Robertson v. Nat'l S.S. Co.
Decision Date | 10 October 1893 |
Citation | 139 N.Y. 416,34 N.E. 1053 |
Parties | ROBERTSON v. NATIONAL STEAMSHIP CO., Limited. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from superior court of New York city, general term.
Action by Julius Robertson against the National Steamship Company, Limited, for damages to goods while in transit. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff in the trial court (14 N. Y. Supp. 313) for $1,000, and both parties appealed to the general term, which affirmed the judgment on defendant's appeal, and reversed it on plaintiff's appeal, (17 N. Y. Supp. 459,) and from such judgment defendant appeals. Reversed.
John Chet wood, for appellant.
Lewis Sanders, for respondent.
In June, 1889, the defendant had a line of steamers running between London and New York. It received goods at Havre, in France, for transportation to New York, by way of London. It transported such goods from Havre to Southampton on board of steamers, and from that place to London by railroad, where they were transshipped to its steamships, to be carried to New York. The steamships running between Havre and Southampton and the railroad from Southampton to London were owned and operated by the London & Southwestern Railroad Company. The agents representing the defendant at Havre, on the 8th of June, 1889, received from Isabella and Munster 45 packages of merchandise, and issued to them a bill of lading, in which they acknowledged the receipt of the merchandise ‘to be forwarded by the steamer Wolf to London, and to be there transshipped in and upon the steamship called ‘Canada,’ * * * lying in the port of London, and bound for New York, with liberty to sail with or without pilots, to call at Havre, Queenstown, Southampton, Plymouth, or any other port or ports, and to tow and assist vessels in all situations and to all ports, and, failing shipment by said steamer, then by following steamer of this line, for which the goods shall arrive in time.' The bill of lading contained stipulations exempting the defendant from various perils, and among them from perils of ‘land transit of whatsoever nature or kind.’ Isabella and Munster appeared in the bill of lading as principals, not as agents. The merchandise, having been shipped on board the steamer Wolf, was carried to Southampton, and from thence by rail to London, where it was transshipped to the steamer Canada, and upon its arrival in New York it was found to be damaged. The plaintiff, who was the consignee, and who had become the owner of the merchandise, brought this action to recover against the defendant for the damage done to it, and he recovered on the sole ground that the defendant became an insurer of the merchandise, because it did not transport it from Havre to London on the steamer Wolf, and that thus there was a deviation from the route stipulated by the transportation by rail from Southampton.
It cannot be disputed that, if there was such a deviation as is claimed, the defendant became an insurer, and thus responsible for all loss and damage to the merchandise, even from unavoidable casualty. Maghee v. Railroad Co., 45 N. Y. 514. But we do not think there was any deviation from the mode of transportation prescribed by the contract made between the parties. If we read the shipping bill alone, it is not entirely certain that the merchandise was to be transported from Havre to London all the way by water on board the steamer. The language in the bill of lading is, ‘to be forwarded by the steamer Wolf to London;’ and in a real sense goods received on board the Wolf may be said to have been forwarded by that steamer to London by carrying them to Southampton, and then sending them by rail to London. The bill seems to provide for a carriage upon land, as it exempted the defendant from loss or injury from perils by land transportation of any kind, and the only land transportation upon this route was from Southampton to London. Thus, it appears that the shippers and the defendant, when they made the contract, contemplated, not only a carriage upon water, but upon land also. But, when the circumstances surrounding the making of the contract for the carriage are considered, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The Indrapura
... ... reason of its unauthorized act.' ... So in ... Robertson v. N.S. Company, 139 N.Y. 416, 419, 34 ... N.E. 1053, 1054, the court says: ... 'It ... ...
-
Mckahan v. American Exp. Co.
... ... was substituted for the one agreed upon. See, also, in this ... connection, Robertson v. National Steamship Co., 139 ... N.Y. 416, 419, 34 N.E. 1053; Dunseth v. Wade, 2 Scam ... ...
-
Waltham Mfg. Co. v. New York & T.S.s. Co.
... ... Camden, etc., R. R. Transportation Co., 45 N.Y. 514, 6 ... Am. Rep. 124; Robertson v. National Steamship Co., ... 139 N.Y. 416, 34 N.E. 1053; 9 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law (2d Ed.) ... ...
-
The Chicago Great Western Railway Company v. Dunlap
...stoppage. (Powers v. Davenport, 7 Blackf. [Ind.] 497, 43 Am. Dec. 100; Crosby v. Fitch, 12 Conn. 410, 31 Am. Dec. 745; Robertson v. N. S. Co., 139 N.Y. 416, 34 N.E. 1053; The Georgia Railroad Co. v. Cole & & Co., Ga. 623; Phillips et al. v. Brigham, Kelly & Co. et al., 26 Ga. 617, 71 Am. De......