Case ID: ny_227/html/0648-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Raymond-Hadley Corporation, Respondent and Appellant, v. Boston and Maine Railroad et al., Appellants and Respondents.
    
      Raymond-Hadley Corpn. v. Boston & Maine R. R., 186 App. Div. 341, affirmed.
    (Argued December 1, 1919;
    decided January 6, 1920.)
    Cross-appeals from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial depart-' ment, entered February 18, 1919, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury. This action was brought by plaintiff, an exporter of flour, to recover from' the defendant carrier $4,965.31 alleged storage charges which defendant assessed and collected from plaintiff, under protest, on 109 carloads of flour, arriving at Boston, Mass., during the period December 17, 1915, to February 9, 1916, for export. Forty-two of the cars were delivered at their destination, “ Mystic Wharf,” and unloaded. At the expiration of the free storage period, plaintiff having failed to load the flour on a vessel and defendant requiring the pier space, the latter reloaded the flour on cars and transported it to a public warehouse and thereafter on arrival of a vessel returned it to the wharf for loading. A charge was made for such reloading, switching and warehouse charges amounting to $3,142.16, which plaintiff seeks to recover. The remaining 67 cars were held in defendant’s yards in Boston and not actually delivered at the wharf until the arrival of the vessel on which the flour was loaded. The defendant charged for storage on the flour, after the expiration of the free storage period, though it was still in the cars. The trial court directed judgment for plaintiff for $3,142.16, with interest and costs, on the ground that no authority existed in the carrier’s filed tariffs for the assessment of this portion of the charge; but denied relief as to the sum of $1,823.21, on the ground that this portion of the charge was assessed pursuant to tariff authority. Both parties appealed to the Appellate Division, the defendants from the whole of the judgment, and the plaintiff from only so much thereof as limited its recovery to $3,142.16. ■ The Appellate Division modified the judgment of tie trial court by deducting from the amount of plaintiff’s recovery the sum of $599.44, the amount of charges that would have accrued had the flour remained on the dock, with interest from April 29, 1916, and by increasing the judgment by the sum of $1,823.21, with interest thereon from April 29, 1916, the sum collected for storage on the 67 cars held in the yards but not actually delivered at their destination.
    
      Edward J. A. Rook for defendants, appellants and respondents.
    
      Neil D. Cullom for plaintiff, respondent and appellant.
   Judgment affirmed without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Hogan, McLaughlin and Andrews, JJ.; Crane, J., votes to modify judgment so as to allow defendant storage charges on the flour held in the 67 cars.