Chouteaux v. Leech & Co.
| Decision Date | 12 April 1852 |
| Citation | 18 Pa. 224 |
| Parties | Chouteaux <I>versus</I> Leech & Co. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
McMurtrie and McIlvaine were for Leech & Co.—It was contended that the judge erred in charging that the captain, &c., of the steamer Defiance, were agents of the defendants, and that defendants were responsible for their acts, &c., as common carriers. The Defiance was not owned or controlled by defendants. The defendants carried only from Pittsburgh, and this was known. Their agent at Cincinnati was employed to secure contracts for carriage of goods from Pittsburgh eastward, for the accommodation of owners of goods, and to secure freight; he, in addition, agreed to receive the goods at Cincinnati, and use proper care in shipping them to defendants at Pittsburgh. When he had done this, the defendants' duty and responsibility were at an end, and the owner must look to the actual carriers, the steamer's owners, for damages done on board of it.
Defendants, on shipping the goods on the Defiance, took a bill of lading from her captain for delivery of the goods at Pittsburgh, on which suit should have been brought.
Defendants were plaintiffs' agents to ship to Pittsburgh. They had a contract with the owners of the steamer, that the latter should carry safely, which was for plaintiffs' benefit, and is different from employing the steamer as agent.
That the clause in bill of lading from Cincinnati, "The responsibility of the line not to commence until the shipment of the goods at Pittsburgh," was conclusive upon this subject. That it showed that the defendants were not expected to carry up to that point, by themselves or their agents, because in either case the clause would have been absurd. That the other party knew that defendants neither carried themselves, nor were accustomed to carry by others. Defendants got no reward for carrying on the Ohio. The steamer was the carrier, received the freight, and was responsible.
W. B. Reed and H. M. Phillips, were for Chouteaux and others.—The plaintiffs in the suit were the owners and consignees of the packages of furs, which were delivered to the agents of the defendants at Cincinnati, for transportation and delivery to the plaintiffs at New York. The goods were put on board of the steamer Defiance, the packages got wet, and nothing was done towards drying them. They were injured, and the amount of their injury was agreed upon and a verdict rendered for the plaintiffs. It was contended that the defendants were common carriers, and the clause in the bill of lading could apply to no other river than the Ohio.
As to the 5th, 6th, and 7th assignments, the question as to whether the defendants were common carriers did not depend on the opinion of the witness, but on the construction of the contract.
As to the 2d and 3d assignments, there was evidence on which the jury could find that the retention of the word "Pittsburgh," in the bill of lading, was by mistake.
As common carriers, the defendants were bound to have had the bales opened and dried, and repacked: 1 Missouri 81, Bird v. Cromwell; 3 Id. 264; 5 Id. 36; 6 Id. 372; 2 Bailey's Rep. 157; 4 Harrington 448, McHenry v. Railroad; Angell on Carriers 282; 5 Bing. 217; 8 Barr 479; 3 Story 349. In general, in a count for negligence in a carrier, the particulars in which the negligence consisted need not be stated: 1 Sandford 89.
The opinion of the Court was delivered, April 12, 1852, by BLACK, C. J.
The evidence which the Court in the 5th and 6th assignments of error is complained of for rejecting, was intended to prove that the defendants were not common carriers west of Pittsburgh; in other words, that they were not accustomed to carry goods for hire for all who chose to employ them on the Ohio river. But the evidence was properly rejected, because the right of the plaintiff to recover, &c., depended on the obligation created by the particular contract on which the suit was founded. If they bound themselves on this occasion to the duty of common carriers, it is no defence to say that they had never done so before, or that it was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southeastern Express Co. v. Namie
...would not have occurred, the carrier is not excused. Merchants Transfer Co. v. Kisner, 179 Ky. 658, L.R.A. 1918C 658; Chouteaux v. Leech & Co., 18 Pa. 224, 57 Am. Dec. 604. We that it will not be necessary to reverse and remand this case in order to have the matter more fully developed in t......
-
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Naive
... ... carrier was liable for the damage which such attention would ... have averted. Chouteaux v. Leech, 18 Pa. 224, 57 Am ... Dec. 602. So where coffee was wet. Bird v. Cromwell, ... 1 Mo. 81, 13 Am. Dec. 470. In N. & C. R. Co. v ... ...
-
Eckles v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
... ... Co. v. Spratt, 2 Duv. 4; ... Nashua Lock Co. v. Railroad Co., 48 N.H. 339; ... Quimby v. Vanderbilt, 17 N.Y. 306; Chouteaux v ... Leech, 18 Pa. 224; Boston, etc., Steamboat Co. v ... Brown, 54 Pa. 77; Hart v. Railroad, 4 Seld. 37.]" ... Also to ... ...
-
Duholm v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company
... ... 15, Fed. Cas. No ... 13,313; or that a clause, inconsistent with the agreement of ... the parties, was by mistake left unerased, Chouteaux v ... Leech & Co. 18 Pa. 224, 57 Am. Dec. 602, and that, where ... a shipper has entered into a verbal agreement for ... transportation, "he may ... ...