Bracco v. Merchants' Despatch Transportation Co.

61 Misc. 60, 113 N.Y.S. 131
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedNovember 15, 1908
StatusPublished

This text of 61 Misc. 60 (Bracco v. Merchants' Despatch Transportation Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bracco v. Merchants' Despatch Transportation Co., 61 Misc. 60, 113 N.Y.S. 131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Opinions

Seabury,

J. The defendant is a common carrier, and the plaintiff shipped by it twelve loose castings and six cases to a customer at Muscatine, Iowa. All of these cases were delivered on August 28, 1907, except one case which was not delivered until September 29, 1907. The shipment comprised machinery, and it is conceded that the machinery was useless without the parts contained in the case which was not delivered until September 29, 1907. The plaintiff, in the meantime, had duplicated the missing parts; and his customer returned this case to him. It is also conceded that the contents in this case were of the value of $192.50. The appellant concedes that “ the only question presented by this appeal is whether or not the item of $192.50 is a proper item of damage in the absence of special notice to the carrier.” There is no evidence to show that the carrier had notice or knowledge of the special use which was to be made of this shipment. Under these circumstances, the shipper can only recover the difference between the value when the delivery should have been made and the value at the time when the delivery was actually made. Sherman v. Hudson R. R. R. Co., 64 N. Y. 254; Katz v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 46 Misc. Rep. 259. The damages which the plaintiff sustained in this case were the result, not only of the delay, but of the peculiar relations and contract which existed between the shipper and consignee; and the carrier cannot be held for these damages unless it is shown that these circumstances were known to the carrier, or that they were fairly within the contemplation of the shipper and the carrier when the contract for transportation was made.

[62]*62The judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Gildersleeve, J., concurs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Krulder v. . Ellison
47 N.Y. 36 (New York Court of Appeals, 1871)
Sherman v. . Hudson River Railroad Co.
64 N.Y. 254 (New York Court of Appeals, 1876)
Katz v. Cleveland
46 Misc. 259 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 Misc. 60, 113 N.Y.S. 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bracco-v-merchants-despatch-transportation-co-nyappterm-1908.