Judgement for the Banque Belge against Montgomery Ward & Ca.
His Honour Judge Lobingier has given a written judgement in the case of the Banque Belge pour PEtranger v. Montgomery Ward Ca., which in part follows:—The case as proved is not one of pledging defendant's property for the payment of its manager's per-sena] loan but merely of his executing a document which transfers defendant's liability as bailee from the original bailor to plaintiff. This was one of the documents which Tillson was expressly authorized by the power of attorney then existing to execute; for it was incidental to the delivery of the goods. Previously, it would ap-1 they had been held ''for account of the United States Import Export Ca." Now they are to be held for plaintiff. But this change in no way prejudiced defendant and affords no occasion for repudiating Tillson's authority unless the goods were actually owned by defendant, which, we repeat, has not been sufficiently shown. The document containing these recitals regarding ownership was executed by one who is conceded to have been defendant's duly authorized agent at the time.—The document was admitted in evidence without objection and we know of no principle upon which it could be disregarded.
While the document entitles plaintiff to claim possession of the goods therein described, we know from another document that plaintiff is not the owner, but merely a pledgee and that its claim is limited to the unpaid balance of Tillson's note, which, according to the evidence, is Tls. 8,900, no interest being specified. We think therefore that plaintifis recovery and defendant's liability, in. case cannot produce the property, should be limited to that amount although the prayer is for Tls. 14,000, Indeed, the evidence as.to the value of the property would not justify such a judgement, for the witness Parlani, who is the only one who testifies as to value, fixes the total at Ts. 9,500 and while he is not positive that the property which he inspected and appraised is exactly the same as that sued for, it is of the same general character and description and the valuation which he gave was for such property. In the absence of any contrary evidence we see no reason for rejecting his testimony.
We think the facts here sufficient to show plaintiff's right to possession of the property in question, and that, in default of its delivery, plaintiff is entitled to a judgement against defendant for the sum of 8,900. It is accordingly con-isidored and adjudged that plaintiff have and recover from defendant the following described articles: "One Case, 10 Bicycles, Mark, 157403}. Six cases, 60 Bicycles, Mark. 157403. Four cases, 40 Bicycles, Mark. 157403}. Seventeen
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.