New-York daily tribune., 1859-01-10
LAW LVIELLIGENUE.

sIpREME CoURT-6rssnAL TrRM-s.pT. IS5s.-Bssors
Judges DAWES, sU1"EsLAAD snd HoGEbooN.
EMPRESS COMPANIES LIABLE AS COhAOs CARRIERS.
Sherman sss Wells
Appeal from iud gm.nt entered report of Referes
The facts are eucclnct)y and correctly stated IL the
Referees report, and the only question presented u.s.
trusted to them
Dawes, =. J.-Thst the defendants are common
carriers cannot, we think he doubted. IL was set
tied that they 10 the case Of Russsl vs. lAviag
sion in this Court. Cl9 Barb 3i6.)
Tie judgment IN that WAS reversed in the
Court Of Appeals, in IL New.iork Rep. 5l5, but on
an entirely different point.
The defendants being, therefore, common carriers,
and there being no special contract the parties are
70 b. supposed To have acted With full kno Segc OF
their legal rights aod liabilities, and must be held to
the stringent Ille Of law which makes carrier an
insurer against all except the set o: God and the pub.
lie enemy. (Dorr Va. n, j. Steam Nav. Co., ker.
485
" Zen goods ere p.rustsd TO a carrier, and not de.
ver.d according 10 contract the value OF the goods
with interest thereon from the day when they should
have b.ep delivered is the measure OF damages.
(Ssdgwick on Damages, 30
We think the Ioof fully authorized the Referee 10
lind thst the bonds vi their par value, and that
no irustice has been done the defendants 10 this
respect.
fae judgment appealed from will therefore bs
affirmed, with cost.
JF Williams :or plaintiff; A. l.. Jordan for de-
fei dinr.
DECEMBER TLRn.
THF MOORE And LyISGsToS CAsE.
Bchs.l Price Moore ss. Alfred s. Liyipgston and Wne
E complaint IN ths sase se5ss . 'I s.sl.s sa nS "a
eeD'eeIa'on hs .a Of S.'s}ss n tr s S1,Is sa
buiinu hs.Or in Coursodr street and the other ia
BTOsd~.y this city, and thu; the d.'a ss day aeHsow
IL pabas pos.on than ssht months, when Living.
requested bok promising 20 rearn In 'iort
usg u o ,hs and continued such, coli
ops Payrs reHs to the partt until 0esoe,r,
Bws dsn,as ,s .P b. h.d eve. the s.sa om n.
Z o.' ia. Ef. BstI~, sy Be- acIecd 70 .I.ca aud
eeisersIe~ eonSeJsrce o toe premises 70 plaipnn ~
paDtid On the ith Of Hovember sn he conveJes q 70
lila. o. Ds .ho onvei.% L 70 Ni.. BIesssl 'D Tue ita
s' .by q - u. be- osnS,.lss 1s~ SSs Sa NJ. si.SR..
pa Br.ie. eSsTn,.,e. ' to Nil. s.sSw.u wer. se.
tai, a. BINS Daoe nssy 'oI tas pefros oI pI,'ec'.s az
evidene Judge No soapd Of prob.
.; - 1875 a w. ~ % T'n hs asi o1p, on s 70
piruf" 81 f. strike scs liar that the
n D. yr,snsd II h oarf, srs procaed he fsoassy.acs
III, epy IN 1875 ,ast tie rssons which had ind9 ID i@
10 uske 6et,ou, d.-.l of had ceased eI all lie uoa
be- al b- which this proceedns exposed hin
AID TIE ,ss rot % say csn,s Position IN waSa ~ ssIea
soLsdeIcs acey & Mo Backwel Mr. Lisinrsoa.
On n oonsy MS inaey Sss he'd ans lie .t ne
Whole eopiso q as pop-y p leir aaad. Bs, o.. Of ,s
OF s rsnrf tnconssenc-s ts thst a.
n~,ey ssid he wsvtsd 20
Lob g. IL be the nitst hn ~ tate wth hi0.
rucef ,r0.s sf0Yf f0e he sloSed In
tor 1851 ard oocsp,sd $50 ranting this pabis
violation VI ns pr>ne, hst ae should ocntt1le
the Of this property r-cei al ssesA and "a 1872
sIf IL t srpepcirs IN ts inrrov nen Ia f.t
Brsafrd or bo.h ln,s th tine during ITS heavy
pr ctse, tie psEnn asvsf Known to evics tao ssss
iLi.r-.t IN tie Mr. Bradford had notains
% DO with him; as ~o not seen u tAs s'.n.
70 .sy tEAt IL. psElr, when be covered Gs
rgt rs.sty - Drske never .x2ectsd at Soms fs'lrs
p~nd 70 receive bsrx On rsJnsnt oi tte
Lev Il. defencsnt L soD, pessed himself 70 Do
- lG b. ssyrs sls- nty Lay 10 . us- iss Nser'
ro-htrs % - With scr. 0, oSs.s'~d ~ -i
.lr.ns- sIc lie ppca p.rtss his cSnt-oysny event
iu tfy II very NANTES, 5s. thsrs 10 mat .zdseas
Gi.ko.Sr,b TsISy ,ons wh1rei oeto1r sposrs q
-sf is Il q Jus;!e-, 10 fated 20 P1oct pescb-d BY
Az ". oouA uot, ever ~s hsn v.s morh rss~n with
h,,e no. r fE'as t1s g1t APP iAs 1IrortAy patty, ez
re-. a-y ep ifr rs.itr.s Eny ticn An that
ere booac O. sag tEst ne rtf co, ice az yoSsa hs
TO-. KAT c.eioE ftae spsl TtFm t5e w.s !.
.rvrsuo~ and therefore 81 judgment Should be rsyese4
. sut fo.ts, sLt lev trzl orde:od.N
Hsv,rs pssssd tie saoe ,dspsudsnly of ths
ss1 s&f,Ited BY the ceiercs-,s cc1Dse have
oJtbt q ssy dT.r. opr.oz Epoa tas
ls - JAss Il ltan 70 Tia. .tou 4 tds e-dszes
BUPGIsFr-- IsTESI TO ~ PRDyrD sFFIRNtTlYrLf.
lie Pso;s. dsDesat' a Eo sst JOlu D. M,'s' p.A'ia
Il Erlsr.
Ire dsfsr dart uss tred ard coryirted In the Cpa1
a., Csrr ssssiors for mns sOrssJ - tsssnsg Ato
LLe s,1e ffke ECaIe Of Un6-rz hes IA. IN of ne -
by e1s prtsr oi tie Indictment rss1 - f, ss'
Issn s-d .sEe ieoaloly and bgIJsrorsy cd se. t%s
.nd ssy III, fof ef the ssstntev &C. toe "swsy
slaDs t.ps emitted aft ,ne word any TIE Cosr hrh
Li. glep whh stress .s oI Tie
Of npoitaoe- In d Pos1S 81 The case Ine
Irsor.r sas ndetsd Tor euSsy IN the ,hhd Seeee- Tie