1204 AMERICAN RAILROAD JOURNAL. Railroad Earrriings.--Weekly. The earnings of the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada‘ for the week ending Dec. 1st, 1866, were.... .. .........$14l,703 00 Corresponding week of previous year . .'154,9l6 00 Decrease .. . .$l3,213 00 The earnings of the Chicago and Northwestern Railway for the first week in Dec., 1866, Were..................... ...$173,132 50 Corresponding Week of previous yean. 167 _,867 83 Increase...... .. $5,264, 67 The earnings of the Detroit and Milwaukee Railroad for the week ending Dec. ~ 6th, 1866, were . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....$29,818 00 Corresponding week of 1865. . . . .. . 32,661 00 no--on-on Ilonn on cue- Decrease..... .. $2,843 00 _ The earnings of the Michigan Southern and Northern Indiana Road for the 1st week in Dec. 1866, were . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . $79,959 00 Corresponding week of 1865 . . . . . . .. 86,890 00 Decrease . $6,931 00 The earnings of the Chicago and Rock Island noon nuns u--p III: Railroad for the 1st week in Dec., 1866, were . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $62,096 00 Corresponding weel: of previous year. . 62,815 00 Decrease $719 00 The earnings of the Western Union Railroad for the week ending Dec. 7, 1866 . . . . $9,467 48 Corresponding week previous year. . . . 9,462 42 Increase... $5 06 The earnings of the Marietta and Cincinnati Railroad the 4th week in N ov., 1866.. .$37,968 00 ’ Corresponding week previous year. . . . 36,575 75 Decrease .. . . . . . . . . . $1,392 25 Railroad Earnings'---Mo_:n.t_hly. , The earnings of the McGregor Western Railway for Nov., 1866, were . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $32,973 00 Same time in 1865.... .. 36,938 00 -—.—n Decrease . “$3,965 00 The earnings of the Minnesota Central Railway for Nov., 1866, were ....$39,588 00 Same time in1865..... ........19,718 00 _:;-——.j— ....s19,87o oo . Interest and Dividends. A The Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Company have declared a semi-annual dividend of five per cent., clear of Government tax, payable the 2d of January next. A dividend of five dollars per share, on the capital stock of the Chicago, Iowa and Nebraska Railroad‘, free of government tax, will be payable January 1_, 1867, at the office of the Treasurer, 22 Asiatic Building, Salem, Mass; and at the office of the company, at Clinton Iowa. The New York and" New Haven Railroad Com- pany have declared a dividend of five dollars per share, free from government tax, payable January 2, 1867. ’ _ - The Boston and Lowell Railroad Company has declared a dividend of 4 per cent., payable Jan. 1. A scrip dividend of 20 per cent., payable at a ‘future day either in stock or money, at the option . -of the Company, has also been declared, and Increase . . .. . . . stockholders are requested tovpresent their certi- ficates of shares at the office of the Treasurer, on’ and after Jan. 1, and receive a proper certificate of dividend. Duties of Common Carriers by Wa.ter.~— Damage to Goods in Carriers Warehouse. The case of the owners of the Mary Washington against Ayers, just decided iu the United States Circuit Court for the 4th district of Maryland, though not referring to Railways, contains an im- portant discussion of the duties of common car- riers, and is equally applicable to carriers by land as to carriers by water. The owners of the Mary Washington, appellants, agreed with the appellees, Ayres and others, for a certain compensation which was paid, to convey on their steamer cer- tain merchandise from Baltimore to Hi1l’s Land- ing, on the Patuxent river, and to deliver it there to Pumphrey. The merchandise was accordingly conveyed to respondent’s wharf, at Hill’s Landing, _and Pumphrey not being there to receive it, was placed in the warehouse connected with the wharf. This warehouse was kept for the accommodation of the carrying trade in which the steamer was employed. Goods lauded for delivery were tem- porarily placed in it when immediate and direct delivery was impracticable or inconvenient; and goods received for shipment were in like manner accommodated, when immediate shipment could not be made. No charge was made for the ac- commodation. It was an incident to the trade, and paid for in the freight. The goodsin the pre- sent case were damaged after being stored in this warehouse. '6 ‘ The following opinion was delivered by CHASE, C. J .