Fuller v. Bradley

• Decision Date: 01 January 1855
• Citation: 25 Pa. 120
• Parties: Fuller et al. versus Bradley.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

25 Pa. 120

Fuller et al. versus Bradley.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Lawrence county.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Taylor, for plaintiff.—It was error to submit to the jury for their deliberation an alleged fact, of which there was no evidence: Jones v. Wood, 4 Harris 25; Harris v. Staufer, 10 Barr 365.

Without proof the presumption would be, that defendant was but a private person, and not responsible as a common carrier: Story on Bailments 495; 5 R. 188.

2d. What facts will constitute a contract of affreightment is for the Court: and the Court, by submitting the whole matter of law and fact to the jury, left it to them to say whether or not, on all the evidence, defendant was entitled to a lien.

The contract does not come within the legal definition of an affreightment: Angell on Carriers, § 391. The "actual transportation of goods" was not the consideration for which defendant was to receive $6 per day; but for his boat, horses, and hands, whether the boat was loaded or light. It was an ordinary contract of hiring.

Possession is the basis of lien. The goods loaded at New Castle were delivered at Erie, and another cargo was shipped thence to New Castle. The Court affirms this to be a round trip, although it was in proof that part of the cargo was to be delivered at Erie: and that the salt brought to New Castle was liable for the whole unpaid freight. The fact as to the terminus of the trip at Erie should have been left to the jury.

If it was a round trip, no freight was due till it was completed, and defendant could not detain for freight that portion of the cargo which he was bound to deliver at Erie, and had no lien upon it. And if he had no lien on this, for its own carriage, he could have none on the cargo shipped from Erie for it.

McGuffin, for defendant.—The Court properly submitted the evidence to the jury: 1 Smith's Leading Cases 224; Turney v. Wilson, 7 Yerger 340-2; Murer, et al., v. Nixon, 4 N. H. 314; 4 Pick. 50; Tennett v. P. Pilzhen, 2 Henning 49; 1 W. & Ser. 285; Chitty on Contracts 479; 3 Story 349; 2 Watts 443; 5 East 439; 3 Esp. 74; Story on Bailments 504.

2d. The question whether the contract was one of affreightment or hiring was properly left to the jury; and, if affreightment, then the defendant had a lien.

The defendant retained control over his boat and crew, furnishing all expenses, &c., himself. The fixing a stipulated sum per day does not affect it, provided no credit was given, and the price was payable at the end of the trip; the defendant continuing in control of the boat until it was completed: 6 Pick. 248; 4 Greenl. 412; 2 B. & Ald. 503; 15 Mass. 370; 16 Mass. 354; 4 Cowen 470; 4 Wash. C. C. 100; 2 Story 16; Story on Bailments 505.

If the jury was satisfied that defendant retained the control of his boat and hands, &c., until the terminus of the trip, he had a right to retain...