53 N.C. 235 | N.C. | 1860
MANLY, J., being a stockholder in the railroad company, took no part in the decision of this case. The plaintiff, who was the owner of a steam flouring mill in (236) the county of Rowan, declared against the defendants as common carriers upon the custom, and for negligence as bailees, in failing to forward a piece of machinery, to wit, a large steam pipe, whereby, and in consequence of which neglect, his mill was delayed in its operations, and he thereby deprived of its profits.
The following bill of lading was exhibited, in evidence:
"Shipped, in good order and well conditioned, by Dibble Bunce, on board this schooner called the Howard, whereof ______ is master for this voyage, now lying in the port of New York, bound for New Bern, N.C. to say:
____________ "There pipes in one bundle, two single pipes, marked O. G. Foard,| and numbered as in the margin; to be delivered in the Salisbury. | like good order and condition, at the port of New Bern, | N.C. (the dangers of the seas, only excepted), unto | Atlantic N.C. Railroad agent, or to his assigns, he or | they paying freight for the said articles as customary, | with primage and average accustomed. In witness whereof, | the master or purser of the said vessel hath affirmed | to three bills of lading, all of this tenor and date; one of | which being accomplished, the others to stand void. | | Dated in New York 15 September, 1858. Per Master. ____________| E. HOLMES."
It was proved by one Taylor that the schooner Howard arrived at *181 New Bern on 19 September, 1858, and he, in pursuance of general instructions given by the agent of the railroad, put the goods on board a dray and sent them to railroad depot, and that the, Taylor, was the known agent of the masters and owners of the schooner Howard and resided in the town of New Bern. It was further proved that all the articles forwarded to the plaintiff, except one of the single pipes, which was a large one, seven feet long, on which the direction had been obliterated, so that no part of it was at first legible, but that by rubbing it with a rag, saturated with oil, the word "Salisbury" could be read. The agent of the railroad swore that the pipe in question was not forwarded, because he could not tell to whom it belonged. (237) Mr. Fisher, the agent of the plaintiff, swore that on the 22d of September, aforesaid, he received notice from plaintiff that the pipe had not come to hand, and directions to inquire for it; that he went on the same day to the depot and made known his instructions to the agent of the depot, who informed him that he knew nothing about it. He was directed to call in the morning, when another agent, the regular one, would be at home; that he did call and looked at the pipe in question and saw others, but neither he nor the agent could ascertain to whom it belonged, and that no further search was made on either of these occasions. Mr. Taylor also swore that if he had been applied to at any time after the delivery of the articles at the depot, he could have identified the one spoken of, as the property of Mr. Foard. Mr. Aldrich, machinist, swore that on 29 October ensuing, he went to the depot of the defendant at New Bern in search of the missing pipe and found it lying in the depot and knew it immediately. He said he knew the article from the number and description mentioned in the bill of lading produced by the agent of the depot and from his knowledge of the article wanted; that the pipe in question was a very important part of the machinery, without which the mill could not go at all, and for the want of which it was stopped for six weeks. He further swore that he did not believe that such an article could be supplied nearer than the city of New York, and that he took possession of it and carried it to the mill immediately upon his finding it. The counsel for the defendant asked the court to charge the jury, that if the missing pipe could have been supplied, it was the duty of the plaintiff to have got another pipe, and that he was not entitled to recover for the stoppage of his business for any longer time than he could have sent and got another pipe. The Court declined to give the instruction, but charged the jury that the rule of damages was the net profits of the mill which had been lost by the delay in getting the pipe. Defendant excepted. (238) *182
On the trial the question of defendants' liability in point of law was reversed by his Honor, with leave to set aside the verdict, in case plaintiff should get one, and enter a nonsuit. Verdict for plaintiff. Afterwards, on consideration of the question of law, his Honor, being in favor of the defendant, ordered the verdict to be set aside and a nonsuit entered. Plaintiff appealed to this Court. The defendant also appealed, on his exception as to the measure of damages.
Upon the trial it seems to have been conceded that the defendants were not liable as common carriers, for their neglect to send on, in proper time, the pipe in question. It was decided in Boner v.Steamboat Company,
As a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court as to the legal liability of the defendant, we might, upon reversing his Honor's opinion as to that question, direct a judgment to be entered upon the verdict for the plaintiff but for the objection of the defendant to his Honor's ruling upon the question of damages. Upon that question, we also differ from his Honor. When he made the decision, we presume that Boyle v. Reeder,
The effect of the error committed by his Honor in respect to the question of damages is that the judgment must be reversed, and a
PER CURIAM. Venire de novo.
Cited: Mace v. Ramsay,
(241)