Chouteau v. Steamboat St. Anthony

• Decision Date: 31 March 1855
• Citation: 20 Mo. 519
• Parties: CHOUTEAU & VALLE, Defendants in Error, v. STEAMBOAT ST. ANTHONY, Plaintiff in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

20 Mo. 519

CHOUTEAU & VALLE, Defendants in Error,

v.STEAMBOAT ST. ANTHONY, Plaintiff in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1855.

1. Evidence of a custom by boats to carry bank bills for customers to conciliate their patronage, is insufficient to establish a custom of carrying bank bills for hire.

2. The principle that a bailee, who gratuitously undertakes to do an act, is liable for negligence in doing it, is not applicable to steamboats.

3. Same case, 16 Mo. 216, affirmed.

Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pieas.

This was a statutory action against a steamboat, brought in 1846, for an alleged breach of a contract to carry $572 in bank notes from St. Louis to Pell's landing, on the Ohio river. The case now comes here after another trial since it was last reversed and remanded. (16 Mo. 216.) It was proved that the letter containing the money was delivered to the clerk of the boat, and that $420 of the amount was missing, when the letter reached its destination. The plaintiff then examined a number of river men, for the purpose of showing a custom of boats to carry bank notes for hire on account of the owners. Several witnesses testified that it was common for boats to carry packages of money for their customers, but that as a general thing, no charge was made, the object and expectation being to get the patronage of those whom they thus accommodated. Frequently, however, charges were made, and this was generally the case when the money was carried for strangers. In either case, as some of the witnesses stated, the carriage was on account of the owners and at their risk. Some witnesses considered that boats had a right to charge in every case, whether there was a special contract in advance or not. There was also evidence of a declaration by the clerk of the boat before the letter was delivered at its destination, that “they intended to have five dollars” for carrying it. The following instructions were given:

1. If the jury believe from the evidence, that the defendant undertook to carry the package of money in controversy from St. Louis to Pell's landing, and failed to deliver $420 of said money or bank notes, then the jury should find for plaintiffs.

2. If the jury believe from the evidence, that it was the custom of boats in that trade to carry packages of money or bank notes for hire, and that the defendant received the package in question, to transport the same from St. Louis to Pell's landing, then, prima facie, the defendant did undertake to carry the same for hire.

3. If the package in question was received on account of the boat, to be transported on her account, and said package was received for transportation for hire, the defendant is liable for the loss, if any occurred.

4. If the said package was not to be transported for hire, or it was not the custom of the boats in that trade to carry said packages for hire, or if said package was carried by the captain as a matter of courtesy, not to be paid for, or if the said package was to be carried by the captain on his own account, and not on account of the defendant, then the defendant is not liable.

5. If the captain held himself out as agent of the boat, in...