Hand v. Baynes
Decision Date | 16 February 1839 |
Citation | 33 Am.Dec. 54,4 Whart. 204 |
Parties | HAND v. BAYNES. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
IN ERROR.
The defendant, who was the owner of a line of vessels engaged in transporting goods from Philadelphia to Baltimore, received certain goods belonging to the plaintiff, on board of one of his vessels, and gave a receipt in the following words " Rec'd on board Hand's Line for Baltimore, via Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, from J. B." (the plaintiff,) " 100 slaughter hides on deck, which I promise to deliver to J. D. at Baltimore, the dangers of the navigation, fire, leakage and breakage excepted, he or they paying freight eight dollars, and porterage $1 50." The vessel left Philadelphia, and on arriving at the mouth of the canal, the captain was informed that the locks were out of order, and that he could not be allowed to pass through the canal. He then proceeded down the bay, and out to sea, with the intention of going round to Baltimore, but in a gale of wind the vessel struck on a shoal, and with the cargo was totally lost. Evidence was given on the trial that the hides had been purchased by the plaintiff, and there was no evidence of any property in J. D. the consignee Held, (1st) That this was a contract to carry the goods to Baltimore through the canal. (2nd) That the circumstances did not excuse the deviation from that route. (3rd) That the clause in the receipt excepting " the dangers of the navigation," did not apply to the case of the canal being impassable by inevitable accident or otherwise. (4th) That the plaintiff was entitled to maintain an action against the carrier for the loss of the goods. (5th) That the value of the goods was the proper measure of damages.
ON a writ of error to the District Court of the City and County of Philadelphia, it appeared that James Baynes brought an action on the case in that Court to June term, 1836, against Joseph Hand, to recover from the defendant the value of certain hides shipped on board a vessel called the Neptune, belonging to the defendant, and intended to be carried to Baltimore by the way of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, but which were lost at sea.
The cause was tried on the 3rd of April, 1837, before JONES, J when the plaintiff's counsel gave in evidence the following receipt or bill of lading, signed by the defendant's clerk or agent, viz.
Received on board Hand's Line for Baltimore, via Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, from J. Baynes, one hundred slaughter hides on deck, which I promise to deliver to Joseph Davenport, at Baltimore, the dangers of the navigation, fire, leakage and breakage excepted, he or they paying freight eight dollars and porterage one dollar and fifty cents.
H. HAND, Per
H. H. ELDRIDGE."
The plaintiff then produced a witness who proved that he sold to the plaintiff, on the 12th of December, 1835, one hundred slaughter hides, the net value of which was $349 57, which was the sum the plaintiff paid him for them.
The following advertisement, published by the defendant in the American Daily Advertiser, of March 25th, 1836, was then given in evidence on the part of the plaintiff.
March 25--1t." | 7, North Wharves." |
The defendant's counsel then gave in evidence a protest made by the master and mate of the Sloop Neptune, as follows.
The deposition of T. H. Eccles, the mate of the vessel, was then given in evidence on the part of the defendant. The material parts of it were as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dixon v. Breon
... ... against it by his contract: Paradine v. Jayne, ... Aleyn, 26; Dermott v. Jones, 2 Wall. 1; Hand v ... Baynes, 4 Wharton, 204; Hadley v. Clarke, 8 ... T.R. 259; Company of Proprietors of the Bricknock Canal ... Navigation v. Pritchard, 6 T.R ... ...
-
Blakiston v. Davies, Turner & Co.
... ... carriage, the carrier is the agent of the vendor: Hutchinson ... on Carriers, secs. 1306, 1320; Hand v. Baynes, 4 ... Whart. 204; Ry. Co. v. Guano, 103 Ga. 590 (30 S.E ... 555); Grogan v. Adams Express Co., 114 Pa. 523; ... Griffith v. Ingledew, ... ...
-
Davis Bros. v. Blue Ridge Ry. Co.
...31 Am. Dec. 745; Powers v. Davenport, 7 Blackford, 497, 45 Am. Dec. 105; Phillips v. Brigham, 26 Ga. 617, 71 Am. Dec. 237; Hand v. Baynes, 4 Whart. 204, 33 Am. Dec. 54; Maghee v. Camden & A. R. Co., 45 N.Y. 515, 6 Rep. 124; Johnson v. New York C. T. Co., 33 N.Y. 610, 88 Am. Dec. 416. This i......
-
Platt v. City of Philadelphia
...it good if he may notwithstanding any accident by inevitable necessity because he might have provided against it 31. * * * 31. Hand v. Baynes, 4 Whart. 204, 1838, Hoy v. Holt, 1879, 91 Pa. 88; McKinley v. C. Jutte & Co., 1911, 230 Pa. 122, 79 A. 244.' Stern's Trickett on the Law of Landlord......