issue and gave notice of setoff. The setoff arose in this way: On Novemberduring business hours defendant delivered to plaintiff a car load of sugar consigned to Bryant Sisson & Co. at La Crosse Wis. On the night of November th while the car was yet in plaintiffs yards Coach Outlet Store Online a tornado which passed over Owosso and vicinity Nike Air Max unroofed the car and damaged the sugar. Upon learning of the damage Mr. Dobel an assistant claim agent who resided at Battle Creek came to Owosso examined the sugar and made an arrangement with defendant whereby it was to rework the sugar and furnish new packages for the same at % cents per pound. Within two or three days thereafter plaintiff delivered the sugar to defendant and the same was reworked and put in condition for reshipment in accordance with the agreement. Subsequently the agreement as made by Dobel was repudiated by Christian Louboutin Outlet the plaintiff; the claim being that the agreement was not within the scope of Dobels authority. The trial resulted in a verdict for defendant forand plaintiff has assigned error. . Upon the trial plaintiff not only attempted to recoverwhich had accrued to it as demurrage charges upon its own line but also sought to recover certain demurrage charges which had accrued to other lines of the Grand Trunk Railway System as follows viz.: The Grand Trunk Western Railway Toledo Saginaw & Muskegon Railway Cincinnati Saginaw & Mackinaw Railway and the Pontlac Oxford & Northern Railway. Parol proof was offered Nike Shoes Australia to show that plaintiff railway and the foregoing lines were a part of what is commonly known as the Grand Trunk Railway System but the testimony was rejected the court stating that if the agreement between the several lines of railway was not In writing it could be shown by some one present who heard the agreement. The trial court was not in error in rejecting the testimony. Even if the general agreement under which these lines are operated had been shown the testimony would have been immaterial unless it showed what would amount to an assignment of the different claims to the plaintiff or that these several lines were operated by plaintiff. Neither showing was made or attempted. The Grand Trunk Railway System so called is not a corporation. The name is but a tradename; but if it were a corporation capable of suing and being sued proof of such fact would not entitle the plaintiff Christian Louboutin Outlet to recover for demurrage which belonged to the Grand Trunk Railway System. The several railways mentioned are Michigan railway corporations and maintain a separate organization and make separate reports to the state. It is not suggested nor are we able to see upon what theory plaintiff rallway could recover demurrage charges due to the other lines of railway by showing that they and it were operated by the Grand Trunk Railway Nike Australia System. There was some claim that these charges were terminal charges but no proof was offered that plaintiff had paid any. demurrage charges for the other lines in the regular course of business or had become liable to pay any and no such claim was made in the declaration. The plaintiff was permitted to recover demurrage charges which had accrued to its own line but not those which had accrued to the other lines. Under the pleadings and proofs plaintiff was not entitled to recover beyond this.oSFor other cases see same Coach Outlet Store Online topic and KEYNUMBER iu all KeyNumbered Digests aud Indexes . The trial court instructed the Nike Air Max 90 jury that under the testimony Mr. Dobels agreement with defendant to rework the sugar was not within the scope of his authority but he submitted the question to them whether defendant did not ratify the agreement. Plaintiff insisted that this instruction was error because there was no proof of ratification. It appears that the general claim agent of the plaintiff railroad at that time was Mr. E. Arnold Coach Outlet Store Online who resided in the city of Montreal Canada