Platt v. Richmond

• Citation: 15 N.E. 393,108 N.Y. 358
• Parties: PLATT v. RICHMOND, Y. R. & C. R. CO.
• Decision Date: 10 February 1888
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

108 N.Y. 358

15 N.E. 393

PLATT

v.RICHMOND, Y. R. & C. R. CO.¹

Court of Appeals of New York.

February 10, 1888.

Appeal from general term, superior court, city of New York.

This action was commenced in the superior court of the city of New York by Clayton Platt, as assignee, for a nominal consideration, of the Insurance Company of North America, a Pennsylvania corporation, to recover the value of 65 bales of cotton shipped at railway stations in the south, by Gwathmey & Co., for through transportation to New York, and which, while in transit, and in the custody of the defendant railroad, were destroyed by fire, on a wharf at West Point, Virginia, while awaiting shipment on a steamer for New York. The Insurance Company of North America paid the loss, as insurer of Gwathmey & Co., taking an assignment from them on such payment of their right, title, and interest in the cotton, and then assigned the claim to the plaintiff, a son of the president of the insurance company, who brought this action. Each of the several bills of lading under which the cotton was shipped contained a stipulation exempting the carrier from responsibility for loss or damage arising from ‘fire, unless the same be proved to have occurred from the fraud or gross negligence of the company or companies, their agents or servants; whether the cotton be in actual transit, or be waiting shipment or delivery, or be in depots, at stations, on wharves, or at sea,’ etc. Each of the bills of lading also contained a stipulation, as follows: ‘That in case of any loss or damage done to or sustained by any cotton hereby receipted for, during transportation, whereby any legal liability may be incurred by the terms of this contract, that the company alone shall be held responsible therefor in whose actual custody the cotton may be at the time of the happening of such loss or damage, and the company incurring such liability shall have the benefit of any insurance which may have been effected upon or on account of said cotton.’‘The court directed a verdict for defendant, upon the ground that there was no evidence in the case on which the jury could be permitted to find such negligence in the defendants as would be sufficient to deprive them of the benefit of the special clauses in their contracts; to which plaintiff excepted, and a verdict was rendered and judgment entered accordingly. The general term affirmed the judgment, and from the judgment of general term plaintiff appealed.

Nathaniel A. Prentiss, for appellant.

Wm. Allen Butler, for respondent.

EARL, J.

This action was brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, as a common carrier, to recover for the loss of 65 bales of cotton delivered to it and alleged to have been destroyed and lost, through its gross negligence and fault, while in its possession. The answer of the defendant, besides denying any negligence on its part, alleges that the cotton was received for transportation by it under bills of lading exempting it from all liability for loss by fire not caused by its negligence, and that the cotton was not lost or destroyed through any fault or negligence chargeable to it. The answer also alleged that the bills of lading contained a stipulation that in case of any loss or damage to the cotton during the transportation thereof, whereby any legal liability should be incurred by the defendant, it should have the benefit of any insurance which might have been effected on account of the cotton; and that, before the happening of the the loss in question, insurance had been effected on account of the cotton, and that the amount of the loss or damage thereto was paid wholly or in part by the insurers to the owners of the cotton, whereby all claim and demand against the defendant for the cause of action alleged in the complaint was discharged and extinguished.

We think the action was well defended at the trial. There was sufficient evidence that bills of lading were issued by the carrier for this cotton, which contained the stipulations set up in the answer. The bills were proved and put in evidence by the plaintiff, and there was no claim at the trial that they were not sufficiently proved, or that they were not delivered so as to become operative between the parties. It was assumed at the trial that the cotton put in evidence; and if the plaintiff desired to claim that they were issued under such circumstances...