Irving Browne Isaac Grant Thompson.

The American reports: containing all decisions of general ..., Volumes 1-12 online

. (page 10 of 51)
Online LibraryIrving Browne Isaac Grant ThompsonThe American reports: containing all decisions of general ..., Volumes 1-12 → online text (page 10 of 51)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


to identify himself as the consignee, it is a question for the jury whether the
qualification is reasonable, and the true reason for not deliyering the goods.
1871. MeBnUe y. IheNew Jereeg Steamboat Oo. (45 N. T. 84), VI, 28, and
note, 80.

34i The plaintiffs were induced, by representations of one Collins, to send

goods addressed to " J. F. Boberts, Boxbnry, Mass." The goods were sent oyer
defendant's line. Collins then went to Boston, and claimed and receiyed the



Digitized by



Google



OABBIEB. 67

goods of defendant, onder the name of " J. F. Roberts/' which name he had
assomed for the purpose of getting the goods. There was no sach person as
''J. F. Boberts," and no person who was known or passed hj that name. Held,
that the defendants were liable to the plaintiff for the yalne of the goods.

1870. Whuhw V. Vermont, etc. B. B. Co. (48 Vt 700), I. 865.

36. Where goods, which haye been fraudulently ordered hj an individual

in the name of a fictitious firm, and haye been shipped in compliance with the
order, directed to such firm, are deliyered by the carrier to a stranger, without
requiring evidence of his identity, the carrier is liable to the consignor for their
value. 1872. Price v. Owego db Byraouee B. B, Co. (50 N. T. 218), X, 475.

36. To deliTrer as directed by bOl of lading. A railroad company, bound
by a bill of lading to deliver goods on payment of freight and " presenta-
tion of a duplicate" bill, is responsible if it makes delivery without such
presentation. Such a clause in a bill of lading is for the benefit of the
consignor. 1870. MeEwen v. Jeffersonmlle, Mddieon and IndianapoHe B. B.
Co. (88 Ind. 868), V, 216.

37. DeliTrery according to custom. Defendants, a railroad company, deliv-
ered a barrel of sugar at a way station where they had no warehouse, but gave
no notice to plaintiff, the consignee. It was proved that it was the custom for
consignees, at that station, to be present to receive goods directed to them.
Held, that a delivery on the platform was a good delivery under the custom.

1871. McMaei&re v. Penn$ylf>ania R B. Co. (69 Penn. St. 874), VIII, 264.

38. UaUe for damages for non-dellTrery. Defendant, a common carrier,
transported goods consigned to plaintiff to the place of destination and there
stored them in a warehouse, but neither gave plaintiff notice of their arrival
nor made any effort to find the plaintiff or to give him notice of such arrivaL
Some few months after plaintiff received information that the goods had
arrived. In the meantime the goods had depreciated in value. Held, that
defendant was liable for the' damage plaintiff had sustained. 1872. Zinn y.
Ifew Jersey Steamboai Co. (48 N. T. 442). Z, 402.

39. Negligent deUTery — bOl of lading. The plaintiflfs shipped goods by
vessel of defendants, common carriers, from England for New York, and
received a bill of lading, providing that the defendants should not be liable
for loss occasioned, among other things, by " any act, neglect or default what-
soever of the pilot, master or mariners." On the arrival of the vessel in New
York, the ofilcer discharging the cargo, without authority from the plaintifb,
delivered the goods to a carman, who was not empowered by the plaintifRTto
receive them, and the goods were thereby lost Held^ that the loss was the
result of the gross carelessness of the defendants, and was not covered by
the exceptions in the bill of lading. 1870. OuUUmme v. ffamUnurgh, ete., Co.
(42 N. Y. 212), 1, 512.

40. DeJiTrery not wt o nsod by wrongiiil attaohmeoft. Goods were taken
from a common carrier under an attachment against a person not the owner.
Hdd, no defense to an action by the owner for breach of contract to deliver
the goods. 1870. Bdwarde v. WuU Line TramU Co. (104 Mass. 159), VI, 218.



Digitized by



Google



6g OABBIEB.

41. Delhr«7 ci goods marlMd O. Oi IX An agent sold goods on credit.
The principal sent them marked 0. O. D. The carrier, on the written order of .
the agent, deliTered the goods without reoeiving the cash. Held, that it was a
question for the jury whether the suurk G. O. D. was notice to the carrier of
the agent's want of authority. 4871. Da^UgM Burner Oo, jt. OdJUn (51 N. H.
56),Xn,45.

42. DeUrory on oo nn s oHn g track — mandamus. A railroad company
refused to reoeiye freight at a way station, to be delivered at an elevator five
hundred feet beyond their terminus, on a track owned by another com-
pany,\but which they had sometimes used for delivery at the elevator. EM^
that a writ of mandamu9 would not lie compelling the company to receive
freight for such deUvery. 1870. The People v. The Ohieago d AUon RROo.
(66 m. 96), Vm, 681.

43. Although a railway company cannot be compelled to deliver freight

beyond its own line, simply because there are connecting tracks over which it
might pass by paying track service, but which it has never made a part of its
own line, yet a writ of mandamue will lie compelling the company to deliver
at an elevator situated upon tracks operated in common with other companies,
notwithstanding the delivery may be at an additional expense and the com-
pany may have contracted with other elevators for exdusive delivery to
them. 1870. The Chicago d Iforthwedem jS. B,Co, Y.The People ez rd.
Hmpetead (66 HI. 866), Vm, 690.

4^ Zden for cartage. Where a common carrier by water, after landing
goods at the wharf in the city to which they are consigned, voluntarily
assumes the delivery of them to the consignee at his place of business, no
lien for cartage arises. 1870. Bichardeon v. Bieh (104 Mass. 156), YI, 210.

45. Delfrerlng to cooneoting linsb While in the absence of a special agree*
ment a carrier is only liable to the extent of his route, and for safe storage and
delivery to the next carrier, yet if he store the goods in his own warehouse at
the end of his line without delivery or notice, or attempt to deliver to the
next carrier, his liability as a carrier will continue. 1870. Lawrenee v. 2%e
Wkwna d a. Petere B. B. Go. (15 Minn. 890), U, 180, and note, 141.

46. The defendants, common carriers, received for transportion, from a

connecting carrier, goods marked for M., a point beyond their line. On the
arrival of the goods at W., the terminus of the defendants' line, they were
stored in their warehouse, where they were destroyed by fire. Sometime
previously the defendants, for the purpose of increasing the business of their
road by drawing off the freight for M. for another road to M., connecting with
their road at an intermediate point, had agreed with P., another carrier, that
they would deliver to him all freight consigned to M., provided he would con
vey it regularly and at certain rates from W. to M., and, in pursuance of* this
agreement, it was their custom to store all such freight in their warehouse
until a load accumulated, when P. would send a team and take it. The plain-
tiffs goods were so stored at the time of their destruction; but no notice
thereof was given to P. nor to the consignee. In an action to recover the value
of the goods, Md, that the defendants were liable as common carriers. i&.



