, 1873-02-18
WHEN LIABILITY CEASED.
Another Chapter of tho Circuit
Chicago Fire.
A Transportation C6nrahy 1fe1d Not Rc.
sponslblo for Goods Destroyed
III Its Warehouse.

Tho following synopsis Of d recen. decision Of
tho Bupro,nc Court Of illinois, Iii d cdse invoY-
Ing the liabilities Of common cdrriers, nill be
found interesting This was suit brought BY
Edward HallocL against tho Merchanta' Deg
patch Transportation Oompaty. involving tho
liability Of tho Company % common carrior;
for merchandise destroyed In tho fro Of
October, 1871, III Tho dofcndantH waro:
house In Ohicago. 4 lot Of furniture con-
aignod to .Hallools arrived in tho de-:
pot Of tho. Michigan Central Rai1road
at 7:5O on tho evening Of Oct. Z. 1t
remained in tho car until 10 o'clock Of tho noxt
morning, whon 1t WAS unloaded and placed in
dofondnut'a warehonao. Tho fro occurred tho
same night, and the goods weto destroyed. Tho
consignoo had no notice Of tho arrlval Of tho
goods, and no opportunity to remove thom. Old
this atato Of faots tho Superior Court Of Cook
County held tho carriorliable, and rendered julg-
mont againat defendant for the value Of tho
property bnrned., Tho Supreme Court reversed
this ,decision; ind hold that when tho goods mr.
rivcd In the depot fand woro un1adon atll pitt
into safe warehouHo, tho liability Of tho do.
fendant as O common carrier 'eoaaed, and that It
was liable thereafter only aB awarohouaeman.
Tho Supreme Court basod its decision upon
tho cascs Of Richards against tho Michigan South
orn Railroad Company, Both Illinois, pago 4o4;
Porter against tho Chleago& Rock Island Railroad
Company, 2oth Illinois, 407 and Vincent against
the Chicago 4 Alton Railroad Company, 49th
Illinois, 80. Thoy aro precisely in point with tho
case In question. !, In each case tho Court hold
that tho liability Of common carricr by railway
oeaacd whom tho goods arrived at tlleir dcstinn-
ton md d'woro placed in safe warehouse. It
was In proof that tho plaintiff received tho bill
Of 1ading from: NoH York como days bofore tho
goods arrived here. 49,. !
The Supreme Court aayg Tint, wlatever other
Courts may hayo decided on thia question, It il
tho Bottled doctrine Of, this Court that the H.
ability Of aoommon carrier terminates with the
| dclivary Of tho goods In a safo warehouse, and
notice Of the arrival is not required DO givon to
tho consiguco. 1t WIS .claimod by Hnllock that
| tho dcfendant ia not a railroad company, and tho
r'l1os rcfcrrod to can lave no application to it
It's: contract being substantially that Of IN OF.
proRa company, tho only respect In which It dif.
fers from IN o1p1css company being that the do.
fendnnt undortahes to give notice aud doiiyore
on orders on which point tho Court says
| roilrond company di1fors from an oxpreHs com.
pauy In this, Tint the latter has tcans auG
vohioles by which ii receives md tloliYerf
| goods; and such is tho established usage. Its
Compensation Is found IN: high ratea OF trans
portation, whilst. the defondant receives onl,
tho rates established by railroads on their ordi
nary classified 'ratea. The opinion ct Chic
Justice Shaw, Of Massachusetts, in tho caBe o
tho Norway Plains Company Us. tho Boston 1
Maine Railway Company, LIST Gray, 283, waI
cited to establish the point.
Small for tho Transportation Company, and How.
l. Russell for the plaintiN.