United States v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.

Second Circuit

United States v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.

211 F.2d 404, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2560

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 24, 1954

Docket22962_1

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 211 F.2d 404 (United States v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 211 F.2d 404, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2560 (2d Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In giving judgment against defendant carrier for potatoes damaged in shipment from Virginia to ConnectiCut, Judge Hincks fixed damages based on the market value at destination, citing Weirton Steel Co. v. Isbrandtsen-Moller Co., 2 Cir., 126 F.2d 593. Defendard; contends that it is liable for only nominal damages, since the potatoes, purchased' as part of the government’s program of price support, were being sent ag a gift to the Connecticut State Hospital at Middletown, Connecticut. ruie applied is the usual one under the Cummins Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 20(11), and is not to be varied by special agreement of the parties or, we agree, by special circumstance of one of the parties. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. McCaull-Dinsmore Co., 253 U.S. 97, 40 S.Ct. 504, 64 L.Ed. 801, and see Illinois Central R. Co. v. Crail, 281 U.S. 57, 65, 66, 50 S.Ct. 180, 74 L.Ed. 699, 67 A.L.R. 1423. The case of United States v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., D.C.Minn., 116 F.Supp. 277, and a similar unreported case from the District of Idaho are distinguishable because they allowed damages for such potatoes at an agreed (though very much reduced) price set to prospective purchasers; but it is doubtful if these decisions accord with Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. McCaull-Dinsmore Co., supra. As Judge Hincks succinctly said: The carrier s part in the national program was to carry not destroy.” So it should not receive the benefit of the intended donation — in the stead of the State Hospital.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In giving judgment against defendant carrier for potatoes damaged in shipment from Virginia to ConnectiCut, Judge Hincks fixed damages based on the market value at destination, citing Weirton Steel Co. v. Isbrandtsen-Moller Co., 2 Cir., 126 F.2d 593. Defendard; contends that it is liable for only nominal damages, since the potatoes, purchased' as part of the government’s program of price support, were being sent ag a gift to the Connecticut State Hospital at Middletown, Connecticut. ruie applied is the usual one under the Cummins Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 20(11), and is not to be varied by special agreement of the parties or, we agree, by special circumstance of one of the parties. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. McCaull-Dinsmore Co., 253 U.S. 97, 40 S.Ct. 504, 64 L.Ed. 801, and see Illinois Central R. Co. v. Crail, 281 U.S. 57, 65, 66, 50 S.Ct. 180, 74 L.Ed. 699, 67 A.L.R. 1423. The case of United States v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., D.C.Minn., 116 F.Supp. 277, and a similar unreported case from the District of Idaho are distinguishable because they allowed damages for such potatoes at an agreed (though very much reduced) price set to prospective purchasers; but it is doubtful if these decisions accord with Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. McCaull-Dinsmore Co., supra. As Judge Hincks succinctly said: The carrier s part in the national program was to carry not destroy.” So it should not receive the benefit of the intended donation — in the stead of the State Hospital.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 F.2d 404, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-new-york-n-h-h-r-co-ca2-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack