Beers v. Boston & A. R. Co.

• Citation: 34 A. 541,67 Conn. 417
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 26 March 1896
• Parties: BEERS et ux. v. BOSTON & A. R. CO.

34 A. 541

67 Conn. 417

BEERS et ux.

v. BOSTON & A. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 26, 1896.

Appeal from superior court, New Haven county.

Action by William A. Beers and wife against the Boston & Albany Railroad Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

This was an action brought to the superior court for New Haven county for the loss of certain trunks intrusted to the defendant as a common carrier. The complaint contained two counts. The first alleged (1) that the defendant was a common carrier between Albany and Springfield; (2) that pursuant to a contract between it and the Delaware & Hudson River Railroad Company, a common carrier between Saratoga and Albany, and the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, a common carrier between Springfield and New Haven, the defendant had long been in the habit of receiving baggage from the Delaware & Hudson River Railroad Company at Albany, and transporting it to Springfield, and there delivering it to the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, whenever such baggage was so checked as to indicate that it was to be so carried and delivered; (3) that the defendant received at Albany, pursuant to said contracts, two trunks of the plaintiffs, with checks, one marked, "New Haven and Saratoga—1010—via B. & A. & N. Y., N. H. & H.," and the other marked in a similar manner, but with another number, which initials meant the Boston & Albany Railroad Company, and the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, and indicated that said checks were issued pursuant to said contracts, as in fact they were, and that said trunks were to be transported to Springfield over the defendant's railroad, and delivered to the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, to be thence transported by it to New Haven; (4) that in consideration of the receipt of said trunks, and of said contracts, the defendant assumed control of them, and engaged, as such common carrier, to transport them to Springfield, and there deliver them to the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company; and (5) that the defendant, by its gross negligence, suffered said trunks to be destroyed, and never delivered them to the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, or the plaintiffs. The second count, after repeating (1) the first three paragraphs of the first count, added (2) that the defendant, as such common carrier, received two trunks of the plaintiffs from the Delaware & Hudson River Railroad Company, at Albany, with the direction from it that they were to be safely transported to Springfield, and there delivered to the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company for further transportation to New Haven, said trunks being properly checked and marked for such destination, as the defendant well knew, and the defendant deposited them in one of its cars for such transportation over its railroad; (3) that the defendant made up a train, containing said car. and started it for Springfield, in order to reach which it had to pass over a certain bridge; (4) that said bridge was then, and had long been, being repaired by the defendant, and consequently was, and long had been, in a defective and unsafe condition, so that it could not sustain the weight and force of a train, and, when this train reached it, was, by the gross negligence of the defendant, in that condition, and wholly deserted by the defendant and its agents and servants, so that there was no one there to warn the conductor or engineer of its condition, or to signal the train to stop, by reason whereof it went on the bridge at full speed, and the bridge broke down, carrying the car with it, into a stream below, whereby the trunks and their contents were ruined. The answer set up that the plaintiffs bought tickets from Saratoga to New Haven over a route which was a rival to that of which the defendant's railroad formed a part, and comprised a steamboat line on the Hudson river between Albany and New York; that, without paying any consideration therefor, they caused their trunks to be checked over the route of which the defendant's railroad formed a part, to New Haven, by way of Albany and Springfield, and received checks indicating that their trunks were to be so transported; that the trunks bearing said checks were delivered to the Delaware & Hudson Canal Company at Saratoga, and were by it delivered at Albany to the defendant, to be transported to Springfield, and there delivered to the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company for transportation to New Haven, and the defendant received them, supposing from the checks that they belonged to passengers who had bought tickets over its railroad; that the only contract between it and the Delaware & Hudson Canal Company was one providing for the transportation of passengers who had bought such tickets, and that the plaintiffs had neither bought nor held any such tickets, nor did they become passengers on the defendant's road, or enter into any contract with the defendant for the transportation of said trunks; and that the trunks were destroyed without any willfulness, malice, or intentional wrong, or anything equivalent or amounting thereto, on the part of the defendant The reply stated that, when the plaintiffs checked the trunks, they were informed by the person who had the checks in his possession that they had the right, by virtue of their tickets, to have the trunks checked in this way, over the defendant's railroad from Albany to Springfield; and they caused them to be so checked, supposing that he had the authority to make such statement and so to check said trunks, and relying upon and believing such statement, and were guilty of no fraud or intentional wrong, but acted in good faith. The defendant filed a demurrer to the reply, which was sustained; and, the plaintiffs declining to amend their...