Frederic Conrad, Plaintiff In Error v. David Griffey

• Decision Date: 01 December 1850
• Citation: 13 L.Ed. 779,52 U.S. 480,11 How. 480
• Parties: FREDERIC D. CONRAD, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. DAVID GRIFFEY
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

52 U.S. 480

11 How. 480

13 L.Ed. 779

FREDERIC D. CONRAD, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. DAVID GRIFFEY.

December Term, 1850

THIS case brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for Louisiana.

There was only one point of evidence involved. Three exceptions were taken during the progress of the trial by the plaintiff below, but, as the verdict was in his favor, they were not argued here.

On the 26th of March, Conrad, being a Louisiana planter, made a contract with Griffey of Cincinnati, by which Griffey engaged to construct and set up a steam-engine and sugarmill boilers, &c., upon Conrad's plantation, for $6,650, payable at different times. Griffey stipulated to have the privilege of appointing the engineer to run the engine during the rolling of the first crop.

On the 23d of December, 1846, Griffey brought his action, by way of petition, against Conrad, claiming a balance of $3,781.58.

On the 22d of January, 1847, Conrad filed his answer, admitting the work, but denying that it was properly performed according to contract, and alleging that he had sustained a loss of $10,000, which he claimed in reconvention.

On the first trial, February 23, 1848, the jury found a verdict for plaintiff for $3,000, without interest.

The court granted a new trial.

On the 20th of February, 1849, the cause came on again for trial, when the jury found a verdict for plaintiff for $3,781.58, with interest.

Amongst other testimony taken on the part of the plaintiff, under a commission, was that of Leonard M. Nutz, the engineer sent by Griffey to erect and work the machine. His answers to various interrogatories may be condensed as follows:——

The quality and strength of the engine were well proportioned and strong. The quality of the machinery was good. The general style and character of the whole workmanship, mill and engine, was good. It compared with others very well.

By housings are meant the frame which holds or supports the rollers.

I did notice particularly the housings of Mr. Conrad's mill and engine. They were sufficiently strong; they were well fitted and suited for the purposes they were intended to be used for.

I do not know of any defects.

In answer to 14th interrogatory says, I was at the mill and engine, after it was started, in the capacity and employment of engineer. I was there on the 30th day of October, 1845, acting in that capacity.

In answer to 15th interrogatory says, On the 30th of October we put in a spring beam, underneath the housing,

and took out the ones that were there, on account of their being made of green timber and had sprung; there was nothing broke at that time; some time in November one of the housings broke, which was caused by the carelessness of one of the negroes letting a piece of iron pass in the rollers, in the carrier, which was sufficient to break any engine; I was asleep along side of the engine, and was awakened by the surge, and took out the piece of iron; the housing did not part, it only cracked, and the mill was not stopped at all on account thereof; but when the tie-bolt was put in, we stopped about 2 1/2 hours.

In answer to 17th interrogatory says, The head engineer had an assistant furnished by the planter; the head engineer watches 18 hours, the assistant 6 hours, and they two attend to the engine.

In answer to 18th interrogatory says, I had an assistant, which was one of Mr. Conrad's slaves, named Tilman, furnished by Mr. Conrad.

In answer to 19th interrogatory says, The accident occurred during the watch of my assistant.

In answer to 20th interrogatory says, There was no time lost, except the two hours and a half which I was putting in the tie-bolt.

In answer to 21st interrogatory says, I made two new brace bolts for the housings, and continued the crop without any further detention.

In answer to 22d interrogatory says, I was present during the whole time the engine was employed taking off the crop that year, and no other stoppage of the engine and mill occurred.

This deposition was taken on the 1st of April, 1847.

The defendant then offered the depositions of Sosthene Allain, W. Hunstock, and William Neff. It may here be mentioned that the plaintiff objected to reading what related to Nutz's statements, on the ground that the defendant, by omitting to cross-examine him, and to inquire into such of conversations, had not laid the foundation for the admission of such statements. But the court decided to admit them, and allowed them to be read. To this decision the plaintiff's counsel excepted. But, as before remarked, this exception was not argued.

The depositions were as follows.

