The Chicago v. Sawyer

• Decision Date: 30 September 1873
• Citation: 69 Ill. 285,1873 WL 8454,18 Am.Rep. 613
• Parties: THE CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANYv.EDWIN H. SAWYER.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

69 Ill. 285

1873 WL 8454 (Ill.)

18 Am.Rep. 613

THE CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY

v.EDWIN H. SAWYER.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1873.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. WILLIAM A. PORTER, Judge, presiding. The appellee, being an importer of teas, shipped from San Francisco, by railroad, consigned to J. M. Chapman, No. 81 South Water street, Chicago, as one shipment, 354 half chests of tea, for which a bill of lading was issued to him by the carrier, and by him forwarded to Chapman, his agent.

In consequence of the duty to the government not having been paid, these goods were taken from a bonded warehouse in San Francisco to be transported to another collection district, and there delivered into a bonded warehouse, subject to the payment of duties, under the provisions of the act of Congress of March 28, 1854. (Brightley's Dig. U. S. Laws, p. 388.)

In their transit from San Francisco to Chicago, these goods were received from the Union Pacific Railroad by appellant at Omaha, to be carried by the latter, in bond, to Chicago, and there to be delivered at some bonded warehouse.

The 5th section of the above mentioned act authorizes a withdrawal of goods from a bonded warehouse in one collection district and the transportation of them to a bonded warehouse in another collection district. The withdrawal and transportation are subject to the provisions of the 6th section of the same act, and the regulations of the revenue department. These regulations are such, that the carrier could not receive these goods without knowledge of their being in bond, and that their appropriate destination was a bonded warehouse in the city of Chicago.

Appellant did not transport the whole consignment together from Omaha to Chicago, but in two lots, though both arrived in Chicago on October 4, 1871. It appears it was a regulation of the collector's office, for the purpose of preserving records of its transactions, that notices of the arrival of bonded goods, whether by the carrier or consignee, should be in writing, and that it was the uniform custom to so give them. Also, that it was the custom to notify the consignee, because the collector generally followed his choice of bonded warehouses, and, unless he was notified, that could not be ascertained. As to one lot, being 180 chests, appellant notified Chapman, and, by his directions, they were delivered at the Burlington warehouse, and saved. As to the other lot, being 174 chests, and for the loss of which this suit was brought, no notice was given to Chapman, nor any written notice at collector's office. But it appeared that Wolf, an inspector, in fact knew of their arrival, though it was shown that he had no authority in the premises, nor was it a part of his duty to receive such notices.

It appeared that, although this lot arrived October 4, it was never delivered out of appellant's cars, but the goods were burned in the cars in the great Chicago fire, October 8 and 9, 1871, of which it is stipulated the court may take judicial notice. There is nothing to show that the destruction of the goods arose from the act of God or public enemies.

Mr. GEO. WILLARD, and Mr. B. C. COOK, for the appellant.

Messrs. HOWE & RUSSELL, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE MCALLISTER delivered the opinion of the Court:

This suit was brought by appellee against appellant to recover for 174 chests of tea, shipped by the former, in bond, from San Francisco, being part of an invoice of 354 chests, and received while in transit by appellant at Omaha, to be transported for hire on its cars from thence to Chicago, and there, under the provisions of the act of Congress and regulations of the revenue department in that behalf, delivered into a bonded warehouse.

The entire invoice arrived in Chicago, but in separate lots, on the 4th day of October, 1871. As to one lot, of 180 chests, appellant's agents gave notice to the consignee, whose place of business was denoted by the way-bill, and, by his directions to the collector, that lot was delivered at the Burlington bonded warehouse, with which appellant's track connects, and was saved. There was where the consignee intended to have the whole invoice delivered, but appellant's agents failed to give him any notice of the arrival of the 174 chests in question, and failed likewise to give any written notice of their arrival at the collector's office; but, relying upon mere personal knowledge of their arrival by an inspector of the collector's department, these goods were permitted to remain in appellant's cars from the 4th until the 8th and 9th of October, when they were burned in the cars.

It is an established fact in the case, that, by the regulations of the collector's office, all notices of the arrival of goods shipped in bond to that port were required to be in writing, and, inasmuch as it was a policy of the office to aid commerce, and there were several bonded warehouses in Chicago, the course of business was, to leave it to the consignee to designate which warehouse he would have the goods deposited in. From this policy sprang a custom of the carrier of goods in bond to notify the consignee of their arrival; and this, the evidence tends to show, was well known to the agents of appellant. But the carrier could secure a delivery by giving a written notice directly to the collector or his deputy. The deputy collector explained, in his evidence, the reason of requiring all notices to be given to the proper officers, and in writing. It was because they were required to keep a record of all their transactions.

The carrier received these goods, to be transported for hire, knowing, at the time, that they were goods subject to duty to the government, and being shipped from one collection district to another, and that, by the law of Congress and the regulations of the revenue department, they could be delivered only into a bonded warehouse, to be reached in compliance only with certain specific regulations. When the carrier received the goods with this knowledge, it impliedly undertook that the goods should be safely delivered at the place of their destination, in the special manner required, and...