Case ID: misc_61/html/0057-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Louis Wolfe, Respondent, v. Levi C. Weir, as President of Adams Express Company, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    November, 1908.)
    Damages — Particular contracts and relations — Liability of bailees, carriers, and telegraph companies — Liability of carrier — Damages arising from special circumstances.
    Where goods are shipped with bill attached, and the consignee refuses to accept them because the bill has been lost by the carrier, and two months later, after the consignor has been notified of the refusal of the consignee to accept the goods, they are sold at a loss, as a result of the change in the season, the consignor may not recover the loss from the carrier without proof that the depreciation of the goods in consequence of the change in the season was within the contemplation of the parties at the tima the contract for their carriage was made.
    Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, seventh district, borough of Manhattan.
    
      Cravath, Henderson. & Degersdorff (Edward V. Conwell, of counsel), for appellant.
    Alfred J. Wolff (Charles Goldzier, of counsel), for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for the alleged negligence of the defendant, a common, carrier, in failing to deliver goods consigned for shipment. The answer is, in effect, a general denial. The evidence shows that, on October 26, 1907, the plaintiff shipped, by the defendant express company, to A, D. Matthews’ Sons, Brooklyn, 100 silk waists of the expressed valuation of $340; that the waists were tied up in three bundles, wrapped around in brown wrapping paper, upon which the address and street number of the consignor and consignee were plainly written; and a bill of said waists was affixed to one of the bundles. These bundles were duly tendered to the consignee, on October 28, 1907, but refused, because no bill was attached. The plaintiff was informed of the refusal of the consignee to accept the packages expressed in December, and thereupon made a claim upon the defendant. The goods were found, in the early part of December, 1907, in the defendant’s storage house; and the defendant’s agent permitted the ] laintiff to take out of the packages two waists to be used as samples for the purpose of selling the goods. The waists were subsequently sold, at the best price obtainable, for $250, the depreciation in value being the result of the change in seasons. The trial justice awarded the plaintiff a judgment for $90, the damages being based upon the difference in the value of the waists when delivered in October and the price obtained, or the market value, when sold in December.

There is nothing in the evidence to show that the fact that the goods were of such a character as to depreciate in value because of a change in seasons was within the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made. The special damages which the court below awarded to the plaintiff were not, in view of the evidence presented, recoverable in this action.

The judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Present: Gildersleeve, MacLean and Seabury, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.