
    ZORN, for use, etc., v. HANNAH & COMPANY.
    November 2, 1896. Argued at the last term.
    Complaint for damages. Before Judge Smith. Upson superior court. November term, 1895.
    Zorn, suing for the use of Adams & Co., alleged that Hannah & Co. were indebted to him for said use $156.72, being the value of four'bales of cotton stored with defendants as warehousemen on the 22d and 27th of November, 1893, as appeared by copies of receipts for the cotton annexed; that -the four bales- aggregated in weight 1959 pounds and were reasonably worth the sum above mentioned; and that petitioner had demanded of Hannah & Co. said four bales, which they had refused. Attached to the declaration were copies of four similar receipts. The first was dated November 22, 1893, and was as follows:
    “Iron "Warehouse. G. "W. T. Hannah & Co., proprietors. Mark [4] No. [161] weight [450] P Marks [175]
    “Rec. from A. M. Zom -one bale of cotton, marks, numbers, brands, etc. as margin, subject to the presentation of this receipt- only on paying customary expenses and all advances. All cotton stored with us fully insured. Acts of providence excepted.
    [Signed] "W. D. McKenzie, for the proprietors.”
    The declaration was amended by alleging: The four bales were destroyed by fire on or about December —, 1893, and were destroyed by reason of defendant’s negligence or carelessness, in this, that they, on the day the cot-ion was burned, allowed [it] to be stored on platform on outside of the warehouse within ten or twelve feet of the railroad track, and within very short while after the passing of an engine on the Macon & Birmingham railroad the cotton placed or stored on the outside of the warehouse was discovered to be on fire, from which fire the warehouse and the entire contents were destroyed. By reason of thus negligently or carelessly allowing the cotton placed on the outside- of the warehouse said four bales so stored with the defendant as warehousemen were destroyed, and this damaged petitioner $156.72. Defendants were [bailees] for [hire], and as such were liable for the production of said four bales when demanded, and under the contract set out in the-'receipt-agreed to fully insure the cotton so stored, which they failed to do.
   Lumpkin, J.

The declaration, with or without the amendment, set forth a cause of action, and it was therefore error to dismiss the action on general demurrer. Judgment reversed.

Defendants demurred upon the ground, that plaintiff’s cause of action, if any exists, is not sufficiently, plainly and distinctly set forth; and that the allegations are too general and not distinctly alleged. The demurrer was sustained, and plaintiff excepted.

R. V. Hardeman & Son and Worrill & Lester, for plaintiff. M. H. Stmdioich and J. Y. Allen, for defendants.  