Case ID: nys_96/html/0184-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MacLEAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(48 Misc. Rep. 643.)
    WOOD et al. v. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    November 24, 1905.)
    Oakbiees—Delivery or Goods—Notice to Consignee.
    An address upon a box intrusted to a carrier read “Wm. Wood & Co., New York,’’ while the shipping ticket read “W. Wood.” There were 40' persons in the New York directory, who bore the name oí “W. Wood.” He’d, that the carrier did not fulfill its duty by mailing a notice of the-arrival of the box at destination to a “W. Wood” selected by chance from, the .names in the directory.
    
      Appeal from the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District.
    Action by William H. S. Wood and others against the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal.
    Reversed.
    Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and Mac-LEAN, JJ.
    Bird Si Tarbox, for appellants.
    Guthrie, Cravath & Henderson (Robert McC. Marsh, of counsel), for respondent.
   MacLEAN, J.

This action is to recover damages for the delay of the defendant in delivering a box of books consigned to the plaintiffs in this city. It appears that the defendant, as a connecting carrier, received the box in St. Louis, and that it reached its destination here on or about April 18, 1903, but was not delivered until a year and a half later, when it was discovered in a storage warehouse, where it had been stored by the defendant. The address upon the box read, “Wm. Wood & Co., New York, N. Y.,” while the shipping ticket read, "W. Wood, N. York, N. Y.” Though the shipping ticket was received by the defendant from a preceding carrier, it does not appear that it constituted the contract of shipment. The box received and carried bore the name of the consignee and destination, and notice mailed to that name and destination would have fulfilled the diligence in such cases required of the defendant, unfulfilled by notice mailed to the ñamé upon the shipping ticket to a chance address selected from 40 such appearing in the City Directory. It may not thus escape its liability.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. All concur.