Case ID: mart-os_1/html/0195-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MONRO vs. OWNERS OF SHIP BALTIC.
    
    Fall 1810.
    First District.
    This was an action to recover damages for a stated embezzlement of sundry goods taken out of several boxes, shipped for the plaintiff's account. Plex, the general issue.
    Freighter carrying away his goods discharges the ship.
    The evidence was that after the arrival of the ship, the boxes were landed on the Jevee and carted to the plaintiff’s warehouse. Afterwards some customers attending, one of the boxes was opened to shew them the contents, and a deficiency was discovered. The master of the ship was immediately sent for, and an examination of the boxes took place in his presence : several of the boxes evidently appeared to have been broken in, and a witness examined two or three days after, deposed that when the goods were landing, he had noticed that several ropes round the boxes were broken,
    
      Brown for the defendant.
    The liability of the master ended, when the goods were received by the clerk, on the levee, and carted away to the warehouse. On the arrival of the ship, the freighter is entitled to the delivery of his goods— he is generally unknown to the master—his cartmen, clerks and servants are still more so. Neither is the master to be accountable for the infidelity of the freighter’s agents at the place of shipment. His signature, at the foot of the bill of lading, proves only the general, exterior and ap. parent quality of the packages receipted for. He is to deliver the goods, as he received them. 1 Valin, Ord. de la Marine.
    
    
      Prevost for the plaintiff.
    The bill of lading Proves that the goods were shipped in good order and well conditioned. There is evidence that they were not landed thus. One witness swears the ropes round the boxes appeared broken. The freighter was guilty of no neglect in not examining the contents of the boxes before his clerk took them away : he could not open the boxes, and spread the goods on the levee.
   By the Court.

The receipt of the goods by the consignee, without any objection made, is conclusive evidence of his being satisfied, that they are in the condition in which they were to be delivered. If the consignee discovers, from the outward appearance of the boxes or bales, that they have been opened, he ought either to refuse to receive them till the contents be examined, or inform the master of his suspicion, and require his attendance, or that of some of the persons in the ship, at the warehouse or other convenient place. But if he takes them away, out of the sight of the master, without saying any thing, and deposits them in such place where he and his agents only have access, he will be precluded, by his absolute and unqualified acceptance of the goods.

Judgment for Defendants.