The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-04-10
A NEW TRIAL DENIED.
Very Important Decision on
Liability of Carriers.
Lower Court Is Sustained In Case
Against Worcester Railroad.

In the case OF Providence Warehouse
Company VS.. The Providence & Worcester
Railroad Company, Justice Stiness has
rendered the decision OF the appellate
court denying the plaintiffs petition for
a new trial.
The plaintiff sued to recover for the
storage OF merchandise shipped at differ
ent times over the defendants 8 road and
stored in the plaintiffs warehouse, the
consignees of which could not be found,
or refused to accept the goods. The plain
tiff gave non-negotiable receipts setting
forth, In most cases, the receipt o.. the
goods from the defendant, the name OF
the consignee when marked on the
goods, and the amount OF freight charges
paid by the plaintiff to the defendant.
In a few instances the receipts ran to
the defendant on account OF the con-
signee, and in one or two the receipts
were for goods from consignees or owner.
The plaintiff contends, the opinion
states, that the receipt Is a contract, and
Ms the recital Is that the goods were re-
ceived from the defendant the liability
TO paw for storage follows because the
own account on bis own account, and so
should pay the charges.
1t Is true, In general, that warehouse
receipt il contract binding.the receiptor
to safely store and deliver the same goods
10 the proper holder OF the receipt and
cept In those cases where there Is some
express agreement or known usage of
trade which shows that the parties other
WISE intended. Case OF Fifth National
Bank va Providence Warehouse Co. is
cited and warehouse receipt is held to
be not SO solemn an instrument as to be
superior to the facts which created IL and
that like all other contracts 1t must be
read according to the intention OF the
makers: "In this case,o says the opin-
ion, ssit has been found as matter OF fact
that IL was not intended that the Cefend-
ant should be liable for storage and We
think that such a finding may be made
under the terms OF the receipt. 1t is well
settled that a carrier upon the default OF
a consignee may be relieved from further
responsibility by storing the goods in a
warehouse for and on account of the own
er. The first two receipts specified on
whose account the goods were stored.
After that the line 'on account was left
blank. The freight charges of the de-
amount was noted on the receipt.
This last fact of itself Is quite
sufficient to warrant the decision
of the trial Judge. What
inference other than that the defendant
was to be done with the matters can be
drawn from the facts that its custody
was ended, It's freight paid and the
goods placed in the warehouse?
"What would be the sense of the plain
tir's payment of freight II it was to be
collected back again from the defendant
in the bill for storage? The payment of
the freight plainly indicates the discharge
of the defendant from further connection
with the goods It's line was to be trans
ferred to the plaintin, to be added to
the charges to be paid by the owner when
he should take the goods, as was done in
many other cases arising In this same
way. ~he fact that the receipt is nom
negotiable does not affect the matter one
way or the other. We think the receipt
does not make the defendant liable for
the storage, but that the liability depends
upon the understanding OF the parties;
that their conduct shows an intention to
free the defendant from further liability
and that the plaintiff did become the
bailee of the owner, looking to such
owner and to the goods for his charges"
The property for which collection of
storage charges was attempted was very
poor stun, but the freight bills amounted
to several hundred dollars.