United States v. New York, NH & HR Co.
| Decision Date | 24 March 1954 |
| Docket Number | Docket 22962.,No. 189,189 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Geo. Stephen Leonard, Atty., Dept. of Justice, New York City (Warren E. Burger, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Simon S. Cohen, U. S. Atty., Hartford, Conn., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Thomas J. O'Sullivan, New Haven, Conn., for defendant-appellant.
Before CLARK, MEDINA, and HARLAN, Circuit Judges.
In giving judgment against the defendant carrier for potatoes damaged in shipment from Virginia to Connecticut, Judge Hincks fixed damages based on the market value at destination, citing Weirton Steel Co. v. Isbrandtsen-Moller Co., 2 Cir., 126 F.2d 593. Defendant contends that it is liable for only nominal damages, since the potatoes, purchased as part of the government's program of price support, were being sent as a gift to the Connecticut State Hospital at Middletown, Connecticut. But the rule applied is the usual one under the Cummins Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 20(11), and is not to be varied by special agreement of the parties or, we agree, by special circumstance of one of the parties. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. McCaull-Dinsmore Co., 253 U.S. 97, 40 S.Ct. 504, 64 L.Ed. 801, and see Illinois Central R. Co. v. Crail, 281 U.S. 57, 65, 66, 50 S.Ct. 180, 74 L.Ed. 699, 67 A.L.R. 1423. The case of United States v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., D.C.Minn., 116 F.Supp. 277, and a similar unreported case from the District of Idaho are distinguishable because they allowed damages for such potatoes at an agreed (though very much reduced) price set to prospective purchasers; but it is doubtful if these decisions accord with Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. McCaull-Dinsmore Co., supra. As Judge Hincks succinctly said: "The carrier's part in the national program was to carry — not destroy." So it should not receive the benefit of the intended donation — in the stead of the State Hospital.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Crown Equipment Corp.
...Crown's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the United States' motion in part. Relying on United States v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Company, 211 F.2d 404 (2d Cir.1954) and Fort Worth & Denver Railway Company v. United States, 242 F.2d 702 (5th Cir.1957), the court ruled, as a matte......
-
Fort Worth and Denver Railway Co. v. United States
...it was observed that the carrier should not receive the benefit of the donation intended for the hospital. United States v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 2d Cir., 1954, 211 F.2d 404. We are of the opinion that the rule of damage measurement by fair market value at destination should be follo......
-
Land O'Lakes Creameries, Inc. v. Commodity Credit Corp.
...was disposing of it. Cf. Fort Worth & Denver Ry. v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 242 F.2d 702, 705; United States v. New York, N. H. & H. R. R., 2 Cir., 1954, 211 F.2d 404. The plaintiff also urges that the Board erred as a matter of law in finding that an implied warranty existed as to the......
-
United States v. Fort Worth & Denver Railway Co.
...the points of destination, and not the sales price for livestock feed under the Emergency Drought Program. United States v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 2 Cir., 1954, 211 F.2d 404. Cf. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. McCaull-Dinsmore Co., 253 U.S. 97, 40 S.Ct. 504, 64 L.Ed. 801. The tariff ......