Case ID: nys_84/html/0143-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WILSON et al. v. PLATT.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    June 22, 1903.)
    1. Carriers—Freight—Limitation of Liability.
    Where a package given an express company was lost by it, and. no explanation given, and the receipt issued by the carrier stipulated that the carrier should not be liable for damages unless the result of gross negligence or fraud, and that the shipper should not demand more than $50, unless otherwise expressed in the receipt, and the shipper made no statement of value, and none was expressed in the receipt, the shipper could recover no more than $50, though the actual value of the package was greater.
    ¶ 1. See Carriers, vol. 9, Cent. Dig. § 665.
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eirst District.
    Action by Peter R. Wilson and others against Thomas C. Platt, as president of the United States Express Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, both parties appeal. Appeals dismissed.
    Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.
    
      Wilder & Anderson, for plaintiffs.
    Boardman, Platt & Soley, for defendant.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs delivered a package to the United States Express Company for transportation to Chicago. "The package was lost, and no explanation given for such loss. The plaintiffs were awarded judgment, but their recovery was limited to $50, by reason of certain stipulations in the receipt furnished by defendant company. The plaintiffs appeal on the ground that they should have recovered $101.33, which was conceded at the trial to be the real value of the package. The defendant appeals, for the reason that, under another stipulation in the receipt, the defendant was entitled to judgment. The facts in this case come within the doctrine laid down in Bernstein v. Weir (decided at the April Appellate Term, and not yet officially reported) 83 N. Y. Supp. 48. The court below has written an opinion in which good and sufficient reasons are given in support of the decision. Both appeals should be dismissed, and the judgment affirmed, without costs to either party as against the other.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. All concur. *