Warehouse—Loss of Stored Goods by Fire—Storage in Fireproof Warehouse—Express Contract—Existence of Implied Contract Immaterial.—Upon an appeal from a judgment in an action against a warehouse-keeper for the loss of stored goods by fire, the judgment must be sustained irrespective of whether an implied contract arose that the goods were to be stored in a fireproof warehouse, where the evidence amply sustains the finding that there was an express contract to that efEect.

Id.—Evidence of Express Contract—Advertisements and Printed Matter.—The admission of evidence showing representations by advertisements and printed matter, to the efEect that the defendant had at its disposal fireproof warehouses and offered to customers to furnish storage of that kind, is without error, as it tends to corroborate the evidence of the plaintiff as to the express contract made and found by the court.

Id.—Differences in Prices Between Fireproof and Nonfireproof Storage.—The practice or habit of the defendant in charging a different price for storage, according to whether or not it was fireproof, is not admissible, in the absence of knowledge by plaintiffs of such fact prior to the contract of storage.

Id.—Character of Storage—Book Entries of Defendant—Self-serving Declarations.—The entry made by defendant’s agent in its order book at the time of the giving of the order to it for storage, not having been seen or known of by the plaintiff when the transaction was closed, is self-serving, and not admissible to corroborate its evidence, consisting of the positive statement of its agent, contradicting plaintiff, that nothing was said in the conversation about fireproof storage, and that the contract was for nonfireproof storage.

Id.—Custom as to Limitation of Liability—Lack of Knowledge of Plaintiffs—Proof Inadmissible.—In the absence of any misrepresentation made by plaintiffs as t'o the character of the stored goods, or that they refused upon demand to truly state that character, a general custom among warehousemen to insert in their'receipts a provision limiting their liability for loss by fire to $50 per package, or one of refusing to accept antiques and jewelry of great value, is inadmissible.

Id.—Impeachment of Defendant’s Agent—Advertisements.—Defendant’s advertisement of ability to furnish fireproof storage, though unknown to plaintiffs, is admissible, for the purpose of contradicting defendant’s agent’s testimony that nothing was said about storage in a fireproof building.