Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. John Lysaght, Limited
Decision Date | 23 February 1921 |
Docket Number | 108. |
Citation | 271 F. 906 |
Parties | LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. v. JOHN LYSAGHT, Limited. [1] |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Hornblower Miller & Garrison, of New York City (Lindley M. Garrison and Edgar H. Boles, both of New York City, George S. Hobart, of Newark, N.J., and Charles A. Boston, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Hayden & Post, of New York City (W. K. Post, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant in error.
Butler Wycoff & Campbell, of New York City (Frederick B. Campbell and Thomas R. Rutter, both of New York City, of counsel), amici curiae.
Before WARD, ROGERS, and HOUGH, Circuit Judges.
Lysaght, Limited, is the holder of two through domestic bills of lading of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company for transportation of plates of spelters from Kansas to New York, state of New York, for export, under which the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company is the last connecting carrier. The two cars arrived July 17 and 18, 1916, respectively, and the goods were destroyed by the explosion at the Black Tom Terminal on the night of July 29/30, considered in our opinion in the case of Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. v. Allied Machinery Co. of America, 271 F. 900, handed down herewith.
The defendant's tariff regulations applicable to the situation are:
The plaintiff gave orders for delivery to the steamer at New York as follows:
'New York, 7/29/16.
'Messrs. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., 6 Broadway, City-- Gentlemen: We inclose herewith original bills of lading indorsed notices of arrival and check for freight for the following cars, which are to be delivered to the S/S Wells City at Pier 69, North River, on August 2/16. We are inclosing check for freight and would request that you kindly send us receipted freight bills.
Car C., M. & St. P. 54326 932 plates of spelter
Car S.O.U. 27110 813 plates of spelter
Car N.W. 21715 837 plates of spelter
Car Erie 72290 832 plates of spelter
'The loading permit has been mailed direct to the S/S and we trust you will give this matter your immediate attention and see that these consignments are delivered within the time specified and that the dock receipts are sent to us at the earliest possible moment.
'Yours truly,
F. B. Vandergrift & Company, 'Wm. W. Rich, Pres.'
September 25, 1917, Lysaght, Limited, brought this action on the bills of lading against the railroad company as insurer without any charge of negligence. January 23, 1918, the defendant demurred to the complaint, on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which demurrer was overruled by L. Hand, J.
June 1, 1918, the defendant's answer admitted the foregoing statements, but denied knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether the goods were destroyed by fire or exclusively by fire. It also set up three separate defenses, summarized by defendant's counsel as follows:
When the cause came on for trial before Judge Mayer, the defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that its liability was that of warehouseman, and not of carrier, which motion was denied, because overruled on demurrer by Judge Hand. Without going into the question whether the defendant waived this objection by answering over, we think it was bad in law. The goods were in course of transportation, and the delay at the Black Tom Terminal during the period that the plaintiff failed to give shipping instructions for export for either 48 hours after notice of arrival under the bill of lading or for 15 days under the tariff changed the defendant's liability to that of warehouseman, but as soon as shipping instructions were given, July 29, at 1:42 p.m., its liability as carrier to transport the goods to New York, county of New York, was reinstated. This is expressly stated by A-1 of the company's tariff. The only effect of article 8 of the tariff is to postpone the time at which demurrage begins to run. The other provisions of section 16, which give the railroad company a reasonable time within which to deliver alongside the steamer for export, in no way affect its liability as carrier or make it a warehouseman. There is nothing in the suggestion that lighterage to New York is a mere terminal service. The railroad company, having agreed to deliver at New York, would have been responsible as common carrier, if the goods had been lost or damaged while on the lighter. Judge Hand concluded his opinion on the demurrer to the complaint as follows:
We go further, and hold that, had the case rested on the complaint and the denials of the answer, a verdict should have been directed for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. State of Russia
...the question of liability of the plaintiff in error (Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Allied Machinery Co. C. C. A. 271 F. 900; Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Lysaght C. C. A. 271 F. 906), and we there held that the proof, much of which is repeated here, required the question of negligence of the railroad ......
-
A. Polk & Son v. New Orleans & N.E. R. Co.
... ... the goods ... Lehigh ... Valley R. R. v. Lysaght, 271 F. 906, 256 U.S. 704, ... ...
-
Consolidated Rail Corp. v. I. C. C.
...their property and the public from harmful radiation." Eastern Railroads, supra, 362 ICC at 772. See also Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. v. John Lysaght, Ltd., 271 F. 906, 910-11 (2d Cir.), appeal dismissed, 257 U.S. 613, 42 S.Ct. 53, 66 L.Ed. 397 Obviously this does not mean that every cost al......
-
Sullivan v. American Railway Express Company, a Corp.
...and relies upon the words, "caused by it," as used in said statute with respect to the carrier's liability. In Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. John Lysaght, 271 F. 906, l. 910, it is stated: "Happier words than 'caused by it' might have been used, but they fairly cover loss or damage for which the ......