Digitized by



Google



OABBEEB. 69

47. Oaixlin by waA«ir — daUrery by. The plaintifi shipped, at Liverpool^
on the defendant's yessel, 881 cases of licorice, consigned to M. at New York.
The yessel arriyed at New York on the 25th of Aagust, 1860, and M. was noti-
fied. He paid the duties on 181 cases, and entered 200 cases for warehousing^
reeeiying a permit to place them in certain 17. S. bonded warehouses, and
deliyered on board the ship a permit for the discharge of the goods. The
defendant was notified that the goods were i>erishable, and must not be put
out in rainy weather. The defendant's agent promised to discharge them in
fair weather; and on the 19th of September, he notified the plaintiff's agent
that if the next day was fine, he would discharge the licorice. On the 20th, it
rained, in the morning, until 9 o'clock ;• again at 2:80 P. M. ; and from 4'M P.
M. continued to rain during the rest of the day and night. At 9 ▲. M. the
defendant's agent began to land the goods upon the wharf, and continued
until noon, when the consignee was notified. At that time nearly all the cases
were placed upon the wharf, and all were unloaded before 2 P. M. They oould
not be remoyed until weighed. 'A weigher arriyed at 2:80 P. M., and finished
weighing at 5 P. M. The consignee, though using great diligence, was unable
to remoye the licorice that day, before the warehouse closed, and a portion of
it was wet and damaged by the rain. MM, that the referee was justified in
finding, as conclusions of law, that the defendant landed the goods without
reasonable notice to the consignee to enable him to haye the same weighed,
carted and protected from the weather ; that he placed the property on the
dock, with a knowledge of its perishable character, on a day unsuitable to its
landing and cartage; and that, in so doing, he was guilty of negligence, and
a breach of his duty and obligation as a carrier. 1878. MeAndrew y. WhU-
look (52 N. Y. 40). XI, 657.

48. A discharge of cargo from a yessel, with the knowledge and assent of

a custom-house ofilcer placed on board for the purpose of superintending the
unloading, is not such a deliyery as relieyes the carrier from his liability as
such. lb.

49. A carrier of goods, by water, may land them at a wharf, at the port of

destination, but not until after he has giyen the consignee due notice of
their arriyal and unlading, and afforded him a reasonable time to take charge
of and secure them. In the meantime, instead of leaying them on the wharf, U
is his duty to take care of them for the owners. lb,

60. Where the consignee and owner of goods of a bulky nature is present

soon after their arriyal, accepts the consignment and pays the freight, and the
goods are landed on a public wharf, with notice to him, their legal custody it
transferred from the carrier to the consignee, whose duty it is to protect them ;
and if, in consequence of his neglect to remoye them, they suffer damages from
the weather, the carrier is not responsible. 1872. Ooodwn y. BaUmcre db OkU
R. «. Cfo, (50 N. Y. 164), X, 457.

61. Imported goods. The obligation of a carrier of imported goods does
not require a deliyery in oontrayention of the reyenue laws ; but where the
owner has obtained the requisite permit to remoye the goods, the faet of their
r«moyal> under the superyision of the proper reyenue ofiicers, does not affod



Digitized by



Google



70 OABRIEE.

the liaMlitj of the carrier. 1871. Bedmond t. Lherpoai, etc., SteambotU Go.
(46 N. T. 578), VH, 890.

6. TermiTuxtion ofLMUUy,

62. Tarmlnrtlnn of liability. The reBponsibility of oommon carriers, as
such, oontiiiaes after the goods haye reached their deetlnation, until the con-
signee has had reasonable time to call for, examine and take theoL 1870.
TFww2tw ▼. V&mumt, eto.B,B. Ob. (42 Vt. 700), I. 865. .

63. The liability of oommon carrier, as such, does not terminate until

notice has been giyen to the consignee of the arrival of the goods, and a
reasonable time has elapsed for their removal. 1870. HiU Manuf, Co, v.
Bo9Um A LatoeU R B. Co. (104 Mass. 123), VI, 202.

64i Where goods transported hj a railroad are not called for by the con-
signee when they arrive at their destination, and are then deposited in the
warehonse of the company, the liability of the railroad company, as insurer,
terminates. 1871. MolnU d GerardR B. Co.v. PrewiU{4Q AlA,QS),YU,fiQ6,
and note, 591.

