delivered the opinion of the court.
Pittsburgh v. Templeton, 210 Ill. App. 377 (1918)
April 29, 1918
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 23,692
210 Ill. App. 377
Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Company, Appellant, v. James S. Templeton et al., trading as James S. Templeton & Sons, Appellees.
Gen. No. 23,692.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Wells M. Cook, Judge, presiding.
Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed April 29, 1918.
Statement of the Case.
Action by the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Company, plaintiff, against James S. Templeton, James E. Templeton and Kenneth S. Tern*378pleton, copartners, trading as James S. Templeton & Sons, defendants, to recover demurrage. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Cabbiebs, § 81*—what is not notice to consignee of arrival of freight. Notice of the arrival of freight which is not addressed to any person but merely to an elevator located on the carrier’s track is not notice to the consignee.
2. Cabbiebs, § 81*—when elevator company not agent of consignee of grain for purpose of notice of arrival. Where the consignee of grain directs it to be consigned to him at the elevator of an elevator company, pursuant to the request of the carrier’s agent that he send there such' grain as needed treatment, the elevator company is not the consignee’s agent so that notice can be given him of the arrival of the grain, but is an independent contractor.
3. Masteb and sebvant, § 1*—what is not notice to employer. Notice to an independent contractor is not notice to his employer.
4. Cabbiebs, § 208 * —when consignee not UaMe for demurrage. A consignee is not liable for demurrage where he was not given notice of the arrival of the cars as required by the demurrage riiles.
Loesch, Scofield, Loesch & Bicharos, for appellant; Theodore Schmidt, of counsel.
Jeffery, Campbell & Clark, for appellees; Charles V. Clark, of counsel.