
    PARKER v. MACY.
    Bill of lading — contract—proof of interest in defendant — non suit — carrier.
    Assumpsit will not lie on a bill of lading by a company in New York, to deliver goods in Cleveland, against a forwarding agent in Buffalo, without proofof his interest in the company.
    Assumpsit on a bill of lading to carry books from New York to-Cleveland. Breach, damage to the books in their transit.
    It appeared in evidence that the plaintiff shipped eleven boxes of books in New York, in the Eekford line of tow-boats, and took a bill of lading to deliver in Cleveland, the dangers of the lake excepted, &c., signed by the agent of Meech & Co., on which was endorsed, Smith & Macy, agents, Buffalo; that the books arrived in Cleveland in the schooner Columbus, which had been out several days from Buffalo in a gale, and were wet and injured by estimate $212. 96: that the defendant was one of the house of Smith & Macy, Buffalo, who were extensively engaged as carriers, having twelve- or fifteen vessels on the lake, and the Columbus showed their flag,. 675] *and by reputation was owned by them: that there were several lines of tow, canal, steam and other vessels engaged in forwarding goods from New York west, generally owned by different persons, though connected in the line; some owned stock in several boats, others less. That Smith & Macy were the forwarding agents-of Meech & Co. in Buffalo: that the Eekford line was of tow-boats from New York to Albany only.
    
      S. J. Andrews, for the defendant, moved for a non suit.
    1. Because the contract declared upon was to carry, from New York to Buffalo, by the defendant, and the proof is of a contract with the Eekford line, to deliver at Cleveland, care of Smith & Macy, Buffalo, and there is no evidence that the defendant is in any way connected in that line.
    2. If the defendant would be liable as owner of the Columbus, he could only be made so on a declaration upon a sptecial contract-to carry from New York or from Buffalo.
    
      Willey, contra,
    insisted the proof was of the same contract, only extending it a little.
   BY THE COURT.

The declaration is upon a contract to carry from New York to Cleveland. The proof is of a contract made with the Eekford line, not the defendant, and there is no proof from which it can be inferred the defendant is a partner in that company, but the reverse — no case, therefore, is made against the defendant. The case might be different if there was a count in the declaration against the defendant as common carrier, and the plaintiff relied upon the receipt of the goods by the defendant into the Golumbus, and the injury there, but that is not the case before us; there is no such count.

Non suit ordered.  