Mr. Allain:——

Interrogatory 22d. Did you see and converse with the white engineer (who ran Mr. Conrad's engine), just after the last accident to the mill; if yes, do you recollect his name; what reason

did he assign for the housing of the mill being fractured; did you hear any thing about a piece of iron or wood running into the rollers; if yea, what and from whom?

To 22d interrogatory witness answers: That he did converse with the engineer, whose name he believes was Nutz, immediately after the breaking of the housing; and that the reason assigned by said engineer, Nutz, for the breaking of the housing was, that the housings were entirely too weak; that witness did not hear any thing said by any one about a piece of iron or wood having run into the rollers.

Mr. Hunstock:——

3d. Did the plaintiff examine the sugar-mill and engine of defendant at that time, and what did he say touching the accidents to the machinery, and their probable cause?

To the 3d interrogatory the witness answers: That the plaintiff did examine the sugar-mill and engine of defendant at that time, and then he, the plaintiff, said, that Nutz, the engineer, whom he, the plaintiff, had sent to run the engine of defendant, had told him that the breaking of the housings of the mill was owing to the chawing of the keys that keyed up the brace bolts; but he, the plaintiff, had afterwards found out that said Nutz was an incompetent and lazy engineer, and that he was inclined to believe that it was owing to Nutz's neglect the accident happened, and that he, the plaintiff, was so dissatisfied with Nutz, that soon after his return to Cincinnati he had dismissed him from his shop.

10th. Did you see Nutz soon after, and how soon after, the breaking of the housings; did he express any opinion as to the cause, and what did he say on the subject?

To the 10th interrogatory the witness answers: That he saw Nutz soon after the accident occurred, at his, witness's, sugar-house, but cannot say precisely how long after, but it was not longer than one week after the breaking of the housing, that Nutz came to the sugar-house of witness, by consent of defendant, to assist in taking down some part of his, witness's, machinery, which occupied him about one or two hours; during which time he had a conversation with Nutz about the accident which had happened to the housing of defendant's mill; that he asked Nutz to what cause the breaking of said housing was owing; and Nutz answered, he could not tell the cause to its breaking, as there was moderate feed on the cane-carrier at the time the accident happened, and no strain on the mill.

William Neff:——

The 22d interrogatory was the same as that put to Mr. Allen.

To the 22d interrogatory the witness answers: That he

heard that Nutz said, that he could not tell the reason why the housing broke; that there was a very light feed of cane on at the time, and no strain on the mill. This was said by Nutz immediately after the fracture was discovered, and he said, at the same time, that nothing had gone through the rollers that could have strained the mill.

Interrogatory 32d. Was there any unusual strain on the mill at the time the housing gave way; if yes, state what it was; did any iron or wood, or any foreign substance, go into the rollers to strain them; if yes, what was it; what did the engineer, Mr. Nutz, say about it at the time?

To 32d interrogatory witness answers: That he has no knowledge that there was any unusual strain on the mill when the housing broke, and that he does not think there was. Witness has no knowledge that any iron or wood, or any other substance than sugar-cane, went into the rollers to strain them, nor does he believe that any foreign substance did get into them to strain them. Witness heard Mr. Nutz express great surprise at the time at the accident, saying that he could not account for it, as there was a light feed of cane at the moment, and nothing had gone into the rollers to strain them. In talking on the subject of the accident, witness heard Mr. Nutz say, that the housings were entirely too weak for the power of the engine, besides the mill.

These depositions having been given in evidence, the plaintiff offered, as rebutting evidence, and to support the credit of Nutz, the two following pieces of testimony.

1st. The following letter from Nutz:——

'New Albany, April 3, 1846.

'MR. D. GRIFFEY:—Dear Sir: My sister handed me a few lines addressed to her, requesting me to send my affidavit respecting F. D. Conrad. I have no knowledge of the information you wish, unless it be the accident of the breaking of one of the housings of his sugar-mill, and all that I can say upon the subject is, that the night when, in my candid opinion, the accident happened, I was awakened by the surging of the engine; it completely stopped under a good head of steam. I then ordered the negro man who was running the engine at the time, to examine well in the cane shute, supposing something harder than cane to have passed in the carrier, and there was found a piece of iron that broke off of one of the cane carts, wedged in front of rolls, too large to pass; in the shape was thus, _____ about 16 inches long, 1 1/2 inches wide, where it came in contact with the other, with the rolls; and from that time...