
    CEREAL PRODUCTS COMPANY v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY and Another.
    
    December 1, 1911.
    Nos. 17,445—(84).
    Questions for the jury.
    Action against defendant carriers for delay in reshipment of merchandise to Holland. Verdict in favor of plaintiff. Appeal from order denying alternative motion for judgment or for a new trial. Held: The questions presented were for the jury, and there were no errors justifying a new trial. [Reporter.]
    Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $682, upon four causes of action, for breach of contract in the transportation of merchandise. The complaint alleged that defendants undertook and agreed to transport the goods to New Orleans and there deliver them to a certain steamship line and notify M. Eastman Forwarding Company on or before October 27, 1909, for the purpose of having the merchandise forwarded to Rotterdam, Holland; that defendants failed to deliver the goods at New Orleans in time to go forward on that line, and failed to notify the forwarding company in time for it to be sent forward as agreed. The answer was a general denial. The case was tried before Holt, J., who, at the close of plaintiff’s testimony and when defendants rested, dénied defendants’ motion to direct a verdict in their favor, and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $453.60. From an order denying defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, the Illinois Central Railroad Company appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      Richard <& Coe, for appellant.
    
      E. J. Grover,.for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 133 N. W. 1132.
    
   Per Curiam.

Action for damages for the failure of defendants promptly to ship and deliver at place of destination certain linseed meal consigned by plaintiff over defendants’ road to New Orleans, from whence it was to be forwarded by boat to Holland. By reason of the negligence of defendants the meal failed to arrivo at New Orleans in time for the contemplated reshipment to Holland, and plaintiff alleges a loss or damage in the fall of the market price of the meal. Plaintiff had a verdict and defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company, appealed from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment or a new trial.

The points made on this appeal are: (1) That the complaint contains no sufficient allegation of damages, and (2) that no damages were shown by the evidence. Our examination of the record leads to an affirmance.

The contentions of appellant do not require discussion or an extended opinion. The complaint, fairly construed, was sufficient, and the evidence shows a depreciation in the market price of linseed meal as claimed by plaintiff. The questions presented were for the jury, and we discover no reason for disapproving the action of the trial court in upholding their verdict. There were no errors justifying a new trial.

Order affirmed.  