Miller v. . Steam Navigation Company

10 N.Y. 431
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 5, 1853
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 10 N.Y. 431 (Miller v. . Steam Navigation Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Miller v. . Steam Navigation Company, 10 N.Y. 431 (N.Y. 1853).

Opinions

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 433 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 435 The defendants were common carriers from New-York to Albany. On the 14th or 15th of August, 1848, they received on board their boat, at New-York, the goods in question, marked "for A.W. Miller, Rochester, care F.M. Adams, Albany." Adams was the general agent at Albany for the Rochester city line of canal boats in 1848, to whom the goods should, in the regular course of business, have been delivered to be forwarded to their destination.

The goods arrived at Albany in the defendants' tow-boat, in the morning of the 18th of August, in the same year, and before they were delivered to Adams, and while a part were still on board the tow-boat, and the residue on board a floating warehouse, belonging to the defendants and used by them to aid in distributing their cargoes to the various lines on the canal, they were destroyed by the great fire in that city, which commenced about noon of that day.

The important question is, whether this loss shall be borne by the defendants or by the plaintiff.

There was no dispute about the facts. Adams, the consignee, had a boat near by, ready to receive the goods when the defendants were prepared to deliver them. There was no evidence that the goods remained with the defendants in consequence of any negligence in Adams to receive them. Had there been, the question of negligence should have been submitted to the jury.

The liability of the defendants, as common carriers, had not terminated when the fire occurred. They still had the custody of the goods, and had a further duty to perform in respect to them. They were not keeping them because there was no one ready to receive them; for the consignee was in Albany, had been on board the boat and was ready to receive them. (Story on Bailments, § 542.)

Common carriers are regarded as insurers of the property intrusted to them, and are responsible for all injuries, except such as are occasioned by the act of God and the public *Page 437 enemies. (Angell on Carriers, §§ 46, 67; Story on Bailments, § 489; 2 Kent's Com., 597; Goold v. Chapin, 10 Barb., 612; Foote v. Storrs, 2 Id., 326.) A destruction by fire, unless occasioned by lightning, does not fall within the exception. (Story on Bailment, §§ 507, 511, 528; Hyde v. TheNavigation Company from Trent to the Mersey, 5 T.R., 389;Gatliffe v. Bourne, 4 Bing. N.C., 314.)

The judgment of the Supreme Court should be affirmed.

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

Related

Little Rock Packing Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R.
116 F. Supp. 213 (W.D. Missouri, 1953)
Fay v. Pacific Improvement Co.
28 P. 943 (California Supreme Court, 1892)
New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. Standard Oil Co.
27 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 39 (New York Supreme Court, 1880)
Spears v. Spartanburg, Union & Columbia Railroad
11 S.C. 158 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1878)
Conkey v. Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
31 Wis. 619 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1872)
Lamb v. Camden & Amboy Railroad & Transportation Co.
46 N.Y. 271 (New York Court of Appeals, 1871)
Fenner v. . Buffalo and State Line R.R. Co.
44 N.Y. 505 (New York Court of Appeals, 1871)
Wood v. Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
27 Wis. 541 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1871)
Price v. Hartshorn
44 Barb. 655 (New York Supreme Court, 1865)
Hulett v. Swift
42 Barb. 230 (New York Supreme Court, 1864)
Miller v. Steam Navigation Co.
1 Seld. Notes 64 (New York Court of Appeals, 1853)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 N.Y. 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-steam-navigation-company-ny-1853.