Woonsocket Mach. & Press Co. v. New York, N.H.&H.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 June 1921
• Citation: 239 Mass. 211,131 N.E. 461
• Parties: WOONSOCKET MACHINE & PRESS CO. v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

239 Mass. 211

131 N.E. 461

WOONSOCKET MACHINE & PRESS CO.

v.NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 7, 1921.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Franklin T. Hammond, Judge.

Action by the Woonsocket Machine & Press Company against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company. The court found for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions sustained.

The action was against a carrier for the loss of empty projectiles, which were on board a lighter during a storm and were dumped into the harbor. Defendant admitted liability, the only question being the amount of plaintiff's recovery. The projectiles had been manufactured by plaintiff for the British government, and it was the only government using such projectiles and afforded the only market therefor.

Hutchins & Wheeler and J. Sidney Stone, all of Boston, for plaintiff.

Blodgett, Jones, Burnham & Bingham, of Boston, and Harrington, Bigham & Englar, of New York City (Frederick W. Eaton, of Boston, and George S. Brengle, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

CARROLL, J.

In February, 1916, the plaintiff delivered to the defendant three carloads of empty projectiles known as 18-pounder high explosive shells, to be carried from Woonsocket, R. I., to New York and delivered alongside a ship to be designated by the consignee, the forwarding agents for the British government. February 19, while two car-loads of projectiles were in transit on a lighter belonging to one of the defendant's connecting carriers, a storm arose and the cargo was thrown into the harbor. The defendant admits liability for the loss and the question in the case is the amount which the plaintiff is entitled to recover.

The projectiles were manufactured by the plaintiff under a contract dated July 3, 1915, with the Traylor Engineering & Manufacturing Company, which had agreed to supply the said projectiles to the British government at the price of $8 each, free alongside ship, New York. The plaintiff, by its contract with the Traylor Company, was to receive $4.10 for each projectile. The average cost to the plaintiff of producing was $4.35.

The defendant offered evidence (which was admitted de bene and afterwards excluded, subject to defendant's exception), of contracts for the manufacture of high explosive shells, as follows:

A contract of July 10, 1915, between the British government and the Washington Steel & Ordnance Company for the manufacture by this company of 18-pounder high explosive shells; 12,500 shells were to be delivered each week, up to and including December 31, 1915, at $5.50 per shell. The shells to be delivered between January 1 and April 30, 1916, were to be at the same price, with such modifications in the price as might be necessary to cover advances in the cost of material or labor. These shells were substantially similar to those made by the plaintiff and deliveries to the extent of 172,270 shells were made.

A contract of November 1, 1915, supplementary to the last-mentioned one between the same parties, for the manufacture of 325,000 shells, beginning January 1, 1916, the entire number to be delivered not later than June 30, 1916, at the rate of $5.25 for each shell. Deliveries under this contract to the number and at the price called for were made and the shells were similar in all material respects to those made by the plaintiff.

A contract dated October 5, 1915, of the British government with the E. W. Bliss Company to manufacture and deliver, f. a. s. New York Harbor, 952,500 shells similar to those manufactured by the plaintiff at $5 a shell. Deliveries were made according to the contract.

The case was tried before a judge sitting without a jury. He ruled at the request of the plaintiff that it was entitled to recover on the basis of $8 a shell, less deductions for salvage for the recovered shells, and that the evidence of what the British government may have paid for similar shells under contracts ‘five or more months later with other parties,’ was not competent to prove the amount of the plaintiff's loss. He further ruled that the plaintiff could recover the value at the place of delivery, which value was the price which the British government had agreed to pay the Traylor Company, that is, $8 per shell, and found for the plaintiff for $54,336.75, with interest.

[1][2] The shipper was entitled to recover full compensation for the loss or damages suffered by the carrier's failure to carry and deliver the shells safely. Blanchard v. Page, 8 Gray, 281;Finn v. Western Railroad Corp., 112 Mass. 524, 17 Am. Rep. 128. It was correctly ruled that the plaintiff's loss was to be determined by the value of the goods at the time and place of delivery and not at the time and place of shipment. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. McCaull-Dinsmore Co., 253 U. S. 97, 40 Sup. Ct. 504, 64 L. Ed. 801. See Crutchfield v. Hines, 131 N. E. 340;Spring v. Haskell, 4 Allen, 112;Cutting v. Grand Trunk Railway, 13 Allen, 381, 385. See Lafrance v. Desautels, 225 Mass. 324, 329, 114 N. E. 312.

[3][5] Under ordinary conditions, full compensation for the carrier's breach of duty would be measured by the fair market value of the property lost or destroyed. If at the time of the defendant's breach of the contract the shipper could purchase in the open market substantially similar shells to the ones described, the payment of the market value of the same would, under well-settled principles, place it in the same position it would be in if the contract were not broken, and would fully compensate it for its loss. Harvey v. Connecticut &...