Carr v. Pa. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 January 1916
• Docket Number: No. 118.,118.
• Citation: 96 A. 588,88 N.J.Law 238
• Parties: CARR et al. v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

96 A. 588

88 N.J.Law 238

CARR et al.

v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.

No. 118.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Jan. 28, 1916.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by Isaac W. Carr and others, trading as Isaac W. Carr & Co., against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Prom a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Vredenburgh, Wall & Carey, of Jersey City, for appellant. Queen & Stout, of Jersey City, for appellees.

TRENCHARD, J. This action was brought to recover damages for deterioration in condition of seven carloads of watermelons consigned from points in Georgia and South Carolina to the plaintiffs in Jersey City; the deterioration being averred to have resulted from unnecessary delay in transportation. The defendant company received each of these carloads in good condition from an intermediate carrier at Edgemoor, Del., and within a reasonable time after shipment by the initial carriers. Their point of destination was the defendant company's delivery yard at Second and Henderson streets, Jersey City. The usual and customary time for transportation of watermelons from Edgemoor, Del., to the point of destination, was seven hours. The delay in the present ease occurred between these points and at a point on the "meadows" several miles west of their destination. When after a delay of four days, the melons were delivered to the plaintiffs at the point of destination, they were in a damaged condition due to such delay. The jury, at the Hudson circuit, found for the plaintiffs, and the defendant company appeals from the consequent judgment.

We are of the opinion that the judgment must be affirmed.

It is contended that the trial judge erred in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant company. We think not.

It is argued that such verdict should have been directed because the—

"plaintiffs had not proved ownership in the property in question, either at the time of shipment, at the time of delivery, or prior to the commencement of the suit."

But there is no merit in this contention. Any lawful holder of a bill of lading, issued by the initial carrier pursuant to the Carmack Amendment (section 20 of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended June 29. 1006, c. 3591, 34 U. S. Stat, at L. pp. 503, 595, § 7), upon receiving property for interstate transportation, may maintain an action for any loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by any connecting carrier to whom the goods are delivered. Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, 33 Sup. Ct. 148, 57 L. Ed. 314, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 257. In the case at bar each of the initial carriers of the carloads of melons in question executed and delivered to the plaintiffs, or their representatives, bills of lading therefor, and at the trial it was expressly stipulated that the plaintiffs were the lawful holders thereof.

...