66. Goods were consigned to the owner, " care M. & G. R. B." " station 6 ;*'

they arrived at their destination, and were ready for delivery in half an hour ;
the owner, who lived twenty miles distant from the station, did not call for
them, and they were stored in the warehouse of the railroad company. Six
days afterward the goods were destroyed by accidental fire. Held, that the
liability of the company, as insurer, had terminated. lb,

66. Common carriers are bound as carriers to deliver goods to the

consignee, provided he appear within a reasonable time to receive them, and the
consignee is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to receive his goods before the
carrier's liability is changed to that of warehouseman. 1871. Orcnet v. The
Hartford d N, T, Steamboat Co, (88 Conn. 148), IX, 869.

67. Qoods lost in storage. Where, through the negligence of the servants
of common carriers, goods shipped over their line are not delivered to the con-
signee when called for by him, and they ar» afterward destroyed while in the
freight department of the carriers, the latter are liable for the loss. 1869.
Meyer v. The OMeago, etc., B. B. Go, (24 Wis. 566), I, 207.

68. But where a common carrier, a railroad company, by agreement with

the consignee and for mutual convenience, stores goods which have arrived at
their destination, in its freight house, for the night, and they are destroyed by
fire without its fault, it will not be held liable. 1871. Fenner v. The Buffalo
and State Line B. B, Co. (44 N. Y. 505), IV, 709.

69. A oommon oanier hy water is not released from all liability by the
deposit of goodskupon the wharf, at a reasonable hour with due notice to the
consignee. If the consignee does not appear to claim or receive the goods, it
is the duty of the carrier to provide a proper place of storage, or in case of
imported gotfds, subject to duty, to see that they are in proper custody. 1871.
BedmondY, The Liverpool, New York d Philadelphia Steamboat Go, (46 N. Y.
578), VII, 890.



Digitized by



Google



OASBIEB. 71

6. LiabUUy leyond Une.
60. liability beyond lines A corporation, established for the transporta-
tion of goods for hire between certain points, and receiving goods directed to
a more distant place, is not responsible beyond the end of its own line, as a
common carrier, bat only as a forwarder, nnless it make a poeitiTe agreement
extending its liabilitj. 1868. Bwraughs y. Ndrtoieh d Woreethr SaUroad Co.
(100 Mass. 26), 1, 78.

61. Where a railroad company, as common carrier, receiyes goods marked

for transportation beyond its line, it assomes the common-law liability for loss
or damage, whether ocoorring on its own or another line; but a receipt speci-
fying that it will not be liable for any loss unless occurring on its own line,
will be construed as a special contract, limiting its liability to its own line, if it
is found, by a jury, that the consignors understood the terms of the receipt
and assented to them. Lawbehob, McAujstbb and Thornton, J J., dissented.
1870. lUifudi Central BaHroad Co. v. Ihrankenberg (54 m. 88), V, 02.

62, Where goods were shipped oyer the line of common carriers, marked

for a point beyond their line, and they gave a receipt therefor, wherein they
agreed to forward and deliver the said goods, leaving the name of the consignee
and the place of deposit blank, — Held, that the receipt constituted a special
contract that the carriers would deliver the goods at the place of destination,
even beyond their own route. 1870. CiUtt v. Brainerd (42 Vt 666), I, 868.

63. Authdity of agent to bind canier beyond route. A station agent of
a railroad corporation has not authority to bind such corporation as common
carriers beyond the line of its own road, by signing receipts furnished in blank
by a shipper, and by the terms of which the corporation undertakes to forward
and deliver the goods to the order of the consignee at points on a connecting
line, where it appears that such agent acted without special authority, and
without the knowledge of the corporation, and that the officers of such corpo-
ration had furnished such agent with blank forms of receipts, to be given for
goods shipped beyond their own line, by which it was provided, that, in case of
loss or damage of the goods, the corporation only should be responsible in
whose actual custody the goods should be at the time. 1868^ Bwrrcughi v.
Narwich,etc, B,B.Co. (100 Mass. 26), 1, 78.

64. Ck>ntraot to oarry beyond Una A railway company may, by oontraet,
assume to carry goods beyond its own Une, and where such contract exists, the
company wiU be liable as common carriers for the entire route. 1870. J^
Mdn^faawring Co. v. Botton d LouM R B. Co. (104 Bfass. 122), VI, 202.

