The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-11-15
Important Forwarding Case.

THE RIGHTS OF EXPRESS FORWARDING COMPANIES,
AND THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.
limos s. Preston sued Adams & Co. for the loss OF
package Of Ave franc pieces, two hundred in number
left at their Office in New York to be transported to
Brooklyn, Conn. The package left an ordinary
package and nothing said by the person who lett it
to its contents value. receipt it was given
in the usual form, signed by clerk of the company
The action brought to the county court FOR the
county of Windhsm, and the declaration consisted of
four counts each contract to carry the parcel safe
and securely and safely and securely to deliver it,
&c. There was count added ~ money had and
ccved. The cause was tried on the general issue.
The plaintiff offered In evidence the deposition OF the
individual who left the parcel to be transported with
the aforesaid receipt given by the defendants for the
Tic defendants objected to tho admission Of this EVIL
dence the ground that the declaration forth an
absolute contract 10 carry safely and deliver safely
all events, ana the evidence proved conditional con
tract excepting certain liabilities. The Court overrued
the objection and admitted the evidence.
The defendants also claimed that the plaintiff could
not in any event. recover than ffty dollars the
amount mentioned in the receipt and prayed the Court
to charge the jury. The Court omitted to charge
the jury and charged that If the jury found for the
plaintiff, they might find the whole value.
AT the last August term Of the County Court the jury
,oana verdict Tor the plaintiff damages s% 10 re-
supreme Court at the October term Five causes Of error
assigned and the cause was argued ey Foster e.
following Is the opinion Of the Court -
adams d Co. ~. ESos Preston-Writ of Error-ELIs
WORTH Ill have doubt that common carrier can,
il the employer will assent to It, limit his responsibility
10 any fair and reasonable extent and to the extent
claimed in this by the plaintiffs in error in tho
CENT given by them. Nor have / any doubt IL the
plaintiff below chose 10 introduce the receipt evidence
TO make out his case it must the whole OF IT, be taken
together The NATURE construction and elect Of that
entire writing is question Of law 10 the court and it
fully proves limited undertaking, Just SO far it
proves any undertaking at all.
Assuming that the defendants below made only
limited agreement to carry, the first assigned Is
va because the deposition and receipt did not tend TO
prove any material fact involved in the Of action
stated Nor do ! see the matcraiity Of f. Newbury's
evidence for the only defence that the plaintiff had
himself disproved the contract which he out in his
declaraton and think he had done It. This testimony
the court did Though objected TOY receive and let 20
10 the jury II was wholly mmaterial
The third error Is fatal for the contract stated being
disprovcd the plaintiff could not recover.
The fourth and fifth fatal, for hold the
agreement is complete and binding, that without notice
the property shall not be held to be over ESQ.,
find there is manifest Tho plaintiff below
and should sue on the written contract ~ made.