150 SUPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE.

poerty, and this motion, over the protest of the interveners, was allowed. In the meantime Knox & Company secured judgment against defendant, M. SuCari, for the sum of $3,015.41,P and obtained an attachment against the goods and chattels of said defendant, Sucari, and, among other things, levied the attachment on the rents collected from the mortgaged property by the receiver, namely, $526.05, the amount in litigation. At the second sale, to which there seemed to be no objection, the property brought much less than the amount due on, the mortgage. The question was then presented to the court as to the proper ownership of the $526.05. The court, after hearing all the facts connected with the matter, decided that the fund in question belonged to the Tropical Trading Company. Fromthsjdmn Knox & Company appealed.
The interveners herein, Knox & Company, evidently have proceeded upon the theory that the attachment secured by them gave them a prior lien on this fund. We can not conceive, however, that it possibly could have had this effect. The property was mortgaged to the plaintiff the time for the payment had passed, suit had been brought, a decree of foreclosure entered, and a receiver appointed, aad the property in question was rents issuing from the mortgaged property; and it seems, therefore, clear that the plaintiff's title to the same is beyond dispute.
The judgment of the court below is, therefore, affirmed with the order that this money, less the commissions to the receiver, be paid by the clerk of the court to the plaintiff in this case.
Affirmed.
THE PANAMA RAILROAD COMPANY versus OGILVIE.
No. 87. Argued February 12, 1912. Decided March 18, 1912.
CONSIGNEE; LIABILITY FOR FREIGHT CHARGES. The acceptance by the consignee of goods forwarded to him constitutes an implied promise to pay the carrier the freight charges thereon. EVIDENCE; TESTIMONY FROM MEMORANDUM. One may testify from a memorandum made by him upon an inspection of books of the creditor that the debtor owes a certain sum of money. The books of the creditor are not strictly the best evidence. The manner of allowing a witness to testify from a memorandum is a question of judicial discretion, and a judgment should not be reversed on this ground unless a party has been clearly prejudiced thereby.

150