66. Zioas beyond line— ** lex looL" Defendants, common carriers between
P. and B., took a package at P. for R, a place in another State beyond their ter-
minus. At B., the end of their line, according to custom thev delivered it to
another carrier and it was by him lost. Held (1), that whether or not defendant
undertook to carry the package beyond B. was a question of f^ct, and the
judge who tried the facts having found that there was no such undertaking, a
verdict for the defendant would not be set aside ; (2) that if goods be lost in
tramiiu from one State to another, the Im loei where the loss occurs governs the



Digitized by



Google



72 OAERIBB.

rights of the parties. The cases relating to the liability of carriers beyond
their line considered. 1871. Gray y. Jackson (51 N. H. 9), XII, 1, and naU, 40.

66. Presnmptioci as to loss. Goods, in a box, were transported by snccessiye
carriers, and when delivered to the consignee the box was found to have been
opened, and a part of the goods taken oat. JEMd, that the presumption was
that the loss occurred tlirough the fault of the last carrier. 1871. Laughlin
Y. The Chicago d Northmitam JR. B, Co, ^28 Wis. 204), IX, 498.

LiabUUy of earri&r»for loss beyond Une — See n, note, p. 141.

7. Connecting Unee,

67. Ooaneotiiig lines— oontniots between — liability o£ A contract be-
tween two connecting lines of common carriers, which provides, among other
things, that the gross receipts for transportation on the4hrough line should be
divided in a certain proportion between the two corporations, but that " lessor
damage occasioned bj ii^uries to person or property on said line shall be borne
by the party having possession of the same at the time the injuries were done,"
gives a person who delivers goods to one corporation, to be transported to a
point on the route of the other corporation, no right of action against the first
corporation for the loss of the goods while in the possession of the second.
1868. Burroughi v. Nofwich, etc, B, B. Co, (100 Mass. 26), 1, 78.

68. Oonneoting oaniers. Where there is a continuous line of different car-
riers, united by an agreement under which they carry goods through the con-
nected line for one price, which they divide among themselves in proportions
fixed in their agreement, if one of the carriers receives goods to be transported
on the continuous line, marked for any place on it, and receives pay for trans-
portation through, such carrier is prima fa^ bound to carry the goods, or see
that they are carried, to the place of destination, and is liable for any acci-
dental loss happenning on any part of the connected line. 1869. Nashua
Lock Co, Y.Worceeter d ITashua B. fi. Co. (48 N. R 889), II. 242.

69. The defendant, a railroad company, whose road extended from Cin-
cinnati to Dayton, was engaged in shipping goods from Cincinnati to New York,
jonder an agreement with other companies, whose roads extended from Dayton
to New York, for rates of through freight to be fixed by the receiving com-
pany, and collected by the delivering company, and divided pro rata among
them. The defendant received goods at Cincinnati consigned to New York,
and gave a bill of lading therefor, stating therein that the goods were to be
transported by its line to its terminus, and then delivered to the connectiog
line ; it being further agreed, that, in case of loss during transportation, the
company alone in whose custody they were at the time of the loss should be
held liable. Held, that defendant contracted to carry the goods to Dayton
only, and was not responsible for loss happening on connecting line. 1869.
Cin, Ham, d Dayton and DayUm db Mich. B. B. Co. v. Pontius (19 Ohio St.
221), n. 891.

7a Termlnatloii of UabUitj ~ deUTery to suooeedlng canier. Defendant,
a carrier of goods destined to a point beyond its line, had transported them to
the end of its route, and given the usual notice to the succeeding carrier, a line



Digitized by



Google



OABBIEB. 73

of TesselB. The goods were destroyed on the eyeniiig following their arriyal,
and while in defendant's possession. HM, that, although the defendant was
readj to deliver the goods to the succeeding carrier, jet it was liable as com-
mon carrier for a reasonable time, until, according to the usual coarse of busi-
ness, a vessel of the succeeding carrier could arrive to take the goods. 1871.
JTttft V. Ths Michigan Central B, B, Oo. (45 N. T. eSd), VI, 152.

