Carr v. Steamboat Michigan
| Decision Date | 31 March 1858 |
| Citation | 27 Mo. 196 |
| Parties | CARR et al., Respondents, v. STEAMBOAT MICHIGAN, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Where there is a privilege of re-shipping reserved in a bill of lading, the carrier will be liable for any loss occurring on the boat on which the goods are re-shipped, if under like circumstances he would have been liable had the loss occurred on his own boat.
2. The reservation in a bill of lading of the “privilege of re-shipping” confers only the right of transferring the goods shipped to another boat or vessel for the purpose of being transported to the port of destination; it will not authorize the temporary storing of the goods on a wharf-boat at the point of re-shipment; nor will the carrier, in order to escape liability for the loss of the goods while stored on a wharf-boat at Cairo with a view to re-shipment to St. Louis, be permitted to show that “the usual and customary mode of re-shipping was to place the cargo on wharf-boats at Cairo, to be taken therefrom by other boats bound for St. Louis.”
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.
The defendant's offer to prove a custom, as appears from the bill of exceptions, was as follows: The defendant then offered evidence to show, that, under bills of lading similar to the one offered in evidence by the plaintiff, it was the usual and general custom, upon the arrival of boats at Cairo, Ill., from New Orleans, with cargoes for St. Louis, and the condition of the river was such that the boats could not reach St. Louis, to re-ship the cargo on boats of lighter draft; and that the usual and customary mode of re-shipping was to place the cargo on wharf-boats at Cairo, to be taken therefrom by other boats bound for St. Louis.” The court refused to receive the offered evidence.
Hudson & Thomas, for appellant.
Krum & Harding, for respondents.
The plaintiffs shipped at New Orleans four cases of merchandise, which the defendant contracted to transport and deliver at St. Louis, “the dangers of the river and fire only excepted,” and in the bill of lading reserved the ““privilege of re-shipping.” This action is brought for a breach of the contract in failing to deliver the goods. It appears that the boat proceeded on her voyage as far as Cairo, and not being able to proceed further immediately on account of the condition of the river, her officers transferred her cargo to the wharf-boat at Cairo, with instructions to re-ship the same on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Torreyson v. Turnbaugh
... ... 105; Stadden v ... Lusk, 95 Mo.App. 261, 68 S.W. 587; Dry Goods Co. v ... Carr, 83 Mo.App. 318; Hardware Co. v. Hardware ... Co., 75 Mo.App. 518; Carp v. Itzkowitz, 77 ... ...
-
Coates v. United States Express Co.
...right, according to custom, to re-ship, their liability still continued after their re-shipment. (Little v. Semple, 8 Mo. 99; Carr v. Steamboat Michigan, 27 Mo. 196.) WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, as a c......
-
Hempstead v. Hempstead's Adm'r
... ... evidence the following instrument in writing: I, John Biddle, of Detroit, in the State of Michigan, hereby covenant and agree with Cornelia Hempstead, a widow, and John D. Wilson, and Cornelia V ... Carr by Thomas and Charles S. Hempstead, by deed dated the 26th day of August, in the year 1819, ... ...