PRIVATE SACK COMPANIES. 203 



]inl>le to penaltief? provided nndcr tlic Act 7 & 8 George dth, cap. 30, 

 section 24. 



14. The Clerks in charge at the stations on the Great Nortliern 

 Eailway are not empowered to make any arrangements for use of the 

 Company's sacks contrary to these reguhitious. 



15. In case of parties disregarding or infringing these regulations the 

 Great Northern Railway Company reserve to themselves the right of 

 refusing to accede to any further a})plication for sacks for or from such 

 parties. 



The regulations upon which Private Companies let out sacks are 

 materially diflFerent ft-om those of Railway Companies : and this is not 

 to be wondered at, seeing that a Sack Company has no claim whatever 

 upon the consignee ; the hirer of the sacks makes the contract with the 

 lender, and he alone therefore is responsible for any damage which the 

 lender may sustain. Thus it frequently happens that farmers receive 

 a long bill for demurrage upon sacks which they have hired a long time 

 previously, and suppose to have been returned long ago to the Sack 

 Company. These cases are generally tried in County Courts, and are 

 rightly decided in fiivour of the Sack Companies, so that hirers of sacks 

 should in all cases protect themselves by special contract with the 

 parties to whom they consign their sacks. 



In Lee v. Umcin, which was tried at the York Summer Assizes, the 

 question raised was — how far the plaintiff was entitled to charge the 

 consignees of grain and malt loaded in his sacks, and with whom he had 

 no direct dealings, with demurrage for the extension of the use of his 

 sacks, for a certain number of days beyond those mentioned in his 

 notice ? Pollock C.B. ruled that the plaintiff could not by any system 

 of notices make the defendant liable, and that his remedy was against 

 the consignor and not against the consignee. 



A railway company imclertaldng to carry goocU hoolced through hy 

 otJier means than their line, cannot set up as a defence for damage done 

 to the goods that such contract was ultra vires {Willey v. The West 

 Cornwall Railway Company). And if they charge for parcels less than 

 one cwt. a larger rate than for heavy goods, but if such small parcels 

 are packed together or directed to the same consignee the same rate as 

 for heavy goods, they cannot be compelled to carry for the lower rate 

 parcels directed to different persons, but delivered to the railway by 

 the same carrier, to be re-delivered by himself at their destination 

 (Baxendale v. The Eastern Counties Railway Company). 



It has been decided by the Court of Exchequer that there is no 

 general duty imposed hy law upon carriers to give notice to the consignor 

 of tlie refusal hy t/ie consignee to receive the goods, but they are merely 