71. Plsintiff delivered to defendant, for transportation, goods marked for

a point beyond its Une, and received a bill of lading providing that the goods
would be forwarded to defendant's terminal station. The goods were so for-
wai^ed and were stored in defendant's warehouse, where they were destroyed.
In an action to recover their value, held (1), that evidence was admissible to
show that plaintiff gave direction as to delivering the goods to the succeeding
carrier, and that he had been accustomed to give, and the defendant to comply
with, similar instructions; (3) that, these facts being proved, the defendant's
liability as carrier continued until such delivery to the succeeding carrier ; (8)
that the action was well brought by the consignor, though title to the goods
had passed to the consignee. 1870. Hooper v. The Ohioago and Northioeitem
BaOiDaif Company (27 Wis. 81), IZ, 489.

72. Plaintiff shipped goods for W., which came into defendants' posses-
sion, as intermediate carriers, and were by them carried to the terminus of their
route and deposited in that part of their warehouse set apart for freight for W.,
and whence it was the custom of the succeeding carrier to take without further
notice, when ready for delivery. Plaintiffs goods having been acddently
destroyed while so in defendants' warehouse, held (1), that if the suc-
ceeding carrier had reasonable time to remove the goods after they were
ready for delivery and before their destruction, the defendants were not liable ;
(2) that the question whether or not the succeeding carrier had such reasonable
time was for the Jury. 1871. Wood v. Milwaukee and St. PmU BaOwMy Com-
pany (27 Wis. 541), DC, 465.

73. *-— Plaintiff was the consignee of goods delivered to defendants, common
carriers, to be by them transported to the end of their line, and there delivered
to a connecting line for transportation to the place of destination. The defend-
ants transported the goods to the end of their line, and placed them in that
portion of their warehouse appropriated to goods intended for the connecting
line, and from which such line was in the habit of taking goods without any
notice or request. Before the removal of the goods by the connecting line,
they were destroyed by fire. JEMd, that the liability of the defendants, as
common carriers, continued until the goods were actually taken into possession
by the connecting line, and that plaintiff could recover. Wood v. The MUteau-
kee, ete„ BaOway Co., 27 Wis. 541 (9 Am. Bep. 465), overruled on this point.
1872. Omkey V. Milwaukee d 8^, Pa^Baihoay Co, (SI W\B, 919), XL, e&O.

74. OonstniottTe deUvery. Where flour was brought to Ogdensburg by
the Northern Transportation Company, consigned to the plaintiffb at Concord,
K. H., and to go Over the Northern Railroad, and was deposited in a storehouse
under the general control of the transportation company, and, according to the
ooone of bosinesB there for six or seven years, a derk of that company for-

10



Digitized by



Google



74 OAEEIEB.

warded to plaintiffs a waj-bill marked " duplicate/' headed " Northern RiOlroad
Companj " and dated at "Ogdensborg depot/' bat signed bj no one, reciting
that the railroad companj had received of the transportation company the
floor in question, and promising to deliver it to the consignees subject to
charges as specified ; and at the same time sent to the Northern Railroad Ck>m-
panj a duplicate of such waj-bill, which was entered bj them in their books ;
after which orders and applications respecting the freight were addressed bj
the consignees to the railroad company, and were acted upon bj its agents ;
and a loss bj fire occurred before the fiour was removed hj the railroad com-
pany from Ogdensburg, it was heldfihaX defendants, the trustees of the rail-
road, were liable as common carriers for the loss. 1869. BaH&r v. Whedtr



Online LibraryIrving Browne Isaac Grant ThompsonThe American reports: containing all decisions of general ..., Volumes 1-12 → online text (page 10 of 51)