Joynes v. Pennsylvania R. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 March 1912
• Docket Number: 178
• Citation: 235 Pa. 232,83 A. 1016
• Parties: Joynes to use, Appellant v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

83 A. 1016

235 Pa. 232

Joynes to use, Appellant v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company

No. 178

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

March 11, 1912

Argued October 27, 1911

Appeal, No. 178, Oct. T., 1911, by plaintiff from judgment of C.P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., March T., 1907, No. 396, for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of H.W. Joynes to use of A.T. James v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Reversed.

Trespass to recover damages for failure to deliver potatoes. Before MACFARLANE, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Verdict for plaintiff for $23,654.03. Subsequently the court entered judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto. Plaintiff appealed.

Error assigned was in entering judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto.

The judgment is reversed and a venire facias de novo awarded.

Stephen Stone, with him William A. Stone, for appellant. -- The defendant was obliged to use reasonable diligence Alexander v. R.R. Co., 7 Pa. Superior Ct. 183; Hoffman v. R.R. Co., 39 Pa.Super. 47; Klass Commission Co. v. R.R. Co., 80 Missouri App. 164; Goodwin v. R.R. Co., 58 Barb. 195; Rhymer v R.R. Co., 27 S.Ct. 345; Davenport v. R.R. Co., 10 Pa.Super. 47; Ruppel v. Ry. Co., 167 Pa. 166.

Where an unusual pressure of business arises the carrier will not be excused: Faulkner et al. v. South Pacific Railroad Company, 51 Missouri, 311; International & G.N.R.R. Co. v. Anderson, 21 S.W. Repr. 691; Illinois Central R.R. Co. v. Cobb, 64 Ill. 128.

If the appellant had a right to keep his goods in the car, -- if he had a right to maintain an action for any goods damaged in the car while held by him after the free time, then that right is sufficient to justify him in keeping his goods there, and such keeping would not excuse the appellee in this case for its failure to do its bounden duty: Anderson v. R.R. Co., 31 Pa.Super. Ct. 302.

There is not one scintilla of evidence to justify the Court in holding that the congestion was due to the delays suffered by the appellant in making sales.

Thomas Patterson, of Patterson, Sterrett & Acheson, with him James R. Miller, for appellee. -- The case is directly in line with Laughlin Bros. Co. v. Railway Co., 225 Pa. 540.

Before FELL, C.J., BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN, STEWART and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE STEWART:

The appeal is from a judgment entered non obstante. This character of judgment necessarily implies that the case as presented on the trial would have warranted binding instructions. We are to inquire whether this was so here. The evidence on behalf of plaintiff gave support to the following facts: The plaintiff is a produce dealer residing and doing business in the city of Pittsburgh. Being without warehouse or storage facilities of his own, he was accustomed to have all his consignments delivered to him by the defendant company at a certain yard at Twenty-first street in Pittsburgh, known as the produce yard, where all shippers of produce, conducting like business with the plaintiff, were offered facilities for selling to their customers their produce directly from the car, and for this purpose were allowed to detain, without charge, the cars carrying their shipments for forty-eight hours after their arrival. The defendant company maintained other delivery yards in Pittsburgh, but at none of them were such facilities afforded as met the requirements of consignees who expected to sell their produce directly from the car. In the early part of July, 1906, the plaintiff had consigned to his order at Pittsburgh a very large quantity of potatoes. While the bills of lading for this produce indicated Pittsburgh as the place of delivery, it is too clear for dispute that the contract of consignment contemplated a delivery at this produce yard. That both parties to the controversy so understood it, is abundantly established by the evidence. The cars carrying plaintiff's produce arrived without delay at the outer yard of the defendant company at Fifty-fourth street. This was not a yard for delivery, but for distribution and storage of cars. Plaintiff was permitted there to examine his potatoes, and he found them all sound and in good condition. The usual time required for the transfer of cars from Fifty-fourth street yard to the produce yard is about six hours. Instead of promptly transferring the cars loaded with plaintiff's potatoes to the produce yard for delivery there, the cars were detained at the outer yard none of them for less than two days and some for as much as seventeen. When delivered at the produce yard it was found that the potatoes in 128 of these cars had heated and were absolutely without value in consequence. The action was for recovery of damages for the injury by the delay in delivery. The case, as thus established by plaintiff's evidence, called for a reply; for, except as the defendant company overcame it, it entitled the plaintiff to a verdict. It showed a delivery of the potatoes in good condition, that they had been utterly ruined while in custody of the carrier, and that the loss had resulted from the carrier's delay in transferring them to the appointed place of delivery. Upon this showing the burden fell upon the defendant to excuse itself for the delay which caused the loss. No defense by way of excuse was attempted, except to show a congested condition in the produce yard which prevented an earlier delivery there of plaintiff's cars. The case turns upon the sufficiency of this defense as matter of law. A fuller understanding of the actual situation with respect to the produce yard is here necessary. The capacity of the yard is limited to the accommodation of 385 cars at any one time. As before stated, shippers of produce are allowed in this yard to hold without charge the cars containing their produce for two days after their arrival; under the printed rules and regulations of the company they are entitled to hold them longer but subject to a demurrage charge after the free period. When plaintiff's cars arrived at Fifty-fourth street yard it so happened that the produce yard was full, many of the cars there were beyond free time and were subject to demurrage; but none were in the yard that were not rightfully there. And so it is evident that when plaintiff's cars reached Fifty-fourth street yard a situation confronted the defendant company in which it was helpless to meet the demand of plaintiff and make prompt delivery of his produce, as it had undertaken to do. For this situation, who was responsible? If the defendant company, its responsibility must have resulted from a failure on its part with respect to some duty that attached in connection therewith. That a duty rested on it to provide accommodations in the produce yard for all cars it engaged to deliver there, calls for no discussion. That those they maintained in this instance were inadequate for the accommodation of the plaintiff's cars, is a fact in the case, and the one fact to which the loss must be referred. This may or may not involve failure of duty,...