Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-12-14

vent unnecessary loss to the goods and
in storage or transportation. Such
forwarder should exercise the same
degree Of care to prevent loss or un-
necessary expense that a prudent
owner would have in the same stu.
alton.
1t is a general rule that where the
carrier is unable to deliver the goods
to the next designated carrier, and has
an opportunity to do 80, 1t Is his dutv
to at once notify the shipper or con.
signee. and failure to give such notice
will render him liable for any loss Or
injury resulting therefrom Where
the goods can be properly cared for
and held until the shipper can be com.
municated with. the carrier will not he
justified in selecting another route
without notice to him and instructions
from him. And this is true even
where there is a stipulation in the con-
tract Of shipment to the effect that
every carrier shall have the right. in
case of necessity, to forward the goods
by any railroad or route between the
place of shipment and the place of
designation.
In the month Of March 1902, the
Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Com.
pany received Of the plaintiff, at two
different times, three carloads OF
potatoes to be transported over it's
own and connecting lines and to be de-
livered to the consignee in Philadel-
phia- The route designated by the
| shipper for these three cars was by
| rail to Boston and from Boston to
| Philadelphia by a steamship line
| This designated route was plainly
shown by the shipping receipts given
by the initial carrier. The cars were
duly transported by the initial and an
intermediate carrier and delivered to
the defendant, a common carrier, at
Portland. The defendant there re-
ceived the three cars and transported
the same to its terminus in Boston
ore car arriving there on March 7, ana
the other two on March II.
At the time of the arrival Of the last
two cars in Boston. a general strike of
teamsters and freight handlers existed
which continued until about March IA.
and was of such a character and ex-
tent as to render it impracticable by
the exercise Of reasonable diligence for
the defendant to transfer these
potatoes and to deliver them to the
steamship company. the next desig-
mated connecting carrier. Thereupon
the defendant. without notifying
either the consignor or the consignee,
either by MAIL telegra oh or telephone,
although there were ample means of
communication both Ivy mail and by
wire. delivered them on March II to a
steamship company, by which they
We're transported to New York, and
from there carried by the Pennsyl-
vania Railroad Company to Philadel-
pb;a The cost of transportation by
this route to the plaintiff was $91.31
for the three carloads more than it
would have been If they had been
transported by the route chosen by the
shipper and plainly designated in the
shipping receipts. One Of these cars
was an Eastman Heater car, and the
other two were lined cars. as they are
called. all supplied with means OF
heating. The contract Of shipment be-
tween the initial carrier and the ship
per contained various stipulations
limiting the carriers liability, which
| eluEcu " Tie Dcu0llI u Tie uGlcIludnt.
and among others this one: Every
carrier shall have the right in case of
necessity. to forward said property by
any railroad or route between the
point Of shipment and the point to
which the rate was given.'
Under these circumstances. it is con-
sidered by the court that the potatoes
were not of such a perishable charac-
ter as required that they should be
sent forward before there was time to
communicate with the owner and to
receive instructions frcm him. and
that this arbitrary deviation from the
route selected by the shipper, without
awaiting instructions. was entirely un-
necessary, for which the defendant
should be liable for any loss or injury
sustained by the plaintiff resulting
from the defendants failure to give
such notice. The court is further of
the opinion, from the evidence in the
case. that the extra cost of transporta-
ton could have been prevented. and
all loss to the plaintiff would have been
avoided. if notice had been given to
the plaintiff and if he had an Oppor-
tunity to dispose Of his property where
it then was.
Judgment for plaintiff for $91.H and
interest from the date OF the writ.
Reed. Dec. 18th. 1904.