Adams Exp. Co. v. Hoeing

• Decision Date: 16 March 1889
• Citation: 88 Ky. 373,11 S.W. 205
• Parties: ADAMS EXP. CO. v. HOEING.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

11 S.W. 205

88 Ky. 373

ADAMS EXP. CO. v. HOEING.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 16, 1889

Appeal from circuit court, Fayette county; J. R. MORTON, Judge.

Breckinridge & Shelby, for appellant.

D. G Falconer, for appellee.

PRYOR J.

This action involves the liability of the Adams Express Company for the loss of a package received from the appellee by that company to be delivered in the city of New York to Julius Bien & Co. The printed stipulations of the receipt for its delivery relieve the company from liability, except for fraud or gross negligence, and limit its liability to the sum of $50 as the value of the article, unless otherwise expressed. On the trial in the circuit court, the loss of the package having been admitted, and the company tendering the $50, the circuit court held that no other recovery could be had, and the plaintiff, insisting that he was entitled to recover the value of the package, appealed to the superior court, and that court held that the receipt relied on by the company as fixing the value at $50 was not a contract between the plaintiff and the company, and in effect held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the value of his lost package, if the facts alleged were true. The demurrer was directed to be overruled for further proceedings. On the return of the case, an issue was formed; and the court below following the law as laid down by the superior court rendered a judgment for the plaintiff for the value of the package, the law and facts having been submitted to the judge without the intervention of a jury. The value of the package was fixed at $300, and this is sustained by the testimony. A second appeal was taken to the superior court, and that court, following the doctrine recognized in the first opinion, affirmed the judgment, and allowed an appeal to this court. It seems to us the principal question was settled by the superior court in its first opinion, and following that opinion the circuit judge properly rendered a judgment for the plaintiff, and there is nothing left for this court to determine, save the question as to the value of the package. It was lost by the neglect of the appellant, and the plaintiff swears that it was worth $300. He was nearly three months engaged in making the maps constituting the package and the estimate placed upon his labor, or its result, is not too high from his statement. The court below finds that the appellee did not...