KIMBALL V. TUDOB 00. 51 �values of watches vary so widely that no presumption that the value of the shipment exeeeded $50 is raised by the statement of its contents, I must therefore assume that the consigner was content to accept the sum of $50 as the equivalent of the contents of this package, if it was lost in transit. True, the proof shows it to have been worth more than that, but it also shows that the charges of the carrier were regulated by the values, and that there was a difference in the care taken of packages when the value was stated and those on which no value was stated; and it seems to me so reasonable that a carrier should be fentitled to know the value of property whiçh it undertakes to transport, that I cannot believe the legislature of Illinois intended to prohibit the limitation of liability made by this contract, when the consignor refused to disclose the value. �The issue is found for the plaintiff, and damages assessed at $50; and plaintiff must recover costs, as this suit origi- nated in the state court, and was removed to this court by defendant. �Note.— See Muser v. American Express Oo. 1 Fed. Rbp. 383. ���KniBALii and others v. Thh Tudor Compant, (Oi/rcuU Court, D. Maine. , 1880.) �COHTBACT— DeMOBUAGE — CONSTRUCTION. �Assumpsit by the owners of the ship Eclipse against the Tudor Company, upon the foUowing acoount annexed to the writ : "For 7 days' demurrage, at $127.37 per day, $892.99." This was amended at the trial to nine days' demurrage, at the same rate, $1.148.13. �On the sixth of July, 1878, the plaintiffs, through Mr. Burt, a broker of Boston, chartered the ship, which was then building at Bath, to the defendants, to carry a cargo of ice from Wiscasset, Maine, to Madras and Calcutta. The con- tract was made orally by Ifr. Burt with Mr. Field, duly acting ����
