The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-06-25
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE,

Among the numerous opinions delivered by the
judges OF the District Court and Court OF Common
Pleas on Saturday, report of all which judgments
we gave, there was one in the District Court, to
wit, IN the case OF Newburger & Hoclstadler vs..
Howard Co. Express, and one in the Common
Pleas, to wit, In the of the Hesonville Mantua
and Farmount Railroad Com 2any VS.. the Schuyl.
Kill RVer Passenger Railroad Company, more eX-
tended notice OF which may be interesting to our
readers.
Messrs. Newburger HochstadIer against
HowaIds Express Company, to recover the value
OF bale OF goods sent by them to Western firm,
through the Express Company, but which was
never delivered. The defendants were unable to
show how they were lost but claimed that under
their receipt for the goods which contained a
printed provision limiting their liability tor the oss
OF goods to fifty dollars, they could not be held tor
greater sum than fifty dollars;
verdict for the plaintiffs for the full amount of their
CAIN, subject however, to the OPINION of the court
IN banc on the point reserved as TO the Legality of
this printed restriction the receipt On Saturday
the opinion Of the Count was delivered by Judge
Hare, as tOllows;-
some things in the law of common carriers still
main doubtful Others are fixed beyond the reach dis
pute carrier cannot refuse to transport goods fairly
not make an excessive charges he cannot sipuae tnat
that Of his agents, by which the property en-
fiiCted on his customers on the other hand,
to @ cost or & SRh he n asSed to
assume and refuse to carry unless IL be paid he
those acting under him in taulti he may require
that The nature and value OF the goods shall be lade
which they are TO be valued II lost Such conditions
must however be imposed IN go9d faith and not as
permit to be attained directly
In the case before u.s. b OF lading receipt given
by the defendants and lying at the 'oundaton the
plaintiff right action provides that the holder shall
the article Iorwsrded hereby SaiaeS unless otherwss
es S s 81 S pSeh as So %
nor is there anything In the rest o. the Instrument @
o. ity dollars VIII ch the defendants concede TO be due
e 3Ss @ T On 50 par Of tie OnS o hs sd tSS
1t only binds the defendant without imposing any cor
| ton is, however obviously untenable
The receipt though signed only by the defendants,
was accepted at the time and given in evidence suose
quentlv at the trial by the plaintiffs II Is the best If
the goods were delivered OF he duty Of the defenda
70 carry them safely ana Of the liability Of the plain
have known ascertained what IL contained and
unjust to allow the DEFENDANTS to be preudlced by the
want OF ordinary and necessary precauton on his
contract Of afreghtment and binding on the paintin,
The Soctrns that the ter of contract may
be valued the damages in case OF breach lquida ed In
N n coptenaed strenuoasy at the argument Of the
notion for trial that to allow this % be done on
The rule orbddng him 70 slipg ate against the
9uences Of his wn wrons And there can ee no doubt
ali Goods should be valued at fixed sum independently
T s'5 II rsS Se oS o S Se
increase OF responsibility and risk the attempt would be
he remedy Of the owner would then be found either IL
summOnlng the carrier 10 accept the goods at their real
value so1 te SsRsi gsSsSi he aid no Or in dsSernS hs
n us Ss eoSOn aREn S S @ nOt
10 either OF ohectons does not assume to yaut
oIheSw Sc declared and there evidence or indloa
on the true value had peen Sss ScSses an & ShSe
rance it's ObvouslYus that the be paid IN
proportion to the service rendered aud the risk Incurred