The  libellants  sought  to  recover  the  amount  of  this  loss  from  the  proprietors  of  the
boat,  on  the  ground  that  they  were  common  carriers  of  merchandise  for  hire,  and  respon-
sible,  as  such,  for  the  default  or  negligence  of  their  agents ;  and  if,  as  carriers  of  mte.
chandise,  they  were  not  liable  for  the  safe  carriage  of  bank  bills,  yet  that  as  the  captain,
their  agent,  in  their  employment,  and  in  the  lawful  exercise  of  that  employment,  had
undertaken  to  carry  bank  bills,  the  company  were  liable  for  his  neglects.
The  respondents  showed  that  bank  bills  had  been  frequently  intrusted  by  bank*  and
individuals  at  Nantucket  to  the  captains  of  vessels,  and  to  the  captain  of  their  boat,  to  be
delivered  at  various  ports  on  their  routes ;  but  that  this  was  considered  a  mere  peiwnui
trust  <d  the  captain's,  and  that  compensation  had  rarely  been  paid  for  these  services,  and
when  so,  it  had  not  been  claimed  as  a  matter  of  right,  but  received  merely  as  a  gratuity.
And  the  respondenti  contended,  that  in  the  absence  of  proof  that  they  had  ever  held
themselves  out  as  carrien  of  bank  bills,  and  the.  custom  of  captains  to  carry  money  at
their  own  risk  having  been  proved,  and  in  this  case  the  captain  of  the  boat  having  taken
charge  of  these  bills  in  his  private  capacity,  and  not  as  agent  of  the  company,  nor  for  the
benefit  of  the  company,  they  could  not  be  held  to  answer  for  this  loss.
The  court  (Judge  Stoiy)  sustained  the  grounds  taken  by  the  respondents,  and  gave
jadgment  in  their  favor.
Vmted  StiUet  District  Court, — John  Harding,  libellant,  vs.  Owners  of  steamboat  Ma.