-—Under the circumstances of this case I think that the contract of affreightment bound the carriers not only to carry the mer- chandise to the landing, but to deliver it to Pum- phrey, or excuse non-delivery by proof of equiva- lent action or waiver. The duty of a carrier by water is not fulfilled by simple transportation from port to port. The goods must be delivered, or at least landed, and a reasonable opportunity given to the consignee of ascertaining their con- dition. In order that an opportunity for~inspec- tion and for the removal of the goods may be given, the consignee must be notified of the arrival of the goods. This is the general rule. If excep- tions are made by usage, circumstances, or special arrangements, they must be shown by proof. In the present case the respondents allege that it was not their practice to give notice to consig- nees, but instead of giving such notice, to deposit goods in their warehouse, where the consignees were expected to‘call for them, on learning from their correspondents, or otherwise of their arrival. They insist that this arrangement was for the benefit of the owners of the goods, and was under- stood and agreed to by them. The evidence does not sustain this claim. It shows clearly enough the practice of the respondents, but it does not show any understanding, on the part ofthe owners of the goods, that the respondents were to be re- lieved from their responsibility as carriers until its actual delivery, or its equivalent deposit in their warehouse, with information conveyed to the owners, in some way, that their goods had ar- rived. The warehouse arrangement was rather for the convenience of the carriers than of freighters or consignees. The storage, with in- formation of arrival, however obtained, may be regarded properly enough as a substitute for ac- tual -and direct notice; and it may be admitted‘ thatopportunity for removal, after such informa- tion, would discharge the carriers from responsi- bility as such, in the same manner as actual notice and like opportunity. But to hold that mere de. posit in their own warehouse, under the circum- stances of this case, terminated their special re- sponsibility, would be a dangerous relaxation of the salutary rule on which the security of com- merce so largely depends. It is clear from the proof, that the merchandise was damaged after the landing, and while in the custody of respondents, before Pumphrey had in- formation of its arrival, or opportunity to take it away. It seems, however, that the merchandise was not ordered by the libellants by Pumphrey, and that he declined to receive it, and it is alleged that the carriers, therefore, were not liable. And there was proof that no order for the merchandise was actually given, and that Pumphrey, on learn- ing its condition, refused to have anything to do with it. But it is not easy to perceive the import- ance of this circumstance. It is plain enough thatthe libellants acted in good faith upon an ex- pectation founded ou a conversation with Pum- phrey, that he would like to have the merchandise sent to him, and that he would receive and pay for it, if of good quality and in good condition, and the proofs show that this expectation was warranted. Whether warranted or not, the duty of the carriers was in no way effected. Their ob- ligation both to shippers and consignees, was to convey and deliver, or at least offer to deliver safely. It is true that after Pumphrey had infor- mation of arrival, and declined to receive the mer- chandise because of its bad condition, the re- spondents could not be held responsible as car- riers, to the libellants, for subsequent injuries in the warehouse; but their responsibility for prior injuries was not changed, and it is that responsi- bility only which is now in controversy. In the present case the question whether the respondents were liable as common carriers or as warehousemen is of little importance, except as a question of jurisdiction. The proof shows a. degree of negligence which would make them liable in either character. But if their liability were as warehouseinen only, they would not be responsible in this court. A court of the Union has in general no jurisdiction of suits against warehousemen by citizens of the same state. Re- medies for violation of these contracts must be sought by their co-citizens in state courts. It is not questioned, however, that the judicial power of the United States extends to all cases of admirality and maritime jurisdiction. This is a provision of the National Constitution. Noris it questioned that this whole jurisdiction is vested by law in the District Courts of the United States, and on appeal in the Circuit Courts. This was expressly enacted by Congress in 17 89. Nor is it questioned that a contract of -afi‘reight- ment, to be performed by traversing tide-waters, or other navigable waters, is in general a maritime contract, or that a suit upon such a contract makes a case of adrnirality jurisdiction. This is settled by repeated decisions. And it is insisted that the contract of aifreightment in this case was to be and that this case, therefore, having arisen from an alleged ‘breach of it, is not within the a‘dmirali- ty jurisdiction Upon this I remarlz, in thefirst place, that there is nothing in the nature or his- performed wholly within the state of Maryland,’