Hyperlawhypertext legal database New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad v. National Steam-Ship Co. 17 N.Y.S. 28

← Cases

New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad v. National Steam-Ship Co.

17 N.Y.S. 28 Court N.Y. Gen. Term Decision date 1891-12-31 English

Delivered by Van Brunt, P. J.

Contents

Majority

p. 28
New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. National S. S. Co., Limited.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
December 31, 1891.)

Headnote

1. Carriers—Connecting Lines—Advances.
Defendant, a steam-ship company, entered into a bill of lading with other carriers which provided that it should not be liable “for loss or damage on any article or property whatever, by fire or other casualty, while in transit, or while in deposit, or places of transshipment, or at depots or landings at all points of delivery. ” Plaintiff, as the last of five connecting carriers, had paid all charges on a consignment of cotton, and placed it on a wharf preparatory to delivery to defendant, but before such delivery the cotton was destroyed by fire. Meld, in an action by plaintiff to recover freight charges advanced by it, and its own charges, from defendant, that there was no liability upon defendant, under the bill of lading, to pay said advances and charges.
8. Same—Evidence of Custom.
No liability arose until the cotton was on board defendant’s steamer, in the absence of evidence from which a contract to pay the same from usage or a settled course of dealing between the parties might be implied. 14 N. Y. Supp. 853 , reaffirmed.
Appeal from circuit court, New York county.
Action by the New York, Lake Erie & Western Eailroad Company against the National Steam-Ship Company, Limited. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and Barrett and Andrews, JJ.
Wilcox, Adams cE* Green, (Geo. BetTiune Adams, of counsel,) for appellant. John Chetwood, for respondent.

This is the second time that this case has been before this general term. Upon the previous appeal it was held that the plaintiff had no right to recover, and there does not seem to have been any change made in the evidence which requires a new discussion of the points which were disposed of upon the former appeal. We think, therefore, that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed upon the opinion given by Mr. Justice Daniels upon the former appeal, and which is adopted as the opinion of this court.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Barrett, J., concurs in the result. Andrews, J., concurs.