Miller v. Mansfield

112 Mass. 260
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1873
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 112 Mass. 260 (Miller v. Mansfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Miller v. Mansfield, 112 Mass. 260 (Mass. 1873).

Opinion

MORTON, J.

For the purposes of this hearing, all the facts which the defendant offered to show are to be taken as established. We must assume, therefore, that there was an existing regulation and usage of the Housatonic Railroad Company that car loads of freight like that of the plaintiff’s should be unloaded [263]*263by the consignee within twenty-four hours after notice to him of their arrival; that for delay in unloading, after twenty-four hours, the consignee should pay two dollars a day for each car belonging to other railroad companies, and that this regulation and usage was known to the plaintiff.

Being known to the plaintiff, it is to be presumed, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that the parties contracted in reference to it. It enters into and forms part of their contract, and the railroad company is entitled to recover the amount fixed by the usage, by virtue of the plaintiff’s promise to pay it. This charge is, in its essential character, a charge for storage. After the arrival of the goods at their destination the liability of the company as common carriers ceased, but they became liable for the custody of the goods as warehousemen, and, if they were not removed within a reasonable time, were entitled to compensation, for which they had a lien as warehousemen. Norway Plains Co. v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 1 Gray, 263. The parties, by their agreement, fixed the rate of compensation which the company should receive and the time when it should commence. It is not material that the goods remained in the cars instead of being put into a storehouse. The responsibility of the company for their custody was the same as if they had been stored, and they had the right to retain them until their charges were paid.

We are of opinion, therefore, that instructions should have been given substantially as requested by the defendant, and that the presiding judge erred in the instructions which he gave.

Both parties have assumed that the question involved in the ease is the same as if the suit had been directly against the railroad company, and we have, therefore, so treated it.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Related

Middle Atlantic Conference v. United States
353 F. Supp. 1109 (District of Columbia, 1972)
Cook v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.
6 Mass. App. Div. 396 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1941)
Black Beauty Coal Co. v. Cohen
165 N.E. 878 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Partlow
123 N.E. 838 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1919)
Boston & Maine Railroad v. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co.
226 Mass. 509 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. Frederick Leyland & Co.
222 Mass. 444 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Luella Coal Co.
81 S.E. 1044 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1914)
Gault Lumber Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
1913 OK 98 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Kawcabany v. Boston & Maine Railroad
85 N.E. 846 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)
Michie v. New York, N. H. & H. R.
151 F. 694 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1907)
Southern Railway Co. v. Lockwood Mfg. Co.
142 Ala. 322 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1904)
Schumacher v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.
69 N.E. 825 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1904)
Schumacher v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co.
108 Ill. App. 520 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1903)
Darlington v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
72 S.W. 122 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)
Pennsylvania Railroad v. Midvale Steel Co.
51 A. 313 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1902)
Kentucky Wagon Manufacturing Co. v. Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co.
32 S.W. 595 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1895)
Nealand v. Boston & Maine Railroad
36 N.E. 592 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1894)
Norfolk & Western R. R. v. Adams
22 L.R.A. 530 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1894)
Purcell v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
2 Ill. Cir. Ct. 378 (Illinois Circuit Court, 1893)
Baumbach v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co.
23 S.W. 693 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
112 Mass. 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-mansfield-mass-1873.