Sherman v. Wells

New York Supreme Court

Sherman v. Wells

28 Barb. 403, 1858 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 142

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 20, 1858

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 28 Barb. 403 (Sherman v. Wells) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sherman v. Wells, 28 Barb. 403, 1858 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 142 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1858).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Davies, P. J.

The facts are succinctly and correctly stated in the referee’s report, and the only question presented is, are the defendants liable for the loss of the bonds intrusted to them ? That the defendants are common carriers, cannot, we think, be doubted. It was settled that they were, in the case of Russell v. Livingston, in this court, (19 Barb. 346.) The judgment in that case was reversed in the court of appeals, (16 New York Rep. 515,) but on an entirely different point. The defendants being, therefore, common carriers, and there being no special contract, the parties are to be supposed to have acted with a full knowledge of their legal rights and liabilities, and must be held to the stringent rule of law which makes a carrier an insurer against all except the act of G-od and the public enemy. (Dorr v. The New Jersey Steam Navigation Co.., 1 Kern. 485.)

When goods are intrusted to a carrier and not delivered according to contract, the value of the goods, with interest thereon from the day when they should have been delivered, is the measure of damages. (Sedgwick on Damages, 255.) We .think the proof fully authorized the referee to find that the bonds were of their par value, and that no injustice has been done the defendants in this respect.

The judgment appealed from will therefore be affirmed, with costs.

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

By the Court, Davies, P. J.

The facts are succinctly and correctly stated in the referee’s report, and the only question presented is, are the defendants liable for the loss of the bonds intrusted to them ? That the defendants are common carriers, cannot, we think, be doubted. It was settled that they were, in the case of Russell v. Livingston, in this court, (19 Barb. 346.) The judgment in that case was reversed in the court of appeals, (16 New York Rep. 515,) but on an entirely different point. The defendants being, therefore, common carriers, and there being no special contract, the parties are to be supposed to have acted with a full knowledge of their legal rights and liabilities, and must be held to the stringent rule of law which makes a carrier an insurer against all except the act of G-od and the public enemy. (Dorr v. The New Jersey Steam Navigation Co.., 1 Kern. 485.)

When goods are intrusted to a carrier and not delivered according to contract, the value of the goods, with interest thereon from the day when they should have been delivered, is the measure of damages. (Sedgwick on Damages, 255.) We .think the proof fully authorized the referee to find that the bonds were of their par value, and that no injustice has been done the defendants in this respect.

The judgment appealed from will therefore be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Barb. 403, 1858 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherman-v-wells-nysupct-1858.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack