nondelivery and late delivery. Who are common carriers. Common carriers bound to carry all goods offered to them. Bound to carry within a reasonable time. They are insurers of the goods they carry. What is "the act of God." Common Carriers (a). For precedents in actions against carriers of persons, see Negligence. Action for Non-delivery of some of the Goods sent and late 1. The plaintiff is a fishmonger, carrying on business at G. The defendants are common carriers of goods. (a) COMMON CARRIERS BY LAND.-Who are common carriers.]—A common carrier is a person who undertakes to transport from place to place for hire the goods of those who think fit to employ him. The owners of coaches and of carts and waggons carrying for hire are common carriers. Where a barge-owner lets out his barges to all that come to him and to only one person for each voyage, each being made under a separate agreement and the customer fixing the termini, he is a common carrier. (Liver Alkali Co. v. Johnson, L. R. 7 Ex. 267; affirmed L. R. 9 Ex. 338; 31 L. T. N. S. 95.) Railway, canal, and navigation companies may become common carriers (8 & 9 Vict. c. 20, ss. 86, 89; 8 & 9 Vict. c. 42, ss. 5, 6); and such companies are generally common carriers, but only as to such things as they publicly profess to carry. (Johnson v. Midland Railw. Co., 4 Ex. 367.) Liabilities at common law.]- Common carriers are bound to receive and carry all goods offered to them for which the person requiring them to be carried is ready and offers to pay reasonable hire. (Pickford v. Grand Junction Railw. Co., 8 M. & W. 372; Garton v. Bristol and Exeter Railm. Co., 30 L. J. Q. B. 273.) And they are bound to complete carrying within a reasonable time, having regard to all the circumstances, but they are not responsible for the consequences of delay arising from causes beyond their own control (Taylor v. Great Northern Railw. Co., L. R. 1 C. P. 385); and provided they carry by a reasonable and usual route, they are not bound to carry by the shortest route, even though enabled by statute to charge a mileage rate for carriage. (Myers v. London and South-Western Railw. Co., L. R. 5 C. P. 1.) Common carriers are not bound to take extraordinary measures, if the road is obstructed by snow, for accelerating the journey, though the delay may be injurious to the goods or their owners. (Bridden v. Great Northern Railm. Co., 28 L. J. Ex. 51.) Common carriers are, by the common law, insurers of the goods they carry against all accidents except the act of God (i.e. things which could not happen by the intervention of man, as storms, lightning, and tempest), and the Queen's enemies. In order to come within the exception of loss by the act of God as applied to the liability of common carriers, the loss need not have been caused directly and exclusively by such a direct, violent, sudden, and irresistible act of nature as the carrier could not by any amount of ability foresee or resist, so as to prevent its effect. A loss is a loss by the act of God if occasioned by the elementary forces of nature, unconnected with the agency of man or other cause. If the loss is occasioned partly by the act of God as above defined and partly by some other cause which, if it had been the sole cause of the loss would have furnished a defence, the carrier will be entitled to immunity in respect of such loss, if he can show that it could not have been prevented by any amount of forethought and care reasonably required of him. (See Nugent v. Smith, 45 L. J. C. L. 697, App.) Carriers of live stock are not liable for injuries caused by an inherent carrier 2. On or about the 1st of February, 1875, Messrs. F. & M., Against of B., acting for and on behalf of the plaintiff, delivered to for nondelivery, &c. vice of an animal; they are exempted from liability in this respect if Injury they provide for the carriage a truck that is reasonably fit for the purpose. through (Blower v. Great Western Railw. Co., L. R. 7 C. P. 655, explaining vice of Carr v. Lancashire & Yorkshire Railw. Co., 21 L. J. Ex. 263; and see animal Richardson v. North Eastern Railw. Co., L. R. 7 C. P. 75; and Gill v. carried. Manchester, &c., Railw. Co., L. R. 8 Q. B. 186.) Nor are carriers liable Wear and for injuries to goods arising through ordinary wear and tear, or friction during the journey, or for the natural decay of perishable goods. (Story, tear, &c. Bailments, cited with approval, in Blower v. Great Western Railw. Co., supra.) Carriers may generally limit their business to certain goods, but must do so by a public profession of what goods they are willing to carry; in such cases they are not bound to carry any others. (Johnson v. Midland Railw. Co., 4 Ex. 367; Oxlade v. North Eastern Railw. Co., 26 L. J. C. P. 129.) Common carriers from a place within to a place without the realm are subject to the same liabilities as those within the realm. (Crouch v. London & North-Western Railw. Co. 23 L. J. C. P. 73.) Carriers may limit their lia Carriers may generally limit or modify their common law liabilities by contract, where persons are willing to enter into such stipulations with them; but railway and canal companies can only limit their liability by contracts which are signed and which in the opinion of the Court are bility by reasonable (see post, p. 258). Thus a carrier of furniture for hire who special stipulated with the customer that he should only be liable for breakages contract. not exceeding £5 for any article, was held not liable for the destruction by fire without negligence on his part of the whole of the goods received by him to be carried, and destroyed during the transit. (Scaife v. Tarrant, 44 L. J. Ex. 234, Ex. Ch.) Statutory modification of liability.] —The liability of carriers has Statutory been modified by the following enactments, of which it is proposed to modificagive a summary, adding after each the most important modern deci- tion of sions ;liability. 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 68 (Carriers Act), explained by 28 & 29 Vict. c. 94. 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31 (Railway and Canal Traffic Act). 31 & 32 Vict. c. 119 (Regulation of Railways Act, 1868.) 34 & 35 Vict. c. 78. Carrier by The 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 68, provides ::Sect. 1. That no common carrier by land for hire shall be liable for the loss of or injury to any articles of the descriptions following; (that is to say,)-gold or silver coin of this realm or of any foreign state, or any gold or silver in a manufactured or unmanufactured state, or any precious stones, jewellery, watches, clocks, or time-pieces of any description, trinkets, bills, notes of the Governor and Company of the Banks of England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively, or of any other bank in Great Britain or Ireland, orders, notes, or securities for payment of money, English or foreign, stamps, maps, writings, title deeds, paintings, engravings, pictures, gold or silver plate or plated articles, glass, china, silks in a manu- value defactured or unmanufactured state, and whether wrought up or not wrought clared at up with other materials, furs or lace (not machine-made, 28 & 29 Vict. time of c. 94), or any of them,-contained in any parcel which shall have been delivery to delivered, either to be carried for hire, or to accompany the person of any carrier. passenger in any mail or stage coach or other public conveyance, when the value of such articles contained in such parcel or package shall exceed £10, unless at the time of the delivery thereof at the office, ware |