MABSH V. UNION PACIFIC BT. 00, S73 �the locomotive. The testimony of the engineer, supported by the physical facts referred to, show that the engine waa nearly at a stand ■ still when the collision took place. The engineer could have done nothing more than he did. A earef uL consideration of the testimonj satisfies me that the petitioner did not exercise the caution demanded of him, and that thia cause, and his own alftrm and reckless attemp* to pass in front of the engine, with the fright and action of the horse, caused the collision, without fault upon the part of the defendant or of his employes. Wherefore, imder the rules stated, compensatioF mnst be refused. ���Mabsh V. Union Paoifxo Et. Co. �{Circuit Gourt, D. Colorado. Januaiy 11, 1882.) �L OouuoH CABBiXBa — Liens fob FasiaHi— Tbovbr. �When goods are sent, not acco.'ding to the contract with the owner, but b} some other route, there is no lien for f reight money ; and if the gpods are with held under a claim of lien, an action of trorer will lie for their yaliie. �S. Trovbk — Mbaburk of Damaobs — Withesses. �Where household goods, more or less used, were transported by railroad to t distant place and there conrerted, Tield, that the owner was a competent wit- ness to the point of their value, as such goods have no established market price, and the rule that the market value at the place of conversion is the true measure of damages is, therefore, inapplicable. �On Motion for a New Trial. �J, W. Horner, for plaintiff. �Willard Teller, for defendant. �Hallbtt, D. J. The lien of a carrier for freight money on goods transported by him depends on the contract with the owner, Not that it is necessary that the lien should be mentioned in the contract, but there must be a contract for carriage on which it may rest. In the ordinary course of business, goods delivered for carriage are subject to the condition implied by law that the carrier may retain possession of them until his reasonable charges shall be paid. In delivering them to be carried, the owners assent to that condition, although nothing may be said on the subject, and thus it becomes a part of the contract — just as, in the absence of agreement as to price, the law will imply that it shall be reasonable. On this principle it is settled that a wrong-doer cannot confer on the carrier the right to assert a lien against the true owner. And when goods are sent, not according to the contract with the owner, bat by some other ��� �
