I
24 runnin naronrnn.
of the purchaser. They introduced proof tending to show that the
meat was "cured," according to the understanding of that term in
Kansas, when it left the shipper. The plaintiff introduced proof
tending to show that "cured meat," as that term is understood in
the trade at Memphis, would not spoil in a transportation of 14 days.
The two cases were heard together.
Clapp ct Beard, for the Treadwells.
Taylor at Carroll, for Packing Co. and Fowler Bros.
Hammonn, D. J., (charging jury.) The agreement contemplated
"cure<:l meat." The meaning of this term is to be interpreted by
you according to the understanding of the trade at Memphis, if there
be any difference between that term as it is used there and at Atch-
ison, Kansas. The agreement was made at Memphis between a
purchaser and a broker acting as the agent of the seller, although
he may have been the agent of both parties. The meat was to be
used in the Memphis market, and I think there can be no doubt that
it was to be "cured" according to·the understanding of the parties at
Memphis. But if the meat was properly cured, and spoiled in transit,
where does the loss fall? I think there is no reasonable doubt, under
the decisions of the supreme court of the United States, which I shall
, call to your attention, that if you End, as there is no dispute, that
this meat was not to be delivered to the purchasers until they paid
the draft attached to the bill of lading, the ownership remained in
· the sellers and at their risk until the draft was paid on the third day
of November. After that payment, the ownership changed to the pur-
r chasers, and the meat was at their risk.
If, therefore, the meat left Kansas properly cured according to the
contract, and was spoiled while in transit prior to the third day of No-
vember, the loss is that of the seller; but if afterwards, on the pur-
chaser. Dows v. Nat. Exchange Bank, 91 U. S. 619; The Merri-
mack, 8 Cranch, 317; The Venus, Id. 253; The Frances, Id. 359; S.
C. 9 Cranch, 183; The St. Jaze Indiana, 1 Wheat. 208. However
this point may be found under the English authorities cited by coun-
sel, or the state cases relied on, I am of opinion that the supreme
court has ruled the principle as I have indicated. They cite approv-
ingly the sections of Mr. Benjamin’s work on Sales, where he criti-
cises and seeks to reconcile the apparent conflict in the cases, and I
have no hesitancy in ruling according to the principle thus estab-
lished, although the cases may not be exactly precedents for this
one. The older cases arose under the law of prize, and it was estab-