Leonard v. Fitchburg R.R.
| Decision Date | 08 January 1887 |
| Citation | 9 N.E. 667,143 Mass. 307 |
| Parties | LEONARD v. FITCHBURG R.R. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
C.A. Welch, for defendant.
L.S Dabney, for plaintiff.
If an exception is sustained to the admission of evidence which has reference solely to the question of damages, the new trial should be as to damages only. Townsend v. Hargraves, 118 Mass. 325; Kent v. Whitney, 9 Allen, 62; Negus v. Simpson, 99 Mass. 388; Hunter v Farren, 127 Mass. 481. The rulings permitting defendant to show what kind of cars were used by other railroads, etc and rejecting as immaterial defendant's own practice in these respects, was in exact accordance with the authorities. Lewis v. Smith, 107 Mass. 334; Lane v. Boston & A. Ry. Co., 112 Mass. 455; Peverly v. Boston, 136 Mass. 366; Kline v. Baker, 99 Mass. 253; Ely v. James, 123 Mass. 36.
The evidence of Cheever and the plaintiff as to the value of the cattle, and the amount of the injury or damage to them, is well supported. Coolidge v. Choate, 11 Metc. 79; Selkirk v. Cobb, 13 Gray, 313; Glaspy v. Cabot, 135 Mass. 435; Bourne v. Ashley, 1 Low. 27. Market value is matter of fact. Swan v. County of Middlesex, 101 Mass. 173; Lawton v. Chase, 108 Mass. 238; Whitney v. Thacher, 117 Mass. 523. The decision of the judge is conclusive as to the requisite knowledge of witness to give an opinion, unless it is shown that there was no competent evidence at the trial upon which he could so decide, or that the decision is founded upon some error of law. Com. v. Sturtivant, 117 Mass. 122; Tucker v. Massachusetts Cent.R.R., 118 Mass. 546; Hills v. Home Ins. Co., 129 Mass. 345; Perkins v. Stickney, 132 Mass. 217; Patton v. Bell, 141 Mass. 197; S.C. 5 N.E. 300; Dole v. Johnson, 50 N.H. 452; Howard v. Providence, 6 R.I. 514; Sorg v. First German, etc., Cong., 63 Pa.St. 156; Cliquot's Champagne, 3 Wall. 114; Sisson v. Cleveland & T.R. Co., 14 Mich. 489; Shattuck v. Stoneham Br. R.R., 6 Allen, 115; Snow v. Boston & M. Ry., 65 Me. 230; Sexton v. North Bridgewater, 116 Mass. 200.
This was an action to recover damages for an alleged injury to cattle in the transportation of them from a ship lying at a wharf in Boston to the quarantine grounds, in Waltham, by reason that improper cars were used, and also by delay in their transportation. One of the contentions of the plaintiff was that the cars were unsuitable, as they were box cars provided with doors, but not with slats upon the sides, so that there was no sufficient means of ventilation, and also without cleats upon the floor by which the animals could maintain their footing. Whether the defendant had provided slats, and carpenters to nail them across the opening of the doors, was in dispute. The seventh of the regulations issued from the treasury department of the United States, "governing the treatment and quarantining of imported cattle," provides: "The railway cars used in the transportation of cattle to the quarantine grounds shall either be cars reserved for this exclusive use, or box cars not otherwise employed in the transportation of neat animals," etc.
The defendant offered to prove that box cars similar to those furnished for the conveyance of the plaintiff's cattle had always been used by them for carrying cattle to said quarantine grounds, and also how such cars had usually been equipped in regard to their floors. The only quarantine grounds for imported cattle in Massachusetts were at Waltham, and the only railroad by which cattle could be transported thither was that of the defendant. The evidence offered by defendant was excluded by the presiding judge, while he admitted evidence that box cars were used by other railroads for the transportation of cattle, and also evidence of the mode of equipment of their floors. The contention of the defendant, that the mode of transportation adopted in this case was its usual mode, and must therefore be held to have been accepted by the plaintiff, cannot be maintained. If it was an unsafe method of transportation, the fact that it was usual with the defendant cannot exonerate it from its contract to safely transport, and its own usage would not have any tendency to show that it had adopted a safe method. Even if its railroad was the only one by which cattle could be conveyed to the quarantine grounds, this conveyance of cattle is common to nearly all railroads; and the mode adopted by them in the preparation of their cars, etc., the defendant was permitted to show, as bearing on the character of that adopted by itself. Peverly v. Boston, 136 Mass. 366.
A witness was asked as to the value of a cow which was...
To continue reading
Request your trial