Case ID: mass_25/html/0187-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Parker C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Phillips versus Hezekiah Earle et al.
    
    A person delivering a package to a common carrier to be transported, is under no obligation to state the value of the articles it contains, unless an inquiry is made on the subject.
    But it seemsy that in case an inquiry should be made and a false answer given, 'r any fraudulent attempt be made to conceal the real value of the articles from the carrier, he would not be liable for their value, in case of loss without his default Where a package was delivered to the agent of a stagecoach company, at the post-office, where the stage was standing, and not at the office of the company, to be carried from Boston to Hartford, and was by the agent, when he received it, entered on the way-bill, he having previously directed the person who had the care of the package to bring it to the post-office ; and the package was lost before reaching Hartford j it was held, that the owners of the coach were liable to the owner of the package for its value, the delivery at the post-office being with the assent of their agent.
    The package was directed to a person at Hartford, who was not there at the time when the coach arrived, nor for several days after ; it was held, that as the package never in fact arrived, the absence of the person to whom it was directed, did not exonerate the owners of the coach from their liability.
    This was an action against the defendants, who were owners of the New York mail coach, as common carriers, to recover the value of a package of laces, which had been sent by the plaintiff to one of the defendants’ coaches to be transported to Hartford.
    It appeared from the evidence at the trial, that the package was addressed to Henry Phillips, at Morgan’s House, Hartford, and that it was entered on the books and way-bill of the defendants by their agent, and was delivered to the agent of the defendants while the coach was standing at the door of the post-office in Boston on July 10, 1828, and that he delivered it to the driver of the coach. The package, if safely carried, would have arrived at Hartford on July 11, 1828, in the morning. It was a box about a foot and a half long, and not quite so wide, covered with paper. The porter who carried the box to the coach, had just before carried it to the stagecoach-offk <, in Hanover street, but not having money with him to pay for the transportation, he was told by the agent that it could be taken in at the post-office when the coach stopped there. He accordingly went and got the money (fifty cents) from the plaintiff, and delivered the package and paid for the transportation at the post-office. The defendants’ agent at first demanded seventy-five cents, but on the porter’s saying that the package was light and that he thought that high, the agent agreed to take the package for fifty cents. Nothing was said of the value
    of the package by the porter who carried it, and no questions were asked on that point on behalf of the defendants. Henry Phillips, to whom the package was directed, did not arrive in Hartford until the 15th of July; he then made inquiries at Morgan’s and elsewhere, but could not find the package, and never received it. It was also proved that t never arrived at Hartford. The defendants at other times had carried packages to Hartford for the plaintiff.
    The counsel for the defendants contended, that as common carriers were by law insurers of the property delivered to them, against all risks except the act of God and public enemies, it was the duty of the plaintiff to give some information of .the contents and value of the package, that they might demand an adequate compensation for the great risk, as well as» for the transportation, and take a greater than ordinary degree of caution; and that the concealment of the value was a fraud on the carriers, and ought to deprive the plaintiff of all right to recover, or at least to recover beyond the probable or apparent value of a package of the size and appearance of the one delivered. He also contended, that the package ought not to have been delivered at the post-office in the manner before stated ; and that no person being at Hartford until the 15th of July, to receive the package or give early notice of its miscarriage, the defendants were thereby exonerated.
    The judge instructed the jury, that the defendants, having accepted and undertaken to carry the package for the plaintiff, were answerable for the value of its contents, unless de•stroyed by the act of God or the public enemy ; that as no inquiry was made by the defendants as to the value of the package when they received it, the plaintiff was not bound to say any thing of its contents; though if the jury thought the transaction was an intentional fraud on the part of the plaintiff, they should find a verdict for the defendants. The judge also instructed the jury, that though, if the package had actually arrived at Hartford and been lost afterwards, the defendants would have been exonerated, yet the mere circumstance of Henry Phillips’s being absent was of no consequence, as the package never in fact arrived.
    The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. If the instructians were erroneous, a new trial was to be granted ; otherwise judgment was to be entered on the verdict.
    
      March 2'¡Ik
    
    
      S. D. Parker, for the defendants,
    in order to show that they ought to have been informed of the value of the package, cited Dwight v. Brewster, 1 Pick. 54, Gibbon v Paynton, 4 Burr. 2298; Beck v. Evans, 16 East, 244; Levi v. Waterhouse, 1 Price, 280; Harris v. Packwood, 3 Taunt. 264; Nicholson v. Willan, 5 East, 510; 2 Stark. Ev. 340, note, Tracy v. Wood, 3 Mason, 135. The beating down the price by the person who brought the package was equivalent to a representation that it was of small value.
    
      Curtis, contra,
    
    said that the English cases did not apply, as these defendants had never given any notice that unless the value of the goods sent was communicated to them, they would not be liable beyond a certain amount. The plaintiff was under no obligation to state the value of the package unless asked ; it is sufficient that he did not fraudulently conceal it. Brook v. Pickwick, 4 Bingh. 218; Batson v. Donovan, 4 Barn. & Ald. 21. The delivery at the post-office, was as effectual as if it had been made at the stagecoach-office. A delivery even on the course of the journey would have rendered the owners of the coach liable. 2 Stark. Ev. 334.
    
      April 6th.
    
   Parker C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. The box which was lost was delivered to the agent of the defendants, an-1 th«v therefore became liable as common carriers for the safe transportation and delivery of it, unless the objections stated by their counsel, or some of them, are valid.

First, it is said that the defendants ought to have been informed of the value, in order that they might have been aware of the necessity of extraordinary care. But, by the authorities, this was not necessary, there being no notice given by me defendants of any limitation of their liability. They might have asked the quality and value of the contents of the box, and if they had, any false answer would have been fraudulent and have excused them. Or if there had been any concealment or deception, the same consequence would have followed. The very form and appearance of the box, and its peculiar light ness, and the manner in which it was secured, were strong indications that the contents were valuable. The defendants therefore, if they wished to increase the compensation on ac count of the value, ought to have been upon their guard and made the proper inquiries.

Then it is objected, that the box should have been entered at the office or place of business of the defendants, in order that it might have been booked there. But the evidence shows the assent of the defendants that it should be delivered at the post-office. The receipt of it by their agent, who entered it on the way-bill, takes away whatever force there might otherwise have been in the objection.

And in regard to the objection, that Henry Phillips, to whom the box was directed, was absent from Hartford, it might have been valid if the goods had been safely transported to that place and were lost afterward, for want of some one to receive and take care of them ; but being lost on the way, the defendants had failed to perform their contract and had become chargeable.

We do not see cause, on account of any of the objections, to set aside the verdict. 
      
       See Brooke v. Pickwick, 4 Bingh. 218; Orange County Bank v. Brown 9 Wendell, 25,115; Hollister v. Newlan, 19 Wendell, 234; Cole v. Goodwin, 19 Wendell, 251; Story’s Comm, on Bailments, 362; Sewall v Mien, 6 Wendell, 349.
     
      
       See Shelden v Robinson, 7 N. Hamp. R. 157; Story’s Comm, on Bail ments, 325, 326.