
    Barney vs. Prentiss & Carter.
    An action against Eg10,he pr™ne-¡^"coachcsnm-mug between Rand tati<m Óf pas“ngcra ctaJ°raeStao/hhr *>r negligence m "ase ofUaeü”h,wSa pby *jj[® stage-office, ami antTh-.d pud'iish.dd winch was L«iwn itas°s li ‘fcirt the respective <«, iicaum^comauad anee oi bagy-J ii S'teat 0iV7‘í'At ^ .jS. ^ ,,™c£irgw£ *”?.1,1 at '‘V1* ofthenwnn.th te-ot"-neu .hat if ry not ouiy pawn-Kí.¡;p, but goods d<!e*hn.!t a™ní!S th“£ thrmtoue» "3J tiom ,h...uSnuim aS’expncR t™ in Oy- •' ’I'1;;; íidveru-elniw %¡h ' 4 ¡.¡> .nuble f f Cm?, ¿t-' J ' 3 t
    Appear from Baltimore County Court. Assumpsit against the defendant, (now appellant,) and others, as com-moil carriers, for negligence, &c. The other defendants were not arrested. Plea, non assumpsit. The facts agreed upon were these: This suit was brought against the defendant, J. IT. Barney, and others, to recover the sum of gG27, with interest from the 9th of January 1813, they being on and before the 8th of January 1813, the owners and proprietors of a line of stage coaches running between Baltimore and Philadelphia, for the transportation of passengers, and goods and merchandize for hire. The plain itffs, (the appellees,) by their clerk James C. Morsell, did on the 8th of January 1813, deliver a case of Senshaws at the mail stage office in Baltimore, kept by the defendants, tobe transported to Philadelphia by the defendants, by means of the said stage coach line; that the case of shaws was of the value of 8627. At the time of delivering the case at the office, the same was entered on the way bill for transportation by the clerk then in the stage office, who entered the case for delivery at Philadelphia to Weems &• Benson, and for the transportation and delivery ot which, the defendants were to receive a reasonable hire or compensation, the amount of which was entered on the way bill. Shortly after sending the case of Senshaws, the plaintiffs received a letter from Weems & Benson, informing them that the case had not come to hand, and at the same time acknowledging the receipt of a letter and voice, sent by the plaintiffs by the same mail which should have carried the Senshaws. The case was never transported and delivered at Philadelphia by the defendants, r r j nor was the same ever heard ot, or accounted tor, by the defendants, since the delivery thereof into their possession at the stage office in Baltimore. That the following ad vertisement, to wit: “New Line Expedition — Summer Es tablishment, through in one day. The new line Expedid - on will commence her summer establishment on Sunday the 15th inst. (March,) by starting from the Fountain Inn, Light-street, at 3 o’clock A. M. breakfast at Havre de Grace, dine at Hilmington, and arrive at an early hour in the evening at Philadelphia. Fare and allowance of bag gage as usual. All baggage to be at the risk of the owners thereof. United States mail stages start as usual from the Fountain Inn. The Eastern mail at 3 o’clock P. M. All the baggage and the Southern mail at 6 o’clock A M. over 20 lb. will hereafter positively be charged, and be at the risk of the owners thereof. John II. Barney,” ¡k.c. was published in the different newspapers in the city of fíalti-more, and was in the knowledge of the plaintiffs previous to the Stb of September 1813. No money or hire was paid at the time of delivering the case of Senshaws; but the hire or reward was entered on the way bill at the time the said goods were entered for transportation. The county court gave judgment upon these facts for the plaintiffs; and the defendant appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. and Buchanan, Earle, Johnson, and Martin, J.
    
      Winder and Murray, for the Appellant,
    cited Janes on Bailment, 102, 106. Laws of Carriers, 11, 25. Titcli-burne vs. White, 1 Sira. 145; and Clark vs. Gray, 4 Esp„ Rep, 177.
    
    No Counsel appeared for the Appellees.
   Johnson, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. This is an action on the case brought by Prentiss and Carter against Barney, to recover the value of a parcel of goods placed by them in the possession of the defendant, to be carried for hire from Baltimore to Philadelphia.

The cause was determined on a case stated in favour of the plaintiffs, from which determination the defendant appealed.

The case stated sets forth, that the plaintiffs, the proprietors of a case of Senshaws of the value of §627, delivered them at the stage office, and had them entered on the way bill for transportation, and for which they were to pay a reasonable compensation; that a letter from the plaintiffs to their correspondent in Philadelphia, was at the same time put into the post office, which was in due time received; but the goods, from the case stated, do not appear to have been received at Philadelphia, nor any account given of them. It also appears that the defendant was. at the time the goods were delivered, the owner and proprietor of a line of stage-coaches running from Baltimore to Philadelphia, for the transportation of passengers, and goods and merchandize for hire; that previous to the goods in question having been delivered for transportation, the defendant published in the various newspapers in Baltimore the time when the stages would start from, and arrive at, the respective cities, in which publication are the following clauses, viz. “Fare and allowance of baggage as usual. A11 baggage to be at the risk of the owners thereof. All the baggage over 20 lb. will hereafter positively be charged, and be at the risk of the owners thereof.” Which advertisement, before the delivery of the case of Senshaws, was known to the plaintiffs.

The question for the consideration of this court is, whether the county court erred in their judgment?

Whether the owners of stage coaches, which are principally engaged in carrying of persons, and such baggage as usually accompany them, but who also (as in the case before the court,) carry goods and merchandize for hire, without the owner accompanying them, can, by such advertisements, exonerate themselves from all responsibility for goods and merchandize delivered for transportation, need uoi, in ibis case, be determined. For, as such carriers would without such publications je responsible for the loss of goods delivered to be carried, if they can, by their pub lications, exempt themselves from their liability, then the publications, in the language of the exception, should be plain, explicit, and free from all ambiguity. But, as in the case before the court, the defendant, in the advertisement published by him, has used the most doubtful and ambiguous language, he therefore stands in the same predicament as if no publication had been made.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.  